My question is mostly to draw a comparision to the League of Nation and their lack of effectiveness (big understatement I know).

Has had the UN a strong benefit, and compared to the LoN how solid is it? How capable is it of preventing wars?

EDIT: For a better fit to the sub, restricting the question to before 1997. So I guess mostly the cold war and the aftermath (Yugoslavia...)

Bonus questions: has the UN ever investigated and punished a big power comitting war crimes?

"I always find it telling when anyone is arguing about how important Islamic civilization has been for the career of our species, that preserving the work of Aristotle, always appears at the top of the list. Aristotle was great, don't get me wrong, but he is a single non Muslim philosopher. And we wasn't perfect. He said many things that impeded the progress of science. I think his importance for future generations was primarily as a counter point for thousands of years of Abrahamic religious craziness that practically ruined human history. And I count Christianity as the main offender here. Yes it was true to say that a millennium ago, the Muslim world was ahead of the christian west, but that doesn't say anything good about Islam, it's just a reminder of how terrible christianity was. And as for the ultimate significance of Islamic civilization, yes, there were Muslims making advances in optics, Omer said that somewhere in his article, but they weren't using these advances to build telescopes and understand the cosmos. They were using them to design religious calenders to more accurately pinpoint the direction of mecca."

I'm doing this project in school where we need to create a "museum" about World War 1 (basically a couple of "artifacts" and "exhibits" in a space no larger than 1/4 of a room). The theme of our museum is the physical, psychological, and emotional trauma caused by the war. We have to do an interactive element. Could some people suggest some ideas for this interactive element?

To my understanding, Herod was hated by the Jews in Judea because he was a descendent of converts.

Why didn't they just nominate someone from the Hasmonean nobility?

How big was the Russian navy between the 1600's and the early 1900's and what where their maps, clocks and other navigation technology compared to the French and British. Also I've been trying to find more info on the Russian navy during this period but other than the short paragraph on Wikipedia I've had no luck. So if you have any website or book suggestions I would be very appreciative.

I've been reading a lot about Mesoamerican culture in old reddit posts today, and became curious about communication between the Aztecs and the Spanish who had just arrived. How did they learn to communicate? Did the Europeans some sort of standard system in place for learning a new language when they encountered an unknown people? Did everybody just point at things until everyone knew the same words? Did they have linguists on board the ships?

In my head, the question sprang from the interactions between the Aztecs and the Spanish, but I am also curious as to how this was handled throughout larger swaths of history.

During the 1960s and 1970s relatively large scale adult film producers such as Color Climax Corporation and other scandinavian and german porn distributors made a large amount of then legal child porn. This involved children that legally part took in sexual acts with adults. Is there any research or other sources done on what happened to these children in their adulthood or how this experience affected their lives?

Who would listen to the Epic Of Gilgamesh and other early works of fiction? Was it meant to entertain the masses, or nobility of early civilization? What kind of person would memorise and tell the tales?

So we all know that the Anglo-Saxons invaded what is modern day England many many years ago, but my question is that is that should we consider Old English more Danish or German? The Anglo tribes came from the very Northern part of Germany but primarily from the center of Denmark. I think Old English looks more like Danish rather than German. I would like to hear a historians opinion on this.

The Confederation Bridge links Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and I understand that it's naming was met with some controversy. What were the factors leading to the establishment of the bridge and, more specifically, to the controversial choice of "Confederation Bridge" over the "Fixed Link"?

Difficult to phrase this question right but, to elaborate, how did Britain expect to defeat Nazi Germany before the US & Soviet Union entered the war? Was there an assumption that they would have to continue fighting alone, and if so how did they propose to do this? Was a Britain-only D-Day conceived for example?

This is something I’ve been thinking about recently but have been having a hard time researching. I appreciate that much of 1940 would have been focused on fighting the Battle of France, then the immediate concern was short-term planning to win the Battle of Britain. However there must also have been a long-term view about how to prosecute the war, especially in late 1940/early 1941 when it was clear that Britain was no longer under threat of invasion and could free up resources from home defence.

I have a sneaking feeling that the answer is going to be, simply, buy time until the US & USSR do get involved. If that is the case, how certain was Churchill et al that this would happen? Obviously the US was doing all but actually fighting at this point (and even then in the Atlantic), and Nazi rhetoric certainly supported a war with the USSR, but were there any guarantee or was Britain gearing up to “go it alone”?

Same case for China, Greece, and ancient Egypt- why is this the De Jure title?

So my question concerns the Lent, or the period of fasting before Easter. I know that it was normal for many Christians in the Middle Ages to fast for 40 days to commemorate Jesus' sacrifice and his journey through the dessert, which lasted normally 40 days. Since fasting meant giving up meat I wonder how butchers coped with it, because I think it must have been a period with lesser revenues for them, thanks to the Lent. Is there any idea how butchers in 14th-15th century cities coped with the Lent and the loss of revenues? Did they keep money on the side to get them through this period?

Not the political events, but social-economic information. How did they fare? Were they able to marry into the German elite? Were they allowed to join the army? If they comprised a vast majority of the popualtion, how come German names (Charles, Louis, Henry, Francis...) are more common than Roman ones?

I have read in many places, about the theory of the "invisible ships" and the shore inhabitants, where "... their highly filtered perceptions couldn't register what was happening, and they literally failed to 'see' the ships." (Quoting here from JZ Knight's What the Bleep Do We Know?)

It was posited to me earlier today that restrictions on the freedom of speech in certain European nations, as opposed to the (almost) absolutist protections in the U.S., have backfired by directly being the cause of the rise of ultra-right anti-immigrant groups. Germany's handling of Nazi groups and Holocaust denial were specifically mentioned, although France was mentioned as well, and it was mostly about a general trend in Europe overall.

I'm deeply skeptical of such a bold claim; I think it's obviously a gross overstatement. But is there actual evidence that free speech restrictions in Europe meant to quash Holocaust denial and Nazism or related groups has instead actually contributed to the resurgence of extremist ideologies?

I realize this may be difficult to answer because the 20 year rule prohibits discussing anything past 1997. But I'm hoping that folks with knowledge of German sociocultural history after WWII might be able to say whether the intervening period between 1945 and 1997 offers any evidence of causal links between speech restrictions and racial hatred.