Obviously he would have been executed, but did they have any plans to use him for propaganda before that?

[deleted]

In more detail, my question is that has there ever been a war where both sides were justified in entering into conflict according to the Geneva Convention and our modern international laws surrounding war? To me it seems like it's always been "one side did X and that was unjust to Y so Y or Z entered a state of war with X". As a follow-up, is a just war for both sides even possible without bending the "rules"?

[deleted]

need good historical sources? please help

I'm not really sure if this sort of a question is suitable for this sub, but I think I've seen some similar ones before so here it goes.

I'll be in Paris next week for a school related thingie. I really have just one day to free roam around and I want to make the most of it. Being a history nerd (military history is my favorite). I really want to visit some cool historical sites and/or museums.

Now I really want to avoid tourist hells like the Louvre and the like. My hotel is located in the 14th arrondissement. I'm more than happy to hear your recommendations.

TL;DR

I have one day to visit the museums and historical sites in Paris. Where should I go?

Hi guys, I'm writing an essay on the use of minorities (colonial troops of France, first nations of Canada and Czech soldiers of Austria foremost) and how fighting and living alongside people of different economic and ethnic status affected their relations before and after the war. I've been doing a lot of research, but I can't seem to come across too much, especially post-war. Do guys know anything about this, or are you able to point me in the right direction?

Under the Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid, entire cultures were integrated and changed by Islam, even previously Christian areas like Syria, Egypt, etc. The Ottomans controlled a large part of the Balkans for centuries, yet were unable to recreate this success. Why is that?

EDIT: Title is a typo. Should read "What were the Elizabethan/Early Modern attitudes and perceptions of personal revenge..."

Hi all, if this violates any rules or counts as homework help, please let me know.

I'm writing a lengthy paper for my theatre studies (thesis for grad school admissions) on Hamlet and how it functions as a revenge tragedy and how Shakespeare overtly complicates the traditional revenge tragedy structure (i.e. "The Spanish Tragedy" or "The Revenger's Tragedy").

I've got some great stuff so far, but as I'm taking an interdisciplinary approach to this, I'm examining the historical and cultural (as well as anthropological) stuff around these ideas. Right now, I'm looking into the Elizabethan/Early Modern view of personal revenge from a cultural standpoint.

I've looked at Bacon's "Of Revenge" as a starting point. A lot of things I'm finding are saying that Elizabethan England was focussed on creating a sort of monopoly on violence (in Weber's terms, I believe), so the idea of personal revenge as a form of justice was frowned upon with regards to law and religion, but yet this was a recent shift. I'm having a hard time finding scholarly sources for this claim though.

To the point, I'm looking for scholarly sources on the Elizabethan attitudes towards personal revenge, ones that could connect to Hamlet and why it was written the way it was in that context, if that makes sense. I've looked at JSTOR and Google Scholar and haven't found too much.

I don't think you need to be a scholar on theatre for this, since I'm specifically looking at the historical perception on revenge and how it developed in the time period Shakespeare was writing.

Did other philosophers of the time examine the topic? Are there any records regarding law around it? What other good contextual information exists, preferably scholarly sources for correctness and citation?

That was pretty longwinded, sorry. Hopefully what I'm asking is clear enough, but I'm completely fine with clarifying and answering other questions.

Thanks in advance.

During WWII, the Luftwaffe made use primarily of 2 series of in-line piston engines for their aircraft. These were the Jumo engines, and the DB 600 series engines. However, for whatever reason, as the RAF had a shortage of Merlin in-line piston engines, the Luftwaffe had a shortage of the Daimler-Benz engines, before and throughout the entire war. This shortage was arguably in large part responsible for the cancellation of several (potentially outstanding) aircraft (Focke-Wulf 187, Heinkel 100, the British Westland Whirlwind for lack of Merlins, etc...). Because of the shortage, the RLM was forced to prioritize which aircraft should receive the superior higher horsepower Daimler-Benz engines, and which should receive the inferior Jumo engines. The difference between the engines had a very large impact of the performance of the aircraft, and, had there been no shortage, some aircraft may (probably) would have been developped further and different aircraft would have been put into production from the aircraft that we all know did. My question is, what exactly is the reason for these shortages. I don't see how it could have been shortage of materials, and in 1944 they managed to stop production of virtually all aircraft with the exception of fighters, as at that point Germany was on the defensive. So, with that being said, if their industry was able to put fighters as priority number 1, why did they not focus production on the Daimler-Benz engines, and forget the Jumo ones. Please be specific, and thank you in advance.

And if it was, did it leave or did it stay until 1806?

Venus was the first planet visited by Earth probes, beginning with the Mariner 2 probe in 1962 from the USA, followed by the Soviet Venera Program. The Venera program yielded the first color photos of Venus's surface, but the program ended in 1984. Since then, the only probe sent to Venus was the Magellan 2 probe in 1994, which imaged 98% of Venus's surface, and was crashed in order to get information on the atmosphere of the planet.

Why has so little been done by space programs to gather information on Venus, while Mars gets all the attention? Is it because Venus's atmoshpere makes it difficult to create probes that would survive there? Any suggested readings would be greatly appreciated, as I have not been able to find very extensive information online.

lands* ^forgot ^a ^word.

For the sake of a research paper, I am trying to find an example where geopolitical, economic, and health motives were employed by a colonial public health service or some authority to create an ideology of both race and racialized disease. A professor suggested Rhodesia, but I am struggling to find information on that. I thought I would find a prime example of this with white settlers in South Africa, but I am struggling to find sources. Maybe Mozambique or Liberia or Freetown? I know it's difficult to find an exact instance, that combines all these elements so if you know of any examples of racial segregation and land alienation, and racialized disease epidemics and endemics happening tangentially that would still be awesome.

Writing a paper on his History of Barbados, which I have, but where can I find a (free) biography on him, as well as (free) scholarly writings on his history, and also maybe other similar writings from the time period in the Caribbean? By chance, I would love also to read more about musical development (he talks about the slaves playing music) in the area at the time, hopefully from somewhere that relates in part to the work.

Thanks!

a giant balloon filled with flammable gas ought to be easy to shoot down, but apparently it wasn't so.

In case the phrasing isn't obvious, if you took a middle ages 30 year old and a modern day 30 year old, would the two of them look the same age, or would the middle ages person look older to us?

I am curious. Fabius Maximus seems to be revered as a great Roman political and military hero. Maybe the best. Even to this day, some say he was the best. Why is there only one quote popularly attributed to him?

"To be turned from one's course by men's opinions, by blame and by misrepresentaion shows a man unfit for office."

I am surprised there are not many more quotes easily found on Google, given his historical significance. Did the war make it difficult to preserve documents? How is this the one quote that survived?

Thank you everyone for your time and responses!