I understand that it was created to be a home for the Jewish people, and that a lot of the refugees from WW2 were able to inhabit it, but what criteria was used to see who was eligible to live there initially?

So after seeing the Battlefield 1 reveal, it seems that many of the players were using sub-machine guns, LMGs and that sort. Excluding guns like the Vickers, how common were automatic weapons during the war? When did they become more common, and is Battlefield's abundance of them accurate?

I recently started reading "The Glorious Cause," and while I'm enjoying it so far, it's my first time doing any reading of this kind and I feel like I could be retaining much more information. Aside from rereading passages, what are some techniques that can be used to learn more and better understand the material?

[deleted]

I grew up in Utah. Not LDS myself, but I have plenty of family and friends that are. One story we heard growing up was that when the Mormons went west they intended to reach the Pacific coast to settle. Brigham Young, who was sick, was a few days ride behind the lead scouting parties and they returned back to him with word of a large body of salt water. Brigham, thinking they had reach the Pacific coast, deemed that "this is the place" and they began to settle what turned out to be the Salt lake valley. They missed the Pacific ocean by almost 1,000 miles.

My question; is there any validity to this story? If not, what made the Mormons settle the arid and hot Salt Lake valley?

Were there monks that dabbled in witchcraft or the occult?

Also, what caused the European attitude of exploitation towards non-christians?

I recently came across in passing Loren Baritz' critique of the all-volunteer military in his 1985 book Backfire. Baritz takes the view that this was a disastrous change in the nature of American citizenship, for: "future presidents would be freer to act militarily because now they could depend on the compliance of a middle class whose sons would be safe. It meant that America would now rely for its defense on men who had been denied opportunity at home..." (p.341.)

I am wondering how this debate unfolded at the time the draft was ended, and/or whether anyone has investigated its effects (as per the title question).

Many thanks in advance!

With recent events in the USA, I've been thinking a lot about our founding fathers, rights of an american, etc. In the declaration of independence the founding fathers justify war by saying every man is created equal, and every man has a natural right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I know there were other justifications for war, but when we think of what it means to be an american, that is just such a strong statement not just about what it is to be american, but an american's view on every human...

And then they allow slavery. I know that the north needed the south, and the south wanted slavery.. But they signed the declaration as well. As an american, I'm just having a really hard time right now rationalizing that a key part of why my country exists is that every man should be free, but the men who founded this nation of freedom enslaved an entire race at the same time.

They didnt have toilet paper, so how did they do it? Hands?

We hear a lot about Roman Military Campaigns, but little about Political Campaigns (other than that they happened).

Specifically, I'd like to know if candidates gave speeches to attract supporters, posted fliers, or even publicly debated their opponents, or were these elections just a competition of who could bribe more aristocrats?

In the movie 300 slaves carried the Xerxes throne.

In Rome slaves carried Cleopatras sleeping quarters.

Was that the norm?

How did they do it for long trips?

I was watching an Army Air Corps film about the Memphis Belle the other night, and one thing struck me. The crew of the B-17 heavy bomber, on completing their 25th and final mission, were to be sent back to the United States to train new crews, because as the narrator claimed, "their experience was priceless." I can see how this would be the case for a lot of different jobs in the service: fighter pilots, tank drivers, and so on.

But for bomber crews, it seems a bit harder to see the importance of that experience. They're trained to fly in formation, and their main threats are anti-aircraft fire and enemy fighters. Whether AA hits you or not is more luck than anything else, particularly on the actual bombing run, and the main defense against interceptors was basically a herding, "safety in numbers" strategy. Experience seems in this situation to be of fairly marginal value, particularly for gunners: is a tail-gunner with 20 missions under his belt really more effective than one with 2 or 3?

But I don't want answers that just tell me some version of "Of course it's valuable!" or "None of us can really know what it's like!" I'd like to see data: were experienced crews actually more likely to carry out their mission and return home safely? Were crews on their first few missions more likely to be shot down?

Are there any good books with a text (religious book, fable, philosophy, etc) and running commentary? I have a copy of hamlet by a J.Q. Adams IIRC (not the president afaik) where there are many footnotes explaining e.g. what a reference refers to, the language, the significance of key moments, etc. It massively improved my appreciation for Shakespeare in 8th grade, so I'd love to read a similar version of something historical, where references can be even more important

The title says it all.

I am particularly interested in the practice of crypto-protestants in Spain/Hapsburg Empire during the second half of the sixteenth century.

What were services like? Did they sing hymns? Did they discuss? Etc.

Are there any primary or secondary sources that deal with this?

Much obliged!