Now being half-French, this is something that has always bothered me about my country. Yes, I know France is seen as a victor of ww2, primarily due to the free French forces, and Churchill insisting they get recognised as a permanent member of the UN, but should we be? Following the battle of Dunkirk there could have easily been a union between the French and British empires, the war was not lost by any means.

So why on earth did so few of the thousands of soldiers saved from Nazi Germany decide to stop fighting, and simply give up? I get that at the time the UK's fall may have seen likely, but it seems to me that had France decided to allow her colonies to carry on fighting the war may have been won that much easier/sooner? Heck even having access to so many more soldiers would have made a significant difference to the war.

I guess actions like this made the USSR and the US so unwilling to accept France as an equal to them and the British Empire?

Thanks :)

EDIT: Sumerian. Thanks kookingpot.

This could be personal records or poetry (i.e. Gilgamesh e.t.c). Similar to how ancient texts like The Odyssey is set out in some versions. I would like to compare the symbols with the translation. (Phonetic is a bonus!)

The older the better. I'm looking for c. 3000 BCE as a sort of example of the first evidence of written 'human nature', whether it be letters to friends or works of fiction. I am trying to avoid administrative texts.

I can't seem to find any, but maybe I'm googling the wrong keywords.

If so, in what ways did he get around them? And what changed after WW 2 to keep it from happening again?

Answers that stretch outside of this time-frame are of course welcome, but I'm just curious as to why these 'free cities' couldn't become 'city states' like Venice, Florence and Milan.

I know they were technically under the sovereignty of the Emperor, but this was minimal authority in practice, and both Milan and Florence were at times under the Emperors authority too.

I'm guessing it was too much competition to allow for the expansion, but I'd love to know details.

Thanks.

When was the Koran/Islam first branded a particularly violent, intolerant, or hateful religion?

Have many historical scholars agreed that the Koran/Islam advocates violent/intolerant behavior more then similar books/religions (like the Bible)? (Ie. What is the consensus if any among historical scholars?)

Which verses in the Koran are typically referenced as examples of encouraging violence?

I recently purchased a copy of the Koran (as translated by J.M. Rodwell), but the reading is fairly slow going and I am hoping to find somebody with experience in the subject.

Thank you for your time.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Just finished reading Panzer Leader in which he seems to avoid this question entirely, apart from when it involves the actions of the army, where he takes pains to defend fellow military men who, in his view, weren't responsible. In fact, he never mentioned the holocaust while clearly describing his views on the commissar order, which seems a lot more important to him.

Is this because of ignorance? Well, considering when he wrote his memoirs, he should've had full knowledge of the holocaust by then. So what's the story here? Pride? Denial? Disbelief/disagreement? Something else?

[deleted]

Hello everyone, Im looking for help to compare and contrast the views and beliefs of the Puritans and the Royalists. I have some of the basics on them but i need a few solid points of discussion, from a political, economic, cultural or religious standpoint.

SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT: Puritans: In reaction to events that king Charles caused, the puritans sailed on over to establish New England, they believed that England was corrupt and that they needed purify the english church. In the hopes that the english church would realize what they are doing wrong. Their society was more communal, they set up school and of course churches and made a grew variety of crops for consumption, not trade.

Royalists: I don't have to much on them but i know that there is significant historical points with the english civil war.

Thanks Everyone,

The thousands of nuclear tests that have been done during the atomic age, have we documented how many animals were accidentally caught in the blast radius (and the after-effects of the radiation)?

I'm speaking of the reasons for their knighthood, not their gender or sexuality, though that's interesting too!

Do other monarchies do this sort of thing?

When did being a knight go from (more or less) genuine servitude to recognition?

Does the Queen herself decide these things, or is there a council?

The Constitution says that a person must be a natural born citizen of America to run for President, but obviously Washington, Adams, etc. weren't born in America, so I'm guessing there must be some caveat to that statement...

Hello, I'm writing an essay on why Athens won the Persian Wars from 490 to 466 BCE. I can find a lot on the specifics of battles and the war but not a lot of analysis on why the Greeks won. I'm thinking of writing that they won because of superior military technique (Hoplites and their weapons), a better navy that was able to cut off Persian supplies, and better military leaders. I feel like this doesn't offer a complete picture, though. Is there anything to add or change? Also, I'd love it if someone can direct me to good sources on the matter.

Language changes and evolves. I know that much. I was daydreaming the other day about time travel (because that is a totally normal thing to do) and just generally thinking about the logistics of meeting people from another time, and I was thinking about how possible it would be for someone to hold a conversation with people in the past? I am speaking specifically about the language of conversation. Would there be any sort of language barrier between us?

What we talk about doesn't particularly matter, just whether the spoken language of the time is similar enough for me to be able to talk to them. If it makes it easier, assume we are talking about the king of conversational topics, the weather.

Here are some qualifiers, if they help...

The person travelling would be very well-read, with a very competent grasp of the English language.

The individual I am speaking to from that time does not need to be well-read, but does need to speak English. They can be well-read, they just don't have to be. If it is interesting, please tell me if there are any significant differences between talking to someone who is literate compared to illiterate.

Do not go further back than Old English, unless you think it would be possible to speak with someone from then. I get a strong impression from reading that it simply would not be possible due to the wild differences between the language then and now.

Just to get some varied responses, I will ask whether it would be possible for each 50 years going backwards from 1900. I know it would be possible to talk to someone from 1950 (because they are alive now), and 1900. 1850 would likely have some variances on the vernacular used, but it is very likely that someone today will have been exposed to that vernacular and will be capable of comprehending it. But going further back than that, it feels more uncertain to me.

Examples of conversation from your chosen date would be interesting if you could include them. If possible, illustrate any differences between the likelihood of being able to talk to someone from your chosen time in a more provincial style of talking compared to a more received pronunciation. If it is not possible to hold a coherent conversation, how much of one could we hold?

I hope this is not too ridiculous a question for here.

I was under the impression that most of the Russian Empire was steppes and tundra in Siberia

During my research about the Chernobyl cleanup operation, I understand that Liquidators were sent up to the building roofs to clear the radioactive dust and debris off of it after the Soviets tried and failed to use robots. Was the structural integrity of the roof compromised at all, and was there a real risk of people falling into the open reactor core?