Did Israel in the ~0000s cultivate grapes for wine? Or was it a different type of wine

I watched a documentary about a 1975 incident in Riga in which several Soviet officers on a new Navy ship mutinied (Basically the political officer felt the soviet leadership was corrupt, so he imprisoned the captain, and convinced about half of the ship's leadership to commandeer the ship and take it to Leningrad where they would use radio and loudspeaker messages to inspire the people to revolt--he wasn't anti-communist, he was actually super-communist and was railing against corruption).

The whole incident helped inspire Tom Clancy to write The Hunt for Red October.

My question is the role of "Political Officers" in the Soviet Military. I know very little about this, but my impression is that pretty much every ship, for instance, had a "political officer." I assume their role is to make sure everything comports to the Socialist ideals... but I don't really know.

What WAS their role? Were they technically part of the military or the Party? Or both? Did they have an entirely separate promotion track? Were they highly integrated into the crews of the ships, or viewed warily? What power did they hold? Whom did they report to? Did they report to the captain of the ship, someone in the party, or both?

My recollection is that the Nazis had something similar in their U-boats during the Second World War... is that true? Is there anything even remotely comparable in the United States Military?

Frequently I see pre-civilization tribespeoples' lives being romanticized as a sort of ideal communist society, but to what extent was this the case? It seems that they were probably much more communal out of necessity but were there really no social hierarchies? Looking at other animal societies they appear to have basic social structures with upper and lower classes.

Then, the second half of the question, what sorts of societal shifts occurred during the transition from the neolithic to agrarian cultures and why did these shifts occur?

Just wondering if this is only because few people die of infection or malnutrition now, and women simply have less chance of old age diseases.

Seeing as they were also under British rule during this period, why did Canadian territories not unite with the American colonies?

[deleted]

I used to think so, now I just view it like Mao's agricultural disasters. As far as I can tell, the Holomodor was an accident that Soviet paranoia and incompetence just multiplied.

Is this true? What's the consensus?

Did people suffer from acne less frequently? I never notice it in daguerreotypes, for example, which are pretty clear and sharp. I also never see it depicted in paintings, although I figure that's because most flaws like that weren't included. Can someone explain this to me?

Hi,

I really want to learn more about horses and how they were used in war. Things like how they were bred, trained, and all that jazz. Do you know of any good books?

Thanks.

[deleted]

The common perception/stereotype of the French Revolution is that essentially nobody existed in it except the aristocrats (executed or fleeing), the peasantry (angry, vengeful, vicious), and the revolutionary leaders (generally nonexistent apart from Robespierre), which is of course wrong for a number of reasons. But lately I've been translating issues of the periodical Journal de la mode et du gout from 1790 which are very clearly not aimed at aristocrats (given how insulting it is about them), and it occurred to me that not only are the stereotypes inaccurate, they ignore a broad swath of society.

What was happening among the upper and lower middle classes, in Paris or in the provinces? I'm interested in the whole range, but in particular was wondering about the wealthier/more affluent members of the Third Estate - did many of them not involved in the National Assembly face suspicion or persecution due to their position, or did they kind of quietly skate through? Did many emigrate, or is the stereotype of the émigré(e) being of noble birth mainly accurate?

It seems that the Ming dynasty has had the greatest influence on Korea in terms of various cultural aspects like dressing, rigid confucianist family/social structure, hanja etc.

On the other hand, Japan seems to have been influenced disproportionatedly by China's tang dynasty. Many of its famous cultural symbols descended directly from thr Tangs. For e.g. the kimono, the makeup of geishas (painting face white and strange lipstick), bonsai,, the entire city of kyoto which was a copy of tangs capital.

What caused this difference in influence?

I saw this on a coworker's quote-of-the-day and can't make sense of it. How is debt a blessing?

I would think they would be especially desirable for defenders during sieges.

Any info would be great, but I'm thinking in terms of things like culture, politics, and religion.

[deleted]

First off some background. I'm British, living in England, but my wife is American. I've been reading history narratives of the US to try and get a fuller understanding of, er, American History.

I read Alan Taylor's brilliant American Colonies which gives an excellent overview of events up to about the 1750s/1760s. After this I picked American Creation by Joseph J Ellis which while brilliant, and thoroughly engaging, I get frustrated not by what he writes but by the bits he doesn't write. For example he tells half the story of the revolutionary war before skipping ahead to the constitutional convention, and after the ratifying conventions he skips ahead to after Washington is already president without getting into that process at all.

Anyway, my real question is basically about the gaps between the two books. What turned the tide toward revolution and independence?

Of course I know the over-arching theme is having rule and laws and more specifically tax imposed on them from far across the Atlantic without representation. But up until the 1750s I get the impression from my readings that everyone was quite happy to be under British rule and protection and the trade laws that helped their economies.

What events am I missing in this 20 year period that turned opinion so drastically?

Thanks