I go to a christian university, and my Bible professor was lecturing about how terrible the canaanite religions were in the time of the Israelite conquest, around 1750 B.C. Specifically, he mentioned child sacrifice to gods like El and Baal. He also said that it was commonly accepted as fact that the canaanite religion was the most evil in the ancient near east. Is there any supporting evidence for these statements apart from Biblical records?

Also, if it was not referred to as "world war 2" during the actual war, when was that name agreed on?

I recently visited Bletchley Park and was fascinated by the whole experience. This is one question that niggled at me however. I may have missed any such explanation at the museum as it was extremely busy!

From Eichmann in Jerusalem, which I know is not a work of historical scholarship per se, but certainly the product of significant research.

Sweden was never occupied, and Finland, though in the war on the side of the Axis, was the one country the Nazis hardly ever even approached on the Jewish question. This surprising exception of Finland, with some two thousand Jews, may have been due to Hitler's great esteem for the Finns, whom perhaps he did not want to submit to blackmail.

[deleted]

For all I know the Japanese received a lot of technology from the third Reich like plans to build their Nakajima Kikka jet plane. No doubt - there has been military and industrial cooperation before the war, but when WW2 broke out the technological transfer continued. How did Japan actually receive all the construction plans, parts and sample machinery and how did they pay for it? All transportation routes led through enemy territory and the axis powers probably had limited access to the international financial system...

The history of the crusades is usually sold as the titanic clash of religions and civilizations, however I've recently read a different view that, since the Islamic powers had broken down in the decades leading up to the first Crusade, there was not much for Islamic unity. Therefore, when the Europeans came to conquer Jerusalem, the Muslims largely saw it as some barbarians who came over the frontier. Dangerous, but not a threat to their religion or culture. So my question is, is this true? Is the story we've been told of a mighty clash between the crescent and the cross solely how the Christian west has viewed it?

Recently I visited the Field Museum and wondered how we knew the pronunciation of things, e.g. people's names, based on the hieroglyphics found.

Regarding my history essay "What factors lead to the consolidation of slavery as a labour system in the United States?"

If more specifics are required to give a reasonable answer, this is how I would ideally narrow down the question, but outside information would be neat as well:

Did American symphony orchestras program fewer pieces by Richard Strauss, Richard Wagner, Gustav Mahler, or Johannes Brahms after 1942 explicitly because of Germany's involvement in WWII?

If so, when did the German classical music tradition come back to be the standard in the U.S.? Did United States orchestras try to program more American classical composers (Copland?) in an attempt to be nationalistic? Did anything similar happen during the Cold War to Russian composers (Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mussorgsky)?

I've heard a lot of people criticizing the death of Native Americans, but that happened after Columbus. Rather, his successors and other colonizers are to blame.

Yes, I know he wasn't the first human, nor European in America. But he did discover America for all intent and purposes. Yes, i know he was going for Catai and America was a mistake, but that doesn't take away the fact he connected Europe and America. Many discoveries in History (and in Science) were mistakes, but that doesn't make it less relevant. Yes, I know that he had some low points as governor, but no one is perfect. The "smallpox blankets" were decades after his last visit to the American continent.

I just feel that he is held to a level of scrutiny much more severe than anyone else (namely, the Founding Fathers or so many other in American History).

Seriously, I'm curious to know what happened and why today it's junk. Does it have to do with commercialization of TV?

My question is ultimately about what it means to be an "explorer". Do historians use that term, and if so, what do they mean by it? I am particularly motivated by the example of Christopher Columbus. Based on my understanding of the term, I would say he was not a good explorer, but maybe I'm being completely unfair.

I'm sure he was a competent sailor, and he knew how to use the Trade Winds, and that thing with the eclipse was pretty clever, so I grant all that. But I always figured, to count as an explorer, you can't just go to a place. You have to actually notice something about it, and come away knowing more about the world than when you started. Columbus seemed to completely disregard any evidence that contradicted his preconceived notions about the world.

I'm particularly struck by how he concluded that Cuba was part of China. Obviously we have the benefit of hindsight, and Columbus was only able to work with what he knew about China, so I could easily forgive the mistake if the major features matched up, but as far as I can tell none of the features matched up.

China was the largest empire in the world, with 120,000,000 people, and a vast army and navy. Traders would often return from there with spices, silk, and opium. Gunpowder, paper, and the printing press were invented there. Meanwhile, Cuba was an island of 300,000 people living in small villages. No silk, opium, iron, written language, or wheeled vehicles. They grew tobacco, cotton, and maize instead. Other than approximate latitude, they seem to share nothing in common.

There are more examples, like when he decided that South America was the Garden of Eden and the world was not round but pear-shaped. But you get the idea.

Thanks!

Or somebody/group of people that Stalin would have been afraid to get involved with or was literally everyone in the Soviet Union a potential target for the man?

[deleted]

By ancestors I mean pre-agrarian peoples from 200,000 to 12,000 years ago. If I had to guess, fat would be the most abundant source of calories for people prior to the advent of agriculture.

The faq says that the ancient Chinese and Roman empires had a vague awareness of eachothers existence. When/how did the Chinese learn of the Roman empire's fall/decline? What was the Chinese reaction? Was trade along the Silk Road disrupted?