I understand that the Vichy government was essentially just a German puppet, but were there currents there who considered the independence of Southern France a good thing, particularly within the context of linguistic revivalism?

How much debt did Julius Caesar owe his creditors during his political career?

What, if any, were the differences between these titles? Was there a difference or not, or are historians just not really sure?

Tavern inn combos are the staple of fantasy games and literature. However, I have never heard about them in history classes or stories.

Australian accents sound very similar to British accents to me, but I can detect some difference. To me they sound slightly cockney. My question is from what British dialects did Australian English evolve from, when can this divergence be considered to have taken place, and why does their seem to be little diversity in Australian accents?

In lieu of the Iran-US uranium enrichment negotiations currently proceeding I'm curious why Israel did not support the Treaty on Non-Proliferation? I'm finding it fascinating current media-heads aren't mentioning this. Not trying to persuade anyone of anything, however.

Particularly the palaces of the Tudor era in england?

So one of the fun things about history that I've noticed is a tendency for strong nations to develop long lasting, competitive rivalries with neighboring states.

The Danes had the Swedes

The English had the Franks

America had the USSR

The Romans (and later Byzantines) had the Parthians (and later the Turks)

the Iroquois had the Huron and so on.

Yet when it comes to the various Chinese Empires it doesn't really seem like they had a foreign nation they really competed against or rivaled. Sure there were various wars to conquer/reconquer Vietnam, but it doesn't seem like the long lasting feud where foreign nations really threatened them.

There were the steppe hordes in Mongolia and the surrounding regions, but they were frequently disorganized and couldn't really be called a rival power until they were unified under the likes of Genghis Khan.

I'm not sure just how many time Japan and China went to war, but given their relative resourced I doubt Japan could go on long and sustained campaigns against a unified China, assuming it even wanted to.

Lastly the various states of India would seem to be too concerned with their immediate neighbors to focus on China.

So was there any real "rival" for China, or were they relatively indomitable so long as they were unified?

[deleted]

I follow a page on FB, World War II - Day by Day, and they have been posting a lot of Japanese surrender ceremonies at different island garrisons and bases. Just how many were there? Who surrendered where, and to who?

This is not to be taken as an alternative history question. The scenario given is just a prompt to give an idea of what I'm talking about. Oh and I got the wrong date for Star Wars.

Pretty much what I'm asking here is whether or not in 1930 I could have made a shot-for-shot remake of Star Wars that would have been able to have all of the features of the original film. Maybe it would be slightly more grainy, but the luminous lightsabers, the puppets, the scrolling text on a black background, the sound effects, the talking. These things could all have been achieved rather seamlessly in 1930, right?

This obviously applies to a lot of other films. The only main difference being the existence of contemporary technologies. Like it would be hard to make Apocalypse Now in 1930 because the things featured in that film existed when Apocalypse Now was made but not in 1930.

I'm not entirely sure at exactly what time colour became possible in live action films, but as far as I'm aware, between the time when sound and colour were introduced in films and the time when computer effects became possible to use in films, there weren't many changes in terms of what you could "bring to life" on screen. Maybe you could produce a better quality picture, but nothing like the difference between 1933 King Kong and 2005 King Kong.

Two additional questions on top of that one:

• If I couldn't produce that film at all, really, in 1930, then at what point would it be reasonably possible for me to produce it.

• If I could produce that film... sort of... then what would be the main differences between Star Wars 1930 and Star Wars 1977?

The In$ane Chicago Way gives the history of the daring attempt by Chicago gangs in the 1990s to create a Spanish mafia. While most gang members are young people rebelling destructively against poverty and racism, a few gang leaders in Chicago build an mafia -commission like form to control violence, corrupt police and organize crime. This is my third book on gangs which have been devoted to debunking stereotypes. This one uses history to challenge many current ideas about gang organization, ties to the mafia, the centrality of police corruption, and the importance of neighborhood

Like why didn't the army just go five miles to the side?

My birthday just happens to fall on 9/11 and every year I get to make super awkward birthday party plans... like today. Always makes for awkward conversation, I always avoid giving the exact date when talking about birthdays in casual conversation because it just leads to the same range of uncomfortable exchanges. Pearl Harbor is obviously very similar to 9/11 but no one with a 12/7 birthday has to deal with this giant pain in the ass every year. Did Pearl Harbor day cause this for people back 60 or 70 years ago and if so when did it stop, I haven't been able to enjoy my birthday or anything about it in 14 years. I always just have a low key get together with a few close friends and get absolutely shitfaced but I haven't had a real raging birthday party since the 4th grade. Historians do I have any hope???!!!

I know this might sound callous but but 99% of people just have to think about 9/11 once a year for a few hours. But given my situation I have been hyper aware of all things related to it all of the time. The government and the media just push 9/11 so fucking hard like it happened yesterday to push what ever agenda they want and it works. It was 14 years ago already but if you didn't know it you might have thought it happened last week. Historically is there any way to tell how long its gonna take to "get over it" and move on.

I am working my way through the Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War (GWL Nicholson; 1962) and the author makes a passing comment about the French that made me curious.

Referring to the dispositions of Allied forces in 1915, the author states that "in contrast to the French, who when not engaged in a major offensive tended to observe an unofficial truce, British GHQ emphasized the necessity of continual aggressiveness in defence."

Is this statement accurate? In my (albeit limited) studies of the Canadian and British forces in the Great War the narrative is one of major offensives mixed with raids, counter-raids, artillery, etc. Was the story really different for French forces?

*Edited for spelling.

How would a trial for a run-of-the-mill crime play out, and what kind of punishment could the defendant expect?

In the "Action Philosphers" comic book series, at one point in the Karl Marx chapter there's a joke at the expense of a film professor deconstructing marxism in movies (or something along those lines, this is from memory), and their version of Marx says the above line. Normally I would just brush that off as a joke, but this came with a footnote claiming that is an actual quote (without providing context). So I looked it up online, but I just got a confirmation that the quote is real, and that it boils down to distancing himself from the various interpretations of Marxism during his lifetime.

Do we know in greater detail what he distanced himself from, and what his own views were instead?