Without crossing the 20 year threshold, I was curious about what advantages it has over a simpler linear system or business style management system. Is it simple inertia and tradition, or is it really better to have officers and enlisted people separate?

Considering earlier they refused to accept them as refugees?

I know the games themselves were not widely broadcast in the US (though many border residents could pick up the CBC), but was there much news generated in the games as a political, Cold War event? For example, would the outcomes of the games been mentioned on national news broadcasts?

I spent some time trying to word this in the clearest way I could, but to expand on it a bit, has any of the US Presidents never been to one of the states that existed at the time of his presidency either before or during his time in office? So of course George Washington had never been to Alaska, but had he visited each of the first 16 states? Had Kennedy been to all 50 states? Per subreddit rules, we're only talking up to H.W. Bush, or Clinton if you like to play with fire.

Any culture that you have knowledge of would do.

Did the habit of "brotherly-marriage" and/or close-relatives marriage, play a part in the large number of Egyptian dynasties/short time of ruling for each dynasty?

You can't obviously compare this with Portugal, but in almost 900 years of history we had 4 dynasties. Egyptian on the other hand had almost ~10 per 1000years. Was this normal back then? Or was it possible that inbreeding diseases played a part/were a major cause?

I don't know if I'm pushing it here as I'm asking about a comparison, but hopefully not.

My brief understanding was that we simply went there, stomped out their military, then left. That's like how the first few months of the 2000s war went, but it didn't work out the same way.

IMPORTANT EDIT!

I forgot to ask the most important question and the reason I wanted to make this thread: how could people possible be okay with doing this? I get that people didn't have internet and whatnot back then, but how could an entire nation and their military go through with these actions? I just can't fathom how that could happen in a first-world country. Additionally, why did it take so long for other countries to intervene and finally participate in what we now call World War 2? I just don't understand how exactly this happened. If any European country or the United States tried something like that today I'm pretty sure they'd be squashed quickly by other countries. Back when I was in school and I learned about the Holocaust we always spent more time on what happened and not much time on exactly how. I remember us hearing about how people did it because they thought they were just doing their job, but there must be more to it than that.

End of edit

Schindler's list is an amazing, heartbreaking and tragic movie. But how historically accurate? Especially in regards to the Nazi's treatment of the Jews and how the Jews survived.

For example, there's a scene where the Nazi's are raiding Jewish apartments and forcing everyone to relocate so one family quickly takes jewelry from hiding places in the walls, wraps them in bread and then puts the bread in their mouths. What's their goal here? To temporarily hide the valuables in their mouths or to actually swallow them and recover them from a later bowel movement? Did Jewish people really do that?

Also, how accurate was the scene where the Nazis are burning massive amounts of corpses and dumping them into a gigantic flaming pit via conveyor belt? Did they really do that?

What else can you say about the historical accuracy of the movie?

Thanks!

So, I've just finished reading through the entirety of the Gulag Archipelago. However, I couldn't find much discussion of the reliability of him as a source, despite the claims made in the book as to the collection of a substantial amount of first hand accounts and other supporting documents. How do modern historians see Solzhenitsyn and the Gulag Archipelago as a source?

Even with thinkers like Blanqui and faurier and Simon (though I know they believed in different strains of socialism) why did the revolutionaries take on Napoleon and give him executive power rather than move towards a more socialist and even in Blanqui's words 'Communist' state?

One thing I heard, was that they would be asking each other

"what's going on up there?" or "who's winning?" since they couldn't see too well usually as to what was happening up front, much like a typical street event or the like :P

I am interested in knowing whether the some of the European politicians' claims against the provision of shelter to refugees, asylum seekers, and - for lack of a better term - fortune seekers from the MENA region, hold any historical merit. For example, it is debated that the large influx of Germanic tribes has played a part in the downfall of the Roman Empire, yet this could be blamed on Rome expanding too quickly for its own good.

Have there been any examples in history that back up the politicians' claims?

[deleted]