It occured to me that Physical Education classes could've been created to improve the general health of the population.

However, I remembered that the beginnings of mass education coincided with the rise of the nation-state, and with that, modern, conscripted armies, which require a fit population, and that would've been the real purpose of PE classes

Setting aside the (deplorable) ethics and direct psychological impacts, have 20th century eugenics programs ever had an impact on the health of populations as a whole, beneficial or otherwise?

It seems that only George R. R. Martin and the TV show's producers know about how the story in Game of Thrones will end, but based on my (little) understanding of the JFK assassination details it seems that a large number of people in government, spy agencies, and other places of power knew (or still know) who really killed JFK.

My apologies if the question is absurd, and sorry if wrong sub.

Just wondering. Thanks

Long time lurker, I'm watching The Godfather part II (hence myusername, I just created the account and came up with that) and in one of the first scenes you can see tons and tons of italian inmigrants getting checked in an inmigrant inspection station in Ellis Island. My question is, why does the United States always have had that pro-inmigration policy?

I know Orientalism has had a tremendous effect on eastern and non-European studies, but has it had any effect on western studies itself? Given the amount of criticism against Said, it seems strange how his work has basically become required reading in a a great deal of courses in the academia. How has this effected western scholarship in that did it notice at all what was happening in eastern and oriental scholarship? What are some works I could read that follow up on Said's "unfinished" and overly "formulaic" thesis in Orientalism to better understand why people did not like it?

Having trouble identifying this, any feedback would be most welcome.

What did the average person in a decent sized and not so large sized city have to do? Where they bars, restaurants and clubs? I know there was ballet and concert halls to go to, but what else was there to do? What sort of things did they show on TV and play on the radio?

How likely was it that Nazi Germany would have violated the armistice terms with France that allowed France to retain control of her Navy? Germany had very little in the way of surface forces in 1940, and when Churchill made the decision to attack the French fleet, he did so in the belief that if he didn't, Germany would have taken command of the surface fleet and used it to threaten Britain's naval supremacy. This, obviously, would have been a problem for Britain's supplies from the US.

In light of the fact that the Germans did try to take the French fleet at Tolon in 1942, and that the French scuttled that fleet, was the attack at Mers-el-Kebir really necessary? Do you think Churchill comes across as the bad guy here?

Hi, I've always been fascinated by the World Wars, but I've only ever had a hazy idea of the events and politics that shaped European countries since their victory or defeat in WWI, through the Great Depression and leading up to WWII.

What are the best books to get to know the political and economic developments in interbellum Germany, France, the UK, Russia, Italy, Poland, Austria, Yugoslavia, or even the smaller countries on the continent?

Reading novels from this time it appears that land was owned by people that didn't work it themselves, and worked by people that didn't own it. Were there no independent farmers, or is it a matter of author's not including that class of society?

I've seen growth rates ranging from 7-30 percent from what I would consider relatively trustworthy, with some Soviet Apologist putting forth numbers as high as an unbelievable 50 percent. Followup would be, why is there such a large range in the analysis?

(Edit Spelling)

Title

I'm researching into colonialism (wikipedia, r/askhistorians search, etc.) and there is so much to read!

I was wondering what were the duties and problems for the governors, who set up the colonies, anything like that.

Or any kind of anecdotes that show the nuances of what was done.

I'm sorry if this is a little to general for this subreddit and if it makes any difference, I'm writing a game and want to add aspects of that.

In WWI and WWII it seems that on any given day there was a continuous line, for the most part, where one side had one combatant and the other side had the other. I know the line wasn't perfect, but it was solid enough that in books on the topic like Barbarosa by Alan Clark he has maps showing the front line of the day that, in the Eastern Front of WWII, go from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

In earlier wars like the American Civil War or Revolution, it seems that the lines were more de jure and armies might travel around in enemy territory pillaging until they were finally challenged by the enemy army.

Is my idea of these two types of lines correct for the most part? If so when did this change occur and why?