I am trying to cite the Gazeta de Gerona. no. 17-25, 1-29 March, 1793 in my bibliography. I understand that newspapers are typically cited within text for Chicago, but this is for an annotated bibliography. I tried finding the answer on CMS, but it was less than helpful.

Is it because of trade, or did people just find Buddhism more attractive, and why?

A relatively simple machine with two wheels, with the rear one chain connected to pedals. Bicycles only came into usage in the late 1800s, whereas many more complex machines
were used much earlier.

After all, Stalin knew that war with Germany was inevitable. Attacking them while they were busy with France would have been an easy victory. Or at the very least, force Germany to fight on two fronts. Which is much better than Germany not fighting on two fronts.

Unless they expected France to hold out forever or even win?

I know this idea isn’t super widely supported, but I think it has some merit. If that’s the case though, having large populations who didn’t drink alcohol would realistically cause issues, especially in water-scarce regions like the Middle East and North Africa.

I've read both Richard Evans' The Coming of the Third Reich, and the first volume of Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, Hubris, but I still don't fully understand Hindenburg and Papen's decision to make Hitler chancellor. The National Socialists did well in the 1932 Weimar elections, winning 37% of the vote in the summer, and 32% of the vote later that year. However, neither of these outcomes allowed the Nazis to form a ruling coalition in the Reichstag. Hindenburg and Papen understood that Hitler was insane, and the former considered invoking Article 48, which would have given him emergency powers to basically rule as a dictator, and the Nazi threat would be averted. However, Goring told Hindenburg that, were he to invoke Article 48, this would lead to civil war. Schleicher, who was Minister of Defense at the time, told Hindenburg that the Reichswehr, being constrained by the Treaty of Versaille, was too weak to subdue the SA. There would be a destructive civil war, somewhat similar to the one that would take place in Spain later that decade, and the Weimar government would be unlikely to win. (I think the Reichswehr had something like 100,000 troops at the time, whereas there were about 300,000 Brownshirts, but maybe I'm wrong on that.) In any case, Article 48 was not an option. Then, for some reason, Schleicher becomes chancellor for two months, and maybe you can touch on that. But in the end, Papen basically says that Hitler can become chancellor as long as the vast majority of Hitler's cabinet — I think nine out of twelve — is staffed with "moderate" conservatives, while a mere three would be National Socialists. In addition, Papen would get to be vice chancellor. So Papen basically thought that he and the other cabinet members would control Hitler. Of course, we all know how that turned out. Can you explain why Hindenburg and Papen ultimately made the final decision to appoint Hitler as chancellor? Why not have the stability of Schleicher or Papen as chancellor, and not take a huge risk by putting a madman in charge? Did they "have" to put Hitler in power? What were the realistic alternatives?

Joan is one thing I simply cant reconcile. She told the future, she was skilled as a knight, a politician, she was as competent as any legal scolar of her day. Something doesnt add up...

But when you take the sources they tell the same story. Was she really just one of the most exceptional people in history or is there something more to it?

Why is there so much talk of the Holocaust and Germany's war crimes but so little of what the Japanese did in Korea and China?

How or if it all did the founding fathers address the hypocrisy of slavery in the new nation with the Declaration of Independence declaring “all men are created equal”? Did Jefferson or any of the other founder founders ever acknowledge on the enslavement of Africans as unjust or counter to belief proclaimed in those famous words?

Hi guys, I'm doing a course on Egypt and the Classical World and I've been recommended a book called "Black Athena" by Martin Bernal. I've done some research into the book and it seems like most scholars and experts rejects its claims. Does anyone know if this book is reliable or not?

They had killed their monarch not long before him. Why did they accept another monarch shortly after?

I don't believe I can get hold of the book without putting myself on some sort of government watchlist. So, can anyone explain what is unique about the work? Is it uniquely well-written? Persuasive? What is the secret of its appeal?

In my (American, public school) education, I was taught that, while suspicion of being a Communist was a good way to commit social suicide, it was not literally illegal to self-identify as one, absent of any other wrongdoing. At the same time, however, we were also taught that there was a climate of paralyzing fear during the Red Scare and that even the suspicion of having left-wing sympathies could permanently ruin a person's life.

I'm wondering how these two things manifested together in practice. Was there something other than social ostracism that suspected Communists were threatened with, or was community pressure really that great? Would a given person face any harassment by law enforcement or the government, even if they weren't technically charged with anything?

Or, to phrase it a different way: I'm called to testify before Congress, and I stand up and say: "Hello Senator McCarthy, my name is X, and I'm a Communist." What happens to me?

I really only noticed it with 9/11 but more than this sub treat 20 years as history. How did everyone agree that 20 years is when news turns into history?

I was reading about the Napoleonic wars and read the quote “his presence was like an electric shock” and it jarred with me. Was electricity common place enough at that time that “electric shock” would have been a term used or is this a poor translation?

I have many questions. I've tried to break them down here.

- Would the other members of a slave owner's household be aware of, or suspect, that the owner was sexually assaulting slaves?

- How would a southern patriarch react if he found out that his son was sexually assaulting slaves?

- Did other male members of the household commit sexual violence against slaves? Would that be seen as damaging the patriarch's property?

- Would the slave owner worry that his vice would be discovered? Would he only worry if certain people, such as the women of the household, learned of it? Or would he be confident that nobody would dare to bring the subject up with him?

- Did slave owners ever worry about an enslaved woman bearing a white-passing child? What would happen to a white-passing child?

- Was anyone keeping track of children fathered by the slave owner or another male member of the household? Would unintentional incest occur?

- I thought that miscegenation was seen as a negative and immoral thing. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.) Did white men who sexually assaulted slaves hope that no child would result from it? Or did slaveowners want children to result from their relations with enslaved women since the child would be considered a slave? Was sexually assaulting enslaved women ever viewed as or rationalized as a way to increase the slaveholder's property?

- Were male slaves commonly sexually abused by slaveholders? Was it seen as "safer" since no children would be born of it?

- What would other Southern men of the planter class think of a slaveholder who had a reputation for sexual violence toward slaves?

- What about Southern women who owned slaves in their own right? Would a female slaveowner prevent male members of the household (perhaps the husband) from sexually assaulting slaves that were held in her name? Would she turn a blind eye to it?

- What would happen to a child fathered by a slave but born to a white woman? (Presumably by coercion, but that made me think of another question. Were slaveholders afraid that male slaves might pose a threat to the white women of the household?)

- Were poor whites aware of sexual violence toward slaves? What did they think? Would they look down on the planters that did this?

Additionally, I am reading the book The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America and came across this passage in chapter four, "The Safety Valve."

Increasingly through the decades leading to the Civil War, abolitionists began to identify slavery as a moral evil, corrosive of Republican principles, and slavers responded by defending the institution as a "positive good," helping to elevate republican virtue. [...] Rape was an instrument of this refinement. Enslaved women were, as defenders of slavery put it, "safety valves," helping to redirect the lust of white men away from white women and allowing southerners to distinguish their section of the country as genteel and mannerly. Samuel Rutherford, a Knoxville, Georgia, slaver, wrote New York's Jamestown Journal to complain about its anti-slavery editorial, which described the regime of sexual terror enslaved women lived under in the South. Rutherford admitted the truth of the editorial but said that sexual access to enslaved women worked as a "safety valve to the virtues of our white females, who are far superior in virtue to your northern females."

Was this sort of argument common, that sexual violence toward enslaved women was good because it redirected lustful passions away from white women?

Side question: How long would it take a peasant to make the trip if they had the means to?