E.G. Soviet POWs died in utterly massive numbers (almost?) by design, why aren't those counted as death camps?

Does it have something to do with the end of estado novo?

If not, what contributed to the lack of African writing?

I saw this quote in the game Rome II Total War so I have no context at all. Was Pliny talking about events in Africa ( at least what the Romans called Africa ) during his life ?

I many time hear "Does who do not history are doom to repeat it."
How much this is true? Does there are some historical triggers?
For example before every X will happen XYZ, so when you see XYZ than X inevitable.
Does student history have a chance of predicting the future?

When the Russians advanced towards Berlin near the end of WWII was there any incident when their aircraft mistook Allied aircraft for German aircraft and attacked?

Im trying to design tattoos representing my sons: Alexander, William, and Justin. I'd like to base them on a weapon and helmet from the period and places they represent: Alexander the great, William the conquerer, and Emperor Justinian I. So can yall please assist me with good examples of those?

Did Packard sell tooling for their cars to Russia ?

Can someone explain to me this passage in Ben Franklins autobiography? I get the sense it's some kind of bond? I don't have the economic chops to get it and that on top of the slightly inscrutable writing style have left me stymied.

"I then suggested a method of doing the business without the governor, by orders on the trustees of the Loan office, which, by law, the Assembly had the right of drawing. There was, indeed, little or no money at that time in the office, and therefore I propos'd that the orders should be payable in a year, and to bear an interest of five per cent. With these orders I suppos'd the provisions might easily be purchas'd. The Assembly, with very little hesitation, adopted the proposal. The orders were immediately printed, and I was one of the committee directed to sign and dispose of them. The fund for paying them was the interest of all the paper currency then extant in the province upon loan, together with the revenue arising from the excise, which being known to be more than sufficient, they obtain'd instant credit, and were not only receiv'd in payment for the provisions, but many money'd people, who had cash lying by them, vested it in those orders, which they found advantageous, as they bore interest while upon hand, and might on any occasion be used as money; so that they were eagerly all bought up, and in a few weeks none of them were to be seen."

With a significant portion of contemporary anti-science sentiment being motivated by religion, I was wondering if those similar feelings were present in the 60s.

Also, was he skilled in sleight of hand?

Wouldn't not cleaning oneself remove their element of surprise if they can be smelt before they're seen?

Okay so the title of this post doesn't exactly convey what I'm trying to get at, and I'm not sure what I have is a question really but more of a curiosity.

Native American society is often portrayed as heavily communal, everything shared, etc. etc. I've seen it used as a sort of bastion of socialism (I don't have any specific source for this, might even be made up in my own head, who knows?). But, as I was re-reading Zinn's A People's History, I came across some quotes that were interesting to me, such as:

"The foundation principle of Indian government had always been the rejection of government. The freedom of the individual was regarded by practically all Indians north of Mexico as a canon infinitely more precious than the individual's duty to his community or nation. This anarchistic attitude ruled all behavior, beginning with the smallest social unit, the family..."

To me, the principles of communalism and individualism have always been presented as two fundamentally opposed ideologies. Communist societies have relied on such strong governments (I'm aware of anarcho-socialists, just thinking in terms of Russia, China, etc), and purporters of individualism have a seemingly strong distaste for sharing anything on a societal level. How were the

My question is, I guess, how were Native Americans able to achieve a balance of these two principles? Was it because of their small units where values were able to be more strongly upheld, also allowing for a closer connection to their peers and thus making easier to share? Did I just answer my own question? Is the sheer size of their groups, units, tribes, etc the only reason for this to have worked/existed in the first place?

Thanks for any help, I'd also really like some texts to further my knowledge on this.

Hello,

I am studying Australian history in the 1920s and I wondering if anyone can suggest a good topic for research (one that has sources, is provocative etc.). I am particularly interesting in the experiences of returned servicemen but any topic will do. It needs to tie with the theme of national identity somehow.

Many thanks.

Obviously I know that The Aenied is fictional, but I am curious if Rome was actually founded by Trojan refugees?