I recently found out about the Congo Free State while looking up the Order of the Crown decoration that is given in the Belgium which happens to be a legacy of the Congo Free State but also found out that Belgium has not taken responsibility of it, so I was wondering what exactly happened in this case. I know that it was a personal property of King Leopold II, but who were employed by him for extraction of resources from the State and how would did the State work in the first place. I would like to have a brief but detailed(if possible) account on this. I have read the wiki article but it mostly tells about certain events and how the State was acquired, I would love to know its internal dynamics.

Many thanks, in advance.

My knowledge of World War II is not great. All of my history classes in school always seemed to end right before world war two or started right after. But, from what I've gathered it seems like the Nazis were far more severe in there treatment of the Poles than they were to other countries they invaded (with the exception of Russia, but that's another story). Why were the Nazis so much more severe in the treatment of the Poles? How does that compare with their treatment of Western European and American prisoners of war? Was it common for the Nazis to send Western Prisoners of war to concentration camps like they often did to the Poles? Sorry for the slew of questions but it's a topic I find very interesting. Unfortunately my knowledge is riddled with holes.

So, I'm a non-historian scholar of public address (speeches, essentially). In my discipline, practically all existing scholarship is on American speeches, with the exception of a few British ones, Hitler's speeches, and Classical Greek and Roman speeches. Every now and then somebody breaks the mould, but in general there is a minuscule amount of scholarship of speeches outside of these among public address scholars. I see this as a major problem in the field and have some interest in breaking out of the American-centric and classical period-centric obsession. Problem is, I need some good inspiration to get the ball moving. My goal isn't just to write some stuff myself, but get people in my field to pay attention to (a) the problem in the first place and (b) the massive untapped potential that's out there.

So, my question: What are some especially significant historical speeches from around the world (outside of the Western tradition would be great, but in the Western tradition is fine too) that a project like this really ought to touch on? For example, I know very little southeast Asian history, or African history, or even much of the Muslim or Arabic traditions. The same could be said for most of my colleagues who study public address in the US.

I'm well aware that reading speeches in a vacuum without knowing their contexts isn't valuable and won't produce good new research, but identifying a few key speeches that I don't already know about would be a wonderful starting point for what is likely to be a project that takes many many years to properly establish. And of course Redditors aren't the only people I talk to about this stuff, but I like you guys. :)

Did they know of the risks back then? Or just not care? When and why did this tradition (if that's what it can be called) stop? Also if you have any other examples feel free to share.

I'm watching the Nazi Mega Weapons episode on the Siegfried Line and they mentioned that they used 400,000 "conscript laborers". Just exactly what was a conscript laborer in this context?

What with the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, German, and Ottoman empires, and the general anti-monarchist views that arose post-WWI, how did the British manage to retain a monarchy? Was it just because they won? And even then, weren't they economically weak?

Doesn't assimilation happen after all war where land is taken. What is the difference?

After just taking my final for my Western Civ class in college, I realized how broad of a timeline we covered. Why does this make sense? Seems kind of weird to cover such a large area and large time span, kind of making "western civilization" just European and Asian civilization. Is there any rationality behind this?

Wikipedia indicates that opinions are divided on whether it was betrayal or an accident that he didn't move his troops to assist Richard during the battle, just curious if anyone has more info on the matter.

Though I appreciate any historical input on miasma and/or miasma theory, I'm specifically interested in ways in which it's been used outside of, or as an extension beyond, the more commonly known medical theory applications.

For example, has it been heavily tied to things like eugenics, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., or does it tend to surface as a vague catch-all for social problems?

Thanks!

My dad always said Hitler and the Nazis were more concerned with the loot and plunder from war, so a very destructive nuclear bomb would have gone completely against what their goals were. How accurate is this?

Also, what were the opinions of surviving East German Jews?