Through fiction, a fool in a kings court seems to have the role of devils advocate. They seem to be the only ones to question a kings behavior. Is there any historical basis behind this, or is it all made up?

Apologies but I'll try and make the question abide by the rules:

In the era from ~1890 to 1917, what is considered the breakdown and dominant current in USA public opinion re. the Great War, and Anglo/French vs German/Austrian imperialism. As a born/raised Brit I was raised to (no disrespect to America) think that Americans were mostly kind-of Germans and kind-of Irish at the time, and these ethnic loyalties and suspicion of the English delayed public opinion turnin pro-Ally. As I've got older this has smelled like shite but I've also come to appreciate the scale of numbers of "Germans and Irish" people in the US, and isolationists/nativists/protectionists, and all primary and secondary sources I come across seem biased. Don't have the training to unpick it.

What should were the major currents of public sentiment in 1916? Before the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram and the no-rules U-boat warfare?

I recently took a class on Russian literature and during the brief synopsis of Russian history my professor mentioned that Russian culture started or it least is rooted in the Kievan Rus. Obviously Kiev is now the capital of Ukraine and considering the political situation in the region I'm worried that it would be hard to find an unbiased explanation of how the Kievan Rus relates to Ukraine and Russia. Is Kiev the birthplace of Russia? If so, what does that mean for its role in Ukrainian history? I realize what we now call Russia and Ukraine didn't exist back then so if both countries are product of Kiev when did they split apart?

Edit: I just want to be clear I don't have some political/nationalistic reason for posting this, I'm just curious. I'm not from the region so I don't have a bias with regards to the history of these countries. I never really visit this subreddit but I have only heard good things about it so I'm sure I can get an answer that doesn't sound like some sort of nationalistic historical revisionism.

Quick google searches don't bring up a whole lot on the topic but I'm curious if there is any indication as to where Alexander the Great is possibly buried.

I'm sound designing a production of the Diary of Anne Frank and have concerned myself with finding specific news broadcasts about the war. One large chunk is about the fall of Vichy France to the Germans in Nov. 1942. My frantic googling has come up short. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Wvfbd3tDE4Jois6NHMb9SoM0Nipa5OtljnsLeTycqi6t7b0tsgFov055SVMTZzWvfbd3tDE4Jois6NHMb9SoM0Nipa5OtljnsLeTycqi6t7b0tsgFov055SVMTZzWvfbd3tDE4Jois6NHMb9SoM0Nipa5OtljnsLeTycqi6t7b0tsgFov055SVMTZzWvfbd3tDE4Jois6NHMb9SoM0Nipa5OtljnsLeTycqi6t7b

I got to see a lot of the local culture and several historical sites and geographical wonders, but the history of the nation is a bit hard to find, and what I did hear or read there tended to be focused on either a specific cultural narrative or fairly unsourced.

I have heard (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that at least one major motivation behind the creation of the 'Empress of India' title was so as not to be outdone by the Imperial titles of other great powers at the time. Why, then, was India chosen as the location for the title as opposed to Britain? Perhaps a declaration elevating the crown of England to that of an Empire? My understanding of the semantics behind a title of 'Emperor' is that it typically involves multiple 'peoples' or 'nations' (of course those are fuzzy designations). In the British Isles, though, there would have been the Scottish, Welsh, English, and Irish people in close proximity under the control of the crown.

I read in Stephen E Ambrose's book on D-Day that both Rommel and Eisenhower knew that Omaha Beach was a perfect beach to defend. Narrow beach at high tide, swamp area, then bluffs which had many foxholes and defensive positions dug perfectly into them. Ambrose states that 'No tactician could have devised a better defensive position.' He goes on to say that if they did not invade at Omaha then 'the gap between Utah and the British beaches would be too great'. What does this actually mean though? I find it to be a vague response. There were already gaps between each of the invasion beaches. Why exactly was this stretch so critical, and why were so many lives risked?

Of course we all know about the Holocaust now, but during war time was it well known what exactly was going on? In Germany? In the rest of the world?

I'm not overly scholarly, so I'm sorry if this is a dumb question, but thought it sounded interesting.

Thanks!

Did large scale naval battles ever occur in the medieval ages, before the advent of cannons?

Hello, everyone! I am currently doing research for a paper on Holocaust denial; my topic goes along with the idea that during the height of denial, Holocaust deniers (during the 50s-70s, and a little of the 90s) are helping fuel modern day antisemitism views. I have very little resources to hunt through where I am currently attending college. If you know of any interesting books, articles, journals, or opinions/hunches please post here. Thank you so much for your help! (I hope this doesn't fall under 'Homework Help' I just need some fresh ideas)

Edit: grammar

I mean to say, what skills and topics should a historian possess, beyond history specifically? Is it an absolute necessity that a historian who specializes in roman history speak Latin fluently in order to be a credible source, or is intensive study of translated documents (still firsthand) and possession of a PHD enough to give their statements and interpretations the backing necessary for discussion? I apologize for how broad the question is, I'm starting my first year of university next year (as a history double major) and am unsure what electives I should be taking to help me better understand my field and help me out later on; any languages I should learn, regardless of my field?