Operation Double Cross is very famous for what the British did during world War 2. As well as the fake army and dead wash up. Did the Axis successfully do any such trickery on the Allies? Also, were there any famous Allied spies that were caught?

Thank you

I can't imagine there would be too much of an advantage in attacking remote, northeast Russia. Why was the Siege of Petropavlovsk carried out?

So I've heard a lot of claims swirl about and I'm looking to settle some of this.

1. I've read that in 1948 Jews and Jewish Organization owned only about 6% of the land. However to my understanding about 60ish percent of Israel is the Nagev desert. My question is at the time how much of what became Israel was actually owned land? Or to put it another way land people would live on and widely use.

2. Following up from above. How much of the Mandate of Palestine was Public land owned I suppose by the British Government and I'm assuming later turned over to the Israeli's?

3. How much of the land was owned privately by Arabs as opposed to by Jews. As part of this I've also read that as per the Ottoman Land Code of 1858, many Arabs avoided actually registering land claims or outright misregistered them leading to a single person owning vast tracks of land on paper. In my mind, from a legalistic standpoint this presents a problem, if said person or family that was given a land claim to a whole village abandons his land was that considered forfeiture? or Forfeiting the title?

Like did he take money from taxes for personal gain? If so, how did he get away with it?

It is a common belief in the western world that the Greeks invented Western Culture and that Rome made it even greater. While Western Culture owe a lot to the Greeks and Romans, such as Greek Philosophy, the development of the Polis and the humble starts of Democracy as we know it today, Latin alphabet, secular society(or at least the philosophy that led to it) etc, I have a feeling that Western Culture also owe a lot to other cultures, but that the origins of important ideas may have been downplayed by people in the 19th and 20th century when ethnocentrism and scientific racism was big in Europe, and because of this it their origins never became common knowledge. I know of a few such ideas with different origins, such as Algebra that the Arabs invented and Indian numerals, which has been hugely important for science in the western world, but that is about it.

So to sum up the question: What ideas of non Greco-Roman origins helped shape Western Culture, through the Renaissance to the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. Few things develop in a vacuum, and even though the Romans did not invent Liberalism and Secularism, the Enlightenment philosophers became inspired by the works by Cisero and other Greek and Roman Philosophers. So, my question is then, was the people during the Renaissance, the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment inspired by other cultures, either directly or by proxy, for example by the Romans adopting ideas by the Persians or others?

Today (in the US, not sure about elsewhere), when there is a disaster such as Katrina, we typically see a fairly standard response from the government - people from the government will generally go visit the site, the government (FEMA) will provide aid, there may be some sort of national guard mobilization, etc. Additionally, we usually see an outpouring of donations of money, other items, and time/manpower from individuals and charities.

Was anything like the above present in Ancient Rome? (I'd be interested in anywhere from pre-modern times, but I don't want to violate the rules by making the question too broad). Was there any formal or semi-formal disaster relief? Did individuals donate time or money to help? Did prominent government figures visit the site (where the "government" may mean those in Rome itself for something "close to home" like Vesuvius, or maybe more local provincial governments if it occurred in the Asia province or something).

Thanks for your time!

I assume that defectors of other unrelated nations were dealt on a case by case basis.

Is there something that, as it developed as a form, made film substantively different from the other genres in terms of creative force, or is this a historical anomaly?

Vis a vis music, to be clear: I mean that we generally credit the composer/songwriter(s) as the major creative force rather than, say, the conductor or producer, roles that are more analogous to director in film.

I'm not talking about academic or scientific circles, but the first language a child is taught.

Were prehistoric humans monogamous?

Besides, how did it evolve over time, as the Empire declined?

I have come across a couple refrences while reading that state very few people could read silently until around the 1600-1700s. Is this true? Does anyone have a book or more evidence to point me towards? The most recent refrence i found was in "At Day's Close:Night in Times Past".

Also, can someone explain the whole Julien Nepos claiming to be Augustus of the West in Dalmatia thing?

Like how did find wives? Were they assigned wives from other female slaves or were they allowed to marry free women? Did their families join them on military campaigns as camp followers? What happened to the children?

Speculating, I suppose that it creates dependencies, and also a camp economy, both of which could be exploited. On the other hand, it is still a waste of wartime resources.

Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Harvard University, Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University make up the Ivy League. Obviously these schools are all top notch, and the term has come to be a synonym for American's most elite universities. But while it seems "Ivy" has a history of use predating 1954, the Ivy League is properly an athletic conference these schools make up. So:

• Prior to the establishment of the Ivy League proper, were these schools a special group in the public mind?

• If not, was there something similar to our current perception of the "Ivy League"?

• If so, was it only those eight, or might other schools also have fallen into that group, but ended up excluded from the Athletic Conference for whatever reason?

Whenever I read about WW1, the writings are awash with the tragedies of the soldiers, the futility infantry charges, the misery, death and destruction.

But WW2 accounts do not focus on the soldier deaths and misery as much. They are more about tactics and movements, victories and losses. They do not castigate the generals as much as WW1 accounts.

But WW2 claimed a magnitude more lives than WW1. So why the lack this lack of focus on tragedies?