I am currently in a class that is discussing America from 1929 to 1960 and obviously our involvement in WWII has been a discussion. During class my professor put a slide up that showed some of the neutral countries during the war. He did not have time to discuss their neutrality because it is a class focusing on the U.S. specifically. It would appear that some of these countries eventually got involved with troops and help(Turkey declared war in 1945, Sweden and Portugal sent troops). I am most intrigued by Switzerland's neutrality. I understand that their geography and mass amounts of soldiers helped keep Hitler and Nazi Germany out, where there any other factors like financial, political, social that kept them out?

Hi, I'm a High School student who is writing an essay on the effects of the Winnipeg General strike. For my essay, I need a human source/opinion on the question; "Have conditions for workers in Canada improved since the 1920's?" I'd like to know what other's think; taking into consideration safety for workers, benefits, stability, etc.

Were they locked up in a their houses for the whole duration or wear cloth devices?

they seemed to adore him more than most native americans at the time

I've been reading God's Battalions for some while now, but the many endorsements by christian organizations on the book cover got me wondering how accurate the descriptions in this book really are...

Any historian here who has in depth knowledge of the crusades and has read the book?

I often hear about the various wars and conquests of ancient civilizations like the Greeks and the Romans and I kind of get the impression that they were all always at each others' throats. Are there any large ancient civilizations that managed to share borders but not try to kill each other? Kind of like how modern nations like Australia and New Zealand can just sit next to each other with neither having any intention of invading the other?

I'm assuming part of it is due to their exceptional naval capabilities, but what other reasons were there?

Hey there, I'm studying the French Rev at school, and I'm quite confused about the liberal part of the revolution leading to the radical stages. Could someone give me the main parts to understanding why the revolution had to be so radical and also what the various views towards the war with Austria were? If you need help in my clarifying the question please let me know!

The Magna Carta often gets cited as an important "founding document" in a lot of secondary education history courses in the US, where its importance in the eye of the "Founding Fathers" is emphasized. However, the Magna Carta seems like it was more of a bunch of barons trying to limit the power of the King rather than trying to pave the way for full civil rights and liberties for Johnny Public. Additionally, Ralph Turner seems to be of the opinion that the Magna Carta as a statute didn't actually do very much after the 15th century and was not central to the structure and organization of the English system of government. Is this true? Or is the Magna Carta truly a landmark document?

Especially since he was in some cases writing about events that happened ~500 years ago, I'm also interested in some of the issues with Plutarch's histories.

Basically im curious as to why there isnt a bigger white population in the Caribbean. During pirate times I believe that there were populations of white people that weren't just plantation owners and slave masters. An example of this is in the film 'Pirates of the Caribbean' not an entirely great example I know but nonetheless this is one of thr main reasons I thought about this question.

I checked reading list and there are no books on Ancient Persia or Parthia. In fact there's nothing on history of Iran at all. Can you recommend me some, preferably modern, book on general history of Achaemenids and Parthians? Thank You.