I'm writing an essay about the Bombing of Auschwitz for a third year Holocaust course (I'm graduating this year), and I have had some experience about this debate but I'm a bit stuck on the actual planes that were used and some terminology.

First and foremost, what is the 'range' of a plane. I've been researching allied heavy bombers and most of them seem to be in range of Auschwitz from the Foggia airbase which would have been used in the event of this bombing campaign. However, they aren't mentioned in most of the debate on the subject. The airbase was 1000km away from Auschwitz which would make it a 2000km round trip. The B-24, B-17, B-32 and the Lancaster to name a few all had longer ranges than this. So were there other factors that would drain fuel, like flying over the Alps? Or taking a High-Low-High approach which might maximize accuracy?

How much did the weight of bombs affect the range of aircraft? Are the statistics regarding the range usually including the weight of bombs, or are they just the maximum flight range with no other factors? Would they ever have been flown to their maximum range or are these just theoretical and they stayed within a comfortable point of no return?

I'm trying to not reach any conclusions about my paper until I've done research, but I'm trying to stay away from the morality argument that many historians tend to fall into (David Wyman, Martin Gilbert etc.) and instead focus on the actual logistics of a potential bombing campaign (so the bombers, strategic bombing accuracy reports, the actual intelligence about Auschwitz available to the allies).

If anyone has any good book recommendations, I'd appreciate it as well. I'm using the British and American Strategic Bombing Surveys, Aircraft of the Royal Air Force since 1918 and other books centered on this debate

Was it similar to Irish and Scottish Gaelic? Did the previous Roman occupation have any influence on it?

Specifically my dissertation will be about the outcome of the suppression for the members of the Order and the fate of their extensive possessions across Europe. Of course for this I need primary sources to back up my conclusions. The biggest barriers I've come across so far are language barriers (I only know English) and floods of pseudo-history from internet searches. All I want is some good references to primary sources (Hard copy or Digital) addressing the fate of the Templars and their property. I hope you can be of help.

EDIT: My apologies, a sentence in the description was badly worded. I do intend to draw conclusions from the primary sources and not impose any pre-existing opinions upon them, I am well aware the latter would be bad practice. I am studying at undergraduate level.

I would like to thank you all for your replies.

I know plate armour was relatively advanced and not readily available throughout much of the middle ages, but when you look at middle ages sources - it seems plate armour often.

How effective was plate armour other armour types against weapons such as broadswords, arrows, spears/lances, maces and hammer/clubby weapons?

Despite what we see in media, I find it difficult to think of how effective armour was?

I went to school in Scotland, and in history our teachers made a big thing about how Scotland has never been conquered, the Romans built Hadrian's Wall to keep the natives out, blah blah, etc & so forth.

However, I recently read Tacitus on Agricola, and I was fairly stunned to learn that Agricola campaigned as far north as Inverness, smashed the natives at the Battle of Mons Graupius and - reading between the lines - was maybe only a campaigning season or two from completely subjugating the north of the island before he was recalled to Rome. Tacitus also seems to be saying that the Emperor recalled Agricola because he was jealous of his popularity (and possibly had him assassinated), and replaced him with an inferior governor who promptly lost the gains made in the years previous.

So, my question is basically do modern historians think this is just Tacitus blowing smoke up his father-in-law's ass, or is the case that, but for a vain Roman emperor, Agricola would/could have completely conquered the Island? (Or, as may be likely, am I completely misinterpreting the book? I'm new to classical texts!)

EDIT: Words an' ting.

From what I can tell, most roman infantry units (pre-and post-Marian reforms) had really short range. How did they handle fighting against a wall of pikes?

It doesn't have to be organised by a French institution. just Frenchmen in general.

I would like to know how the main infantry weapons evolved over time. For instance, swords were really popular with the Romans, did this trend die out as tactics changed?

As I understand it, the invasion of Sicily by the de Hauteville brothers beginning in 1061 was the first instance of a papal blessing of a campaign against a Muslim-held country in the spirit of religious conflict. Realistically, was this the main driving force behind the campaign, or was it just a justification and/or legitimization for blatant land-grabbing?

Since we descended from apes who had a whole lot of hair and not as much sense of fashion, what caused humans to acquire clothes when the hair provided the needed shelter?

Hello,

I'm talking about pre-viking Anglo-Saxon England. Why was vernacular language used so much in texts, ect ? Why did Alfred the Great (King of Wessex) push so much for its use ?

Reading trough old Soviet newspapers I found that they often accuse USA in supporting Pol Pot regime. Now, I understand that you should take anything in Cold War era press, especially Soviet, with a bucket of salt, but on the other hand, Campuchia was anti-Soviet and anti-Vietnamise, and American support to pretty horrible regimes is not unheard of. What was the real relationship between USA and Campuchia.

During the Sengoku Jidai what was the relevance of ones clothing. Did clothing show rank or status for example. Were certain colours used for certain occasions or classes of people. Also with armour did certain crests of colours have any significant meaning?

Also did any Daimyo ever outfit there troops with any kind of uniform I know many didn't and troops in Japan did not tend to be uniformly equipped and clothes. I have read lots of Daimyo would provide their Ashigaru with armour but Samurai tended to wear their own. "Red Fire Unit" of Yamagata Masakage wore red armour to strike fear into their opponents Ii Naomasa later did the same thing with his "The Red Devils." inspired by Yamagata. That could be considered a uniform I guess but are there other examples.

I realise this is quite a broad question so please be as broad as you want with your answers. Anything about what people wore both on and off the battlefield would be intresting to me. Also if you wish to expand beyond the Sengoku Jidai and go into other periods such as Edo or Heian that would be great too.

Thank you

My friend came out to me recently and since he's been struggling with it a lot more than I have, I did some research on the history of homosexuality. It seems like the concept of a fixed sexual orientation is a relatively modern one - same-sex sex might not have been everyone's cup of tea, but having it didn't make you gay. Confirmation?

The very last line of the Gettysburg Address is rhetorically brilliant, containing both a "rule of threes" rhetorical device, and also ending on two successive words carrying immense weight, all in service of an overarching concept of monumental importance.

and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

But is that last clause accurate? Does is properly belong in the Gettysburg Address?

My question is: In what way was the Civil War a war for the existence of representative government? Why would the succession of certain states from a federal system of government, challenge the viability of representative government per se?