I heard that desertion was common among soldiers, especially European soldiers. Was desertion from the military common for British soldiers while in the colonies, and are there any prominent examples?

Hello, I'm trying to make a board game about the Great Northern War (1700-1721). How far could an army in the war travel in a month? Did some country's armies travel faster than others?

Specifically, if a child has been raised under Nazi education for their whole life, what propaganda techniques did the Allies use to convert the Fascists into non-Fascists?

I ask this question because I was thinking about some of the ways the English language was influenced (such as the Vikings), and it made me wonder this. For a long time in the Middle Ages, Iberia was controlled by various Islamic realms and groups, such as the Moors, and I’m sure their languages would have been different from Spanish or other Latin-derived languages, and given how long Muslims controlled Iberia, there had to be some kind of influence, right?

I'm more curious about the group itself, actually. According to wiki, their primary source materials come from Israeli government papers that were newly available as a result of being declassified thirty years after the founding of Israel.

And they make claims like these also according to wiki: The official version said that Britain tried to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state; the New Historians claimed that it tried to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state

The official version said that the Palestinians fled their homes of their own free will; the New Historians said that the refugees were chased out or expelled

The official version said that the balance of power was in favour of the Arabs; the New Historians said that Israel had the advantage both in manpower and in arms

The official version said that the Arabs had a coordinated plan to destroy Israel; the New Historians said that the Arabs were divided

The official version said that Arab intransigence prevented peace; the New Historians said that Israel is primarily to blame for the "dead end".[6]

Critiques from them come from the left and right. I would assume this makes sense, as the new information that came out likely contradicted previous historians' conclusions... Sorry about the formatting.

Hello to the historians here.

A question had surfaced in my mind due to a certain global event in which we are all participants, and that is, has a quarantine on a large scale (at least city wide) ever been imposed by any population before, and has it worked?

In the cluttered and dusty corners of the memories of my misspent youth, I remembered reading that the bubonic plague in 14th century Europe only really ended after so many had died that the survivors locked themselves in their homes, refusing to get out, effectively enacting an organic form of quarantine.

The question I have for the subreddit is whether a) I have got it wrong - that in fact, quarantine did not end the black death.

And b) were there any other plagues in European history that were so bad that might have had people shutting themselves in?

Thank you!

I have heard from some people that Israel helped create or at least supported Hamas for some time in order to have them fight against some other organization. They were seen as the lesser evil iirc? And that thus Israel using Hamas as an excuse does not quite follow through as they helped create them.

In any case, I cant find something about this on Wikipedia, so I am asking here instead.

I heard that the D-Day landing scene in that movie was praised for its accuracy and is as close as it gets to the real deal...nevertheless the actual footage from the landings and their aftermath does not really resemble the extremely graphic nature of that scene. For example there is a archive video showing soliders hardly struggle to get of the boat and most pictures of the beach don't show near as much bodies and death in general as the movie.

Im not trying to say that the landing was much easier than portrayed because I do believe that it was in fact as bad as in the movie or even worse but im still wondering why the footage doesn't show that.

And also I hope you don't mind if some of the spelling and sentences are off. Im not a native english speaker so there might be some mistakes and stuff that doesn't really make sence.

How were household duties split up between Mongol couples? Was cooking a gendered task? Did Mongol women control the household finances? Would the respected role of Temujin's wife and his mother as advisors be repeated in many Mongol households (as it was in the households of some of his descendants)?

Would Mongol girls receive the same education, whatever that meant in early 13th century Mongol society, as their brothers? When did girls start to be considered women and how did it compare to boys?

I'm particularly interested in the religious roles of Tengriist Mongol women. Were there certain religious or religio-social rituals or practices that were restricted just to them, or that they were considered particularly good at? Were they forbidden from certain Tengriist religious roles?

Thanks!

Suvorov claims that Stalin wanted WW2 as a way to advance the world communist revolution. Stalin helped Germany rebuild its armed forces and supported Hitler in unleashing the war. He wanted Germany and the capitalist countries to fight until they were all exhausted and then the USSR would enter the war, take over all of Europe, and turn it all communist.

The only fly in the ointment was that Hitler attacked the USSR before Stalin had a chance to attack Germany.

Suvorov also claims that Stalin intentionally dismantled the USSR's formidable defensive fortifications because his intention was to fight an offensive war in Europe rather than a defensive war inside the USSR.

Is there any support for this position? Did Stalin actually order the dismantling of his defensive fortifications?

I've always found it kind of amazing that kings could lead their armies into battle and live to tell about it. But this idea made me wonder: is it because they were great fighters? or simply because the opposing soldiers actively tried not to kill them?

It is my understanding that when the UN proposed the 1948 two state solution, the majority of Jews agreed to it, and the majority of Muslims were against it. If my understanding is correct, why did the Muslim population reject it?

edit: i should also ask if the Muslim rejection was motivated by the evictions of Muslims for the influx of Jews during the British Mandate

I’m aware they had some expansions but as I’m currently studying history (specifically Medieval Europe and Renaissance) I question why the papacy never made any serious (as far as I know) moves to unify Italy or even have a campaign of trying to control more of Italy then they did.

Hello, i am looking for information about the Sas coat of arms. When was it created, under which circumstances and what was its origin?

Did it fray or collapse once Europeans directly tapped into the source of Asian goods or did it still persist with Central Asian contacts?

The ottoman empire ruled the territory which would eventually become Israel and Palestine for 400 years. Why don’t the Palestinians speak Turkish now, in addition, did the arabs in the region get along with their Turkish rulers?

I know the main difference between the Pilgrims and Puritans was more political in nature and involved the Pilgrim's desire to separate from the Church of England and Puritans desire to reform it. I also know they were both Calvinists, so they held similar beliefs. My question is, were there any real theological differences between the two groups? For example, if i traveled back in time and attended Church services in Plymouth and Boston in 1635 would I notice a difference between the two places?