Hello! Maybe someone has a recommendation for an unbiased documentary on the history of Israel/Palestine?:)

How do I square the horrors of war and genocidal policies with the active segregation happening in America?

I just read about the first gulf war. So it was caused by the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. However there were several offers by the iraqis to withdraw from Kuwait. None of these were accepted an subsequently Iraq was invaded. Why were none of the offers accepted?

While the French didn't populate their colonies due to wanting to keep peace and fur trading business with the natives, why did other nations like Portugal, Spain, and Britain populate their colonies with native settlers?

How did fencing become such a big sport during the renaissance? In many movies picturing the renaissance people have a rapier or that kind of weapon, I know that fencing became pretty big during that time to the point where we still associate it with the renaissance. But how did it become such a big sport?

I've read in Arabic media that despite strong incentives at the time, and the modern narrative about Palestinians selling their lands, only 7% of Palestine was owned by foreign Jews by the time the British mandate ended

Would it even be possible hypothetically speaking? If so, what would be the aftermath?

Edit: Wow, this is the first time I got this many upvotes and awards, thank you everyone! Oh and the reason I asked this question is because I am a big fan of historical shows and Spartacus is definitely my favorite, which is why I was wondering how much truth there is to this specific depiction but now I know the answer. Yes I know TV exagarates a lot, but I was genuinely interested in this.

Hello!

Sorry, this is my first time making a question like this, and if it's not an appropriate one I'll gladly accept the removal.

That being said, for a quick introduction, I'm currently a high school student attempting to write a paper on French history, more specifically on the political control Madame de Pompadour exerted during the reign of Louis XV.

Unfortunately, when I look for sources, the majority of them(whether primary or secondary) are in French: the problem is, I don't speak or read French fluently, and when looking at the sources I have no idea what it's talking about at all. Now, I've read through this sub and found some questions regarding this topic: most historians, they say, speak and are fluent in the language of their studies.

However, I am not a true historian, and that is my conundrum at the moment: should I shift my topic to something that has happened in Anglophone regions, or stick with my topic and hope that my English sources hold out?

Now, I have to say that I am very interested in this topic and would very much like to pursue it; I don't know if this is sustainable, however.

Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!

I haven't been able to find any polling on this issue or even much anecdotal evidence. The best I can come up with is that the South Vietnamese army was larger than the Viet Cong, but maybe that's not actually indicative of anything. Are there any sources out there that talk about this question?

From what I’ve heard, blitzkrieg was based on Prussian ideas of wars of maneuvering rendered obsolete decades, perhaps centuries ago. And yet, they steamrolled most of Europe, even almost taking Moscow (“almost reaching” wouldn’t be quite so accurate-they got there, but they still lost). The one that confuses me most is that it worked against France, which had a larger army and, IIRC, pre-modern tactics, but still more modern than blitzkrieg. So how did it work so well?

I have been digging into the history of socialism recently and there's an obvious trend of "state in turmoil for x reason > poor living conditions for average citizen > social uprising of working/lower class > revolution against upper-class".

Without getting into theory and strictly based on events, why was there no notable revolution of the American working class during TGD?

I apologize in advanced if this comes off as a biased post, just asking what was going on in America that made it different than the similar historical settings that follow a similar trend.

Many cars in the mid-20th century had their engines in the back, notably the iconic 60s Volkswagen Beetle and Microbus. I know there are certain engineering issues to overcome, but every configuration has compromises, and Porsche has famously still held on to the rear-engine design for their 911. What caused the sharp decline in this configuration?

I've been bothered by this, were government officials just okay with people building their houses wherever? Didn't a bunch of houses and people living next to walls make it harder to access them in case of battle? Were there no city zoninglaws in the distant past?

There was a lively exchange between pagan and Christian polemicists regarding responsibility for the "decline" of Roman authority in the West; but do we know of any Christian reactions to the relatively more impactful Muslim conquest of some of the former empire's wealthiest regions of the East? I recall that it was viewed as an apocalyptic event by some church officials

Considering the Crusades, Reconquista, and pretty much all anti-Islamic activity in Medieval Eurasia were performed by the Catholic Church, did the Muslim powers (I guess mainly the Ottoman Empire) offer to help Lutherans and other early Protestants in their struggles? Did they simply try to make the schism and inter-religious violence worse? Were there any commentaries on the similarities to Islam's own Shia/Sunni split?

In the modern world, we idealised the ancient Greeks and Romans, even though they were actually a terrible time to be alive, but we look on them with rose coloured glasses.

Who were the ancient Greeks / Romans for Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome? Who did they look back on with rose coloured glasses?

They must have had people that they thought were older than them in terms of civilization. They couldn't have known that almost all of modern Europe bases their civilization on what was to them their contemporary time. So they wouldn't have known that they were the "first", who did they think were the first, for them?

What contact was there between the crusaders in the middle-east (particularly the Kingdom of Jerusalem) and the Papacy in Rome? Did the popes receive frequent updates on the progress of the crusaders?

What say did the popes have over the Crusader military campaigns in the middle-east?