Why weren't they signed in Washington D.C., America's capital, or Brussels, the European Union capital? Was there any specific reason?

I was reading Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and he briefly mentions that the Nazis more or less annexed large portions of France and French North Africa away from the Vichy regime to establish direct control (particularly in Tunisia), if I am understanding correctly.

To my knowledge, North Africa has a particularly sizable Jewish population (mostly Sephardic), particularly in the Tunisian city of Jerba. Were these Jews affected by the final solution? Furthermore, were Jews in Vichy Morocco and Algeria similarly handed over to the Nazis?

About ten years ago, I saw a chart/map detailing the location of every division on both the eastern and western fronts in something like January 1945, and it was amazing how many more Soviet divisions there were than any of the three other main powers.

Does anyone else remember this map? I'd love to find it again.

But I'd also like to know what percentage of the Nazi defeat was due to the Soviets. I think I recall seeing a figure long ago that said they did 80% of the work in WW2, but I can't remember where I saw that either. Does anyone know of any facts and figures?

I was reading "Nahua Thought and the Conquest" and came across the following passage:

The episode ended with another extraordinary event, when Moctezuma gave the translatio imperii; with another speech he handed over his empire to the king of Spain, again alluding to the same Toltec account as when he received Cortez in Tenochtitlan.

Further on the paper alleges that there's good reason to think the account of this is accurate, and that it's probable he thought Charles V was in fact the legitimate ruler based on old legends of a returning lord.

This is in The Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs, and it's fairly recent scholarship. But it still seems odd to me to think that it's actually accurate. What does the debate around this claim look like, if it is debated?

And if not, why would Montezuma be so sure that these people were the prophesized people that he'd turn over his throne to someone who's agents, as I understand, had already committed atrocities against his subjects? It seems incautious, at the very least.

As per the title. I'm working on a research paper, and having read parts of Diamond's breakdown of domesticatability, I'm frankly left unsatisfied by the lack of explanations. I can't find a single article referencing the capybara or tapir, and only a few for the peccary. I've read a few that say the Aztecs tamed and kept peccary for their meat, but why weren't they truly domesticated?

I'd ask the same of Bison, but have come to the conclusion through readings that they were simply easier to hunt than going to the effort of domesticating and hoping for positive returns, given their numbers and ease of running off a cliff. By comparison, game in South America seems relatively sparse, ergo why the quechua domesticated the cavy of all things. Capybara seem like the perfect animal for Muisca or other tribes in the region to farm for meat, and the Tapir could well be a cattle alternative with some selective breeding for size and meat, so what could have reasonably prevented such a thing? Was game so plentiful for tribes in South America as well that they didn't have a need to develop more advanced husbandry?

For some reason Reddit won't let me post a photo, but I have a very old (possibly even from 1868???) framed replica of the Gettysburg Address. It's crumbling in its frame, and the paper which backs the frame is also ripping apart. I bought this thing for about $5 off an old guy at a garage sale over a decade ago, stuck it in my closet at some point in high school, and forgot about it til now. I'd like to find out its worth and get it stabilized enough where I can hang it up. I'm afraid to even handle it now. Any thoughts or insight? Sorry if this is the wrong group. I appreciate any ideas.

Didn't any of these scientists want to move to the capitalist west where they would have lived much better lives? Was it their special education system? If you look at the IMO winners half of them pre USSR fall were Russian with the US and the Soviet union trading spots every year how is it that the Soviets were able to produce many geniuses did they have special selection criteria in their education system did they emphasize certain subjects like maths and science?

As far as I can tell, colonies like Virginia or Massachusetts were not seen as part of the Kingdom of England, but land owned by England, if that makes sense. That was why they were not represented in Parliament, and why in the case of Somerset v. Stewart, the decision that forbade slavery in England did not apply to the colonies.

Is this an accurate assessment of the colonies political status?

Looking back from 2021, it seems like putting Zion in Palestine caused a lot of instability in the Middle East. Sinai seems more religiously significant to Jews than it does to Muslims, it was much less populated, and it would have ensured the Suez Canal would have stayed out of communist hands (if the state of Sinai followed a similar path to Israel).

In other words, why was Palestine chosen over Sinai?

In the 1995 referendum on the independence question, voters against independence narrowly defeated those in favor. Beginning with the comments of pro-independence Québec PM Jacques Parizeau, who apparently didn't even write a concession speech in case the referendum failed, Quebecers and supporters of other independence movements have suggested that the referendum failed because of interference by the Federal government or other interest groups. Anecdotally, I would even suggest that questioning the validity of this referendum has become an important part of Québécois identity for certain people.

Is there any merit to these accusations?

More specifically, were people bussed across provincial borders in order to vote against independence? Was the campaign to reject independence involved in some questionable practices? Most importantly, how has this claim been received academically and internationally?

(Anecdotally again, I saw Quebec flags flown next to the ikurrina all over the Basque country)

For those who are interested, here is the text of the referendum question:

-Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?

-Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

As I understand it the steam engine created in the time of Ancient Greece as a toy. How come no thought to scale up this process and apply it to mill production or a magnet?

2000 years ago this was the language of the Jews, but now they speak Hebrew whereas Hebrew was a language for holy texts

In the medieval period, we see three invasions/migrations to Britain by Germanic groups who all mainly came from Jutland (Cimbria):

1. Saxons, Jutes and Angles (the mercenaries invited by the Romano-Britons to fight against the Celts) who merged with the local population;
2. Danish Vikings who established Danelaw;
3. Normans who themselves were descendents of (mostly) Danish vikings.

Did Anglo-Saxons recognize at that time (at 9th and 11th century) that they are fighting against groups of people that were genetically and culturally related to them?

At least in the TV series "Vikings" King Ecbert mentions that "they [vikings] believe the gods that we once believed in" (or something along those lines). But does this have any historical basis? Did Anglo-Saxons actually understand that ethnic and cultural connection?