Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

The reason is the Polish government asked about their dead officers in the Katyn forest, for which Stalin had obviously been lying about losing them somewhere in Siberia.

Stalin suddenly cut contact with them after that.

So to clarify, your contention is that all historians of the traditional "totalitarian school" are not merely wrong, but are both not historians and inherently right-wing propagandists? Because OP's discussion appears entirely in line with "totalitarian model" school of thought.

If that's your position then please actually make a case for it, because as it stands, that sounds like an unhinged allegation.

What do you mean when you say that most people in England weren’t represented in Parliament? Are you referring to the fact that most people didn’t have the vote? Or to the fact that a number of large towns had no representation other than the standard two MPs per county?

I think its not fairly new that they have been muslims

They first met with muslims under rule of osman in the 8th century

Then the umayyads then the abbasids

Also they met with them because chechanya was on the silk road

Then when the mongols came they also many of them converted too because mongols also converted to islam

So yeah they have been muslims for so long now

In 1944, the Soviets chose not to recognise the Polish government-in-exile because Stalin wanted to impose a government of his choosing

Excuse me? Perhaps Stalin didn't recognize the government in exile in '44, because it had no legitimacy and was opposed to him politically in every feasible way, not out of some person whim or preference, or macchiavellian stunt. He simply had no good reason at all to acknowledge a government in exile - a move which would have set a very dangerous precedent by the way.

That's really interesting, but is there a reason that the Patin/Roman names were replaced with Gallic ones by the presumable Romance-speaking medieval French?

The crimes committed by the Nazis and Communists cannot be justified in any way, and I completely agree with that. However, I still do not understand what exactly in my words could be perceived as some kind of justification for anything?

Really? From what I’ve read they only became majority Muslim in the 1600s though some had started converting earlier. I saw somewhere there were still non Muslims amongst them in the early 1800s