I've just finished watching Man In The High Castle and it has prompted this question.

SPOILER ALERT

One of the main characters young daughter intensely repeated and believed the propaganda learned at school and general NAZI society. Towards the end her own mother exclaimed that "her brain belongs to the state". MAJOR SPOILER ALERT In the last episode, the the leader of NAZI America takes off NAZI medals, as if to suggest that the US would be leaving the NAZI empire. I was left wondering how the young child and her peers would have had their intense propaganda education undone, and how the society would progress when they were adults if they couldn't undo those views.

Whenever it was covered in my history class, we were taught that one of the NAZI's strongest skills was their propaganda abilities and how well they educated the youth in particular to truly believe in what they were doing. To my understanding a lot of adults were more along the lines of simply going along with it to keep themselves safe.

So given that the NAZIs did so well with creating these beliefs and sentiments in the young population of the time, how did post-NAZI Germany "re-educate" the population? Was there an official tactic or was it just something that occurred naturally? I am assuming it worked relatively well as otherwise there'd be a whole load of people in their 80's with intensely bigoted views, which as far as I know isn't the case. Looking back from our modern day perspective, do historians generally consider the re-education efforts to have went well?

If any of my assumptions or understanding that I have stated is wrong please let me know, as I've said this is just from a basic school level understanding and general knowledge.

Also I just want to be explicitly clear that I am not praising what NAZI propaganda said or taught, simply that to my understanding they were incredibly effective in teaching their beliefs.

There's been a lot of controversy in this. Some historians say that the aftermath of the battle wasn't "that important", but some others say that he "saved" Europe Christianity.

I hope this question makes sense. I'm basing it off of a few loosely connected observations. One is that gentlemen, and certainly aristocrats, traditionally do not "work with their hands," a common theme in historical documents and literature. The other is that, as I understand, European aristocrats in the medieval era and beyond defined themselves in part through making war and leading men into battle. The third is an argument made by Benjamin Wooley in his book on Jamestowne, Savage Kingdom, that the common narrative of early Jamestown settlers being "gentleman" and therefore unsuited to and uninterested in manual labor is untrue because most of the "gentleman" had experience with manual labor through their participation in warfare. And finally, there's the position of "groom of the stool" in early modern England - a high ranking position that ostensibly invoklved aiding the king in his ablutions and eliminations - or the privileged position of helping Bourbon Kings dress in 18th century France. These positions and duties seem very manual, and servile beyond polite professions of servility in inter-elite interactions. Yet they were apparently quite privileged and high status positions!

So were there exceptions where working with one's hands was excusable or even evidence of high status? Or did the definition of manual labor contain enough flexibility to easily factor in these seeming contradictions? Or is my entire premise wrong, roote din stereotype and cliche? Thanks!

Today I looked up the Dutch word 'belijden' (to confess) in a dictionary. There it said that the word is first attested in the 13th century (1282) and that it is related etymologically to the Lithuanian word 'klykti' (to scream). This is a well-respected dictionary (Van Dale), so I trust that this etymology is reliable.

Now I started wondering how there could be an etymological link between Duch and Lithuanian on such a word dating from the 13th century or before. I'm unsure about the direction, but usually, such indications in the dictionary mean that the Dutch word is derived etymologically from the foreign word.

Is there any significant interaction between the Middle Dutch-speaking low countries and the Lithuanian-speaking baltic around this time that would explain such a link? The word is used nowadays in a predominantly religious setting, yet I suspect the eastern schisma means that there likely was no close religious interaction between both regions? Was there maybe trading interaction between both on the baltic sea and north sea?

Any conjectures from the medievalists among you?

As far as I can tell, there was no serious objection to Dalton's atomic theory in the sense that there was no competing theory going around. Rather, some scientists cautioned that the evidence for atoms was all indirect, and the believer might have been taken in by an illusion.

In the 19th century there were two forms of evidence for the existence of atoms and molecules. The first was the kinetic theory of gases, which mathematically modelled the behavior of gases (pressure, temperature, diffusion, etc.) on the assumption that gases are made of particles. The second was Dalton's law of multiple proportions: chemical substances combined and broke down by weight in ratios of small integers. For a good century this was all there was. Then in the early 20th century, Albert Einstein and Jean Perrin investigated Brownian motion. Einstein developed a mathematical model, then Perrin proved that Einstein was right in some experiments. This third form of evidence was enough to convince the doubters that yeah atoms and molecules are the truth of reality.

Is my narrative correct? Am I missing anything?

I've been watching Manhattan the last few days (a great show even if a little inaccurate in points) and one of the background plot points is that it's a race to develop an atomic bomb before the Nazis can do so.

While I understand that the US was the only country to devote substantial resources to the task, how is it that both countries came to be developing a previously unheard-of superbomb at the same time?

Did the concept of an atomic bomb exist beforehand and both countries already dabbled in the idea but the war just accelerated things? This seems logical but as far as I can tell no one publicly guessed that such a thing might be in the works, and if the concept existed I would think there would have been calls for it to be made into a reality (by those who didn't know it already was in the works).

Was the Nazi atomic bomb program substantially similar in its end goal? Would they have arrived at essentially the same bomb the Americans built, given the time and resources to conclude their program?

Did any other countries have a program in the works during the war?

It’s often said that he did something no one else for centuries and that he was able to unify China. He was able to conquer multiple warring states. But what did he do differently that allowed him to do it that others before him couldn’t? Was it news military tactics never used before? Was it new weapons technology that was more advanced than their enemies? What were the reasons?

I'be been binge watching some history videos and I love it. I keep hearing the word "Court" all over again in every video. I thought it was court, like courtroom but no! I was wrong! When I searched up French court, It just shows the palace of Versailles. What is court?No, not the courtroom, Royals in court! What is court?

Over the years I've heard little snippets that have stuck with me such as:

Henry Ford invented the assembly line. The Nazis loved corporatism, they privatized tons of things. The Robber Barons invented planned obsolescence. America follows the Prussian model of education.

But I don't know if these statements are true, or over simplified. It's taken 35 years, but I'm starting to get curious about how everything fits together and how today emerged from yesterday.

I have been searching for the language the anatolians spoke and what ethnicity they were,but until now I have not been able to find anything.Any information would be deeply appreciated

Carthage constantly was at war for nearly 200 years between the Sicilian wars and the end of the Mercenary war and they continued to show a surprising level of amateurism in their military leadership despite several heavy defeats in this period. This was not for lack of trying as they brought in new innovations such as war elephants and and box compartments in their ships.

Other peer powers such as major Greek states, the Romans and the Persians were able to learn from their leadership mistakes but the Carthaginians seemed unable to change their approach. Why?

What was actually stopping Hamiclar or Hannibal Barca from taking their army and overthrowing the republic in Carthage?

I presume they had large contraptions for building them, and was wondering if the primitive equipment had any diagrams reported anywhere.

I did some research about this but i couldn't find anything other than why pop culture made it popular. So here's my question why is the cross reversed reference evil and is there anything similar in history about this that could be taken as reference from what the horror movies are doing?

I'm a bit confused because primary sources include artwork, but this is a piece of work was created nearly 40 years after the events that the statue depicts. I feel like this would be a secondary source because of the fact that it wasn't created by an eyewitness of the event/during the time period of the event. However, when I look at examples of secondary sources, I don't see anything that includes art work, so I am very conflicted as to what this would be considered as. I'm really leaning towards secondary but I am unsure to say that with 100% certainty, so I am looking for some insight from this community. Thank you!