I am asking because I'm Chinese and I only know a handful of people in my circle who are aware of the Uighur concentration camps. The vast majority of people seem to be entirely unaware of their existence. And then you get people who know about the institutions, but who believe they are really just professional training schools. Then there are people who think it's a mixture of prison and education center, and believe it is indeed right to round up extremist "pre-criminals". I can hardly imagine anyone from China to know that completely innocent Uighurs are incarcerated and tortured, and still be supportive of the practice.

Was just thinking about history’s what if’s and “what if Germany won WW2” being a big one but then I realized had no idea what victory really was for the Nazis. I roughly remember they wanted to create some sort of white ethno state (if that’s even correct) but what was the scope of his plans? Europe? The world?

Had all gone according to plan, when does Hitler declare the war over and what does he do next?

For 1000 years or more, Christianity was from what I read) a peaceful religion, War was not waged in the name of religion. Yet all of a sudden the Crusades started in the name of religion. What caused this massive shift for such a large population of Europe, and how did this shift cross country, culture, and language barriers ?

I have my BA in history but at a very liberal school. I think every history student in the US learns Adam Smith’s name, the father of capitalism, and of course we all know Marx. But I was surprised to learn that fascism also has a “father”, Giovanni Gentile. From my understanding, Gentile was a socialist who believed the best way to carry out socialism is through a strong government and love for your country.

I am confused on how communism and fascism are seen as opposite ends of the spectrum. They both believed in a lot of the same things. I believe many fascist dictators ran on an anti communist platform, but even the USSR and Hitler were working together at the beginning of WW2. And even Nazi stands for “National Socialist German Worker’s Party” so I assume Hitler considered himself on the left?

So how did fascism become associated with the right? And what would you consider “the left” vs “the right”? To me left vs right is more communism vs capitalism, and fascist governments tend to fall in the middle economically (more on the socialist side) with authoritarian thrown in. Thanks!

P.S. just wanted to add this is in no way me defending fascism. Fascism is very against my own personal beliefs but with the word being thrown around so often today, I think it is important to understand.

In the period 1929 to 1934 what state did the justice system find itself in? How long did they manage to remain neutral from the machinations of politics until the dictatorship was declared?

Did the Third Reich install their own judges, lawyers and civil service immediately or did those in positions of power, bow to the changing times?

Lastly, are their any parallels with today with regards to the current state of a country's judiciary system, if at all?

Thanks Reddit! Love the content on this sub.

I'm sorry if this isn't the right subreddit to post this question in, but I figured I'd start here. So for some background, I'm Jewish myself and an atheist and I would like to know more about my people's history. The thing is in the search for a source most (if not all) of the books that google or amazon dig up use the Torah as a historical reference, which it definitely is not. If you have a title that has any information on what our religion was (or may have been) before the Babylonian conquest, I'd consider that a plus!

I hope this post is not deemed to be against the rules and if so I would like to apologize in advance.

As the title says I am looking for a book that gives a broad explanation of East Asian morals as well as a comparison to European thinking in this area. I was hoping someone could recommend a book that is neither to focused on one or two particular aspects and therefore lacks a broad perspective, nor overgeneralizes and simplifies these complex issues too much.

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated

Thank you

Hi Everyone,

Coming to you from Ghent University (which currently feels like Belgium's answer to the Taklamakan Desert), I am a historian of politics in the medieval North Caucasus- a crucial and strategic region which linked the civilisations of Eurasia, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. I've published several articles on the Kingdom of Alania- the most powerful of the North Caucasus' kingdoms in the medieval period. Recently, I suggested a new location for Alania's capital, Magas- a city famous in its own day, but the currently location of which is unknown. I suggested that Magas can be identified with the fortress of Il'ichevsk- a massive settlement larger than any contemporary city in Western Europe. I also teach and have published articles on the South Caucasus and Western Eurasia, including the Alans of the Eurasian Steppe, the Huns, and the Khazar Khaqanate.

Edit: Thank you everyone for some very stimulating questions indeed! It has been a real pleasure, and I would be happy to answer any further questions you might have via email.

I just stumbled upon a guy that claims (with rather solid facts) that the Ottomans, and even modern Turks can be considered successors of the Roman Empire. My view is of course different, but I'd like to understand what is the scientific, widely accepted point of view to educate myself properly.

During the 2 WW, the Navies of the world realised the importance of Carrier Warfare and Air Support for Sea Battles. But why did the advance of Carrier Doctrine go hand in hand with the disbanding of most big battleships? Barring a few exceptions like the USS Missouri, which was used as a floating artillery battery during the Gulf Wars, most modern navies seem to be comprised only of carriers, rocket cruisers, destroyers, submarines and small support vessels, while big battleships/-cruisers were either scrapped, mothballed or turned into museum pieces. What exactly made such big ships with awesome firepower unappealing to modern navies? Was there ever an effort to construct a nuclear powered battleship, like the US did with carriers like the USS Ronald Reagan? If not, why? Wouldn't modern technology like advanced fire controll, nuclear energy, new buildingmaterials etc. lend themselves to battleship construction, while making supplying these big ships easier than ever?

This question is not entirly of historic nature, but I think this is the most appropriate sub where I am most likely to recieve a serious and informed answer, not guesswork. I thank you all very much in advance, I appreciate the serious historic attitude of this subreddit above all else.

I would imagine that in the decades before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Roman subjects would feel unsafe and consider moving to the much more organized and stable Eastern half of the empire, though I may be overestimating the ease of travel at the time, or projecting modern behavior on a population that perhaps didn’t consider exodus as a solution to their problems (instead of isolating in villae). My question still stands though: was there an internal mass migration toward the East?

Next to that, do we know what the "endgame" was for Carthage if they won the war? Did they want to conquer Rome and make Rome and its provinces yet another client state?

Hi all, Does anyone know of any books on how gender was viewed in Pre-Columbian Mexico or any other Latin American country?

Thank you!!!

I recently got in an argument with my friend whether modern day racism is a product of slavery, or a motive for slavery. She thinks the reason they took africans so much is because they were seen as less than human, I do not think this. Why were Africans taken rather than people from other places, was it just because of racism?

They were losing on all the fronts, but still italy kept on recruiting new soldiers, and after seeing a photo of Mussolini inspecting an alpine brigade made of 15 years old, I was thinking if he thought that he could win?

I've always found odd that the prime minister of britain during a war sounded, to me mind you, so disinterested about the whole affair. Especially the part where he says in his famous speech 'we shall defend our island whatever the cost may be'. Why is there no gusto or any sort of emotion except 'I'm tired I want to go home'.

Compare this to president Roosevelt's declaration of war against japan. Right of the bat the tone is firm, words are well pronounced and there is emotion.

Is this a certain british mannerism I'm too uncultured to understand? Did churchill have a speech impediment or was he as he was accused drunk? I am also curious on why many of the words are sometimes slurred. Maybe he was too old?

Thank you for your time and answers.

How was his will and testament handled by the succeeding governments?

After I read The French historical revolution I want to know more about the annales school. The historian's craft and A Geographical Introduction to History are already in my reading list. What should I read next?