The Nazis, and also the French and Polish, had this wacky idea to ship all the Jews in Europe to Madagascar and make that a Jewish state. That's kind of similar to the idea of Zionism, which was similar (Jews leave Europe for a Jewish nationstate) but in Israel/Palestine.

I know this is a two part question. I just couldn’t help myself but to ask both questions, so sorry in advance.

What I do know about the Venetian Government was that it was composed of a “Great Council” which essentially acted as the “sovereign” of the country. What interests me is how did Venetian sortition work? What/who were some of the most important committees/players inside the Great Council? Did they all congregate in one building, or many buildings throughout the city (or maybe even throughout the whole country)?

Thank you.

Hi AskHistorians, My question to you is how come the South Koreans and North Koreans have a language barrier despite only splitting 75 years ago. The writing and the speech is sometimes unrecognizable to either side which surprised me a lot.

Was there always a difference between the Northern and Southern tounge or did the division cause this shift?

I understand that, in a sense, Jutland was a narrow escape for the High Seas Fleet, at the same time it seems that the losses to kills should be encouraging to further action in an attempt to win a war of attrition vs the Royal Navy via a series of battles.

Were the Germans dismayed that they didn't manage to sink any British battleships, and only battlecruisers?

Did they have a form of sun screen to protect themselves for the months and months at sea? If not, did the lack of protection end with skin cancer in many?

I've sometimes wondered about this. I've heard it argued that Wessex was possibly originally something of a mixed kingdom, and given its legendary founders were Cerdic and Cynric, may have had a significant level of British influence in its upper "aristocracy", and on place-name evidence that at least a level of Brythonic-speaking population remained.

​

Since Cerdic and Cynric are very possibly legendary I've never put too much importance on this (though it does interest me why in Alfred's time the Wessex ruling class were happy to explicitly trace their line to natively-named rulers), but the other day I properly realised that Caedwalla also has a British name. While I've known this before I never really noticed it given the earlier Cerdic and Cynric - but as I understand it, Caedwalla is a properly attested historical figure.

​

Is there a general consensus concerning this? That perhaps the Wessex ruling line did descend from British forebears? Or that the Wessex ruling line deliberately took some native names to ease the integration of a Brythonic-speaking populace? Or something entirely different?

In light of many "Back the Blue" protests popping up across America, I'm curious about the prevalence of pro-government protests in American history. How often do they occur and what specific instances can you point to? Thanks!

Some additional questions:

1. What if the genders are reversed (wife discovers the husband banging a milkmaid, for example)? Did women have the same remedies as men?

2. What if it's not another farmer, but the local lord's son she's sleeping with (again all voluntary, to the extent that voluntariness is possible in such a power gap)?

3. Any significant differences between Catholic Britain and post-Henry VIII reformation of the Church? Differences between Britain and the continent?

Was it just accepted that they would die or were methods such as feeding tubes used?

I've heard there was a period in Japanese history, displayed in media such as the game Shogun Total War, where at one point the samurai were forced to fight against firearms/guns. However I cannot remember who they were fighting what the reason was or really anything about it. Is there a specific name for this period? Also are there any books or other media you would recommend, fictional or non fictional, to see and learn more about this as this topic really intrigues me. Thank you!

There used to be flourishing civilisations in what is today a basically uninhabitable jungle as far as I know.

I was just watching Band of Brothers for the umpteenth time and watched the episode where Winters has to write up his account of a battle. Assume this must have occurred to an incredible order - have these been digitized and made available for public consumption? Ive tried googling and looking through the posts but have come up short, most likely due to my own incompetence.

For example let’s just say a POC walks into town and wants to rent a room or take a bath. Would there be private rooms you can rent out in someone’s house or would you have to make camp outside of town. Also what were saloons like what was the difference between White and Black saloons. Also did Hispanics or Asians have their own hotels or saloons. Or would just be all separate for the races. Thanks

I am British and am trying to read up on the early days of the U.S., although I know several Founding Fathers I wanted to find a list of all of them.

I had assumed that the Fathers were a specific group of people, maybe those that actually signed the Declaration of Independence. But from reading their Wikipedia page and googling I am assuming this isn't the case.

Wikipedia said there are seven "key" founding fathers, but another website talked about eight "significant" ones, then I also saw suggestions for there being 10, 12, 13 and 18 Founding Fathers.

So my question is are the Fathers a very specific group of x people? Or is it a much more broad term than I have been led to believe?

People often lament that “both parties [in the present-day United States] are the same.” I disagree, but I get where they’re coming from. However, I have to imagine political choice, such as it is, was even more constrained earlier in American history. Maybe that’s an inaccurate assumption, so please correct me if I’m wrong; my assumption comes from watching the BLM, #metoo, and LGBTQIA movements in recent years. Incidentally, I sit here watching a basketball game in which both teams walked off the court during the national anthem, which would have been unthinkable even four months ago.

I ask about the particular period between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Era because that era is often held up as a relatively tranquil time in terms of domestic politics. That’s not to say there weren’t weighty questions surrounding Black rights, WW2, Japanese-Americans, and others, but I know very little about the scope of debate on those and other issues. I’m hoping someone can educate me. Were the parties “the same” then? What were the serious debates of the time?

I have heard that most were in support but others expressed disagreement. I have also heard that those expressing disagreement only did so afterward to help their reputations. What’s the real story here?

Foreign deities like Sullis, Serapis, Mithras, and even the Egyptian gods were integrated somewhat into Roman religious history. At some point between the appearance of Christianity and, say, 400ad when it had irredeemably replaced Hellenic Polytheism, did any philosophers, priests, or political figures attempt to integrate Christianity into the native religion in accordance with Neoplatonic concepts of monism? I don't mean simply taking parts of the myths of Mithras or Dionysus and putting them into the new Christian mythology, but actually claiming that Yahweh was an aspect of Zeus/Jupiter/Amin et al.

As I remember seeing churches in the UK, much of Europe, and the American Midwest, they are largely fairly "pretty" buildings with a fair amount of windows. The ones in the UK were often stone but had lots of nice stained glass and were basically fairly chipper to look at. Likewise most American churches that I've seen are well-lit, often light colored building materials, etc.

However, if you scroll through r/brutalist for a minute you'll see a lot of churches that are basically huge hunks of angular concrete or stone. I'm not a religious person, but it doesn't make particular intuitive sense to me why there would be a preference for this design, with few windows, particularly in a time in which it is unlikely (though not impossible) that they will be used as defensive structures or similar.

Does this divide occur along dogmatic lines? Is it geographic? What are the purported reasons for this difference? (I understand that this is by no means a binary choice in design, but I suppose I'm putting all the big windowless squat ones in one camp, and every other one in another camp for the purpose of this question. Please feel free to tell me why it's dumb to do so).

Ran into a YouTube recommendation for a channel that does an Alt World History where the key decision was for the Germans not to resume unresitricted submarine warfare in January 1917, keeping the US out of the war. Was it really that simple?