My general impression is that it went from complicated to full-on hate, but how exactly, and did it play any role in the rise of Christianity?

I am mostly interested in the prisoners/inmates of concentration camps but also the guards. I read Shlomo Venezia’s book. He was a member of the sonderkommando and it’s mentioned in the book that suicide was prevalent among members of that institution, but I’d like to learn more about suicide in death/concentration camps as a whole.

***I would like an answer which focuses on (or at least covers) issues other than slavery.

I'm sure we've all heard by now the retort to "the Civil War was fought over states' rights!" as "okay, but a state's right to what?" and while that's usually used rhetorically, it got me thinking. It's very easy to find information regarding the law when it came to slavery, and on that subject at least it's pretty obvious that the Confederacy didn't stand for state's rights at all, it simply stood for slavery. While states were free to choose in the Union whether they'd be free or not, in the Confederacy states were not allowed to outlaw it. It was baked into their constitution. Furthermore, pre-secession the same states were in favor of federal level laws restricting the ability of the Northern states to... "interfere" with the slave-status of a person who entered their territory. To be clear, I am not asking this question from the ahistorical perspective that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Rather, I would like to see how well the argument of "state's rights" holds up even if we are willing to ignore the issue of slavery, as proponents of this argument usually want to do.

As a related question, I'm interested to know if the rhetoric of the Southern states being pro-states' rights existed before/during the Civil War at all. In other words, did the Lost Cause fallacy invent this narrative or merely tunnel vision on it?

I apologize if this is a duplicate question. I suspected it would be, but all the searching I did only turned up information about the onset of the Civil War, and not on the actual structure of government of the Confederacy.

Thank you!

When looking at the border between the U.S. and Canada, its almost just a straight line up till the great lake area and Ontario. There a part of Ontario shoots down from the line into the U.S. and after that Maine and parts of other states kinda do the same going a bit north of the line. Why is this? My guess is that it has to do with either the American Revolution or colonisation. Would be happy if someone who knows could explain it to me, thanks.

Not sure if this might be to broad of a question and if it is I'm sorry for wasting your time.

Sorry for the bad English.

I’d prefer that you don’t give an answer about the Holocaust being “mechanised” or any other such cop out answer.

The more I actually think about this kind of thing, the more I start to think that history truly is written by the victors.

Also, I’m not giving my own opinion on the topic, I’m just curious to see what those with more knowledge than me have to say. Thanks

Today someone born with such a condition in the United States or Western Europe can reasonably expect to receive humane treatment, an education tailored to their abilities, and medical care.

But let’s say that I’m born with Down Syndrome in the year 1300 (or 800, or 1841, whatever). How would people treat me? Would my family’s reputation suffer because of my birth? Would I be taught relevant life skills like digging a ditch or planting seeds, or would people just not bother?

I’m also interested in people’s general perception of them at the time. I work with adults who have these conditions, and I’ve noticed that in the United States in 2020, people we meet in the community are usually very understanding, patient, and respectful with them; it’s also considered politically incorrect to use slurs like “retard.” Was this the case centuries ago, or is it the product of a more liberal era?

Considering that there were lookouts.....ya know, looking out for icebergs and other hazards, why weren’t they able to prevent a collision between the Titanic and the iceberg which caused it to ultimately sink? Was this primarily due to weather conditions? We’re they bored and drinking? Could they have been high? All jokes aside what did lead up to this fateful encounter?

For example, if you were a slave in Haiti and were freed, were you then made a slave once again just a few years later? Or did the slave owners have to bring in new slaves?

Let me explain myself further. I currently have a bachelor's degree in history. Currently I teach and I truly do love it, I also live in a state where having graduate degrees wouldn't net me any more income so right now I'm not sure it would make much sense to go to grad school. But I still love the idea, as there are a lot of days where I miss reading hundreds of pages and doing research.

I haven't ruled out pursuing higher ed, I know it's super competitive and all. But anyways I oftentimes read works form historians where they talk about how they spent months or even years on end living in other countries to do research that pertains to their thesis. For instance I'm big into Latin American history, one of I think, the best works of history I've ever dove into was Jon Lee Anderson's massive Che Guevara biography. He said he spent like a year living in Havana to do research. I know he wasn't a student at the time, but I had a professor in college and I believe he told me lived abroad while doing research for his dissertation.

Does the school you are studying at pay for you to go abroad? Like how does that whole thing work? I'm currently kind of entranced with the idea of pursuing a doctorate and getting to live somewhere in Latin America for some time while doing research. I guess what I'm asking is how do students get to make these arrangements where they are still students in America but get sent abroad to do research? Is this rare or pretty common or what?

I've visited the Yorktown battlefield, but we all now know how much of a braggart Hamilton was. Did this impact how we remember this battle and it's impact on the war?

Years ago in college, I read a great biography on, I think it was, Sitting Bull - I unfortunately cannot recall what the book was called! I've wanted to revisit it because that class was one of the only classes that really encouraged me to read and learn about their history - and I mean the raw, true history. It was fascinating, depressing, awful, but enlightening all at once.

​

I've wanted to dive into more Native American history and wanted to see if any of you have recommendations on documentary shows/movies or books. I know we can get pretty specific on history of certain tribes, but I'm kind of looking for a general "if you're interested at all, you should definitely read or watch this"

RFK was much healthier, for one, and no less politically savvy. What’s more, Ted didn’t really have any baggage until after Joe Kennedy Sr.’s death.

Like did they think it was magic? What did a person do when they touched some metal and got a shock?

In Rick Atkinson's "An Army at Dawn" detailing the US Army at war in North Africa, when he references the security preparations for the Casablanca Conference, he detailed Armed Guards, Mine Detectors, and Geiger Counters.

I know that the Manhattan Project had been going for some time by then, but outside of that I haven't seen any other reference in any other history of the period of any substantive awareness of Nuclear Physics. Today (and at any time since 1945) it makes sense for using Geiger Counters as part of a security sweep for an International Conference. I'm curious how widespread the practice/awareness of utility or reason for concern that would call for the use of Geiger Counters at such an event in 1943. It feels like an anachronism outside of the Manhattan Project and supporting efforts. Why would they have been doing so in North Africa in 1943?

A lot of countries' actions in WW2 can be reduced to "resource control" warfare, for instance the Germans attacking British holdings in the Middle East before eventually attacking Russia over oil or Japan capturing many pacific islands for oil and rubber resources, but there's something that doesn't make sense to me.

While a lot of Germany's intermediate decisions were driven by resources, they still developed "endgames" for the war such as trying to capture Moscow to take Russia mostly out of the war, "Operation Sea Lion" against the British, and the V2 rocket program coupled with their nuclear program against the British. From there they would just try to lock down and fortify Europe until the US would decide it wasn't worth it anymore and sign an armistice.

Looking back at Japan's actions, what was their strategy to actually end the war? I know they were modernizing incredibly rapidly and needed resources, but what strategy did they have towards actually ending the war or taking other nations out of the fighting?

They took Manchuria and were stopped by the Russians, so they did need another source of oil, but they left a large open front with China and then attacked the United States. Yamamoto has been quoted as saying that taking Hawaii or San Francisco wouldn't have been enough to end the war with the US, and Japan would have to march all the way to DC to take the US out of the war. He's also popularly (and possibly erroneously) cited with that "rifle behind every blade of grass" quote.

To me, it seems like Japan had a case of ADD when it came to the war. They made a lot of progress and captured a lot of territory, but did they actually have a plan to actually end the war or at least consolidate it?

Hi guys, I got an American Civil War question for ya.

I was reading about the Kansas-Nebraska act and the following Bleeding Kansas stories, and I was wondering why it was specifically Kansas that became so important. It seems to me that everything that happened there would've happened earlier, after the creation of Utah and New Mexico, and it would've happened in one of those territories. Because the acts that got passed (compromise of 1850 and kansas-nebraska) were essentially the same thing. And since Utah and New Mexico came first, why didn't fights break out there first?

Was it because of climate? Does it have something to do with whether respective border states were slave or free states? Or maybe people did fight in those territories and I'm overlooking it? TIA!

Other examples include Game of Thrones, and I’m just curious if it was just as common in medieval, or even ancient history for people to refer to themselves in this manner

I'm especially interested in the first half of the fourteenth century. Knowing that Edward III was quite the warrior king, how likely would it be that a fourteenth-century Englishman would have taken part in a battle?

I’ve always had an interest in history but never really spent too much time on searching and finding information on the web. But now I suddenly have an urge to learn more and would love to know if anyone has resources that have validated written history on a vast number of topics. A lot of the time I don’t know if the information I read on the web is true or not