Once they open back up, I plan on going to the National Archives in College Park, MD to pull some USAAF records that are only available in the paper format.

How does the self-service scan process work? Do I need to bring anything with me, such as a laptop to process the scans, or are the provided scanners self contained? Also, how are the scans delivered? Do I need to bring a flash drive?

Can I request to have records pulled and ready, or do I have to wait for a designated pull time? I'm trying to make my trip as smooth and efficient as possible.

Any tips would be appreciated.

It is a very spicy question tbh and maybe the answer is no but still, what is your viewpoint from a historical viewpoint.

First of all, I don't like Nazis, I even would consider myself as being a leftist.

But that's just my standpoint, so back to my question.

First of all, yes the nazis lost WW2 but the nazis weren't germany and definitly weren't after war germany.

First of all, the question probably can only be answered in "parts" and not as a whole. Why? Because germany also wasn't a whole for quite some time after WW2.

The first big factor here would be the Marshall plan, which only West Germany received. This pretty much was the first step to make West Germany way more modern and also boost the economy, while east Germany only recieved the soviet help, which wasn't really that much worth.

Over the years east Germany became the workbench of west Germany (probably comparable to Chinas position on the market today in a sense)

There also were some "events" for/in west germany like the "Berlinkrisen" or the "Wirtschaftswunder"

Also west Germany was given very much freedom over time, they even were allowed to field a army on there own again. East germany also had a army, the "NVA" but they were still under soviet rule despite this, so basically east Germany was more like a Canon fodder spender and a very thought buffer between Moscow and the west If they would have braked through the eastern lines and hopefully nobody pressed the button to start the atom bombs.

After that there were some other major events like the "Wiedervereinigung" which basically just was west Germany re-occuping east Germany but never truly reunited both halfs under the actual term to also rewrite the constitution.

After that Germany just never stopped climbing the ladder.

And maybe the last major event was the "EU" in which germany now is the leading power.

I often read about how Britain or the Netherlands only became rich because the wealth of the east was transferred to us via colonialism, but textbooks never explain exactly how this extraction worked. What was the setup that allowed Europeans to enrich themselves and made the colonies poorer? It can't be as simple as "they physically stole the gold and moved it to Europe", right?

I have seen several posts on social media which are pushing a narrative that says the Irish were enslaved and send to the new world by King James I and that by the mid 1600’s they were the dominate slave population in parts of the new world. They go on to make several other controversial claims but do not provide sources to back them up. I was hoping to learn if there were Irish slaves in the new world, if so, when were they brought over, how many, etc. If the Irish slave story is false, how did it come to be?

Hello! I am considering doing a Podcast series posing as a radio station in France from the 1920’s to the 1940’s. A few questions: What was the 20’s like in France? What would the French Great Depression like? What impact did Nazi occupation have on France? Where can I find lots of in-depth information on any or all of these things?

Ancient Greece is often used as an example of how societies should tolerate same-sex relationships, but I never really bought it.

I've done a little research (well... Wikipedia really, which was really unsatisfactory), and that claim seems to come from two concepts:

1. Pederasy: young men were supposed to have passive sex with their older mentors as part of their training and education. But that's weird: how can you institutionalize sexual relationships between people who are statistically not likely to be attracted to each other? The Wikipedia page talks about the divide between "essentialists" and "social constructionists", and in my opinion the latter seems absurd. Mariage between man and woman is (was) a social and political institution, but it worked because 95% of humans are attracted to the opposite gender. I believe that the ratio of gay men is a biological constant in our species, so there's no way it was a widespread practice. Seems like a case of "sparse stories from philosophers and poets talked about it and since they are our only source then it must have been common practice".

2. In the military: I get that same-sex relationships will be more common in legions composed exclusively of men, but that doesn't mean that leaders would encourage it. It couldn't have been widespread enough to be an essential aspect of how armies worked, could it?

So I'm just looking for some guidance here, because I feel that the subject might have been clouded by how homosexuality was perceived in the West in the last century, and that maybe contemporary historians might have a clearer outlook on the matter. I would actually be delighted if Ancient Greece was a strong example of how societies should treat queer people.

Thanks for your help!

I'm sorry if this is a bit of a stupid question, but my understanding of a Banana Republic in the classic sense was that they were countries extremely dependent on a small number of exports, usually agricultural products, with these markets and industries being heavily controlled by oligarchic, extremely powerful international business enterprises that often originated in the United States and had vast amounts of economic and political clout to force these countries to play by their rules, with the backing of the American state to do so, in this case most notoriously the United Fruit Company. All of this would force these countries into unfavorable trading relationships and stymie their political and economic development.

I wouldn't have thought that Bananas specifically would be such an important crop that they would lend their names to exploitative political-economic systems, certainly they seem like a luxury product in most countries that are nice but not really a big deal if they aren't available. How big a market was there for bananas specifically, why was it so in demand and was it the one crop that dominated the economies of entire countries across Central America and the Caribbean in the way that the term implies?

I have this quote from Andrew Jackson in 1833 following the Nullification crisis: "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."

Reading this now might make it seem like sectionalism was a more important factor than either tariffs or slavery. I know when it came to the Civil War, slavery was the defining issue, but how do we understand this quote in light of that? Did slavery grow in importance over the three decades before the war that it overtook all other differences such as this one? Did the existing sectionalism help transmit and isolate ideas on slavery and tariffs so that they were defined regionally? Was the South always looking for an excuse to secede?

So I watched a video on youtube about the first contact with Europe and Japan, and how they described the Japanese. And in one moment they talk about punishing servants, they say in Europe we punish them by whiping, in Japan the punishment is long pause bedding. So does that mean what I think it means, and if so is it true ? Did the ancient Japanese really punsih servants with bedding them ?

I'll give an example to what i mean : Bill is an 11th century knight, Bill is trained to use a lot of weapons, axes, spears, swords, bows, you name it. Is Bill trained to be better at specific type of weapons ? And i don't mean like he prefers an axe, so he is more used to using an axe rather than a sword, i don't mean that. What i mean is, is Bill TRAINED to use a specific type of weapon more than the other, so he's trained to use longswords and crossbows more than anything else, so he can be better at what other knights lack ? Or was it just like whatever he chooses ? That may sound like a weird and stupid question but i'm really curious.

The Portuguese colony became one country that was brazil, but why did the spanish colonies separate into many different countries and didnt remain unified like brazil.

How different from the beginning of my life to the end of it?

What would the year that Rome fell have been like in the city for the average civilian?

If you look at former European colonies you can see that language of former colonial power is still widely spoken. Sometimes as official language, sometimes as recognized one and sometimes as sort of lingua franca. Even ignoring Latin America which also experienced colonization you have large parts of Africa where either French or English is spoken. Same in Asia for English. Even Portugal managed to create linguistic legacy in places like Angola and Mozambique. Yet Dutch language seems to have left Indonesia together with colonials who spoke it.

Was it number of people in colony? But India was bigger yet English is still strong there. Same for duration of colonies, DEI were in dutch posession longer than India was in British ones. Even number of local languages spoken should call for lingua franca and what better one than languege colonial authorities spoke?

I’ve always learned about Ancient Rome (ending 455AD) and Greece (ending 146BC) being massively advanced however the Middle Ages (starting in 426AD) comes after those and from pop culture it’s shown to be a miserable, horrible place with next to no advanced culture/technology.

In the post I’m mainly talking about European culture however it’s be interesting to learn about other civilisations there were around at the same time for context.

I am interested about films that portray social life in medieval times. I am at the moment reading Henri Pirenne's book" Medieval Cities" Could you suggest any films? I watched recently "Le Retour de Martin Guerre" which was amazing as it portrayed life in medieval times.

The classic when you're at school is that slave labour built the pyramids, and to value them but to remember the times for what they were - the imbalance of power and wealth between pharoahs, those in high places, and slaves. You hear that the Pyramids were built as tombs for the Pharaohs of their time, to be wonderful resting places to remember them for their achievements. Then you hear no body was ever found in a tomb, and everyone's heard the laziness around aliens being involved.

Obviously, then you grow up and learn more.

As far as I'm aware, this is my current understanding, but I'd love it to be updated or clarified.

TOMBS? It does in fact appear to be the case that the Pyramids were built as tombs for Pharoahs, despite historical uncertainty, and the bodies were simply raided or moved in the years/centuries that followed and now aren't to be found. They simultaneously were more of a ln industrial statement, a marvel of mathematics, workforce and style, to be pillars of the Egyptian empire for the world to see. The intricacies like each pyramid having 8 sides and being superiorly close to true north facing is probably just a nod to the gods of their time and astronomical worship.

SLAVES: The building of the Pyramids was NOT slave labour, I'm not entirely sure if slaves were present in ancient Egypt, but it appears that the work (though strenuous) was paid, I believe in food rather than money. The workers were also somehow trained and skilled in their craft as opposed to being whipped in the streets to perform animalistic tasks. I'd be surprised of course, though, if there wasn't some abuse or strict nature around schedules and effort.

ARCHITECTURE/METHOD: I believe I have read that pulley systems were ultimately one of the pivotal methods of managing the large weights around the blocks and placing them, harnessing some proactive Physical Mechanics. Also, with respect to the blocks being linked to an area of land thousands of miles away, it seemed the River Nile was partially diverted so as to run close to the building site, making transport of resources far easier.

Is there anything else I'm missing or have misunderstood? Clearly there's plenty of fascinating stuff like the strange small extra avenues inside the pyramids only partially discovered, the odd link between the sphinx and the great pyramid (secret tunnel?) I've even stumbled on the link between Tesla's electromagnetic pyramid theory (it seems there's an active site by the Pyramids, almost as if they knew a potential use of a large body built on the site).

I'd love to learn, thanks for reading!

Edit: spelling

So from my understanding, the Mongols really destroyed Baghdad and burned the library housing many works from the Islamic Golden Age. What precious knowledge was lost from this destruction? Did it set humanity back hundreds of years or was the knowledge housed elsewhere too?