I studied this extensively in my history classes in college even though it wasn't really related to my work at the time but everything I can find seems to point to the fact that the current crop of Islamic extremist leaders in the middle east all point back to Mohammed Amin al-Husseini or "The Nazi Sheik" as he was known. All of the older extremist leaders of today were either taught directly by him or his disciples and the younger extremist leadership was taught by those people. Prior to the Nazi support of the Sheik and the weapons and propaganda campaign they helped him with he was little known and marginalized and Muslim/Jewish relations were not anywhere near as tense as today. Even today in random battlefields all over the middle east you can still find caches of Nazi weapons, we were personally fired at by an artillery piece with a Nazi stamp on the barrel and there are some famous photos floating around showing the large cache of STG-44's they found and used in Syria.

My question was do you think it's fair to place the blame mostly at the feet of the Nazi Sheik and the Nazis in general for the current middle east state of affairs or do you think its just one factor and how big of a factor do you think it plays into the instability of the region? (And secondarily does it even matter).

Thanks, love history.

As Hungarian terms are so often mirror translationsof German terms, I think there had to be something like that there. Not sure if still, and not sure if in the Anglosphere.

The eszmetörténész in Hungary which can be probably translated to German as Ideengeschichtler but the English term historian of ideas does not really catch it, is not simply someone who focuses on the history of political philosophy. Rather he focuses on "normal" history, the history of political events from the viewpoint of the more philosophical ideas that inspired them.

So for example you can look at the French Revolution from the viewpoint of economic class relations. In this case, you are likely a Marxist.

You can look at it from the viewpoint of rules, laws and rights. In that case, you are likely to be a liberal. Think Mike Duncan from Revolutions Podcast.

Or you can look at it how the ideas of Montaigne inspired its first half and the ideas of Rousseau inspired the second half. This is what we call being a historian of ideas in Hungary. These people have a certain tendency towards conservatism or classical liberalism, although this tendency is not necessarily very strong. It is just that if you believe humans have free will and what we believe does matters, if you believe history is not only determined by objective conditions, nor does it have a necessarily built-in Whig direction of progress, but basically people have a choice between believing different ideas, so no inherent necessity made the French people around the Revolution accept the ideas of Montaigne or Rousseau over the ideas of say de Maistre, but rather that they simply chose to accept those ideas, and in theory could have decided to choose otherwise - that does sound a tad conservative? But obviously we are not talking about Rush Limbaugh here, but something like something that could be published in The New Criterion.

I've Googled this for about 6 hours total, but nothing clicks. I don't have enough information to know what I'm searching for exactly...

I read a while back that the British had complete naval dominance at some point in history (colonial era I guess), and that most other countries didn't bother building up their navies because the British would just crush them in any fight.

Except that one country figured out that they didn't need to win in a fight, they just had to be able to cause enough damage where the British wouldn't mess with them. This was called the "harm principle" or "harm strategy" or something like that?

Not sure if this was the British or Spanish, but you get the general idea.

More specifically, I'm refering the Black Slaves beiur used for manual labour, instead of plantations employing and paying white working class Americans. Especially because in my country, the UK, there's a large sentement that immigrants are taking jobs from Brits (that I don't believe or support), so how come that kind of sentiment wasn't present in Southern US in the decades before the Civil War?

A translated manual would be useful, if one exists

Sorry if this is the wrong sub, but I figure it’s likely a question rooted in history.

I’ve been watching a lot of WWII documentaries recently and am curious as to how names for different military divisions and squadrons come from? Eg so and so’s “8th panzer division” so and so’s “9th army” General so and so’s “1st tank army”

How/why are these divisions assigned these numbers? Are the division numbers assigned at random? What was the first military to assign such a classification?

Thanks!

Were the Hanging Gardens more likely to have existed or not? If they existed, were they more likely in Babylon (as the Greeks described) or in Nineveh?

Is it just a coincident or was there something behind it? I know that at times how people creates/make-up stories about their enemies to show how evil or scary that person is (like Viking drinking from the skulls of their enemies or other stories) so was this the case or was it something else?

​

Thanks

With all that's going on I've realized how lacking my education was on MLK and the civil rights movement in general.

What are some good books to read to learn more? I'd prefer easier to read and by African American authors but it's not a deal breaker.

Thank you!

Before ww1 and after German unification would there have been a possibility that germany and Britain have an alliance if Wilhelm the second wasn't such a baby? He ruined the alliance with Russia for austria hungary which I see as good helping his Austrian brothers but would he had a chance to have an alliance with his Anglo brothers in ww1 and before ww1? I think this would only work if France and britain had a rivalry still but I think after the fall of Napoleon I think the rivalry died down but I'm not completely sure, anyways I could see this happening after the Franco Prussian war.

Every time I go to a museum and see a painting, restored or no, I've noticed they always look this pasty, almost sickly white. Was it common at the time to be so pale, or was it a common stylistic choice of the time?

Vercingetorix was, as far as I know, the only Gaul to successfully embolden and unify enough of the Gaulish clans to potentially liberate them from the Roman Empire. In the end however, after some stirring success, his revolt was defeated by Cesar. Upon his surrender he was imprisoned for SIX YEARS in the Roman dungeon known as the Tullianum. What was Tullianum like, and what must it have been like for Vercingetorix during his time there? Did he ever see the daylight? Was he completely alone? Did he go insane? What was it like being publicly displayed in Cesar’s triumph? How did he die? Can we know any of this?

Edit: a couple typos

It was very common for Nazis and Soviets to interfere with racial relations in the US back during World War 2 and the Cold War.

Did Japan, North Korea or North Vietnam do such similar things during World War 2, Korean War or Vietnam wars?

Did China attempt anything?

And how effective was the interference? Did any Black soldier decide to fight for the enemy countries during the war?

I'm a physicist, and it's funny that for a good part of the history of physics all the important names are european or from the united states, and then suddenly there's Yukawa, Tomonara, Nishina, and many others.

The japanese came out of nowhere and where on par with everyone else, how did they accomplish this?

Besides the obvious differences of cultural style and types of material used.

Receiving education in the U.S. it always seemed to be a major event in U.S. history courses but world history courses rarely if ever mentioned slavery outside of one in college.

Did scientists worry that dropping an atom bomb could destroy the planet, but forced themselves to test it anyway in order to win WW II?

All docs on nazis rise to power seem to follow the same formula. They don't go into the politics hitler used or the ways he divided germans against eachother. Would anyone have a documentary or book that would explain these topics exclusively or more in depth?

President Lincoln is synonymous with Civil War. I've never heard about anything about the Civil War from the perspective of a president.