I'm reading Eichmann in Jerusalem and Arendt claims that the Nazis working in Denmark became reluctant or even opposed to policies like rounding up, registering and deporting the Jewish people in Denmark. Is this claim true and has anyone written on why or hypothesized how this came about? I'm going to crosspost this on /r/asksocialscience b/c I could see this question being heavily researched in fields like psychology.

Haxton was deported and banned from the UK in 1919. According to Wikipedia, "Haxton's Home Office file, containing the reason or reasons for his deportation, is sealed until 2019."

As it's now 2020, has anyone taken a look at his file to find out what the official reason was?

This is an awfully niche question which may have no answer but I'm wondering why the architectural technique of jettying (the medieval habit of upper floors overhanging the first) wasn't seen outside of Europe. I understand the building taxes that went by ground coverage were unique to Europe but there are also structural advantages to jettying, you can rest a large wooden building on a small stone first floor, so I don't see why the technique didn't spread elsewhere.

Sorry if this has been asked before, I couldn't find anything in the sub.

Casius Clay, Malcom Little, Louis Walcott, and some others I'm probably forgetting right now all adopted Islam and changed their names accordingly to reflect their heritage as opposed (as I understand it) to the Christianity of the white slaveholders.

What I don't quite get is, why Islam? Why was Islam seen as a more "legitimate" African religion considering Islam also isn't "native" to the continent? Why not African folk religion, or even something syncretic like Voodoo or Santeria?

And was there ever conflict between those who proposed Islam as the African religion as opposed to the Christianity of people like Martin Luther king Jr or the immigrants practicing the religions I mentioned?

My understanding is that at a certain point in the Early Medieval Period there was a sudden decline in yield from bullion mines along with many other supply shocks which greatly reduced the amount of money in circulation. This then promoted shift to in-kind payment and gift exchange whenever possible, as might be seen in the further proliferation of manorialism during this part of the period.

At the same time though, urban settlements, while reduced in size and activity, remained in existence. Given that these settlements usually had populations in the thousands and exchange was with itinerants such as merchants, it seems like the long-term relationships that usually undergird gift exchange, in-kind payment, and the forms of obligation that they took in this period would be very awkward fits for market towns. How did trade and urban economic exchange work in Medieval Europe before the Commercial Revolution?

Wouldn't it have been easier and made much more sense to just convert to an already existing branch of Christianity that was already practiced all around than to make up brand new branches of Christianity?

People often represent the Rome if they need a flag as a red background with a gold eagle on it and it might have SPQR or olive branches on it. They are all a little different. Did the Roman Empire have an official flag? Also did any nation back in antiquity have official flags?

I'm very interested in Chinese history and I've mainly been interested in the earlier dynasties though I'd like to learn about the later ones soon. But one thing I am curious about, is why the Emperors of the Ming dynasty seem to have their temple name/imperial name come first, and then the word "Emperor". Emperor Taizong of Tang is not called the "Taizong Emperor" for example. Why is the Yongle Emperor called the Yongle Emperor, or anyother Ming Dynasty emperor. I will admit, it does sound really cool and mysterious and if that's the only reason then that is fine but is there anything more to it?

As you may know, Hermin 'Miep' gies was the woman who bravely hid the Frank family and the van pels family during the Jewish persecution of WW2. Unfortunately, someone found out and snitched.

Why didn't the Nazis do anything to Miep? Surely hiding the families in the attic for so long would've pissed off the Nazis, right?

Should she have known that the name of her heroine would distract the immature?

It seems like a much better alternative that would have easily allowed the Germans to annihilate France really quickly. They could have also paid the Belgians through the war reparations they'd receive from both defeating Russia and France, while also allowing them to gain a bunch of spoils of war (colonies, land etc...).

I've read accounts by people like Franz Suchomel where they state that there was no real volunteering or selection process - one day they got orders to report to a new secret program and that was that.

Are these correct? I can see why, if they had volunteered for genocidal duties, they would wish to hide that fact. Was thought ever given by the higher-ups to what kind of person they wanted to carry out this work? Personalities like Christian Wirth or Erich Bauer seem to ideal in that they were clearly unhinged psychopaths, whilst the likes of Suchomel and Groening present themselves as Browning's "ordinary men" who simply followed orders without engaging their own consciences.

It has been raining a lot lately and I got to thinking about how would a caveman have kept his cave dry? Particularly stopping the rain coming in and making the floor wet and then everything else on the floor.

My partners grandmother recently passed and upon sorting her effects we found a naming certificate with a disturbingly apropos "spiritual name" documented that no one alive knew anything about

This has a coincidental poignancy due to my partner being 5 weeks away from giving birth.

The only thing is we have no idea what a spiritual name was/is and Google searches just returns lists of spiritual names from various religions and no indication why they would be on a child's naming certificate.

Hopefully this is the right place to ask, it's very important to us.

It just makes no sense

Or do most historians reject the author's thesis based on Menzies being an amateur at best when trying to present his version of history?

In Chapter 5 "AT BOMBARDA’S " of The Miserables he writes:

It was a time of undisputed peace and profound royalist security; it was the epoch when a special and private report of Chief of Police Angeles to the King, on the subject of the suburbs of Paris, terminated with these lines:— ‘Taking all things into consideration, Sire, there is nothing to be feared from these people. They are as heedless and as indolent as cats. The populace is restless in the provinces; it is not in Paris. These are very pretty men, Sire. It would take all of two of them to make one of your grenadiers. There is nothing to be feared on the part of the populace of Paris the capital. It is remarkable that the stature of this population should have diminished in the last fifty years; and the populace of the suburbs is still more puny than at the time of the Revolution. It is not dangerous. In short, it is an amiable rabble.’

That satisfaction with the people becoming weak always struck me as vaguely dystopian but, is this report real?, and if it is, were can I read the rest of it?