To be more specific, I'm writing an article on the video game "Control", which involved a mysterious bureau investigating supernatural occurrences in the US. Most of these events occurred in a modern setting(beyond 19th century) and were seen as extraterrestrial or simply unexplained, rather than religious phenomenons. This is important for I believe that an implication of the all the irrational events in the game is that they occurred in an America/world characterized by the absence of religion and thus its ability to assign reason and order to things otherwise unfathomable.

In order to understand this topic better, I would like to read some studies about the events or places considered supernatural/weird that occurred in America(and also in other places if they're well-written). They could be from Salem to...I don't know, UFO sightings? Definitely something more serious than "the top 10 haunted houses in Montana" sort of stuff. History is of course the most preferred but those crossing into other realms, like psychology, are also welcome. Since I'm not particularly familiar with this topic, all recommendations are genuinely appreciated!

Following r/PropagandaPosters I see a lot of Soviet posters trying to appease to the African Americans telling them how the American government and capitalism is oppressing them and how they would be equal under communism. What was the reality of that within the Soviet Union?

I've heard that they were a centralized monarchy compared to the Arsacids/Parthians, but I've lso heard that they were extremely feudal and decentralized which was a factor for their quick demise to the Arabs. What's the truth here?

I am thinking specifically of this part (taken from wikipedia):

“Following his defeat, Edmund was forced to sign a treaty with Canute. By this treaty, all of England except Wessex would be controlled by Canute and when one of the kings should die the other would take all of England, that king's son being the heir to the throne.”

Was this a common solution for solving disputes at the time? That when one person died, the other would get what they were fighting over? Could there be a religious aspect to this where they essentially let god decide?

I'd read that some Northerners bought maple sugar instead of cane sugar, since maple sugar wasn't made with slave labor. Is that accurate? Is it true for any other goods?

I noticed in several documentaries that the use of mercenaries by both the Catholics and the Protestants was mentioned several times. Back then, how were mercenaries organized? Did they have private companies with the soldiers on payroll like we have today? Did companies play both sides, or did their religion and birthplace/place of loyalty still play a factor in who they contracted to?

I’m read NT Writes biography of St. Paul and he mentions banking and it seemed so close to what we have today in broad strokes.

I have been reading the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. Obviously the SA played a huge role in the political ascent of the NSDAP. However, I don't quite understand the legality of these different paramilitary organizations attached to political parties, not only limited to the NSDAP (e.g. the Roter Frontkämpferbund). Why did the state police tolerate these ruffians throughout the Reich? Is it because the time was generally tumultuous and political violence was deemed more acceptable in the young democracy?

My understanding of the SA is that the NSDAP and allied organization were very much tolerated by the Bavarian state and later other federal states at the time since the entire republic (with the army guaranteeing its' continued survival) was rather blind on the 'right eye'.

Thank you!

Napoleon is well known as the French Emperor who conquered most of Europe, but apparently this was all a response to other countries constantly declaring war upon or invading his empire?

Currently discussing with my father in law who says he was a legend created by US politicians to push a political party and encourage 19th century American assimilation... I think that’s far too cynical, curious if there’s truth in that.

And has it always been explained like this or is it a new idea and will it always be this way?

I realize this is a question that might be viewed by some as beating a dead horse: "why do American beers taste so bad?" This has been commented on, talked about and asked a million times, especially with the growing popularity of craft beers, and I'm not trying to do that and pass a judgement on whatever people like to drink.

What I'm just really curious about is if there's just something illuminating historically on why beers that were started by German immigrants - Busch, Coors, Budweiser, Pabst, etc. - are so distinctly different from the rest of German beers as well as if they actually do taste different in comparison to beers through out history? Was this beer actually very similar to how German beers were at the time that immigrants brought this over? Was it just simply what caught on with Americans in general and it grew into what we have today? I know the internet frequently mentions prohibition. Did this spark something?

I'm really curious about the latter part of the question because, like mentioned earlier, it's frequently talked about how bad popular American beers are in contrast to the rest of the world, like they're some sort of outlier in the beer industry, but are they actually?

According to Herodotus Thales was from a Phoenician family but many other philosophers imply he's a native of Miletus. Also it's been said Thales' name and his parents names are of Greek and Carian origin.

Can someone clear this up?

The early Church, especially in the 4th-6th centuries, often experienced many separations and theological divisions. Some of the sects that emerged were the Nestorians, Monophysites, etc, and in their time, these made up significant churches across the Middle Eastern and North African world. But they don't really exist anymore today. In fact, I haven't seen much about them in the centuries after these at all. It appears they disappeared.

Is the reason why all these heterodox sects disappeared because of the rise of Islam? In the 7th century, Islam rapidly took over the Middle East, North Africa, and other regions where such heterodox sects appeared to thrive. Over subsequent centuries, the local populations began to convert to Islam largely due to avoiding the poll tax placed on non-Muslims. Thinking about it, this makes perfect sense, to me, as the means by which these heterodox sects died out. Is this correct?