The end of the War of 1812 seems like a good setup for a total British victory, wiping America off the map entirely. Washington is in ashes, they've won victory after victory, and their only real distraction - Napoleon - seems over and done with that treaty being written at the same time as the one for 1812.

Fittingly, the British started negotiations with embarrassing concessions for the Americans. We from the future know Jackson won an insanely one-sided victory in New Orleans and the treaty essentially set things back to how they were before the war.

But the negotiators at the time had no idea of knowing that, as Jackson's victory came after the settlement was made. So, why did the British change? Why not use this opportunity to take back some of the Empire and silence the whole "republic" issue while there's nothing in their way?

I AM NOT A NAZI SYMPATHIZER. (TL/DR at the bottom)

I believe it is necessary to preface this post as it might become controversial and I don't mean it to be. In school one of the most talked about topics in history class has always been WW2 and in particular the Holocaust. We read dozens of books from Holocaust survivors like "The Diary of a Young Girl" by Anne Frank and the "Night" series by Elie Wiesel. We were also given memoirs by American soldiers like "If you survive" by George Wilson and excerpts from journals and newspaper interviews regarding their experiences in the war. Something I eventually noticed is that we never read any primary source material from Nazis or even former Nazis reflecting on the war. Now, my first assumption was that the topic was simply too controversial for school and I decided to research on my own to try and discover more material created by them in order to understand their nature, but I found it difficult to find anything aside from the obvious: "Mein Kampf". Literature was not the only thing that was difficult to find. I looked for any cultural creation by Nazis and could find almost nothing except a book of poetry from one young Nazi soldier who praised the regime and demonstrated his almost God like worship of Adolf Hitler. My main question is

1. Where are all the books, pieces of art, movies (even propaganda films) or any other cultural or artistic creations that came out of a period of rule that lasted over a decade (not even counting the lead up to the take over of the Nazi party)
2. If they simply did not create anything, is that simply because of that type of authoritarian governent, the massive war they faced or something unique to the Nazis in history?

Tl;DR: where are all the cultural creations of the Nazi party?

Most clothes I have seen tend to be worn in multiple layers, and it seems life this might be Counter-intuitive to efficiently working in a field, or something like that.

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this, please direct me to the right place if so.

I know there are a lot of conflicting stories regarding Irish mythology. However, I still want to know more. Are there any good/legitimate sources you would recommend for me? I've tried finding some on my own but I'd like to know where to look from others with more experience.

And why most of the refugees are from Lebanon, and Israel? Why not the Egyptian and Turkish parts of Ottoman Empire?

Why the location is usually Brazil?

I've read that, according to William of Malmesbury, Archbishop Lanfranc asked William the Conquerer to ban it. I don't know how reliable that is, or what the motives were, or how effective and enforced the ban was, or how it worked.

[deleted]

Hollywood loves a good pre-battle speech. But are there any examples of documented pre-battle speeches anywhere throughout history?

Lets say a Spartan warrior gets an arm or a leg lopped off in battle. Thanks to his mates and the work of a skilled surgeon he survives his wounds but is obviously unable to contribute to the phalanx. What sort of role would he play in Spartan society? Would he be respected for taking such a grievous wound for his country, or would he be ostracized for no longer being able to fight?

I'm doing my history IA on:

To what extent did the first world war contribute to the indian freedom struggle?

Do any of you have or know about sources by yourself/other historians that I could use?

Thank you :)

by the 30 years' war and English civil war gunpowder weapons were the common ranged weapon on the battlefield. they had a worse range, accuracy, and fire rate than the longbow, but more stopping power. Canon, obviously were more effective siege weapons than the trebuchet or catapult, but the musket wasn't more effective in terms of fatality until the american civil war and sufficient advances in rifling.

​

During the 30 year's war's largest battles, such as 1632's Britenfeld, fatalities were low, with two large armies duking it out with muskets and leaving not many dead on the battlefield. much was resolved by handheld fighting instead.

​

The main argument I can find is that a musket could be used with two week's training, wheras a bow would require years of training and extensive fitness alongside regular practice. Whilst convincing, I fail to see why when horse archers from the Ottoman Empire were devastatingly effective in battle against Polish-Lithuanian musketmen in the 1600s, nations didn't train elite archer units which could be infinitely more effective than the muskets used by their enemies?

Hi I am currently writing a dissertation on the representation of Helots in both the ancient and modern world and I was wondering if anyone could give me a list of ancient writings on the helots or any writers who had mentioned them at all? Please and thank you

How was control of the power plants built in the former Soviet republics transferred? Were new state-owned/private companies created to manage the power plants? Did the old employees keep their jobs, or were new engineers and operators trained?

To give some context, I’ve been reading William Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” and there are some passages that lead me to believe that Germany wasn’t solely responsible for the events that transpired as a result of World War I.

To be brief, I am mentioning specifically the contention that Germany was the sole instigator of conflict, the unfavorable terms of the Versailles treaty (ceding of territory to Poland, France, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania etc., ceding of her colonies etc., disarmament—to name a few).

I’m going to put a disclaimer out right now and say that I am in no way, shape or form a Nazi sympathizer. I’m trying to understand why Germany was treated and/or blamed in the way it was for this war because it seems to shed a lot of light on many of the motives for Hitler’s rise to power and for the ultimate appeal of Nazism to Germany in the decades following this conflict.

Edit: after seeing a few comments regarding my timeline, I am aware that the book I am reading is about World War II. I should definitely have mentioned that in the beginning chapters of Shirer’s book, he goes through Hitler’s mind, the prevailing political sentiments of the time before the Third Reich and some of the events that inevitably led to World War II, namely, the results of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. I am asking about why Germany was blamed so harshly for World War I when there were many systems of alliances between countries and treaties guaranteeing a country fighting with or for another in a time of dispute. I hope this clears up the confusion. I know I mention the rise of Nazism, which in retrospect I can see would be confusing for a WWI question, but that’s what I was asking. If you have any other concerns, please message me directly. Thanks!

Without high speed travel, I'd assume that people wouldn't realize the existence of time zones at least for a while, so what is the earliest known instance of the acceptance of time zones?

Not sure if this is the right subreddit, but worth a shot.

I'm writing a historical story set in 1930s Hong Kong. Sometimes google just doesn't have answers to questions like "how did people document their deaths and what were the related procedures?" or just very mundane things like that. Nobody ever documents the process of filing a death certificate, so where can I find very specific information like that? Primary sources would be a good option but difficult to find and they would be probably 80-100 years old now.

​

Any advice or help is appreciated! Thanks :D

I just want to know why it became more fashionable in the 1880s onwards (Dr Charcot etc). What was it about that time that made people interested in it?

​

(I'm not a student - I went to see an exhibition on Edvard Munch of The Scream fame and it was noted that he was influenced by the photographs of hysterical women etc that were published in the 1890s and am curious as to why psychology appeared as a new science.)

Both linguistic regions were unified under empires that no successor state managed to pull off, both still later had relatively large "successor" states (the Carolingian empire and Ostrogothic kingdom for latins and the seljiuks and Fatamids, among others for the Arabics), but were still mostly smaller states whether vassallised or not, and the holy books of both were preferred to be read in their respective "original" languages but only a few higher ups could actually read it

I've heard of the Sultanate of Sulu and the Kingdom of Mai. Does anybody have any information about the extent of these various island states? Do we know their extent and territories? Do we have information from external sources like the Champa people, Chinese, and other Malay nations? I've heard of the barangay system, but does it apply to the entire island chain?

Do we have information about where the modern languages came from like Cebuano, Hilagaynon, Tagalog, and Ilokano? Do we have written examples of these from before the Spaniards came? I heard the Spaniards destroyed many artifacts for some reason, is this true?

[deleted]