As I understand it, both involved annexing land around the origin country and populating said land with Americans/Germans. How were these ideas different?

In other words, is Caesar famous because he was a truly remarkable or exceptional Roman general and leader, or is it just that he wrote extensively about his own exploits? Is this detailed accounting of events unusual for a Roman leader? How much can we trust Caesar's writings?

​

I don't want to use the word "propaganda" because I know historians know how to work around that sort of thing, it's more the sheer volume of text that it seems he put out.

​

(First time posting here, let me know if I phrased the question badly)

I tried to Google this but couldn't find an answer.

Sorry none of them* are great.

According to historical data, the Romans had more men in the military age, even if slaves are not counted. I'm talking about single battles.

I am currently researching the 168th Combat Engineers' action outside of St. Vith during the Ardennes Offensive, and have been trying to vacuum up as much information as possible. Lots of literature and other accounts of the battle refer to AAR:s from many different units and the 168th is supposed to have one that has a publishing date 1945. This, or any other units' AAR from the battle of St. Vith with surroundings, would be of great interest to me.

Are these available in book form, or even better digitally, or would I have to travel to an archive to access it? There are historians and organisations that charge for AAR retrieval services, so it feels like my prospects are somewhat bleak. Thankful for any help in this matter. :)

[deleted]

I ask because on the Wikipedia page it says that Raul Hilberg has some strong criticisms of it. What's the consensus (if there is one) on who was more correct?

Countries come and go throughout history, and territories became part of another country quite often. Martin Luther was German, right? However, the Germany that exists today isn't the same as the one that existed when he was alive; therefore, how did historians decide that he was German? Similarly, anyone living in the United States pre-1776 were alive when the US was still a British territory, so would they be considered British? Or American?

I'm watching the Americans right now - it's 1984 and there is no end in sight!

This might not be the right sub... if it's not please direct me. I'm kind of new to reddit and I couldn't find a better one.

My grandfather fought in World War II like many grandfathers in my age group. He was in the European theater and while he wasn't at D-Day (at least he never spoke about it), he did fight in the Battle of Bulge and was one of the first units to assist the liberation of Dachau. And like most American GIs during the war, he brought back memorabilia. Specifically, he has a German dagger and an arm band with a swastika on it.

As a kid, I was really excited that he left it to me, but as I've gotten older, I've gotten less comfortable with it in my posession. I'm so conflicted. On one hand, it's stolen from a Nazi which I think is a positive. But what then? I can't display it, it's not something to whip out and show dinner guests, I don't even think it makes a great show and tell item for my students (I'm in school to be a history teacher) as you can just see it in a book. The physical object adds no extra context.

So, now that my grandfather has passed and my grandmother has alzheimer's and we're starting to go through all of the stuff, I have kind of started to feel as if I want to get rid of it. This took a lot of thinking and soul searching as I was very close to my grandfather and I want to hold onto as much of his stuff as possible, but with the new reassertion of Neo-Nazism over the last year or so, I think it's the best decision.

So, I guess this rambling post is just leading to the question in the title. I obviously want to give it to a reputable place. My grandfather signed up to fight fascism and spent the rest of his life fighting injustice, so it would make me sick (and him too), if it went to a Neo-Nazi or Klansman. The two museums I checked were the Holocaust Museum in Washington and the WWII Museum in New Orleans. The Holocaust Museum doesn't take any Nazi garb and the WWII museum was unclear about the patch, but the would not take the dagger.

Can anyone else think of any other places?

P.S. I may keep the dagger as it's not overtly Nazi. I may get it look at by an expert, because I think it might be Pre-Nazi. The armband is what I'm most concerned about.

It seems so inconvenient to have to bring it all the way down, and while aircraft could be a concern, after the Battle of Britain and during World War One at the very least it seems like it should be safe, shouldn’t it?

I've heard that many different events we're the start of WW2, some people say the Spanish civil war, some say September of 1939.

I once saw a video that said that after WW2 (I believe) a french crown was offered to one of the claimants to the kingdom/empire of France but the claimant turned it down because he wanted to change Frances flag. However after doing some googling I can find nothing on. Did this happen or does anyone know anything about this?

The last question is the most important to me, because I'm trying to understand whether large temples or the coliseums were funded through the government or through private investment