Yes, there's obviously something crucial I've missed.

Hi there. I'm interested in finding books about the quality of life for everyday, normal people throughout history, perhaps in comparison to modern life. Does anybody have any recommendations?

I'm curious because I've heard he was fine with them, but hated the slavs but halts and slavs are very closely related so this doesnt make much sense to me.

Richard Rhodes in his book "Masters of Death" cites Karl Wolff, personal adjutant of Himmler, who states that organised especially for Himmler execution of 120 men near Minsk August 15th 1941 was the first time when Himmler witnessed killing a man. According to Rhodes he was so disturbed that he decided after to came up with other, more clean and less mentally burdensome method of killing. Is it possible that it was first time when Chief of SS witnessed act of killing? Also is it true that it was the reason of implementing gas chambers?

The US wasn’t directly in ww2 yet it just seems like the biggest blunder imaginable.

I’ve heard the term “Jewish Bolshevism” and wanted to know if this was just used as anti-communist propaganda or actually true...or both. Thanks!

I was wondering, isthe idea of two people in charge who switch off their control every month was generally seen as a good move or more likely to cause political strife?

Looking for tips on where to start. Thanks!

I can think of a few reasons, like Ottoman forces not being designed to conduct a siege, inept leadership during 1204, and just-repaired walls. But apparently the Venetians managed to scale the sea walls during 1204. How did they do so?

​

*Alexios Strategepoulos* *Sneaks Into the City*

Growing up, I assumed that the various Sioux nations were always a horse riding people. It was only later I learned that the horse was introduced to North America, and slowly adopted by some tribes for the many benefits they brought. Do native people have any stories surrounding that adoption? Any clear example of it transforming a tribal culture or art?

I know that the Golden Horde eventually became more predominately Turk as time went on, but what was the army made up of when it invaded Hungary and Poland?

Edit 1: The question's practically already answered in the stickied comment, but if anyone else feels they have something to recommend please don't hesitate. There's no bad recommendation, so long as it's a good source. This sub is a diamond in the rough.

Disclaimer: I'm exclusively a lurker and occasionally make one-off accounts to ask questions. This is one of those accounts. I've read the rules and hopefully my question won't violate any of them.

Question:

I want a decent understanding of how our modern world came to be. What books, shows, or other media would be the best sources to get a relatively cohesive grasp?

Context:

I admire and respect the strict adherence to evidence-based truth that this sub-reddit strives for and can't honestly think of a better place to start my search. But, if anyone does know of better sources, let me know. It's definitely within the scope of my question.

So, I'm in the Northeastern USA and was raised in a rural area. I took history classes in High School. World, U.S., Government, the "works". About a decade later, I've since moved to a city with some diversity and learned/corrected more by osmosis and exposure than I ever learned in those classes-- even though I wasn't able to fit history courses into an engineering degree during my time at university. The experience has shown me that while my view of the world has expanded, it's still pretty narrow and it's also rooted in very little historical wisdom. It makes me naive, easy to manipulate for whatever causes.

So, all of this is basically just for my own edification. I want a world view that's based in fact. I want my political views filtered through what has and has not been successful in the social movements of the past. I want to know where we've been so that my idea of where we should go won't be riddled with dogma. I want our world, as chaotic and tumultuous as it is, to be less mysterious. And I'd like to do the work myself, but I need a roadmap. From just lurking, y'all seem to be really serious about your domain.

I recognize that the question is broad in its scope, but I hope that it is also clear enough in its intent that it doesn't violate rule 1.

Any and all recommendations appreciated.

Thanks much, u/AlertMarsupial, apparently. idk. The name generator chose it.

I can't seem to find much through standard googling, or perhaps don't know particular keywords to start from

[deleted]

I hear the argument come up relatively often that the Japanese should have attacked Siberia in WW2, as it would have split Soviet forces and allowed Germany to defeat them in the west.

Non-aggression pact notwithstanding, this never really sounded quite right to me. Outside of Vladivostok, I don't know of any notable cities that far east, the infrastructure would have made advances beyond the coast leave an even heavier burden on the Japanese logistic system already straining to supply their men in China, and if I'm not mistaken, Soviet resources in Siberia weren't being exploited too heavily at the time.

All in all, it seems to me like for such an offensive, Japan would have had to use a lot of men and material to not really accomplish much of note. Is there more to it that I'm missing, or would it have been as ineffective and cost-prohibitive as it seems?

As I understand the Founding documents as taught to me in high school, the Fathers created Congress as a bicameral legislature as part of the Connecticut Compromise to balance:

• The need to balance the interests of smaller, less populous states with their larger brethren, and;
• The need to balance the interests of the people with the interests of the states themselves, as directed by the state legislatures (as Senators were not directly elected by the voters until the early 1900's)

As neither justification would have applied at the state level, why was it that 49 States nonetheless adopted bicameralism?

[deleted]

Hi, I'm looking for a report on a weapon by a Swiss man called John Steuble that was commissioned in 1837 by a General Bernard of the French artillery. The only problem is, I have absolutely no idea where to even begin. I know historians use records but how do they find those that aren't easily accessible on the internet? I'm only asking because I'm fairly sure the report isn't on the internet but as the report was commissioned over 100 years ago I figure it must be available to the public in some form. Also, I feel like I should mention that I don't speak any French, which doesn't help matters much.

[deleted]

I understand that smiths used some sort of cups to hold melted iron in ancient Egypt. But how did they make the tools that can handle melted iron?