So, I'm debating writing a small story (a small project, nothing published or shared) set in pre through to end Nazi Germany (Purely for fun, I find the subject interesting and believe it would make for a good story; in no way am I looking for professional -or even truly accurate information, the plot I already have outline isn't, in fact. So, please, don't feel scared to give opinions - this is in no way a professional project, it's purely out of boredom and fun). So, I wanted to ask about German medics during WW2. Obviously there were some, but does anyone know anything about their ranks or specific jobs? I want the story to follow an Edelweiss Pirate, and a 'Swing boy' (The Swing Youth) so any facts about them would be appreciated. Also, any facts about Nazi Germany and treatment of youths during the war would be very much welcomed and appreciated. Thank you in advance!

Hi,

I know its silly to use popular culture as "history" but I was watching Black Sails the other day and saw a gunfight on horseback taking place. With flintlock pistols they were struggling to shoot the riders off the running horses. I started to wonder, why wouldn't they just shoot the horse? Its a much bigger target and would probably injure the rider in the process.

So, in battles/fights where horses were present, was it standard to just shoot or stab horses? I am thinking primarily of the old west, WWI Cavalry, etc. but curious about all mounted battles. I would think it would be far easier to injure a horse than a person.

When I was a kid in the 1980s - call it 1982 as a rough estimate - a popular schoolyard trick was to convince someone to inset their fingers into their mouth, pull their lips sideways, and attempt to say "I was born on a pirate ship".

This comes out as "I was born on a pile of shit" - peak elementary school comedy!

I was discussing this with my wife, and she too remembered this from her school, even though our schools were separated by 5600 km at the time - and neither school was in a major urban area that could be considered a hub of pop culture.

So somehow, pre-Internet, this meme was so pervasive that children in rural areas thousands of km apart were taking part in it.

How?

Where did this originate, and how did it spread?

I've read that in antiquity, fermentation was used as a means of making water safe to drink. I've also read that they would often dilute their wine with water. Why is that? I've thought of a few possibilities:

• They'd only add water from a known safe source, ie: natural spring, boiled water
• They'd add dirty water, but the alcohol in the wine would make it safer to drink
• The link between dirty water and disease wasn't known/understood

Any thoughts?

I would like to know what these descriptions were based on and what the general opinion on the people of "Ethiopia" from a Greek perspective were. Thank you for your time.

Why JNA didn't attack North Macedonia when it independence?

The ghost dance movement seems to have direct continuity with AIM in this way. Similarly, I've noticed similarities in Tecumseh's rhetoric about the inalienability of land and the rhetoric used by current Indigenous land struggles, for example, the Dakota Access Pipeline struggle.

I often see people talk about anti-colonial activism like it started in the 60s, but what continuity was there between that and older forms of Indigenous resistance?

I've only read that, generally, Foucault's works are questionable by standards of historians. If this is so, why?

I understand that philosophers read him for other reasons (I think you can consider his work highly analytical even if his historical claims are considered somewhat inaccurate).

I'm wondering why or how historians might read him, if at all

I’m thinking of settler outposts in places like the Great Basin in what is now Nevada, as well as Native American tribes around this area.

I've done a decent amount of research and reading on 20th century genocides, and I still struggle to understand why the Khmer Rouge seems to rank with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao for a lot of lay conversations on most notable genocides or evil dictators.

Looking purely from a numbers perspective, the Cambodian genocide is a lot smaller than the others typically mentioned.

Don't get me wrong, genocide is genocide and the Cambodian genocide must have been truly awful, but... why does it get compared to the Holocaust, Stalin's purges, or the Great Leap Forward?

I was taught in high school that droit du seigneur was a right that allowed feudal lords to have sexual relationship with women on their wedding nights. But, going from the assumption that most of the feudal society in central europe was catholic, how would this be accepted?

From what I know of WW1, battles were fought like this: one side pummels the other with artillery shells before coming over the trenches and being gunned down by machine gun fire, explosions, and barbed wire before either giving up or making it to the other side. In every movie, book, and video I watch, these specific charges were always presented as one-sided, and logically they should be (why would the people not charging take similar casualties to those that were)? However, at the Battle of the Somme, Verdun, and pretty much every other battle in the war, the casualties were relatively even. How is this possible? In one battle, did both sides do charges? In that case, why is the Battle of the Somme, for example, considered a British-led offensive if the Germans and British did a similar amount of charges (that would lead to a similar number of casualties)?

From 1940 to 1960, the poverty rate for black families fell sharply from 87 to 47 percent before the major civil rights advancements. What caused such immense progress?

Looking at ancient historians like Herodotus, Livy and Arrian, I'm left wondering what motivated them to dedicate so much work to producing these works. Given the low rate of literacy in Ancient Greece and Rome, I'm curious who their intended audience was and what motivated them to do so.

Modern writers (academic or otherwise) can earn royalties, speaking engagements, fame and potentially change how a subject is perceived. How much of that is true for the Ancient world?

The Greeks were the enemies of the Trojans and the Romans saw themselves of the descendants of the Trojans.

Obviously the most prominent example of this, 6 of the 9 Supreme Court positions being held by Catholics cannot be discussed because of the 20 year rule, but such a dramatic change, from ostracization to influential, is too big for it to have started in the last two decades.