I'm specifically interested in the beliefs of everyday people about static electricity as relating to the ancient world, but am also interested in anything prior to the work of William Gilbert in 1600.

This is my re-post from ELI5 but I think I’d get more precise answers from here. I understand there where different forms of slavery ranging from the US to Romans and Nordic Vikings but any answer from any era will be appreciated. I’m just trying to gather a sense of the different forms of ‘confirmation’ whether it was by a letter or public announcement etc.

It has armor that is almost as thick as the Centurion which definitely is considered a main battle tank, it has a powerful gun and despite its weight being in the category of a heavy tank, it has a very high power-to-weight ratio which makes it just as mobile as any medium tank that was in service during WW2.

Though it was unreliable especially early on and somewhat overengineered, it has all the desirable qualities of a main battle tank yet it is not considered one. Why?

This rather wild claim comes from the book What If? 2, edited by Robert Cowley. The specific passage is on page 355 in the chapter The Führer in the Dock by Roger Spiller. In context, it reads

Unknown to Hitler, Himmler had entered into secret negotiations with Sweden’s Count Bernadotte for a separate peace with the Western Allies [in late April of 1945]. If anything, Himmler was even less in touch with reality than his leader. Presenting himself to Bernadotte as “the only sane man left in Europe,” Himmler was at the same time considering how to colonize the Ukraine with a religious sect that had been brought to his attention by his masseur. Of course, the Allies were in no mood to entertain any alternative to unconditional surrender, and Himmler’s negotiations went nowhere, except, late in the evening of April 28, to be announced by Reuters news service.

There’s no citation on it, or on anything in the book for that matter since it’s fairly fluffy pop history, but Spiller is a real historian (I know nothing about him except from the book’s introduction so I’m not necessarily claiming he’s taken seriously by his colleagues, just that he does have academic qualifications) so I can’t imagine he just made up the colonization thing out of whole cloth for flavour.

(I asked this same question yesterday with a different title, but it didn't get any attention. I hope reposting is okay)

I know that they were able to target London, but what was the limits of their accuracy?

Did they like it or find it offensive? Would they have called themselves Nazis?

It's okay if a book falls outside of that narrow band by a couple of hundred years on either side, e.g. 1492 - 1914, but I'd love to hear from historians what their go to resources are for this period and why. Thanks for your time!

I tired looking into this and there seems to be competing views on weather he said it or not.

My friend mentioned how cool it is that Washington willingly stepped down after 8 years in power, and that made me realize that John Adams losing the election must have been another huge moment in American history. Was Washington giving up his power willingly or Adams not trying to keep power after losing the election more surprising to the American people and the world in general?

I'm really interested in reading more about the Russo-Japanese War, as I've been assigned a project on it, and I'm wondering if there are any Russian accounts of the Pacific Fleet or Baltic Fleet's operations during the war? I have a feeling that such a major voyage from Petrograd all the way to Tsushima around the Cape of Good Hope without calling in any ports would have at least some Russian accounts by sailors on the Battleships?

I was sent here after getting no responses on r/SuggestMeABook, and I figure there must be some lads who can find a solid book so I can learn more.

(Not really looking for a book regarding the homefront, but more the Russian sailors)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.

In modern popular English Nazi is pronounced with a hard Z, almost "naht'zee," but in Churchill's "darkest hour" speech he pronounces it much more softly and as a single syllable, like "nahzee." Is the hard Z pronunciation a product of the anglicization of the word, was Churchill pronouncing it incorrectly, or has the pronunciation changed over time?

According to Wikipedia, Cædwalla of Wessex, who reigned from 685 to 688 AD, "engaged in genocide" on the Isle of Wight. Can someone tell me more about this?

The Panzer IV was getting on in years by the end of WWII, so how effective were the German upgrades in comparison to newer designs by the British, Americans, and Soviets?

note I mean all variants of the tank that saw combat in this time, be it C, H, or whatever