General Eisenhower wrote in his memoir Crusade in Europe the following passage regarding his reaction to the concentration camps and the action he felt he needed to take:

The same day I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock.

I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that `the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.’ Some members of the visiting party were unable to through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.

1. Was this information ever presented to the public in a widespread manner? What form did Eisenhower's "evidence" he wanted placed "before the American and British publics" specifically take? Did he take specific actions during his Presidency to enshrine the events of the Holocaust? Did General Eisenhower ever give congressional, tribunal or otherwise official legal testimony like he stated he wanted to in regards to what he witnessed?

2. Did Holocaust denial occur immediately after the war? How did allied commanders or leadership react to this phenomenon?

3. Did other allied reprisals occur apart from Dachau in response to what soldiers witnessed at the concentration camps?

4. Was the phrase "I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that `the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda’" indicative of Eisenhower presaging Holocaust denial? Was Eisenhower specifically ever confronted with the reality of Holocaust denial? Why was he so worried about it initially?

5. Are there any specific documentation of impacts, military or civilian correspondence in terms of impact on Jewish soldiers following the liberation of the camps?

6. Finally, is the onset of Holocaust denial in the decades following the end of the war at all attributable to the lack of public awareness in regards to the Nazi genocide apparatus? Could a more systemic public presentation of available information have curtailed it? Or rather was Holocaust denial an inevitable movement that would spring from Nazi apologism and historical revision? This is tied to the original question.

I'm sorry if I included too many sub-questions... This is my first post on this sub and I didn't see any rules about sub-questions so I just went ahead and included them. I posted this because I've just finished Eisenhower's book and this part stuck out to me specifically because it seemed he, as the Supreme Allied Commander of the ETO was extremely cautious of Holocaust denial, even at the time and would have been in a unique position to push for official documentation. I read through the /r/askhistorians threads about Holocaust denial but couldn't really find anything specific about Eisenhower and the specific actions he took in regards to it. I'm further curious as to what institutional measures were taken to enshrine the historicity of the Holocaust and if allied and post-war leaders other than Ike considered this of paramount importance and what he specifically did to follow through with his stated intentions in Crusade in Europe.

EDIT: I've edited this post a lot to more clarify and specify the questions I had in mind so I apologise if that causes any confusion in the answers.

The wiki article says he built them with resistance fighters and he learned how to do so from his father? Cant find any details about him?

Or was there something special about the method? With thanksgiving approaching I recalled this and it just seems like a weird story element.

[deleted]

On an old thread somewhere else, someone claimed Einstein was autistic. Someone else said that wasn't widely believed to be the case. Someone else said 2/3rds of history's geniuses were autistic. So, historians, is there any sort of consensus on various historical figures (including Einstein) were on the autism spectrum or not? I know diagnosing anyone without meeting them is suspect, to say the least, but I'm curious as to if the belief that a large percentage of history's geniuses (let's say over 10%) were autistic rather than neurotypical has any scientific or historical support.

I read it in a Cold War History book. I'm about 80% sure it had to do with the Korean War.

The quote came from a Chinese source, talking about how they were planning on inserting Chinese troops to help the Korean communists. The quote went something like: "we have the same hair, and eyes" and that was their justification for sending in Chinese troops clandestinely, since I believe at the time China and the Soviet Union didn't want to be actively involved in the Korean conflict.

I do believe this quote is quite famous. When I still had it written down, googling it actually brought up results.

Any help?

Researching the influx of Chinese laborers who arrived in California during the Gold Rush, I have found little mention of Chinese women. Surely some must have accompanied the men, as an enduring Chinese community came to be formed, but how many did, and what did they do for employment? Were they the wives of the miners and did some come on their own to escape life back home? Were some forced into prostitution, or perhaps even rose to influential places in the community? Thanks for any information you can provide.

Can someone explain to me what kind of stuff transpired in terms of relations of Japan with the Western allies that ultimately resulted in Japan becoming an axis power even though they fought on the side of most of the WW2 allies during WW1? Thanks!

I found an old question (c. 1906) in the works of Werner Sombart, who was a radical Marxist activist and scholar. He wondered why socialism did not take root as widely or popularly in the U.S. compared to other Western/modern/industrialized/white ethnic countries. Imho, the question remains relevant, and I'd love to hear some of the latest thoughts from historians, U.S. and otherwise, regarding this quandary.

thanks mom

I regularly read this assumption on the internet, and that the company worth 10 times the one of Apple after inflation is adjusted (worth around 7.4 trillion dollars).

I am quite skeptical about this, Europa had only 180 millions inhabitants at the height of the VOC, most of whom could probably not afford to buy luxury product from East Asia or stock market's share. Nowadays the market is just immensely wider and the average population is incommensurately wealthier. Even in term of employee, at it peak it has only 5~10% of Wall Mart's employees, current world largest company in term of employees.

I have read the wikipedia page so I understand that the company exerted very various activities, had thousand of ships and its' own army etc... My question is rather how can the society have such a value that even our modern company are far from reaching this value? Is this because of the adjusted inflation which is done badly?

Lately I've started to delve into the dark depths of WW2. Now, since what I'm about to ask can easily misinterpreted, just a little disclaimer. Hitler is a very evil beast (no words exist to sufficiently describe him). Also, the issue I'm bringing up might lead some to misguided and evil conclusions, which I disagree with. I disregard any such supposedly "utilitarian" "arguments" out of hand. Now, let's get to it.

So there was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In accordance with it, Soviet armies invaded multiple European countries. Now my question is this: When the Soviet and German armies met, did Stalin intend to eventually (within a year or few at most) invade and conquer the rest of Europe? I'm not asking about alternate history, I just need to know if his intention was to go forward.

Also on a related note, I read somewhere that there was a rumor or something (don't remember) that Khrushchev had Stalin killed, and that Stalin was planning to wage war on Europe just before this happened. Did Stalin intend to conquer Europe in either of these two instances?

So, Semyon Budyonny was one of the 2 Marshals of the Soviet Union (next to Kliment Voroshilov) who managed to escape death in the 1937 Purges. However, during World War II, even though his leadership skills were admittedly poor, he still managed to escape being demoted or even outright killed for his incompetence (unlike General Dimitri Pavlov, whose poor response to the German Invasion resulted in him being arrested and executed).
I did read somewhere that Budionny escaped retribution because of being a very close friend of Joseph Stalin - but how much truth is in this claim? Do we know for sure why the Marshal was such an "untouchable" figure during the most turbulent time in Red Army's history?

Here are some examples I've encountered, I'm sure there are others: Alfred (Elf-counsel?), Aelfgifu (Elf-gift), Aelflaed (Elf-beauty?), Aelfgar (Elf-spear), Aelfheah (Elf-high), Aelfric (Elf-rule), Aelfstan (Elf-stone), Aelfthryth (Elf-strength), Aelfweard (Elf-guard), Aelfwig (Elf-war), Aelfwine (Elf-friend).

I guess I'm wondering: what was an "elf" to an Anglo-Saxon and why was it important to give or take a name that linked a person to elves?

What were the homes of Ancient Romans like? I've heard of insulii and their multistory construction consisting of multi-room, more expensive apartments on the lower floors giving way to single room, cheaper apartments on the top, but what was it really like inside and what are some other example of typical urban housing from ancient rome?

I mean as they we're jumping, a friendly airplane hit them

My thinking goes here like this: Russia and France are so far from each other, that logistically/politically it isn't feasable to war with each other. So had the Czar sued for peace, what kind of guarantee would Napoleon have got so he doesn't have to come over every year and make sure the Czar keeps his word (of not trading with England)?

Since the 2 countries weren't next to each other, taking away territory wouldn't have worked. I think the Czar could have just lied to Napoleon and not kept his word 6-10 months later.