Recently a holocaust denier has been explaining to me that concentration camps had soccer fields, swimming pools, orchestras, daycares, and libraries. linking me to a video of Holocaust testimonies to back his theories. I don't know how reliable this video is and would appreciate some insight on the matter.

I've read several popular history sources stating minstrel shows were the first uniquely American contribution to theater. Are such claims accurate? How did minstrel shows develop? What were the common characters and acts? How popular were they at their height? What factors led to their decline, and the decline in the use of blackface (which seems to be still somewhat acceptable in the film The Birth of a Nation)?

Thanks in advance!

This is the best place for me to post, as the comments/replies are meant to take the subject matter seriously. Also this is something I consider over looked.

Is 20 years an industry standard, and if not where did the 20 year rule come from, and what is the earliest and most recent points that professional historians would mark as the difference between current events and history?

I've read answers to questions on here about how far people in the Middle Ages could travel in a day and what travel was like, but I was wondering what would be considered a long trip (in terms of either days spent traveling or distance traveled) around the 15th century. Would conceptions of what constituted a long trip differ between lower and upper classes, since upper class people were able to travel faster and more easily?

Let me elaborate: I think we see this type of historical person everywhere in history. A figure who early on and maybe even quite a bit into their life seems unstoppable but then, gets defeated and never recovers. How bad this defeat is varies, Saladin, for example can mostly be said to have lost his final war and had to cede some parts of the Levant to the Crusaders, but got to keep many of his conquests. At the other end of the spectrum is Napoleon, who ended up with much of France being occupied and him being deported to an island in the middle of the ocean. But the formula is still the same. Some examples are:

Saladin who I mentioned, who finally retook Jerusalem after 100 years, but then got defeated by Crusaders. (Even though his reign was a success since he kept much of his conquests)

Napoleon, who I also mentioned, defeated the coalitions of Europe again and again, but then botched his invasion of Russia and then was defeated.

Charles XII of Sweden who won early fantastic victories against Denmark Poland and Russia, but then after an attritional invasion of Russia was defeated at Poltawa.

And of course Hannibal, who upon invading Italy steamrolled through Roman legions in three battles, the third of them being one of the most tactically decisive victories of all time. But he never marched in Rome, instead just waiting in Italy until he was called back to north africa where he lost at the battle of Zama, after which Carthage suffered a brutal peace treaty.

So it seems to me that this type of figure pops up all the time in history, so I ask you, why does this happen so often?

As a fan of literature I've recently been diversifying my literature preferences with that of the historical era I profess the most interest in namely that of the Soviet Union.

However one thing that has confused me is just how would one go about becoming a writer in the Soviet Union. I am aware (apologies for this is the not correct name but in the vicinity) of the state sanctioned union of writers but how on earth did somebody decide they were going to be a writer?

Obviously in the USA or Europe most folks simply wrote their manuscript and sent them out to publishers or agents. How would it work in the U.S.S.R?

Did they have to show an aptitude for creative writing at school? Did they have the equivalent of agents? How would the state decide to let some people simply become full time writers especially if they were already allocated a role?

I ask this for the perspective of people who were outside of the Party as their connections explains how they could do so. But how could your average Ivanna or Vladmir decide to go about becoming a writer?

During the Napleonic wars the British used the Congreve Rocket, a design inspired by Mysore rockets the EIC had faced in India.

But what happened to these rockets after the Napoleonic wars?

Why weren't designs for rocket artillery continually developed in the same way conventional artillery was?

I mean I think it would be. Easily defendable. Great location for trade. Close to Persia/the rest of Asia. Pretty much all the same reasons that Constantinople was one of the most important cities in the world for over 1000 years. But it seems like it was sort of a backwater until Constantine picked it to be the location of his New Rome.

Latelly I am getting really interested on the colonial period of Mexico and central america so it would be nice to get some recomendations on some good books. I'm specially interested in the daily lives of people and how society worked back then. If you have any good material I'd be really grateful if you shared it with me. I can read english and spanish.

So I was watching a documentary about Jonestown, and the rise of the Cult of Jim Jones. Already its reminding me of the Nazi rise to power. So is the rise of a Cult in any way comparable to that of Nazi Germany. I mean they share two key traits. The desperation of the followers and a charasmatic leader.

If it weren't for the harsh Russian winter and the English channel, could've Napoleon succeeded in his conquest? I've even heard that all the people in England would have been speaking English if it weren't for the channel. And also was it a great honor to have your ear pulled by Napoleon?

Given the unpopular reputation the Irish once had, how far back does their renown for charisma go?

I don't have access to a course on the subject and when I look for videos on a crash course they're always super controversial and nobody in the comments seem to agree with the accuracy of what they're saying. I know its not really the ideal question for historians so I apologize (it is my first day in this subreddit after all) but I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could point me to a book they read or documentary they saw because at this point I don't even know where to start and honestly the level of hostile controversy around it has discouraged me from even trying to learn about it. Anyways thank you in advance!

[deleted]

I have a basic understanding of British history, but am perplexed by how Britain managed to recover in time for fighting the War of the First Coalition in 1792, and then managing to be afford to be the only country to be at constant war with France until 1814. Thank you for replies in advance!

The King I guess would had seen it coming. Did the king have powers at hand to stop a rogue government like Mussolini? And was he not worried about the rise of such an incendiary ideology, or was he helpless under the laws of Italy then?

By the time of Muhammed Christianity had spread all over Europe. And yet areas that are much closer geographically like Saudi Arabia were not yet Christianized. Why?

Why was Islam so successful at dominating Middle Eastern culture/religion when Christianity largely failed? Christianity had a massive head start, but it never became the dominant religion in most of the Middle East, why?

As the question asks, how? As far as I know ancient battles were fought with most of the soldiers alligned on ranks and the engagement for the first rank was at the same time everywhere. But what about medieval battles? How was the engagement done? From the books that I have read, I understood that during the battle the troops were scattered throughout the battlefield and fighting in small groups.

Your stereotypical picture has cowboys sitting around a campfire drinking coffee. So how did they do that? Usually you see a kettle but I'm guessing they didn't have freeze-dried instant in the late-19th CE. Did they hide tiny French presses in their saddlebags?

With all the stories of Russian troops being fired upon by their leaders if they chose to retreat during suicidal attacks, were there ever times when they would essential resist and forcefully disobey orders?