For example, would they really refuse to ambush enemies or attack enemies in retreat just because of honour?

[deleted]

[deleted]

We hear stories about the allies finding the concentration camps and usually the movie ends and we are left to assume a happy Disney ending.

Did they get their homes or businesses back? Was there any kind of compensation for victims? I don't imagine they just went home and back to work on Monday morning.

What about the less desirables like mentally challenged, what happened to them post war? Were hospitals built and people hired to care for them or was this system pre-existing anyway before the Nazis?

Finally, about gays. I watched the Alan Turing movie on Netflix so of course am an expert now. Aside from the Nazis, it was not a good thing to be out back then in Germany either. Were they just moved from the camps to prisons?

Sorry for the wall of text, just wanted to give a few examples so that I don't just get answers from a Jewish victims perspective. As we know, many group were victims and that's what I am curious about.

Thanks for your time.

I was told we didn't know about the concentration camps until after we were involved and went overseas, but then I hear "If we weren't fighting for democracy and righteousness, what were we fighting for anyway?"

My assumption was that since Europeans colonized much of the world, they forced the locals to adopt their customs/standards when it came to time-keeping.

Did other areas of the world have other units for tracking the passage of time, be it hours, days, weeks?

I had always assumed it would be Elizabeth of York but if her brothers had been declared illegitimate that meant she was as well. If not her, who?

Magellan was born in 1480, making him 11 or 12 when Columbus made his expedition and discovered the new world (yes I know about the Vikings but that's beyond the scope of my question)

I'm just imagining a teenage Magellan in his bedroom with a Christopher Columbus poster nestled between charts and maps, mad at his parents for something because he's a teenager and saying "one day I'll be a great explorer just like Colubus, you wait and see!"

Hi all,

I'm a resident of the state of NJ and am trying to learn more about the early history of the state and region. I've been reading a couple of books on the subject like The Barbarous Years by Bernard Bailyn and A History of Middlesex County: 1664 - 1920 by John Wall, and I am a bit confused about something.

Peter Stuyvesant was director of the colony for 17 years (since 1647) and from what I understand, he was responsible for expanding the settlement of New Amsterdam and improving its economy and aesthetic after the disastrous tenure of Willem Kieft, but had a lot of controversial social and religious policies and was a bit of an authoritarian. I've also read that in the 4 years between the Stuart Restoration and the take-over of New Netherland by the British, Stuyvesant intentionally settled English from Long Island and the New Haven colony in what is now NJ as those colonists were not fans of Charles II and had enjoyed extensive freedoms under the Protectorate; they were more republican-minded than they were fans of the English monarchy and Stuyvesant thought it advantageous to populate the areas under his control with residents who were not so politically different from the Dutch.

So I'm wondering, what was the general opinion of Stuyvesant's administration when he was forced to step down in 1664 in the eyes of these English settlers? Was it a positive one, or relatively more positive than the opinion these settlers would have had of Charles at the time, or did they care all that much? Are my sources total bullshit? Sorry if this is a bit of a rambling question...

[deleted]

[deleted]

Fascinating concept

I started reading more than ever before this year and the more I read the more I realize how uninformed I am about the world. I'm looking for something to introduce me into studying history, Something that gives brief, but informative enough information from earliest civilizations to modern ones. After which, whenever particular subjects interest me more than others, I'll delve into them separately.

Consider that I know literally nothing about history and I want to chronologically study it. Is there a book that would fit the description? Is this a correct way to go about educating myself on history?

When Julius Caesar lay dying after receiving multiple stab wounds why did he try to cover his face with his robe? Out of decency? Out of shame? Out of sadness? Out of disgust? Out of disdain?

Historically speaking, have Christians ever followed the laws of the Old Testament (the laws involving stoning, burning, cutting of people's hands, etc) or was the idea that there was a 'New Covenant' they had to follow there since the earliest days of Christianity?

As an example, the prodigious war capacity of Romans in the peninsula have way to administrative roles while the provincials did the fighting. Then the provincials were administrative and Germans did the fighting. Or take the ability of Afgans to resist the Soviets. Or the Vietcong. I don't think this phenomenon is questioned.

Have historians reached a consensus on a "cause"? Are urban civilized less exposed to violence in daily life and this less capable in battle? Or is life in urban civilized environments just that much better in comparison to war that war less desirable an option?

Does this tie into the general decrease in rioting in the US over the last 100 years?