I frequently read that Rommel was feared in Africa and that British soldiers voluntarily surrended to him, is this just a myth or is there concrete evidence supporting that this happened and on what level?

Just as the title says, why was the Schutzstaffel eventually favoured over the Sturmabteilung, as the foremost paramilitary arm of Nazi Germany?

So I was reading "Inside the third Reich", and thought I would look up the letter where Speer tells Hélène Jeanty he attended the Himmler speech. (He is pushing the narrative: "I was just an Architect" quite heavily.)

But I only find some seemingly poorly translated quotes in low quality articles: "There is no doubt - I was present as Himmler announced on October 6 1943 that all Jews would be killed". He continued: "Who would believe me that I suppressed this, that it would have been easier to have written all of this in my memoirs?"

What is the full text? (Translated or not.)

So I was reading an Askreddit thread earlier that had a sub-conversation about puritan influence and it just spread into different theories including that victorian historians, when they wrote about the puritans, projected their own values and that today's historians took from the victorian accounts. What do historians today think of social norms in the puritan era and if any of that actually influenced the USA today or rather that what seems to have come from puritan values might have come from a different source of cultural and historical influence. Is there currently an agreed upon right answer?

Robert A. Taft viciously fought against "the Eastern Establishment" led by Thomas Dewey. Dewey's influence in the GOP was so strong that he won the nomination for President twice in a row. However, in 1964, Nelson Rockefeller, when asked about "the Eastern Establishment," said, "You're looking at it," and the party nominated Barry Goldwater. What happened to "the Eastern Establishment" between 1948 and 1964?

In certain places at the front in WW1, trenches were sometimes 20m from each other. How were these trenches made, i.e. how were they dug, reinforced, supplied, etc when the other side was 20m away? One side must have been there first, no? If so, couldn't they shoot those building the trench on the other side?

[Everything in this post is casual ramble and if you'd like to revise/object/substantiate anything I've said I would love that. Also if you think there's a better fitted subreddit for this don't hesitate to tell me]

Last night, a friend gave me a rundown on cubism and what it did for the art world, arguing that its introduction was a static point in history and all art beyond it is a reiteration of the meta ideas that came with. Being very casually philosophical and artistic, I always like thinking about the application of meta-thought to art pieces and how it overtakes the original art. But before this level of expression was introduced, there was a more basic (and not less valid) level of expression, before all of this surrealism invaded what we consider art - simple paint to canvas for example, where a feeling or concept is conveyed through imitation (in traditional art forms) of real-life imagery.

First there's complete pragmatism, then there's traditional art, then contemporary art about art (about art about art about art...).

When was the first recorded step towards expression of any sort in history? Would you say there are further major developments that completely shape contemporary art beyond what was covered with the introduction of cubism? Are we destined to reiterate art about art about art about art etc forever?

From a quick Google, almost everyone who discusses the history of racial segregation on the Internet only mentions the arguments against it. It's certainly a good sign that segregation is so widely opposed now. But Americans in the 1950s weren't all idiots. Surely, during years of protesting and debating, someone on the segregationist side argued their case in more detail than "black people are bad". What were the major arguments of the segregationists, and how were most people ultimately convinced that they were wrong, when they had (apparently) been accepted for decades before?

[deleted]

Basically the title. Writing a paper on the Harlem Renaissance and I'd like something that tells the story of the unit both at home and abroad.

Thanks!

Is this accepted science, or pure conjecture until we can study it science?

Voltaire cited two christian missionary forgeries, the Ezourvedam and the Chartah Bhade Shastra, as the holiest of ancient Hindu scriptures; When Antequil-Duperron would finally translate actual hindu scriptures into French he used a Persian adaptation for muslim readers. Athanasius Kirchner would have Confucianism be essentially just another word for christianity (and also the only true and original religion of China) and Joseph de Guignes had the same approach to Buddhist scriptures.

And it isn't like those views would get vociferously corrected by a later generation of scholars. Schopenhauer's Upanishads are still of the sufi islamic variety and Leo Tolstoy is so firmly convinced the Indians are actually monotheist that his enthusiastically supportive "letter to a Hindu" has to be duly corrected by Gandhi (and apologized for) in a preface to it's publication in India.

Why is it that enlightenment era Europeans acted the same as Harun al-Rashid era Arabs?

How comes religious difference was not such a major issue when they(-r grand grand grand parents) were translating the Greeks?

So I googled this and It was pretty easy to find out the comparison of Jews in Europe pre vs post holocaust but I wanted to know how many Jews actually entered custody of the NSDAP German government and managed to survive.

This is in comparison to the usual suspects: Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal etc. I know Germany had colonies in Africa but still compared to the Western Europeans, they and the Nordic countries were very tame in the colonial bids. Why was that?

Whether it was due to sickness, assassination, or freak accident, has there ever been a case of a candidate no longer being able to run this far along in the process?

I'm working on the map for a game and already have the road system planned, but wonder if its more accurate for borders to follow a road or not. I know rivers and mountains are often used to mark borders but I was wondering if roads do as well. Thanks!

Edit: In terms of when/where, lets go with Victorian-era England. The game is based on D&D and the most common when/where analog I've heard is Victorian.

Firstly I don't know the proper term, but what I mean is that there are 2 senators for each US state, and they serve 6 year terms, and 1/3 of the senate is up for grabs each election cycle. I'm referring to what 3rd of the Senate was it decided a state's Senators would serve in.

I was in my Poli Sci class today and the professor said that in the first senate it was a luck of the draw thing on wether you serve 2, 4, or 6 years (in the original senate), then it reverted to the constitutional 6 year term. Was a similar thing used for new states? How was it decided which 3rd a Senator was in for a new state?

Aside from contemporary England/Britain, much of my exposure to English/British history from textbooks, articles, etc. has always portrayed it as a country one would not want to live in.

Much of the history is filled with rebellions, civil wars, dodgy politics, and rather dangerous, rapid, social changes.

Does English/British history naturally consist of hardship, or is it just the level of documentation that takes all of these events into great detail?