In order to immigrate to Israel, an individual has to establish his Jewish heritage. This can be done by proving that at least one grandparent was Jewish. Based on the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935, a German would be considered a "mongrel" if he had one Jewish grandparent, and would therefore be subjected to second-class citizenship. Is this parallel a coincidence, or did the founders of Israel decide on their definition of a Jew based on the Nuremberg Laws?

Everything I read says this was some big blunder during the presidential debates. As a innocent millennial who doesn't know the history behind this... what exactly is all the fuss about? Can't seem to find an explanation that dumbs it down enough for me to understand.

Today it's relatively popular to speculate that some or all of Shakespeare's works were written by someone else. When did these theories begin, and why? Was there skepticism during his own time about possible ghostwriting or theft? Or were such ideas a later invention?

Edit for clarification: I'm not suggesting that these theories have any merit, and I don't need to see them debunked. I'm mostly interested in why these ideas came about and became relatively popular in the first place.

I had someone say to me today that jesus never existed and the only reference to him is in the bible! No other historic texts mention him, is this true?

The go-to historical comparison for COVID-19 has been the Spanish flu pandemic of the late 1910s. Given that we still have new strains of the flu every autumn, influenza obviously isn't completely under control/eradicated. So when did people know they were past the danger point for the Spanish flu and what, if anything, can it tell us about where to set our "victory conditions" for COVID? Thanks!

We are taught to understand the Ancient Greeks as having understood some immutable truths and all civilisation today is almost working off of their foundation.

But I cant find much concise material on what exactly they did that was so influential that the whole world is based off of their ideas.

Can anyone explain this?

I was listening to a book last night and they had a blurb about it, but I was half-asleep. I tried to go back to find it this morning and I couldn’t! For clarification, I’d like to know why they’d be “Accessories” instead of outright “Murderers”?

What was the city government like? It seems Russia had a lot of influence but did they officially control the city? and if not who did?

So my inclination here is no, the Soviet Union wouldn't have included planned obsolescence into anything they did, but I'm curious if anyone noticed that soviet bulbs were longer lasting, or if this was ever used as propaganda or if perhaps they just had inferior technology and therefore didn't actually make better lightbulbs. I just noticed a post elsewhere with a Czechoslovak bulb from the 90s and it got me thinking...

As I understand it, the English translation that has been published recently misleadingly alters the text to minimize the culpability of Pius IX and the Church for kidnapping the young child. I can read Spanish, the original language of the memoirs, but I can't seem to find them anywhere. Can someone with a bit more familiarity with this topic guide me here?

How similar (or how different) were medieval European bathhouses to their Roman counterparts? I am aware that the Middle Ages were long, and spanned a vast area, which makes it difficult to generalise things. But I'm just looking for an overview.

To what extent is the popular picture of Sparta in Greek literature (military system/agriculture/diet/living arrangements) either backed up or refuted by archaeology? Are there any one-volume books about this that focus more on fieldwork and less on texts?

cant help but notice there isn't much stuff about it that's in depth

Examples include:

Calling Niels Bohr, Nicholas Baker.

Calling the weapon the “gadget”

Telegram to Feynman referring to the pending Trinity test as the “baby is due soon”

Nomenclature for isotopes being the last digit of the atomic number followed by the last number of the atomic weight. So U 235 would be U25

I'm a libertarian (specifically: minarchist with classical liberal leanings), and I'm researching different types of government for a dream nation project; the one type I'm having trouble understanding is confederacy.

While there's not many confederacies anymore, with the only modern example the European Union; are there any historic examples can you provide for a layperson to understand the functions of a confederate government? Not including the Confederate States of America, since they acted similar to a federal system more than confederate.

I am an undergraduate history student who has just finished their first semester. I have focused on history post 15th century Europe. However, one of my interests lies in the area of Central/South American and contiguous American history. This question mainly applies to the Maya, Aztec and Incan civilisations but anything related would be appreciated also!

This is my first post on this subreddit so many thanks in advance!

Obviously they wanted to expand their territory and so on, but it seems that while invading Korea and China etc. they just tried to act as evil as possible.

What good would the large conquered area be after the war if everyone living there hates the new rulers?

• Were they planning to bring ethnic Japanese settlers to all of China?

• Was there the same kind of race superiority mentality towards other Asian peoples in Japan, as in nazi Germany?

• And did their aims of conquest go beyond Asia?

Did Japanese leadership completely disregard the international community and future consequences for the atrocities they committed?

• Were they counting on taking over the world with the nazis?

• If you were a foreign civilian visiting in China and got stuck in newly Japanese held territory, would you be shown any kind of respect by the invaders and given the possibility to travel home, or would you face violence and/or be thrown in prison?

• Did Japan have any kind of plans on how to integrate back into the international community after the war?

That's a lot of questions bundled into one post and I'm sure I could think of more, but in essence I'm asking something like, "what on earth were they thinking?", or if they really even thought things that far.

There were many notable swordsmen like Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojiro who were swordsmen but ordinary Samurai rarely used Katanas on the field (although i think katanas were used more from like 1300's) how much were katanas actually used in combat and not just as a last resort

Were there non-native americans that used it at all? For sport, or for hunting?