In prewar Europe (particularly Germany, Hungary, Poland, and the Soviet Union), how did rates of linguistic assimilation differ among Ashkenazi Jews?

Assimilation is obviously very hard to define, so I'm mostly wondering about primary language. It is very difficult to assimilate into a nation's culture without being completely fluent in the language, and I'm sure that many Jewish people who wished to assimilate would have been unable to if they only spoke Yiddish.

I believe that Yiddish was overwhelmingly the primary language of Jews in Poland and the Soviet Union, but what about Germany? Standard German and Yiddish are so similar that I'd expect that many or most Jews had no difficulty speaking the national language. Would assimilated Germans of Jewish descent (such as Felix Mendelsohn or Karl Marx) have spoken any Yiddish at all? Did rural Yiddish communities (Shtetls) even exist in Germany?

Hungary had a very large Jewish population before WW2 (with Budapest being about a quarter Jewish), so I wonder how these people fit into Hungarian society.

I assume that the situation in Russia would be different altogether. Some high-ranking Soviet officials had been Jewish (Trotsky, Sverdlov) and were presumably completely assimilated into Russian culture, but outside the educated urban Jewish population, did any Jewish people speak Russian as a primary language? In my area, there is a small but noticeable community of Russian Jewish immigrants, but all of them speak Russian as their primary language. When did the Soviet-era shift of Yiddish to Russian occur? I believe that, initially, the Soviet government supported Yiddish as a bourgeois language.

My impression of the Polish Jewish community, mostly through stories from friends whose grandparents or great-grandparents left Poland, suggests that Jews in Poland were very separate from Polish society, mostly speaking Yiddish (even in cities) and usually living in entirely Jewish villages. One friend, who is of non-Jewish Polish descent, says that his grandfather was actually conversational in Yiddish, because the town he lived in was once almost half-Jewish, and most of the Jewish residents spoke no Polish. Was this representative of the Polish Jewish community at large?

Stations equaling military bases, garrison posts, towns, etc.

It just hit me that in the Roman empire there were plenty of slaves, while in the Middle ages there where none. Granted, many people served feudal lords almost as slaves but this people could not be sold not bought and there where things their masters could not do with them (right?).

However I have no idea of why did slavery ended in Europe, nor why, nor when, I have tried researching it but to no avail. I suppose that christianity was involved in that, but I am not sure.

Thanks.

Follow up question: Why did they not have a similar debate for the African people?

Just wondering, for example did the citizens of Rome made any jokes towards any of their conquered cities or failed generals?

In modern French elections, electors usually cast their votes by placing a pre-marked ballot paper with the name of their desired candidate into an envelope, and depositing this in a ballot box. In most of the western world, the practice instead is for voters to be given a list of candidates on a single sheet of paper, and to mark (or number) the candidate(s) of their choice. What is the origin of this French voting tradition, and has France ever considered moving to the method of balloting used in most of the world?

A while back I asked the question "What did the Wehrmacht get wrong in WW2" because there's this tendency to put German equipment tactics, etc on a pedestal.

I got some great answers so thanks.

On a similar note, historians seem to be fairly scathing about the British Army in WW2. Max Hastings in particular seems to consider the British as badly underperforming.

Was there anything the British Army consistently did well throughout the war? Or got better at?

I'm mainly intrerested in things at the unit/tactical level rather than grand strategy but anything goes.

Thank you.

I initially made this post in r/books, in reference to Tolstoy's War and Peace, but as suggested to me, might be better suited here.

I've started reading this book but I know little about wars and armies, and I'm totally confused by all these different kinds of officers, like:

Hussar, cornet, colonel, staff officer, junker, regimental/battalion/company (first or second or) third commander, commander in chief, Cossack, captain, etc. Or what it means to be in "the guards" which one princess wants her son to be part of. Neither it's clear to me if prince is also a military rank on top of the political one.

Thank you for your help.

I don't really have numbers and I'm just speaking from randomly searching the internet. But everytime I try to look up maps for the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century I tend stumble upon a great deal of maps from the low countries or maps made by people from the low countries. Is it just coincidence or were the dutch just better at producing maps and atlases? I know the dutch had their golden age in the seventeenth century but they're already big producers of navigational tools before that period. Or so it seems. It always seemed more logical to me that the English would be the ones who would be better at making maps since their naval prowess took off in the early sixteenth century (?). So am I right in thinking that the dutch were better map makers? If so why?

I am a bit confused: while studying the Communist Manifesto and the Revolution of China and the Soviet Union, what was going through the common people's minds? Were they brainwashed or just hoped for a better life? Also, once communism was put in place in their respective countries, were the proletarians content with what had happened and their lives as a whole? Any details would be greatly appreciated.

Would this area been under Soviet influence like Eastern Europe? Are their any sources that mention their plans? Can we speculate that the swift end to the war by the US was also in response to the growing Soviet threat?

Several questions I'd like answered:

1. Was there a shift from academia to sports as a means to escape poverty within the black community?

2. If so, when and why?

3. Prior to sports desegregating, was this trend also prevalent in Negro-leagues? i.e. Focus was put more on playing baseball/football/basketball than doing better in school

4. Given the 20 year rule. How has this affected the black community as a whole in terms of the education gap?

My husband was talking about this yesterday and I'd really like to impress him with my 'knowledge' on the subject. He said Gandhi used them to his advantage but I was wondering if anyone benefited from the wire, boats, trains etc...

[deleted]

Social status is probably a very important of society especially in the present time. Was social status an important thing in Roman society?

I've been reading The Histories for the last month or two and it's been a fascinating, wild ride so far that I have a ton of questions about. (Side question: Does anyone know a really good companion reader to The Histories?)

What keeps coming up most for me is Herodotus' decision to write either "god" or "God". I was raised Catholic and always told that "god" would refer to something like Zeus or Posiedon or really any deity outside of the monotheistic "God" of the big three religions. However, Herodotus use's the capital G "God" many times and in many quotes by various figures. It's never quite clear what "God" these quotes are referring to either.

Does anyone have any insight? Thanks!

When the speaker of the house is a member of the opposition, is it normal for them to not applaud the ending of the Presidents speech?

I am reading The seven pillars of wisdom, and it seems (especially towards the end of the war) the Brits were very committed to win this campaign and made pretty big efforts, although the Middle Eastern front seems a bit irrelevant to the outcome of the whole war.