On Czech wikipedia page for "Final solution to the Czech question" I found informations sourced by books which I was not able to find anywhere else on internet:

"...Heydrich called for racial survey of the Czech nation in september 1940.......thus establishing RuSHA base in Protectorate B. & M.......the results being: 45% of Czechs being of „nordische, dinarische oder westische“ race -> more than Sudetendeutche, East Prussians and small parts of Austrians and Bavarians..."

"The Czechs were to be divided into 4 groups with different fates:

1. Rightly thinking Czechs of the good race were to be Germanised and made equal with Germans.

2. Rightly thinking Czechs of the bad race were to be Germanised, but not allowed to have children

3. Wrongly thinking Czechs of the good race were to be attempted to be Germanised, if that was not succesful, killed or deported

4. Wrongly thinking Czechs of the bad race were to be calmly deported to Siberia to be the "nobles" amongst nations there."*

I was looking for it, but I could not find it anywhere else on the internet.

Hello /r/AskHistorians! Over my summer vacation, I've been reading a lot about medieval Europe and its political institutions. The big questions I have after reading a few general history books are as follows:

• How did Kings in the middle ages develop Royal Authority and centralize the government away from a feudal system?

• Was centralization a passive force (As in did it happen naturally), or was it an active force created by the kings?

• What gave the kings an edge over dukes and barons?

Hopefully these questions aren't too huge to answer, but I'm really curious about the topic. Thanks in advance for any answers!

What types of punishments are there in the Babylonian king Hammurabi's code? Death, for example, was one type of punishment. What are others?

How did we find out that vikings settled in North America? Do we know why the settlement was abandoned? How big it was? Where exactly it was? And all that.

I believe Leuchter was an 'expert witness' for the defense counsel of a Holocaust denier. The defense included other Holocaust deniers, such as Irving (who was supposedly influenced by the subsequent report). Leuchter personally collected samples from the death camps, even though I believe it was illegal.

In right-wing, neo-Nazi and revisionist circles the report is apparently still popular and influential (anecdotally, I've seen it cited by people debating the accuracy of our historical consensus on the Holocaust).

Essentially, my first question is: Can we classify the report as a genuine attempt at historical inquiry which was ultimately compromised by the author's limited competencies and research methods? Or is the report a knowingly contrived and politically motivated piece of Holocaust revisionism?

Secondly: In refuting the report, does it suffice to deem Leuchter as under-qualified (BA in History, no further specialisation) or are there specific methodological failings that we can now point to in his work.

Many thanks for reading!

Edit: Spelling.

I'd like some advice on how to go about studying history on my own. I've had no classroom education in History after tenth grade and my college and master's coursework has all been in science and tech. I've been reading quite a bit of history recently, but my choice of books is rather arbitrary. I'm unable to evaluate the texts I'm reading, detect biases or even spot glaring inaccuracies.

What is a good way for me to study history effectively, and in a structured manner? My initial goal is to have at least the kind of broad understanding and ability to analyze texts that someone with an undergrad degree in history would possess.

Considering the influx of highly educated and medically competent physicians from the East, why did Romans of the early empire (principate, I think is the term?) still employ 'folk medicine' remedies and treatments (such as the powdered dung mixtures and earthworms in wine described by Pliny), when they could turn to professional physicians and midwives with specialised training and medical knowledge?

Was the success rate of the 'modern' medicine of the East not much better than traditional treatments?

Was the odd dichotomy between Roman folk magic/medicine, and the practice by Eastern physicians of more advanced medicinal techniques (eg Erasistratus), a matter of Roman tradition vs untrustworthy Greek innovation? Was it an economic matter, who attended you when you were ill? Was the availability of physicians/midwives vs sagae/folk healers more a question of where you lived?

I would love to understand more.. why, if Romans could enjoy the highly competent and advance levels of medicine and trauma care that were theoretically possible, why did they so often still end up having to drink powdered sows dung mixed with wine, then sleep with their head to the West, on a bed of slate? ..and think themselves better off for it too!!

I know thats a lot of questions.. Im just trying to be specific in the interests of a detailed answer or two. Thanks!!

What happened to the British officers without men? What happened to the Indian soldiers without officers? What happened to the veterans? How was the British Indian Army split between India and Pakistan? Sorry if this is a lot of questions at once.

I've been thinking about the information we could gain from complete works by historians such as Claudius (who we know as the 4th Emperor of Rome, but nonetheless still spent time writing histories before his shocking rise to the role of Princeps), who wrote extensively about Carthage, The Roman Civil Wars and Augustus' rise to the Princeps, and other very important topics. Tacitus even uses some of Claudius' works as source material for some of his writings. Is it possible that we may still find ancient copies of histories written by contemporaries of the time-frames of interest?

I believe Charlemagne was the first post-Rome leader to do this, correct? What countries had done so after him (or before)?

consumption and sale of alcohol was banned so did they just stop serving it

I haven't been able to find much information on Indian or Chinese connections to Ptolemaic Egypt other than very general mentions of Silk Road trade and references to Ashoka sending missionaries to Alexandria. This would suggest that there was definitely contact between the civilizations but I'm curious if there is any more specific information available on the contact between these different ancient cultures. I'm particularly interested in the spread of ideas, especially medical knowledge (i.e. Hippocratic method vs Ayurvedic medicine) but any help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!

I understand there were a lot of recent migrants from Britain and it was still very much home for a lot of Australians but what were the political and diplomatic reasons that led the Australian government to raising an army and then conscription?

Was popular opinion fairly united on the issue? Wasn't the West Indian slave/sugar trade insanely profitable? I'm shocked the British would give that up without a civil war. The U.S. had a civil war over the issue. Slavery was abolished in France during the upheaval of the Revolution. What makes British abolition different?

Seriously... I grew up in a military family and every WW2 vet I've ever had good conversation with usually told me how many whores he banged and how cheap it was.

So my question is this: Were The Greatest Generation a bunch of headstrong moralistic heroes or a drunken bunch of farmboys enjoying a limitless military budget? Or something inbetween?

I'm reading The Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis and I'm surprised by Khrushchev's general lack of... stately dignity. In one famous incident, Khrushchev allows Mao to meet him in a swimming pool when he doesn't know how to swim. According to the book, during the Hungarian Uprising, Khrushchev undertook a dangerous flight in bad weather to Yugoslavia to get Tito's approval for the crackdown. Why would he risk his life to do that?

Rome by this point was mostly known as being a religious and cultural center, and the Italian city-states didn't really see themselves as heirs to the Romans, so why was capturing the city and making it the capital so crucial for their new kingdom?