I'm interested in studying the Battle of Stalingrad in great detail and so I've wanted to know the answer to this one for a while now. In many video games, movies and documentaries about Stalingrad there is usually at least one mention of the speeches blaring from Nazi loudspeakers during the battle and how some Soviet soldiers contemplated surrender. What happened to those who did? Did they become enlisted men in the Heer? Were they executed? Enslaved? Tortured? Or, in the style of Erwin Rommel, were they actually treated like human beings with a modicum of respect?

Reading a collection of Karl Marx's journalistic writings in Dispatches for the New York Tribune: Selected Journalism of Karl Marx (Penguin Classics) I came across an interesting theme in his writings on the American Civil War, I shall here quote two articles:

"In 1859, on the occasion of John Brown's Harper's Ferry expedition, the very same Economist published a series of elaborate articles with a view to prove that, by dint of an economical law, American Slavery was doomed to gradual extinction from the moment it should be deprived of its power of expansion. That "economical law" was perfectly understood by the Slaveocracy. "In 15 years more," said Toombs, "without a great increase in Slave territory, either the slaves must be permitted to flee from the whites, or the whites must flee from the slaves.""

• The American Question in England, Dispatches for the New York Tribune (Penguin Classics), pg.272.

"The cultivation of the southern export articles, cotton, tobacco, sugar, etc., carried on by slaves, is only remunerative as long as it is conducted with large gangs of slaves, on a mass scale and on wide expanses of a naturally fertile soil, which requires only simple labor. Intensive cultivation, which depends less on fertility of the soil than on investment of capital, intelligence, and energy of labor, is contrary to the nature of slavery. Hence the rapid transformation of states like Maryland and Virginia, which formerly employed slaves in the production of export articles, into states which raise slaves to export them into the deep South. Even in South Carolina, where the slaves form four-sevenths of the population, the cultivation of cotton has been almost completely stationary for years due to the exhaustion of the soil. Indeed, by force of circumstances South Carolina has already been transformed in part into a slave-raising state, since it already sells slaves to the sum of four million dollars yearly to the states of the extreme South and Southwest. As soon as this point is reached, the acquisition of new Territories becomes necessary, so that one section of the slaveholders with their slaves may occupy new fertile lands and that a new market for slave-raising, therefore for the sale of slaves, may be created for the remaining section. It is, for example, indubitable that without the acquisition of Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas by the United States, slavery in Virginia and Maryland would have become extinct long ago. In the Secessionist Congress at Montgomery, Senator Toombs, one of the spokesmen of the South, strikingly formulated the economic law that commands the constant expansion of the territory of slavery. "In 15 years more," said he, "without a great increase in Slave territory, either the slaves must be permitted to flee from the whites, or the whites must flee from the slaves.""

• The North American Civil War, *Dispatches for the New York Tribune (Penguin Classics), pgs.287-288.

My question is simply, how true are these claims? Was it a influencing factor in the Republican containment strategy? How real was the exhaustion of the soil, how urgent was the situation, and what role did this play in the outbreak of the Civil War?

The title pretty much explains it. I played Shogun 2 and its expansion "Fall of the Samurai" recently and watched the movie "The last samurai" and while they might have a few points correct in their history I want to go deeper and learn more.

So I ask you historians if you have any good reading material you can recommend or tell me where to start? Thank you for taking your time. :)

Let's say Tom Le Fol who was King Edwards jester year 1294-1295. What exactly did they do, is their humor described in any writings of the time? What made people find them funny? I've seen paintings of their "funny" clothes, and then what?

Many years ago while working in a book store I saw a book on the Einsatzengruppen that if memory serves was a chronological compilation of journal entrees by squad members, victims and bystanders.

While this is the exact book I'm looking for, I would also take recommendations on the Einsatzengruppen in general.

thanks

The reason I'm asking is I attended a longsword course where the instructor was telling me how widely used the weapon was (admittedly, he said between 1100 and 1600).

In my head, I was thinking 'It seems suicidal using a two handed weapon without a shield unless the user was wearing full plate armor', and I've heard that full plate was not that common/out of reach for many people on various battlefields

I know the geographic region and time period are broad and some people dislike that on /r/AskHistorians, but it's by design as I'm curious as to whether anyone knows of any examples where this happened in a widespread fashion

TLDR: Were longswords used before the development of full plate armor/used without the wielder wearing full plate armor? Not having a shield without a full suit of armor would scare the crap out of me, so I'm wondering if European fighters had a similar take on things

Were there any conflicts of view which caused tension between the two movements, or did they in fact support each other? Are there examples of this? Who are the key individuals in linking these two movements?

It's from a documentary on Nova on PBS in US; traders down the Volga bringing back the technology and presumably steel for these swords, and that they were heavily imitated and spelled +UTHBERT+ instead. And that the swords disappeared after the 12th century when the Volga trade route was closed. Can someone elaborate on any of this or any corrections? Thank you in advance for the always amazing answers.

I've been interested in the life of Augustus, I have read the twelve Caesars by Suetonius, Tacitus' annals, and the Res Gestae, any more suggestions?

It seems just incredible, and correct me if I'm wrong, my maths is simply terrible; but each german gun (of 1300) would have fired once every 1.4 minutes.

If that number is even close to accurate then it really gave me a new perspective on the sheer barbaric nature of WW1.

The source is Amber Books: Battles that changed history.

I almost posted this question in /r/AskAcademia but I figured I'd try here first. I'm exploring graduate programs in history and while I'm generally interested in all history, I am curious, what time periods and/or regional areas of historical research might have more room for advancing the field of history? Thanks.

Whether it's the Soviet, NK or Ho Chi Minh, it seems counter-intuitive that a society with equality at the core would appoint a single person to make most of the nations decisions.

Also bonus question, is it possible to engage in socialism without a dictator? thanks :)

I did some research online a while back and I think NYC did see a rise in crime during the seventies, but was the city really as disgusting and morally bankrupt as the movie presented it to be? I realize it's fiction, but I'm curious if there was truth there. I guess you could also argue that it was how Travis viewed the world even if it wasn't necessarily reality.

I feel most people know about the various cities that were obliterated such as Warsaw, Dresden, and Tokyo to some extent, but what are some buildings or monuments of great historical value that were lost? Buildings that people would have gone to see, or painted, or would have been widely recognized prior to 1939, but were demolished either by artillery, bombardment, fire etc. by 1945? Feel free to exclude Monte Cassino, as its one of the more well-known losses.