Were members of the imperial secret police re-employed as such after the 1917 Revolution?

It's well known that the Nazis cared a lot about the genetic health of the population they controlled, and that isn't just limited to race. The Nazis had plenty of eugenic policies — I believe German "anti-socials" (alcoholics and homeless people) were the first to be forcibly sterilized and sent to concentration camps. However, the Nazis were ostensibly committed to National Socialism. So there was an egalitarian component to their message as well. A major component to this was finding a middle path in modernity between liberalism/capitalism and communism/international socialism. Therefore, the Nazis believed in government projects, and rejected laissez-faire policies. However, laissez-faire policies were typically the ones most associated with social Darwinism; "If you don't help the poor, they will cease to exist" was basically the thinking. So how did the Nazis make a coherent message/policy that allowed for their social Darwinist/eugenic principles to persist but also get the government more involved in the economy?

Hello, I'm a graduated student and i completed my undergraduate thesis about the correlation between religion and jurisdiction in the eyes of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnessar II. And I would like to continue to study on that topic. However I cannot decide where should I study my MA because nor me or my close colleagues are specialized on that topic and I have no idea about it. I would like to hear your experience on that topic, thanks for your time

I would like to ask about Chinese imperial family. I have some questions regarding Chinese prince. How is the relationship among princes ? Are they having good relationship or bad one ? How they can know each other ? Are they living together ? Is the mother introduces them ? Is the mother allow them to play with each other ? If yes, how can is this possible ? I mean the mother and princes themselves basically compete with each other for power (and to become crown prince). Thank you in advance for the help.

I recently learned that malaria became endemic in Rome somewhere in the 4th century, until the swamps were drained in modern times, and that this lead to northern rulers such as the Holy Roman Emperors avoiding the city in summer and never stationing (northern) troops there. Since Rome was such a powerful symbol, I would imagine ruling from Rome would have been a hotly contested position otherwise but I always only learned about the better defensiveness of Ravenna, and that the late emperor's and Ostrogoths therefore ruled from there. Was malaria a (substantial) factor in this? Thanks!

So I watched three videos concerning Columbus, the first is a Ted Ed video, the second a Knowing Better, the third a Bad Empanada. Ted Ed tells its viewers that Columbus is bad even for his own time by saying he sells children as young as nine as sex slaves. Knowing Better disputes this, saying that the text where he mentions children as sex slaves is when he says he is heartbroken that people are accusing him of it and that he is complaining that the colonists are doing it, not him. Bad Empanada counters this, saying that the full text indicates that he is referring to child sex slaves as an economical reference, as part of the economy going on in the colony, not complaining about it. He also points out Columbus on numerous occasions kidnapped women and give one as gifts to a friend of his who then raped her. From the text, it is clear that Columbus and his colleagues are not taking women and keeping them so they can do house chores, but these could be adult women. But I am unable to find a text to tell that he indeed sell children as sex slaves, he just mentions it in an economical term and in my opinion, is rather neutral about it, not repulsed by it but not confirming that he himself did it (because of course he would, if he did it that is). Since he is the only authority the natives and colonists answer in the New World, he may or not let child sex slave be present in his colony. But what do you think? Is there any other texts that mention child sex slaves or accusation thrown against Columbus?

Particularly, did foreign militaries take any notable inspiration and design elements into their early iron and steel war ships from the Union and Confederate ironclads?

What made this weapon so effective, especially considering the dizzying array of other comparable pole weapons in pre-modern Europe?
Why would simple battlefield effectiveness be be a consideration for 'banning' it, and how would this process be enacted?

What would be considered 'legitimate' warfare?

Just listened to In Our Time’s episode on The Pilgrims and one of the historians mentioned that “Squanto” as a name is the Wampanoag equivalent of “Satan”.

Was this his real name or was this name attributed to him long afterwards by other people?

Is this name the equivalent of “Satan” (aka something with a very strong negative connotation) ?

Partition of Palestine was opposed on the ground that it would alienate crucial Arab allies that supplied oil. Fair enough, that did happen. But would federalization really have avoided the issue? Wouldn't it still be opposed fiercely in the Arab world? If it was a "good idea", why was it not adopted?

I might be wrong about the details, feel free to correct.

I am beginning to explore the Napoleonic era and the first title I picked up is Napoleon and the Revolution (D. Jordan, 2015). In the opening pages, Jordan sort of suggests that Marxist or Jacobin-inspired historiography, when it comes to Napoleon's life and its relation to the Revolution, is really passé.

I am wondering whether there is (are) Napoleon biography that is deeply critical of him and yet is an excellent work of historiography? Are there Napoleon biographies from Marxist or Jacobinist perspective? Are there works critical of him from other perspectives?

When I was in Peru I couldn’t believe that the Incan sites we visited weren’t far older than they are. With no intent to be disrespectful at all, it seemed like in some ways the architecture was way behind what was going on in Europe at the same time. And when the Spanish came, the Incas didn’t have the weapons or defended that needed to fight back and were essentially overrun. So my question is, what were the Incas doing while different European countries were developing navies, fortresses, and weapons? What was their focus on if not those sort of things?

I finished “A short history of Europe” by Simon Jenkins quite a while ago and am wondering if there’s any similar book for India, one that doesn’t treat Indian history as a buildup to a united India or anything of that sort, but is willing to examine the kaleidoscope of India’s many historical kingdoms in the same manner as individual European nations. If that’s asking for too much, I mainly just want a book about all of Indian history written in a similar style to Simon Jenkin’s history of Europe: short, simple, and easy-to-digest with somewhat of a narrative in the background.

So in the song “come out you black and tans” theres a lyrics that says “show your wife how you won medals down in flanders” can someone explain what this is referencing?

Hi, everyone,

I am reading an essay about 18 Brumaire by a French historian, Alphonse Aulard, written in 1896. In a passage about immediate reaction to the event in Paris, Aulard says: "The provisional consuls at first let the royalists insult republicans. But neither Bonaparte nor Siéyès wanted to play the role of Monk."

(In French: Les consuls provisoires laissèrent d'abord les royalistes insulter les républicains. Mais ni Bonaparte ni Siéyès ne voulaient jouer le rôle de Monk.)

What does Monk here refer to? I did a search on Wikipedia and couldn't come up with any clue. Can anyone help me on this?

What factors led to the Strategic Hamlet Program in South Vietnam failing relative to the success of the strategy of New Villages in the Malayan Emergency?