How many soldiers that served in the Wehrmacht during WW2 held strong National Socialist convictions and ideals? Meaning they subscribed to the Nazi ideology and worldview and all that it entailed.

Ideas such as anti semitism, anti Bolshevism, the belief in a worldwide Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy, Lebensraum, the superiority of the Aryan race and the inferiority of Jews, Slavs, and Roma etc.

Was it a minority of the men that served? A majority? Half?

We do know that the Wehrmacht did commit its fair share of atrocities during the war often as bad as the SS. They aren't innocent and blameless but they aren't all monsters. Some of them were genuinely forced to fight or fought solely to defend their country. It still doesn't excuse any crimes they may have committed.

Now we understand that Germanic (English, German, Swedish) and Romance (French, Spanish, Italian) are both branches of western Indo-European languages and have found thousands of shared roots and cognates between the two groups. But when the Germanic tribes invade Rome, did people know that these two language group (Romances were mostly Latin and Vulgar Latin at that time) are related? What about the Medieval time? Did they finally understood the relationship after the establishment of modern linguistics, or earlier? Thanks for answers!

Edit: By "people" above, I mean scholars and writers that are familiar with linguistics, not regular people.

what are the percentages of ethnic people in america studying history? im asian and im thinking of moving my history minor into a double history major.

I've always heard that the paramour "Lesbia" was historically the patrician Clodia, but how did we come to that conclusion?

I read some where that people in Europe thought that since the Magyar fought similarly to the Huns (utilizing light horse archers in great number) people of the time thought that they were the Huns who had returned to terrorize Europe once again. WhIle this is false and the Magyar and the Huns are not the same, is it true that the words Hungary and Hungarian come from this misconception.

If I remember correctly some of the tribes (Vandals/Goths) were Arians, and also really powerful. With Byzantium pretending to still be in control and delegating themselves out of existence by recognizing Germanic overlords as governors, who was in practicality protecting the Church or the pope? I know papal authority took a few more centuries to really solidify, but popes are important folks in this time period too. Just trying to wrap my head around this kind if fallow period where my knowledge of history drops off.

Sorry if this is confusing - I'm on mobile and trying my best to communicate my question.

I've long been fascinated by history, and have even done some light historiographical reading (primarily about the historiography of "local histories", particularly those produced by non-Historians and/or by WPA historians), but I am not a trained historian, and so have not had the benefit of in-depth historiographical training.

That being said, while reading history, and discussing it with people, as well as discussing related "amateur" topics like genealogy, historic artifact collecting, living history, etc. with others, I have developed a thought over the past few years that, at a certain point, historic memory devolves or, for lack of a better term, becomes "fuzzy" and unrelatable.

I thought about this after reading a lot about historic memory in works like Fitz Brundage's Where These Memories Grow (which includes the assertion "Historical memory . . . transmits selective knowledge about the past...between the willfully recalled and the deliberately forgotten"). In a lot of modern scholarship, memory is treated as something that is intentionally modified and changed to fit each successive generation's political and social motives.

I'm curious, though, as to what research, if any, has been done on the subject of unintentional or passive historical memory changes.

It seems like there's a general boundary in society's historic memory where subjects and facts move from being relatable, tangible, concrete, and knowable, to being foreign, hazy, speculative, and far less "knowable" to general, non-Academic members of society. I by no means think this is an original theory on my part, but if it has been explored before - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it's an idea that's as old as the Ancients - I just have never seen it set out in a scholarly (or other) work before, and would appreciate if reference could be provided to such.

I've come up with terms that I try to use to explain my "theory" - Tangible/Relatable historical memory, and "Mythic Historical Memory". These might not be the best terms, but I think they effectively convey my point.

"Tangible/Relatable Historical Memory" would include a society's memory of events that are recent enough in the past to involve (a) a socio-economic structure substantially similar to the present era's, (b) actors that are less than five or so generations preceding the current generation, (c) landmarks and artifacts that are still in use, or at least are still present outside of the context of museums and historic parks, and (d) substantial residue of living memory.

"Mythical Historical Memory" would involve the opposite. Essentially, it would be historical memory that is just alien enough, and just distant enough from everyday life, as to make it hazier, and more subject to mythologizing/"folklorization"/popular misconstruction of historic events and people.

For instance, my favorite topic is the U.S. Populist Party. I consider that to, for now, be in the realm of "Tangible/Relatable Historical Memory", because many structures from that era (the 1890's) are present in everyday life, the actors are 4-5 generations back for most Americans, the socio-economic structures are relatively the same (Gilded Age capitalism, though in an agricultural context, versus Modern capitalism, in a service context; tenant farming versus "wage slavery" and debt, etc.), and living memory of that era could be found in persons who were still alive even 50-60 years ago.

Another example, which I think passed some time ago into "Mythical Historic Memory" is the Revolutionary War. I'll leave out the Civil War, because its memory appears to have been so intentionally distorted as to make that a more difficult subject. The Revolution, though, occurred in what was essentially an alien society; relics and landmarks related to it are either (a) not present at all (particularly outside of the East Coast) or (b) are confined to historic parks/districts/museums. There is no recent residue of living memory, and despite the amount of Academic work on the subject, it's a topic that, society-wide, is almost entirely given over to folklore, popular history, and myth. I would dare say most Americans could relate more with a modern British citizen than with a figure from the American revolution.

Anyway, if anyone who has been troubled enough by reading through all of this can point me to works either setting out or thoroughly discrediting this theory, I would appreciate it; also, if anyone believes this is novel (which I sincerely doubt), please feel free to support it or rebut it with your own thoughts.

I've been reading about how foreign opinion from Britain/France and of course from the North would eventually force the South to abolish slavery. International pressure forced other countries to abolish as well. Also Russia outlawed serfdom as well, so it was definitely becoming a global thing. Were those 600k deaths mostly meaningless? I've read a lot about how the South was determined to spread slavery, and I'm curious about possible foreign interference.

Looking for some good reading on the history of organized crime in Chicago.

Recently joined /r/empirepowers and started as Taiwan, however I've had a lot of difficulty finding information about the island in between the 13th and 15th century. Specifically, I'm looking for evidence of Chinese migration to the Island in the 1400s, as well as info on the Kingdom of Middag.

Any help is appreciated!

What was the most important mechanism for the spread of Islam into Southeast Asia? Was it largely economic with the elites adopting customs to foster better relations with Muslim traders? Was it missionary work by Islamic clerics working with the common people? Was it local people travelling to other Muslim areas, converting, and then bringing their new religion home? Was it something completely else?

I've always wondered, given the heavy commitment to gunpowder-based warfare from the late 1600s onwards and the ever-increasing possibility of having a volley of lead flying at you, why did soldiers stopped wearing a breastplate as part of their kit? I get that it made them slower/less mobile, but with the exception of the occasional bayonet charge, musket infantry didn't exactly have to move much anyway. Was it just a case of firearms becoming too powerful to be stopped by metal armor?