French guy here.

So in our history books, we talk much about the French resistance during WW2 and how it helped them to turn the tide (even though the American landing did the most of the job). Basically, a lot of people simply rejected the defeat (which was actually signed in 1940) and started resisting.

But what I don't really understand is why there wasn't any sign of "resistance" in Germany after they lost WW1. Even though their soil wasn't invaded, they got stripped of some territories, and a lot of their cities were occupied by Allies forces. But there isn't a trace of acts of sabotage, silent killings of Allies, and operations to free some cities. They seemed to simply endure the defeat and the Treaty of Versailles, until Hitler's rise to power which led to WW2.

We could say that Hitler would basically be their way to resist but they had to wait for 15 years until the Nazi party went into full power and started to refuse the Treaty of Versailles. French, on their part, resisted as soon the armistice was signed.

So was there a post-WW1 German resistance that we don't talk about, or did it never exist at all?

This may have happened both before and after the Napoleonics, but this is when I know. Also, I know there were plenty of cases where artillery was used to break up infantry formations, but from reading, it seems as if the broad/default strategy was to respond to enemy artillery fire. Why?

The question is very extensive, I understand that. I would appreciate both sources that investigate evolution of the "castle" over the time (if such thing exists) and particularly medieval castles. Thank you very much!

Hi, AskHistorians!

When I want to learn more on a period, I generally go to the library or amazon and look for books. But I am often at a loss to find the reference book among the available selection.

Sure, I will stay away if the back cover seems sensationalist. But otherwise, what can I do to sort the wheat from the chaff?

My impression of the Axis is that they were aware that their cipher codes could theoretically be broken, they had some clues that this had actually happened, but that they could not bring themselves to believe it.

My question is:

Did the Axis powers' incredulity have to do with how out of this world / fantastic to them was the notion that the Allies could have developed computing machines that could handle the large mathematics required to accomplish this?

Did the Axis powers' repeated rejection of the idea that their codes had been broken have to do with their belief that accomplishing the computations required was practically impossible... and they couldn't bring themselves to imagine that the Allies had developed computers to solve these problems?

Edit: You guys are great.

What are the differences and similarities of the portrayal of Julius Caesar when comparing Plutarch and Suetonius on Caesar. Like what were things one said but the other didn't, or what did one say and the other say the opposite on?

Are there any good resources/books to read? Any advice on getting an unbiased [within reason] chronological timeline? Any advice in general?

Anti-Semitism and nationalism seem very closely-tied, with every post-WWI German nationalist that I know of (even more moderates like the Stressers) being Anti-Semitic, and viewing all Jewish citizens of Germany as inherent foreigners.

Did any leaders envision a Germany in which Jews and Christians alike could live and prosper? Were there any Jewish German nationalists, who felt a strong connection to their home country and wanted to make it stronger?

Were Jews unilaterally viewed as non-German in this setting, even by non-nationalists?

Hello,

I have questions for historians here that have taught or went to school in Egypt.

Historians have agreed that the book of exodus never happened. There was no Jews that was enslaved as depicted in the bible. There was no Moses that came and talk to the king of egypt.

With that being said. Do they teach those in egypt in their history class as real or as myths?

Second question. Do egyptians get annoyed when someone from israel talks about how they were enslaved in egypt back in the days? Do Egyptians just rolls their eyes and like "whatever dude".

I'm genuinly curious.

Thanks

As the question above states, i have always wondered how useful it is for modern military leaders to study these old tactics. Does modern technology and weapons render most of them obsolete?

I just watched the Extra history videos on Sengoku jidai, and it said that there were more guns at the end of the warring states period than there were in Europe. What were these firearms like? Were they less advanced or just different than the European firearms, and what were the tactics associated with these guns?

How did this affect the beliefs of the catholic church.

Sphere of influence ect.