I am currently reading Hitler's Furies: German Women in the Nazi Killing Fields by Wendy Lower. The author notes Hitler's fascination with the American West and suggests that Hitler modeled his plan to "civilize" the East after American westward expansion. Hitler spoke of "the duty 'to Germanize [the East] by immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins.'" (Lower, 35)

Hitler's thoughts seem to imply an international understanding of the forced removal of Native Americans in the twentieth century. Since the Indian Removal Act was law, I am assuming that its passage was known throughout the global community. Considering Hitler's quote, I am curious what the consensus of the international community was regarding the removal of Native Americans from their lands and the slaughter of Native Americans in the process.

From what I understand of the scientific method it encourages skepticism by its nature so "trusting" it seems like a distinct concept from the original idea, but was it always? Apologies if this seems in any way political or too recent, that is not my intent.

Sitting in my house in tornado valley, huge storm outside atm and this thought came to my head.

​

I have my house and basement but those aren't even a guarantee, so any idea how a society of people living mostly in tent-like structures would've dealt with a tornado?

How come Russians didn’t “discover” North America since you can see Alaska from Russia and it closer to North America than the Western Europeans countries are?

Basically what the title says. Obviously the ancien régime was chronically short on cash, but willingly shrinking your current and future tax base on the surface seems like a bad decision. Did the accounting work in the kingdom’s favor in the long run, or was this a desperate bid to stay afloat pre-revolution? Thanks in advance!

It’s astounding how fast airplanes were developed and adopted. In 1903 you had the Wright Brothers’ plane that could hardly stay up for more than a minute, but then less than 15 years later you’ve got fighter pilots like the Red Baron dogfighting above France in WWI. How was this accomplished?

I am listening to the hard core history pod cast and the depression is depicted as a world wide affliction. I have a base knowledge of what led to the U.S. woes of the depression but am I missing a global perspective?

Tried to make the title as succinct as I could make it. I understand its somewhat subjective, but my (possibly warped) understanding of history involves much more beating of children, rape, famine, prolonged states of war, torture, tyranny, and all with little if any justice. I guess what I'm trying to ask is, (if real) did these things affect people in the way that we'd expect it to psychologically affect a modern western first world person, complete with consequences they'd take on one's mental health? Or were they just kind of used to things being way more brutal (seemingly brutal to us, at least) and it didn't affect them?

This is a basically question about sources. I’m curious whether the information we have today about ancient civilizations is largely what we can expect to ever know about them, or if there is any sense that we may discover more in the future, possibly because of technological advancements?

Excuse me if this was asked before but I didnt find anything about this in the FAQ section.

I traveled Thailand and just watched "Apocalypse Now" and was wondering: when were the hill tribes and indigenous people of central asia (countries above) "integrated" into the country? (I think the correct term for this is "assimilation" but I am not a native english speaker.)

For ex., the Hindu scriptures including 3000+ year old Vedas talk of the 'Jambu Dvipa' which we identify today as the Indian subcontinent (roughly speaking). What was North America called before European invasion?

Is there a specific reason or sets of reasons why people choose specific species or strains of plants to depict in sculpture pieces, whether on their own or as part of a building?
Are they plants with some usefulness or cultural relevance, like wheat or grapes? What about religious significance? Are plants ever chosen because of aesthetics primarily? And how might this have changed in the modern era?

The popular image of a Civil War battlefield is empty fields or rolling hills without underbrush or many other obstacles. The combatants can see one another from a reasonable distance and organizing stereotypical 19th century formations is simple. But this doesn't describe much of the Mid-Atlantic or Southern United States today, much less in the 1860s.

So was that actually how most Civil War battlefields were? Or is our popular image missing a lot of the color of the past?

Their popcorn and chips/crisps, if you like.

My grandmother lived on a small farm about 30km South of Cloppenburg, Germany.

The first part of her life was spent on the farm, before going to nursing school in around 1949.

I'm trying to get a sense of what her life might have been like in those late war and early post war years, before moving to Canada. Would she have had electricity (probably not?)? Were trains functional? What would nursing school have been like? How did her life change as they transitioned out of the war? Would her community have had access to cars?

By my calculation, soldiers would have come through her town only about twice (on their way into ND and then while retreating), but we do know munitions landed on her farm.

I also understand that early post war there was a pass system in place.

She died before I had the opportunity to chat with her, so any readings, books or thoughts you have would be so appreciated. I've spent a lot of time on Google, but I can't seem to find anything too detailed.

Thanks historians!

Much love from the Great White North.