I know that people like Anne Frank hid, and many emigrated, or at least tried to, but were there Jews who tried to pass themselves off as ordinary citizens? Were any successful? How would the Nazis go about determining whether someone was Jewish?

How was it different than our concept of nationality? How did conceptions of nationality vary across continents and time periods?

To me, strategically, taking Okinawa does not give the U.S. much. The firebombing raids and eventually, the nuclear strikes were staged from Saipan and Tinian. The explanations I can find say that Okinawa was going to be used as a staging base for the eventual invasion of Japan, but the original War Plan Orange did not call for such an invasion.

Surely if Hitler made the actual fighting of WWII his sole priority and didn't use valuable resources on implementing the final solution, Germany would have been in a better position to win the war and could then have exterminated the Jews afterwards unopposed?

Just to clarify, I'm not asking about a map of where the cities are/were, I'm talking about maps of the internal layout of the ancient cities from the time. Did the ancient Egyptians even make any maps that survived?

Timeline wise, I'm aware that 'ancient Egypt' is a very long time, but I'm interested in pretty much any existing map from Scorpion I right through to Cleopatra.

Why did the Romans have Judas betray Jesus? Specifically, how did that benefit the case they were building against him?

I'm likely going to get some details wrong as I'm not a student of either the Bible nor Rome.

His "betrayal with a kiss" happens when he tells the Roman guard to arrest Jesus. Were they that likely to arrest the wrong man in a scene out of Life of Brian? Jesus says "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to seize me? Day after day I sat teaching in the temple area, yet you did not arrest me."

It doesn't seem like Judas proves the case of blasphemy either. Jesus seems to state that he's the son of God prompting the high priest to say "He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy"

My guess is that it's more of a social function. Just as the Romans were afraid to arrest him during a religious festival (they said, “Not during the festival, that there may not be a riot among the people.”), having an apostle betray him might be evidence that he's not blessed if his closest followers would betray him.

It's also interesting that Judas "would be better not being born" while Peter was sanctified and apparently forgiven by Jesus despite denying he knows him three times. Though there's a far cry between falsely accusing someone for money and denying you know them to save your own skin.

did any jewish groups come over? were any of the "main players" in the colonization Jewish?

Being of Croatian descent, I am interested in this topic, more so, Ustase. I've learned some about them from my parents, but since they grew up In Yugoslavia, such things were not really teached in school. I gained more interest after coming across discussions on reddit when the topic was about the Yugoslav wars. Many times I'd would hear people call each other Chetniks or Ustase or justify or counter accusations with these terms. So I began researching about them. I read Wikipedia entries and online sources. But I have found so many conflicting entries that I am unsure who is right and who is wrong. I tend to be weary of reading historical things about the former Yugo states due to propaganda, bias or revisionism sadly. Edit wars reoccur on Wikipedia daily. Therefore I want to ask you what you think. Here are some questions:

• 1.)Why did the Ustase form and why did the Chetniks form? What were their goals?
• 2.)How much of Croats supported the Ustase? How much were Partisan or Peasant Party? Some say that Croats were ecstatic when the Usatse took over others say opposite.
• 3.)Why did Nazis support Usatse and why did Ustase like the Nazis considering Nazis hated Slavs?
• 4.)Is it fair to say Croatia was a united Nazi state like Germany, as in is there a parallel? Or were Ustase seen more as a terrorist organization?
• 5.)How brutal were Ante Pavlic's Croatia and Milan Nedic's Serbia? I couldn't find much info on the ladder. How many victims, perpetrators.
• 6.)Why was Pavelic so strongly Anti-Serbian? Why were the Chetniks so Anti-Croatian?
• 7.)Were perpetrators from either side brought to trial? I know Pavelic was able to escape.
• 8.)Does today's Croatian and Serbian governments bear any connection or responsibility similar to that of Germany and it's past? For example reparations.
• 9.)Have victim's families received compensation for what has happened?
• 10.)How brutal were the Chetniks?

It is quite frustrating not to know what is fact and what may be propaganda. Please help me learn. Thank you again.

Hello there, I know this is not usually the stuff you guys answer, but I am a 4th year undergrad student and I am trying to throw together a list of texts for an independent study on Ancient Egypt.. I was wondering if anybody could recommend some texts. I know the term "Ancient Egypt" is suchhh a broad category, but I want to focus the independent study on Egypt.. please help!

I was recently reading a fantasy book and in it there was a very strong character who was a female minstrel. So were there many female bards or minstrels and if so were they thought of as highly as their male counterparts?

To be more specific, how were the Anglo-Saxons treated vis-avis the Norman French? Other nationalities in England?

After listening to the homily on Easter Sunday the priest read that the two men crucified beside Jesus were rebels, not simple petty thieves. This seemed to align with what I'd heard about crucifixion being reserved for only the worst criminals; those who commit crimes against the state, which being rebelling most certainly falls under.

This led me to question what Barabbas did to be on death row (with Pilate supposedly trading Barabbas's life with Jesus's). I assume that he was also a rebel, cause from what I understand, only criminals against the state met such a punishment.

If my conjecture is correct, and Barrabas, like the other two men at Jesus's side, was indeed a rebel, I see that my whole understanding of what happened when the crowds demanded for Jesus's crucifixion.

Rather than looking at their choosing of Barabbas to be in a fit of rage at Jesus's sacrilegious behavior or something that can be attributed to the encouragement of the Pharisees who wanted him dead, it now becomes apparent that, to the crowd, it wasn't a choice between a holy man questioning and challenging their religious beliefs against a coldhearted murderer. Instead, I believe that the context of that choice (assuming it was made at all), was made by Jews who chose to support a violent and bloody path towards their salvation from their oppressors(Rome), over a man who preached change and reform of the status quo while still emphasizing peace and perhaps compromise with the ruling power at the time(his healing of the servant whose ear Peter had cut off, his directive to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's, as well as Pontius Pilate's claim that he did not see the wrong Jesus had done, which he most certainly would've had Jesus advocated for the violent expulsion of the Romans). I feel that this viewpoint is a lot more logical and likely rather than people choosing the murderer Barabbas, they looked to him as a savior and a hero of the people.

I understand that religion can be a highly controversial topic and there may be some who would counter and say that none of these events happened, however for the sake of discussion let's just assume that the Gospel was somewhat based on a historical event and managed to capture a gist of what was happening.

I was hoping that an expert could: 1)Give an accurate translation of what Barabbas was purported to have done (based on the original texts if possible), and confirm or deny my understanding that he too was a rebel.

2)Use the context of the place and the era that Jesus is said to have lived, and perhaps give credence/discredit my conjecture based on what could be seen as typical Jewish/Roman behavior and law at the time.

3)Give an alternative line of reasoning that could explain what appears to be an illogical and brash decision at first glance.(Should you find my line of reasoning to be inaccurate)

Thanks!

Chemotherapy, Radiation, etc.

This is actually a question related to the question about Hannibal by /u/commiepanko11 . How far back does our knowledge of phonology go?

About half of the Egyptian pantheon are depicted as human with the head of an animal. Sometimes this makes sense, such as Sekhmet having the head of a Lioness or Sobek having the head of a Crocodile, but most of the time there seems to be no discernible link between the animal and the purpose of the diety.

Where did the concept of a deity being hominiform from the neck down and animal from the neck upcome from? And how were the animals chosen?

So I've been working on something for a mod for Victoria 2 by getting it so that political ideologies won't grow much until that political idea is translated into the language like the Communist Manifesto. And in doing research on this it seems that it wasn't until after the Paris Commune as well as the international that the socialist party movement grew. I also looked at the Reichstag composition over time and it seems to support this but I was wondering what askhistorians thought. I was also thinking it could be a part of growing industrialization and higher literacy but I'm no historian

Any truth to this occurring? Noted in Master of the Senate by Robert A. Caro.