I'm writing a paper for my German Expression through Nazi Art, Art History class. The paper is on the similarities and differences of the aesthetic of Nazi Art and Hitler's personal art that he made. I know that Hitler had an influence in the propaganda that was being made for the Third Reich, and I'm pretty sure he never personally created any of it, but I'm not 100% sure. There is not a ton of information on these subjects so any additional information that any of you might have or know of would be helpful as well.

Like, which drug did the human race find first?

Hello reddit Historians, feel free to redirect me if I'm posting in the wrong subreddit. I'm a second-year college undergrad double majoring in History and Middle Eastern & Islamic Studies, and it's time I started looking for entry-level internships. Would you have any advice on where to look? Frankly, I'm completely lost, as many of the internships require numerous other technical abilities, and I have no real experience interning. I would really appreciate any guidance you could give.

A book I was reading had this:

There is another important aspect of the Sistine Chapel worth mentioning. Michelangelo’s Last Judgment is located behind the altar, not on the facing wall like all the others. Traditionally, Last Judgments were always painted on the wall opposite the altar, because they served as a warning. After facing the altar during the course of the service, the faithful then turned around to leave and were shown the various penalties awaiting those who violated divine law. In the Sistine Chapel the exact opposite happens: the celebrant and the faithful are forced to stare at the Last Judgment as they say their prayers. I do not know whether it was the chapel’s floor plan that imposed this solution or the artist’s iron will. We could probably easily find out by asking an expert. I never have, because I like to imagine (albeit without any historical basis) that Michelangelo chose this configuration so as to make his work a warning addressed not only to the average churchgoer, but to the cardinals, celebrants, and the pope himself. After all, Rome was very corrupt back then and the Reformation was in full swing. It traumatized Michelangelo, who was a member of the so-called spiritual Franciscans, and the papacy considered the movement’s followers Lutheran sympathizers. That suspicion is almost certainly unfounded, but it is true that this small coterie aimed to encourage a revival of the evangelical spirit as a remedy for the Church’s corruption.

Is the author wrong about this?

New Orleans used to be one of the country's biggest cities with a great economy and booming culture. The culture is still there, but it seems like the city is in a lot worse state than other comparable cities. I've heard a few people throw around a bunch of parallels with Detroit. Can you build upon this, please?

Thank you.

When the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, why did only those who worshipped the Pantheon get converted, but not the Jews? Shouldn't Christianity have been more popular in Israel, where it originated, than in Europe, as is the case with just about every other religion?

Arabs also muslim and what do you they think about being together with christians fight against their muslim brothers (ottomans) ?

If colonialism is understood as a practice of domination (the subjugation of one people, the "othering" of them, the movement of people and maintenance of political sovereignty, and the creation of political and economic dependance of a territory to one power center), then does it mean Roman Empire is a form of ancient colonialism?

Edit: I'm asking if Roman Empire can be seen through the lens of post-colonial theory.

1 stick of butter equalling half a cup or 8 tablespoons is ubiquitous to the point that recipes refer to measurements by half a stick or two sticks instead of 1 cup of butter and we all understand what measurement it means.

How did the size of a stick of butter become so uniform?

If this doesn't find any experts in /r/AskHistorians I'll try /r/AskCulinary next, but I'd prefer a historians answer.

Is the idea that there would be predesignated battles with a known place and time and number of troops on each side for giving the army experience, and gaining captives, a real thing?

Additionally, did people like say, the Tarascans do it? OR was it a distinct Aztec/Tlaxcala diplomatic relation.

I'm reading that Polynesians might have had contact with South America and I'm curious on how knowledge and trade would get across such a large system of islands. How much would they know about places like Hawaii and distant islands?

I've been reading English history and was curious about the death of the young King Edward VI. I saw that many seemed to attribute his death to tuberculosis but the accounts I saw from contemporaries describing his symptoms included swelling of the extremities, foul smelling vomit, fevers and ulcers. I also read speculation that he had been slowly poisoned. Is there a consensus among historians regarding cause of death?

Looking for books or primary accounts to keep looking into this. Looking to find out how the region was settled, who settled it and what kind of difficulties they had.

Really interested in the building of communities and homes especially.

I know that rape was widespread both among the allied forces and the Axis powers, but i haven't really been able to figure out in what way it has affected the war. Japan did state that comfort woman were used to prevent that japanese soldiers raped in occupied areas, which would make the population even more dissatisfied, though i have found no evidence that it actually helped in any way. Rape during the occupation of Germany, particularly by the red army is also a subject most people have knowledge about, yet i haven't seen a discussion about what effects it had on the general population.

So my questions are basically; why was rape such a common occurence? how did it affect the war, was it for example used as a psychological weapon? also what impact did it have on future generations?

EDIT: sexual slavery was the term i was looking for.

There is often mention of Barons, Dukes, and other nobles present during the many battles of WWI, was their role mainly ceremonial, as in, was their presence wanted as they were the figurehead of a specific unit? (As I understand it, units had strong roots to the part of the German empire that they were mustered/raised from) How competent was the royalty in actual command? Did they join most 20th century commanders in being extremely ignorant and incompetent in command?

Lastly, how 'royalized' was Germany at the time? How prominent was royalty/royal family among the general population?

Prussia gradually grew during the 18th and 19th century. As I understand, they incorporated many of the small states that made up modern Germany at the time...How did they do this? Did they seize them or did they agree with the nations' ruler? Also, what exactly is the story behind the forming of the confederation? Any replies are appreciated. Thanks.