I'm not even sure if this is the right sub reddit to ask a question like this

I remember being told in grad school by a professor that he still used 3x5 cards when researching a new article or book. I know another professor who has a wall in his office of about 5 or 6 file cabinets with another row of cabinets set on top (he uses a stepladder). I've heard others mention using Evernote, OneNote, or Zotero to manage sources and such (I've not used all of them myself).

I've now amassed photocopies, digital copies, photos, old drafts, scribbled notes to myself, etc., and I'm wondering if I'm choosing the best way of managing it all.

How do you manage information and sources collected in your research? Do you have a method for keeping and later retrieving research or ideas for future projects?

What are the history field's best practices for organizing stuff? What strategies, tips, or tools would you recommend?

EDIT: Just to make it clear, I refer to the modern state but I mean what could have happened in the past that would make them not claim it.

If not, how did these two very different things come to have the same name?

For example, did one of the Rothschilds help finance the first De Beers diamond mine? Or start a small manufacturing company that became something enormous like Volkswagen?

I remember my high school history teacher telling us that many countries freely sent jews to germany long before WW2 began. Can someone clarify or debunk this thought?

Once the Italians surrendered during WW2, did all the Italians abide by the peace or where there die hard partisan versions of the Italians fighting the Allies? I know the Germans occupied parts of Italy, but I'm referring to Italians.

Some examples off the top of my head include circumcision (both male and female), flagellation, some versions of the sun dance practiced by Plains Native Americans, scarification, neck extending in Thailand, skull deformation in Vanuatu...

I feel that we hear a lot about how the Allies (and in particular the Americans and the British) broke through the encryption codes of both the Germans and Japanese, giving them a significant advantage in the war.

What was the opposite like? Did the Germans, Japanese and to a lesser extent, Italians, have any success in breaking Allied encryption systems? If so, did it prove to be a major advantage in specific circumstances?

There is a scene in the film Fury where a few Germans are seen hanging from light posts with signs around their neck that explain their death as punishment for cowardice. One victim was even a young girl. Shortly after that an old man tells Brad Pitt's character where the remaining Nazis are at and immediately after pointing out their hiding spot he is shot in the head by a German soldier.

How accurate was this to what happened as the Allies got deeper and deeper into German territory?

There must have been other diaries/journals on day to day life in Nazi Germany as a Jewish family in hiding.

It just seems a odd use of limited resources to repair, refloat, and refurbish obsolete 25 year old battleships for a war dominated by the aircraft carrier.

I'm curious to know your opinions on this, both arguements welcome :)

This is, of course, an extremely general question, making answering it difficult. I'm sure it looked different for each colony, each empire, and each time period. But I am wondering if there are ANY generalizations that might be insightful.

To narrow the question, I am especially interested in the European empires of 19th and 20th centuries. For example, a part of Africa "becomes" the colony of German East Africa, and then WWI happens, and then this land "becomes" British and Belgian territories. Or, the land that is now Poland changing hands between empires.

What did this mean for the native people of these kinds of places? Were resources simply carried off and expended as empire saw fit? Or was trade more equitable? To what extent were existing native social systems kept intact? To what extent was a military presence or violence used to keep the imperial system going? Were there examples of colonization that Empires saw as "successful" and tried to replicate? How did the native people view themselves and these Empires?

So I am here reading about Africa and its state of turmoil.

During decolonization what could have been done differently to give Africa the best possible chance of succeeding?

To keep it inline with the subreddit; what mistakes did the Commonwealth States (Australia, New Zealand), UK, USA make that led to the destabilization of Africa? The year I have in mind is 1960 since the Congo Crisis was beginning to occur, South Africa's Apartheid System/Pass Laws were in full swing, and not all states were yet decolonized.

*Were

Some examples they gave that come to mind are:

• Nomadic people never build large cities, unless you are the mongols

• All major empires are agricultural, except for the mongols

• No one has conquered Russia or Afghanistan except for the mongols

• forcing slaves into your army has never worked, except for the mongols.

There are others, but you get the idea.

Not the best phrasing, so I'll elaborate. In a submarine a tactic of avoiding detection is to turn off all non-essential systems and have the crew make as little noise as possible to avoid sonar and reduce the heat-signature. Has this ever been used as a tactic by armour?

I'd imagine that a silent and dormant tank in a ruined setting surrounded by the wrecks of other tanks could be unnoticed until the crew brought it to life and ambushed the enemy.