What was their economy like - did they encourage individuals or did they want the Nazi state to have control over all aspects of life? Was being rich encouraged and admired like in America or Great Britain? I imagine by the end it was a war economy...?

Having taken a look at many non-profit charities to see how they are perceived by the American public, watched the oft-referenced TED talk from Dan Pallotta, and witnessed a lot of rhetoric about, "This charity is bad / This charity is good," I wanted to know more about how the concept of a non-profit charitable organization came into being in the first place, and how that has evolved since then.

For instance, Pallotta claims that charities were created as a function of Puritan culture, wherein people performed charity in order to make up for their profit-making sins, and that this "for-profit to make money" vs. "non-profit to save your soul" dichotomy has persisted to this day. This seems simplistic, and he certainly doesn't cite historical sources.

How accurate is that statement? How did charities become a concept, how did our methods of evaluating them evolve, and how have those concepts changed throughout the years / decades / centuries? (millennia?)

I understand that today Easter is the holiday associated with the resurrection of Christ. But I have heard of a theory linking Easter with the Mesopotamian goddess of sex and fertility Ishtar (eggs and rabbits as symbols of fertility). This theory also states that with the rise of the Eastern Roman Empire the festival in celebration of Ishtar was changed to Easter. Does this theory have any evidence or historical records?

I'm confused, what are some actual examples of it?

I've been doing some reading into the "Nordic/Aryan Race" topic because I think it's such an odd yet interesting way of thinking, and then using propaganda to promote and inspire in war.

One of my TAs informed me that Hitler meant Aryan as in an ethnic German from Germany, and not the rest of Europe. I've also been by one professor that Hitler wanted the French and English to fight with him against the Soviets.

I want to know what the straight and true information is on this subject... Did the Nazis specifically believe Germany to be the only point of racial purity in Europe? What about the Scandinavians, the English and Irish, the French, or the Spanish?

I've seen photos of Norwegian and Danish, French and Spanish soldiers wearing the Wermacht/Nazi uniform... so apparently they were of some high racial standard to uphold Nazi ideology, right?

We musn't forget Bose and India in this discussion too, with the Free Indian Legion, and that they were deemed racially acceptable to the Nazis.

Specifically, I want to know the answer to what the Nazis determined "racially pure", because it seems like there is always a ton of contradictory evidence towards what the answer really is.

When you read Shakespeare, there is quite a bit of gender queering going on - cross-dressing, androgyny and so forth. Was this sort of blurring of gender identity limited to the stage and actors, or was the idea of gender and sexuality more fluid in society generally? If the latter, what caused the shift to more rigid gender categories?

Would it be less?

More?

How did Europe view the conflict? Were European powers concerned in any way? How did people view such a large country enter such a large conflict? How did it affect trade, etc? Was the US important enough at the time to have outsiders be very concerned in the matter? What about Canada, Mexico, and other countries?

I know a little about inflation (I still don't totally understand it), and I thought more money in the market decreased its value. How did this help stimulate the economy? I've heard that getting rid of the gold standard was one of the biggest contributors to the end of the depression. Is this true as well?

After finishing the Band of Brothers series I am a little confused on one aspect of WW2. A lot of popular movies such as Saving Private Ryan act as though the American soldiers new all about concentration camps long before they ever hit German lands and actually looked upon these death camps themselves. Band of Brothers makes it seem like only after discovering the camps did the soldiers and higher command of the Allies find out about what the Nazi's had been doing. Can anyone shed some light on this subject?

Seems pretty weird don't you think?

Simple question that has bothered me for a while, but I never through to ask. Why is the word "Tokyo" constantly translated and spelled as Tokio in American propaganda during the war? Is this similar to why we have Beijing and Peking for the same city, and just transliteration?

I'm not sure where in which subreddit I should post this, so I'm sorry if I'm in the wrong subreddit. I am interested in learning more about the cold war (that part of history has always fascinated me). I was wondering if anybody give me some book recommendations on this topic?

I know that the Iroquois originated from the "Huron stock" as one website liked to put it, but I'm confused about what the Huron nation's role was relative to the league. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Huron split off into it's own nation, right? And they didn't join the league, right? Which is why the Iroquois nations waged war on them (and their French allies), correct? I've read countless books and articles on this, and they all seem to be missing a lot of crucial information that prevents me from piecing this all together. Please help me!

I've been trying to find some additional information about this for a while now and drawn blanks every time. I've always just assumed that the praetorian guard of this era would have worn Lorica Segmentata, possibly with greaves, but I haven't really seen any sources to back it up, it's just based on the fact that I always seen reenactors and artists depict them in this armor.

I have three questions:

1. Were the praetorian guard of this era issued armor or did they pay for their own?
2. Would the praetorian guard, as a semi-ceremonial units, have been held to higher standards in terms of uniformity of equipment than a normal legionarie?
3. Do we have any reliable sources on the armor of the praetorian guard?

I understand that vassals were often given some degree of autonomy, and had private levies which they were required to contribute to their liege in times of war. But did they often go to war without the support of their soverign? Did they ever go to war with each other, or was there generally a king's peace in place? And if they did was it common or a sign of declining centeralized authority?

edit: I am in no way calling homosexuality a disease. It was an example of how people with HIV/AIDS 20 years ago were wrongly stereotyped as being gay, or that HIV/AIDS was a "gay disease". I do not endorse that belief whatsoever. I just am already aware of it. I also can't change the title.

Inspired by the video on the front page " never shoot a man in a parachute " I wondered if there is an ethic code that people in war follow.

?

My Grandfather was a RAF Pilot so I was never able to get a first hand account of any of the D-Day landings from the ground. Is Saving private Ryan close to it?