I've recently got into other aspects of Nazi Germany like economics. I've watched a few Youtube videos that claim that the Nazis were somehow socialist due to their tendency of controlling the economy through the state. I didn't agree with those claims, but it did get me thinking on whether or not Nazi Germany's economy was socialist or capitalist.

From what I've read so far it seems that Nazi Germany's economy was mostly capitalistic. They never really had a pro-worker stance and seemed to favor the corporations. The videos I've watched claim that those corporations were under threat from being nationalized by the government although a quick look in Wiki states that such things were rare and the corporations had the option to back out on Nazis projects. The Nazis also outlawed labor unions, strikes and lockouts. The only labor union that existed during Nazi Germany was controlled by the state though it was mostly about increasing worker output, not actually protect the workers. The claims that the Nazis were "opposed" capitalism are either misinterpreted by the fact that the Nazis usually meant that by "Jewish Bankers" and only opposed the Laissez-faire economic model.

In all, it seems that the Nazis economy was mostly capitalist though I'm not really educated on the subject because I just read through Wiki. So was Nazi Germany's economy socialist, capitalist, or a mix of both?

Like the title says, how did musicians keep their instruments in tune before the advent of recordings?

Did they need someone with perfect pitch to help them? Did they just do it by ear? I’m very curious.

Obviously the big players of the ancient classical empires like Rome were literate- but what about the Carthaginians? Minoans? I assume the persians too were literate. And I guess record-keeping was a must in all such empires, and it's a small step from markings representing objects to full literacy.. Just curious, thanks

I was doing some irrelevant philosophical research when I came upon a text saying that the Ancient Greeks had no proper word for "authority". I thought the best place would be to ask here since I always welcome additional historical context. Did the word "democracy" also stand in for what we could call "authority of the people", and because they had a word for everything related to authority there was no need for "authority" as such?

The medieval era was famously dominated by monarchies, with very few exceptions, considering this, how did medieval scholars view the period in which the western world was dominated by a Republic ? Or even ancient Republics in general ? What about Athenian democracy ? Was there even anything as "Republicanism" as seen as an alternative to monarchy in the medieval period ?

Hi!

I was watching Historia Civilis's video on the Assassination of Caesar and found that it was incredibly detailed so thought that I might be able to read some ancient account of it. In looking for these sources I found four secondary sources (Cassius Dio, Appian, Suetonius and Plutarch) all of which were far less detailed than the video. For instance I can't find a source for Brutus telling Cicero: "Congratulations Cicero, you've regained your liberty!".

I looked at the sources of the video and the ancient sources were the aforementioned as well as Cicero, but I can't seem to find if he talks about it.

So my question is how do we know about the extra details such as the above quote, the various senators talking outside the theatre of Pompey, the conspiratorial meetings etc.

Thanks for your help!

We have a wonderfully informative copy-paste answer I often see mods posting on this site which addresses the history of antisemitism throughout the ages, but there's a point in it I find extremely odd. I have seen this question asked before, but since the person posting the passage is not generally the one (or one of the ones) who wrote it, I've yet to see a good response. I hope it's alright to make it its own question like this.

The answer includes this brief description:

Christian leaders instituted a policy that ... subjected [Jews] to discriminatory measures such as restrictions where they could live and what professions they could practice.

But follows it up shortly with:

Similarly, religious, ideological, and economic reasons were often interwoven in the expulsion of Jews to whom medieval rulers and kings owed a lot of money; in fact, one intersection of crisis-blaming and financial motive occurred during the Black Death, when local rulers were able to cynically blame Jews for the plague as an excuse for murdering and expelling them.

(Emphasis mine.)

I am having trouble reconciling these two facts. Were the restrictions on Jewish professions not designed to stop them from becoming too rich (and therefore influential)? From my modern perspective, that seems like it would be an obvious goal of dictating what a minority I wanted to keep in check could and couldn't do. Further, why was money borrowed from Jews in the first place, rather than seized through excessive taxes or fines (since it was the rulers of these lands doing the borrowing)? What recourse did Jews have for ensuring debts were repaid that made expelling or murdering them necessary to avoid payment rather than simply going "actually I just don't think I'll pay you and there's literally nothing you can do about that so ha"? (And yes, I do understand this wasn't the sole motivation for the expulsion/murder, but that rulers were ever in such a position that it was even a factor is baffling to me.)

I am familiar with the stereotype of the Jewish money lender, and I assume this is where it sees its origin, but the entire situation seems so bizarre and counter-intuitive. I would love some context on it.

Thank you!

Background

Often in history, after a state has grown so powerful that it takes a coalition of other great powers to defeat it, these victorious powers will then decide to take away territories from the former either as spoils of war or to stop it from becoming a threat once more. (Of course, these motives can be combined.) I would think this is done primarily out of national self-interest, but of course there may also be an element of revenge and retribution involved.

This has happened to Germany twice, in 1918 and in 1945, when Germany had to give up, in 1918, Alsace-Lorraine to France, Eupen-Malmedy to Belgium, and the province of Posen to Poland, and, in 1945, when it had to cede all the territories East of the Oder-Neisse line to Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, the Czech Republic and the Soviet Union.

Question

Now, my question is, how did France stay so large after being decisively beaten at Waterloo in 1815 by the Prussians, Dutch, and British? Surely, by that stage it was clear that France, with its vast population (30 million) and formidable military, had not lost its potential military advantage over its continental rivals? It would take another 60 years for Prussia/Germany to equal and surpass France as a great power.

To make this more concrete, why were sizeable chunks of France not given to neighbouring countries? For example, why was Alsace-Lorraine not returned to some German kingdom, such as Baden or Wurttemberg, or Prussia or Bavaria? Or why not to Austria? And why was French Flanders not given to the newly formed United Kingdom of the Netherlands? And then I could go on for a while: why was the French Basque country not ceded, or the area around Perpignan given to Spain. Or most symbolically of all, why were Savoy and Corsica not given back to some Italian state, like Piedmont?

To be sure, I know that the United Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed to act as a sort of moderately powerful buffer-state that would be able to resist France if it came to that. So, clearly, there was some fear among the other European powers that France would have a go at them again.

​

I'm curious to hear what the experts think!

A lot of the talk goes to the imperial navy from 1856-1946, but not much before that. What was the Japanese Navy like before 1855, during its isolation?

Just a series of questions on how mercenaries function(ed). I chose Condottieri somewhat arbitrarily but it seemed like a good idea to narrow things down, and it's an interesting time period anyways.

I was reading about POWs during the American Revolution on Wikipedia, and it said that they were sent to towns and sometimes used as labor. Wikipedia gives an example of Virginian plantation owners in Albemarle County using POWs as free/cheap labor. I’m just wondering how true this is.

I am looking for book recommendations on the history of New Orleans. I would really prefer an overview of the city's history, but I wouldn't mind a close look at one specific era. I am not interested in any memoirs or historical fiction.

I was wondering lately about what alcoholic drinks people in the past used to drink and I saw the weeks topic was Persia so I decided to ask.

It’s a hot day I’ve been traveling along the royal road in Persia to different satraps and I’m feeling peckish. So I stop at an establishment and order an Alcoholic beverage and a snack what would I most likely get ?

1,000 Poles went to fight on the side of America, as well as Tadeusz Koscziusko. Why did the polish do this? Did they just hate Britain? Support American democracy?

Although it 2021 it is quite common to get lots of things delivered, pizza and pizza restaurants were clearly pioneers in this field and have a special place as “delivery food.” How did this happen, and why didn’t it happen to other types of food?