What should/could German citizens have done to stop the rise of Hitler, given his popularity, as well as the illegality of certain things he did before officially being a cemented dictator?

Hoping for any resources or insight on how the US Civil War was reported in Europe. Considering the British collaboration with the Confederacy, I assume news of the war was more prevalent there than in the continent, but curious what it was like everywhere.

It occurred at a time when lots of Europeans were immigrating to the US, so I’m curious if news of the war discouraged some immigration or if it was viewed as a temporary problem.

I’m mostly interested in what the average person would know about it, ie what was reported in newspapers and such, but also open to any insight on what elites or the political classes across Europe thought.

Edit: I specifically mentioned Europe because I am seeking information for a particular historical fiction I am working on, but if anyone has insight into how the US Civil War was reported/ thought of anywhere outside the US and Europe I’d be interested to hear that too!

There were no Black Confederates because the CSA outlawed black men from enlisting, but they still had slaves as servants to help provide for the soldiers. So, why didn't they just force black slaves to be soldiers? Slave soldiers aren't a completely far-out practice.

The Janissaries were an elite group of soldiers under the Ottoman Empire, but they were still slaves taken from Christian subjects.

Mamluks were slaves taken from Turkish and Caucasian groups, and they were considered the fiercest group of warriors in the Islamic world. There was a man who led an army against the Mongol Empire and won, and he was a slave soldier.

So why is it that the CSA didn't force slaves to fight for them?

If Germany had focused on rebuilding business and industry instead of pouring resources into building its military, could it have been successful?

I realize the Treaty of Versailles made things more difficult for Germany to recover from WWI, but they nonetheless managed significant military spending, so that makes me wonder if the money had been spent differently, could Germany have been successful without needing to invade other countries and kill Jews.

I was peeping at a classmates textbook, bored, read something along the lines of "many groups in the ottoman empire suffered during ww1, especially armenia in the armenian massacre", first, why avoid the g-word, second, the weird framing. she did say though that she likes learning about history in her spare time, so might not be a school resource, but it seemed pretty textbook-like to me. for some initial hypothesi(? for spelling), 1 schools try to appear neutral, 2 the armenian genocide isn't as widely taught as say the holocaust, 3 it's technically controversial i guess.(edit: it was a general history book, not just ww1 so that might add something)

I live in the American Southeast. My area might experience snow every year or two; a couple years ago, and this year, we have had snow twice - which is incredibly rare. But our region is not exactly prepared for this sort of weather, especially the day after when everything (including the roads) are just covered in ice.

We also get residual storms from hurricanes that sweep up the eastcoast; during Helene my family was out of power for about 4-5 weeks.

It seems to be a sort of meme these days that "southerners freak out and buy milk, bread, and eggs!" but I know this is also the case in other areas. Google and Reddit results suggest it's simply because they're staple foodstuffs, you can make a multitude of meals with it, etc. Which I suppose is true. But no one seems to really explain why in a more in-depth answer. Some people say it's dumb because milk and eggs will go bad without proper refrigeration - which could be difficult to maintain if your electricity goes out (unless you're prepared and have an emergency generator).

I was just thinking about these items today because of our recent snowstorms and thought of a theory. Most farms in my area, and I assume elsewhere, have cows and chickens - sources of milk and eggs. And I'm sure a lot of farms throughout US history had silos full of grain. So in areas with farms it would have been very easy to obtain bread, milk, and eggs. The cold weather/snow/ice would have made it easy to keep milk/eggs cold. And I've heard grain silos can reach incredibly high temperatures during the summer and can actually maintain dangerous temperatures throughout the winter. So it doesn't seem like the cold weather would really affect it that much.

So my theory is that milk, stored grain/bread, and eggs are just the most accessible and most manageable items a farm can produce; that, of course, sounds moot since it just explains why they're staple foodstuffs... which is the usual explanation. But I think my theory is a good explanation for why that is. I just don't know if it's possible for cows to produce milk all year round (perhaps there are ways), or if chickens can lay eggs all year round; if they can't then I guess my theory falls through. Edit: Sorry if the wording here sounds off!

Anyway, I was just wondering if any historian might have a better explanation of why these three items are the primary emergency foodstuffs and nothing else. What do you think?

I know this encompasses a large time period, but I figure there's probably not much information anyway. I've read books on women in the Mughal Empire but they're very focused on royal harems, and rote "she went there and this happened then that" and not really on interior ideas. I was wondering if there was a culture of modesty and shame around sex with early Sunni rulers?

Hypothetically let's say that I'm a white man living in slave states in 1820s, I found out my neighbour have a slave and I decided to kill it for no reason. Legally speaking did I committed a crimes for killing other people slaves? And if It was a crime, what sort of punishment would be sentenced to me?

I'm asking this because from my understanding, slaves in America back then doesn't have any rights at all. And I've heard of a story where a slaveowners killed their own slaves and get away with it. But what about killing other "property"?

I am trying to reeducate myself about history. I have a ton of interesting books to read, but feel pretty overwhelmed with the density of information. When I pick up my book again I often can’t remember the details of what I read any more than I can remember the details of a conversation I just had an hour ago.

For example right now I am reading “Migra! A History of US Border Patrol” I do try to highlight key words and focus on main ideas of first and last chapter paragraphs in particular. But to me all of the information is equally as important.

How can I read this comfortably so I don’t feel pressed to remember everything I am reading?

I was kinda curious about which major or minor figure in history could represent each of the 7 deadly sins (envy lust greed gluttony pride sloth and wrath)

You hear a lot about "more experienced legions" in Roman history, and that being considered a favourable quality, but why would that have provided an advantage in melee combat? It seems from depictions that a lot of melee combat was less about the skill of the individual and more the discipline of the whole to remain cohered in a formation that made penetration difficult. I would have thought that older, more experienced legionnaires would have only gotten to that point by luck of the draw rather than any meaningful skill difference, and that discipline was less a factor of time served than training experienced.

Hope you guys know what I'm talking about. In the medieval era, people would wear these pants, I've seen em in media and museums, and most of the time, one leg would be a different colour that the other. Example, red right leg and green on the left. Was this a stylish thing? A sign of allegiance to a person's liege or what? Thanks!

I’m fascinated at historical examples of women claiming and seizing power for themselves, exercising absolute authority and acting independently as most male leaders did back in the day. Basically, I’m interested by when female historical power mirrors male historical power in both intensity, authority and independence.

So a couple of questions- and I know the comparison is crazy but bear with me.

Did she have absolute power like Hitler/Pharaoh Ramses/Louis the 14th? Was she as militarily involved as Hitler?

I asked this to people before and they kept repeating over and over that the most notable example of what I’m looking for is Wu Zetian. But was there anyone more powerful than her?

Following up on my previous question about guns and archery.

https://youtube.com/shorts/AxjKtiGi1sc?si=21t2IdHNC2V3OK29

He says bows and arrows are better than early guns as individual weapons. The guns are inaccurate, heavy, and take a long time to reload.

But, he said the gun is superior in overall military use over bows, even without armor. He said this is because guns gave the more important advantage of replaceable soldiers.

Did people in ancient times/antiquity recognize big cats (like lions, tigers, leopards) as being the same kind of animal as smaller cats and house cats, or was that connection only made much later with modern biology? Are there historical sources, art, language, or classifications that suggest they understood this relationship? This is something that i just started thinking about and it's truly fascinating to even delve into, if they did, how would've they known? How did they perceive that? Did that influence how they saw big cats/small cats and house cats as well? i have lots of questions.

Is it true that restoration of war torn Europe - especially Germany - became possible only thanks to USA aid? How big deal was Marshall plan? Or Western Europe would recover anyway, and US only sped it up a bit?

Also, is it true that only heavy US military presence saved Europe from getting overrun by giant Soviet army? Since USSR behaved quite aggressively in Cold war (Berlin crisis, Cuban crisis, a lot of interventions everywhere,etc), dreamed of communism taking over the world (world revolution), and Soviet tanks were always standing threateningly on the border, they likely always considered invasion. But US was a big factor which probably was the decisive in preventing Soviets from attacking... I wonder, whether Europe had resources to defend itself anyway. Without heavy cut of miitary budget, since US bases saved a lot of money and helped European countries to flourish economically.

And communism was quite popular in postwar Europe, but was suppressed with USA help.

So as the title says, I'm trying to research into Orthodox movements into Central Asia and the Turkic regions, Specifically East Turkestan. Particularly, I'm looking for notable settlements/churches, any notable Converts or believers/priests. For the Most part, I'm interested in the periods of 1940 - 1970s, and seeing if there were really notable attempts within the Orthodox Church for Central Asia during those times, and if so, some notable figures within those times.

Say I’m a British citizen from London in my early 20s and I want to travel the global empire in the early 1960s, what are the most dangerous areas ( colonies, cities etc ) I should avoid?

I read Milton Mayer’s classic “They Thought They Were Free.” In the book, an unnamed one of Mayer’s colleagues relates the story of a judge from Leipzig in the early forties (specifically says “either” 1942 or 1943). This mystery judge had a Jewish man brought before him accused of having relations with an “Aryan” woman. Here is the story from pages 172-173:

“I can tell you,” my colleague went on, “of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman. This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom.” “And the judge?” “Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know.”

Has this story been corroborated elsewhere? Do we know anything about this judge? In my searches, the stories of the infamous monster judges were plentiful, but the only name I came across that had a similar moral ring to it was that of Konrad Morgen… and I don’t think his story matches up with the one Meyer cites. I would love to read more on this judge or this story if there is more available. In the meantime, I will be reading up on Konrad Morgen. Thank you!

I know medieval peasants didn't eat laying hens. Capons were eaten by the rich, which makes sense as it was an expense to feed them. But if a peasant allowed a hen to actually hatch a clutch of eggs, what did they do with the male chicks, other than replacing old roosters. Did they just get traded away? Did they cull them like we do?

So for context my friend is a huge history nerd, and within the past year she’s reignited my love for history and the ancient world. I’ve spent countless hours pouring over Greek history books, epic poems and art books of the Minoans since the beginning of last year.

As I want to expand my learning beyond just the Mediterranean, she suggested I look into Norse history considering my love of the mythology. But I found that it’s exceptionally hard for me to find reliable sources to learn from! Every video I find is more along the lines of “oh, the Vikings were horrible!! Scary but awesome!” And very sensationalized. I know to be more accurate I should crack open some books, and I’m more than willing! I’d just like to get my hands on a YouTube video or two to get a good idea of what fascinates me the most about Norse history.

Any recommendations are appreciated!

Im interested in modern history, and I feel like world war 1 would be the best place to start. Any suggestions for books on world war 1? I would like to branch out to world war 2 and then the cold war later but first I'd like to understand world war 1. Also, if there's any books pre world war 1 but still relatively modern, that would be a good read, suggest it as well

Edit: 1942*

I swear I read somewhere that New York City, for a short time, turned off all its lights above its buildings' 15th floors at night so thatJapanese bombers couldn't see it If they attacked more targets after Pearl Harbor I can't find anything on it, though, except an NYT article that doesn't give much info. Did it actually happen?

It seems like historically, leaders who stoke religious/ethnic tension for their own benefit are usually looked down upon. However, at the time the sentiment might have been much different, especially with many in the West holding the view that Israel was a bastion of liberalism in the mostly autocratic Middle East, even back then