Nazi racial ideology posited that all non-Europeans were inferior to Aryans, but since they couldn't blend in as easily with "real" Aryans, sub-Saharan Africans, Arabs, and East Asians were much less dangerous to the Aryan gene pool and didn't need to be exterminated, as Jews, Roma, and most Slavs were.

The attitude toward Indo-Iranians is rather singular, though, because they were regarded as Aryans, but not as pure and superior as the Nordic people of Germany, England, and Scandinavia. Nazi racial ideology was quite popular among elites in Iran, many of whom already had negative views of Arabs, Jews, and Turks, but I'm not sure about how it was received in India.

[removed]

For starters, you need to read Thucydides and Herodotus, definitely all of Thucydides (followed by the start of Xenophon's Hellenica which picks up literally continuing where Thucydides stopped). Herodotus is worth reading the whole thing, but at minimum 1.70 onward from book 1, skip book 2, read book 3, and read Book 5 onward. Any good source is going to discuss these events with the assumption that you've already read Thucydides and Herodotus.

On the Peloponnesian War, Donald Kagan's works are a bit dated, but will be easy enough to get through. For the Persian Wars, give Philip Souza's work a try, The Greek and Persian Wars, 499-386 B.C

For an overview, Hans van Wees' Greek Warfare is a book I will forever recommend. It's something I still will thumb through when working on my own stuff, but will also have students read it because it's written in a style that's really easy to follow even if you don't have a lot of experience or knowledge on the topic.

That will hold you over for awhile, after that try and figure out which bits you want to focus in on and we can recommend some more specific things.

Part of the reason why was that. Majority consensus that I have read was freedom of shipping. The Zimmerman telegram was just the cassus belli but main concerns and motivations for entering the war was the anger and frustrations at cargo ships being sunk.

There's never one single cause to something like this. The other poster mentioned shipping, and German attacks on American shipping was a big part of it. The Zimmerman telegram was the final straw. But there were concerns about loans to England and France and there was natural affinity to for England that Americans tend towards in foreign policy. There were other ideas that France and England were more similar to democracies that Germany and Austro-Hungaria.

So, it was a confluence of all those factors, some being more important like shipping. Some being harder to quantify, like natural sympathy for the English.

Hey there! It's indeed true. Newton was a bare-knuckle boxer, and was described by a student of his as being a fan of 'eye-gouging, choking, and headbutting.' I haven't seen a book dedicated to this topic, however, I came across it in several articles about the man.

It's weird take. Why wouldn't restaurants be accessible? There always were food-serving places, for all income levels. It doesn't really matter if you call them restaurants, pubs, cafeterias, guest house etc.

The change after WW2 wasn't really related to restaurants, but to the general increase of prosperity, when even middle class people suddenly had surplus income.

Check out Robin Lane Fox for Graeco-Roman history, he is a reknown historian on this era. Adrian Goldsworthy wrote some good works too (Fall of Rome) and particularly on the fall of Rome side, check out Peter Heather & Chris Wickham. I loved the Hellenistic World by Tarn & Griffith (ed.), but it is by now in some fields somewhat outdated, a more modern work on the Hellenistic world is Age of Conquests by Angelos Chianotis.

It's more of a case of who was defined as "white". Benjamin Franklin once warned Americans to be vary of "swarthy" people, like the French and Swedes. Irish people weren't considered white initially and it was common for places looking for workers to display the sign "Irish need not apply". In turn, later Italian immigrants had to build their own churches because they, albeit Catholic, weren't allowed to use Irish churches.

Jews were also not considered white, and establishments that didn't allow Jews were labeled "restricted". More recently, Hispanics are more and more considered to be white in America, which they weren't previously.

Historian here, I would agree that it’s not going to be as simple as looking at ethnicity. You also need to look at region and particularly at economic competition. For example, there were Irish immigrants and free Blacks in antebellum New York City who shared neighborhoods, saloons, and intermixed culture (where tap dancing comes from), but you can also find wealthy Blacks hiring the Irish as servants in Boston and looking down on them, and you can also find virulent, ugly racism in Irish-American communities made visible in the Boston Busing Crisis, for instance.

I like your question and bangdazap's reply, but I find that there is some confusion about the use of the term "racism". As a child in the 70s, I remember the famous PSA of a boy asking his grandpa what prejudice is. It seemed to me that racism was just one form of prejudice, and did not include prejudice based on religious beliefs or ethnic grudges among different people of the same race.

As far as prejudice among different white ethnic and religious groups, the answer is that it was very common. However, it is difficult to say precisely when prejudice based on religion and ethnicity becomes actual racism, based on biological/genetic differences.

In re: to the Nanjing massacre, it wasn't a communist government at the time. And there is a lot of contemporary reporting of the issue. The stories of atrocities coming out of China were the motivation for the US to impose sanctions on Japan. So, at the time it was fairly well known what was going on.

Also, the war crimes tribunals set up after the war went through a lot of effort to document what happened. This was in the hands of the allied powers, but was mostly done by the US and the UK b/c of Russia's limited participation in the PTO until the very end of the war.

In regards to Korea, they have a lot of mineral resources that Japan needed.

>did that actually happen or was it communist fabricated propaganda?

It actually happened, and even Nazis say it did. It's not a communist fabrication, nor were most of the people killed communists; the CCP didn't take over China until 1949.

>my second question is that why did Japan invade china and korean?

Japan sought the establishment of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a thinly-veiled attempt at creating a larger Japanese empire, subjugating other countries for their resources, and ousting other empires from territory they wanted. Japan sought both superiority over other nations and resources to assist its economy, not least oil, to avoid the USA being able to pressure the country via further embargoes.

Read Iris Changs book "The Rape of Nanking " over 200,000 men where slaughtered over 20,000 rapes by Japanese soldiers.And Japanese invaded because they wanted China and Korea,conquest very simple.

Adding on to the other answers, Japanese soldiers were expecting an easy victory in China, and when Japan started taking far more casualties than expected almost immediately, the Japanese reacted brutally: partly in the hopes of causing terrified acquiesce, and partly because the Japanese soldiers were just that furious.

It might seem odd, but Japanese training actually emphasized brutality as a means to make up logistical shortfalls, with beatings and bizarre punishments common in training as a result. Naturally, civilians under them were treated even worse, and this wasn't helped by Japanese propaganda lying about how "grateful" the locals were to Japan, which made the subsequent local resistance also feel unjust at best, leading to worse reprisals.

The concept of "repatriation" of people of African ancestry who had unwillingly been brought to the Americas, was initially developed in Great Britain by well-meaning but misguided white abolitionists like Granville Sharp and David Barclay (the latter of Barclays Bank) in the 18th century. This led to spectacular failures in West Africa due to undercapitalization and poor planning.

In the following generation in the U.S., once again well-meaning but poorly educated white Americans who were sympathetic to the cause of abolition of all human chattel slavery decided that Black people of African origin, because they were not of the same capacity and abilities as whites, could not be assimilated into white society, and therefore would need their own lands and governments back on the African continent. Among those of this mindset were Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. But there was never any intention of whites, the proponents of "manifest destiny," to return with Blacks to Liberia in any capacity, so the concept of manifest destiny in Africa would have been stillborn.

In the U.S. it was primarily through the writings and speeches of Frederick Douglass that the concept of repatriation of Blacks to Africa was finally pointed out as hopelessly racist and a bankrupt concept. Douglass correctly pointed out that "my people built this country, and we have no desire to leave the nation of our birth to go elsewhere." Douglass, born in Maryland in slavery, had successfully escaped and ultimately was able to purchase his own freedom, and that of his family. He would advise Lincoln throughout the American Civil War, and Lincoln gradually came to adopt Douglass's point of view in the main, leading to the Emancipation Proclamation, and more importantly to sponsoring the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Hey there. I'm not too sure on the accurate size measures, but I would say that some of the largest walled cities today would definitely include Istanbul (historic Constantinople); Carcassonne, France; Jerusalem; and X'ian, China. Each had their own merits on defences, the most resolute (by historical record) seems to be Istanbul, due to the Theodosian Walls.

Pretty sure you could find this kind of stuff on academic journals/libraries. I would try those in your area to see if they could yield anything. If you're asking popular history (non-academic) it'll need more kabooms.

>The fact that it was Slavic land? The sparsely populated areas there?

Prior to WWI, Germany had tried expansion overseas, and found itself promptly cut off, as war commenced, by much superior navies. This expansion was explained by German politicians and thinkers as a natural consequence of population expansion; one required the other, whichever way you worked it out, so post-WWI, with overseas colonies gone, the natural place for territorial expansion would be somewhere safe from naval interference, where Germans could travel back and forth without any other country intervening. Somewhere contiguous with the existing German state would be perfect, for instance. The extermination of 'lesser' races was essential to Nazi ideology, and taking land those races formerly occupied was part and parcel of that, to the extent that it was emphasised that this was the 'natural' thing to do. In order for Germany to expand and become the sole real power in Europe, it would need vast amounts of land, resources, and an even larger population to draw on for labour. The populations already living there were 'destined' to be swept away by the unstoppable might of Germany.

They also Germanized a lot of Slavic (and Baltic) lands in the Middle Ages, including the land around Berlin, Silesia, Eastern Prussia, etc.

A not insignificant part of it was irredentist claims to areas inhabited by various 'Germanic' peoples such as the Goths based on archaeology of the time. Areas covered by what are today termed the Wielbark and Chernyakhov archaeological cultures were associated with these 'germanic' people and seen as areas stolen during the migrations by, at present at least, the Slavs. Such as it was, during the invasion eastwards, various places were renamed like Simferopol to "Gotenburg" and Sevastopol to "Theodorichshafen", reflecting this ideological justification.

Post war the old völkisch ideas of migration faced heavy criticism (in no small due to their use in Nazi propaganda) seeing eventual reform with the origin of the Vienna school of thought and criticism of ethnoarchaeology such as Kramer's 1977 “Pots and Peoples”.

The idea originated from the medieval Teutonic Knights who were a Germanic order similar to the Templars in the holy land but in the Baltic region conquering pagan Slavs. It’s why one of the Nazi symbols is that black cross as this is what the Teutonics wore

The short answer is that people did not knew the details and the scale but knew something really bad was happening to the Jews when they were sent East. German soldiers knew more since they were actors of parts of the holocaust, and knew that the death camps were a thing. As for what the average German felt if varied from person to person and is extremely difficult to tell.

For more specific answers this thread links to a lot of excellent answers.

>Are the German populace aware during WWII that Hitler was murdering millions of Jews on the concentration camps during holocaust?

Yes. The concentration camps were an extensive network of thousands of sites, each one of which took in prisoners far in excess of what it could hold, over the course of the war. Guards, soldiers, and civilians took photographs, sent letters home, and talked with their families about what was going on. The bureaucracy handling the Holocaust itself, dealing with prisoner transfer, administration, cataloguing the belongings of those murdered, etc, was also tens of thousands of people. It was an enormous effort, and everyone in Germany, at some point, witnessed part of what was going on. The Nazis were mostly careful not to expose exactly what was happening, because of their earlier experience murdering people in the Aktion T4 programme, which roused protests, but the Germans knew people were being murdered.

Even if it hadn't been common knowledge and gossiped about everywhere (the first concentration camp, Dachau, opened in 1933), many people uncovered evidence of what was going on in concentration camps relatively early in the war (Witold Pilecki sent out reports in 1940, for instance), and this was sent on to other countries, including the UK, which announced the existence of the camps, and their real purpose, on the BBC world service in 1941.

>if yes, did they support that event?

It's difficult to characterise the German attitude to the Nazi government, but most Germans never actively opposed anything the Nazis did. The vast majority of Germans simply 'went along' with it, even if they privately disagreed. German resistance to Nazi actions was very, very sparse. There is precisely one protest we know about. Antisemitism was practically a national pastime, which served to quell a lot of dissent.

>If helicopters were used since the start, would they have had a major impact on the war?

Production at larger scales impacts production of other aircraft, as materiel and, especially, production capability is not infinite. There definitely is a use case for heliborne assault, but that needs models capable of substantial troop-carrying capacity, and for those to be accompanied by very focused SEAD in order to not become a bloodbath, and there were rather a lot of AA guns that would have found helicopters a juicy target. Even if the helicopters are physically designed, built, and capable of doing something like replacing a paradrop on somewhere like Crete, for instance, the doctrine isn't there. It's not just about the airframes.

You can't use them as gunships because they don't have guided weaponry and they're not capable of outgunning likely targets. Any helicopter flying in WWII would have come up against a panoply of 20mm, 40mm, and larger, AA guns. AAA would have a field day against a helicopter formation. You would need to develop (again) doctrine and training in order to avoid catastrophe, as well as deploying more forward airbases in order to have them within operational range of enemies. The logistics to keep them running are not inconsiderable.

I think they needed to be more advanced. In the Korean War helicopters were mainly used for search and rescue.

But who knows? The Germans (IIRC) scrapped plans to station gyrocopters (they're an earlier form of helicopter) on their ships on the outbreak of WWII. Maybe if they had used them, other nations would have followed suit and made more advanced helicopters. There was a lot more money for R&D during WWII compared to the Korean War.

Conrad de Monferat was assassinated by THE Assassins during the Crusdaes. In the original Assassins Creed you assassinate his father William de Monferat as a nod to this. If you’re doing a project, I’d recommend reading The Assassins by Bernard Lewis as they did a few throughout the period. Or you could just keep it simple and do Julius Ceasar :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations

The assassination of president John F Kennedy in 1963 is the one that has been written about the most. Lots of unsound conspiracy theories in particular. It's a commonly expressed view that his killing changed America, that he would've pulled out of Vietnam etc.

The assasination of Reinhard Heydrich, the only high ranking Nazi who got killed during the war.

There's plenty of documents about it, secondary effects and even some controversy (was it worth it?).

Alexander II of Russia might be a timely choice that could expand the audience's awareness of Russian rule pre-revolution.

the assassination of Benigno Aquino III of Philippines which spark revolution and overthrew the dictatorship of the marcos regime

The Herhausen assassination.

A terror group assasinated a German banker in 1989.

The part of unique interest is the method. The banker travelled everywhere in a heavily armored car. So, they rigged up a IED.

They put a bicycle where his car was going to pass, filled a satchel on the bike with explosive, and rigged up an infrared laser as the trigger. When the bankers car passed through the laser … boom.

But the key point, the explosive didn’t kill the banker. The car would have possibly survived that.

They’d put a copper plate in front of the explosive charge, so when the explosive blew up, they turned the copper plate into a giant molten copper bullet, flying at (through) the banker’s car at hypersonic speed.

This technique, using an “explosively formed penetrator” is common in military weapons, like RPGs and anti-tank rockets,

But building one into an IED and using an infrared laser to activate it, these were breakthrough techniques in 1989. This may be the first time they’d been used.

>assassinations out of the US

Wait wait wait, I hate to be terribly cliche here but

Is nobody going to say…

Franz Ferdinand?

The Mughals are from a long Turco-Persian tradition, though, which matters more than our modern concept of their 'race'. Persian was interrupted as a lingua franca in the Persian region by Arabic, but a new form of Persian, assisted by co-opting Arabic vocabulary and script, became popular because it was used in centres of culture and power, which were focused around rulers. This spread as the various Turco-Persian empires spread, with Persian often having centre stage as the courtly language, but also becoming endorsed as an 'official' language, and even when it was not, it became more popular for songs, poetry, and literature, and was often the first choice as a lingua franca at the borders of the empire.

Geography. Turkic tribes were converted by the Persian part of the islamic world. In terms of culture and civilization, the Persian world endured in the bosom of the Arab conquests, somewhat comparable to how Rome conquered the Hellenistic world & absorbed its culture. Consider that prior to being absorbed into the islamic world, the Turkic groups lived in tribal (semi)nomadic societies that had little to offer in terms of civilization in light of running an empire. All of this, from higher culture to administrative trappings, the Turkic groups learned from the Persian world. As the Seljuqs burst out from behind the Oxus and into the islamic world, they took that all the way to the gates of Jerusalem & into Anatolia.

Here are a few. Going to them will get you links to others.
https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryHit
https://www.youtube.com/@WorldWarTwo
https://www.youtube.com/@TheOperationsRoom

Yes. People have been illegally making alcohol to avoid paying taxes and governmental authorization for a LONG time (not just in America). Moonshine is just a catch-all term for any illegally distilled alcohol and was popularized in America. I guess the prohibition just caused the practice to become more widely known and romanticized.

https://drizly.com/article/education/liquor/what-is-moonshine/e-ab5e1266

Whatcrebels are we talking about here? Very few people who actively opposed the nazis actually survived. I don't know of any who were killed after the surrender. Also, denazification was quite far from perfect and a lot of former nazis (and people who more or less willingly supported the nazi regime in some way) managed to rather seamlessly go 8ver into the FRG, but I don't think anyone knowingly utilised former SS as "peace keepers of the provisional government".

There is an interesting little anecdote along these lines that I learned from visiting the site museum at Buchenwald, Germany, provided by their federal government. There was a prison population of communists and Russian POW's housed there in the last year of WWI, and in the waning months of the war, when Buchenwald fell to the Allies, that the guards turned their weapons over to the prisoners, along with the keys to the gates and barracks, and simply traded places with the prisoners. It must have looked very weird at the time, and resonates the same today.