r/AskHistory

Today's neo Nazis consistently frame their ideology around white supremacy or white racial solidarity. However, my understanding is that Hitler's Nazism specifically considered Nordic/Germanic people to be the master race, while considering Poles, Slavs, Romani, and others as racially inferior, even though many of these groups would be classified as white. I specifically remember reading about how Slavs were marked for extermination just like other groups. But people with Slavic or Polish backgrounds would have no problem joining a modern Nazi movement.

Are there any other aspects of Nazi ideology that modern neo-Nazi groups get wrong or fundamentally misunderstand?

For well over 1000 years most western medicine was based on this notion that health was a function of balance within the four humors. Obviously the whole thing has been debunked in the modern age, but do we know of things that pre-modern doctors were doing that modern medicine would recognize as being likely to produce a good result despite the basis being incorrect.

One example I had heard of was that in some effort to balance either the hot/cold or wet/dry aspect of a person's humors there was a treatment to boil a horseshoe in wine then drink the wine. The premise was false, but the effect would have been to partially help correct an iron deficiency which has actual medical value in some cases.

I hope I don't open up a too controversial topic.

So from what I know, they live a bit like Romani, but are not of Indian ancestry.

I heard somewhere that their ancestors were persecuted by someone in the British Isles either on political or religious base, and they started to live outside of "mainstream society".

So how is it? Who are they?

EU+UK, China, USA and Russia's war trauma

This came up when watching Talkshows about EU+UK, China, USA and Russia. EU+UK is still horrified by the 2nd world war and want to avoid another war on the continent so much that they hoped and deluded themselves. But they are hesitant in general. Similar things happened after the Great War WW1, when France and British Empire wanted to avoid war as they were still horrified. Russia took a different path and doesn't really fit the bill as they glorified the war and the sacrifices/victims.

China similarly to EU+UK is traumatized by instability, civil wars and Japanese/European invasions. You all likely know the meme "China is whole, then breaks again" "Whenever China has a civil war or famine, 20 Million people die". Chinese have internalized the massive risks of instability and civil wars, and war against strong opponents. It devastates a country that otherwise had 25-36% of the world economy for most of their several millenia of existence, a wealthy country that stops being able to feed their people.

USA had something similar too. After the Civil War, USA was devastated. People really didn't want to have another civil war and in the Great War the population hesitated to support an intervention for Europe. In WW2 it was even more so as US population and many politicians did not want to be dragged into another World War. They isolated themselves until the US administration and Japan triggered the entrance of the US into ww2.

___________

USA's war trauma in homeland is distant. Imperial Chinese confucian scholars and ministers constantly reminding the Emperors that war and conquests are paid for by the common folk

But in late 20th century after the collapse of USSR, USA is overwhelmingly stronger than other nations military capabilities (even when USSR still existed). In previous wars though USA oftentimes lost the war, they had rather low casualties for losing and those losses were always on the other side of the world, never devastating their homeland. USA also won the cold war against the USSR. And on the first weeks of wars, USA usually get away with almost no casualties until later. All this leads to US politicans and parts of the US population not feeling too strongly about going to war, it is more a monetary or moral question than the fear of total devastation of their homeland.

I dont know much about population sentiments of distant history besides Imperial China. For example in europe, oftentimes the nobility were deciding to start wars, so no clue if the population even had any say on that. In Imperial China the was a saying "heart of the people" which is similar to sentiment of the people, if the people hated the administration and emperor too much, a civil war was about to happen. So Chinese empires couldn't constantly go to war. In Addition confucian scholars and ministers throughout millenia weigh up between funding wars and letting population rest to work on field and grow families. Chinese history in general did not have the idea of "war and conquests will fuel itself" but instead "war and conquests are costs the population has to pay for". The glory of an Emperor or a General is paid for by the sweats and bloods of the common folk on the fields and on the battlefields, was a common trope in literature and poems, and often reminded by ministers and scholars.

__________

Historical supporting examples for relation between war trauma at home and hesitation to start new wars.

So the question would be if the hesitation to start new wars is present enough in the USA compared to EU+UK and China. The risk difference for the USA as they might feel invulnerable in the late 20th century? Are other historical situation in nobilities and population supporting the idea that recent trauma makes a huge difference for willingness to start wars easily?

It's really fascinating where these types of tropes and fetishes originated from. I'm curious why Westerners, especially Americans and Europeans, have this narrative that Asian women are submissive and will obey their every whims and caprices as a husband, when Asian women are just as strong willed and hard headed as their Western counterparts? Sometimes Western husbands who got married to Asian wives become sad and disappointed because their fantasies were busted once reality kicks in. It's still interesting to know where and when did this ideology originated from. Thanks to whoever will respond.

Or is this somsomething we modern people noticed while looking back to them? I think horse breeders knew for a while that too much inbreeding was bad so maybe the Habsburgs knew too?

Western Europe are the powers that became big early on, Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain.

They became early world colonizers. What made that area so politically fragmented?

That is supposed to be a factor that led to Europeans being able to industrialize and not have their innovative ideas cut off.

Were other places not politically fragmented? Like in Asia, the Indian subcontinent would have been fragmented due to the diverse group of people. I would assume Africa was as well, being its the most diverse continent.

I am defining those continents and areas as we see them on a modern map.

What were some of your favourite essay questions?

Hi there, I've just submitted my last essays in my third year of my undergraduate history degree. It's got me reminiscing about some of my favourite essays and I already miss having new topics to research and argue on.

I've tried to look online and most the essay questions I've found have been pretty basic, more along the lines of "What were the effects of the treaty of Versaille?" So I wanted to come here to get some more history research questions I could research and write about. The more obscure the better, they really can be as broad or niche as you would like to go, I just want to find a new area of history to dive into. Thank you!

Main idea: imagine a fantasy character that uses a changing combination of powers based on attributes from historical figures. Who would you want to see represented and why would they add something interesting? I wanted to ask real historians 🧐 instead of AI 🤖 for inspiration

I am currently working on developing my own story. The magic/power system is based on the fact that the world is inside of a dream, with the characters becoming "lucid." Thus your experiences, understanding of the world, interpretation of the self, and how both interact, plays directly into how your power over the dream manifests.

There is one immortal character that has been alive for at least a million years. He copes with the fact that the world is not "real" by taking personas and living different lives, forced to forget some past lives to make space for new memories. He is going to be a morally dubious, carefree, and manipulative villain taking control of humanity as a king for fun, that the hero is forced to stay allied with for a time.

He will play an important role in the story as a representative of history, his past lives are found intertwined into everything and the readers need to feel invested in them. By using artifacts from history, he can unlock memories from past lives that allow him to regain abilities from them by changing his understanding of world and self. How he combines different lives to solve problems, from combat or other, is the interest.

Please give me ideas for historical figures that could make this interesting and why! Also give me an artifact related to them and feel free to suggest how it could synergize with other powers. The historical figures can be of any gender, but should be an adult or close. Who do you want to see mentioned in a story? Get creative, or mention someone and let others or me come up with ideas.

Context notes:
I am inspired by a Korean novel called "The Academy’s Undercover Professor" with a similar character that used fictional personas such as Van Helsing or Arsène Lupin.

The setting will involve battles that are on a "superhuman" scale, like super heroes or anime, but as a scientific person myself the world is grounded in its own logic.

Feel free to ask me questions!

like Churchill spending much of the 1930s warning that Nazi Germany was rapidly rearming and becoming a major threat while many British politicians thought he was paranoid or stuck in a WWI mindset, only for WWII to break out and make his warnings look terrifyingly accurate.

I've come to think that there are many wars that have interesting names, such as the British calling WW1 "The War to End All Wars" or "The Great War" and then the Soviets/Russians calling WW2 "The Great Patriotic War" and I'm currious about what other people's refer to these wars or even just major historical events.

I'm sure there's many examples but figured this would make for an interesting discussion where we can all share a bit!

We're there any selfless kings/queens or lords in regards to their younger siblings? (Any noble title really) Horribly worded.

I mean, being an older sibling and having younger siblings whilst being king can be a dangerous prospect even if you grew up together with love. The younger siblings can be twisted and be pitted against their older siblings. And you might be forced execute or exile them.

What I'm wondeing is if there were any king/queen (any title) that removed that source of conflict by not marrying and making their siblings their heirs?

Not because they were unable to have their own children but because they just chose that option. Welcome to hear any example that were done out of love.

I don't mean that in the same way as Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, or Anu/Enlil.

I mean that in the sense of like Vishnu, Shiva, or Mahavedi.

An almost all-powerful being that controlled every faced of existence.

To start off with, Egyptians had the concept of Nebertcher, meaning "Lord to the uttermost limit" or "Lord of the Universe," who was described as coming into existence by it's/his own will and taking the form of Khepera.

That is clearly influenced by an older Egyptian creation myth at Heliopolis where god Atum created himself through pure will and created the gods Shu and Tefnut.

Shu and Tefnut were described as already existing as one with Atum before he spat or masterbated them out.

This shows as everything existing as The One before multiplication.

Now, the interesting part of this is that in the city of Memphis, the god Ptah was seen as an all-powerful deity who created the universe from his thoughts and words. Even gods like Atum and Amun (we'll get to him later) were seen as lower workings of Ptah's creation who developed the world further.

Ptah has a few interesting epithets and names, like:

"Ptah the God who made himself to be God.",

"Ptah the begetter of the first beginning.",

"Ptah lord of eternity.",

"Ptah the double being.",

With the introduction of Aten, this gets even clearer.

After the abandonment of Aten in the New Kingdom, Amun seems to assimilate Aten's and Ra's attributes.

We get hymns like this:

>HAIL to thee, Amun-Ra, Lord of the thrones of the earth, the oldest existence, ancient of heaven, support of all things; Chief of the gods, lord of truth; father of the gods, maker of men and beasts and herbs; maker of all things above and below; Deliverer of the sufferer and oppressed, judging the poor; Lord of wisdom, lord of mercy; most loving, opener of every eye, source of joy, in whose goodness the gods rejoice, thou whose name is hidden. Thou art the one, maker of all that is, the one; the only one; maker of gods and men; giving food to all. Hail to thee, thou one with many heads; sleepless when all others sleep, adoration to thee. Hail to thee from all creatures from every land, from the height of heaven, from the depth of the sea. The spirits thou hast made extol thee, saying, welcome to thee, father of the fathers of the gods; we worship thy spirit which is in us.

This hymn presents Amun-Ra as an all-powerful being with the lines like "The oldest existence", "support of all things," and "maker of all that is, the one; the only one; maker of gods and men."

He is described as unborn and undesigned:

>He created himself. He was not born... Being undesigned, thou didst mould into form thy body.

Other hymns describe his as "Without his equal."

In some creation myths, Amun has two primary forms Kematef and Irta.

Kematef is his primordial serpent form that manifested itself from the infinite waters of Nu and created the universe.

Irta, on the other hand, is the creator of the Earth.

The word Irta means "The Earth maker."

So, to ask a question, can a later Egyptian religion be seen as a form of complex polytheism, pantheism, or some kind of Henotheism?

Exactly what the title says. I notice that discussions about the 1950s usually fall into two extremes. Either total nostalgia that ignores the era's major flaws, or some claiming it was absolutely horrible. Is there a middle-ground perspective? Any nuance? I’m well aware of the serious issues of the decade, but I'm curious, there has to be SOMETHING good about the era that was actually true, right? Or was it truly a lost cause like some suggest?

Why did the ideological differences matter? Considering the United States was isolationist before the World Wars, why did they suddenly care about the beliefs of a counter across the globe? (relative to geographic location of population)

They both had enough resources, land mass, and could’ve done their own things within their country. The Soviet Union closed off their territory via the iron wall anyways, so any gains in ‘exclusive‘ trading partners would be marginal.

I'm not talking about in one period of time over a 3500-year timespan of ancient period. I'm more so asking if Egyptian influence and references to it were the most widespread of any other religion in that area.

For example: Egyptian gods, stories, and Egypt itself seem to be mentioned by all other neighboring cultures like Persions, Greeks, Romans, Israelites, Assyrians, Hittites, Hurrians, Nubians, Canaanites, Meroitic people, Ethiopia and much more.

Egyptian gods are mentioned anywhere from the Bible, Plato's works, Plutarch, Ovid's Metamorphosis, Assyrian literature (like The Amarna Letters), Herodotus Histories, Myth of the Disappearing Sun and many more.

Am i completely wrong and ignorant of other more widespread and influential religions/mythologies at the time?

If I am not mistaken. Manifest Destiny was originally limited to the North American continent. Monroe Doctrine was more concerned about the North and South America. Sure these doctrines eventually morphed into a global hegemonic aspiration but for a time isolationism was kind of a thing in American politics

Some say it's WWII, but I had always thought this is the culmination of that objective which the "seeds" (so to speak) that were planted much much earlier.

Was there some kind of a "turning point" in American society and politics where they began to realize that they don't want to be just "a global player" but become THE global player?

Edit:

To further clarify, there is no question they were starting to be a global power at the turn of the 20th Century but they were one of many at that time. What I meant is when did they start aspiring to rise and become the global power above everyone else.

They regularly used Asian POWS in newsreel to make fun of Soviets being an asiatic horde that threatened Western Europe and considered them subhuman

But somehow they considered Japanese having as good of a culture as Germans, why?