I'm admittedly more familiar with the German side of this question, but I've been trying to understand the Soviet side for a while and just can't wrap my head around it. Joseph Stalin was one of the most paranoid leaders of his time, and his executions and exiles of anyone he was suspicious of are very well-known. Surely he wouldn't have trusted the self-proclaimed "bulwark against bolshevism" to be an ally, at least not for long. But then operation Barbarossa showed that the Soviets were completely unprepared.

My question is, how much faith did Stalin really have in the non-aggression pact? It caught the Soviet Union unprepared, was that due to command decisions from higher up the chain or localized leaders being unprepared? Obviously the purges had obliterated a lot of institutional knowledge in the Soviet military, and this must have hampered their ability to respond to the invasion. Did the Soviets anticipate war with Germany at a later time, and were just not ready for it then?

Not counting Israel, the only country without a large Muslim majority in the Middle East is Lebanon. This has caused a lot of conflict in Lebanon. Why is that?

I'm aware that a number of them fled to Canada, but I'm curious how those who remained were treated. Were their rights respected? Were they generally malaigned, or was there a sense of "no harm, no foul?" Did any of them go on to hold political office?

From what i know, most African and Asian countries ruled by the natives after they got independence in 1900s. But why not the same in Latin America?

Did the natives in Latin America have equal rights immediately after their independences? Or it took a long time?

I think there's a lot of interesting parallels between the recent events in America and some of the crimes committed by the police in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Following the Good Friday Agreement that has almost completely been undone and the police are now much more trusted and respected (not all the way) by Catholics who they were previously viewed to have oppressed.

I really enjoy reading about historical medicine and historical fashion does anybody have any good book recommendations about either topic

I’m wondering if there’s any good books which cover the period after the Peloponnesian Wars up to Alexander. Just finished Kagan’s History of the wars and the aftermath (especially the rise of Thebes) intrigued me. There’s always Grote of course but I wonder if there’s been a more recent semi-academicish survey of the period. Thanks!

I am referring to the general question of the legality of the Holocaust or Porajmos. Were the orders the soldiers have been given in contrast to German law? The top tier Nazis were sentenced in Nuremberg for international war crimes (offences that weren‘t codified at the time the crimes were committed). But those are part of international criminal law; I‘m wondering if the holocaust was forbidden under national German criminal or military law. These actions were obvious murders in the sense of section 211 of the German Criminal Code but I‘m wondering if the Nazis enacted some sort of law or decree suspending these murder provisions. Gustav Radbruch famously said that if a law is undeniably in stark contrast to the general sense of „justice“ than you don‘t have to follow it. This would mean that the people in power did legalise the Holocaust with concrete provisions.

What were the duties of British Non-Commissioned Officers during the late 18th century and how long would it take to be promoted? Also, what were relations between them and the lower ranks like?

They had similar methods of inheritance, a similar clan system and similar culture. Indeed I'm fairly sure they would have been seen as the same peoples in this time period.

The Kingdom of Scotland remained relatively in place until the act of Union 1707, but any High Kingdom of Ireland after the 11th century quickly falls apart. Was it due to higher Norman presence? The presence of stronger clans with more animosity towards each other? Or some other factor I'm missing.

Went on a euro castle tour and one of the guides said that the reason they had summer palaces was for the help to clean out the stink from the chamber pots while they were gone.

Or did they have perfumes to mask it up?

I am listening to 'The Second World War' by Antony Beevor whilst doing domestic stuff. My German wife comes in and notes that the author uses German words such as "wehrmacht", "luftwaffe" and "panzer" when there are perfectly serviceable English words for those things. I have noticed the same trend/habit in many other world war books. English authors don't use the Japanese nouns, so why do many use the German ones?

Something along the lines of 'the wehrmacht attacked...' Vs 'the Japanese army moved into...'

We're not referring to German names for specific units (i.e. Großdeutschland) but every day words for tank, air force and army.

Where does this trend come from?

Territory wise the Romans conquered the British Isles with the exception of roughly what is today Scotland and Ireland. I mean if you already made it from Rome to Britain, why not just conquer the rest of it?

Did they even think or ever try to conquer them? And what was the relationship like between the Romans and those that lived in Ireland and Scotland?

I've recently been studying the history of post-Versailles Germany, and one of the topics that always draws me in is the exiled life of Wilhelm II. However, when looking deeper into his family and their activities during the era, there was one spot I couldn't find sufficient information on. According to several sources, the marraige between Wilhelm and Hermine was discouraged not only by his supporters, but his children as well. When looking deeper, I couldn't find any reasons as to why. Was it her recent status as a widow? The presence of children from her previous marraige? Her comparatively lesser rank in noblity? I would highly appreciate it if someone could tell me why, as this has been bugging me all week.

While things like the Mughal empire would have changed the religious dynamics, how come Buddhism never recovered (compared to say Hinduism that continues to flourish)?

During his travels, Ibrāhīm ibn Yaqūb Visited Hedeby. He noted:

Schleswig (Hedeby) is a very large town at the extreme end of the world ocean. In its interior one finds fresh water sources. The inhabitants worship Sirius, except for a minority of Christians who have a church of their own there. They celebrate a feast at which all get together to honor their god and to eat and drink. He who slaughters a sacrificial animal puts up poles at the door to his courtyard and impales the animal on them, be it a piece of cattle, a ram, billygoat or a pig so that his neighbors will be aware that he is making a sacrifice in honor of his god.

My questions then are: what is the significance of Sirius? Is this just that ibn Yaqūb wasn’t there long enough to get all the details so just put down the name of the star as he knew it and gave it no more thought? The quote also seems to imply monotheism; is this likely? I believe Hedeby is quite well excavated - do we have any material evidence of religious practices in the town?

Is it just the shadow of Teddy Roosevelt?

McKinley seems like a fairly strong executive, the last of the Civil War veterans entering a new century, assassinated. I feel like he is not discussed much in popular American history. Is he less consequential then I think?

In one of the classes I’m currently taking we’re assigned the book “Lies My Teacher Told Me” by James W. Loewen. In the second chapter he states that “Ancient Roman and Carthaginian coins keep turning up all over the Americas, causing some archaeologists to conclude that Roman seafarers visited the Americas more than once.” I was wondering how much evidence supports this claim and if so where in the Americas did they land?