Since military aid to Isreal has come up recently around the Democratic primary elections, I thought it would be interesting to learn about the only other time (I am aware of) it was considered to be stopped. I know this is a politically contentious issue, and I have no intent on implying any position in this question. With that in mind: Was the threat seriously considered? How much effect did the threat have on Begin's decision to remove settlements in the Sinai? How much influence did it have on the rest of the peace process?

Instead, they had to feed them, house them, etc. It just doesn't seem to make sense from economic perspective to imprison people you were going to kill eventually.

I know more stuff about the war than what really started it. About MacArthur's tactics, the intelligence flaw, and the president replaced him...

Was it just because of the Cold War and Communism that China wanted to attack Korea or was it because of their failing economy?

I am trying to research Chinese Identity

Does anyone have any sources I should go to?

Nowadays, the Kempeitai are primarily known for numerous war crimes they have committed. However, I'm curious about what did other members of IJA and IJN (both high-ranking and rank-and-file) think of that unit.

For instance:

• Was the Kempeitai considered an elite unit or was it not particularly prestigious? Was it selective? Did IJA members have to volunteer to join the Kempeitai?
• As a followup to the previous question - how did joining the Kempeitai affect one's further service? Was it considered a good turn for the military career?
• Was there any resentment towards the members of the Kempeitai because of the amount of power they had, or the fact that they did not fight on the frontlines?
• Did the average Japanese soldier know about the methods used by the Kempeitai, and if he did, would he think of them as too brutal?
• What about the Tokkeitai? Did it have the same reputation as the Kempeitai or were there differences in how the two organizations were perceived?

I'm just wondering what happened at the battle of Gallipoli what factions where involved and that the outcome of it was. Also the reason behind it

I ask this question because some say that the Knights Templar were mostly overzealous murderers, brutally massacring Muslim civilians during the Crusades.

However, I heard from another person that from multiple Muslim sources, the Knights Templar had a reputation of utmost chivalry, protecting even Muslim civilians within Jerusalem against overzealous freshly arrived Knights from Europe.

What seems to be the general consensus amongst Historians regarding the behaviour and reputation of the Knights Templar?

Last night I was looking around Wikipedia and found a article about countries that no longer exist and for some reason Rhodesia caught my eye so I figured I would find out more and come here

In popular depictions, the Norse raiders aka Vikings, are shown to be an unstoppable force. They seemed to be able to raid with impunity from the Baltic, North Germany and out to England. Was this accurate? Did the military forces of their raiding targets really stand no chance of defeating the Viking raiders? Why?

I think the source was The Silk Roads: A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan but I may be wrong.

When studying history, some might get the idea that a lot of historical incidents or developments were in a way inevitable. Because we know now that the Axis powers lost WWII, or that the Macedonian successor kingdoms lost against the Romans, it seems like that was just the way history had to unfurl. Yet, if it was obvious that the Axis powers would lose the war, they certainly wouldn't have started it. Or if the Macedonians knew the Romans would take over their kingdoms, they wouldn't have fought amongst themselves so much. Only in hindsight does it seems obvious what was happening. For the people alive during those times, it wasn't.

Nevertheless, when searching for explanations why the Allies won WWII, or why the Romans conquered Greece and the middle east, this hindsight bias plays an important role because it is precisely because we know what happened that we can try and come up with explanations why it did.

So, how do historians balance an unbiased view, 'through the lens of the historical people' so to speak, and an overarching view wherein they can think about the why-questions and come up with explanations for historical events?

During WW2 Britain shipped grain from India causing mass starvation there. Greece is mentioned as one of the recipients of Indian produce. Why Greece?

I'm doing a presentation for my class and I chose to do it about Nazi's and their potential involvement in the occult. Is there any credible sources where I can get more information on this subject?

I was reading about Nazis fleeing the country (many to South America), obviously plans were in place long before Hitler's final days in his bunker in Berlin. When did most high ranking Nazis realize they had better have a Plan B because the war would be lost? Obviously many couldn't voice this opinion but with the benefit of documents, letters, hindsight, etc...when did they begin post war plans because they knew there would be no Third Reich in the future?

I'm currently doing a project in school about the influence of the epidemics that killed a lot of the indigenous people of America on the success of the european settlers. It would be nice if any data on how many were killed by the epidemics exists. Does such data exist?