What are some good sources to look into to learn more about the Baltic Crusades?

Clearly, Britain and France did not believe war would actually break out, so why did Hitler try to poke the hornet's nest?

There was a question posed earlier about the Nazi medical experiments and was wondering about the Japanese expiriments.

[deleted]

It seems there's always a lot of conflicting information surrounding the forces of the Allied and Axis nations in WWII, with it either being a neck and neck conflict or a completely one-sided campaign once the US entered the fray. Obviously neither are going to be representative of the entirety of World War II, which brings me to reiterate my question:

How certain was an Allied victory over the Axis Powers? Logistically speaking, could the Axis have pulled off a win if certain pivotal moments went the other way? Or would it have led to a more drawn out and bloodier Allied win regardless?

[deleted]

My limited understanding is that they preferred to use galleys long into 16th and 17th century, and where slowly switched to sail ships. Do we have an idea why (if it's true)?

Extravagant*

And if not what did?

Generally speaking when I hear about the roots of country music most people point to the Scots-Irish in Appalachia which does explain a lot of country-western’s sound. However, the Irish don’t yodel and that leads to my question: how did yodeling become popular in early country music, specifically in the country-western “cowboy” music?

In most Western education I've been taught that Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union was a purely aggressive action and that Stalin was unprepared for war, and he was even caught off guard. However, I have begun to read more on the historiography and it appears that many Russian historians give credence to the idea that Stalin was planning to attack Hitler in 1941, and Hitler's invasion was mirrored by similar plans in the Stalin camp. I understand that the historical consensus leans more on the mainstream view, but how fringe is the other theory? Is it merely unorthodox, or outright wacky?

I've recently heard a growing number of Conservatives argue that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, or otherwise made it worse. Politics and counter-factual history aside, is there any truth to these claims? What is the typical historiography opinion of the New Deal?

Around 2003, I read a small blurb in the recent news section in Time Magazine about some wreckage that was discovered that Japan views as evidence of America being the aggressor before they attacked Pearl Harbor. That was the first time in my life that I had ever heard of anything contrary to the "surprise attack" narrative we are taught in America (I'm American).

I'm very skeptical of the claim that America was the first to attack Japan, but I'm having trouble finding any information about it. So far my best guess is that Japan views the sinking of a small submarine by the USS Ward hours before the attack as being the first strike that justifies the attack on Pearl Harbor.

And beyond the details of the wreckage that may be evidence of who attacked first, does anyone know how the attack on Pearl Harbor is viewed in Japan?

Thank you.

Climate changes are often mentioned in history books as impacting human societies around the world. E.g., Little Ice Age, some desert not being a desert during this period, some region dried up during this period prompting immigration, etc.

So I thought having a comprehensive book on the topic should be nice. I am particularly interested in Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Central Asia and China. Hopefully with maps showing the climate change region-by-region. Online sources too would be great.

Thanks in advance!