I was on the Jewish Virtual Library, and it lists nations affected by the Holocaust, and their Jewish populations pre and post war. Some, like that of Poland and Germany, were understandably obliterated. But when it came to countries like Italy, Bulgaria, and France(I assume occupied), the number of Jews killed were between 20-25% percent. I know Italian fascism did not rely as much on blaming Jews, but why didn't Hitler pressure the Italians more to exterminate their Jews? And did the Nazis take a less aggressive pursuit of the final solution in occupied France than they did in Poland, Occupied Russia, and the baltic?

I've often heard that it's 70 percent history and 30 percent fiction. Is this true? Is there a more accurate assessment of Romance of the Three Kingdoms?

It would seem that the National Socialist party would adopt some kind of a German symbol like the Prussian Eagle to signify their love of Germany. So why the Swastika?

stupid question, i know, but my dad claims that the presence of the evacuees from Dunkirk was a major factor that Germany considered when dropping the idea of Operation Sea Lion, which i want to clarify

Just saw a preview for an upcoming episode on PBS (US) that showed a young Victoria protesting the state of Irish during the potato famine. Is this accurate?

It is well known that Anti-Federalist were thoroughly included in the process of creating the United States. The US has had Presidents and founding fathers that were notable Anti-Federalists and it seems that their cause was just a legitimate as the Federalist cause.

Meanwhile, this phenomenon seems not to be apparent in the cause of the loyalists. I don't think that there are any US Presidents/founding fathers who were loyalists, and of my education I do not know of many/any loyalist being included the the creation of the US and its institutions.

Am I wrong, and if not what explains this?

After Constantinople fell, did the Ottomans and the world in 1453 know that the Byzantines were the last remnants of the former Roman Empire and that they were witnessing its death?

Quite long ago I saw the film Battle of Britain (1969), which is a film about the Battle of Britain in 1940. At the end of the movie, I wondered whether or not Churchill purposely sacrificed London in order to protect RAF bases?

The movie depicts how Churchill was the aggressor. The RAF bombed Berlin first, as a provocation, which leads to the Luftwaffe bombing London and other cities instead of RAF bases. The movie paints Churchill as a provocateur, who purposely bombed Berlin, in order to provoke Hitler and make him divert away from his original plans of bombing RAF bases. In the end of the movie, Churchill saves the RAF but London endures much destruction

I searched around for a bit but haven't found any concluding answers.

So is this movie true in its depiction and did Churchill deliberately sacrifice London?

You know the deal. Vote for the threads you enjoyed most from the past month. If there was an answer you liked that you don't see here, feel free to post it.

I just heard about the Black Legion, and they seem almost worse than the KKK. They were an offshoot AFAIK, yet they are almost unheard of. Why is this?

2 of the formidable Panthers were captured by the poles in the uprising, how well where they used and what was their fate ?

Between the World Wars, it doesn't seem like there were sufficient engagements to develop the robust theory of combined naval/air warfare that we see in WWII. How was that doctrine developed, and how were combatants able to completely revolutionize naval combat doctrine so quickly?

EDIT: I have a great answer about the Royal Navy, but if anyone has an answer for the US or Imperial Japanese Navies, I'd love to hear that as well.