I'm very curious about life in Poland prior to World War II. My understanding is that after WWII, a series of population exchanges essentially made Poland an ethnically homogeneous state. However, the Second Polish Republic had different borders that incorporated significantly more non-Poles, particularly in the Krezy region. Were these ethnic minorities allowed to express their national identities, or were they pressured to "Polanize", for lack of a better word?

I'm after something completist that covers the scope of her life from her time as a slave, to her Moses era, to her time as a Union scout and agent in the War, to her peacetime life and finally her time as a Suffragette leader.

What's my best bet? I'm perfectly fine with a deep dive. The deeper the better!

I refer to examples such as Alexander the great, and George VI the good (I saw this on an old British pathe film; can anyone confirm?) . Who decided that some were pious, and others kind? What is the procedure?

I am most interested in English royalty, and possibly French. Thanks in advance for your time!

Was there any debate and if so was there any significant percentage of the population that felt Ireland should join the Allies?

After the war was over and the truth of Germany's crimes against humanity was revealed was there any regrets expressed by the Irish on having not joined the Allies?

Was there any way the Catholic Church could have been reformed without resulting in the massive splintering of Western Christianity?

If they had the money and the industry to build a bigger airforce than England in just a few months, why wouldn't they also have built a bigger navy in a similar timeframe? That way they could blockade the British and wait for them to capitulate, correct?

Were the colonies in Canada administered differently from the American colonies in some way that decreased their desire for independence?

Especially when it comes to Middle Eastern people/groups, I hear about people arguing over the Armenian Genocide but I was always taught that it was 100% a fact. Thanks in advance.

Does anybody on this sub have any idea as to how/when this practice came about?

I'm reading Livy and he talks about how after Tarquinius Superbus the Roman's hated monarchy. There are numerous examples of fear of a particular figure becoming a tyrant and the loss of "libertas".

Liberty in the Roman context doesn't seem to line up with the modern western view of liberty, so what did it mean to the Romans? How did the presence of a monarch impede liberty? I don't get the impression of a large shift towards greater freedom with the advent of the republic.

During WW1 and WW2, Russia/the USSR was considered a nation with vast manpower reserves. Yet, it had a rough population parity with the United States. However, the United States never had the same designation? Why is this? Thanks for any responses!

For the purposes of this question I'd like to give an example period/location of the Italian city states in the 15th century. Mainly because of the (arguably) high religious fervor of the time, and also prevalence of such organisations as the Medici banking family.

Most of my understanding of PNW trade culture stems from Ruth Benedict's explanation in Patterns of Culture. I'm not sure if this is considered outdated.

If the causes of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire can be attributed to decisions made by the mentally unstable emperors, which emperors can be seen as contributing to the decline of Rome?

I am by no means a historian and I apologise if this is simple question, but i am interested in finding out about the historical process. Can a historian definitively prove anything, or is it all a balance of probability? And do unprovable arguments such as counterfactuals serve any purpose? Are there any big events in history where the truth is still in contention?

Thank you.