The big question I've always had is was it possible for Germany to win WW2 in a way consistent with Hitlers goals or were his goals simply to ambitious?

My opinion has been that once Rommel was defeated at Al-Alamein there was no way for Hitler to meet his for oil needs outside the Caucuses and I have a hard time imaging a scenario where victory against the USSR was actually possible, but I am by no means a historian.

Was there a realistic path to victory for Hitler?

Complementary question: if it was as devastating as superficially seeing, why?

I learned in school that Ancient Greece wasn't really one unified empire (or country), but they were city states with the same language, that often (as in the battle of Thermopylae) came to the aid of each other if needed. But, did they really speak the same language? Or can it be said that it was just similar enough to be called the same language, just different dialects? Are there any writings we know of that have significant differences between city states' different versions of greek?

People often use that one event as the most important event of modern history, but how true is it? Obviously he was a very important guy, and that did kick off the events of the war, but what was the chance it would have happened anyway? They say Europe was a powder keg after all. Are there any other events that had a decent chance of happening that could have set the gears in motion?

I've never really been taught much about what happens between the adoption of Christianity by the Romans and the majority of Europeans following the catholic faith. So what forms of organized Christianity existed before then?

Where can I read and learn more about the various offices of the Spanish empire?

[deleted]

Land reform was one of the primary political issues of the 19th century in Mexico. How much was the thinking about land reform influenced by international (European?) intellectual trends and political philosophy, and how much was the thinking on land reform a product of local (i.e. Mexican, but perhaps broadly south and central American) intellectual currents?

Did this thinking about land reform have 18th century precursors, or was it largely the result of the late 18th and early 19th century?

Piggybacking onto the main question: Is there evidence of "slang" or vernacular in the writing?

In your opinion, if you were to recommend a book about the history of the US, what would you recommend and why?

[deleted]

Basically, did people then think that the Hamilcar Barca and the Barcids were descended from Melqart-Hercules or was it just Hannibal?

I'm a part time history guide in a New Zealand WW1 Museum. I know all the 'big facts' but am searching for those little tid-bits that can entertain school kids (ages 5-14). All of us guides are massive history nerds but communicating this long war into school tours (which we have to do) is a bit hard.

The exhibit focuses on the Western Front and includes real guns, tank, cannon, uniforms, etc.

Thank you in advance.

I was hoping for some advice and ideas. So far, I've written about the Investiture controversy and the couple years leading up to the pact, as well as a few of the pacts details (terms for electing bishops). I was just wondering if any of you wonderful people had any advice on what else to talk about, or anything I should expand on.

It seems like after the Revolutionary War, the colonies didn't really care that much about each other's success. How united were they really? Was it likely, or even possible that they became individual countries instead of states of a single country?