TLDR: i have 2 questions, 1:was the ussr about to invade germany two weeks after germany did and 2: was hitler buddhist?

i am reading Sniper on the Eastern Front: The Memoirs of Sepp Allerberger Knights Cross, and the introduction to the book makes two claims that got my bullshit detector going

• Lenin and Stalin made no secret of their desire for a second European war to establish a communist Europe. The Soviet build-up towards this end began long before they embarked upon the road in 1939 with the occupation of eastern Poland, and in 1940 the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In his recent book, The Icebreaker, Viktor Suvorov (the former military spy Vladimir Bogdanovich Resun) makes the case that Soviet military theory was based on offence and the conquest of territory ‘for the world revolution’. Operation Groza (Thunderstorm), the invasion of Europe to the Atlantic, was scheduled to begin on 6 July 1941. The statement of General S.P. Ivanov, Chief of the General Staff Academy of the USSR armed forces in 1974 that ‘the Nazi High Command succeeded in forestalling our troops literally two weeks before the war began’ seems eloquent enough proof of this allegation, and more recently Russian academic historians Vladimir Nevezhin and Mikhail Meltiujov have found archive material that supports Suvorov’s allegation.

Wacker, Albrecht (2008-06-15). Sniper on the Eastern Front: The Memoirs of Sepp Allerberger, Knight's Cross (Kindle Location 66). Casemate Publishers. Kindle Edition.

• From the earliest beginnings of the National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Party or NSDAP (The Nazi Party), the primary aim had been the destruction of Bolshevism. This was for religious reasons as well as political. The hidden religious basis of National Socialism was reincarnation without a heaven (Hitler’s table talk, 13 December 1941). Judeo-Christianity was nothing but communism (Hitler’s table talk, 30 November 1944) and modern Bolshevism was nothing but Christianity without the metaphysical trappings (Hitler’s table talk, 14 December 1941). Hitler saw himself as the Grail knight, Parsifal, the prophet of man’s rebirth in a new form, his task being to elevate mankind for the global struggle to eventually escape the cycle of reincarnation. The secret name of his Berghof residence, Gralsburg – fortress of the Grail – seems to confirm this (Hitler’s table talk, 2 February 1942). Hitler’s dedication to a Buddhist philosophy is obvious from the fact that throughout the Great War he carried the five works of the philosopher Schopenhauer in his gas mask case (Hitler’s table talk, 19 May 1944) and knew large tracts of them by heart. He thought as a pantheist and a mystic, since he perceived God as being the sum total of all that is (Hitler’s table talk, 24 October 1941),

Wacker, Albrecht (2008-06-15). Sniper on the Eastern Front: The Memoirs of Sepp Allerberger, Knight's Cross (Kindle Locations 67-76). Casemate Publishers. Kindle Edition.

There have been several non-Anglican Prime Ministers--the non-English ones, among others--who have nonetheless been responsible for recommending diocesan bishops in the Church of England. Did anyone ever complain that the men helping to control the Church weren't in communion with it?

So i have been wandering about this. So for example, there is a battle in the middle ages. Two soldiers, both have close combat weapons, approach eachother. How long would the fight between the two last? I hope someone has a clear answer how this kind of fighting would go down.

Why was this Mongol khanate called the "Golden Horde"?

If not, what was the reasoning behind choosing those colors?

I understand that high born Romans were mostly bilingual, but I have no concept of the average Greek individual. To what extent did Greeks retain their distinct cultural identity while under the Dominion of the Roman Empire?

When and how did Russia manage to claim such a large amount of territory and at what point were these claims considered legitimate by other powers?

Were the Romans aware of the size of Africa, and if so do we have any sources that describe their knowledge of the lands past the Sahara?

I went to a public school in the 90s and our education of the American frontier and expansion west was brief and biased. It can basically be summed up as "The native Americans were happy peaceful environmentalists, then white European settlers showed up and killed them all. Now let's move on to World War 2".

Obviously the real history is far more complex and nuanced. Many different tribes, each with their own customs and culture were introduced to Europeans in varying groups from lone frontiersmen, to family settlers, to government actors and militias. I'm sure there were places and periods of peace and places and periods of turmoil, I'm sure there's blood on the hands of many people, and I'm sure most people involved were just trying to survive having been born into difficult circumstances.

Are there any good books for the layman that give a realistic overview of the period rather than either whitewashing history as "settlers arrived to empty land" or presenting it as 'good' natives versus 'bad' european settlers?

This is perhaps one of the most understated and massive migration movements in human history. It was responsible for a unprecedented rapid restructuring of geo-political power and religious/ethnic makeup in a critical time of history for the Horn of Africa, as well as huge homogenizing effect in areas settled by the Oromo tribes. It is also a prime example of going from being a pastoral 'conquering' group to a settled and subjected population. Any questions on this topic are heartily appreciated.

If I'm not mistaken, Erick the Red sailed into the area around Newfoundland around 1000 CE. Assuming he had contact with native peoples living there, why did Old World diseases not run rampant in the New World then as they did 500 years later when Columbus and the conquistadores sailed to South America/Carribean? Were the colder parts of North America not immediately ammenable to Old World diseases, or was trade and connection between tribes lesser in the North?

I've used the search feature and got some insight into parts of the processes.

You can force it towards shore so it gets beached or force it towards currents so the current takes it to shore.

For actual killing out at sea, harpoons and poison.

I also read they could just cut it into smaller pieces out in the sea.

Okay, I get that.

But how exactly would they tow a whole whale back to shore, say with only two people? I mean even with 5-10 people or even 50, that's surely no match for a multi-ton whale? Did they have some sort of super strength?

Weren't some of the distances travelled very large?

I just don't see it. I mean, I know they did it, but how?

Also, do dead whales float? Do they sink after a while? Is there a window of opportunity? Did they have to worry about the whale sinking along the way?

Also, how big were some of the biggest whales hunted?

[deleted]

Are there other clauses which either side has failed to follow? What about other treaties (for the sake of scope, ideally only those that the US has been a part of)?

i was looking at liguistic history of Latin and was curious when it became changed to be different languages? EDit: changed to the point where it was not "Latin"

Especially how Indians used ideas of race in conversation with the british/the imperial power structure

If you'd asked people from millennia ago up until relatively recently about forms of transport they use, it's likely they'd have said something like horse and cart or sailing ship. But if you'd asked the same question from, say, 1800 to now, the answer could have been steam train, steam boat, car, plane, huge numbers of new inventions. Up until 50 years ago or so computers would have barely existed, now they're everywhere. People had been fighting with generally unchanging swords and bows for thousands of years, but just in the last hundred years machine guns, assault rifles, tanks, rockets, missiles, jet fighters and nuclear bombs have all not just been invented but become widespread.

It seems to me like since the Industrial Revolution the pace of technological advancement, sadly for reasons which appear to largely revolve around finding new ways to kill people, has become much faster. Is this the case? And if so, why? Does the rapidly increasing world population have anything to do with it?

Since 1949 how did power in the Communist Party of China go from essentially one person rule such as with Mao to a system under Jiang Zemin where rule was invested in offices and committees like the various offices in the Standing Committee?

How did this transition take place? What prevented the creation of another Mao Zedong like figure from appearing within party and ruling until his death?