So far in my research of the debate, the only evidence I see used to support the Intentionalist interpretation is one or two sentences Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, and Hitler's 1939 prophesy speech, where he talked about how another World War would see the annihilation of the Jewish Race. Is there any more evidence that Intentionalists use to support their arguments?

Not related to the main question, but how did the Intentionalists counter the argument of "If Hitler was committed to the Holocaust from the beginning, why were plans such as the Madagascar Plan devised?"

As far as I understand it, they were both under the same cultural influences for centuries and latter under the same education and social policies for decades. How did they end up so different?

I've been reading up on polytheistic religions, and I've noticed they lack consistency when compared most monotheistic religions. I know there is large body of evidence supporting the docturing of monotheistic religions to provide more consistency, but generally speaking, were they always more consistent?

I've only found rather brief information online so I'm hoping that the details can be filled in. What did the people of Pompeii think during this time? How exactly did events unfold over the course of the decade? When Pompeii eventually became a Roman colony and thousands of soldiers moved into the city, what effect did this have on daily life?

Thank you for any replies!

Did average people have any knowledge of actual communist theory/goals, or was it mostly just known as something to be feared?

I'm interested in any point in time during the Cold War.

Why is there so much confusion around his death? did none of his troops notice where the shot came from?

Basically when Standard Oil was broken up who controlled the pieces? Did the Rockefeller family still control their original ownership percentage in all the newly formed companies or were they forced to forfeit part of their wealth?

I know a little bit about the Punic wars but nothing in depth what book should I start with to learn more?

Did the American experience in amphibious attacks in the island campaign affect how they conducted the initial landings in North Africa and France?

You'd often see people claim that USSR settled two out of its three Baltic republics of Estonia and Latvia with people from other Soviet republic (but mostly Russians) with the intention to dilute local populations with more reliable element. Where does this theory come from and how much of it is true?

It's surprising I couldn't find this question asked earlier here, if you can please post links.

I have problems with this story, I'd love to see them addressed:

• Why only Latvia and Estonia, but not Lithuania? Afaik Lithuanian nationalist underground was the most active throughout and immediately after WWII, it makes no sense to target the other two republics, but not Lithuania. To add to this, non-native populations in Estonia and Latvia are concentrated in a couple of regions, too: North-East (shale mining area) and Tallinn (large city) in Estonia, Daugavpils (area of traditional Russian presence from before the Revolution) and Riga (large city) in Latvia.

• If Stalin wanted to "purge" Baltic states of its people, he could do it by resettling them wholesale to remote areas of the country, like he did with many other ethnic groups before the war and then again in 1944. A lot of people were imprisoned or executed by NKVD after the incorporation of the three republics into the USSR, but they were targeted for their social background or political beliefs, not their ethnicity, and these losses are not that significant demographically.

• In USSR everyone was an employee of the state, in a way, which leaves some freedom to interpret reasoning for the same decisions as mostly political or mostly economical. There could be a way to explain migration from other parts of the country to Estonian and Latvian SSRs that isn't about political intent, if people are going to make conclusions without decisive proofs (like documents), they have to explain first why this migration couldn't happen naturally.

I hope we can all agree that we cannot prove basically anything in Genesis. There is absolutely no proof of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, etc. Likewise, there is no evidence for Noah/the ark, or any for Moses. But, we know things like the creation of the Second Temple actually happened (there's still part of one of its walls up!). So my question is, what characters in the Old Testament have been proven by non-biblical sources, and what are those sources?

I'm looking for both primary and secondary sources, preferably ones I can find online or buy a copy of. I know there are Asser and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but that's all I can really find in terms of primary sources, and I can find nearly no secondary sources. What are some recommendations for this, and what sources are most used by historians studying the period?

Kind of what it says on the tin. If you lived in one of these countries would you really know/care who your king was? how prevalent were governments in these peoples lives? Was there a huge disparity in these things in cities vs in the countryside?

I'd like to find a good book on that period. Not too boring but also not too simple. I'm interesting in details of building and crafting a whole new country of that period. I like engineering details of that period. Thank you.

even from 20'- 91' would be intresting to know although i suspect kgb influence would be all over this subject

please excuse my notion mark

Other than causing for the German Army to fight multiple fronts, how else did the Italian Campaign influence D-Day?

[deleted]

I know that Schmitt was a Nazi jurist, but did his political theories themselves have a measurable influence on Nazi policy, either through his jurisprudence or through his ideological influence?

Germanic people from various tribes (or only those from Northern Germany?) of the time (pre-Roman/Christianization) migrated north into the areas of Scandinavia. With this migration they bought with them their 'pagan' beliefs and language. At some point these Germanic people became what we know as 'Norse' and were later referred to as 'Vikings', their language (from the Northern Germany area?) evolved over time into "Old Norse": therefore names for Gods changed, such as the Germanic 'Donar'/'Donner' became 'Thor'. The majority of Germany is then Christianized and Germanic paganism ceases over time. However, the Norse religion lives on as a sub-set of Germanic paganism, until Scandinavia is also Christianized later.

What throws me off is that the majority of historical texts that describe these gods, the German people, the Vikings, etc, are from a time of either having been converted to Christianity (such as the Sagas from Iceland) or from an outsider's perspective (such as Tacitus and his Germania work), or are from archaeological findings that can only tell us so much.

So I guess my question is: Did the Norse and their religion/beliefs originate from Germany (specifically Northern Germany)? And from my writing above (from what I've read so far), what I have said is correct?

I understand forbidding "cruel punishments", but why is "unusual" not acceptable?

More specifically, how was he able to hide a cyanide pill while under Allied custody? I'm certain he was thoroughly searched. I heard a rumor about having a cyanide tooth. Is this true?