Over 14 million Soviet civilians died as a result of WW2.

My question is exactly how many of these deaths can we attribute directly and explicitly to German forces whether they are the Wehrmacht, the SS, Waffen SS, SD, or the occupying civilian administrations like the one run by Erich Koch in the Ukraine.

What number of the 14 million+ deaths were the result of genocide as opposed to unintentional collateral damage that occurs during wars of a colossal scale like the Eastern Front?

How many were shot, burned, gassed, bayoneted, starved, beaten, worked to death, left to die from exposure to the elements and disease etc because they were seen as subhuman in the eyes of the Anti Slavic Germans?

Is an estimate like this even possible?

From Wikipedia:

The Russian Academy of Sciences in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR at German hands totaled 13.7 million dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR. This included 7.4 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 2.2 million deaths of persons deported to Germany for forced labor; and 4.1 million famine and disease deaths in occupied territory. There were an additional estimated 3.0 million famine deaths in areas of the USSR not under German occupation. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR in 1946 to 1991 borders, including territories occupied in 1939–40.[24] The deaths of 8.2 million Soviet civilians were documented by the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission.[25]

Is 13.7 million an accurate estimate or should it be lowered?

I'm putting together a backstory for a D&D character who comes from a region analogous to China (Tian-Shu from Pathfinder in case anyone is wondering). My current backstory is that she's the illegitimate daughter of an upper class family and I'm just looking for a bit of real world history to flesh that out.

So my AP European history class finally got to the 18th/19th centuries, and have started talking about the Industrial revolution, but I feel like our class sort of glossed over why it occurred first in Great Britain and jumped straight into its defining characteristics.

I'm Katherine Ringsmuth, author of the new book, "Alaska's Skyboys: Cowboy Pilots and the Myth of the Last Frontier." I teach Alaska History at the University of Alaska Anchorage and I'm here today to answer your questions about Alaska's aviation past or any other Alaska-related topic you may be interested in.

A quest to figure out what year a map in my German class was made lead me to the Wikipedia page on Kaliningrad, where it stated that the German citizenry was forcibly expelled and replaced with Soviet citizens, the German language was changed to Russian, and the city then closed to the public due to strategic reasons. It's not terribly specific, and Wikipedia isn't famed for its reliability, anyways, so I'd like to know more.

EDIT: Thought of another question: do German speakers now refer to it as Kaliningrad or Königsberg, and at what point did that shift happen? The map has it labeled "Königsberg", and I'm hoping that could give some clue as to what year the map was made in.

I was just watching a debate, and the person makes a statement that in modern history (20th century) every war was either between a free state and a police state or two police states. Is this true?

And while we are at it: how was population growth in China controlled?

I know corsets are a staple of a lot of European women's clothing, and the shape from corseting changed between the Elizabethan flat-fronted, and the Victorian wasp, and so on, but what if you couldn't get the ideal shape because your body just isn't shaped that way?

What if you were a super skinny Victorian woman with no boobs or hips? A corset has nothing to smoosh, so it wouldn't really help. Likewise in the 1920s - what if you're super busty/curvy, and can't fit into a flapper dress because of huge boobs? Are there 1920s equivalent to modern chest binders? What about big hips?

Were there pre-modern fake boobs? Fake bums? How do you cope if you're the wrong shape for the fashion of the time?

I'm slogging my way through "The Other Boleyn Girl" (please don't as me why--I'm questioning my own sanity) and it just occurred to me that for all the talk about how Anne Boleyn and her relations were ennobled with titles and offices in the king's household, no historian--in my memory--has written whether or not there was any kind of investiture ceremony enacted publicly to affirm their new titles. Most historians don't even bother to mention the letters patent which was considered the legal document issued by the crown that granted a peerage to an individual. The most that I can recall in this context was Anne's coronation and the controversy it caused, but by that point she was being crowned queen and we all know there's an established ceremony that goes along with that title. But what about when she was made a marchioness? Did she get a ceremony then? Or was it simply a matter of the crown issuing the letters patent and the king saying "BTW, you're a marchioness now, congrats."

As the title asks, why did Franco choose King Juan Carlos as his successor? I never thought of Franco as a Falange ideologue (far more a pragmatist), but it seems a bit strange to me, that he decided to reinstate the monarchy, knowing that it would put in jeopardy his entire supporting column (the Falange army, bureaucracy etc).

Were his supporters not afraid of democracy, and then the very high chance of lustration? And if not, why were the Falange so willing to give up power, rather than install a new dictator from the Falange?

During the Hungarian-Romanian War, the Romanian army had advanced towards the Hungarian capital, Budapest. I am looking for which territories wore controlled by the Romanian army and for how long they held them for until they withdrew.

Did the Mayflower passengers know much about the failed Popham Colony of 1607? Would they only know minor details about that colony, or would there have been more extensive study into its location, techniques, tools, etc?

Conversely, what did the Jamestown colonists know about Roanoke, other than the fact that its inhabitants disappeared?

Did either Plymouth or Jamestown change their courses, approaches, etc, based on these prior failures?

I'm super confused, i'm getting the idea that some armies (armies?) would have traveled and fought to get condiments for their or someone's food flavor. I mean, was food flavor really a cause of war or invasion? I know there are wars for quality of life, but this?

It's my understanding that they were not supposed to kill any opponents, but that it could potentially happen by accident. If there is evidence of a purposeful killing, how did they get away with it?

I hope this fits properly into the rules, if it does not I apologize.

Edit: To clarify I mean I am referring to tournament mêlées.

I was just doing my homework reading up about the English Civil Wars and reading about how after Charles 1 was executed the Rump Parliament made up a new seal with Parliament on it, not the monarch. It made me wonder what happened to everything else with Charles 1s face on it, and then it made me think about how logistically difficult it would have been to destroy all such royal memorabilia, and then I realised that this problem has probably been faced multiple times throughout history and I should just ask you guys. :D Clarification: I don't just want to know about what happened in Charles 1s case, any examples of relics of a ruler having to be destroyed after they has been despatched would be cool.

To the best of my understanding I know that during WW1 Britain still controlled their foreign affairs and so were responsible for declaration of wars. By the time WW2 began however Canada and Australia were completely independent so why did they join the war so quickly and not stay neutral as Ireland did?

How was this achieved considering most of the best of the Soviet Military leadership was decimated by Stalin's mistrust of the military ? Especially with how disastrous the defence against operation Barbarossa was.

Also, what were that factors that could've led to this change, like Japan's global standing post-war, and events that led to it. Thanks for any answers you guys may have!