Why did Hitler blame the Jews for defeat in world war 1? What was the Jewish communityies situation prior to world war 1, and the time immediately after the war?

Wouldn't one figure that due to the economic failure of the "free market", or the great depression, that Communism or radical leftism be an excellent alternative? The 1st red scare didn't make sense since the roaring 20s was about to occur. And history provides us with that reason as well as evidence. But there was a moment, from 29-33 where FDR was elected that the U.S. seemed to be left out to dry. That being said FDR's policies weren't yet implemented yet alone theorized and provided to the American public. No fireside chats, no New deal policies, nothing. In other words no hope on the horizon. So wouldn't some type of movement start since the future looked bleak at best?

EDIT: I honestly didn't expect so many great answers, and this has been really, really helpful. Thanks!

I know that Chinese traders ranged far and wide around the Indian Ocean and western Pacific, but how much of the world beyond that did they know about? For example, did they have any information on the existence of Australia before European explorers made it there? What about Europe before the Mongols brought back information on it from their conquests in Russia and eastern Europe?

I remember reading in a textbook a while ago that when Julius visited Alexander the Greats tomb he said some epic quote. A curator asked if he wished to see any other of the leaders and Julius said something like "I came to see a king not peasants." I can't remember what I read other than it was a textbook that I feel is very reputable. Did he say anything like that or is it like a myth?

What's the history behind this? Also, how is it that every area has a unique zipcode? Or how do they make sure that two areas don't share the same code?

Especially when compared to the animosity towards the Japanese?

I've read several books about the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, and seen a documentary about it, but none of the above said WHY France did it.

I've heard sentiments of this nature before. Yale's Paul Freedman alludes to it in his Early Middle Ages course, for example, but he does not elaborate.

Is this a commonly held belief among historians? What exactly is meant by a city "draining" wealth? I've read Ward-Perkins' Fall of Rome book, which tries to reconstruct the economic situation of Antiquity and Late Antiquity, and it does not mention anything of this nature.

I can't think of the word, and I know it's basic but I've been writing this essay for too long and my brain has pretty much shut off.
So what is the word for when you look at two sides/two sources to reach a middle ground... it starts with a d I'm pretty sure.

I was reading about Andorra and I find it fascinating that one of their princes is an elected president of another country (the other one is a bishop, which I don't find as interesting). Has a French president ever actually gotten involved in Andorran politics? I saw on Wikipedia that Sarkozy threatened to abdicate if they didn't change some tax law, but I see that more as France putting pressure on Andorra rather than the president getting involved as prince.

Crucifixion seems to be always and everywhere associated with the Roman Empire, the dissident slaves along the Appian Way, that dude from Nazareth, etc. But I have just read that Polycrates the tyrant of Samos was put to death by crucifixion in the sixth century BCE when Rome was still a kingdom – so how far back can we trace crucifixion, what is the earliest documented instance that we know of?