This has always irked me. Did the order of Freemasons evolve from some sort of stoneworking guild, or what? The modern organization doesn't seem to have anything to do with stoneworking or construction or anything related. So how did this happen?

Everything I've heard about Rasputin indicates that he was a total wacko and an outsider. Did Nicolas' family or the people of Russia have any positive feelings or was Rasputin purely an embarrassment?

I really have a hard time understanding the context in which this was necessary. It seems to me like Sherman's March occurred at a time where the south was already on the brink of defeat. Why, then, would he need to destroy the infrastructure of Georgia on his march from Atlanta to Savannah?

Edit: I would just like to add that I live in Georgia, so my sources and understanding of the subject are probably biased. I just would like to hear some more objective perspectives. I know he wrote his Memoirs... but it is just to long to bother reading. If anyone has read it, what specific sections can I refer to to clear things up? It doesn't seem like the political landscape is well laid out in his memoirs either.

Im just wondering how an event like the Boston Tea Party was viewed by marjory of the US population during that time. Were the people viewed as thugs or people just trying to cause destruction? Or did people view them as pioneers to the new US? Also, how did the Boston Tea Party compare to the events in Baltimore? To me it seams like the looters of Baltimore were just that "looters". But part of me wonders how the events of Baltimore will be viewed in the history books.

Do our modern names and words sound anything like the words they would have used in ancient times?

Does this vary between civilisations around the world?

When looking into German history I come across themes such as the unification of Germany between the German kingdoms. But what constitutes being German and why isn't Austria included?

Also was the Holy Roman empire a united Germany? I seem to have remember reading rules that the Holy Roman imposing rules on Prussia suggesting that it was not united.

I've seen in documentaries and on here once (can't recall the post) that the Wehrmacht relied a lot on counterattacks.

I can find no sources (in english, at least) which explain or detail the basis for this.

Was it implemented in WWII? Did they develop it earlier in History?

Thanks in advance.

I figured I'd post here rather than /r/historywhatif because I'm interested in how Nazi Germany really planned to deal with matters of political succession in the event of Hitler's death.

I'd also imagine the plan would be different between these two situations:

A) Hitler dies during the war, natural causes or otherwise, but suing for peace is still feasible over surrender.

B) Germany manages to sue for peace and keep Hitler in power, how is he succeeded in peacetime?

Sorry again if this is too far in 'what-if' territory, but I'm more interested if we know plans that were already in place for this rather than speculation.

I know many of the 'pure' ethnic Germans welcomed the invasion and were given German citizenship; but considering how intertwined both peoples were in Western Poland (Silesia in particular), were the people of mixed German/Polish blood counted as German?

Furthermore, was there a standard akin to measuring for Jewish facial features to judge who was Germanic enough and who was too Polish or slavic for the lebensraum expulsions or during the ethnic cleansings?

Were there any considerations towards this issue within the Generalplan Ost?

E.g. If Sinn Fein were to win in both Ireland and Northern Ireland.

I know the Ba'ath party controlled both Iraq and Syria, but was its hierarchy always split or was it once one large party that spanned borders?

In terms of governing, I'm not thinking along the lines of the Communist parties that governed the Soviet bloc since they were all nominally independent or separate, right? I'm interested in parties like Sinn Fein that're formally a single organization.

I have heard this argument before and I was wondering how the use of drugs influenced the development of Mesoamerican civilizations. I have briefly read Jared Diamond's arguments regarding the time period invested in civilizations. For example, humans emerged from Africa and eventually migrated to Europe which took less time than the migration to the Americas.

However, did drugs have any influence on the growth and development of said civilizations?

\