When I studied WWII and came to the point where Germany invaded the USSR I always saw it this way: Germany was locked out of Britain and only had a potential (and not quite ready) enemy. So the USSR is attacked in the hopes that it can be removed (or weakened greatly) and then the full focus can fall back to Britain. It was extremely successful at first and it seems like it almost achieved its objective. Given the choices Germany had and the need to close out the war faster than the Allies (who could rely on American help) it seems like a reasonable gamble.

My question is, was Operation Barbarossa the terrible idea everyone paints it to be? Was it the most correct move for Germany given that they couldn't break through British airspace and they would have had to eventually deal with the USSR anyway?

First, in this sense, I'm using "Catholic religious" to refer specifically to the "professional Catholics" like priests/bishops/Cardinals, nuns, monks, abbots, etc.

My assumption is that before the Pope refused to grant Henry VIII's annulment, things were probably about the same for Catholics in England as they would have been elsewhere in Europe (no arrests on trumped-up charges, no torture and execution). Is that correct?

Bonus question: around the time of the declaration of the Act of Supremacy, and the First and Seconds Suppression Acts, was there any presence in England of Eastern Orthodox religious? What happened to them after the persecution of the Roman Catholic Church? They're in "communion with Rome" (meaning that their sacraments -- baptism, confirmation, the Holy Eucharist, Confession, marriage, Holy Orders, annointing of the sick -- are recognized and valid and licit by Roman Catholics), so I imagine that they would have been equally persecuted (perhaps not as badly as I suspect that their presence was so small that they weren't considered an issue, if they were present at all).

And how often did this happen? If this happened, what was the difference between joining the Russian or the American/British side? Were they treated different? How suspicious were allied soldiers towards Germans joining their side? Thank you for the answers and sorry for my bad grammar.

As the jokes goes on the internet, the number of French military victories is zero, which of course is a lie.

Though, reading up a little on the actual victories, it seemed to me that the American independence was won with both French forces and money.

How large where the French involvement in the war, and was it comparable to the one of the 13 colonies?

First time on this subreddit.

My history teacher just argued that jews or other religions in general had no discourse outside of europe before 2nd world war. I highly doubt that is true but i though I would ask here.

Sources would be greatly appreciated because i think she might be biased on this one.

I've tried researching and all I can find on Jericho is that it's one of the oldest recorded settlements to exist. I was wondering if anyone can shed some light on any other significance to it.

???

I've read that ancient Greeks were very into having beautiful fit bodies but I've never heard about what kind of exercises and diets they followed to accomplish this and I'd really want to know about it (if such information exists).

Specifically, did any sort of organized criminal syndicate or syndicates exist and operate during any period of the Roman Empire? If so, how much and what do we know about these criminal organizations?

It makes sense for a Dutch schoolbook to paint William the first as a hero and liberator of the opressed Dutch people. But I've lately gotten to wonder, is the founder of our nation really such a hero, or was he more interested in a power grab for himself?

Who was the real man that became William of Orange?

I have found little information about the relationship between the U.S. and Ottoman Empire during WWI. I know at the time, the U.S. had little interest in the Ottoman Empire and most of the Middle East.

I'm interested in making a pound cake recipe from The Art of Cookery and wondering what temperature they would be baking at

The question is: "What does a nation owe its military service members and other citizens after war? What, for example, did women, African Americans, immigrants and veterans expect from government? Describe the various obligations the U.S. government incurred when it went to war in 1917-1918, and assess how well they were fulfilled."

This is a potential essay question for a final exam tomorrow and I cannot think of specific obligations the US incurred. Did the government even make specific promises?

Thanks for the help!

Edit: I don't mean to sound like I haven't done any research, as there is plenty regarding how people of color went to war to prove their Americanism and advance their citizenship, and how the Total War aspect of WWI advanced women's roles. However I cannot find anything specific regarding the US government.

What led to this war? What are the most important events and why? What was the outcome of this war?

You guys are all amazing! Thanks sooo much for all the replies! Sometimes it is hard to balance teaching and researching and this really jumpstarts my work! Up votes for all!!

As far as I understand it, Medieval Europe was extremely patriarchal and patrilineal; when a lord and lady married, the lady married into the lord's house. Would this still be true for the daughter of the King? It would seem strange that the daughter would "downgrade" her house status through marriage as opposed to the other way around.

I was watching a documentary on King Tut and it described how after turning 18 he was an adult and free to reign (something along those lines) but the maturity age is what I found interesting, this was 3,000 years ago when life expectancy was much shorter and people married in their teens or even pre-teens...

Is there a reason for such an unusually straight line?

I was reading in a communist-oriented subreddit and came to the understanding that many communist supporters have alternate understandings of the history of communist administrations, particularly Maoist China and the USSR under Stalin. Generally I mean that the conclusions they draw about these leaders are quite different than what I've learned in school or through readings of my own.

My layman understanding is that the history I learned about these regimes (for lack of a better word) is influenced by or comes from a framework of "bourgeoise academics" that is naturally more critical of communist regimes. I can understand the motivation behind this line of reasoning because to a communist history should be looked at from a Marxist perspective. History coming from a different background is fundamentally flawed because it is not Marxist and therefore cannot draw accurate conclusions about the objective truth of communist leaders and their history.

Any more understanding of this topic would be greatly appreciated. Even if I'm way off the mark, which is quite likely. Thanks.