It seems to me that the majority of weaponry from WW2 was in-use or being designed for WW2.

In the Khabarovsk war trials, some Unit 731 members were tried for 2-25 years or death. 11-12 years later, everybody not released yet was pardoned. Why?

After WWI, the Allies agreed that Germany was to blame for the war, but I'm curious: who did the Germans blame for the start of the war, and who did the French blame for starting the war, and why?

(I'd like to ask for sources or something to cite, please)

After just watching The Imitation Game, I understand the strategy of using the decrypted messages to thwart every German attack. However, it seems that the Allies had pretty broad access to the decrypted Ultra messages by the time of the Market Garden initiative. Why then did it fail?

I've been reading on the liberationof France during the war and I just thought... Where there parts of Germany which helped the allies, In France or Germany against the Nazis?

The UK was facing a critical shortage of strategic metals during 1939-1942 and vast recycling campaigns were the norm across England. I'm just curious to know if they also attempted to recycle metals found in shotdown Luftwaffe aircraft and also were any attempts made to salvage, repair and reutilize the machineguns, cannons and ammunition from these aircraft. Especially during the summer of 1940 when an invasion appeared likely and the UK was suffering from a shortage of weaponry due to much of their equipment being abandoned at Dunkirk.

I don't know if this is the right question for this subreddit, but I guess I have to ask the professionals. Very many people use Wikipedia to quickly search for information they need, but when is a Wikipedia article reliable? What are the standards for an article to call it so? Does it need many references to books and other articles or is Wikipedia not a 'reliable' source at all? Since authors are anonymous, does this make a difference? Thank you for the answers and sorry for my bad grammar.

Our APUSH teacher last year told us that the bombs were actually duds, and that the intended damage was much more than what happened. How true is that statement? I know many nuclear bombs exist that are more explosive than the ones we dropped, but what were the dropped once intended to do?

I've read about the US intervention in Russia (Wilson sent troops shortly after WWI), Honduras, Guatemala, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Vietnam, Cuba, Congo, etc. I know that Saddam attempted to assassinate Bush (the first?), and something about an assassination attempt on Clinton in the Philippines (?). Anything where other countries have attempted to influence politics/policy to the extent that the US has in other countries?

I know there are various types of missiles but did any countries such as the USSR or the US have the power or defense system to shoot down nuclear missiles? And what was the protocol if there was a nuclear attack?

It may sound like a ridiculous question, but I've heard the term used (although I can't remember where I heard it). It makes sense to me that at least a few of them would exist because games are approaching almost 40 years old and the technology that lead up to them is far older. There are also computer historians who cover subjects which are only a few decades old, so it makes sense to me.

With U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H Jackson serving as a prosecutor in Nuremberg, how did this affect the SCOTUS operations? Did they appoint a stand-in, or continue to hear cases without him?