Currently researching the rise and fall of communism in Poland, and it looks like Gomulka was pretty critical of Luxemburgist and Trotskyite dissenters. What are the key differences between the two?

How were crimes investigated/punished? who would be doing the investigating? the punishing? Any overviews in a general way of how that changed over time? How different was the law in cities compared to more rural areas?

I'll first frame this in context--every couple of years, either through Poles who I know personally, or through the news, I hear that someone (first it was Stephen Fry, now it's FBI Director James Comey) has accused Poland of complicity or mentioned Polish involvement with the Holocaust, and it results in diplomatic outrage. So I'm here for the facts.

I'm reasonably familiar with interwar and WWII history, including the fact that Poland was under Nazi occupation for the duration of the Holocaust, and that it didn't exist as a country during that time. I know that much of the Holocaust took place in what is now Poland. I also know that it's also true that there were collaborators from all countries occupied by the Nazis, and Poland isn't unique in this respect. It's also true that Polish anti-Jewish and anti-Roma sentiment long predates Nazism in Europe--Poland is obviously not alone in this either. And I know that resistance to the Nazi occupation, especially close to the end of the war, is a cornerstone of modern Poland's identity.

So my question is several-fold, and I'll break it down here. Try to answer objectively if you can, but I realize these are very tricky questions:

1. To what extent did Poles (i.e., the Polish population) support the Nazi roundup and killing of Jews and other minorities who became victims of the Holocaust? How do we know this and how can we know this?

2. Auschwitz and many other Nazi deathcamps were located in what is today Poland. To what extent were these facilities staffed, supported, or run by ethnic Poles? I know there were many foreign SS divisions (even Muslim divisions); were there Polish SS divisions and is there any evidence that they participated in the Holocaust?

3. I know some countries which willingly joined the Third Reich (such as Austria) received a less harsh de-Nazificiation program at the end of the war than did West Germany. Many countries which fell on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain had no explicit de-Nazification program at all. Did any of the state institutions set up by the Nazi occupation of Poland survive the war's end, and to what extent are these institutions represented in modern Poland?

4. And now a more philosophical question--certainly, there was anti-Jewish sentiment in the Soviet Union before the Axis invasion. It's doubtful anyone would accuse Ukrainians or Belarussians (or modern Belarus or Ukraine) of complicity in the Holocaust, due to the brutal nature of the Nazi occupation and many other factors, even if at the village level people were turning over their neighbors. Is there any reason occupied Poland should be held to a different standard? Is there a case against Poland more substantial than say, France, which has admitted to handing over Jews during their Nazi occupation?

DISCLAIMER: I realize this is a sensitive subject. My only interest is in historical fact and civil discussion. If you have other feelings to share on the subject, feel free to PM me to avoid violating the sub's rules.

Jokes or irony in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc...?

the angels are lost in a perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory

I've heard it repeated often from many different people that the British thought about intervening in the ACW because they wanted to secure southern cotton. I find this somewhat hard to believe as the British had control of India by this time and had already begun construction of the Suez Canal in large part to facilitate trade with India. Is there any truth to this widely held idea? Did any world power consider intervening?

When Americans describe the flag of the United States, the colors are identified as "Red white and blue". Why are the three colors invariably listed in that order?

Would the legion sit around campfires and tell awful jokes to each other before they conquered?

I was just wondering, changing from a republic to having an emperor must have meant there were changes within the army to serve one person. How did emperors keep the soldiers in line? Mainly the likes of Augustus/Tiberius/Caligula.

his works were notoriously critical of the government, despite doing so in somewhat subtle ways. Stalin was well known for brutal punishment for any political dissonance. I have not been able to locate any information about this, and need it desperately for my research project.

I am writing an essay on the military-industrial complex. From my research, it appears to me that the absolute earliest point you can start at in an analysis of the military-industrial complex is with pre-WWI, when the War Industries Board was formed and staffed with corporate leaders, who were tasked with regulating and mobilizing the wartime economy. With this understanding, my thesis spans the rise of transnational railroad corporations, prevailing interpretations of Supreme Court rulings on corporate personhood, the pre-WWI process of economic mobilization, the actions of the Federal Reserve surrounding the Great Depression*, the Lockheed Martin bailout** and bribery scandals of the 70s, and finally the influence of Ronald Reagan's time and role at General Electric on his future policy-making.

The sources I am using most heavily include:

• Paul A. C. Koistinen, The “Industrial-Military Complex” in Historical Perspective: World War I.

• Education of Ronald Reagan : The General Electric Years and the Untold Story of his Conversion to Conservatism

• William D. Hartung, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-industrial Complex

• Tom Hayden and Marc Pilisuk, Is There A Military Industrial Complex Which Prevents Peace?: Consensus and Countervailing Power in Pluralistic Systems

• William D. Hartung, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-industrial Complex

• Walter Adams, The Military Industrial Complex - A Market Structure Analysis

• David Tal, Eisenhower’s Disarmament Dilemma: From Chance for Peace to Open Skies Proposal, (Diplomacy & Statecraft

I guess my question is: am I on the right track here? Am I fundamentally missing something in this topic? Please note - while this is a post about an essay, I believe it is also a post ripe for discussion on a topic that is extremely complex and important. I personally feel I have a great understanding of the topic and have put a lot of research into this, but it is possible that someone is even more knowledgeable and can explain this to me even better. After all, even when we know a lot there is always more to learn.

Looking forward to reading your responses!

*might not include this- basically would be citing Shughart/Tollison's (1988) thesis that the "restrictive monetary policy of the Fed... was based on rational, self-interested behaviour" and that they guided the world into a depression for the "health" of the stake member banks in the Fed

** the first government bailout of its kind, the 'precedent' for future auto and bank bailouts

This is x-posted from /r/Islam if anyones wondering.

Hi guys!

I'm working on a powerpoint for my Arab Civ class over the military successes in early Islam, and am having troubles finding some information over a few topics.

I need to overview the Muslim soldier (i.e. how he differed from other soldiers) for a few minutes. I remember reading somewhere that the Muslim soldier was lighter armed and more mobile than many other soldiers. But other than that, I have no idea what he looked like, how the Muslim Army was structured, and what innovations they brought fourth with the art of war. Basically, you can answer the question, "What made the Muslim soldier so much more efficient and effective than other Arabs at the time?"

Also, I somewhat understand how a war went in Arabia at the time. From what I understand, it goes somewhat like this: Armies meet up, a few words are exchanged, poetry battles, 1v1 duels ensued (which was said to indicate who would win the war), and finally a clash of armies by charging at each other. If I'm wrong or missed anything out, then please pitch in!

Also, if someone could help me out with how Islam changing the ethics of war and Islam's impact on war seen all the way up to today, that'd be amazing!

Now, keep in mind, this is a school project, so I don't want people to do my research. I only need sources! You don't need to give me a very detailed outline of everything about the Muslim army, but if you could refer to me some sites/books, that'd be fine. If you can't get any sources, then I guess a simple answer here could suffice. Of course, I am doing my own research too, and I already have a few journals and books selected.

If anyone is wondering what I have so far, I have this excellent narration by Abu Bakar that goes:

O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well! Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone!

I've also studied the initial Muslim wars in great detail, so I'll have fun explaining those to my class. If people here want me to, I can even upload my finished powerpoint to be used by others (it is very good looking if I say so myself). If intrested, then of course leave a comment asking me!

Thanks in advance!