This past weekend, I stayed at a hotel in Krakow that had apparently been in operation since the 16th century. This means, of course, that the hotel was in operation under Communist rule.

I realized that I have no idea how such a business worked during the Soviet era. Did the state own the hotel, and operate it as a revenue-generating business? If so, what happened after the dissolution of the Soviet Union? How much did it cost to stay in a hotel like the one I stayed in (I don't want to name it, so as to avoid appearing to be promoting it)?

It strikes me that Paul's writings take up a bulk of the New Testament writings, in spite of the fact that he wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus' life.

Did early Christians perceive him as a primary leader, or were there other leaders who got just as much attention but simply did not write as much? I know most of the original apostles were illiterate.

Also, was the October Revolution celebrated as a holiday event?

Really getting into Company history at the moment, and am a bit confused as to the relation between the British Army and the Company one. I know lots of officers served in India under what I would assume is the Company Army but also within the British Army. So was the Company Army simply a branch of the British Army that still fell under the command of Horse Guards, or was it a separate entity?

I tried Googling it but I couldn't find anything (my Google skills aren't the best) are there dedicated graves here in the US for those soldiers, were they shipped back home to England, are they buried in unmarked graves?

Compared to WW1 how differently was artillery used? Was it a larger part of some armies than others? Was there change in artillery theory throughout the war?

I'm asking this in /r/askhistorians rather than /r/movies because this seems to crop up a lot in intellectual and academic criticism (which are in abundance) against Schindler's List, and I'd like to focus on this aspect of Schindler's List (rather than its aesthetics or filmmaking techniques etc.). I'm doing a history paper at the moment about representations of the Holocaust, which is why I'm asking this question. It obviously misrepresents the Holocaust, especially considering there is no footage or photographs of what actually happened inside the gas chambers (as opposed to the existing footage/photographs of people being shot and burned), but what are the specifically intellectual, academic, and moral criticisms against the production of such a scene, and what are they based on? I have a vague understanding of why it would be controversial, but I can't articulate why it is SO controversial and how it fits into the overarching criticisms of the film by academics.

I'm sorry if this question is rather ambiguous, but any help is much appreciated!