Were any scholars troubled by the terms of the treaty? Did people fear the rise of a "Japanese Hitler"?

I've seen the theory floating around various social justice-y circles, but a few people have mentioned they heard in art history. I'm wondering if it's a well-accepted interpretation, or just a theory that happens to match the current zeitgeist of feminine power and self-expression.

Hitler attended his first Nazi rally originally as a spy for the military, sent to report on them. When he eventually turned and fully joined the party, did the government ever try to undermine and sow distrust of him by 'leaking' the fact he used to be their agent?

And either way when it eventually did come out, how did it effect him?

Besides the rough idea I get from the Wikipedia pages. Though I'm confused as to why it says the UK supported Poland during Zaolzie annexation but then says they were accused (never said by who) of being accomplices of Germany in annexing Czechoslovakia.

Was it ever common? Was it something that happened with regularity at some point and then ceased as time went on (as the Church or gov't grew in power or something like that)?

How closely regulated is old equipment, I’ve seen pictures that show rivers clogged up with old ships and fields full of planes and tanks. Is it possible to reactivate these things or are they essentially just junk piles. Have we ever reactivated old mothballed equipment? Also it seems like some of the equipment while not first rate or modern is still rather impressive, has the US ever given away obsolete material to allies?

I don't mean a map made during that period, I mean a map of political borders during that period. I realize that there will be generalizations in places but it would still be useful to see.

I have read that the Aztecs and Incas did not use the wheel because they did not have any animals that would be able to pull a carts. Were there any civilizations in the Americas that ever used the wheel as a method of transport?

Why the eastern provinces were against icons? Did the Arab expantion influence their beliefs?

What was the process of realizing and coming to terms with the fact of two new continents with completely new and different cultures? I'm assuming that people weren't rethinking everything they knew after Columbus found a few Caribbean islands, but today we obviously know that this discovery and the subsequent colonization were momentous events in world history. My question is basically what was the early process of this realization like.

Usually the university of Bologna is called the first university. What earns it this title though? How do the universities established during the early middle ages qualify as the first universities, but not, say, the Greek academies, or the Islamic madrassas, or any other earlier known place of higher education?

Thanks in advance.

When someone says Jew in a modern context I think I a religious Jew, as opposed to Israeli. When someone says Hitler persecuted Jews I thing of a ethnicity. If I were to refer to a writers of the Torah I would say Jew, but I might also use, Israelite, or even Hebrew.

What are the academic conventions used to differentiate?