I am specially asking how former Wehrmacht Generals/SS Officers thought about it and how the eastern block thought about it

Obviously Iraq is the reason for this question coming to mind. The only other example I can think of is Truman withdrawing troops from Korea in 1948. Can you guys think of any others?

I've heard of royals and high-status nobles exchanging jewelry before and during marriage ceremonies very early on in the medieval period. However, I assume that in the medieval period the middle class (such that it was, consisting of lesser knights and skilled artisans and whatnot) would not have been able to afford enough gold to waste much on wedding bands. But sometime in history, gold wedding bands became more or less the "default" matrimonial jewelry for middle class people in Western culture. When did this happen, why did this happen, and where did all the gold to support this wedding ring habit come from?

How did Roman engineers, 'accountants', etc. deal with Roman numerals back in ancient Rome?

Did they have alternative systems (not necessarily numeral, but anything) to get around the limitations of Roman numerals or did they actually use them for calculations, etc.?

I understand that the murder of Franz Ferdinand (and his wife) was not the sole reason for Austria-Hungary's decision to invade Serbia, but it was certainly a substantial factor.

Since that time, I am curious to know if any other nations have cited the murder of one or two of its citizens as a reason for war, as opposed to a military or mass casualty attack.

Of course, we can't actually ever know. I'm not expecting wizards to emerge in this thread and provide magical answers. However, given different social perspectives, structures of authority, and structures of governance present during the late Middle Ages, I can't help but think that there must be some kind of academic discourse occurring concerning this matter.

It's my current understanding that people of that time period would consider religious policy much like a modern person would consider domestic social policy -- but that's the problem, see? I have to compare to an existing experience, rather than being able to think "in the time". As I implied initially, I suspect this is at least a little bit necessary, given difficulties that anyone is liable to have trying to divorce themselves from the only experiences they have. All the same, any illumination concerning the topic would be more than appreciated.

When it came to talking about "the birds and the bees," how did parents approach talking about it? Was it even talked about or were the kids left to figure it out on their own? Did the kids even have time from their normal daily routine to experiment like kids have done over the past half century or so?

Meant "a reasonable statement" not "a reasonable".

Did they think you were only pregnant once you started showing or what?

In a book I read, it was claimed that Hitler was "mostly responsible" for Germany's massacres when he was the Fuhrer. That same author has also said that there is nothing pointing to anybody other than but Hitler and a few fanatical henchmen thinking it was a good idea for the Jews to be exterminated. I doubt either of those are the case, when you look at Europe's history of antisemitism, the aid from both civilians and portions of the Wehrmahct, etc. And there's the 42,500 ghettos, forced labor sites, etc.

And it's not just Hitler. You can put in Stalin. Or so many other examples of what has happened in history. As far I can tell it's silly to focus so much on one person when dealing with is happening in a country. Let alone the entire world. Not to mention the whole "man or group with the right ideas fights the opposition and wins or is burned at the stake or whatever". Look at how Cosmos handled Giordano Bruno or that movie about Hypatia and other myths around her.

Am I missing something here? What appeal do those approaches to history have?

Music changes over time stylistically, but are any of these styles more difficult to play? Have any technological innovations changed this?

I'm currently reading Empire of Liberty, the Oxford History of the United States volume that covers the immediate post-revolution period through 1815. The author argues that many of the original founders, including those who would later become Federalists, were appalled by what they saw the state legislatures getting up to. Some of this seems to be a matter of who was elected to office, but there are also some vague references to the laws that the states were passing (both content and quantity).

Unfortunately, the book doesn't seem to really talk about what was going on, and what exactly it was that states were doing that so offended some of the founders, and which seems to have in part led to the Constitutional Convention.

1. Just how prevalent was it to see Berserkers serve in the various Germanic tribes? Were certain tribes more favorable of Berserkers, did it vary by region, (Western and Northern Germanic tribes favored Berserkers but eastern tribes didn't)?
2. How true is that they would fight bare skinned? Is this hyperbole, or did they literally fight naked - no pants, no shirt, no shoes - just a bearskin and a weapon?
3. Did they favor any weapons in particular? How prevalent were shields among this class?
4. How do you believe they "harnessed" Berserkergang, was it extreme PTSD? Psychedelic mushrooms? Or a combination of both?
5. Various historians claim that they were capable of performing super human feats? How were they capable of such actions exactly?
6. How and why did this warrior class originate? When do they officially show up in history?
7. Is it true that men were born into this class? You couldn't join it?
8. Did they always worship Woden/Odin? Or did they originally worship Tyr?

Just watched 'The Pacific' (side note, it's really great) and after doing some background research, I was curious to know why the 1st Marines even landed on Palau, it seemed really unnecessary to the overall war effort. Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but Adm. Bull Halsey had mentioned that it may not be necessary.

I recently realized I know nothing about South Africa and it's history. I am curious as to why the Dutch people decided to take over South Africa. Also, why South Africa alone? What about the rest of the Africa continent?