I guess it's true that he never had come out and said "Yes I'm going to physically exterminate millions of people via concentration camps", but why was the discovery of the camps so shocking? I'd think it'd be expected by anyone who bothered to read through his plans or listen to his virulent hatred against Jews. He and other Nazi leaders had many many many times publicly talked about how Jews were subhuman and deserved nothing than to be vanquished.

So did people just not... pick up on the logical implications of such hatred? Both people in Germany and foreign intelligence experts?

Countries like India and China had for many centuries before the enlightenment had great mathematicians and technology, but they got stuck at this stage for centuries without making progress. In China I know that the Song Dynasty was the technological and cultural high-point in history. It seems these two countries should have been good candidates for having a revolution but it just never happened, why?

I am currently formulating a paper on the evolution of strategic bombing, and my thesis is that the Allied experience of German terror bombing during WWI shaped the theories of Douhet, Mitchell, Seversky, and others. Lacking a similar experience, the Germans focused on a tactical air force as a core component of the Blitzkrieg and did not invest in strategic bombing due to it not being a task expected of the Luftwaffe until after the war had begun.

This may be purely coincedental but the protestant reformation seems to have been much more successful in Nothern Europe compared to the south. Has anything been written about this?

My apologies if this has already been answered, but I couldn't find anything on it.

When Mussolini entered the war, what were the ultimate goals of Fascist Italy? How extensive was the New Roman Empire they dreamed of creating?

What were the reasons that the Germans choose a nazi government before the 2nd World War? Today most people disagree with Nazis, but why where they so populer in the 30's?

Swiss German is basically incomprehensible to Standard German speakers while Swiss French only changes a small amount of vocabulary.

Were there often or usually royal announcements requiring the general public to attend? Or were spectators just riffraff with grisly curiosity? Surely there must have been quite a few people even then who would have been revolted by the idea of watching someone's head chopped off.

What pressures and policies are there that have led to this being the default font in the English language?

I first came across this claim in the introduction to Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927-1939 (1985). The editor, Allan Stoekl, traced the claim to an article by Roger Caillois ('The College de Sociologie: Paradox of an Active Sociology'; Sub-Stance 11-12 (1975): 61-64) which I am currently unable to access. The article seems quite short, and Caillois was considerably disenchanted with Bataille and his various excesses by this time, so I have no idea how reliable a source it is.

The thing, though, is that I would have no trouble at all believing this of Bataille, who was completely out of his entire mind in many interesting ways -- I just have no real substance to place behind it, at present.

Does anyone know more about it, or have ready access to the Caillois piece?

I am currently transcribing a letter from 1845 and having some trouble with the handwriting. This may be a half-baked question but are there any resources available for helping decipher old penmanship, other than referencing other letters of the period? Obviously, I know to look for context, misspellings, etc.

Me and my roommate were wondering why Brazil is the only Portuguese speaking country amid a mob of Spanish speaking ones.

It seems like if the Romans already had mapped out the area that roads would be unnecessary.