Sources PLEASE!!

The question I have is about the Great Leap Foward and death rates.

I was looking through the death rates of China to see how it has developed over the years and something that has stuck out to me is the death rate of the Great Leap Forward.

So the death rate of China from 1958-1961 (GLF) follows as (these are the most commonly quoted death rates I've seen):

1958: 11.98:1000

1959: 14.59:1000

1960: 25.43:1000

1961: 14.24:1000

So it's quite clear to see when the famine hit and where mass excess deaths come from so it's clear a massive famine did take place.

But this is also where I'm not clear on how this is the biggest famine ever.

While I can't find clear death rate statistics for pre-Maoist China, basically I've seen crude death rates cited from around 35:1000 to 49.3:1000 from different sources.

How is the great leap forward the biggest loss of life in China (and cited in the world), if the death rates come near doubling it before the Maoist period?

I'm also not seeing that much difference in variability in Asian countries at the time (crude death rates I've seen commonly cited India 24:1000, Indonesia 23:1000, Pakistan 23:1000). Also another thing I noticed is that the death rate of India during the end of British Rule was crudely around 28:1000 again, much higher than the Great Leap Forward.

I know I must be getting something wrong here, it's something I'm struggling to wrap my head around hence the question: How is the Great Leap Forward the biggest famine of all time, if it's death rate isn't really that out of the norm for Asia at the time and China has had much higher death rates in the past?

Nowadays we hear all this controversy surrounding the Affordable Care Act, how there are states that are simply refusing to ratify or implement, states that are suing in SCOTUS to not allow it to go into effect, etc. People throw around rhetoric all the time about how it's most grievous regulation in American history, but I can easily remember the Prohibition being characterized in history books in a similar way. That leads me to wonder whether the Prohibition ever saw the same level of government-level backlash that the ACA has. Of course I know about the bootleggers and the speakeasies; I'm wondering about state and local government responses.

Nixonland says it was pretty common for politicians and the press to associate the two, but was it at all justified? What was the Soviet view of the civil rights movement and activists like MLK?

The modern US Presidential campaign is an electoral behemoth, stretching from the first primaries to the ultimate election day. It's marked by campaign trails, debates, stump meetings and last ditch-hauling and calling. I was wondering how the early elections in the US were run (say those before the Civil War).

In particular:

• How were candidates selected?
• How did candidates get their message out to electors?
• What was campaign spending like?
• Were elections decided by national or local issues?

I heard of a few Jewish military units that supported the Nazis in order to make their own nation for Jews and wondered if there were any others that supported the Nazis

Or was the plan always for them to be simply strong and close allies in European affairs?

For example, were there situations where a coal exporter suddenly became hugely wealthy as the price of coal rose, as has happened to several oil exporting nations? Or was the price more steady, for whatever reason?

Did Stalin ever ask Roosevelt and Churchill to deploy troops to fight the Germans in the east? Or was he only interested in the creation of a second (Western) front. Why and why not.

Were there special units if somebody wanted to join a regiment like the Imperial guards?

I can understand special requirements for modern day, medieval and ancient elite regiments, but when it comes to the 19th Century all I can tell is that they only needed to charge, reload and march - just like all the other regiments of the time. (although I could very well be wrong about this)

Or was it their equipment that made them special?

Recently I've been reading alot about American Army tactics in World War 2, and the strangest thing I've come across are foxholes. From what I understand, the infantry would run into these foxholes when they were under bombardment from mortars, or artillery. But why did they do this? I can't see how it would give more cover. Could anyone shed light onto how they assisted in those situations?

Many other academic fields have notable contributors. There are many well known names of Scientists, Philosophers, Mathematicians, Law, Psychologists, etc..

Who are the Einsteins or Curies of academic History, and what were their contributions?

Or has the language evolved too greatly over time?

Did much combat take place there? If not, were soldiers for either side even located in the area, or was it just left alone entirely? And since this was the location of many Comanche, Apache, etc, what was their involvement, if any, in events?

The strip has famously pulled few punches when it has come to those in the Oval Office. I've heard of lots of criticisms that have been leveled at Garry Trudeau by various other people he has satirized over the years, I'm curious as to whether any American presidents (especially while still in office!) have had comment to offer on how they've appeared in his widely syndicated strips.

We are reading Beowulf in my English class but before we get into it our teacher has been giving us a little background to the Germanic tribes so we could write an essay. ( History is not my strongest subject but...) The thing is all of the notes we took and his lecture just doesn't add up and he contradicted himself quite a bit, anyways the topic of our essay is " How did the Romans' invasion of the Anglo Saxons influence them" or something along those lies. I wanted to get some more information so i could have more to talk about in my essay so I did some research but I didn't come up with anything. I told my friend about it and he said that never happened. ( I still wrote my essay and composed it with the stuff he told us and used the specific points he made even thought they don't make sense to me because I don't want to fail the class) Did the Anglo Saxons ever get invaded by the Romans or is my teacher wrong?

Sorry if this isn't the place to ask but I've come to the conclusion that I've been misguided about and flat out missed a lot of ancient history having gone through the American public school system. I'd like to delve into the records myself and this seems like a wonderful place to begin.