I don't know where to ask this, so I asked it here since it is biographical.

In the movie, PL Travars had alcoholism, then got sick. I assume it was because he was trying to quit and was facing alcohol withdrawl. But then he coughs blood in one scene, then dies later. I wasn't aware death is a risk of alcohol withdrawl. How did he die?

Did your army buddies turn on you? Did they not allow Jewish men to enlist prior to the Nazis taking power so there weren't any? Did they immediately kick you out or throw you in prison? I've never seen nor heard anything about this.

In my history class, I've noticed that most of the wars fought that we study, especially around the age of colonialism, Britain seemed to have a hand in. It seems like their total military casualties would be astronomically high. They fought all over the place, from Opium Wars, to territorial wars in Africa, to both World Wars. I'm just curious to see if I can get a rough estimate on how many troops they have lost through such an expansive military existence.

I realize that it is going to be very hard to get number, because they have been around so long, so sorry if this is a dumb question.

Saw the Soviet Union being called a ''hollow giant'' the other day and i don't really know what it entails

Geography? Luck?

It seems clear now (correct me if I'm mistaken) that Nazi intentions regarding the pact were to use it to stall for time, and renege on it when they felt ready to start the war in the East. But what do we know about what Stalin and the Soviets' intentions were? Did they intend to honor the pact for the foreseeable future, or were they intending to stall for time and renege on it as well?

I've read through the Wikipedia article on the pact, which has detailed information on the political maneuverings leading up to the pact, but seems to say little on the Soviets' long-term intentions regarding the plan.

It has always struck me as an interesting concept, but seems to have largely fallen out of favor past the 19th century.

Before I start, I obviously envision there are going to be a great deal of downvotes. This is by no means an attack on any particular religion and I fully support your beliefs just as much as I'd hope you support mine. The Jesus I am referring to is the historical one, as opposed to any narratives about him (such as the New Testament).

I have seen many debates where several sources arise and every single time I have seen it those sources have largely been debunked or proven forgeries (the only instance I can think of is that some people, such as Tacitus or Josephus, having partial non-modified accounts but even then these people are not contemporaries and could have simply written as hearsay), yet it seems that the belief of "Jesus never existing" is simply a theory and considered fringe and that most historians consider it false. Is it simply a religious bias that causes this view or are they actually legitimate? (I have read the FAQ but I didn't find an adequate answer there).

I have a feeling the answer has more to do with the history of the two countries than with any linguistic reason, so that's why I'm posting my question here instead of Asklinguistics.

As far as I know, both are just as incomprehensible to a standard German speaker and both are spoken in different countries, so why did the Dutch decide to call their dialect a separate language, but the Swiss didn't?

If you were a normal Russian was life in 1959 better then life in 1950?

If the factories are bombed to pieces and everything is gone, where were the units who tried to defend the centre of Berlin getting ammunition, oil, food, etc from?

What happened when opposing forces met in or around an urban centre? Also what happened when trench lines would have neared a city/village? would the trenches have been built around or somehow through? Thank you

As an American, I was always taught that places like East Germany and Czechoslovakia were one-party dictatorships under communism. Strictly speaking, this is not true. To take the East German example, the government was technically a coalition of five parties that made up the "National Front." Wikipedia tells me that membership in some of these parties numbered over 100,000.

My questions are: what role did these parties play in their society & government? Were they merely puppets? How did the leaders & membership perceive themselves? How were they perceived by others?

Well, I'm not really interested in the life history of the man, but rather what kind of person he was. I encountered his name in a book that I've finally gotten around to read, quote:

"[...] John of Salisbury, attacked the Roman imperial cult as the work of impious flatterers which promoted despotism." (Price, 1984)

Since I've never even heard of the man I don't know what to take from this statement. Is he seen as a man who affected politics in his time? Was he a powerful man? Looking at the statement itself I assume he was a Christian, but was he the "hardcore" kind who thought that every non-Christian should suffer forever in hell for their sins; or the lighter kind who might have been okay with deviations in belief? He is obviously writing for his own era, but he could still have been writing truthfully or provocatively and I'm interested in learning which one it is.