I can't tell, when I read of marxist historians, whether I'm reading people who just use a particular framework to study history or those that are using it to also actively further a political and sociological ideology

I'm doing a project on Cambodia in school, and I read, "Tomorrow I am Dead" by Bun Yom, where he tells of his experiences as a member of the Cambodian freedom army. However, I cannot find any corroborating sources. Did this exist, and if so, how big of a role did it play in fighting the Khmer Rouge?

Having been raised in Mainland China, I seem to have only encountered stories about how corrupt the Nationalist government was. Maybe this is true to some degree, but how serious a problem was it?

Were any of the the Communist leaders corrupt before they took power? Are there any documents on this?

Have Jews ever made any kind of proselytizing efforts? I know it wouldn't have been to the level of Christianity or Islam but were there ever any attempts at conversion?

I've heard that as well as Judea in the south there was a kingdom of Israel in the north. Although everything I've found has been sketchy it sounds as if he was someone of great influence, but who was he and what did he do?

Like what did they do before tampons and painkillers.

Obviously they were not called assassins. I've done some searching and cannot really find an English equivalent ( which explains why we adopted the word I guess )

Were native Americans in both North and South America ever used as slaves? If so, why did the use of Africans become so popular? Wouldn't it have been easier to have enslave people that were already there instead of shipping Africans across the ocean? Also were natives seen as being higher up in the social hierarchy compared to African slaves or were they seen in the same regard to Europeans?

What made German pilots so effective during the World War II? If you look at the top aces of WWII you have to keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling...until finally you spot an allied ace, Germany absolutely dominates the list other wise. What training made them so successful in the skies?

I was watching an interesting program about the handover of Hong Kong in 1997/8 and it got me thinking - just why did Britain go from owning almost 1/4 of the Earth to being a tiny little island again?

I'm quite curious as to why Japanese small arms were on a "lower tier" compared to every other major power during WW2. It seems that most other powers focused on vastly improving infantry weapons during the 20s, 30s and early 40s while Japan did not. For example, the US introduced the semi-auto Garand as a replacement for the bolt-action Springfield and as such its soldiers had a huge advantage in individual firepower compared to a bolt-action rifle. The Soviets fielded mass numbers of sub-machine guns which were dominant in close quarters fighting. The Germans had extremely effective machine guns that provided support for advancing troops.

The Japanese during the same time were lacking in all of these categories. All soldiers were issued bolt-action rifles that were outdated by the time they went to war with America. Sub-machine guns were almost non-existent (I only know of the Type-100 and from what I've read it seems to have been much less effective than the Thompson/PPSh/MP40/etc). As for machine guns, I've read that they were not even belt-fed but instead were loaded by using 5-round rifle clips stacked into a tray.

So why did a country with such imperialistic ambitions and military power neglect the average infantryman? Would Japan have fared better in the war if they had upgraded their small arms during the inter-war period the same way the other major powers did?

It seems as if the American Revolution was centered around places like Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. Why was the South spared for the most part?

So the Romans had Mediterranean coastal Africa under their dominion, but did they go any farther into africa? They went pretty far North, which could be arguably the more harsh climate

Rome was a very big city for the time but I've never heard of how they treated their dead. Were there burial sites within or near the city? Did they have catacombs like in Paris? Did they practice cremation? All of the above? Something else entirely?

And just to tack on something else if anyone feels like answering it, did other cities within the empire dispose of their dead in the same way?

In a random discussion with my father in the past, he made a statement that the Jews pretty much invented genocide when taking Jerusalem. I don't even remember the context and I realize 'inventing' is bull but is there any truth to this statement? It's hard to search for when all I see is WWII.

Note that my dad is probably one of the most reasonable liberal folks you could meet and I'm libertarian but still respect his views because he backs them up any time we debate.....and I lose miserably. Just saying he wouldn't say this out of spite.

I have always been intrigued by the viking era, and coming from Scandinavia I think its really cool that they are making such a great TV-show about our ancestors. I know that some of the characters in the show are based on real people. But just how accurate is the show as a whole?

I know this is kind of a strange and specific question but it relates to a story my grandmother used to tell me about her uncle during WW2. She would say he was captured as a POW but managed to escape with a Maori man because the Germans were scared of him. I know this probably isn't true but does it have any relation to fact. Were there any mention of how Maori or Pacific islanders were perceived?