Seriously, who thought that was a good idea? Who thought it was gonna work?

I want to say it was Gerhard Schroeder who said it but it doesn't seem right. Helmut Kohl is the next most likely one in my mind. Basically it might have been an admission way after the fact, maybe after the Berlin Wall fell. The phrase that sticks in my mind is that in the event of Soviet tanks flooding the Fulda Gap that "West Germany would simply surrender" rather than become the battleground of World War 3. Another phrase that sticks in my mind was that the average German felt like "NATO would defend Germany down to the last German" - IE that few other countries would care how much damage would be done in the process of blunting the Soviet Attack. Judt's Postwar and the Internet have failed me so far, do you know of any high ranking German official or Bundeswehr officer who admitted this?

So lets say the German expansion in WWII was not stopped in Europe and ended up going to Asia eventually meeting with the Japanese front that was expanding Westward. Wouldn't the Japanese not meet what the Germans considered to be ideal/other way around?

I could have all of this wrong and they could have just both been enemies of the Allies, and not exactly allies themselves. Thanks ahead of time for the help!

For debate in school. :-)

Watching "The Winds of War" on netflix (plug for a great, in depth show) and they show the efforts of diplomats getting out of Poland. I was wondering how it compared to actual events.

He was taken off and Jackson was put on it. Why was he taken off and why was Jackson put on it instead.

We used to see huge sponsorship for beautiful things like the Sistine chapel what happened to that?

San Diego has a good natural harbor, it borders Mexico, and was the first city founded in California yet SF/LA seems to have always overshadowed SD in everything from population size to arts and culture to being the economic center of California. What drew people to those two cities?

I'm aware that there's a native people in Scandinavia, and I know relations with them nowadays tend to be good. However I'm curious what those relations were like 200 years ago, 500, and even 1000 years ago.

Did the Carthaginians really sacrifice children or was is just a disguise for the roman holocaust in carthage. Did roman have guilt for what the did.

Not specifically those intervals, but significantly after the event.

Are there any significant surviving examples? Have good collections of less perishable decorations like bone or stone survived? Are there significant variations among the cultures of different tribes? Are descriptions of ritual wear notably different from regular dress?

I'm reading some primary sources regarding Medieval heresies (dualist heresies currently) for one of my classes, and in reading various accounts I'm of course seeing both sides using different interpretations of Gospel. Since we're doing a mock inquisition later, I was wondering if I could be creative and somehow and ask a question as a Cathar, or someone else who'd be considered to be a heretic by a Catholic, in such a way that the person portraying a Catholic priest would say something that the Catholic Church would consider of the 14th century would consider heretical either by the use of a parable or bringing up something that had previously been heretical?

I was leaning towards just bringing up the wheat in the field parable from the perspective of a dualist defending themselves against the Church, but I think a trick question would be neat to do

Just something that always made me wonder.

Did they destroy them to stop the natives using them? Did the Celts re purpose them? Destroy them? Or were they kept in use by high ranks who never left? Cheers.

Also, am I wrong in thinking they just packed there bags one day and left or was it gradual?