What language of the Scandinavian countries

(Sweden, Denmark (and Greenland), Norway, Iceland, maybe Finland)

is more similar to the Old Norse?

Not in writing (I'm pretty sure they used another alphabet), but in pronunciation and similar speech.

I've been watching the movie "The Book Thief" and this question came across my mind after seeing a German woman crying when her husband was conscripted into the German army. I was wondering what his average chances to come home were, maybe even unharmed / wounded.

It seems like an obvious question to be asked here, so I've searched for a similar one, haven't found any. Reddit's search isn't too good, so please point me in the right direction if you remember a similar question asked.

EDIT: So I read something in another thread and while it seemed off, I thought I might have learned something new. I got to thinking that maybe things were more complicated and interesting than I had always assumed, and since there are smart people on this sub respectful of those curious to learn I would ask about it from an angle that connected to other interests of mine--Biblical history. It seems that I misread the idea in the other sub, and I have been set straight. Things were as I had thought before. Pardon me for asking an honest, if mistaken question. Thanks to those who took the time to answer me with respect.

I was listening to a Dan Carlin podcast, "Globalization unto Death" and he brought up an interesting point. When crews are starving, they talk about how they eat their shoes, rats, and horses but they don't try to fish. Why is that? Did they not have the nets necessary to do so? If so, did it just not occur to them or is there some logistical problem I'm not considering?

I've always been kind of fascinated by the way ancient cultures were able to create leavened bread when it seems like culturing wild yeast is a non-obvious thing to do, particularly for a society that predates knowledge of of microorganisms. Did they have any explanation for why a sourdough starter worked? Would they have thought it was a supernatural process?

I am reading Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke and just wondering why you guys think they thought it was so important to study the state of nature?

Most of the articles I read said that it predates recorded history, but they failed to mention what is the earliest mention of such a thing.

I'm planning on picking up Maurice Druon's Accursed King's series, detailing the demise of the Capetian Dynasty, and realized I don't quite know a lot of early European history. I have a deep love for history, but was mostly taught American history throughout high school. What are some of early Europe's best stories and historical figures to learn about, and what texts (novels or otherwise) would you recommend to learn from?

I just listened to a great podcast about Colin Powell, and it covered the Gulf War in basic detail, but then I started thinking: why did the West care about Kuwait? What was so important about that nation... was it militarily strategic? Was it economically important? Did the West respond to set a precedent of protecting the sovereignty of nations?

The relevance of this question is obvious, but I am interested in the opinions of those with some expertise in the period concerned as well as further reading beyond Wikipedia and the like. Why did Nicholas need a Black Sea fleet? Was the religious question simply a cover for a larger Russian strategic vision of the time (akin to the Great Game), and if so what was that strategic vision? Is there a Pan-Slav nationalist component to Russian action, or does that only develop in the later half of the 19th century? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!

EDIT: For clarity, I am not necessarily asking why Russia needs warm water ports, as that should be obvious to most students of Russian History. Why Nicholas I? Why him and why then or was it simply opportunism?

what exactly is a historiography and how do historians write them?

These seem (on the surface) similar to the existing Russian invasion of the Crimea, but what factors prevented NATO/Western involvement?

In the novel, Emma is best friends with an orphan. Her governess marries a rich, older man and Frank Churchill, rich and handsome, marries a poor governess-to-be. I've always thought that this would be looked down upon at the time, but Austen's book seems to shirk that.

On another note, Emma is very independent and claims to never desire marriage. Was this independence not seen as unusual for that time?

Wars seem to be the ultimate throw of the dice. My own feeble knowledge covers, it seems, only wars that have ultimately surprised all participants.

Are there any wars that turned out how one of the participants planned? Policy actually successfully implemented through violence.

If there are reasons why they were able to do this, it would be interesting to know why too.