>If helicopters were used since the start, would they have had a major impact on the war?

Production at larger scales impacts production of other aircraft, as materiel and, especially, production capability is not infinite. There definitely is a use case for heliborne assault, but that needs models capable of substantial troop-carrying capacity, and for those to be accompanied by very focused SEAD in order to not become a bloodbath, and there were rather a lot of AA guns that would have found helicopters a juicy target. Even if the helicopters are physically designed, built, and capable of doing something like replacing a paradrop on somewhere like Crete, for instance, the doctrine isn't there. It's not just about the airframes.

You can't use them as gunships because they don't have guided weaponry and they're not capable of outgunning likely targets. Any helicopter flying in WWII would have come up against a panoply of 20mm, 40mm, and larger, AA guns. AAA would have a field day against a helicopter formation. You would need to develop (again) doctrine and training in order to avoid catastrophe, as well as deploying more forward airbases in order to have them within operational range of enemies. The logistics to keep them running are not inconsiderable.

The Mughals are from a long Turco-Persian tradition, though, which matters more than our modern concept of their 'race'. Persian was interrupted as a lingua franca in the Persian region by Arabic, but a new form of Persian, assisted by co-opting Arabic vocabulary and script, became popular because it was used in centres of culture and power, which were focused around rulers. This spread as the various Turco-Persian empires spread, with Persian often having centre stage as the courtly language, but also becoming endorsed as an 'official' language, and even when it was not, it became more popular for songs, poetry, and literature, and was often the first choice as a lingua franca at the borders of the empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations

Yes, some people, mainly fascists and Japanese nationalists, do tell lies about it. In the same vein as Holocaust denial, it's a dishonest methodology of ignoring or twisting any evidence to fit what they believe.

>did that actually happen or was it communist fabricated propaganda?

It actually happened, and even Nazis say it did. It's not a communist fabrication, nor were most of the people killed communists; the CCP didn't take over China until 1949.

>my second question is that why did Japan invade china and korean?

Japan sought the establishment of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, a thinly-veiled attempt at creating a larger Japanese empire, subjugating other countries for their resources, and ousting other empires from territory they wanted. Japan sought both superiority over other nations and resources to assist its economy, not least oil, to avoid the USA being able to pressure the country via further embargoes.

Racism is not just about actual skin colour, but perception of that 'race'.

>In the 10 years she went from HS to 2 PHDs and the 20 years of experience since as a historian and conservationist, she has never mentioned any of this.

So why not get her to post her thoughts?

There were attempted crusades around that time that involved children, but they were not crusades led by children, made up entirely or even mostly, of children. The latter idea is a fanciful creation added on to misunderstandings, or outright mythmaking.

There is not one single piece of evidence.

You might be mixing things up slightly. Hyperinflation in Germany happened approximately a decade earlier and was due to German economic policies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

I thought it was, I just didn't expect to see that term repeated!

>By crushing it under the weight of the treaty of Versailles

They didn't.

>I would go on to say the Allies should have been subsidizing Germany's economy in the late 20s and early 30s

They did. Germany received about 35 billion marks in loans, almost all of it from the US.

>it is also true that the Allied powers seemed far from opposed to the idea of fighting a war against the central powers

So the Allied powers wanted to fight rather than just immediately surrender when invaded?

>about how plenty of Germans believed that they'd been stabbed in the back

It depends on how you define 'plenty'. Some thought that, but it was mainly a post-war myth.

>november criminals

Pardon, the who?

>Everything i read says that lots of germans thought that they were winning the war because of propaganda

'Everything' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. What says that, for instance? And, did most Germans believe their own propaganda? In the face of enormous amounts of casualties that were so extensive they couldn't be hidden, food shortages, massive inflation, and so on.

German troops were tired but optimistic after Russian defeat, but this only lasted until around the middle of 1918, when German offensives were exhausted, and they were pushed back almost to their own border. Between March and July alone the Germans took about a million casualties. Their offensives had been bogged down because of German troops stopping to raid French and British supply depots to steal wine, bacon, and white bread, which they had seen little of for four years. Reinforcements sent to replace casualties deserted in large numbers. There were mutinies of entire units who refused to obey orders. Some officers believed the home front, where strikes were common, was responsible for 'corrupting' the troops, and blamed the 'radical left' or 'the Bolsheviks', but it was quite apparent after German offensives ground to a halt that the troops themselves no longer believed the war could be won. The British, interrogating prisoners, found there was a massive drop in the morale of German troops, and that most of them now believed that Germany could not win the war. Straggler collection posts, which Germans set up because of increasing problems with deserters, were busier than ever, and in the last month of the war, were overwhelmed with tens of thousands of soldiers. Surrenders increased in number too, with 385,000 prisonsers taken in four months, which is more prisoners taken than in any single year of the war.

German troops on leave and in letters home told their families quite a lot, and would often be brutally honest. The food supply in Germany in 1917 had been severely cut short, with an official ration of 1,100 calories. Home district commanders warned that the longing for peace was widespread throughout all classes. There were strikes in April 1917 with more than 300,000 workers participating because the bread ration was reduced. The German high command constantly told themselves it was purely political, but strikes were usually around some combination of hours, wages, and food, and typically cutting the hours, increasing wages, or relaxing rationing, did the trick. The populace knew the war was not going well.

>What would be the reason for killing those people? Why not just leave them behind?

Raiding was often mutual, and enmities and feuds were well-known. A raid could be opportunistic, or part of a long campaign against an enemy, to frighten their people, to weaken their economy, to gain renown.

The Nazis were opposed to reparations of any kind, to any country. They weren't in power, or even close to it, but they were, from their inception, completely opposed to the Treaty of Versailles in its entirety.

That's when it got more state backing, yes.

I don't know of a penal unit like that (although one may very well have existed!), but a great many units were free to persecute Bosniaks, and many have been named, such as the Serb Volunteer Guard, Chetnik Avengers, White Eagles, etc. Serbian paramilitaries were used to 'cleanse' their local areas of other ethnic groups, often simply committing mass murder.

Certainly not all of them, although because of their paramilitary nature they will have included criminals, and of course they went on what you might call an extensive run of war crimes.

The Chetniks were Serbian ethnonationalists and guerrillas, who had a decidedly genocidal lean, in terms of 'removing' Albanians, Croats, Bosniaks, and Jews, from 'their' territory.

The abolition movement was genuinely popular, alongside a developing legal and religious situation that bestowed 'personhood' (to use a clumsy term) on people that were foreign or otherwise not British (who could not be slaves, by longstanding precedent). Religion had a lot of weight in social and cultural terms, and added to that, you had many respectable establishment people who took up the cause where Quakers and freed slaves could not; there was a genuine confluence of humanist and religious thought around slavery, which was not just in Britain. The French constitutions late in the 18th century also abolished slavery (although they were interrupted for other reasons), and events like the Haitian Revolution signaled a severe change in what people feared or predicted would come from slave populations. One of the political parties in the British Parliament, the Whigs, were ostensibly abolitionist, and only grew to be more so as time went on; this was a fairly obvious pressure point to use when the sugar trade grew to be less profitable, and slavery grew to be even more unpopular.

Certainly it wasn't entirely a moral issue, but it offered a sense of moral superiority and the economic case for slavery seemed to be getting shakier, alongside a much wider dissemination of just how inhuman the slave trade was, in terms of conditions, punishments, and deaths.

No, and 'Britain' wasn't importing it into China. It was imported by merchants that were British, American, Indian, and Chinese. Neither the Royal Navy nor the East India Company imported opium into China before the Opium War, because it was technically illegal, despite usage being commonplace. Independent traders imported it, and handed it off to Chinese smugglers before it reached China, because foreigners, outside of some very small enclaves, were not allowed into China.

Not directly. I think there might have been many intangible benefits, and certainly it may have interfered with and complicated the economies of rivals, and certainly had knock-on effects on their trade, but it's not like there was an abolition betting pool the British Empire was making big money on; abolition efforts were costly and time-consuming.

He was unpopular, he was by a large measure unsuccessful in his rule and particularly in his conflicts with France, he did not have a particularly strong position, a civil war would be both difficult and costly when he was already not doing well financially, and he had no intention of adhering to it anyway.

>medieval

When, because that's about a thousand years.

>to wear a leather vest+skirt combo over a full chainmail suit?

I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing.

>Or would it be more common to just wear some clothes over the mail if they wanted to show the colors of their master?

You might be thinking of a surcoat, jupon, or tabard, depending upon the era. These could be simple colours or embroidered, and while a squire would want to show his allegiance, for most of that era a man-at-arms wouldn't get the same sort of consideration, and many of them would be lucky to get a 'uniform'.