Analysis of the link between the Soviet occupation of East Germany and internal resistance within the German Democratic Republic reveals that ongoing payment of reparations by East Germans out of local production—via the Soviet’s ownership of prominent local companies—affected both the incidence and the intensity of unrest at the precinct level during the uprising of June 17, 1953. This result is robust when controlling for variation in the presence of Soviet military bases and deaths in Soviet nkvd Special Camps, as well as a host of regional factors potentially correlated with differences in unrest.

The tools of econometric analysis and inferential statistics reveal that senior Nazi-era judges in pre-war Germany exhibited statistically significant levels of discretion in their sentencing of individuals convicted of high treason or treason. In fact, some of these judges, though appointed to the People’s Court to serve the Nazi state, were inclined to show relative leniency, within certain political limits, when taking into account the characteristics, backgrounds, affiliations, actions, and experiences of those whom they convicted. A modicum of judicial autonomy can co-exist with dictatorship so long as it enhances the efficiency of the courts and does not impugn the regime.

Analysis of the sixty-nine juveniles tried for high treason before the People's Court in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945, based on the available court records, finds that juvenile resistance in Nazi Germany possessed a distinct form and character; it was a phenomenon rather than an exceptional act. Juvenile resisters charged with high treason were typically working-class males of German ethnicity, motivated primarily by left-wing and religious beliefs, acting in small groups free of significant adult supervision and direction. Examination of the verdicts and sentencing of these juvenile resisters sheds light on how the Nazi justice system reacted to such serious internal resistance from its young.

Between 1870 and the 1950s, the volume and proportion of British exports to the Empire and Commonwealth grew steadily. Many have attributed this trend to non-market advantages allegedly rooted in imperial rule and the inherent Britishness of these markets. Quantitative methods show, however, that in most periods, other considerations, most notably the economic growth of the importing markets, were of much greater importance in explaining the pattern of British exports.