The Safavid dynasty, which was founded in the 16th century, was known for its strong Shia identity and its efforts to spread Shia Islam throughout its territory, which included present day Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and other areas. As part of this, the Safavids engaged in religious persecution of Sunni Muslims, including acts such as killing or exiling Sunni religious leaders and scholars, destroying Sunni mosques and graves, and using intimidation and violence to force conversions to Shia Islam.

As to why they thought it was okay to kill Sunni Muslims, it's likely that the Safavids saw their actions as part of their efforts to spread and solidify Shia Islam as the dominant religion in their territory. Additionally, there was likely a political opponent to their actions, as the Safavids saw the Sunni population as a potential threat to their rule.

As for why the Ottoman Empire, which was Sunni, did not assist the Sunni Muslims in Iran and elsewhere, it's likely that the Ottomans did not have the resources or the interest to intervene in the affairs of another Muslim dynasty. Additionally, the Ottomans and the Safavids were rivals and may not have wanted to aid a population that could potentially be used against them.

Regarding the silence of major Shia scholars such as Mohammad-Baqer Majlesi, it's possible that they may have seen the Safavid actions as necessary for the spread and protection of Shia Islam. Additionally, they may have felt that it was not their place to challenge the actions of the ruling dynasty. It's worth noting that historians and scholars have different perspectives on the actions of the Safavids and it's a complex subject with many nuances.

The narrative that Germany's war economy started too late, in 1943 with Albert Speer, is based on the idea that the German economy was not fully mobilized for total war until that point. However, as you have pointed out, there are contradictions to this narrative. The Nazi-led economy, as early as 1933, was predominantly focused on rearmament. The German economy invested heavily in synthetic resource production and rationed crucial resources, similar to the Allied war economies. Additionally, the Wehrmacht exploited the economies of occupied countries to sustain the German war effort.

It is true that Hitler did not want a repeat of 1918, when the collapse of the home front contributed to the defeat of Germany. He sought to avoid this by building up his forces before general war broke out and by maintaining a certain level of economic prosperity during the "Golden Years" through rearmament drive. However, it is also true that the German economy was not fully mobilized for total war until 1943, when Albert Speer took over as Minister of Armaments and Munitions and implemented a number of measures to increase the efficiency and output of the German war economy.

One possible explanation for the coexistence of these two narratives is that while the German economy was heavily focused on rearmament and had some war-time characteristics, it was not fully mobilized for total war. This means that the German economy was not fully dedicated to the war effort, and many resources were not being used to their fullest potential. Furthermore, the Nazi regime was not willing to fully implement total war measures that would have required a complete mobilization of the economy and society. Additionally, the exploitation of occupied countries economies was not enough to sustain the German war effort.

To answer your questions " We are always thought that the West wanted to bring back the Roman empire and they missed it a lot, but how can you say that and think about invading or destroying the Eastern part of it?"

The idea that the Western states wanted to restore the Roman Empire is a complex one. It's true that the Western states did idealize the Roman Empire and sought to emulate its political and cultural achievements. However, their actions towards the Byzantine Empire, the Eastern part of the Roman Empire, were often motivated by more practical considerations such as political power, economic gain and religious differences. The Byzantine Empire was seen as a rival to the Western states, and their efforts to invade or conquer it were driven by the desire to expand their territories and influence. This does not mean that the Western states did not acknowledge the Eastern Roman Empire as the true descendants of Rome, it's more that their actions were driven by other factors.

Additionally, the Eastern and Western parts of the Roman Empire had grown increasingly distinct over time, with different cultures, languages, and religions, which further contributed to the Western states' view of the Byzantine Empire as a separate entity. The idea of "restoring" the Roman Empire likely referred more to the idea of re-establishing a powerful, centralized state in the Western parts of the former empire. The actions of the western states towards the Byzantine Empire were driven by a combination of practical considerations and the idealized image of the Roman Empire, rather than a genuine desire to restore the Eastern Roman Empire as it was.