I was watching Der Untergang for the first time yesterday. I take that the film is really well sourced (as a big budget, German movie on Adolf Hitler and the fall of the Third Reich it had to be) but there is one scene in particular that left me quite surprised:

The film depicts a group of German children being used as cannon fodder against the impending Soviet incursion, in the last days of the Battle of Berlin, with one kid being credited as having blasted out two Soviet tanks with panzerfausts. The actor in particular seems to be 13/14 years old.

Did Nazi Germany really use child soldiers? If so, when and how did that happen? Was this, lets say, part of the Nazi German military doctrine or was it merely a last resort, grassroots (as in, it's not even possible to identify the chain on command that allowed this to happen) tactic to stop the Soviets from advancing over Berlin?

Thanks.

The title pretty much says it all. I recently heard about the WW2 Operation Mincemeat and I would like to know more. So, I'm asking for some good books on the subject for a layperson.

I have some questions about the accuracy of Hamilton and just the time period in general. I would appreciate any answers those of you that are more informed than I am could give. If you only know the answer to one or two questions please still answer! Thank you so much in advance!

• Did Aaron burr really not show his political views? Did he really "talk less, smile more"? If so how did he get elected for so much?

• Was Hamilton really George Washington's Right hand man? If so why don't we ever hear about anything regarding Hamilton relating to the war?

• Was Hamilton really that important in the war? In "Guns and Ships" Lafayette says "for this to succeed there's someone else we need. hamilton" and "No one else matches my tactical brilliance." Then Washington says "If you join us right now, we can turn the tide" Was Hamilton really that important of a factor in the battle of Yorktown? Did he win us the war?

• Then In "The Election of 1800" You hear the federalist asking Hamilton who he was promoting. Then they basically say that Hamilton won the presidency for Jefferson. Was Hamilton's opinion really that important?

• Add on to the last question- In "Schuyler Defeated" You hear burr say "They don't like you. Oh wall street thinks you're great... but upstate people think you're crooked" or in "The Reynolds Pamphlet" they say he ruined his reputation so much that he's"Never gonna be president now" I thought people thought he was immoral and corrupt, so why did they care about who he endorsed in the election of 1800

• In "The World Was Wide Enough" Burr says "I was too young and blind to see, I should have known, I should have known the world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me" Did Burr really have regrets about killing Hamilton?

• At the end of the play Jefferson and Madison are basically praising Hamilton's financial plan saying "his financial system is a work of genius" or "he took our country from bankruptcy to prosperity" Did Hamilton really save America in terms of finances?

Obviously the non-catholic denominations.

What did past Popes think of the Mormons, Jehovah's, and all other evangelical faiths when these movements started? In the eyes of the Catholic church, are/were they considered heretics?

Furthermore, many myths about witches (flying around, the ability to transform into animals, the ability to use magic) seem very similar to near-universal traits associated with indigenous shamans all over the world. Were these myths simply carried over from Europe's shamanic past, or were they "re-discovered" after the fall of the Roman Empire?

I realize these are broad questions, but I suppose I'm just trying to understand how much of the "witch" stereotype is based on reality, and how much is totally fabricated.

I'm reading a book which contains the following quote:"In 1789 the French population switched almost overnight from believing in the myth of the divine right of kings to believing in the myth of the sovereignty of the people". By myth, the author generally includes abstract concepts and social constructs.

I now don't trust this author very far, he makes a lot of generalizations and this in particular has no sources attached to it, but it is a fair question. From what I remember from my very far away history classes, the French revolution was mostly driven by bourgeois ideas and hungry citizens of Paris. The population of the rest of France wasn't much discussed. Did the population of France truly believe the former order was, as the author says, a mandate from god before the revolution? To what extent did they change their minds after the revolution started? How were these ideas passed on to them?

(for the record the book is Sapiens: A brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari)

The Kingdom of France was a continuation of the Frankish Kingdoms just renamed, so would a French king named 'Clovis' become 'Clovis IV' if he ascended to the the throne post-Merovingian times? I know that Charlemagne is considered a king of France, and he inherited the title from his father who was most certainly a king of the Franks, which makes me think that the Merovingian would be considered French kings.

Athena brought him back down back to Alcmene and Amphitryon, but who took him up there in the first place? Was it Athena herself?

I watched the BBC documentary "The death of Yugoslavia" which was recommended to be as being a neutral source.

When he first turned against Croatia after annexing Kosovo, the other leaders of the council seemed to back him up, including Izetbegović of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why did they not see that Milosevic would inevitably turn against them and would not respect the sovereignty of any country with a large Serbian minority?

Also: Why were they ok with Serbia playing such a major role in the whole of Yugoslavia, being the capital of both and having control over the biggest part of the federal military?

At one point in Caesar's De Bello Gallico, Caesar states that the Helvetii formed a "phalange" (1.24). My Loeb defines "phalange" as a mass, and the appendix merely states that the Helvetian phalanx, in this context, is a mass of considerable depth. In my reader, "phalange" is merely defined as phalanx.

Now, how exactly did this Gallic "phalanx" work? I've read that some Gallic towns resembled Greek poleis (I think in Goldsworthy's biography of Caesar); would it be safe to infer that a Gallic phalanx would resemble one of the Hellenistic variety?

Also, Caesar later mentions that the "phalanx" broke rather quickly; only after a volley of javelins (1.25). Wouldn't that indicate that it, as H.J. Edwards translates, isn't really a phalanx since, at least a hoplite wall, would usually be able to hold out against missile fire? Which begs the question, if it's not a phalanx, why would Caesar use the word phalanx in the first place? There are other Latin words for heap or clump.

I just saw Anthropoid, and it talks a lot about "the Czech government-in-exile, based in London". I assume that, because the government in exile was a democratically elected regime, that they did not return to Czechoslovakia post-war to form the puppet regime installed by the USSR.

Did they continue governing in exile from the UK throughout the Cold War? If so, did it lead to a similar situation with the PRC/RoC wherein certain countries recognized the government in exile as the legitimate government of Czechoslovakia, even though they no longer controlled any Czech territory? Did representatives of that wartime government return to Czechoslovakia after the Cold War ended?

For that matter, what happened to the other governments that fled to Allied territory and later lost control of their home countries to the USSR, such as Poland?

Over the course of history the advancement of science and technology has been readily apparent. Of course there are setbacks and changes in the rate of advancement due to war and other circumstance, but is the same true for morals and ethics.

In prehistoric times perhaps the only people that mattered were your tribe or your family. But then with cities and nations people were bound to and cared for even larger grroups. Now more recently with globalization even national borders mean less and people recognize all humans as worthy of consideration.

In the United States we see equal rights and civil liberties being expanded to include more groups over time. At first only white men were equal in the law and then came women and then other races, and now transsexuals and homosexuals are more equal. Also internationally is there less dehumanization or polarization on the basis of national boundaries? Can we project or predict that at some point in the future more people, more groups, or even more species will be considered equal under the law and may have some of the same protections that in the past were only afforded to white men? Is this an actual historical trend or could it be argued that perhaps the ancient Greeks had treated more groups with equality than we do now and there is no progression towards advancement but more so just a gradual shifting around of in and out groups.

I can't imagine that ships and boats built in the ancient world were very resilient to time and sea; but I also know that shipping and seapower were important (less to the Romans -- at least until they finally decided to deal with pirates), but I imagine that keeping ships in tip-top shape would require intense and continual investment. How long did your typical ship last? And what happened with the ships of large fleets built for a specific war (a la the Greek fleet that fought the Persians; did those turn in to merchant ships during peace?)

This is a general question, both about the number and composition of field armies as well as garrison and internal/border forces. How were these forces organised and equipped? What was the command structure like? And how did they compare to other militarise? Did they rely on any specific tactics during their various wars (notably the Persian-Roman war of 602-628).

How would the landing of 200 000 men look like? What tactics would the British and the French use?