Were there any laws he put into place or ways of thinking that Hitler had that were and are agreeable?

I'm asking this because Hitler after all was a human being and human beings are not 100% good or evil.

I'm talking specifically about the Post-marian army

They renamed two second largest cities to Leningrad and Stalingrad. Why Moscow was left as-is? Wouldn't it be associated with feudalism?

It was probably medieval history. The story goes that a very small bridge separated the two enemy forces and so this brutish man simply stood at the end of the bridge and chopped each soldier down one by one because only one could cross the bridge at any time.

I am interested in how UK politics switched from the Post-war consensus which was based on very strong socialist principles which even the Tories bought into. But this has changed to the current Neo-liberal consensus based on the unquestioned reign of free-market capitalism, which even Labour champion. Thatcherism seems to have conquered Socialism across the political divide. How did the Left get so completely trounced in the 70s and 80s. And can anyone recommend any good books to read on this history.

In many medieval films we see men introduce themselves this way. For example, "I am Edward, son of Gregory." If this was common, was it by most men or just nobility?

I constantly see posts mentioning that "back in x century, people only lived to 40 or 50," then someone corrects them saying "well that average is only due to infant mortality; if someone made it to adulthood then they could easily live to 70." Who is right?

When the Spanish discovered America a lot of diseases were introduced and killed a lot of the natives. Now my question is why wasn't there something similar happening in spain with diseases from America? When they don't have any immunity to our diseases we shouldn't have any immunity against theirs for the most part. The Americas were insulated for a fair amount of time.

I'mnot really sure how to word it.

So I'm watching Enemy at the Gate which if you haven't seen it is about a sniper in the Soviet forces during the battle of Stalingrad.

At the start of the film the soviet soldiers are rushed to the front any soldier deserting or taking a step back is shot by their superiors. Was is really that brutal? Anyone retreating was shot?

Also as they are limited in weaponry one soldier out of two was given a rifle. The other was ordered to follow the soldier with the rifle until he died then pick up the rifle and keep going.

Are any of these cases historically accurate? If so, how were the other armies treating their soldiers in comparison? Were they similarly as brutal with their own army?

I see it brought up in a lot of askhistorians answers that spears/pikes/axes/maces/hammers/cutlasses/etc. were all much easier for a person to learn how to use compared to a sword. What is the basis for these claims? Are there primary sources that support any of them?

I was reading Goldsworthy's Caesar (amazing book) and all through the Gallic wars, it read like Labienus was Caesar's right hand man. Furthermore it really seemed like Labienus had a lot of the raw talent that Caesar did, and that he was a real safe pair of hands.

Then at some point, it simply says Labienus defected and went over to the Pompeians during the Civil War. This confuses me, since almost every other soldier involved in Gaul had a fanatical loyalty to Caesar and would rather let their legions be decimated than lose Caesar's respect. What is it about Labienus, Caesar's right hand man, that made him so different and defect after following Caesar for so long?

I find it harder than expected to research fundamentalism and anti-evolutionism in the United States. Were there any important figures from the early days of the debate (1860-1900) that led most other Americans to reject evolution for over 100 years?

Did they see it as the end of the Reich? War? Were they sad?

I see it alot in movies, just wondering why they would scalp people in the middle of fighting.