I seem to recall a history textbook I read during my US public gradeschool education giving a bunch of headlines written in Paris during the week before the Nazis arrived during WWII. The sentiment changed smoothly from something like "The evil German dogs are approaching Paris" a week before they arrived to something like "Paris eagerly awaits its liberation by the glorious Nazis" the day before they arrived. Can anyone give me the real headlines?

Other examples of capitulating to an invading force before they arrived would be interesting too.

It's also possible that it didn't happen. It is common knowledge that textbooks given to students in US government schools have embedded pro-US propaganda, and maybe my memories from decades ago are no longer accurate. If people can document that it didn't happen, that would be good too.

Google searches, requests to a reference librarian, and flipping through a few history books did not turn up the answer.

Edit: Thanks for all the answers. The consensus was that the actual story was about Napoleon entering Paris, and the evidence for it is weak because the sources disagree about what the headlines actually were and they do not provide reference to original data beyond a letter from Napoleon (which it still second hand). People reported actual headlines from Paris as the German army was entering during World War II and they did not look much like propaganda written for the invaders before they arrived.

If yes, how did they do it? How was it organized? Im especially interested in "simple" items like ammunition for the MG42, did Germany still have the means to produce bullets?

Are there any detailed texts or even books on that topic?

As an additional related question, why were the mongols seemingly so willing to assimilate into cultures they conquered and covert to their religions?

I was wondering how was the penal system during the brutal nazi regime.

Would a common thief go to a concentration camp? a mureder? where there common prisions? where they brutal?

It seems in many parts of Latin America, particularly Central America, a large portion of the population has significant indigenous ancestry. Why is this the case there, but in the U.S., only a small minority of people has significant indigenous ancestry?

I ask this because I want to know if there were schools of Philosophy in specific African countries, enough to distinguish itself as African Philosophy.

My question is not really about frescos or murals, but rather flat colours on walls.

My searching on google only gives me answers about egg tempera, which seems to me to be more suited for paintings. But if I wanted to paint the inside of a room, a merchant stall, a cart or some other large surface in a flat colour, what would I use? Would it still be egg tempera, or was there other paints more suited to these less intricate paint jobs?

We always here about how diseases from European explorers decimated native populations, but we never hear about native Americans spreading diseases to Europeans.

Just visited Rievaux in Yorkshire, the site is in a valley as is Fountains and the sites are undeniably sheltered but surely they would be subject to fogs and low-lying fogs and so not very healthy.

So, I was recently reading about Everything Ernst Schafer and his scientific expeditions to Tibet. Himmler supposedly was a big supporter of his third and last expedition because he believed that the Aryan race originated in Tibet and that Schafer might be able to find some evidence of this. I know that Himmler had some pretty wild ideas, but this idea just seems pretty random. What led him to this belief?

There most probably more people of British descent across North America and Australia than in Britain. Same goes for Germans, Italians, Dutch and many other European ethnic groups. There are up to 40 million Irish people in the United States alone, but just over 6 million in Ireland itself. 40 million Spanish in Spain, but possibly hundreds of millions of their descendents across the Americas.

If Europeans didn't begin colonising the world would countries like the UK and Germany have 2 or 3 times more people living in them right now? Or are there so many white people across the world because colonising new land helped their population grow? Can someone also explain the strange Irish statistic because I'm puzzled at how huge the Irish diaspora is considering how small their homeland is.