i know there where radio broadcasts from un-liberated Germany that exhorted the populous towards terrorism and a "last stand" but beyond that i'm ignorant of this history of the end of the war.

If many traditional sieges were spent camping a long time outside the walls and trying to starve the defenders out, was the atmosphere relaxed for the attacking soldiers,and if so, what did they do to pass the time?

EDIT: CRAP. "The war will be short, and casualties low", of course.

I suppose this question is a bit related to another: why do we agonize over the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not the more deadly firebombings of Tokyo?

What I mean to ask is a bit different, though. Why have Dresden, and Hamburg to a lesser extent, become the poster children of supposed Allied war crimes? Why is there seemingly no similar outrage over the firebombings of Tokyo?

Specifically thinking of the 18th and 19th century (7 years war through ACW) through earlier would also be great. These battles are stylized in art and entertainment as men standing shoulder to shoulder on an open field. While I understand the importance of massed fire and inaccuracy of the weapons (especially during the earlier periods) and the reliance on the bayonet charge... I can't help but think I have a disconnect somewhere.

If those were the tactics, how long would a specific regiment last "engaged" ? I can't imagine soldiers would stand for hours getting bombarded. I know battles may last for days, but what about actual units on the open field firing?

Almost anything i ever read about the Victorians paints them as incredibly stuck up and reserved people, never seeming to enjoy themselves. my question is simply how would Victorians interact with each other in a social place e.g a pub, was they as easygoing as people are today and open to friendly banter or just as reserved as they are portrayed?

Firefighting picks up only with cities in modern times. What about the past? Any historical texts that deal with how to fight fire?

Many times I see people claim that Christianity stopped the progression of science during the Dark Ages and we would be colonizing space by now had it not existed.

This question has been inspired by the recent court case involving Guatemalan victims of medical testing involving the injection of STIs in people's spines, eyeballs, etc, and the observation of the infection of the victims families for epidemiological purposes. Those studies were in the 40's and 50's. Were medical experiments done on slaves and indigenous people? Did America have a residential schooling system which involved hundreds of mysterious deaths, like our neighbors to the north? Did the Civil War involve any massacres?

Other than genocide and slavery, What are the most profound and twisted atrocities of pre WWII American History?

Edit: in particular I am interested in the history of atrocities involving human experimentation. less specifically, all actions which would be described as war crimes in modern times if they were done by unfriendly forces. (It is most important to me now to develop an understanding of the frequency and breadth of this type of behavior more than the depths of it's depravity, So simple lists are welcome)

Reading many play scripts set in the period, it seems that conversations were more slow paced and complex. People frequently misuse words, but due to the complexity of the language these instances are glossed over and not mentioned.

So I wondered whether people merely knew the rough meaning of words, skipped over these as a matter of politeness or if people were perfectly (or no less) fluent (than today).

Both in the East and in the West. I'm curious as to what is the common definition of 'success' in the recent past, say, 1900s, before World War 1. What I want to ask is, what's commonly believed by most people to be a 'successful life' back then, and how did the rich flaunt their wealth.

Was the focus more on earning enough to get by and support one's family? Did the common man had wives, or was it limited to people who are quite well-to-do? Did the rich have many wives? (I'm sure they did) How many?

Did having a family take priority over other things?

Was there great societal emphasis on money, as compared to today's world?

What is the common definition of 'success' back then? (could be money, but not just limited to that)

Today beautiful fast cars, big houses, trophy wives and so on are examples of a 'successful man'. So how did the rich people in 1900s flaunt their wealth?

I hope my question is clear enough. Feel free to correct me.

Did people root for specific gladiators, types, schools or whatever? I've heard chariot races had intense fandom that was bigger than gladiator matches. Is that true?

I'm writing an essay on burial evidence in Britain during the Iron Age, and some of our lecture slides are linking this period with the Anglo Saxons, which is making me extremely confused as didn't they live 400 years after the British iron age?

It seems inconceivable that the Polynesians managed to find Hawaii way out in the middle of nowhere, and sail right on past Austrakia to New Zealand, and somehow missed this enormous contingent. I mean, it's right there. Plus, looking at a map of the Torres Strait, it's clear that Queensland and Papua New Guinea are right next to each other. The whole eastern coast of Australia is very lush and habitable - so what gives?