I was recently at the National Museum of American History and tucked in the war section are dramatic readings of soldiers' diaries and letters. One features a black soldier's letter to the owner of his daughter, where he threatens the owner if she fails to return his daughter to him. This got me wondering about other families that were torn apart by slavery.

Following the Civil War, were there attempts by Union authorities and/or the Freedman's Bureau to reunite families that had been separated by slavery? How did they go about doing this? And if they didn't, what happened to children who were suddenly free but without their parents? Or spouses now separated by geography?

I have asked this questions to all of my history teachers and none of them seem to know. It has always confused me why there was no name for the religion - all of the religions (I have learned) had names, such as Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism. Why doesn't The Greco-Roman religion(s) have a name?

I was unable to find an answer to this question in the search engine of this subreddit, so I apologize if this question has already been answered.

Julius Caesar's own life is well documented, but what of his parent's? How did they raise him? In regard to his families lineage, where and when was the birth of the Caesar name?

Since they were Disciples of the apostles and were important and well known members of the early christian church it seems a bit odd that their letters and writings would be absent from the New Testament.

I know Spain was technically neutral during both wars (although they did send supplies to the axis powers during WWII due to their support for the Nationalists during their civil war), what were the main reasons for its neutrality? I'm sure the Spanish Civil War directly before WWII created reluctance for Spain to enter another war. But was that the main reason? And before WWI did the country just not have strong enough alliances with any of the involved major powers? It seems like the country would have been heavily lobbied to join the war by various countries involved once troop casualties started to skyrocket.

I know Churchill was always highly suspicious of the USSR and it was probably the reason why he ordered them (the contingency plans), and Patton even advocated a pre-emptive strike, but I was wondering if this feeling was shared by other military and political leaders of the Western Allies.

I'm fascinated how Churchill could even contemplate something like this (especially the pre-emptive attack plan) with the sort of war weariness that must have existed at the time.

As a side note, I've struggled to find a copy of the document anywhere online, just dead links and excerpts quoted from a university site page which has since disappeared. If anyone knows where to find it or can upload it I would be very grateful.

I have 2 questions regarding Occupied France, especially Paris.

1. What were the laws of Occupied Paris, or France as a whole?

2. What Rank would the Commander of German Paris Garrison forces be?

Thanks in advance for any information you can give me.

I know that German soldiers who surrendered en masse were often mistreated by Russians. The remnants of the sixth army at the end of the battle of Stalingrad come to mind. Were soldiers who surrendered under different circumstances, ones that imply some sort of sympathy for the soviet cause, or some sort of contempt for Hitler and co., for example deserters earlier in the battle of Stalingrad who defected in acquiescence with Soviet propaganda, treated any less harshly?

Often I see a bone saw displayed in museum cases and lament, much like those around me, the pain it must have caused. I titter with my friends and say a little prayer that I live in a time with anesthesia.

But why in GOD did they use the bone saw?! Why not use a guillotine of some sort?

I imagine a little cage, with a guillotine, that is put in the right spot for the amputation. Then, someone swings a maul down, plunging the guillotine down, and amputating as necessary.

Surely this has been thought of....

In Lars von Trier's Europa (1991), the head of a railroad company in postwar Germany (1945, specifically) must fill out a questionnaire regarding his association with the Nazi Party. This questionnaire must then be verified and approved by either a member of the resistance, or a Jew. Was this a real practice? Did business executives and people in positions of managerial power actually have to report their activities during the war to Allied forces? Most interesting to me, however, is the verification aspect. Was this real?

e.g. the term Yavana which is surprisingly constant across all cultures in the Near East and far away India and is invoked in the Mahabharata as supporting Duryodhana in the Kurukshetra War, which has to have taken place before 2000 BC, considering the Sarasvati dried up at that time and comparing with the Rig Vedic Battle of the Ten Tribes.

The problem that comes here is the Greeks are only known to have been in Greece around 1600 BC. Are we talking about the pre-Greeks here?

Also the myth of Dionysus with a war in India which is the subject of an ancient epic (the largest in length) in Greece. Are these the same wars?

Also that the birth of Dionysus (Zeus (Sky) with Semele (Earth)) is startlingly close to that of Indra (Dhyaus + Prithvi).

Though Indra and Dionysus differ in role, both of them love intoxicants.

And of course, the similarity of Hera (wife of Zeus) and Indrani (the wife of Indra or Shachi) being goddesses of jealousy or wrath.

And then, Indra having a problem with his father-in-law, i.e. Puloman (the Asura). Zeus with his (who is also his own father), Cronus (the Titan). Again the similarities, the father-in-law is from a different set of gods.

Are there similar links directly in other mythologies comparable with the unique Greek-Indian one?

It is my understanding that the Luftwaffe had difficulty inflicting mass civilian casualties in London early in the war, but as the war wore on and the Allies, looking to damage or destroy enemy factories, began to bomb cities like Dresden and Tokyo, they inflicted massive casualties. What allowed the Allies to cause such devastation ostensibly by accident where the Axis had failed to do so on purpose?

edit: reworded to address concerns over the Allies' intentions

My interest in him was piqued by a recent news story, but when I looked into his life I found very divergent opinions and facts on his role in shaping Ukraine. I'm looking for objective answers about this man's life.
Was his relationship with the Nazi regime merely convenient or did he share some of their ideology? What was his influence on the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, and how much real control did he have over them? What role did he and the OUN play in WWII?