It is portrayed this way in movies and I was curious of there was any truth to it?

Sources on the topic are especially appreciated!

I am wondering if FDR's administration was aware of the plans the USSR had for Eastern Europe postwar, and if he made attempts to counteract that influence.

Every known name of the Celtic tribes, at least in Brittania, seems to be Romanized: Brigantes, Demetae, Iceni, for example. Does removing the Romanized suffix reverse this? Brigant, Demet, Icen..... ? Surely these suffixes, part of a language far-removed from that of pre Roman Britain, didn't apply to these tribes before the invasions of Caesar and Claudius, did they?

I know that obesity in America has been a major problem for the past few decades, and it's only getting worse. Obviously, there are many things causing this, like poor diet, not enough exercise, and so on, but it got me thinking: Were there any obese or fat humans that lived during the paleolithic era? It seems that with their high-protein diet of mostly meat and plants, and the exercise they got from gathering/hunting food, they would be pretty healthy, but what if they were injured? For example, if a hunter fell and broke their leg while pursuing a deer, and was unable to walk (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming they didn't have the technology to fix broken bones), would they ever have the chance to get fat or would they be left behind by their nomadic counterparts? Also, what can we learn from the early humans to reduce obesity? Thanks in advance, guys. Any feedback would be awesome! :)

I have always found this difficult to believe, but it seems like something Nazis might do.

During World War II, Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltics, and western Russia were in the middle of the fighting and had huge civilian death tolls, evacuations, and mass starvation. What was daily life during the war like for people living in Kazakhstan, the Caucasus, Russia east of the Urals, or other places not directly in the line of fire, though?

I'm currently reading "How Great Generals Win" by Bevin Alexander (great book, recommended by someone on this sub). Towards the end of the chapter about Hannibal and Scipio, Alexander states that in encounters of ancient armies, by far the most casualties occurred not during the actual fighting, i.e. exchange of missiles, projectiles, direct confrontation of infantry or cavalry charge, but instead as a result of unorganized retreat and the routing by enemy cavalry.

The confrontation after which he makes this observation is the Battle of Zama, which constitutes the end of the Second Punic War. He explains the battle was in terms of infantry more or less even - while the Roman drives the Carthaginian cavalry of the field - and attributes the massive differences in loss of lives, around 20-30k of the Carthaginian army opposed to 2-3k on the Roman side, to the aftermath of the battle, that is the slaughter of the fleeing troops by the Roman cavalry.

Now, I understand Hannibal had a number of less well trained soldiers, which were overpowered, and thus make a fairly large contribution to his high death rate. However the question I'm trying to arrive at is, were the deaths in ancient (hand-to-hand) combat indeed not quite as numerous as commonly believed/pictured; and what would be a realistic assumption of the ratio of casualties during and after battle?

My history teacher said that's the reason why he always held his hands behind his back, because he was tweaking out. But a different history teacher disagrees.

I know that after the fall of Louis XVI a republican administration was set up and eventually Napoleon came to power, but did the situation (in terms of social, economic and political conditions) really change due to the events of the revolution? Or was the country more or less the same in 1795 as it was in 1780 (with the exception of the republican government, tax reforms and dis empowerment of the church)?

The colonial rampage embarked upon by European powers never uprooted the sovereignty of Japan; this is despite the somewhat close proximity of the island nation to a multitude of imperial possessions. How did it endure?

Switzerland is always neutral. Hitler didn't care about it. It was not involved in any thing related to the cold war, soviet union or communism. Why is that?

I'm curious with all I hear about the Freemasons, or the Knights of Malta, or the Illuminati, if there is a historical context to trace back the practice of trying to influence society from behind the curtain of a shadowy group of organized men? Any research I do ends up with speculation and widely varying opinions. Thanks!

I was just watching a documentary on ancient Egypt, and it said that ancient Egyptians were clean shaven? If this is accurate, what did they use to shave?