Throughout the history of the South Slavs, the vernacular, literary, and written languages (e.g. Chakavian, Kajkavian, Shtokavian) of the various regions and ethnicities developed and diverged independently. Prior to the 19th century, they were collectively called "Illyric", "Slavic", "Slavonian", "Bosnian", "Dalmatian", "Serbian" or "Croatian". As such, the term Serbo-Croatian was first used by Jacob Grimm in 1824, popularized by the Vienna philologist Jernej Kopitar in the following decades, and accepted by Croatian Zagreb grammarians in 1854 and 1859. At that time, Serb and Croat lands were still part of the Ottoman and Austrian Empires. Officially, the language was called variously Serbo-Croat, Croato-Serbian, Serbian and Croatian, Croatian and Serbian, Serbian or Croatian, Croatian or Serbian. Unofficially, Serbs and Croats typically called the language "Serbian" or "Croatian", respectively, without implying a distinction between the two, and again in independent Bosnia and Herzegovina, "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian" were considered to be three names of a single official language. Croatian linguist Dalibor Brozovic advocated the term Serbo-Croatian as late as 1988, claiming that in an analogy with Indo-European, Serbo-Croatian does not only name the two components of the same language, but simply charts the limits of the region in which it is spoken and includes everything between the limits ('Bosnian' and 'Montenegrin'). Today, use of the term "Serbo-Croatian" is controversial due to the prejudice that nation and language must match. It is still used for lack of a succinct alternative, though alternative names have been used, such as Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS), which is often seen in political contexts such as the Hague War Crimes tribunal.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What were the three names of a single official langugae in independent Montenegrin?
Ah, so.. unanswerable

Ultimately, Hitler was trapped within his own vision of bombing as a terror weapon, formed in the 1930s when he threatened smaller nations into accepting German rule rather than submit to air bombardment. This fact had important implications. It showed the extent to which Hitler personally mistook Allied strategy for one of morale breaking instead of one of economic warfare, with the collapse of morale as an additional bonus. Hitler was much more attracted to the political aspects of bombing. As the mere threat of it had produced diplomatic results in the 1930s, he expected that the threat of German retaliation would persuade the Allies to adopt a policy of moderation and not to begin a policy of unrestricted bombing. His hope was for reasons of political prestige within Germany itself that the German population would be protected from the Allied bombings. When this proved impossible, he began to fear that popular feeling would turn against his regime, and he redoubled efforts to mount a similar "terror offensive" against Britain in order to produce a stalemate in which both sides would hesitate to use bombing at all.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What kind of prestige was Hitler hoping for?
Ah, so.. political

The region of modern Eastern Europe and Central Eurasia (Russia, Ukraine and other countries of the ex-USSR) have a long history of Christianity and Christian communities on its lands. In ancient times, in the first centuries after the birth of Christ, when this region was called[by whom?] Scythia - Christians already lived there. Later the region saw the first states to adopt Christianity officially - initially in Armenia (301 AD) and in Georgia (337 AD), later in the Great Russian Principality (Kyivan Rus, Russian: , ca 988 AD). People of that time used to denote themselves Christians (, ) and Russians (). Both terms had strong Christian connotations.[citation needed] It is also interesting that in time the term "" acquired the meaning "peasants of Christian faith" and later "peasants" (the main part of the population of the region), while the term "" retained its religious meaning and the term "" began to mean representatives of the heterogeneous Russian nation formed on the basis of common Christian faith and language,[citation needed] which strongly influenced the history and development of the region. In the region the "Pravoslav faith" ( - Orthodox faith) or "Russian faith" ( ) from earliest times became almost as known as the original "Christian faith" (, ). Also in some contexts the term "cossack" (, - free man by the will of God) was used[by whom?] to denote "free" Christians of steppe origin and Russian language.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): When did Armenia adopt Christianity?
Ah, so..
301 AD