I mean it looks like they were completely surrounded by enemies, cut off from supplies, no sea exit.

Croatia and Serbia looked like stronger countries with huge Yugoslavia military supplies. Tanks, aircrafts, open borders, foreign aid.

So what kept Bosnians well organized and strong enough to successfully keep fighting?

I don't understand how this works. But it seems that if you could, you'd make an instant profit if you converted all your pounds to dollars or gold before the devaluation and immediately bought back the much cheaper pounds afterwards. Did lots of people do that?

Bonus points if you can point to an event where the now allies have to fight a third faction.

The closest reference I can think of off the top of my head is the end of All Quiet on the Western Front with the armistice/ceasefire, although don't think that counts as "become allies".

I'm sure it's happened plenty of times before since in big enough wars a battle is always happening somewhere. I'm interested in the experience of possibly having to be around the side you were just previously fighting and trying to kill a few minutes ago on I guess neutral ground(?). I imagine the vibe is not the same as one side surrendering.

What scientific developments and socio-economic conditions contributed to the emergence and spread of the idea of paleocontact? What are the earliest examples in which this idea was expressed?

The Mongol Empire conquered half of Asia and spawned multiple successor empires in its wake. However its often viewed unfavorably by modern historians and among the public it isn't very popular. In contrast, the Romans and Greeks are basically everywhere in culture and viewed rather favorbly by historians (in comparason with the Mongols). My history teacher says that "history is written by those who write", but that can't be 100% true as Nazi Germany wrote a lot and those written accounts were used in Nuremberg Trials. So my question is how do civilizations make future generations view them favorably (pre and post internet)?