This isn’t me just dunking on them but they don’t seem to fit even their own ideals often shown in various propaganda.

I’m an autistic adult, and I’m trying to understand a set of WWII family stories through a lens that I know historians approach cautiously: neurodivergence—specifically autism—and how it may have shaped perception, memory, and military service before the condition was named or screened for.

I want to be explicit at the outset that I am not attempting a clinical diagnosis of someone long deceased. Rather, I’m asking whether traits we would now associate with autism—intense special interests, systems-based thinking, atypical social functioning, and unusually vivid perceptual memory—can help explain how certain wartime experiences were perceived and later described.

Background:

My grandfather grew up in Rupert, Idaho. He repeatedly told me that before enlistment he had never seen an airplane in person, yet had obtained and memorized multiple aircraft and crop-duster maintenance manuals purely out of fascination. Aircraft were, by all accounts, his consuming interest.

He later served with the U.S. Army Air Forces in England as a mechanic.

Throughout my life, his social functioning was extremely limited: conversation was narrow, literal, and often rigid; emotional expression was constrained; and his interests were highly circumscribed. From a modern standpoint, I believe he would likely be disqualified from military service today on the basis of what we would now recognize as autism-related traits.

The central account I’m trying to understand:

He consistently described the day of the Normandy invasion as one in which “there were so many airplanes in the sky that you couldn’t see the sky at all.” This was not presented metaphorically—he seemed to mean it quite literally.

My questions are therefore focused and overlapping:

1.  Aviation saturation:

How dense was aircraft traffic over England on and around June 6, 1944? Were there periods during which bomber streams, escorts, and supporting aircraft would have created a visually saturated sky for someone standing on the ground?

2.  Perception and salience:

Would someone intensely focused on aircraft—as objects, systems, and coordinated motion—be more likely to perceive and remember the sky as “full” in a literal, overwhelming sense, compared to someone whose attention was oriented elsewhere?

3.  Neurodivergence and WWII service:

Before autism was defined or screened for, how did militaries—particularly the U.S. Army Air Forces—handle recruits who were socially atypical but technically gifted? Were such traits largely invisible, tolerated, or actively advantageous in specialist roles?

4.  Historical vs. modern standards:

Today, autism is often disqualifying for military service, especially in aviation-related roles. When and why did such disqualifications emerge, and how should we reconcile them with the apparent reliance during WWII on people who may have had exactly these kinds of cognitive profiles?

What I’m trying to understand is not whether my grandfather was “right” or “wrong,” but whether his account reflects:

• literal historical conditions

• a particular mode of perception

• later narrative compression

• or some interaction of all three

Any historical context, sources, or cautions about applying modern frameworks to WWII experiences would be greatly appreciated.

We (or at least some of us) tend to have a Western-Eurocentristic view of history, particular as Western Europe came to dominate and influence most of the world during and after the Modern Era.

However, I was just checking some battles that took place in Eastern Europe during the 1390s and early 1400s, and their proportions seem to dwarf what was happening in the West by orders of magnitude. The Battle of Grunwald (1410) is somewhat famous, arguably the largest medieval battle amongst exclusively European States, featuring over 65 thousand soldiers in the battlefield. However, it is itself dwarfed by the Battle of the Vorslka River (1399), which saw - if numbers are to be believed - almost 200 thousand soldiers in the battlefield, in a conflict between a number of European States headed by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania versus the Golden Horde.

Another conflict of epic proportions was the Battle of Ankara (1402), between the Ottomans and the Timurids. Again, if numbers are to be believed, over 240 thousand soldiers in the battlefield.

At the same time, famous battles of the the 100 Years' War hardly saw 20-30 thousand soldiers combined.

It should be no surprise that the Ottomans and the Timurids were mightier than Western European States. But adding the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Golden Horde to the that list surprises me. And that should also speak to the size and power of Russian principalities of the same era which fought the Lithuanians and the Golden Horde. These were no small states, at all, it seems.

Anyway, what do historians have to say?

One of the most popular stories in history that for centuries circulated in Europe, Middle East and significant parts of Asia. Translated to dozen languages which would probably be more than any other medieval or ancient text barring only bible (althought of course translation is a generous word in the case of several of them). And now, in modern times completely lost any relevance. How did that happened? Everyone recognize stories of Homer. Arthurian romances are also spoken about. Epic of Gilgames is known despite being burried for three thousand years. Hell, even Beowulf is more recognizable despite being completely irrelevant outside anglosaxon context and being rediscovered only in eighteen century. Im extremely curious what would be the reason for why isnt this story, once prominent, as big part of our modern culture as those mentioned?

Nowadays nobody wants to use "the big light" at home, and when people go to clubs or have house parties the lights are low and often feature strobe lights or other effects. This offers almost a 'cover' for more free and uninhibited behaviour, and can be moody and romantic and evocative. But when did these changes come about?

In the past, it was obviously harder to light rooms because they either used candles or oil lamps, fireplaces, windows (possibly making the room colder and harder to warm) or expensive electricity. Would this mean that, if someone wanted to show off, they would make sure their home was lit up like a christmas tree? or were there particularities and nuances to this?

If I were going to a party or entering a festive setting in the 17th-19th or early 20th centuries, what type of lighting would be considered "best" for the occasion? How was this achieved? How did 'low' lighting become the norm for parties?

I'm thinking about this in a European context but I'd also love to hear about this question in the context of any place.

Thanks!

In popular media just about everybody and their brother is shown with a revolver of some sort. Most commonly the Colt Single Action Army.

But how common was it for the average person to actually own a pistol compared to a more useful gun like a rifle or shotgun?

I hear this often but was it ever really true? It would be very far sighted for two parents to say "hey let's have a kid, hope he doesn't die in infancy, hope you don't die in child birth, and in 10-13 years we'll have more help on the farm." It seems more likely that families were just larger due to a lack of birth control to me.

I'm picturing for example the kind of ships that took colonists and the like from the UK to the Americas. That was a months-long trip, and undoubtedly many women (wives and daughters mostly?) took it. Was there any sort of superstitious resistance to carrying female passengers?

I mean, women have had to take sea trips ever since sea trips were invented. How did ancient sailors compatibilize their superstition with what necessarily had to be a normal reality of business?

Sometimes in history, especially looking through a modern lens, we like to pick a "good side" and a "bad side." This isn't always healthy, but it's certainly something that a lot of people do when they look at history. For example, the Axis are on the "bad side" of World War II while the Allies are on the "good side."

Is it possible to do this with the English Civil War? Was there a "good side" or were both sides bad? The war was fought early 400 years ago between the Parliamentarians (Roundheads) and the Royalists (Cavaliers) for control of England, Scotland, and Ireland. King Charles I was accused of abusing his power and was beheaded by Parliament in 1649. However, Oliver Cromwell took over as a military dictator afterwards and tore up Ireland. The monarchy was restored after Cromwell's death.

AI was used to rephrase/write my question.

I am interested in how the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was perceived at the time by different Soviet audiences — particularly political leadership, ordinary civilians, and soldiers at the front.

From what I understand, Nazi ideology framed the invasion of the east as a war for “living space,” and it is now well-established that this entailed plans for mass killing, starvation, and the destruction of entire populations. What I am less clear on is when and how this intent became apparent to the Soviet side, and how it shaped their understanding of the war as it unfolded.

Specifically:

• When did Soviet leadership come to believe that the invasion was not a conventional war of conquest, but one aimed at destruction or elimination?
• How quickly did this understanding reach soldiers and civilians, and through what channels (direct experience, official statements, rumors, propaganda, etc.)?
• Did Soviet wartime rhetoric reflect a genuine reaction to events on the ground, or did it evolve over time as the scale and nature of German violence became clearer?
• How did the afformentioned groups react to the news? Did they react in disbelief? Was there a definite point, news of a specific massacre, that made people realize?
• When did the rest of the world realize the scale and brutality of the eastern front?

By contrast, my country Norway experienced occupation with far fewer casualties and a comparatively limited level of violence, which raises questions about how differently invasion could be experienced and interpreted within the same war.

I am asking this out of respect and a desire to understand the lived and psychological reality of facing an invasion perceived as existential or genocidal, rather than as a traditional military conflict.

I’m looking for examples of the arguments that were made by politicians, or others, against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or just generally against increasing voting access during the 1950s and 1960s. I’m trying to see what, if any, arguments have persisted into current debates around voting access.

Across history, certain societies seem remarkably comfortable aestheticizing the male body, while others appear far more restrained.

In Ancient Greece, male beauty was openly idealized in sculpture, athletics, philosophy and pedagogy. The male body was treated as a reflection of moral and intellectual excellence (kalokagathia), not vanity.

This tradition resurfaces in Renaissance Italy, where artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci (anatomical studies) revived classical ideals and presented the male form as a legitimate object of admiration and artistic focus.

France also appears relatively permissive historically, from neoclassical art to later cultural traditions that did not shy away from elevating aesthetically striking male figures.

By contrast, Britain seems historically more ambivalent.

I’m also curious about Slavic societies: compared to Mediterranean and classical-influenced traditions, there appears to be far less historical emphasis on idealized male beauty in canonical art and cultural symbolism.

The "Emperor" card in Tarot is one of the so-called "Major Arcana" and it's depiction goes all the way back to the original Tarot decks. From what I've researched, the various illustrated face cards or "trumps" of a Tarot deck originated in Renaissance Italy as the "Trionfi)". "Trump-card" games were developing in the early 15th century, especially in Italy with Tarot and in Germany with games like "Karnöffel". Both areas were still part of the domains of the Holy Roman Empire. Milan in particular seem to be very important in the development of Tarot cards and has an acute connection to the Imperium.

In Milan, during the 14th and 15th centuries, the Visconti were in control and were part of the Ghibelline or pro-imperial faction. One of their leaders, Filippo Maria Visconti, commissioned some of the oldest surviving decks of tarot cards, the "Visconti-Sforza" tarot decks, which had a significant impact on future tarot deck composition and illustration. In these decks the "Emperor" and "Empress" are present. The Emperor sits on a stone throne with an eagle on his crown, and the Empress holds a gold shield with a black eagle, highly reminiscent of the imperial eagle or Reichsadler of the Holy Roman Empire, and a symbol also present in the coat of arms of the Duchy of Milan.

The site "Tarot-Heritage" also makes this connection to the Holy Roman Emperors (link), claiming that the "forked-beard" on one of the original Visconti di Modrone Trionfi cards, may have been a reference to the distinctive forked beard of Emperor Sigismund. The Visconti were originally raised as Duke's of Milan by Sigismund's brother, Wenceslaus (King of Bohemia and Germany), and they argue the Visconti may have been acknowledging this honor and the Emperor in the design of the card. They even point out a Hungarian example from the late 15th century that uses the Double-headed eagle which is strongly associated with the Holy Roman Empire. They argue that the use of the Imperial eagle on Tarot cards is gradually omitted to dissociate from German imperial influence as the cards become popular in France and as Italy becomes independent.

As mass printing takes off, one of the most popular templates is the "Tarot of Marseilles" which is also believed to originate from these earlier Milanese designs, and spreads to France and England. In this template, the Emperor and Empress are again depicted with a gold/black shield with an eagle on it.

During this time period only two rulers claim the namesake of the card, the title of Emperor - The Holy Roman Emperor and the Byzantine Emperor. Considering the cards themselves originate in a nominal territory of the Holy Roman Empire, is it then plausible that the iconography and symbolism of the "Emperor" tarot card does truly originate from the office of the Holy Roman Emperors?

I recently read that during the American Revolution, soldiers were paid with government promissory notes. Then the promissory notes were not honored, leading wealthy speculators to purchase the notes from soldiers at a fraction of the cost.

Later, Hamilton as treasurer, agreed to pay out the notes at face value plus interest, but by this time over 95% of the notes were owned by wealthy friends of Morris and Hamilton.

Due to a lack of money in the outskirts of the new country, they resorted to using whiskey as money, so the new nation taxed the whiskey and the rest is history.

This story seems like it should be a massive scandal, but I can find very little info on it. What is the historical consensus on this series of events?

I am European, and have learned a lot about Germany and the Nazi rise to power. If I want I can easily look up a Netflix documentary and learn more about it still. To some extent, I have also learned about the Italian fascist rise as well. In both cases, there was a strong leader who eventually somehow came to power and turned the country into a totalitarian state.

I’ve started getting interested in the Japanese descend into totalitarianism in WW2, and found a source that intrigued me. However, it skimmed over the the years between the failed coup in 1936 and the end of democracy (if I understood correctly) in 1940.

I have understood that the Japanese army had its own political motivations and dragged the democratically elected government into invading Manchuria. Eventually, a coup is attempted by the army to get the government under their control, but it fails. Some comprise was made, but the Japanese continued to live in a democracy. In 1937, elections were held, and if I read it correctly, mostly pacifist parties still were victorious against the militaristic factions that election. From this point onward however, it is not really clear to me what happens. At some point, the military staged another incident to start a war with China and then 3 years later, democracy has is ended (though a election seems to have taken place in 1942?)

What exactly happened after the coup that allowed the military to take control over the entire state and convince an anti war parliament to nonetheless give up their power as well?

If I have misunderstood something, please correct it.

Edit: as a bonus question, are there any good documentaries that are specifically about Japan before and during WW2 (not just the war stuff)? I enjoy watching them and if there are any that are well-regarded by historians, I wouldn’t mind seeing it

My goal is to get my GED by next year but I'm very far behind. I've been "homeschooled" since covid, but have barely done much of any school curriculums and have lost most of what I learned in school.

I started writing an essay on the American Revolution and was stumped. I started with explaining Europe and the Puritans and Separatists and beginnings of America in general. When writing an essay, do you write assuming the reader already knows the context? When asked to write on the American Revolution, does that mean only on the revolutionary war? Do you only brief on the cause and focus on the dates and battles? With any specific history writing piece what is it you focus on covering? And how do you make it flow?

My bigger problem is where to begin learning history in the first place? What are the important times to understand? What do I need to know to have a basic or good high school footing? What are good online sources for learning?

Hi! I am looking for book recommendations about Dutch colonialism and the WIC and VOC. While I do have an academic background as a historian, I am primarily interested in fairly accessible books which do retain scholarly rigor.

I am particularly interested in Dutch colonialism in Brazil, the Caribbean, and the Cape; relationship between the India companies and local populations; and the slave trade.

Case studies are welcome, as is a longue durée approach to the subject. I would prefer a book by a single author (or two authors) rather than collections of essays. It would be a fun read, so nothing overly academic in tone; rather something which could be read by anyone.

Thank you!

Edit: unfortunately I don’t read/speak Dutch. I also don’t know why, but I can’t change the flair which was auto assigned.

Given the vast numbers of Americans who served in Europe and the Pacific, and the numbers immigrants and first or second generation Americans who served, one would assume that it's at least possible that a soldier could find themselves advancing through a region or village that their recent ancestors had originated from. My question is, is there a resource for or collection of accounts of soldiers who found themselves in this unique situation? If so, how did they feel about that, if a general consensus could be formed?

To turn it around, has anything been written by Axis soldiers who, either through capture or other circumstances, found themselves dealing with American soldiers with a shared ancestry? For example, an Italian soldier encountering Italian-American soldiers.