How bad were the social effects?

A question for you economic historians.

I'm a bit curious as to how the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange managed to remain open during the Second World War. Investors today count on a steady stream of cash flows or growth via securities analysis to build their portfolios. Since a great deal of trade was interrupted by the outbreak of the War and an even greater number of corporations were effectively or outrightly nationalized into war service under strict legislation to prevent war profiteering, how could the Exchange be open for business? Presumably no one was trading stock on speculation/arbitrage during this time, but long-term value holding must have also been a relatively new concept in 1939 even when one takes into account the fact that most Americans didn't invest for retirement in securities.

The unique speech cadence and inflection/intonation (not sure which of those is most appropriate) is most noticeable by radio news reporters, but you also hear it with TV news reporters. The distinction almost reminds me of Torah or Haftorah trope in Judaism.

I'm interested to know why it exists, how it's changed over time, and if there's been any historical context its development.

I've been trying to wrap my head around the HRE for years, but I still can't do it. I'm hoping I can get some answers here to help me figure out this mess of a country.

•First off, how did it become so decentralized?

•Why did it become so fragmented into thousands of states instead of more powerful ones (Bavaria, Württemburg, Saxony etc.) absorbing smaller ones?

•What degree of autonomy did the HRE's states have?

I was thinking about this and realized that I have read or heard next to nothing about the city during this period and really have no idea what it could have been like, so I have a few questions. I'm mostly interested in the period from about the 5th century to the Arab conquest, but honestly I'll take anything as far back as early imperial Rome.

• What was the population like? How many inhabitants were there, what language did they speak - Latin, Greek, something else? Was it ethnically diverse, or not really? Would they mostly identify themselves as Roman (how about under the Vandals or during the Exarchate)?
• How did the city and its population change during the century of Vandal rule?
• Was the city and the rest of Africa still as important agriculturally as it used to be during the early empire? Was its location still as important to Mediterranean commerce?
• Was the site of the ancient military harbour still in use, with the same circular layout and docking bays?
• Are there some pretty pictures I can look at? City layout, artist's impressions of important buildings?
• How important was the city to Christians and how much of a loss was it to them when it fell to the Arabs?

I just finished reading 'Blood and Thunder' by Hampton Sides, which follows the life of Kit Carson and touches on the Confederate campaign in New Mexico, which was ended at Glorietta Pass. Sides talks about a historical Texan obsession with expanding their borders to the Rio Grande, but in the midst of a huge war in the East, I have trouble understanding why Texas would send thousands of troops away from the action and hundreds of miles into the wilderness. Thanks!

Why did the Britons ultimately lose the majority of Britain to the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and the other Germanic invaders? I imagine the Britons actually had superior technology and better equipment and armor than the Saxons for the most part. Are there ANY sources which are more reliable than Bede? Or are we forced to try to interpret Bede and try to craft an accurate historical narrative by attempting to look for nuggets of truth stored in his fantastical history?

Specifically, how did native tribes like Inuits get enough vitamins without access to fruits and vegetables?

Generally, how did native people avoid deficiency-based diseases that would have arisen from their local diet, and how did they deal with the symptoms, if at all?

Do we know approximately how many people were killed in each case after the city had fallen?

What became of the Christian survivors in 1453? Did most leave the city, or did most remain? Of those who remained, did they largely remain Christian or convert to Islam, and if so, over what period of time?

I know they seceded from the union, but not sure if they died as American citizens if they were killed in battle between 1861-1865

I read a lot about Britain and the Empire, specially after the Napoleonic Wars. Constantly, in almost any context, any reason to do anything is somehow connected to 'the fear of losing India'. I understand the status of India as 'Crown Jewel of Empire' but the fears are usually completely unreasonable.

For example the idea that Russia, after the 1905 Russo-Japanese War would try to take India because Britain helped Japan. This is of course mad because Russia was already basically broke after the War, the idea that they could project military power threw the hole of central Asia all the way into India is not based in reality.

This pattern repeats itself again and again. With Germany multiple times, with Russia, with France and with Japan. There was for example this fear the Japan would take China and then, threw Tibet conquer India.

Nobody ever seam to come even remotely close until WW2 but even then Britain could fight a full scale war against Germany, Italy and still credibly fight Japan on the borders of India (I do unterstand that they could not have done this with US aid but its still impressiv).

I do not want to suggest that they should never have worried or planned for this problem. Playing the 'Great Game' as a long term system is smart. My porblem is with comments that suggest their is imidiate danger, within the next couple of years.

However a lot of times, the fear over this is in now way connected to real military possibility of the situation. How did India reach this almost mythical standard in the minds of these otherwise smart and logical people?

PS: I would also be interested in how much profits were derived from India. How much government revenue? And what other benefits India gave Britain.

i.e. be able to live in perpetuity in the complete wilderness. Was this achieved by most, or was one mostly totally reliant on tribe for their life?

For example: Are they simply 'the first' in a sense that they got off the ground, but beyond showing it could be done and inspiring passion it sort of ended there? Or were their engineering theories, mechanical ideas, etc... sound enough to help influence and drive the huge leaps in aviation technology that occurred early on.

EDIT: Slightly botched my title, it should read 'aviation industry', my apologies.

Did the people buckle under the weight? Was dissent routed out and crushed? Did revolutionary groups form? Were there mass-roundups similar to the horrors of the 20th century?

Or was it relatively orderly which much of the bloodshed done on the battlefield?