x-posted in /r/asklinguistics

I know of ibn battua book, and Periplus of the Erythraean Sea.Are there any others that histroins use as primary sources for undercover regions.

Due to the last few years, it has become apparent that the History Channel isn't what it describes itself to be. So I ask; how credible is the most recent "Gettysburg" documentary currently on Netflix compared to the Ken Burns PBS Civil War series?

I ask this as a UK resident interested in the Civil War after my granddad recommended the (what I would say) wonderfully written historical novel "Killer's Angels" by Michael Shaara; which I'm assuming was written in the fictitious way as Simon Scarrow's "Fields of Death"

Before I get too in depth into the subject, I'd like to make sure I'm at least on the right tracks in delving into this subject; and if not, could somebody point me in the right direction?

Sorry if this is the wrong sub it just seems like a question I would want to ask a historian

I've read a few times that the freedom fighters in SE europe were amazing. I'm not too sure who exactly they were fighting (I assume they're referring to Germany, maybe Italy or Soviets later in the war) so clarification of the parties involved would be helpful.

I had previously asked a question about guerrillas in West Europe -- apparently they didn't have effective guerrilla armies. How come this area had good freedom fighters, but W europe didnt?

Also, what was the primary religion? I'm assuming Christianity or Zoroastrianism.

I know there are plenty of conflicts and propaganda designed to make the enemy appear evil. But typically, wars are in a very gray area. Everyone agrees it's awful, horrendous, etc. But typically, there are numerous and multiple sides to the conflict and that's why it's gray. Because each side has an agenda, has a motive, has an ideal -- that it's fighting for that others in the world may side with.

But it seems that pretty much the entire world at the time as well as moving forward went "yeahhhh no, Hitler is very clearly evil." It never seemed as straight forward as it did with this particular war. The Japanese side of things is muddier -- not everyone viewed them as evil in the same way they did Hitler and there's still some controversy over the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki afaik.

So is this just a skewed interpretation? Was it far grayer than it's usually implied? Even if more morally gray and less universal, is it the war most people at once agreed there was one group that needed to be stopped? And lastly, were there any other wars that rival that level of gray-ness?

Like when you hear a recording of yourself and you think it sounds nothing like you because you hear your voice differently. Did people think the recording device had a flaw when they didn't take into account this?

Someone said to post here, so here I am! (also sorry for poor wording)

Any time in which you have some information would be good. From my readings, I've been able to come up with a general idea that they were rather spartan, but generally adequate, but any further illumination would be great.

i know Hitler revitalized Germanys economy after WWI, but were conditions so good that citizens turned a blind eye to concentration camps? or did they genuinely believe that the jewish population was responsible for their economic hardships? or were they just afraid to disagree for fear of being prosecuted themselves?

I'm doing a major work on the KKK and i'm curious to hear some opinions on if they originally had other motives or if contextually, they weren't racist during the time etc.

I was reading the Wikipedia article about it and it states that it was basically forgotten about until the 1980's when a college student wrote a paper about it. What happened to make it fall off the radar?