Do we have any idea at all?

Growing up in Singapore, the history books that we have studied in school focuses on some of the atrocities Japan committed in the war. However, I fail to see the difference between the atrocities they have committed and the atrocities other European nations have committed as they colonized other countries. Why does it seem that the Japanese are painted in such a negative light?

Today when a ship sinks we are mostly concerned with materials leaking out of the ship like oil and diesel that creates a massive oil slick. Is there documentation of the environmental effects in the ocean due to the two great wars?

I love watching WW2 in HD, in it you see ships being struck and sunk many times. I can only wonder what a sinking aircraft carrier would have on board that could damage the local sea-life.

Thanks!

I was reading something written by a relative in about 1930 in which he describes going to a party and having a "punk time". What does this mean? The author was from upstate New York, if that helps.

I looked up the word "punk" and all I can find is that it meant "prostitute"... all indications point to him trying to be "a good Christian" though, and I don't think he would have had a party with hookers. (Could be wrong, as he did drink and do things with girls, although he apparently felt super guilty about it afterwards.)

Thanks!

EDIT Full entry for context:

September 11, 1930 (Thur) Dear Diary: Got up at 6:55 A.M. Mother washed the machine. I shaved and got ready for school and went early to do a lesson. Came home to lunch Mother and Mrs Chapman rode down to Mrs Parkers to the meeting of the circle. Party to-nite for Hooch. Rudy Muriel S. Shirley T. Louise S Irene M. Ron Porter + myself were there. Punk time. Muriel I love you and miss you

Bit more ino: 'Hooch' is his friend. The author is about 22 when this was written. He's lower-ish class, from a family of farmers and those people who do odd jobs. He's trying to be a "good Christian" because his girlfriend who had died earlier in the year (Muriel) told him to, and he took it to heart. He doesn't always "behave" (he drinks a lot and fools around with girls) and feels very guilty afterward.

Could anyone with a serviceable ship and some cannon get their hands on one and go off privateering or were there strict restrictions?

Any suggestions for further reading on the subject will also be gratefully received.

I have heard people say this a few times; I figured this would be a reputable place to ask the question.

Thanks!

I'm re-reading The Grapes of Wrath, and since I know how bad things turn out for the Joads when they head to California, I was wondering where they should have gone instead.

I'm italian (not born, by blood), so I only ask out of curiosity

I can only assume they were the first to be blamed and I doubt they wanted to be blamed so I was wondering what they did in reaction.

Was there an equivalent of the civil service examination in Europe?

How was education dealt with? Was there public education or were they both private? What was the percentage of the population that was educated?

How does the usefulness of an "education" compare in both societies?

Were there any large education services like universities and colleges nowadays? Would prospective students apply at these schools in hopes of admittance? For how long would their education last? What would they be taught?

What kind of job would these graduates and newly educated folks hope to take on? What would the income and living standards be like? Were the social statuses of educated folks in China and Europe roughly equal or was there a cultural disparity influencing their statuses?

at the time I mean

Why is it that while reading texts on conflicts in Medieval Europe there are always massive implications that so and so happened because God willed it or such and such people were heathens? Was this truly how people felt in those days? Or is this like a literary device for scholars who were often religious people to explain events that they could not comprehend or rationalize without supernatural elements? This compared to writings on rebellions and wars in other regions like China or ancient Rome. In Roman writing it is generally accepted that it was Rome's place to rule the known world as the center of civilization, thus rationalizing its conquests. In China the explanations of whether or not ill events happened was blamed on the dynasty losing the mandate of heaven, a supernatural divinity coinciding with the morality and competence of the rulers. Neither of these implicate that the people themselves were religious or religiously motivated but this is much more the case in Medieval Europe. Religious wars seems to be much more commonplace and accepted as an explanation to how events took place.

Obviously, American fighter units stationed in Britain during hostilities were heavily involved in daylight escort missions for bomber formations as well as independent ground attack missions. The question I'm asking is whether or not American fighter units participated in the defense of the British Isles from Axis bomber and rocket attack, or whether such missions were left strictly to Commonwealth aircrews.

Note that I'm not asking about American volunteers for the RAF, but rather front-line American fighter squadrons stationed in Britain after the American entry into the war.

I understand the rest are discussed and documented as well, but why is the focus on the Holocaust so disproportionally focused on compared to other human atrocities? What makes industrial capacity for murder any different or crueler than chopping off someone's head for a game or shoving an iron rod or fire rockets up a woman's vagina?

Also were these terms used by the people living in those eras? Would a Roman during the republic referred to themselves as the ancients and would a Holy Roman emperor have referred to himself as a Medieval monarch?