El-Alamein is often cited as a ww2 "turning point".The Axis had been virtually undefeated in North Africa (with a temporary setback during Operation Crusader, before winning a crushing victory at Gazala shortly after).With the battle of El-Alamein, Rommels forces were routed back to Libya.Rommel however had to dash much further.The US-UK invasion in Morocco and Algeria, with a rapid and determiend advance to capture Tunis. Realising this, Rommel had to beat the allies to Tunis in order to not be completely trapped on the continent, and ensure the control of one of the largest and closest ports to Axis continental territory. Rommel had to abandon all of Libya to narrowly beat the Americans to TunisiaThe problem:The US invasion forced Rommel to secure Tunisia immediately to deny the US a major port close to Libya and secure it for GermanyHe had to U-turn to meet this new threat.This means he would have been forced to do so, regardless of the battle of El-Alamein.Churchill knew about Operartion Torch, but Churchilled pressured Montgomery to meet and defeat Rommel at El-Alamein because Churchill needed at least one decisive British victory in ww2 before America becomes the main allied force of the war.Churchill then made grand pompous speeches following the El-Alamein victory in order to amplify the victory to the public. Churchill continued to drum up the El-Alamein victory in his memoirs post-ww2.El-Alamein thus became more politically motivated than strategic. It served Churchills interestsA hypothetical alternative would have been that Montgomery simply does not make a stand at El-Alamein, but simply continues to retreat in anticipation for the American Operation Torch that would dramatically accelerate the strategic situation in North Africa. Rommels continued advance in Egypt would put enormous strain on his logistical lines.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>18731697If you read The Wehrmacht Retreats by Robert Citino you will see that despite operation Torch succeding the british and americans were in conflict with each other and the americans were deeply unorganized and messy at attacking. I don't think that even without rommel in tunisia the americans succeded in taking itIf the british retreat from el alamein it's easier for rommel because there is no qattara depression impeding him, the first battle of el alamein almost ended in a german victory so if the british decide to not stand their ground in el alamein there is a chance of them losing alexandria.
>>18732896>there is a chance of them losing alexandria.What differences does it make that Rommel holds Alexandria for 3 months?Alexandria wasnt the main port for the 8th Army, and Rommel couldnt re-direct his supply line any further already since Benghazi and Tobruk were essentialy blocked by the Royal Navy and Royal Airforce.In fact Rommel thought capturing Tobruk would ease his logistical line but it never did.And again, he would HAVE to U-turn a mere couple of months later, so Alexandria would barely become a factor in such short span of time.The real damage of losing Alexandria would be prestige, and it might even end Churchills career (he had narrowly survived a vote-of-no-confidence by the parlament that same year).And this is all assuming Rommel actually captures Alexandria in a single swoop, which we have no reason to believe since he had to siege Tobruk for over a year, and Tobruk was just a town. Alexandria is a major city, and Rommel was pushing El-Alamein on his last leg, he was pretty much out of ammo and fuel and most of his tanks were unuseable because they were still waiting for spare parts to repair. He would HAVE to siege Alexandria with his meager corps.
>>18732988After the capture of Tobruk the axis were fighting mostly with allied trucks, allied fuel and allied food. Hitler had conferences with arab leaders and the arab local populations were very pro axis. Alexandria was THE port for allied supplies in North Africa. You forget that Rommel started retreating BEFORE operation Torch. If you read death of the wehrmacht robert citino explains how Hitler was DEMANDING that Rommel wouldn't retreat and would stand fast and fight but that Rommel convinced him with logistical reasons. How would you think that would turn out? "Hey Hitler i want to abandon the biggest port in Egypt and all the gains we made in a year because there is a landing 2500km away when the allied forces in egypt are not able to attack.""And this is all assuming Rommel actually captures Alexandria in a single swoop, which we have no reason to believe since he had to siege Tobruk for over a year"That was in 1941, he took Tobruk in a week in 1942 and pushed all the way until el alamein because he kept capturing allied stockpiles and allied forces kept disintegrating, what's not to say he couldn't take alexandria all at once with an allied morale collapse.
>>18733092>After the capture of Tobruk the axis were fighting mostly with allied trucks, allied fuel and allied food.Rommel was doing that almost immedaitely following the critical success of operation sonnenblume. Rommel captured unfathomable amount of allied material and resources and it basically carried the N.African campaign for the Axis, and he continued to capture British resources and equiptment with every victory.> Alexandria was THE port for allied supplies in North Africa.They had multiple different ports such as Said and the Suez canal itself.>You forget that Rommel started retreating BEFORE operation Torch. Nope I didnt forget it.It's you who forget that Rommel retreated because of his defeat at El-Alamein.My argument was that Rommel would have been forced to retreat regardless if he wins or lose El-Alaimein because he cannot allow the allies to capture Tunis (and Tripoli after).>because there is a landing 2500km awayYes he has to.Because if he doesnt, the allies will capture Tunis.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>18733278Holy shit read The Wehrmacht Retreats by Robert Citino, there is no way for the allies to take Tunisia before mid 1943.First the suez canal is not a port and based on modern tonnage figures port said has 1/3 of the tonnage capacity of Alexandria. Then you tell me how the allies are supposed to mount an attack across the nile.You still haven't adressed my point about Hitler telling Rommel to shut the fuck up and to stand fast which in this scenario he didn't lose at el alamein and took alexandria which means no reason to retreat.What do you mean there was no catastrophic defeat, the allies got fucked so hard after the capture of tobruk that they barely made a stand at the first battle of el alamein. Like explain exactly how they were going to make a stand if they kept overruning them at such a fast speed? For example the germans in 1944 couldn't even hold brussels and antwerp due to how fast the allies were advancing, same scenario here if there is no stand at el alamein.
Thoughts on out of place artifacts?
kino as a plot deviceschizo as real history tho
why do normalfagoids hate archaeology so much? why do they insist on belittling it and inserting their schizo shit into it?
>>18732118That’s clearly part of Noah’s ark. Any time you find something like that, the best explanation is Noah’s ark.>>18732122Oh! Like how the Faces of Mars are remnants of Noah’s Ark! Amazing!
>>18733265>normalfagoids >schizo shitYappers just yapping to yap at this point.
>Italy lasts three years receiving the brunt of the combined British and American assault against EuropeNow let's compare it to weaker allied powers>Czechoslovakia folds in one day>Poland lasts five weeks>Denmark folds in one day>Norway lasts two months>Netherlands folds in four days>Belgium lasts eighteen days>France lasts six weeksThere's nothing to suggest Italy's performance was uniquely bad compared to other Western European nations besides Germany
>>18733358>the men the US sent to Italy would have been idle until a large enough bridgehead had been secured.What the fuck are you even talking about you autistic freak?They would have walked right through Italy, and a fully intact Italy would have been able to effectively join the allies.>The men Germany sent to Italy would have been far more useful in Normandy,No they wouldnt lolIn the narrow mountainous Italian peninsula the German divisions were able to tie down an American force that was far larger than them with far stronger equiptment.Meaning if you remove this army and sends it to Normandy, not only will the Americans capture the most defensive geographical area around Mid-southern Italy without a fight, they will also be able to commit more to Normandy.The Italian front never saw anything remotely similar to the Falaise Pocket like what happened in Normandy. It was definetly the 'better' front for Germany 1943 and onwards.
>>18733093>Italy wanted to exonerate itself of the whole thing as quickly as possible, so they leaned into the already extant conception to pin all the blame on Germany. While this is true, it was very easy for them to look like the lesser of two evils next to the Nazis. The Italian equivalent to "Clean Wehrmacht" gets its phrase from an Italo-Soviet co-production in which their soldiers are portrayed favorably to the Germans.
>>18733364>They would have walked right through ItalyIf Italy wasn't in the war they wouldn't have gone through Italy, retard.>In the narrow mountainous Italian peninsula the German divisions were able to tie down an American force that was far larger than them with far stronger equiptment.But if they had been sent to France Overlord would have faced more men, more planes, more tanks, more bunkers, more everything, which easily could have led to an Allied defeat.
>>18733093>they were doing well before they made an absolutely basic error a random housewife could have told them to avoid
>>18733012Imagine being a dumb nigger.
A genuine thread for once. For context, I don't believe in God for many reasons, but I do respect religions and see the value in them. One of my biggest problems with the Christian God were all the inconsistencies in he bible. Specially when it came to genesis and the earlier books.Recently I discovered Michael Heiser's work and his interpretation of some of these "flaws" and I'm genuinely fascinated by how things make a lot more sense.A TLDR: He argues that a lot of earlier events didn't happen in the material world, but in an "unseen realm", a supernatural world with it's own entities and hierarchies, which assigned function to things before form. Almost like Plato's World of Ideas. So God first had to create light to then give it form, same for the skies and waters, land and vegetation.Maybe I'm retarded, but I'm blown away by how a simple change in how you interpret the beginning of it all kind of makes a lot of stuff just make sense.I'm still an unbeliever, but still, cool.
>>18733369>He argues that a lot of earlier events didn't happen in the material world, but in an "unseen realm"That's Christian apologetics and you shouldn't let yourself be enchanted by it. You can apply the same perspective to any interpretation of any mythology from any religion you want.Im not trying to say that there isn't any value in viewing Christianity from that lens, but rather it works just as well when directed at other spiritual philosophies. >I'm still an unbeliever, but still, cool.Being open minded is a good thing, anon!
>>18731333Mention China because it was a big empire very far from Europe that had numbers and resources superior to Europe much like India. You could do the opposite and claim that the USSR could conquer India or the Roman Empire could conquer India. You're ignoring the entire rest of the planet between them and boiling it down to who had a stronger military on paper.
>>18729903KERALA ALWAYS FUCKING WINS, BABY!
>>18732420Yes, India did get conquered.
>>18730872Jamboy seething, what's new?
>>18729887
Post your favorite military blunders in history. I'll start with the classic:>Decide to invade Russia>Don't bother bringing winter clothes or enough food to last through the winter.
>>18732411>>18731373Alexander is indeed Great. Fuck indian.
>>18732411He Hellenzied the Near East
>>18732837The Jie rebels joined Han rebels (Ji Sanf and Wang Mi) in a rebellion after a massive civil war between Han (War of the Eight Princes)The Jie people were literally genocided by Ran Min.
>>18727269To be fair, they crushed the first two lines and made a fight if it against the janissaries. Had the rest of the army accepted what was happening and committed, odds were pretty good the janissaries would've been surrounded and crushed too.
>>18733220>To be fair, they crushed the first two lines and made a fight if it against the janissariesThat's the opposite of fair, they folded when they reached the actual challenging part>Had the rest of the army accepted what was happening and committedThey did, unfortunately it tends to have an adverse effect on performance in combat when the elite of the army get captured and killed en masse in front of you and the survivors try to retreat through you, while you can see their elite are fineIt would have been much wiser for them to just let the french suicide and leave
Why did white supremacy lose in the 1866 midterms? Most racist politicians were voted out of the house and state legislatures. Almost everyone who ran on granting full citizenship to blacks won their seat. You even had senators at the time saying they would allow unrestricted chinese immigration What explains why voters were suddenly in a brief egalitarian fervor?
>>18732717>Almost everyone who ran on granting full citizenship to blacks won their seat.America become shithole
>>18732726Greeting from Albania
Crumbled under the weight of it's own contradictions, they didn't have the stomach to just say >fuck it not all me are created equal because it would ruin many of the things they actually did believe in
> that forehead and brow boneWhy do anti-african just make things up, lol.
>>18733348> Why do anti-african*Why do anti-african racists
>JUST ONE MORE CROOSADE BRO JUST ONE MORE AND I SWEAR GOD'S KINGDOM ON EARTH WILL BE REALIZED BRO YOU NEED TO LEAVE YOUR NATIONALIST BS BEHIND AND COME CROOSADE WITH YOUR FELLOW CHRISTIANS IN SOME DESERT SHITHOLE 4000 KM AWAY BRO I SWEAR THIS IS THE LAST LAST ONE FOR REAL THIS TIME I PINKY SWEAR IT BRO JUST COME CROOSADE WITH US DUDE DEUS VULT!!!!!
wtf is Children's Crusade???
>>18733228They sent a bunch of little boys and girls to get sold into slavery by Muslims
>>18733227And yet they all failed, I guess the christian God isnt real after all
How did this myth start?
How come the Soviets never did their own Moon landing? It seems odd that they just gave up on their space program so easily after coming so far.
>On October 25, 1962, an 8K78 rocket was being prepared for the 2MV Mars launch. Boris Chertok was surprised to see armed soldiers swarming around the Baikonur Cosmodrome. Anatoly Kirillov, the Soviet strategic rocket forces commander, was asked what was going on. He told Chertok that the Mars probe was to be removed from Pad 1 and replaced with the on-duty R-7A combat missile, which normally sat in a corner, a tarp covering it, and a live nuclear warhead placed on top. Chertok replied "Anatoly Semyonovich, can you steady yourself to press the 'launch' button, knowing the warhead you launched could kill 100,000 or more people and possibly lead to the deaths of us all? It is not like when you were an artillery commander." "Yes, it is my duty as a soldier so I do not greatly think about such things," was the answer.>The crisis was over, fortunately--Chertok did not recall much concern about it in the USSR or people lining up at stores to stock up on supplies. "Kennedy and Khrushchev both handled it calmly and did not let their emotions take over. The military men in both countries obeyed orders from the civilian government and did not go rogue."
>Chertok recalled that a lot of things about the Soviet system made no sense or were kept a state secret for totally unfathomable reasons and Khrushchev had not been able to overcome the inertia of the Soviet bureaucracy, brought up under Stalin. As a result of de-Stalinization, thousands of military officers, party cadres, and intellectuals were rehabilitated. It was hoped that nobody would worry in the future about being arrested for admiring Western intellectuals, supporting Western science, or being "enemies of the people.">Yet key Soviet scientists could still not travel abroad and had the insulting marker "No foreign travel" stamped on their passports, even those who had a clean political record, had never been accused of disloyalty, or had lived in territories under German occupation during the war, all because of some fear they would start questioning the Soviet system, consider defecting, or even be recruited by foreign intelligence agencies. Khrushchev had visited the United States and seen it for himself, but most of his scientists did not have that privilege.
Going into space for an extended period absolutely fucks up your body because humans were not designed for a weightless environment.
>>18726533They wanted to send a massive expedition and paint the whole Moon red. But after Americans threatened to retaliate by sending some astronauts with white paint to write "Coca-Cola" on it, Soviets canceled the project.
>>18730017they were in a rush to launch. unable to pull it off on April 12, they had to move the launch to April 20, Lenin's birthday.
Why was the confederacy so bad on the western front? They made blunder after blunder and won almost no battles
>>18732918The destruction of the Holly Springs supply base normally meant a retreat back to Memphis, but Grant felt he could not do that because it would be conceding defeat.
>>18732918Curiously, given what happened later on in the war, Sherman distrusted that plan and felt the army should use regular supply lies. It should be stated that he was still a very by-the-book general at that point and not yet the Sherman of the March to the Sea.
>Partially because of his upbringing on the frontier, Lincoln understood the volunteer soldier and his beliefs and motivations in a way some others could not. He well recalled his experience as a militia captain in Illinois when he was 22--the first time Lincoln tried to issue an order to his men, they yelled "Go to hell!", after which his superiors punished him for failing to control the soldiers by making him sit on a fence rail holding a wooden sword for a few hours.[3]
>>18732944During Sherman's March to the Sea, he made a bold, crazy move where he led 60,000 men away from their main supply hub, and there was fear he could be encircled. I wonder if Earl Van Dorn's cavalry could have tied his army down before Stonewall Jackson (swap Patrick Cleburne to Virginia) or Joe Johnston struck his rear?
>>18730865Dixie themselves do not have capable admirals like Álvaro de Bazán, Yi Sun-sin, and Michiel de Ruyter, or perfect defenders like Blas de Lezo, Andrew Jackson, and Louis-Joseph de MontcalmHave to do with limited resource.
How do you hand over people to Satan?1 Corinthians 5:5>hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.1 Timothy 1:20>Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
I assume excommunication, but I do not know how that will ultimately save their spirits.
>>18733068If it's the destruction of the flesh it should mean death no?
People who think Jesus "never existed historically" are not humans. Yes, I think you are not a human if you believe Jesus did not historically exist. Jesus is also God. If you disagree, great fantastic, then enjoy hell. :) Lol.
>>18732479>"Jesus historically existed because I say so and if you disagree you'll be tortured in hell by my loving God"
>>18732227There probably were a number of Rabbies called Jesus back then, just like how there's a Jesus mowing my lawn.
In terms of actual evidence there's thousands of times more evidence that Krishna existed than Jesus did
>>18732227>if you dont believe in my god you will suffer for all eternityWow what a great religion youve got there, that God fellow seems like such a nice, admirable guy
>>18732386Josephus and Tacitus if you're okay with the former being edited by Christians and the latter being mid-2nd century hearsay.
I know this sounds like a provocation, but it's a genuine question. What was their actual color and appearance? I saw some reconstructions in a museum at my university, and some of them were very, very dark. Does that make sense, considering their habitat? I always assumed they looked more like modern global populations individuals who lived further north tended to have lighter skin. Unfortunately, I remember the controversy involving the Western Hunter-gatherers Group (WHG), with those strange reconstructions that now many say portrayed Mesolithic Europeans as "blue-eyed black people" or something similar. But their skin was tan or olive.
>>18732893>all sorte of techniques one can use to stay warmlol no, you need actual clothing to survive and function in a winter environment, unless you've got thick hair all over like Neanderthals.
>>18732249the Jews create fake reconstructions. tread carefully
>>18732934>>18732945there are multiple samples sequenced to 30x coverage which is modern wgs level, you useless fucking piece of shit niggerno idea what the fuck you are even trying to saywhy do retarded shitskin indians even care about neanderthal skin color
>>18733299>no arguments You lost, again maggot
>>18733011There's many first hand accounts of primitive hunter gatherers that lived without clothes, for example the native Argentinians that dwelled around Tierra Del Fuego. You should educate yourself before making any assumptions.
How do evangelicals believe people who had never been contacted by missionaries were supposed to get saved? For example, native Americans pre-contact had no way of hearing the gospel. How were they supposed to know who the one true God was?
