Which was the most successful WW2 warship of each of the major countries? In the case of USA it's a no-brainer that it's Big E, but what about UK, Japan, France, Germany, Italy?
You would honestly be better off asking for the most successful type of warship. For Germany it'd be uboats, America it'd be aircraft carriers, etc.
>>409277
Otto Kretschner sank over 250,000 tonnes of shipping in a mere 2 and a half years of world war 2. He commanded several different U-Boats tho so the honor is split amongst them.
As for Japan's ships, it's hard to say. Most of their victorious early warships were sunk at Midway. Yamato, maybe?
No idea of what British, French or Italian ships. The British performed exceptionally bad in the Pacific for being so experienced at sea.
I imagine it would be only minor, pyrrhic successes for the French and Italian warships.
Any history of political/economical contacts between the Incas and the Mayas?
How connected were the premcolumbian people of America?
>>409144
They raided each other for human sacrifices.
>>409144
The Maya were no longer really relevant at all by the time the Incas were a thing. Plus, they were a collection of city-states too busy feuding with each other to go that far south.
The Aztec Empire had some distant contact and trade with the Incas, but basically the relations between the Aztecs and the Incas were like those between Rome and India: they were vaguely aware of the others' existence, but as far as they were concerned that was basically the edge of the world.
>>409158
The greeks were kinda like that it didn't prevent individuals from trading with India and other far reaches of the world much later on.
I assumed the Aztecs weren't big on trade but how was the trade network of pre columbian America? Did they maintain sea lanes running for thousands of kilometers along the coast or was it limited to caravans and intermediaries, and which other states were involved?
It's hard to find literature on the subject.
The Scriptures prove that the giants of Genesis 6:4 died out. Genesis 7 tells of a worldwide Flood that God sent to destroy "all flesh" upon the earth (verse 21). Since these giants were simply a natural, genetic variation of human beings, they died along with the rest of the earth's population. The only humans to escape that catastrophe were Noah and his family.
Since Noah was of a stock of smaller people, most of his descendants were of his stature. However, some of the genes to produce giants survived through the wife of Ham, one of Noah's sons. Therefore, a number of the sons of Canaan (one of Ham's sons) were giants (Numbers 13:1-2, 32-33). In Deuteronomy 2:19-21, Moses records that God destroyed the giants who dwelt in Ammon so that the children of Lot could possess the land. Those giants—who descended from Canaan through a man named Anak—eventually became extinct. King Og of Bashan was the last of them to inhabit Palestine east of Jordan (Deuteronomy 3:11).
Another well-known biblical giant is Goliath of Gath (or "the Gittite"), whom the teenage David killed with a sling stone (I Samuel 17). Goliath's brother and sons were also men of great stature, and the Bible explicitly mentions that David and his men killed them all (II Samuel 21:15-22; I Chronicles 20:4-8).
Both before and after the Flood, God was directly involved in the destruction of those giant men. The reason for their destruction is not stated directly, but like Goliath, those men seemed always to be in opposition to God and to His people Israel.
What else do we know about giants and what are the best primary sources and history books about them?
The Nephilim were not giants. Their name literally means "fallen."
>>408908
I don't think this is correct. Nephilim is the untranslated pronunciation, it means giants. You are right that they may have been the offspring of fallen angels although another explanation is that they were descended from Seth.
>>408894
Hebrew bible found in the dead sea scrolls gives goliaths height as four cubits and one span which is about 198 cm or 6 foot 6 inches. He was literally just some really guy, not a giant. Later versions of the text have just upped his height for dramatic effect.
Point out the flaws in my logic, /his/:
>Germany is famously blamed for starting both World Wars. However, I've always thought this as rather fallacious
>In WW1, the German Empire entered the war as an ally of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Shortly after, she declares war against Russia and France.
> At the end, Germany is largely blamed for the war (i.e. escalating a local conflict into a global war)
>Fast forward to WW2, Germany invades Poland, and Great Britain/France enter the war against Germany as allies, escalating a local conflict into a global war)
> At the end, Germany is blamed for starting WW2 by invading Poland.
Therein lies the double standard:
If Germany is to blame for WW1, given the circumstances, then by that logic Germany cannot be blamed for WW2; Great Britain and France are to blame for the destruction that followed.
If Germany is not to blame for WW1, then the punishments bestowed on Germany for losing that war are unjustified, meaning Germany had casus belli to invade Poland. Great Britain and France are to blame for the destruction that followed.
It is simplistic, I am aware, but that's the gist.
but germans are stupid and nationalistic
>>408206
Austria is to blame for both
>>408206
>If Germany is to blame for WW1, given the circumstances, then by that logic Germany cannot be blamed for WW2
How so? You have not shown this.
>If Germany is not to blame for WW1, then the punishments bestowed on Germany for losing that war are unjustified, meaning Germany had casus belli to invade Poland
Actually, getting unjustly punished by someone doesn't give anyone a legitimate reason for attacking someone else, so, no, no casus belli.
Watched Lord of the Rings again and love the Rohirric charges. So /his/ what is the greatest cavalry charge of all time and which Western power maintained the most formidable Calvary?
>>407875
John Sobieski III and his charge at Vienna is the largest in recorded history
>>407915
>western power
The deathride during the Frannco Prussian war. Duh
How to prove that 95% of all Christians are heretics: ask them to explain the trinity.
What is there to explain?
Three persons, one essence. Like three persons, one soul. It's that simple.
>>407517
People thinking that 'their' understanding is adequate.
No one knows the trinity without being heretical.
As crazy as it sounds doctrine is most likely heresy.
Just a bunch of people who think they know and cant comprehend the complex idea that is the nature of the trinity and instead rely on arbitrary man made definitions to understand something which they know they cant.
All in all.
95% are just blowing smoke.
Its the uneducated who un-ironically understand God far better.
Can we get a catalog of depictions of the ancient leaders, teachers and others, done by their contemporaries?
To start off ... Alexander the Great, done in the 4th C BC by Lysippus
Seuthes III, a Thracian king
Bust of Julius Caesar, only one we still have that's was made while he was alive.
In my honest opinion, this guy was pretty straight up despite all of the Nazi shit. I spent 20 minutes reading a detailed bio on him and he's probably one of the most philosophical and intelligent people I've ever read about. He's not like that little fucking rat Heinrich Himmler or that shit lipped fuckhead Adolf Hitler, Göring adopted anti-semetism to keep his place and stay on the Reichs good side.
>>406656
The nazi's got it right when they discovered that jew were promoting the end of western society
But they murdered millions of innocent jews that had nothing to do with it instead of imprisoning a select powerful few.
Hitler > Goring > Goebbels > Heydrich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Himmler
So, he wasn't even doing this for an ideology, just his own personal gain. Is that not worse?
>tfw you realise world war one actually happened
>battle of the somme
>tfw it all happened for nothing
>the war to end all wars
>an even bigger one happens so soon after that there are people who served in both
Can someone explain ''Independent agencies of the United States government'' to me?
>More specifically, the term may be used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited.
How does this work? The relationship between the CIA and the US government? I find this really interesting.
The CIA is really powerful is all. It went from being the President's hand abroad to being the hand around America's own throat. It's an organization tasked with doing the most illegal and/or evil shit the US is capable of. It has a lot of power.
>>406090
Tell me more
>>406078
What's more interesting is the American taxpayer has zero input or control over the CIA despite paying for everything that isn't funded by counterfeit currency
The CIA is basically an oozing black tumor that has convinced us that it's responsible for keeping us healthy
>Liberates the country from Nazis
>Manages to not get dominated by USSR
>Manages to not get dominated by Yugoslavia, a powerhouse just next door
>Modernizes the country essentially stuck in medieval times prior
>Promotes equal rights
>Builds an extensive ready to use defense network
Did he really do anything wrong?
[bunker building intensifies]
>>404981
The baitiest bait in bait town.
All memes aside he was one of the least terrible dictators of the 20th century
Why is the European colonization of Africa portrayed as something destructive and bad?
Some ignorant people think that Europeans underdeveloped, in fact the colonization of Africa is the brightest era in African history
>If you think I'm wrong try to debate me
>>404520
Belgian colonization of the Congo led to up to 10 million deaths. The tribes and small indigenous kingdoms never could have cause that amount of bloodshed.
>>404530
Nothing of value was lost
Now fetch my tea matumbo
Anyone here studying history in college? How do you approach studying for an exam. Do you learn off whole essays or just key points?
Structure is most important to essays, and the most basic aspect of any argument, be it an internet debate or college essay, is a structure system called SEC.
Statement - Your point, summed up
Evidence - The evidence backing up your point
Conclusion - Repeating your statement in light of the evidence
For example
>Statement
The Vikings were a Norse medieval people who raided much of Europe
>Evidence
We know this because of many historical recordings of such events, such as X and X, as well as X and the X, and archeological evidence such as X
>Conclusion
Therefore, the Vikings came from Scandinavia, and raided much of Europe.
You would of course flesh these out into large paragraphs. You should have several making up your entire essay. In fact the structure of the Essay as well should be the same. Start your essay with a paragraph statement, then have all your SECs, then conclude at the end, making the essay like an Oreo with Oreos within it.
And yes, you need to learn all the key points, not an essay, if you know the points you can write the essay.
>>403760
Wow, notOP but thanks.
>>403760
Yeah thanks man
Why is Sunni Islam so awful?
>Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Arabic: صحيح البخاري), is one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major hadith collections) of Sunni Islam.
>Whoever keeps a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, unless the dog is used for guarding a farm or cattle.
— Bukhari Vol. 3, #515
>Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).
— Bukhari Vol. 1, #490
>Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal).
— Bukhari Vol. 4, #448
>Al Quaeda
Sunni
>ISIS
Sunni
>Wahabbi
Sunni
>Saudi Arabia
>Sunni
Turkey
>Sunni
Army of Conquest
>Sunni
Barzani
>Sunni
But
>Iran
Shia
>Iraq (new government)
Shia
>Assad
Shia
>Hezbollah
Shia
>Houthis
Shia
Sunni Islam is the canaille variant. That's why they don't believe in hereditary rule
>>402985
Like in Saudi Arabia?
>>402985
C'est la canaille, eh bien j'en suis !
...Seriously, is that an expression in english ?
What are your thoughts on the potential healing of the Great Schism, /his/?
>>401830
Protestants on literal suicide watch tbqh
I think it's quite possible, given the flexibility of Pope Francis.
Extensive mutual articles of faith will be written up, and the Pope will be given his special authority over what's covered by his Patriarchate, and First Among Equals with the rest, along with being required to call Ecumenical Councils. The Catholic Church will keep the filioque, but it will be laid out very explicitly that it doesn't mean what it says.
A bunch of people on both sides of the aisle are going to get assblasted, I guarantee you. And many Protestants are going to say it's the Beast...Seventh Day Adventists, for instance, are already predicting it as the great sign of evil.
>>401880
>he Pope will be given his special authority over what's covered by his Patriarchate
That is, far more authority than other Patriarchs have over their jurisdiction, which is in most ways merely equal to that of every other bishop in it.