Why was Stalingrad important in WWII? Couldnt Hitler flank the Russians to the north or south and totally decimate Stalingrad and win the battle? Were the Russians holding the entire river? Was this a propaganda war? Im a dumbass, i bow to thee historians.....

To be more specific, I understand that the U.S. by and large set out to exterminate Native populations. Obviously in Mexico, Central, and South America there were actions of brutality, as well as decimation by disease, but at some point it appears that integration of European settlers and natives occurred. Was this a purposeful and national directive from Spain? Or did it occur in individual countries over time? Or something else? Also, I understand that not everywhere is well integrated, and some countries are more European and some are more native, etc.

I've heard people say Egyptian Pharoahs were black, while others were white. I understand that our construct of "race" wasn't really a part of everyday Egyptian life, but what did the Egyptians and their leaders look like phenotypically? Is there any evidence that has been discovered to point them to a particular ethnic or racial group?

I was thinking about how severe nature can be with Tornados, hurricanes, and the destruction they cause in modern times with populated areas. Is there any historical record of how Native Americans, and even Europeans when they came over?

Chants, songs and jingos play a big part in European sports, especially soccer. How did this evolve as normal, and why didn't it evolve for US sports (baseball, basketball, american football).

I just think these escape attempts, if successful, could mean some free passive propaganda to the West.

If the event did actually occur, I'm curious about the order of battle (which divisions/generals were involved, for example). What were the Germans intentions in attacking the bridge, and why was the purported slaughter ultimately inconsequential?

from reading, film, and video games this concept has eluded me a bit for quite a while now.

when i went to north wales, the ammount of castles was incredible, and the idea of the English being present in all places with giant stone castles was an obvious and clear symbol which must have been a much bigger statement in its era.

however, i see and read often of great fortresses which served as a military base in a way for an entire area. from what i gather, medieval kingdoms would build fortresses along borders. often in some cases not that many castles compared to the area they are seen to protect.

now what makes me confused is this, what is to stop an army from simply taking everything but the castle, and waiting till they come out of them?. how do a limited number of castles on a border in anyway stop an invasion simply pushing past them. armies are seen to hit them like brick walls, whereas they could walk right past them.

once cannons became an actual thing for fortresses, i can understand how cities had a fort which could simply blast the shite out of any army which took up residence there. but in the middle ages, we're looking at many castles which don't sit anywhere near cities, and simply had their own small settlements surrounding them. so whats to stop them ignoring the castle?

the answer is probably obvious, but i like to learn everything i can about anything, and i get irritated at holes in my knowledge.

Conflicts like the Catholics and the Huguenots are presented as a simple clash of religious ideals, or the Crusades being about recapturing the holy land. Was the fact that the religions were different really the primary motivator of all the bloodshed, or was religion used as a pretext for some other motive?