|
what if hitler were a furry
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
hard counter posted:nazi path to victory would involve integrating conquered peoples Also, what if Hitler made Judaism the state religion of Germany? makes u think
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Death camps, horrible, or secretly genius? Think about it...
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Could you please make another thread for this poo poo. stop making GBS threads your pants
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:stop making GBS threads your pants What if Hitler poo poo his pants 
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Buckets posted:What if Hitler poo poo his pants Why do you think are they called the brownshirts
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
The most well known British fascists were the Black Shorts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
It's 1667, and the most popular medical method is bleeding, where blood is drained from the patient. In spite of this, people survived. But when a patient lost too much blood, what could you do? The idea of transfusing blood was current, discussed by both French and English doctors. English tests showed that dog-to-dog transfusion worked. But what about people? The French doctor Jean-Baptiste Denys wanted to try. Human-to-human was out of the question--the donor invariably died. So a different donor was needed, one whose death would cause no problems for anyone. After considering a few different animals, Denys settled on a sheep. Now all he needed was a patient. He soon found one--a 15 year old who, ironically, had been so heavily bled by his own doctor that he needed more blood. Denys hooked the boy to a lamb and stood back. The boy lived. For the next 11 years, doctors practiced transfusing blood. However, the results were so unpredictable, and so often fatal, that the prestigious Paris Society of Physicians banned it. It wouldn't be until 1795 that a Philadelphia doctor, Philp Syng Physick, would perform the first human -to-human transfusion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Texas has seceded from two different countries to keep slaves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Texas has seceded from two different countries to keep slaves. Key West has seceded three times. Once with Florida, once back to the Union, and once because a roadblock trying to interdict drugs was costing too much tourism revenue. That time they formed the Conch Republic and declared war on the US by breaking a loaf of stale Cuban bread over the head of a man in a US navy uniform. They sued for peace an hour later and asked for foreign aid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
California was an independent republic once. It didn’t last long and they didn’t do much, but it also wasn’t for reasons of slavery, so suck it, Texas. 
Platystemon has a new favorite as of 05:22 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Ignoring the 'conch republic', there have been 4 independent countries absorbed into the US. The Republic of Texas, the Republic of California, the Kingdom of Hawaii, and the Republic of Vermont . The 'State' of Vermont, as it titled itself, became independent largely because the state of New York claimed Vermont as part of its territory . Though the Republic was officially neutral during the Revolution, it's men joined the Continental Army on mass and the population largely assumed that it would eventually become part of the fledgling nation after the war. New York kept trying to assert territorial claims to the territory of Vermont, but the founding father's largely ignored those claims. Though, the New York pissing contest spawned this epic stanzaquote:Come York or come Hampshire, come traitors or knaves, Vermontian identity continued to chart a separate path well into the 19th century, with it's governor declaring the state neutral in the War of 1812.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Vermontian identity continued to chart a separate path well into the 19th century, with it's governor declaring the state neutral in the War of 1812. As well they should, because contrary to typical American history classes, that war was all about us being Canada-invading dicks. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Yeah, the War of 1812 was important in the formation of the basis of the Canadian national identity, that being the fundamental idea that "We're not Americans!". An entire country founded around the idea that they're not the citizens of a country that borders them, or a country that ruled them from far away. Canada is weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Ignoring the 'conch republic', there have been 4 independent countries absorbed into the US. The Republic of Texas, the Republic of California, the Kingdom of Hawaii, and the Republic of Vermont . The 'State' of Vermont, as it titled itself, became independent largely because the state of New York claimed Vermont as part of its territory . Though the Republic was officially neutral during the Revolution, it's men joined the Continental Army on mass and the population largely assumed that it would eventually become part of the fledgling nation after the war. New York kept trying to assert territorial claims to the territory of Vermont, but the founding father's largely ignored those claims. Though, the New York pissing contest spawned this epic stanza There was also the State of Franklin, now northeastern Tennessee, which seceded from North Carolina in 1784, was reabsorbed in 1787, and then split off again as part of the state of Tennessee. It was effectively an independent republic for most of 1785. It applied for statehood, but Congress never acted on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:As well they should, because contrary to typical American history classes, that war was all about us being Canada-invading dicks. Better than the Mexican-American War. At least in 1812 the US decided on invading Canada and actually did it rather than recruiting a really quite Catholic army all pumped up to invade Canada and dragging them south to invade fellow Catholics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
In what can only be described as hilariously tragic irony, Georgia was the only North American colony whose founders banned slavery, in 1735. Not because they thought it was morally repugnant, but because Georgia was a penal colony. Colonists could not be expected to offload the labor that was supposed to serve as their rehabilitation on slaves! It would only make them lazy and decadent. Seeing how rich and prosperous the Carolinas and Barbados had been made off the backs of slaves, Georgian landowners started campaigning to have the institution introduced as soon as possible. It was legalized in 1751, and the Georgian planter class pretty much immediately became lazy and decadent. If it had held onto the original charter another 30 years or so, Georgia would have entered the US as the only free state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Yeah, the War of 1812 was important in the formation of the basis of the Canadian national identity, that being the fundamental idea that "We're not Americans!". An entire country founded around the idea that they're not the citizens of a country that borders them, or a country that ruled them from far away. Canada is weird. It amazes me to this day that the world lets us hold on to all of this land. Canada has twice the land mass of the Roman Empire as its height. I mean honestly, if anyone wanted to take it we couldn't stop them 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It amazes me to this day that the world lets us hold on to all of this land. Canada has twice the land mass of the Roman Empire as its height. I mean honestly, if anyone wanted to take it we couldn't stop them If
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It amazes me to this day that the world lets us hold on to all of this land. Canada has twice the land mass of the Roman Empire as its height. I mean honestly, if anyone wanted to take it we couldn't stop them Rome held land that was actually worth something. Who the gently caress wants Manitoba?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It amazes me to this day that the world lets us hold on to all of this land. Canada has twice the land mass of the Roman Empire as its height. I mean honestly, if anyone wanted to take it we couldn't stop them How much of that land is made of actual dirt and not ice and sadness though. Be honest now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Texas has seceded from two different countries to keep slaves.  I knew this but seeing someone else post it grrrr
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Rome held land that was actually worth something. Who the gently caress wants Manitoba? Tiny Brontosaurus posted:How much of that land is made of actual dirt and not ice and sadness though. Be honest now.  This is fair. Canada is mostly just one big, cold, forest full of wolves and bears. The Romans wouldn't have bothered conquering it, seeing it mostly unsuitable for olives and grapes. Best to leave it to barbarians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
First prize to Solice Kirsk in that round, not only for pithiness but for referencing one of the funniest ancient historical fun facts around: After invading southern Greece and receiving the submission of other key city-states, Philip II of Macedon sent a message to Sparta: "If I invade Laconia you will be destroyed, never to rise again." The Spartans replied with a single word: "If."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
System Metternich do you know why beef was so drat cheap in Venice? Or was that supposed to be 70 moon dollars not 7?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:It amazes me to this day that the world lets us hold on to all of this land. Canada has twice the land mass of the Roman Empire as its height. I mean honestly, if anyone wanted to take it we couldn't stop them If someone invaded Canada, nobody would even notice it's so big. So, congrats, you dropped an army in the middle of a frozen wasteland without any infrastructure. Hope you've read up on your Napoleon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:First prize to Solice Kirsk in that round, not only for pithiness but for referencing one of the funniest ancient historical fun facts around: When Alexander marched east, the Spartans declined to send any troops. In spite of the Spartans, Alexander sent back several suits of magnificently made and decorated armor engraved with something like "This is a gift for all of our Greek Allies except the Spartans". When the Spartans later revolted and were handily subdued by Antipater, Alexander choose to be merciful and allowed Sparta to join his alliance and stay unburnt to the ground. Alexander was a particularly merciful ruler overall, usually very merciful when circumstance allowed. By the time of Alexander, Sparta was a degenerated shell of its former self, whose systemic issues like "there's literally no more people who can legally be called true Spartans because they all died" and "Helots are starting to *really* outnumber us" would eventually lead them to become a client of Rome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
Vaginal Vagrant posted:System Metternich do you know why beef was so drat cheap in Venice? Or was that supposed to be 70 moon dollars not 7? Do you mean Vienna?  But yeah, it's 7 kreuzer, contrary to common belief meat was surprisingly affordable throughout most of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era, at least in the cities. In Vienna it was especially cheap though, seeing as it lies right on the western edge of the Pannonian Basin, where mostly Hungarian herdsmen and farmers reared massive amounts of cattlee: you also have to consider that until quite recently virtually every part of a slaughtered animal was consumed or used in some way. Hardly anybody still eats innards, or eyes, or brains anymore; instead most pieces of meat you can buy nowadays are what used to be called Bürgermeisterstück (mayor's piece) in German, i.e. the best part of the animal which was reserved for especially highly esteemed guests or the highest feast days System Metternich has a new favorite as of 10:42 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Hardly anybody still eats innards, or eyes, or brains anymore; So, you don't have hot dogs in Austria?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 11:00
|
|
A White Guy posted:Yeah, the War of 1812 was important in the formation of the basis of the Canadian national identity, that being the fundamental idea that "We're not Americans!". An entire country founded around the idea that they're not the citizens of a country that borders them, or a country that ruled them from far away. Canada is weird. Australia's national identity was apparently formed during WW1 through getting conned by the British into throwing all its young men into machine gun fire halfway across the world. Australians love WW1 because it's the first real war they ever got to die in, and dying in this war apparently taught them a lot of things about mateship (between Anglo males), courage (from Anglo mates), and fair dinkum (for Anglo mates). (Literally the way Australian identity is taught is that Britain was in a war and Australia volunteered a bunch of dudes to go fight and die in it, and isn't that just so character building?)
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:Australia's national identity was apparently formed during WW1 through getting conned by the British into throwing all its young men into machine gun fire halfway across the world. Australians love WW1 because it's the first real war they ever got to die in, and dying in this war apparently taught them a lot of things about mateship (between Anglo males), courage (from Anglo mates), and fair dinkum (for Anglo mates). It's pretty hilarious, every year they celebrate invading the Ottoman Empire to.......expand the power of the British Empire? That sure is a great "national" cause! Canada used to have a holiday called "Empire Day" though, so it'll all pretty laugh worthy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
What was the greatest about the Gallipoli campaign was that, during this education on the 'Australian national identity', they explain a bit about the Turks, and how significant Ataturk was, and how their people went through so much change and fought so hard for self-determination and just everything a real country would have as part of its identity. And then they go 'and so Australia found its national identity by having the British send us to die against those guys I was just talking about, who were really just top notch blokes and beat the stuffing out of us against all the odds -- except we didn't all of us die, some of the lads were a bit cunning and managed to trick them a bit which let us run away without being completely destroyed, it was really clever'. So Australians basically self-define as a vague footnote on the Turkish history books. Also, mateship is somehow involved. Sulla Faex has a new favorite as of 14:09 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:According to the article, he was outright told to pursue architecture, since he painted structures in exacting technical detail but paid little mind to anything else.  Exacting Technical Detail
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
That's a Groverhouse level window.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:When Alexander marched east, the Spartans declined to send any troops. In spite of the Spartans, Alexander sent back several suits of magnificently made and decorated armor engraved with something like "This is a gift for all of our Greek Allies except the Spartans". Somewhere I saw this translated as "This is a gift from all the brave Greeks, except the Spartans". Then someone pointed out that by the Spartans own rules of Laconic wit, the insult would be much more biting if the phrase was shortened to "This is a gift from all the brave Greeks".
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
The young Hitler was a great admirer of Alfred Roller (1864-1935), a highly renowned painter and chief set designer at the Court Opera in Vienna. By coincidence Magdalena Hanisch, his family's landlady in Linz, had a friend who was acquainted with Roller.Magdalena Hanisch to Johanna Motloch, February 4th, 1908 posted:The son of one of my tenants wants to become a painter, studies in Vienna since autumn and wanted to get into the Academy of Fine Arts there, but wasn't accepted [...] He is a sincere and ambitious young man, 19 years old [that's wrong btw, Hitler hadn't turned 19 yet], more mature than others of his age, nice and solid, from a perfectly respectable family. The mother has died of breast cancer before Christmas when she was only 46 years old; she was the widow of an officer at the local customs office. I was very fond of the woman; she lived next to me on the first floor. Her sister and daughter, who still goes to high school, still live there. The family is called Hitler; the son, for whom I ask, is called Adolf Hitler [...] By coincidence we were talking about art and artists, and he mentioned that Professor Roller was very highly esteemed amongst other artists not only in Vienna, but all over the world, and that he himself greatly admired him too. Hitler had no idea that the name "Roller" was known to me, and when I said to him that I used to know a brother of Roller's and asked whether it would be useful for him to receive a letter of recommendation for Roller, his eyes began to shine; he turned deep red and said that this would make him the happiest man alive [...] I would really like to help this young man; he has nobody who could help him; he arrived in Vienna a stranger and alone and had to do everything all by himself. He is determined to learn something useful! As far as I got to know him yet, he won't idle around, as he has this goal in mind. I hope, you won't ask for someone unworthy! Maybe you'll do a good deed. After Motloch had written to Roller: Reply by Alfred Roller to Johanna Motloch, February 6th, 1908 posted:My dear lady, I gladly comply with your request. The young Hitler can come and bring his works along, that I may see what he can do. I want to give him the best advice I can. He will be able to meet me daily in my office at the opera, entrance Kärntnerstraße, between half past twelve and half past six. If I shouldn't be in the office at the moment, the servant will be able to reach me by telephone. On rare occasions I won't be in the building. When Hitler has bad luck like this, he shouldn't be dismayed, but just come again the next day. Motloch wrote about Roller's reply to Hanisch Magdalena Hanisch to Johanna Motloch, February 8th, 1908 posted:You would have been well rewarded for your effort when you had seen the happy face of this young man, when I called to him and told him that you had been so gracious as to recommend him to Director Roller. I gave your card to him and let him read Director Roller's letter. You should have seen the boy! Slowly, word for word, as if he wanted to memorise all of it, he quietly read the letter. Saying many thanks, he gave the letter back to me. He asked me if he could directly write to you, to thank you; I told him yes! [...] Although there still has been no word by his legal guardian [Hitler was orphaned by then, and before 1919 the age of majority in Austria was 24], Hitler decided that he doesn't want to wait anymore and will go to Vienna next week. His guardian is a simple innkeep, an honest man, but I think that he may be a bit thick. He doesn't live here [in Linz], but in Leonding. The boy has to do everything which normally would be the responsibility of the guardian. [...] When you should meet Director Roller again, tell him my thanks for his graciousness, that he wants to receive young Hitler and advise him regardless of his heavy workload. Not every young man gets to be that lucky, Hitler will appreciate it! Two days later: Adolf Hitler to Johanna Motloch, February 10th, 1908 (various spelling errors not translated) posted:My dear lady! By this letter I want you, esteemed lady, to receive my profound thanks for your efforts to get me into touch with the great master of stage art, Professor Roller. It probably was a bit brazen of me to call on you like that, even though you had to do it for a complete stranger. All the more I want to thank you for your efforts, which resulted in such a great success, as well as for the card [by Roller], which you so graciously forwarded to me. I will make the best use of this possibility at once. Again my heartfelt thanks. Yours sincerely, Adolf Hitler On February 12th, Hitler went to Vienna by train to present himself to Roller. What happened then? Account by Eduard Frauenfeld, gauleiter of Vienna (1940) posted:With Roller's letter in hand, Hitler went to the opera building when courage left him and he turned back. After struggling with his own shyness he returned, made it as far as to the staircase and left again. A third attempt failed as well. Someone asked the shy youngster what he was looking for. Under some excuse [Hitler] fled the building. To find a way out of his permanent excitement, he destroyed the letter. Hitler met Roller again in 1934, when he invited him to the chancellery in Berlin and told "with great mirth" the story of young Hitler not mustering the courage to enter great Professor Roller's office. If Hitler hadn't been that shy as a teenager, this world would potentially look very much different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Do you mean Vienna? Haha oops yeah I was a bit light headed when I wrote that. So why the relatively high price of bacon? Cost of salt or the pork itself? Thanks this stuff is really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Vaginal Vagrant posted:Haha oops yeah I was a bit light headed when I wrote that. So why the relatively high price of bacon? Cost of salt or the pork itself? I would guess probably a factor of salt, prep time, cut of meat, and preservation. Like compared to a pound of hamburger, both bacon and jerky are pretty expensive in this day and age.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Vaginal Vagrant posted:Haha oops yeah I was a bit light headed when I wrote that. So why the relatively high price of bacon? Cost of salt or the pork itself? I'm not sure, but I would think that it could be due to those reasons: * Pigs weren't normally held in stables back then like nowadays; instead, they were simply driven into the woods and left to fend for themselves. This restricted the possibility to breed them in larger numbers to those areas with large enough oak forests around (pigs loving love acorns). To the east of Vienna there are large plains that were heavily used by agriculture, and while the forests to the west have lots of oaks they are also pretty mountaineous, so I don't know how suitable they would be to keep up the pig supply to Vienna * Pigs were a lot smaller back then with a weight of maybe 50-60kg and a height of ~70cm at the withers, so they simply didn't offer a lot of suitable meat for bacon * The fatty cuts of a pig weren't always used for bacon; instead, pig fat was commonly used as grease or soap or for making light e: and yeah, what Greatbacon ( ) said. I actually have no idea about how much effort goes into producing bacon nowadayse2: it's interesting to note that from at least the early Middle Ages on (possibly even Antiquity), the manner of rearing pigs hardly changed at all for more than a thousand years. Only the introduction of the potato (which only really took off in Europe from the late 18th century onwards) made large-scale stabling of pigs possible System Metternich has a new favorite as of 21:47 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
In my recent genealogy frenzy, I've come across a bunch of registers of who had how many branded pigs running around in the king's forest (called oldenregistre = mast registers, ie acorns & other nuts). There was a yearly fee, set depending on how old the pig was. Pretty simple way to prevent having too many pigs in the forest & also making the state some moneys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:07
|
|
