ThisIsJohnWayne posted:

While technically full of all the nutrients you need per definition, do remember that some vitamins et al doesn't survive the cooking process, and breaks down or transmutes by the time it's in your stomach. Moreover, this foodstuff is also per definition full of the very select disease vectors that are active on humans.
A lot of the things that make us sick are only kept in check by our (alive) immune systems and the fact that our cells can repair damage. It's a bad idea to ingest a bunch of material where bad stuff has had time to accumulate.
Bioaccumulation of heavy metals and other material is another factor to consider, especially as effects of such poisoning might be directly related to why this nutritional material is now in your possession. Leaded gasoline, as an example, has as we've seen been more affectatious in certain cohorts.

In conclusion: Cannibalism has the most issues of any food source. You're hosed if you cook it, you're hosed if you don't, boomers are full of lead anyway (associated brain damage jokingly being responsible for why you want to eat them in the first place), and billionaires, as the vessels of avarice they are, are full of every poison known to history - they are kept alive through science where people of lesser means would have succumbed already, for lack of organ transplants etc. Its healthier to keep eating kale.

On the other hand: no one lives forever anyway, and revenge is the most savory spice for any dish.
I say go for it.

Pontius Pilate posted:

I’m sure most people in this thread are aware, but, just in case, the same guy who invented leaded gasoline also invented CFCs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

He also created a Rude Goldberg dark comedy suicide machine! “In 1940, at the age of 51, Midgley contracted poliomyelitis, which left him severely disabled. He devised an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys to lift himself out of bed. In 1944, he became entangled in the device and died of strangulation.”

ChubbyChecker posted:

Pure cannibal diet would get you scurvy since humans lack Vitamin C.

Gnoman posted:

A small country between two large ones rarely has the option of "sitting out" when the two big countries (or, for that matter, one of the two) decide they're going to have a war. This is.especially true when the small country is on a perfect route for an attacker - either the side playing offense will invade to get that route, or the defender will seize your country to secure that flank.

Unless you have a strong terrain advantage, an extremely nasty military compared to your size, or some sort of powerful leverage, neutrality in a conflict like.that is a pipe dream.

Acebuckeye13 posted:

This is some weirdly hostile posting towards Xiahou Dun.

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Hey, do us savage inferiors all a favor: bend over, put your hands on your knees, and gently caress off.

Don Gato posted:

In Death of Stalin they actually didn't have Jason Isaacs wearing all the medals and awards Zhukov actually had because everyone involved in production took one look at the actual Zhukov and decided it looked too unrealistic.

The Lone Badger posted:

Why does a battleship have AA guns at all? I thought a battleship's job was to carry as many fuckhueg guns as physically possible and leave all the small-gun stuff to its escorts?

Argas posted:

I imagine Fly Mojo meant more that even with late-war refits, air attacks were still a threat to battleships. It's not like they made the battleships immune to torpedoes or bombs by slapping more armor on, they just made them far more capable of shooting down planes.

Fangz posted:

What about surrendering

Pryor on Fire posted:

it was so cool and is still on display with a functional .50 on top somewhere.

Xiahou Dun posted:

You're mistaken and are spouting lies.

Please stop. I'm trying to drink less.

Whatever books you've read have been very bad and you shouldn't take anything from them. And it was talking about a film through the lens of a larger philosophical structure and taking about how that relates to Chinese history. That wasn't subtext, it was text.

Just stop. Please dear god. I'm not even a real Sinologist, I'm just a linguist who works with old Chinese poo poo and you're wounding me.

Edit : I'm happy to explain to you in detail how wrong you are about literally all of China, but I charge money for that kind of thing.

Cessna posted:

Jack played a lot of WWII GPW/Russian Front miniatures games. At the time his game of choice was Command Decision. He wasn't afraid to let his biases be known.

He had an extensive and very well-painted Soviet army that he brought to games in padded foam cases. All of the details were picked out, shaded and counter-shaded with well blended paint. He took care of them and made sure they were put back in their case properly at the end of every game.

He also had an "OpFor" German army. They were painted with a single pass of black spraypaint. He brought them to games loose in a cardboard box with the word "FASCISTS" scrawled on the side in black marker. When they were eliminated in the game he'd toss them across the room into the box.

Tias posted:

It wasn't even the food itself, but the logistical machine behind the food. Soviet army butcheries and kitchens often didn't have running water and lavatories close by the prep areas. Add to this the fact that corruption was rampant and stuff like butter and eggs magically disappeared before it got to the conscripts, and you get a sense of how bad army food was. Bread contained grit and soup has weird gristle and bone parts instead of meat - and that was if you didn't get sick. Some outbreaks of poisoning and disease incapacitated hundreds of soldiers at a time.

bewbies posted:

IMAGINE THAT

(at least two of my old colleagues have been called back onto active duty this week)

Kevin DuBrow posted:

What is the purpose of these structures in cemeteries? This was in Fredericksburg National Military Park (U.S Civil War). There were four of these at the center of the cemetery.

Taerkar posted:

For meritorious achievements in journalism?

SerCypher posted:

I'd think of it less as a battle and more as several related battles all going on at the same time along a front. Military tactics were also not very sophisticated once you got to large numbers either. Most battles of the period seem to boil down to "Tell the infantry to do X and the Cavalry to do Y".

PittTheElder posted:

Like with tanks, I can't imagine they're ever intended to operate truly independently. You'd progress slowly, possibly even carrying the supporting infantry and workmen for track repair along with you.

The hardest thing about a railway track isn't the track itself, but the corridor and the grade control, and those things are much harder to blow up for any significant distance.

Epicurius posted:

One of the things that killed public bathing was the Black Death, because when everybody's dying of the plague, the whole idea of "lets everybody strip down and get in the bath together, have a meal and maybe while you're there have sex with either your wife or a prostitute", was not seen as particularly safe and wise.

There was also, especially in Northern Europe, the Little Ice Age, which made public baths, especially heating them, more expensive and less profitable as a business.

Mr Enderby posted:

Dumb "x was worse than y" culture war posts aside, I would actually like to read an effortpost on the Bengal famine and its causes.

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

It was the result of British scorched earth operations early in the Burma campaign, and subsequently, a refusal of the British administration to actually deliver famine relief. The parallel to the Irish famine lies in how the British attempted to organize early relief efforts via market-based solutions. India as a whole was a food-sufficient colony, but rather than releasing local stocks as general relief, the British flooded the market in an attempt to lower prices. This grain was simply bought up by the richer strata of Bengali society, while the rural villages continued to starve, as they were far from provincial markets and were too poor to afford grain anyways.

Meanwhile, grain from Australia was making it just fine across the Indian Ocean. Shipping was needed everywhere and the British were taking losses supplying all their bases anyways. Churchill just decided that a few million Bengali's weren't worth the trouble, which is quite heinous even without the benefit of hindsight. With hindsight, we know the Japanese weren't actually in a position to conquer India at all, and Churchill's decision becomes indefensible.

In any case, the Bengal famine was just the culmination of British colonial policy in India, which intentionally cultivated a nepotistic and corrupt local administration that was uninterested in Indians besides as a means of supplying Britain with raw resources. Just like in Ireland, the Brits were reliant on local allies, who came out of the famine with more relative power than ever. Famine is great if you're the local ruling class, which in India and Ireland, were landlords. Starving people run away from their plots, or sell them to you for food. Great times promoted under the free market.

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

Churchill directly ordered that food not be sent to India, and that the local government was not allowed to use its own money or ships to import more. The US and Australia offered to help, and they were either ignored or told not to get involved by his cabinet.

He was quoted as saying "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

The Bengal famine was very specifically a man made disaster and the people who created it were directly and intentionally responsible for those deaths.

quote:

THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

Mr Enderby posted:

Thanks for looking those up.

Fuligin posted:

QCS is where you go to whine about mean cspammers op

KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:

I am by no means pro Churchill, but he was also quite personally brave, perhaps TOO brave.

HEY GUNS posted:

as hitler's first war stresses, you are confusing (and if this were germany in the 20s hitler would be banking on this) a regimental runner with a batallion runner. He was the second one.

A Typical Goon posted:

This would be a good point if most of the information I was talking about didn't come from Stephen Kotkin and his thousands pages long biography of Stalin which is sourced and backed by hundreds of primary documents

I don't get why people can't have an objective discussions about horrible people without resorting to childish ad hominems. History is history, it shouldn't matter your ideology

Phanatic posted:

Or if the local chandler keeps seeing candlelight coming from your house and knows you haven’t been buying candles.

Alchenar posted:

If you could pick one general from history to defend a position for you from a vastly superior opposing army then it's a toss up between Wellington and Lee.

blackmongoose posted:

I think the more interesting question is if you absolutely must win a battle where you are massively outnumbered, who do you most want to be in charge on the other side?

Fangz posted:

The Atom bomb was used exactly piecemeal. If you follow the argument, the US should have waited until they had 40 and dropped them all at once.

Alchenar posted:

Also we're 75 years on and it's still the case that nobody has come up with a satisfactory countermeasure for 'getting nuked' so this is obviously not an analogous circumstance.

Kaiser Schnitzel posted:

Someone upthread mentioned the balance of forces on the western front in WW1 hovered around 2.5M allies vs 1.5M Germans (idk if the Italian front gets counted in that or not) Is that basically accurate? Were the advantages in trench warfare so stacked in the defender’s favor that they could hold the line for 4 years against a force with a nearly 2:1 advantage in number?

Jobbo_Fett posted:

Ok, semi-serious question here:

If the world, post-WW1, moved to try to "sanitize" conflicts by holding them in specific regions on the planet. What places would be likely candidates in a 1920-30s world, or where might conflicts erupt due to the discovery of large resource deposits?

HEY GUNS posted:

also it was cold. soldiers who were quartered on you in the 17th century would also sleep in the house's one bed, i've seen it in legal testimony

Cyrano4747 posted:

Fun fact about pellegra: it’s very possible to have a corn- centric diet. You just have to soak the corn in lye to break down the outer shell and some other chemistry bullshit that makes the nutrients available to your body. Nixtamalization is what it’s called and it was a key part of how mesoamerican cultures produced corn. You run into problems when you use mechanical grinding to get rid of the hull.

Fun fact this is also why tamales and tortillas just need a bit of water but corn bread needs a gently caress load of butter - ground corn doesn’t really make a dough right.

Basically the south should have made tortillas instead of cornbread. And tamales. Delicious delicious tamales. Fuckers already had the pulled pork get with the program.

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

It never would have happened because Japan actively did not want to antagonize the Soviets by attacking that supply line.

Gnoman posted:

It is questionable that the US w ould try to stop a Japan-USSR war tp the extent that they did the Japan-China one. China was at least nominally a US ally, while the Soviets were just Evil Commies. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a policy of " Let's you and him fight " would be the preferred solution there until Hitker managed to drag the US into Europe.

Trillhouse posted:

Weird question about something I half remembered and couldn't find through google:

Does anyone have a link to that comic they made for Russian Soldiers in, I think, Stalingrad (WWII at least) about clearing rooms in urban combat? Something like: throw a grenade in the room, then rush in with automatic fire. It goes something like "get as many grenades as you can, grenades are your friends"?


Hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about, I posted about this in TFR but no one had a link so I thought I would try this thread. Thanks!

Trillhouse posted:

Oh hell yes. Thank you! This is it!

Cartoon Man posted: