Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

ARMOK WANTS TO KNOW

[hops]

"You guys almost won but then [Hanzo main] happened"

Yeah... that isn't going to go over well. My first instinct hearing that was "Wow, your a jerk!"

Mind you, it is more because of the specifics (HANZOOOOO!!!) than the "You almost got me!" aspect.

I mean, I see it as "polite" in that it states that the enemy was good and also give a convenient scapegoat for their failure.

And also the Hanzo main is probably going to be chill about it or even laughing at the salt. (Source: I occasionally main Hanzo)

[Sergarr]

In the span from yesterday to today, my temperature has went from ~38, down to 36.6, and then up to 38.3.

D:

[Neonivek]

Man it is so convenient that we won WW2 because otherwise Germany would have cake walked all over America.



Why is this... like... The go to for "What if" scenarios? Germany was losing even while they were winning... and were basically bleeding to death.

Why is it that suddenly they become a goliath against what was essentially the sleeping dragon of WW2?

At LEAST when Wolfenstien does it, it is because they have magic, super technology, and secret Jewish cults (not even making that up)

[hops]

Honestly how would Germany even "win"?

If Germany won the WWII then Germany would lose the WWIII that would happen in like, less than a decade.

[Neonivek]

Honestly how would Germany even "win"?

If Germany won the WWII then Germany would lose the WWIII that would happen in like, less than a decade.

PFT if it even got that far. To say that they were mopping up Germany at the end would be putting it mildly.

Germany was losing to Germany.

And this is ignoring that Germany really lacked the tools to even attack the USA.

[Edmus]

This is Man in the High Castle, right?

Spoiler: TV series spoilers (click to show/hide)

The Nazis do have a reason for winning, and it is essentially magic.

[Akura]

Hey resident lawyer dudes! How much blood can we take before getting into trouble?!

Sadly, I don't think Truean has been on in some time. Plus they don't give legal advice over the internet.

I think the point that it becomes gross negligence is where the blood loss causes long-term harm.

[Lord Shonus]

Man it is so convenient that we won WW2 because otherwise Germany would have cake walked all over America.



Why is this... like... The go to for "What if" scenarios? Germany was losing even while they were winning... and were basically bleeding to death.

Why is it that suddenly they become a goliath against what was essentially the sleeping dragon of WW2?

At LEAST when Wolfenstien does it, it is because they have magic, super technology, and secret Jewish cults (not even making that up)

There is a great tendency to over-exaggerate German accomplishments during WWII, attributing their victories to superior technology (despite the reality that they won their early fights principally through boldness and a great deal of luck) and their defeats to the Allies essentially mobbing them with vastly superior numbers (on both fronts, the actual forces engaged were often near parity, although the Allies did have an easier time replenishing losses).

Part of the reason for this is faulty pop-culture information (soldiers writing memoirs decades after the fighting was over, when they didn't have all that clear a picture in the first place; early researchers taking SS records at face value without properly cross-referencing them with Allied sources; TV programs more interested in sensationalism than solid history) and part of it being self-image. It is easy to take pride in our grandfathers banding together to take down a dragon, while the reality that they were simply putting down a rabid dog is much harder to be proud of - just a dirty job somebody had to do.

[George_Chickens]

I was bending over to clean some stuff up next to my bed, and my cat jumped up, stuck his face down my pants, and screamed in my arse crack.

What the fuck, cat?

[TempAcc]

Hey resident lawyer dudes! How much blood can we take before getting into trouble?!

Sadly, I don't think Truean has been on in some time. Plus they don't give legal advice over the internet.

I think the point that it becomes gross negligence is where the blood loss causes long-term harm.

Uh, I guess it depends on what you meaning by taking. You mean like, drawing blood from someone?
If so, then, as long as you have permission (and as long as you're a legal practicing physician, which may be a legal requirement in some places), it likely depends on the amount of blood one can draw from a person at any given time, and the maximum amount one can draw cumulatively over a certain period. These are techniqual guidelines, not legal ones (unless your particular legislation has covered that as well), btw, and vary a lot between patients and depends a lot on the context of the situation.
Speaking plainly, Akura is correct. If you draw so much blood that you're actualy endangering the patient, and there's proof that your act of drawing blood was done in a context in which it was inappropriate to do so and/or it was in a large enough amount that the patient would likely suffer serious (long term or not) consequences from it, then you can likely fall under a malpractice suit or somesuch, unless you drew blood in a non medical context, in which case I'd call the local vampire hunter.

[Flying Dice]

Man it is so convenient that we won WW2 because otherwise Germany would have cake walked all over America.



Why is this... like... The go to for "What if" scenarios? Germany was losing even while they were winning... and were basically bleeding to death.

Why is it that suddenly they become a goliath against what was essentially the sleeping dragon of WW2?

At LEAST when Wolfenstien does it, it is because they have magic, super technology, and secret Jewish cults (not even making that up)

There is a great tendency to over-exaggerate German accomplishments during WWII, attributing their victories to superior technology (despite the reality that they won their early fights principally through boldness and a great deal of luck) and their defeats to the Allies essentially mobbing them with vastly superior numbers (on both fronts, the actual forces engaged were often near parity, although the Allies did have an easier time replenishing losses).

Part of the reason for this is faulty pop-culture information (soldiers writing memoirs decades after the fighting was over, when they didn't have all that clear a picture in the first place; early researchers taking SS records at face value without properly cross-referencing them with Allied sources; TV programs more interested in sensationalism than solid history) and part of it being self-image. It is easy to take pride in our grandfathers banding together to take down a dragon, while the reality that they were simply putting down a rabid dog is much harder to be proud of - just a dirty job somebody had to do.

Also a pretty profound ignorance of the logistical and industrial realities. The US and USSR could massively out-produce and out-draft the Axis, and didn't have to faff about with resource shortages like the Nazi efforts to develop synthetic fuel or the Japanese lack of native steel. Even the old rot about five Shermans lost for every Tiger still acknowledged that the ratio didn't matter when the US could build and crew twenty for every Tiger.

That, and by the time it came to Germany being pressed from both sides on the continent, most of their industrial base and civilian population centers had already been bombed to shit.

Maybe, maybe if Hitler hadn't turned on Stalin (and Stalin hadn't decided to have the dagger in his hand), and had stopped at the Channel and tried to broker peace with the British and Free French, and if the Japanese had contented themselves with their takings in SEA and not tried to break the Pacific Fleet you might have seen the war end with a different array of world powers. But that would require a bunch of paranoid power-grubbing authoritarians being reasonable people with strong understanding of their limits.

[Tack]

I think audaciousness did play a very large part though. lirc Germany had intended to occupy France very temporarily whilst they set about trying to arrange terms with Britain.
The UK's persistence in waging the war was most of the problem, I think. If they had given Germany favourable terms, and they could've taken that huge occupying army and invaded Russia (at the exact time when they were most vulnerable).
The cold war likely would've then been between Democracy and Nazis.

The Americans did really need a noticeable push to actually join the war, as they had very recently signed a declaration that matters in Europe were absolutely not their problem.

Of course, once they did join it was all ogre. But it's possible to see how it could've all been very different.

[TempAcc]

Hitler and his high command heavily underestimated the threat the soviet union posed, before and during their offensive against russia. There's even an actual recording of hitler chatting with a certain general about how they heavily underestimated the size of russia's tank fleet, and how they expected to see small factories slowly assembling tanks, and instead found fuckhuge complexes manned with people working like animals putting out lots of tanks almost on a daily basis.

[ChairmanPoo]

*snip*

Very off-topic, but Tack, did you get into H&L surgery?