Are they even allowed to be taking to them? They are known to be represented by a lawyer paid for by their insurance company. Isn't this ex parte communication?

Everyone took amphetamine salts, you could buy it over the counter in the US up until the 70s.

This is a common reddit trope because one guy wrote a book about amphetamine use in the German army and claimed that's how they beat France. Literally that's about the only source for "widespread" use of amphetamines by the German army. The book has been roundly criticized by historians as sensational and dubious, has been criticized by addiction advocates as characterizing drug addiction as "bad because Nazis are addicts", and has been criticized by anti-nazis as unnecessary because Nazis were bad on their own, being addicted to drugs isn't the bad thing about them.

That actually seems low.

Three things really.

First, these buildings just happened to be built in areas where it is both easy and desirable to build things, which means if you want to build something better or more efficient, you have to remove the old buildings. That decrepit temple dedicated to a god you don't worship anymore is fair game when you need to build administrative offices or a new palace.

Second, maintenance becomes a problem. It might cost more to maintain a building than than the people who surround the area can afford. Moreover, natural disasters happen, large earthquakes tended to be hell on these large stone and brick buildings. Once the roof caves in or the walls fall, the cost of rebuilding would be absolutely not worth it, doubly if you're interested in rebuilding it to the original specifications.

Third, the building material were valuable. If an earthquake knocked the walls down there was little interest on just holding on to those pieces of what is now rubble, the owner might sell it off or people might just come and take the stones and bricks for use in other construction. Sometimes it happens because of normal decay of society, war might come and the government might flee, people will start picking apart the buildings to rebuild their houses because no one is there to stop them. Speaking of war, the material used also happens to be useful for things like walls and fortifications. Military leaders found it easier to use locally sourced material from existing and often decaying buildings than to get their own through a quarry or making their own bricks.

Last, as culturally valuable objects, invaders often would raze these sites to punish a population for resisting or to eliminate their culture. In the 19th and 20th century as artillery and later aerial bombing became more powerful though somewhat inaccurate, things just happened to get hit, or defenders used them for storage of war supplies which made them a target (the Parthenon). Related to that some culturally significant objects were military fortifications and buildings that were destroyed in the normal events of war. Large extravagant gates and walls would have been legitimate targets for destruction, and once captured it was sometimes prudent to eliminate these walls and structures so they couldn't be reused as to deny the enemy their future use. In many cases they were rebuilt but they were often rebuilt in ways that didn't resemble the original, because warfare changes and the design of walls and buildings also have to change. So it wouldn't make sense to restore it and it's original way.

Furthermore sometimes buildings are used and modified throughout their history, which begs the question what point of history do you restore that building to? It's absolute original? Or maybe the way it looked at a key point in history? Or maybe restoring it to a point where we absolutely know what it looked like? Any one of those choices destroys one history to preserve another. It's not something we can decide.

Ive used ones that will hang up on you if you do that. Or if it can't understand what you're saying, it just hangs up on you .

Listen, there are good people on both sides /s

TIL Jordan has a connection to the sea.

What are the chances I'll get arrested twice in the same day?

>This leaves precious few new members in the trades needed to fix our cities, bridges and railroads.

This sounds like a compensation problem. The reason they don't go into those trades is the compensation packages just aren't as good as the alternative. Everyone will agree with you until you mention raising taxes or ending suburban and rural subsidies, then all of a sudden everyone is unanimous, we can do without those things as long as it keeps our tax bill down.

Black Joker has arrived.

The 3 hours it took them to fill out paperwork and drive them to jail as well as the cost of housing them in jail, the time it takes the judge to read the police report and rubber stamp it at the PC hearing, and having a ADA take the time to file the paperwork to drop the case is easily 100x the amount of the stolen chips. That is not taking into account the chips themselves were no longer sellable even if recovered so the effective sale value of the chips at that point was $0.

>They didn't.

This isn't up for debate, factually the Weimar Republic failed.

>They did. Germany received about 35 billion marks in loans, almost all of it from the US.

I'm not sure if "here, you owe us even more later", counts as subsidies so much as life support. The problem was the original debt owed because of WWI, more loans would have kicked the can down the road but wouldn't have taken the struggling Weimar Republic into stability.

Recovery takes decades in the best of circumstances, original debts could have effects on the economy for decades. The Treaty of Versailles should have given everyone a clean slate and established a status quo in addition to demilitarizing all of Europe simultaneously. I realize that was unfeasible with France and Britain's colonial empires which required strong navies and armies and the threat of the Soviet Union, but that's even more of a reason to develop a common defense agreement rather than selecting "winners and losers" and then making the losers pay. We know the Treaty of Versailles was a failure, and arguing against that is arguing against history. A stronger Versailles treaty would only have accelerated Germany's road to extremism not tampered it.

>Not a real Socrates quote

• Socrates (469 - 399)

The better choice would have been to prop up the Weimar Republic. The government that entered WWI was gone and was replaced by a military government, which was replaced my a democratic socialist government that sued for peace. The Allies had a partner in Germany, the government that controlled Germany simultaneously threw out the military government so Germany could sue for peace and fought off a communist insurrection. How did the Allies reward this new government? By crushing it under the weight of the treaty of Versailles and later one sided agreements. They should have been propping up the Weimar government, they were team players, they were against the communists, fascists, monarchists, and old guard military supporters, all people the Allies didn't want to see in power. I would go on to say the Allies should have been subsidizing Germany's economy in the late 20s and early 30s so that fascists and communist extremists didn't gain power. A blind man could see what would happen if you take the absolute best government you can get after you defeat an enemy and then punish them for it.

LPTs like these assume no crazy people exist in the world. It's the same people who are like "of someone's is being annoying on the subway just confront them". Yea sure do that if you want to enter the lotto for being featured top page on r/publicfreakout

Good thing the publisher wasn't from Florida, they would take that as a sign of approval.

I mean I'd give it a week or two

When you characterize artillery shells as Easter eggs yes.

Happy Easter

Isn't he still a grouch though?

So every year you burn a lot of it off to prepare for harvest?

I hear they shit huge logs

I'm looking at WWI and the British seemed to unilaterally attempt to take on the Ottoman empire in the middle east and Gallipoli. At Passchendaele the British proffered 50 divisions to an offensive compared to the 6 French divisions. In WWI we see the British taking the initiative and taking the fight to the enemy well before the US entered the war.

We do not see that in WWII. We see mostly defensive holding actions and retreats until the US enters the war.

Oh yea, educate me on their planned retaking of Europe by themselves. I'll wait.

They were in the war from 1939 to 1945 and had less casualties than the United States who was in the war, effectively from 1942 to 1945. The British took part in no major offensive operations or invasions outside of North Africa before the US entered the war, and then every major operation was in conjunction with the US and allied divisions.

It's not a disservice to say they sat it out, it's facts, they were playing a defensive war of attrition against Germany. Does that mean they wouldn't get bombed? No. Does that mean their ships wouldn't get attacked? No. Does that mean no British person died, just that they weren't really interested in fighting Germany on mainland Europe unless they had other people to do the majority of the work.

Over half their army consisted of colonial or Commonwealth troops. Over third of all their casualties were from either the commonwealth or colonies.

More Soviets soldiers died in Operation Bagration from combat than British from all causes including British civilian and commonwealth combat personal combined. 2,000,000 Bengali died of starvation because of British war policies that prioritized denial of food to the impending Japanese invasion over the people living in the area.

They were as passive as they could be, you act like responding attack = offensive action. They minimized their casualties until someone else came along and held their hand or just did the work themselves. The Soviets would be marching into Paris if the US hadn't come along and held the British hands in Italy and France.