Before you consider the questions below; start with the premise that no government is innocent of atrocities. No government, in the landscape as it stands, has been left with the moral high ground. Because, I’m not asking this to avenge the honor of any; I’m simply curious what you think.
What would the landscape be like if no Allied powers had formed to stand against the Axis powers?
What would the landscape resemble if the American war machine had not stood firmly against Russia and communism, at large?
Would the two Koreas be better off had South Korea not had American support to stand against the North?
Would the loss of life be less if western powers had not stepped in to support foreign governments during regional conflicts; or to stop foreign governments of atrocities on certain ethnic groups within their populations?
If all of the governments of the free world refused to send troops into the world at large, would the world be a safer place to live for all of its global citizens?
I have my own opinions, of course. I'm curious what others think would have happened had we all made different choices.
One thing is certain...Had the Axis prevailed in WW2 there would be no Gypsies, no Jews, no Slavic races or any other " inferior " race, and no mentally disabled persons...Millions died in the war...many millions more would have died had Hitler won...
Going beyond the world war. Do you think the landscape would be better; had all democracies held to a firm policy of non intervention in the policies of other governments? Be it military intervention or economic sanctions.
Even in the event of local conflicts; if we had all stepped back and not gotten involved. Do you think the world would be different and, if so, in what ways? Better, worse, or would the balance be about the same.
You could also say, if there had been no Christianity there might still be Cathars....
Noy sure what your implication is here...Cathars as in catharsis..? A cleansing or purging..?
I'm non-religious, a pragmatic agnostic still searching for meaning of life...Camus is my muse, absurdity rules...
The Cathars were a religious people who lived in the Languedoc region in France. There were the original 'heretics' persecuted by the church. They had a very different take on the nature of creation and God. I have recently visited this region in France and even visited the fortified french town of Carcassonne that was absolutely amazing. It was a massive strong hold that the southern french believed could withstand any attack. Unfortunate it fell under the control of the North French and the Church. Anyway, the history was fascinating and totally new for me (I had never heard any of this part of history). As I wandered the streets of Carcassonne and the Cathedral in Chartres etc. I felt such sorrow that the world does not know about this particular belief set. The church whipped out these people yet today there are good and decent Christians (even tho I still believe the religion to be evil, the people often are not). If what I consider to be an evil religion can have good and honorable people so to can an evil regime or social system. Good people cannot be made to not exist and I see many of them every day in my offline life. For me, in either situation (the war going one way or the other) those decent people are likely to still be there even if they are not their in the diversity of racial types (which would be sad but only if I knew enough to know to be sad if you see what I mean).
What a fascinating and largely unknown history of human deprivation...You should write a Hub on this subject...Were the Basques in any way connected with these folks..?
I have been thinking of writing about it but am currently in 'study' mode and am still reading up
I was inspired in my art by the name they had for the church, the church of wolves, that was quite fun to create.
I really have no basis for imaging that alternate world but I will say this, chances are we would simply be in a different mess then the one we find ourselves in now. Remember, history is written by the victors so most probably, 'the good guy' would have won out.
That is true. However it turned out, it would definitely be justified as having turned out for the best.
For every body?
Even those killed by the West?
History being written by the winners would indicate who ever won, they wouldn't record themselves has having been the bad guys, they would justify it in their history books however they pleased.
We are dealing in what ifs, not what is. As I implied in the OP, you can't deny the atrocities of the what is.
I like to think that in the end decent people would still be decent, no matter the accepted political system or other establishments of the institution. Go anywhere in the world and you will find decent people who simply want homes, jobs and education for their kids so they can have homes and jobs at least on a par with what their parents had. Mostly, people are just people, unfortunately there are a few d*cks out there
They tend to screw up whatever system is in place until decent folks can't take anymore and demand they not be given power.
I like the way you think. I'm in total agreement.
I often enjoy your posts as well. I find it strange how easily some people think that 'other' people would somehow be totally different and way more evil if 'they' had won. I mean sure, we are all different, but mostly, we are not that different.
Are you presuming a moral equivalency regardless of outcome..?
In terms of how history is recorded, yes. In terms of actual real human decency, no. The thing is, as time passes a sort of natural equilibrium seems to happen and the long term outcome is likely to see normal people just wanting to get on with living their lives without to much meddling from the politicians.
Then you propose a rather timid acceptance of whatever tyranny, soft or otherwise, that is our lot, with the faint hope that things will eventually change in " the long term outcome "...I wonder if the slaves, white and black, thought such during their 4000 year " long term outcome "...
I understand your point re the recording of history...Human nature injects itself into historical interpretation through hate, prejudice, envy, fear, half-truths, and obfuscation...I still believe there is real evil in this world...a malignant evil with a human face...An evil that seeks to dominate and control another human's activity, to define how that human will live its life...Whether the hard tyranny of a jackboot on your neck, or the soft tyranny of political correctness and social engineering...
I think my idea is, my life span has been such that what I would know is what I had been taught. It wouldn't necessary mean that I would try any less hard at living a good life as a all round decent person.
I agree that there is something that could easily be called evil (and why not, if the shoe fits....) that exists in human society. The thing is, it has always been there, and sometimes it has 'won', in a manner of speaking.
The problem is down to something you say in your post about control. Total control over the entire population really isn't sustainable for very long if that population is not happy with that control. Give those evil forces enough rope and they will hang themselves, eventually.
I don't see any other way then by being the good I want to see in this world, and by leading by example in my daily life.
Like you, I cherish integrity, honor, and try to live my life being true to myself and others...Sometimes that gets in the way of convention...Some folks simply cannot or will not deal with the truth...And what is Truth..? It's like Justice Potter's reply to the question " what is obscenity ? "..." I know it when I see it "...Highly subjective...
I applaud your faith in the human race as being inherently " good "...Perhaps you have it right and in the " long term outcome " your model will prevail...Personally, I believe we have a long way to go before the human race reaches self-actualization and a level of common maturity that insures reason and peaceful cooperation will exist as the norm...
As this IS the big problem with morals - then yes it would become a moral equivalency. Society makes morals to suit itself and the consensus would be the same as it is now. And of course neither would be right, as I said, this is the issue with most morals - they are by definition wrong before they start.
by grinnin15 years ago
How does a country ever make up for wiping out it's first inhabitants? Inhabitants who loved and revered the land and watched it greedily devoured by invaders?? What is the price America pays for what it did? How can we...
by graceinus3 years ago
What is your opinion on war?What conditions do you believe should be met in order to justify a war? Or do you believe that war should never be an option? My Dad had a quote on the subject of war. " Only those who...
by JON EWALL6 years ago
The meaning of SOCIAL relates to individuals or groups. JUSTICE relates to fair treatment, correct treatment or judgment. Simple words that have so many interpretations in our world today. The world today has not...
by Gary Anderson8 years ago
The new world order is the economic control of the world by international bankers. It is a one world economic system that has abused the middle classes through liar loans and scam rules from Basil 2 that allowed banks...
by danielleantosz5 years ago
What are your views on the death penalty?While I do believe that some people should be put to death, the risk of sending an innocent person to death is too great. I think either the requirements for the death...
by qwark5 years ago
What will the method be that is used to necessarily "reduce/cull" the human population to a level Mother "Gaia" can, comfortably and successfully, nurture it ?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.