> Most people accept "So the Nazis might have won the war instead if things were just a bit different" as at least a bit of justification. I don't believe that

> Most people accept "So the Nazis might have won the war instead if things were just a bit different" as at least a bit of justification. I don't believe that our nuclear program ended up having any bearing on the European theater -- and the existence of our nuclear program might have (if we're conjecturing timelines) convinced the Germans to make an honest go at it rather than a sabotaged one. We don't know how this timeline would play out again, either, and so we can't discuss how such a change would (likely) have played out. Instead, we have to act from principles. Appealing to "well, what about literal Nazis, huh?" is the worst sort of conversation shutting down -- it did absolutely nothing to stop literal Nazis and your hypothetical Nazis are just that, complete fiction you made up to try and justify your point. You literally invented a story to explain why other stories shouldn't be used as evidence. > Most people consider "The Nazis are more likely to win the war" to be a substantial entry on the debit side of the ledger. Completely unsupported supposition of the shallowest variety. > But on the other hand it's not something you're going to have much success with dismissing with "So what?" either. How about: "Your fanfic about how nukes stop Nazis is no more useful for rational debate than mine where not building nukes ended the war early by revealing US moral superiority and breaking German morale, then went on to prevent the Cold War, the formation of a Soviet Bloc, the attrocities across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and South America." Your argument doesn't even deserve a "So what?" It's an outright fallacy of emotional, Nazi based appeal. (Despite your disclaimer at the bottom.)