3 ms·

The true reason is probably much simpler than any of those considering war has a profound impact wherever it strikes. WW1&2 were triggered by a long chain of ev

The true reason is probably much simpler than any of those considering war has a profound impact wherever it strikes. WW1&2 were triggered by a long chain of events and itself sparked another chain of ongoing events, affecting great many lives dead or not (including myself). If it all possible, you may have to mate with an ancestor to get your own life back.

Houshalter 13y ago
That's true for everything, with the whole butterfly effect. Just opening the door to the time machine and walking outside is enough to change history completely. Imagine someone has sex in a different position or at a slightly different time. A different sperm reaches the egg, a different person is born. Not only will that affect all their descendants (which is pretty much the entire human race after a few centuries), but all the people they would have known or interacted with.
- afterburner 13y ago
  It's the opposite of the butterfly effect, he's more likely arguing that WW2 was built on the frustrations and ideologies thrust forth as a result of WW1, so merely killing one angry officer isn't necessarily going to avoid one or another catastrophe involving war and genocide. WW2 might in fact have been unavoidable (not sure whether this is true or not, but it might be). Some other racist charismatic dude might just take his place, ready to harness whatever ill will there was around him/her. (Well, probably "him".)
  - brokenparser 13y ago
    Not sure if my attempted humour is that bad, or so advanced it wooshed straight over your heads.
    - afterburner 13y ago
      Changing the past while at the same time vanishing yourself from existence is still changing the past... but I will consider your proposed remedy when it comes up.
sentenza 13y ago
But consider this important point: While it stands to reason that WW2 was almost inevitable after the treaty of Versailles (US and Brit diplomats said as much at the time), the Holocaust was very much evitable. Had the Communists won the battle for the disgruntled German of the 30s instead of being beaten out by the Nazis, there would not have been a Holocaust but probably still a war.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  The holocaust was only a fraction of the victims that died during the war. If there wasn't a holocaust but just mass starvation or more cities getting bombed in wars, etc, it could still be a net loss.

Houshalter 13y ago

That's true for everything, with the whole butterfly effect. Just opening the door to the time machine and walking outside is enough to change history completely. Imagine someone has sex in a different position or at a slightly different time. A different sperm reaches the egg, a different person is born. Not only will that affect all their descendants (which is pretty much the entire human race after a few centuries), but all the people they would have known or interacted with.

afterburner 13y ago
It's the opposite of the butterfly effect, he's more likely arguing that WW2 was built on the frustrations and ideologies thrust forth as a result of WW1, so merely killing one angry officer isn't necessarily going to avoid one or another catastrophe involving war and genocide. WW2 might in fact have been unavoidable (not sure whether this is true or not, but it might be). Some other racist charismatic dude might just take his place, ready to harness whatever ill will there was around him/her. (Well, probably "him".)
- brokenparser 13y ago
  Not sure if my attempted humour is that bad, or so advanced it wooshed straight over your heads.
  - afterburner 13y ago
    Changing the past while at the same time vanishing yourself from existence is still changing the past... but I will consider your proposed remedy when it comes up.

sentenza 13y ago

But consider this important point: While it stands to reason that WW2 was almost inevitable after the treaty of Versailles (US and Brit diplomats said as much at the time), the Holocaust was very much evitable. Had the Communists won the battle for the disgruntled German of the 30s instead of being beaten out by the Nazis, there would not have been a Holocaust but probably still a war.

Houshalter 13y ago
The holocaust was only a fraction of the victims that died during the war. If there wasn't a holocaust but just mass starvation or more cities getting bombed in wars, etc, it could still be a net loss.