Drugs... - Yes or No?

Bill White · 2002-07-23 09:15:33

And I agree with Shaun and clark as well. . .

My angle comes from frustration with simplistic efforts to fight chemical dependency, not from a belief that astronauts getting stoned will do anyone any good.

I believe campaigns like "Just Say No" are run - in part - to justify our society ignoring and marginalizing those who for whatever reason cannot say "No" easily.

Its a great way to "wash one's hands" of responsibility for working on a problem which requires a subtle and nuanced understanding of the human condition. Just throw 'em all in jail somehow seems more simple.

But then we Americans are especially good at reducing complex problems to stark shades of black and white, aren't we?

As for Mars, if we need to enact rules about drug use, then I say we have already picked the wrong candidates.

IMHO, no one should qualify as a Mars-grade astronuat unless they have the maturity and emotional grounding to be largely resistant to the allure of chemicals as an emotional crutch.

For such people, rules are unnecessary.

Palomar · 2002-07-23 10:14:20

And Bill, Rosseau WOULD agree with your sentiment on society shaping people- Social contract- he states that is the role of leaders, however, if they try to change them too much, they risk breaking the bond (abbreviated explanation, horrible...)

I guess your Rousseauean leaders wouldn't like Kant too well:

What is enlightenment? Enlightenment is man's release from his
self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of
his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is
this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason, but in lack
of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.
Sapere aude! 'Have courage to use your own reason!'--that is the
motto of enlightenment. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so
great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged
them from external direction, nevertheless remains under lifelong
tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as
their guardians...After the guardians have first made their domestic
cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not
dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they
are confined, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens
if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so
great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk
alone. But an example of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily
frightens them away from all further trials...But that the public
should enlighten itself is more possible; indeed, if only freedom is
granted, enlightenment is almost sure to follow...For this
enlightenment, however, nothing is required but freedom, and indeed
the most harmless among all the things to which this term can properly
be applied. It is the freedom to make public use of one's reason at
every point. But I hear on all sides, 'Do not argue!' The officer
says, 'Do not argue but drill!' The tax collector says, 'Do not argue
but pay!' The cleric says, 'Do not argue but believe!' Everywhere
there is restriction on freedom." -- Immanuel Kant, essay "What is
Enlightenment," 1784.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-07-23 10:30:27

Clark: Again, I am not advocating social policies to create a certain type of person-

*Why not? That's what Rousseau wanted to accomplish with his "Social Contract."

Clark: I am advocating common sense dictated by REALITY.

*That's the thing which amuses me the most about Derrida deconstructionists. If I, or anyone else, where to utter the word "REALITY" [especially capitalized!], Derrida deconstructionists would be swarming all over that word and asking a barrage of questions such as "reality by what standard?" "who decides?" "in what social context?" "which culture's idea of reality?" On and on, behaving as though others using the word "REALITY" is some sort of affrontery to human intelligence and indicative of a secret penchant for fascist sentiments. Yet deconstructionists can use whatever words they like, because according to them there's no wrong and no right, no higher or lower standard...and so it's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall in attempting to reason with them. If you really believe that are no absolutes, you shouldn't use words denoting an absolute, or at least quit jumping other people for doing so [which smacks of hypocrisy].

You want it both ways, don't you? I mean for whatever benefits you in an argument. You want to say, on the one hand, that there are no rights or wrongs, no higher/better or lower/worse standards [so how can there be "reality"?], and I've seen you deride and brow-beat others at this message board when they use words denoting an absolute, such as "reality"...yet here YOU are, doing it now. Yes, it must be so convenient to be able to hop from one foot to the other on a self-serving whim, during a discussion.

Illogical and contradictory. This is the prime fault of Jacques Derrida's deconstructionist "thought."

Just thought I'd point that out.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-23 10:36:22

Interesting Cindy.

I wonder what Kant, or even yourself has to say about those individuals we encounter in our day to day lives that DO use their own reason, yet when we view this reason, we find it incomprehensible how they arrived at their conclusions.

Rosseau agrees with Kant in that individuals, when given all of the information, that is factual, will always make the best decisions for themselves- and Society will make the best decisions when the true facts of any situation are presented. Rosseau merely points out the reality, which neccessitates "leaders" who can sift through much of the information and find the "true" data on which to make a "good" decision.

Our leaders are expected to make good decisions becuase that is their job. Just like I expect the cook to make a good hamburger. They do their job, I do mine, and we all succeed together.

Hitler used his reason to justify his actions, which follows from what Kant says. The simple fact of the matter is that people will not always think for themselves- our minds are inherently lazy. Sterotypes, gender-role expectations, scripts predicated on previous experience to form expectations of behavior... all of it is too make the processing of information easier (becuase there is so much).

Little experiment: Ever go on vacation to somewhere completly new and different? Get tired from just LOOKING at things? It's called sensory overload- your mind becomes fatigued becuase of all the new experience, information, situations to deal with (one theory as to why babies sleep so much- so much to process). As experience becomes routine, we need less and less brain power to process what is going on- we go on auto pilot when we go out to eat- however, our brains kick in as soon as something odd happens- say the waiter brings the bill before the food...

It would be a wonderful world indeed if everybody simply thought things through- the problems though is that not everyone does, or will. And that leaves open the possibility of manipulation by others. Even barring that, some people are able to justify some rather attrocious acts (from our personal perspective), how is Kant's argument really dealing with that?

Kant has a point, but he avoids the reality of situation by limiting himself to this "ideal".

clark · 2002-07-23 10:47:34

*Why not? That's what Rousseau wanted to accomplish with his "Social Contract."

I am not Rousseau. Why are you making the comparison?

*That's the thing which amuses me the most about Derrida deconstructionists. If I, or anyone else, where to utter the word "REALITY" [especially capitalized!], Derrida deconstructionists would be swarming all over that word and asking a barrage of questions such as "reality bywhat standard?" "who decides?" "in what social context?" "which culture's idea of reality?"

Reality is what can be objectively measured Cindy. The reality of Mars is that it is a cold, inhospitable place that will require massive technological infrastructure to support human life. How is that NOT reality?

Yet deconstructionists can use whatever words they like, because according to them there's no wrong and no right, no higher or lower standard...and so it's like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall in attempting to reason with them.

If you cannot objectively measure something, then it is subjective- which means it is all a point of view. A deconstructionist cannot argue that 2+2=5. But to argue about morality and ethics, again, I'll give you the same challenge, how do you objectively measure "good" when it all depend on who is measuring?

Objective means "apart from", seperate. 2+2=4- no matter who I am, I will always see this. Killing someone though can be considered good or bad depending on the circumstances and who is observing the action.

If you really believe that are no absolutes, you shouldn't use words denoting an
absolute, or at least quit jumping other people for doing so [which smacks of hypocrisy].

I jump on people for using it improperly, which I try to show. Here is an absolute: All people have a childhood. All people have a biological father and a biological mother. All people breathe air. These are facts, these are objective- each can be measured. Me saying all people love their mothers is subjective, because it is based on a value system that does not readily apply.

You can't have it both ways, Clark.

So I am told...

You want to say, on the one hand, that there are no rights or wrongs, no higher/better or lower/worse standards [so how can there be "reality"?], and I've seen you deride and brow-beat others at this message board when they use words denoting an absolute, such as "reality"...yet here YOU are, doing it now.

Um, follow the scientifc principle Cindy and all will make sense.

If it can't be measured, tested, repeated- it ain't true.

Objective measurement = reality.

Everything else is in our heads.

Palomar · 2002-07-23 10:54:45

Clark: - and Society will make the best decisions when the true facts of any situation are presented.

*Really? This is why the USA has the highest divorce, teenage pregnancy, AND suicide rates? Because our society is making the best decisions when true facts are presented?

Clark: Hitler used his reason to justify his actions,

*No, Hitler used subjective prejudices, mysticism, Nordic occult superstition, and delusions of grandeur. He didn't use his reason. If he had used his reason, he would have foreseen that Germany against The World was a preposterously idiotic idea with FAILURE written all over it; that the rest of the "subhuman" people on Earth probably ::wouldn't:: sit idly by after a certain point and just let the "Aryan Super-race" enslave and annihiliate them, etc., etc. Hitler was human, and he had access to his reason. He chose not to use it, and drowned in subjectivist delusions instead.

Clark: which follows from what Kant says.

*Um, no. You've got it backwards. Hitler was more a follower of Rousseau, whether he'd ever heard of Rousseau or not. You see, Hitler was "the leader" who "knew" the "general will" of "society."

Clark: The simple fact of the matter is that people will not always think for themselves-

*No kidding.

Clark: our minds are inherently lazy.

*Speak for yourself. Most people are intellectually lazy, true. Kant's essay addresses that. He probably knew most people would never read his essay, and that the ideas it contains wouldn't sink into everyone's heads. All he could do was sow the seed.

Clark: Even barring that, some people are able to justify some rather attrocious acts (from our personal perspective), how is Kant's argument really dealing with that?

*Because the destructive consequences which result from their subjectivist delusions negates their having used reason.

Clark: Kant has a point, but he avoids the reality of situation by limiting himself to this "ideal".

*No, I think he hit the reality of the situation squarely on the head.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-07-23 11:00:03

Me: *Why not? That's what Rousseau wanted to accomplish with his "Social Contract."

Clark: I am not Rousseau. Why are you making the comparison?

*Erm...because you think his Social Contract is the Ideal ideal, and continually bring it up at this message board.

Me: *That's the thing which amuses me the most about Derrida deconstructionists. If I, or anyone else, where to utter the word "REALITY" [especially capitalized!], Derrida deconstructionists would be swarming all over that word and asking a barrage of questions such as "reality bywhat standard?" "who decides?" "in what social context?" "which culture's idea of reality?"

Clark: Reality is what can be objectively measured Cindy. The reality of Mars is that it is a cold, inhospitable place that will require massive technological infrastructure to support human life. How is that NOT reality?

*How cute. I know it is an objective reality; I've been the one admitting that there are objective realities at this message board, so now you're trying to use this argument against me? Nice try, doesn't fly.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-23 13:33:48

*Really? This is why the USA has the highest divorce, teenage pregnancy, AND suicide rates? Because our society is making the best decisions when true facts are presented?

Thanks Cindy for proving a point, INDIVIDUALS make poor choices- all of the problems you cite are the result of individuals using their Reason to make poor choices- Society didn't make them divorce or get the teens pregnant.

*No, Hitler used subjective prejudices, mysticism, Nordic occult superstition, and delusions of grandeur.

So YOU say. The bottom line is that Hitler DID use his reason, or at least what HE thought was his reason. YOU however do not accept what he uses as his reason as it does not meet your own personal criteria- what is the objective critera that invalidates his "reason"? Some hold that a caste system is sensible and reasonable- some agree, others do not- who is right? How do you know? Hitler lost, so the winners wrote the history and further villified and discredited his views- would it still be held in the same regard if he hadn't lost? Case in point- America's own history and experience with genocide of the Natives here in the US- which is generally ignored. Slavery as well.

Hitler was human, and he had access to his reason. He chose not to use it, and drowned in subjectivist delusions instead.

But what makes you or I any different? How is it that you are not drowing yourself in your own subjectivist delusion? Stating the Hitler was such and such operates from an arrogance that your reason is immune to the same disease that affects us all.

You see, Hitler was "the leader" who "knew" the "general will" of "society."

No, he wasn't. He is an example of how the Social Contract is violated- not an example of Rosseau. He wasn't representing the views of the people- he was representing his own and using the people to enact his will.

Clark: our minds are inherently lazy.
*Speak for yourself. Most people are intellectually lazy, true. Kant's essay addresses that. He probably knew most people would never read his essay, and that the ideas it contains wouldn't sink into everyone's heads. All he could do was sow the seed.

Speak for myself? Hardly. i am describing a psychological fact. It is measurable behavior that exsists in all people. It is how our brains are hard-wired. It is reality. It is not good or bad, it just is.

*Because the destructive consequences which result from their subjectivist delusions negates their having used reason.

Huh? So if I destroy, then it negates my reason? Silly. If I kill in self defense, I am not using reason? If Society kills those who commit treason, Society is just suffering from a subjectivist delusion? "Destructive Consquences" are subjective Cindy, depending on who is destroying, who is being destroyed, and how it affects others- How do you objectively MEASURE destructive consquences?

If you cannot measure, how can you legitmately assign a value?

Try this: What is the value of art, any art, and why? Does it hold the same value for all people? Can it hold more value for some, but less for others? What is the objective value of art then?

You will find that value comes from us as individuals, and is limited to us as individuals for all things that cannot be objectively measured.

Clark: I am not Rousseau. Why are you making the comparison?
*Erm...because you think his Social Contract is the Ideal ideal, and continually bring it up at this message board.

One, Rosseau argues that a just Society is one where the will of the people is always expressed, he also holds that such a situation negates the need for laws and leaders, but the reality requires that leaders lead the people in Society to a decision they would have come to eventually if they have all the information. What is wrong with that?

I do not think that the Social Contract is the ideal per se, I just believe it has a lot of valuable insight to many of these discussions.

*How cute. I know it is an objective reality; I've been the one admitting that there are objective realities at this message board, so now you're trying to use this argument against me? Nice try, doesn't fly.

No, I accept that there is an objective reality, which is LIMITED to what can be objectively measured. You however continue to contend that things which cannot be objectively measured can somehow have an objective value.

A painting is a painting- what it means, good art, bad art, is the result of how we as individuals appraise its worth. An action is an action, good or bad, the value determined on who we are in relation to the action. Objective reality are all the things we can measure and ALL agree that YES, t2+2=4, the world revolves around the sun, the sun provides light. Us believinng that the sun providing us light as good is subjective becuase it is a thing, an act- which has no value in and of itself.

Scientific Method in action Cindy.
How does ethics, morality, value of action fit the scientific method?

Palomar · 2002-07-23 14:19:13

*I'm not going to argue with you, Clark. According to you [sometimes, anyway], nothing is true or false, no standard or behavior is better or worse than anything else. That being [sometimes] your view, why bother asking me or anyone else questions? There are no true answers, according to you. We're wasting our time, right? You also reserve the right for yourself to resort to any sort of tactic that best serves you at a certain point in a discussion, even if it is contradictory, etc., etc. I have consistently maintained my points of view, methods of interacting with you, etc.: You have not.

You know my points of view; I've outlined them in great detail. I've also previously [recently] posted at this message board what "reason" is and what it is not. No matter what I say, you either don't get it or ignore it, or maybe you just like to argue.

Jacques Derrida's deconstructionism is silly and irrational. No matter what I say or how I saw it, you WILL nay-say it. That's your right, but since the handwriting's on the wall, why should I waste my time? I'm not going to let you make sport out of me.

You've only, by your own admission, read Jean-Jacques Rousseau of all the 18th-century Enlightenment thinkers. I've read the majority of them. How, then, do you propose we can truly discuss Enlightenment philosophies and ideals, when you are obviously ignorant of most of them? You also said you would join my Enlightenment-era mailing list; judging by the controls I have as owner and moderator of that list, you haven't kept your word.

Either you do not understand my point of view, or you chose to ignore it, and/or you simply like to argue and want to have some "fun" with me. Either way, I don't care. And as far as I'm concerned, your thinking and logic AREN'T.

If Adolph Hitler HAD used reason [as defined by the 18th-century philosophes], he and his country wouldn't have faced the CONSEQUENCES they did.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-23 14:52:35

According to you [sometimes, anyway], nothing is true or false, no standard or behavior is better or worse than anything else.

No, some things are true, some things are false- things that can be measured objectively can be shown to be true or false becuase an absolute value can be derived. No standard of behavior is better or worse than any other standard of behavior- all standards of behavior are equal becuase there is no means to objectively measure the standards of behavior to come up with an absolute value. That's the difference Cindy. You feel one standard of behavior can be better than another standard of behavior, and I contiue to ask you the same question: How do you objectively derive the value that shows one standard of behavior is better than another. I am asking you to use the scientific method for a standard of behavior- if you try, you will find that you cannot prove your point.

That being [sometimes] your view, why bother asking me or anyone else questions?

Becuase I don't know everything and I am hoping to learn what is "right" for me.

There are no true answers,according to you.

There are true answers, I just don't think there are true answers to what you think there are. Sorry.

We're wasting our time, right?

We all waste our time, one way or another- it's ours to waste.

You also reserve the right for yourself to resort to any sort of tactic that best serves you at a certain point in a discussion, even if it is contradictory, etc., etc. I have consistently maintained my points of view, methods of interacting with you, etc.: You have not.

Please point out the contradictions. It seems the contradictions are more the result of misunderstanding how I say something- which usually requires me to clarify the original thought. I apoligize for my personal limitations.

I've also previously [recently] posted at this message board what "reason" is
and what it is not. No matter what I say, you either don't get it or ignore it, or maybe you just like to argue.

No, I don't accept the rationality of your argument which is predicated on some sort of Reason that can be attained by all people. If such a thing was possible, we would be able to assign absolute value to actions. That's why I continue to challenge your basic premise by asking you to explain how value can be objectively measured using the scientifc method.

Jacques Derrida's deconstructionism is silly and irrational.

Uh-huh. If you say one of the greatest philosphers of our times has come up with a "silly and irrational" idea, then it must be so.... :0

You have complemented me on my intelligence in the past, yet you question that intelligence by suggesting that I am silly and irrational by assoiating me with deconstructionsim. Thanks.

How is it silly? How is it irrational? Saying that things do not have value unless they can be objectively measured sounds rational and sane to me. Do you hold that assigning arbitrary values based on subjective experience is rational and un-silly?

You've only, by your own admission, read Jean-Jacques Rousseau of all the 18th-century Enlightenment thinkers. I've read the majority of them.

How much should I read before I am competent enough to discuss these ideas with you?

How, then, do you propose we can truly discuss Enlightenment philosophies and ideals, when you are obviously ignorant of most of them?

I thought we were discussing the use of drugs on Mars? Am I confused? Irregardless of my personal knowledge of enlightenment philosphers and their philosphies, am I not able to think? Am I not able to reason? I think I have at least demonstrated that I have the ability to appreciate a concept and discuss it, am I mistaken?

You also said you would join my Enlightenment-era mailing list; judging by the controls I have as owner and moderator of that list, you haven't kept your word.

I apoligize for not joining your mailing group. Right now, I feel comfortable discussing my ideas here- it would also seem that it was a prudent move given your attitude toward my relative lack of enlightenment philosphies.

Either you do not understand my point of view, or you chose to ignore it, and/or you simply like to argue and want to have some "fun" with me.

I am not trying to have fun at your expense, and I am not ignoring you- I keep asking the same question becuase you never answer it directly and is at the heart of our difference's.

Either way, I don't care. And as far as I'm concerned, your thinking and logic AREN'T.

Does that mean your logic and thinking ARE? LOL. I wonder if Plato ever felt like this.

Phobos · 2002-07-23 17:52:04

*No, Hitler used subjective prejudices, mysticism, Nordic occult superstition, and delusions of grandeur. He didn't use his reason. If he had used his reason, he would have foreseen that Germany against The World was a preposterously idiotic idea with FAILURE written all over it; that the rest of the "subhuman" people on Earth probably ::wouldn't:: sit idly by after a certain point and just let the "Aryan Super-race" enslave and annihiliate them, etc., etc. Hitler was human, and he had access to his reason. He chose not to use it, and drowned in subjectivist delusions instead.

Actually if Hitler had invaded Russia a few weeks earlier and Japan hadn't attacked the USA so soon, Nazi Germany would have had a very good chance of winning the war. The only factor that prevented Hitler from conquering the USSR was that fact that severe winter weather severly bogged down his troops before they made it to Moscow and gave the Soviets a chance to regroup. If Hitler had overthrown Stalin and gained the natural resources of the USSR, the war could have very easily gone in the other direction.

Phobos · 2002-07-23 18:10:17

Thanks Cindy for proving a point, INDIVIDUALS make poor choices- all of the problems you cite are the result of individuals using their Reason to make poor choices- Society didn't make them divorce or get the teens pregnant.

And quite often individuals make the right choices! After all petty things like divorces are merely moral in nature, I don't think we need to setup some facist collective that takes away our individual rights to make decisions for ourselves.
After all we are human and we do make bad decisions! And society as a whole is only human, it's not some supernatural all knowing entity that always knows what's "right" and what's "wrong". So if a human individual can make bad decisions then so can society by extension. And anyhow judging whether a particular choice is poor or excellent is very subjective. If society always makes the best choices, is the right choice always the one that gets the most votes? Or is the "society" merely a small handful of elites who supposedly have some inherent ability to make the right decisions and thus should have complete power over all other individuals?

Palomar · 2002-07-23 18:18:16

Actually if Hitler had invaded Russia a few weeks earlier and Japan hadn't attacked the USA so soon, Nazi Germany would have had a very good chance of winning the war. The only factor that prevented Hitler from conquering the USSR was that fact that severe winter weather severly bogged down his troops before they made it to Moscow and gave the Soviets a chance to regroup. If Hitler had overthrown Stalin and gained the natural resources of the USSR, the war could have very easily gone in the other direction.

*Phobos, your point is well taken. However, Hitler and his regime were doomed for failure sooner than later, given the enormous levels of self-deceit, arrogance, and unrealistic goals and attitudes [particularly about themselves, i.e. as infalliable and indestructable] he and his fanatic followers had; they had lost all contact with reality, critical thinking, and methods of objective/rational thinking, and were totally submerged in subjectivistic fantasies. A certain segment of his own top military brass were trying to kill him [the briefcase bomb] because at least THEY foresaw where this fanatical monster was leading them -- straight to hell and destruction...and sooner rather than later.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-07-23 18:22:53

Phobos: So if a human individual can make bad decisions then so can society by extension.

*::applauds:: Excellent point.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-24 07:18:59

After all petty things like divorces are merely moral in nature, I don't think we need to setup some facist collective that takes away our individual rights to make decisions for ourselves.

Where did I suggest that a facist collective be set up on Mars? Where have I said that Society should make ALL decisions for individuals?

I completely agree that individuals should be left to make as many individual choices for themselves as possible. However, this extends as far as where your individual choices might affect my individual choices, i.e where our liberty collides. Drug use, disposal of dead, reproduction- all of these are behaviors- personal choices, that can end up colliding with my individual personal liberty on Mars.

Much of what I have been pointing out dosen't neccessarilt apply to Earth, becuase, well, the situation here is vastly different. On mars, you will in effect be living on a plane, permanently. The way we behave on a plane- our expectations of others in their behavior on a plane, is much different when we are walking around on the ground- WHY?!

ANSWER: Becuase of the environmental conditions.

If society always makes the best choices, is the right choice always the one that gets the most votes?

No, that is just the most popular. Society, as Rosseau defines it, always makes the best choices. ALWAYS. When Society dosen't, it is becuase Society was mislead by either their leaders, or the limited information.

Or is the "society" merely a small handful of elites who supposedly have some inherent ability to make the right decisions and thus should have complete power over all other individuals?

Society is every person who belongs to the group. How it enacts it's will is complettely up to that group to decide. There is nothing wrong with having a king in and of itself- even a Dictator- however, these forms of government tend to be less stable than other forms, and so are more predisposed to fail at fufilling the Social Contract.

I don't want a king or a dictator, but who am I to say that you are not better served if that is what you want? I can express why I disagree with you, but that dosen't make what you believe bad.

Bill White · 2002-07-24 11:42:21

Actually if Hitler had invaded Russia a few weeks earlier and Japan hadn't attacked the USA so soon, Nazi Germany would have had a very good chance of winning the war. The only factor that prevented Hitler from conquering the USSR was that fact that severe winter weather severly bogged down his troops before they made it to Moscow and gave the Soviets a chance to regroup. If Hitler had overthrown Stalin and gained the natural resources of the USSR, the war could have very easily gone in the other direction.

To add to the above:

IF in 1940 the Luftwaffe had continued to attack the RAF and not start terror bombing civilian centers, the Brits likely would have LOST the Battle of Britain. . .

IF the Nazi attack on the USSR were cancelled and 10% of those forces added to Rommel in North Africa and 15% delivered by amphibious assault to Palestine - Hitler could have seized the Suez canal, deployed U-boats in the Indian Ocean and taken Iraqi and Iranian oil fields. . .

although I agree with Phobos 100%, IF June 22, 1941 had been May 12, 1941, Moscow would have fallen.

IF 2 of the American carriers had been at Pearl Harbor. . .

IF the Japanese had landed commando teams at the Panama Canal on 7 December 1941 - perhaps from Peruvian fishing vessels - and demolished the locks

IF American dive bombers had turned left/right at the Battle of Midway, the US would NOT have sunk 4 Japanese carriers. The War in the Pacific came close to being decided by a 50/50 coin toss. . .

IF Hitler and Nazi Germany had survived another 5 years, they quite possibly would have had A-bombs and V-2s that could reach New York

World War II was a far closer shave than many people today realize

Bill White · 2002-07-24 11:59:07

Oh, I also agree with Cindy that many of these events worked out well for us precisely *because* of Hitler's delusional thinking.

A million men were lost at Stalingrad becasue Hitler refused to acknowledge the strategic value of a prudent retreat.

But IF Hitler had been only 80% or 90% as delusional as he historically was, many of his blunders might have been avoided. Taking Iran/Iraq and Suez in 1941 and attacking Stalin in 1942 is one example.

I see nothing inevitable about the Allies victory in WWII at least until June 1942 - after Midway & Stalingrad and maybe El Alamein.

Okay, after that, US industrial might and Stalin's willingness to absorb casualties pretty much sealed the Axis defeat.

By the way, Churchill was nearly run over by a New York cabbie in 1938. How would that have changed things?

Byron · 2002-07-24 12:54:03

Interesting perspectives on WWII.... I've often wondered what would have happened if the Japanese had been "smart" enough not to bomb Pearl Harbor. Chances are, we would have waited until Hitler had taken over all of Europe, including England and Russia, before we got involved into the war, and that would have been an awfully steep hill to climb, as having the use of England as a giant "aircraft carrier" is what enabled us to carry out the massive D-Day invasion of mainland Europe. Without D-Day, and the fact the Nazis got hammered in Russia, Hitler would have gotten the upper hand for a while.

I say "for a while," because if Hitler did indeed attempt to invade the US, we would have, without any doubt, stopped him cold. All you have to do is to imagine millions and millions of "Mr and Mrs Joe Blows" armed with their shotguns, just mowing down those Nazis as they landed on the beaches of the U.S....LOL. They wouldn't gotten very far...

Also, Hitler probably would have needed at least until 1945 to initiate his planned invasion of the US...just about when we had invented the atom bomb. Without a doubt, we would have turned Germany into a huge slab of radioactive slag...and Germany, instead of being a major world power they are today, would just be a big empty spot on the map....

B

clark · 2002-07-24 13:58:29

This is really off topic, but Byron, your assumption about 1945 and us "slaging" Hitler if things went a little different...

We, the USofA would have been slagged, not Germany. You see, they had the V-2 rocket experience, we didn't.

It would have taken a little while, but the Germans had working jets, an advanced rocket program- the USA had neither, both advances came from captured German scientists after the war.

Without England, there would be no possibility of invading the continent- no air bases for refueling, which would have allowed for the German airforce to rebuild and provide effective defense from any incoming flotilla from the USA.

To get Japan, we had to hop islands- there are no islands (save england and iceland) to hop for air cover.

Oh, and to be on topic. Drugs are bad m'kay.

Byron · 2002-07-24 15:03:34

Sorry, clark...I just happened to read the thoughts above and I made a couple of off-the-cuff remarks...LOL...

I'll check the topic heading next time I put up a post...

B

Phobos · 2002-07-24 17:38:04

I say "for a while," because if Hitler did indeed attempt to invade the US, we would have, without any doubt, stopped him cold. All you have to do is to imagine millions and millions of "Mr and Mrs Joe Blows" armed with their shotguns, just mowing down those Nazis as they landed on the beaches of the U.S....LOL. They wouldn't gotten very far...
Also, Hitler probably would have needed at least until 1945 to initiate his planned invasion of the US...just about when we had invented the atom bomb. Without a doubt, we would have turned Germany into a huge slab of radioactive slag...and Germany, instead of being a major world power they are today, would just be a big empty spot on the map....

The idea of Joe Blow grabbing his Smith and Wesson and strolling down to the beach to blow away Nazi invaders isn't to far from what the Japanese were planning to do if Americans made their final assault on Nihon-go by invading it's beaches. The Japanese were basically going to arm every man, woman, and child and have a free for all. I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to be an American in the landing party under those conditions! To be frank, the A-bomb probably saved more Japanese and American lives than would have happened had the Americans made a landing attempt on the main Japanese island itself. I sometimes wonder though it we would still have been able to defeat Germany and Japan if we had waited until those countries had conquered the rest of their enemies and could concentrate on fighting a one front war against the Americans. Japan and Germany, after all, were working on their own A-bomb. They might have turned the USA into a giant radioactive slag heap instead if we allowed them the time to develop a nuke.

Byron · 2002-07-24 17:45:21

test reply..attempting to "bump" Phobos's reply..lol..

B

Phobos · 2002-07-24 17:47:22

*Phobos, your point is well taken. However, Hitler and his regime were doomed for failure sooner than later, given the enormous levels of self-deceit, arrogance, and unrealistic goals and attitudes [particularly about themselves, i.e. as infalliable and indestructable] he and his fanatic followers had; they had lost all contact with reality, critical thinking, and methods of objective/rational thinking, and were totally submerged in subjectivistic fantasies. A certain segment of his own top military brass were trying to kill him [the briefcase bomb] because at least THEY foresaw where this fanatical monster was leading them -- straight to hell and destruction...and sooner rather than later.

True. A lot of the German military brass didn't have much love for Hitler. It's amazing the number of assassination attempts that Hitler survived by sheer luck. I finished reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer
not to long ago and it seems once you hit page 500 or so there's an assassination attempt on each page. The Nazi regime was truly absurd. I wonder who smuggled the poison pill to Goebbels before he was going to be hanged. There must have been a Nazi sympathizer among the guards.

Phobos · 2002-07-24 17:54:01

test reply..attempting to "bump" Phobos's reply..lol..
B

Uh oh, I think you read my unedited post. I think I accidently wrote that Oppenheimer was working on the Nazi bomb, I meant to say it was Heisenberg. *grows red with embarrassment*

Palomar · 2002-07-24 21:57:22

test reply..attempting to "bump" Phobos's reply..lol..
B
Uh oh, I think you read my unedited post. I think I accidently wrote that Oppenheimer was working on the Nazi bomb, I meant to say it was Heisenberg. *grows red with embarrassment*

*Speaking of Oppie and the bomb, my husband and I live only 100 or so miles from the Trinity Test site. It's open only a short time each year for the public to visit [I've not been there], and apparently a monument stands on the very spot where the bomb was detonated. It gives me goosebumps...especially to think that bomb and the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki [spelling?] were firecrackers by comparison to nukes we've got today and have had for a long time. My husband has mentioned us taking a jaunt up there, but thinking of standing right there gives me a very weird feeling in the pit of my stomach and no kidding, the hair starts standing up on my forearms. That's just thinking about it.

I read, a long time ago, _Hiroshima_. It was so difficult to read. I do have a problem with our gov't having dropped those bombs on cities essentially [at the time] inhabited basically only by elderly people, little children, and women. That was, IMO, below the belt of the US gov't; if we were going to strike Japan with a nuclear weapon, why wasn't it Tokyo, their military headquarters?

And sometimes I wonder if it wasn't easier for the US gov't to drop a bomb on the Japanese because they were so different in physical appearance to the people in power in Washington, D.C. at the time [all Caucasian...I'm Caucasian too, btw], and if it would've been harder for those same politicians in D.C. to drop a bomb on the Germans because of heritage ties and their also being white. Maybe I'm way off base on this one, but I've wondered it.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-07-23 09:15:33

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#27 2002-07-23 10:14:20

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#28 2002-07-23 10:30:27

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#29 2002-07-23 10:36:22

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#30 2002-07-23 10:47:34

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#31 2002-07-23 10:54:45

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#32 2002-07-23 11:00:03

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#33 2002-07-23 13:33:48

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#34 2002-07-23 14:19:13

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#35 2002-07-23 14:52:35

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#36 2002-07-23 17:52:04

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#37 2002-07-23 18:10:17

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#38 2002-07-23 18:18:16

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#39 2002-07-23 18:22:53

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#40 2002-07-24 07:18:59

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#41 2002-07-24 11:42:21

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#42 2002-07-24 11:59:07

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#43 2002-07-24 12:54:03

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#44 2002-07-24 13:58:29

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#45 2002-07-24 15:03:34

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#46 2002-07-24 17:38:04

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#47 2002-07-24 17:45:21

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#48 2002-07-24 17:47:22

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#49 2002-07-24 17:54:01

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

#50 2002-07-24 21:57:22

Re: Drugs... - Yes or No?

Board footer