What if hitler died?

[empireman]

@ABWorsham:

Prehaps Germany could have ended the War going back to 1914 borders.

yep… that could have happen

[Gargantua]

IF Hitler ahd died in say… 1918.

The Soviet Union would have engulfed Europe.  Poland, Germany, France, Italy, Britain, would have been crushed by the RED military machine.

The Americans at the time would NOT have intervened.

Japan likely would have used the Russian threat, to secure the colonial interests of Europe in pacifc as it folded.

The only thing that STOPPED the Soviet Union in WWII was the fact that the ALLIES were landed, with ready troops, organized, well supplied, combat tested and on the frontlines of Europe.

[empireman]

@Gargantua:

IF Hitler ahd died in say… 1918.

The Soviet Union would have engulfed Europe.  Poland, Germany, France, Italy, Britain, would have been crushed by the RED military machine.

The Americans at the time would NOT have intervened.

Japan likely would have used the Russian threat, to secure the colonial interests of Europe in pacifc as it folded.

The only thing that STOPPED the Soviet Union in WWII was the fact that the ALLIES were landed, with ready troops, organized, well supplied, combat tested and on the frontlines of Europe.

say he dies in 1944

[Gargantua]

That’s not early enough to matter…

1942, or 1940… Germany might have been able to sue for peace.

[GoSanchez6]

If you guys are talking about the attempt at the wolfs lair and the bomb I think there was no way at that point Russia was going to stop. The western allies maybe. We will never know.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

The only thing that STOPPED the Soviet Union in WWII was the fact that the ALLIES were landed, with ready troops, organized, well supplied, combat tested and on the frontlines of Europe.

I would venture to say that the only thing that stopped the soviets once they really started rolling was the nuclear bomb.  In a conventional war between the West and the Soviets right after the fall of Germany sees the Soviets rolling over the west in Europe with only the English Channel stopping them from complete European domination followed by Middle Eastern, African and Asian control.  IMHO opinion anyways.

[empireman]

1943? :?

[MrMalachiCrunch]

The allies landed in 1943?  Germany fell in 1943?  I don’t include the Italian campaign as being a significant contribution to the liberation of Europe when compared to the impact of D-Day or the Soviet contribution so no, I don’t think the allies landed in force in Europe in 1943 nor do I believe Germany fell in 1943, do you?

Re-highlighting the context of my posting……

The only thing that STOPPED the Soviet Union in WWII was the fact that the ALLIES were landed, with ready troops, organized, well supplied, combat tested and on the frontlines of Europe

.

I will reword my response to remove any ambiguous phrases.  I do realize that the US only had 5 or so deliverable nuclear bombs by Dec 31, 1945 and the first of which was ready only in July-August 1945 and one was used in the Trinity test.  Since the Soviets had a direct pipeline into the Manhattan project Stalin was able to formulate his long term plans/actions with the knowledge of what the US was capable of longer term well before the Trinity test.  Had the nuclear bomb been a secret to the Soviets, I suspect a hot war between the Soviets and the other allies would have occurred before the Trinity test and before the Soviets knew that their overwhelming conventional power was no match for nukes.

I would venture to say that the only thing that stopped the soviets once they really started rolling vis-a-vis complete domination/digestion of conquests in eastern europe was the nuclear bomb.  In a conventional war between the West and the Soviets right after the fall of Germany sees the Soviets rolling over the west in Europe with only the English Channel stopping them from complete European domination followed by Middle Eastern, African and Asian control.  IMHO opinion anyways.

[KaLeu]

It’s rather off topic considering the question asked by the original poster, but as far as a potential Soviet attack on Western Europe is concerned, I find it very hard to believe that the nuclear bomb would have stopped Stalin. We’re not talking about a man here who was particularly concerned about the possible death of millions of his soldiers or civilians. Besides, at the time that Stalin would potentially arrive at such a decision, it wasn’t at all clear how devastating the nuclear bomb would be - but it was clear that they wouldn’t be produced by the dozen any time soon.
Say that it’s July 1, 1945. The Trinity test hasn’t happened yet, so nobody knows whether or not the bomb will even work. US troops stationed in Europe are being relocated to the Pacific to finish off Japan, and the USSR military has an overwhelming numerical superiority. If Stalin intended to conquer the West, that would seem like a perfect opportunity.

So why didn’t he? I suppose that only historical research could provide the answer, and maybe it already has, now that many the old Soviet archives are accessible - I’m no expert there. But there are two reasons I can think of:

1. While the communist doctrine of the first half of the century was aimed at world domination, the typical route to achieve that would have been by means of worker’s revolutions similar to that in Russia itself. The USSR was more than willing to promote that, typically by supporting communist parties around the world. Stalin believed military conflict with the West to be inevitable, but didn’t intend to start an all-out war unless the West had been weakened by internal dissension.
2. At the end of World War II, Stalin’s grip on the Soviet Union itself had been severely compromised by the events of the war. During his reign of terror of the late 1930’s, he had been in full control - but the purges of those years had severely weakened the Red Army and the entire administration of the country. The German attack left Stalin with no other choice than to allow more freedom, to loosen the reins to a degree that was required to fight the war in a somewhat effective manner. So he had to delegate power to others to a degree that he wouldn’t have been comfortable with in peace time. The war created celebrities and heroes, and in 1945, Stalin was probably not even in a position to start a war with the West - there would have been a lot of opposition, and it might have led to his downfall. It took Stalin several years to reassert his power - a prime example was the case of the highly popular field marshal Georgy Zhukov, who was relegated to a relatively unimportant post.

[Hobbes]

@Herr:

But there are two reasons I can think of:

1. While the communist doctrine of the first half of the century was aimed at world domination, the typical route to achieve that would have been by means of worker’s revolutions similar to that in Russia itself. The USSR was more than willing to promote that, typically by supporting communist parties around the world. Stalin believed military conflict with the West to be inevitable, but didn’t intend to start an all-out war unless the West had been weakened by internal dissension.
2. At the end of World War II, Stalin’s grip on the Soviet Union itself had been severely compromised by the events of the war. During his reign of terror of the late 1930’s, he had been in full control - but the purges of those years had severely weakened the Red Army and the entire administration of the country. The German attack left Stalin with no other choice than to allow more freedom, to loosen the reins to a degree that was required to fight the war in a somewhat effective manner. So he had to delegate power to others to a degree that he wouldn’t have been comfortable with in peace time. The war created celebrities and heroes, and in 1945, Stalin was probably not even in a position to start a war with the West - there would have been a lot of opposition, and it might have led to his downfall. It took Stalin several years to reassert his power - a prime example was the case of the highly popular field marshal Georgy Zhukov, who was relegated to a relatively unimportant post.

There’s another reason to add for not going to war against the UK/US: Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union. The Soviets were receiving key aid from the UK/US to conduct a modern campaign against Germany, such as trucks, radios and other war supplies.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

The soviets really had no plans to attack the allies when the war was going on, but after 1947 things would had been different with no nukes on the US side I think.  1947 I think is really when the cold war started and the serious differences the allies had came to a head.

Had Hitler died and the allies formed some agreement with Germany to purge the nazis and bring them into the western sphere then……the soviets would have a reason to war with the west.

[KurtGodel7]

@Herr:

It’s rather off topic considering the question asked by the original poster, but as far as a potential Soviet attack on Western Europe is concerned, I find it very hard to believe that the nuclear bomb would have stopped Stalin. We’re not talking about a man here who was particularly concerned about the possible death of millions of his soldiers or civilians. Besides, at the time that Stalin would potentially arrive at such a decision, it wasn’t at all clear how devastating the nuclear bomb would be - but it was clear that they wouldn’t be produced by the dozen any time soon.
Say that it’s July 1, 1945. The Trinity test hasn’t happened yet, so nobody knows whether or not the bomb will even work. US troops stationed in Europe are being relocated to the Pacific to finish off Japan, and the USSR military has an overwhelming numerical superiority. If Stalin intended to conquer the West, that would seem like a perfect opportunity.

So why didn’t he? I suppose that only historical research could provide the answer, and maybe it already has, now that many the old Soviet archives are accessible - I’m no expert there. But there are two reasons I can think of:

1. While the communist doctrine of the first half of the century was aimed at world domination, the typical route to achieve that would have been by means of worker’s revolutions similar to that in Russia itself. The USSR was more than willing to promote that, typically by supporting communist parties around the world. Stalin believed military conflict with the West to be inevitable, but didn’t intend to start an all-out war unless the West had been weakened by internal dissension.
2. At the end of World War II, Stalin’s grip on the Soviet Union itself had been severely compromised by the events of the war. During his reign of terror of the late 1930’s, he had been in full control - but the purges of those years had severely weakened the Red Army and the entire administration of the country. The German attack left Stalin with no other choice than to allow more freedom, to loosen the reins to a degree that was required to fight the war in a somewhat effective manner. So he had to delegate power to others to a degree that he wouldn’t have been comfortable with in peace time. The war created celebrities and heroes, and in 1945, Stalin was probably not even in a position to start a war with the West - there would have been a lot of opposition, and it might have led to his downfall. It took Stalin several years to reassert his power - a prime example was the case of the highly popular field marshal Georgy Zhukov, who was relegated to a relatively unimportant post.

You’ve raised excellent points. To add to what you’ve written, the Soviet army had become disorganized toward the end of the war in Europe. They were more interested in robbing, raping, shooting civilians, getting drunk, etc. than they were in remaining a disciplined fighting force. There was a celebratory atmosphere which made it unfit for a major new conflict–at least at the time. Another problem it faced was a lack of supplies. While the soldiers could eat by stealing what they needed from civilians, ammunition was another matter.

Stalin was a man who believed in thorough preparations for war. During the '30s, he purged his army of anyone he suspected might prefer Nazism to communism. (Mostly people on the right.) Leading up to a war with the United States, a different sort of purge would have been used. The United States and Israel had formed a strong alliance. Stalin suspected that Jewish Zionists (read: Jews generally) might prefer an American victory to a Soviet one. In the early '50s, Stalin began show trials of Jewish doctors–trials which supposedly unveiled a Zionist conspiracy aimed against the Soviet Union. It is felt that, had Stalin lived, these trials would have been expanded to target Jews generally. It has also been noted that during this time, Stalin ordered the construction of two large new concentration camps. While the intended victims of these camps are not known with certainty, they were widely rumored to be for use against Jews.

The extermination of the Soviet Union’s Jewish population would have been one of two facets of Stalin’s overall effort. The other would have been an invasion of Western Europe. The MiG had been specifically designed to shoot down American strategic bombers. (Though it was also effective at destroying American jet fighters.) While the Sabre was somewhat better than the MiG, the U.S.'s other jets were not nearly as good. And the Soviets had a lot more MiGs than the U.S. had Sabres.

Evidence suggests that Stalin allowed the Korean War to be launched as a test of American military readiness. The U.S. failed this test, which made Stalin comfortable going forward with his plans to invade Western Europe. The Truman administration realized that the U.S. conventional forces in the area were no match for their Soviet counterparts–especially not after the nations of Eastern Europe had had their armies recruited, trained, and integrated into the Warsaw Pact. (The addition of Soviet satellite state forces to the communists’ army was another reason for delaying the communist invasion of the rest of Europe.)

Because the NATO conventional forces in Germany were no match for their Warsaw Pact counterparts, the Truman administration’s plan was to respond to any Soviet invasion by using nuclear weapons on the Red Army as it moved deeper into West Germany. Stalin understood this, and his plan was to use MiG jets to shoot down American bombers before they could deliver their payloads. In any case the U.S. did not have very many nuclear weapons to use. (This was before the era of ICBMs, so any nation which could shoot down enemy bombers effectively enough could defend itself against nuclear attack.)

Stalin died before putting these plans into effect. Had he lived another five years, it’s likely the Soviet Union would have invaded Western Europe, and that the Jews within Soviet territory would have been exterminated.

[Gargantua]

So why didn’t he?

I just finished reading the book “Patton’s Last Days”

In HIS OWN WORDS, Patton said

"“I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof – that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back.”

Although the Russians pushed into Europe for the Victory, they were in absolutely NO SHAPE to go up against the Allies and Nazi Remnant forces.

[MrMalachiCrunch]

I would agree with assessment past my original thinking of 1946-1947 even.  The soviets were worse off than I thought originally.  It seems it would take them until past the start of the Korean war to mount serious offensive operations that could result in the over-running of western europe.  I found some interesting estimates of the soviets here on page 75.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol44no3/pdf/v44i3a06p.pdf

Document JIC 397 seems to be a key document as well.

[Guest]

Did you know Adolf Hitler was named Man of the year During WWII.

[newpaintbrush]

@TheDictator:

Did you know Adolf Hitler was named Man of the year During WWII.

Apparently everyone “knows” Hitler was insane and evil.  No way he could have been named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1938.  Which incidentally was before World War II started.  Ya hobo.

[Bolt-Action British]

That man of the year thing is interesting, I assume it was in fact in 1938 though.

[Deaths Head 420]

well He (Hitler) did bring Germany back from a Great depression, and was widely popular not only in his country but others as well. of course this was in 38, b4 he went insane

[newpaintbrush]

@Deaths:

well He (Hitler) did bring Germany back from a Great depression, and was widely popular not only in his country but others as well. of course this was in 38, b4 he went insane

I don’t think Hitler “went insane” at all.  There is what I consider this consistent, stupid, and dangerous view of things.  And yes, that is inflammatory.  But to my mind, shock value is appropriate and necessary to a navel-gazing collective consciousness.  Others are dismissed as “insane” by those that are themselves insane!

1.  Why worry about insanity?
2.  Defining insanity
3.  Popular conception of insanity
4.  An insane world
5.  Identifying self as insane through induction
6.  Relativism and Pope Benedict XVI
7.  History, and why we are doomed to repeat it
8.  Personal responsibility

–

1.  Why worry about insanity?

So you go around in your every day life, pointing fingers, calling this insane or that insane.  But what if you yourself are insane?  Of course you don’t think of yourself as insane.  But then again, not thinking of oneself as insane does not mean one is not insane.  So the question is really, is self-knowledge important to you or not?  If you don’t care about self-knowledge, or if you happily accept the label of insanity for yourself, then fine.  But if you claim self-knowledge, if you claim to be sane, and if you claim others are insane, then you are a delusional hypocrite.

2.  Defining insanity

Insanity is by definition the inability to function in society.  Society and individuals are two different things, so it is natural that there will be some conflict between the two.  That is, it is perfectly natural that any given individual will to some degree be unable to function in society.  So insanity then becomes not a question of black and white, but simply a question of degree.

Now consider the fact that different societies will have different requirements for an individual to function within them.  Combined with the observation that insanity is a question of degree of disparity between individual and society, it is directly consequent that what is considered sane in one society will be considered insane in another society, and vice versa.

Clearly, insanity is subjectively defined.  So why is it inappropriate to simply slap a label of “insanity” on anything?

3.  Popular conception of insanity

There is a popular conception of insanity, that, as Plato would say, it is “the bad” or “the stupid”.

Insanity has already been defined as subjectively defined by one individual, often relating to another individual’s relation to the first individual’s conception of social norms.  But considering there is a popular conception of insanity as well as the definitional conception, titling something as “insane” goes beyond simple relativism.  It attaches an absolute value judgment of “the bad” and “the stupid”.

That is to say, what is actually subjectively defined has gained the color of absolute definition.  This doesn’t seem so bad when put in abstract terms.  But let us put forth a practical example.

_Let us say that I like Caucasians more than other ethnic groups.  That is a subjective judgment, by stating a preference I do no more than state a preference.

Now let us say that Caucasians are superior to other ethnic groups.  Other ethnic groups are bad and stupid when compared to Caucasians.  When measured in terms of being Caucasians, other ethnic groups simply fall short.  It isn’t just a question of melanin production in the skin.  Questions regarding the cultural background of Caucasians tend to be answered incorrectly by non-Caucasians far more often than Caucasians.  It is therefore clear that non-Caucasians simply lack the ability to make finer contextual judgments like Caucasians do.  Furthermore, questions regarding value judgments depending on Caucasian norms are similarly incorrectly answered.  I therefore say, with scientific evidence, that Caucasians are superior in every sense, and that non-Caucasians are stupid and lack morality.

You might get a bright “darky” every now and then that imitates its Caucasian superiors.  But such mimicry is just like that of a very bright monkey._

So now that I start attaching absolute judgments to subjective preference and demonstrating it in practice, the distasteful stupidity hopefully becomes apparent.

4.  An insane world

To this point, I have demonstrated that “insanity” is a stupid term, because of the attachment of absolute values to subjective preference.  But there are still going to be those, like lemmings, that point to others and claim it must be okay because everyone else is doing it.  But I deny this stupidity.

One’s understanding of the world largely comes about not through direct observation, but from inference and indirect observation.  To support this, there are not a lot of people that go through life firing loaded shotguns into their skulls or jumping naked from suspension bridges.  This is clearly not because such people have directly observed that doing so is dangerous.  It is because such people (just about everyone) has been instructed in the danger of doing so.

Similarly, people tend to associate with certain particular groups, and their views become normalized to those groups.  For some people, it is normal to purchase a $6 purse.  Others will regard such expenditure as low-class, and will not spend less than $600 on a purse.  Yet others draw the bottom line at $6,000, or $60,000.  To spend outside a certain range is stupid and wasteful.  That is, some will think spending $6 on a purse is a complete waste of time - not that the $6 is significant to them at all, it’s simply that the time spent buying such a piece of crap is wasted time.  Others will think spending $60,000 on a purse is completely insane, when they could pay for their child’s college education with that money.  The same is true for other subjective judgments, like “insanity”.

You associate with a particular group of people that all have certain common value judgments.  Though they may differ on some points, or even wildly on some important points, they have an understanding of what is “appropriate” and what is “inappropriate”, and that which meets certain criteria will be defined by you and these others as “insane”.  Since they share and support your judgments for the most part, even if there are individual dissenters, by and large your view of the world is static.

But the fact is, there are other groups of people that also have certain common value judgments, only THEIR common value judgments are quite different to your groups.  So certain things that you consider distasteful or even insane, they view as normal, while certain things you do that you consider normal they consider distasteful or insane.

Among these I number - eating the flesh of a cow, having sexual intercourse with those under 10 years of age, drinking alcoholic beverages to intoxication, usage of heroin, eating the flesh of a human being - each of these is normal to some groups but considered aberrant or insane in others.

My earlier point was that insanity is correctly understood as a subjective and relativistic.  My point later was that insanity is in practical terms understood as an absolute, and that this is problematic.

My point here is that conception of insanity as an absolute comes from continued association with a particular group of people or even of a number of like-minded groups.  Continued exposure to a consistent worldview convinces the individual that the subjective group opinion is actually objective fact.  Although a consistent group worldview will usually naturally include actual and real objective facts (such as the danger of loaded shotguns or jumping naked from suspension bridges), one must distinguish between subjective and objective.

5.  Identifying self as insane through induction

Insanity is not only a judgment that one makes about oneself and others, it is also a judgment that others can make of you.  Since there are so many differing groups, it is certain that your particular viewpoints are considered aberrant or even insane.
To be clear.  Others think you are insane, and they are perfectly correct.

6.  Relativism and Pope Benedict XVI

This brings me to someone I am a great personal fan of, Pope Benedict XVI.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050606_convegno-famiglia_en.html

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE PARTICIPANTS
IN THE ECCLESIAL DIOCESAN CONVENTION OF ROME

Basilica of St John Lateran
Monday, 6 June 2005

Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of educating is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own “ego”.

With such a relativistic horizon, therefore, real education is not possible without the light of the truth; sooner or later, every person is in fact condemned to doubting in the goodness of his or her own life and the relationships of which it consists, the validity of his or her commitment to build with others something in common.

What I have done with “insanity” is what I do with many moral and ethical judgments, which is to bring it into the debate of relativism.  Pope Benedict XVI’s answer to the question of relativism is to, in essence, step beyond it and provide a fundamental answer to an even more fundamental question.  If he had done nothing else with his papacy, for that alone I would consider him one of the truly great popes.

But even so, it does not answer what I consider to be the real danger.

7.  History, and why we are doomed to repeat it

As George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  To put it more fully,

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience. In a second stage men are docile to events, plastic to new habits and suggestions, yet able to graft them on original instincts, which they thus bring to fuller satisfaction. This is the plane of manhood and true progress. Last comes a stage when retentiveness is exhausted and all that happens is at once forgotten; a vain, because unpractical, repetition of the past takes the place of plasticity and fertile readaptation.

I say similarly that there is far more necessary to progress than simple recollection of past events.  It is comprehension of past events that leads to progress.  The confusion of subjective and absolute conditions when attached to such concepts as “insanity” obliterates comprehension.  It obliterates progress.

I have four pans, each made wholly of iron, with handles of red, blue, yellow, and green, respectively.  Now I put the blue handled pan over a bonfire for ten minutes, then firmly grasp the handle.  A burn!  I therefore conclude that blue is a problem, a troublemaker.  Everything blue can hurt me.  I start to hide from people in blue uniforms.  When athletic teams take to the field wearing blue uniforms, I am frightened.  Blue Man Group takes me to new levels of horror and fright.  But blue will not harm me again, because I avoid blue.  I am smart.  In the meantime, I put the red handled pan over a bonfire, so it will be ready for someone else to pick up . . . since there isn’t anything blue around, nothing could be harmful . . .

That is what it is to call Hitler insane.  People avoid the color blue, because they associate it with harm.  From that association, some will go so far as to call blue itself harmful!  And to be truthful, avoiding blue is often not overtly problematic.  It could cause one some degree of inconvenience, but it does not actively lead to harm.  So everyone avoids blue, and it becomes commonly accepted that blue actually is harmful!  Likewise as for calling Hitler insane.  Hitler is dead, so who does it really harm?  Then it becomes accepted that Hitler was insane.  After all, everyone else thinks he was!

And now we come to this time, in which everyone “realizes” blue is “the problem”.  But red, yellow, and green are all right.  This continues to be the case, until someone picks up the red handled pan from the bonfire and burns him/herself.  Then, sudden shock!  There is a new evil that has appeared in the world, and it is “red”!  The red menace!  And a new pan is put over the fire, maybe not the blue one, but what harm could there be in touching green or yellow?  And so it goes, until one day everyone knows green and yellow are certainly evil, but that blue and red are no longer dangerous, so the blue pan goes back on the fire again . . .

So you see, this is why I object to calling Hitler insane.  The exact same circumstances will no longer repeat, but SIMILAR circumstances will.  As long as people are hysterically focusing on “blue” (i.e. calling Hitler “insane”), they are not focusing on the real problem, so the general situation continues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

Butchery of particular ethnic groups predated Hitler, and POSTDATES him as well.  It is stupid simplification to classify all such incidents as simple insanity.  How incredibly convenient it is to say that groups of people collectively go insane, on a regular basis!  It allows one to deny all personal responsibility!  After all, what could you really do to stop groups of people from collectively going insane?  If someone wants to go and drink the Kool-Aid, well, what could you possibly do about it?  So you wring your hands and point fingers and call others insane, and make no progress.

8.  Personal responsibility

By calling others insane and denying personal responsibility, a collective mindset is created that (such and such) is SOMEONE ELSE’S PROBLEM.  This is understandable.  After all, nobody wants to deal with the stress of personal responsibility.  So what ends up being done is delegation of responsibility and decision making power to others.  But if those others are themselves disinterested, or worse, exploitative, you end up with an even worse mess.  This is how you end up with wage slavery and any number of other social ills; this explains also and is corroborated by the increasing disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor.  What is taught in schools is language, mathematics, and particular cultural norms, because that is the system that everyone has an immediate interest in perpetuating - the rich, because they need others to exploit (even though such exploitation is typically consensual, particularly with the expanding roles of taxation and government and decreasing personal liberties), and the poor because it is only through serving the rich that they can put bread on the table.  And certainly, there is some degree of movement between rich and poor; there are poor that can become rich, or rich that can become poor.  But the mobility of particular individuals within society do not point to the tendencies of individuals within the society as a whole, and the only conclusion that makes sense with continual denial of personal responsibility is inevitable systemic failure.

The key to change in the future is not simply the alteration of curriculum on the personal level - that is, teaching new students how to simply “survive” in society, or how to use instruments and tools, or even scientific methods for technological advancement, and so forth.  Curriculum needs to advance on the social level, and there needs to be social advancement, so individuals do not merely survive in society, but prosper.

[KurtGodel7]

Great post by Bunnies P. Wrath! :)

Just to add to what he’s written: if there is a deep, wide gulf between group X’s and group Y’s ideology, and if the two groups are at war, and if group X’s leaders label group Y’s leaders insane, one should be very suspicious about accepting that diagnosis at face value. Group X’s leaders have a vested interest in discrediting Group Y’s leaders. Successfully discrediting Y eliminates an alternative to their own ideology, justifies the war, and draws attention away from any misdeeds X’s leaders may have committed.