How politically incorrect can this thought possibly be? Adolf Hitler was such an evil man, and is, by some, considered to be an/the antichrist.
In reality, he came in second in numbers killed for mass murderers in the 20th century. For every five people the Nazis killed, Josef Stalin had seven people killed. We aligned with Stalin. We made this alignment with 'limited omniscience' and with 'too much weight given to that which was visible.'
The world 'saw' what Hitler was doing, largely because he was doing it where it could be seen. The world didn't see what Stalin was doing because he was doing it 'out of sight' on the Asian side of the Ural range.
One might think if we aligned with Hitler, we may have had some ability to persuade him to not bomb England, and to quit killing people. Those, as independent results, might have translated into millions of lives, but we also would have easily defeated those darn Rooskies effectively ending Stalin's terroristic regime and saving millions more people's lives, particularly those he had killed after the war ended.
But it's understandable why people won't consider this. There is a ton of bad things written about Hitler for every pound of bad things written about Stalin. There is very little consideration for the gravity in the numbers in lineal thinking. Perhaps, 7 just doesn't seem that much bigger than 5. However, it has the same 'relative difference' as $70,000 has to $50,000, or 70,000,000 has to 50,000,000.
I have no idea what the answer to the question is. Mathematically, fewer people may have been killed had we sided with Nazi Germany, but that is left only for speculation. It does, however, seem to prove Oscar Wilde's thought that 'one cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies.'
No comments:
Post a Comment