The United States winning World War 2 has been a disaster for the planet and its non-human inhabitants. From an environmental perspective, how could Germany as one of the world's most powerful countries do a worse job?
Germany wins World War 2
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
ledboots
Peace
England went broke and lost their empire. I'd hardly consider them a winner. The United States and Russia became the world's superpowers. I'd consider them the two biggest winners.
ledboots
Peace
Blobbenstein
.......
Blobbenstein
.......
I have wondered if Germany had become world dominant, whether they would have looked after the planet better, but I think their regime was so toxic, that I don't think so.
AeryFairy
Anachronism
Vast numbers of people would be dead, and therefore less able to use the Earth's resources.
[This is absolutely NOT a solution to environmental issues I endorse]
Blobbenstein
.......
There are probably trillions of planets, with life on them, out there without pesky industrialised civilizations...you should just find peace in that possibility, RF.
Muggle
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 1,361
You're scaring me sometimes, Aery! According to this logic, the best outcome of the war would have been a draw after a longer and even deadlier war. I wonder, if Germany hadn't attacked Poland, but instead sought an alliance with other European countries to defend against the Soviet Union, then we would have lived in a very different world now...
No evidence of that yet!
Rule England, England rules the waves!
Ann Chovie
Ploughing my own furrow
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Reaction score
- 417
Several male members of my family went abroad about that time and never came back...shame . Could have asked them if they had seen anything
AeryFairy
Anachronism
If the only goal is to save the planet from the destructive humans, then getting rid of said humans is technically an effective way to do that - such as the scenario in this Daily Mail article about Genghis Khan (if you can stomach reading something from the Daily Mail).
But, as I said, it's not a solution I approve of. There are probably ways to save the planet without wars, genocide, and bigoted dictators.
Blobbenstein
.......
well technically, this planet is evidence for that, isn't it? If you found a planet around a distant star and you landed your flying saucer.....and you found a single flower; wouldn't you consider that evidence for a hypothesis that there was life all over that planet? Only evidence, not proof......we don't know if the process of life forming is just a freak occurrence, or whether there is a mechanism that would apply all over the Universe.
Last edited:
Hitler wanted more Germans(110 million, if my understanding is correct) but didn't care about seeing other groups grow in population. The United States government and businesses have had a lot of responsibility for the worldwide population growth according to basically everything I've read.
Rainforests being destroyed-yep, we're responsible for that too.
Factory farms-another problem for the planet. Europe has moved to factory farms after the United States. If Europe had remained strong the United States may have had problems influencing Europe. Europe today could still be dominated by family farms(better for the animals, better for the planet).
Just three of the problems we have contributed to. This may very well have long-term consequences. The environment is an animal and human rights issue. It's just that important.
Saying they played part in the war and saying they were winners of the war are two entirely different claims.
Blobbenstein
.......
So if the Americans and Russians won the war, what does that mean?
Isn't the US, and Russia just made of components, like soldiers, factory workers, farmers?
The US was just a component of the Allies, as was Russia.
No American individual won the war, and no British individual won the war.
I don't think RF1 is saying the Britain wasn't part of the winning coalition. I think what he's saying is that the US and Russia were the ones that benefited the most in the longer term, as they rose to super power status, thereby being the ultimate winners.
Blobbenstein
.......
well, I suppose, really, I always felt the US won the war...
but really it was a group effort.
I have been thinking of football, and how I have always thought in terms of the person who scored the goal(and the person who passed the ball to him) were the people who won the game, but that is a group effort as well.
but really it was a group effort.
I have been thinking of football, and how I have always thought in terms of the person who scored the goal(and the person who passed the ball to him) were the people who won the game, but that is a group effort as well.
Similar threads
