I'd normally think that big wars had numerous causes, the bigger the more numerous. Arms races and the Versailles treaty would probably do for starters for this one.
Close. There really was a big change after WW-I in the whole question of arms and money. Prior to WW-I for some time, the most major military expense of advanced states was capital ships. Those had a service life of several decades, but all of that changed after WW-I. Aircraft and tanks and other heavy equipment became major cost factors as well and those get outmoded in about a five year cycle. Nations had three choices:
- Do what Poland and France did: Build an entire new generation of equipment and act like the town bully for several years without ever getting into a major war. That ultimately bankrupted those states and opened the gates for coups and malaise.
- Do what England did i.e. just build prototypes of new generations of such hardware and hope that luck and possibly a navy could buy two years of time after a major war started during which to actually build the latest prototypes and spread them through their forces.
- Do what Hitler did, that is, try to catch a wave and ride it on the assumption that how much he owed the bankers wouldn't matter the day after he declared himself king of the entire planet.
You're saying that a general inability to deal with the economics of the arms race was the major cause?
A major cause, but not THE major cause. There's never been anything like these two world wars since the wars of Chengis Khan. I mean, you've had wars in Europe but there was always some sort of a calculus as to keeping the destruction and human misery within some sort of limit. The question is, what happened to that limit between the late 1800s and now; what exactly made Europeans stop viewing eachother as fellow children of God?
You mean as opposed to viewing eachother as meat byproducts of random processes and events... I never really thought about that one much other than wondering what Hitler saw in Darwin and evolution. But aren't evolution and religion still compatible within certain limits?
Not hardly. The best treatise I've seen so far on that one was published by an Englishman during this last war, Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics". It was precisely this idea of viewing your fellow man as, your words, meat bypoducts of random events and "natural selection" which just made all of this carnage possible. That is the major cause.
What do you tell somebody who notices that the truth or falsehood of a theory and the social effects of it aren't necessarily related?
I'd tell them there is no valid science theory which does this much damage to ordinary morality; the universe is set up so as to prevent that. The theory of evolution has been repeatedly disproven. You might want to check that bearfabrique Evolution page for starters.
Aside from every other scientific disproof, the whole theory of evolution hinges on giant spaces of time and it turns out those spaces aren't even there. It turns out there are easily recognizable images of known dinosaur types in American Indian petroglyphs and descriptions of those same animals in Amerind oral traditions. The stegosaur for instance:
American Indians call him "Mishipishu" or 'water panther'. Their oral traditions describe him as having a saw-blade back, red fur, and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon. That picture is from Agawa Rock at Saginaw near Lake Superior. I mean there just isn't time for evolution; those giant time spans you've seen in geology books were put there to provide evolutionists with the time they thought they needed; they don't belong there.
You've tried to explain this to scientists??
Just like talking to trees or trying to talk Hitler out of wantint to be a nazi. What's needed is something which is inherently unarguable by its very nature...
What exactly are you suggesting?