The fact is, that the war happened. So, we will never know anything. As an historian, this is the primary reason why I dislike "what if" history.
We will never know how many aspiring people of any kind were killed. The "total cost" of the war will remain something that remains unquantifiable. We will also never know how many evil people were killed either, because for every potential Mozart, there was a potential Capone as well. The human cost, expressed in grossly rounded numbers, is the only way we will ever be able to estimate the "total cost" of the Second World War. It was a confilct of depth, and scope that literally changed the world, or rather, completed the changes that world began to go through at the beginning of the 20th Century.
War is a crying shame, but, what would have been a bigger crying shame, is to have had the world, or a large part of it, run by people whose respect for human life was nil. War? No war? How will we ever know? It is true, that the war speeded up progress of some things, but it also impeded the progress of others, so, to be honest, it's a wash.
When it comes to things like this, and in general, I am a stone-cold realist. I haven't a shred of idealism in me at all, because all idealism is, is an escape for those who can't or won't face the reality around them. I suppose it's a natural reaction. But, thinking "Good thoughts" and things like that, pale in the face of cold steel, and people determined to use it to subjugate, destroy, or incapacitate other races, or societies as a way of fulfilling whatever ideological, or religious vision they may have. To think that evil can be "wished away", or appeased is to make an error that has a grievous cost for the society that decides to go down that path.
But, this was not meant to be a philosophical debate, and I will stop here. This was meant to be an examination of what railroading in this country would have become without Word War II.
So, let's get back to it.
Ulrich wrote:Overal WWII probably set us back hundreds if not thousands of years, and of course no one will ever know the true cost. People say war speeds up progress...I don't believe it. Think of the millions and millions of people who were killed. Surely among those were great thinkers...how many Mozarts, Einsteins, Newtons, and other great minds were snuffed out before their time? No one knows...but the law of averages would suggest that among those who perished were some who would have changed the course of mankind for the better. Sure we got the interstate highway system a few years earlier...but maybe at the expense of a great mind who could have solved the problems of nuclear fusion. War is a crying shame...
Estimates of defenseless people killed by their own governments for ideological reasons during the 20th Century under circumstances in which no outside nation, no rescue, came to their aid, reaches 150 million people. We have plenty of examples of the results of "negotiation" and "rhetoric". War isn't good, but the alternative, in all too many cases, can be much worse. Is there an Einstein dying, now, in Darfur? We won't know that war could prevent it, but we surely know that an enfeebled and enervated "peace" caused it.
Churchill suggested that it was the telegraphed reluctance to engage in war that promoted and enabled the massive slaughters of both war and "peace".
Who knows what the alternatives are/were. There were NO alternatives to flat out mass destruction? Maybe that's a reflection of the poor leadership we/they had at the time.
Yes...I know the facts...the war happened. I was speculating on the question orginally posed i.e. what if the war never happened.
MichaelSol wrote: Churchill suggested that it was the telegraphed reluctance to engage in war that promoted and enabled the massive slaughters of both war and "peace".
Only strength can support freedom.
World War II was the result of bad diplomacy, megalomaniacal ambition, and sqeamishness on the part of European governments.
In 1936, the French were in the possession of possibly the best army on the continent (more or less) After WWI, the Rhineland Buffer was established to basically provide the French with some sense of security. World War II could have been avoided, if the French would have just challenged Hitler's "invasion" if you will of the Rhineland Buffer. The Germans sent a weak regiment of troops across the river to reclaim that sliver of German territory (The cities of Aachen, Trier, and Saarbrucken).... Instead of reacting, and pushing the Germans out... the French army sat on it's hands. Had the French reacted, the Third Reich may have been stillborn at that moment. Hitler had even said that if the French retaliated, "...we would have had to withdraw with out tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even moderate resistance" That small move, emboldened Hitler. He knew going in, that the French would sit still. And they did. In fact in the zeal to appease Hitler that was rife in the British and French governments, the whole country of Czechoslovkia was sacrificed to Adolf Hitler, and all that did was emboldened him further...... Like I said earlier, evil cannot be wished away, or appeased... as evidenced by history, those who try to appease evil, do so at a grievous cost to the society they represent, in this case it was all of Europe, a good chunk of Russia, and North Africa as well.
If you really want to dig deep into history, and find an event that may have staved off WWI and WWII, there is this: Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia, next in line for the German throne, came down with tumors on his vocal chords. Doctors were summoned, diagnoses bandied about, and it was decided that it was cancer, and the tumor needed to be removed. The operation, scheduled for May 21, of 1887 was cancelled after a consulting surgeon from England a Doctor Morell MacKenzie examined the Crown Prince and announced that it was a "fibramatous swelling that could be removed in six to eight weeks without treatment". In the interveneing months, the Crown Prince's condition worsened, and he eventually succumbed to cancer on June 15, of 1888. Crown Prince Friedrich's vision of Germany was that of a cosmopolitan state, humane, and perhaps idealistic. He was described as the "flame of German liberalism" He reigned for 88 days, as Frederick III, after his father, Kaiser Whilhelm I died at age 91. It was Friederick's son, Prince Wilhelm Ludwig Viktor Albert who became Kaiser Wilhelm II and led Germany to WWI.
Now, if the German doctors had removed the growth on the Crown Prince's vocal chords.... who knows what would have happened. This just goes to prove that one cannot have conjecture on what "might have happened if....." without understanding the things that had gone before. Throughout history there were so many of those moments where history could have gone either way, but, those moments are realized only in retrospect, they are invisible to the participants at the time they are happening.
This thread at time seems to have turned into a history/political science lecture. I thought the original question related to how the railroads might have fared or be different if the war hadn"t happened.
Mark
KCSfan wrote: This thread at time seems to have turned into a history/political science lecture. I thought the original question related to how the railroads might have fared or be different if the war hadn"t happened.Mark
That's what it is/was supposed to be, but, you really can't avoid talking about that wthout covering the whole spectrum...... Well, we could, actually, a little reckless speculation/conjecture really never hurt anything, but..... Let the railroad talk continue!
(I'll get off of my lecturer's podium, and let someone else have it for a bit )
TimChgo9 wrote: KCSfan wrote: This thread at time seems to have turned into a history/political science lecture. I thought the original question related to how the railroads might have fared or be different if the war hadn"t happened.That's what it is/was supposed to be, but, ....
KCSfan wrote: This thread at time seems to have turned into a history/political science lecture. I thought the original question related to how the railroads might have fared or be different if the war hadn"t happened.
That's what it is/was supposed to be, but, ....
The initial post was actually aimed at the broader implications, with only a single sentence directed to railroads, almost as an afterthought.
MichaelSol wrote: TimChgo9 wrote: KCSfan wrote: This thread at time seems to have turned into a history/political science lecture. I thought the original question related to how the railroads might have fared or be different if the war hadn"t happened.That's what it is/was supposed to be, but, ....The initial post was actually aimed at the broader implications, with only a single sentence directed to railroads, almost as an afterthought.
Well if it wasn't about railroads then it was posted on the wrong forum. After all this is Trains.com isn't it?
KCSfan wrote: Well if it wasn't about railroads then it was posted on the wrong forum. After all this is Trains.com isn't it?
Seeing recent extensive threads on crabgrass, 12,000 post milestones, aviation fuel taxes, and an endless thread on a fake cafe that is currently talking about baby birds, this particular thread isn't doing too bad on railroads by comparison, and oddly enough, the conversation has so far matched the thread topic pretty well.
After reading through this thread, I actually am impressed by our ability to look back and identify the causes of WWII. What bothers me is that we are failing to use this important time in world history to predict future events today - past history being an excellent indicator of future events.
Neville Chamberlin's heart was in the right place when he tried to negotiate with Hitler, but like any negotiation, if one side has no intention of keeping any bargain what's the use? Chamberlin found this out too late, and by then the Brit's were committing to a war that would cost them dearly. If Churchill had happened on the scene only five years ealier and confronted Hitler, WWII may not have happened. Hindsight, of course, is always 20/20. Had he confronted Hitler immediately in the mid 30's, he would have probably been labeled a war-monger, stupid, or at the least 'a cowboy'. It wasn't until a lot of people started to die that the Brit's figured out this guy was no good. America joined the fray 2 years later when we lost 3000 souls in Pearl Harbor. At that point we discovered that diplomacy was over.
What troubles me is that history shows us that we must confront aggressive powers immediately in order to stop wars from happening. Somehow, Chamberlin's idea that if we negotiate with our enemies that somehow they will go away still exists today. Iran bears an eerie resemblance to the late 30's Nazi Germany - and those who would appease are out there claiming that if only we would talk to them and bargain with them that they won't attack us. People don't understand that even meeting with the aggressive power and bargaining in this fashion betrays our weakness - not that our military is weak but that our resolve is weak. I suspect that the moment we realize that diplomacy is over is the moment that mushroom clouds are rising over Tel Aviv. At that point we will have no choice in the matter. Our next presidential candidate will determine whether this country will avoid war through direct confrontation of our enemies (as Bush has done) or whether we will reveal our weak resolve by offering them 'presents' in exchange for promises of non-violence. The latter policy will lose, big time. Don't take my word for it, just crack open a history book.
solzrules wrote: After reading through this thread, I actually am impressed by our ability to look back and identify the causes of WWII. What bothers me is that we are failing to use this important time in world history to predict future events today - past history being an excellent indicator of future events.
And more recent history can also teach lessons. Just 20 years ago, the Soviet Union was a Superpower. They spent more than they could afford on their military, which lead to crumbling infrastructure and the colapse of their economy, and then the colapse of their country.
If history is ignored, it will repeat itself.
solzrules wrote: After reading through this thread, I actually am impressed by our ability to look back and identify the causes of WWII. What bothers me is that we are failing to use this important time in world history to predict future events today - past history being an excellent indicator of future events. Neville Chamberlin's heart was in the right place when he tried to negotiate with Hitler, but like any negotiation, if one side has no intention of keeping any bargain what's the use? Chamberlin found this out too late, and by then the Brit's were committing to a war that would cost them dearly. If Churchill had happened on the scene only five years ealier and confronted Hitler, WWII may not have happened. Hindsight, of course, is always 20/20. Had he confronted Hitler immediately in the mid 30's, he would have probably been labeled a war-monger, stupid, or at the least 'a cowboy'. It wasn't until a lot of people started to die that the Brit's figured out this guy was no good. America joined the fray 2 years later when we lost 3000 souls in Pearl Harbor. At that point we discovered that diplomacy was over. What troubles me is that history shows us that we must confront aggressive powers immediately in order to stop wars from happening. Somehow, Chamberlin's idea that if we negotiate with our enemies that somehow they will go away still exists today. Iran bears an eerie resemblance to the late 30's Nazi Germany - and those who would appease are out there claiming that if only we would talk to them and bargain with them that they won't attack us. People don't understand that even meeting with the aggressive power and bargaining in this fashion betrays our weakness - not that our military is weak but that our resolve is weak. I suspect that the moment we realize that diplomacy is over is the moment that mushroom clouds are rising over Tel Aviv. At that point we will have no choice in the matter. Our next presidential candidate will determine whether this country will avoid war through direct confrontation of our enemies (as Bush has done) or whether we will reveal our weak resolve by offering them 'presents' in exchange for promises of non-violence. The latter policy will lose, big time. Don't take my word for it, just crack open a history book.
It's like trying to prevent being murdered for your goods in a dark alley by trying to get your murderer to sit down and talk him out of it.
.....I agree with Dale.....We must pay attention to more recent history too....!
Quentin
When it comes to "talking" to one enemies... negotiations have there value. Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev, and came to an agreement on nuclear weapons, etc. The point of those negotiations being that both sides had a vested interest in keeping the peace, so therefore, both sides agreed. It wasn't a weakness, on our part, because Reagan came to the table from a position of strength. In their own way, so did the Soviets. Both sides knew the outcome if an agreement could not be reached, and it wasn't in either side's interest to not reach an agreement.
In the case of Chamberlain/Hitler, Chamberlain came to the table, willing to do almost anything to prevent another war. Noble? Perhaps. Misguided? Yes. You cannot negotiate with an enemy from a position of weakness. To use PZ's analogy, if you were in a dark alley, and armed as well as or better than a potential assailant, then, theoretically, you could negotiate, because you have a strength equal to, or better than the one who wishes to do you harm. And that assailant, knowing he stood a 50/50 chance of succeeding is not going to take the chance because the outcome may not be in his best interests, if he decides to go forward. But, if you are in the alley begging not to be killed, then you have no bargaining power because you have no strength.
Appeasing an aggressor only makes him want more. Think of the bullies you knew in school, the only way they stopped, is when someone put them in their place.
TimChgo9 wrote: When it comes to "talking" to one enemies... negotiations have there value. Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev, and came to an agreement on nuclear weapons, etc. The point of those negotiations being that both sides had a vested interest in keeping the peace, so therefore, both sides agreed. It wasn't a weakness, on our part, because Reagan came to the table from a position of strength. In their own way, so did the Soviets. Both sides knew the outcome if an agreement could not be reached, and it wasn't in either side's interest to not reach an agreement.
The previous president, Carter, while still president, had lugubriously announced while wearing his sweater and turning down the heat, that the United States had "little ability" to affect the international scene anymore. "Our problem" he gravely announced, wasn't his economic policies, but our "inordinate fear" of communism. Yep, that was it. The Soviets happily tested the theory by immediately invading Afghanistan and installing SS-20 missiles to threaten Western Europe.
JC was shocked. He had met face-to-face with Brezhnev, without preconditions. He noticed that they wore sweaters just like he did and laughed at his jokes, and with his keen eye to the transparent meaning of such symbolism, pronounced that Soviet leaders were "just like us" and wanted the same things. We only needed to find common ground. The Soviets had used the meetings to assess Carter and make a measure, and they concluded he was weak and inexperienced.
In response to the invasion, that president utilized his full panoply of negotiating skills by, first, punishing American wheat farmers for the Soviet transgression through a wheat embargo and then, when that didn't work, punished American Olympic athletes by keeping them out of the Moscow Summer Games. US Railroads, just beginning to climb out of the 1970s, slipped back toward the abyss with the loss of the wheat markets. He ran out of time to punish other Americans when he was thrown out of office in the general election.
Reagan didn't meet with Gorbachev for four years.
He did note, during that lull in the international conversation, that "the United States has been in four major wars in my lifetime. It wasn't involved in any of them because someone thought the United States was too strong."
During that time, the Pershing missiles were installed to counter the SS-20s. Four Naval Battleship groups were resurrected. Advanced generation aircraft, F14s, F15s, replaced F-4s. The B-1B heavy bomber was uncancelled from the Carter years. The F-117 was put into development. "Star Wars" was announced to catcalls from US scientists but desperate demands from the apparently more guillible Soviets not to proceed with development. Reagan emphasized the psychological as well: the USSR was "an evil empire". This wasn't a contest between morally equivalent world powers, and refused to let the Soviets wear that deceptive fig leaf: He confronted it with public demands to "open this gate" and to "tear down this wall". At Normandy, he reminded the world that the "young men of Pointe du Hoc" had begun the process of dismantling a similar empire, liberating a continent through force of arms and giving their very lives to do so, undoing with their blood the failures of a generation of elder statesmen.
Finally, the Soviet generals were screaming and the system had begun its free-fall trying to meet the American challenges. Gorbachev finally had a truly "vested interest" in true negotiations.
Reagan was ready to meet.
Si vis pacem, para bellam.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Hitler invades the Rhineland. France sows uncharacteristic resolve and counter attacks.
The German General Staff decides they have had enough of Adolph. Herr Hitler's plane mysteriously crashes also killing the pilot suffering from terminal tuberculosis.
The new Reich is formed and plays nice with the rest of the world.
Japan decides its future lies to the west. Siberia is invaded. Western help results in victory for Japan and Stalin's assination by his military. Peace treaty held up negoiating reseting of track gauge on Trans-Siberian railway.
Zepplin Company gets all the Helium they want from the Americans. The Hindenburg is the fore runner of a vast airship fleet. With no military impetus for jet turbine technology, prop driven airships and aircraft duke it out.
Airships and planes take a sizeable share of the over 1,500 mile passenger market. U S rail passenger service remains strong, especially east of the Mississippi.
No Adolph. No autobahn. No European tour for hundreds of thousands of US service personnel to see an autobahn. The State of Pennyslvania sees no reason to rush to turnpike. The interstate system does not take off until early 1970's.
In late 1940's, the Japanese release Stalin's papers from captured archives. Stalin is proven to be a great admirer of America's command and control, Interstate Commerce Comission. Senator Joe McCarthy holds hearings saying the Interstate Commerce Commission is riddled with Stalinists.
Reviled world wide, anti-Stalinist rage rushes to passage Senator McCarthy's bill outlawing the Interstate Commerce Commission as a communist plot. President Dewey signs the bill into law. There is no late 20th Century crises in American railroading.
Amtrak? What is Amtrak?
How about a re-focus? Imagine, that it's the early 40's,some 65 years before this thread turns into a thinly veiled contemporary political fight (again), and somehow the world managed to avoid WWII. From that point, where are the railroads headed?
As I recall, a lot of railroads were in receivership at that time. Perhaps the meltdown of the 60's/70's just came 20 years earlier instead? Or, given the harshness of the depression, and the willingness of letting the government try to fix things, nationalization was a consideration?
I do believe that diesels would have played just as big a role in the railroads. By Dec. 1941, hadn't EMD already done their barnstorming tour with the FT? The folks at ALCO may have thought they were going to be building steam a lot longer, but the folks at EMD were betting against that.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy: You make some very good points, I believe quite a few railroads were in some sort of receivership during the Depression. I know there were some people then (and even earlier) who had raised the idea of nationalizing the railroads - of course by 1950 the US was one of the few countries to NOT have a national rail operation.
FT-103 A-B-B-A demonstrator toured the US in 1939-40, by Dec 1941 several railroads were using FT's and more were being ordered. If not for wartime restrictions, it's likely railroads would have gone to diesels sooner since the upfront cost was justified in many situations by the long term cost savings.
Victrola: As a gov't employee I always find it amusing that the 'wingnuts' always equate government with Communism. The far-right Nazi German government was fervently anti-Communist yet was also hopelessly bogged down with bureaucracy.
BTW the ICC hasn't existed for many years anyway...not that Stalin had ever heard of it, he was extremely xenophobic and wanted to know nothing about the west.
I believe the autobahn started before Hitler, and the Pennsylvania turnpike (built on a never-built railroad right of way) was I believe opened in 1940...or earlier??
.....The Pennsylvania Turnpike {original mileage}, opened: Oct. 1, 1940 @ midnight. 160 miles from Iriwn {west end}, to Carlisle.
All service plazas were Esso /Howard Johnson serviced.
7 tunnels.
All 4 lane {no stop lights}, except tunnels were one lane each way....which later created severe backups and had to be corrected. All are now either 4 lane or eliminated.
PS: Penn Turnpike followed: Roughly, the non completed ROW of the South Penn RR.
I think we would be in the same place, pretty much.
3 or 4 "big" class 1 railroads, being fed by a bunch of regional and local roads.
Now, which 3 or 4 is totally up for debate....had WWII not happened, we have no real way of knowing which events and what financial impact those events would have had on any railroad.
Personally, I think the SP/UP merger would have happened sooner, simply to allow both roads to survive...and something akin to Conrail in the east, although created by private enterprise instead of Congress.
Keep in mind that by the late 30s, there was only so much pie to go around, and the big roads were doing whatever they could to keep their slice.
Murphy Siding wrote: How about a re-focus? Imagine, that it's the early 40's,some 65 years before this thread turns into a thinly veiled contemporary political fight (again), and somehow the world managed to avoid WWII. From that point, where are the railroads headed? As I recall, a lot of railroads were in receivership at that time. Perhaps the meltdown of the 60's/70's just came 20 years earlier instead? Or, given the harshness of the depression, and the willingness of letting the government try to fix things, nationalization was a consideration? I do believe that diesels would have played just as big a role in the railroads. By Dec. 1941, hadn't EMD already done their barnstorming tour with the FT? The folks at ALCO may have thought they were going to be building steam a lot longer, but the folks at EMD were betting against that.
23 17 46 11
wjstix wrote: If not for wartime restrictions, it's likely railroads would have gone to diesels sooner since the upfront cost was justified in many situations by the long term cost savings.
If not for wartime restrictions, it's likely railroads would have gone to diesels sooner since the upfront cost was justified in many situations by the long term cost savings.
And why did the "up-front" cost have to justify the "long term cost savings"?
What were the "up front" costs?
If not for WWII, I'd guess GE would have never built the Little Joe electrics, and the Milwaukee Road electrification would have ended a lot sooner.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.