this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2025
544 points (92.5% liked)
Comic Strips
13516 readers
2531 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Killing Hitler right now would be a mistake. No nuclear arms race means no nuclear power, no cold war (which was better than a hot war), and far less advancements (kiss computers bye bye!).
I feel that it's a bit of a false dichotomy to say that if WW2 didn't happen then those things also wouldn't happen. There's nothing inherent about WW2 that had to happen for those advancements - they may have just been achieved faster due to the war.
I think you may be thinking about economics and progress at that time like you would at this time. Remember that at that time most innovations came from government funding.
During WW2 there was plenty of money spend on funding innovation and research. If a lab has the money to hire more researchers and help then they get to the invention faster. I don't disagree that some advancements would have happened, I just think we would be where we are now. We would be about 10 years back. The innovation was due to the funding. This pushed us farther than we would have at that time because there was a lot of incentive for more/better ways to win the war. In peace time there is less reason to fund as much research.
Private company's now have the money for R&D and can make the innovations because they are driven by profit. (lets push that discussion off, we need less ass hat people in charge) Back then they did not.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/scientific-and-technological-advances-world-war-ii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_during_World_War_II#Electronics,_communications_and_intelligence
I find it super interesting that the development of the microwave is a direct result of radar technology. I am not comparing it to the computer or cell phone but its is a common household item that is a direct result from wartime developments.
Also ENIAC was the first general purposes computer that could do thousands of calculations in a second. This was only developed due to a desire to get an edge in the war. It didn't get completed as soon as hoped so it was used for other reasons but it was still a huge advancement due to the war. It eventually was used for calculations on feasibility of an H-bomb and then later used to calculate artillery firing tables.
Counter argument : ww2 was completely irrelevant to all post war progresses, war against communism, which was a mortal threat to capitalism, was the key factor.
During the cold war, capitalism had to provide comfort and progress to people, or people would have turn communist. And so it did. Until it basically won in the 70s.
The idea that society needs war or competition incentive to do anything is the dumbest liberal mind fuck of today. It's completely wrong, but it goes with the ideology that dominates.