Here is a wonderful (if I don't say so myself) What-If scenario that I cooked up for a What-If website that I used to visit. It shows how closely we came to having a much different world today. It could ha e been a world with a totally Nazi Europe, a totally Communist Asia, and an America partitioned between the two. I call it the Wally/Wallace scenario. Here it is, in three parts:
Case one (Wallace): When Franklin Roosevelt was about to enter his fourth term, he dropped Henry Wallace, his VP, from the ticket because he was a Communist. There is some doubt as to whether he was an actual card-carrying Communist, but there is no doubt that's where his loyalties lay. Now, Vice-Presidents often make out a list of men they would make cabinet ministers should they become president suddenly and Wallace made such a list. He was so pro-Soviet that his list included only seriously pro-Soviet people, and two actual card-carrying Communists, members of the CPUSA. One was later fingered as being involved some real Soviet espionage. Anyway, on outside advice, FDR dumped Wallace and picked Harry Truman. But was a very near thing. So that's how close America came to having a totally pro-Soviet Presidency.
Imagine what the outcome of Yalta would have been if we had two Communists, Wallace representing the West, and Stalin representing the East, carving up Europe, not that it wasn't pretty one-sided as it was. OK, now keep Wallace in mind while I describe the other near miss:
Case Two (Wally): In 1936, the King of England was Edward VIII. He was a very pro-Nazi, especially pro-Hitler personally. Then along came Wally Simpson. Then Edward VIII, while king, fell in love with her, and as everyone knew then, Edward abdicated in favor of marrying Wally Simpson. So this second What-If-Scenario says that if it weren't for Wally Simpson, England would have had a very pro-Hitler King, all throughout the war, and well beyond.
Case End: So you can see, both events almost came true. I mean, it was a VERY near thing. And both events were probably decided in only a few hours, FDR deciding to drop Wallace, and Edward VIII falling in love with Wally Simpson.
So what could have happened if these two things happened as I've described? Simply that America would have entered WWII with a very pro-Soviet President, and England would have entered WWII against Germany with a very pro-Nazi King. And how would that have made a difference?
America was strongly isolationist then and against entering the new war, or any other war, for that matter. We had no heart for it, nor did most Americans want to bail Europe out of yet another mess, not after 1918 anyway. Pearl Harbor changed that in a hurry, of course, but we could easily have taken on a one front war against Japan alone if we chose. After all, that option would clearly have been highest in our own near-term self-interest.
Only through Roosevelt's personal opinion and persistence did we help England at all, and so on England's behalf, FDR violated our Neutrality Act repeatedly. Under another president, our crucial help to England would simply not have existed at all. Certainly Wallace would not have wanted to, nor could he have convinced the Congress to help England, for which there was still a great deal of hostility as most Americans traditionally hated all colonial powers and European involvement again in particular.
What Wallace would have done would have been to help the USSR with the same passion and degree that Roosevelt helped England. His loyalties blurred from the start, common among Leftists, he would have helped Russia even to the extent of depleting America's readiness for war.
With a pro-Nazi King, England would not have intervened after Hitler's conquest of Poland, but instead would have agreed to the next Hitler-ultimatum, and the next, and the next. Seeing as how in the early days, the victors of WWII could have gone either way but for a little luck this way or that, Hitler would probably have won the war. As it was, it was a near thing in a lot of ways, but more about that later.
So What-If events would have left a Nazi England, a very strong Nazi Europe, a demoralized and weak America, and a vastly strengthened and determined USSR. The world would have separated into two blocs, Communist and Nazi. More disturbed by European entanglements than ever, America would have retreated back into our traditional isolationism. Not that that would have helped us. After all, with such a huge prize awaiting them, and with very strong standing armies and nothing better to do with them, America would soon be attacked again and be fighting a four front war, which we would lose. America would then be divided up into zones, just like postwar Germany was.
So, there is not only a chance, but a good chance, that if it weren't for those two seemingly small decisions, the Wally/Wallace events, this is how the world would look today.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Origin of Varieties? - Part Two
Darwin laid down a superb basis for understanding "The Origin of Species", but it that's all it was, only a basis. All of his proofs described only the origin of variations, and in this his contribution to science was great.
Now it is very rare indeed when a scientist can do that, when a scientist publishes a new paper proving the existence of a new basis for many heretofore unrelated facts. But that's what Darwin did, and he did so brilliantly. It is also a tradition for a scientist, once having laid down the basis, to take a great leap of faith to see the next step, which he hopes is just over the horizon. And that's what Darwin did when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species".
That title alone is the great leap of faith, for all of Darwin's work went to presenting and then proving, "The Origin of Varieties", but he didn't say that. The fact that living things vary is a very convincing idea because any ordinary man can see it happening right before his eyes. But to take the fact that variation occurs within a species, and then to use that as a springboard from which to suggest that such variation can create new species is a great leap of faith, but a leap to which Darwin was entitled. Since most scientists know the difference between facts and theories, the misinterpretation of Darwin's work didn't come from that quarter. The complications came when people who do not know the difference between fact and theory, mixed up the two, often for private and political motivations. Theories seldom stand for very long. Consider the history of science:
Like Darwin, many other great scientists in the past have created brilliant new ways to look at old facts, and then put forth brilliant theories based upon that new understanding of those old facts. But, as brilliant as they were, most new theories turn out to be wrong in the long run. History abounds with examples:
When it was believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, and when findings of fact controverting this view began to appear, the greatest scientist of the day created one of the most brilliant feats of mathematics of all time, explaining away the controverting data, "proving" again that the earth was still the center of the solar system. That great mathematician was Ptolemy and it was left to Copernicus 1,400 years later to prove Ptolemy wrong.
Probably the greatest physicist of all time created a way to calculate the way objects move. His theory of mechanics did explain everything mankind could measure then. But as time passed, it was found out that his terrestrial mechanics just wouldn't work when applied to outer space. There the matter rested for 200 years, until another brilliant scientist created celestial mechanics, yet another theory, which filled in the gap and let science progress still further. The first scientist in this example was Isaac Newton, and the next scientist was Albert Einstein.
And so it will be with Darwin. His facts will always stand, but the great leap of faith he made by applying the origin of varieties to the origin of species, will certainly not stand. I say "certainly" because thousands of other scientists, in the 150 years since Darwin, have tried to discover proof of Darwin's leap of faith, and all have failed. In this sense, repeated failure is proof, although certainly a weak proof, that the opposite claim is true, that species do not vary.
Indeed, even Darwin himself hedged on this point. While not generally known, the full title of Darwin's main work, the work for which he is so famous, includes a hedge. His true and full title it this: "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". So while Darwin boldly implies that species vary in the first part of his title, the last part of his title concerns only the survival of "races", and races, as we all know, are not species at all but are varieties.
Now it is very rare indeed when a scientist can do that, when a scientist publishes a new paper proving the existence of a new basis for many heretofore unrelated facts. But that's what Darwin did, and he did so brilliantly. It is also a tradition for a scientist, once having laid down the basis, to take a great leap of faith to see the next step, which he hopes is just over the horizon. And that's what Darwin did when he entitled his work, "The Origin of Species".
That title alone is the great leap of faith, for all of Darwin's work went to presenting and then proving, "The Origin of Varieties", but he didn't say that. The fact that living things vary is a very convincing idea because any ordinary man can see it happening right before his eyes. But to take the fact that variation occurs within a species, and then to use that as a springboard from which to suggest that such variation can create new species is a great leap of faith, but a leap to which Darwin was entitled. Since most scientists know the difference between facts and theories, the misinterpretation of Darwin's work didn't come from that quarter. The complications came when people who do not know the difference between fact and theory, mixed up the two, often for private and political motivations. Theories seldom stand for very long. Consider the history of science:
Like Darwin, many other great scientists in the past have created brilliant new ways to look at old facts, and then put forth brilliant theories based upon that new understanding of those old facts. But, as brilliant as they were, most new theories turn out to be wrong in the long run. History abounds with examples:
When it was believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system, and when findings of fact controverting this view began to appear, the greatest scientist of the day created one of the most brilliant feats of mathematics of all time, explaining away the controverting data, "proving" again that the earth was still the center of the solar system. That great mathematician was Ptolemy and it was left to Copernicus 1,400 years later to prove Ptolemy wrong.
Probably the greatest physicist of all time created a way to calculate the way objects move. His theory of mechanics did explain everything mankind could measure then. But as time passed, it was found out that his terrestrial mechanics just wouldn't work when applied to outer space. There the matter rested for 200 years, until another brilliant scientist created celestial mechanics, yet another theory, which filled in the gap and let science progress still further. The first scientist in this example was Isaac Newton, and the next scientist was Albert Einstein.
And so it will be with Darwin. His facts will always stand, but the great leap of faith he made by applying the origin of varieties to the origin of species, will certainly not stand. I say "certainly" because thousands of other scientists, in the 150 years since Darwin, have tried to discover proof of Darwin's leap of faith, and all have failed. In this sense, repeated failure is proof, although certainly a weak proof, that the opposite claim is true, that species do not vary.
Indeed, even Darwin himself hedged on this point. While not generally known, the full title of Darwin's main work, the work for which he is so famous, includes a hedge. His true and full title it this: "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". So while Darwin boldly implies that species vary in the first part of his title, the last part of his title concerns only the survival of "races", and races, as we all know, are not species at all but are varieties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)