What if Josef Stalin had been a healthy, big strapping man, instead of five foot three, with a crippled left arm?

One of the aspects of Josef's Stalin's life and career that I think is underemphasized, is that he was a very small man, and, from childhood, somewhat crippled. His left arm had been badly mangled when he was a boy, and he never recovered the full use of it. And, with a drunken father who had deserted the family, how on earth did this young man even manage to survive? These days, many comparisons are being made between Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Putin. Actually, Putin had a relatively easy time of it compared to Stalin -- he was bigger, healthier, and he had both his parents. He was poor, but, his major problem was merely bullying from other children, so he became a tough street fighter. Stalin never had that option, he had only one good arm, and he was too small to really fight, anyway. As for Hitler, he was rather well off until his father died, then lived pretty well off his mother's pension. With his mother's death, his situation worsened, and he had to scrape by a very bare living as a not particularly brilliant painter. Still, what really toughened Hitler up was spending 1914-1918 in the trenches on the Western Front, dodging death as a messenger, and winning the Iron Cross First Class in the process. Stalin never faced this level of constant danger, but, perhaps that's why Stalin didn't have Hitler's sense of invulnerability and manifest destiny. Stalin had a pretty good education as a teenager in a seminary, as a teenager, until he was expelled for communist tendencies and insubordination. After that, how does a tiny, impoverished, crippled man survive in Tsarist Russia? On his wits! Stalin developed a genius for reading people and situations, and manipulating them to his advantage. He survived and triumphed on the streets, in prisons, in armed conflict, and in every other situation. He could be seen as a criminal, a revolutionary, an opportunist, but, never a fool! So, what if Stalin had been a healthy, strapping young man? He wouldn't have been Stalin, he would have never needed to develop the incredible social skills he possessed, and world history would be a lot different.

What if Germany had pursued massive, unrestricted submarine warfare from the very start of WWI?

The Kaiser’s Germany wasn’t a bad country at all really, possibly superior to supposedly democratic France, Britain and the U.S. If Germany had fully realized how vulnerable Britain was to starvation by blockade from U-boats, and if Britain hadn’t anticipated this very quickly, massive production of U-boats and totally unrestricted submarine warfare could literally have starved Britain out by siege within six months! It would have been a rightful retribution for the Irish Hunger in the 1840’s, when Capitalist exploitation of Irish farmland by the British starved half the population of Ireland to death. The British were using most of their farmland for sheep fodder, which was more profitable than growing food, and the British were importing their food from Canada and Australia, quite cheaply. U-boats could have almost wiped out the British population by starvation, if employed in large numbers and without mercy to merchant shipping. Britain is knocked out of the war early, France is overrun, Russia sues for peace. It should be noted that the British had learned their lesson by WWII, since by this time, they were using their farmland to grow the perfect diet — potatoes, brussels sprouts and spinach! That’s one of the big reasons the Nazis lost the battle of Britain!

Why don't they register all cell phones, and have them all regularly inspected by the police for kiddie porn, if they really want to solve this problem?

Personally, I'm rather tired of hearing about kiddie porn, but, I agree it's a problem. Why not simply have the police register all cell phones like they register handguns, and have them regularly inspected for kiddie porn? Surely, this would largely eliminate this problem. I suppose the perverts could simply use computers, and one could register these, as well. But, if kiddie porn is really as big a problem as the authorities say it is, and, if only truly dangerous perverts have this material on their cell phones, well, why not just shut this down? Of course, if the intention is just to intimidate, frighten and control the population as a whole, and if the vast majority of people actually have unwittingly downloaded kiddie porn from any number of apparently harmless sites without knowing it, then, I suppose that wouldn't work very well, would it?

What proportion of the population has child pornography on their cell phones, or their computers?

You couldn't possibly do a scientific study of this. Who would be fool enough to volunteer for it? There's no way of knowing for sure, one way or another, if somehow child pornography has been put on your cell phone. A hacker could have put it their maliciously. You could download it yourself, if you were a pedophile and a criminal. You might be looking at adult pornography, and child pornography might be downloaded to your computer in hopes of broadening your interests , and your value as a customer, without your knowing it. You could download something from any site at all -- a news site, a science site, a dating site -- and it could have some child pornography in it, without you having any idea at all, about it. So, with punishments for child pornography leaning towards the levels for murder, currently, how can anyone know if they might not be seen as a major criminal? True, "probable cause" is necessary before police can access your cell phone, or your computer. There must be some formal complaints or accusations, before you could be a suspect. Still, it would be rather easy to set absolutely anyone up for this particular kind of serious crime, wouldn't it? And, how do you prove your innocence, if you were set up?

Mother-River, River-Daughter

Orchards in Bloom, Shading the misty river, Mother river, river daughter, By the river bank she comes. Out she comes and sings her song, The grey eagle of the plains, The one she loved, His letters clasped To her bosom. Your song, her song, You fly to the setting sun, To the poor soldier, on the distant border, Mother river, river daughter, Joy in her song! He remembers the river daughter, He hears her simple song, He defends our Mother River, The River Daughter loves forever!

What if Hitler had been promoted to the rank of Captain during WWI?

Adolf Hitler was a well-educated, articulate, well read and likeable young man, who served with distinction for four years in the trenches of WWI for the German infantry. Why, exactly, did he never progress beyond the rank of corporal? I believe the reason for this is that Hitler was deemed indispensable as a messenger, and being a messenger was such a high-risk job, that soldiers beyond the rank of corporal were deemed too valuable to be risked as messengers. So, Adolf Hitler, who seemed to lead a kind of charmed life and be effectively indestructible, was seen as the perfect messenger and was never promoted to sergeant, or beyond. Why promote him? Nevertheless, I do think it is perfectly possible that Hitler might have been promoted at some point. And, if he ever had been, he might have risen rather rapidly in the ranks, perhaps as high as the rank of captain, by the end of the war. If this had been the case, Hitler would have had experience of strategy and tactics in warfare that he never really had until the second world war, as the Fuhrer of Germany. Hitler would also have been immediately qualified, as a distinguished German military officer, for positions of considerable administrative authority in Germany at war's end. So, his post WWI career is likely to be quite different than what it actually was, OTL. He may never do much public speaking at all, being busy with administrative activities. He might end up as a successful civil servant, just like his father was. Or, if Hitler does indeed pursue public speaking and politics, despite his higher rank, he may have a more realistic appreciation of his limitations, and of tactics and strategy, from his experience of actually leading men in the field, something he never actually had OTL. Hitler's willingness to take on the British Empire, the USSR and the USA all at once OTL, despite the fact that Nazi Germany was quite incapable of defeating any of them individually, probably stems to some extent from his near total ignorance of even the most basic principles of tactics and strategy, which even a year or two's experience leading men in the field of battle in WWI as an officer would certainly have given him some smattering of. If he had become a politician, I suspect Hitler would have been a more pragmatic one under these circumstances, and much less of a risk-taker and a revolutionary. Hitler is generally considered to be the essence of evil in most of the world these days, but, actually, until he fought in WWI, he was just a likeable eccentric. His life course represented an unusual combination of talent, ignorance, and astonishingly good luck. It is amazing that he survived WWI physically unscathed, in his first action of the war he was the only one of six hundred infantrymen to survive. And he pursued suicide missions throughout the entire war. So, he developed incredible self-confidence, and, a sense of mission. Nevertheless, he was not a self-aware person, and his life experiences were limited. So, he had no sense whatsoever of his own limitations. Was Hitler "evil", or, was he just ignorant? So, supposing Hitler had been promoted to captain during WWI? What would his subsequent career have been like?

Could the South have won the U.S. Civil war

Definitely, yes. They had enormous resources and territory, and a substantial population. The problem is, their objectives were actually very confused. If all they’d really wanted was to be left alone, however, they definitely could have made it very much worth the North’s while to leave them alone. The best approach to this probably would have been not to formally secede, at all, but, simply become less and less cooperative with the federal government, and with the Northern States, in general. And, eventually, escalate to chronic guerrilla warfare throughout the South, so as to make it inconvenient and expensive for the North and the federal government to maintain a presence there. Eventually, the Union would simply have dissolved spontaneously, by mutual accord. It would have been an amicable divorce. However, what the South really wanted, was to take over the North, and, ultimately, the entire world. As a result of the immensely successful Mexican-American War, largely prosecuted by Southerners, the South had developed a bit of a God complex. They saw all Northerners as inferior to them, and, hence, suitable to be their slaves. Naturally, the Northern population was less than enthusiastic about this prospect! It had become clear to the North that it would be impossible live in peace with the South, because of the Southerners' delusions of grandeur. So, they accepted the need to go to war, to get the South back into line. Really, that's what the U.S. Civil war was all about. Not slavery, not preserving the Union, but, simply bringing the over-aggressive and self-aggrandizing Southerners back into line.

What if the horse had never existed?

Today, horses are considered something of an anachronism, hearkening back to a time when they represented the most important mode of transportation known to man, for a period of thousands of years. Today, horses are merely very expensive pets of the rich, a form of rather dangerous entertainment for those who have nothing else to do with their time and money. But, in the past, horses were a terrific symbol of power and freedom, a means of quadrupling speed for transport of all types. They were essential for transportation, farming, industry, commerce and warfare. They formed the basis for the development of all important civilizations and societies throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. However, in North America, horses went extinct over ten thousand years ago. They were only reintroduced by European colonists, particularly the Spaniards, in the sixteenth century. There are two important and interesting coincidences here. First of all, the wheel was invented just about the same time that horses became domesticated in Europe, Asia and Mesopotamia. Secondly, the wheel was never invented at all in the Western Hemisphere, at least for any practical applications, where horses did not exist, because they had become extinct in paleolithic times. So, it appears possible, that the horse is actually an essential reason for the invention of the wheel, because without the horse, there is nothing strong enough and fast enough to pull vehicles on wheels, at high speed, for any significant distance. In other words, no horses, no wheels. And, without wheels, virtually all mechanisms of industrial society cease to exist. So, no horses, no wheels, no modern civilization. We're effectively stuck at the level of the Aztecs and the Incas. Thoughts?

In Texas, Governor Abbott is threatening undocumented immigrants by giving them a gun, and asking them to shoot him

Governor Abbott has just signed legislation criminalizing undocumented immigrants who are in Texas, making this crime a misdemeanor, and making it a felony if they refuse voluntarily to return to Mexico. Supposedly, this is to correct the failure of the federal government to control the situation of immigrants streaming across the Texas-Mexico border. The problem is, from the standpoint of the governor, that all the millions of undocumented immigrants in Texas have to do to bankrupt and shut down the state of Texas, is all turn themselves in simultaneously, and refuse to return to Mexico. Since it costs fifty thousand dollars a year to incarcerate prison inmates, we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars a year that the Texas Governor has just put his state on the hook for. This makes one wonder if the Texas governor is, in fact, a direct descendent of Bud Abbott, of the Abbott and Costello comedy team. Of course, Bud Abbott was the straight man, he wasn't supposed to give the punch line! Now, there are indeed ways to slow down the number of undocumented immigrants to a trickle, although not entirely, even along such a long border as Texas has with Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of heavily armed troops, with orders to shoot to kill, mines along the border, etc., these would indeed work wonders. The Russians found the Berlin Wall worked pretty well, most of the time, anyway. And, currently, the Israelis aren't bad, much of the time, anyway, in controlling the Palestinians. Problem is, it's terribly expensive, and it creates a state of war between you and your neighbors, in this case, Mexico. In Europe, I believe they really would like to limit the number of Muslim immigrants they're getting from Africa and the Middle East, but, they're finding it very hard to do. So, in the U.S., we resort to joke laws intended to create the misimpression that the government is actually doing something, when, actually, they're not doing anything at all, other than causing problems and costing money. Texas is also very proud of its "secure" locations for producing so-called "Real ID" -- making it impossible for citizens to pick up their driver's licenses by producing them at inaccessible locations from which they are mailed. Obviously, this has no security function whatsoever, it's merely inconvenient and inefficient -- what the bureaucrats call "win-win"! And, in Texas, we can see precisely how effective this is in reducing undocumented immigration! Of course, the more of a mess they make, the more they claim this justifies messing things up even further. Take Homeland Security at airports -- please! Now the events of September 11, 2001 were quite specifically caused by FAA policies at the time, for pilots to always cooperate with hijackers, because there's no way a few men armed with box cutters could have overwhelmed hundreds of passengers. The passengers and pilots were being told by the FAA to cooperate with the 911 terrorists, and that's the only reason the twin towers went down. Now, having messed up completely, Homeland Security has now used this excuse to grope pretty females at airports on a regular basis, for reasons of "security". Nice work if you can get it!

What was the best time in history to live?

Probably about 1955, in the United States, for an adult white male. You had opportunities, there was plenty of money around, the crime rate was low, there was plenty of government social support if you needed it, you had freedom, there were no major wars in play, the population was still only about 160 million in the U.S., so plenty of open spaces still. Science and technology had made spectacular strides in the previous 70 years, so, most of the important technologies we have now, they already had then. Computers and cell phones are overrated. Television, telephones, a good mail service, and good libraries are perfectly adequate for information technology purposes. Life expectancy wasn’t much less than it is now. You had to watch out for the psychiatrists and the mental hospitals though! You could be institutionalized for life on rather modest grounds, if the shrinks decided you were “mentally ill”, for some reason or other. I think that’s why people saw “analysts” — psychotherapists. You were paying someone to say you were sane, and shouldn’t be institutionalized, so their colleagues couldn’t institutionalize you without risking their own licenses to practice.

You have to understand that Israel and Hamas are deeply in love

Yet each man kills the thing he loves, By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! Oscar Wilde For thousands of years Jews and Arabs have competed for power in the Middle East. Obviously, this is a relationship of very long standing. And, obviously these two groups have much in common. The course of true love rarely runs smooth, so they say, and, so it is with Israel and Hamas. True Hamas has tortured and killed many Israelis, and for this, Israel is bombing and exterminating much of the population of Gaza. Of course, the Israelis have been oppressing and killing the population of Gaza since Israel was founded, in 1948, so, it's not as if Hamas started all this. Of course, the Arabs were attempting to drive the Jews trying to colonize Palestine out of the region once it became clear precisely what the Jews had in mind. What a relationship! Still, I don't think it would be accurate to say that the Jews really do want to kill all the Arabs, or that the Arabs really do want to kill all the Jews. I think it would be more accurate to say that each side is seeking to dominate the other on its own terms, and that these terms are by no means ever mutually acceptable. Rather like a typical marriage, don't you think? I remember a joke I read in a 1940 joke book once: "After they were married, he brought her to their first new home, and he said 'Honey, here's a little world all our own.' And, they've been fighting for the world's championship, ever since." The fact is, Israel and Hamas have a lot of respect for each other. Both sides recognize that the other is tough, creative and effective. They like to learn from each other, and compete with each other. But, from time to time, as the competition escalates and gets out of hand, they tend to be inclined to kill and destroy each other. Just like in any extremely close and intimate relationship. So, from time to time, it's necessary for the international community to say to Israel and Hamas -- "Hey, time out! Lighten up a bit, guys! Stop killing each other." And, that's exactly what's happening, right now. But, not to worry. These two lovers do actually know how to get along, very well indeed. They just have to be reminded of that, from time to time, like any true lovers do.