The Holocaust was a Bad Thing

1. Re: Re: 'MURICA!The broken window fallacy assumes that nothing has been done to help the depression after the depression started. That, as we know, isn't true since Roosevelt implemented a plethora of organizations and acts to help the victims of the depression. However, Roosevelt's New Deal didn't work effectively and only helped with those who needed emergency relief. What stimulated the economy in the end was the mass production of World War II. Thus, if Roosevelt hadn't gone ino war, his New Deal would continually not work.I agree that some spending tradeoff happened because of WWII as said in your link. However, what came out of it far outweighed the harms. The 50s and 60s saw unprecedented growth for the United States, growth which is key to a strong hegemon. From 1940-1950, the average wage of workers doubled. From 1950-1960, the wage doubled AGAIN!* That would be incredible if it happened today. This growth would not have been caused by the New Deal. Thus, it was imperative that America went to WWII to stimulate the economy.2. Re: Re: Prevention Against GenocideAs I said, it might not have decreased the amount of genocides that happened in the past 70 years. Holocaust is the most notable genocide because of its awareness that it caused after it happened. Children are being taught in school the eight stages of genocide, and what is the primary example that teachers use? The Holocaust. It serves as an epitome of what not to happen, and it's atrocities generated awareness to stop future ones.3. Re: Re: Slows OverpopulationIt doesn't matter if food is produced at the highest rate per capita right now. If it did, why are billions of people still facing starvations? It's because of the unequal distribution of food. The terminal impact would be worldwide starvation with only a slim fraction of the people in the world enjoying the daily nourishment of food. By slowing population growth, we can postpone this inevitability. "I will also run on this sources logic that when a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more valuable. If that were to mean a human survival decline, the Birth Rate would also decline."If that logic is true, why are the countries with the scarcest food source ALSO the countries with the HIGHEST birth rates? Of the top 30 countries with the highest birth rates, 29 of which are in Africa.** This obviously show a discorrelation between food scarcity and birth rate.4. Re: Millions of Innocent People DiedMillions of people who weren't tried for any of their crimes died. Innocent people and people who weren't given a trial aren't the same. So there is a remote possibility that all the victims of the Holocaust committed crimes before. Just suggesting...*The American Pageant, 13th Edition, by Kennedy, Cohen, and Bailey, pg. 854 (I'm an APUSH student)**https://www.cia.gov...;So to recapitulate, Pro's fallacy was fallacious itself. The money that would've been used to help the economy would be wasted like the majority of the New Deal, and only the war's massive stimulus could bring America out of the depression. The Holocaust brought reforms within the classrooms, educating kids about the atrocities of genocide, grassroots style. Overpopulation is caused the unequal distribution of food, not the shortage of food itself. And lastly, there is no proof that all the victims of the Holocaust were all lawfully "innocent".