What I would like to do is write a short “what if” on the subject of Pope Pius XII and what condemnation from the Vatican might have done for the Jews of Europe during World War 2.
What I find is it is very heavily written upon already. Most of the time with the same result: The Pope was probably right in staying quiet. That is if the right thing is to be seen as reducing loss of life (at least where genocide is concerned). If the right thing is simply, “damn the torpedo’s full speed ahead” on the subject of speaking against great wrongs regardless of the consequences, than we can arrive at a very different conclusion.
Again, it’s been written on by damned near everyone and honestly lies outside of what I consider to be my extensive historical knowledge.
Instead I’m going to pen something on “the dark ages” a what if on the subject of whether they could have been prevented. Although the dark ages weren’t really all that dark and even if they were it isn’t religion that caused them to be so. (to shout down two popular and ill founded constructs.)
I’m working on it, and I wanted to make this post so as not to have to give a justification at beginning of the blessed thing when I finish. The trouble with modern history is it is just too… modern. It’s impossible to write on, for example, the latest President Bush. It’s typically the rule of thumb to allow at least one, if not two, generations to pass before really trying to digest a historical happening. We should just now be writing on the long term effects of the Vietnam war, not on George Bush’s “legacy”. It’s simply historical malpractice to do so.