Mandela-effect part II

Kimmo Huosionmaa

I started to think about "Mandela effect" more carefully, and sometimes I feel, that there are some problems in the world. Sometimes I have heard people that they really have felt, that some books are different each time when they are opened. Sometimes we might feel that there are missing or empty pages in some books or texts in the book might change while reading it. Maybe it's only psychology or the reader is just tired. There might be some errors in the printed books, and maybe those people have just taken the individual book, where are errors in printing. But then we might think there might be something else behind those things.

The "Mandela-effect" is the term, that means that something would be changed in history backward. And that changing have done by time-travelers. In this theory, the key element is that somebody is modifying the time and society by changing the results of battles and other things in history. We actually don't have evidence about time traveling, but it's is very fascinating to think, what would happen, if Napoleon had been won the battle of Waterloo or Joseph Stalin would be more popular, and commanders dare to tell him the errors in the battleplan? What would happen to Finland, if Stalin were not executed the most qualified commanders of Red Army just before the Winter War?

And what would happen if Hitler would be more flexible commander and stopped the persecutions for wartime? He could have more men for fronts and that could cause more losses for allies. Would the world be different than we know that? So would you believe, that there were many things, what gave luck for nations like Finland? Too many things were done wrong before the Second World war began. And those things like the persecution of Jews and political enemies in Germany and the Soviet Union caused that there were fewer men and qualified officers what were needed.

And of course, what would happen, if Russia were smaller, and there were no prison camps in Siberia? In those camps were born two revolutions in that country. The first was the 1917 revolution and the second was the 1992 revolution. There were the same reasons for those things. Fear of the secret police drove people to streets. But what if the Tsar or Stalin would visit in those camps and care about those persons, would the history be different. When we are thinking about the shootings of Sarajevo in 1914, would the police actions against political opposition like socialists and suffragists, the feminist movement, what wanted the right to vote and similar rights for women and men be crushed by police if the interests would not be turned to the Great War?

The suffragists had an influence on the society because the way how police acted against those women opened eyes of the people. The political opposition is a very needful thing in the democracy. The purpose of it is to cause discussions in the parliaments and make the political leaders see every part of the laws, what they make. If some law is causing the tolerance about the rule of the man in the police that would cause fear.

And the government should be the thing, what gives protection and safety for people. Fear is the thing, what causes the threat, and fear is the thing, what caused that Spengtsporten and Armfelt changed their side in 1809, and the Swedish army left without two important commanders in the critical time. They fear that the king of Sweden would executed them because they caused disappointment for him. Fear made the people stay around the parliament house in Russia 1992. They afraid that the secret police would arrest them.

But if those people would shoot the KGB troops the result would be different. Violence would give the army the reason to shoot those people. The reason why those troops were not used weapons were fear, that they were executed in some prison because that would make the guilty of murder. And that was the way, what would bring the popularity for Janajev because it worked in the case of Stalin. Stalin gave convictions and executed men, who followed his orders.  The way to democracy is long and it's full of tragedies.  Many times revolutions have eaten their children. The rulers of the nation have changed to another. When somebody says that dictatorial or hierarchical system is better and we must turn in the militaristic and authoritarian system, we must ask politely, what is the proposer's own position in that system.

And it's not easy. It goes to via the far wing radicalism and communism to the real democracy, what is not the synonym for populism and agitation. Freedom of speech doesn't mean, that people have the right to break the laws or harm other personal property. Or deliver some health information of the persons, who they don't like. Every government in the world is an authority. That makes safe for the people and protects the rights of the weaker side.