Here is some food for thought.
About 50-55 million civilians and military died during WWII due to direct military conflict (many more died from famine and disease) The current population of the world is about 7.8 billion at this time. If everyone was infected and we presume the death rate to be 0.7 percent (which is lower than current estimates) about 54,600,000 people will die or basically the number of military conflict deaths from WWII.
Now, let’s say that you had the ability to
offer all the people who lived through that time the opportunity to stop the war after the invasion of Poland and avoid the war altogether. They would in essence save nearly all those 54,600,000 lives. The trade off is that they would have to shut down the world economy for at least 3-4 months. People would have to shelter in place during that time as well. They would have to endure 5-6 years of rebuilding their economy from the devastation of 3-4 months of a total economic shut down. To make this simply about the lives lost and not about the subsequent destruction during WWII, any destruction and looting that occurred would still take place as well but it would just take place over 3-4 months instead of over 6 years.
Which would they vote for? Which would you vote for? Any people on this forum live through WWII or serve during that time? Which would you pick? Would you vote for economic destruction to save 54,000,000 lives or just let history run its course?