>
The context of this discussion is my claimYour claim is made in the context of reality.
Regardless of your claim or any of the objections to it, what happened in the 1920s happened. In principle, there's an answer to the question: "why did this transition happen?", and the goal of a conversation like this is to try to get closer to the truth. In practice, it's often hard to actually get solid answers without diving deep into the historical record, and rarely will there ever be a single traceable driving force or solitary "this is the reason".
You seem to be constraining the reasons you're willing to entertain to fit your opinions instead of finding the evidence to back them, and that's what I keep pushing back against.
The GP pointed out that there are indeed documented reasons for the transition that have nothing to do with timetables. So far, that's the only form of evidence that's been offered for any of the perspectives shared here. Simply restating your opinion and demanding the same kind of evidence that you have not yourself yet supplied is not sufficient.
> You're claiming that this is refuted by the Wikipedia article
I'm not (to be fair, it's possible that the GP was, but I don't know). I was reacting to this:
> I don't see anything to support this claim from the link you provide.
Bottom line: you wrote the article and made major claims about the nature of tech. The burden of proof is on you to justify those claims. Categorically rejecting actual evidence that may have explanatory value while offering no evidence of your own is making it increasingly difficult to take the position seriously.
The reality is probably some combination of all of the above: the newer designs kill less people, are more efficient, and satisfied a growing cultural discomfort with the perceived danger. The outcome of this combination is not purely good, or purely bad. It is neither oppressive nor perfectly beneficial.