If you could change one event in history, which would it be?

Posts: 9707

Joined: 31 Mar 2010

Good afternoon fellow Escapists. I have travelled long and far, from the orphan-tear-stained halls of the Injustice League through the wastes of Off-Topic to reach this land and ask you a simple question: if you could change one event in history, which would it be?

Let me give some context. One day you are playing your favourite video game alone when suddenly a mischievous-looking trickster god appears in front of you. Somehow he has power over all of time and space and he offers you the one time only chance to change one historical event in any way imaginable. There are few ground rules however:

• You can choose any single significant event in the past, there is no time or space limit on how long that event took.
• The event however must be of some political, religious or other historical significance. You can’t change the past so you won the lottery last week, for example.
• If you refuse to choose one, the trickster god will pick for you and may pick something very bad for you, so be warned.
• Whatever you pick, you and everyone you know will still exist to avoid any paradoxes but people’s jobs, political views, religion, lifestyle etc may change.
• You will remember everything that changed but no-one else will.
• There is no reversing the change once it is done!

Posts: 228

Joined: 24 Oct 2011

The most large scale changes possible? No World War 1 and World War 2, the Bolshevik Revolution would have been different if happened at all, the Great Depression would have altered. The Red Scare and Cold War? Not possible without a Communist Regime in the USSR.

So much history that could change if one guy and his wife did not die.

I don’t think stopping the Archduke’s assassination would have prevented World War I. By that point, it was only a matter of time before full scale war would engulf Europe. Tensions between Britain and Germany were high as Germany was trying to challenge British naval dominance, and there was a massive naval arms race going on between those two countries. Germany’s only war plan involved invading France through Belgium and taking Paris within 6 weeks before the Russians could mobilize and attack from the east, even if France did not take any aggressive actions against Germany. The Austro-Hungarian empire was also falling apart due to internal ethnic tensions, and the only way the Austrian leadership could suppress those issues was by making everyone focus on an external threat eg. Russians or Serbians. If the Archduke wasn’t assassinated, something else would have sparked the war, if not in 1914, then probably sometime later in the decade.

World War II in Europe anyway, could have been avoided if the victorious allies in WWI were a lot less harsh on the Germans, and didn’t demand massive reparations. A big part of how the Nazis came to power were economic problems caused by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, combined with the national humiliation of Germany’s new political leadership accepting such harsh terms when German soil had not been invaded by allied forces. That lead to the whole ‘stab in the back’ myth that was a big part of the Nazi narrative, namely that Germany was defeated because leftist politicians and of course, the Jews sabotaged German interests in 1918-1919 with the armistice and Treaty of Versailles.

Posts: 254

Joined: 27 Jul 2011

LordOfInsanity:
What would I change? The assassination of the Arch Duke of Austria Franz Ferdinand. Either by getting him to his destination with the correct route or stopping the shooter before Franz Ferdinand and his wife entered that alleyway. Seriously, that would have caused large wide spread changes throughout Europe and the past century of history changed because of that.

The most large scale changes possible? No World War 1 and World War 2, the Bolshevik Revolution would have been different if happened at all, the Great Depression would have altered. The Red Scare and Cold War? Not possible without a Communist Regime in the USSR.

So much history that could change if one guy and his wife did not die.

I don’t think stopping the Archduke’s assassination would have prevented World War I. By that point, it was only a matter of time before full scale war would engulf Europe. Tensions between Britain and Germany were high as Germany was trying to challenge British naval dominance, and there was a massive naval arms race going on between those two countries. Germany’s only war plan involved invading France through Belgium and taking Paris within 6 weeks before the Russians could mobilize and attack from the east, even if France did not take any aggressive actions against Germany. The Austro-Hungarian empire was also falling apart due to internal ethnic tensions, and the only way the Austrian leadership could suppress those issues was by making everyone focus on an external threat eg. Russians or Serbians. If the Archduke wasn’t assassinated, something else would have sparked the war, if not in 1914, then probably sometime later in the decade.

World War II in Europe anyway, could have been avoided if the victorious allies in WWI were a lot less harsh on the Germans, and didn’t demand massive reparations. A big part of how the Nazis came to power were economic problems caused by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, combined with the national humiliation of Germany’s new political leadership accepting such harsh terms when German soil had not been invaded by allied forces. That lead to the whole ‘stab in the back’ myth that was a big part of the Nazi narrative, namely that Germany was defeated because leftist politicians and of course, the Jews sabotaged German interests in 1918-1919 with the armistice and Treaty of Versailles.

This is an easy one, and LordOfInsanity got it exactly right. The assassination of the Arch Duke of Austria Franz Ferdinand is easily the most single important event in modern history. That one event led to perhaps as a many as 100 million deaths. Was it inevitable? Would it have happened anyway because of Germany’s desire for dominance in Europe during the turn of the last century? Perhaps, who is to say. But no one can question the significance of that one event on modern history.

Posts: 3092

Joined: 12 Apr 2011

Before his death threw a lugwrench into the works, King’s movement was on a path to do far more for our society than ending institutional racism (not to imply that that was not an incredibly significant contribution in and of itself). His movement held a much higher commitment to the ideals that the rest of society claimed to follow than those in power, and to be frank the difference was obvious to anyone not too blinded to judge fairly. This was occurring at a time when his opponents were heavily involved in a very nasty set of scandals, some of which were just coming into light, others that would not be discovered until later. Enron, Tyco, and Watergate to name a few.

Much as with what occurred with the recently departed Nelson Mandela, although I suspect to a greater degree, one of the more likely possible outcomes would have been a significant “changing of the guard”. New leadership, new management, and a renewed interest in keeping to a high standard of ethics. The “old guard” would be forced to either actually step up and practice what they preach, or lose just about every scrap of power they once had.

There are plenty of other events I would consider messing with, many of which would have more widespread effects, but in most cases, the long term outcome would be too unpredictable to consider it without a means of actually testing it out first.

For instance, I would certainly consider finding some means to prevent the collapse of the Roman Empire. Prevent centuries of chaos and death, and preserve a huge amount of knowledge for later societies. However, there are aspects of Roman culture that I would much rather see remain dead, and the potential consequences of messing with the rate at which western culture… matures could be quite nasty.

With much regret, I would also avoid messing with either world war. The first was inevitable anyways, and both had significant long term positive effects on those involved. It really is both sad and ironic that it took two bloody wars on a massive scale to finally reconcile the differences between most modern countries, not to mention end institutional antisemitism.

Third-eye:

Supernova1138:
snip

This is an easy one, and LordOfInsanity got it exactly right. The assassination of the Arch Duke of Austria Franz Ferdinand is easily the most single important event in modern history. That one event led to perhaps as a many as 100 million deaths. Was it inevitable? Would it have happened anyway because of Germany’s desire for dominance in Europe during the turn of the last century? Perhaps, who is to say. But no one can question the significance of that one event on modern history.

I’m actually going to have to disagree with this. The political climate of Europe at the time was like a room filled with unstable oil lamps and gunpowder strewn across the floor. Preventing one single lamp from falling does nothing to prevent the inevitable conflagration, just which particular trigger comes first. All you would likely achieve is a future in which people would argue about whether or not preventing a (for instance) particular street brawl from turning into a massacre would have prevented the first world war.

Posts: 528

Joined: 13 Aug 2010

Supernova1138:

LordOfInsanity:
What would I change? The assassination of the Arch Duke of Austria Franz Ferdinand. Either by getting him to his destination with the correct route or stopping the shooter before Franz Ferdinand and his wife entered that alleyway. Seriously, that would have caused large wide spread changes throughout Europe and the past century of history changed because of that.

The most large scale changes possible? No World War 1 and World War 2, the Bolshevik Revolution would have been different if happened at all, the Great Depression would have altered. The Red Scare and Cold War? Not possible without a Communist Regime in the USSR.

So much history that could change if one guy and his wife did not die.

I don’t think stopping the Archduke’s assassination would have prevented World War I. By that point, it was only a matter of time before full scale war would engulf Europe. Tensions between Britain and Germany were high as Germany was trying to challenge British naval dominance, and there was a massive naval arms race going on between those two countries. Germany’s only war plan involved invading France through Belgium and taking Paris within 6 weeks before the Russians could mobilize and attack from the east, even if France did not take any aggressive actions against Germany. The Austro-Hungarian empire was also falling apart due to internal ethnic tensions, and the only way the Austrian leadership could suppress those issues was by making everyone focus on an external threat eg. Russians or Serbians. If the Archduke wasn’t assassinated, something else would have sparked the war, if not in 1914, then probably sometime later in the decade.

World War II in Europe anyway, could have been avoided if the victorious allies in WWI were a lot less harsh on the Germans, and didn’t demand massive reparations. A big part of how the Nazis came to power were economic problems caused by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, combined with the national humiliation of Germany’s new political leadership accepting such harsh terms when German soil had not been invaded by allied forces. That lead to the whole ‘stab in the back’ myth that was a big part of the Nazi narrative, namely that Germany was defeated because leftist politicians and of course, the Jews sabotaged German interests in 1918-1919 with the armistice and Treaty of Versailles.

This is an easy one, and LordOfInsanity got it exactly right. The assassination of the Arch Duke of Austria Franz Ferdinand is easily the most single important event in modern history. That one event led to perhaps as a many as 100 million deaths. Was it inevitable? Would it have happened anyway because of Germany’s desire for dominance in Europe during the turn of the last century? Perhaps, who is to say. But no one can question the significance of that one event on modern history.

Ok so assuming there was no WW1, WW2, or Cold war. where would we be? I would wager about 60 years behind in sciences and engineering. Some of the biggest and best scientific advancements came out of military research. Fight, space explorations, nuclear science, Jet travel, and the internet to name just a hand full off the top of my head.

Posts: 254

Joined: 27 Jul 2011

Ok so assuming there was no WW1, WW2, or Cold war. where would we be? I would wager about 60 years behind in sciences and engineering. Some of the biggest and best scientific advancements came out of military research. Fight, space explorations, nuclear science, Jet travel, and the internet to name just a hand full off the top of my head.

I might take that bet. Of course fight happened before WWI (1903), and the jet engine was designed in the 30’s. In fact there was a huge advance in science, engineering, and technology in the interim years between the wars, even with the great depression. There is every indication it would have continued without WWII.

Sure, competition is good but you don’t need a clash of arms and the death of millions for technological advancement. And what of those millions, and the unborn children of those millions, some of which may have been geniuses, another Einstein perhaps. Perhaps two, three, or more Einsteins. But for the world wars we might be hundreds of years ahead of where we are today.

One thing is clear. We needed a political realignment. The politics of Imperialism, racism, prejudice, and the divine right of kings dominated the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The forces of repression were well entrenched. Something dramatic likely had to happen to shake things up. But two world wars… 100 million deaths…? And the politics of racism and prejudice still persist. Clearly the way forward is more than a clash of arms.