|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 10:04:44 GMT
Some time ago I heard an interview question ask along the lines of 'if you could change one event in history, what would it be?'
The only rule is that it had to be plausible.
For me, two events come to mind.
Firstly the American Revolution was resolved before war broke out with an official union (United Kingdom of Great Britain and America) or similar to how Canada became a Dominion. It would have developed similar to Canada and I could see social change coming sooner though slavery would have continued a bit longer.
The other is getting the Ottomans onside before they sided with Germany before the First World War. According to Huw Strachan they had not decided whose side to fight as late as 1914 and we could have persuaded them to join the Allies. Had this happened we may have not fought so much on the Western Front and Gallipoli would not have happened. We also would not have stoked Arab nationalism and the Middle East would not have been carved up as it was, with the implications for today.
All very simplistic of course. What would others change, why and what do you think would have happened?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 10:35:18 GMT
It's the old would you kill Hitler as a baby thing. Of course you shouldn't, IMO it would be the same with anything, "the butterfly effect"
But if I had to choose one it would be stopping the Manhattan project.
|
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Feb 8, 2016 12:35:09 GMT
It's the old would you kill Hitler as a baby thing. Of course you shouldn't, IMO it would be the same with anything, "the butterfly effect"But if I had to choose one it would be stopping the Manhattan project.Well by your own reckoning you've just made things worse....instead of 200,000 (ish) innocent Japanese deaths, creating atomic bombs saved approx 500,000 US lives by shortening the war, stopped the Soviets invading Japan which would have meant Japanese soldiers and civilians being interned, tortured and probably killed (plus many Japanese would have starved to death during the invasion)....not to mention, for all the things that America do badly, they have prevented WW3 kicking off so far by being dominant at the end of WW2... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 12:56:40 GMT
It's the old would you kill Hitler as a baby thing. Of course you shouldn't, IMO it would be the same with anything, "the butterfly effect"But if I had to choose one it would be stopping the Manhattan project.Well by your own reckoning you've just made things worse....instead of 200,000 (ish) innocent Japanese deaths, creating atomic bombs saved approx 500,000 US lives by shortening the war, stopped the Soviets invading Japan which would have meant Japanese soldiers and civilians being interned, tortured and probably killed (plus many Japanese would have starved to death during the invasion)....not to mention, for all the things that America do badly, they have prevented WW3 kicking off so far by being dominant at the end of WW2... Hence why I said "if I had to choose." I cant get my head around mankind building a weapon that can wipe out humanity, I just don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 8, 2016 13:07:55 GMT
Well by your own reckoning you've just made things worse....instead of 200,000 (ish) innocent Japanese deaths, creating atomic bombs saved approx 500,000 US lives by shortening the war, stopped the Soviets invading Japan which would have meant Japanese soldiers and civilians being interned, tortured and probably killed (plus many Japanese would have starved to death during the invasion)....not to mention, for all the things that America do badly, they have prevented WW3 kicking off so far by being dominant at the end of WW2... Hence why I said "if I had to choose." I cant get my head around mankind building a weapon that can wipe out humanity, I just don't get it. Even without the weapon, mankind will eventually wipe itself out. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 13:15:44 GMT
Well by your own reckoning you've just made things worse....instead of 200,000 (ish) innocent Japanese deaths, creating atomic bombs saved approx 500,000 US lives by shortening the war, stopped the Soviets invading Japan which would have meant Japanese soldiers and civilians being interned, tortured and probably killed (plus many Japanese would have starved to death during the invasion)....not to mention, for all the things that America do badly, they have prevented WW3 kicking off so far by being dominant at the end of WW2... Hence why I said "if I had to choose." I cant get my head around mankind building a weapon that can wipe out humanity, I just don't get it. Like with all weapons, to gain an advantage and for fear of the other side getting there first. Presumably you are aware lots were trying to develop it including Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We were lucky (for want of a better word) we were on the side who got there first. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 13:19:12 GMT
Hence why I said "if I had to choose." I cant get my head around mankind building a weapon that can wipe out humanity, I just don't get it. Like with all weapons, to gain an advantage and for fear of the other side getting there first. Presumably you are aware lots were trying to develop it including Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We were lucky (for want of a better word) we were on the side who got there first.Which is why Patton didn't want to stop when Germany surrendered. He wanted to continue and defeat the Soviet Union, but by that time the US were war weary. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 13:21:47 GMT
Hence why I said "if I had to choose." I cant get my head around mankind building a weapon that can wipe out humanity, I just don't get it. Like with all weapons, to gain an advantage and for fear of the other side getting there first. Presumably you are aware lots were trying to develop it including Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We were lucky (for want of a better word) we were on the side who got there first.I know lots were trying, what I'm trying to say is the nuclear bomb full stop. No doubt though, if it wasn't invented something worse would have been, its in our nature, humanity is capable of doing so much good, but in reality, were an evil race.(is that the correct word?) |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 13:25:27 GMT
Like with all weapons, to gain an advantage and for fear of the other side getting there first. Presumably you are aware lots were trying to develop it including Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We were lucky (for want of a better word) we were on the side who got there first.I know lots were trying, what I'm trying to say is the nuclear bomb full stop. No doubt though, if it wasn't invented something worse would have been, its in our nature, humanity is capable of doing so much good, but in reality, were an evil race.(is that the correct word?) No, that makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Feb 8, 2016 13:28:20 GMT
Like with all weapons, to gain an advantage and for fear of the other side getting there first. Presumably you are aware lots were trying to develop it including Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We were lucky (for want of a better word) we were on the side who got there first.I know lots were trying, what I'm trying to say is the nuclear bomb full stop. No doubt though, if it wasn't invented something worse would have been, its in our nature, humanity is capable of doing so much good, but in reality, were an evil race.(is that the correct word?) Generally, we're pretty nasty. To ourselves. Which is a terrible thing to admit. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 8, 2016 13:28:28 GMT
Like with all weapons, to gain an advantage and for fear of the other side getting there first. Presumably you are aware lots were trying to develop it including Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We were lucky (for want of a better word) we were on the side who got there first.Which is why Patton didn't want to stop when Germany surrendered. He wanted to continue and defeat the Soviet Union, but by that time the US were war weary. I read a story that a British General watched the victory parade and went deathly white when he saw the latest Soviet tank drive by. Patton was supposed to have turned to him and say "don't worry, we are still on your side." The whole of the Second World War is littered with 'what ifs'. |
|
|
|
Post by supergas on Feb 8, 2016 15:14:58 GMT
Which is why Patton didn't want to stop when Germany surrendered. He wanted to continue and defeat the Soviet Union, but by that time the US were war weary. I read a story that a British General watched the victory parade and went deathly white when he saw the latest Soviet tank drive by. Patton was supposed to have turned to him and say "don't worry, we are still on your side." The whole of the Second World War is littered with 'what ifs'. Unless you can find one guaranteed way to stop it starting (in 1939, 1949 or indeed ever), it turned out alright in the end... |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Feb 8, 2016 15:52:14 GMT
Did it?
|
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Feb 8, 2016 16:49:36 GMT
Japan and Germany certainly did well out of it in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by jaggas on Feb 8, 2016 20:41:12 GMT
I would like to stop the assassination of JFK just to see how it panned out as he was a great man with vision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thatslife on Feb 8, 2016 21:21:58 GMT
I believe in the distrustful era that nuclear weapons maintained peace. M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) meant that firing a nuclear weapon was an act of self destruction.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 9, 2016 8:23:05 GMT
I would like to stop the assassination of JFK just to see how it panned out as he was a great man with vision. Good shout. i have heard it suggested that the Cold War may have come to an end much sooner than it did. He certainly had a different outlook on Vietnam than Johnson who took over so the US may have been less chastened during the 70s. The civil rights movement may have been more influential earlier so race relations may have improved sooner. As a Catholic he probably would have had influence in a Northern Ireland (as ex President by then) so that could have been different and I suspect Bobby Kennedy would not have been assassinated and took over in 1968. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Feb 9, 2016 8:28:16 GMT
I believe in the distrustful era that nuclear weapons maintained peace. M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) meant that firing a nuclear weapon was an act of self destruction. Agree. I was ambivalent about them throughout the post Cold War period provided they were negotiated away in disarmament talks for the right reasons and not financial or idealogical reasons. However, Mr. Putin seems to be trying to set up Cold War 2.0 and I suspect Ukraine wishes it didn't hand theirs over. |
|
|
|
Post by Thatslife on Feb 9, 2016 10:37:08 GMT
I believe in the distrustful era that nuclear weapons maintained peace. M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) meant that firing a nuclear weapon was an act of self destruction. Agree. I was ambivalent about them throughout the post Cold War period provided they were negotiated away in disarmament talks for the right reasons and not financial or idealogical reasons. However, Mr. Putin seems to be trying to set up Cold War 2.0 and I suspect Ukraine wishes it didn't hand theirs over.Things are not working out for Mr Putin at the moment. Oil prices dropping has drastically affected his countries income. Many don't realise that Russia exports oil to the west. He is a dangerous character and a reactionary. On another point, it has become accepted that an oil shortage would trigger a war as countries try and secure the ever diminishing supply of oil. I am not of that opinion, I believe that the next big war will be about water. If you think about it, there is roughly the same amount of water in the world as there has always been but the population is growing. Simple fact of supply and demand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 10:42:56 GMT
Agree. I was ambivalent about them throughout the post Cold War period provided they were negotiated away in disarmament talks for the right reasons and not financial or idealogical reasons. However, Mr. Putin seems to be trying to set up Cold War 2.0 and I suspect Ukraine wishes it didn't hand theirs over.Things are not working out for Mr Putin at the moment. Oil prices dropping has drastically affected his countries income. Many don't realise that Russia exports oil to the west. He is a dangerous character and a reactionary. On another point, it has become accepted that an oil shortage would trigger a war as countries try and secure the ever diminishing supply of oil. I am not of that opinion, I believe that the next big war will be about water. If you think about it, there is roughly the same amount of water in the world as there has always been but the population is growing. Simple fact of supply and demand. The next war has already started. It's just that most people don't realize it. |
|
