NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not sure if there was a thread involving this yet but here goes.

Lets assume Time Travel is possible. Only back in time not forward. You are able to go back and change one historical event.
Which one would you choose and why. Also state the possible outcome of changing said event.

I would have stopped the first world war.

I'm going to sound mundane here but, firstly of course all the deaths would not have occured from the actual war itself. Also however, the Bolshevik revolution probably would never of happened as the conditions would not have been so terrible as the ones posed by the war etc... i.e. no Stalin, but possibly also no Mao, but thats another story.

Make Teddy Roosevelt go three terms in office.

stopping Henry V from getting Dysentry

I would have taught Heron of Alexandria about pistons.

Stopped the burning of the library in Alexandria.

Ensure a crushing Byzantine victory at the Battle of Yarmuk, 636 AD, with appropriate follow-ups.

Short-term result: snuffing out the Caliphate before it ever got established.

Long-term result: preventing the Dark Ages in Europe.

I would go back and have Pilate execute Yeshua along with every one of his demented followers. Without Christianity, Judaism would have sunk into oblivion and Islam would never have come to pass.

Stopped the burning of the library in Alexandria.

That would have been 2nd on my list, though, that or the library of Baghdad.

Stopped the burning of the library in Alexandria.Oh yes !!!

I would go back and have Pilate execute Yeshua along with every one of his demented followers. Without Christianity, Judaism would have sunk into oblivion and Islam would never have come to pass.

Hooray for executing thousands apon thousands of innocent people :rolleyes:

Hooray for executing thousands apon thousands of innocent peopleThus preventing the deaths of millions and millions of innocent people in the millennia after Yeshua's execution. And preventing humanity from descending into the dark pit of religion-caused stupidity.
And I seriously doubt that Yeshua had thousands upon thousands of followers when he was executed.

Long-term result: preventing the Dark Ages in Europe.

How?

The Western Roman Empire collapsed well before 636 A.D.

So what about this one: to make a certain monkey stop thinking so much?:cool:

Thus preventing the deaths of millions and millions of innocent people in the millennia after Yeshua's execution. And preventing humanity from descending into the dark pit of religion-caused stupidity.

Nonsensicle baseless crap.

I would go back and have Pilate execute Yeshua along with every one of his demented followers. Without Christianity, Judaism would have sunk into oblivion and Islam would never have come to pass.

Thank you for keeping Christianity around. your suggestion won't stop a damn thing. ;) (think about it.)


me, I would go back in time and buy Microsoft stocks while it was still selling for pennies.

I'd like to see how things would be different if JFK wasn't killed.

I would make it so that India never became a colony of a foreign nation.

I would have stopped the first world war.

I'm going to sound mundane here but, firstly of course all the deaths would not have occured from the actual war itself. Also however, the Bolshevik revolution probably would never of happened as the conditions would not have been so terrible as the ones posed by the war etc... i.e. no Stalin, but possibly also no Mao, but thats another story.

I really don't think WWI could have been prevented. It would have occurred one way or another. Better option I think would be to make the Versailles Treaty something approaching fair for Germany. Perhaps then the Nazi party or some other radical group never would have gained a toehold in German politics. Preventing WWII (at least in Europe, wouldn't do much to affect Japan) would certainly be a worthy goal.

I would make the South win the American Civil War.

It's the only war for freedom that the Americans have lost, and that annoys me. It also might do a bit to relieve the political tensions they have now.

Long-term effects are rather impossible to know for sure, but I'd assume that USA would be slightly less dominant as the World's last great power these days. The Nazis probably would have had enough time to crush the Soviet Union, which would have been a good thing.

I would have stopped the first world war.

I'm going to sound mundane here but, firstly of course all the deaths would not have occured from the actual war itself. Also however, the Bolshevik revolution probably would never of happened as the conditions would not have been so terrible as the ones posed by the war etc... i.e. no Stalin, but possibly also no Mao, but thats another story.

probably the only way of stoppnig it from turring into world war One would be to stop the Franco-Prussian War starting. then it probaly it would just be a local war or some border firefight

Nonsensicle baseless crap.Prove me wrong. In the name of Yeshua and his fabricated god the populations of entire continents were slaughtered and enslaved. And in his name the churches ruled over people's minds and kept them in mental servitude. And folks even fell so deep from humanity so they wanted to be in this dependence and some still do. That's reason enough to travel back in time and stop this terrible madness at its roots once and for all.

Go back to the creation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution with several different newspapers as well as printout from the threads here. and sit back and see what changes would be made to the U.S. Constitution.

I would go to the set of I Love Lucy and force the network to never allow the beds to be moved together. Yay Puritan America!

Thank you for keeping Christianity around. your suggestion won't stop a damn thing. ;) (think about it.)Yes it would. If there was no-one left to believe in Yeshua, there would be no Christianity today. And without it Jews would not have got any further attention, no Talmud would have been written in reaction to the new alternative Jewish doctrines of Christianity, and Judaism would have been forgotten eventually (after all it was only a tiny faith in a vast empire of a multitude of much more popular religions). And later no-one would have ever conceived Islam.
Maybe I'd travel even further back and help the Seleucids throw down the revolt of the folks around Judah Maccabee.
Or even better: I'd advise Ptolemy Soter not to have the Jew-ish scholars write down the bible and put into it all the crap of their fanatic minds, but instead sending them to the quarries to do something actually useful.

Prove me wrong. In the name of Yeshua and his fabricated god the populations of entire continents were slaughtered and enslaved. And in his name the churches ruled over people's minds and kept them in mental servitude. And folks even fell so deep from humanity so they wanted to be in this dependence and some still do. That's reason enough to travel back in time and stop this terrible madness at its roots once and for all.

in the name of Yeshua, countless people have also been fed and clothed, Educated and given medicine, Freed from bad rulers as well as given hope for a better way of lie.

(hey, if you can generalize about the bad, I can generalize about the good as well.)

Prove me wrong. In the name of Yeshua and his fabricated god the populations of entire continents were slaughtered and enslaved. And in his name the churches ruled over people's minds and kept them in mental servitude. And folks even fell so deep from humanity so they wanted to be in this dependence and some still do. That's reason enough to travel back in time and stop this terrible madness at its roots once and for all.

This madness was going on long before Jesus, and if it wasn't in the name Christianity it would have been in the name of some other ideology, as can be seen all over the world even today. An inevitability you cannot stop. You cannot blame Christianity on the insanities of the power hungry autocrats, to do so would be an insanely retarded attempt of attacking an idealogy. There is nothing in the teachings of Christianity that advocates any of these atrocities either.

Prove me wrong. In the name of Yeshua and his fabricated god the populations of entire continents were slaughtered and enslaved. And in his name the churches ruled over people's minds and kept them in mental servitude. And folks even fell so deep from humanity so they wanted to be in this dependence and some still do. That's reason enough to travel back in time and stop this terrible madness at its roots once and for all.

1st:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12390288&postcount=16

2nd: All those things would have just happened in the name of Zeus or Yahweh. Human nature will always rear its ugly head as long as their are humans.

I would make the South win the American Civil War.

It's the only war for freedom that the Americans have lost, and that annoys me. It also might do a bit to relieve the political tensions they have now.

Long-term effects are rather impossible to know for sure, but I'd assume that USA would be slightly less dominant as the World's last great power these days. The Nazis probably would have had enough time to crush the Soviet Union, which would have been a good thing.

You say the South was fighting for its freedom? Sure, the freedom to keep other people enslaved without any interference. Frankly I'm just as glad their attempt failed.

And I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say in your last paragraph. If the U.S. hasn't the power it had from unification then it may not have supplied the needed fresh troops to keep Britain and France afloat in WWI, nevermind guessing what would occur in WWII. Changing one part in history can have unseen effects, who knows what might have occured with your theoretical change?

Yes it would. If there was no-one left to believe in Yeshua, there would be no Christianity today. And without it Jews would not have got any further attention, no Talmud would have been written in reaction to the new alternative Jewish doctrines of Christianity, and Judaism would have been forgotten eventually (after all it was only a tiny faith in a vast empire of a multitude of much more popular). And later no-one would have ever conceived Islam.
Maybe I'd travel even further back and help the Seleucids throw down the revolt of the folks around Judah Maccabee.

1) This Yeshau (whether or not you believe he really lived), was not the ONLY contendor in that field - there are dozens of other 'messiahs' recorded. If 'Yeshua' had not existed (as, indeed, he might not have), there were many other choices for Hebrew scriptures to evolve around or against - or, indeed, the whole origin of the church may have been based on ideas, rather than people.

2) It wasn't 'being Christianity' that was the secret to the spread of the faith so widely - it was being the faith of the dying Roman empire. If it hadn't have been Christianity, Rome would have been exporting Mithraism in the same way, to Europe and beyond. Whether or not 'Islam' would have ever existed is debatable - it is certainly closer to Judaism than Christianity.

Yes it would. If there was no-one left to believe in Yeshua, there would be no Christianity today. And without it Jews would not have got any further attention, no Talmud would have been written in reaction to the new alternative Jewish doctrines of Christianity, and Judaism would have been forgotten eventually (after all it was only a tiny faith in a vast empire of a multitude of much more popular). And later no-one would have ever conceived Islam.no it wouldn't. you can have Yeshua executed in many different ways by Pilate, include his 12 disciples (including Judas) and it wouldnt change a thing.

if you wanted to kill Christianity, you will need to go back to Yeshua's BIRTH and kill him.

killing him at the end, including his disciples won't change a thing because there were other believers who would take up the banner in HIS name.

but then again, all your meddling would do is prolong and even strengthen the polythesitic religions already in place. You're goal still wouldn't be met as Pyotr and Graves said, it would've been done in another god's names.

Too risky. I'd probably stop existing...

There is nothing in the teachings of Christianity that advocates any of these atrocities either.Well, there are the supposed deeds of the biblical characters. The mass slaughters of the biblical stories send stronger messages than any soft words of 'teaching' could ever do. And after all, it's still the same supposed god.
And what's your fuss anyways? If I could go back in time and make a change, that's what I would do. And why not?

UK General Election, 1950.

Well, there are the supposed deeds of the biblical characters. The mass slaughters of the biblical stories send stronger messages than any soft words of 'teaching' could ever do. And after all, it's still the same supposed god.
And what's your fuss anyways? If I could go back in time and make a change, that's what I would do. And why not?

Knock yourself out, it's your choice.

It would just be a waste of effort - given the other alternatives of the time.

(Especially since there is no external evidence that your 'victim' is even a real person... it'd be like using your timetravel machine to try to kill Sherlock Holmes).

go back to the 60's or 70's and buy stock in as many computer companies as possible

forget changing history...thats too dangerous

Well, there are the supposed deeds of the biblical characters. The mass slaughters of the biblical stories send stronger messages than any soft words of 'teaching' could ever do. And after all, it's still the same supposed god.

All those things are in the Old Testament. The Jewish holy book is essentially the Old Testament, and as you said, killing Jesus would have made Judaism more widespread. Point, set, match.

Thus preventing the deaths of millions and millions of innocent people in the millennia after Yeshua's execution. And preventing humanity from descending into the dark pit of religion-caused stupidity.
And I seriously doubt that Yeshua had thousands upon thousands of followers when he was executed.
Congratulations, UB, you've just replaced Christianity with the Roman pantheon of gods and also religions that practice human sacrifice. Good job.

Stop the Russian Revolution IF I can also mess with the same period and area to install democratic reform etc in Russia. If not, I like Utracia's idea about the Versailles Treaty.

You say the South was fighting for its freedom? Sure, the freedom to keep other people enslaved without any interference. Frankly I'm just as glad their attempt failed.

They would have abolished slavery within a couple of decades anyway. Failure to do so would have been a diplomatic suicide.

And I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say in your last paragraph. If the U.S. hasn't the power it was then it may not have supplied the needed fresh troops to keep Britain and France afloat in WWI, nevermind guessing what would occur in WWII. Changing one part in history can have unseen effects, who knows what might have occured with your theoretical change?

In WWI, Germany was already practically defeated when USA decided to join. Germany put the unlimited submarine warfare doctrine into effect as a last measure, thus also sinking American commerce ships. This pissed them off, and they came to deliver the finishing blow.

But so what if Germany had won? I think that would have been just great, preventing WWII from happening and all that. The only bad thing I can think of right now would have been that we would have a king now, instead of a president. But anyway.

WWII might have had some surprising elements, depending entirely on which side CSA would have taken, if any. Hitler declared war on USA in the hopes that in return, Japan would declare war on USSR, so in the end it boils down mainly on USA's involvement in the Pacific ocean before the war. Seeing as CSA would have had no shoreline with the Pacific, I don't think there would have been much difference in that respect.

Like I said in my previous post, it's hard to know for sure. But isn't that the same problem with every suggestion in this thread?

Rather than making the South win the Civil War, I'd have convinced Abraham Lincoln to just let the Confederacy secede peacefully and avoid the whole war altogether. Honestly, wouldn't the U.S. just be better off without those eleven states? Let them go and be their own backwards, racist nation.

Either that, or prevent the assassination of Julius Caesar. It's tough to say what effect that would have had on history, but personally I think it would have ensured a prolongation of the dominance of the Roman Empire, which in turn would have shortened the Dark Ages, which in turn would have allowed the human race to become steadily more prosperous for a longer period of time.

They would have abolished slavery within a couple of decades anyway. Failure to do so would have been a diplomatic suicide.

And with the Union winning it was abolished that much sooner. Even assuming the South would ever want to give up its free labor source.

Congratulations, UB, you've just replaced Christianity with the Roman pantheon of gods and also religions that practice human sacrifice. Good job.The Roman pantheon is a variation of the Greek pantheon, which is a variation of the Levantine pantheon, which is a variation of the Mesopotamian/Sumerian pantheon, which is a variation of the pantheon that has come down from the beginning of human religiousness. I can't see why that should be worse than a religion invented only a few centuries prior to Yeshua. And never forget that all that Christianity revolves around is one human sacrifice, the attempt to please a god by a creature's death.

All those things are in the Old Testament. The Jewish holy book is essentially the Old Testament, and as you said, killing Jesus would have made Judaism more widespread. Point, set, match.No. In the time of Yeshua there were almost as many Jew-ish sects as there were Jews. Only in the ideological opposition to growing Christianity did Judaism become a more streamlined religion, with the emergence of the written Talmud and Rabbinic teachings. Without Christianity Jews would have remained the chaotic bunch they had always been and after a while they would have mingled with other folks and would have lost the connexion to the teachings formerly upheld by the Temple clergy. As I said, ancient Judaism would have dropped into oblivion.
So killing Yeshua and a sufficient number of his followers would have prevented all that came out of his three years of touring Palestine. Of course, there were many itinerant preachers like him and maybe another one would today be seen as the "son of god". It's all highly arbitrary. So maybe Rome should have shut down Palestine altogether and resettle it. After all, Jews never grasped what opportunities the Romans gave them.

The Roman pantheon is a variation of the Greek pantheon, which is a variation of the Levantine pantheon, which is a variation of the Mesopotamian/Sumerian pantheon, which is a variation of the pantheon that has come down from the beginning of human religiousness. I can't see why that should be worse than a religion invented only a few centuries prior to Yeshua. And never forget that all that Christianity revolves around is one human sacrifice, the attempt to please a god by a creature's death.

Sacrifice was well known in the greek and roman religious practices.

Thank you for keeping Christianity around. your suggestion won't stop a damn thing. ;) (think about it.)


me, I would go back in time and buy Microsoft stocks while it was still selling for pennies.

Ditto for Apple, prior to the advent of the iPod. Or Google. Or both.

The Roman pantheon is a variation of the Greek pantheon, which is a variation of the Levantine pantheon, which is a variation of the Mesopotamian/Sumerian pantheon, which is a variation of the pantheon that has come down from the beginning of human religiousness. I can't see why that should be worse than a religion invented only a few centuries prior to Yeshua. And never forget that all that Christianity revolves around is one human sacrifice, the attempt to please a god by a creature's death.
Yes, it may not be worse, but I don't see how it's any better. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?

And with the Union winning it was abolished that much sooner. Even assuming the South would ever want to give up its free labor source.

If that's your point of view, then the Union wasn't really any better than the Confederacy. Why abolish slavery then, when they could have done it right at the beginning, at the declaration of independence? Or not get slaves in the first place?

I'd believe that not being seen as inhuman barbarians in the eyes of the other nations would have been more important to the government than some plantation owners' right to not pay wages to their workers. Trade partners and military alliances are and were important, especially when a much bigger and stronger neighbor wants to claim your territories.

Hmmmmm?

I would change the day Art Coulter decided to become Ann Coulter.

Sacrifice was well known in the greek and roman religious practices.And? (Jewish rituals were no different than Greek or Roman rituals back then, the Temple was practically a butchery) Nevertheless Greeks and Romans were much more religiously and otherwise flexible as Christians (or Jews or Muslims) were in subsequent millennia.

Yes, it may not be worse, but I don't see how it's any better. What exactly are you trying to achieve here?The correction of a historical mistake. You know, if I had a time machine...

If that's your point of view, then the Union wasn't really any better than the Confederacy. Why abolish slavery then, when they could have done it right at the beginning, at the declaration of independence? Or not get slaves in the first place?

I'd believe that not being seen as inhuman barbarians in the eyes of the other nations would have been more important to the government than some plantation owners' right to not pay wages to their workers. Trade partners and military alliances are and were important, especially when a much bigger and stronger neighbor wants to claim your territories.

The northern colonies wanted to abolish it but then they never would have gotten the southern ones to agree to form a single country. So they chose the only path they had and accepted the evil institution. It hardly is something we can be proud of but at least slavery became something many fought against until the Civil War ended it.

Regardless, the Confederacy winning would have delayed the ending of slavery, their winning would have been a tragedy.

The northern colonies wanted to abolish it but then they never would have gotten the southern ones to agree to form a single country. So they chose the only path they had and accepted the evil institution. It hardly is something we can be proud of but at least slavery became something many fought against until the Civil War ended it.

Regardless, the Confederacy winning would have delayed the ending of slavery, their winning would have been a tragedy.

So didn't they have the path of forming two different countries? Or a looser union where the states could have decided stuff like that for themselves? I'm sure you know the details better than me, but I still think it's at least suspicious that the northerners accepted it despite their loathing of the very concept.

Surely slavery isn't nice, and postponing its abolition would have been a bad thing, but to call it a tragedy is a slight exaggeration, I think. I mean, I don't think the life of a black person was very good, happy, or persecution-free in the southern states during the late 1800s. The real difference was made much later.

So didn't they have the path of forming two different countries? Or a looser union where the states could have decided stuff like that for themselves? I'm sure you know the details better than me, but I still think it's at least suspicious that the northerners accepted it despite their loathing of the very concept.

Surely slavery isn't nice, and postponing its abolition would have been a bad thing, but to call it a tragedy is a slight exaggeration, I think. I mean, I don't think the life of a black person was very good, happy, or persecution-free in the southern states during the late 1800s. The real difference was made much later.

After winning the revolution we tried the "looser association" of the states, the Articles of Confederation. The weak central government caused all sorts of problems so we changed to the current Constitution. Slavery became an evil to permit in order to keep a single American nation. At the time also there was less of a anti-slavery feeling in the colonies, breaking up the colonies simply couldn't be tolerated for that cause. The slavery issue though would be something that caused all kinds of political troubles from the very beginning of our new nation, it was fought against right through the Civil War. About every political confrontation in the U.S. you can think of in this period had slavery involved in some way.

And it is true, calling the lives of African American "good" or "happy" didn't occur until the civil rights movement a century after Emancipation. Again though, the Confederacy winning the war would have delayed the slow progress for decades at least. I simply can not see any benefit to their winning except for America haters who wish we didn't have the power we do today.

So didn't they have the path of forming two different countries? Or a looser union where the states could have decided stuff like that for themselves? I'm sure you know the details better than me, but I still think it's at least suspicious that the northerners accepted it despite their loathing of the very concept.
As was already stated, they tried a looser union. It was a disaster.
You might not realize, but you can't always do the moral thing in politics. The fact was, splitting the Union in two for slavery was at that time, idiotic. Not enough people cared about it.

But so what if Germany had won? I think that would have been just great, preventing WWII from happening and all that. The only bad thing I can think of right now would have been that we would have a king now, instead of a president. But anyway.

It was pretty obvious that the Germans weren't going to stop with Europe. Wilhelm was a madman- he was determined to make Germany the uberpower of the world, and under his reign, Germany had begun colonizing foreign places. If Germany had control over all of Europe, they could easily start colonies in the Americas, and shit would have been a lot worse.

As for which event I would change- I would get the Federal Reservein 1928 to not raise those interest rates and Hoover to not pass Harley-Smoot. Those two events made what would have been just a fairly bad, but recoverable recession into the Great Depression, thus causing the election of FDR and Hitler, and hence causing this world to get totally screwed up.

I would introduce universal conscription in the UK in 1908, and change the tax code to accommodate it.

After winning the revolution we tried the "looser association" of the states, the Articles of Confederation. The weak central government caused all sorts of problems so we changed to the current Constitution. Slavery became an evil to permit in order to keep a single American nation. At the time also there was less of a anti-slavery feeling in the colonies, breaking up the colonies simply couldn't be tolerated for that cause. The slavery issue though would be something that caused all kinds of political troubles from the very beginning of our new nation, it was fought against right through the Civil War. About every political confrontation in the U.S. you can think of in this period had slavery involved in some way.

Interesting. What sort of problems did the loose government cause? I'm not doubting your word on that or anything, I'm just curious.

You say that there was less anti-slavery sentiment. Am I right interpreting that so that it was mostly the politicians (founding fathers), who found the idea of slavery appalling, whereas the common folk were OK with it?

You also say that slavery caused political problems. That's what I said in the beginning, and that's exactly why the South would have abolished slavery very soon in any case. I'm glad we agree there.

And it is true, calling the lives of African American "good" or "happy" didn't occur until the civil rights movement a century after Emancipation. Again though, the Confederacy winning the war would have delayed the slow progress for decades at least. I simply can not see any benefit to their winning except for America haters who wish we didn't have the power we do today.

I hope you're not taking me as an America-hater. I'm not, although I don't see how such gross imbalance of power in the World would be in the best interest of anyone except Americans.

Personally I think that the single biggest event to contribute to the civil rights movement was the Holocaust, and that delaying emancipation for a few years or even decades wouldn't have had very much impact there. Whether the Holocaust would have been exposed or even happened, if the South had won, is an entirely different matter.

I'm not sure if there was a thread involving this yet but here goes.

Lets assume Time Travel is possible. Only back in time not forward. You are able to go back and change one historical event.
Which one would you choose and why. Also state the possible outcome of changing said event.

I'd stop the Iraq War. It would stop people from hating America. *cough*Fass*cough*

Hmmmmm?

I would change the day Art Coulter decided to become Ann Coulter.

Art Coulter was a hockey player in the 30s-40s. And he died in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Coulter

Go back in time to the point where stupidity became an accepted norm and prevent it from happening.

I would go back in time and stop the big bang from happening. I don';t know how, but i would find a way.

Interesting. What sort of problems did the loose government cause? I'm not doubting your word on that or anything, I'm just curious.

You say that there was less anti-slavery sentiment. Am I right interpreting that so that it was mostly the politicians (founding fathers), who found the idea of slavery appalling, whereas the common folk were OK with it?

You also say that slavery caused political problems. That's what I said in the beginning, and that's exactly why the South would have abolished slavery very soon in any case. I'm glad we agree there.

One large problem was the lack of any means to collect sufficient taxes. A sure way to sink. The fact that the states could barely work together as a couple of holdouts would stop any legislation from going through. Nothing could get accomplished. Then the fact that the independent mindedness means any allegiance was more to the individual state instead of the Articles and the nation as a whole. It simply couldn't work.

I'm sure there were other reasons, this is just what I can remember. As for the political problems, I meant problems of North vs. South in the attempt to either halt the spread of slavery or help its spread. The Northwest Ordinance, Missouri Compromise, fallout from the Mexican war, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott case, etc., etc., were all indications of the trouble that slavery caused the U.S. I certainly feel that civil war was inevitable when the Founders didn't satisfy everyones concerns to the slavery issue.

I suppose eventually the South would have abandoned the practice so that it would sooth the British concerns toward slavery (which the British ignored when it served their interests) and would secure its cotton exports to the Brits. But then the Southerners economy ran on slaves so...

I'd go back in time and hit a certain rapidly-moving object with several nuclear warheads.

It was pretty obvious that the Germans weren't going to stop with Europe. Wilhelm was a madman- he was determined to make Germany the uberpower of the world, and under his reign, Germany had begun colonizing foreign places. If Germany had control over all of Europe, they could easily start colonies in the Americas, and shit would have been a lot worse.

A lot worse than WWII and its effects? The British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Italians, and even the Belgians already controlled vast colonies all over the world; how much more damage could the Germans have done, even if they had taken the place of the British Empire? Your opinion seems to be that Germans are evil, and must be stopped.

I'd go back in time and hit a certain rapidly-moving object with several nuclear warheads.

what rapidly moving object is this?

*snip*

Very interesting. Thanks.

I suppose eventually the South would have abandoned the practice so that it would sooth the British concerns toward slavery (which the British ignored when it served their interests) and would secure its cotton exports to the Brits. But then the Southerners economy ran on slaves so...

Yep, but the freed slaves still would have had to work for their living. The plantation owners would have had to pay them half a dollar a day or so, but I don't think that would have put an unbearable strain on their economy.

Art Coulter was a hockey player in the 30s-40s. And he died in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Coulter:eek: so he succeeded... too bad someone else became Ann Coulter. :(

Thus preventing the deaths of millions and millions of innocent people in the millennia after Yeshua's execution. And preventing humanity from descending into the dark pit of religion-caused stupidity.
And I seriously doubt that Yeshua had thousands upon thousands of followers when he was executed.You could avoid the whole problem by arranging an abortion for Mary.

Nonsensicle baseless crap.

Really? Ever heard the words:

Crusade
Inquisition
Nazism
Slavery
and Homophobia?

And yes, I include Nazism there. Ever heard the phrase "Gott Mit Uns"?

What he said
======>me, I would go back in time and buy Microsoft stocks while it was still selling for pennies.

Really? Ever heard the words:

Crusade
Inquisition
Nazism
Slavery
and Homophobia?

And yes, I include Nazism there. Ever heard the phrase "Gott Mit Uns"?
By that logic, everything wrong the USA does is motivated by religion because of "In God We Trust", or the UK because of "God Save The Queen".

People have argued that this is a Christian Nation. There's your bloody proof.
Regardless, just because a Christian/Christian nation does something doesn't automatically mean it was motivated by religion.

By that logic, everything wrong the USA does is motivated by religion because of "In God We Trust", or the UK because of "God Save The Queen".

People have argued that this is a Christian Nation. There's your bloody proof.

I go give Adam a vasectomy and Eve some birth control pills, then I wouldn,t have to deal with stupid people or even people.

I guess there would still be liberals though...:(

Prevent Alexander from dying so young.

Prob wouldn't change much in the whole scope of things but still.


Either that or knocking Mao and Stalin off before they got too powerful

what rapidly moving object is this?

An asteroid. I'm hoping to cause a paradox.

I would go back to the day Christopher Columbus first landed in the New World and met his first native. I would have that native bash his brains out with a rock, and burn his ships. :)

Another hundred years undisturbed by europeans would have done the Americas no end of good. :)

I would assassinate William Henry Harrison by somehow tricking him into standing out in the rain until he became critically ill, thus preventing him from using the Presidency to plunge the world into the 40 years of violent turmoil that lasted until he was crowned Immortal God-Emperor of All Humanity in 1885.

I assume that we also have magical powers in this situation, given the responses given so far...

I would have ensured that the German Revolution of 1918 and the Italian Revolution had succeded. No Mussolini, Hitler, Stalinism, Maoism, World War II, etc.

Yeah, I guess I'd feel obligated to kill baby Hitler, baby Lenin, baby Mao, etc.. but infanticide's kinda boring..

I'd take a Chinook helicopter (assuming I could fly one) back to ancient Egypt or someplace and scare the hell out of some people.. drop hilarious leaflets demanind crazy things, knock stuff over, disrupt battles and religious ceremonies, etc. I guess it doesn't have to be Egypt.. it'd be just as funny to aim the rocket launcher at Nero or Crazy Horse or some Eskimos. :)

Problem with most 'solutions', is that humanity itself is to blame for such byproducts as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, et cetera. Avoiding one incident would only lead to the rise of another, and this thread would still exist - albeit with people wanting to 'DEAT' currently non-existing incidents. Even if we managed to convince Adam to not eat the apple, for example, human nature tells us that one of his children would have, with a same or similar result.

As for myself, I don't think there's much I would change. What could be interesting, would be if I had the opportunity to teach Leonardo Da Vinci all of today's modern science, then to look at the world and observe how it would be different, et cetera.

Of course, I would only do this provided I had the power to reverse such changes. I think the world is fascinating as it is; ugly and beautiful chapters combined.

Why do I always put the Kennedy assasination for these things? Seriously, I would genuinely like to know if JFK had any fabulous tricks up his sleeve, or if he was a dud. He died before he really did anything, and now he's got this halo around him, and....




God, I need to think of a better answer.

I would go back to the day Christopher Columbus first landed in the New World and met his first native. I would have that native bash his brains out with a rock, and burn his ships. :)

Another hundred years undisturbed by europeans would have done the Americas no end of good. :)
I would have done the same, but to Cortés and Pizarro, not Columbus.

For all of America, I would have given the locals smallpox vacinnations.

I would go back to the day Christopher Columbus first landed in the New World and met his first native. I would have that native bash his brains out with a rock, and burn his ships. :)

Another hundred years undisturbed by europeans would have done the Americas no end of good. :)

Awww! But then my man-beast and I couldn't have long-winded conversations about my people dominating his people and raping his land for several centuries. It's such a great, endless topic, and, oddly enough, has never led to hurt feelings.

Damn this is a hard one.........


I'm gonna have to say somehow go WAAAAAAY back in time and somehow (please don't ask me how, I'm not a geologist or a physicist, I'd bring a few along with me just so I wouldn't screw up) use a small nuclear device or devices at a key point(s) in the tectonic plates of early pangea so that modern continents look like this.....


:upyours:

I would travel back to a time before the Communist Manifesto was written and take out both Marx and Engels.

Why do I always put the Kennedy assasination for these things? Seriously, I would genuinely like to know if JFK had any fabulous tricks up his sleeve, or if he was a dud. He died before he really did anything, and now he's got this halo around him, and....




God, I need to think of a better answer.

IMO, the bastard wasn't killed nearly soon enough.

IMO, the bastard wasn't killed nearly soon enough.

Yeah, he was kind of a dick, wasn't he? (Understatemented!) The least that could be done is not make a holiday in his name. I mean, really! But, basically, the point in what I was saying was really, I wouldn't want to change any historical event, because it might result in my life being completely different, and I like my life how it is. That doesn't, however, mean that I agreed with Columbus. What he did was genuinely terrible.

I'm not sure if there was a thread involving this yet but here goes.

Lets assume Time Travel is possible. Only back in time not forward. You are able to go back and change one historical event.
Which one would you choose and why. Also state the possible outcome of changing said event.

I would not go back in time to hang out with FDR, then wait for Ann Coulter to show up to convince him not to do the "New Deal," then drag her back to the Puritans to have her hanged for being a witch. I used to think that it would have been perfect poetic justice, but a recently unearthed time capsule has shown me my disastrous hubris.

It turns out that the Puritans, having suffered a humiliating defeat, at the hands of progress and moderation had become thoughtful and compassionate people. They had come to realize that intolerance and dogmatic fundamentalism were dead movements. They even came to accept the idea of women and men being equals. Then I delivered them Ann Coulter. She not only taught them religious fundamentalism again, but the anti-feminist hatred she engendered led them to create the misogynistic witch trials. It's all my fault! My God! What have I done?

I like LG's idea of getting the Indians to burn Columbus' ships. :)

That, or I'd stop two assassinations.

1. Ghandi
2. Martin Luther King Jr.

I would travel back to a time before the Communist Manifesto was written and take out both Marx and Engels.

What for?

If you want to prevent Stalinism, prevent the Russian Revolution instead.

I would not go back in time to hang out with FDR, then wait for Ann Coulter to show up to convince him not to do the "New Deal," then drag her back to the Puritans to have her hanged for being a witch. I used to think that it would have been perfect poetic justice, but a recently unearthed time capsule has shown me my disastrous hubris.

It turns out that the Puritans, having suffered a humiliating defeat, at the hands of progress and moderation had become thoughtful and compassionate people. They had come to realize that intolerance and dogmatic fundamentalism were dead movements. They even came to accept the idea of women and men being equals. Then I delivered them Ann Coulter. She not only taught them religious fundamentalism again, but the anti-feminist hatred she engendered led them to create the misogynistic witch trials. It's all my fault! My God! What have I done?


Why would you stop the New Deal? That was like the only thing a US president has done that I actually agree with.

What for?

If you want to prevent Stalinism, prevent the Russian Revolution instead.

*prevents that, instead*

Why would you stop the New Deal? That was like the only thing a US president has done that I actually agree with.

It prolonged the Depression and forever destroyed what few vestiges of constitutional government remained.

Yeah, he was kind of a dick, wasn't he? (Understatemented!) The least that could be done is not make a holiday in his name. I mean, really! But, basically, the point in what I was saying was really, I wouldn't want to change any historical event, because it might result in my life being completely different, and I like my life how it is. That doesn't, however, mean that I agreed with Columbus. What he did was genuinely terrible.

I was talking about Kennedy, but yes, Columbus, was an extreme asshole.

I was talking about Kennedy, but yes, Columbus, was an extreme asshole.

Oh....haha. That's why you don't post at night while tired and balancing several other conversations.

:rolleyes: It prolonged the Depression and forever destroyed what few vestiges of constitutional government remained.

Because what Hoover did to remedy the situation was so much better...Really, I don't see any factual information to back up the claim that it actually prolonged the depression. It didn't solve the problem completely, but it helped on some levels, and, beyond that, there is no way to tell what course that Depression could have taken without the New Deal. You could be right, and it could have been about to be resolved, but it could just as easily been worse. Finally, it also laid the foundation for future social programs, like the Old Age Pension plan and welfare.

How about the solution to stopping the Russian Revolution that no-one has thought of; the Allies winning the Gallipoli Campaign.

Alright, with the Allies winning Gallipoli, the Ottoman Empire would have been knocked out of the war in 1915. Bulgaria would probably have joined the Allies (they only joined the Central Powers because of that screw up), and there would have been an easily supply of resources to Tsarist Russia. The First World War would have ended in 1916, and since the war would not have been so long and painful, Versailles would most likely have not been too bad.

This would have meant that Hitler, et. al. would not have come up, and even if they had, Churchill's career would not have been damaged, so he would have stopped them (chances are, he would have become PM in the 1920s).

Net result - the First World War would have been small, the Second World War would not have happened, the Great Depression may not have happened, Keynesianism would not have become popular and the world would still be on the gold standard and I could probably get milk for four cents a litre, a laptop for a hundred bucks, and internet for a few bucks a month.

Perhaps with Gallipoli being a success, the British Empire may not have crumbled so on (it certainly made NZ and Australia more independent), so instead of using dollars and cents, it could still be the old pounds, shillings and pence

*imagines saying, ma'am, this comes to four pounds, six shillings and tupence*

Since I don't wanna fuck up history too bad I'll keep it simple. I'd either stop Paris Hilton from being born or take out the first guy to pop his collar. Fuckin douchebag.:D

Boudicca would have routed the Romans and ousted them from Britain. Roman influence in Britain would have been effectively quashed. The possibilities at that point are endless. It's possible that England, having been united under one queen, would have had a succession of queens rather than kings - a northern European matriarchy might have resulted.

[QUOTE=a northern European matriarchy might have resulted.[/QUOTE]


Matriarchies had their time and their place in history, long before Boudicca´s - from a social anthropological point of view.
Don´t let modern day feminism "if-only´s" cloud your judgement..:p

I'd make sure Archduke Ferdinanduses a double on that day in Serbia. Or I made sure that the message that the Serbs accept the Austrian demands reaches them in time.

Perhaps with Gallipoli being a success, the British Empire may not have crumbled so on (it certainly made NZ and Australia more independent), so instead of using dollars and cents, it could still be the old pounds, shillings and pence
As an Australian, if WWII would have had to have occured to defend our dollars and cents then c'est la vie. No damn shillings for us. *nods* :p

I'd stop the Iraq War. It would stop people from hating America. *cough*Fass*cough*

The US has done many more things than just Iraq to earn my contempt.

Why would you stop the New Deal? That was like the only thing a US president has done that I actually agree with.

Perhaps your schools offers some sort of remedial reading comprehension class or something. If so, I advise you take it.

That's not what I said.

The post was a joke based on a previous incarnation of this thread and an interview with Ann Coulter in which she was asked if she could visit any historical personality which one would it be. She said "FDR so I could get him not to do the New Deal."

Last time a thread like this went I said I'd hang out with FDR waiting for Ann Coulter to show up. Then I'd drag her to the puritans so that she could see what life is like with people who believe as she does.

This most recent post on the topic was a joke based on the idea that I had already done that, and that was why the Puritans were the way they were. A version of the common "went back to stop it, but ended up making it happen" theme in time travel science-fiction.

Yeah, he was kind of a dick, wasn't he? (Understatemented!) The least that could be done is not make a holiday in his name. I mean, really! But, basically, the point in what I was saying was really, I wouldn't want to change any historical event, because it might result in my life being completely different, and I like my life how it is. That doesn't, however, mean that I agreed with Columbus. What he did was genuinely terrible.

I'd do it just to test the grandfather paradox hypothesis. They say that if you did change your life then you'd prevent yourself from going back in time to do so. That was why the guy in the movie version of the Time Traveler couldn't save his finance. If she didn't die he wouldn't bother making a time machine to go back and save her. So he couldn't build a time machine to save her because it would prevent the time machine from enabling him to do that.

Longest. Explanation. For a joke. Ever.

Well the guy who read it thought I wanted to undo the New Deal. The long explanation seemed necessary.

Perhaps your schools offers some sort of remedial reading comprehension class or something. If so, I advise you take it.

That's not what I said.

The post was a joke based on a previous incarnation of this thread and an interview with Ann Coulter in which she was asked if she could visit any historical personality which one would it be. She said "FDR so I could get him not to do the New Deal."

Last time a thread like this went I said I'd hang out with FDR waiting for Ann Coulter to show up. Then I'd drag her to the puritans so that she could see what life is like with people who believe as she does.

This most recent post on the topic was a joke based on the idea that I had already done that, and that was why the Puritans were the way they were. A version of the common "went back to stop it, but ended up making it happen" theme in time travel science-fiction.

Longest. Explanation. For a joke. Ever.

The US has done many more things than just Iraq to earn my contempt.

Ok. I'll go with that.

I'm not sure if there was a thread involving this yet but here goes.

Lets assume Time Travel is possible. Only back in time not forward. You are able to go back and change one historical event.
Which one would you choose and why. Also state the possible outcome of changing said event.

Go back in time and smother Mohammed in his crib. No Islam.

How?

The Western Roman Empire collapsed well before 636 A.D.

The Eastern empire lasted another 800 years. And if they hadn't been under constant Moslem attack during much of that span, they would have had more resources available to reconstitute the empire or at least exert further civilizing influence.

Furthermore, many of the barbarians who took over the Western empire viewed themselves as culturally part of the Roman world and as successors to the Romans.

The Dark Ages were more likely brought about by the destruction of trade in the Mediterranean due to the loss of the Levant, north Africa and Spain and attendant Moslem piracy.

I'd go back to the very first cave men and throw stones at them until they start throwing back.:)

I would go back and have Pilate execute Yeshua along with every one of his demented followers. Without Christianity, Judaism would have sunk into oblivion and Islam would never have come to pass.

*COUGH*

What did you think happened? Do you think magical executions stop rising from the dead because you say so?

Rather than making the South win the Civil War, I'd have convinced Abraham Lincoln to just let the Confederacy secede peacefully and avoid the whole war altogether. Honestly, wouldn't the U.S. just be better off without those eleven states? Let them go and be their own backwards, racist nation.
First off I'll make the point that slavery was only one reason among many why the south seceded from the union.
Second not all southerners were/are racist
Third, short term that would have worked. Long term who knows who the confederacy would have allied with.
Read Harry Turtledove's series of books on the north/south split to see how your theory works.....

Well the guy who read it thought I wanted to undo the New Deal. The long explanation seemed necessary.

Dammit. I just wanted to show off my time traveling skills by responding to a post that quoted me before the post I was responding to was posted.

Now my time machine has completely run out of juice and the pholgiston that powers it isn't going to be invented for another 900 years.

Damn you Deus Maleum!

Go back in time and smother Mohammed in his crib. No Islam.

No one person ever invents something like that. I guarantee that if you were around at the time you'd have seen dozens of people talking about the exact same thing. It's like how Ben Franklin invented the light bulb, but everyone gives the credit to Thomas Edison because he marketed it.

If you killed Mohamed then the prophet of Islam would just be some other Arab.

I'm not sure if there was a thread involving this yet but here goes.

Lets assume Time Travel is possible. Only back in time not forward. You are able to go back and change one historical event.
Which one would you choose and why. Also state the possible outcome of changing said event.

Killed Paul with a sword, spare the world christianity.

or

Shot that balkan monkey who killed the archduke.

That's one of a few reasons why I refrained from the "strangled Jesus in manger" comeback.

The question is, since it's probable that there are an infinite number of timelines, which one would you be affecting?

No one person ever invents something like that. I guarantee that if you were around at the time you'd have seen dozens of people talking about the exact same thing. It's like how Ben Franklin invented the light bulb, but everyone gives the credit to Thomas Edison because he marketed it.

If you killed Mohamed then the prophet of Islam would just be some other Arab.

That's one of a few reasons why I refrained from the "strangled Jesus in manger" comeback.

... I would go back in time to meet the older sibling I never knew. (still born) :(

As you may notice from some of my posts, I am already a time traveller.

I'd go back and reveal that the Lusitania was loaded with war materiel, to the NY Times before she sailed.

Hopefully, this would so discredit the pro-war faction that the US would never become involved in WWI or the occupations in Russia. WWI would still end at about the same time (the British Blockade saw to that), no US troops would be killed.

The US wouldn't be as gunshy about getting involved in WWII (which we actually SHOULD have been involved in), the Russian Civil War would have been shorter, and hopefully the US would have been on better terms with the USSR.

It's interesting to me that two of NSG's most prominent, self-proclaimed conservatives - you and New Mitanni - both chose to ZOMG defeat ebil Islam in this little thread. Why, it's almost as if you're both bigots. But I know the truth is you are both selfless martyrs defending me from the vile barbarian subhumans by providing a final solution to the muslim problem. Thank you, and heil.

same as those saying they'll go back and end the Ebil Christians.

but funny you only concentrate on those focusing on Muslims... :p

Go back in time and smother Mohammed in his crib. No Islam.

It's interesting to me that two of NSG's most prominent, self-proclaimed conservatives - you and New Mitanni - both chose to ZOMG defeat ebil Islam in this little thread. Why, it's almost as if you're both bigots. But I know the truth is you are both selfless martyrs defending me from the vile barbarian subhumans by providing a final solution to the muslim problem. Thank you, and heil.

I'm not sure if there was a thread involving this yet but here goes.

Lets assume Time Travel is possible. Only back in time not forward. You are able to go back and change one historical event.
Which one would you choose and why. Also state the possible outcome of changing said event.

I would've gone back and stomped on the first mammals so we'd all be sentient bird people by now.

I would stop Marx. He is a disgrace to my people. More people have been killed in the name of his ideology than any other.

Stalim, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Someone should tell UB that these atheists have killed more people than any religion ever has.

I would stop Marx.

Yeah, because murdering innocent people is such a good thing to do....

When Bush was "elected" President.

And his ideology has led to the murder of about 100,000,000 alone in China. Let's then look at the 20,000,000 in the Soviet Union. There were massacres in Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

Let's face it. Marxism and the derivatives of it have killed more people than any other single ideology.

Amen.

*gives you a Sears Tower-sized cookie*

I would've gone back and stomped on the first mammals so we'd all be sentient bird people by now.

You win the thread. :cool:

Yeah, because murdering innocent people is such a good thing to do....

And his ideology has led to the murder of about 100,000,000 alone in China. Let's then look at the 20,000,000 in the Soviet Union. There were massacres in Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

Let's face it. Marxism and the derivatives of it have killed more people than any other single ideology.

Yeah, because murdering innocent people is such a good thing to do....

And his ideology has led to the murder of about 100,000,000 alone in China. Let's then look at the 20,000,000 in the Soviet Union. There were massacres in Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

Let's face it. Marxism and the derivatives of it have killed more people than any other single ideology.

To quote Spock: "Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

I'd have asked out that girl this time last year.

And his ideology has led to the murder of about 100,000,000 alone in China.

Not only is that number far too high, but the long-term consequences of Maoism in China were definitely positive.

Life expectancy increased at a very fast rate under Maoist rule, except during the periods of famine - indeed, a good case could be made that Maoism ultimately saved more lives than it took.

Let's face it. Marxism and the derivatives of it have killed more people than any other single ideology.

"Ideologies" don't kill people. People do.

Marx was hardly essential to the development of something like Marxism - were it not for him, the social movements that took after him would simply have been influenced by someone else. The results would have been the same.

Have you ever even read the works of the man you want to kill?

Not only is that number far too high, but the long-term consequences of Maoism in China were definitely positive.

Life expectancy increased at a very fast rate under Maoist rule, except during the periods of famine - indeed, a good case could be made that Maoism ultimately saved more lives than it took.

China remained a backward and impoverished country until Deng Xiaoping began his reforms.

Have you ever even read the works of the man you want to kill?

I can't speak for IDF, but I have. I've read Das Kapital (which was utterly boring; although, to be fair, Wealth of Nations is even more boring) and part of the Communist Manifesto.

Ruled that the ball was out of bounds in the 1979 VFL Grand Final.

I would shove that damn fish back into the sea and save humankind it existance :D

To quote Spock: "Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

As good an argument for Marxism as I've ever seen.

Go back to 1798 and arm the Irish with considerable amounts of modern weapons and other military doo-dads.

Go back to 1798 and arm the Irish with considerable amounts of modern weapons and other military doo-dads.
Or, just bribe the Irish Parliament fore than GB did. But that wouldn't be as fun...

Or, just bribe the Irish Parliament fore than GB did. But that wouldn't be as fun...

Watching the English get pwned would be far more amusing.

Watching the English get pwned would be far more amusing.
Aye. Lord knows we deserve it at least once...

i would, if such a thing were possible, have prevented the fall of minoen crete, or perhapse even saved the children of akah-naton from their appearent fate.

or prevented the time traveler we KNOW did, from giving the etruscans the styrup.

with the effect, on of the first, of there never having arrisen a roman empire.

one resault of this is that christianity would have then become more like budhism and settled down peacefully besides pre-existing beliefs and contributing to a peaceful and nonfanatical world.

far from preventing tecnological evolution, though admitedly by no means boosting it, one effect that in tern would have had though, one of many, is the librarly at alaxandria not having been burned by fanatics. not that there was actualy anything of great scientific value in the works that were lost themselves, but the dampening effect that event had, casting it's long shadow to create the middle ages, would not have occured.

the resault of that being, not only a world that did not, as it so often does now, romantacize and reward aggressiveness, but one in which tecnological evolution, while certainly slower then what we've recently witnessed in the 20th century, would have been nontheless steadier and more certain all along, leading to the age of steam have begun a thousand years sooner, lasting 500 years longer, but as much or more to the point, we, in all likelyhood, would be a starfaring civilization by now.

(and one that WASN'T tyring to mess everything up for everyone else either!)

=^^=
.../\...

As good an argument for Marxism as I've ever seen.

That would be the case if Marxism worked as well in practice as it did in theory. Marx was probably brain dead when it came to economics. When his ideas are put into practice, everyone suffers a lower standard of living. Name me one marxist nation that has benefited from it. China might be doing well now, but that's because they've more or less abandoned marxism.

Hmm...a few options...the Paris Commune managing to defend itself? Victory for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War? And several others.

Not sure what i'd pick.

Hitler getting accepted into art school.

No real reason. I just want my damn Hitler paintings.

Hitler getting accepted into art school.

No real reason. I just want my damn Hitler paintings.

Hitler (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/AHWatercolor1.jpg)paintings! (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Hitler%27s_Paintings_-_Landscape.jpg)

That time I failed to get laid...;)

That time I failed to get laid...;)
Looooooooool! hundred points for that answer.

That time I failed to get laid...;)

Looooooooool! hundred points for that answer.

lol. Seconded....screw history. Literally. ;)

Hitler (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ac/AHWatercolor1.jpg)paintings! (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Hitler%27s_Paintings_-_Landscape.jpg)

It's interesting to me that if Hitler hadn't gotten a name for himself as the most evil person ever, I wouldn't have looked at those paintings.

Interesting in the sense that maybe the whole reason Hitler tried to conquer the world and commit genocide was so that people would look at his art...

and that in me looking at those paintings, I have just proved one thing: Hitler won the war!

It's interesting to me that if Hitler hadn't gotten a name for himself as the most evil person ever, I wouldn't have looked at those paintings.

Interesting in the sense that maybe the whole reason Hitler tried to conquer the world and commit genocide was so that people would look at his art...

and that in me looking at those paintings, I have just proved one thing: Hitler won the war!

He was just misunderstood...everbody say "awwww"...

It's interesting to me that if Hitler hadn't gotten a name for himself as the most evil person ever, I wouldn't have looked at those paintings.

Interesting in the sense that maybe the whole reason Hitler tried to conquer the world and commit genocide was so that people would look at his art...

and that in me looking at those paintings, I have just proved one thing: Hitler won the war!

A sort of Thermopylaean context of win, then? Win the purpose, lose the battle?

Go back to 1798 and arm the Irish with considerable amounts of modern weapons and other military doo-dads.

That would be good except for, you know, how ireland belongs to England :)

Aye. Lord knows we deserve it at least once...

*cough*American Revolution*cough*

Boudicca would have routed the Romans and ousted them from Britain. Roman influence in Britain would have been effectively quashed. The possibilities at that point are endless. It's possible that England, having been united under one queen, would have had a succession of queens rather than kings - a northern European matriarchy might have resulted.

In the absence of a male tribal leader, Boudicca led the Iceni to war. It wasn't a feminist act - that's how that society worked.
Also, the Iceni revolt was more to do with attacking their tribal enemies than freeing Britain.
Come to think of it the chances of her, or anyone else, uniting the tribes were pretty remote.

But if young Julius Caesar had died of that fever, or Sulla had done away with him... that would have had a huge impact on European history. Maybe no conquest of Gaul, let alone Britain; certainly no Augustus; most probably nothing but endless civil war until Rome was done for.

In the absence of a male tribal leader, Boudicca led the Iceni to war. It wasn't a feminist act - that's how that society worked.
Also, the Iceni revolt was more to do with attacking their tribal enemies than freeing Britain.
Come to think of it the chances of her, or anyone else, uniting the tribes were pretty remote.

But if young Julius Caesar had died of that fever, or Sulla had done away with him... that would have had a huge impact on European history. Maybe no conquest of Gaul, let alone Britain; certainly no Augustus; most probably nothing but endless civil war until Rome was done for.

I agree, Boudicca ousting the Romans from Britain would have been a flash in the pan. And the Romans would simply have dusted themselves off, regrouped, and sailed back with a vengeance.

The death of Caesar as a young man, yes, that would have made a difference. I don't know that Rome would have necessarily been done for, though. The Republic, by the last century BC, was the main political entity in the Mediterranean basin. No one else could have taken her place. There would probably have been further rounds of civil war but someone, maybe Pompey, maybe someone else, would have come out on top. There would ultimately have been a monarchy, I think, though it's interesting to speculate who would have won out.

"Probably?" He was.

You fool! Marx could not have been more ahead of his time when it came to ecenomics, remember at the time the only system around practically was fuedalism or fuedalist capitalism. The idea of socialism hadn't even existed then.

Marx was probably brain dead when it came to economics.

"Probably?" He was.

That would be the case if Marxism worked as well in practice as it did in theory. Marx was probably brain dead when it came to economics. When his ideas are put into practice, everyone suffers a lower standard of living. Name me one marxist nation that has benefited from it. China might be doing well now, but that's because they've more or less abandoned marxism.

Ah, since some anonymous interwebs geek says it, it must be true. Marx obviously loses to your superior works in the field.

Marx suggested a model that has yet to really be employed, so it's hard to tell how good it is 'in practice'. The fact that you don't like what the idea might entail (or just don't know, perhaps?) doesn't make the author braindead.

The Republic, by the last century BC, was the main political entity in the Mediterranean basin. No one else could have taken her place. There would probably have been further rounds of civil war but someone, maybe Pompey, maybe someone else, would have come out on top.

Not sure about that. Rome was in a hell of a mess, financially and socially, and couldn't afford too much more chaos. Rome didn't necessarily need to be replaced by a hostile superpower - losing control of Egypt would have been enough. No more grain supply; no more grain dole; angry people taking to the streets in a city with no police force or fire brigade.

Still, dealing with disasters was pretty much a way of life for the Romans, so you might be right.

ONE?
Fuck that!

I would stop the Hindenburg from crashing, assassinate Hitler, stop the REAL killer of JFK, be there to know whether Elvis really died or not, watch as the Berlin Wall fall, aid in the construction of the Great Wall of China, and end the Civil War before it started! I would also prevent the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and OBVIOUSLY... I would prevent 9/11 and this entire fucking war.

Then I would make myself a sandwich, because I would be damn hungry.

aid in the construction of the Great Wall of China

Um...yeah. Good luck with that...

end the Civil War before it started!

Which one?

Which one?

The only one that matters: The American one. :D hahaha

If I had the power to go back in time to change one event in history, I'd go back to when there was that big Powerball jackpot ($300+ million), and win the drawing before that other guy.


Then, I could surf NationStates from the comfort of my multi million dollar home (with T3 line, indoor swimming pool, 3 car garage with full fabrication shop, etc).

Ah, since some anonymous interwebs geek says it, it must be true. Marx obviously loses to your superior works in the field.

Marx suggested a model that has yet to really be employed, so it's hard to tell how good it is 'in practice'. The fact that you don't like what the idea might entail (or just don't know, perhaps?) doesn't make the author braindead.

Yes and no. Yes he showed brilliant insight into the way the economy was shaping up, but his ideas just don't work.

To say that his model has never been employed is like saying that we've never really built a cold fusion power plant.

Remember, he wasn't saying what we should do to run an ordered and prosperous society. He was saying what would happen. If he was right no one would have to "employ" it. It would just happen. The same way that social stratification happens in capitalism. Hardly anyone says "let's establish a tiny privileged minority with all the power and a giant underclass that grows increasingly resentful." It just happens and it takes conscious work to keep it from happening.

He wasn't brain dead, but he was flying pretty blind. He's a bit like Freud who thought that all psychology boiled down to wanting to have sex with your mother and kill your father (or vice-versa). He had a very flawed concept, but within it were some brilliant insights that we accept today as all but fact.

If I had the power to go back in time to change one event in history, I'd go back to when there was that big Powerball jackpot ($300+ million), and win the drawing before that other guy.


Then, I could surf NationStates from the comfort of my multi million dollar home (with T3 line, indoor swimming pool, 3 car garage with full fabrication shop, etc).

I'd settle for that much smaller jackpot that a child molester got.

ONE?
Fuck that!

I would stop the Hindenburg from crashing, assassinate Hitler, stop the REAL killer of JFK, be there to know whether Elvis really died or not, watch as the Berlin Wall fall, aid in the construction of the Great Wall of China, and end the Civil War before it started! I would also prevent the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and OBVIOUSLY... I would prevent 9/11 and this entire fucking war.

Then I would make myself a sandwich, because I would be damn hungry.

You got way to ambitious. You can't make yourself a sandwich with time travel. Once you make the sandwich, you remove the cause whose effect was your making a sandwich. Oh the hubris.

I would have prevented the Russian Revolution from going totalitarian.

The Chinese Civil War. I blame the situation in Korea on Chinese intervention.

Prevent the invention of the motor car. It'd be interesting to see how things would be now without it.

If I had the power to go back in time to change one event in history, I'd go back to when there was that big Powerball jackpot ($300+ million), and win the drawing before that other guy.


Then, I could surf NationStates from the comfort of my multi million dollar home (with T3 line, indoor swimming pool, 3 car garage with full fabrication shop, etc).

Heh. For me, the best thing about winning millions would be not feeling the need to interact with the lame penniless muppets of NationStates anymore.

(I kid, I kid, no need to flame me.)

I would kill Shakespeare. He's gonna cost me an A in my report.

Heh. For me, the best thing about winning millions would be not feeling the need to interact with the lame penniless muppets of NationStates anymore.

(I kid, I kid, no need to flame me.)

Who says we're penniless. I've got a bit, enough for Saturdays.

Prevent the invention of the motor car. It'd be interesting to see how things would be now without it.

Even the thought of it hurts urgh haha my last horse riding incident hurt for weeks..

Still, dealing with disasters was pretty much a way of life for the Romans, so you might be right.Such as Christianity? :eek: :D

Such as Christianity? :eek: :D

You and your militant atheism, :)

Daniel Craig would not have been named the latest James Bond. It would've been...














































http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4140/hoff20bondsd8.jpg
"Hoff. Hasselhoff."

:p

I would go back and have Pilate execute Yeshua along with every one of his demented followers. Without Christianity, Judaism would have sunk into oblivion and Islam would never have come to pass.

Bloody good idea. Mind if I join in?

Arg...there's ONE I have to pick...so I pick this one:

I go back to December 7, 2000, and I blackmail Clarence Thomas. I tell him two things: First, you are about to rule on Bush v. Gore, and that you are either to rule in favor of Mr. Gore or you are to recuse yourself. Failure to do as I instruct will result in...well, I'd have to research something really terrible to blackmail him with, but I could do it. Anywho, Thomas rules in favor of Gore, and the Supreme Court allows the recounts in Florida to go ahead. Congress tries to challenge the results, but it's caught up in chaos and turmoil and cannot put a challenge together. The tide shifts to Gore by Christmas, and it ends up that Gore is declared the winner in Florida by about 10,000 votes. Bush continues to try to sue, but is stifled, and Gore takes over the White House in 2001.

Another possibility, and maybe I would want Gore in charge anyway: During the week after Labor Day 2001, I would force the FAA to conduct massive security training drills all that week. I would go over every single security rule, and because of it, the majority of 9/11 hijackers are denied permission to fly. As a result, at least two of the planes are not hijacked, and the others are flown back to safety or, at worst, are shot out of the sky or crash in open fields a la Flight 93. September 11, 2001 is not remembered as a day of tragedy; rather, it's just a blustery late-summer day in which a couple of planes just happened to be diverted.

I would also go back in time and find out what it is that turned Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft from best friends into mortal enemies, prevent it, and keep them from splitting the GOP ticket in 1912. Roosevelt would have endorsed a second term for his dear friend Taft, Woodrow Wilson wouldn't have stood a chance, and no one who had any inkling of desire to involve America in World War I would have been elected. With any luck, even the shipment of war materials would have been prevented, thus preventing the Lusitania disaster, and a lack of American involvement in WWI would hopefully have prevented the Versailles treaty from being so Draconian toward the Germans. After all, the French and British felt like they had the world on their side, and if the war ends in an armistice with no apparent winner (and neither side has ANY means of calling victory) then the Germans are less bitter and Hitler doesn't come to power as easily. Rather, the Kaiser stays in power, and the Depression turns Germany toward the Soviet Union.

I would have gone back in time, put myself in the place of Louis XVI, and worked to prevent the French revolution by creating a synthesis of liberalism and monarchism, while stamping out any democracy both physically and intellectually. Thus, I would bring the West's golden age of 1815-1914 much earlier, and most likely avoid World War I thus continuing on said age.

The only one that matters: The American one. :D hahaha

Some would argue there hasn't been an American Civil War.

Yes and no. Yes he showed brilliant insight into the way the economy was shaping up, but his ideas just don't work.

To say that his model has never been employed is like saying that we've never really built a cold fusion power plant.

Remember, he wasn't saying what we should do to run an ordered and prosperous society. He was saying what would happen. If he was right no one would have to "employ" it. It would just happen. The same way that social stratification happens in capitalism. Hardly anyone says "let's establish a tiny privileged minority with all the power and a giant underclass that grows increasingly resentful." It just happens and it takes conscious work to keep it from happening.

He wasn't brain dead, but he was flying pretty blind. He's a bit like Freud who thought that all psychology boiled down to wanting to have sex with your mother and kill your father (or vice-versa). He had a very flawed concept, but within it were some brilliant insights that we accept today as all but fact.

I don't know, really - since such a determined effort was made to stem the tide (and with such brilliant use of religion - I wonder how many people realise their governments 'theocratised' to prevent the spread of communism?), was Marx wrong? Wouldn't it be fair to say it's just as likely that he was the warning that was required to stop his vision being realised?

Tell General Varus that marching through Teoutonberg is a bad idea.

go back and get Edward The Confessor to have a son and heir so we can have a longer run of Anglo-Saxon Monarchs or go back and be James I and and my will leave the throne to Elizabeth rather than Charles

I would also go back in time and find out what it is that turned Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft from best friends into mortal enemies, prevent it, and keep them from splitting the GOP ticket in 1912. Roosevelt would have endorsed a second term for his dear friend Taft, Woodrow Wilson wouldn't have stood a chance, and no one who had any inkling of desire to involve America in World War I would have been elected. With any luck, even the shipment of war materials would have been prevented, thus preventing the Lusitania disaster, and a lack of American involvement in WWI would hopefully have prevented the Versailles treaty from being so Draconian toward the Germans. After all, the French and British felt like they had the world on their side, and if the war ends in an armistice with no apparent winner (and neither side has ANY means of calling victory) then the Germans are less bitter and Hitler doesn't come to power as easily. Rather, the Kaiser stays in power, and the Depression turns Germany toward the Soviet Union.

Germany lost the war ultimately because the Allied blockade left it economically unable to carry on. This would have most likely happened regardless of US involvement (though the US definitely hastened Germany's demise). The Americans were the only ones arguing for clemency at Versailles, so without US involvement the final treaty would have most likely been harsher, not more lenient.
A better bet to stop the whole Nazi thing from happening would be altering the Weimar constitution, or preventing the Great Depression somehow.
Edit: so instead of advancing the cause of the GOP in the 1910s you should maybe be looking to promote the Dems in the 1920s.

Has anyone used 9/11 yet? It's interesting that the entire US was mobilized and ready to invade country after country as a result of this "tragic" media "event," and yet few if any think it important or tragic enough to reverse in this hypothetical situation...

could it be because in the long run, 9/11 was just an excuse? Like the Lusitania, the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin?

Stop the French Enlightenment leaders from existing as is (kidnap from their cribs and put them somewhere else). No French revolution, no Reign of Terror, Napoleon is just some short dude in the French military, and Marx and Engels are of no consequence to anyone (and perhaps that child of Marx's lives).

kill Stalin. let Trotsky take power

Well the guy who read it thought I wanted to undo the New Deal. The long explanation seemed necessary.

I'm female, actually. How the f.ck was I supposed to know what happened in a previous incarnation of this same thread? Because I read every post ever made on NSG?

I'm getting so sick of the f.cking site and all the people on it. If I wanted constant knocks to my intelligence and linguistic skills, I'd stand in front of a f.cking mirror, because I already hate myself enough. Screw this all; I'm two f.cking steps away from suicide by mod.

I'm not sure if there was a thread involving this yet but here goes.

Lets assume Time Travel is possible. Only back in time not forward. You are able to go back and change one historical event.
Which one would you choose and why. Also state the possible outcome of changing said event.

I wouldnt change anything. You can certainly never guess its full ramifications fully. Watch the movie called Butterfly Effect for more graphic explanation.

I'm female, actually. How the f.ck was I supposed to know what happened in a previous incarnation of this same thread? Because I read every post ever made on NSG?

I'm getting so sick of the f.cking site and all the people on it. If I wanted constant knocks to my intelligence and linguistic skills, I'd stand in front of a f.cking mirror, because I already hate myself enough. Screw this all; I'm two f.cking steps away from suicide by mod.

I'm sorry to hear that. I love some of your stuff and I'd miss you if you were gone.

Why people don't rip me a new one for some of the silly things I say is something of a mystery to me. Perhaps it's the gobstopping pomposity of my name ...?

I'd go back and have Akhenaten killed as a boy.

Some would argue there hasn't been an American Civil War.

An argument that generally goes over many heads, and often ends with the usual accusations of supporting slavery, eating babies and other such things.

I'd go back and have Akhenaten killed as a boy.

Quite. If you find a way to go back in time. Take me with u please.

Then, I could surf NationStates from the comfort of my multi million dollar home (with T3 line, indoor swimming pool, 3 car garage with full fabrication shop, etc).

Or you could just surf all day/do whatever and never have to work. Invest a chunk, save the other. Watch them both grow over time and never have to do anything. :D

I'd take a kilo of gold back to the 1900's, slowly exchange it for Marks, and buy every sketch or watercolour Adolf Hitler would make for me.
When he grew fat and had a nice morphine habit, I'd toss the whole investment down a toilet and come back to see how things went without his messianic delusions.

geez id change so much... better not think about it or ill have a brain fart:D

This madness was going on long before Jesus, and if it wasn't in the name Christianity it would have been in the name of some other ideology, as can be seen all over the world even today. An inevitability you cannot stop. You cannot blame Christianity on the insanities of the power hungry autocrats, to do so would be an insanely retarded attempt of attacking an idealogy. There is nothing in the teachings of Christianity that advocates any of these atrocities either.

Major ownage! :D

Major ownage! :D

That would look better with a gun smilie. Like this:
:D :sniper: