If you could eliminate one person at any given time in the last century who would it
- Thread starter saturnV
- Start date
NO.
There is no way that the Holocaust, Holodomor, Cultural Revolution, gulags, occupation of Eastern Europe, and the Great Leap Forward had "positive butterflies", no matter how much better the successors to those three monsters were. Those three men's actions rank among the foulest evil that man has inflicted on man since the Spanish raped Latin America.
And "these men ruined millions for no reason"? They had the same stew of personal megalomania, overwhelming power, greed and muddled thinking that led to Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
At least they were dumb. Can you imagine if Hitler was smart and retained his personality and ambition? *shudder*
I'd like to erase Raymond Poincaré, who's to blame a large bit of this whole mess in the first place. Maybe Germany wouldn't get fascist leaders if it wasn't bankrupt.
EDIT: Actually, I'd vote for reducing Hitler's intelligence to douche bag level so he becomes even less relevant but stops other leaders from taking over. So I vote we eliminate more chunks of his brain.
His list of crimes goes way past the pogroms, as horrible as they were. Nicholas certainly wasn't a saint but still, I give credit where credit is due:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907#Hague_Convention_of_1899
..at any given time in the last century..
So that would rule out Bismarck entirely, and there's not much point in offing Leopold II when he's already done most of the damage in the Congo. I'm also not convinced that WWI or something much like it can be butterflied away with the loss of a single protagonist, even Kaiser Bill. So, fighting back my visceral dislike of Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, David Lloyd George and Maggoty Tatcha, I'm going for Hitler.
So that would rule out Bismarck entirely, and there's not much point in offing Leopold II when he's already done most of the damage in the Congo. I'm also not convinced that WWI or something much like it can be butterflied away with the loss of a single protagonist, even Kaiser Bill. So, fighting back my visceral dislike of Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, David Lloyd George and Maggoty Tatcha, I'm going for Hitler.
Pol Pot.
He was a brutal monster with zero redeeming qualities, but his actions probably didn't make much of an impact on an international scale, so few butterflies outside of Cambodia.
He was a brutal monster with zero redeeming qualities, but his actions probably didn't make much of an impact on an international scale, so few butterflies outside of Cambodia.
No WWI - Communism might butterflied, so is Nazism, so is Japanese militarism.
This alone will butterfly Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Don't think Japan has gut to rage in Asia with Europeans checking.
You can save millions of life and horrible destruction.
So I will try to prevent WWI.
- Wilhelm Kaiser II
- man who organized assassination of Archduke Ferdinand,
- or kill someone that could prevent WWI or delay it for several years (maybe given more time Russian Army could beat Germany thus war can end within year?)
This alone will butterfly Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Don't think Japan has gut to rage in Asia with Europeans checking.
You can save millions of life and horrible destruction.
So I will try to prevent WWI.
- Wilhelm Kaiser II
- man who organized assassination of Archduke Ferdinand,
- or kill someone that could prevent WWI or delay it for several years (maybe given more time Russian Army could beat Germany thus war can end within year?)
Yes I agree with this and see where your coming from. I just fear that someone worse could come along. For instance Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalists could be just as bad as the communists.If given the choice I too would probably remove Hitler/Stalin/Mao. I'm just saying that I would wan't to remove these men more because it wouldn't totally alter the timeline as much as removing those evil men would.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Lenin, Woodrow Wilson, A. Mitchell Palmer, George Wallace, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, LBJ, Ted Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, Jimmy Carter, Justin Bieber, Kanye West, all of the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus
I must say that I find it amazing to have Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Margaret Thatcher and any other non-genocidal killers on this list. How does one compare Roosevelt or Wilson to Hitler? I just do not understand the logic.
Let's see... No WWII means no me... and no WWI means no WWII...
I'd have to go for someone fairly contemporary to keep my existence safe. But how do I know eliminating one person won't just have another fill the gap? For instance, from an American perspective, Osama bin Laden is an obvious man to negate, but how do I know al-Qaeda wouldn't act similarly without him, 9/11 and all? And you could say the same thing about Hitler and the like... Except doesn't denying the "Great Man" theory of history stink of determinism and a lack of agency? So I should adopt that idea...
Wait, I'm thinking too hard about this, aren't I?
I'd have to go for someone fairly contemporary to keep my existence safe. But how do I know eliminating one person won't just have another fill the gap? For instance, from an American perspective, Osama bin Laden is an obvious man to negate, but how do I know al-Qaeda wouldn't act similarly without him, 9/11 and all? And you could say the same thing about Hitler and the like... Except doesn't denying the "Great Man" theory of history stink of determinism and a lack of agency? So I should adopt that idea...
Wait, I'm thinking too hard about this, aren't I?
I nominate Linda Taylor. WTF on so many levels.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...an_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...an_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html
Lost the game
Banned
Butterflies, my dear boy, butterflies.
Seriously. Think of it this way: No Wilson=no US involvement in WWI=1919 "Peace of mutual exhaustion"=no Dolchstoßlegende=no Hitler.
Yes, I know. I think this is a backwards looking "slippery slope" logical fallacy.