What one event from 1900-2016 would you remove/change for the best modern earth?

jahenders

Banned
You're right that eliminating Trump doesn't change much.

RFK might / might not have been a good president, but it probably have been either him or JFK and I'm not sure the results would be too much different.

How does this help? Less Casinos? No bad reality show? Or are you just hoping to preempt his potential presidency?

On to mine. I'd butterfly the RFK assassination. To me. he'd have been one of the best presidents we could have had.
 
American occupation of Philippines, simply because that fucking republic had a potential to be a powerhouse today.
 
War and innovation - one the one hand you could argue it doesn't, since these things would have happened anyway and war just made them happen sooner ('necessity is the mother of invention'). On the other hand, this means nothing drives innovation since it would happen anyway so *shrugs*. It can have a negative effect certainly however war possibly killed off future Einsteins or captains of industry so you can make that argument, though given we'll never know I'd hesitate to say unless you can find people killed who may have contributed (such as the German physicists sent to the Eastern Front) otherwise you're relying on essentially luck.

And in general we'll never know - we may have killed off someone who would do great things....or have killed someone who would do terrible things. What if Hitler had bought the bullet in WW1?

So in general I'm hesitant to use that argument. Certainly though human history has been altered by the sheer number of people killed, though for better or ill we may never know. I mean machinegunners have probably altered the course of human history simply by the sheer number of people they gunned down alone.

Personally I'd seek to avert WW1 if possible. I think that would make the modern world a better place but there are so many butterflies I have no idea. I'm hesitant to change things too far back because I have no idea what effect it will have.

Except that for some things, development could easily move quicker without the wars. After all, what does war provide? Government funding, sure, but the dreadnought race proved that you don't need an actual conflict to garner government grants, and as the Space Race would later prove, even decidedly non-military projects can garner huge funding. Meanwhile, what war costs is civilian markets, private finance, lives, infrastructure, etc.

A fair point. Perhaps a better statement would be an arms race helps innovation (and the economy). So all we need is to be in a permanent state of military tension but no actual war :p. Because it will undo the benefits of the former.
 
I'm tempted to say avoiding the Great War. Now there's a good chance you wind up with a another war shortly afterwards anyway, but if you don't you avoid all of the chaos that communism and fascism inflicted on the globe. The Great Depression and the dust bowl would be lessened somewhat and perhaps the colonial empires can be drawn down at a less chaotic pace.
 
I'm tempted to say avoiding the Great War. Now there's a good chance you wind up with a another war shortly afterwards anyway, but if you don't you avoid all of the chaos that communism and fascism inflicted on the globe. The Great Depression and the dust bowl would be lessened somewhat and perhaps the colonial empires can be drawn down at a less chaotic pace.

Aye - I'd guess we'd see a war but less devastating and more confined. And indeed, avoiding the mess of fascism and communism would be a boost. Racism and colonialism will last longer but hopefully the latter will end better (not sure about the former).

I find this to be an immensely dangerous idea, which weirdly seems to be really popular among the leftists on the forum (I'm not using this as an insult I should note). Okay, a Soviet or Nazi copy is unlikely to work in America but could you have a dictator in the right circumstances. Americans and American institutions have proven to be more than willing to give over to authoritarian impulses over the years. I mean in 1933, a film called Gabriel over the White House was released that more or less called for Roosevelt to establish a pro-New Deal dictatorship. The film is actually really instructive in how people justify dictatorships - the enemy are just stooges of capital and foreign interests who are keeping the working man down, the leader is more enlightened and brilliant than them etc... Sound familiar? I suspect that the dictatorship wouldn't be as overt as in the film - there would probably still be elections (that only the regime can win or even compete in) and the US constitution would still be 'respected', just not respected if you take my meaning. I actually really like Reds but it is a very idealized version of a communist revolution where everything more or less goes the way of the revolutionaries.

In fairness Reds! is suppose to be a successful communist US (and indeed world communism, as well as a discussion about Marxism) - it's teleological. Thus things are supposed to go that way, though I do agree that if I wrote Reds! how I thought things would actually happen it would be very different.
 
I'm tempted to say avoiding the Great War. Now there's a good chance you wind up with a another war shortly afterwards anyway, but if you don't you avoid all of the chaos that communism and fascism inflicted on the globe. The Great Depression and the dust bowl would be lessened somewhat and perhaps the colonial empires can be drawn down at a less chaotic pace.
Plus you almost certainly don't get the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, which was responsible for something between 50-100 million deaths.
 
Have the Soviets land on the Moon. The competitive nature of the superpowers will allow for continued investment in space infrastructure, and humans would definitely have colonized places beyond Earth orbit.
 
Basically prevent WWI...
Or if that can't be the case, have all the colonial grievances be taken seriously at Versailles...
Like the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Koreans, the Egyptians, etc...
 

ben0628

Banned
How does this help? Less Casinos? No bad reality show? Or are you just hoping to preempt his potential presidency?



On to mine. I'd butterfly the RFK assassination. To me. he'd have been one of the best presidents we could have had.

Donald Trump's presence in politics has potentially destroyed the Republican Party and has radicalized the ideologies of countless Americans by blaming moderates for America's problems. Regardless of whether or not he wins the election, the butterflies from his presence has had, and will continue to have major consequences for the world's most influential country and hence, the rest of the world.

Also, I would never pick a decision such as world war one or world war two to alter. Something that far back and that big has too many butterflies that could potentially make things unexpectedly worse. Prefer to pick just one person, and right now Trump is the one person who gives me more headaches than anyone else, so he has to go.
 
Last edited:
Remove the birth of Donald Trump.

Not gonna change much. The hateful current in the South was there to be expolited, as with the extreme that-consumer-movement-that-shall-not-be-named/antifeminist/anti-pc sentiment. So without Trump, most likely Cruz would have taken his place. Before Trump there was the moral majority and the Southern strategy, and let's not ignore the George Wallace campaign.

Some ideas for the single event that could change the world for the better.....

-The American Socialist movement of Debs or the IWW survives WWI and have them grow to a strong force in US politics either as a third party or an strong independent movement outside the electoral arena.
-Kerensky withdraws from WWI when the Tzar is overthrown.
-Have the treaties of Versailles include decolonization and leinant treatment of Germany.
-No carving up of the middle east, have a single secular state.
-The Allied Powers are more supportive of the Spanish Republic
-US supports Ho's government after WWII
-Japan goes through a denazification-esque process so there is more remorse for what they did in the past.
-Henry Wallace is aware of what Stalin is doing, but still maintains many of his progressive principles and it dosen't necessary shift to the right due to disillusionment with Stalin. He becomes president and second bill of right is passed, but now more cautious over Soviet policy. US is much more progressive and even socially democratic as a result.
-Israel issue is solved peacefully, don't really know how to carry this one out due to the complexity of the Issue.....
-Have Operation Ajax and possibility PBSUCESS screw up hard assuming the latter still goes on ahead even if the former fails, thus the US won't go the "easy way" and support dictators compliant to its interests or to anti-communism despite future destabilization and actually have to work with democratic elected governments to get stuff done, even if they challenge US corporations or are accommodating to Communists
-Prevent the south from becoming what it is electoral wise, and make it as progressive as possible
 
Last edited:
The deal between China and America falls through, allowing the UN forces to take over the entirety of North Korea without Chinese intervention.

Long term effect: stronger Korea, earlier Sino-Soviet split, North Vietnam might be strangled, weakened Soviet influence, etc.
 
The deal between China and America falls through, allowing the UN forces to take over the entirety of North Korea without Chinese intervention.

Long term effect: stronger Korea, earlier Sino-Soviet split, North Vietnam might be strangled, weakened Soviet influence, etc.
Or the PRC never forms, leaving the ROC to round up all the warlords, probably not invade Tibet, and support the US.
 
To answer the OP:

Somehow prevent the rise of communism and it's fellow travelers as a political force, both in Russia and and elsewhere. No communism means no reaction against it which mean that the 20th century's other vile ideology, fascism, never emerges. No fascism means that the second world war is either prevented outright or at least reduced in scale. Also, no Red superpower means no Cold War.
 
I would somehow avoid the Coup of the Three Pashas so that Ottoman democracy survives and the Empire doesn't go all insane and genocidal. This would lead to possible a neutral Ottoman Empire in WWI, which would have a ripple effect of meaning that Tsarist Russia doesn't fall (they still have access to the Bosphorus and Dardanelles). Tsarist Russia surviving means that the Communists in Germany don't gain nearly as much traction, and thus the Nazis don't gain nearly as much traction. That gets Europe to be peaceful. At that point, the only bad thing you have left is Imperial Japan, and the Russians and Americans can deal with them relatively easily without the Nazis to worry about. So, with one POD, that being no Three Pasha coup, you get a stable Middle East, no Communism or Naziism (Italy might still go Fascist, but it would be much less horrible), and probably no WWII. So yeah, everything is Enver Pasha's fault, basically.

This is an excellent premise and knock-ons. I think you underestimate the importance of averting the Russian Revolution (and therefore the Bolshevik Revolution). The Bolsheviks were the first "revolutionary" government; their success inspired violent revolutionarism in many countries and violent repression.

Without the threat of Red Revolution, there is no real space for Nazis.

Also, the shorter WW I and the survival of Imperial Russia probably averts the Great Depression. The U.S. won't be involved, and the quasi-fascist war regime of 1917-1919 never exists. There will be less pressure on Japan, but more constraint; Japan will not go mad-dog.

There is still danger from nuclear weapons, when they are invented. There could still be aggressive dictatorships, and I don't think the Great Powers of the ATL will be up to creating an effective system to prevent a criminal regime from building the Bomb.
 
I still say no WW1. I mean, apart from anything else on the technical side, you get earlier (starting in the teens), more competitive airliner wars (Russia, America, Britain, France, German and Japan at the least), plus a much earlier introduction of green tech (like starting in the mid teens). On the social side you get no fascism, probably no communism, a slower (but probably more measured) decolonisation, no middle-east mandates, which reduces arab anger towards the west, more peaceful developments in Ireland, etc.
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
Hard to say. Any event that I would try to change could have potential negative effects such as preventing World War One might make de-colonization sooner rather than later and keep the various absolute monarchs of Europe such as the Kaiser and Tsar in power. It also might just lead to an alternate World War down the road that could be more devastating as the base reasons for WW1 are still there, regardless of preventing the assassination of the Archduke.
 
Last edited:
I would abort the development of the motorcar to the extent that it doesn't harm rail transport while hoping that all other technological advances can still happen.
 
The Weimar Republic executes the entire leadership of the NSDAP after the failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923.

Or Hitler could be killed by the bullet that OTL killed the marcher next to him.

(But that's actually adding an event, not removing one as the OP requested.)

That would eliminate Nazi Germany and its crimes.

But it does not eliminate the USSR and its crimes, nor its threat to the world as a nuclear power. I would be very reluctant to tweak history in the WW II-Cold War era unless I could be sure that no criminal government would have the Bomb. Not Nazi Germany, not the USSR, not Mao's China, not Imperialist Japan. Not even Fascist Italy.

Because once such a regime has the Bomb, it can do whatever crimes and aggressions it wants to, unless some lawful government has the Bomb to deter. Then comes a Cold War with a "balance of terror" and several decades when recklessness or accident could trigger the end of civilization.

We dodged that bullet OTL. But I would not take any chance of that outcome, not even to avert the Holocaust or the Holodomor or the Great Leap Forward. It's the gambler's fundamental rule: never bet what you cannot afford to lose, no matter how favorable the odds.

In this case: one eliminates the Nazis and their particular crimes, and most likely Germany as a military threat. But the uranium fission chain reaction is still going to be discovered, and therefore the Bomb.

The criminal regime of the USSR still exists, and Japan will almost certainly still go mad. Each of them is IMO more likely to develop the Bomb than any Western state not facing the very visible threat of Nazi Germany. (And serious Western development work started only after Nazi Germany attacked.)

Thus there is danger of Stalin having the Bomb to himself, or of Imperialist Japan having the Bomb. Either outcome would be much worse than OTL.

The West (especially the U.S.) was galvanized into strong military build-up and action by Nazi Germany, more than anything else, and the U.S. became a superpower with de facto global hegemony through its participation in WW II. No Nazi Germany, and the U.S. remains isolationist - and not an effective counter to the USSR, which would be much stronger for not having been ravaged by German invasion. And the U.S. would be much less likely to spend the vast amounts required to build the Bomb.

Even if the U.S. does stand against the USSR (or nuclear Japan), then there will be a Cold War with build-up of nuclear arsenals, and decades of risk of a nuclear-war catastrophe.

So this is not necessarily a good choice.
 
Top