What one event from 1900-2016 would you remove/change for the best modern earth?
- Thread starter iamthelol
- Start date
trurle
Banned
I would cancel a Marco Polo Bridge Incident (and all its alternatives). Removing by this at least 2 theatres of WWII - Chinese and Pacific. POD may be less adventurous IJA leaders in 1937, may be due for example large casualties of Japanese troops due the new strain of Chinese Bird Flu.
By the way, stable interwar Germany will just result in Soviet Union fighting against Europe. May be even bloodier compared to OTL WWII. If Germany is stable (and therefore do not have a war machine) who is going to stop communists?
By the way, stable interwar Germany will just result in Soviet Union fighting against Europe. May be even bloodier compared to OTL WWII. If Germany is stable (and therefore do not have a war machine) who is going to stop communists?
Great Depression leads to a Communist America just like the ones in the TL "Reds!".
trurle
Banned
And communist world eventually. Well, it will result possibly in better "modern" Earth (in 2016). But i do not want to live until 2030 when the economical and political system will finally broke down.
"-Comrades, we have these pesky Chinese who again want independence. Will we squeeze out their bowels by tank tracks, starve them out, or nuke them?"
And communist world eventually. Well, it will result possibly in better "modern" Earth (in 2016). But i do not want to live until 2030 when the economical and political system will finally broke down.
"-Comrades, we have these pesky Chinese who again want independence. Will we squeeze out their bowels by tank tracks, starve them out, or nuke them?"
I guess that's what people said when they were living through the Cold War. Let's face it none of us wants to go through hard times but in the end we have to acknowledge them because what else can we do?
Wut?!
I agree, my second choice would be to make sure that extremist communism never takes off. Europe already had people advocating for socialism who didn't believe there needed to be some violent, "glorious" revolution that resulted in an entire century of mess.
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.
Would Churchill letting the Ottomans have the ships they ordered do the trick?
I would make myself not drink as much the night before the 2013 Army Navy game.
No one should have to suffer through Philly with a hangover.
No one should have to suffer through Philly with a hangover.
WW1 gets strangled at birth - and enough people on all sides realise how close they came to a disaster
Subsequant Talks at all levels of Governments builds the frame work of a European Union is created to prevent Austro-Hungary, Germany, France and Russia from coming to blows and by the 30s a working 'united embassy' is in place in Switzerland - Italy and the UK join in the early 30s......basically the pressures of 1914 - 1945 are released in a far more benign fashion.
With a far more united 'Greater Europe' going into the late early/Mid 20th Century and no destabilising world wars decolonisation occours at a far more controlled pace - drawing lines on Maps and creating nations where before there were none is not done in such a hurried fashion and this would effectively butterfly many of the more harmful issues that happened OTL.
Of course with no World wars driving innovation and social upheaval - our technology and social improvements would be somewhat behind what we experiance OTL Today!
Subsequant Talks at all levels of Governments builds the frame work of a European Union is created to prevent Austro-Hungary, Germany, France and Russia from coming to blows and by the 30s a working 'united embassy' is in place in Switzerland - Italy and the UK join in the early 30s......basically the pressures of 1914 - 1945 are released in a far more benign fashion.
With a far more united 'Greater Europe' going into the late early/Mid 20th Century and no destabilising world wars decolonisation occours at a far more controlled pace - drawing lines on Maps and creating nations where before there were none is not done in such a hurried fashion and this would effectively butterfly many of the more harmful issues that happened OTL.
Of course with no World wars driving innovation and social upheaval - our technology and social improvements would be somewhat behind what we experiance OTL Today!
No WWI. Not no Archduke assassination but, an event that leads to deescalation of tensions and the peaceful dethronment of the Tsar and Austrian Kaiser.
Please no.
Please no.
jahenders
Banned
That would be a good one if it worked, but I'm skeptical. Even with WWI having its full destructive effect, the nations barely agreed to the League of Nations and it was largely powerless. Ditto the United Nations after WWII -- perhaps a great idea, but of very limited power and it took the horrors of WWII to get there.
You could avoid WWI somehow or have it just be another moderate-sized Balkans war and then maintain the Russian Czar, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. However, getting all players to settle down, avoid arms races, and not decide to try to refight the Franco-Prussian war is harder.
I'm afraid that if you avoid WW1 in 1914, you might just get an alternate (but as destructive) WW1 in 1917, 1920, or 1925 with many of the same adverse effects.
People and governments simply are NOT good at taking "wake up calls" -- it usually takes true horror.
You could avoid WWI somehow or have it just be another moderate-sized Balkans war and then maintain the Russian Czar, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. However, getting all players to settle down, avoid arms races, and not decide to try to refight the Franco-Prussian war is harder.
I'm afraid that if you avoid WW1 in 1914, you might just get an alternate (but as destructive) WW1 in 1917, 1920, or 1925 with many of the same adverse effects.
People and governments simply are NOT good at taking "wake up calls" -- it usually takes true horror.
I would prevent Gorbachev coming to power in the USSR and prevent the fall/dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Germany doesn't invade Belgium in 1914 so the UK doesn't enter the war on the side of the Entente. We probably wouldn't have the USSR in that case, so no communism as a threat.
Nothing. Given the butterflies any change could very well lead to a world that's worse off. This is particularly true the further you go back in time; with a POD in 1914 there would be so many butterflies that what the world in 2016 is like could be anything from utopia to nuclear hellscape.
Election Reform
Election Reform in the US.
Campaign contributions limited to registered voters that live in the election district. Registered voters are allowed to make unlimited contributions to canidates. No contributions by political parties, corporations, unions or other associations. No "outside" money from outside the district. No lobbyists contributions or gifts allowed.
Make the office holders beholden to their own voters.
I don't know how this works in other countries.
What do you think?
Thank you,
MrBill
Election Reform in the US.
Campaign contributions limited to registered voters that live in the election district. Registered voters are allowed to make unlimited contributions to canidates. No contributions by political parties, corporations, unions or other associations. No "outside" money from outside the district. No lobbyists contributions or gifts allowed.
Make the office holders beholden to their own voters.
I don't know how this works in other countries.
What do you think?
Thank you,
MrBill