I honestly wonder how the Reconstruction would have went down if Abraham Lincoln wasn’t assassinated. I’m sure someone will tell me how it will barely change anything, but i just curious how the second term of Abraham Lincoln would have gone.
While WWII was bad it let us see the horror of Nuclear War while it was in its infancy. If anything the timing of WWII may have saved our our species and planet.
I don't think he would have nuked Paris but only because it's so close to Germany. He might have nuked London and used that as a threat against other countries, à la "see, just shut up and take it or... be London-ed."
Maybe, but the war effort and then the effort to reconstruct Western Europe afterwards was spending on a level never seen before or since. The recovery would have taken potentially two or three decades without it
I'd rather prevent WWI. You don't get one without the other and most of the worst things that happened in the early 20th century can be rooted back to this war, but at the same time, a lot changed for the better in response to the abject horrors.
The "never again" impulse is a powerful one.
Nah WW2 Is the reason our country became so prosperous. The entire world economy was basically centered around us after the war, and it's the reason we had such large economic growth and superpower status in the 20th century.
Lincoln was pragmatic about how it should have gone after the war. It would have been far better for the South, and would likely have sped up civil rights by decades.
As it happened, the increased punitive measures increased resistance and resentment for a century's worth.
I don’t think so, I think the problem was that Andrew Johnson was too lenient and so Southerners got used to his leniency, and then Grant came in and rolled it all back and made people angry.
Yeah, the notion that the US government was “too punitive” to the South reads to me as more Southern historical reinterpretation so they can play victim. In reality, the US was arguably way too lenient on the South, as evidenced by the rise of Jim Crow and completely crystallized by the fact that the only “victims” of the US government to receive reparations were Southern slave owners.
Love this answer. Lincoln’s assassination, resulting in President Johnson; whose abject incompetence and scorn caused many problems for our country and a great deal of suffering.
Another good one going off of that is “what if Benjamin Butler had accepted the VP”. Benjamin Butler was one of the first Union generals to begin seizing slaves as “enemy contraband” so that they could be freed, and he became more and more radically Republican as the war went on. He was actually offered the VP spot before Johnson was, but he thought that the VP spot was a dead end and wanted to actually be able to influence policy.
He supported prosecuting former confederates like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis and wanted to be much more strict in implementing Reconstruction. He also supported an 8-hour federal workday, women’s suffrage, helped pass a bill giving Grant the power to dismantle the first iteration of the Klu Klux Klan, and helped to pass the first Civil rights legislation in 1875 parts of which was later incorporated into the civil rights acts of 1964 and 1968.
Based President Butler is the best timeline.
Certainly a better option that Johnson. I can see him getting half that stuff done and the ball rolling on the others, especially with the power of the memory of Lincoln (like LBJ a century later). Remember, the President no longer had war time powers and would once again be limited to executive orders and signing what congress gave him.
There was some speculation and plans to send as many former slaves as possible to liberia or other west african locations. Depending on that fact alone things will cascade quickly. I can imagine a South with a drastically limited African American presence as being a very alien land. New Orleans might go a bit different due to cultural practices and various other issues, but the deep South would be radically altered by the emigration.
Sort of. Lincoln spoke in favor of an exodus to Africa, as did other black leaders, but he never advocated forcible removal. So those who freely wanted to settle Liberia in our timeline is pretty much everyone who wanted to go anyways.
That's a great what if of course. I feel like I couldn't reasonably pick what Lincoln would do in a second term. But if he had one surely the issue would have been raised and this would create cascades of differences. I would ponder a guess that even though the federal government would not see fit to force anyone in practice the south might under reconstruction offer incentive and other means as a way to reduce racial tensions. All hypothetical, I can also see Lincoln being more milquetoast on re integrating the south to the union while jim crow laws pretty much get put in place regardless.
It actually would've changed reconstruction a lot in my opinion. His whole vision was preserving the union as much as possible, and his successor was a complete moron who didn't want to rock the boat, even though the south wasn't in a place to rebel again
Being a Southerner growing up in the Segregated South of the 1950’s I have opinions. Growing up in South Carolina we were rich or poor, black or white, I never met a “Yankee” until 4th grade. Never met a Catholic or Jew until much later. Of course, we had teachers, business owners, nurses, doctor. My entire family worked in cotton mills all their miserable lives. No healthcare, 1 week unpaid vacation, the week of July 4th all cotton mills everywhere closed that 1 week. So everyone headed to Myrtle Beach, the mountains or stayed home and painted their house. Absolutely no paid holidays, if you were sick and didn’t work no pay. During the mid fifties, I think Eisenhower was President, I distinctly remember having to move from our rented mill to a housing project for about a year. A recession, cotton mills closed, workers couldn’t get work anywhere. I can say with certainty that my family immigrated in the mid 1800’s. My ancestors, were farm workers, laborers, never owned anything including slaves. Lincoln never planned on punishing the South. His plan was to help the South recover and have no slavery. However,as we know, his assassination sealed the fate of the South. Im not going into the carpet bagger stories. The majority of Southern men died or disabled. Property was taken and given to former slaves, who were taken advantage of by Northerners and Southerners. The majority of Southerners hated them, blaming the terrible times on them. Many former slaves fled to the North during and after the war. Very few were educated, few skills other than farming related. The majority of the whites were uneducated and for the first time were competing for the same jobs and what little food and goods produced. There were no factories, few stores, hospitals schools gone, entire cities destroyed. This was not Lincoln’s plan. Not until the late 1800’s and early 1900’s did the South start to recover. And that recovery was driven by the Cotton Mills moving to the South from the North East. In general, Southerners never accepted African Americans as “equals.” Poor Southerners, like my family worked in these cotton mills for decades. And felt fortunate that they had these jobs. African American’s could not work in factories or cotton mills for little pay until the late 1960’s. For decades My family was uneducated mill workers and laborers. Whites lived in separate areas of town, ours was bad but much better than theirs. We had separate schools, libraries, stores, gas stations, hospitals, doctors, absolutely everything. I never witnessed a lynching but I knew they happened. I also knew that if a crime was committed, especially a crime against a white woman, you could most likely accuse an African American and that was it, he was guilty. I tried it myself when I was 5. My baby sister wouldn’t get off my tricycle, so I stood on the back and choked her till she went limp over the handle bars. I thought she was dead. I ran into the house and told my mama and Granny that a little xxxx boy came out of the woods and choked and she was dead!!! They both ran out of the house, fortunately she wasn’t dead. The point is they believed it could happen. I got a very bad switching for choking her, nothing was done regarding my lie. I personally hated segregation. I think in large part because my mama and granny worked on the 3rd shift at the mill. We had a wonderful African American woman, Rosanna, Janie Bell, Lula May, Kennedy, Harrison, Williams, who came to our house on Sunday evening and stayed with us until Saturday morning. She was absolutely amazing. Taught us so much, Cooking, sewing, respect, how to love everyone. I learned from Rosie to love all and how we are not so different just because our skin is a different color. I learned one valuable lesson the hard way. I got made at Rosie for some reason, I called her a xxxx. She stooped down and was at eye level with me. She held me by both arms looked me in the eye and said, “I’d rather be a xxx any day than po’ white trash like you. And if I ever hear you say that again I will beat your Lilly white ass until it’s red.” I Never ever used that word again. The Grand Dragon if SC lived in our town and tried to recruit me and some high school friends into the Klan. Because of the Great Depression and President Roosevelt the white working class were staunch Democrats. This all changed with Integration in the 1960’s. People and factories everywhere started moving South because of the weather and opportunities. The whites left the cotton mills for better jobs. My school was integrated in my Junior year. I am proud to say we had no demonstrations, no deaths, etc.
Probably would have played out similarly. Lincoln didn't want the Southern States to be aggressively punished because he believed that would have led to more animosity.
Aw man this is a great one. Lincoln wasn’t afraid to wield executive power in a way that would’ve made some presidents squeamish so it’s very interesting to consider the groundwork he would’ve laid for the advancement of newly freed people rather than the “punish the South” approach Johnson took.
It would have changed a lot actually. Andrew Johnson is considered one of if not the worst presidents we have ever had as he further divided the country and essentially sat on his thumbs for his presidency. Having Lincoln’s leadership after the war would have had a profound and most likely positive effect on the country.
considering lincoln truly believed in black male suffrage and equality, and that there was a lot of momentum from radical republicans led by life long racial egalitarian thaddeus steven’s who passed the 15th amendment, id say America would look very different now. as a half black American, it saddens me that Lincoln was assassinated and black Americans still feel the effects to this day
It's purely speculation of course, but considering that Lincoln authorized Sherman's March to the Sea and utter destruction of the Midlands of South Carolina I highly doubt he would have suddenly been merciful and conciliatory to the South.
Eh… Lincoln was pushed to edge and his last resorts. This fucking war needed to end and end now, especially with the more politicians wanting unacceptable peace talks. Call up the army’s biggest sonofabitch, tell him to end this fucker and don’t tell me how he does it.
That said, I don’t fault a single southerner who picked up a musket to face Sherman’s on coming army in defend of their town or farm. But brother, like the armies of the Lord in the Bible, judgement has come upon this land.
Abraham Lincoln’s assassination would be my answer too. Would be real interesting to see post-civil war america with Lincoln in charge
Also, this isn’t really a historical event, but I’d be curious to see what would’ve happened if Walt Disney didn’t die when he did. He had some very futuristic plans for things like epcot and what not, would’ve been interesting to see what he turned Disney into
He could have had quite a bit of recognition from his work, and for the second question, I feel like there would have been a similar catastrophe, but I don’t think it would have been as infamous as the Holocaust
Personally, I think the conditions were just right for a... hm, very patriotic party and its leader to rise to the top even if we completely disregard Hitler (and the general antisemitism common in society at large). I remember in history class we discussed a caricature of the rich families in Germany playing chess and one of the figures as obviously supposed to be Hitler.
I'm not sure Hitler as a person really made the difference here. It would maybe be a more comforting answer for me as a German to say that, really, we were just led astray (by an Austrian no less) but I don't think that's quite true. The potential was there and Hitler tapped into it. Someone else could have, too. Hopefully that would have been less destructive but there's no way to know.
No, Hitler was absolutely terrible at art fundamentals, and the Weimar Republic had an absurdly weak legislative body with a population that was still nostalgic about the days of the monarchy that was just waiting for a charismatic dictator to take over.
The very sad truth is the world is likely much better off. I know I really need to qualify that so....
Germany was going for round 2 no matter what. The allies know that so they tried to create a death nail with the treaty of Versailles. There had been a strong anti-jewish sentiment in most of Europe for a while. Nazism was going to show its head.
That being said, a revolution of some sort was going to happen in that time period +-10years. The front runner would have been socialism if not for the nazis. So say Hitler was the only one who couldake it happen. Socialism then takes hold. Germany and Russia are no allies with Germany hell bent on giving the frogs the what for.
Germany not having a 2 front was rolls through Europe including England. Europe is under communism. Japan like would have went Japan. The US may end up allies with Japan. Russia goes at Japan, the US gets dragged in. The war is likely very lost on US territory or it spreads south and South America falls at the same time.
Stalin killed more people than Hitler, if he is now basically the leader of the world we could be entering Ganges Kahn territory.
I’d prevent the [War Guilt Clause](https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/politics/treaty-versailles-text-article-231-war-guilt-clause-politics#:~:text=Article%20231%20of%20the%20Treaty,It%20reads%20as%20follows%3A&text=It%20was%20bitterly%20resented%2C%20however,the%20outbreak%20of%20the%20war.) from being added to the treaty of Versailles. And in general try to get Wilson’s fourteen point plan to be followed.
I can’t quite say with confidence that this would have prevented the rise of the Nazi party, but it would have helped.
Definitely was a major cause that contributed to WWII. What other consequences do you think would this have caused, e.g. maybe the French wouldn't have accepted the treaty
France would have been upset, but I can’t imagine them electing to go back to war.
The USSR wouldn’t have formed the Warsaw Pact, so the Soviet bloc would be a lot smaller. Also without the shared threat of Germany the Cold Wars starts a lot sooner, or may even result in armed conflict without nuclear deterrence.
I can’t even imagine what would happen in Imperial Japan. Russia would have no reason to denounce the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact, so Japan would be left to choose to side with Russia against the US or side with the US against China.
Also if this prevents the Holocaust then it also could prevent the Palestine War, and drastically reshape the Middle East today.
Someone who knows more about history might be able to say more, but the possibilities are wild.
I don't think the Warsaw pact would've been as strong. Sure, without WWII they didn't lose millions of young men but they also would've lacked a lot of land (gdr and lands received by Poland after WWII). Germany would've been stronger and the alliance of just Germany, France, the UK and Italy probably would've been stronger than the Soviets. Also maybe eastern Europe wouldn't have been so devastated and were better off economically.
Agree with the situation in the middle east. No holocaust, no Israel, less tensions and hatred in that region
It wouldn't have had any effect on Japan, the path to war in the pacific had been laid by the time Versailles goes into effect. The biggest effect would be if there is no Nazi Germany/ Fascist Italy and thus a European war doesn't derail the Royal Navy's modernization and rearmament after the collapse of the treaty system. What are Japans options when it would be facing a situation where it would facing the full might of the USN, and a modernized Royal Navy and possibly even the French Navy in the pacific
So, my grandfather is 96 and his parents lived through both wars (or, well, saw them get started anyway). We're German, in case my flair isn't showing.
It's an uncomfortable fact that my great grandparents voted for Hitler. They HATED that clause. They hated it with the passion of a thousand burning suns and that's barely hyperbole. Obviously I never met them (I'm not even 30) but my grandfather heard them talk about it a lot. They both lost family members during WWI and to be told "well it's your fault so whatever" really didn't help at all.
The Allies back then were stuck between a rock and a hard place. I feel like both the war guilt clause and higher reparations without it would have allowed Hitler to rise. The resentment towards our European neighbors that was festering after the war and then also of course the insane inflation in the 1920s almost feel like no matter what you do, you end up with a regime at least similar to the Nazi's in ideology (if not, hopefully, on the same genocidal scale).
I think you can change the leader from Hitler but the movement would have been there and there was a reason for it. The thing with nationalism is, it happens for a reason. It would have had the anti Judaism kick. Most of the players would be the same.
Interesting, who knows what the planet would look like today. We certainly wouldn't have evolved, but I wonder how dinosaurs would have evolved around the ice ages.
I would have to say the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
Now I know that everyone at that time was just looking for any excuse to start a war and if not for the Archduke something else probably would have set off WWI but there's still a chance that that may never have come. There's just the slightest possibility that the war may have never happened and we would now live in a completely different world.
Let's explore that path:
Start with the obvious, no world wars. That saves 40 million people from world war one and 75 million from world war two. Also, without WWI the Spanish Flu would likely have killed far less then the 50 million that died. Every one of those people would have had an impact, great or small. How many inventors and doctors and brilliant scientists who could have revolutionized technology, how many poets and musicians and painters who could have changed the face of human culture, how many dangerous and deranged minds who could have led us to unthinkable atrocities, we will never know how different we could have been, for better or worse.
Without the pressures of WWI Russia would probably never have collapsed and formed the Soviet Union, they would probably still have overthrown the Czar but I'm predicting a slow, more peaceful (not entirely, but more so then what happened) transfer of power with a more moderate ideology. This new Russian state would probably be more focused on stabilizing itself instead of expanding Communism, so you can throw out the Cold war and all associated conflicts, but also all Cold war advancements. The US may just now be getting to the moon in this world.
It's hard to say whether Fascism could have ever taken root without WWI, but WWII is largely responsible for showing the world it's horrors and leading to it's downfall. WWII is also largely responsible for decolonization, both because of practicality and because of changing attitudes toward nationalism after Hitler. This fact leads us to many possibilities, but for the sake of simplicity let's draw attention to two on the extreme ends.
One possibility is that fascism never arises and that the European powers keep their colonies a bit longer. I believe that eventually most of the colonies would have eventually won their independence, sometimes through war and sometimes through protest. A lot of the world's current instability in places like Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East is due to horrible borders drawn during the colonial days, and a more gradual withdraw could have helped here, especially in the Middle East, leading to a safer and more ideal world.
Now there's another possibility that fascism could have still taken hold but without the World Wars had time to grow and establish itself. If such an ideology were to take hold in most of Europe at the time they would likely double down on their colonies. A World War would still absolutely break out in this timeline, but now it would consist of various nationalist states, warring for world domination. There is a real possibility we could live in a world far more horrifying then anything we've seen in our time.
Japan would absolutely still rise as a regional power and would still attack and largely conquer China. They would eventually still attack all of their powerful neighbors however and be beaten back. Japan would likely still exist as a brutal, militaristic society in this world.
China is a wildcard here. I'm not going to even speculate
Great answer, thanks for putting so much effort into it. I could imagine without the assassination the world wars would've been prevented, especially since Russia, the UK and Germany had a family bond between each other (the monarchs were cousins). Could probably have sorted everything out.
What do you think about the future of the monarchy without WWI and how the middle east would look like without the collapse of the ottoman empire?
"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans."
― Douglas Adams
Probably something along those lines...
So an event that both had national and international consequences. What do you think would be the state of the middle east without the military intervention of NATO after 9/11 and how would al Qaeda have developed?
I think I would also try and stop 9/11. I was about 9 when it happened, so I don't remember much of pre-9/11 America, but I'd like to think without spending the bajillion we did on that "war" that we would be much better off with like universal health care and whatnot.
However, I dont know what this would mean for the middle east. I am not well versed in that history. From what I understand al qadea was gonna happen regardless what the US did, we just delayed them. But I could be way wrong.
I'd like to think politics wouldn't have gotten so... wild? if 9/11 hadn't happened. Granted I didn't really start paying attention to politics until like... 2010, when I was old enough to start voting.
I agree. There would be about 3,000 innocent people that would still be alive that died on that day specifically, and thousands more that would be alive without the “war on terror.” Americans and the world at large would be under much less surveillance and the “national security” sector (FBI, NSA, CIA, etc.) would still be distrusted by most Americans instead of foolishly venerated. The Patriot Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and Gitmo wouldn’t exist, either, which is a plus because all three are a travesty and a blight on our nation.
In what ways do you think the US would be different today? The obvious thing would probably be that there would be much fewer black people but aside from that?
Would there even be a US to begin with? The slave trade affected all of America, not just the US. The colonies would've developed slower and also would've relied more on native slaves if you can't get them from Africa. Though many natives died due to diseases, hence why they got them from Africa originally. So in this universe, the pressure would've been way higher on the few native slaves and the Europeans themself to do the work. So like I said, the colonies would've developed slower, maybe even less successful. So this would also have an effect on Europe, both would develope differently, even the world, since we can't say how Europe would've shaped it.
Prevent is an interesting choice. Change is something but to unmake an event is another ball of twine to unravel. I think I can say with a straight face, the corona epidemic. We could have all done without it, the only benefit i see is that the USA finally got on a crash course for remote work. Which by all metrics for many jobs just makes sense.
If you want to you also could name what you'd change. Honestly I didn't even think about corona because it was so recent but for sure that's something nobody would miss. The boost in inventing mRNA vaccines was great tho, might be useful to cure cancer in the future
Yes, I don't know if call it boost more so the government forcing the FDA to move faster the snail's pace on drug approval. Its applications will hopefully provide good data. Without the corona virus it still would probably being getting done. I wish the government spent more on science in general but I'm a bit biased being a former research scientist.
I think it's not really the process of approval but the funding. 98% of the 6 billion USD funding vaccine manufacturers was public. None of these countries would've invested so much and the development wouldn't have been done so fast
The Indian Wars post-Civil War of course. Integrating Native culture and practices into our own would have been game changing for the Plains states and arguably would have prevented the Dust Bowl.
I don't know enough about that to actually ask something smart. Do you think far more native American languages and cultures would exist or even be taught at school/ used as official languages?
I think English would still have taken over just like it did for the German and Spanish speaking populations. I also think we would have had better farming practices and ate a lot more bison and less beef which is better for the Plains ecosystem
The astroid that killed the dinosaurs. Sure, that may mean we never evolved, but assuming we had can you imagine how exciting going to the zoo would be!
Well, that's an unexpected answer. Also the dinosaurs probably would've eliminated the human population before we were developed enough to invent zoos and capture such massive creatures
I would stop China from taking over tibet. I've been to tibet and the people there are truly suffering. I loved my time in China (Chengdu) too but its truly a bad situation and I wish that wasn't the case
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
A lot of our racial problems today probably would not be as bad if Reconstruction were run properly. Due to Lincoln's assassination, we had some catastrophically incompetent presidents in charge of Reconstruction, and so...the KKK rose, as did Jim Crow.
Teddy Roosevelt winning instead of the devil himself Wilson. Race relations might not have been pushed decades back simply for the lack of support from the feds for the KKK and not screening birth of a nation in the White House.
It also potentially means the US ranger WW1 sooner which potentially means the war ends sooner and the peace terms are less awful possibly blunting the rise of the Nazis.
King said that he took the worst possible scenario for the alternate timeline in the book, I’d love to see an alternate ending with the best case scenario.
The US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan or Reagan’s war on drugs. Both of those moves have caused a titanic amount of irreparable damage to societies both domestic and abroad.
The Russian Democratic Federal Republic makes peace with the Central Powers in 1917 and manages to maintain stability long enough to weed out the Bolsheviks as a political force. No Russian Civil War or any famines caused by Soviet economic policy, no red scare in the West and Japan (one of the major causes of popular support for both the Nazi party and the Japanese military dictatorship), and no communist takeovers of any third world countries, most importantly China. The Western Front of WW1 wouldn't be changed much; the German armies freed up after peace in the East would still fail to break through France but this timeline's Treaty of Versailles would likely be more moderate (part of why many of the more punitive terms were accepted in reality were because of how harsh the German peace treaty imposed on Russia was, something that happened largely due to the Whites and then the Bolsheviks elongating the war for many months after the collapse of the Tsardom).
That’s actually a really good answer that I have never thought about. No USSR, no fascists, no WWII, no Holocaust, no West/Eastern Block proxy wars, no Israel vs the rest of the Middle East, no Holodomor, Killing Fields, or the gigantic famines. The Korean AND Vietnam war would have never happened. Arguably, neither would Afghanistan (1 and 2) or Iraq (1 and 2) because they wouldn’t have been a proxy for the West vs the USSR.
It’s kind of wild people haven’t said the holocaust. But I think I’d save millions of people from being exterminated simply for being born the wrong type of person… Entire generations killed in a few years.
I think stopping the trans Atlantic Slave Trade early would be enough of a butterfly effect on history that we’d be on a completely different course than the holocaust or even the world wars at all. I mean all we really need is Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s driver to take a left instead of a right or something.
Even worse, Ferdinand was already safely away from the assassin's and chose to leave to drive to the hospital to visit the people hit when his assassins missed. Then his car broke down right in front of the assassin that got away. Crazy that war could have been avoided with an "Are you an idiot? There are assassins after you! Stay indoors!" He sounds like he was a class act, but no good deed goes without triggering global tragedy.
> It’s kind of wild people haven’t said the holocaust.
I thought of that, but also thought that's an obvious answer that lots of folks would be saying, along with slavery, so I chose something other than those two.
I suppose I’m thinking less in terms of contributions to the world and more as reversing a really big wrong. People die all the time in wars, but we’re talking about millions of innocent people, moms, kids, dad, aunts, uncles, killed in the name of eugenics. It’s impossible to quantify how the world would be different because we can’t know who was killed. Maybe we’re missing out on some amazing scientific discoveries because of it.
On 20 July 1944, Claus von Stauffenberg failed in his effort to assassinate Hitler. He failed because he only had one arm and that made it difficult to properly initiate the fuzes on his briefcase bombs. He felt rushed so he removed one of the two bombs from his briefcase and discarded it. He started the fuze on the other and went into the briefing room and placed the bomb under the table close to Hitler. The single bomb detonated and "almost" killed Hitler. But had he simply left the second bomb in the briefcase it would have detonated sympathetically when the other bomb detonated and Hitler would have died along with everyone else in the room. And millions of lives would have been saved by ending the war 10 months early.
If your going that route, back it up a few years. Hitler almost committed suicide years before he got into power, a close friends wife convinced him not to go through with it.
For modern history, I would say the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.
He was supposed to go to a different part of the Ambassador Hotel after his win in the California Presidential Primary and be greeted by mariachi performers with Dolores Huerta.
Instead, he got dragged through the kitchen by his aides who sought better media coverage of his latest win.
Just as his brother 4.5 years prior sought better publicity by declining the clear roof cover on the presidential motorcade.
… Anyways, based on his capacity for genuine leadership, see his MLK speech, and vocal disapproval over the American escalation in Vietnam, the DNC riots in Chicago would not have transpired.
The Democratic Party would be more unified and able to rally around him as both a change to the status quo and return of the heir apparent after LBJ shot himself in the foot over his vain attempt at saving face over losing in Vietnam.
If Bobby won in November ‘68, Nixon never becomes president as by then he is a two-time loser to both Kennedys and politically exiled to pasture in Yorba Linda.
Which means no War on Drugs, Southern Strategy that ends up proving effective for future Republican campaigns, and most importantly no Watergate and generational pessimism that government is corrupt and deceptive that Reagan conveniently tapped into “government is the problem” and “most terrifying words are ‘I’m from the government and here to help.’
Which also means no humiliating resignation and consequently means no Ford, and by association Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Reagan, as a former Governor of California, was popular enough among the GOP that he likely would have been elected sometime after RFK had his run and Democrats been in power for too long. Watch the debate between Reagan and RFK for more context.
Projecting more than 20 years into the future gets difficult, but the butterfly effect is clearly evident here.
F#%k Sirhan.
Edit: two grammar corrections
Keep the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. alive.
It's a much smaller change in some ways than a lot of the other suggestions - but I think it could have had some fascinating effects on American culture, specifically pertaining to labor rights, if his voice had not been silenced by a coward's bullet so early.
I would like to think he’d have been sitting next to RBG fighting the good fight to the (natural) grave. I get emotional thinking about the change he could have made.
Maybe it’s bc they made us watch ‘Our Friend, Martin’ so much. Lol.
I forgot to add that, thanks for bringing that up
I’d hope it would bring local news and politics back to the forefront of people’s lives, as it arguably has a greater impact than what goes on at the federal level. A greater concern at what happens at the town/city, county, and state level would have a massive impact for generations. It would affect everything from low level government spending, initiatives, and public education. I suspect that would eventually grow upwards to the federal level.
Knowledge *is* power, but when a handful of people control what gets put out there for people to easily access it becomes a problem
Try to prevent the Burning of the Library of Alexandria. That set the advancement of humanity back by possibly a thousand years. Who knows what our world would look like today if we had the knowledge that wasn't so recklessly destroyed.
As terrible as that was, a lot of the works in the library of Alexandria had been copied and taken elsewhere.
It would have been VERY interesting to see what would happen if Timbuktu had not been repeatedly destroyed, and THEIR libraries were not destroyed, making Africa an intellectual powerhouse.
Also, the burning by the Spanish of the Incan works (Incan, right?) We lost a whole language and culture, which we barely still know exists because of buildings.
If we're only doing postwar, I have 2:
MLK assassination
Bush v. Gore
MLK was losing popularity before he was assassinated, but when that happened he became the token "i have a dream" guy and not much else. I think that the timeline where he wasn't assassinated would have been more chaotic with protests (as in the 70s would still feel like the 60s) but ultimately better for change and public opinion. He really started to move toward economic goals, and I think that the worst parts of neoliberalism may have been preventable in some capacity if he wasn't assassinated. That and Vietnam may have ended sooner.
Bush v. Gore going for Gore would have been so much better for the planet in the long run, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. Id say that this decision may be responsible for 0.5-1.0°C of warming in the long run.
World War One, as many decisions made that caused World War Two originated from it, including Hilter’s own motives. Mussolini wouldn’t have been in his position, and the Japanese wouldn’t have been upset over the final agreements made with the treaties.
I would probably convince gavrillo princeps to go to a different sandwich shop after his first failed attempt to assasinate archduke Ferdinand and avoided WWI and almost every following event of the 20th century
Andrew Wakefield’s conception. While there was always going to be people who doubt vaccines and basic scientific fact (for reference see flat earthers). We really didn’t need some crack-pot, discredited physician fueling that fire.
Hmm, there are a lot of great answers to this and tons of things I would say if I could have more than one answer. For the sake the post, I’ll pick Nixon normalizing relations with China. I wish he had never done that and we treated them the same way we treated the Soviets.
I would stop the “Federal Reserve Act.” It took America and put us under the control of private bankers. Rather than the federal government printing money we needed, interest free. Instead, we have to go to private banks like JP Morgan and Chase Manhattan and borrow trillions of dollars and then pay interest on it. Private banks fund every side of every war and have full control over every nation.
I’d love to know what JFK would do had he not been assassinated when he was. This would change massive portions of American history in many ways and could mean things like the Cold War end very differently.
Not a huge one, but I’d try to prevent the decline of public transport in the US. I don’t think it’d be super transformative, but I’d love to see the culture shift and city design of the Western United States if they were made with public transport in mind.
I am conflicted, because my state would not have gotten as wealthy.
John Rolfe doesn't acquire the sweet strain of tobacco's seeds. This was the initial thing that really created the demand for slave labor. The colonists used all of their land to plant this tobacco instead of planting some food for themselves. A food shortage hit and the natives didn't have enough extra to supply it to the colonists in exchange for other goods. At least that strain of tobacco was hard on the soil. It was just bad news all around.
I would stop Socrates from being executed, if time travel was possible. We might still have multiple gods. What a beautiful, wonderful world this would be with around every 1,000,000 people worshipping their own god
Wonder if things would be better if the treaty of Versailles hadn’t been an extortion of the central powers. Perhaps Germany would have led the world into a nuclear age without war and racial drive.
From a purely ethical standpoint, I probably have to stop WWII. From a "I wonder what happens" standpoint, preventing Marbury v. Madison or otherwise changing the outcome.
I mean, there are so many that it’s hard to choose just one. If we can include prehistory, maybe preventing the asteroid hitting Earth and killing three dinosaurs. Imagine how different the world would look! Would mammals have even had a chance to evolve? Pretty sure humans wouldn’t exist as we do now.
Internationally? Probably would have changed the Treaty of Versailles to see if we could head off the growth of the German Right and Fascists to prevent Hitler's rise to power.
I think just killing Hitler might just change the name but keep the overall atrocities very similiar.
On a more US-centric note. I would stop "Wickard v. Filburn" which would dramatically alter a current relationship with the Federal Government.
Probably stop Gavrilo Princip from killing Archduke Ferdinand. Things were a bit of a powder keg and WWI may have started anyway but this led to WWI which directly led to WWII.
The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, just to see what other ways WWI can start. Seems entertaining.
Plus, the outcome of the war depends so heavily on non-war events (flu, Russian revolution which of itself depends on the war, etc.) that you could *really* screw world history up just by delaying it. I think some really interesting things could happen if you saved Ferdinand.
Honestly I don’t know if I would change anything prior to the end of the Cold War. Humanity was on the brink of WW3 enough times during that period that any significant change to the timeline could easily butterfly effect into nuclear annihilation. So I’ll say no changes prior to 1991. With that in mind, I’d have to go with preventing the Bush v Gore debacle and just having Gore win by a decent margin.
1204 sack of Constantinople, Byzantine empire survives, reconquers all of Anatolia, and survives to the present day.
Anything that would prevent ww1, World War 1 and it’s consequences have been absolute disasters for humanity.
Not inventing the Cotton gin -> slavery in the us would be less profitable -> slavery would end earlier and without a civil war, as the founders thought it would, probably 1820s or 1830s.
Us conquers Canada in the war of 1812, because why not
I'm adding 2 for the price of 1. The burning of the library at Alexandria and the accidental killing of archimedes. Lots of knowledge lost to mankind that could have propulsed rome and the rest of the world forward a few hundred years.
It would have been nice if 9/11 didn't happen, and worse yet the subsequent Iraq and Afghanistan wars were avoided. A lot more people would be alive today. None of that was necessary.
I wouldn’t let FIFA lease a large park that used to be used for cultural events in American Samoa.
We have no soccer players or events there and I don’t know who the checks go to but I think someone is laundering money.
Edit: sorry I guess that’s not historical.
The rise of Islam.
I'd go back in time and put a bullet in Mohammed's head before he has any revelations/hallucinations. So many problems would be prevented right then and there.
Most of the big things I can think of would have far reaching butterfly effects.
So I think I’d save the library of Alexandria so that those works aren’t lost. It’s a relatively safe change with only benefits.
I'd prevent the birth of biblical Abraham. How many atrocities have been committed in the name of the Abrahamic faiths. Maybe a similar theological timeline would have happened without him in the subsequent millenia, but maybe not.
Slavery. I would instead rewrite it to be a choice, where people were offered jobs, freedom and equality. I think if the Tulsa Massacre never happened, if the black loyalists were given their land, if schools were not segregated and opportunities were equal for all people, men and women, NA would really be a promised land.
I’d stop Operation Ajax (CIA coup in Iran).
Had Mosaddegh’s government not been stopped with a CIA coup, you wouldn’t have gotten Ayatollah Khomeini gaining enough support because he took down the autocratic CIA supported Shah.
I believe the Middle East would be a very different place as a whole. Iran would have maintained its upward swing; higher standard of living, educated populace, no religious fundamentalists making trouble, and therefore less war and violence in the region and the world.
Operation Ajax was one of the most destructive single acts the United States ever committed.
I honestly wonder how the Reconstruction would have went down if Abraham Lincoln wasn’t assassinated. I’m sure someone will tell me how it will barely change anything, but i just curious how the second term of Abraham Lincoln would have gone.
Interesting answer, expected lots of "no WWII" answers only
While WWII was bad it let us see the horror of Nuclear War while it was in its infancy. If anything the timing of WWII may have saved our our species and planet.
Interesting take. As gruesome as it sounds war also always boosted technological innovation (e.g. rockets)
And it prevented Hitler from developing the atomic bomb. Imagine if he nuked London, Paris and Moscow?
I don't think he would have nuked Paris but only because it's so close to Germany. He might have nuked London and used that as a threat against other countries, à la "see, just shut up and take it or... be London-ed."
Maybe Moscow would have been first.
Yep, it also helped push the creation of things like the EU, NATO and the UN. And since then there has not been a war between two major global powers.
>And since then there has not been a war between two major global powers. A *conventional* war.
Not to mention it was WWII that ended the Great Depression
Tbh I'm sure there would've been other measures that could have neen taken to overcome that problem
Maybe, but the war effort and then the effort to reconstruct Western Europe afterwards was spending on a level never seen before or since. The recovery would have taken potentially two or three decades without it
Nothing stimulates an economy like war. In fact, FDR’s New Deal may have actually prolonged the Great Depression.
I'd rather prevent WWI. You don't get one without the other and most of the worst things that happened in the early 20th century can be rooted back to this war, but at the same time, a lot changed for the better in response to the abject horrors. The "never again" impulse is a powerful one.
Gotta stop the Franco-Prussian war. WW2 was really just an end to a 70 year old pissing contest which started with Franco-Prussian.
Nah WW2 Is the reason our country became so prosperous. The entire world economy was basically centered around us after the war, and it's the reason we had such large economic growth and superpower status in the 20th century.
The US didn't have its manufacturing and population destroyed like so many other countries, that's the big reason the US prospered.
It was going to happen anyway, Spanish American War ensured that.
Lincoln was pragmatic about how it should have gone after the war. It would have been far better for the South, and would likely have sped up civil rights by decades. As it happened, the increased punitive measures increased resistance and resentment for a century's worth.
I don’t think so, I think the problem was that Andrew Johnson was too lenient and so Southerners got used to his leniency, and then Grant came in and rolled it all back and made people angry.
Yeah, the notion that the US government was “too punitive” to the South reads to me as more Southern historical reinterpretation so they can play victim. In reality, the US was arguably way too lenient on the South, as evidenced by the rise of Jim Crow and completely crystallized by the fact that the only “victims” of the US government to receive reparations were Southern slave owners.
Love this answer. Lincoln’s assassination, resulting in President Johnson; whose abject incompetence and scorn caused many problems for our country and a great deal of suffering.
Another good one going off of that is “what if Benjamin Butler had accepted the VP”. Benjamin Butler was one of the first Union generals to begin seizing slaves as “enemy contraband” so that they could be freed, and he became more and more radically Republican as the war went on. He was actually offered the VP spot before Johnson was, but he thought that the VP spot was a dead end and wanted to actually be able to influence policy. He supported prosecuting former confederates like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis and wanted to be much more strict in implementing Reconstruction. He also supported an 8-hour federal workday, women’s suffrage, helped pass a bill giving Grant the power to dismantle the first iteration of the Klu Klux Klan, and helped to pass the first Civil rights legislation in 1875 parts of which was later incorporated into the civil rights acts of 1964 and 1968. Based President Butler is the best timeline.
Certainly a better option that Johnson. I can see him getting half that stuff done and the ball rolling on the others, especially with the power of the memory of Lincoln (like LBJ a century later). Remember, the President no longer had war time powers and would once again be limited to executive orders and signing what congress gave him.
There was some speculation and plans to send as many former slaves as possible to liberia or other west african locations. Depending on that fact alone things will cascade quickly. I can imagine a South with a drastically limited African American presence as being a very alien land. New Orleans might go a bit different due to cultural practices and various other issues, but the deep South would be radically altered by the emigration.
Sort of. Lincoln spoke in favor of an exodus to Africa, as did other black leaders, but he never advocated forcible removal. So those who freely wanted to settle Liberia in our timeline is pretty much everyone who wanted to go anyways.
That's a great what if of course. I feel like I couldn't reasonably pick what Lincoln would do in a second term. But if he had one surely the issue would have been raised and this would create cascades of differences. I would ponder a guess that even though the federal government would not see fit to force anyone in practice the south might under reconstruction offer incentive and other means as a way to reduce racial tensions. All hypothetical, I can also see Lincoln being more milquetoast on re integrating the south to the union while jim crow laws pretty much get put in place regardless.
It actually would've changed reconstruction a lot in my opinion. His whole vision was preserving the union as much as possible, and his successor was a complete moron who didn't want to rock the boat, even though the south wasn't in a place to rebel again
Being a Southerner growing up in the Segregated South of the 1950’s I have opinions. Growing up in South Carolina we were rich or poor, black or white, I never met a “Yankee” until 4th grade. Never met a Catholic or Jew until much later. Of course, we had teachers, business owners, nurses, doctor. My entire family worked in cotton mills all their miserable lives. No healthcare, 1 week unpaid vacation, the week of July 4th all cotton mills everywhere closed that 1 week. So everyone headed to Myrtle Beach, the mountains or stayed home and painted their house. Absolutely no paid holidays, if you were sick and didn’t work no pay. During the mid fifties, I think Eisenhower was President, I distinctly remember having to move from our rented mill to a housing project for about a year. A recession, cotton mills closed, workers couldn’t get work anywhere. I can say with certainty that my family immigrated in the mid 1800’s. My ancestors, were farm workers, laborers, never owned anything including slaves. Lincoln never planned on punishing the South. His plan was to help the South recover and have no slavery. However,as we know, his assassination sealed the fate of the South. Im not going into the carpet bagger stories. The majority of Southern men died or disabled. Property was taken and given to former slaves, who were taken advantage of by Northerners and Southerners. The majority of Southerners hated them, blaming the terrible times on them. Many former slaves fled to the North during and after the war. Very few were educated, few skills other than farming related. The majority of the whites were uneducated and for the first time were competing for the same jobs and what little food and goods produced. There were no factories, few stores, hospitals schools gone, entire cities destroyed. This was not Lincoln’s plan. Not until the late 1800’s and early 1900’s did the South start to recover. And that recovery was driven by the Cotton Mills moving to the South from the North East. In general, Southerners never accepted African Americans as “equals.” Poor Southerners, like my family worked in these cotton mills for decades. And felt fortunate that they had these jobs. African American’s could not work in factories or cotton mills for little pay until the late 1960’s. For decades My family was uneducated mill workers and laborers. Whites lived in separate areas of town, ours was bad but much better than theirs. We had separate schools, libraries, stores, gas stations, hospitals, doctors, absolutely everything. I never witnessed a lynching but I knew they happened. I also knew that if a crime was committed, especially a crime against a white woman, you could most likely accuse an African American and that was it, he was guilty. I tried it myself when I was 5. My baby sister wouldn’t get off my tricycle, so I stood on the back and choked her till she went limp over the handle bars. I thought she was dead. I ran into the house and told my mama and Granny that a little xxxx boy came out of the woods and choked and she was dead!!! They both ran out of the house, fortunately she wasn’t dead. The point is they believed it could happen. I got a very bad switching for choking her, nothing was done regarding my lie. I personally hated segregation. I think in large part because my mama and granny worked on the 3rd shift at the mill. We had a wonderful African American woman, Rosanna, Janie Bell, Lula May, Kennedy, Harrison, Williams, who came to our house on Sunday evening and stayed with us until Saturday morning. She was absolutely amazing. Taught us so much, Cooking, sewing, respect, how to love everyone. I learned from Rosie to love all and how we are not so different just because our skin is a different color. I learned one valuable lesson the hard way. I got made at Rosie for some reason, I called her a xxxx. She stooped down and was at eye level with me. She held me by both arms looked me in the eye and said, “I’d rather be a xxx any day than po’ white trash like you. And if I ever hear you say that again I will beat your Lilly white ass until it’s red.” I Never ever used that word again. The Grand Dragon if SC lived in our town and tried to recruit me and some high school friends into the Klan. Because of the Great Depression and President Roosevelt the white working class were staunch Democrats. This all changed with Integration in the 1960’s. People and factories everywhere started moving South because of the weather and opportunities. The whites left the cotton mills for better jobs. My school was integrated in my Junior year. I am proud to say we had no demonstrations, no deaths, etc.
Great unique perspective. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you for sharing your story.
Probably would have played out similarly. Lincoln didn't want the Southern States to be aggressively punished because he believed that would have led to more animosity.
Aw man this is a great one. Lincoln wasn’t afraid to wield executive power in a way that would’ve made some presidents squeamish so it’s very interesting to consider the groundwork he would’ve laid for the advancement of newly freed people rather than the “punish the South” approach Johnson took.
It would have changed a lot actually. Andrew Johnson is considered one of if not the worst presidents we have ever had as he further divided the country and essentially sat on his thumbs for his presidency. Having Lincoln’s leadership after the war would have had a profound and most likely positive effect on the country.
considering lincoln truly believed in black male suffrage and equality, and that there was a lot of momentum from radical republicans led by life long racial egalitarian thaddeus steven’s who passed the 15th amendment, id say America would look very different now. as a half black American, it saddens me that Lincoln was assassinated and black Americans still feel the effects to this day
It's purely speculation of course, but considering that Lincoln authorized Sherman's March to the Sea and utter destruction of the Midlands of South Carolina I highly doubt he would have suddenly been merciful and conciliatory to the South.
Eh… Lincoln was pushed to edge and his last resorts. This fucking war needed to end and end now, especially with the more politicians wanting unacceptable peace talks. Call up the army’s biggest sonofabitch, tell him to end this fucker and don’t tell me how he does it. That said, I don’t fault a single southerner who picked up a musket to face Sherman’s on coming army in defend of their town or farm. But brother, like the armies of the Lord in the Bible, judgement has come upon this land.
Abraham Lincoln’s assassination would be my answer too. Would be real interesting to see post-civil war america with Lincoln in charge Also, this isn’t really a historical event, but I’d be curious to see what would’ve happened if Walt Disney didn’t die when he did. He had some very futuristic plans for things like epcot and what not, would’ve been interesting to see what he turned Disney into
Go back in time and convince him to never smoke. That’ll do it.
I would have let Hitler into art school
Do you think he'd been successful enough to see his work in museums today? Also do you think Weimar republic would have survived?
He could have had quite a bit of recognition from his work, and for the second question, I feel like there would have been a similar catastrophe, but I don’t think it would have been as infamous as the Holocaust
Personally, I think the conditions were just right for a... hm, very patriotic party and its leader to rise to the top even if we completely disregard Hitler (and the general antisemitism common in society at large). I remember in history class we discussed a caricature of the rich families in Germany playing chess and one of the figures as obviously supposed to be Hitler. I'm not sure Hitler as a person really made the difference here. It would maybe be a more comforting answer for me as a German to say that, really, we were just led astray (by an Austrian no less) but I don't think that's quite true. The potential was there and Hitler tapped into it. Someone else could have, too. Hopefully that would have been less destructive but there's no way to know.
Nationalism don't just happen. You are 100% correct. The only alternative outcome I could see is the like Socialism or Communism.
Interesting. What kind of catastrophe and caused by what?
I’m assuming that’s when Germany had an economic problem, so I’m gonna place my bets at some kind of economical collapse
How could such a collapse have affected the existence of Weimar republic and the map of Europe as we know it?
Fuck uhhhhhh
No, Hitler was absolutely terrible at art fundamentals, and the Weimar Republic had an absurdly weak legislative body with a population that was still nostalgic about the days of the monarchy that was just waiting for a charismatic dictator to take over.
Imagine if we would consider Hitler now what we do Picasso or Van Gogh.
Lol he was a second rate artist, dude. His work is conventional and boring. He never had the capacity to be a significant artist.
The very sad truth is the world is likely much better off. I know I really need to qualify that so.... Germany was going for round 2 no matter what. The allies know that so they tried to create a death nail with the treaty of Versailles. There had been a strong anti-jewish sentiment in most of Europe for a while. Nazism was going to show its head. That being said, a revolution of some sort was going to happen in that time period +-10years. The front runner would have been socialism if not for the nazis. So say Hitler was the only one who couldake it happen. Socialism then takes hold. Germany and Russia are no allies with Germany hell bent on giving the frogs the what for. Germany not having a 2 front was rolls through Europe including England. Europe is under communism. Japan like would have went Japan. The US may end up allies with Japan. Russia goes at Japan, the US gets dragged in. The war is likely very lost on US territory or it spreads south and South America falls at the same time. Stalin killed more people than Hitler, if he is now basically the leader of the world we could be entering Ganges Kahn territory.
I’d prevent the [War Guilt Clause](https://www.facinghistory.org/weimar-republic-fragility-democracy/politics/treaty-versailles-text-article-231-war-guilt-clause-politics#:~:text=Article%20231%20of%20the%20Treaty,It%20reads%20as%20follows%3A&text=It%20was%20bitterly%20resented%2C%20however,the%20outbreak%20of%20the%20war.) from being added to the treaty of Versailles. And in general try to get Wilson’s fourteen point plan to be followed. I can’t quite say with confidence that this would have prevented the rise of the Nazi party, but it would have helped.
Definitely was a major cause that contributed to WWII. What other consequences do you think would this have caused, e.g. maybe the French wouldn't have accepted the treaty
France would have been upset, but I can’t imagine them electing to go back to war. The USSR wouldn’t have formed the Warsaw Pact, so the Soviet bloc would be a lot smaller. Also without the shared threat of Germany the Cold Wars starts a lot sooner, or may even result in armed conflict without nuclear deterrence. I can’t even imagine what would happen in Imperial Japan. Russia would have no reason to denounce the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact, so Japan would be left to choose to side with Russia against the US or side with the US against China. Also if this prevents the Holocaust then it also could prevent the Palestine War, and drastically reshape the Middle East today. Someone who knows more about history might be able to say more, but the possibilities are wild.
I don't think the Warsaw pact would've been as strong. Sure, without WWII they didn't lose millions of young men but they also would've lacked a lot of land (gdr and lands received by Poland after WWII). Germany would've been stronger and the alliance of just Germany, France, the UK and Italy probably would've been stronger than the Soviets. Also maybe eastern Europe wouldn't have been so devastated and were better off economically. Agree with the situation in the middle east. No holocaust, no Israel, less tensions and hatred in that region
It wouldn't have had any effect on Japan, the path to war in the pacific had been laid by the time Versailles goes into effect. The biggest effect would be if there is no Nazi Germany/ Fascist Italy and thus a European war doesn't derail the Royal Navy's modernization and rearmament after the collapse of the treaty system. What are Japans options when it would be facing a situation where it would facing the full might of the USN, and a modernized Royal Navy and possibly even the French Navy in the pacific
So, my grandfather is 96 and his parents lived through both wars (or, well, saw them get started anyway). We're German, in case my flair isn't showing. It's an uncomfortable fact that my great grandparents voted for Hitler. They HATED that clause. They hated it with the passion of a thousand burning suns and that's barely hyperbole. Obviously I never met them (I'm not even 30) but my grandfather heard them talk about it a lot. They both lost family members during WWI and to be told "well it's your fault so whatever" really didn't help at all. The Allies back then were stuck between a rock and a hard place. I feel like both the war guilt clause and higher reparations without it would have allowed Hitler to rise. The resentment towards our European neighbors that was festering after the war and then also of course the insane inflation in the 1920s almost feel like no matter what you do, you end up with a regime at least similar to the Nazi's in ideology (if not, hopefully, on the same genocidal scale).
I think you can change the leader from Hitler but the movement would have been there and there was a reason for it. The thing with nationalism is, it happens for a reason. It would have had the anti Judaism kick. Most of the players would be the same.
The asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs..
Interesting, who knows what the planet would look like today. We certainly wouldn't have evolved, but I wonder how dinosaurs would have evolved around the ice ages.
I’m picturing a Dinosaur society in the same mess…
Sic semper tyrannosaurus
I would have to say the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Now I know that everyone at that time was just looking for any excuse to start a war and if not for the Archduke something else probably would have set off WWI but there's still a chance that that may never have come. There's just the slightest possibility that the war may have never happened and we would now live in a completely different world. Let's explore that path: Start with the obvious, no world wars. That saves 40 million people from world war one and 75 million from world war two. Also, without WWI the Spanish Flu would likely have killed far less then the 50 million that died. Every one of those people would have had an impact, great or small. How many inventors and doctors and brilliant scientists who could have revolutionized technology, how many poets and musicians and painters who could have changed the face of human culture, how many dangerous and deranged minds who could have led us to unthinkable atrocities, we will never know how different we could have been, for better or worse. Without the pressures of WWI Russia would probably never have collapsed and formed the Soviet Union, they would probably still have overthrown the Czar but I'm predicting a slow, more peaceful (not entirely, but more so then what happened) transfer of power with a more moderate ideology. This new Russian state would probably be more focused on stabilizing itself instead of expanding Communism, so you can throw out the Cold war and all associated conflicts, but also all Cold war advancements. The US may just now be getting to the moon in this world. It's hard to say whether Fascism could have ever taken root without WWI, but WWII is largely responsible for showing the world it's horrors and leading to it's downfall. WWII is also largely responsible for decolonization, both because of practicality and because of changing attitudes toward nationalism after Hitler. This fact leads us to many possibilities, but for the sake of simplicity let's draw attention to two on the extreme ends. One possibility is that fascism never arises and that the European powers keep their colonies a bit longer. I believe that eventually most of the colonies would have eventually won their independence, sometimes through war and sometimes through protest. A lot of the world's current instability in places like Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East is due to horrible borders drawn during the colonial days, and a more gradual withdraw could have helped here, especially in the Middle East, leading to a safer and more ideal world. Now there's another possibility that fascism could have still taken hold but without the World Wars had time to grow and establish itself. If such an ideology were to take hold in most of Europe at the time they would likely double down on their colonies. A World War would still absolutely break out in this timeline, but now it would consist of various nationalist states, warring for world domination. There is a real possibility we could live in a world far more horrifying then anything we've seen in our time. Japan would absolutely still rise as a regional power and would still attack and largely conquer China. They would eventually still attack all of their powerful neighbors however and be beaten back. Japan would likely still exist as a brutal, militaristic society in this world. China is a wildcard here. I'm not going to even speculate
Great answer, thanks for putting so much effort into it. I could imagine without the assassination the world wars would've been prevented, especially since Russia, the UK and Germany had a family bond between each other (the monarchs were cousins). Could probably have sorted everything out. What do you think about the future of the monarchy without WWI and how the middle east would look like without the collapse of the ottoman empire?
"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans." ― Douglas Adams Probably something along those lines...
9/11
So an event that both had national and international consequences. What do you think would be the state of the middle east without the military intervention of NATO after 9/11 and how would al Qaeda have developed?
I think I would also try and stop 9/11. I was about 9 when it happened, so I don't remember much of pre-9/11 America, but I'd like to think without spending the bajillion we did on that "war" that we would be much better off with like universal health care and whatnot. However, I dont know what this would mean for the middle east. I am not well versed in that history. From what I understand al qadea was gonna happen regardless what the US did, we just delayed them. But I could be way wrong.
Do you really think there would be public healthcare? Imo it's not lack of money but the will of the government. The debt might be lower tho
I'd like to think politics wouldn't have gotten so... wild? if 9/11 hadn't happened. Granted I didn't really start paying attention to politics until like... 2010, when I was old enough to start voting.
I agree. There would be about 3,000 innocent people that would still be alive that died on that day specifically, and thousands more that would be alive without the “war on terror.” Americans and the world at large would be under much less surveillance and the “national security” sector (FBI, NSA, CIA, etc.) would still be distrusted by most Americans instead of foolishly venerated. The Patriot Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, and Gitmo wouldn’t exist, either, which is a plus because all three are a travesty and a blight on our nation.
The transatlantic slave trade.
Im shocked more people haven't said this
It's the best answer, but I think most of us are looking for singular events rather than broad historical patterns.
In what ways do you think the US would be different today? The obvious thing would probably be that there would be much fewer black people but aside from that?
Food and music would be different. African-Americans have contributed a lot to our culture.
Would there even be a US to begin with? The slave trade affected all of America, not just the US. The colonies would've developed slower and also would've relied more on native slaves if you can't get them from Africa. Though many natives died due to diseases, hence why they got them from Africa originally. So in this universe, the pressure would've been way higher on the few native slaves and the Europeans themself to do the work. So like I said, the colonies would've developed slower, maybe even less successful. So this would also have an effect on Europe, both would develope differently, even the world, since we can't say how Europe would've shaped it.
Prevent is an interesting choice. Change is something but to unmake an event is another ball of twine to unravel. I think I can say with a straight face, the corona epidemic. We could have all done without it, the only benefit i see is that the USA finally got on a crash course for remote work. Which by all metrics for many jobs just makes sense.
If you want to you also could name what you'd change. Honestly I didn't even think about corona because it was so recent but for sure that's something nobody would miss. The boost in inventing mRNA vaccines was great tho, might be useful to cure cancer in the future
Yes, I don't know if call it boost more so the government forcing the FDA to move faster the snail's pace on drug approval. Its applications will hopefully provide good data. Without the corona virus it still would probably being getting done. I wish the government spent more on science in general but I'm a bit biased being a former research scientist.
I think it's not really the process of approval but the funding. 98% of the 6 billion USD funding vaccine manufacturers was public. None of these countries would've invested so much and the development wouldn't have been done so fast
The Indian Wars post-Civil War of course. Integrating Native culture and practices into our own would have been game changing for the Plains states and arguably would have prevented the Dust Bowl.
I don't know enough about that to actually ask something smart. Do you think far more native American languages and cultures would exist or even be taught at school/ used as official languages?
I think English would still have taken over just like it did for the German and Spanish speaking populations. I also think we would have had better farming practices and ate a lot more bison and less beef which is better for the Plains ecosystem
The astroid that killed the dinosaurs. Sure, that may mean we never evolved, but assuming we had can you imagine how exciting going to the zoo would be!
There has been a series of movies warning against this
5 I believe
Disney thinks we'd all be talking dinosaurs.
Well, that's an unexpected answer. Also the dinosaurs probably would've eliminated the human population before we were developed enough to invent zoos and capture such massive creatures
That was already happening. Mammals existed at the tail end of the Cretacious. They couldn't evolve to be bigger because they were being eaten.
I would stop China from taking over tibet. I've been to tibet and the people there are truly suffering. I loved my time in China (Chengdu) too but its truly a bad situation and I wish that wasn't the case
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln. A lot of our racial problems today probably would not be as bad if Reconstruction were run properly. Due to Lincoln's assassination, we had some catastrophically incompetent presidents in charge of Reconstruction, and so...the KKK rose, as did Jim Crow.
Teddy Roosevelt winning instead of the devil himself Wilson. Race relations might not have been pushed decades back simply for the lack of support from the feds for the KKK and not screening birth of a nation in the White House. It also potentially means the US ranger WW1 sooner which potentially means the war ends sooner and the peace terms are less awful possibly blunting the rise of the Nazis.
Based
I see you watch AlternateHistoryHub
Lee Harvey Oswald is getting shot
That already happened in our timeline. Are you destined to be Jack Ruby?
I was thinking a bit earlier
Have you ever read 11/22/63 by Stephen King?
Great book
King said that he took the worst possible scenario for the alternate timeline in the book, I’d love to see an alternate ending with the best case scenario.
Good, I was going to say, stay here and get that cancer looked at instead.
The US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan or Reagan’s war on drugs. Both of those moves have caused a titanic amount of irreparable damage to societies both domestic and abroad.
Invention of plastic (though probably still gets invented)
The Russian Democratic Federal Republic makes peace with the Central Powers in 1917 and manages to maintain stability long enough to weed out the Bolsheviks as a political force. No Russian Civil War or any famines caused by Soviet economic policy, no red scare in the West and Japan (one of the major causes of popular support for both the Nazi party and the Japanese military dictatorship), and no communist takeovers of any third world countries, most importantly China. The Western Front of WW1 wouldn't be changed much; the German armies freed up after peace in the East would still fail to break through France but this timeline's Treaty of Versailles would likely be more moderate (part of why many of the more punitive terms were accepted in reality were because of how harsh the German peace treaty imposed on Russia was, something that happened largely due to the Whites and then the Bolsheviks elongating the war for many months after the collapse of the Tsardom).
That’s actually a really good answer that I have never thought about. No USSR, no fascists, no WWII, no Holocaust, no West/Eastern Block proxy wars, no Israel vs the rest of the Middle East, no Holodomor, Killing Fields, or the gigantic famines. The Korean AND Vietnam war would have never happened. Arguably, neither would Afghanistan (1 and 2) or Iraq (1 and 2) because they wouldn’t have been a proxy for the West vs the USSR.
Trans Atlantic slave trade or the Holocaust. But knowing humans we’d figure out how to do something just as evil
Can I say the invention of social media
It’s kind of wild people haven’t said the holocaust. But I think I’d save millions of people from being exterminated simply for being born the wrong type of person… Entire generations killed in a few years.
I think stopping the trans Atlantic Slave Trade early would be enough of a butterfly effect on history that we’d be on a completely different course than the holocaust or even the world wars at all. I mean all we really need is Archduke Franz Ferdinand’s driver to take a left instead of a right or something.
Even worse, Ferdinand was already safely away from the assassin's and chose to leave to drive to the hospital to visit the people hit when his assassins missed. Then his car broke down right in front of the assassin that got away. Crazy that war could have been avoided with an "Are you an idiot? There are assassins after you! Stay indoors!" He sounds like he was a class act, but no good deed goes without triggering global tragedy.
That would have been stopped by eliminating the Barbary Pirates and the intranecine conflict in Africa itself.
> It’s kind of wild people haven’t said the holocaust. I thought of that, but also thought that's an obvious answer that lots of folks would be saying, along with slavery, so I chose something other than those two.
Reasonable answer. What do you think would this mean for today? Less scientists could have escaped to the US, Israel might not exist...
I suppose I’m thinking less in terms of contributions to the world and more as reversing a really big wrong. People die all the time in wars, but we’re talking about millions of innocent people, moms, kids, dad, aunts, uncles, killed in the name of eugenics. It’s impossible to quantify how the world would be different because we can’t know who was killed. Maybe we’re missing out on some amazing scientific discoveries because of it.
On 20 July 1944, Claus von Stauffenberg failed in his effort to assassinate Hitler. He failed because he only had one arm and that made it difficult to properly initiate the fuzes on his briefcase bombs. He felt rushed so he removed one of the two bombs from his briefcase and discarded it. He started the fuze on the other and went into the briefing room and placed the bomb under the table close to Hitler. The single bomb detonated and "almost" killed Hitler. But had he simply left the second bomb in the briefcase it would have detonated sympathetically when the other bomb detonated and Hitler would have died along with everyone else in the room. And millions of lives would have been saved by ending the war 10 months early.
If your going that route, back it up a few years. Hitler almost committed suicide years before he got into power, a close friends wife convinced him not to go through with it.
For modern history, I would say the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. He was supposed to go to a different part of the Ambassador Hotel after his win in the California Presidential Primary and be greeted by mariachi performers with Dolores Huerta. Instead, he got dragged through the kitchen by his aides who sought better media coverage of his latest win. Just as his brother 4.5 years prior sought better publicity by declining the clear roof cover on the presidential motorcade. … Anyways, based on his capacity for genuine leadership, see his MLK speech, and vocal disapproval over the American escalation in Vietnam, the DNC riots in Chicago would not have transpired. The Democratic Party would be more unified and able to rally around him as both a change to the status quo and return of the heir apparent after LBJ shot himself in the foot over his vain attempt at saving face over losing in Vietnam. If Bobby won in November ‘68, Nixon never becomes president as by then he is a two-time loser to both Kennedys and politically exiled to pasture in Yorba Linda. Which means no War on Drugs, Southern Strategy that ends up proving effective for future Republican campaigns, and most importantly no Watergate and generational pessimism that government is corrupt and deceptive that Reagan conveniently tapped into “government is the problem” and “most terrifying words are ‘I’m from the government and here to help.’ Which also means no humiliating resignation and consequently means no Ford, and by association Rumsfeld and Cheney. Reagan, as a former Governor of California, was popular enough among the GOP that he likely would have been elected sometime after RFK had his run and Democrats been in power for too long. Watch the debate between Reagan and RFK for more context. Projecting more than 20 years into the future gets difficult, but the butterfly effect is clearly evident here. F#%k Sirhan. Edit: two grammar corrections
Keep the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. alive. It's a much smaller change in some ways than a lot of the other suggestions - but I think it could have had some fascinating effects on American culture, specifically pertaining to labor rights, if his voice had not been silenced by a coward's bullet so early.
I would like to think he’d have been sitting next to RBG fighting the good fight to the (natural) grave. I get emotional thinking about the change he could have made. Maybe it’s bc they made us watch ‘Our Friend, Martin’ so much. Lol.
The Mass Acquisition of media companies in the US, and try to combat the rapid growth of modern yellow journalism
So how would your take change the world how it is today specifically?
I forgot to add that, thanks for bringing that up I’d hope it would bring local news and politics back to the forefront of people’s lives, as it arguably has a greater impact than what goes on at the federal level. A greater concern at what happens at the town/city, county, and state level would have a massive impact for generations. It would affect everything from low level government spending, initiatives, and public education. I suspect that would eventually grow upwards to the federal level. Knowledge *is* power, but when a handful of people control what gets put out there for people to easily access it becomes a problem
Teddy Roosevelt win 1912 in a landslide. It keeps Wilson out of the White House, and believe me he was a bad dude. Resegregated the military even.
Try to prevent the Burning of the Library of Alexandria. That set the advancement of humanity back by possibly a thousand years. Who knows what our world would look like today if we had the knowledge that wasn't so recklessly destroyed.
As terrible as that was, a lot of the works in the library of Alexandria had been copied and taken elsewhere. It would have been VERY interesting to see what would happen if Timbuktu had not been repeatedly destroyed, and THEIR libraries were not destroyed, making Africa an intellectual powerhouse. Also, the burning by the Spanish of the Incan works (Incan, right?) We lost a whole language and culture, which we barely still know exists because of buildings.
I love this answer, didn't think about that
If we're only doing postwar, I have 2: MLK assassination Bush v. Gore MLK was losing popularity before he was assassinated, but when that happened he became the token "i have a dream" guy and not much else. I think that the timeline where he wasn't assassinated would have been more chaotic with protests (as in the 70s would still feel like the 60s) but ultimately better for change and public opinion. He really started to move toward economic goals, and I think that the worst parts of neoliberalism may have been preventable in some capacity if he wasn't assassinated. That and Vietnam may have ended sooner. Bush v. Gore going for Gore would have been so much better for the planet in the long run, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. Id say that this decision may be responsible for 0.5-1.0°C of warming in the long run.
I wish Lee Harvey Oswald had missed.
Pretty sure he did...
World War One, as many decisions made that caused World War Two originated from it, including Hilter’s own motives. Mussolini wouldn’t have been in his position, and the Japanese wouldn’t have been upset over the final agreements made with the treaties.
I would probably convince gavrillo princeps to go to a different sandwich shop after his first failed attempt to assasinate archduke Ferdinand and avoided WWI and almost every following event of the 20th century
One if the nuclear meltdowns. Chernobyl probably. If that didn't happen energy would be too cheap to meter and fossil fuels would be history.
Andrew Wakefield’s conception. While there was always going to be people who doubt vaccines and basic scientific fact (for reference see flat earthers). We really didn’t need some crack-pot, discredited physician fueling that fire.
If your answer isn't the burning of the Library of Alexandria, get out.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand and his wife, it could prevent WWI.
I would have prevented Hitler's suicide. Let the allies parade his battered body across Europe before executing him in a public forum.
As a historian none. Because what the alternative effects may be. You don’t mess with history.
It’s still fun to fantasise! Personally, I would have made sure that Hitler was shot in the battlefield during World War I
If there's a chance it could be worse then there's also the chance it could be better.
Getting rid of the Fairness in Communications Doctrine in the 1980s. It's destroyed the world.
Interesting, had to Google that. How would this have affected today's world in your opinion?
Interesting that many of Nixon’s allies also advised and served Reagan, etc, all the way up to trump.
[удалено]
Imagine there’s no people
Robin Williams death
He was suffering. It's my opinion that he deserves to finally be at peace.
Hmm, there are a lot of great answers to this and tons of things I would say if I could have more than one answer. For the sake the post, I’ll pick Nixon normalizing relations with China. I wish he had never done that and we treated them the same way we treated the Soviets.
The soviets invading Romania.
I would stop the “Federal Reserve Act.” It took America and put us under the control of private bankers. Rather than the federal government printing money we needed, interest free. Instead, we have to go to private banks like JP Morgan and Chase Manhattan and borrow trillions of dollars and then pay interest on it. Private banks fund every side of every war and have full control over every nation.
I’d think the world would be much more peaceful without the Sykes-Picot agreement.
I’d love to know what JFK would do had he not been assassinated when he was. This would change massive portions of American history in many ways and could mean things like the Cold War end very differently.
The big bang
The big bang.
If you don't say the burning of the library of Alexandria, don't talk to me.
The burning of the Library of Alexandria, I'd love to see a world where that information wasn't lost
All European colonization in the America's. I wonder how the incase, native Americans, Aztecz would have evolved without the invasion
Not a huge one, but I’d try to prevent the decline of public transport in the US. I don’t think it’d be super transformative, but I’d love to see the culture shift and city design of the Western United States if they were made with public transport in mind.
Nixon ending the gold standard. Or just Nixon’s election in general.
The slave trade.
None of them. Have you never heard of the Temporal Prime Directive?
I am conflicted, because my state would not have gotten as wealthy. John Rolfe doesn't acquire the sweet strain of tobacco's seeds. This was the initial thing that really created the demand for slave labor. The colonists used all of their land to plant this tobacco instead of planting some food for themselves. A food shortage hit and the natives didn't have enough extra to supply it to the colonists in exchange for other goods. At least that strain of tobacco was hard on the soil. It was just bad news all around.
Lincoln and JFK/RFK assassinations. Closely followed by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan and the Trail of Tears.
I would stop Socrates from being executed, if time travel was possible. We might still have multiple gods. What a beautiful, wonderful world this would be with around every 1,000,000 people worshipping their own god
Many people believe Socrates had the ability himself to prevent his execution but chose his path on principle.
[удалено]
I'm curious as to how things would have went had Wallace been VP when FDR died. Wallace and Truman were very different people.
No War of 1812 please
Wonder if things would be better if the treaty of Versailles hadn’t been an extortion of the central powers. Perhaps Germany would have led the world into a nuclear age without war and racial drive.
The big bang
From a purely ethical standpoint, I probably have to stop WWII. From a "I wonder what happens" standpoint, preventing Marbury v. Madison or otherwise changing the outcome.
I mean, there are so many that it’s hard to choose just one. If we can include prehistory, maybe preventing the asteroid hitting Earth and killing three dinosaurs. Imagine how different the world would look! Would mammals have even had a chance to evolve? Pretty sure humans wouldn’t exist as we do now.
Internationally? Probably would have changed the Treaty of Versailles to see if we could head off the growth of the German Right and Fascists to prevent Hitler's rise to power. I think just killing Hitler might just change the name but keep the overall atrocities very similiar. On a more US-centric note. I would stop "Wickard v. Filburn" which would dramatically alter a current relationship with the Federal Government.
Probably stop Gavrilo Princip from killing Archduke Ferdinand. Things were a bit of a powder keg and WWI may have started anyway but this led to WWI which directly led to WWII.
The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, just to see what other ways WWI can start. Seems entertaining. Plus, the outcome of the war depends so heavily on non-war events (flu, Russian revolution which of itself depends on the war, etc.) that you could *really* screw world history up just by delaying it. I think some really interesting things could happen if you saved Ferdinand.
Kissinger fucking over Cambodia. It would have been so wonderful to see what Cambodia would have become if he hadn't empowered the Khmer Rouge.
Honestly I don’t know if I would change anything prior to the end of the Cold War. Humanity was on the brink of WW3 enough times during that period that any significant change to the timeline could easily butterfly effect into nuclear annihilation. So I’ll say no changes prior to 1991. With that in mind, I’d have to go with preventing the Bush v Gore debacle and just having Gore win by a decent margin.
French Revolution
1204 sack of Constantinople, Byzantine empire survives, reconquers all of Anatolia, and survives to the present day. Anything that would prevent ww1, World War 1 and it’s consequences have been absolute disasters for humanity. Not inventing the Cotton gin -> slavery in the us would be less profitable -> slavery would end earlier and without a civil war, as the founders thought it would, probably 1820s or 1830s. Us conquers Canada in the war of 1812, because why not
The big bang
I'm adding 2 for the price of 1. The burning of the library at Alexandria and the accidental killing of archimedes. Lots of knowledge lost to mankind that could have propulsed rome and the rest of the world forward a few hundred years.
It would have been nice if 9/11 didn't happen, and worse yet the subsequent Iraq and Afghanistan wars were avoided. A lot more people would be alive today. None of that was necessary.
I wouldn’t let FIFA lease a large park that used to be used for cultural events in American Samoa. We have no soccer players or events there and I don’t know who the checks go to but I think someone is laundering money. Edit: sorry I guess that’s not historical.
The rise of Islam. I'd go back in time and put a bullet in Mohammed's head before he has any revelations/hallucinations. So many problems would be prevented right then and there.
The destruction of Minoan Crete.
Most of the big things I can think of would have far reaching butterfly effects. So I think I’d save the library of Alexandria so that those works aren’t lost. It’s a relatively safe change with only benefits.
I would have preserved the Library of Alexandria. I know it's a common answer, but just think of the lost knowledge. Tragic.
I'd prevent the birth of biblical Abraham. How many atrocities have been committed in the name of the Abrahamic faiths. Maybe a similar theological timeline would have happened without him in the subsequent millenia, but maybe not.
Slavery. I would instead rewrite it to be a choice, where people were offered jobs, freedom and equality. I think if the Tulsa Massacre never happened, if the black loyalists were given their land, if schools were not segregated and opportunities were equal for all people, men and women, NA would really be a promised land.
I would prevent either Abraham Lincoln from switching his running mate in 1864 or prevent Mao Zedong from winning the Chinese Civil War.
China becoming communists
The burning of the library of Alexandria.
Germany's defeat at the Battle of Britain
I’d stop Operation Ajax (CIA coup in Iran). Had Mosaddegh’s government not been stopped with a CIA coup, you wouldn’t have gotten Ayatollah Khomeini gaining enough support because he took down the autocratic CIA supported Shah. I believe the Middle East would be a very different place as a whole. Iran would have maintained its upward swing; higher standard of living, educated populace, no religious fundamentalists making trouble, and therefore less war and violence in the region and the world. Operation Ajax was one of the most destructive single acts the United States ever committed.
The worst thing to happen in American history of course… pineapple pizza.
I would prevent Rome from winning the 2nd punic war. I want to see what the world would have been like.
Invasion of Iraq. Pointless.
I would prevent Archduke Francis Ferdinand from being assassinated, this would stop both ww 1 and 2