If you could a change single historical event, what would it be and why?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
Not a historical event... but can I change the "Big Bang"?
Into the Small Bang? ;)

YOU BITE YOUR TONGUE SIRRAH!!!

View attachment 22554
I did explicitly wonder whether the US would have ever acquired certain territories had it remained under British rule, though. A bright side of us remaining under British rule would have been a much less bloody end to slavery as well as no natural-born citizen requirement for our head of state right now, though.
 
Oct 2016
1,167
Merryland
Into the Small Bang? ;)


I did explicitly wonder whether the US would have ever acquired certain territories had it remained under British rule, though.
unintended consequences; might there have been a war in North America of Brit America vs French / Spanish America? imagine the possible impact on the Napoleonic wars if a large piece of France still existed on the continent.
the Mexican-US war might have never happened; thus Mexico would be a bigger richer country...and we would be smaller and poorer. or there might have been a real nasty war over those territories.

A bright side of us remaining under British rule would have been a much less bloody end to slavery as well as no natural-born citizen requirement for our head of state right now, though.
This point I must concede. We (the USA) should have expunged slavery in the US Constitution.
I shudder to think of the possibilities of a US Revolution in, say, 1880. considering the numbers and industrial capacities of both sides...would have been horrific. best done when it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,743
Lower Styria, Slovenia
only thing is...without a superstrong dictator Russia / USSR might well have gotten steamrolled by Barbarossa.
as somebody said (maybe me) would have been great if Stalin died in summer 1945, after defeating the nazis.

how about a plan to save the Library @ Alexandria? we have no idea how much we lost when that got destroyed.
Hard to say, like Futurisr said, there might no Hitler in this case. I think we would see the rise of something but who knows if it would be as desteuctice as nazism although I have the impression the German collective was pretty much pushing in that direction. The nazis might have been only a shade or two darker than what the masses wanted.

Yeah, Communism was certainly a huge cancer. The only positive thing that came out of it is that a lot of countries got their independence who might have otherwise not acquired it. For instance, Kazakhstan. The price of this was still way too high, though. :( Decades living under brutal totalitarian rule simply isn't worth it even if the ultimate end goal is independence; after all, one might die before one is actually able to see the positive consequences of this--thus ensuring a wasted lifetime. :(

An anti-Nazi alliance consisting of Britain, France, and Russia might also be easier to make if Russia doesn't go Communist and is intent on spreading world revolution. Of course, without the Communists, there's no guarantee that the Nazis ever actually come to power in Germany, but if they will nevertheless come to power, the other Great Powers are going to be much more ready for them. This could make a huge impact since the Nazis might not be able to slaughter large numbers of Jews in this scenario--and the number of Eastern Slavs who are going to lose their lives in this scenario is likewise going to be much less. In real life, in 1950, the territory that is now Russia had only 62 men for every 100 women aged 25-49. The comparable figures for the territory that is now Ukraine was 65 men for every 100 women in that age range in 1950. For the territory that is now Belarus, the comparable figure was 69 men for every 100 women in that age range--with the Belarusian figure presumably looking better only because more Belarusian women (percentage-wise) might have died as a result of Nazism and Nazi rule than Russian women and Ukrainian women. :(
On the other hand it caused the near disappearance of the Belarusian language in Belarus, the displacement of various small ethnicities in Russia and the creation of big East Slavic minorities in the Baltic states, which still cause tensions and fear today.

I would like to see what would have become of Russia without a commy take-over. They were on the way to democratisation, the whole process was merely some 20-30 years old by 1917 and had they continued, they'd probably be in a better position today. Not killing the tsar, having better relations with Western powers ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
Hard to say, like Futurisr said, there might no Hitler in this case. I think we would see the rise of something but who knows if it would be as desteuctice as nazism although I have the impression the German collective was pretty much pushing in that direction. The nazis might have been only a shade or two darker than what the masses wanted.
Agreed. Also, a non-Bolshevik Russia might be more capable of forming alliances with the Western democracies and might also avoid the mistake of purging its officer corps.

On the other hand it caused the near disappearance of the Belarusian language in Belarus, the displacement of various small ethnicities in Russia and the creation of big East Slavic minorities in the Baltic states, which still cause tensions and fear today.
A non-Bolshevik Russia could have likewise done all of these things, though. For instance, Tsarist Russia was a huge fan of Russification and tried to wipe out the Ukrainian language with the Valuev Circular and Ems Ukaz. As for the Baltic countries, if Kazakhstan can deal with having a large Russian minority, so can they--especially considering that they are both EU and NATO members. Also, Balts can have more babies if they're worried about the large Russian demographic presence in their countries just like Kazakhs did.

As for Belarus, please also keep in mind that without the Bolsheviks it would be unlikely to ever actually get its independence. Unfortunately that's just the way that it is. :(

I would like to see what would have become of Russia without a commy take-over. They were on the way to democratisation, the whole process was merely some 20-30 years old by 1917 and had they continued, they'd probably be in a better position today. Not killing the tsar, having better relations with Western powers ...
The process of democratization was actually only 12 years old in 1917. Russia had its first revolution in 1905 and that's when it got its first Duma. I do agree with your general point here, though. The Bolshevik Revolution really was a huge cancer for Russia. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: sailorsam
Jul 2019
102
Pale Blue Dot - Moonshine Quadrant
<snip>

The big question, of course, would be whether the US would still acquire the Louisiana Territory, Florida, Texas, and the Mexican Cession in such a scenario.
I suspect not.

As I understand it one of the smaller irritations of the colonials was their unhappiness with English restraints on westward expansion. They were a trading nation and getting raw materials out of the interior of the North American continent was a problem that was not solved for decades.

A a young Illinois politician, Abraham Lincoln was the leader of a activists that almost bankrupted the state by borrowing heavily to build a network of infrastructure (railroads and canals) in a plan to reduce their isolation from markets.

The highly successful Erie Canal that brought the NY interior and what was then considered the Midwest to economic life had caught everyone's attention - so in some sense that became Lincoln's model.

The whole thing blew up very badly in the Bank Panic/Depression that started in 1837-38. It crippled Illinois finances for years, although Lincoln himself remained a big railroad advocate all his life.

Even if Napoleon wanted to sell the Louisiana Territory, the Brits were not going to give him a nickel to help France deal with its financial issues.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,743
Lower Styria, Slovenia
A non-Bolshevik Russia could have likewise done all of these things, though. For instance, Tsarist Russia was a huge fan of Russification and tried to wipe out the Ukrainian language with the Valuev Circular and Ems Ukaz. As for the Baltic countries, if Kazakhstan can deal with having a large Russian minority, so can they--especially considering that they are both EU and NATO members. Also, Balts can have more babies if they're worried about the large Russian demographic presence in their countries just like Kazakhs did.
The Stans are content to be under Russia's wing though or better said, they don't really have a choice, even though they might get some benefit through it. The Baltic states are very anti Russian because of the history of the past 100 years. That's why they are so pro-NATO and all. It's easy for you to say they can have more kids but frankly, that's like the Brazilian President saying to his people they should poop less to have less of an impact on the environment (he actually said something along those lines last week). Since Russia's annexation of the Crimea, having a sizeable Russian minority has become a safety concern leaving many a country with less sleep at night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
The Stans are content to be under Russia's wing though or better said, they don't really have a choice, even though they might get some benefit through it. The Baltic states are very anti Russian because of the history of the past 100 years. That's why they are so pro-NATO and all.
Well, yeah, the Kazakhs did suffer more under Russian/Soviet rule than the Balts did, but as you said, the Balts actually have the choice of integrating with Europe rather than with Russia (just like Ukraine has, at least if it cleans up its act) while Central Asia really doesn't have such a choice.

It's easy for you to say they can have more kids but frankly, that's like the Brazilian President saying to his people they should poop less to have less of an impact on the environment (he actually said something along those lines last week).
Well, Kazakhs and Israelis are able to have lots of children and they likewise have to deal with demographic threats.

Since Russia's annexation of the Crimea, having a sizeable Russian minority has become a safety concern leaving many a country with less sleep at night.
Oh, certainly. However, what really helps in the Baltics' case is the NATO alliance. Ukraine wasn't a NATO member and thus NATO was under no obligation to help it out; the Baltics are different. Also, please keep in mind that the Baltics are much wealthier than Ukraine and are thus might have their Russians be less inclined to engage in separatism.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
IMHO, maybe in addition to boosting the Baltic birth rates, the Baltic governments can try encouraging mass intermarriage between Balts and Russians? I mean, this does seem to be a good way to integrate the Russian populations in those countries.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,743
Lower Styria, Slovenia
Well, yeah, the Kazakhs did suffer more under Russian/Soviet rule than the Balts did, but as you said, the Balts actually have the choice of integrating with Europe rather than with Russia (just like Ukraine has, at least if it cleans up its act) while Central Asia really doesn't have such a choice.

Oh, certainly. However, what really helps in the Baltics' case is the NATO alliance. Ukraine wasn't a NATO member and thus NATO was under no obligation to help it out; the Baltics are different. Also, please keep in mind that the Baltics are much wealthier than Ukraine and are thus might have their Russians be less inclined to engage in separatism.

I don't think Ukraine really has a choice. Russia doesn't want the EU and NATO at its doorstep. Russia always wants a buffer zone around its borders or, historically, conquer as much as to either reach a natural border that is defendable (or at least beneficial) or there's so much territory that intrusion into the heartland can be slowed down. You want a Russia that is not overly upset? Then leave its neighbours in its influence zone and don't pull them in your own nets. Sounds a bit retarded, but seems to be at least partly true, I think.