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

Oct 2016
1,144
Merryland
#82
I'd prevent Lenin's return to Russia in 1917 and thus hopefully preventing the establishment of a communist Soviet Union that eventuelly got all of Eastern Europe under its command and spread its toxic ideology even further across the globe, causing so many millions to die a pointless death.
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.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jul 2019
91
Pale Blue Dot - Moonshine Quadrant
#83
With this change you lose most Southern support for the Revolutionary War, which was a pretty close run thing in the first place. If independence is still achieved, you will see two American countries, one explicitly free and the other explicitly slave.
I suspect that is true and the ability to hold off the armies of George III would be compromised in some degree - although they might still agree on Washington as general. The financing that was ugly as sin anyway, would have been even uglier.

It is possible that separation would not have occurred and slavery has to be confronted by England eventually.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#84
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.

how about a plan to save the Library @ Alexandria? we have no idea how much we lost when that got destroyed.
There might not be an Operation Barbarossa or even a Nazi Germany without the Bolshevik Revolution, though. For instance, an Anglo-Franco-Russian anti-Nazi alliance (if the Nazis still come to power in Germany in this scenario) is much more plausible to make with a Russia that isn't intent on spreading world revolution.
 
Likes: sailorsam
Oct 2016
1,144
Merryland
#85
There might not be an Operation Barbarossa or even a Nazi Germany without the Bolshevik Revolution, though. For instance, an Anglo-Franco-Russian anti-Nazi alliance (if the Nazis still come to power in Germany in this scenario) is much more plausible to make with a Russia that isn't intent on spreading world revolution.
my take is that Hitler wanted from the beginning to take Caucasus / Ukraine for food and oil. he wanted Germany to be a continental superpower with plenty of space and great resources a la the USA.
ideology was secondary imho.
I doubt even a friendly fascist Russia would have given that to Hitler.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#86
I'd prevent Lenin's return to Russia in 1917 and thus hopefully preventing the establishment of a communist Soviet Union that eventuelly got all of Eastern Europe under its command and spread its toxic ideology even further across the globe, causing so many millions to die a pointless death.
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. :(
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#87
my take is that Hitler wanted from the beginning to take Caucasus / Ukraine for food and oil. he wanted Germany to be a continental superpower with plenty of space and great resources a la the USA.
ideology was secondary imho.
I doubt even a friendly fascist Russia would have given that to Hitler.
What about if Russia will remain a democratic moderate socialist country, though?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,197
SoCal
#88
I suspect that is true and the ability to hold off the armies of George III would be compromised in some degree - although they might still agree on Washington as general. The financing that was ugly as sin anyway, would have been even uglier.

It is possible that separation would not have occurred and slavery has to be confronted by England eventually.
Honestly, having Britain won the ARW wouldn't be the worst thing in the world; in fact, in some ways, it might be even better than real life:

My Mistakes - Gwern.net

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.