If you could change one thing in history.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Gather the Native Americans, form an army of them. Then I would march them to Washington, D.C. and say "Native Americans of the world, unite!" and have them fight to regain their land.

Native Americans? Don't most Americans already have land?

Oh wait, you mean the American Indians. OK then, I would gather an army (also known as the U.S. Army) and have them kill every last one of the traitors.

[Trollgaard]

Gather the Native Americans, form an army of them. Then I would march them to Washington, D.C. and say "Native Americans of the world, unite!" and have them fight to regain their land.

You don't have the numbers. They are like 1% of the population. You'd just create another Trail of Tears.

[Conscentia]

Gather the Native Americans, form an army of them. Then I would march them to Washington, D.C. and say "Native Americans of the world, unite!" and have them fight to regain their land.

This thread is "if you could change 1 thing in history", not "if you had a time machine".
Also, you can't speak Native American languages, and I doubt they would listen to you even if you could.
Furthermore, I doubt you'd make a good military leader.
Finally, you chance of success are low, no matter which time period you choose.

[The Lone Alliance]

Make Reagan lose the election.

[Glorious Brittania]

Gustav Stresemann would have lived.

Good to see another person loves the Gustameister.

After all: Stresemann, Stresemann. Does whatever a Strese can.

[Veladio]

Christianity never violently expanded into northern Europe and Scandinavia, causing needless wars, a loss of oral and written tradition, and a demonization of Pagans.

[Ethel mermania]

Gather the Native Americans, form an army of them. Then I would march them to Washington, D.C. and say "Native Americans of the world, unite!" and have them fight to regain their land.

This thread is "if you could change 1 thing in history", not "if you had a time machine".
Also, you can't speak Native American languages, and I doubt they would listen to you even if you could.
Furthermore, I doubt you'd make a good military leader.
Finally, you chance of success are low, no matter which time period you choose.

I choose 1607, pocohantus let's john smith be executed.
Followed up in 1620 with the plymouth rock massacre.

All those inidans needed was decent border security and the country would still be free.

[Winslavia]

Destroy Religion. All Of Them

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

This thread is "if you could change 1 thing in history", not "if you had a time machine".
Also, you can't speak Native American languages, and I doubt they would listen to you even if you could.
Furthermore, I doubt you'd make a good military leader.
Finally, you chance of success are low, no matter which time period you choose.

I choose 1607, pocohantus let's john smith be executed.
Followed up in 1620 with the plymouth rock massacre.

All those inidans needed was decent border security and the country would still be free.

John Smith never met Pocahontas and led the Jamestown settlement in Virginia. He hated natives rather vehemently.
John Rolfe, on the other hand, knew Pocahontas, but they got married and went off to England - no executions or anything involved...a rather peaceful affair.
Plymouth Colony was peaceful and they were friendly with the natives until one soldier got a bit overzealous.

[Ethel mermania]

I choose 1607, pocohantus let's john smith be executed.
Followed up in 1620 with the plymouth rock massacre.

All those inidans needed was decent border security and the country would still be free.

John Smith never met Pocahontas and led the Jamestown settlement in Virginia. He hated natives rather vehemently.
John Rolfe, on the other hand, knew Pocahontas, but they got married and went off to England - no executions or anything involved...a rather peaceful affair.
Plymouth Colony was peaceful and they were friendly with the natives until one soldier got a bit overzealous.

which was the indians big mistake, In plymouth anyway the indian tribes tried to us the white folks as pawns in their own political games. Where they should have immediately banded together and massacred the settlers.

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

John Smith never met Pocahontas and led the Jamestown settlement in Virginia. He hated natives rather vehemently.
John Rolfe, on the other hand, knew Pocahontas, but they got married and went off to England - no executions or anything involved...a rather peaceful affair.
Plymouth Colony was peaceful and they were friendly with the natives until one soldier got a bit overzealous.

which was the indians big mistake, In plymouth anyway the indian tribes tried to us the white folks as pawns in their own political games. Where they should have immediately banded together and massacred the settlers.

I'm descended from settlers in Plymouth Colony so I wouldn't appreciate that...
Plymouth is where Thanksgiving comes from, you know. They were peaceful. Why was it so bad if they were both friends and both helped each other?

[Petrovsegratsk]

Make sure that the short-lived "Republic of Russia" won the Russian Civil War, so Russia would thrive under Democratic Capitalism, and not suffer under Dictatorial Socialism.

[Ethel mermania]

which was the indians big mistake, In plymouth anyway the indian tribes tried to us the white folks as pawns in their own political games. Where they should have immediately banded together and massacred the settlers.

I'm descended from settlers in Plymouth Colony so I wouldn't appreciate that...
Plymouth is where Thanksgiving comes from, you know. They were peaceful. Why was it so bad if they were both friends and both helped each other?

because allowing the whites to establish a base in the US, is one of the the proximate causes of the indians being wiped out.

also our friends in st. augustine may have an issue with you about thanksgiving party you threw 70 years or so too late.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2812096/posts

[Draugaborg]

Most likely prevent the birth of Christianity. I hope it'd prevent Islam. I don't really care for Judaism since those folks are so closed and xenophobic (as in, don't want to intermix, not necessarily hate others).

[Independent Peoples Communes]

In 1917 the October Revolution failed in Russia. Instead November German Revolution is fully successful. Therefore communism is introduced into high-developed country with strong working class and under the leadership of Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht.

[Floyd Bjoernstjerne Olson]

I'm descended from settlers in Plymouth Colony so I wouldn't appreciate that...
Plymouth is where Thanksgiving comes from, you know. They were peaceful. Why was it so bad if they were both friends and both helped each other?

because allowing the whites to establish a base in the US, is one of the the proximate causes of the indians being wiped out.

also our friends in st. augustine may have an issue with you about thanksgiving party you threw 70 years or so too late.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2812096/posts

Oh well, that's how history was played out. I'd rather the Americas didn't end up like Africa, anyways.

[Glorious Brittania]

Make sure that the short-lived "Republic of Russia" won the Russian Civil War, so Russia would thrive under Democratic Capitalism, and not suffer under Dictatorial Socialism.

This. A thousand times this. Give Kerensky a chance, people!

[Petrovsegratsk]

Make sure that the short-lived "Republic of Russia" won the Russian Civil War, so Russia would thrive under Democratic Capitalism, and not suffer under Dictatorial Socialism.

This. A thousand times this. Give Kerensky a chance, people!

Yes, Red Russia was worst Russia.

[Delvoir]

France's short-lived constitutional monarchy wouldn't have collapsed and the French Revolution would have led to democracy and would have been relatively bloodless. There would have been no bloodthirsty Robespierre, no Napoleon, the Age of Enlightenment would have been able to continue and there would be no police states enforced in Vienna and Naples.

[Greater Ilanar]

There would never be a rise of communism.

[Divair]

There would never be a rise of communism.

You mean state capitalism.

[Nazis in Space]

Capitalism: Defined by the private Ownership of the means of production.

Socialism: Defined as a necessary stage in the evolution of communism, characterised by the state ownership of the means of production

Wanking: Redefining a given term in a thoroughly nonsensical fashion staggeringly contradictory to the phenomenon's philosophical and practical history to avoid having to deal with reality on account of preferring to engage in mutual intellectual masturbation within one's intellectually inbred philosophical circlejerk.

[Divair]

Socialism: Defined as a necessary stage in the evolution of communism, characterised by the state ownership of the means of production

wut



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system."



Big difference.

[Nazis in Space]

Socialism: Defined as a necessary stage in the evolution of communism, characterised by the state ownership of the means of production

wut



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system."



Big difference.

"Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.

And it's worth noting that 'State Ownership' was very specifically mentioned among its most influential authors (Marx among them) as the most practical solution.

Though I'll grant you that 'Socialism' is hilariously nebulously defined, with hundreds of competing definitions, which makes it pretty easy to always pick one that suits one's purposes, while claiming that the other, competing definitions, movements, and lets-try-it-for-real attempts are clearly not socialism, despite very much originating from the 'Socialism' cloud of philosophical and socio-economic thought. That part, while sad, is sufficiently common - I dare saying it's universal - that you shall be excused for doing it.

Declaring a lack of private ownership 'Capitalism' by way of cunningly inverting the very definition of capitalism, on the other hand, is such a load of bullshit, it's inexcusable. Admittedly, you didn't object to that objection of mine, so that's covered, too.

[Jewcrew]

wut



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterised by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system."



Big difference.

"Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.

And it's worth noting that 'State Ownership' was very specifically mentioned among its most influential authors (Marx among them) as the most practical solution.

Though I'll grant you that 'Socialism' is hilariously nebulously defined, with hundreds of competing definitions, which makes it pretty easy to always pick one that suits one's purposes, while claiming that the other, competing definitions, movements, and lets-try-it-for-real attempts are clearly not socialism, despite very much originating from the 'Socialism' cloud of philosophical and socio-economic thought. That part, while sad, is sufficiently common - I dare saying it's universal - that you shall be excused for doing it.

Declaring a lack of private ownership 'Capitalism' by way of cunningly inverting the very definition of capitalism, on the other hand, is such a load of bullshit, it's inexcusable. Admittedly, you didn't object to that objection of mine, so that's covered, too.

THANK YOU!