If you could change one thing in history.

[Forster Keys]

I would have made Franz Joseph I of Austria die early, sometime around 1906-7. This would ensure Franz Ferdinand would gain the throne, allowing the federal reforms of Austria-Hungary, the "United States of Austria", that he favoured. Hopefully this would lead to a far more stable Dual Monarchy without the ethnic tensions it had IRL, hopefully preventing the spark that started WWI. I'm not an expert, though, so I have no idea if it would work.

Though what's to stop another spark from setting the whole shebang alight?

[Gefurstete Grafschaft Tirol]

Austria-Hungary wouldn't have been destroyed by the Entente, it would have lost some territories and all, but it would mainly look like here:

[Forster Keys]

Austria-Hungary wouldn't have been destroyed by the Entente, it would have lost some territories and all, but it would mainly look like here:

(Image)

Where's that from?

[Gefurstete Grafschaft Tirol]

Austria-Hungary wouldn't have been destroyed by the Entente, it would have lost some territories and all, but it would mainly look like here:

(Image)

Where's that from?

deviantArt, and I think you can also find it at alternathistory.com

[Meowfoundland]

I would have made Franz Joseph I of Austria die early, sometime around 1906-7. This would ensure Franz Ferdinand would gain the throne, allowing the federal reforms of Austria-Hungary, the "United States of Austria", that he favoured. Hopefully this would lead to a far more stable Dual Monarchy without the ethnic tensions it had IRL, hopefully preventing the spark that started WWI. I'm not an expert, though, so I have no idea if it would work.

Though what's to stop another spark from setting the whole shebang alight?

Nothing, although at least there would be a large, federal, stable state at the heart of Europe instead of lots of small, unstable countries.

[Forster Keys]

Though what's to stop another spark from setting the whole shebang alight?

Nothing, although at least there would be a large, federal, stable state at the heart of Europe instead of lots of small, unstable countries.

I'm not sure. Idiotic nationalism seems a mighty durable weed around there.

[Forster Keys]

Where's that from?

deviantArt, and I think you can also find it at alternathistory.com

Thanks.

[Meowfoundland]

Nothing, although at least there would be a large, federal, stable state at the heart of Europe instead of lots of small, unstable countries.

I'm not sure. Idiotic nationalism seems a mighty durable weed around there.

Also I just really like Austria-Hungary, although I doubt it would still be called that after the reforms.

[Nidaria]

Maurice of Saxony did not betray Charles V. Without this betrayal, the Lutherans probably would have been reconciled. With a united Christendom, Western society would not have gone into a bitter and long-lasting decline, and the world would have been spared a great deal of bloodshed.

[Forster Keys]

I'm not sure. Idiotic nationalism seems a mighty durable weed around there.

Also I just really like Austria-Hungary, although I doubt it would still be called that after the reforms.

Mittel-Europa? I dunno. But yeah, it does have a certain mystique to it.

[Jafas United]

Eric XIV of Sweden is never born. Instead, John III of Sweden becomes the king after the death of his father, Sweden remains a superpower and Finland remains as a part of Sweden. Finnish culture and language slowly die out and erryone are happy.

Alternatively, I'd let Gustav I of Sweden to be fucked in the ass by Danes so the Kalmar Union wouldn't collapse.

Or actually.. United States wins the war of 1812. That'd be awesome.

No, wait.. Actually, Europe becomes a federal state in the 1948 Hague Congress. Yeah. That's my final choice.

Or alternatively, if the Tsarist Russification was a success, we would all be speaking Russian and our culture would have been replaced by a more Slavic one. But then we probably would of never declared independence in 1917 and we probably would've joined the Soviet Union.

Anyway Hippo, what do you have against the Finnish language and culture? Sure our modern culture has been hijacked by alcoholism and depression, but our language is quite unique and interesting.

[Melas]

Maurice of Saxony did not betray Charles V. Without this betrayal, the Lutherans probably would have been reconciled. With a united Christendom, Western society would not have gone into a bitter and long-lasting decline, and the world would have been spared a great deal of bloodshed.

What about the Pope never got greedy and the Catholic church didnt exist?

[AustriaHungaryBohemia]

I would have had someone listen to Lenin's warning so that a different guy from Stalin came to power. That is not guaranteed to improve things, but it is worth taking the chance.

[Forster Keys]

Eric XIV of Sweden is never born. Instead, John III of Sweden becomes the king after the death of his father, Sweden remains a superpower and Finland remains as a part of Sweden. Finnish culture and language slowly die out and erryone are happy.

Alternatively, I'd let Gustav I of Sweden to be fucked in the ass by Danes so the Kalmar Union wouldn't collapse.

Or actually.. United States wins the war of 1812. That'd be awesome.

No, wait.. Actually, Europe becomes a federal state in the 1948 Hague Congress. Yeah. That's my final choice.

Or alternatively, if the Tsarist Russification was a success, we would all be speaking Russian and our culture would have been replaced by a more Slavic one. But then we probably would of never declared independence in 1917 and we probably would've joined the Soviet Union.

Anyway Hippo, what do you have against the Finnish language and culture? Sure our modern culture has been hijacked by alcoholism and depression, but our language is quite unique and interesting.

Indeed, as a kunniasuomalainen I take offence.

[Jafas United]

Or alternatively, if the Tsarist Russification was a success, we would all be speaking Russian and our culture would have been replaced by a more Slavic one. But then we probably would of never declared independence in 1917 and we probably would've joined the Soviet Union.

Anyway Hippo, what do you have against the Finnish language and culture? Sure our modern culture has been hijacked by alcoholism and depression, but our language is quite unique and interesting.

Indeed, as a kunniasuomalainen I take offence.

Olin tästä hyvin ihmeissäni ja loukkaantunut! Suomen kieli todellakin on kaunis!

And you are living up to your name!

Timo Soini would like to have a word with Hippo, I believe.

[Forster Keys]

Indeed, as a kunniasuomalainen I take offence.

Olin tästä hyvin ihmeissäni ja loukkaantunut! Suomen kieli todellakin on kaunis!

Ken oath mate! It's a linguistic gem!

And you are living up to your name!

I take pride in it.

Timo Soini would like to have a word with Hippo, I believe.

*googles*

An argument between them two would be something to be seen.

[Seleucas]

This would have been good too, I think it's been demonstrated pretty clearly that figurehead monarchies have positive benefits for a nation in terms of stability and moral authority.

You do realize that we're talking about Imperial Germany among others, right? Or are you unaware of the Rape of Belgium, the military dictatorship, and the November Revolution that brought it and the Kaiser down and ended WWI?

I'm not sure what you are commenting on; I was responding to someone who said that Germany, Russia, and Austria would have been better off with a constitutional monarchy instead of completely deposing their rulers, to which I was agreeing. (I did not say that Germany was a constitutional monarchy already.)

That being said, I am pretty sure that the November Revolution was caused by Germany's failing in the war, and not the other way around; if I recall, the sailors who first revolted against the Kaiser did so because the war was a foregone conclusion and they did not want to be sent into battle. Also, I'm surprised that you bring up the Rape of Belgium, since it's pretty clear that that was exaggerated by British propagandists. (But I would agree that it was unfortunate that Germany slid into dictatorship during this period; unfortunately, a slide towards authoritarianism is the rule during a major conflict.)

[Orcoa]

Maurice of Saxony did not betray Charles V. Without this betrayal, the Lutherans probably would have been reconciled. With a united Christendom, Western society would not have gone into a bitter and long-lasting decline, and the world would have been spared a great deal of bloodshed.

As if Christendom would unite again, those wars that were fought were mostly about the politics and such of church and state. And what do you mean decline? From what I have seen, the west is still very strong and more advance then most other nations besides the other megapowers in Asia could dream of.

[Distruzio]

I'd shoot Abe Lincoln and Jefferson Davis in 1862.

Alternatively, I'd shoot Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

[Laerod]

You do realize that we're talking about Imperial Germany among others, right? Or are you unaware of the Rape of Belgium, the military dictatorship, and the November Revolution that brought it and the Kaiser down and ended WWI?

I'm not sure what you are commenting on; I was responding to someone who said that Germany, Russia, and Austria would have been better off with a constitutional monarchy instead of completely deposing their rulers, to which I was agreeing. (I did not say that Germany was a constitutional monarchy already.)

That being said, I am pretty sure that the November Revolution was caused by Germany's failing in the war, and not the other way around; if I recall, the sailors who first revolted against the Kaiser did so because the war was a foregone conclusion and they did not want to be sent into battle. Also, I'm surprised that you bring up the Rape of Belgium, since it's pretty clear that that was exaggerated by British propagandists. (But I would agree that it was unfortunate that Germany slid into dictatorship during this period; unfortunately, a slide towards authoritarianism is the rule during a major conflict.)

You were stating that these have positive benefits for a nation in terms of stability and moral authority, in spite of the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm II utterly failed by these standards, having overseen the Rape of Belgium (highly immoral), his de facto deposing by Hindenburg and Ludendorff (the latter of which went on to start racial profiling the lands to the east, also immoral), and was one of the hated symbols during the November Revolution (thus leading to instability).

[Awesomeland]

Prevent the creation of the universe, as this event has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move.

[David Williams]

Probably have Muhammad (Prophet of Islam) become a Bishop of the catholic church and spread Catholicism to the arab people, thus making today's 1 billion muslims Christians.

Otherwise, prevent the Catholic church from being corrupted preventing Luther from happening.

[Nazis in Space]

I'm not sure what you are commenting on; I was responding to someone who said that Germany, Russia, and Austria would have been better off with a constitutional monarchy instead of completely deposing their rulers, to which I was agreeing. (I did not say that Germany was a constitutional monarchy already.)

That being said, I am pretty sure that the November Revolution was caused by Germany's failing in the war, and not the other way around; if I recall, the sailors who first revolted against the Kaiser did so because the war was a foregone conclusion and they did not want to be sent into battle. Also, I'm surprised that you bring up the Rape of Belgium, since it's pretty clear that that was exaggerated by British propagandists. (But I would agree that it was unfortunate that Germany slid into dictatorship during this period; unfortunately, a slide towards authoritarianism is the rule during a major conflict.)

You were stating that these have positive benefits for a nation in terms of stability and moral authority, in spite of the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm II utterly failed by these standards, having overseen the Rape of Belgium (highly immoral), his de facto deposing by Hindenburg and Ludendorff (the latter of which went on to start racial profiling the lands to the east, also immoral), and was one of the hated symbols during the November Revolution (thus leading to instability).

To be entirely fair here, Wilhelm II losing power was the result of wartime events, and the invasion of Belgium was not, by the standards of the time, immoral in the least - indeed, forcing your will on weaker countries - even if they were fellow white countries - was a standard practice, and it wasn't until after the war that this standard changed. Indeed, arguably not until after round two, if that.

Meanwhile, Wilhelm did in fact do things like recognising national minorities in Germany as just that, and granted them rights such as using their native language in schools or, say, not being driven of their land. The Poles in particular come to mind. Which makes him a moral authority preferable to, say Bismarck.

While I'd not claim that constitutional monarchies are a fundamentally positive influence - read, technically I'm agreeing with you -, I think it's a bit unfair to to use extreme circumctances or to retroactively apply moral standards that simply didn't exist at the time to prove the point.

[Creative Vikings]

I hope no one attempts to change anything that would stop the Second Great War and it's outcome; I wouldn't be born!

[Laerod]

You were stating that these have positive benefits for a nation in terms of stability and moral authority, in spite of the fact that Kaiser Wilhelm II utterly failed by these standards, having overseen the Rape of Belgium (highly immoral), his de facto deposing by Hindenburg and Ludendorff (the latter of which went on to start racial profiling the lands to the east, also immoral), and was one of the hated symbols during the November Revolution (thus leading to instability).

To be entirely fair here, Wilhelm II losing power was the result of wartime events, and the invasion of Belgium was not, by the standards of the time, immoral in the least - indeed, forcing your will on weaker countries - even if they were fellow white countries - was a standard practice, and it wasn't until after the war that this standard changed. Indeed, arguably not until after round two, if that.

Actually, considering that Belgium was a neutral state whose neutrality and territorial integrity was guaranteed by treaty by the United Kingdom and Germany (as a successor to Prussia), yes, even by the standards of that time it was immoral. Not to mention the atrocities committed, which Wilhelm II hardly prevented; in fact, you could argue that his fiery rhetoric (the best example of which would be the Hun Speech) is partly responsible for encouraging the atrocities.
That Hindenburg and Ludendorff managed to take over is to a great extent Wilhelm II's fault, as he should have prevented it. That he couldn't is another nail in the coffin of the idea that he was able to provide stability when it was needed. The French civilian government managed to shake off their military dictatorship during the war; it took a popular revolution in Germany.

Meanwhile, Wilhelm did in fact do things like recognising national minorities in Germany as just that, and granted them rights such as using their native language in schools or, say, not being driven of their land. The Poles in particular come to mind. Which makes him a moral authority preferable to, say Bismarck.

I'm not calling him utterly evil, but I'm pointing out that a manic depressive monarch with a tendency to take a hard line on punishment for transgressions isn't the moral compass Seleucas is making him out to be.

While I'd not claim that constitutional monarchies are a fundamentally positive influence - read, technically I'm agreeing with you -, I think it's a bit unfair to to use extreme circumctances or to retroactively apply moral standards that simply didn't exist at the time to prove the point.

The problem is the circumstances came about in no small part due to Wilhelm's bungling and issuing of the Blank Cheque. As such, he shares the responsibilty for bringing about WWI and said extreme events. The concept that reprisals against civilians are wrong did exist back then, elsewise the Allies would never have attempted to exaggerate them in their propaganda. And breaking treaties with states, even if they were weaker than you, was considered wrong as well.