What would you change about history?

[The Salvatagard Republic]

I actually will change my earlier post to make it that Robert Mugabe was never born. The Nigerians can have their oil.

Have Lincoln not be assassinated and the state of Minnesota the same size as the Minnesota Territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Territory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassina ... am_Lincoln

[The Wolven League]

I actually will change my earlier post to make it that Robert Mugabe was never born. The Nigerians can have their oil.

Have Lincoln not be assassinated and the state of Minnesota the same size as the Minnesota Territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Territory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassina ... am_Lincoln

Why'd you quote his post when yours had nothing to do with his?

[Rio Cana]

Simple, I would have it that Britain won the American revolution because quite frankly. None of this shit would have happened under British governance.

Thus the UK. would be part of the German Empire since no US to come help them in WW I or II. Chances are a British US would have been much smaller.

[Berinnica]

Simple, I would have it that Britain won the American revolution because quite frankly. None of this shit would have happened under British governance.

Thus the UK. would be part of the German Empire since no US to come help them in WW I or II. Chances are a British US would have been much smaller.

Well it didn't really matter if the US joined WW1. The allies were going to win anyways. The US just came along and helped the allies slaughter the rest of the German forces.

[Republic of Coldwater]

1. Make the south win the War of Northern Aggression, and more preferably, make them secede earlier on in the Nullification Crisis to avoid the Northern Industrial might

2. Kill Karl Marx before he invents Communism

3. Kill Hitler, Mao and Stalin

4. Prevent the creation of the federal reserve bank.

I don't agree with the first one, as the South fought the American Civil War primarily to preserve slavery.

I don't agree with the second one, because capitalism is garbage.

Oh, you mean how they denied an offer to rejoin the Union with slavery when they were on their last legs, while simultaneously sending a diplomat to Europe to offer the emancipation of Confederate slaves in exchange for European aid

Capitalism has a long track record of success, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Estonia, Mauritius, Bostwana, the list goes on, while non free-market economic principals have been very unsuccessful, or less successful than free-market capitalism.

[Apollinis]

Simple, I would have it that Britain won the American revolution because quite frankly. None of this shit would have happened under British governance.

Thus the UK. would be part of the German Empire since no US to come help them in WW I or II. Chances are a British US would have been much smaller.

- At no point did even the German Empire's maximum war-goals in WWI involve the annexation or subjugation of Great Britain. They didn't even involve the annexation of France, just some of France's eastern industrial areas at most. For one thing, German subjugation of the UK would have required a superior German surface fleet, which the German navy did not (AFAIK) possess.
- A GB in control of the entire eastern seaboard would have been able to bring to bear the entire industrial, naval and manpower resources of said eastern seaboard from the get-go, instead of having to wait 3 years for direct American military involvement.

All other things being equal (not that they ever could in that situation), a scenario where the UK controls the eastern seaboard of what-is-now-the-United-States in 1914 puts the Entente in a considerably stronger position than their (already strong) position in 1914.

[Berinnica]

Well it didn't really matter if the US joined WW1. The allies were going to win anyways.

Interestingly enough, had Britain maintained control of America, the Louisiana Territory would likely have been taken by force, rather than purchased.

True, the thing also was that made America so great was the immigration, do you think a British America would've taken in so many Immigrants?

[Berinnica]

But, I didn't even post what I would change! I'd change it so the C.S.A win Gettysburg then form the Republic of Cascadia.

[Luziyca]

Well, I'd go back in time, marry my own great-grandmother, have kids with her, divorce her, and then tell my great-grandchildren that their great-grandfather was a time traveller.

[Berinnica]

Well, I'd go back in time, marry my own great-grandmother, have kids with her, divorce her, and then tell my great-grandchildren that their great-grandfather was a time traveller.

And I thought I liked incest too much.

[Auricium]

wouldn't that be your brothers and you?

[The Wolven League]

Well, I'd go back in time, marry my own great-grandmother, have kids with her, divorce her, and then tell my great-grandchildren that their great-grandfather was a time traveller.

Ah, past incestual relationships.

Why is that so common in time-travel plots?

[Luziyca]

Well, I'd go back in time, marry my own great-grandmother, have kids with her, divorce her, and then tell my great-grandchildren that their great-grandfather was a time traveller.

And I thought I liked incest too much.

Shhhh.

wouldn't that be your brothers and you?

I got no siblings. More like my cousins.

Well, I'd go back in time, marry my own great-grandmother, have kids with her, divorce her, and then tell my great-grandchildren that their great-grandfather was a time traveller.

Ah, past incestual relationships.

Why is that so common in time-travel plots?

Because it'd be amazing to meet your own great-grandfather... yourself.

[The United Territories of Providence]

I'd let Kennedy live. If he doesn't die, we still go to Vietnam...but perhaps there is no pentagon papers because he'd be more forthright with America than LBJ. If Kennedy gets his 2nd term, I don't know what happens with civil rights...maybe there is no great society...which would suck. But,there is no Nixon...which would also suck. But! No Nixon means no Watergate, no Watergate means no Carter, no Carter more than likely means no Reagan...which changes American politics as we know them completely. Maybe the GOP is still Moderate, California is Republican and the Deep South is Democratic. Imagine, Red California and New York with Blue Texas and Mississippi.

JFK lives, American politics are unrecognizable.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I'd let Kennedy live. If he doesn't die, we still go to Vietnam...but perhaps there is no pentagon papers because he'd be more forthright with America than LBJ. If Kennedy gets his 2nd term, I don't know what happens with civil rights...maybe there is no great society...which would suck. But,there is no Nixon...which would also suck. But! No Nixon means no Watergate, no Watergate means no Carter, no Carter more than likely means no Reagan...which changes American politics as we know them completely. Maybe the GOP is still Moderate, California is Republican and the Deep South is Democratic. Imagine, Red California and New York with Blue Texas and Mississippi.

JFK lives, American politics are unrecognizable.

>Kennedy lives
>Vietnam toned down
>Civil Rights comes in much more measured, slowed-down way
>Therefore the counterculture isn't that big, less hippie shit
>The internal coup in the American elite doesn't occur
>1965 immigration act doesn't pass
>We have a colony on the Moon by '80
>It's like the 1950s never ended


What an amazing time.

More importantly: Would we still be progressing in the same manner (ie LGBT rights, etc), would we still have a functional and fair welfare state, and would we still be crazy for nuclear power?

[Berinnica]

I'd let Kennedy live. If he doesn't die, we still go to Vietnam...but perhaps there is no pentagon papers because he'd be more forthright with America than LBJ. If Kennedy gets his 2nd term, I don't know what happens with civil rights...maybe there is no great society...which would suck. But,there is no Nixon...which would also suck. But! No Nixon means no Watergate, no Watergate means no Carter, no Carter more than likely means no Reagan...which changes American politics as we know them completely. Maybe the GOP is still Moderate, California is Republican and the Deep South is Democratic. Imagine, Red California and New York with Blue Texas and Mississippi.

JFK lives, American politics are unrecognizable.

>Kennedy lives
>Vietnam toned down
>Civil Rights comes in much more measured, slowed-down way
>Therefore the counterculture isn't that big, less hippie shit
>The internal coup in the American elite doesn't occur
>1965 immigration act doesn't pass
>We have a colony on the Moon by '80
>It's like the 1950s never ended


What an amazing time.

That'd actually be cool, but then my grandfather would've been a square.

[Salus Maior]

There's two things I'd change:

Change British history so that the English language does not dominate, probably find a way to have the Celtic Britons rule the Mid to South of England and the Scots-Gaels the north of England and Scotland. Alba gu bràth/Cymru am byth

My second change is much simpler: Have the Byzantines win at Manzikert. Avoiding the Turkish conquest and the sack of Constantinople.

[The Nuclear Fist]

More importantly: Would we still be progressing in the same manner (ie LGBT rights, etc), would we still have a functional and fair welfare state, and would we still be crazy for nuclear power?

Less gay rights, much better social safety net (Kennedy was big on helping the poor), and everything is nuclear.

To be honest, I'd be down to live in that world.

Eh, probably good Kennedy caught the bullet, then. Bit unpleasant for me to be a productive member of society and still get shat on.

[Salus Maior]

Pretty sure that the sack of Constantinople was done by Crusaders.

There was more than one. And the Byzantines winning at Manzikert would probably have avoided the 4th Crusade as well. Or maybe even ALL the Crusades.

[Salus Maior]

Are gay rights really worth the catastrophe that was Vietnam?

The way I would have avoided Vietnam: Have Roosevelt live longer.

The Vietnam war had its roots in the French-Vietnamese war in the 50's, and the Americans were, unfortunately, very involved in it. Roosevelt did not plan to give them that help, and essentially side with Ho-Chi-Minh, but he died.

[Berinnica]

Eh, probably good Kennedy caught the bullet, then. Bit unpleasant for me to be a productive member of society and still get shat on.

Are gay rights really worth the catastrophe that was Vietnam?

Anyways, it wouldn't matter because then my uncle would've lived. He wanted to run for president and even had a good speech planned. He was mostly planning Gay Rights. But he died.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

There's two things I'd change:

Change British history so that the English language does not dominate, probably find a way to have the Celtic Britons rule the Mid to South of England and the Scots-Gaels the north of England and Scotland. Alba gu bràth/Cymru am byth

My second change is much simpler: Have the Byzantines win at Manzikert. Avoiding the Turkish conquest and the sack of Constantinople.

Pretty sure that the sack of Constantinople was done by Crusaders.

Caused by the inability to pay them after forcing them to fight for an ousted emperor in order to restore them to the throne against someone who the people supported. The crusaders sacked the city, and Venice paid them to get the crusaders out of debt, and in the power void a nation led by Franks arose (Latin Empire).

[The United Territories of Providence]

More importantly: Would we still be progressing in the same manner (ie LGBT rights, etc), would we still have a functional and fair welfare state, and would we still be crazy for nuclear power?

Less gay rights, much better social safety net (Kennedy was big on helping the poor), and everything is nuclear.

To be honest, I'd be down to live in that world.

I disagree. When Nixon was President he stated that he thought Gay marriage would be a reality by 2000. Now this was before the rise of the religious right in America, Pre-Reagan. Assuming the Christian Right never dominates politics, we might've been where we are today in say...1995....So just imagine 2015. DAMN IT LEE HARVEY OSWALD!

[Salus Maior]

Caused by the inability to pay them after forcing them to fight for you in order to restore you to the throne against someone who the people supported. The crusaders sacked the city, and Venice paid them to get the crusaders out of debt, and in the power void a nation led by Franks arose (Latin Empire).

The Byzantines winning at Manzikert likely would have avoided that. And perhaps prevent all the Crusades from ever happening.

[The United Territories of Providence]

I disagree. When Nixon was President he stated that he thought Gay marriage would be a reality by 2000. Now this was before the rise of the religious right in America, Pre-Reagan. Assuming the Christian Right never dominates politics, we might've been where we are today in say...1995....So just imagine 2015. DAMN IT LEE HARVEY OSWALD!

Perhaps, American society was actually rather secular in the 50s and 60s (and this in spite of the Red Scare stuff).

However, the counterculture 60s and civil rights movement really pushed social liberalism to the forefront. With Kennedy in charge, both of these would have been significantly more watered down and moderated.

Now that I think about it, I wonder if Kennedy's strategy towards civil rights was similar to Otto von Bismarck's "stealing thunder" tactic towards the socialists.

I don't know about that. Nixon was correct about the silent majority. The counterculture wasn't as big as TV specials about the 70s and 60s would have you to believe. Nixon, not liberal by any standard (in that day) won by a landslide against the most liberal man in American politics, George McGovern. The hippies made us aware of the need for change, but after we elected Nixon, then Reagan, then Bush....we made it clear we didn't want liberalism. Essentially 1972 and 1988 weren't that different in terms of social views. Gays were mentally ill, blacks were uncivilized, and women weren't taken seriously.

Who we elect as President is a reflection of the social climate of the times. Yes, the 60s pushed liberalism to the forefront, but the American people pushed it back because it left a sour taste in their mouth for many years. With JFK in place of LBJ, I see a similar pace of change, maybe slightly slower, but what I don't see is the same disgust with Liberal policies. LBJ lied to the people, lost their trust, and enacted programs and didn't relate them to the common man. Maybe with JFK we get Civil Rights Act of 64 and Voting Rights Act....if he listens to LBJ...Medicare...but the Great Society that people began to hate, doesn't happen. America stays moderate, we don't turn away from Liberalism.