Whose non-existence would have changed history the most?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Point of order: he's also the god of the Jews and Muslims.
 
ralphkern said:
I read a rather interesting self published false historical account called Hitler Triumphant a few weeks ago. It essentially assumes that the Nazis didn't make a few of their serious strategic errors and how the war could have played out to a Nazi victory.
Click to expand...

I would say Hitler, for all of the obvious reasons...so, I think no one else could have dominated German/Austrian politics the way that he did, but also anyone who might had the personal charisma to have come close (had Hitler never existed) couldn't possibly have been the genocidal madman that he was. And too, his strategical errors likely lost him the war with the Soviet Union...dividing his army, and going after the oil fields when Barbarossa began was just a huge error, and he forced similar errors on his generals throughout this (and really all) campaigns (he should have, perhaps, left his army mainly in one piece and either consolidated the oil field conquest, or driven directly to Moscow with the unified Wehrmacht). (But it really did benefit humanity that he was such a poor war-leader!) WW 2 was the greatest destructive episode in human history, so yes, I vote Hitler!

Also, Garben Zenmore was a brilliant answer! :)
 
Cat's Cradle said:
PKD's Man in the High Castle is an all-time favorite of mine! I love so much of his work, but this is truly an amazing book! :)
Click to expand...


my mistake :D

I'm working my way through his collected short stories atm as well- wonderfully paranoid and inventive. Bit of that grating olden day early sci fi disdain for women characters but we can forgive him that. Man of his time etc.
 
ethelredtheunredey said:
my mistake :D

I'm working my way through his collected short stories atm as well- wonderfully paranoid and inventive. Bit of that grating olden day early sci fi disdain for women characters but we can forgive him that. Man of his time etc.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry ethelredtheunredy! I didn't underline the title of the book to point out any error, I just always try to underline book titles--somewhere in the ancient realms of memory I utilize I seem to recall being told that that should be done. Honestly, I hadn't noticed the tiny-tiny problem with the book title until I saw this message!

And I also love his wonderful paranoia, but in re-reading some short stories recently I too was saddened by the treatment of women in his work....that is, sadly, an all-too-familiar problem in much science fiction.
 
ralphkern said:
I read a rather interesting self published false historical account called Hitler Triumphant a few weeks ago. It essentially assumes that the Nazis didn't make a few of their serious strategic errors and how the war could have played out to a Nazi victory.

The chief one was the Axis not provoking the Americans into such an 'early' entry of the war until they had consolidated their gains in Europe. Also having more focus on securing oil fields rather than driving into Russia at the wrong time of year.

A relatively interesting albeit dry read that you can pick up for free if interested.
Click to expand...

Thanks I'll look that one up. Another very Hitler-specific thing I forgot to mention was that because AH had been a corporal in WW1, like many front line soldiers he thought he knew better than the generals. In the latter part of WW2 he therefore took personal control of the German campaign, not very competently, when the campaign had been going as well as could be expected until his intervention.
 
Aquilonian said:
Thanks I'll look that one up. Another very Hitler-specific thing I forgot to mention was that because AH had been a corporal in WW1, like many front line soldiers he thought he knew better than the generals. In the latter part of WW2 he therefore took personal control of the German campaign, not very competently, when the campaign had been going as well as could be expected until his intervention.
Click to expand...

Notably his insistence on the taking of Stalingrad which basically ate whole divisions, at a time when leaving them with a besieging force and moving on could have pressed home his advantage. But it had become a point of honour for the little austrian man with the funny tache.

By the time russian winter came in Barabossa as an operation was SNAFU.

Also the initial gains/well going campaigns of ww2 were largely down to a half prepared and divided enemy. Once the Allies were off the back foot, and US production capability was added to the force- the writing was on the wall for the Fourth Riech. Most of the high command knew this a good 3 years before the Normandy push to VE.
 
ralphkern said:
I read a rather interesting self published false historical account called Hitler Triumphant a few weeks ago. It essentially assumes that the Nazis didn't make a few of their serious strategic errors and how the war could have played out to a Nazi victory.

The chief one was the Axis not provoking the Americans into such an 'early' entry of the war until they had consolidated their gains in Europe. Also having more focus on securing oil fields rather than driving into Russia at the wrong time of year.

A relatively interesting albeit dry read that you can pick up for free if interested.
Click to expand...

The Germans didn't provoke the US into entering the war - the US declared war on Germany as a result of the Pearl Harbor. So if the Japanese and Germans had not signed the Axis Agreement, in theory the US would have declared war on Japan and not Germany.

As for 'the wrong time of the year', Barbarossa was delayed by about 6 weeks due to the Germans having to sort out the Balkans to aid Italy; so if they had attacked Russia in mid-April '41, they might have had time to take Moscow before the winter set in.
 
I have a question, which I hope no one minds my asking here. It has to do with the USA, and the post Civil War era. Lincoln is my favorite American president, and I see his death as a great loss to the country. He was committed to healing the Union after the war, and integrating the former slaves into the various societies around the country (he recognized this as an imperative for the future of the nation I believe, but knew it would be a long, painful process). So my question is, do you think the United States would be a dramatically different country today if Lincoln had not been assassinated? Or do you think it would not really have changed things all that much. A 'What if?' I have always wondered about...
 
Last edited:
Japan, a member of Axis provoked the US into the war, as Vlad indicates, that effectively dragged Germany into the war with them.
 
So could we say that it was actually a 'good thing' - (poor choice of words, I know) that Hitler did exist to make those errors of judgement, as a more competent Nazi leader could have actually won the war and caused a worse scenario for modern times. Therefore all bad people must remain in history because we are all still here and that's why no time travellers would want to go back and remove them.
 
I don't know about win as such, I think a more competent leader would have stopped and consolidated their gains far earlier though, possibly turning the war into one of attrition in which both sides would have tired and arrived at an uneasy truce. It would have been an interesting geography, with potentially three (or even four) super power blocks, Allies (NATO as it would evolve too), Nazi Europe, the Soviet Union and a Japanese empire in the East, depending on how the Axis defined itself.

And if they all developed nuclear technology the dead lock might have lasted to this day. After all the SU would have more incentive to hold together with a powerful enemy on its doorstep, no matter the cost.

A potentially worse scenario would be the fortification of Europe might have led to nuclear weapons being deployed there to break that deadlock.

Obviously conjecture, and only one possible outcome.
 
Without Sir William Wallace, and his brutal murder, would Robert the Bruce have seized the vacant Scottish throne ?

Without John Balliol, would the Wars of Independence have happened ?

Without David I (the youngest of six bothers) - Neither Bruce nor Balliol would've existed, but what would've happened to the Scottish crown ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Snicklefritz N Scott Momaday whose work is considered the starting point for contemporary Native American literature Obituaries 0
D Where do you stand if you want to use an famous character whose out of copyright? Writing Discussion 13
Astro Pen Whose pen am I holding? Workshop 103
Ursa major PDFs whose printouts omit things that are shown in Acrobat Reader Technology 5
B (Found) YA Fantasy series (4+ books), set in 1990s-2000s, female protagonist whose family is all murdered & moonlight gives her powers Book Search 2

Similar threads


Back
Top