stop World War 2 in as few steps as possible
- Thread starter zombie711
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Assassinate Hammurabi.
Tell me that over known history, that wouldn't have caused countless, snowballing, unpredictable changes that would have made the modern world no longer even closely resemble the one that led to World War 2. I doubt there would even be a Germany, at least not one named Germany. with those boarders, technology, population, etc.
Tell me that over known history, that wouldn't have caused countless, snowballing, unpredictable changes that would have made the modern world no longer even closely resemble the one that led to World War 2. I doubt there would even be a Germany, at least not one named Germany. with those boarders, technology, population, etc.
One: pfffftXanadu84 said:
Two: At what point during his reign??
Three: His Code was quite influential in the development of 'modern' judicial systems.
Four: I don't think his death would have prevented the rise of subsequent empires (namely Archaemenid, whose interactions with the west would've been delayed, but would've happened anyway, and everyone knows Greek vs Persian is only going end one way, in Asia Minor at least). Besides, some twat would've just taken his place, and given the latter stages of his rule, could hardly have ballsed it up any more or less.
NB Babylonian history not my forte, so correct me to your heart's content.
I stick by my earlier contention: persuade Frederick III not to take up smoking (besides, it's the most fun as far as I'm concerned).
I'm not really discussing history here, more like Chaos Theory. At that point in history, your approaching the point where stepping on a butterfly could change the world. Even killing a random person on the street could have massive consequences on an entire genetic lineage, influencing every person who interacted with that lineage, possible influencing every person who interacted with a person who interacted with...you get the picture. Honestly, I just randomly picked a really old historical figure, knowing that the resulting what if would be so far up the causality tree that all bets for even guessing all all the consequences would be off.SckizoBoy said:
Yeah, sorry about that, I was going to put in an edit about agreeing about the unpredictability of the event alteration, especially that far back (hadn't thought of it in a Chaos Theory sense, but fair point).Xanadu84 said:
But what's needling me about this thread is that everyone's discussing who they'd kill and thus far, I'm the only one who's detailed an answer concerning keeping someone alive. *shrug*
Well, its tricky to predict what might have happened, but it is easier to know what someone DID. One requires predicting what a million different events could have had an impact on WWII, the other requires knowing what happened in WWII alone. When you throw in the constraint of fewest steps possible, killing certain people tends to be the simplest solution.SckizoBoy said:
That's true, I suppose, and without intimate knowledge, actions of an individual are dictated by a plethora of factors not easily accessed by historians. I merely based my 'method' on character dissemination of three men: the second and third emperors; and Bismarck. Granted, that would not be enough, but I find it is an area of conjecture that is not explored enough in alternative history fiction (in general) or in general for that matter. For example (a bad one, but an example nontheless) would the Pacific War have lasted any longer (or shorter) if Yamamoto's Mitsubishi G4M had not been shot down. (Personally, I don't think so, but it's still worth a thought or two.)Xanadu84 said:
*snobbish voice* Still, I find that killing people is so dreadfully unoriginal!
Perhaps if technology a la Inception were real... too fanciful?