As came up in the other thread on moving towards World War III, would you - if you had the ability to travel back in time and influence the course of events - choose to prevent (through changing any of the causes) either of the world wars?
I actually gave this some thought recently, and I'd be interested to hear other people's viewpoints.
What, and deny me my fond childhood memories of building Me109 and Spitfire Airfix kits?
I don't suppose tipping off the Serbian police in advance as to the whereabouts of Princip on 28 June 1914 would have made much difference? Or would it have?
As for WW2 I can't see any easy solution other than the assassinations of Hitler and Stalin in 1938
Prevent ww1 and you prevent ww2... which prevents the cold war and the rise of communism... the khmer rouge ...the Vietnam war...the wars in Afghanistan... most of the civil wars/military coups in South America and god knows what other atrocities. So in theory stopping ww1 would prevent the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and probably the displacement of billions and just general collective misery.
But what would take it's place? would we have had 100 years of peace ... i doubt it!
If you could go back in time and prevent the climbing careers of Don Whillans or Joe Brown (a well timed stick through their bicycle spokes or particularly aggressive tackle in football) would you? Could probably still make 3 star HVS First ascents on stanage today.
> As for WW2 I can't see any easy solution other than the assassinations of Hitler and Stalin in 1938
As Kemics says, if you prevent the First World War, you (probably) prevent the Second. The various peace settlements which ended the First World War were a major factor in creating the conditions which led to the Second World War.
I actually struggle to see how you might feasibly prevent the First World War. While it was all kicked off by the asssassination of Franz Ferdinand, it would seem that everyone was already gearing themselves up for a fight; that just happens to be the single event that got it started. I don't know enough about pre-war European history to really understand the causes of the angsty stance of the various European powers at this time.
> But what would take it's place? would we have had 100 years of peace ... i doubt it!
Exactly. I reached the conclusion that I wouldn't change events to prevent either, because who knows what would have filled the void?
Agree, unintended consequences could be much worse. The devastation or Ww2 was still in the wolrds populations mind when nuclear weapons proliferated. Would the trigger finger have been a little more itchy if the people hovering over it handnt have just lived through a world war.... we dont know, thats point.
That is my primary concern, and I wouldn't like to predict how the relationship between the western world and Russia might have panned out without the war. There are just too many variables, and the consequences of some of the worse outcomes could have been far worse.
But that said, would nuclear weapons have proliferated so rapidly without the war? Who knows.
> As Kemics says, if you prevent the First World War, you (probably) prevent the Second. The various peace settlements which ended the First World War were a major factor in creating the conditions which led to the Second World War.
> I actually struggle to see how you might feasibly prevent the First World War. While it was all kicked off by the asssassination of Franz Ferdinand, it would seem that everyone was already gearing themselves up for a fight; that just happens to be the single event that got it started. I don't know enough about pre-war European history to really understand the causes of the angsty stance of the various European powers at this time.
Have you read Max Hastings' "Catastrophe"? An excellent and very readable study of the very points you raise.
Ww1 also aided equality helping end or reduce a very aristocratic Europe and speeded up womens rights.
The desire to win and survive any war usually increases research funding, which then leads to peace time benefits from new tech.
Better the devil you know. But it's hard to imagine leaders much worse than Stalin or Hitler.
> But it's hard to imagine leaders much worse than Stalin or Hitler.
But if not Hitler it may have been some one else....
Germany wins the war in europe. Hitler was an evil arse but he made massive strategic errors
Many advances in medical procedures, engineering, manufacturing and farming came from this terrible time.
> would you - if you had the ability to travel back in time and influence the course of events - choose to prevent (through changing any of the causes) either of the world wars?
This is exactly the subject of Ben Elton's book, 'Time and Time Again'. A brilliant read (or listen) if you haven't read it.
Plus. If the start if ww2 was stalled both sides may have developed nukes.. a ww with both Germany and or Japan possessing these weapons would have been some what different.
Completely futile, but I’d concur with others that the key would be prevention of WW1. But how? Wilhelm had a huge chip on his shoulder, maybe from childhood bullying by Victoria’s royal brats. He certainly seems to have had a lot of resentment focussed on her & hers. Maybe if Victoria had been less , er, high maintenance and more focussed on her job the European Royalco would have been more effective in the early 20th century.
Or maybe if Albert had lived longer Anglo German relations might have been less unbalanced?
In reply to
> As for WW2 I can't see any easy solution other than the assassinations of Hitler and Stalin in 1938
A bit harsh on Stalin. The Molotov Ribbentrop non-aggression pact was broken by Hitler.
I’m sure this is covered in an episode of family guy
"Everybody kills Hitler on their first trip" - https://www.tor.com/2011/08/31/wikihistory/
What I would do for sure is go back almost exactly 100yrs and shout 3 things very, very loudly.
"The German army must be seen to be defeated, chase them all the way back to Berlin,I know an end to the killing can't come a day too soon (Wilfred Owen - duck!) but just trust me on this, do it now, do it big and then don't get all Versailles on them. Ask that Marshall bloke for a plan"
Then,
"That Ottoman empire you're about to carve up... put some thought into it. Some real thought, dont just give it to Britain and France and go "be rayt"
And a few years earlier in Vienna 1909
"Just buy the little fella's paintings, they aren't that bad, don't give him a complex."
Of course not. You need to be a Captain with your own Star Trek series before you can breach the Temporal Prime Directive with impunity. Otherwise it will end badly:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Annorax
Surely not imposing such Draconian reparations on Germany in 1919 might have helped.
Of course.
Have you read Stephen Fry's "making history"?
<spoiler> bloke goes back in time to stop Hitler being born, as a result Germany win WW2 </spoiler>
> Have you read Max Hastings' "Catastrophe"? An excellent and very readable study of the very points you raise.
It's very "if in doubt, blame the Kraut"... While very readable, it's probably worth reading "The Sleepwalkers - How Europe went to war in 1914" by Cambridge historian Christopher Clark to inject a different viewpoint.
He says that it wasn't just Kaiser Bill and his hatred of all things Queen Victoria that was to blame - all parties involved were!
Agreed. The analogy to sleepwalking is apt. But the most obvious time traveller change would be at affect the rush to German militarisation.
I find it difficult not to see ww1 as a spat between branches of a spoilt and decadent pan European royal family. Probably got that from my maternal grandfather, who joined the Comunist Party when he was demobilised in 1919.
Blood transfusions were improved, Maleria tablets introduced, post WW II Penicillin was mass produced and 20 times stronger than the stuff made in the 1930's. It's a shame that it takes war of that scale to force medical advances and how much of our day to day technology has trickled down from the military? I'm not defending the wars btw just stating facts.
I understand that as a result of the "Troubles" in Northern Ireland the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast made huge advances and led the world in dealing with horrendous injuries caused by bombs and gun shot wounds, including the infamous practice of kneecapping.
Much of what was learned during the "Troubles" has been passed onto the training of Military Medics and Doctors and used to good effect in conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.
> Have you read Stephen Fry's "making history"?
No i haven't but i do have an audible credit burning a hole in my e-pocket... i'll take a look
I'd stop Ed Milliband from eating that bacon sandwich.
> As for WW2 I can't see any easy solution other than the assassinations of Hitler and Stalin in 1938
I think human beings are incredibly susceptible to cults of personality and hero (and villain) worship, and that also goes for retrospective analyses of history. It's not like Hitler and Stalin existed in a vacuum. Anti semitism and nationalism were widespread - not just in Germany - look how close the UK came to having a fascist sympathiser for its head of state.
Look what happened when Stalin died - the knives came out as his successors jostled for position. Khrushchev was unusual only in the fact that he disposed of his opponents before they could do the same.
I suspect the assassination of Stalin and/or Hitler would have made bugger all difference to the way the 20th century eventually played out.
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...