What If? ROB lets you sic a terminator on a historic figure of your choice

Ash's Boomstick

Well-known member
Would removing Stalin prevent most of the issues that the USSR had from its inception to his death?

We're talking purges, mass murders, corruption at the highest levels (although that one would likely exist anyway) the complete crash and burn of their armed forces for years before and during WW2. How would things change if he was removed

A: Before the 1917 revolution
B: After the revolution but before he took power.
C: After he took power but before he began his worst excesses.
 

Val the Moofia Boss

Well-known member
Would removing Stalin prevent most of the issues that the USSR had from its inception to his death?

We're talking purges, mass murders, corruption at the highest levels (although that one would likely exist anyway) the complete crash and burn of their armed forces for years before and during WW2. How would things change if he was removed

A: Before the 1917 revolution
B: After the revolution but before he took power.
C: After he took power but before he began his worst excesses.

Most of the issues predated Stalin. Gulags and mass starvation. The communists were undermining Nicholas II for years during the leadup to the revolution.

 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Kill Hitler before he becomes popular without him Germany will most likely fall to a military junta leading to the right wing being more know internationally as an anti communist alternative rather than a anti jewish/racist one.

Most likely these leaders would go for an ancluss with Austria but stop short of invading poland over more realistic long term goals.

End result ww2 averted and communism contained.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Send him as bodyguard for Nikola Pašić in 1913 it might make him more willing to stand up to the Black Hand. However Pašić having a bodyguard with Austrian accent might make everything worse...
Might be better idea to send terminator after Dragutin Dimitrijevič right after the May Coup, removing the chief conspirator in tons of bullshit. Also, having an unstoppable assassin with Austrian accent do it, might send a positive message.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
Kill Winston Churchill, the man who started WWII

As if the genocidal maniac trying to conquer the continent and his equally-bloodthirsty communist partner in crime had nothing to do with it ... not to mention that Churchill wasn't PM until months after the war had already started. Which is just more evidence that you don't understand history nearly as much as you pretend to.
 
Last edited:

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Which rather implodes your "Churchill is really to blame for WW2" thesis. If Hitler and Stalin weren't the ones to blame for it it would have happened without them.

Fact that Hitler and Stalin are to blame doesn't mean that Churchill is innocent as well. World War II, after all, is "merely" an epilogue of World War I, and Hitler in particular was heavily influenced by his experiences in World War I.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
Fact that Hitler and Stalin are to blame doesn't mean that Churchill is innocent as well.

That's hard to maintain given he only gained power after the war had already begun and was previously a washed-up political failure.

World War II, after all, is "merely" an epilogue of World War I, and Hitler in particular was heavily influenced by his experiences in World War I.

It would be fairer to say that WW1 was the prequel to WW2.
 
Last edited:

Buba

A total creep
I am not exactly a fan of Winston "Where He Walks A Fuck Up Inevitably Follows" Churchill, but even in my book assigning blame for WWII to him is a bit much ...
I can't blame him even for WWI (frustrated Buba has a cry in the corner)!
He only had a small if not insignificant role in UK joining the war (WWI) when it did - yet close to irrelevant, really.
 
Last edited:

aguy1013

Well-known member
people changing history can cause a butterfly affect that can pop ones own existence away so its better to send yourself your own bodyguard/servant and the worst case will happened is that the version of you sending will be replace by a version of you who had the bodyguard the whole time
 

Navarro

Well-known member
I am not exactly a fan of Winston "Where He Walks A Fuck Up Inevitably Follows" Churchill, but even in my book assigning blame for WWII to him is a bit much ...
I can't blame him even for WWI (frustrated Buba has a cry in the corner)!
He only had a small if not insignificant role in UK joining the war (WWI) when it did - yet close to irrelevant, really.

I mean, Churchill was only brought on to the cabinet after the Munich treaty - which Hitler never had the intent of seriously honouring - had made the war inevitable. Prior to that he was a rando backbench MP crying out in the wilderness. This whole discussion is kinda a derail tho.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Without WWI Hitler is a house painter and Stalin is a bandit who gets killed by the Tsar’s men.
And how it made Churchill responsible for WW1? everybody wonted it,becouse everybody belived in "short victorious war" .
Except England,which knew that it would bleed entire Europe - but wonted war exactly for that purpose.As always from 1700.
But you could not blame Churchill for England actions becouse he was not important enough,and Other countries wonted war just like England.
 

Navarro

Well-known member
And how it made Churchill responsible for WW1? everybody wonted it,becouse everybody belived in "short victorious war" .

That would be relevant if he was actually talking about WW1. He's talking about WW2.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Personally I think Churchill becoming PM and then choosing to fight on from 1940 instead of making peace was the wrong one. Hitler was an Anglophile and at absolute most, as far as terms for the UK, would've requested the return of Germany's 1914 colonies and maybe Malta for Italy. Most likely though, the terms would've been the expulsion of the Governments in exile and recognition of treaties Germany would make with the occupied states of Western Europe as well as a free hand in Eastern Europe (i.e. against the USSR). Things for France and the occupied states would've been harsher but hey, at least they aren't getting bombed and fought over for the next five years either.

From an objective standpoint, this would be far better for the UK and arguably even Europe at large. The British by 1943 were experiencing major manpower shortages and by 1944 were effectively broke, operating on American dime. This enabled Washington to mount increasing political pressure on the UK, such as in 1942 following the loss of Singapore when they forced the UK to end the practice of Imperial Preference; this removed the economic incentive of the Empire and quickly allowed the U.S. to displace the UK in much of its Empire. Further, the aforementioned Japanese advance allowed the United States to become the main security benefactor of Australia and New Zealand. Combined with the loss of economic ties, this along with the loss of India after the war resulted in the UK abandoning East of Suez.

Another major issue was the course of the North Africa campaign, because although the Commonwealth had done the hard fighting by the time of Operation TORCH, American resources-including financial-were leveraged to end British attempts to retain influence in the Middle East. Such ultimately laid the framework for the Petro Dollar, when previously even Saudi Arabia preferred to work with the British. Without American influence afforded by the War, the British plan for the Middle Eastern Supply Center would've went through, combined with security pacts with the Arab emirates and ties to Saudi Arabia would've resulted in a Petro Pound instead of the Dollar.

Finally, other benefits are obvious. With Imperial Preference intact and Anglo-American economic pressure globally, German-occupied Europe would've been behind a tariff wall which would've given British industry preferential access to much of the Global Market; presumably, much of the same would've been true for Japan in Asia. Such would've prevented the same degree of being outcompeted by German and Japanese exports that historically happened Post-War for the UK (and the United States, for that matter). Likewise, a Germany that has a free hand in the East is a Germany that defeats the USSR in 1941 and thereafter occupied up to the Urals, eliminating the threat of Soviet Bolshevism to British colonies. Thus, by 1945 instead of being a broken husk, the Empire is still financially viable and secure under the auspices of the UK, with no American pressure being viable and no real threat of Soviet arms (as well as money, advisers, UN voting, etc) to undermine the Empire.

Take in note, this is the case for an objectively better situation for the UK's national interests, not on Humanitarian grounds for European people. Still, on that note I think things in theory would be better too. Without the Anglo-American blockade against European imports, hunger-at least in Western Europe-would be much reduced. Jews and others could still flee the continent, as the German policy at this time was either sending them to Palestine, the Americas or, as they were considering at the time of the French defeat, the Madagascar Plan so one could avoid the Holocaust via this. I am not sure if the Hunger Plan for the defeated USSR would be avoided given the ability to import, but it's at least possible in theory.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top