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

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
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.

Look back, I don’t blame Churchill for the Great War, but the sequel.
 

Val the Moofia Boss

Well-known member
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.

Also true for the Far East. If Britain made peace with the Axis in 1940, then America has no reason to get involved in the war in Europe, meaning that FDR will fully devote US resources towards expanding the American empire in the Far East. Japan is still being run by crazy war cultists and FDR was already ramping up the military for a war that he was pressuring and provoking the Japanese to shoot first in. Atomic bomb development will be stifled as Germany won't be bleeding anywhere near as many nuclear scientists to the US, meaning that the US' war in the East will not be able to shock & awe their enemies to surrender, so the wars drag out and a whole lot more people will be killed or starve to death. Probably lots of fighting in Japan, Indonesia, Korea, and in China, parts of which could eventually become American territories.

I wonder how Russia would look like in this timeline, with the Soviets being tied up with the Axis. The US would probably come after the Soviets from the Far East and Russia would be fighting wars on all fronts.
 
Last edited:

History Learner

Well-known member
Also true for the Far East. If Britain made peace with the Axis in 1940, then America has no reason to get involved in the war in Europe, meaning that FDR will fully devote US resources towards expanding the American empire in the Far East. Japan is still being run by crazy war cultists and FDR was already ramping up the military for a war that he was pressuring and provoking the Japanese to shoot first in. Atomic bomb development will be stifled as Germany won't be bleeding anywhere near as many nuclear scientists to the US, meaning that the US' war in the East will not be able to shock & awe their enemies to surrender, so the wars drag out and a whole lot more people will be killed or starve to death. Probably lots of fighting in Japan, Indonesia, Korea, and in China, parts of which could eventually become American territories.

I wonder how Russia would look like in this timeline, with the Soviets being tied up with the Axis. The US would probably come after the Soviets from the Far East and Russia would be fighting wars on all fronts.

Most likely WWII never extends to the Pacific, as Japanese policy until the fall of France was Pro-Allied neutrality in response to the German betrayal of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. With peace at hand, the Japanese won't occupy French Indochina and the Germans can force the Dutch to sell the Japanese oil from the Netherlands East Indies, thus enabling the Strike North faction in IGHQ.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Some of you seem to have a very rosy view of Hitler and his proclivities for actually holding to treaties. It seems to me that people are way off base for blaming Churchill for anything having to do with WWII that doesn't involve beating fascism. If you want to prevent WWII the obvious thing would be to send the Terminator after Hitler back when he's failing out of art school. Unless you can think of someone to kill to make the Treaty of Versailles not as harsh as it was.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Some of you seem to have a very rosy view of Hitler and his proclivities for actually holding to treaties. It seems to me that people are way off base for blaming Churchill for anything having to do with WWII that doesn't involve beating fascism. If you want to prevent WWII the obvious thing would be to send the Terminator after Hitler back when he's failing out of art school. Unless you can think of someone to kill to make the Treaty of Versailles not as harsh as it was.

And there is also the fact that Stalin was out there, just waiting to attack and expand Communism. So even if Hitler wasn't prone to double-dealing and double-crossing people, Stalin may have started WW2 anyway.

Fact is, rise of Marxism has to be prevented. Which means either killing Marx and Engels, or else killing Lenin before Germans manage to ship him to Russia.

Or maybe killing Cristopher Columbus.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
Or maybe killing Cristopher Columbus.

reading-ikea-intructions-big-lebowski-confused.gif
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
And there is also the fact that Stalin was out there, just waiting to attack and expand Communism.
Stalin is not Hitler. Hitler was an impulsive gambler, while Stalin was compulsively careful - to the point of paranoia. The Polish-Soviet war fiasco reinforced his belief that Communism can't be brought to the countries from the outside at the tip of the bayonet. His greatest fear before WWII was that Western countries would unite against the Soviet Union and crush it, so he wasn't willing to rock the boat until someone else threw everything into disarray. Thus barring some great outside development, Stalin will be doing the ''communism in one country'', while opportunistically supporting whatever movement/regime that he might find useful.
 

Buba

A total creep
Initially I wanted to "save" Przemysł II of Great Poland, but I'm changing the protected target.
I'm torn between Przemysł Ottokar, you know, the Czech King who ruled a Czechia with an Adriatic coast, who died at the history changing battle of Dunekrut (?) in 1378.
Another fun guy to save from death in a lost battle would be the crazy Charles the Bold. Keeping him alive and having him win at Nancy in 1477 would strengthen his hold on a "Burgundy" with contiguous territory from the North Sea to the Upper Rhone River basin.
Assassination targets? Ghengis Khan, Babur, Mohammed, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Augustus, Darius - these are guys who made history. Why bother with never-rans like Churchill?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Look back, I don’t blame Churchill for the Great War, but the sequel.
He did not start WW2,Stalin and Hitler did so.Sure,he could made peace with germany - but then Hitler with his stupidity would lost war with Stalin,and we would have soviet Europe as result.
Considering soviet politics,they would invade and take over England later.
Which mean gulags and mass graves elsywhere - at least people would knew that communism is bullshit,but it is worth 100 millions corpses more ?

So,in given situation,Churchill choosed lesser evil.
 

DocSolarisReich

Esoteric Spaceman
He did not start WW2,Stalin and Hitler did so.Sure,he could made peace with germany - but then Hitler with his stupidity would lost war with Stalin,and we would have soviet Europe as result.
Considering soviet politics,they would invade and take over England later.
Which mean gulags and mass graves elsywhere - at least people would knew that communism is bullshit,but it is worth 100 millions corpses more ?

So,in given situation,Churchill choosed lesser evil.

No. Churchill started it. He encouraged Poland to provoke Germany and declared war on Germany as part of a secret agreement with Stalin. Churchill sacrificed the British Empire to make the world safe for Communism.
 

ATP

Well-known member
No. Churchill started it. He encouraged Poland to provoke Germany and declared war on Germany as part of a secret agreement with Stalin. Churchill sacrificed the British Empire to make the world safe for Communism.

Nope.Poland was lead by Rydz-Śmigły,who belived that we are superpower,so he would fight Germany even without England.
Becouse he started belive in his own propaganda and thought that we could defeat Germany on our own.
When german take Kłajpeda in 1939 from Lithuania,he send our fleet/all 4 destroyers/ to fight german fleet if they go in our waters.
Beside,in 1939 polish emissaries talked to Chamberlain and his people,not some nobodies like Churchill - so he have no chance to encouraged them to anything.

And Churchill was antisoviet,and unless USA tried to save independent Poland,so any deals with Stalin in 1939 were made by Hitler,not Churchill.
 

aguy1013

Well-known member
Am I allowed to have the Terminator deliver messages\information to the protectee or others?
you can i think since these messages can be use to protect them,but in the end would it matter cause people might think someone crazy sent them or worse they are expose and become even more paranoid
 

ATP

Well-known member
you can i think since these messages can be use to protect them,but in the end would it matter cause people might think someone crazy sent them or worse they are expose and become even more paranoid

Could i gave info to bad guys with intention that they would kill each other ? for example to Stalin that Beria&others would kill him,or to Beria that Kruczczow kill him ?

P.S or just troll them with messages like "Beware,beware" , or "run,they knew everything"
 

Ash's Boomstick

Well-known member
What happens if we send two through time and kill Romulus and/Or Remus? What would happen to the future then (If the legend has any basis in fact?
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Well Lincoln just got a bodyguard that Boothe won't be getting past with his politeness.

Also, a kill list of Confederate military and political officers will be added as secondary objectives.

Bedford Forest and his ilk won't be forming the Klan this time.
 

Free-Stater 101

Freedom Means Freedom!!!
Nuke Mod
Moderator
Staff Member
Also, a kill list of Confederate military and political officers will be added as secondary objectives.
This would be counterproductive in most cases, an example would be General Lee The man never directly fed into the lost cause myth, but was made out as a 'founder" style figure for it after his death, on the basis of him being the Confederacies top generals and most beloved amongst them.

Martyring him and other top ranking Confederate Generals by killing them shortly after the ACW could make rumors spread that the 'Yankees' had them assassinated in their beds, people tend to notice when a bunch of nationally known former military officers start dropping like flies.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
This would be counterproductive in most cases, an example would be General Lee The man never directly fed into the lost cause myth, but was made out as a 'founder" style figure for it after his death, on the basis of him being the Confederacies top generals and most beloved amongst them.

Martyring him and other top ranking Confederate Generals by killing them shortly after the ACW could make rumors spread that the 'Yankees' had them assassinated in their beds, people tend to notice when a bunch of nationally known former military officers start dropping like flies.
Sounds like a recipe that would breed a violent guerilla insurgency in the South.
Who said it had to happen after the war?

No reason a Terminator has to stick by Lincoln's side 24/7. Have him around at Ford's theater, but prior to that send him out to decapitate the Confederacy and break it's organizational/logistical capacity.

Hard to have an insurgency when the organizers never get a chance to form it, because they are whacked during the war.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top