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

aguy1013

Well-known member
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"
i think so ,cause that also fall in line of killing, but im not the op so yeah ,but for me im not too keen to change the past except for getting endings to stories where the author died before he/she can finish stuff like highschool of the dead
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
I send a terminator to kill Julius Caesar. That way the Roman Republic will not become an Empire

I don't think it is that simple. Caesar merely exploited the widespread rot in the republican system of the time: remember Marius, Sulla, and their dictatorship tenures? Unless you overturn the processes which created that (namely, the destruction of the landowning assidui and consequent professionalization of the army), then the fall of the Republic is only a matter of time.
 

ATP

Well-known member
I don't think it is that simple. Caesar merely exploited the widespread rot in the republican system of the time: remember Marius, Sulla, and their dictatorship tenures? Unless you overturn the processes which created that (namely, the destruction of the landowning assidui and consequent professionalization of the army), then the fall of the Republic is only a matter of time.

Indeed.Send Terminator to save Grakhus brothers instead and keep them at power.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Rousseau. If you want to stab Communism in its heart, you go after the father of the Jacobins.

As for who I'd protect, I'd probably send the Terminator back to 457 AD to protect Emperor Majorian. I'm very curious to see what that man could have managed with another ten or twenty years on the throne.
First break of Europe was made by protestants - so,kill Luder - for example,let that lighting kill him for real.Or replace dude who duelled him and died with Terminator.
 

WolfBear

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.

Honestly, if I was a resident of the Soviet Union (and my ancestors were!), I'd absolutely loathe the idea of permanently being deported east of the Urals and never seeing my European homeland again! This would be similar to Alien Space Bats invading the US and forcing tens of millions of Americans or more to move west of the Mississippi River, having them permanently give up the American core lands.

As for saving more Jews, having the Soviet Union deport its entire Jewish population to the interior of the Soviet Union in 1939-1941 would do the trick here. There would be some deaths, of course--maybe 20% or so--but the death toll here will still be much milder in comparison to the Holocaust in the Soviet Union in real life. You would have an additional 1.5-2.0 million Soviet Jews survive the Holocaust in this scenario, which would be a huge plus.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
ROB shows up and offers to send a Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Terminator after a historic figure of your choice. You can choose whether it'll be programmed to kill or bodyguard its target and the year and location it'll arrive in and it'll speak the local language (although inevitably with an austrian accent).

Killing Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Joseph I on July 1, 1914 seems like a good idea, no? Maybe Kaiser Karl would be more inclined to accept the Serbian response to the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum.

My second preference is to kill Vladimir Lenin in 1916. My third preference is to kill Adolf Hitler in 1923. My fourth preference might be to kill Russian Tsar Nicholas II in 1900 due to his incompetence. Or maybe to kill the future German Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1880 for the same reason.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Protect: Maud of England back in the 12th century. That could have prevented many European Wars because her T-800 bodyguard would have gotten rid of all of the challengers to the crowns of England and The Holy Roman Empire.

Kill: That's a toughie and I don't have a good answer. William T. Sherman is on the list of people I'd consider sending a T-800 after because he considered a sandbag to be worth more than a non-white soldier.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
In regards to protecting people, what about US President James A. Garfield? I've always admired his intellect, after all. Or JFK since had he lived he probably wouldn't have gotten us involved in Vietnam. But I prefer Garfield over JFK on a personal level. Lincoln unfortunately I fear if I will save then Reconstruction will be softer than it was in real life. And saving McKinley probably won't do much and might even delay the start of the Progressive Era on a national level.

If we wanted to go really farther back, I'd explore the idea of saving Frederick Barbarossa in 1190 in order to increase the odds of the Third Crusade's success. Or perhaps have Byzantine Emperor Manuel I live for an extra decade or more so that his son can actually inherit the Byzantine throne as an adult rather than as a tween (preteen).

Another 19th century protection possibility would be the Russian Tsarevich Nicholas (1843-1865).
 

bintananth

behind a desk
In regards to protecting people, what about US President James A. Garfield? I've always admired his intellect, after all. Or JFK since had he lived he probably wouldn't have gotten us involved in Vietnam. But I prefer Garfield over JFK on a personal level. Lincoln unfortunately I fear if I will save then Reconstruction will be softer than it was in real life. And saving McKinley probably won't do much and might even delay the start of the Progressive Era on a national level.

If we wanted to go really farther back, I'd explore the idea of saving Frederick Barbarossa in 1190 in order to increase the odds of the Third Crusade's success. Or perhaps have Byzantine Emperor Manuel I live for an extra decade or more so that his son can actually inherit the Byzantine throne as an adult rather than as a tween (preteen).

Another 19th century protection possibility would be the Russian Tsarevich Nicholas (1843-1865).
For going back even further ...

What about Ptolemy XV Caesarion?

He was the son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Friendly Reminder: Please try and remain on topic, avoid derails
No he didn't. He literally had a son, also named Alexander. Murdered by the fuck known as Cassander.
I didn't know that he had a son. I do know that the Ancient Greeks did have a preference for male-male sexual relationships to the point that books have been written about it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top