Three assassination hypotheticals for you

WolfBear said:
Here are three assassination hypotheticals for you:

1. You can either prevent Franz Ferdinand's assassination or assassinate Vladimir Lenin. Which one would you choose? I'd personally choose the first option here since that way, I would get to prevent both Bolshevism in Russia and the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire, but if it wasn't for the Ottoman Empire's extremely massive human rights abuses during WWI, then I'd be more undecided about this since I really do like a lot of the territorial changes that World War I produced. I suppose that it might depend on whether these territorial changes were eventually going to happen anyway or not.

2. You can either assassinate Lenin or assassinate Hitler. Which one would you choose? I'd choose Lenin since it's unclear that there would ever actually be a Nazi Germany without the USSR and in any case, it would be easier to form an anti-Nazi coalition without the USSR's existence, thus making the Fall of France much less likely even in the event that World War II still does eventually occur with a Nazi Germany.

3. You can either assassinate Lenin or assassinate Stalin. Which one would you choose? I'd choose Lenin since Lenin was much more crucial for the creation of the USSR than Stalin was and since the USSR was already becoming a totalitarian nightmare even before Stalin seized absolute power, with even illegal emigration from the USSR becoming nearly impossible by the end of the 1920s. So, I'd prefer the USSR not to exist at all since I don't actually believe that it can evolve into a milder form for decades afterwards.
Click to expand...
What if the creep that broke into Buckingham Palace back in 1982 had killed Queen Elizabeth II....

King Charles III would've happened 40 years earlier and Diana would've been Queen Consort 🤔

Sounds like a juicy timeline for @Tiamat to cook up.
 
Sergeant Foley said:
What if the creep that broke into Buckingham Palace back in 1982 had killed Queen Elizabeth II....

King Charles III would've happened 40 years earlier and Diana would've been Queen Consort 🤔

Sounds like a juicy timeline for @Tiamat to cook up.
Click to expand...

Quite an interesting character:


He's also a heroin smuggler, or at least was one.

In the 19th century, there was also this intruder:

 
stevep said:
A far right coup is likely to seek legitimacy with the rest of the world and probably some restoration of the Czarist regime. Rather than being a mad dog system like under Hitler or even the revolutionary type of Mussolini. As such its likely to seek a level of co-operation. It will be markedly worse for Russia than the republic surviving and putting down routes, especially if it seeks to maintain the autocratic regime for any length of time but agree definitely better for Russia and the world than Lenin and his mob gaining control.
Click to expand...
Depends on exactly who ends up running Fascist Russia and just how batshit they are.
 
stevep said:
I must admit that's probably rather unfair to the Mongols. ;)
Click to expand...

Didn't the Mongols kill a lot of people as a result of their conquests, as well as see a lot of cities get burned such as Baghdad in 1258? It's not the present-day Mongols that we have come to know and love for Mongolian barbecue and sumo wrestling, after all! ;)
 
WolfBear said:
Didn't the Mongols kill a lot of people as a result of their conquests, as well as see a lot of cities get burned such as Baghdad in 1258? It's not the present-day Mongols that we come to know and love for Mongolian barbecue and sumo wrestling, after all! ;)
Click to expand...
Mongolia is an intriguing country indeed
 
WolfBear said:
Didn't the Mongols kill a lot of people as a result of their conquests, as well as see a lot of cities get burned such as Baghdad in 1258? It's not the present-day Mongols that we have come to know and love for Mongolian barbecue and sumo wrestling, after all! ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, if they resisted although if cities surrendered rather than standing a siege then population and even local rulers were often treated fairly well. A bit like a bloodier version of the Romans who would devastate areas if they resisted or which had revolted having coming under their control.
 
stevep said:
Yes, if they resisted although if cities surrendered rather than standing a siege then population and even local rulers were often treated fairly well. A bit like a bloodier version of the Romans who would devastate areas if they resisted or which had revolted having coming under their control.
Click to expand...

That makes sense.
 
WolfBear said:
Here are three assassination hypotheticals for you:

1. You can either prevent Franz Ferdinand's assassination or assassinate Vladimir Lenin. Which one would you choose? I'd personally choose the first option here since that way, I would get to prevent both Bolshevism in Russia and the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire, but if it wasn't for the Ottoman Empire's extremely massive human rights abuses during WWI, then I'd be more undecided about this since I really do like a lot of the territorial changes that World War I produced. I suppose that it might depend on whether these territorial changes were eventually going to happen anyway or not.

2. You can either assassinate Lenin or assassinate Hitler. Which one would you choose? I'd choose Lenin since it's unclear that there would ever actually be a Nazi Germany without the USSR and in any case, it would be easier to form an anti-Nazi coalition without the USSR's existence, thus making the Fall of France much less likely even in the event that World War II still does eventually occur with a Nazi Germany.

3. You can either assassinate Lenin or assassinate Stalin. Which one would you choose? I'd choose Lenin since Lenin was much more crucial for the creation of the USSR than Stalin was and since the USSR was already becoming a totalitarian nightmare even before Stalin seized absolute power, with even illegal emigration from the USSR becoming nearly impossible by the end of the 1920s. So, I'd prefer the USSR not to exist at all since I don't actually believe that it can evolve into a milder form for decades afterwards.
Click to expand...
2,3-agree.
1- basically everybody and his dog wonted war,so it still happen,but later,which mean MOAR SUPER DUPER DREDNAUGHTS.
That is why i would want it,too.WW1 would still occur - but,with more cool battleships.
And,when we could not avoid war,then,at least,we should try made it more cool!
 
ATP said:
2,3-agree.
1- basically everybody and his dog wonted war,so it still happen,but later,which mean MOAR SUPER DUPER DREDNAUGHTS.
That is why i would want it,too.WW1 would still occur - but,with more cool battleships.
And,when we could not avoid war,then,at least,we should try made it more cool!
Click to expand...

If World War I can't be prevented then I would probably just kill Lenin unless delaying WWI will somehow significantly change its outcome and/or aftereffects, such as no Bolshevism in Russia.
 
WolfBear said:
If World War I can't be prevented then I would probably just kill Lenin unless delaying WWI will somehow significantly change its outcome and/or aftereffects, such as no Bolshevism in Russia.
Click to expand...

WW1 could not be prevented,becouse everybody wanted it.But - you should kill Trotsky,not Lenin.He win revolution and later cyvil war.
And - we would have more cool battleships during Jutland battle!
 
WolfBear said:
If World War I can't be prevented then I would probably just kill Lenin unless delaying WWI will somehow significantly change its outcome and/or aftereffects, such as no Bolshevism in Russia.
Click to expand...

I think WWI could have been avoided but there was strong desire in much of the elite in most of the big continental states for war, or at least a vast under-estimation of the costs both human and otherwise.
 
stevep said:
I think WWI could have been avoided but there was strong desire in much of the elite in most of the big continental states for war, or at least a vast under-estimation of the costs both human and otherwise.
Click to expand...
France wonted their land back,prussians wonted more land,as usual,Russia feared that A-H would create Ukraine and destroy them.And England wonted war which bleed all powers on continent.
Only A-H knew,that war mean their demise - but they feared,that showing weakness mean the same.So,they prefer war to that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top