If you could change one event in history what would it be?

[BANDWITH]

The internet doesn't stop anyone leaving the house.

Well yeah, thats just me who doesn't leave the house other than to ride my bicycle.

What's stopping it from being created again in the future?

Absolutely nothing.
Its a sort of thought experiment. What would the government do with the internet to itself? Would information still be spread through the telephone system, televisions, mail, the newspaper?
With private internet (eg. only people who can afford to pay the government to have their own), how would the better off act out of the public eye? How would people react to potential secret information wars, sudden "unexplainable" cyber attacks to public infrastructure?
Its a lot of questions that intrigue me.

 

[The Minnesotan Space Program]

I would stop my dumbass from responding to a bot comment and getting my 26k sub channel hacked. Now name changed to something Arabic and is commenting on random videos.

 

[The Dark in the Light]

I would stop my dumbass from responding to a bot comment and getting my 26k sub channel hacked. Now name changed to something Arabic and is commenting on random videos.

Ouch! That sucks man, hope you can fix it.

 

[Jez 10]

Imma go assasinate Cory Aquino after the 1989 Coup.

 

[Yuudachi Aero space]

If I could change one moment in history it would be WW2 but that would change alot for example Germany started the space age with the V2 and nasahired Von Braun who helped them land on the moon but if that changes the moon landing probably wouldn't of happend

have the reds on the moon so nasa would run for mars real fast

 

[Chara-cter]

have the reds on the moon so nasa would run for mars real fast

You see Ivan
When put vodka in Soyuz
Rocket go fast
To moon quicc

 

[Altaïr]

Personally I always wondered how would have turned WW2 if the germans failed to pierce the french lines at Sedan in May 1940. That maneuver allowed the germans to encircle most of the french army, to defeat it in 3 weeks, and to seize all its military material. Those events drastically changed the fate of Europe. What if it didn't happen?

Another variant too: What if Chamberlain (the english Prime Minister then) refused the Munich agreement in 1938?

 

[Horus Lupercal]

how would have turned WW2 if the germans failed to pierce the french lines at Sedan in May 1940

Then the Germans were screwed. Maybe. The fate of the war would then be decided in how quickly the French command reacted and the plan.

My thinking is that beyond some very limited counter-attacks, there would be no concerted push to drive the Germans back, and possibly even continue on to Berlin like in 44-45. The BEF wasn't in the right place and the French had based their military, strategically and tactically to fight defensively.
Added to how ponderous French high command was back then (they didn't have a Rommel or a Patton who would just jump in a tank, shout 'follow me!' and go for it without express orders to do so), I think by the time a plan had been created, filtered down to the corps and divisional commanders, units moved into place, artillery repositioned etc, the Germans would be in place to block said attack (mostly using tactical air power rather than tanks) and you'd end up in that kinda stalemate that birthed the trench warfare of WWI.

It'd be an interesting political situation. Germany has no interest in a protracted war at this point. France and the UK are in no position to willingly finance another war. The USSR probably wouldn't push for continued hostilities as it stands to gain nothing that far west and also isn't ready to assist Germany (they're still allies at this point) in a protracted trench fight.

Possibly Hitler could wangle a stalemate, bilateral de-escalation, maybe hand back Czechoslovakia as reparations. Even that would depend on the Allies ability to enforce such things.

What if Chamberlain (the english Prime Minister then) refused the Munich agreement in 1938?

If the school teacher had told the dictator 'no, you're not getting a free country', like he should've done?
I don't think it would've changed much. Hitler wanted the land, and betted that the Allies were too weak to actually stop him. He might have invaded Czechoslovakia anyway and taken it illegally.
Or held off a year or 2 and invaded France/Russia like he was always going to. Personally I'd have gone for Russia first. Invaded Poland in the march of '40 with the USSRs 'help' and then continued east straight through the Red Army and used all the spring/summer of 1940 to tear the USSR to pieces whilst the Allies are dithering about wondering what is going on during the so called 'phoney war' on the western front.
Then either make a deal with the Allies to stop there now he has his living space (a not so difficult sell considering the Allies are no fans of the communists either, added to the previously mentioned lack of finance/political will for a war in the west) or re-deploy after clearing out Moscow and crack on with blitzkrieging Europe as planned.

 

[Altaïr]

Then the Germans were screwed. Maybe. The fate of the war would then be decided in how quickly the French command reacted and the plan.

My thinking is that beyond some very limited counter-attacks, there would be no concerted push to drive the Germans back, and possibly even continue on to Berlin like in 44-45. The BEF wasn't in the right place and the French had based their military, strategically and tactically to fight defensively.
Added to how ponderous French high command was back then (they didn't have a Rommel or a Patton who would just jump in a tank, shout 'follow me!' and go for it without express orders to do so), I think by the time a plan had been created, filtered down to the corps and divisional commanders, units moved into place, artillery repositioned etc, the Germans would be in place to block said attack (mostly using tactical air power rather than tanks) and you'd end up in that kinda stalemate that birthed the trench warfare of WWI.

It'd be an interesting political situation. Germany has no interest in a protracted war at this point. France and the UK are in no position to willingly finance another war. The USSR probably wouldn't push for continued hostilities as it stands to gain nothing that far west and also isn't ready to assist Germany (they're still allies at this point) in a protracted trench fight.

Possibly Hitler could wangle a stalemate, bilateral de-escalation, maybe hand back Czechoslovakia as reparations. Even that would depend on the Allies ability to enforce such things.

In the end, what the french army really lacked was some skilled generals (and we were considered the best army in the World then... ).

However, a possibility I thought about is that, while the germans and the allies more or less neutralized each other, the russians could have built without being bothered an army strong enough to steamroll Europe in a few years. That was actually what Stalin planned, he wanted to save time, but he thought that the french and the british would hold the germans a bit longer than that...

Also, the italians would probably have not involved in the conflict then (they only declared war on France when it was closed to be defeated). Spain would have certainly stayed neutral too, for the same reason (the country was devastated by the civil war that happened in 1936).

If the school teacher had told the dictator 'no, you're not getting a free country', like he should've done?
I don't think it would've changed much. Hitler wanted the land, and betted that the Allies were too weak to actually stop him. He might have invaded Czechoslovakia anyway and taken it illegally.
Or held off a year or 2 and invaded France/Russia like he was always going to. Personally I'd have gone for Russia first. Invaded Poland in the march of '40 with the USSRs 'help' and then continued east straight through the Red Army and used all the spring/summer of 1940 to tear the USSR to pieces whilst the Allies are dithering about wondering what is going on during the so called 'phoney war' on the western front.
Then either make a deal with the Allies to stop there now he has his living space (a not so difficult sell considering the Allies are no fans of the communists either, added to the previously mentioned lack of finance/political will for a war in the west) or re-deploy after clearing out Moscow and crack on with blitzkrieging Europe as planned.

Yep, basically the war would have started in 1938 then. And Czechoslovakia would have been steamrolled for sure. But it would have probably been harder for the nazis overall. Because in 1938, with the Munich agreement, Hitler seized some high quality military material (tanks especially), which we regreted a lot one year later...

But if war started in 38, he wouldn't have had those tanks. The allied would have probably not attacked much though, and we would have had another phoney war. And the russians would have probably not helped too. Stalin wasn't invited to Munich, so he didn't participate in the decision process, and he really had no reasons to come and help the allies. Anyway, his country was separated from Germany by Poland, which was very good like that. This gave him time to prepare himself.

On another side, the non agression pact didn't happen at that time, so Hitler would not benefit from russian deliveries, and the naval blocus held by the Royal Navy would have paid off. Because of this, Hitler probably couldn't have invaded France like he did. And if it didn't happen, he would have probably not declared war on Poland and then the USSR, as he can't afford a 2 fronts war.

But as the allied army wasn't oriented towards offensive, they would have not been able to attack either. I don't know how this would finish (the allied would probably ask help from Stalin, which he would hardly accept if he does), but this would certainly last a lot of time...

Hard to say how it would have happened, but sometimes I think that we actually lost the war in 1938...

 

[Horus Lupercal]

In the end, what the french army really lacked was some skilled generals (and we were considered the best army in the World then... ).

Certainly considered the strongest by virtue of size. The problem with france and french generals in particular is you won WWI. Winners never tend to question why they won and how to do better. Losers however go away and ask serious questions about what went wrong, which is why the French built the Maginot Line along the projected path of Shlieffen Plan V2.0 and the Germans went around it with blitzkrieg.

However, a possibility I thought about is that, while the germans and the allies more or less neutralized each other, the russians could have built without being bothered an army strong enough to steamroll Europe in a few years. That was actually what Stalin planned, he wanted to save time, but he thought that the french and the british would hold the germans a bit longer than that...

Stalin could've managed it, but he was still too busy purging his generals of talent by the late 20s, early 30s and even with the kick in the ass that Barbarossa was, they weren't ready for the war until 41-42 time. A Soviet invasion of Germany in say 1940-41 wouldn't have been the Red Hammer and Sickle that we saw in 1945 with tens of thousands of top rate tanks, lead by one of the best armoured warfare specialists in the world (can't remember his name now) and the largest artillery formations in history, it'd be an analgeous clusterfuck of BT-7s and millions of conscripts getting banged by the Wermacht piecemeal as they crossed Poland.

Also, the italians would probably have not involved in the conflict then (they only declared war on France when it was closed to be defeated). Spain would have certainly stayed neutral too, for the same reason (the country was devastated by the civil war that happened in 1936).

Ah, bless Mussolini and his Roman Empire delusions. If anyone was unready for WWII, it was the Italians. Spain didn't need to get in, they were already in Hitlers pocket thanks to his assistance during the civil war (which served as a test run and combat experience for his forces).

Because in 1938, with the Munich agreement, Hitler seized some high quality military material (tanks especially), which we regreted a lot one year later...

That's my favourite part. Out of all the nations in Europe at the time, the Czechs were probably in the best position to resist and basically got thrown under the bus. Those tanks (what became the panzer 38t, if memory serves) were the best in the world, and certainly better than anything the Germans had at the time. Guderian must've laughed himself all the way to the testing grounds when he heard the news. It wouldn't have made an enormous different to the end result, the Wermacht would still smash them, but as you say it would be an awful lot harder than the Polish and Belgian fight.

But if war started in 38, he wouldn't have had those tanks. The allied would have probably not attacked much though, and we would have had another phoney war. And the Russians would have probably not helped too. Stalin wasn't invited to Munich, so he didn't participate in the decision process, and he really had no reasons to come and help the allies. Anyway, his country was separated from Germany by Poland, which was very good like that. This gave him time to prepare himself.

Yeah, and also served as a buffer for the Germans as well between himself and Russia. If the Reds had invaded Poland to get to Germany then Stalin would've ended up being declared war on by the French/UK as per the agreement that eventually forced them into the war against the Nazis. The Allies may not have declared war on Germany for the Czechs. They were forced into it by a treaty they had with the Poles.

On another side, the non agression pact didn't happen at that time, so Hitler would not benefit from russian deliveries, and the naval blocus held by the Royal Navy would have paid off. Because of this, Hitler probably couldn't have invaded France like he did. And if it didn't happen, he would have probably not declared war on Poland and then the USSR, as he can't afford a 2 fronts war.

The Royal Navy would've tried to blockade, it would've been an interesting stand-off as at the time the Kriegsmarine hadn't completed the surface ship programs that would 'terrorise' the seas in the 40s, but had made a good amount of headway in U-boats and the Allied Navies were not up to combating that for a few years yet.

But as the allied army wasn't oriented towards offensive, they would have not been able to attack either. I don't know how this would finish (the allied would probably ask help from Stalin, which he would hardly accept if he does), but this would certainly last a lot of time...

It could go many ways. The Allies could try the old 'Somme' style push, huge frontages, walking pace infantry supported by 'infantry' tanks like the Char Bis and massed artillery. And get cut to pieces by Luftwaffe Stukas. There could be petitions in with the League of Nations (still a thing at the time) for a ceasefire before it escalates too much. Especially as if Poland hasn't been invaded yet, then there's little legal justification for the Allies to strike at Germany, not until Germany goes through Belgium and Holland and hits the French borders at least.

Hard to say how it would have happened, but sometimes I think that we actually lost the war in 1938...

Absolutely. It's an interesting thought experiment though. I'd say earlier into '38. The Allies should have given Hitler a slap when he annexed Austria earlier in the year. That move and lack of response from the UK/France is what convinced Hitler that he could do whatever he wanted and there'd be no comebacks.
He was that convinced that the declaration of war after Poland stunned him, he genuinely didn't think anyone had the balls for a fight.

 

[JSP]

I like how I made this just to be one event but everyone is taking into every little detail

 

[Altaïr]

Absolutely. It's an interesting thought experiment though. I'd say earlier into '38. The Allies should have given Hitler a slap when he annexed Austria earlier in the year. That move and lack of response from the UK/France is what convinced Hitler that he could do whatever he wanted and there'd be no comebacks.
He was that convinced that the declaration of war after Poland stunned him, he genuinely didn't think anyone had the balls for a fight.

Ah yeah, the Anschluss. But even before that, in 1936 with the remilitarization of Rhenania (a german territory that shares a border with France, the treaty of Versailles forbade the germans to station troops there). Apparently Hitler planned to step back if the french and the british protested, but they didn't. It's incredible the number of occasions we lost...

I like how I made this just to be one event but everyone is taking into every little detail

Well, sometimes a single event can change a lot of things... What if the 1929 economical crisis didn't happen? That would have changed a few things don't you think

 

[Horus Lupercal]

Ah yeah, the Anschluss. But even before that, in 1936 with the remilitarization of Rhenania (a german territory that shares a border with France, the treaty of Versailles forbade the germans to station troops there). Apparently Hitler planned to step back if the french and the british protested, but they didn't. It's incredible the number of occasions we lost...

Yeah, like him breaking the military population cap, building up the army, making tanks, creation of the Luftwaffe, designing and building the pocket battleships. All of these and more contravene the Versailles Treaty and were grounds for sanctions at the minimum. And the more he was allowed to get away with, the bolder he got until eventually war became the only outlook.

Well, sometimes a single event can change a lot of things... What if the 1929 economical crisis didn't happen? That would have changed a few things don't you think

Yeah. Absolutely.
The economic collapse was a gift for the NSDAP as a political force. People don't vote extreme in good climates and just prior to the crash the Nazi party had been pushed to the fringes, especially after the failed Putsch.
Take rampant unemployment and hyper-inflation, throw in extreme nationalism, blame everything on the Jews (quite a popular sport worldwide), offer a spectacle and sprinkle the undeniable fact the Hitler knew how to work a speech and you go from zero to supreme power in 4 years.
Take out any of those facets and Hitler would've died in his mid 50s as a failed Austrian painter on a war pension.

 

[JSP]

Yeah, like him breaking the military population cap, building up the army, making tanks, creation of the Luftwaffe, designing and building the pocket battleships. All of these and more contravene the Versailles Treaty and were grounds for sanctions at the minimum. And the more he was allowed to get away with, the bolder he got until eventually war became the only outlook.




Yeah. Absolutely.
The economic collapse was a gift for the NSDAP as a political force. People don't vote extreme in good climates and just prior to the crash the Nazi party had been pushed to the fringes, especially after the failed Putsch.
Take rampant unemployment and hyper-inflation, throw in extreme nationalism, blame everything on the Jews (quite a popular sport worldwide), offer a spectacle and sprinkle the undeniable fact the Hitler knew how to work a speech and you go from zero to supreme power in 4 years.
Take out any of those facets and Hitler would've died in his mid 50s as a failed Austrian painter on a war pension.

Haha lol