Page 2 of 5

Unread postPosted: Fri May 05, 2006 8:13 pm
by Hubsta
I'd change last week's lottery numbers in my favour :D .

Unread postPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 1:42 am
by Mistelten
Kong Wen wrote:I guess I meant on a global level rather than specifically the effect on Russia/USSR. Socialism would be a whole different ball-game without Lenin's revolution and the subsequent monolithic influence the USSR had on communist movements across Europe and in Asia. Imagine if socialism had been allowed to emerge (much later) as a viable political alternative in the USA, without the Cold War bad-guy stigma to bog it down.


I was thinking also of its effects in Europe right after the Revolution/Civil War. If the Bolsheviks didn't seize power, they would not have resorted to immediate coercion in Russia as well as in Germany, which means that the anti-Bolshevik backlash in Germany would not have vaulted the extreme right into power. Without the violence of Bolshevik methods, socialism could possibly have suceeded in Russia as it was the more moderate socialist parties that the people of Russia actually voted for. Therefore, socialism would be seen as something that was actually wanted by the majority, giving credibility to Marx's claims that such changes were inevitable. Also, it would have been less of a war of words and propaganda, without the "majorityites" representing a violent minority.
It would also have had much more of a chance in America because it would have been forced to come about through social change at all levels, instead of at the hands of a central government. A bolshevik revolution like Russia had was possible because Russia's government was so centralized and dependent on rule from the cities.

The Constituent Assembly was pretty darn Socialist and Commie anyway.

Don't underestimate Lenin's effect on the entire movement. The provisional government was put in place through relatively peaceful methods. They had left the Czar and most of the wealthy class in peace, but had merely denied them the status that they used to have. Lenin's violence sparked the anti-socialist attitude in much of the rest of the world. Before the October-November revolution, American sympathies were with the revolutionaries.

Unread postPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 1:58 am
by Kong Wen
I see what you're saying now, Mistelten, and I think we're basically on the same page re: Lenin. His "I want it all and I want it now" attitude towards revolution certainly did a lot to polarize politics in Europe, with broad-ranging repercussions.

Unread postPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 1:54 pm
by SunXia
No. History happened the way at did and we could make it 100 times worse by changing the slightest thing. I wouldn't risk changing a thing.


I agree with Wo Long on this one!!

It would be nice if you could change the bad thing that happened IF everything else stayed the same!! However this world isn't like that as things happen as a result of something else that occurred so history should stay the same, yes even the bad things, even if they weren't deserved!!

Unread postPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 4:52 pm
by Catalyst
To put things simply: you can't "change time". Time will always be, to an extent, the same. How does this happen? Because, it's history. It already happened.

If, for instance, you were to go back in time and, say, kill Hitler in 1935, you won't have stopped anything. You haven't "stopped" the Holocaust or World War 2, because you never learned about them, and thus, you would have had no reason to go back in time and kill Hitler, and as such, you didn't, he lived, and it would all still occur. Or, alternatively, you would forget the reason for killing Hitler the moment he is dead, and you would wonder why you did it, because the Holocaust or WW2 is gone. It's the paradox of time. You can not change the past because it already happened. You are, in a sense, changing it, by the history of the universe, but you, nor anyone else, will ever know that, because they have never learned an alternative. More than likely, though, the first thing would happen, wherein everything would still occur because of the paradox. If that happens, however, you're locked into a reccurence of the same thing, over and over again. Have fun with that!

Of course, assuming that you could actually change things, and it would have effect, then you end up screwing up lots of history. Let's use the WW2 idea, again. If you kill Hitler, and WW2 never happens, then the USA would never become a major world power, because they didn't go to war. Russia would probably end up dominating much of the world, and there would be considerably less people in the world (We wouldn't have lost people to war, but many people came back and had lots of kids (perhaps in case of another war?), and those would never have been born). Additionally, we wouldn't have nukes, since they came as the result of war , and so the cold war would never have occured, not like America, having never really been truly involved in a major war would've wanted to pick a fight with Russia, nor that Russia would've felt threatened enough to care. The Jews and Muslims wouldn't be at war, since the Jews never had to leave Europe, and the middle east would be in a relative state of peace, and 9/11 wouldn't have happened, nor either of the Iraq wars.

Other results abound, but you can see how that little cahnge can really shape the world differently. History must stay the same, because who knows what will come from changing it?

Unread postPosted: Sat May 06, 2006 6:15 pm
by Ranbir
football11f wrote:Killing Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Vladamir Lenin as kids would be a start.



Did you learn nothing from Command & Conquer: Red Alert !?!!


Lots of stories of time travel talk about not affecting the past, as it would have adverse effects on the future. I can't begin to imagine what might happen should we change anything...

I would like to, however, change the way the independance of India came about. Mostly preventing partition. A land...a land for thousands of years that has lived in complete multi-cultural and religious diversity...all thrown away to a religious divide minded by Ghandi and the cronies of that day. Independance Day? India's Darkest Day... :(

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 1:44 am
by Snake
Wasn't Ghandi against partition?

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:12 am
by Jordan
I'd murder every human in existence to prevent the inevitable terror, corruption, persecution and violence that is bound to happen in the future, as it has occurred in the past since the dawn of human civilization.

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:16 am
by Kong Wen
SlickSlicer wrote:I'd murder every human in existence to prevent the inevitable terror, corruption, persecution and violence that is bound to happen in the future, as it has occurred in the past since the dawn of human civilization.

Er... so the "event" you'd change would be, uh... every human being not being murdered?

Unread postPosted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:19 am
by Snake
Kong Wen wrote:
SlickSlicer wrote:I'd murder every human in existence to prevent the inevitable terror, corruption, persecution and violence that is bound to happen in the future, as it has occurred in the past since the dawn of human civilization.

Er... so the "event" you'd change would be, uh... every human being not being murdered?


Bwahahaha. Oh, SNAP!