By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
She made a post at 00:17 on a very boring Grizzly thread which is now sandwiched between 2 threads last commented on at 9:20 something this morning!!!!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Is Ryorry time travelling... on 15:51 - May 2 by factual_blue
Though not a fan of counter--factual history, you could argue that without the Archduke being killed, there'd have been no WW1, and therefore no Hitler coming to power etc.
So the poor ostrich died for nothing?
1
Is Ryorry time travelling... on 16:25 - May 2 with 961 views
Is Ryorry time travelling... on 15:45 - May 2 by Ryorry
I'd still go for preventing Hitler's conception (tho Guthers might come along to tell me that someone else might have taken his place? 🤔 But I do doubt anyone else would have gone through with such a policy of genocide, or been able to persuade an entire nation that it was an OK thing to do).
Is Ryorry time travelling... on 15:51 - May 2 by factual_blue
Though not a fan of counter--factual history, you could argue that without the Archduke being killed, there'd have been no WW1, and therefore no Hitler coming to power etc.
I think there would have been a war at some point, but there might just have been one very long drawn-out attritional war lasting say 8-10 years instead of two wars - however, whenever that war would have been, the Americans would still have developed the atom bomb by the mid-forties which would certainly have ended it if it was still going...
You are the obsolete SRN4 to my Fairey Rotodyne....
Is Ryorry time travelling... on 16:25 - May 2 by J2BLUE
Intrigued how you would have managed this...
When I was at school I came up with a ‘Tales of the Unexpected” type storyline that involved a time travelling scientist.
Anyway he ends up in Austria in 1889 and as he’s walking down a quiet street a man comes frantically running out of a building asking for help.
The time traveller goes with the man to a one roomed flat where a woman is giving birth. But she is having complications and both mother and baby will die.
The time traveller all of his skills from the 21st century to save the pair of them. At the end the father thanks the time traveler and asks him his name.
He replies “Adolf”, to which the new father says he will name his new born son after the time traveler with the words “Welcome to the world Adolf Hitler“.
It ends with the time traveller breaking down sobbing at what he had sone.
I never bothered with it though as I wasn’t sure whether I’d plagiarised the story from somewhere.
Is Ryorry time travelling... on 15:51 - May 2 by factual_blue
Though not a fan of counter--factual history, you could argue that without the Archduke being killed, there'd have been no WW1, and therefore no Hitler coming to power etc.
But then you could argue that WW1 only happened because of how the Franco Prussian war went with France deciding they needed Russia as an ally to protect them from Prussia/Germany
Of course that war was really set up by Napoleon defeat at Waterloo
Is Ryorry time travelling... on 20:12 - May 2 by Keno
But then you could argue that WW1 only happened because of how the Franco Prussian war went with France deciding they needed Russia as an ally to protect them from Prussia/Germany
Of course that war was really set up by Napoleon defeat at Waterloo
The Battle of Kosovo in 1389 is the real problem here.
Looks way better, more intricate & complex than what I had in mind! (which was a more localised 'Rogue Male'* thing, detailing the methodology of a wannabe lone assassin).
Is Ryorry time travelling... on 04:17 - May 3 by Ryorry
Oh shucks.
Looks way better, more intricate & complex than what I had in mind! (which was a more localised 'Rogue Male'* thing, detailing the methodology of a wannabe lone assassin).
Is Ryorry time travelling... on 15:51 - May 2 by factual_blue
Though not a fan of counter--factual history, you could argue that without the Archduke being killed, there'd have been no WW1, and therefore no Hitler coming to power etc.
I don’t think Mr & Mrs Ferdinand being bumped off in Sarajevo made much difference (they were rather unlucky - both killed with a single shot each from a revolver which is rare).
War was going to happen anyway. Germany, formed as a country in 1871, had industrialised but politically was in the grip of a Kaiser that was desperate to play soldiers and a political system that wasn’t really developed. He was fixated with uniforms, weapons and particularly a fleet. After the 1870s victory over France and industrial might going strong they wanted an empire of their own in addition to mastery of Europe.
Austria/Hungary was falling apart and saw war as an easy option to get a grip internally and externally. Germany badgered them into offering unacceptable terms to Serbia that neither AH or Germany would ever accept. They saw it as a short war to enhance reputations, grab a bit of territory. They had no idea it would turn out the way it did, given Germany in particular had the strongest, most powerful army in the world. Shame AHs was rotten to the core.
The U.K. didn’t want war at all and tried to avoid it to the point of discussing whether it could get out of its guaranties to Belgium. It had the biggest empire of all. Why destroy wealth and trade? France just entered into alliances through fear of Germany. Belgium - meat in the sandwich. Russia - a mess of a country run by despots.
Max Hastings book Apocalypse is well worth a read, if you can stomach his rather turgid writing style.
If I could get rid of one person in history? I’d go with nut job Hitler. No explanation necessary
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
