If you could travel back in time and kill one person, who would it be and why? - Change history the kiwi way!

Some completely random caveman dude just to see if the butterfly effect thing is real and it would actually change everything.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Hell, NARPASSWORD and Unog
Does it have to be a person? Because if it can be any creature I want to pop a cap in whatever smug, amphibious dickhole decided he was too good for the ocean and decided to start life on land. The audacity of that fish-lipped bitch.

If it has to be a human though, idk, probably Julius Caesar but as like a fetus (or else his mom). Dumb fucker set humanity back 1000 years by burning Alexandria down. 23 stab wounds wasn't enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NARPASSWORD
Linus Torvalds

Not because I dislike him, I just want to spare him a future of domestic enslavement as he watches his child burn before him.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Unog
external-content.duckduckgo.com.jpg

either him, or robespierre
 
  • Like
Reactions: Return of the Freaker, Duncan Hills Coffee, UnimportantFarmer and 6 others
I refer you to my answer the last time a thread for this question was made
As for my choice of who to kill, unfortunately I subscribe to the "mass movements and causes >>>> individuals" view of historical events and thus I doubt that killing any one person from hitler to stalin would seriously improve history much, since figures at that height of power and influence were invariably supported by a vast pyramid network of underlings and fanatics and opportunists and such who could easily replace them, and once we get into the mid 20th century we get to the age of "ok if shit goes wrong it could literally wipe out humanity due to nukes flying around" given how many near misses we have had so far, which makes any choice that much more difficult.

Personally though I would cautiously chose this nigga, since he was singularly responsible more than any other for the Soviets getting nukes, which is what both spiralled humanity into dangerous nuclear proliferation and also ensured that their shitty totalitarian fuckery could safely and happily spread under the aegis of "if you try to stop us we burn the world down" which is something the 20th century really couldda done without. If the soviets are effectively neutralised and compelled to play nice with the West, there is far less excuse or opportunity for murica and the west to be so invested in all the shady shit we did to try and keep the soviets in check.

Obviously though this is all highly debatable and speculative, and its entirely possible this would backfire and fuck things up worse, but removing both the spectre of nuclear war and the ability and motivation of the Soviets to act with such aggressive impunity in international affairs doesn't really have that many obvious downsides in my mind unless the US randomly turns psycho which seems unlikely as extreme authoritarians would have far less paranoia to court without fear of the soviets in popular consciousness.
Click to expand...

I still hold to this answer. The late 40s/early 50s america was far from perfect, but it was still one of the most positively liberal and open nations on the planet back then and by far the strongest nation on the anti-totalitarian front. Maybe not having the USSR as a serious rival would slow down social and technological progress, but I genuinely think it would be worth the infinitely lower international tensions a pax borgarcana would bring and all the needless proxy wars and insurrections not having happened, and given how america would have been as capable of enough self reflection and constructive internal dissent to keep improving as the UK was at the height of its imperial power, its entirely possible even the tech/social gap might not even be particularly great
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Feels
Reactions: Nykysnottrans, Francis York Morgan, Exigent Circumcisions and 3 others
1590268058964.png


I wouldn't kill Marx, I'd kill fucking Engels. This motherfucker was a rich asshole, and he was the only reason that fat, hairy fuck was able to eat while writing his bullshit. If Engels hadn't carried his hairy freeloader friend, Karl would have starved, or maybe, for once in his life got a fucking job. The thought of that fucker going hungry, and not endlessly flinging shit at other, equally unemployable assholes all days is very amusing to me. Also, the potential consequences for the future are impossible to comprehend.

Failing that, I'd drown this fucker in the nearest river before he ever left his hometown.

1590268563182.png


Without Lenin, there would never had been a Communist Russia in the first place. If Russia hadn't gone Communist, the fear of the Bolshevik boogeyman might have stopped Mussolini, Hitler, and even fucking Mao ( and then, by proxy, Pol Pot) seizing power in their respective countries. The amount of human misery that smug, baldy fuck is responsible for is almost incomprehensible.
 
  • Winner
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: The Great Chandler, BR55, Tecumseh and 11 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back