this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
102 points (99.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43803 readers
742 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Take the current highest-yield nuclear bomb and destroy England right before the begin of their collonial era.
Generally speaking, I believe removing a global superpower just before they do their world-changing thing is probably going to have the biggest effect on the timeline.
Everyone was building empires at the time and fighting over who got what. All that nuking England would do is to mean France, the netherlands, germany, spain etc would get more bits
Of course it wouldn't stop colonialization, but it would change the future quite a lot.
I think that should shake up the timeline quite a bit.
No, you'd just have the exact same thing but with another nationality. France had like half of Africa so they'd definitely be bigger.
And wouldn't that completely shift worldwide powerbalanes for centuries to come?
For example, would WW2 have happened if France had been a global superpower instead of a pushover?
Would the american revolution have happened with another colonial ruler?
Without that example, would the french revolution have happened?
Without both revolutions, would democracy be a thing by now, or would we still have totalitarian monarchies?
You know the butterfly effect? It's the same except we aren't killing a butterfly but instead one of the superpower nations of that time.
France wasn't a pushover around WW2. They had enough manpower to fight nazi Germany toe to toe. What they did, however, was underestimate how fast they could advance. France also ignored a warning that the germans were amassing to push through the Ardennes, which allowed the nazis to face little resistance on that front. Apparently, if they took immediate action, they could've mobilized an air raid to completely destroy that nazi battalion, which would royally fuck up the rest of Hitler's plans
France was never a pushover. The idea that being invaded by a bigger stronger army was their fault is weird and one I've only heard in the US.
Most countries that are colonies eventually seek independence, including most that France had.
It would only be a deterrent for empire building if there's a pattern (probably 3 or 4 similar events), otherwise people would consider it a random hateful act of god, of which there are many, and of which have been interpreted many different ways
I was focussing on changing the timeline, not on deterring nations from doing something. Without English colonializers, there would have certainly been other colonizers, but e.g. the whole China situation would have likely been very different. There would not be a dominant anglo culture right now. No English-speaking USA, no English-speaking Australia, no large countries with an anglo common law-based legal system.
It would change the timeline quite a bit.