Posted on 04/07/2015 10:48:17 AM PDT by MNDude
A liberal sent me a link to this site. It's amazing which are the historical events liberals would most like to erase.
1.The Destruction of Alexandria's Great Library (most votes. I can definitely see the historical importance, but doubt I would have that as my top pick!)
2.Elian Gonzalez and the Butterfly Effect.
4. Hitler, Berchtold, Constantine. (Hitler would be an easy choice, but then they make Constantine part of the choice?)
7. Erase the advent of agriculture (Serious?? Why don't they just wish the big bang never happened? I guess some how in their twisted minds they just know without agriculture they would be doing just fine.
+1
LOL I was going to state both those events too.
I just didn’t want to change Gods plan regarding his son.
“While the importation of slaves was made illegal in 1808, I sincerely doubt the practice actually ended.”
Perhaps, but the slaves that were here were no less American than the decendents of those who arrived on the Mayflower.
They didn’t have a “native habitat”. They were all US born at that point.
The importation of slaves
Its interesting to think about how history would have been altered by just one event.
The elimination of Mad Mo might have altered the course of slavery in America. The KKK and Jim Crowe may have never existed. The idea Redistribution of wealth would never got the traction it did. White guilt? Margret Sanger? 9-11. The US Economy? ME Oil? Israel?
In 1960, what if:
NASA faking the landing on the moon.
The Jewish attack of 9/11.
The destruction of Atlantis
Martin Bormann and the ‘Underground Reich’
Elvis faking his death.
Big Oil suppressing the electric car.
The Tsunami Bomb cover up.
The Chinese using giant mid-core magnets to control weather in the USA.
If Robert E. Lee had charged Little Round Top on July 1, 1863, Washington, DC would be a border town today.
During the 1916 presidential campaign, Republican presidential hopeful Charles Hughes shakes California Gov. Hiram Johnson's hand. On Election Day, he wins California and becomes president. The US stays out of the European war, and shortly afterwards, the warring countries in Europe reach a settlement, as has happened with their previous wars.
Ditto that one.
You forgot:
Aerosol spray
Y2k
Man Made Global warming
Trans fatty Acids
Whitey
I think the “two” states would have re-united by 1905 per Winton Churchill’s book “if Lee had not won the Battle of Gettysburg”
Essay
The worst historical occurrence has been the loss of belief in G-d and the moral foundation of life. Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin together are the three most influential figures in the decline of belief and morals. Communism, atheism, moral relativism and hatred of G-d and morality all stemmed from their works. And those things have done more damage to mankind than anything else in human history.
An even better question and one which I have been pondering lately is if you could go back in time to any point in your past-is there anything you would change?
McKinlay Kantor reached the same conclusion in his book If the South Had Won the Civil War (New York: Bantam, 1961). He figured that the US as of 1961 would have looked pretty much the same except that Cuba would be a US territory and Alaska would belong to the Soviet Union.
I assume everyone fantasizes about traveling into the past. After all, what is the idea of justice without judgment that some things ought not to have been done? But the first irony of the conceit of time travel is that if you go back past the time of your own conception and change anything significant, YOU NEVER HAPPEN.Same thing with the complaints of the injustice of American slavery - made by people whose ancestors would never have been born but for it.
So time travel fantasies only work if you limit yourself to the time after your own conception. And if you DID travel back that far, what would you do, and what authority would people give you to do it? You would need credentials to get a hearing from people who could do what you suggested.
Go back to before WWII? FDR and his buddies were pro-Soviet. Giving them better information would be like giving Obama better information - the effect would be only too likely to be counterproductive. Warn about the invasion of Russia by Hitler? The British were already doing that. Stalin was in denial.
Warn them about Pearl Harbor? They benefited from Pearl Harbor! Production mobilization for war began when France fell in May 1940; Roosevelt had been told that would take 18 months - i.e., just about exactly until Pearl Harbor was attacked. There were people in the military who predicted Pearl Harbor - and their careers stagnated afterward, when all other officers were being rapidly promoted to fill the billets required to radically expand the military.
Tell the British to follow Frank Whittle’s advice and build jets? The Germans would have countered with the Me 262, which Hitler had already diverted from a fighter to a bomber program (tho the 262 depended on a modern, aerodynamically efficient - but at the time mechanically bleeding-edge - axial flow design, and Whittle had a mechanically more practical centrifugal design. An interesting contest).
Warn about the Battle of Savo Island? The Battle of Anzio? The Battle of the Bulge? Iwo Jima & subsequent, considering the impending A-bomb and Japanese surrender?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.