Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
NSLog(); Header Image

QotD: History

Question: If you could change the mind of one person from history on one issue, who and what issue would you pick and why?

My Answer: The geek side of me wants to say "Steve Jobs decision not to license the Mac OS." But, then again, I really like where the Mac is now, so that may not even be a valid decision. Perhaps I would change the mind of the person who first determined that you could convert oil into gasoline, or that gasoline was even necessary: where would the world - politically, geographically, etc. - be if we didn't need gasoline for our cars? What if an alternate energy source were the norm? Recent history begs that I suggest something about the intelligence committees assessing the likelihood of an attack on September 11, but there have been far more world-shaping events than that, have there not? I've got the girl I've always wanted now too - I can't even hope to change her mind in 10th grade because it's perfect now.

So, then, my final answer is simply this: I would change the mind of the government official who decided that Kennedy was becoming to much of a pain in the ass and who then ordered he be assassinated. How's THAT? 🙂

You are encouraged to answer the Question of the Day for yourself in the comments or on your blog.

7 Responses to "QotD: History"

  1. Tough one. One wonders what would have happened if someone had convinced Pilate that Jesus didn't need to be nailed to a cross.

    I probably wouldn't want to change history though. The possible repercussions are too terrible to think about. So if pinned down I'd probably say.... Someone should have convinced Kennedy to support Diem earlier and more vehemently.

  2. Thats funny, even before I got to where you said it, I was going to mention Kennedy's assassination. So, since that one is out, I'm going to go with Roosevelt's administration's decision to drop the bombs on Japan. I agree, I think, with constructing them, but part of me has always wondered what the world would look like, politically, if atomic weapons had _never_ been used.

  3. I nearly fell off my chair when you went all conspiracy theory on us. HA! Although, it is one I agree with. 🙂

    However, to answer the question: Hitler. Enough said.

  4. I couldn't really think of anything off the top of my head, but after seeing Gabe's comment I came up with one. I would change the mind of one of the guys in charge of punishing Germany for WWI. You know the one that was respected so everyone else would listen to him when he said, "if we take everything and don't give them a chance to rebuild, some guy is going to unite them in hatred and make this war look like a school fight." That way Hitler, nor anyone other nut case could have had such an easy group of people to unite and control.

  5. It was Truman who ultimately had the final decision on whether or not to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not "Roosvelt's Administration". As the sign on Truman's desk said, "The buck stops here." I doubt Truman would want to pawn off the ramifications, good or bad, of that decision onto the shoulders of Roosevelt or his administration.

    Rob

  6. iRideSnow: yes, of course. However, Roosevelt and his administration were responsible for the decision to construct it, and when they did so, it was done with the understanding that it was going to be used. Since Truman (at least directly after Roosevelt's death) had basically the same staff and advisors that Roosevelt had, when he was informed of the project it had mostly been decided already. I can't imagine that any thought of "well, lets *not* use this really neat thing we've spent so much on the past however-many years" wasn't considered very heavily with his advisors giving contrary advice.

    At least, thats how I've read it. But I could be wrong, do you have anything to point to it being Truman's decision alone, uninfluenced by Roosevelt's administration that you could show me?

  7. One member of the current administration's War Room. Somebody who has the power to change the US policy in the middle east. I know what they are doing there is called the "Peace Process" but basically they've been blocking a diplomatic settlement of the Israeli occupation for 30 years now. And people think September 11th makes this an age of terror. If only people had a clue about state sponsored terrorism and the US position atop that list.


Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please abide by the comment policy. Valid HTML includes: <blockquote><p>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, and <a href>. Please use the "Quote Me" functionality to quote comments.