Bhutto assassinated in Pakistan.

And what if that little madman had killed Reagan? To a Pakistani, Bhutto’s death is an earth shaking event.

I don’t think so. The murder of the Grachhi brothers marked the end of Republican Rome. But the Republic was doomed by the social forces that prevented Caius and Tiberius from winning. Their murders just made that clear.

Dave

Good analogy, Darwin, and remarkably,
in the larger context, something describing fundementals of nauture applies to the similar
evolution of human conflict.

See also “be carefull what you wish for,,”

M

I think there is one obvious downside to assassination. Typically, the people we want to assassinate are strongmen who have done a very good job of eliminating any serious competitors to their position. Assassinating them does not allow a competitor to take his place - it just leaves a power vacuum where somebody who is even more sneaky at staying alive fills his spot. It is Darwin’s adaptation at work. Only the devious survive and killing one opens the door for another who is even more devious and more difficult to assassinate than his predecessor. So it seems to me that the assassination approach is at best counterproductive and any gains from it are by pure chance.

“there is no famous photograph of a helicopter atop the US Embassy in Saigon to enshrine our disgrace. (At least until after 1977!)”

Good post, but in the spirit of informal cocktail hour discussion,
I’d haisten to add we’d likely still be there, under that scenario, probably still trying to vanquish “them commies” from thier own country, today.

Of course some short years later; the the Irainian revolution and subsiquent hostage takings would still have provided an interesting side show.

But alas, we digress still further.
And that’s an apt metaphor for the whole sorry mess
we’re in today.

M

“I suppose Yamamoto is as good a choice as Makaroff. I´d thought of him, but then thought about what influence he could have had, what could he have done differently?”

In terms of hard reality, tough to say, as you probably agree.

In the case of Yamamoto, not being too familiar
with the Russian example.

However, in as much as for example the Dolittle raid, definately a demoralising, or eye opening
effect, although by that stage who can really say how effective ?

If Yamamoto had lived, I dougbt he would have had much influence by wars end, the Japanese navy was all but obliterated, and not as if he alone could have influenced the surrender, and thus precluded the atomic bombings.

Would Yamamoto have had to have faced the war crimes tribunals ?

Some argue that Trueman was determined to drop the bombs, and no matter what.

Retrobution ?
Send a message to Stalin ?
Demonstrate and test the effect ?

Take your pick.
But we digress.

MaX

JFK, perhaps ? Only. Maybe even dougbtfull.

Robert, I think for sure out by 1970, if not sooner.

M

I suppose Yamamoto is as good a choice as Makaroff. I´d thought of him, but then thought about what influence he could have had, what could he have done differently? Not much of an answer, given what he was up against. But then I posted the same question in regards Makaroff, and came to pretty much the same conclusion, although of course I find the two sides more evenly matched.

History is full of good generals who oversaw disasters. Individuals seem to have to prove themselves as commanders, continously, simply don’t enjoy the benefit of the doubt, nor should they given the uncertainties of war . . . From a theoretical perspective of course.

“I wonder what’s at stake in this discussion….”

If this had happened, that wouldn’t. Ultimately pointless. If for no other reason then we would simply be changing the direction of the word “if.”

If Hitlers Grandfather had not legitimised Hitlers father, then Hitler would have been “Adolph Schiklegrubber,” and the Third Reich would never have occured. :)

Hard to argue with the impact of individuals in history, but the effect is usually buried in the historical trends that bring them forth. Would Lincohn have been more lenient to the Southern aristocracy? Perhaps. Which would simply mean that the Jim Crow laws would have been instituted earlier, and by our own time, would again be fought.

I suspect that Dr. Vomact could make a case good enough to show that various aspects of historical detail would change, but that the main treands would have taken place anyway. After all, there were dozens of “Nazi” Parties in German, one of them would have triumphed - But would Germany have taken such an extreme racist road?

If Kennedy had not been assassinated, would that have stopped Vietnam? Maybe. But we were in the market to have a Vietnam, and that lesson has still not been learned, as we can see. Whether you toss a large rock into a pond, or a small one, in either case, the ripples wont cross the water. Even so, someone in a boat midestream might be effected by one, but not the other.

Dave

I’ve thought about this, and the best example I could come up with was the death (assinnation by mine?) of Russian Admiral Makaroff in 1904 . . .

Thanks,

I also thought of Yamamoto, purely a legitimate, purely military target, and comperable in a senese in many respects to the fable about Rommel.

M