Just for a moment,
imagine that we have the technology needed to travel back in time, and that the US Army is planning to go back in time to prevent War World Two from happening. Now imagine that they open a worm hole and pass themselves and all of their equipment through it. Their equipment would include the most cutting edge technologies available here at 2009. Now that they arrived at the year of 1939, they fight off the Nazis with the twenty-first century's technology. The Nazi army, with their 1939s technology won't stand a chance against the 21st century F-16's, F-22's, and the modern day tanks and guns. Now, what if they prevented the Holocaust from happening, how would that reflect the future? Would Israel exist? And what changes will it bring?
And by the way,
when the %26quot;imaginary%26quot; US Army would go to the past via a worm hole,
they won't really go to the past, since the past is gone, there is no way to travel back in time. So by opening a worm hole and going to the past, I mean that they would get into a parallel universe, where the past is now. And so the changes they would make won't affect our universe, it will only affect that parallel universe.
What are your thoughts about my idea, and which army would win in your opinion, the Nazi army of 1939 or the US Army of 2009?
What if War World Two would have been prevented via modern day technology?
In the SF (science fiction) story from the late 60's, %26quot;Hawk Among the Sparrows%26quot;, the author sends an SR-71 Blackbird back to WWI and it is so much faster than the biplanes, it can't even interact with them. It's missiles won't go after their wood and fabric frames either. This is one principle to consider - being TOO powerful to win.
But in Eric Flint's outstanding novel %26quot;1632%26quot;, a West Virginia town finds itself back in the middle of the 100 yrs war in central Germany with their modern weapons and daily tech and they clean up. The bad guys get their tails kicked, the good guys get help they never had back in history. This seems to me to be the more likely result. In the movie THE FINAL COUNTDOWN, they never got to engage the enemy. No questions were actually answered, it was just dramatically posing the question, What if?.
Now the repercussions of such a thing, for example, no formation of Modern Israel, the continuation of the interwar structure of Europe, none of Eastern Europe under Soviet control, General Patton never getting a chance to use his military genius for more than checkers and local football games, etc, these are yet another question in themselves.
What if War World Two would have been prevented via modern day technology?
Have you seen this film: The Final Countdown (1980) A modern aircraft carrier is thrown back in time to 1941 near Hawaii, just hours before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
It would probably end in a draw.
say you go back in time and fight off the nazi army, your being in the past would create an entirely new future.
for example say your great grandfather fought in the war as well and fought along side you, but friendly fire from the %26quot;time travelers%26quot; accidentally kills him. This implies that your grandpa, father, and even you were never born. Yet you and still there. This is the time travel paradox and why traveling into the past could never influence the future of the world you cam from.
It only becomes practical when we consider the possibilities of parallel universes which we travel to instead, its a complicated topic to fully understand.
There is no unique future; predestination is bull. If you change one thing, like for example, Valkyrie succeeded in killing Hitler, the results are unpredictable. Even if you know how that change would affect the next minute of history, there still would be infinite possibilities for the minute after that.
If you could go into the past and change one thing, you would proceed forward in time from there along a new branch of possible futures, and that branch would have an infinite number of sub-branches at ever succeeding second.
The problem with this scenario is that the technology that the USA has today is based on technology developed during WWII, which has never really ended. The locations of the battles may change (Korea, Vietnam, Laos-Cambodia-Tibet, Middle east, Israel. The imperialistic mind-set of the past HAS to go. Obama has realized this. One of the reasons that I didn't consider voting for Hillary is that she, along with W and Cheney, seem to be stuck in the imperialistic mind-set from WWII and the Cold War. W seems not to have learned anything from Vietnam about guerrilla warfare. Hillary is going to have to adapt. If she needs enemies, as one of her former aides said in a New Yorker article, diplomacy will have to be her weapon.
I highly recommend two authors for alternative history series: the all ready mentioned Eric Flint (1632 and Grantville Gazette I, II. III, !V are just starting points, and Harry Turtledove. In Guns of the South the equivalent of USA Nazi groups armed with machine guns, Uzis, grenades go back to just before or just after the attack on Fort Sumter, which started the Civil War. The South wins, kind of, and Lincoln is not assassinated. Flint and Turtledove make it seem somewhat more logical.
This all gets back to two points that I think I have made before on Answer. Where do you draw the line between WWII and WIII? When the first dirty nuclear suitcase bomb goes off (if there is such a thing)? If you want to change history, say stop JFK from being assassinated, how do you decide which events BEFORE that were the vital turnkey events that need to be prevented from happening.
Historians and other investigators are STILL analyzing JFK's life and assassination to this day.
I'm not going to even try to guess who wins in your alternative history. If this is a possible career choice for you, great, but I wouldn't count on it generating income for some time. You may want to check out Baen's Barn. Baen is one of Eric Flint's publishers.
http://www.baen.com/
http://bar.baen.com/login.aspx?ReturnUrl鈥?/a>
Whichever army sides with the USSR would share in the victory.
As you know, the USSR was already winning without F-22s, F-16s, or modern tanks and guns.
