Lincoln. Didn’t make a whole heap of difference that I am aware of.
McKinley. I believe that did change things quite a lot - his replacement, Roosevelt being quite the interventionist.
I ask because I’ve been watching an excellent documentary on Yesterday about Hitler’s bodyguard. It seems there were an extraordinary number of attempts on his life over the years. But would it have made any difference? Well, one way to find out is to see if any other assassinations made a difference.
Sadat. Not really.
Rabin. I have no idea.
Alexander III. Again, I really don’t know. Although didn’t the Tsarist pogroms against the Jews start soon afterwards? And wasn’t the faked “Protocols of the Wise men of Zion” part of it? And wasn’t that one of the main influences on Germany’s Anti-Semites? So, maybe.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Well, you’d have to say the assassins got what they wanted. At a hell of price but they got it.
Getting back to Hitler, intuitively you feel it would have made a huge difference. Who but Hitler had the charisma to dominate the Nazi movement? Who but Hitler would have gambled the way he did?
Further thought. Hitler and the Nazis are a complete outlier in history. And therefore we can learn nothing useful by studying them and in fact the lessons we do learn are likely to be the wrong ones.Permalink • Feedback (3) • History • Nazism