Sadly this is a ridiculous question because if you say who would you go back in time to kill, the obvious answer is Hitler; if you say okay which TWO people would you kill, the obvious answer would be Hitler and Kissinger; if you say okay which THREE people would you kill, it would be Hitler, Kissinger and…well now comes the chance for some debate. My first go to would be Leopold the second, but on further thought there’s Christopher Columbus, also Churchill, also Napoleon to give the Haitian revolution a breather, and if I give it more thought probably more in addition. I don’t know who my third would be.
An earlier defeated Napoleon would likely see some other European colonial power opportunistically go after Haiti, and you wouldn’t see the ideals of the revolution spread across Europe nearly so far or so effectively.
I’d be tempted to try and kill Alexander or Genghis Khan just to see what would change.
I feel like taking out Columbus just delays the inevitable by a few decades, and whoever comes after will be just as genocidal.
those decades would matter since so many indigenous civilizations were in civil wars that prevented them from resisting. I don’t think the spanish invaders could have beat the inca otherwise.
Columbus was pretty awful even for an European, even other Europeans were surprised by his cruelty which is wh the Spanish removed him from power, arrested him and kicked him out of the Americas. Queen Isabella I, while being a racist and a monarch, did grant most natives citizenship and freedom.
Yeah he’s awful compared to a typical european, but is he awful compared to the other conquistador types like Cortez or Pizarro? Anyone who leads a mercenary army is going to be an asshole.
The Dulles brothers.
If i can bring objects with me I’m giving the people of turtle Island as many AKs as i can. Maybe a missile battery
