nytimes: Do Assassins Really Change History?

[MinM]

SundayReview
Do Assassins Really Change History?

DAYS after John Wilkes Booth entered the presidential box at Ford’s Theater and shot Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865, Benjamin Disraeli, the British prime minister, declared that “assassination has never changed the history of the world.” Was Disraeli right?

One view, the “great man” theory, claims that individual leaders play defining roles, so that assassinating one could lead to very different national or global outcomes. In contrast, historical determinism sees leaders as the proverbial ant riding the elephant’s back. Broader social, economic and political forces drive history, so that assassinations may not have meaningful effects.

Prominent examples of assassinations raise intriguing questions, but do not settle the matter. Would the Vietnam War have escalated if John F. Kennedy had not been killed? Would the Middle East peace process have proceeded more successfully if Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel had not been assassinated? ...

http://nyti.ms/1FtZWzk

[gordianot]

1. I have heard this for years.

First it is impossible to answer in that history in both cases would need to be observed. Until that could happen end of argument the rest is mere projection by mortals

[bemildred]

2. The Pentagon and CIA seem to have a lot of faith in it.

And you can tell they get frustrated when they assassinate a bunch of enemies and it has no effect or things get worse, like with al Qaeda and it's spawn.

Al-Qaeda making gains in Yemen turmoil, Pentagon chief says

But it is an excellent question. I would say that it works occasionally, and when it does you will find that conditions were ripe for change already, like WWI. Kennedy's killing, on the other hand, maintained the status quo, avoided change, with disastrous results fifty years on.

[bvf]

3. Tonight on "What If?" we examine the question of

"What if Abraham Lincoln had been born a horse?"

You may as well ask that instead.

Really. Why do people go in for this sort of speculation? It's a complete waste of time, IMO.

[Igel]

4. "Either/or"?

Why not "both/and"?

Or at the very least "mostly/but also"?

Sometimes it's convenient to have a leader who is pilloried or idolized by a certain faction, or even most of his nation. Sometimes that leader is just a symbol; the "great man" is great by virtue of being in the right place at the wrong time as things would change, and he changes things but little. Not that his followers are capable of noticing this minor detail.

Sometimes the person who changes things may not be a leader. Maybe an inventor. Maybe a leader with a good idea at the right time, and the authority to implement it. Or a leader with a horrible idea--Stalin's dealing with the Red Army certainly created a pre-WWII mess.

But as soon as the question is wrong, any answer that you get is likely to be wrong or at the very least so incomplete as to not be correct.

[KittyWampus]

5. Queen Isabella changed the course of history. And it's almost certain

that her husband Ferdinand poisoned several people standing in his and Isabella's way.

[rainmaker21]

6. Of course they do.

JFK and MLK come to mind.

[Blue_Tires]

7. Interesting that they don't start with a 100% irrefutable example

like Archduke Franz Ferdinand...

[yurbud]

9. it wasn't that he was such a great guy. He was a McGuffin

[bemildred]

11. This is the guy that jump-started WWI, using the Archdukes killing as a pretext.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_Leopold_Berchtold

[yurbud]

8. they don't change it just delay it.

[yurbud]

10. in the long run, WARS don't even change the course of history

We fought and won two wars to keep Germany from running Europe.

For at least the last 20 years though, they have been doing exactly that.

[MinM]

12. Lincoln & Booth at Ford's Theater: 17 months before the assassination

"Abraham Lincoln was under tremendous stress during the Civil War of course — the pressure was unrelenting — and one way he blew off steam was by going to the theater.

Ford’s Theater, which first opened in 1863, was a popular venue for him — he went there at least eight times, records show.

On November 9, 1863 (ten days before his Gettysburg Address) he attended a performance of a play called The Marble Heart — and the star of the show was a 24-year-old actor named John Wilkes Booth. The playbill from that night is above.

That night Lincoln was sitting in a box at stage level — not in the upper box that would later gain such infamy. And speaking through his stage persona, the play’s villain, Raphael, Booth managed to make a pointed, personal statement straight to Lincoln. Three times, Booth (in character) made threats — and waved his finger close to Lincoln’s face. A woman who was sitting with the president that night, Mary Clay, turned to the president and said ‘Mr. Lincoln, he looks as if he meant that for you.’ And the President said “Well, he does look pretty sharp at me, doesn’t he?”

Again, this was at Ford’s Theatre itself a year and a half before the assassination — an incredible story.

-Paul Brandus

http://westwingreports.com/lincoln-and-booth-met-at-fords-theatre-18-months-before-the-assassination/