I’m going with the Russian Revolution. If Russia had not become communist China would not have either (would it have happened anywhere?), and can you imagine the 20th century without communism?
Lots of things led to the Russian Revolution, including what is going to be my pick.
So a single event, one moment in time. An event that triggered consequences far beyond the scope of the event itself:
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo.
Of course many of the subsequent events would have happened anyway, at least in some form, but that particular episode did rather speed things up, and the after-effects are still being felt today.
My vote is for “August 6 and August 9, 1945” when it was proven that mankind has the potential to destroy itself.
{Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}
To my way of thinking those dates are close enough to mid-century that “half way” seems to state the tone of the whole century.
September 2nd, 1945. Japan signs the ‘instruments of surrender’ on the battleship USS Missouri, bringing to an end the most destructive war in history (other wars led to more deaths, I believe). All of history since then follows from this.
But I have to admit, Baron Greenback’s and Zeldar’s are pretty compelling too.
August 6, 1945: the day that humankind finally realized it could destroy itself.
Landing on the moon?
I meant to say that was my 2nd pick. Even without the assasination, the World Wars were going to happen eventually.
I said that wrong. I was agreeing with you that lots of things led to the revolution, but there was not one thing that led to it. One thing did lead, direcly, to WWI. The murder of Rasputin “started the ball rolling” in Russia, so you could say that as one event.
So can I say now that the murder of Rasputin was the most significant event in the 20th century? Hell no.
So in some ways this whole thread is silly. Or at least hard to define. What is an event? The events that led up to the BIG event that changed history?
Are you allowed to threadshit your own thread?
It might be interesting to define sub-categories. Given the comments about Franz Ferdinand etc, an interesting category would be the type of event that somehow triggered a future that was not otherwise fairly inevitable, that would not otherwise eventually have panned out in some similar way. If we wanted to think about an interesting alternative history, where might we start?
Contenders might be Hitler’s decision to invade Russia; or Pearl Harbor.
Why not July 16, 1945?
Exactly. I should have defined the thread better. You just did.
Germany and Russia were always going to go at it again for the nth time, at some point.
Pearl Harbor, yeah, that’s an Event and a half. A wholly avoidable act of self-sabotage.
I’d go along with the shot that killed Archduke Fran Ferdinand but not directly because it led to what you might feel was the inevitable carnage of WW1, rather because it led to certain events during WW1 that were not predictable but have had continuing effects throughout the century.
Although it took some unraveling of a seemingly unlikely set of circumstances, the events of WW1 led directly to Germany assisting in the return of Lenin into Russia to lead the revolution as part of Germany’s attempt to win that war by getting Russia out of the picture.
Without the leadership of Lenin the Russian revolution might have failed or would have probably had a very different emphasis instead of the institutionalised internal state terrorism started by Lenin and his crushing of the Kronstadt sailors.
It also led to the US changing its position of international isolationism due to Germany’s attempt to provoke Mexico to attack the US in breathtakingly ill advised move to try distract the US from involvement in Europe.
With those two events set up, you have the lead in to communism developing around the world hence the events in China and French-Indo China, and the development of the US into a superpower with the will and resources to challenge communism.
The defeat of Germany of course led to WW2 plus the disintegration of colonial empires.
It is not unreasonable to view 20thC as one war with short regional outbreaks of peace.
Din’t forget the Sykes-Picot agreement that carved up the Ottoman Empire after WWI. Much of the chaos in the Middle East traces back to that clusterfuck.
I’m also going to have to go with the Moon Landing. Yes, there were a bunch of other things that led up to it, but then, that’s true of any event in history. And yes, it probably would have happened eventually one way or the other, but then, if Archduke Ferdinand hadn’t been assassinated, some other event was bound to set off the powderkeg, instead.
But anyone, anywhere in the world, can point up to the most prominent object in the night sky, and say “Humans have been there”.
The problem with the American moon landing is that it seems to have been a historical dead end. It’s the equivalent of the vikings going to America; it happened but it didn’t end up affecting history all that much.
I’m thinking maybe the Wuchang Uprising, which started on October 10, 1911. It led to the overthrow of China imperial regime and the creation of the Republic of China.
Or maybe the Battle of Tsushima Strait, on May 27, 1905. It was the first major battle in which a non-Western power decisively defeated a Western power and it pointed the way to a decline of European domination over global affairs.
Europe had been sitting on a powder-keg for decades, with irresponsible arseholes occasionally throwing lit matches at it. This one caught, but who’s to say that without this one incident they wouldn’t keep the fragile peace long enough to eventually cobble together something like the League of Nations? And then keep the peace to the point where war between 1st world nations was all but inconceivable? Who knows, but it’s a possibility Princip robbed us of.
Meanwhile it’s very nice that we’ve been to the moon, but that’s all.
I don’t think that we know yet.
If you’d asked people in 1519 what the most significant single event in the 1400’s was, how many of them do you think would have said ‘Columbus got lost in the Atlantic Ocean’?
I will go for the WWs of the 20th century, and I do agree with historians that do see WWI and WW2 as so related that they can be considered to be a single event.
Plus, we can point at Italy and laugh at it for changing sides 4 times during the big conflict. 