[ SECRET POST #5410 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5410 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.
[DC's Legends of Tomorrow]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #774.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Inspired by 3: Your favorite historical villains or historical figures who were unfairly maligne

[(Anonymous)]

It's true that there was a large segment of the British public that didn't want war and that approved of appeasement at the time. But I don't think it's really much of a defense to offer for Chamberlain and Baldwin that they undertook a disastrous and failed policy for the sake of winning elections. If that really was why they did it, it was still a failed policy, and also they were political cowards.

And as a matter of policy, it really was a failure. It was a disastrous failure on every level. None of the explanations really make sense. If Britain was isolationist, it doesn't make sense why they would start making ultimatums and pledging themselves to go to war over central Europe. If Britain needed to buy time to rearm, it was the government who were responsible for - and failed at - the rearmament process in the first place. If the justification for appeasement is that avoiding another war was the most important thing, it clearly failed - it led directly to another war. We don't know if another policy would have succeeded. But we know that this policy certainly failed, and given what we know about international relations, it's hard to see how a policy of coalition-building and a stronger rearmament would have left Britain in a worse position even if it didn't avoid the war altogether.

This isn't something that only Churchill was saying, either. Duff Cooper and Eden resigned over appeasement of the continental dictators. Sinclair and Lloyd George and the non-government Liberals were harshly critical of appeasement and the problems with rearmament. And so were Labour (at least after 1935), who excoriated the government for not pursuing a policy of collective security and not being effective enough in rebuilding the military. So in fact, pretty much everyone outside of the Baldwin-Chamberlain government criticized the policy of appeasement and the failures of rearmament at the time.

Of course it's possible that the British public would have supported appeasement in an election - it's a counterfactual so we have no way of knowing, but it doesn't seem unlikely. But the fact is that we actually do know as a matter of fact that Baldwin's and Chamberlain's policy was wrong, and the critics were right. And that's still true regardless of how the electorate might have voted.

Also, the rhetoric coming out of Germany about Jewish people is pretty much at the same level as the rhetoric coming out of the UK regarding trans people, so when you invading Britain? Or do you not care and not want to care?

I don't think that the anti-semitism of the Third Reich was the only reason that the UK went to war against them, or even the primary reason; it was also their extremely belligerent aggressive expansionism. I think there's a general argument you can have about the merits of interventionism, and obviously practical considerations are important, but I think the argument for intervention is generally going to be stronger when a country is doing things like that.

Also, I condemn in the strongest possible terms the rampant transphobia in the UK. But I'm not really sure it's accurate, reasonable, or proportional to compare the UK's treatment of trans people to the status of Jews in Nazi Germany.