[ SECRET POST #6411 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6411 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 11 secrets from Secret Submission Post #916.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

07. https://i.imgur.com/Yqzleds.jpeg

[(Anonymous)]

well, one, murdering Hitler is more important than murdering Reagan, so jot that down, but also and more importantly, murdering Hitler butterflies away the Reagan administration anyway

[(Anonymous)]

Why it would nullify a Reagan presidency?

[(Anonymous)]

Because the entire political history of the United States would be totally different. The changes as a result of Hitler not taking power in 1933 and the US not being involved in a land war against a German fascist regime from 1941 to 1945 would be massive and would disrupt the entire timeline of history in the US, such that the context in which Ronald Reagan existed would be completely unrecognizably different.

Just for the most obvious surface-level example, Reagan won the presidency by beating Jimmy Carter; Carter won the presidency by taking advantage of anger at Richard Nixon and Watergate; Nixon became a presidential contender by serving as Dwight Eisenhower's vice president; Eisenhower became president as a result of being Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. So if there's no World War 2, what does that mean for Nixon's political career? What does that mean for the political climate of the US during the 1970s? What does that mean for Reagan?

And that's only the most surface-level element, there would be millions and billions of changes. Think of the massive disruptions of WWII on life on the home front and how big an impact the war and the immediate post-war transition had on American society. Think of how many individual Americans' lives were changed by serving in the war, or living through it. Think how different the whole pattern of international politics would be. It's a butterfly effect - you make one change, and then a whole host of other changes happen as a result of that which might be totally unpredictable.

It doesn't mean that conservatism would necessarily go away. But it *does* mean that Reagan and Reaganism would go away. Maybe the outcome would even be worse than Reagan! But it wouldn't be Reagan, not as he existed in our time-line.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi, I'm Jewish (and an amateur history buff). I'm not discounting anything you have to say, and I'm pleased so many people would like to murder Hitler, but the thing is that he didn't exist in a vacuum and people always, always treat him as the be-all end-all of the Holocaust. After the Treaty of Versailles, Germany ended up plunging into a depression with a disastrous Weimar Republic at the wheel, and people were absolutely blaming the Jews anyway.

There were plenty of disaffected ex-WWI soldiers and wannabe or actual politicians who dipped into the ~~mystical heroic German history~~ as their ideal. Jews were seen as an "Asiatic horde" (seriously!) and a malevolent, subhuman presence who were the collective reason things sucked for the average German. Remember: the Nazis were largely seen as a joke, even post-Beer Hall Putsch where they started getting attention - they wouldn't take power for another ten years, but even then a lot of people saw them as a bunch of crazy chucklefucks who wouldn't actually put those policies into law, because why would they or could they?

But they did. And people enthusiastically went along with it. Historically, when things get bad - and this isn't true just for European countries - things reach a boiling point against the Jews. The Crusades and the Plague, and the massacres surrounding them, are a big reason why Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just 330 people whose lines happened to survive to this day. I'd guess a few thousand in total were left after the dust settled, but of course not everyone would produce kids or have an unbroken line of descendants. That bit of history aside, conditions were ripe for a petty dictator or group of them to take power and for us us to become the collective scapegoat again, and I think that if it hadn't been Hitler, it would have been someone else. Maybe the industrialized murder machine wouldn't have existed, but we would have been cut down by the thousands at least.

Anyway. Killing Hitler = good. Killing Hitler = also really only symbolic.

[hey_hey_hey]

If baby Reagan was killed, who would have starred in Bedtime For Bonzo?

[(Anonymous)]

Ozzie Nelson

[akacat]

Why not both?

[(Anonymous)]

This is the way.

[(Anonymous)]

Because as the first comment points out, killing Hitler negates the need to kill Reagan. And in a lot of time travel media, killing Reagan first could disrupt the timeline enough to impact history making it impossible to kill Hitler. In other TT media, you can only make one trip. There are always Reasons™ it can only be Hitler and no one else at any other point in history.

[(Anonymous)]

Unless it doesn't. Time travel is not real and thus can work exactly how the author wants it to.

[(Anonymous)]

Would it necessarily negate the need to kill Reagan?

Without him, you would still have Mussolini and Italian fascism. You would still have Stalin and the Soviet Union, representing an existential threat to the West. You would still have ultranationalism in Japan, with a competitive Army and Navy that wanted to prove themselves on the battlefield. And, bringing it back to Germany, you still have a republic struggling under the debt of the Great War, with all the problems that led to the rise of a Hitler to begin with.

Should it maybe be a pre-WWI leader who's killed instead? And which one? Should we go back to the Franco-Prussian War? How can we know, for sure, that we've killed the thing at its true root?

[akacat]

Reagan probably would have still existed. He was already 30 when the US entered the war, so it’s unlikely that WWII had any major effect on his personality. (Though there’s a decent chance that WWII still happens, as you noted.) He’d probably still be an actor, and still meet the same sorts of people that helped him get into politics.

So getting rid of Hitler doesn’t get rid of Reagan.

[(Anonymous)]

It doesn't get rid of him, but the circumstances that led to him taking power and leading a rightward swing in the United States probably don't exist.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Well, I think the underlying argument is more that Hitler and the specific circumstances around WWII gave rise to the kind of political thought that drove Reagan's policy. Reagan the man would still exist, but I suspect they're trying to say that he'd be a different kind of president (I disagree, obviously).

[(Anonymous)]

First commenter - what I meant was that, if you killed Hitler, Reagan would never be president at all because the whole timeline would be so different.

Of course there's no way to tell what would butterfly up instead. That's butterflies for you.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I don't think that's necessarily the case. There's too many variables at play.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not impossible that Ronald Reagan would become president, but he wouldn't be particularly more likely than any other charismatic political figure of the time. More importantly the circumstances, meaning and effect of him becoming president would undoubtedly be entirely different.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I think the main issue I have with this is that, even if he doesn't become president in this particular timeline, I think you're overstating the impact that Hitler had on conservative ideology. The New Deal was not enacted because of Hitler. Great Society programs were not enacted because of Hitler. Communism did not develop because of Hitler. Fascism didn't even develop because of Hitler! There are so many other factors that went into the neocon movement; tying it to one man doesn't make sense.

[(Anonymous)]

No one is saying that conservatism wouldn't exist without Hitler.

[meadowphoenix]

i think i'd go with assassinating the czar who killed lenin's brother, and maybe trying to give queen sissi more political power (at the very least over her children)

[(Anonymous)]

The one you really need to kill is NANCY. Reagan was liberal-- at least enough to run the Screen Actor's Guild-- until he hooked up with her and met her genuinely scummy stepfather Loyal Edward Davis.

[(Anonymous)]

Running SAG didn’t stop him from being a McCarthyist stooge before he hooked up with Nancy.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm more like, "Everyone's out to kill Hitler. Why doesn't anyone try saving the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?" In my view, it makes more sense. Most people agree that WWII wouldn't have happened if WWI hadn't set everything up. Plus, you could make a case that nearly every major historical event of the 20th century can be traced directly or indirectly to WWI somehow.

After all, WWI was the final nail in the coffin for the Romanov family. The monarchy was going to collapse at some point, but without WWI, maybe it would have evolved into a constitutional monarchy ala Britain or at least, Nicholas and his family have a better shot at making an escape and aren't murdered in a basement in Siberia.

Whatever your opinion of the Soviet Union, you can't deny that if the 1918 revolution doesn't happen, the course of history is changed in incalculable ways.