[ 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

[(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.