Pick your poison:


  • Total voters
    329
  • Poll closed .
My apologies for taking longer in this update, as I am busy with my College and work, alongside an annoying pain in the ear, I have barely found the time to write recently, I can only make the most progress on weekends. This chapter may not be as long as some of my other chapters such as Hatikvah, Machtkampf, and Gyokusai, but I will do my best to cover the Long Presidency between 1949 and 1953.

And here is the question, is it better to have peace abroad and prosperity at home? Or is it better to fight tyranny abroad? Is it acceptable to make great changes that benefit the people if the means are extremely dubious?
 
Depends on who you ask? Who benefits and who loses?
In a Long Presidency, large corporations such as the Standard Oil, military industries, interventionists, the Federal Reserve, banks, the Klan, Dixiecrats, and nations such as Russia, Britain, Free France, and China are the greatest losers.

On the other hand, the small businesses, farmers, urban and rural poor, populists, black minorities, progressives, retired, isolationists, and overall the average American citizen stands to gain the most from a Long Presidency.
 
In a Long Presidency, large corporations such as the Standard Oil, military industries, interventionists, the Federal Reserve, banks, the Klan, Dixiecrats, and nations such as Russia, Britain, Free France, and China are the greatest losers.

On the other hand, the small businesses, farmers, urban and rural poor, populists, black minorities, progressives, retired, isolationists, and overall the average American citizen stands to gain the most from a Long Presidency.
I say go with Long. After the war in the Pacific most Americans are not going to be interested in the world.
 
In a Long Presidency, large corporations such as the Standard Oil, military industries, interventionists, the Federal Reserve, banks, the Klan, Dixiecrats, and nations such as Russia, Britain, Free France, and China are the greatest losers.

On the other hand, the small businesses, farmers, urban and rural poor, populists, black minorities, progressives, retired, isolationists, and overall the average American citizen stands to gain the most from a Long Presidency.
So basically the average person will greatly benefit from the Long Presidency while people who wish for to use the government for more advantageous purposes will not. As long as Long doesn't make his passivity look weak to the American people and greatly show off his successful domestic policy, we should have a fine (if not perfect) Presidency.
 
So basically the average person will greatly benefit from the Long Presidency while people who wish for to use the government for more advantageous purposes will not. As long as Long doesn't make his passivity look weak to the American people and greatly show off his successful domestic policy, we should have a fine (if not perfect) Presidency.
Roosevelt and the Northern Democrats might not be particularly happy over this indifference on worldly affairs. Meanwhile, Germania is popping up champagne.

As for the Republicans... perhaps there is a place for interventionists to go.
 
Well, I guess it all depends on the means that Long would use to help the average American. Go too authoritarian and by the time his opponents can fight back, his movement will be crushed and not even his good achievements will save his legacy.
 
IMO people’s main reason for not liking Long ITTL is not going on some fools errand to help Free France retake the mainland, which would likely lead to a devastating war that wouldn’t necessarily be winnable.
 
IMO people’s main reason for not liking Long ITTL is not going on some fools errand to help Free France retake the mainland, which would likely lead to a devastating war that wouldn’t necessarily be winnable.
Well that’s if you don’t count some actions in his presidency that may be sticking to the wrong people depending on who you ask.
 
Germania better not choke on all that champagne they're drinking.
The power games are not over in the Reich, Hess is no Hitler, he is not a leader but a follower. Behind him there are three men, and like in the Rome of old, a Triumvirate rules over Europe, and like in the previous ones, there will only be one winner, one Caesar, one Augustus. If you want to know who wins, answer the question.

Where does the real power come from? Is it from the masses and charisma? Is it from money and influence? Or is it from terror and intrigue?
 
The power games are not over in the Reich, Hess is no Hitler, he is not a leader but a follower. Behind him there are three men, and like in the Rome of old, a Triumvirate rules over Europe, and like in the previous ones, there will only be one winner, one Caesar, one Augustus. If you want to know who wins, answer the question.

Where does the real power come from? Is it from the masses and charisma? Is it from money and influence? Or is it from terror and intrigue?
Regarding the fate of certain OTL figures, since The Iron Eagle has multiple divergences from OTL it's possible for some of them to be born in certain decades and may or may not follow the same career paths. Of course, some of them will be born under different circumstances because of how their parents met. As for the Reich it will probably fall and the rest of Europe will be trying to rebuild after the German Civil War much like the best paths for The New Order and Thousand-Week Reich.
 
Last edited:
As for the Reich it will probably fall and the rest of Europe will be trying to rebuild after the German Civil War much like the best paths for The New Order and Thousand-Week Reich.
I haven't played TNO for a long time but the "best" path is the gang of four it seems, so it's not all the same as TWR which sees the reich collapse, so it's all a question of "perspective" (sorry seeing your sentence I got caught up in writing that even though it's useless)
 
Top