I guess it’s the world half full direction. The Nazi party is shown to be crumbling, there’s still decent people, and I have a soft spot for Ronald Reagan as a journalist.
Bonus Chapter: Historiography
Before I cover the highly anticipated (both in-universe and out) first days of John Nance Garner's Presidency, I want to explore a very important topic: historiography.

To me, historiography is a very underrated subject, because how we approach the events of the past is a very important thing. It reflects both our outlook, and how we treat the various events of our time.

OTL, historiography evolves, along with our outlook. Some of us explore so-called Great Men, others explore environmental shifts, others study economic and social transformations.

This chapter will be used to not only foreshadow future events, but explore how the world shaped by a victorious Nazis will shape the outlook of those who either live through the events, or read of them.

Anyways, here we go.

Excerpt from The Bloody Twenty: The Century of Death. Laurent Cabanda, 2008

From the moment Gavrilo Principe's bullet struck Archduke Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, to the conclusion of the North African War on March 10, 2001, the number of deaths caused by anthropogenic action was roughly equal to the population of the United States at the end of the century. Over 87 years, more people died unnecessary deaths then had been killed by Mongols or the Black Death combined over a period almost twice that long.

Multipedia.US [1]

The Net's Free Encyclopedia.

The Bloody Twenty

The Bloody Twenty: The Century of Death
(French: Le Vingt Sanglant: Le Siecle Du Mort) is a 2008 history book by Congolese historian Laurent Cabanda. In the book, Kebzado studies the numerous anthropogenic disasters (war, famines, manmade epidemics, and genocides) of the 20th century (1914-2001), and combines them into an era that saw excess death reach as high as 280 million people, with margins of error in the tens of millions.

In 2009, the English Language version received the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction.

Excerpt from 1900-2000: The Anti-Enlightenment. Dennis Peterson, 2012

There are numerous names for the 20th century. Americans have called it the American Century, for it was when America would emerge from the Cold War to become the most powerful nation on Earth, and its values would spread around the globe. Indians have called it the Indian Century, for it was when India rose from being an impoverished and oppressed colony to becoming the largest economy in the world. The Germans call it their century, for ultimately Germany was the pivotal nation of human events, for better and (more commonly) for worse.

But let's say we refer to the 20th century as the American Century. Supposedly, it was a period when American ideals (hard work, ingenuity, and equality) born from the Enlightenment would reign supreme, and when superstition and oppression were cast aside.

If the United States was the hero of this century, the villain of it, Nazi Germany, was perhaps a dark counterpart to those ideals. A twisted perversion of the Western values that America embodied.

Adolf Hitler, without context, would almost be a folk hero or at least of figure of great admiration. His childhood was one of abuse by a father, and coddling by a mother. He was rejected from a prestigious art school by ivory tower elites who saw little potential. He was made bitter by the pointless slaughter of World War I. With little more then rhetoric, he rallied millions around him. He was made a tool of elites who sought to use him, only for him to turn the tables on them. Paul von Hindenburg, the quintessential aristocrat, derided Hitler as a "bohemian corporal," but by his death, had been virtually sidelined by him.

Many of America's most famous political figures, often had similar backgrounds: humble men who overcame societal stations to achieve power. By the end of the century, a black man and a woman, two groups who were once marginalized in American society, would become president, breaking those social barriers. And more often then not, these figures worked to advance the human condition using these liberal principles, and innovations that resulted from them.

But Hitler was the opposite of these individuals. Despite being of modest background, he eschewed the liberal ideals that allowed an impoverished man like himself to come to power. Many of his various tools (the radio, machine guns) were products of the age of liberalism and Enlightenment that he abhorred. Using the products created in freedom, he would push humanity into depths of cruelty and madness that would make even Tamerlane himself sick to this stomach.

Even his most infamous weapon, Zyklon B, was invented by a Jew who without previous emancipation, would not have been allowed to innovate or prosper in German society.

Hitler and many other figures of the 20th century would use the products of Enlightenment and Progress to engage in the most savage and regressive acts humanity would ever know.

[1] TTL Wikipedia.
Last edited:
Well, with FDR out of the picture and Garner now being president, I think we all know who has the best shot at the Presidency in the 1936 election.

Last edited: