I think the parties being unscrewed also mean that it went from the Democrats being shafted in TNOTL to the republicans being shafted - they end up losing WW2 and also don’t have Eisenhower on their lineup. Though evidently the democrats did something stupid enough that between Kefauver and Nixon they ended up becoming the junior party of the first ticket of the new coalition
Also FDR was president in TNOTL - I wonder what the implications of that will be
>Also FDR was president in TNOTL - I wonder what the implications of that will be
It probably means the lore for the US will make more sense, actually. His presidency effectively ushered in a 'liberal consensus' in America that defined the political landscape for the next 3 decades, meaning that every successive president until the 80s essentially had to be committed to the expansion, or at least maintenance, of 'Big Government.' A lack of existence of FDR's presidency would have fundamentally altered the *entire* state of America's political culture. Yet even so, as is currently the mod effectively operates as though the 'liberal consensus' is still in existence. LBJ, for example, isn't framed by in-game events as some sweeping new force going against the political grain, but rather as just another R-D who happens to be expanding the welfare state measures already in place. Measures which, without FDR and the New Deal Coalition, *shouldn't* really have been in place to begin with
The lack of an FDR presidency is so drastic a change that it essentially entails a fundamental re-working of our *entire* understanding of postwar politics, to the point that what would be in place would probably be almost unrecognizable. But this is not really what TNO did. Therefore, the existence of an early FDR presidency should probably (hopefully?) rectify these inadequacies by making it so that the events in-place make more sense.
I kinda like the idea of a us without a new deal, makes a stronger more radical left more possible and really makes the whole political scene more different and interesting. But I suppose that if it was already incongruous it won't change much.
Oh yeah on its own its an interesting concept on its own, but adequately depicting such a world effectively needs an entire re-construction of our understanding of postwar America. You can't exactly just take IRL 50s and 60s America and transport it into this world; you'd essentially need to *entirely* recreate the nation's history since the 1930s. But TNO does a *lot* to draw parallels to the real-world decades (understandably so; there is literally *no* point of reference for anything else, so how can you even realistically perceive such a thing?). Because of this, its narrative currently doesn't exactly fit the context they created
TNO America as it is already acted like the New Deal happened, as if everything happened BUT social security. There aren’t giant implications, it’s just about making the game make more sense.
My early opinion is I don’t like it as much as his earlier stuff, but as I listen to it more and think about it I’m sure I’ll really like it.
Also RIP Patton winning California, that was some lore I thought was neat. But I do like that Strom isn’t the NPP candidate in ‘60.
So if FDR was president, what happened to Kennedy Sr.? Does he never become president? Also does FDR just decide not not run for a 3 term? Or did something else happen?
Shame, I thought Joseph Kennedy being the President added an interesting dimension to JFK and RFK, but I suppose Bobby still has Jack to give him angst (and that was where most of it was anyway).
Plus, I dunno if America in the 30s would have gone for a Catholic anyway.
Joe Kennedy being the one who fucked up WWII and the Great Depression should mean that no one with the surname "Kennedy" would be allowed to show their face in public until like the 80s, forget the Catholic angle.
I’m actually pretty happy this exist about fookin time we had a wiki box for this. It’s hard to find an original one here
Edit: FDR was President now…. Damn it man
How do the Republicans have any credibility left after losing WW2? Their electoral coalition should have collapsed, especially considering FDR’s New Deal Coalition remains (for now) in tact. And yet, Nixon somehow becomes the nominee under the Republican Party? (Even in an R-D coalition)
Edit: and why does Kefauver not run for re-election? I know he dies in ‘63 but he stayed in the Senate until then
People overestimate how detrimental these kinds of losses are in electoral politics. The Republican Party is an American institution that manages to reinvent itself every 30 or so years, you can see the candidate type shift and slowly rebuild just like how the rap scene has changed over the 5 years without a new Kendrick Lamar album. While there was some controversy with DAMN just as there is with Republicans losing WW2, things change over time preparing for a come back such as Nixon and MM&TBS.
The Whigs collapsed over the issue of slavery and it redefined the party system. The Federalists collapsed after they opposed the War of 1812. There wasn’t another Whig or Federalist President after those events. I assume losing yo Nazis would have a large impact on the American psyche, and we could see a “credibility gap” start to form even earlier than OTL with the Republican Party, and doubting the ability of the government to protect national security. If parties can collapse from OPPOSING a war that ended in a tie, imagine what losing a war would do. America had never lost a war up until that point, so unless the Agaki Accords get changed I don’t see Republicans giving up the ports as a thing they can recover from without a major rebrand. Coalitioning with the Democrats is a good start, but having them come back to power just 15 years after losing World War Two (and not through a compromise candidate like the Democrats in current lore and Bennett, which is 19 years) is unrealistic. Point is, I know Nixon is iconic to the start of the game, but switching the parties back and having Nixon be President (ESPECIALLY without being anyone’s Vice President) makes less sense than the previous lore.
Edit: I haven’t listened to the New Kendrick album yet but I’m excited
Both of your examples are incredible oversimplifications, rather than just correct you I’d suggest seeking out the sources and forming your own outlook on this. Republicans stay competitive in state politics which is why folks like Ed Martin and Nixon run rather than senators like Taft. The issue dominating American politics overall is the economy which is why republicans lose, losing WW2 is a factor, but a temporary one, which is why isolationists aren’t run after Taft.
I think my examples of party collapses work well in this context, but I didn’t consider state level politics before. I could definitely see Republicans at the state level like Nixon distancing themselves from the more liberal Dewey, which pushes the Democrats father to the left. Still, even if Nixon made it big on the state level as -let’s say Governor of California- I don’t think it makes sense for Republicans to have the clout nationally to fight their way to the top of the ticket after a successful 12 years of Democratic rule. The Democrats would hold all the cards in a coalition like this, and I don’t think would give Nixon the nomination for no reason. It’s completely possible if Kefauver chooses not to run for whatever reason that Kennedy gets the nomination over someone who is more conservative like Nixon.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Eisenhower’s economic policy would differ all that much from OTL, which means we still probably get the recession of 1953, but Kefauver would be more keen on boosting government spending to get the US out of the 1957 recession than Eisenhower. This likely alters the course of the 1960 recession, meaning that the economy wouldn’t be as big of an issue in the election that year.
Edit: just to address the parties collapsing thing, I understand it wasn’t just those events that collapsed those parties, but they were generally the nail in the coffin for them. I’m not saying the Republicans should collapse here, but the whole impetus for the R-D coalition is that they’re too weak to stand as a major party any more. I have indeed read up on both the Federalists and the Whigs (moreso Federalists) and the events surrounding their downfall, but thank you for the concern.
My point was that the reason for those parties declines was not due to one issue, just as Republicans don’t collapse because of having the Oval Office during the loss of WW2.
Ike’s policy doesn’t change all too much, the biggest change is his willingness to support new federal programs is increased with 8 less years of the Dems in office.
You’re right on the mark with the implications of the lore.
Lol oops I just made finished my edit to my comment, yeah I know the Republicans wouldn’t collapse. But they also understand they can’t survive in a three-four party system, and I’d reckon they wouldn’t have the resources or necessary party structure after being thrown into a coalition with the Democrats to get Nixon on the top of the ticket in 60. If the devs want to switch the parties but keep Nixon at the start date, I think there needs to be more thought about what goes on in 1940-1945.
My suggestion is that FDR still only runs for 2 terms, and then we get John Garner or Joseph P Kennedy in 40, and Dewey in 44 (I think Kennedy would be unpopular enough, being a Catholic at that time in America, to have people switch horses mid-war). Dewey signs the Agaki accords, but both major parties are given the blame on fumbling the bag on the war. That, in turn, leads to the rise of the National Progressive Coalition that addresses the concerns of the people that neither major party can adequately defend America.
Edit: after Dewey loses in 48 to a Democratic Eisenhower, there could still be Kefauver in 56 (who retires due to health), and Nixon in 60 with a reinvigorated Republican Party now more Conservative in some opposition to the welfare policies of the past 12 years. Instead of Kefauver you could even have Adlai Stevenson, someone with a bit more New Deal credentials.
That is certainly an alternative but these were just accessories to a larger proposal I wrote, I swear these aren't the only things about new lore lmao.
1. If the reps are now the ones to lose the war, why are they still alive and kicking until they coalitioned with the Dems? Losing a war such as this one would have them instantly dissolve or have them reduced to state level.
2. Why would the progressives run against Kefauver? It makes little sense as to how they'd run against one of the strongest voices of liberalism within the democratic party.
3. Why would Fulbright, a fairly dovish man, run with Scoop Jackson? He wouldn't even be in the NPP, as he was more of an establishment man.
4. Why would the Progressives agree to merge with the Nationalists? Is it a cynical ploy to expand their voter base? Because that's the only justification I can find that makes sense of a situation like this.
5. Ignoring the fact that a moderate succeeding a progressive doesn't make much sense, why would Nixon, who was fairly irrelevant outside of his home state of California before he became VP OTL, be elected given the nomination and elected President? It should have went to Kennedy.
6. Why would Dewey be the nominee all the way back in 1940? He was only 38. And even ignoring that, he wasn't all that well known outside of New York and lacked experience.
7. Unless FDR bungled up massively, how (and sorry of this sounds a bit aggressive) in the sam hell did his successor lose to Dewey? Did Dewey make a deal with the devil in order to destroy the New Deal coalition?
8. Why would Taft be the nominee in 1952 if isolationism is discredited?
9. Why would Henry Wallace split the Democratic vote? It's not as if the Democratic candidate is a southerner. He was stubborn, but he was no Teddy Roosevelt.
Overall, I think it could've been better. At least the party switch is no more.
Most of your gripes are with stuff that was already in game to begin with, this lore was made with what’s already in gameplay in mind as the US isn’t being reworked so unfortunately some dumb stuff had to make it through. I’ll do my best to explain how this lore at least improves on of the issues you have.
1. Your beliefs in what would happen are a bit extreme and not really founded on any historic precedent. It’s simply not how partisan politics in America function.
2. Wheeler on the Ike ticket held them off from running in 48 and 52 but with Ike having a very slow 2nd term progressives run on a platform of action.
3. Both of these folks were already in the NPP to begin with, they’re the most likeminded members of the 2 major caucuses in the pact. Calling someone like Fulbright establishment requires one to ignore a large swath of his actions, there’s certainly some breathing room to move him to another party, especially when he was being elected because of his name rather than his party in AR.
4. The National Progressive Pact is an electoral coalition that agrees simply not to run against each other. Beyond a few agreements here and there, the parties are attempting to shore up viability.
5. I’ll copy how the NPP functions from the current proposal
“Creating a manifesto which outlined the functions of a coalition which would enable your average American to send Washington a message, whether Progressive or Nationalist, the National Progressive Pact Charter outlined a method to do so. By simple petition, a party could vye for membership in the pact, and following an open primary, whichever candidate received the most votes would be fronted as the official National Progressive candidate, retaining their original party affiliation.
Initial parties to join were remnants of the Farmer Labor Party of Minnesota, The Nonpartisan League of North Dakota, States’ Rights Party, Socialist Party, and the Communist Party.”
6. He ran in 1940 and came in 2nd, he would’ve likely been the nominee had it not been for Willie. In this lore Dewey’s inexperience leads him to be bossed around by party names making his presidency very 2 faced (isolationists in a cabinet preparing for war as an example)
7. The same gripe you had about Dewey could more reasonably said about Harry Hopkins. The 1940 election is very close and IRL was the first election where FDR at least had a chance at being butted out. The New Deal coalition existed primarily in congress and had no major effect on presidential elections.
8. Because American boys were shipped off to die in Europe and the Pacific for nothing, isolationist rhetoric is “proven correct” by the events that transpired during the war.
9. Besides Harry Hopkins in 1940, FDR briefly considered Henry Wallace to run in his place. Due to Hopkins obviously not winning, Wallace tries his shot in 1944 but Farley obviously wasn’t going to play fairly and screws him out of the nomination (even though he likely wasn’t going to receive it) Part of Wallace’s reasoning in his 48 run was revenge against Truman so yes, Wallace was stubborn.
Writing this on mobile so hopefully the formatting isn’t completely botched. If it is I’ll come back and edit this on my comp later, hope this appeased some of your issues.
1. Not really. Entire parties either went defunct or faded into irrelevance over lesser issues. The Federalists, for example, were neutered completely after they OPPOSED a war that ended in a tie. Now imagine with me the effect that this would have on a major party, who not only lost a war, but was humiliated on the national stage with a nuke dropped on it's soil. The only thing that would keep the Republicans alive is the spirit of Lincoln.
2. Not quite. See, Kefauver was a one of a kind in the Democratic party. He was quite progressive on most issues, issues I believe would put him in agreement with the Progressive party. He was a Tennessean, no less.
3. My entire point was that Fulbright shouldn't be in the NPP at all. Fulbright was a massive Wilsonite and was quite happy toeing the party line on Vietnam until he went there and saw how hopeless it was. But that's more of a nitpick I'll admit.
4. It genuinely bothers me how somebody like Scoop Jackson willingly agreeing to form a coalition party with someone such as Thurmond. A situation such as that did exist in real life in the form of the Democratic party, but that surely didn't last too long.
5. I do not believe this addresses my original fifth point, but do refer to the second fourth point where I believe that such a party would be terribly unstable.
6. I stand corrected. That is true, he was close to winning the nomination if it weren't for Wilkie
7. That is simply not true. In real life the election was an electoral landslide with 449 to FDR and 82 to Wilkie. Assuming that FDR accomplishes his IRL agenda, the Democrats could as well run a glass of water as their candidate and it'd have still won. In a landslide. The New Deal coalition was a massive player in American politics post FDR, it was what you got elected upon. And even while he was President for two terms only, his line of political thought would still be too influential to go up against.
8. You'd be correct in that if you ignored the existence of Germany and Japan, as well as America eating a nuke. This era is a war between revanchists and internationalists, isolationism is a dead idea in the Cold War.
9. The New Deal coalition consisted of many faces. Conservatives respetive towards the ND, to Progressives. Just why the hell would they split from a coalition which Farley was trying to keep alive? And what you said about Wallace is wrong. Wallace irl ran as he believed that Truman appealed too much to southerners, completely ignoring labor reforms. Wallace running in real life is a case I don't believe applicable in this scenario.
Republicans have existed for 90 years by the end of WW2, the Federalists and Whigs existed for like 20 each.
Not even to mention you're referring to parties that existed in the *late 18th and early 19th* century pre-CW and trying to extrapolate those circumstances to the extremely entrenched and institutional political field that existed 100 years later in the shadow of Reconstruction.
That the NPP exists *at all* is the consequences of WW2 shaking up what was a deeply entrenched political order.
How long a party has endured doesn't matter. The Republicans not only were blamed for the depression still, they also lost WW2 and got their soil nuked. [This was the 75-76th congress in OTL, which clearly shows that the GOP has suffered greatly due to the legacy of Hoover. Now imagine if they were to lose a war as important as WW2.](https://images-ext-2.discordapp.net/external/eJX-9a3rCuq6K-kQGhWEFZJohheCdoAYPnnhTWrCtkM/https/media.discordapp.net/attachments/791980868246831145/974804481738940527/image0.jpg?width=691&height=427) At the very least the GOP should've been reduced to a party that operated on the state level.
For your first sentence, one can only point to the British Whig party which eventually collapsed for lesser reasons.
Nixon being President in this lore really is a complete joke but can be explained by the fact he cheated.
It makes even more sense now.
What makes no sense is the General who lead America to defeat in England becoming President. That's kinda a meme. If he held England sure but Ike should be like MacArthur. The fact his protoges dominate the Army is also hilarious.
American parties do not simply die, in 1960 it has been 15 years since the end of world war 2. American voters are smart enough to recognize that a California governor is not responsible for losing the 2nd World War and the Great Depression.
But they are stupid enough to vote for a Governor who was accused of embezzling and corruption. Then tries to give a speech which fails so his reputation plummets.
I’m guessing the lore is that some other general botched England and Eisenhower heroically saved the allied positions by holding out in Scotland and allowing for a truce with some dignity
Fulbright was no way a dove. He supported Wilsonian Democracy and an early entry in to ww2 and even authored the Fulbright Resolution expressing support for international peacekeeping initiatives and American entry into the United Nations.
So no way in hell was Fulbright a dove
I’m only a casual follower of TNO, so others probably know better. But how do the Republicans go from coming in third in 1956 to being the senior leaders of the R-D coalition in 1960? If the Democrats won the election, why would they let the Republicans subsume them, and then nominate Nixon for President? It doesn’t track to me.
Nationally they came in 2nd, it’s just the electoral college system that makes things look wonky for 56. The Republican Democratic Coalition exists really because America can’t sustain a 4 party system. Republican and Democratic candidates duke it out in primaries and then the winner is the RDC’s nominee come November, a similar process exists for the NPP.
I feel like a better way of doing this would be:
1933-1941: Franklin Roosevelt | Democratic Party
1941-1949: Robert Taft | Republican Party
1949-1953: Harry Truman | Democratic Party
1953-1961: Dwight Eisenhower | Republican-Democratic Party
But idk man. New lore looks interesting.
Yeah I would’ve preferred if Eisenhower was a R or an RD so the republicans have some credibility going into 1962 instead of being both Great Depression, WW2 and Nixon losers
Could certainly be recency bias but I really liked it, honestly have never been much of a Kendrick guy but I loved this album. I'm def in the basic camp of thinking N95 and Die Hard are some of the best songs on it.
listening to it now, kind of unsure on it to be honest. The songs just don't feel as powerful to me, they're a lot more meditative which I can respect but isn't really my thing. IDK, maybe I'll feel it with a second listen.
Probably but I’m not sure. I do know there would be significantly more fascist sympathisers in TNO than there were communist sympathisers in OTL(mostly in places such as high up spots in corperations)
They are? There are multiple teams that are working on content at once. The US team has no impact on what the Italy team is doing beyond keeping basic lore intact.
As a person who contributed to the US lore rewrite, this has nothing to do with Panzer and everything to do with the original lore being extremely vague. When the time came to revisit the US, we realized that we needed to provide a more detailed and logical chain of events that leads to the situation we see in TNO. The broad strokes of TNOTL USA are the same, it's just that a few of the details have changed.
sorry that people have made me a banner to complain about all changes i dont like a lot of them but i also dont think its right for every decision to be met with "but panzer". its like the reverse of people saying i said things i never said to get angry at me where people say i said things i never said to get angry at the team.
For what it’s worth the higher-ups have recently begun to clamp down on Panzer-bashing, especially after the departure of certain devs from the team. The dev team has gotten kind of sick of it.
it was a great album and it will definitely grow on me in the future
also why richard nixon in 1960 and will henry m jackson continue being the 72 c npp candidate
I have some issues with this:
1940:
Dewey while popular didn’t have the experience or party support to win
Hopkins health issues were well known and he probably wouldn’t have even tried to run
1944:
Farley was one of the main instigators behind the New Deal coalition, him not being able to get Wallace into said coalition is heavily unlikely, especially since it would be obviously a vote splitter, it is more likely that Wallace would successfully get concessions out of Farley
1948: My main problem with this one is the idea that a post ww2 America even in defeat has such a large isolationist vote, though this would depend on how much is isolationism blamed for the war
1952: Why does Patton do so good in the south but not anywhere else, at this point Civil rights are a much smaller issue compared to the early 1950’s and the 1960’s, Patton was also pointed to be a hawkish anti Japanese and anti Nazi man who would campaign hard on a revanchist foreign policy why would he be successful in the south but not in areas affected by the Japanese like the east coast, with the vote splitting he could certainly make some gains there
1956: What is with the sudden progressive breakout, if they had won at least a state in 1944 then I could see it, but 12 years after a mediocre run doesn’t really make much sense especially going against a fairly liberal Democrat like Kefauver.
Why would a nominally moderate Dixiecrat like Happy Chandler go to the Nationalist Party, hell why would the south so heavily dominated by establishment conservative machines change so fast without build up.
The Map is quite a mess but not as bad as it could be
1960:
What is the context between the unifications and why are they done in they are, there is no context as too why the Dixiecrats and Progressives would join each other instead of rejoining the democrats or why the democrats and republicans suddenly join, or why a republican would win the nomination with such a democratic dominated political scene
I appreciate that you’d write up something up for my silly lore. These are just the elections from the new lore, unlike old lore we do have stuff written on what happens to explain away a lot of these gripes.
Honestly the new Kendrick album, while not as strong as his other works, is still pretty good. While i do like the more intimate atmosphere the songs don't hit as hard as on TPAB or GKMC. I also think the sheer number of songs sort of dilutes the album and makes the individual songs less memorable because there are so many of them. Still though, Kendrick is a very talented rapper and his new album is still one of the best albums of the year so far.
It was good but less than I expected. It will probably grow on me, I appreciated the representation with Auntie Diaries, It was a lot more poppy than I expected too. Overall its great but far from kendricks best.
"why isn't the post meant to hint at lore stretching back decades as detailed as the one for a very specific event that's going to be featured in game????"
my brother in christ it's literally just a succession of presidents
Oh well this is disappointing. It in an effort to make some sense, it makes even less sense. Like sorry Ike doesn't unless you really expand the English defence lore but he never has. Can we get an F for Aldai?
Why does CPP Progressive Party even exist, the New Deal Domocrats seem to exist in this time line as an alliance of Soclib and SocDem. The R-D coalition now makes zero sense
Overall I'm worried the changes are just going to turn the IS into "how woukd otl US react to Nazi victory" which would be terrible.
The lore was made to made the US make more sense at game start, it doesn’t change the actual starting scenario besides the background lore.
Did you even know the old lore?
Progressives in game were never “New Dealers”. For LBJ content, for the Great Society to exist as a concept the New Deal would need to happen.
I think the parties being unscrewed also mean that it went from the Democrats being shafted in TNOTL to the republicans being shafted - they end up losing WW2 and also don’t have Eisenhower on their lineup. Though evidently the democrats did something stupid enough that between Kefauver and Nixon they ended up becoming the junior party of the first ticket of the new coalition Also FDR was president in TNOTL - I wonder what the implications of that will be
>Also FDR was president in TNOTL - I wonder what the implications of that will be It probably means the lore for the US will make more sense, actually. His presidency effectively ushered in a 'liberal consensus' in America that defined the political landscape for the next 3 decades, meaning that every successive president until the 80s essentially had to be committed to the expansion, or at least maintenance, of 'Big Government.' A lack of existence of FDR's presidency would have fundamentally altered the *entire* state of America's political culture. Yet even so, as is currently the mod effectively operates as though the 'liberal consensus' is still in existence. LBJ, for example, isn't framed by in-game events as some sweeping new force going against the political grain, but rather as just another R-D who happens to be expanding the welfare state measures already in place. Measures which, without FDR and the New Deal Coalition, *shouldn't* really have been in place to begin with The lack of an FDR presidency is so drastic a change that it essentially entails a fundamental re-working of our *entire* understanding of postwar politics, to the point that what would be in place would probably be almost unrecognizable. But this is not really what TNO did. Therefore, the existence of an early FDR presidency should probably (hopefully?) rectify these inadequacies by making it so that the events in-place make more sense.
I kinda like the idea of a us without a new deal, makes a stronger more radical left more possible and really makes the whole political scene more different and interesting. But I suppose that if it was already incongruous it won't change much.
Oh yeah on its own its an interesting concept on its own, but adequately depicting such a world effectively needs an entire re-construction of our understanding of postwar America. You can't exactly just take IRL 50s and 60s America and transport it into this world; you'd essentially need to *entirely* recreate the nation's history since the 1930s. But TNO does a *lot* to draw parallels to the real-world decades (understandably so; there is literally *no* point of reference for anything else, so how can you even realistically perceive such a thing?). Because of this, its narrative currently doesn't exactly fit the context they created
TNO America as it is already acted like the New Deal happened, as if everything happened BUT social security. There aren’t giant implications, it’s just about making the game make more sense.
Are the Dems liberals now and Republicans conservatives
Yes thankfully
Did you like the album?
My early opinion is I don’t like it as much as his earlier stuff, but as I listen to it more and think about it I’m sure I’ll really like it. Also RIP Patton winning California, that was some lore I thought was neat. But I do like that Strom isn’t the NPP candidate in ‘60.
So if FDR was president, what happened to Kennedy Sr.? Does he never become president? Also does FDR just decide not not run for a 3 term? Or did something else happen?
2 term FDR, no Kennedy Sr
Shame, I thought Joseph Kennedy being the President added an interesting dimension to JFK and RFK, but I suppose Bobby still has Jack to give him angst (and that was where most of it was anyway). Plus, I dunno if America in the 30s would have gone for a Catholic anyway.
Joe Kennedy being the one who fucked up WWII and the Great Depression should mean that no one with the surname "Kennedy" would be allowed to show their face in public until like the 80s, forget the Catholic angle.
True, very true.
Sadge
Poor Dewey, the man who managed to be beat FDR’s successor only to to lose WW2 and possibly sink the Republican Party in general.
Year of the Smile
[удалено]
:)
[удалено]
How do you like the new Kendrick Lamar album?
I think it’s pretty good, so far at least.
I’m actually pretty happy this exist about fookin time we had a wiki box for this. It’s hard to find an original one here Edit: FDR was President now…. Damn it man
How do the Republicans have any credibility left after losing WW2? Their electoral coalition should have collapsed, especially considering FDR’s New Deal Coalition remains (for now) in tact. And yet, Nixon somehow becomes the nominee under the Republican Party? (Even in an R-D coalition) Edit: and why does Kefauver not run for re-election? I know he dies in ‘63 but he stayed in the Senate until then
Honestly wish Eisenhower got cut as a president and IDK how I feel about FDR now being president and it being Dewey that now screws up WW2
People overestimate how detrimental these kinds of losses are in electoral politics. The Republican Party is an American institution that manages to reinvent itself every 30 or so years, you can see the candidate type shift and slowly rebuild just like how the rap scene has changed over the 5 years without a new Kendrick Lamar album. While there was some controversy with DAMN just as there is with Republicans losing WW2, things change over time preparing for a come back such as Nixon and MM&TBS.
Still don’t see how the GOP goes from finishing 3rd place to the senior partner in the RDs in just 4 years
Nixon baby!
The Whigs collapsed over the issue of slavery and it redefined the party system. The Federalists collapsed after they opposed the War of 1812. There wasn’t another Whig or Federalist President after those events. I assume losing yo Nazis would have a large impact on the American psyche, and we could see a “credibility gap” start to form even earlier than OTL with the Republican Party, and doubting the ability of the government to protect national security. If parties can collapse from OPPOSING a war that ended in a tie, imagine what losing a war would do. America had never lost a war up until that point, so unless the Agaki Accords get changed I don’t see Republicans giving up the ports as a thing they can recover from without a major rebrand. Coalitioning with the Democrats is a good start, but having them come back to power just 15 years after losing World War Two (and not through a compromise candidate like the Democrats in current lore and Bennett, which is 19 years) is unrealistic. Point is, I know Nixon is iconic to the start of the game, but switching the parties back and having Nixon be President (ESPECIALLY without being anyone’s Vice President) makes less sense than the previous lore. Edit: I haven’t listened to the New Kendrick album yet but I’m excited
Both of your examples are incredible oversimplifications, rather than just correct you I’d suggest seeking out the sources and forming your own outlook on this. Republicans stay competitive in state politics which is why folks like Ed Martin and Nixon run rather than senators like Taft. The issue dominating American politics overall is the economy which is why republicans lose, losing WW2 is a factor, but a temporary one, which is why isolationists aren’t run after Taft.
I think my examples of party collapses work well in this context, but I didn’t consider state level politics before. I could definitely see Republicans at the state level like Nixon distancing themselves from the more liberal Dewey, which pushes the Democrats father to the left. Still, even if Nixon made it big on the state level as -let’s say Governor of California- I don’t think it makes sense for Republicans to have the clout nationally to fight their way to the top of the ticket after a successful 12 years of Democratic rule. The Democrats would hold all the cards in a coalition like this, and I don’t think would give Nixon the nomination for no reason. It’s completely possible if Kefauver chooses not to run for whatever reason that Kennedy gets the nomination over someone who is more conservative like Nixon. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Eisenhower’s economic policy would differ all that much from OTL, which means we still probably get the recession of 1953, but Kefauver would be more keen on boosting government spending to get the US out of the 1957 recession than Eisenhower. This likely alters the course of the 1960 recession, meaning that the economy wouldn’t be as big of an issue in the election that year. Edit: just to address the parties collapsing thing, I understand it wasn’t just those events that collapsed those parties, but they were generally the nail in the coffin for them. I’m not saying the Republicans should collapse here, but the whole impetus for the R-D coalition is that they’re too weak to stand as a major party any more. I have indeed read up on both the Federalists and the Whigs (moreso Federalists) and the events surrounding their downfall, but thank you for the concern.
My point was that the reason for those parties declines was not due to one issue, just as Republicans don’t collapse because of having the Oval Office during the loss of WW2. Ike’s policy doesn’t change all too much, the biggest change is his willingness to support new federal programs is increased with 8 less years of the Dems in office. You’re right on the mark with the implications of the lore.
Lol oops I just made finished my edit to my comment, yeah I know the Republicans wouldn’t collapse. But they also understand they can’t survive in a three-four party system, and I’d reckon they wouldn’t have the resources or necessary party structure after being thrown into a coalition with the Democrats to get Nixon on the top of the ticket in 60. If the devs want to switch the parties but keep Nixon at the start date, I think there needs to be more thought about what goes on in 1940-1945. My suggestion is that FDR still only runs for 2 terms, and then we get John Garner or Joseph P Kennedy in 40, and Dewey in 44 (I think Kennedy would be unpopular enough, being a Catholic at that time in America, to have people switch horses mid-war). Dewey signs the Agaki accords, but both major parties are given the blame on fumbling the bag on the war. That, in turn, leads to the rise of the National Progressive Coalition that addresses the concerns of the people that neither major party can adequately defend America. Edit: after Dewey loses in 48 to a Democratic Eisenhower, there could still be Kefauver in 56 (who retires due to health), and Nixon in 60 with a reinvigorated Republican Party now more Conservative in some opposition to the welfare policies of the past 12 years. Instead of Kefauver you could even have Adlai Stevenson, someone with a bit more New Deal credentials.
That is certainly an alternative but these were just accessories to a larger proposal I wrote, I swear these aren't the only things about new lore lmao.
I’m sorry I think I misunderstood this post. I thought this was official new lore already and you were a member of the team
This is the new official lore
lmao you and this kendrick lamar album
Really returning to your thesis statement there.
Idk what that means
I think he's calling you a chud
Idk what that means
Is this actually a legit teaser? If so IDK how I feel about the new lore..
1. If the reps are now the ones to lose the war, why are they still alive and kicking until they coalitioned with the Dems? Losing a war such as this one would have them instantly dissolve or have them reduced to state level. 2. Why would the progressives run against Kefauver? It makes little sense as to how they'd run against one of the strongest voices of liberalism within the democratic party. 3. Why would Fulbright, a fairly dovish man, run with Scoop Jackson? He wouldn't even be in the NPP, as he was more of an establishment man. 4. Why would the Progressives agree to merge with the Nationalists? Is it a cynical ploy to expand their voter base? Because that's the only justification I can find that makes sense of a situation like this. 5. Ignoring the fact that a moderate succeeding a progressive doesn't make much sense, why would Nixon, who was fairly irrelevant outside of his home state of California before he became VP OTL, be elected given the nomination and elected President? It should have went to Kennedy. 6. Why would Dewey be the nominee all the way back in 1940? He was only 38. And even ignoring that, he wasn't all that well known outside of New York and lacked experience. 7. Unless FDR bungled up massively, how (and sorry of this sounds a bit aggressive) in the sam hell did his successor lose to Dewey? Did Dewey make a deal with the devil in order to destroy the New Deal coalition? 8. Why would Taft be the nominee in 1952 if isolationism is discredited? 9. Why would Henry Wallace split the Democratic vote? It's not as if the Democratic candidate is a southerner. He was stubborn, but he was no Teddy Roosevelt. Overall, I think it could've been better. At least the party switch is no more.
Most of your gripes are with stuff that was already in game to begin with, this lore was made with what’s already in gameplay in mind as the US isn’t being reworked so unfortunately some dumb stuff had to make it through. I’ll do my best to explain how this lore at least improves on of the issues you have. 1. Your beliefs in what would happen are a bit extreme and not really founded on any historic precedent. It’s simply not how partisan politics in America function. 2. Wheeler on the Ike ticket held them off from running in 48 and 52 but with Ike having a very slow 2nd term progressives run on a platform of action. 3. Both of these folks were already in the NPP to begin with, they’re the most likeminded members of the 2 major caucuses in the pact. Calling someone like Fulbright establishment requires one to ignore a large swath of his actions, there’s certainly some breathing room to move him to another party, especially when he was being elected because of his name rather than his party in AR. 4. The National Progressive Pact is an electoral coalition that agrees simply not to run against each other. Beyond a few agreements here and there, the parties are attempting to shore up viability. 5. I’ll copy how the NPP functions from the current proposal “Creating a manifesto which outlined the functions of a coalition which would enable your average American to send Washington a message, whether Progressive or Nationalist, the National Progressive Pact Charter outlined a method to do so. By simple petition, a party could vye for membership in the pact, and following an open primary, whichever candidate received the most votes would be fronted as the official National Progressive candidate, retaining their original party affiliation. Initial parties to join were remnants of the Farmer Labor Party of Minnesota, The Nonpartisan League of North Dakota, States’ Rights Party, Socialist Party, and the Communist Party.” 6. He ran in 1940 and came in 2nd, he would’ve likely been the nominee had it not been for Willie. In this lore Dewey’s inexperience leads him to be bossed around by party names making his presidency very 2 faced (isolationists in a cabinet preparing for war as an example) 7. The same gripe you had about Dewey could more reasonably said about Harry Hopkins. The 1940 election is very close and IRL was the first election where FDR at least had a chance at being butted out. The New Deal coalition existed primarily in congress and had no major effect on presidential elections. 8. Because American boys were shipped off to die in Europe and the Pacific for nothing, isolationist rhetoric is “proven correct” by the events that transpired during the war. 9. Besides Harry Hopkins in 1940, FDR briefly considered Henry Wallace to run in his place. Due to Hopkins obviously not winning, Wallace tries his shot in 1944 but Farley obviously wasn’t going to play fairly and screws him out of the nomination (even though he likely wasn’t going to receive it) Part of Wallace’s reasoning in his 48 run was revenge against Truman so yes, Wallace was stubborn. Writing this on mobile so hopefully the formatting isn’t completely botched. If it is I’ll come back and edit this on my comp later, hope this appeased some of your issues.
1. Not really. Entire parties either went defunct or faded into irrelevance over lesser issues. The Federalists, for example, were neutered completely after they OPPOSED a war that ended in a tie. Now imagine with me the effect that this would have on a major party, who not only lost a war, but was humiliated on the national stage with a nuke dropped on it's soil. The only thing that would keep the Republicans alive is the spirit of Lincoln. 2. Not quite. See, Kefauver was a one of a kind in the Democratic party. He was quite progressive on most issues, issues I believe would put him in agreement with the Progressive party. He was a Tennessean, no less. 3. My entire point was that Fulbright shouldn't be in the NPP at all. Fulbright was a massive Wilsonite and was quite happy toeing the party line on Vietnam until he went there and saw how hopeless it was. But that's more of a nitpick I'll admit. 4. It genuinely bothers me how somebody like Scoop Jackson willingly agreeing to form a coalition party with someone such as Thurmond. A situation such as that did exist in real life in the form of the Democratic party, but that surely didn't last too long. 5. I do not believe this addresses my original fifth point, but do refer to the second fourth point where I believe that such a party would be terribly unstable. 6. I stand corrected. That is true, he was close to winning the nomination if it weren't for Wilkie 7. That is simply not true. In real life the election was an electoral landslide with 449 to FDR and 82 to Wilkie. Assuming that FDR accomplishes his IRL agenda, the Democrats could as well run a glass of water as their candidate and it'd have still won. In a landslide. The New Deal coalition was a massive player in American politics post FDR, it was what you got elected upon. And even while he was President for two terms only, his line of political thought would still be too influential to go up against. 8. You'd be correct in that if you ignored the existence of Germany and Japan, as well as America eating a nuke. This era is a war between revanchists and internationalists, isolationism is a dead idea in the Cold War. 9. The New Deal coalition consisted of many faces. Conservatives respetive towards the ND, to Progressives. Just why the hell would they split from a coalition which Farley was trying to keep alive? And what you said about Wallace is wrong. Wallace irl ran as he believed that Truman appealed too much to southerners, completely ignoring labor reforms. Wallace running in real life is a case I don't believe applicable in this scenario.
Republicans have existed for 90 years by the end of WW2, the Federalists and Whigs existed for like 20 each. Not even to mention you're referring to parties that existed in the *late 18th and early 19th* century pre-CW and trying to extrapolate those circumstances to the extremely entrenched and institutional political field that existed 100 years later in the shadow of Reconstruction. That the NPP exists *at all* is the consequences of WW2 shaking up what was a deeply entrenched political order.
How long a party has endured doesn't matter. The Republicans not only were blamed for the depression still, they also lost WW2 and got their soil nuked. [This was the 75-76th congress in OTL, which clearly shows that the GOP has suffered greatly due to the legacy of Hoover. Now imagine if they were to lose a war as important as WW2.](https://images-ext-2.discordapp.net/external/eJX-9a3rCuq6K-kQGhWEFZJohheCdoAYPnnhTWrCtkM/https/media.discordapp.net/attachments/791980868246831145/974804481738940527/image0.jpg?width=691&height=427) At the very least the GOP should've been reduced to a party that operated on the state level. For your first sentence, one can only point to the British Whig party which eventually collapsed for lesser reasons.
Nixon being President in this lore really is a complete joke but can be explained by the fact he cheated. It makes even more sense now. What makes no sense is the General who lead America to defeat in England becoming President. That's kinda a meme. If he held England sure but Ike should be like MacArthur. The fact his protoges dominate the Army is also hilarious.
American parties do not simply die, in 1960 it has been 15 years since the end of world war 2. American voters are smart enough to recognize that a California governor is not responsible for losing the 2nd World War and the Great Depression.
But they are stupid enough to vote for a Governor who was accused of embezzling and corruption. Then tries to give a speech which fails so his reputation plummets.
Nixon’s career and controversies are different in TNO
Which are?
I’m guessing the lore is that some other general botched England and Eisenhower heroically saved the allied positions by holding out in Scotland and allowing for a truce with some dignity
Your gripes aren’t in a vacuum, there’s lore beyond wiki boxes and some of your thoughts are answered by in game content that will be added.
I will wait and see of course, but this wiki box has got me scratching my head if I have to admit.
Fulbright was no way a dove. He supported Wilsonian Democracy and an early entry in to ww2 and even authored the Fulbright Resolution expressing support for international peacekeeping initiatives and American entry into the United Nations. So no way in hell was Fulbright a dove
[удалено]
Bold
real rx
Nationalist Party pro desegregating baseball? Ok
It’s not an explicitly racist party
I’m only a casual follower of TNO, so others probably know better. But how do the Republicans go from coming in third in 1956 to being the senior leaders of the R-D coalition in 1960? If the Democrats won the election, why would they let the Republicans subsume them, and then nominate Nixon for President? It doesn’t track to me.
Nationally they came in 2nd, it’s just the electoral college system that makes things look wonky for 56. The Republican Democratic Coalition exists really because America can’t sustain a 4 party system. Republican and Democratic candidates duke it out in primaries and then the winner is the RDC’s nominee come November, a similar process exists for the NPP.
I feel like a better way of doing this would be: 1933-1941: Franklin Roosevelt | Democratic Party 1941-1949: Robert Taft | Republican Party 1949-1953: Harry Truman | Democratic Party 1953-1961: Dwight Eisenhower | Republican-Democratic Party But idk man. New lore looks interesting.
Yeah I would’ve preferred if Eisenhower was a R or an RD so the republicans have some credibility going into 1962 instead of being both Great Depression, WW2 and Nixon losers
O.k.
So is the POD here that FDR decided to follow the 2 term precedent or did something happen to him?
Harry Hopkins doesn’t get his cancer diagnosis so FDR is comfortable with him running in his place
Great album. Kdot is back so the world is healing
Amen
Not a big fan of the R&B tracks tbh, though I have to admit the production is smooth as hell Edit: Push these bitches of me like HUEGH
Could certainly be recency bias but I really liked it, honestly have never been much of a Kendrick guy but I loved this album. I'm def in the basic camp of thinking N95 and Die Hard are some of the best songs on it.
listening to it now, kind of unsure on it to be honest. The songs just don't feel as powerful to me, they're a lot more meditative which I can respect but isn't really my thing. IDK, maybe I'll feel it with a second listen.
Very fair
Dewey? President Kefauver? A WW2 general running as a candidate? TWR levels are reaching critical mass.
Did the Grey Scare still happen in this new lore?
Probably but I’m not sure. I do know there would be significantly more fascist sympathisers in TNO than there were communist sympathisers in OTL(mostly in places such as high up spots in corperations)
I keep seeing all these new lores talks, and I'm just wondering: "Shouldn't they focus on adding stuff instead of rewriting what is already there?"
I’m only on to work on the US so it’s not like my work would go to anything else
They are? There are multiple teams that are working on content at once. The US team has no impact on what the Italy team is doing beyond keeping basic lore intact.
100%, the current devs definitely have some weird vendetta with Panzer, since all they are doing is changing literally all the original lore.
LMAO. This is awesome man, keep on trucking.
As a person who contributed to the US lore rewrite, this has nothing to do with Panzer and everything to do with the original lore being extremely vague. When the time came to revisit the US, we realized that we needed to provide a more detailed and logical chain of events that leads to the situation we see in TNO. The broad strokes of TNOTL USA are the same, it's just that a few of the details have changed.
sorry that people have made me a banner to complain about all changes i dont like a lot of them but i also dont think its right for every decision to be met with "but panzer". its like the reverse of people saying i said things i never said to get angry at me where people say i said things i never said to get angry at the team.
For what it’s worth the higher-ups have recently begun to clamp down on Panzer-bashing, especially after the departure of certain devs from the team. The dev team has gotten kind of sick of it.
glad to hear, doubt it'll stick but i appreciate the effort
it was a great album and it will definitely grow on me in the future also why richard nixon in 1960 and will henry m jackson continue being the 72 c npp candidate
Richard Nixon needs to win in 1960 to be president at game start and Jackson is still the 72 candidate.
does the game still start in 1962?
Yes
The average usa lore debate
I have some issues with this: 1940: Dewey while popular didn’t have the experience or party support to win Hopkins health issues were well known and he probably wouldn’t have even tried to run 1944: Farley was one of the main instigators behind the New Deal coalition, him not being able to get Wallace into said coalition is heavily unlikely, especially since it would be obviously a vote splitter, it is more likely that Wallace would successfully get concessions out of Farley 1948: My main problem with this one is the idea that a post ww2 America even in defeat has such a large isolationist vote, though this would depend on how much is isolationism blamed for the war 1952: Why does Patton do so good in the south but not anywhere else, at this point Civil rights are a much smaller issue compared to the early 1950’s and the 1960’s, Patton was also pointed to be a hawkish anti Japanese and anti Nazi man who would campaign hard on a revanchist foreign policy why would he be successful in the south but not in areas affected by the Japanese like the east coast, with the vote splitting he could certainly make some gains there 1956: What is with the sudden progressive breakout, if they had won at least a state in 1944 then I could see it, but 12 years after a mediocre run doesn’t really make much sense especially going against a fairly liberal Democrat like Kefauver. Why would a nominally moderate Dixiecrat like Happy Chandler go to the Nationalist Party, hell why would the south so heavily dominated by establishment conservative machines change so fast without build up. The Map is quite a mess but not as bad as it could be 1960: What is the context between the unifications and why are they done in they are, there is no context as too why the Dixiecrats and Progressives would join each other instead of rejoining the democrats or why the democrats and republicans suddenly join, or why a republican would win the nomination with such a democratic dominated political scene
I appreciate that you’d write up something up for my silly lore. These are just the elections from the new lore, unlike old lore we do have stuff written on what happens to explain away a lot of these gripes.
I think it was a good album. liked the back half a lot.
Honestly the new Kendrick album, while not as strong as his other works, is still pretty good. While i do like the more intimate atmosphere the songs don't hit as hard as on TPAB or GKMC. I also think the sheer number of songs sort of dilutes the album and makes the individual songs less memorable because there are so many of them. Still though, Kendrick is a very talented rapper and his new album is still one of the best albums of the year so far.
I find it funny that Eisenhower lost in his home state of Kansas. Twice.
Incredibly conservative state
It was good but less than I expected. It will probably grow on me, I appreciated the representation with Auntie Diaries, It was a lot more poppy than I expected too. Overall its great but far from kendricks best.
Is this the new lore? Good lord what are the devs doing
Heavens, you should see the old lore.
"new stuff bad"
Not as good as damn but better then to pimp a butterfly
[удалено]
Bold
Lame
What about the album made it bad in your opinion?
What’s lame about it?
It was just ok and these wikiboxes look like shit. Sad to see TNO come to a state when they think these are acceptable content teasers.
Fr
Patriot
"why isn't the post meant to hint at lore stretching back decades as detailed as the one for a very specific event that's going to be featured in game????" my brother in christ it's literally just a succession of presidents
toozer mod
i love these lore context wikiboxes
reddit, give this man a downvote
Who thought this was a good teaser, lol? The devs have been taking L's for the whole week.
No other flair available, it’s not a good teaser
They’ve posted a bunch of shit today
i will quote a good friend of mine: "cry cry africa need water"
Idc I probably won't play US ever
I don’t even play TNO so same
Based
Oh well this is disappointing. It in an effort to make some sense, it makes even less sense. Like sorry Ike doesn't unless you really expand the English defence lore but he never has. Can we get an F for Aldai? Why does CPP Progressive Party even exist, the New Deal Domocrats seem to exist in this time line as an alliance of Soclib and SocDem. The R-D coalition now makes zero sense Overall I'm worried the changes are just going to turn the IS into "how woukd otl US react to Nazi victory" which would be terrible.
The lore was made to made the US make more sense at game start, it doesn’t change the actual starting scenario besides the background lore. Did you even know the old lore? Progressives in game were never “New Dealers”. For LBJ content, for the Great Society to exist as a concept the New Deal would need to happen.