Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

The Presidents: 1836-1936 - An Interactive US AAR

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
((Great update, once again :) ))

August 17th, 1940

Today was a rough day at the camp. many more came in wounded... Not just Americans, but Australians with the strangest most interesting accents I have ever heard! A man came in today with no leg, it was a horrendous sight really, I and my friend Elizabeth we started working to try and stop the bleeding... There was so much blood, and in the end the man named Sergent J.H Morrison had died. I was devastated, though I did not know the man I worked so hard to save him but it was too late. I look around at all these brave faces, that are joined together to defeat fascism, but I don't know who long NATO will last in these jungles. It's hot, humid and always wet, its worse the most humid Louisiana summers! The insects are the worst, mosquito's always biting you and the creatures I see in the camp... I didn't know the Lord could create such vile things! Anyway, I must get going to sleep now the lantern is running out of oil...

- Christina Blancharde, 1st Women's Pacific Nursing Corps (Kansas Division)
 
Last edited:
Though I have no desire to run this year, I will do it if no other Republican offers himself.
 
This time we need to elect the man most able to lead us to victory. Civilization are at stake, and the world need our leadership to beat Fascism. That's why I ask the American electorate to elect the man most able to win the war, whoever that man is.

Joshua Nightmore, US ambassador to Moscow
 
I will run for the Republican nomination. Even in times of war there must be checks and balances on our government and elected officials. I do not wish to speak ill of the president, nor do I propose a radical new direction - we are at war, and we shall stay the course. However, I believe the administration has shown itself to be prone toward distractions like the National Industry Act. We must not set unfair or unfree precedents, even in the course of war, and I would hope to lead us away from such precedents. I am open to a continuation of the unity government, but the American people must decide what ideals and policies shall lead it.
 
With two candidates such as these, I feel there is no need for me to run; I recant my earlier announcement concerning my possible presidential bid. However, I cannot yet offer my endorsement, as I wish to hear these two men debate first.
 
As Republican primary candidate, I would like to extend the offer of unity ticket in order to prevent a fascist takeover that might endanger our war efford. Also, I would like to hand out some financial aid to our army so that they have more resources to win this war. I hope the war to end during my term -if I am elected- and make a conciliatory peace treaty that will prevent further bloodshed in Europe, effectively revising the faults of our last war and turning Germany into a potential ally.
 
((Hmmm, this may may be all the candidates we can get))

I for one like the rather broad idea expressed by Mr. Carlsson; perhaps he'd care to make a more concrete answer?
 
The Honourable Mr Carlsson is right; we should not look for revenge in the peace we seek. Our actions should not be born of personal gain, but of an interest in making the world a better place. Overarching treaty terms should be avoided, cultural and racial populations should be examined and cooperation should be emphasised above all else in the eventual treaty.

This last point of international cooperation cannot be too heavily stressed. It is my belief that two and a half decades ago the Federals, most notably my father, failed to persuade the American public that they should take an interest in global affairs. The League of Nations was destroyed before it was created. Instead, Europe was left to settle its differences and America shirked its responsibility to be a mature global power. The result is the war we see today; a war that, had international cooperation halted aggression and repression in its early stages, need not have happened.

That is why I propose a forum of United Nations to discuss and resolve issues diplomatically and globally should be created in the wake of the war. These United Nations will prevent war on the scale of that we see today. These United Nations will work together to forge a new age of international peace and prosperity. These United Nations will stand to protect all the peoples of the world.
 
The lack of a League was not the cause of this war; it was the divisiveness in Europe and Asia compounded by an economic depression; indeed, the peace treaty of the Great War was lenient and seemed to hold general peace until the Great Depression, and the instability in Germany, led to this reactionary regime hell-bent on expansion.

The European League was and is the proper way of handling the internal affairs of Europe, and we should remain wary of involving ourselves; however, a more generous and farsighted treaty, perhaps supporting economic recovery and other such methods would be a more prudent way of preventing war, as well as expanding the powers of the European League. Here in America, no President has really sought to use the League of American States as a means of preventing conflict, and it has languished in obscurity; it certainly can be put to more use, whilst still protected the right s of national self-sovereignty and determination.

((And happy 10000th post, The Presidents :D ))
 
I will retire from The Presidents.
 
In my honest opinion the peace treaty must foremost punish Fascism and then the Fascist countries. We shouldn't reach too far and punish the civilian population, but we has to make sure Fascist Parties can never take power anymore. This is a war against Fascism. It started back home with our own disastrous Fascist uprising, and has now spread globally. Fascism is an ideology of oppression, Fascists want to oppress their own people, and then people in other countries. When we aim for peace it's Fascism that must be eliminated, not the German, Italian, Japanese or Brazilian people that need to be punished.
 
The Primary of 1940​

Progressive Candidate(s)

Philip McCahill (b. 1900), Incumbent President of the Republic ((theAhawk)). Having led the country successfully through the last four years, McCahill believes he can continue to chart a course to victory for the United States to victory in this Second World War. Of the candidates, he was the first to propose a post-election continuation of the unity Progressive-Republican government.

Republican Candidate(s)

William Gallatin (b. 1894), Representative for Pennsylvania ((Gloa)). Gallatin believes in prosecution of the war to the very end, but does not believe that the United States should renege on peacetime ideals of free markets and equal competition simply because of the war. He also supports the continuation of the unity government.

Adlai Carlsson (b. ????), Incumbent Vice-President of the Republic ((thekinguter)). The most anti-war man in the race, Carlsson promises an end to the war during his term, and a conciliatory peace treaty to heal the rifts between the two sides. He too supports the continuation of unity government.

------------------------

Exceptional Situation(s):

I assume that Kaisersohaib, having retired from the thread, has retired from the primary.

Please vote.
 
Riccardo93 said:
The lack of a League was not the cause of this war; it was the divisiveness in Europe and Asia compounded by an economic depression; indeed, the peace treaty of the Great War was lenient and seemed to hold general peace until the Great Depression, and the instability in Germany, led to this reactionary regime hell-bent on expansion.

The European League was and is the proper way of handling the internal affairs of Europe, and we should remain wary of involving ourselves; however, a more generous and farsighted treaty, perhaps supporting economic recovery and other such methods would be a more prudent way of preventing war, as well as expanding the powers of the European League. Here in America, no President has really sought to use the League of American States as a means of preventing conflict, and it has languished in obscurity; it certainly can be put to more use, whilst still protected the right s of national self-sovereignty and determination.

((And happy 10000th post, The Presidents :D ))
Click to expand...

The idea of partitioning a global world into isolated groups is nonsense and it has been proved as much by the outbreak of war. Do not try to kid yourself that it is an innate 'divisiveness' in Europe that prevents peace; had the states of the Old World been willing to stand by the League (which after all had been hoisted on Europe by an America unwilling to cooperate internationally) this war would not have happened - let us not forget that the powers of the League repeatedly ignored the conditions of the treaty it was founded to enforce ((Versailles)). Had the League diplomatically condemned militarism and repression and acted against them, war would not have necessary broken out in Europe.

Furthermore, by partitioning the world by continent, we negate the possibility of intercontinental resolution. There is no mechanism in place for America, by far the best placed to prevent conflict in the Pacific, to resolve disputes in the Far East. Had there been a strong and truly international body in place that had the backing of America, we can safely assume that the Japanese government would have been discouraged from their militarist adventures; for example, has we stood up against Japan over the Manchurian crisis.

Finally, and bluntly, and with all the experience the last four years have given me, the reason that the League of American States has not been utilised is because diplomacy in the Americas is rather limited in complexity - there are no confrontations between major powers; little global influence outside of these 50 states.

For these reasons it is both our responsibility as the World's greatest power and in our interest as the World's greatest power to work globally to resolve conflicts and prevent wars. We cannot expect others to do that we do not do ourselves, nor should we abandon the interests or America to the whims of foreign powers, nor should we pretend that the World is beyond diplomatic aid. We should work globally in a United Nations.

yourworstnightm said:
In my honest opinion the peace treaty must foremost punish Fascism and then the Fascist countries. We shouldn't reach too far and punish the civilian population, but we has to make sure Fascist Parties can never take power anymore. This is a war against Fascism. It started back home with our own disastrous Fascist uprising, and has now spread globally. Fascism is an ideology of oppression, Fascists want to oppress their own people, and then people in other countries. When we aim for peace it's Fascism that must be eliminated, not the German, Italian, Japanese or Brazilian people that need to be punished.
Click to expand...

Yes, we should charge, convict and punish those guilty of crimes in fascist states, but we should do this through internationally cooperation and not at the expense of the inhabitants of our enemies' lands. We should also be prepared to support any new governments we create, with military force if necessary, not just abandon them to the fates as was done after Versailles and expect them to resolve their internal issues without international support.
 
I would ask Mr. Carlsson and Rep. Gallatin what their general platforms are, before I can cast vote.
 
((Seeing as we're all for unity government, I'm assuming we don't need to pick VPs because it will be the leader of the losing party...))
 
theAhawk said:
((Seeing as we're all for unity government, I'm assuming we don't need to pick VPs because it will be the leader of the losing party...))
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable.

Also, since we've gone past the 100-year mark, I invite you to make best-of lists for the bygone century of elections. Most Controversial/Important Elections. Best to Worst Presidents. That kind of stuff.

I'll start with a short one:

Top 5 Presidents (probably biased)

1. Williams

Pros: Carried the nation through the Civil War, enacted landmark civil rights legislation, oversaw a near-miraculous economic recovery, proved to be most capable foreign policy president between Cameron and Harrison, and proved politically wily enough to compromise in the Election of 1861.

Cons: Failed to ensure the complete success of Reconstruction by largely ignoring Jamous' efforts instead of supporting them. Ban on Vandrove and Bryan left political scars and strengthened radicalism.

2. Cameron

Pros: Expanded the nation more than any later president, created the political base for women's suffrage and equality in America, created the base of the modern welfare system. Possibly the canniest American politician ever.

Cons: Failed to address the slavery debate, instead letting it simmer and get worse, and failed to keep together his coalition government before his assassination.

3. Harrison

Pros: Immense growth in prestige and economy of the United States, created anti-trust legislation, passed 16th Amendment protecting women's suffrage constitutionally, effectively streamlined and expanded American welfare system, created the SVSs, appointed ANderson Savage head of FBI and helped him turn it into an effective law enforcement organ, reinvigorated the Federal Party and unified American political and social scene for duration of his one-and-a-half terms. Also just a Badass in general.

Cons: Failed to make the socio-political consensus last longer than his presidency. Empire of Liberty rhetoric directly contributed to the mindset that eventually led to the misstep of Peru.

4. Hayden

Pros: Pulled US out of the Recession of 1893-5, brought Democratic Party to its height, implemented landmark economic regulations and allowed Harrison to take anti-trust battle national.

Cons: Created extremely polarized political climate, and failed to depolarize it. Dual ticket with Harrison eventually led to the marginalization of the Democrats and American socialism.

5. Jamous

Pros: Oversaw the continuation of the post-Civil War boom, finished the Panama Canal, implemented landmark safety regulations, and managed to mostly blunt post-war radicalism.

Cons: Anarcho-Liberal radicalism resulted in Little Anarchy. Foreign policy only proved effective in short-term, leading to political instability in Europe and eventually World War.
 
((Everyone knows that President Hensdale was the best. Doing nothing is the best type!))
 
((You can no doubt smell the bias of mine. Based on how good I think they are rather than how important.

1. Cameron
Pros:
- Women's Suffrage
- Maintained peace within the union
- Established the economic ideal of free markets powering a welfare state that's guided American history
- Expanded the US' territory
- Essentially appointed Williams as his successor
- Established the Secret Service
Cons:
- Along with Brass split the Whigs
- Allergic to bullets

2. McCahill
Pros:
- Defeated the Great Coup
- Led US in World War 2
- Formed Unity government
- Hopefully will carry out the domestic side of his manifesto at the war's conclusion
Cons:
- Couldn't pass all desired legislation

3. Terrance
Pros:
- Led US in World War 1
- Passed all the necessary legislation, such as the FEA.
- Biggest shake up of welfare system since its initiation including;
- Pensions
- Education grants
- Work schemes
- Safety standards
Cons:
- Failed to be re-elected, which ultimately saw mostly the dismantling of the welfare state by the Republicans and their botching of the peace process.
- Some public dislike of conscription
- Only won one of several elections he fought in

4. Harrison
Pros & Cons basically the same as BBB's.

5. Ryan
Pros:
- Brought US out of depression
- The New Deal
- Routed out crime with the FBI
- LA Olympics
Cons:
- This gem from his first term sums it up "In the United States, there was no danger of a radical party coming to power" Milton-Spencer would disagree.))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back