Even as I was reading that last, I was thinking how if I were them, I'd just want to cash out and run. A job of ceremonial patsy would have to be annoying enough for such a move.
Wrong. Battlecruisers would be CC, not BC(at least in the US). BC would be for "large cruisers". (BC, big cruiser, get it?)Battlecruisers
Lexington Class
27,800 tons displacement, oil fired boilers, turbine driven, 29 knots, 8 x 14/45s in twin turrets (Superfiring), 12 x 5/51s in Casemates, 6 x 5/25s in Single Mounts
Lexington Class SLEPed
29,500 tons displacement, oil fired boilers, turbine driven, 27 knots, 8 x 14/45s in twin turrets (Superfiring), 16 x 5/38s in twin turrets, 32 x 1.1 inch Autocannons
USS Lexington, BC-5
USS Ranger, BC-6
That would be correct if this had been OTL Hull Classification system used, however with a POD in 1873 I am not using the OTL Hull Classification system. ITL the Hull Classification Systems has Battlecruisers as BC instead of CC.Wrong. Battlecruisers would be CC, not BC(at least in the US). BC would be for "large cruisers". (BC, big cruiser, get it?)
Fair enough.That would be correct if this had been OTL Hull Classification system used, however with a POD in 1873 I am not using the OTL Hull Classification system. ITL the Hull Classification Systems has Battlecruisers as BC instead of CC.
When the war comes no one will expect it.Ballsy move on the Japanese part. So war in the Pacific soon?
My issues with grammar are well noted, and honestly much improved since I started writing. Honestly I had thought about a proofreader in the past but never found anyone who could keep up with my pace of writing.Despite the quality of the meme, that's unfortunately not a hard, or tough, nitpicking of grammar. Without the change specified the sentence doesn't have the meaning its supposed to, it truly makes no sense at all if kept the same. I'd say that's my main criticism as I go through the timeline. An extra proofread or having updates reviewed before posting is something I would recommend. It will help clear up any issues like that your eyes may pass over during the writing process.
I didn't get into the details of the Serbian or Polish Genocides that took place in the aftermath of the Great War as its known. Neither were easy nor relaxed ITL. It was three genocides through with the Italians being forced out of their home lands in area annexed by Austria-Hungary. All three were bloody affairs that took a lot of efforts to get what happened to happen. There are still Poles, Italians, and Serbians in those areas. But there are far fewer than there and are a clear minorities.As for content I'm enjoying it well, reading through the first POV pieces as I try to catch up with updates. The dominoes you've set up to launch this alternate WWII are interesting, and I'm ready to watch them fall once I reach that point. Only thought I could give there is that the two major post-WWI genocides, that of the Serbians and the Poles, seem far too easy and far too relaxed.
Now, I'm not against that sort of subject matter being in a timeline, our timeline's history could be dark so why shouldn't the alternatives be. What I just mean though is that even if the populations are dramatically lowered, they shouldn't cease to exist. Areas where Germans faced forced removal from in what was Eastern Prussia still have German populations. There still exists a Jewish population in Europe following the Holocaust, albeit greatly declined from points prior to the greatest tragedy in the history of mankind. I just don't think they can just be written off as done as nations. I'd suspect both would rather be looking for vengeance or a return to ancestral lands either at home or abroad. That'll be something Germany will find harder and harder to occur as time passes and human rights are established.
This is true, but Germany has poor projection abilities in the Pacific, the US has far better projection abilities in the Pacific but they have to cut through the IJN and have to deal with the RN in the Atlantic. They are still unsure about the Imperial Federation in the SW Pacific. At the moment they can be resupplied by sea but in the event war, that becomes very questionable at best.Well at least the various enclaves are on the coast so they can be accessed by sea...kept for legal purposes, and also for military reasons
I'm not getting into those details for a damn good reason, but massive amounts of Chinese coastline was annexed by Japan, along with some inland areas.What does the new Sino-Japanese border look like more or less? What Chinese provinces did the Japanese annex?
Each party has different wings, but Olsen is the leader of a new faction of the Dems who figure out that if they want to be a buyable party at the national level they need the black and Hispanic vote instead the old southern guard. They don't throw in racist bits into language anymore. There was a new deal, but it dealt more with new bank laws and checking Wall Street. Think SEC, Glass-Steagall, and stuff like that. The wing Olsen leads is big on checking the power of big business. There were social programs as well that were designed to get people back to work just like OTL. Only ITL there was no social security, instead they got social medical ITL. Not sure on the name, but think of it like Medicare but for everyone.Jim what exactly are the ideologies of the Democrats and Republicans now? You wrote that Olsen is a reformer and went against the old southern guard of the party, yet no mention is ever made of a New Deal expy being presented. There's also the fact Roosevelt winning three terms would help the Progressives to take over the Republican Party or at least make them a large enough wing that Coolidge and the Conservatives wouldn't be able to lodge them from power and turn the GOP entirely into the right. So what exactly are the policies of each party?
Grant took office in '69 not '66. Wonder how long the Democrats will maintain their hold on the Presidency.Awesome analysis of the current status of the Democratic and Republican Parties IITL. I found it very interesting to say the least.
Anyways, I decided to make a list of US Presidents IITL. Jim, let me know if anything is incorrect.
18. Ulysses S. Grant (Republican) (1866-1877)
19. Benjamin Bristow (Republican) (1877-1885)
20. Winfield Scott Hancock (Democratic) (1885-1887)
21. William Ralls Morrison (Democratic) (1887-1889)
22. James G. Blaine (Republican) (1889-1893)
23. William McKinley (Republican) (1893-1901)
24. Joseph Blackburn (Democratic) (1901-1909)
25. Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) (1909-1921)
26. Albert B. Cummins (Republican) (1921-1929)
27. Hiram Johnson (Republican) (1929-1933)
28. Carl Olsen (Democratic) (1933- )
Grant took office in '69 not '66. Wonder how long the Democrats will maintain their hold on the Presidency.