For the fascist powers, "Lisieuxians with modern tech" sounds about right.
I could see a diversitarian case being made for Imperial Britain, oddly enough. Not for the empire itself but for the fact that "England" was able to create such a vast empire. Without the 'stain' of anything comparable to Timeline L's French occupation, English culture remains 'pure.' There's not the same jolt to its constitutional order or national consciousness. A Timeline L researcher might say that OTL Britain retains more "Englishness" than Timeline L England. (At least during its imperial period, through maybe the 1940s. I expect Timeline L researchers would nod along to the "Rivers of Blood" speech and go yes, yes, of course.) Thus, Britain could create and maintain a global empire -- unlike in Timeline L -- because it had a "strong core" to its self-image.
The French Empire is probably seen more in a tragic light, evidence of the persistent weakness of France turning against its cultural heritage. France in Timeline L was about as close to "the" world power as there was. France in OTL is decidedly the silver medalist, and one troubled by domestic political turmoil for over a century because its revolutionary currents weren't "properly" purged and its rightful monarchy was undermined.
Now, Japan? That I wonder how they'll view. On the one hand, the success of Japan ITTL is probably more striking than even Prussia's success, and proves a lot of Timeline L's assumptions about their Japan are wrong. OTOH, people do like to cling to their existing beliefs even in the face of new evidence. I could imagine them saying "The Japanese are creatively sterile. Just look. They copied your Britain and Germany in the nineteenth century, then they pathetically tried to fill the role of hegemon that China played in East Asia, then they turned themselves into an appendage of America by copying its cultural exports, like baseball and (via Donald Duck) comics."
Last edited:
