Thanks for all the feedback Ares, I appreciate it.
I think my main reason for a redux is that I've learned a lot more since when I initially started this TL, in addition to the fact that I also have improved my writing skills as well. I also know that there are inconsistencies, both in the TL itself and in the general format and style, and I'd like to correct that.
The benefit with a redux is that this time around, I'll know where the TL is going, where as originally I was sailing into uncharted territory. With a roadmap to follow I can make sure things are consistent and hopefully more coherent.
No problem; indeed, there's more coming right now.
It's probably a good thing to redux it (can that be a verb as well?); the original was a bit inconsistent, like for example when you suddenly went back to the '60s and had fascists take over in Britain at a whim, without giving any forewarning.
I like the idea of going from FPTP to MMP. Just not sure how to achieve that. Any ideas?
Well, as I said before, Pennsylvania elected a part of its Congressmen on a general ticket several times, usually when its population had grown and it had gotten more seats after a census, but had failed to redraw its districts. Indeed, looking more at Wikipedia, several states have historically done this, and some even elected all of their congressmen on a general ticket, the most recent being Hawaii (which did it between 1962 and 1970), New Mexico (1942-1968) and Alabama (only in 1962). As I see it, the partial general-ticket elections are basically a rudimentary form of MMP.
As I see it, all that is needed to begin the process is for one state to decide to write the system of partial general-ticket representation (as it might be called ITTL; PGTR or PGTV for short) into state law. Which, in turn, means that the most recent apportionment bill can't have forbidden that (as, I think, most of them did). After that, the People's Party might decide to campaign for full MMP (i.e. distributing the at-large seats semi-proportionally instead of proportionally to the entire vote, as would be the case under PGTV), and then implement it for Californian state elections when they gain office in that state. When they gain control of Congress in the 80s, they might try to pass a constitutional amendment establishing the system for House elections.
For some more info,
here is a piece written by Elections New Zealand, detailing how their change took place there.
Still kinda up in the air as to whether or not I'll keep the return of the Kaiser. I DO know I'll keep Russia unified this time. The whole East Russia thing and the war it ended up causing was, IMO, too cumbersome and possibly unrealistic. No, whether the czar will return to this unified Russia or not remains to be seen.
Yeah, I think that East Russia would decide to join the fold of Imperial Russia (whatever happened to the IBF, by the way? Did they simply restyle themselves after taking central Russia, or what happened?).
With the Japanese war, I was pretty vague, and during the original go-round, some probably rightly criticized that some of the events were unrealistic without otl events in Europe. So that really needs work. Also, military history is still my weak spot, so not sure exactly how to fix it.
Looking back, I probably agree that attacking both Pearl Harbor and the British possessions at once would probably have been a bit rash for the Japanese under the circumstances.
Basically, IOTL, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor as a show of force, to convince the Americans that they had no business interfering with Japan's plans, and that attempting to fight them would be futile. They aimed to destroy the large majority of the Pacific Fleet; however, since many of the really big ships were off on manoeuvres, they really only succeeded in riling up the world's biggest industrial power. As for the attacks against Britain, they believed (probably rightly, seeing as how quickly the colonies fell) that the British would be unable to mount a defence of their colonies with the war going on in Europe. As it turned out, the Americans were capable of defeating the Japanese on their own, without the need even for meaningful British help.
ITTL, of course, things are different. You've got a Britain that's neither at war or particularly wary of Germany, and so probably have much smaller military forces in TTL 1945 than they had in OTL 1941. However, there is also the fact that there is no war in Europe, and with it the realisation by Japan that the UK is able to throw its entire military into a naval war against them (this is, without a doubt, about the worst thing that can happen to any nation in the period). The US is still isolationist, and likely to remain that way; from what I find on Hull, he seems to have been a fairly pragmatical person, supporting the status quo situation unless it threatened US interests somehow. I don't really think the Japanese would have felt it as likely for the US to intervene against them ITTL.
If I do the rewrite (and I'm really starting to lean towards doing so), I will keep the newspaper and book articles in addition to some first person narratives. I think it would be really cool to include some points of view from ordinary people, which the original version doesn't have much of.
I think my first goal will be to make a rough outline of the TL's rewrite and post it up here for review, and then go from there.
This sounds good.
Oh and Ares, I'm sure I'll take you up on the map offer.
Indeed; as I said, I'll be around, so you can just PM me when we get to that stage.
Thanks! Like I said, really considering it.
Trying to think of some first person perspectives to use for the rewrite. I think I have one idea, using my grandfather and his family. Going to have them move to Dallas for the Goodyear facility that I have open there.
But that wont be a good perspective until the 1950s and 60s.
That'd be interesting. You could have that narrative interplay with the Civil Rights movement, having your grandfather encounter racial prejudice and even violence as he encounters Texan society. When is it that the New Orleans incident happens again? You could have it happen in Dallas in the new version, and have your grandfather witness it.
Any other ideas or suggestions? I think i want to keep the first person stuff with normal citizens, and not the historical figures. I give "first person" perspectives for the historical persons with diaries/journals, and I think I want to keep it that way.
Yeah, I enjoyed the journal entries as well. It's an original style of writing, and I think you should keep it and expand on it, as the later parts of the TL felt a little too much newspaper after newspaper.
On another note, any ideas as to what to do in the 1980s through the 2000s if I don't have the whole Iran War thing and if Russia stays unified, which would completely negate my Alt "WWII" in the early 2000s?
Well, an idea is for the UK (if you keep the BUF rule around) to engage in a colonial war against Nigerian separatists (they would want to hold on to the south once oil is discovered, which the natives won't like after the northerners get independence), and the have pictures leaked of war atrocities leading to widespread disgust, horror and stark condemnations from the rest of the world. The fascist leadership, however, would be adamant of this, and would vow to continue the war, only to be toppled from government (in a similar style as you had it), and then the new government would start peace negotiations and eventually withdraw. A little mish-mash of the Vietnam War, the Portuguese Colonial War and the Iran War as you had it.
