TL-191 FILLING IN THE FUTURE

[Indigo]

Hmm. I would agree with teg that the Democrats certainly seem to be facing some challenges ahead during the Dewey Administration, but let's see...

Instead of becoming more conservative, or just remaining hawkish, what if Dewey tries to make a sincere pivot to reclaim the center (and specifically labor voters as well as those concerned with normalization), and tries to create a favorable postwar consensus? And then this leads to a backlash from the Democrats after the tense Dewey years. Also, let's say the Socialists rebound moderately quickly (in between one term and 4, so let's say 3) and just in time for the Pacific War. (and yes TB I'll go with Hoopes).

1945-1953:Thomas Dewey/Harry S Truman
1944: Charles W. La Follette/Jim Curley Harold Stassen/Walter Huxman
1948: Glen H. Taylor/Tucker P. Smith Harold Stassen/Gerald K. Nye
1953-1957:Everett Dirksen/William F. Knowland[1]
1952: Rexford Tugwell/Alger Hiss Jennings Randolph/John W. Byrnes
1957-1965:Darlington Hoopes/Robert F. Wagner Jr.[2]
1956: Everett Dirksen/William F. Knowland Harold Stassen/Quentin N. Burdick
1960: Joe Foss/John W. Reynolds Jr. Barry Goldwater/H. Martin Jackson[3]

[1]Dirksen is a country club Democrat, and he governs as somewhat of a throwback to the days of Hoover. By the end of his first term the Socialists have finally gotten their act together again (and gotten past Smith & Blackford's legacies) and they're able to throw him out of office, with Hoopes running on positive portrayals of a social vision.

[2]Unexpectedly for Hoopes, his first term is taken up by the war with Japan. A year and a half later, with 5 Japanese cities obliterated and U.S. troops nearing the home islands, the U.S. celebrates it's 3rd victory with a newfound sense of maturity. New German leadership, on the other hand, is very uncomfortable with American domination of the Pacific...

[3]1960 would have been a landslide for Hoopes anyway; quite aside from the war he's begun the basis for a social democratic state at home. But the Goldwaterites take-over of the Democratic Party threatens to usher in a new age of Domestic politics. The people bombings, assasinations, and guerilla warfare of the last two decades makes quite a few Democrats sympathize with Goldwater's extreme Remembrance. The more flag-waving still vote for Hoopes after Kokura et al. and of the remainder, many are swept up by bright young moderate Joe Foss, who (very narrowly) comes in 2nd place. Interesting times...

 

[Turquoise Blue]

Well, I think that the "rally 'round the flag" would eke out a fourth Democratic victory.

Plus, I remain unconvinced that libertarianism would have influence.

Oh and I would recommend no elections where the Republicans come in second.

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

That's true, and I'd expect it to be watched by the U.S. But I also imagine that men like Pearson or Diefenbaker or Stanfield - political or intellectual figures - could help legitimize it in the eyes of the Canadians and make it more appealing. Men who aren't rebels, but thinkers and politicians. Help make it a party of Canadians, by Canadians, for Canadians. It would be small (running for mayor, participating in the State Legislature, etc) at first before it moves into running for, say, Governor of Ontario.

As you said earlier, it would probably begin sometime around 60s as the Canadian territories all become states but there is still resistance to the idea of the Occupation but not by military means anymore. It might possibly be stronger in areas where there is little American colonizers, maybe the western former provinces.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

As you said earlier, it would probably begin sometime around 60s as the Canadian territories all become states but there is still resistance to the idea of the Occupation but not by military means anymore. It might possibly be stronger in areas where there is little American colonizers, maybe the western former provinces.

That's actually what I imagined, that it's stronger out west. I've always imagined that the Powell House would be watching Ontario much more closely than the Western provinces, and that when the 1960s roll around, most American colonists would be in either Ontario, British Columbia, or Alberta (for the oil). For some reason, I see Peter Lougheed starting the reorganization of the Canadian National Party (in OTL he was elected to the Alberta Legislative Assembly in '67, and Premier from 1971-85) in the west, while Stanfield popularizes it in the Maritimes.

 

[ZGradt]

Regarding the whole Canada question, is it possible to break up provinces, specifically Ontario? Like the more sedated parts of the provinces become states, while the more rebellious areas are still territories or under occupation. Same deal with former Confederate states.

 

[Medicus]

I had some thoughts about the future.

1. The rise of nuclear terrorism. Nuclear bombs are much more widespread than IOTL and have been used more. I think it's unlikely any existing states would use them after the effects of radiation become known, but I can see various liberation movements trying to get their hands on nuclear devices to use in their attacks.

2. Space programs. The USA and Germany, although nominally allies, would have separate military spy programs, and with rocketry being more advanced, we could see manned orbital missions as early as the late 1950s. Ballistic missiles would be very important in ensuring security, especially against the Entente and Japan. However, since Germany and the USA are nominally allies, the civilian program could be an international one... leading to an international space station decades earlier than IOTL and a sustained lunar exploration program, one starting later but much more cost-efficient.

3. Decolonisation. Britain and France are more right-wing, probably purged of their fascist parts, but significantly further right than OTL. Expect a bloodier Decolonisation - France holding on to Algeria longer, for instance, Britain trying to make India a Dominion, etc.

More as they come to me.

 

[ZGradt]

I had some thoughts about the future.

1. The rise of nuclear terrorism. Nuclear bombs are much more widespread than IOTL and have been used more. I think it's unlikely any existing states would use them after the effects of radiation become known, but I can see various liberation movements trying to get their hands on nuclear devices to use in their attacks.

2. Space programs. The USA and Germany, although nominally allies, would have separate military spy programs, and with rocketry being more advanced, we could see manned orbital missions as early as the late 1950s. Ballistic missiles would be very important in ensuring security, especially against the Entente and Japan. However, since Germany and the USA are nominally allies, the civilian program could be an international one... leading to an international space station decades earlier than IOTL and a sustained lunar exploration program, one starting later but much more cost-efficient.

3. Decolonisation. Britain and France are more right-wing, probably purged of their fascist parts, but significantly further right than OTL. Expect a bloodier Decolonisation - France holding on to Algeria longer, for instance, Britain trying to make India a Dominion, etc.

More as they come to me.

For 3, don't forget that Imperial Germany now has most of France's African territories and will fight tooth and nail to keep them. Other than the Devastation committed by the CSA, the Germans were mum about the Ottoman Turks turning the Armenian 'relocations' into a full-blown genocide to the point that the only existing Armenians in the area were the ones who escaped to Russia; they may resort to massacres and Congo Free State cruelty to keep the colonies in line.

For 1, they're probably be more attempts at cobalt bombs. They're meant to cause terror and irradiate a city so it becomes uninhabitable for a period of time. Trying to detonate a sunbomb Philadelphia-style might become popular too, but that probably won't work again. Also, unless the Americans had ceased every piece of nuclear research including the devices themselves, one of the diehard Freedomite units who refused to surrender may get their hands on said device.

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

Regarding the whole Canada question, is it possible to break up provinces, specifically Ontario? Like the more sedated parts of the provinces become states, while the more rebellious areas are still territories or under occupation. Same deal with former Confederate states.

It might be possible in Ontario, but the populations in the rest of the provinces are small enough that it wouldn't make sense. I'd imagine that it would be a three-step process for the Canadian provinces - 1) military occupational government; 2) territory with limited self-government; 3) state.

As for the CSA, I'd imagine that it would largely the same deal. There may be parts that are firmly attached to other states (Northern Virginia to West Virginia, parts of Arkansas to Missouri) but I don't think the Southern states would change all that much.

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

That's actually what I imagined, that it's stronger out west. I've always imagined that the Powell House would be watching Ontario much more closely than the Western provinces, and that when the 1960s roll around, most American colonists would be in either Ontario, British Columbia, or Alberta (for the oil). For some reason, I see Peter Lougheed starting the reorganization of the Canadian National Party (in OTL he was elected to the Alberta Legislative Assembly in '67, and Premier from 1971-85) in the west, while Stanfield popularizes it in the Maritimes.

It would probably also be composed of several folks with different political beliefs from one another with the only thing uniting them being an independent Canada (with Quebec or not is another question). So presenting a unified message outside of independence would also be something that needs to be addressed by such a party.

Regarding the whole Canada question, is it possible to break up provinces, specifically Ontario? Like the more sedated parts of the provinces become states, while the more rebellious areas are still territories or under occupation. Same deal with former Confederate states.

I don't think so. I think U.S. authorities would just content to keep a whole state under occupation rather than go through the process of breaking it up. The only thing I could see changing about the Canadian provinces would be dropping the 'British' from British Columbia.

 

[ZGradt]

It might be possible in Ontario, but the populations in the rest of the provinces are small enough tht it wouldn't make sense. I'd imagine that it would be a three-step process for the Canadian provinces - 1) military occupational government; 2) territory with limited self-government; 3) state.

As for the CSA, I'd imagine that it would largely the same deal. There may be parts that are firmly attached to other states (Northern Virginia to West Virginia, parts of Arkansas to Missouri) but I don't think the Southern states would change all that much.

Interesting, so perhaps splitting Ontario into east and west? The majority of the population is in the east anyway. But its just a curiousity, I think Gaius is correct with Canada's provinces being annexed as is.

Looking at how much Missouri expanded from the Great War they could probably take more of the Mississippi Delta counties, maybe some of the Ozark Mountain counties as well. Either or, this is just something I'm considering.

For Virginia, I can see some dismemberment not just from West Virginia but also Delaware. Taking the Northampton and Accomack counties doesn't soubd too much of a stretch. As for W. Virginia, I'm thinking it will probably take the counties of Buchanan, Lee, Dickenson, Alleghany, and Wise along with the independent cities of Norton, Clifton Forge, and Covington. It already took much of northern Virginia after the First Great War, I believe it'll probably just take the remaining cities and counties still not under Wheeling/Charleston's administration (did Turtledove establish West Virginia's capital as Wheeling or did it move to Charleston as OTL?)

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

It would probably also be composed of several folks with different political beliefs from one another with the only thing uniting them being an independent Canada (with Quebec or not is another question). So presenting a unified message outside of independence would also be something that needs to be addressed by such a party.

Who else would be part? Tommy Douglas? George Pearkes (as the last of the ex-rebel Canadians)? Broadbent? With Quebec, I imagine that many of the people who still remember there being a united Canada would be sentimental to it, while the generations who grew up in an independent Quebec would be less attached to the idea. But an idea that I've always liked is that the generation that helped occupy Canada while the Americans fought the Confederates hated occupying their ex-countrymen-and-women, and the idea of reconciliation between Canadians and Quebecois(es) would be more amenable.

Interesting, so perhaps splitting Ontario into east and west? The majority of the population is in the east anyway. But its just a curiousity, I think Gaius is correct with Canada's provinces being annexed as is.

Looking at how much Missouri expanded from the Great War they could probably take more of the Mississippi Delta counties, maybe some of the Ozark Mountain counties as well. Either or, this is just something I'm considering.

For Virginia, I can see some dismemberment not just from West Virginia but also Delaware. Taking the Northampton and Accomack counties doesn't soubd too much of a stretch. As for W. Virginia, I'm thinking it will probably take the counties of Buchanan, Lee, Dickenson, Alleghany, and Wise along with the independent cities of Norton, Clifton Forge, and Covington. It already took much of northern Virginia after the First Great War, I believe it'll probably just take the remaining cities and counties still not under Wheeling/Charleston's administration (did Turtledove establish West Virginia's capital as Wheeling or did it move to Charleston as OTL?)

If Ontario is going to be broken up, it would likely be with Southwestern Ontario as one state, and Central and Eastern Ontario as another, and the rest as a territory until statehood. But I'm leaning towards what Gaius said, the Americans are going to annex them as is, and might only change British Columbia's name into Columbia Nova or something.

I don't really see Missouri expanding any farther than it has already. If you look at the maps in the books, it's taken a few counties in northeastern Arkansas, and stopped. I don't see why the US would continue. With Virginia and West Virginia, the only reason (at least to me) they took the counties in the north was to give DC breathing room. They may take some territory along western Virginia, but they may just leave it alone all the same.

 

[Tiro]

Oh and I would recommend no elections where the Republicans come in second.

Might I interject and suggest that this result might be permitted, but only as a one-off?; this would represent a zenith of Republican fortunes unprecedented since the Blaine Administration and more significantly the almighty kick in the pants that the Socialists need to drive them back into the Powell House.

I'd describe this result as the fluke outcome of a Presidential Election where the Republicans make good progress against the Socialists by waving the Bloody Shirt as they seek to eat up marginal Socialist seats in anti-Democratic constituencies (and marginally-Socialist politicians who are looking for alternative employment elsewhere, out of fear that they see the writing on the wall for 'The Party of Richmond') but where both Republicans and Socialists come distant second to the Democrats after splitting the anti-Democrat Vote with an internecine struggle.

Basically the Democrats reap the benefit of their third biggest rival (there are only TWO rival parties but the Republicans STILL come in third - think about what this says about the GOP in Timeline-191) believing that it scents weakness in their biggest Rival and trying to move in for the kill (then failing, because the Socialists really aren't as fatally-weakened as anyone expects).

This unique result would probably occur in the Presidential election of 1948 rather than later and would probably be just enough to keep the Republican Party something a little more than a nonentity but rather less than a serious Threat (which is, I think, the proper position for them).

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

Who else would be part? Tommy Douglas? George Pearkes (as the last of the ex-rebel Canadians)? Broadbent? With Quebec, I imagine that many of the people who still remember there being a united Canada would be sentimental to it, while the generations who grew up in an independent Quebec would be less attached to the idea. But an idea that I've always liked is that the generation that helped occupy Canada while the Americans fought the Confederates hated occupying their ex-countrymen-and-women, and the idea of reconciliation between Canadians and Quebecois(es) would be more amenable.

Depends. Some might make peace and join the U.S. parties when the former provinces become states. Republicans and Socialists might perform better as the Democrats are probably seen as the party of conquest.

I like that idea about the Canada-Quebec reconciliation.

 

[Tiro]

It is genuinely rather nice to imagine some reconciliation between Quebec and their formerly-Canadian brothers and sisters (although I'll bet that if even one unreconstructed Tory - in the sense of Loyalists during the American Revolution - remains at large, it's a reconciliation likely to be as complicated as that between Ulster and the South in our own Ireland).

 

[CT23]

How long after TL-191 officially ended will the US develop an actual plan for what to do with Canada? It seemed in the books that no one (Democrats or Socialists) had any idea beyond indefinite military occupation.

Like that one Canadian said to Moss, "Give us your Constitution or let us go."

 

[rob2001]

Read timeline 191 after the end. They give you one idea.

 

[teg]

1948 seems to early for their to be any real pressure for normalization. The scars of the war are too recent. And even if there was such pressure, the Socialists are the last ones in any position to exploit it. The last thing they need is to fuel the perception they are soft on the Confederates. (If they run a candidate who comes across as the second coming of Al Smith then the Socialists really will get locked out of the Powell House for a generation.)



Interesting and seems plausible. Do you see the US entering a formal alliance with the Australians? I'm sure the Australians will be clamoring for such an alliance as they will be terrified at having the massive Japanese Empire right next door, but would Dewey be interested in having the US take on a new foreign policy commitment when it already has so much on its plate in the Western Hemisphere?

On reflection I agree with this point. Perhaps the Democrats win in 1948 and 1952 but are fatigued by 1956 and lose to a resurgent Socialist Party. I agree with Tiro that the early post-war period is the best point for a Republican second-place finish, so perhaps the Republicans doing well in 1948 and 1952 contributes to the Democrat victories? By 1956, the Republicans have lost steam and the Socialists have managed to build up a more wide-ranging coalition and secure power.

I'll admit I've never been fond of a Fourth Pacific War, especially given that After the End has already done that. I'd prefer a mini-Cold War which ultimately terminates in the Japanese Empire experiencing a Yugoslavia/Soviet Union style collapse in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

The way I see it, the Irian War flows directly from the end of the Pacific War. During the Pacific War, the Japanese invade both the Japanese and German possessions on the island, with the German colony falling in the first months of the war and the Australian section falling except for a portion around Port Moresby in 1943. With the end of the Pacific War, both Germany and the US have the capacity to destroy Japan (and the Japanese government knows this) but Germany does not have any bases in range of any important Japanese possessions, and the United States is tied down in the Americas and nobody is particularly keen on occupying yet another large country. As a consequence, the Treaty of Los Angeles which ends the Pacific War is mostly a compromise; Japan's conquests against the Entente are rubber-stamped but the Japanese are forced to withdraw from eastern New Guinea.

From the perspective of the British Empire, the war has been a disaster. Several of Britain's major cities are in ruins and the Empire is falling apart. In the first years after the war, the more developed colonies such as India break away, while the African colonies are annexed by Germany. For Australia, the breakup of the British Empire is a dire security problem, especially with Japan next door and a hostile United States to the north-east. In the 1946 federal elections, the far-right Southern Cross does what it failed to do during the Silver Shirt years and becomes a junior coalition party to a new Liberal ministry. One of the Southern Cross Party's major policies is increasingly extractive policies in Australian New Guinea as well as trying to encourage white settlement, which doesn't work particularly well but manages to piss off the local tribes. By the time the German-American split becomes obvious to the general public, Australian troops are fighting a brush war in the highlands.

For Japan, the SCP's belligerent policies in New Guinea present an opportunity. Since the end of the war, Japan has been faced with growing internal stability as pissed off militarists riot periodically and disputes between the army and navy increase. To distract the militarists, and erode their numbers and credibility, the Japanese government officially and unofficially launches anti-partisan operations on the fringes of Japan's new empire to consolidate their control. The occupation of Transamur is one of the official actions, while New Guinea is a non-official action. Through 1948 and 1949, Japanese troops start to turn up fighting alongside the tribesmen. Although the Australians protest angrily, the Japanese government disclaims responsibility and asserts they are deserters.

In Philadelphia, the continued Japanese expansion is viewed with concern. Although the US Pacific Fleet, now significantly reinforced with ships from the Atlantic, is capable of matching the Imperial Japanese Navy, the overall consensus in the War Department is that indirect measures are better. This includes jostling with Germany for influence in India and Russia but increasingly there are calls to support Australia. Much of the arguments are bound in racist Yellow Peril arguments but they gain considerable traction and from early 1948 onwards, a significant portion of Australia's budget for the war in New Guinea is coming from the United States. Despite this, the Australian position continues to worsen as the Japanese send more 'volunteers' to the war zone. In December 1948, with Port Moresby besieged and discontent at the war growing in Australia, Prime Minister Menzies directly (but covertly) asks President Dewey for assistance. In early 1949, the first American bombers begin to arrive at Darwin and by the middle of the year, the first American anti-partisan 'advisers' have arrived in New Guinea itself...

teg

 

[Joshua Ben Ari]

It is genuinely rather nice to imagine some reconciliation between Quebec and their formerly-Canadian brothers and sisters (although I'll bet that if even one unreconstructed Tory - in the sense of Loyalists during the American Revolution - remains at large, it's a reconciliation likely to be as complicated as that between Ulster and the South in our own Ireland).

Oh I agree - reconciliation will be difficult and no doubt resemble Northern Ireland and the Republic. And the man that I've always imagined as beginning that process of reconciliation within Quebec is Louis St. Laurent; not sure why, but it's always him. It'll still be complicated between Canada and Quebec, and if Canada is ever independent, I have reservations that Quebec would join again. I've also imagined that the French speaking population in English Canada (Franco-Ontarians, etc) would help facilitate that - they're French-speaking Canadians who have been under the boot of American occupation and oppression, but can help smooth ties between Canadians and Quebecois(es).

I don't know why, but I've always thought it would be cool if there was a "de Gaulle goes to Montreal" type moment when/if the British Prime Minister comes to the United States. From the balcony of the Toronto City Hall, he yells "Long live free Canada!" to the cheering mass of Canadians below. And it's this shout that helps spur the Canadian National Party to sweep the Canadian states. I've always imagined that Britain is very sympathetic to the cause of Canadian independence.

How long after TL-191 officially ended will the US develop an actual plan for what to do with Canada? It seemed in the books that no one (Democrats or Socialists) had any idea beyond indefinite military occupation.

Like that one Canadian said to Moss, "Give us your Constitution or let us go."

From what I remember, Canada had some relaxation of the occupation in the 1920s, but that ended in the 1924-25 rebellion. I'd imagine that it would be about a generation or two into the occupation (so probably like the late 1950s to mid-1960s) that the Americans would think of relaxing it and admitting them as territories or states. But until the US starts doing that, the maxim "Give us your Constitution or get out" will be one of the rallying cries for deciding the future of the former Dominion.

Depends. Some might make peace and join the U.S. parties when the former provinces become states. Republicans and Socialists might perform better as the Democrats are probably seen as the party of conquest.

I like that idea about the Canada-Quebec reconciliation.

I imagine Republicans would be seen in the better light, while the Democrats and Socialists both administered the occupation, the GOP had little (if anything) to do with it. If anything, a Canadian National Party and the GOP will probably compete for votes in the Canadian states - one appealing to "Canada should be free!", and the other saying "let's work within the system".

 

[bguy]

I'll admit I've never been fond of a Fourth Pacific War, especially given that After the End has already done that. I'd prefer a mini-Cold War which ultimately terminates in the Japanese Empire experiencing a Yugoslavia/Soviet Union style collapse in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

That does sound more interesting. The problem is a Fourth Pacific War is pretty difficult to avoid. After all the big take way TL-191 US got from the Second Great War is don't ever let your enemies get strong enough that they can threaten you. Atomic weapons will make Japan a huge threat (potentially far more dangerous than Featherston ever war), so if Japan does start developing atomic weapon capability, the US will almost certainly launch a preemptive strike. (And most likely with its own atomic weapons.)

Thus the only real ways I can see to avoid a Fourth Pacific War are either Japan voluntarily foregoing atomic weapons (which is unlikely since the Japanese know they are basically defenseless against the US and Germany without such weapons) or Germany allying with Japan and making clear that any US attack on Japan will be regarded as an attack on Germany. (Which also seems unlikely since why would the Germans want to forego their alliance with the US to ally with a country who betrayed its allies during the Second Great War?)

The way I see it, the Irian War flows directly from the end of the Pacific War. During the Pacific War, the Japanese invade both the Japanese and German possessions on the island, with the German colony falling in the first months of the war and the Australian section falling except for a portion around Port Moresby in 1943. With the end of the Pacific War, both Germany and the US have the capacity to destroy Japan (and the Japanese government knows this) but Germany does not have any bases in range of any important Japanese possessions, and the United States is tied down in the Americas and nobody is particularly keen on occupying yet another large country. As a consequence, the Treaty of Los Angeles which ends the Pacific War is mostly a compromise; Japan's conquests against the Entente are rubber-stamped but the Japanese are forced to withdraw from eastern New Guinea.

From the perspective of the British Empire, the war has been a disaster. Several of Britain's major cities are in ruins and the Empire is falling apart. In the first years after the war, the more developed colonies such as India break away, while the African colonies are annexed by Germany.

This all seems plausible except possibly the last point. Can Germany really afford to annex the British (and French) African colonies? The Germans are already going to have their hands full with rebuilding Germany (remember Entente forces advanced all the way to Hamburg, so northwest Germany was probably pretty damaged even before the atomic strike), occupying France, propping up the Austro-Hungarians, and maintaining control in Eastern Europe. It also already presumably has a rather big empire in Africa (assuming it grabbed the Belgian Congo and French Equatorial Africa after the First Great War.) Trying to annex Algeria or Egypt or South Africa on top of everything else the German Empire is already having to do, might just be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

In Philadelphia, the continued Japanese expansion is viewed with concern. Although the US Pacific Fleet, now significantly reinforced with ships from the Atlantic, is capable of matching the Imperial Japanese Navy, the overall consensus in the War Department is that indirect measures are better. This includes jostling with Germany for influence in India and Russia but increasingly there are calls to support Australia. Much of the arguments are bound in racist Yellow Peril arguments but they gain considerable traction and from early 1948 onwards, a significant portion of Australia's budget for the war in New Guinea is coming from the United States. Despite this, the Australian position continues to worsen as the Japanese send more 'volunteers' to the war zone. In December 1948, with Port Moresby besieged and discontent at the war growing in Australia, Prime Minister Menzies directly (but covertly) asks President Dewey for assistance. In early 1949, the first American bombers begin to arrive at Darwin and by the middle of the year, the first American anti-partisan 'advisers' have arrived in New Guinea itself...

Interesting. How big a troop commitment do you see the US making by 1952? If Dewey gets the US involved in New Guinea in a big way, that could give the Socialists their opening for the 1952 elections. (Arguing that Dewey is neglecting the pacification of the Confederate States and Canada by diverting so many troops to a pointless conflict in far off Asia.)

 

[ZGradt]

Now that you guys mentioned Japan, I'm kind of wondering (since this is relevant to the post I'm working on) how are they treating their colonies. The Taisei Yokusankai didn't achieve power IOTL until the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War, but considering they had a war with the U.S. which ended up occupying the Hawaiian Islands and bombing L.A, what would be the reason for the earlier ascension? Is it because they got France and the Netherlands to sell Indochina and the East Indies to them, along with beating the shit out of Spain and China in earlier wars?

Because if that's the case, then I can see them removing indigenous Taiwanese tribes from Taiwan and start moving in more Japanese settlers and removing indigenous Filipinos from the island of Luzon to make way for Japanese settlers.