The People's Party Remains, 1888-

[JWHart]

<de-lurks>

One of the best timelines I've seen on the forum so far. The one bit of criticism I'd offer is that I see a slight tendency towards Ameri-wank -- did the U.S. lose a single battle against the Germans/Japanese?

Also, I'm curious as to whether America's more aggressive entry onto the world stage will have any ripple effects in Europe. At the least, I'd think Germany would be more cautious in it's dealing with the U.S. during WWI (assuming that still happens).

Keep it coming!

[JWHart]

As to your question, American forces did suffer some defeats intervening in the German-Japanese War, but mostly from the Japanese. The German Navy wasn't as powerful in the Pacific as the Americans or the Japanese, and mainly relied on ambushes on American forces throughout the Caroline Islands.

As for the Japanese, they defeated the Americans (mainly by playing a good defense) at Manilla once or twice. It was the second major attack and a coordinated assault with the Filipinos that broke the Japanese hold on Manilla Bay. The Imperial Japanese Navy is the second most powerful force in the Pacific, but their attention was divided between Germany, the Americans, and tension with Russia, causing some of their forces to be divided.

In short, I referenced some American defeats and losses, but not to the extent I did the losses of the Japanese and Germans.

Ah, fair enough. On re-reading, the "Second Battle of Manilla" does imply a first battle, doesn't it? It also would explain how Pattison passed his military expansion so quickly -- racial attitudes being what they were, the USN losing a battle to a non-white country would put a shock in the system. (OTL, the Russo-Japanese War was the first time a Western nation had lost a "modern" war to non-whites, and the Russian government nearly collapsed because of it. Wonder if that'll play out the same, BTW)

Does the fact that American defeats are glossed over mean that we're reading this from an ATL American History textbook, or am I reading too much into it?

[JWHart]

As to your question, American forces did suffer some defeats intervening in the German-Japanese War, but mostly from the Japanese. The German Navy wasn't as powerful in the Pacific as the Americans or the Japanese, and mainly relied on ambushes on American forces throughout the Caroline Islands.

As for the Japanese, they defeated the Americans (mainly by playing a good defense) at Manilla once or twice. It was the second major attack and a coordinated assault with the Filipinos that broke the Japanese hold on Manilla Bay. The Imperial Japanese Navy is the second most powerful force in the Pacific, but their attention was divided between Germany, the Americans, and tension with Russia, causing some of their forces to be divided.

In short, I referenced some American defeats and losses, but not to the extent I did the losses of the Japanese and Germans.

Ah, fair enough. On re-reading, the "Second Battle of Manilla" does imply a first battle, doesn't it? It also would explain how Pattison passed his military expansion so quickly -- racial attitudes being what they were, the USN losing a battle to a non-white country would put a shock in the system. (OTL, the Russo-Japanese War was the first time a Western nation had lost a "modern" war to non-whites, and the Russian government nearly collapsed because of it. Wonder if that'll play out the same, BTW)

Does the fact that American defeats are glossed over mean that we're reading this from an ATL American History textbook, or am I reading too much into it?

I'll try to highlight American defeats from now on if that's better

Oh, focus on what you want, I was semi-joking. (Although, based on your writing style to date, you might consider portraying this as a textbook from the ATL. It's a technique often used on alternatehistory.com)

Good update!

[JWHart]

... and several American businesses being shut down by the United States Government for doing business with Japan,

Does this mean that Pattison signed the Taft-Allen Act? It wasn't explicitly mentioned.

President Pattison sends an envoy to British Prime Minister William J. Brodrick (Conservative) requesting Britain's government refuse to send any military aid to Japan, suggesting only humanitarian aid and military neutrality. Prime Minister Brodrick promises to "greatly consider" the request.

I wiki'd that name -- do you mean this guy? Any reason he gets in instead of Balfour, or just butterflies?

As usual, good stuff. Japan's Great Power ambitions are turning into an epic fail...

[JWHart]

So, Russia won. Unfortunately, my knowledge of early Russian & Japanese history is spotty.

In Japan, the military has failed, twice. Sure, they salvaged something each time, but that's not enough for a county which had a bit of an inferiority complex at the time. OTL, the death of the Emperor in 1912 initiated the Taisho period of democratic pushback against the aristocracy -- that movement will likely be stronger and more successful, since the genro can be neutered in the name of military reform. Japan may well be a British-style constitutional monarchy by the 20's.

Japan will also likely remain quiescent in foreign policy for awhile, but after the Taisho house-cleaning, will probably seek to come back in a big way.

Russia...hmm. At first I thought you'd eliminated the Revolution of 1905, but that seemed to have sparked independently of the war. Still, without Russian humiliation and with the Army remaining behind him, the Tsar should end in a much stronger position. The Duma may end up not being formed at all.

Good stuff, as ever.

[JWHart]

Still reading & enjoying.

One question -- given how the "New Liberals" basically deershanked the traditional faction of the party, why couldn't they just take over the existing Liberal Party instead of striking out on their own?

[JWHart]

:: poke ::

Any updates nigh?

[JWHart]

It lives!

Good stuff, keep it coming.