Talk:The Big Switch

Title announced
This gives a little credence to your Stalin joins Hitler idea, TF. On the other hand, it could easily be an Allies join Germany against Stalin switch, too. TR 17:03, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the Eastern Front seems to be the secondary for Hitler now. That could change, I suppose--West and East sort of implies a shift in focus, doesn't it?


 * That as well. In any event, the titles for this series continue to fail to inspire. TR 17:28, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alternately, if we're sticking with the 70s baseball theme, it could be about Pete Rose, the switch-hitter. Turtle Fan 17:21, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * That as well. It occurs to me that since HT never writes directly about living people, Pete Rose would become Pedro Posey, or simply Rete Pose. 17:28, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right; hadn't thought of that.


 * Maybe he'll combine Rose with some other switch hitter and pull a Franklin Delano Truman. Turtle Fan 18:16, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Zsu 03:52, October 16, 2010 (UTC)Right Germany and Russia to much ideaolgy going on.West and East could be Poland and Germany siding up against Stalin,but I think you are on to something about the Allies and Germany siding up though.


 * Poland is already a German ally. Also, while its territory is a major front and its contributions of personnel to the Axis forces are significant, it's not a major enough ally to make a Big Switch even in the unlikely event it does defect to the Allied camp.


 * I can think of the following scenarios that involve the defection of a major member from one alliance system to the other:


 * 1. Britain and France join Germany and Japan for a war against Russia;


 * 2. Russia joins Germany for a war against Britain and France (or a ceasefire, as Birmo inserted into the AoT books, temporarily);


 * 3. Japan joins Russia for a war against Germany--which makes no sense, unless it's as a corollary to the above;


 * 4. Britain joins Germany for a war against France: extremely low probability; or


 * 5. Vice versa, with the same caveat.


 * Another way to look at it would be a switch of US popular opinion from isolationist to interventionist. It would seem to come out of nowhere, since we have no POVs inside the United States and since the only regular character who's at all involved in US policy-making is presented exclusively through a POV who's afraid he'll seduce her again. Still, I'd have to say this scenario sounds rather more likely than any of the above.


 * Oh, and welcome to our community. We're always glad to have new members. Turtle Fan 04:52, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Something else to consider in predicting the future of this series: vols 4-6 were not contracted for until after HW was published. That could mean that TBS was planned out as a possible stopping point if the negotiations didn't bear out. IIRC, the title of TBS was not announced until after 4-6 were contracted for. Based on this, and the way things stand in W&E, I am going with Germany falls, USSR pushes too hard into Europe, the Allies panic and declare war. TR 16:16, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Another theory
Thinking about this the other day, and two rather mundane explanations for the title came to mind. 1: Germany loses, which is a BIG SWITCH from Germany running around, kicking everyone's asses in the first two volumes; 2: Hitler finally gets overthrown, and there is a BIG SWITCH to another leader (which could still lead to a BIG SWITCH of alliances as discussed above). We'll know in the coming months of course; some reviewer will let the cat out of the bag months before the book is actually published. TR 14:55, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The first would be a letdown (unless it went somewhere interesting) while the second could be fun.


 * At any rate, the titles of this series and of each book in it are embarrassingly bland.


 * Otherwise, though, the story's picking up. Who'd have thought last winter or last spring that we'd already be looking forward to the next TWTPE installment, and that we'd have decided to take a pass on A&OP altogether? Turtle Fan 19:55, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Shall We Start This Up?
Since this is, for the moment, the only upcoming work which rests on works we've already read, it's also the only upcoming work with which we can play our favorite game, hypothesizing about what's next. We've got our discussions of potential big shifts in the alliance systems above, but how about on other, smaller levels?

I don't see the US getting involved in the war, be it in Europe or in Asia; it would just be coming out of nowhere. HT has not been preparing us for anything on that front. We might be looking at a WWII which never involves the US at all. That has intriguing possibilities.

The only way I can see to get American involvement would be in Asia, and only in a specific low-probability series of events. Germany and Japan get their feet to the Russian throat, which involves them starting to cooperate more closely. With the northern flank more or less secure, Japan swings south, into Southeast Asia, attacking British, French, and Dutch colonies; and the US supports the Europeans, especially the British, for fear that if the Japanese gobble up colonies in that region they'll take the Philipines while they're at it. Low probability because it depends on the Germans having success against the Russians, which doesn't seem to be in the cards; if they can afford to be beating the Russians that dramatically, they'd need to move those forces to hold the line in the west where the Anglo-French are coming on strong. (Unless maybe the Germans reverse engineer the plot convenience that had their advance grind to a halt for no apparent reason at the end of HW, and deploy that weapon in the west.) Maybe the Japanese will attack Southeast Asia to hamstring the Brits and French and keep them from forcing the Germans to return their focus to the western front, but if the Soviets have not been by and large knocked out of the fight in Asia (in which case the Japanese probably wouldn't need the Germans to keep them occupied elsewhere) Japan will simultaneously be fighting every first- and second-rate power in the world except for Germany.

It would force McGill to see some action, but his travelogue narrative got a bit more interesting in W&E, and given how repetitive all the front-line POVs are getting, I don't mind the refreshing breaks afforded by him doing something else. As long as it's something, and not nothing; in HW, you might as well have replaced his scenes with blank pages that said "INTERMISSION" in the center in big bold letters.


 * I tend to agree with much of what you've said. I don't see the Germans lasting long enough to give the US an excuse to join in. But McGill, being the "battle-ready" American POV that he is, does highlight some of the spots where US interests might be sufficiently impacted enough to provoke their entry. And even those aren't huge. TR 23:49, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * All that "We'll be fighting the Japs soon; yep, we'll be fighting the Japs soon" is sort of a Chekov's Gun. But this is a gun I wouldn't mind not having fired. The war as it now stands just doesn't lend itself to American intervention. The Allies don't need it, not even Lend-Lease aid; and it wouldn't do anything to make our story more interesting, either.


 * Hmm--I wonder what the effect will be on postwar geopolitics if the USSR, UK, and France take down the Nazis while the US does nothing but unenthusiastically root for them from the sidelines. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm expecting major Republican strides in Spain. The Germans will likely be pulling their forces out while they still can, and with the Allies retaking all the territory they'd lost in France, they'll be wanting to stamp out any traces of Axis influence on the flanks. The Soviets probably can't spare any aid, even if they did have a way to get it to Spain, so the lion's share of foreign assistance may go to the non-communist factions, which would alter the landscape of the political rivalries in the Republic. With our man on the ground there shifting from a combatant role to a political one, he'd be well-positioned to cover such things.


 * Yes, I can see that coming. Sanjurjo is no Franco. TR 23:49, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, and yet the Nationalists do nothing but reflect on how much worse things would be if Franco were in charge. In fact he would have won the war for them before the series even started. There is irony there. I hope it is eventually proven that HT has something other than irony in mind with his thus far non sequitir of a side plot. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Any predictions I might make about the main theaters of operations, where most of our characters are deployed, will inevitably be tied up in guesswork as to what the big switch is. If it's anything at all: It looks like there's not much thought going into the titles. We've got some semblance of the events of the first two books being worthy of the names "Hitler's War" and "West and East," respectively, but the titles aren't what anyone would call a close fit for the stories they tell. They're so vague I can't help but wonder if the only reason we see the connections is because we've twisted the stories to reflect the titles, rather than vice versa. Turtle Fan 22:34, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Hitler's War refers to the fact that Hitler desperately wanted war at Munich in '38, and so here he gets to have that war, as it were. It's not terribly original, but I can see the intent (I think).


 * Likely. Any chain of events that leads to Hitler instigating a war--and that's not hard to come up with--would qualify. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * But West and East...There is fighting in places to the west of other places and fighting in places east of other places, and you might be in the west or the east, depending on your perspective.


 * When I first saw the title I assumed it would be a book about the focus of attention shifting from Western Europe to Eastern Europe. And it did . . . I guess. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a broad stab based on what we know so far. I am going to make this stab based on the presumption that The Big Switch, what we know so far, and I will incorporate a few other predictions:


 * Sounds good. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Germany has very little to show for what its spent on this war (Czechoslovakia, the Low Countries, Denmark...did I miss anything?), and is meeting huge set backs in France, Poland, and Norway. The audacious blitzkriegs they used in OTL haven't given them the victories in this TL. The coup attempts against Hitler seem to be far more resolute than in OTL. I just don't see Nazi Germany making it through to the end of TBS.


 * The Low Countries will be liberated soon. (So maybe we will see one of their monarchs after all.) Denmark might or might not. The Allies never did bother in OTL. They didn't bother with Norway either; they just let the occupation forces wither on the vine. Since they're retaking the one in this timeline, they might retake the other.


 * But yeah, Hitler's War has sucked, and I'm not just talking about the quality of the first installment in the series. The war he was so excited about has been an unmitigated disaster. Replacing Hitler with someone like Canaris or Jodl allows a wild card: They might end up on the side of the West against the Soviets, or vice versa, or maybe, whichever one they try, none of the Allies will trust them and will hold off on Stalin's War till they've crushed Germany, no matter who's in charge. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Japan may be reaching its limits soon. While Vladivostok sounded like it was tottering, the Chinese Communists blowing shit up is going to be problematic.


 * When people talk about the various strategic options open to Japan, it's surprisingly easy to forget that they were in a total war of attrition against the largest country in the world. (And they were fighting all of China, minus Manchuria and a few other disaffected conquered provinces, no matter what Zzarchov says.) That's a bit of an albatross. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The USSR is almost certainly going to war with Finland, and the Germans won't have the resources to help them directly as they did the Poles. And that fight is going to look more purely aggressive than the attack on Poland did, which at least had some vague "the Poles are being mean to Byelorussians" excuse.


 * They'll probably press some sort of irredentist claim. It will play as naked expansionism, especially after the expansionist-irredentism of Hitler's War. They were already sticking their toe into Lithuania at the end of the last book, too, and certainly Latvia and Estonia won't be far behind. I'd also expect them to go into Romania sooner or later.


 * Of course, even after Germany goes down, I think they'll want to hold off on opening new fronts until they've got the Japanese invasion at least contained (which could easily lead to an imperial adventure in Manchukuo sooner or later, too). Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The Republicans make huge headway in Spain.


 * Agreed. I do hope that if they do it's with assistance from the Western Allies going to someone other than the communists. A choice between totalitarians is no choice at all, and the Republicans really weren't so bad before the Stalinists dominated their coalition. Turtle Fan 06:10, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * True. The problem is, HT has only shown us the Stalinists. While he's also said that the Stalinists aren't as dominant as they were in W&E, I think the Republic is still going to have a strong thread of Communism in its DNA. TR 16:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Max Weinberg or whatever his name is could start introducing us to some non-communists, obsess over how uneasy their alliance is, and then in his final scene say "Ah shit, here they come!" Also, with Delgadillo dying in his last scene last year, there's the possibility of an altogether new Spanish POV. Turtle Fan 20:28, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * So, I'm going to stand by the "Stalin's War" idea: Germany collapses,the USSR is on the move, the commies are taking over Spain, and the Allies, in a panic about all this communism generally and the aggressive USSR in particular, accidentally or on purpose, start fighting the USSR. I don't see Japan collapsing on the same schedule as Germany, and since they are fighting the USSR already, Britain and France join forces with Japan.


 * I could see a European war breaking out. Western Europe on Japan's side could alienate the US. Well, this might be one area in which the US will lose some standing with the victors of a war they kept out of. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Or, alternatively, books 4-6 are post-war stories a la American Empire: Germany falls, Japan pulls back, and a cold war scenario starts in 1940 or '41.


 * I doubt it. American Empire was always meant to be a setup for yet another trilogy (which expanded, of course) so that would show commitment to a major, decade-long project. HT's output being what it is, I just don't see that happening these days.


 * Still, if it took us to a series set in the 60s or 70s, we could get a bunch of new historical figures. Hell, conceivably we really would have a Reggie Jackson appearance. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * And either way, I really don't see how the USA gets into this.


 * Do you suppose the Brits--they'd be the one to make a coalition with the Japanese something more than a formality--would help Japan take the Philipines? Well, I doubt they'd actually land troops or fire on US warships or anything, but they might say "Tough shit" when the US complains. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Possible, but it would be incredibly counter-productive for the British cause if they are at war with the Soviet Union. The USA is still an untouched and untapped military machine waiting to spring to life. Cutting off that potential resource would be just dumb. Granted, plenty of countries have made dumb decisions before. TR 16:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Brits would broker a deal to nip in the bud a short war that starts between US and Japan. Still, they'd be likely to deal much more favorably with Japan than they normally would have in these circumstances.


 * If the western Europeans are on Japan's side anyway, Japan would have no reason to go into Southeast Asia. Still, the US liked Moscow better than Tokyo at this time. In fact, a very large part of the reason the US finally established diplomatic relations with the USSR was to coordinate efforts to check Japanese expansionism. I think the US will continue to stay out of it--Surprisingly, they've really got no more reason to support one side than the other, once Hitler's out. Turtle Fan 20:28, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I do hope someone who is not Winston Churchill becomes PM, just for variety. Likewise, I hope someone other than FDR becomes president in 1940. TR 23:49, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't remember whether Chamberlain's government has fallen.


 * It hasn't. Implicitly, the third confidence vote prophesied by Walsh in HW didn't happen since things were turning the Allies way in Spring, 1939. At the end of W&E, Chamberlain appoints Churchill his war minister. The fact that Churchill appears leads me to believe that HT will promote him. *sigh* TR 16:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Chamberlain is due to die of natural causes soon, so I don't doubt it. Plus, we keep hearing how wonderful Churchill is. Turtle Fan 20:28, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was looking at a list of his war cabinet, and everyone there was at least as much an appeaser as the real Chamberlain. I guess they might be more formidable than they were in OTL, but if they're going to get rid of Chamberlain (if they haven't already) they won't be wanting more of the same, and there's no one but Churchill who's likely to show a drastic difference and at the same time win a Conservative leadership election.


 * Maybe there'd be a wartime election and the Conservatives would be shown the door, though that flies in the face of longstanding British tradition, at least at that time; it wouldn't be so hard to imagine today. A Labour government, or a Labour-led coalition, would be headed by Atlee. I was surprised; I thought he hadn't become Labour leader till much later than he did. He even headed the party in the 1935 general election, ever since George Lansbury resigned the post because he didn't want to lead a party whose candidates would run on a call for sanctions against the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. (Really.)


 * The Liberal leader was Archibald Sinclair. He was far too much of a joke to have any chance of getting his party out of distant third. Maybe Chamberlain/Churchill and Atlee would come courting in the event of a hung parliament, but that still wouldn't make him a PM.


 * Another way it could swing would be a BUF victory, though after a war with the Nazis they'd probably be going by Union Movement, as they did during the war in OTL. If everyone's gearing up to fight the Communists, I guess it's conceivable. They wouldn't have a majority, they wouldn't have enough votes to lead a coalition, but they could have an effect on whatever party does need them to get enough votes in a coalition. Like in TL-191. I doubt it, though.


 * I don't foresee elections; the change will come because Chamberlain died of cancer in November, 1940 in OTL, and WWII staring in 1938 isn't going to change that. In OTL, Chamberlain wanted Halifax to replace him, but Halifax didn't want the job, and nobody was listening to Chamberlain anyway. In this TL, where appeasement isn't really an albatross, Chamberlain might have his way if Halifax wants the job. Just...something....different. TR 16:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't get us a new historical figure, I'm afraid.


 * Halifax was a Lord, not an MP. The PM has come from the Commons since 1902, and the idea that that's how it should be had grown stronger and stronger throughout Victoria's reign. Granted, that's not an old enough precedent in 1940 to be inviolable, as it would be today, but it would still be a break from tradition, and there'd be resistance.


 * If there's a brief period of peace between Hitler's and Stalin's Wars, I wouldn't be surprised if they called an election. Parliament passes its "Best If Used By" date on November 14, 1940. In OTL, only the ongoing war, plus the fact that every party was in the Government, allowed the electorate to tolerate the delay in calling the next election. Also, Chamberlain is due to expire five days before Parliament is, so the new Conservative leader, whoever he might be, will very likely be eager to get his leadership affirmed and win an election in his own right, preferably while he can associate himself with the victory over Germany and the feel-good period that would usher in. Now he might not; Churchill, Major, and Brown didn't when they succeeded Chamberlain, Thatcher, and Blair respectively. Only one of the three retained the premiership when the election finally was held, and him just barely. Even VE Day didn't save Churchill. Turtle Fan 20:28, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * As for Roosevelt, it seems I read once that the real reason he ran for a third term was that he had no confidence that any of his likely successors from either party would have what it took to deal with Hitler.


 * I've read that as well. TR 16:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's good, I sometimes worry that I've made a lot of stuff like that up and then forgot about it, just assuming I found it in a credible source. Turtle Fan 20:28, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * If Hitler's out by then, maybe he'd step down and support Garner's candidacy, as the latter had always assumed he would. Garner's a much weaker candidate, so that raises the possibility of the Republicans being competitive.


 * True, but Garner might have some advantages in that he'd have FDR's support and a viable "The Dems kept us out of war" platform to run on (and if the war is over, that's pretty strong). It might not be enough, but Garner could arguably be a stronger candidate in this world than in OTL. It might be nice for Garner to be president for full term in an HT work, and not just be overthrown. TR 16:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess. Again, it won't get us a new historical figure, which is what I hang my hat on. Turtle Fan 20:28, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * It might just be President Wilkie,


 * Which, if this series were more Amerocentric, would be interesting for no better reason than both Willkie and his running mate, Charles McNary died in 1944. TR 16:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooh, that's right! So President Rayburn, then? Assuming the GOP doesn't take the House; if the Democrats' stock is high, they wouldn't. (Not in '40, anyway; maybe in '42. Democratic stock was sky high in '08, and we got a Republican House in '10 just the same.) Turtle Fan 20:28, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * but if the theme is keeping the US out of the war, it might just as easily be President Nye or maybe even Robert Taft. Or maybe the America First Committee will steal the Democratic primaries from Garner and it will be Wheeler or Walsh.


 * I'd had this thought as well. After flirting with Taft a bit in 191 and in MwIH, I wonder if HT might just decide "what the hell" and get him elected. Of course, the viability of the isolationists is going to be directly related to whether or not the war is still going come November, 1940. If FDR "keeps the country out of war" and the war is over, the isolationists only real rejoinders would be "yeah but he didn't mean it" or "we would have done it better." TR 16:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * It does seem that the US is being kept out of the war despite FDR's wishes, not because of them, though that's based more on my OTL knowledge of the man than anything in the books; all he did was try to get Hitler to drop out of the war before he really started walloping Western Europe by offering to mediate while the Allies were still on the run. And presumably he or someone in his administration expressed displeasure over the sinking of an American ship, but any President would do that.


 * Also, "He kept us out of the war, and the war is over" loses something if the caveat is "And the next one starts in about twenty minutes," which is what you're calling for. But Garner was less of an interventionist than Roosevelt anyway (which is why Roosevelt didn't step aside in his favor, if what we both remember reading is correct). So a challenger, whether at the Democratic convention or in the general election, would need something more than that in his quiver.


 * Well, if they're isolationists, they'll be fond of debating domestic issues anyway. If we hear that it's Taft-Nye versus Wheeler-Walsh, though, we can put any thought of American intervention out of our minds for the rest of the series, even if HT did very effectively and believably draw Taft as an interventionist in TL-191.


 * And yes, I did think that, after teasing us with President Taft the Younger twice, HT might decide, Third time's a charm. Turtle Fan 20:28, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Would kill off our plans for making a section of Ideas Found in Multiple Timelines called "Incumbents Always Win in 1940."


 * Something tells me, though, we'd hardly notice. Turtle Fan 06:01, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary at DelRey
"In this extraordinary World War II alternate history, master storyteller Harry Turtledove begins with a big switch: what if Neville Chamberlain, instead of appeasing Hitler, had stood up to him in 1938? Enraged, Hitler reacts by lashing out at the West, promising his soldiers that they will reach Paris by the new year. They don’t. Three years later, his genocidal apparatus not fully in place, Hitler has barely survived a coup, while Jews cling to survival. But England and France wonder whether the war is still worthwhile.

Weaving together a cast of characters that ranges from a brawling American fighter in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Spain to a woman who has seen Hitler’s evil face-to-face, Harry Turtledove takes us into a world shaping up very differently in 1941. The Germans and their Polish allies have slammed into the gut of the Soviet Union in the west, while Japan pummels away in the east. In trench warfare in France, French and Czech fighters are outmanned but not outfought by their Nazi enemy. Then the stalemate is shattered. In England, Winston Churchill dies in an apparent accident, and the gray men who walk behind his funeral cortege wonder who their real enemy is. The USSR, fighting for its life, makes peace with Japan—and Japan’s war with America is about to begin.

A sweeping saga of human passions, foolishness, and courage, of families and lovers and soldiers by choice and by chance, The Big Switch is a provocative, gripping, and utterly convincing work of alternate history at its best. For history buffs and fans of big, blood-and-guts fiction, Harry Turtledove delivers a panoramic clash of ideals as powerful as armies themselves."

...I'm going to let that all sink in for a moment. I'm rather enthusiastic about TBS as of this moment. TR 01:54, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I was a bit worried when they said "The 'big switch' refers to something that happened two books ago"--But yes. Now if the Soviets remain at war with Germany but Japan makes a separate peace, and if the Japanese fight the USA while said USA is not party to the European war, those would be two entirely different wars that have nothing to do with one another. Well, unless maybe the Japanese try to use Malaya and Sarawak as a springboard to the Philipines, I guess.


 * Let's not get forget the number of inaccuracies often found in DelRey summaries ("the most dangerous place is being overlooked!"). Heck, in the one above, we learn that "three years later", the Germans still haven't made it to Paris. Now, HW starts September 30, 1938. W&E ends in December 1939. I'm no math wizard, but I think that's fourteen months, not thirty-six months. (That could be a hint that HT crams 1940 and part of 1941 into this one, I suppose.) TR 16:27, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, I just realized, it does say "world shaping up very differently in 1941." I feel slightly sheepish, although, in my defense, I find the idea that Churchill is dead much more interesting than the year the book is set in.  This must mean that HT crams all of 1940 and part of 1941 into TBS, or HT just skips a year.  That's not HT's style, but anything can happen.  Or the publisher of the blurb got it wrong.  TR 23:03, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I missed it too. I think we all did.  It's forgivable, considering the much bigger news the summary contained.


 * I can't see HT just skipping 1940. He could be picking up the pace of the story, or he could just write the first month or two and leave some pretty clear hints where the rest of the year will go. Turtle Fan 01:12, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the most dangerous place in the world was overlooked, since we never found out what it was.


 * My favorite was in TG: It talked about Morrell using paratroopers at Chattanooga and then says " . . . prompting Featherston to retaliate with his newest weapon, the atomic bomb." Though that was in the uncorrected proof Silver sent me for being the first person who actually wrote articles on this site; I never did get around to checking to see if they caught it when the book went to print.


 * But anyway, I'm also quite excited. Turtle Fan 03:23, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Who replaces Churchill as PM
Here's something: If Churchill dies, and assuming Chamberlain is also dead, we will almost certainly get our wish of an ahistorical PM.

I'm looking up what happens if the PM dies in office. Thanks to Britain's unwritten Constitution, I'm not having much luck. In theory the King could ask anyone he damned well pleases to take the job, or at least attempt to form the government, provided that someone is a member of either the Commons or the Lords. In practice, of course, it doesn't work that way. When a PM leaves mid-term, as Blair did most recently, but does not leave office feet-first, he or she (and she did) recommends that the sovereign give first crack at the job to. . . again, to anyone who sits in either the Commons or the Lords, but in practice to his or her successor as leader of the government party. If Churchill dies suddenly, one assumes the Conservatives won't have a successor waiting in the wings. It took four months for Labour to get from Gordon Brown's resignation to Ed Milliband's election, and in that time their Acting Leader was Acting Leader of the Opposition--which is not nearly so unfortunate as having an Acting Prime Minister. And how the Acting Prime Minister would be chosen is beyond me. (If there's an all-party coalition, as there was in OTL, Atlee, as leader fo the second-largest party, might keep the seat warm; but it doesn't sound like there's the kind of broad-based patriotic support that made the all-party coalition work.)


 * EDIT: The last Conservative leader to die in office was Disraeli, and at the time the leadership was somewhat decentralized compared to what it is now, so that replacing him was not too urgent. By 1940 that no longer held. Labour has had several leaders die in office; their procedures for filling the vacancy may or may not be relevant to the way their nemeses would do things, but it's all I've got. John Smith died in May 1994 (a shame he didn't just regenerate) and Blair was elected in July of that year. Hugh Gaitskell died in January 1963 and Harold Wilson was elected within a month. (Of course, both died while Labour was in opposition, so they don't help with replacing dead PMs.) In both cases, as well as following Brown's resignation last year (and the longer gap there was because Labour wanted to take the summer to regroup from their drubbing and try to throw something in front of the Cameron government so they could draw up a plan of attack before choosing their general to lead it) the Deputy Leader became Acting Leader automatically, pending a leadership election.


 * Huge problem with applying that model to this situation: The Conservative Party does not seem to have the office of Deputy Leader. Turtle Fan 05:08, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting question. It hasn't happened recently in Canada either so that can't give any guidance either. On the question of acting leader, the individual is generally selected by the sitting MPs of the party until a permanent leader is selected. Given that the permanent successor is usually selected at a party convention by delegates representing registered party members, the acting leader is usually an elder statesman type who isn't in the running to become the permanent leader.


 * I am surprised that there are no provisions for this in either constitution. I guess I should check the constitutions of other parliamentary democracies until I find something. Nah, that sounds too much like work.


 * The US Constitution used to have a similar issue, so I shouldn't pick on anyone else. Originally the language relating to the presidential succession said "The Vice President shall assume the duties of President." (It still does, but the answer to the question it gave rise to has since been clarified.) When Harrison died and Tyler became the first VP to serve while the President's office was vacant, there was some confusion as to whether "assum[ing] the duties" meant assuming the office--ie, whether Tyler was, in fact, President, or was merely standing in as such. There were those who insisted on calling him "Acting President Tyler." (This may very well have had as much to do with Tyler's personal unpopularity as it did with any legalistic t-crossing.) He instructed White House staff to mark any envelopes with that title on them "Return to Sender." Turtle Fan 19:07, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * This, of course, is recent process in peacetime after the party leader announces his intention to retire. It wouldn't be practical during wartime especially in an alt-WW II situation. I suspect that it would be decided within the cabinet with possible input from the backbencher MPs. If it is a coalition (that word again!) government as it was in OTL, then it would be MPs from all parties involved but the most likely successor would come from a sitting MP in Churchill's party. Also, it would have to be decided quickly, within days at most given the circumstances. Who, I leave to you to speculate. ML4E 16:35, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

I will tentatively suggest that Duncan Sandys will be our Prime Minister. Sandys was almost the only Conservative in the Commons who stuck by Churchill's side when he was on the outs with party leadership in the 30s, so he would be the ultimate Churchill man in this situation. If the Conservatives had recently been persuaded to elect Churchill as their party leader (and yes, I know the blurb didn't specify that he died after being elected party leader, but I have to start somewhere) and if they still want a Churchillian figure in their leadership position (and yes, I know they may very well not, especially if they're wondering who the real enemy is) Sandys's claim on being Churchill's natural successor would be almost unassailable. The only one who could rival him as Churchill's staunchest ally through the lean years is maybe Viscount Bracken, and I discussed above my skepticism that a Lord would be made a PM in the twentieth century. Turtle Fan 04:51, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I will stick by my Halifax prediction, provided of course that Winston dies as War Minister, not PM. As I stated elsewhere, he was Chamberlain's choice, and there seems to have been a willingness in Parliament to overlook his status as a Lord in the time of war in OTL.


 * No! You're wrong! It must be Sandys! Turtle Fan 19:07, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * My second choice will be Stanley Baldwin. He was still quite popular when he resigned, and while he approved of Munich, that particular stigma isn't an issue here.


 * No! You're wrong! It must be Sandys! Turtle Fan 19:07, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * If Winston dies as PM, then I think your prediction is sensible. The only "argument" against it is the line in the summary about France and England thinking it's no longer worth it to stay in war. That might suggest someone willing to promise an armistice rather than fight on. TR 16:27, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * No! You're wro--Oh, umm, never mind.


 * Depending on when it happens and what office Churchill is in, it's possible that when he dies (or maybe when Chamberlain dies, whichever is relevant) if Parliament's five-year mandate is up anyway, they might just send the second-highest Government official (Deputy PM existed at this time but was not always filled) to ask the King to dissolve Parliament and not bother choosing a new PM right away. Of course, if there's an election coming, the Conservatives will certainly want to have a leader in place, if only so the voters will know whom and what they're being asked to support. Turtle Fan 19:07, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Who Kills Churchill
Ok, if Churchill is indeed murdered, who done it? Here's a country by country analysis.

1. Germany-obvious choice. In either position, he will be able to prosecute the war more vigorously than Chamberlain had allowed. Germany can't handle that right now. Only negative is I can see is that it could easily backfire, inflaming the Brits if the truth gets out. Of course, that didn't stop the Nazis from doing anything.


 * If Germany goes around assassinating heads of government, the Brits will not need to wonder who the real enemy is. That line does cast Germany into doubt--Though ever since the most dangerous place in the world was overlooked, I've been a bit hesitant to let such intriguing sentences spin my predictions around all by themselves. Turtle Fan 19:14, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

2. USSR-probably the distant second. Chruchill was vehemently anti-Communist before the war, and Stalin knew it. Mysterious accidents were also a Stalin staple. However, the only reason I can think of for the USSR to go this route is to frame the Germans and inflame the British, with the added benefit of eliminating a potential rival. But even some of the appeasers like Baldwin liked the idea of German and the USSR duking it out, so there has to be a tangible benefit to risk pissing of an ally. And this logic only makes the vaguest of sense if Winston is WM. If he's PM, it's the dumbest thing the USSR could do.


 * Yeah, I can't think of any real motive there, either. Though I agree it sounds like classic NKVD tactics. Turtle Fan 19:14, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

3. France-Not so impossible. If that line about war fatigue is correct, perhaps France decides it wants to stop, but feels like Churchill will keep pushing. This works best if Churchill is PM. Makes no sense if he's WM.


 * They'd need to be trying to frame somebody, but yes, it's not the worst idea. Turtle Fan 19:14, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

4. Italy-Hasn't done anything up to now. No reason to think they'd enter the war in earnest with this sort of a splash.


 * Actually I could see them doing it. Some German diplomat is like "Hey assholes! Start pulling your weight!" And some Italian war planner is like "We're pussies, so we can't help out the conventional way, but maybe we can try some cloak-and-dagger shit." The problem is, they're not exactly famous for their secret services, either. Turtle Fan 19:52, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

5. Japan-Without the info about a truce between Japan and the USSR, I'd actually say Japan benefits quite a bit if Britain bows out and lets Germany pound the USSR from the West. That could provide a bit of irony, I suppose.
 * Assassin 1:"We killed Churchill, Prime Minister Konoe!"
 * PM Konoe: "I just signed a peace with Stalin, faithful lackey."
 * Assassin 1 (sadly): "All that work for nothing."


 * They assassinated a Korean queen in her own palace in 1890-something. That set in motion a long chain of events that led to their occupying and annexing the peninsula. This is a very, very different situation, but it has paid off for them before, sometimes in unexpected ways.


 * And it would be nice to have another Japanese PM, especially since we may get a third in Supervolcano. With Japan acting diplomatically and politically as well as militarily, our chances go up. Even if the Japanese POV whose name escapes me says nothing more than "The Prime Minister has said . . . " we'll know who he's talking about since it's a historical story. Turtle Fan 19:52, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

6. United States-Panicky isolationist? FDR plot to bring the fight to Germany? HT made the USA the bad guy in Colonization? I can't figure that out, either.


 * Can't figure out why he made the US the bad guy in Col? Neither can I, but I'm glad he did. It was nice having a thriller that actually kept us guessing instead of a "mystery" we could see coming from a mile away.


 * Oh, no, I can guess that. I mean, I can't guess a reason why the US would whack Churchill for any reason. I just threw the Col thing out as "precedence", as it were. TR 14:34, April 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * In Col it made sense both in-universe and from a writing perspective. Agreed that killing Churchill would do neither here. The closest I could come to an in-universe motive that's remotely sane--and it's not very close--is that someone in the US has decided that the British are going to lose the war and wants them to reach an agreement with Hitler while they've still got enough military force intact to serve as a hedge to German expansion to, and across, the Atlantic in the future. (FDR did offer to mediate in the first book when Hitler was beating the Allies like a drum, after all, and he made no such offers in the second book as the tide started to turn.) Then Churchill gets up and says "We will fight them on the beaches!" (A shame that's the only line from that speech that gets remembered, there were so many others that were just as good if not better) and someone in the US decides he needs to be replaced with someone who will use the better part of valor and live to fight another day.


 * Even if that's the motive, the means and opportunity are not there. The OSS was the first agency in American history that could carry out such a sophisticated operation overseas, and they weren't created till '42. The FBI might have been able to pull it off within US territory, but if your plot depends on luring Churchill to Washington, the likelihood of suspicion falling on the US goes through the roof. Though I guess that the UK could be relied upon to try to keep the Germans away from the Atlantic just the same, even if Anglo-American relations sour: It's the Brits' neck, too. I doubt they'll ally with Hitler just to stick it to the US. Turtle Fan 15:07, April 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * And he made the UK the worse guy in Col. And he made them irrelevant in HB, and made a point of doing so. When Darwin and Tommy claimed Anglophobia on Turtledove's part, that was by far the strongest argument. Or would have been; for some reason they never even used it. They just kept beating the "The British didn't return to Canada in SA!" drum. The anti-Australian argument was stronger than that. But I digress.


 * When you mentioned this it reminded me that Churchill was hit by a car on a visit to New York shortly before taking on the Premiership (I don't remember the exact date), and could have easily been killed if the driver had been going just a little faster. That one really was an accident, and HT might decide to play with it, since he's already playing with a Spanish Civil War Last Forever POD and a Japan Invades Russia POD. Turtle Fan 19:52, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

7. Either side of the Spanish War-Sanjurjo seems to like his big schemes, but I don't see any benefit. The Republicans won't gain either.


 * Very bad for the Republicans. Based on the other spoilers, they'll probably get more British help and less Soviet, which will make the Communists sour; but it's better than nothing.


 * Sanjurjo does stand to gain from a Britain that's pulling in its oars, if that's the effect Churchill's death has, or at least is anticipated to have. He might also try it as a thank you gift to Hitler. It's the kind of grand gesture which I'd expect from a Spaniard of Sanjurjo's machismo. Turtle Fan 19:52, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

8. English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish nut-I suppose Mosley could take the time to fake up an accident, but your average bomb-thrower, well, throws bombs, and doesn't worry about covering his or her tracks.


 * Ordinarily not. Maybe some local politically-motivated group of assassins, the IRA for instance, sees the chance to pick off a target that would normally be beyond their grasp, but is possible during the war because the authorities will assume it was the SS or someone else higher up on the list. Turtle Fan 19:52, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

On a tangent: the line about the British politicians at Chruchill's funeral fills with me some hope that HT might give us a British politician POV to replace Delgadillo. Alternatively, I'm somewhat worried he'll replace Walsh (whom I'm coming to like). TR 16:27, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Walsh has a certain charm. Maybe he gets sent back to London and overhears someone muttering as the funeral procession files past. Turtle Fan 19:52, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

War With America
Any thoughts on what the other seeming big spoiler could imply?


 * A new addition to the Multiple ideas page: The USA and Japan are inevitable foes to the death. TR 23:09, April 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * In TL-191 the Japs stopped fighting and the US was glad to see them go. The implication is that they'll be Cold War enemies, but four years have passed with increasingly less Evidence! that we'll get any canonical post-GWII stories out of TL-191, so. . . . Turtle Fan 00:35, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

The more I turn it over in my head, the less sense it makes. The Japanese went to war with the US, and with the Commonwealth, because they badly needed natural resources in Southeast Asia--and not in the Philippines or the British colonies, but in French Indochina and Dutch Indonesia. However, they knew that neither the US nor the Commonwealth would tolerate naked expansionism in the area, so they had to sucker punch the Anglophones and hope that would spoil our appetite for further fighting.

The other option was to attack the Soviet Union while its attention was directed elsewhere and grab resources in Siberia and Kazakhstan. The Navy supported the former plan, the Army the latter. In OTL the Navy won. In this timeline the Army appeared to have won, but now that's being reversed.

Now it's not impossible that palace intrigue in Tokyo would lead the government to reverse itself, but with the battle already joined, it does seem unlikely. Especially since it seems they've got the Red Army on the run. There are only two reasons I can think of to sue for peace when you're in the stronger position: You know that you can't afford to keep up the blistering pace at which you've been fighting until you've destroyed your enemy, and that the enemy will outweigh you in a war of attrition, but you can hope the enemy doesn't realize this; or you've already achieved your war aims and want to take the spoils and be done with it.

The USSR is reeling, according to the spoilers, so the danger of the former looks slight--considerably slighter than the danger that Germany will punish Japan for the double cross. As for the latter: I could see them taking some valuable territory and/or favorable and exclusive trading rights to the resources of the region, but then the motivation for attacking the US is gone. "We in the Navy can do a better job of getting the resources we need than the Army can" might be a good reason for swinging south instead of north. "We in the Navy can do a good job of getting the resources we no longer need because the Army already got them," not so much.


 * China blew up in the closing pages of W&E, and the continued resistance in China was a frustrating drain on Japan in OTL. Perhaps the decision to break off from the USSR stems from the fact that Japan has overtaxed itself, and the government decides to just make due without Vladivostok and concentrate on China. That could account for the truce anyway. TR


 * I agree, and it really is incredible how often AH people, when thinking of all the options Japan has for major operations, forget that pesky little war of attrition against the largest country in the world. Of course, if that's what they do, there won't be a war against the US (see below), at least not one of choice (see farther below). Turtle Fan 00:35, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Now, wasn't there a comment in the blurb for last year's book to the effect of "And everyone is wondering when the US will get into the war?" The US never did, and no one gave it much thought, including the American characters. These last two years and counting, Del Rey has had to figure out ways to convince American audiences to buy a WWII story in which our country is all but ignored. I can see them grasping at straws to accomplish that, and one straw could be, Exaggerate the shit out of the fact that McGill's made a few more "I wonder when the war against Japan will start?" comments. Turtle Fan 01:48, April 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * There was, so this could be utter editor BS.


 * But a thought occured to me: what if a U.S.-Japanese war results from a series of blunders rather than Japanese Imperial ambition? The USS Panay incident is still fresh on everyone's mind. The CCP is blowing things up, and I think McGill's last POV in W&E said something about Japanese soldiers not looking like they cared who they killed. Perhaps during their attempts to clamp down, something happens, a USMC unit is attacked by Japanese forces in a confused moment, the US government decides this is one "accident" too many, and that Japan must be spoiling for a fight. TR 23:09, April 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be interesting. It gets especially likely if the interventionists in the US are growing frustrated by the lack of opportunities to go to war with Germany and are looking to vent their anger on an enemy about whom most of the country is much more sanguine. Especially if this is while Japan is still at war with the USSR: That makes the US the Soviet cobelligerent, which makes it a Nazi enemy, kinda-sorta. In fact, if the war is a war of American choosing, that might explain why the Japanese break off against the Soviets while they have the upper hand. Then the likelihood of Germany doing something to provoke the US goes back down, to the interventionists' frustration, but at least it hurts Germany by allowing the Red Army to turn both barrels on Hitler. Turtle Fan 00:35, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

A Very Different 1941
Now that I think of it, the story in 1941 was the war getting a lot bigger: Germany and the USSR going to war, Japan and the British Empire and the Netherlands going to war, the US going to war with both Germany and Japan, Finland launching the Continuation War, Thailand hitching its wagon to Japan's star, all the Latin American countries riding along in the US's wake, more resistance movements breaking out than you could shake a stick at. . . . The war started in '39 or '37, depending on whom you ask, but it didn't really become the big show till '41.

Maybe the very different '41 means it's the year when the war winds down. Think of it: Britain and France want peace so they and the Germans (and maybe the Italians) agree to call it a draw, and draw up new borders in western Europe geared toward maintaining a balance of power.


 * I can sort of buy it, but since FDR made that same offer at the end of W&E and Hitler said no (and never showed any inclination to stop fighting in OTL), I think that Hitler has to go away in order for HT to make that plausible. TR 17:49, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and if he were going the blurb would probably have given us a hint. Still, Featherston offered a ceasefire to Smith so he could stabilize the front while it was at his advantage, while he planned his next move. He was as bellicose as Hitler, though he was a bit more wily. Turtle Fan 18:58, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * True, but in the early going, Featherston was capable of pragmatism. Hitler, especially as written by HT, doesn't seem to have that capability.  TR 20:08, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. Even if the real Hitler would be willing to do it, HT surely won't give him credit for it. Turtle Fan 01:23, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Part of that means no more Anglo-French assistance to the Republic in Spain; perhaps Britain makes a deal with Sanjurjo that includes the return of Gibraltar in exchange for leaving him alone.


 * That makes a lot of sense, so long as Sanjurjo is capable of making that sort of calculation. TR 17:49, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

The Soviets can't spare any assistance, so the Republic is on its own, but the Axis is continuing to help the Nationalists, so the Spanish Civil War becomes rather one-sided and moves quickly toward resolution.


 * Last we heard, the Axis backed off as well. While not fighting in the west might free up some of Germany's resources, I tend to think even Hitler could be realistic enough to leave Sanjurjo on his own while Germany fights the USSR. And Italy was worthless when they were intervening, and just got worse as the war went on, even without participating. TR 17:49, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The Axis backed off because it was fighting on three fronts and all three were in the process of getting bigger. In my scenario two of them are no longer an issue. Still, if the Anglo-French diplomats are going to agree to a ceasefire, it's unlikely to say "We'll stop propping up our side in Spain but you're allowed to continue to prop up yours." Turtle Fan 18:58, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Germany is plunging deep into the USSR, bringing the Poles and perhaps Lithuanians and/or Finns along for the ride. Japan disengages in the USSR so now both Germany and Russia have one one front to worry about. Maybe Japan also contents itself with one front and tries to stomp on the crib of the emerging Chinese renewal, or maybe it really does opt for another two-front war and attacks the US.


 * I'm waiting to see what HT does with the US at this point. Right now, the avenues for entering the war are few. Honestly, the high volume of Americans in Spain strikes me as a more "plausible" reason for US entry than the under the breath grumbles of McGill and co. And I'm not saying Spain is going to be a casus belli. I'm saying that, despite what the publishers seem to be saying, the only reason to expect a war between the US and Japan based on what HT has written so far is that it happened in OTL (and I guess that it happened in 191 is worth throwing out there).


 * The US gov't's attitude toward the Abe Lincolns was generally "It's your neck, so don't come bitching to us if you get in trouble." And they were a pretty unpopular group, with HUAAC always breathing down their necks. I still think US interests are more likely to be impacted in Asia--which is not to say I necessarily think they will, but if it does happen anywhere I'd look for it to happen there. Turtle Fan 18:58, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess my point is this: I fear that the publisher is using the Logic of Ten Gizzis when it comes to discussing US-Japanese conflict. I realize that (theoretically), the publisher knows more about this book than we do, but, two volumes in, the Spanish conflict has more points of American belligerency than anything in Asia, and the trackrecord on these blurbs is 50-50 at best. TR 20:08, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not necessarily buying into the blurb (though since it's all the information we've got at this point, we can't dismiss it out of hand) but there are at least potential American points of belligerency in Asia. There's a naval presence.  There's a Marine presence.  There's a US colony in a region that the Japanese Navy has every reason in the world to be licking its chops over, a colony that's looked like an obvious Japanese target for so long that your namesake felt compelled to warn them to keep their paws off even when American-Japanese relations were at their all-time rosiest.  There's American presence in Shanghai and a longtime American goal of assuring China remains open to all semi-colonial powers, a goal that puts them at loggerheads with the Japanese goal of gobbling up China for themselves.  The Japanese have up till now been cobelligerents with a government that most Americans hated like poison from the first day it existed, even if we were split on whether we should actually do something about it until Fate decided for us.


 * And there's a POV character who is forever foreshadowing war breaking out between the two countries. That's the only thing he does that serves anything remotely resembling a purpose in the story.  You call it the Logic of Ten Gizzis.  That logic would have looked a little stronger if Mary McTerrorist had been replaced not by Pound but by a Freedom Party Guard officer who spent all his time in Rhodesia mapping out locations for safehouses and strongholds "just in case."  Actually, if Japan and the US never go to war, and McGill just keeps predicting it till the end of the series (and it may very well happen, I won't deny) it would be more like the one thing about which Gizzi was annoyingly right, the pep pills that the Snake was thinking of taking at the end of DttE and never did.


 * As for Spain, I just don't see why the US would get involved. There are Americans fighting there, but they're not US military and the US government doesn't give a shit about them.  When Abe Lincolns were captured, they didn't even call the nearest consulate, as petty criminals do.  We have a US POV, but he's not saying word one about "I wonder when the US Army is going to come to our aid?"  Washington's attitude is "If Spaniards want to kill Abe Lincolns, they're welcome to 'em."  The US probably doesn't give a shit who wins the SCW, so why would either Sanjurjo or his Republican counterpart be looking for a fight there?


 * Then again, there must be some reason HT felt he couldn't possibly tell his story of an appeasement-free timeline without keeping Spain up in the air. I can't hazard a guess what payoff if any that decision is going to have, so maybe you are onto something after all. Turtle Fan 01:22, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

(If the book takes us up to 1941 we'll have our election. Wow, we might get two elections in one book, the US Presidential and the UK General.)


 * Indeed. And, if the Third Republic doesn't just collapse, we might even get a French legistlative election out of the deal. (And actually, we should probably have had a 1939 French Presidential election by now, although Lebrun won it in OTL, and I don't see why he'd lose during a war that is now turning France's way.) TR 17:49, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Would they? Yeah, I suppose so. French politics I don't know so much about. Or care. Turtle Fan 18:58, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? They care about you.  TR 20:08, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * . . . Somehow I doubt that. Turtle Fan 01:22, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Even then, the US, having sat out the European war, will not be able to expect British assistance against Japan (maybe, maybe the Australians will chip in--and the kiwis, too, though even those with anti-Australian biases know that NZ is only there to make Australia look good) (I hope Nelg shows up soon and sees this). That is, unless the Japanese try to go into Malaya and Sarawak and Singapore, or stir up trouble in Burma and India itself; but if they don't want to fight a Russia that's already reeling under the blows of another invasion, which they'll take much more seriously, why risk the ire of a British Empire that's got nothing to keep it from turning both barrels on Japan? (Actually, do they even have a clear approach to the Philippines that allows them to respect the neutrality of the British, French, and Dutch colonies? Thailand does, if Tokyo can convince Bangkok to come along for the ride again.)


 * I guess I can only respond with "we'll see". I can't see how Japan can attack the Philippines without irritating the Brits. TR 17:49, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I called up a map (which I should have done yesterday) and geographically they can swing around without involving anyone else in SE Asia, assuming the IJN can at least fight the USN to a standstill. Whether they can avoid involving the rest of the region diplomatically . . . Well, maybe.


 * Actually, I really don't see much point to going into the Philippines and leaving it at that. What Japan really needs is oil, and that means Indonesia. (Rubber would also be useful and that means French Indochina, but Paris is a hell of a lot less likely to accomodate them than Vichy was in OTL.) They knew they couldn't take Indonesia without upsetting the US and the UK, so they threw a couple of sucker punches at Pearl Harbor and Singapore in the hopes of taking us off the board, and the rest is history.


 * I can't figure out why the Brits would be any less likely to object to an attack on the Philippines only than they would to an attack on the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies, either. Maybe war weariness, but they've got that huge-ass British India Army sitting intact, not having been engaged in Europe, and can also very likely farm out a war to the ANZACs as well. Eh, who knows. HT's probably going to end up doing an ass pull any which way. Turtle Fan 18:58, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait, I can think of three reasons. They are, in reverse alphabetical order, Sarawak, Sabah, and Brunei. They have a direct interest in keeping Borneo free of invaders. If the Japanese can somehow convince everyone that they intend to stop when they have the Philippines--not easy to do for so aggressively expansionist a nation as 1930s Japan--the Brits might breathe a sigh of relief. Turtle Fan 18:58, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

But even if Japan royally fucks up in Southeast Asia and ends up at war with every single government with interests in that region, that will still be on balance less violence than there was when the book began.

Maybe HT is setting us up for a Book 4 where WWII kind of peters out, and will then skip ahead a generation in Books 5 and 6 to handle unfinished business. Turtle Fan 01:12, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * That could be. One of the blurbs in HW is that this war would change the course of the century or something to that effect. That could mean (with the caveat of publisher puffery) HT is considering what would happen after the fighting. Also, the announcement that this would be a trilogy, then a "series", and the announcement 4-6 had been signed for well after HW dropped might also support that argument.


 * Then again, I remember Darkness was contracted for rather piecemeal, so it just might mean HT has a general vision, but no idea how long it will take to get there. TR 17:49, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Was it? I wasn't really keeping up with these things at the time. I would just check out the HT section for new books periodically, and would assume a series would keep going if the latest book ended in a cliffhanger. Turtle Fan 18:58, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * He did some strange things with it. I remember 7-8 volumes was the number being floated after ItD was released.  I don't think it officially became six until volume 4 was published. TR 20:08, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad he cut it, then. It was dragging quite a bit in Books 4 and 5, though it did manage to regroup for a big finish in Book 6. Turtle Fan 01:22, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Very Wild Guess
On reading over the above, I had a real wild idea which I do not take at all seriously but will throw out. The US sits out the war and when the series ends (after whatever number of volumes) we discover it was the prequel to In the Presence of Mine Enemies. Sum total justification: US sat out WW II. ML4E 00:18, April 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Unlikely, but it certainly is an intriguing idea. Turtle Fan 01:27, April 8, 2011 (UTC)