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.
 * Hey, that reminds me. Did Bruce ever complain about Canada being conquered by the US? If
 * he didn't he's a bloody hypocrite. Mr Nelg
 * he didn't he's a bloody hypocrite. Mr Nelg


 * 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?


 * To be clear, I'm not arguing for Spain as the hot-spot. Before this series kicked off, I did a little research on Sanjurjo, and thought it might be interesting if he just blatantly overreached himself and started demanding Cuba back or something.  But, given how HT is writing things, that would be a ridiculous turn of events.


 * Maybe if the US gets into the war and Hitler wins anyway, but it's not looking likely if the Eastern Front is going to heat up instead of wind down as I'd predicted at a much earlier stage.


 * Hmm--I wonder what would happen in Spain if the Germans and Russians came to a ceasefire. Maybe whichever side wanted/needed it worse would have to sell its proxy down the river.  If there was parity in the two sides' desires for peace, perhaps they'd  both agree to back off and accept whatever result the Spaniards are able to produce by fighting among themselves.  Of course, Himmler and Beria would both be running themselves ragged trying to subvert such an agreement without getting caught. Turtle Fan 19:16, April 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I do agree with your argument at this point on Asia, but I would like to see much more building on that area. TR 15:46, April 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * You know, I wonder if HT simply wanted to add the Spanish Civil War in to help distinguish his war from OTL. While reading most of HW, I remember thinking "this war isn't so different from OTL. Well, except for Spain, I guess."  Then Poland allied with Germany, and Japan jumped the USSR, but that was in the last quarter of the book.


 * Poland joining Germany flows pretty naturally out of the POD (and out of HT's tropes; in fact, this is the third timeline where the Polish preference, all else being equal, is for Germany, fourth if you want to count Forthwegian sentiments, so "Poles Hate Germans Less" could be added to Ideas Found In Multiple Turtledove Timelines.) Spain was a second, unrelated POD, and then the Japanese going with the Army's plan of swinging north added a third, which is why I've said that thus far the series feels more like a Peter Tsouras project than a Turtledove one. Turtle Fan 19:16, April 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * In which case, the decision to let Sanjurjo live would make such an integration much more plausible then having Franco acting completely out of character. TR 15:46, April 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I never knew much about Sanjurjo before this series, but he seems like such a buffoon, whereas Franco was actually formidable.  So when Delgadillo and his Nationalist pals said "Good thing we have Sanjurjo, imagine how much worse off we'd be if Franco were in charge," and we know that if Franco had been in charge he would have won the war for them already--When that happens, it's hard to give a shit since it's yet to affect anything in the story.  Not even the fall of Gibraltar has had much of an effect. Turtle Fan 19:16, 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)


 * No, they told me. They think you're a prince.  TR 15:46, April 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh. Nice of them. Turtle Fan 19:16, 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)

Cold War?
So, for the sake of argument, let's say the war is over in book 3, and the rest of the series is devoted post-war and the rise of a Cold War in Europe. Let's also stipulate that the US doesn't get involved in Europe before the fighting ends.

We'd have the USSR on the one hand, and then Britain and France on the other. Germany would also play a role, but I think it would be a whole Germany, not a divided one, but I'm not sure whose side they'd be on. TR 17:14, April 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking Germany's on the Western side if given its druthers. If the war ends in Book 3, based on the blurb the Soviets will have done all the heavy lifting, so the conquered Germans will resent the hell out of them. And of course there's the common cultural heritage, the more closely related languages, and all those things, buoyed by however much Nazi racial theory manages to linger on after the Nazis are toppled. (Damn, who would have ever thought all that hate might be made to yield a positive result?)


 * Of course, if the Russians did the heavy work of beating Germany they might just decide to put Ulbricht in charge of the whole damned country and have it as a puppet. Even if their victory is awe-inspiring, I don't see them being able to project their power that far, not in a meaningful way. They'd also have to have rolled over Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia (or maybe Czech and Slovakia, depending on whether they'd rather try to win support among Czechs or Slovaks), Romania, and Austria, probably Hungary, possibly Bulgaria and Yugoslavia--none of which are dealing with the fatigue of years of occupation which they faced in OTL. It might also be a good idea to take Denmark so the West can't send support to Finland and threaten the Communist flank. Stalin has to hold them all down just to project power into Germany, where everyone except the Nazis' victims hate him, then project that power all the way to Germany's western frontier--and that's just so he can point the gun at his enemies! AND he has to keep an eye on the back door in case Japan gets cute again, unless the US has absolutely walloped Japan to the point that it can't possibly launch a war of aggression in the next generation--in which case the US would likely have outposts in NE Asia which might give the Soviets pause. Sounds like a pretty tall order. Turtle Fan 01:07, April 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing to keep in mind is that if the US stayed out of the war then it is unlikely to have militarized nearly as much as in OTL. While it would have a bigger army than the 1930s, its very unlikely to have one as big as 1945 OTL or even the one after the subsequent demobilization. In other words, it wouldn't be the superpower it was in OTL although it would be a major power along with the USSR, Britain, and maybe France, Japan and Germany. ML4E 23:58, April 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * About what I'd expect. If they fight Japan they'll expand the army quite a bit, of course. Will they demobilize as soon as the war is over or try to use it as a springboard to a greater role in international geopolitics? That depends on what the war looks like, I guess--assuming they win at all. They won't be a superpower at all (unless maybe they somehow stumble into an atomic monopoly?) but they'll still have capacity to affect the course of the Cold War. Turtle Fan 03:16, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * TF: I agree with your assessment that in order to occupy Germany totally, the USSR is going to have to do alot. The only countries on your list that Stalin could occupy plausibly without looking aggressive are Poland, Czechoslovakia (which he'd be "liberating" per the terms of their pre-war pact) and I suppose Finland. Stalin has already made claims against Romania, so he could pull the "Fascist Marshal Antonescu wants a war" schtick he pulled on Smigly-Rydz and Mannerheim. The other countries would be naked acts of aggression, and create the "Stalin's War" scenario, which is now appearing less likely based on the above summary.


 * I thought he was about to maneuver Lithuania into giving him a bullshit casus belli. But if the Heer has him on the run that gets both harder and less attractive.


 * The USSR did take Vilnius (which was a Polish city at this time) in W&E, which evidently caused Lithuania to panic, but we've heard nothing since. TR 21:39, April 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought I remembered the Soviet pilot saying "Ha! We'll give the Lithuanians the same treatment we gave the Poles!" at about the same time. Turtle Fan 02:43, April 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * As for Estonia and Latvia, I guess he doesn't need them to occupy Germany. They'd be easy to bypass. Of course, they'd also be the easiest to absorb, so bypassing them doesn't help him very much. Turtle Fan 03:03, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Suppose then, we take the total occupation of Germany off the table. Could Stalin be content with just holding Poland, Czechoslovakia and Finland and then biding his time?


 * In OTL he added a large chunk of Poland to the Russian SFSR (as well as a smallish chunk of interwar Germany) and made it up to the Poles by giving them a large chunk of Germany. Both Russia and Poland still own those German chunks, and Russia still owns its Polish chunk, though given what a migratory bird Poland has been over the centuries there's some room for debate as to whether it really is a Polish chunk. At the time, though, both Poland and East Germany were going to do what Stalin told them to, so who governed the territory in question mattered less.


 * The justification for expanding Poland at Germany's expense was that Poland deserved to be compensated for the unprovoked German invasion. (It did not deserve to be compensated for the equally unprovoked Soviet invasion, of course; victor's justice.) They can't use that fiction to creep into Germany this time, though they will most likely end up occupying Poland just the same.


 * Actually I'm expecting Germany will end up being split after all. The Russians just can't swallow the whole thing, but if they win a war in which they did most of the fighting, they're not going to let the allies who backslid when the going got toughest get all the spoils, especially not if a cold war is brewing. Nor will they accept a ceasefire from a government that overthrows Hitler and offers peace but plans to cooperate with the West against the Kremlin. At best Germany becomes a true neutral buffer state, like Thailand was between the Raj and French Indochina; though it's got some pretty valuable real estate to be allowed that fate. On the one side is Russian-occupied Poland, on the other side is France, and the Netherlands and Luxembourg aligned with it. Maybe the French take a little more of Germany as territorial concessions, though they'd taken everything to which they could possibly press an irredentist claim at Versailles, and they still have all of it in this timeline. I mean, I guess they could reoccupy, or even annex, the Rhineland and Saarland? But that's neither here nor there. Turtle Fan 03:03, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Could Spain be split? It's kind of silly, but I keep feeling as if that will be the "pay-off" for some reason or other. TR 21:39, April 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess. There's got to be something for it, other than irony. Turtle Fan 02:43, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Atomic bomb

 * You also suggested US atomic monopoly. How likely is an a-bomb in this timeline? In OTL, nuclear fission was figured out in January, 1939 at Columbia University, and I see no reason this particular POD should change that. In the world at large:


 * I doubt it. Turtle Fan 03:03, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Germany began their project in April of 1939, but then dropped it, then started again in September, and then half-heartedly worked on it until it was determined in 1942 that fission wasn't going to win the war, and it backburnered for the remainder of the war. If anything, the state of the The War that Came Early is going to make the project even less of a priority, so I don't think Germany will have a nuke.


 * Probably not. Especially in the situation we've stipulated for this section, things are moving much too quickly for them to develop one. This would be true even if they hadn't driven most of the intelligentsia to defect. Turtle Fan 03:03, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Japan's project was of course utterly victimized by the West's racist education. From what I can tell, Nishina became nervous about the US in 1939, and finally got a project going in 1941. I was not aware of this (but I am not surprised), but the project fell victim to the usual Army-Navy conflict, with the Army being the booster for most of the project's existence, and the Navy getting back in in 1943. In a timeline where the IJA is (apparently) dominant, perhaps such a project would gain momentum, especially as war with the USSR is underway? Alternatively, if a war with the US isn't as big a worry, maybe Nishina doesn't say anything, or his warnings fall on deaf ears? (Go Chi-ha!)


 * It really is a shame how much awesome shit the Japanese did in WWII that doesn't get remembered. (Much of it done with help from all those happy Chinese and Koreans who did not resent Japanese occupation, of course.) You don't even hear about their brilliant invasion of Alaska. Think they'll do that in this timeline, too?


 * Actually, the diversionary squadron which Yamamoto sent up to the Bering Sea in a failed attempt to fool Nimitz into sending forces away from Midway really did briefly occupy some insignificant outpost that was technically within the area of jurisdiction of the governor of Alaska Territory, or would have been if it hadn't been under military administration; and that little factoid is indeed widely forgotten. But to get from there to Zz's Happy Thoughts is like saying Operation Sealion was a success because the krauts managed to grab a cup of coffee on a few of the Channel Islands. Turtle Fan 03:03, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * The USSR's project comes about because in 1942 Flerov figured out that no one was publishing anything. I'd argue that in this timeline, the USSR has no impetus to act early, unless of course...


 * . . . Yes? Turtle Fan 03:03, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * The Manhattan Project actually gets going early. I suppose that's possible, but in TWTPE, Germany just doesn't look the threat it did in OTL. It strikes me that it could follow the same schedule.


 * Probably much slower. It was an American-led project but it received significant resources--financial, intellectual, personnel--from both the Brits and the Canadians. A couple of the most important theoretical breakthroughs were discovered by the Canadian team. And they got a great deal of uranium from South Africa, without which they couldn't have been half so ambitious in testing their hypotheses. US relations with the Commonwealth countries are rosy enough in this timeline, but they're not going to cooperate on such a sensitive weapons project if they're not in an all-out military alliance.


 * Of course, in TL-191 the US managed to build more bombs than the Manhattan Project did, a year early and with no Brits, no Canadians, one notebook in place of the accumulated brainpower of most of the great scientific minds of Central Europe, and precious few uranium sources. The Rebs built it even earlier with less uranium still, a few notes from the British project, and a scholar of Greek and Latin. But then by that point in the story it was pretty clear that HT had completely abandoned attempts at realism in favor of giving himself massive plot conveniences. Turtle Fan 03:03, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, in defense of HT there (slightly), I don't think we can say that the CS beat the US to building a bomb with absolute certainty. Re-reading those scenes, the US bombs Newport News hours after Philadelphia. And the only reason they did that was to try to get Jake. We can say the CS detonated the bomb first, but the US might have been sitting on theirs, while Charlie La Follette agonized.  In OTL, Trinity was July 16, Hiroshima on August 6, and Truman considered and reconsidered before making that decision.  La Follette appears to have been a softer touch than Truman.  TR 21:39, April 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, true. It is apparent that they had the Bomb ahead of time, and I'd agree with your assessment of LaFollette.


 * HT still gave himself too many plot conveniences. I can overlook the fact that W&L's strongest suit was classical languages until Lee pushed them to develop science and technology; that's a pretty obscure fact.  But Lexington is right across the border.  The project should have been at Duke or UNC or Texas A&M (best of all) or even Virginia Tech.  W&L is right next door to VMI, which is a legitimate military target in a war where neither air force was too shy about hitting even civilian targets.  And then you have that whole "We don't know where the project is.  We know who's running the project and we know where he works, but we're too dumb to apply the textbook example of the simplest possible syllogism."  And yet the Rebs do find the US project and manage to launch a raid on it despite the fact that it's at the very edge of the maximum range of their bombers from their closest air fields, and they have to fly across an active front to get there.  The US at least had Oppenheimer and Feynman and a few other historical physicists, but all the CS had was a guy who spent all his time telling Jake "I was right and you were wrong" and Dean Martin.  (How'd you like to be those guys from Tulane of whom FitzBelmont said "Well, I guess we could bring them in" after the USAF finally figured out where W&L is?  What does it take to get demoted to the B list on a half-assed program like that?  Was it a meth-head and some dude who kept taking off his pants?)


 * Point is, Hitler was not able to build his bomb, and he had a better situation than Jake did in almost every particular. The only exception is that Featherston didn't drive most of his intelligentsia to defect to the Allies, though that has more to do with the fact that there wasn't much of an intelligentsia to begin with.  But I digress. Turtle Fan 02:43, April 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * There is also the possibility that HT ends the war well before anyone completes a bomb. Given HT tropes, that seems unlikely, but it would be a change of pace. TR 22:16, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Unlikely indeed, even if it does make sense; he sure does get off on making the Bomb go boom. Turtle Fan 03:03, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

PW review
Here's a link to a quick blurb at Publisher Weekly. Nothing too informative, save the status of the Pacific War analog. TR 19:10, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting.


 * It sounds like Peggy gets home.


 * It would seem likely. TR 18:38, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * And her travelogue was just starting to grow on me. Once I stopped expecting her to become a spy, I realized that she was telling a pretty interesting story in her own right even if it didn't advance the main plot.  Like Rance and Penny in Colonization.  Also, given how cookie-cutter the plot was--It got better in W&E but was still nothing to write home about--not being tied to that is pretty forgivable, I think. Turtle Fan 19:20, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * The unexpected death is presumably Churchill's.


 * I think that's correct, but I'll suggest another possibility: Churchill's death is revealed in the synopsis by the publisher, so the reader shouldn't be all that surprised. Maybe he isn't the only major figure to die?   TR 18:38, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Could be. Chamberlain's the only one I can think of offhand due to die of something congenital.  Bad luck can kill anyone at any time: A tour of the front is cut short by an improbably long range shell that missed its intended mark; a bomber crew gets off a lucky shot in an air raid over an enemy capital; an accident happens at home that has nothing to do with the war at all.  Wouldn't it be fun to end the TWTPE section of an article with "[insert name here] was crushed by a falling piano."


 * However I stand by it being Churchill. The characters haven't read the synopsis, so it would certainly be unexpected to them; and as for the readers, in comparing blurbs for this and that upcoming book over the years, I've concluded that the left hand rarely knows what the right hand is doing. Turtle Fan 19:20, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Shifting alliances may be what leads the Japanese to make a separate peace with the Soviets. That could explain how the US ends up at war with Japan but not with Germany, as is implied by the fact that Peggy needs to try to influence public opinion in favor of interventionism. Unless they occur at different points in the story.


 * I hope that's the explanation. I go back to the plot synopsis, and the fact that British officials are considering who the real enemy is, and I'm afraid we'll see the UK join with Germany against the USSR just because Churchill dies.  Of course, if say Hitler is the real unexpected death, well, that would just throw all manner of alliances out of whack.  TR 18:38, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * It would wouldn't it (Hitler's death).


 * I hope the UK doesn't join Germany for a war. I don't think they will, though I could see them making a separate peace and not caring that the Nazis and Reds are slaughtering each other.


 * I think it's a good deal less likely that France will want to back out of the war; it's well within the realm of the conceivable, but it would take much more than the death of Churchill. And I'd wager that the possibility of France actually joining with Germany approaches zero.  (Now watch me have to eat those words. . . . )  Britain extricating itself from the war will be tricky if France wants to keep fighting; it would pretty much end up with no allies in continental Europe, except pissants like Belgium and Norway, assuming it can secure their liberation before it stops fighting, or as terms for a ceasefire. Turtle Fan 19:20, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder if detainees in Manchukuo are represented by a new POV or if the Japanese soldier ends up on guard duty after the fighting in Siberia stops.


 * The language of the review is "Viewpoint characters...are are joined by...detainees in Manchukuo". That implies the detainee is the POV.  Given HT patterns, the detainee would be someone we've already met, but the number of secondary characters in that part of the world is rather small, and I can't think of many who'd be up for promotion. I guess one of McGill's fellow Marines after hostilities break out?  Maybe McGill's squeeze? Alternatively, that Defective Mongolian officer would most likely be held in Manchukuo, wouldn't he?  TR 18:38, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Vera as POV character in a camp would be interesting, which is more than can be said with a straight face for anyone else we've met, anyone at all. And HT did something interesting, or at least unprecedented, with her last year: She abruptly took over the narration of one of McGill's scenes for most of a page, so she's a semi-POV already.  Maybe she and McGill will end up sharing the spot.  Both recuperating in a hospital and wasting away in a prison camp make for pretty monotonous storytelling, so having them alternating could keep the book from sinking back into Book 1 levels of malaise.  I don't think she'll replace Delgadillo, but then, I didn't think Pound would replace Mary McGregor.


 * I'm wondering why they would move her from Shanghai to Manchukuo--Harbin is 1041 miles away as the crow flies--but it's not too hard to imagine a reason. When the war with the Soviets stops, it will be well behind the lines, whereas staying in the area around Shanghai would be begging for the Allies to mount a rescue attempt.


 * Having the Defective Mongolian Officer promoted to POV would leave me just laughing and bowing to the absurd. Turtle Fan 19:20, May 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I gave each one a line in case we want to kick off a new round of speculation. As the weather gets warmer it feels wrong not to. Turtle Fan 01:02, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Another review
here.. So, if this person is playing straight, no Churchill as PM at all. TR 00:49, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed not. At least HT doesn't keep Chamberlain alive, so we'll be guaranteed an alternate PM.


 * This does seem to hurt my prediction for Prime Minister Sandys quite a lot. I suspect that when Chamberlain dies they'll simply ask the king to call a general election since the five-year mandate of that Parliament would expire with him, and since political support for the war appears to be waning. The Conservatives will certainly need to choose a leader for the campaign season; asking people in a Parliamentary democracy to vote for a party with the promise of choosing a leader afterward is saying "Five dollars or what's in the box," and who the hell would vote for that?


 * I agree. A possible alternative is that Chamberlain is able to select his successor and the government just agrees to keep going in time of war as in OTL. However, if the war is indeed unpopular enough at this stage, that seems less and less likely.  TR 16:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * We also need to ask whether Labour can capitalize on antiwar sentiment. For want of a Parliamentary POV we can't say one way or the other whether they supported or opposed the war.  Given how it started it's hard to imagine a major party objecting to it right away.  But the Phony War went on for a while to no obvious advantage and since it's the duty of the Opposition Leader to propose alternatives to government policies that don't have universal support, Atlee would be the man to take charge of the growing antiwar movement.  He might not trailblaze it but I doubt he would sit back while it picked up steam.


 * On the other hand, Atlee himself was pretty hawkish, and Labour's manifesto in the 1935 General Election leaned toward an interventionist foreign policy. Atlee's predecessor, George Lansbury,  was an absolute pacifist and resigned the leadership because he wasn't willing to fight for a manifesto whose foreign policy was so out of step with his personal beliefs.  The straw that broke the camel's back for him was when the majority of Labour candidates wanted to call for Britain to enforce LN sanctions against Italy as punishment for the invasion of Ethiopia. Turtle Fan 19:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * With the information available, I can see a fairly good chance of Labour winning enough seats to form its own government; the Conservatives are going to be looking like they're in some disarray, with both their leader and the obvious choice as his replacement being dead, and with an unpopular, though not disastrous, war defining their government's record.


 * I tend to agree. Possible alternative: the Conservatives are able to present a credible expression of remorse for the whole mess and promise to withdraw.  That strikes me as pretty implausible.  TR 16:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if Labour is not antiwar in principle, they'll likely benefit from antiwar sentiment as long as they don't say something like "If we'd been in charge we would have fought even harder!" In much more recent history and on this side of the pond, you've got the Democrats taking the House and Senate in '06 on, among other things, the perception that Iraq had gone to hell.  They talked about "changing the course" but you couldn't get Pelosi or Reid or almost any of their candidates to elaborate on what that meant for love nor money.


 * The year before, in Britain, Blair held on and became Labour's first three-term PM because those who wanted to punish him had nowhere to turn, really. The Conservative leader had supported the Iraq War wholeheartedly, and in fact the Conservatives supported it in a much higher proportion than Labour MPs had.  He tried to have his cake and eat it too and wound up iterating a position that more or less came out as "Blair did a bad job but I would have done the same thing."


 * Atlee will probably try something like one of those two approaches. It sounds like British pols are going to be very ambivalent and confused, so I don't see him taking the reins of some massive groundswell of rejection of existing policies the way, say, an Obama did. Turtle Fan 19:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that we wouldn't get an alternate PM for purposes of our project; their leader in 1940 was Atlee.


 * Eh, I'd gotten used to the idea of someone we already have here becoming PM. So long as it's PM Non-Churchill, I'm ok. TR 16:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess. Either way there will be a second TWTPE PM, so we'll end up with another line of the template. Turtle Fan 19:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way: We don't have a category for Conservative Leaders, do we? We could support one. The question of whether we'd want one is raised. There'd be great overlap with Prime Ministers (though not if the Tories go into opposition in this next book and choose another leader after the deaths of Churchill and Chamberlain, if HT even bothers giving us this new leader's name). Also, the symmetry issue: We can't support Labour leaders, and I doubt we ever will. I don't think we can support Liberal leaders, either, though I'm not certain.


 * I did do a little checking at some point on this very issue--you're right, not enough Liberal and Labour leaders, but we could do a very broad "Political Party Leader" catch-all and just stick everyone in there: PMs, Mosley, Lynton, the various Nazi leaders, Mussolini, etc.. The really weak spot is the US.  If we strictly adhere to the de jure (the elected chairman) rather than the de facto (which would allow for the POTUS), then we only have a single chairman from each major political party. TR 16:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I would suggest at least making the Conservative Leaders a subcat.  Party leaders in a parliamentary system have much more power than their counterparts in other systems, and thus are more relevant.


 * Also, all British PMs of the modern era have been leaders of their parties, so we might as well make British Prime Ministers a subcat of this category. Though I don't know exactly when the cutoff date was and whether any of our 18th century PMs were people to whom this did not apply. Turtle Fan 19:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I'm also curious about the comments on the pace and the format not working. The many POV format is, for better or for worse, how HT writes these stories. There are multi-work single- and double-POV projects, but they don't deal with subject matter at all resembling this story's. I'm concerned with the suggestion that the format fails HT in comparison with the earlier volumes, given how plodding HW in particular was. Then again, this reviewer seems to have liked HW and to have viewed W&E as a step down, which is of course very different from the consensus here. It's likely his opinion on this matter is simply not in keeping with ours. Turtle Fan 01:26, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * That might have more to do with HT's decision not to use prominent government or military POVs. Dramatic changes like Churchill dying and the fall-out almost beg for some insight into Parliament, and based on the series thus far, I'd be very surprised if we saw that.   TR 16:17, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Could be. At any rate, if TBS is worse than HW, it will barely be readable. Turtle Fan 19:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Updated cover with new text
"In 1941, Winston Churchill was Hitler's worst enemy. Then a Nazi secret agent changed everything." So, it ain't an accident then.

Couple of things right off the bat: 1) While this book must be set in 1941 at some point, based on all other reviews, it must also be set in 1940 for the first half, anyway; 2) If the Nazis do kill Churchill, they must also do a very good job of covering up their role, or else it makes little sense for "the gray men who walk behind his funeral cortege [to] wonder who their real enemy is." TR 05:25, May 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. My guess to point 2 is that it doesn't come out right away but doesn't stay secret for very long. I wonder if HT will try to keep the reader guessing as he did with the attack on the Colonization Fleet. Well, too late now.


 * As for Point 1, you're right.


 * And the 1941 date is interesting. Chamberlain was pushing up a daisy by then and I can't imagine why that would be different. So if we combine that with Churchill not being PM, we're left with two possibilities:


 * A. Right before his death, Chamberlain leads the Tories in a general election, which they lose. Atlee is PM, Chamberlain dies and Churchill is elected Conservative leader and becomes leader of the opposition. Perhaps Atlee's government is on very shaky ground: a minority government, a coalition with the Liberals, something like that; and Hitler is afraid that if it collapses and Churchill becomes PM, the Brits will take advantage of the fact that he's shifted his attention eastward. But he's in too deep to take men off the Russian line and send them back to the western front, so he has Skorzeny or someone kill Churchill instead.


 * Atlee's government may be on shaky ground, but unless the Conservatives are definitely winning an election, Churchill's not an immediate threat. TR 00:37, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * If the election produces a hung parliament, Atlee could form a minority government, and unlike in Canada those tend to do very badly in the UK. Given the attitude of uncertainty that seems to pervade British politics, it's not too hard to imagine the Atlee government collapsing, if not right away, then within a few months or a year--well within the period of time that would need to be committed to a major offensive in the east, especially after the Japanese disengage.  Hitler might want to eliminate the possibility of a badass PM down the road so he can think about Russia in the long run. Turtle Fan 16:35, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * B. Regardless of whether there's an election in 1940, Chamberlain dies and Churchill either loses the Conservative leadership election or withdraws from consideration. Either way, the possibility of his becoming PM is very remote. He's not someone who might make a move once Chamberlain is out of the way, he's someone who took his shot and missed. Makes you wonder how he could be Hitler's worst enemy, though I don't doubt that's hyperbole.


 * I think Churchill's ascension has to appear inevitable for his assassination to make any sense, so option B seems off. TR 00:37, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Unless maybe there's something very unusual and unique about the position in which he finds himself, such as possessing valuable intelligence from a spy (Peggy?) who bypasses No 10 and reports directly to him. Turtle Fan 16:35, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess C would be that Chamberlain lives a year longer than OTL. Seems like an odd choice; if you want to have Hitler fretting because Churchill is Chamberlain's obvious successor, you can do that as easily in 1940 as you can in 1941. Then again, since Turtledove has already decided that a No Appeasement timeline requires Sanjurjo to survive, and has thrown in a Japanese invasion of the USSR for good measure, who knows what he's thinking anymore. Turtle Fan 15:10, May 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I did some Googling: Chamberlain was in intense pain in July, 1940, and had an exploratory surgery. By this point, his bowel cancer was terminal. However, the surgeons opted NOT TO TELL HIM that he was dying! He seems not have to been made aware of this until September, when his health was obviously in decline. The Battle of Britain and the nightly bombings did their share in sapping his strength and health; he resigned from Churchill's cabinet in late September, and died in November.


 * So far it isn't clear that a Battle of Britain analog will (or even can) take place, so HT could plausibly put off Chamberlain's death a little bit, or at the minimum have him die unexpectedly in office. The Nazis, fearing Churchill will get the ultimate nod as Chamberlain's successor (a caretaker having ascended in the meantime), have him killed before he can take the job. Fit the election issue in their somewhere, but as I said above, Churchill's rise has to appear inevitable to justify his death. TR 00:37, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's another way to do it, I guess.


 * I also wonder if Hitler might kill Churchill just to demoralize the hawks. Eliminate the loudest voice in favor of aggressive conduct of the war effort and a lot of wind comes out of that group's sails.  But that's a very large risk with not a ton of payoff. Turtle Fan 16:35, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * You know, with all this talk about Churchill, it makes me wonder if that's going to be the only major event in the whole book, considering how that reviewer you guys were talking about earlier said the book just plods along. The title makes the whole thing sound like there's going to be a major shift in the war, much like when Japan entered the war in OTL. Now, it just makes me think nothing special is going to happen. Mr Nelg


 * An earlier reviewer said Japan makes a separate peace with the USSR and implied that it might attack the US. That would also qualify.  Other spoilers which have been made available include McGill winding up in an infirmary and Peggy Druce getting home.


 * It would be a shame if the book included only one major development, but there is precedent for that. Turtle Fan 16:35, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Replacing a Dead PM
According to my sources, in the event of the death of a Prime Minister the Home Secretary is next in line and automatically forms the caretaker government. Chamberlain's Home Secretary was Sir John Anderson. I know we'd wondered about that way up above somewhere. Turtle Fan 19:45, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about your sources, as I went digging for the answer yesterday and came up with nothing. Russell replaced Palmerston, but Russell was Foreign Secretary, not Home Secretary. (Post-1942, the Deputy PM does get to be PM long enough to dissolve Parliament, that much I could find, but that doesn't help us.)  TR 19:54, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * My sources are a Brit I ran into in a chat room who said "I believe the Home Secretary takes over." You see, this is why it's a good idea to write the Constitution down.


 * Indeed. I do feel better about not knowing the answer if a Brit isn't 100%.  TR 00:50, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that does help. Or not; many of our compatriots are unclear on who's next in line after the VP.  That's more a fault of poor civic engagement than vague-ass constitutional provisions.  And by the way, this wasn't just any Brit, this guy normally knows his shit. Turtle Fan 00:55, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is foreign secretary, that was Halifax. Maybe it's the Cabinet minister who's been in Parliament the longest, or on the front bench the longest, or . . . Oh, who the hell knows.


 * That could be. Not every ascending PM was the the FM.  I am left with the impression that seniority played its part.  TR 00:50, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Cabinet decides in a closed door meeting, or the leadership of the government party, when there's a one-party government. I don't believe the dissolution of Parliament is triggered automatically, at any rate, though if the government is multi-party I guess it could be. Turtle Fan 00:55, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, given that the British constitution is uncodified and that the death of a PM has occurred so rarely it can hardly generate a useful precedent, HT may very well just make something up. Turtle Fan 00:31, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and here I see that the Lord Chancellor is next after the Prime Minister. That was John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon.  Unless they mean Chancellor of the Exchequer, which makes more sense since Lord Chancellor is a fairly symbolic role.  In 1940 that was also Simon until May 12, when it passed to Kingsley Wood.  Chancellor of the Exchequer was Gordon Brown's job in Blair's governments, if that tells us anything. Turtle Fan 00:40, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that there is no rule, written or unwritten, on who takes over. In Canada (and the UK) until about the 1970s, the leader of the party would be selected by the sitting MPs and party brass so a new PM would take over within a few days. If it were early in the mandate, there wouldn't be much pressure to dissolve parliament so an election does not necessarily follow. If it is late in the mandate, there still would be a need for the new PM to establish himself so an election probably would not follow until at least the next budget were presented, under the new PM.


 * The problem is that the mandate is due to run out in 1940. In OTL Churchill said "The hell with the mandate, we're staying on" and subverted opposition by inviting everyone to join the Government.  The war was in full swing and was enough of an emergency in most people's minds that they accepted the extension, though when the election finally was held in the summer of '45 not even VE Day saved Churchill from defeat.


 * Now the war is going on in this timeline too, but from the tone of the reviews we've seen it's losing steam and the British political culture is growing increasingly ambivalent toward continuing it. A new PM, unelected, who denies the electorate the opportunity to confirm his party's decision by invoking a conflict for which support is already waning, sounds like he's begging for trouble.  Of course, that doesn't mean HT won't have him do it.


 * So much of our speculation depends on hints and shadows and shading that we seem to detect shining through in vague sentences in reviews. That does make things more difficult.


 * And another thing, Chamberlain's government wasn't a Conservative government, it was the last of the so-called National Governments (unless you want to count Churchill's coalition, but most historians don't). It was more partisan in nature than MacDonald's and Baldwin's, with no support from Labour, near-universal support from the Conservatives, and relations between the two halves of the Liberal Party so strained that they could arguably be counted as separate parties.  Still in all, a Conservative leadership election will not by itself ensure a smooth transition of power.


 * Then again, while there were five parties in the Government, the Conservatives could lose the other four and still have a majority. That's in the Parliament elected in the 1935 general election, of course. Turtle Fan 22:55, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

After the 1970s, things became more democratic in that the party membership became more important. Much the way US presidential candidates are selected at convention, the party has a leadership convention where delegates from each riding are sent and they vote for the leader along with "super delegates" such as sitting MPs and so on. There would be a caretaker PM take over in the interim who is normally a senior statesman type until a new leader is selected who becomes PM. ML4E 21:58, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

First Two Scenes
I saw the paperback of W&E in B&N tonight and, per longstanding tradition, it included the first two scenes of TBS. Those are scenes by Vaclav and Theo respectively, and unlike last year I can actually remember who those are. Vaclav's scene, the first of the whole book, is the very soul of ordinary: Him traipsing along the French countryside, carrying his bigass rifle, talking to the liaison sergeant whose name escapes me and reflecting on how much he wishes Czechoslovakia hadn't fallen. The only thing in the whole scene that could be considered setting the tone for the book is saying that the Germans have shifted to the defensive in the West but are still fighting hard.

Theo's scene takes place while he's getting some R&R behind the lines. He tells us they're in Poland but that the front is in Russia, and that's the closest he comes to advancing the plot. Instead he's playing a soccer game, a bunch of tankmen versus a bunch of infantrymen. Everyone sucks except "Adelbert Stoss" who plays like a pro. Theo makes it clear that he's got suspicions about Stoss's little secret and that he has no intention of sharing it with anyone. Actually it's pretty good character stuff and is certainly a unique scene so I don't mind that it's not advancing the plot, but it does seem odd to put it so close up to the front of the book.

Remember the days when the first scene of a new installment in a middle-of-the-series book was used to set the tone for the book to follow? I do. And to make sure it's not just nostalgia for something that never happened, I checked the first scenes of WiH through VO, which conveniently happen to be both the meat of TL-191's best days and all the 191 books the store had in stock (plus HFR, but since that was introducing a new story I didn't check it). They all did the job of reminding us where the last book left off and setting the tone for how this one will continue that: Enos getting an up-close look at how the Great War continues to hang in the balance (and saluting a flag with the wrong number of stars), Anne visiting Marshlands after it had been smashed up by Cassisus's men, Featherston's reflection on silence at the front and gunfire in Richmond, Potter brawling with FP Stalwarts on the first day of the dictatorship. Worldwar of course started each book with Atvar, usually looking at the picture of the knight, and the different reactions he has to similar situations gives us a glimpse into his mood which in turn gives us the chance to assess the situation at the start of each installment. But the first scenes of W&E and TBS could have come from any chapter in either the book they're in or the book immediately before with hardly any revision at all. Turtle Fan 03:51, June 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I do.


 * Disappointed to see that we don't know who replaced Delgadillo--we learned Theo had been "promoted" to POV right off the bat. TR 03:31, June 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that's rare. Unprecedented, I believe.  If memory serves, Dover got the third scene in TG, but that wouldn't've shown up in the preview.  I believe Spinello died within the first two scenes of one of the Darkness books, but I don't remember whether those included two-scene previews in the paperbacks.  And Carsten had the second scene of DttE.  When I read it, the way it ended plus some of the ambiguity and misdirection in which Mak was couching his clues as to which POVs died in that one had me absolutely convinced that Carsten would be killed in that scene and Del Rey left off the last few paragraphs to maintain the shock value.  Clearly not.  Still, even that preview was slightly more informative than this one. Turtle Fan 14:36, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

New Review: Spoilers out the ass!
Just be advised: http://www.sfrevu.com/php/Review-id.php?id=12106. TR 19:38, July 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I'll check it out. Turtle Fan 01:50, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Normally, I hate this type of spoiler-filled review, but this has increased my interest in the book and the series as a whole. Hopefully, both deliver on the good ideas HT seems to be playing with. TR 15:21, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

1. An earlier reviewer let spill that it's Germans who kill Churchill. And his death convinces the Brits to accept German offers of peace. Clearly the SS hides its tracks very well.


 * Clearly. I imagine that the TRUTH will be a RELEVANT PLOTPOINT in the future. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless pro-German forces in Britain somehow convince everyone that Churchill was an unreasonable warmonger and they're better off without him? It's hard to imagine any politician being so unpopular that he could be assassinated in such a fashion by foreign agents and the people saying "Good riddance." Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hard indeed. Perhaps more authoritarian voices say "Churchill was terrible, now say good riddance or we'll shoot you." I could probably swallow that. TR 23:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you? In the interwar years British democratic traditions had never been stronger, so they'd need to retreat from that pretty damned quickly. And they'd need to put together a coalition of potentates who were A) willing to turn Britain into a police state and who B) wanted to get in bed with Hitler. I could buy the possibility of there being a lot of A's and a lot of B's, but while there would be a certain relationship between the two, I don't see enough ABs to be able to run the country on their own. Turtle Fan 02:40, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Swallow, yes. Digest, not in the long run.  TR 17:33, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I could even swallow it. Turtle Fan 18:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

2. Appears from the blurbs about Jezek and Harcourt that the French drop out of the war too. Maybe this is where we'll see Spain finally, finally pay off.


 * I hope. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

2a. If Harcourt is sent to the Russian front but not happily (ruling out the possibility that he's part of a cohort of French soldiers who disagree with their government's decision to make peace and offer their volunteer services to Stalin) does that mean the French not only made peace but entered an alliance with Germany?


 * I wouldn't wholely rule out the French Lincoln Brigade explanation yet--Harcourt could be very unhappy with the situation on general principal, and so in frustation, heads off to fight the Germans in Russia. Admittedly, your explanation of French-German Alliance is a simpler explanation, and better supported by the review. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, "shifting alliances" (as opposed to "shrinking alliances") does seem to imply. . . . Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

And how about Britain? Whom does Walsh consider to be the real enemy?


 * I'm guessing Germany. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * He might, or he might be trying to convince the government to join the French in supporting Germany's war against the USSR. Could go either way. Now he's come under German fire, which on the one hand suggests he's more likely to see them as the real enemy, but a complicated situation like this reviewer is suggesting can lead to strange shifts. Also, "the real enemy" usually suggests someone who's not too obvious, and at this point Germany still is. Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * True, but if Britain is now looking at the USSR as the enemy, why would Walsh then feel the need to oppose the government? TR 23:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I see it being something like this: France, whose third republic saw some very dramatic political shifts from one extreme to the other, ends up governed by some quasi-fascist party which is chomping at the bit to attack Russia. Britain at the time flirted with both leftism (MacDonald, for instance) and rightism (Law) but was more anchored in the center: not as much as the US, but I can easily see a situation where there's support for ending the war with Germany but not for joining the French in jumping on Russia. Perhaps there are still Churchillian Hitler-haters among the Conservatives who opposed the Hess Plan, and to get it through Chamberlain or whomever had to reach out to pro-fascist rightwing nuts and Labour pacifists. The latter group would want no part of Stalin's War, and as for the Tories, National Liberals, Ulster Unionists and whatever other government parties were involved in getting the Hess Plan through, you'd expect to see plenty of moderates who haven't got the stomach for another war. Walsh joins some anti-communist league and lobbies for Britain to make the other half of The Big Switch.


 * The problem with that is that British interests were more incompatible with Soviet interests than French interests were, so Britain wouldn't have to swing as far right as France would to become militantly anti-Soviet. I still think the above situation has legs, though.


 * Another, low-probability option is that Walsh feels Japan is the real enemy, having quietly disengaged the USSR and having both newly-available combat veterans and a successful expansionist war to whet its appetite. After it's finished with the USSR and assuming it has mainland China in hand, any fool can look at an Asian map and see that all of Japan's options involve threatening British colonies or at least Commonwealth realms. Any fool can see it, and Walsh is no fool, but I don't think he'd really care. He's patriotic to his nation but not necessarily its empire, and his background as we know it makes it highly unlikely he's got any personal connections with Singapore or Brunei or Hong Kong to speak of. I guess HT could say "By the way, his favorite cousin lives in Australia," but it would feel like a hell of an ass-pull, wouldn't it? There could well be an anti-Japan lobby if London's foreign policy is at a crossroads but Walsh wouldn't be our man there. Turtle Fan 02:40, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

And if Walsh is working to change the government, he'll have to be political enough to report all kinds of details of the situation in Westminster, or at least give us the new PM's name. . . won't he?


 * I hope. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I'm sure HT will let the name of the PM out somehow in any event. TR 23:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd think so, wouldn't you? If not, at least we'll have another entry for the Unnamed Heads of State and Government. Turtle Fan 02:40, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I suddenly remember that HT didn't actually let it slip that Eden was PM in Colonization until Aftershocks, and that was tossed off in passing. Still, in this series at least, he's been pretty good about reminding us that Chamberlain is PM, and if Churchill dies, who succeeds Chamberlain is going to be pretty damn important.  TR 17:33, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * He didn't? Huh, I thought it had come up sooner than that, but goig through everything in my mind as best I can despite a decade's worth of opportunities to forget details, you're right. Turtle Fan 18:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

3. Sounds like Vera gets it. That's a shame. I'm not exceedingly romantic (not in the conventional sense) and I usually take a very negative view when a fiction writer gives someone a love interest and treats it like a character arc, but I do like what's been happening with Pete and Vera for some reason. And of course it's rough to watch anyone lose the person or thing on which their happiness had hinged right as they were thinking that they almost had it all. I did get the sense from the one McGill scene that she half-narrated that she was playing him for financial support and that she didn't really feel like he felt. I wonder if that comes up before she dies, or if she only discusses it offstage with Fidel Castro and that proto-feminist Ruler woman at the next meeting of Clarence Potter's Committee to Overthrow Amphetamine-Addicted Jake Featherston.


 * Indeed it does, and it is a shame. I think the most interesting point there is that McGill wants revenge on those responsible, which would presumably be the CCP. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Could be the CCP, could be the Japanese; maybe they did the old "We're grabbing people at random and holding them hostage, and will execute them if those responsible don't turn themselves in within X hours" routine. They'd be unlikely to choose a white person, since most Chinese wouldn't particularly care, even if Vera's stateless person status means they won't have to worry about offending a powerful Western government. And if McGill is injured, it seems logical to assume he's injured in the same incident in which Vera is killed. You don't go winging active duty troops from neutral governments in these hostage operations. You don't. If you were going to shoot them, for some retarded reason you'd shoot to kill. Maybe he's injured in a failed attempt to rescue her?


 * The CCP being responsible does seem the more obvious option, and it would also be in keeping with the "Big Switch" theme if McGill, who's found the Japanese distasteful from the get-go, starts rooting for them. Still, I can't shake the feeling that the Japs will be responsible, somehow. Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, I see what you are saying. Based on the review, which connected her implicit death with the communist terror bombings, I assumed she'd been a victim of those same bombings. TR 23:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Assigning blame in situations of political terrorism can be tricky. ML4E recently threw up a bunch of Moabite civilians injured by their own IED bombers who said "Damn you Philistines, if you hadn't been here you wouldn't have forced the bombers into it." Coming from the same culture as the terrorists will certainly make that more likely, but . . . I don't know. Or maybe Pete and Vera are in the wrong place at the wrong time? They go out to some club that's secretly a CCP front and the Japs come in with guns blazing, shooting people indiscriminately?


 * If he blames the Japanese, and the US goes to war with Japan, he's got a convenient outlet for his rage. If he blames the CCP and the US goes to war with Japan, and especially if his superiors order him to do something to support the CCP against the common enemy, we've got potential for some great internal conflict. The latter could be interesting, but the character seems to be a bit too simple and straightforward to run with it.


 * True, but that is the sort of conflict HT does like to play around with sometimes: personal interests trumping national ones. TR 17:33, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * In Worldwar you've got Yeager, Straha, Jager, Gorbunova, Ussmak, Larssen, the whole diplomatic mission from the Peary, and honorable mentions for Teerts, Johnson, Drucker, and Skorzeny, plus Anielewicz and Russie being stuck in something of a revolving door. Outside that series patriotism often wins: Potter, Shakespeare, Doubting George, Forrest (GotS), Sabrino, Rathar, Thyssen, and Phostis, among others, versus Fernao, Laura Secord, and perhaps a smattering of Radcliff(e)s as counterexamples.


 * I do think, though, that giving McGill an arc based on this kind of conflict, no matter the outcome, will not be playing to his strengths. There are other, better choices within the TWTPE cast even if Pete's the one for whom it could most conveniently be put into place. Turtle Fan 18:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

3a. Rudel's getting a romantic subplot? That dweeb? What is this, Torchwood?


 * Well, whitebread kid that he is, HT will probably be skipping the sex scenes. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * God I hope so. He might play them for laughs, though. Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

4. Looking forward to Peggy's scenes. When I stopped waiting for her to do something relevant to the plot I was able to accept that her travelogue made for a pleasant diversion. It appears that now that she's completed said diversion she will use it to make herself relevant at a later date.


 * Interestingly, not one review has alluded to a US presidential election. I wonder if that means they are avoiding more spoilers or if it doesn't happen in this volume or what. That having been said, if there is an actual shooting war before November, 1940 between the US and Japan, we'll be getting FDR for a third term. If not, HT might keep the changes rolling along. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * A major plank of Obama's platform was "Bush hated Saddam so much that he took his eye off the ball of our legitimate efforts in Afghanistan and shifted resources to a pointless war in Iraq. I wouldn't've done that." An even larger plank in Kerry's platform during his respectably close second-place run was "Bush hates Saddam so much that he took his eye off the ball of our legitimate efforts in Afghanistan and is shifting resources to a pointless war in Iraq. I'll shift them back. (Maybe. Or maybe not. I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it. And if I had just articulated a clear position I would almost certainly have come even closer still, whether or not I actually came close enough to win.)" Couldn't Roosevelt's opponent say "Roosevelt hates Hitler so much that he wants to take his eye off the ball of our legitimate efforts against Japan and shift resources to a pointless war in Germany"? (I always thought HT would have done better to play up that angle in his WWII-based parables about the Iraq War; the Japan First lobby was much larger than the antiwar crowd.) Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should assume that FDR will campaign on a "Let's fight Hitler" platform, especially if Britain and France do indeed join with Germany against the USSR. FDR pounding the table saying "No, no Hitler!" would look incredibly stupid on his part. If the fight against Japan is already on, FDR is much more likely to say "Don't change horses mid-stream" and focus on Japan. If the fight isn't on, he could conceivably campaign on "He kept us out of war" as in OTL, or not. But it doesn't make any sense for FDR to call for war against Hitler under the conditions the reviewers seem to be hinting at. TR 23:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably. Everyone knew he hated Hitler like poison, but a candidate saying "He hasn't done it, but come on, you know he wants to" is easy for an incumbet to beat back: Just say "No, I don't want to do it" (even if you do) and continue not doing it. Some of Kerry's people insinuated that Bush wanted to start calling up the Selective Service lottery numbers, and that's all he had to do to make those people look silly.


 * The Japan First people may have had a point in OTL but Hitler had followed up Pearl Harbor by saying "Yeah, and that goes for me too! Declaration of War, bee-atch!" That's hard to ignore. Presumably Japan won't give the US casus belli until after they've made their separate peace with Moscow, at which point they will have ended whatever alliance with Germany they'd had. Unless there's some ridiculously complicated system of secret treaties designed to make Japan a German proxy for attacking the US, and Hitler decides Japan should turn both barrels on that task what with Western europe on his side now. It is interesting that, however low-probability, our conjectures have led to a scenario where it's the US and Soviets against everyone else. Turtle Fan 02:40, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The cover copy seems to suggest that Japan makes peace with the USSR before attacking the US. TR 17:33, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * As does common sense. Turtle Fan 18:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * But you're right about the conspicuous lack of election hints. I'm guessing US involvement is still too low for internal developments to be significant enough as plot points to be worth sharing (though we've gotten some spurious spoilers in these reviews over the years). The alternative, that we don't get up to the election in this book, would be a disappointment; it would mean we're covering way too small a time period for all these promised sweeping changes to come about organically. Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * That also occured to me. But we're told in the cover copy that big things are happening in 1941, and W&E ended in 1939. Some part of the book almost has to be set in 1940. TR 23:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * You'd think so, wouldn't you. HT's not going to resort to having his characters say things like "Wow, last year was exciting! I can't believe that A, B and C happened"--Is he?


 * There's always a first time. The opening sections with Vaclav and Theo seem to pick up more or less where W&E ended--it's winter, anway.  TR 17:33, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * True. I guess it could be December instead of January but I doubt it.  And those scenes are so damned worthlessly generic. Turtle Fan 18:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * But even if he does, we're going to have a POV stateside for this one and it sounds like she'll take an increased interest in politics. If she mentions Roosevelt by name we'll know he won a third term and if she mentions someone else we'll know who won the election. Surely she won't just talk about "the new president"? Turtle Fan 02:40, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * HT identifies the POTUS in his long running series that uses the US as a direct setting. (191, WW, DOI) If Peggy has indeed made her way home, then I think this informal rule will apply, and we'll know if its FDR or Taft or Willkie or Garner, etc.


 * Probably. We can hope. Turtle Fan 18:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * It also occurs to me that since so many reviews are pointing out big changes in the timeline, the re-election of FDR would track with OTL, and may not be worth discussing as far as the reviewers are concerned. TR 17:33, July 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, yes, that too. Hadn't thought of that. Turtle Fan 18:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

4a. And while it's possible that the US will indeed end up fighting the Japanese, with Britain and France making peace and possibly even common cause with Germany, the possibility of the US fighting Germany just went from slim to none. It's more likely they'll join the possible German-Western alliance against the USSR, though I don't see that within the realm of the realistically possible.


 * I'd be surprised if they did that as well. If the USSR is still a possible enemy of Japan's, then jumping on them makes little sense for the US. Even if they are at peace now, the USSR could always jump back on Japan at a later date. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, US relations with Britain and France, which are presumably (we haven't gotten enough news to be sure) strained by the US doing very little to support its presumed allies against Germany, could get downright wintry if Washington is counting on/cooperating with the Soviets to contain Japan. We might conceivably see the US become an enemy of the Western European democracies: maybe not a shooting war, but clearly on opposite sides of the conflict, like Japan and the USSR in the OTL WWII. Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

5. Mouradian replaces Delgadillo, it appears. I almost missed that. With Vaclav moving we'll still have two POVs in Spain though no one covering the Nationalist side, unless one of the Germans who "gets moved around" ends up doing a stint with the Condors for a bit.


 * Odd choice. Given that Dernen was being groomed to be Jezek's rival, I won't be surprised if he's shipped to Spain after that damn sniper with the anti-tank gun blows up Sanjurjo or Franco or someone. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps but it sounds like he stays stuck with his asshole corporal throughout. As for Mouradian replacing Delgadillo, it sort of reminds me of Pound replacing Mary. It seemed to make no sense unless HT had lost interest in Canada altogether; then lo and behold, he makes Canada more important than it had been before. He got rid of Mary just as she would actually have had something useful to do for the first time in three books, as opposed to "Geewillickers, I hate the Yanks. But the adventures of a small-town housewife take up most of my attention, so that doesn't really count for anything." Then HT left us without an eye in Canada at all until he sent Grimes up there for the one scene a year later. Now we'll have people in Spain, but unless we do indeed get a Condor, the coverage of that conflict will be one-sided--which is a shame, because the moral clarity of the Spanish Civil War was pretty much a choice between having a bucket of piss or a bucket of shit poured over your head.


 * And of course we'll have no Spanish POVs with or without a Condor, which actually seems pretty appropriate given the conflict's primary significance as a proxy war. Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Now here's a thought, if the USSR is going to have everyone and their brother attacking out of the west, and Britain and France are making nice with Germany, support for the Republicans is going to be reduced to whatever can trickle over from Mexico. The Nationalists will have the bit between their teeth, unless the Germans decide that things are going so well they can just cut Sanjurjo off altogether with no ill effect. Even if the Hess Plan includes Germany cutting off Sanjurjo to match Anglo-French cutting off of the Republic, Berlin will surely subvert that as soon as the Anglo-French start changing their minds about who the real enemy is. Turtle Fan 02:40, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

6. I like that Weinberg is apparently going to become less doctrinaire. After reading HW, he stood out in a sea of unmemorable characters as someone I blatantly disliked. If you want to be a communist, more power to you; but when you've got all these characters living within dictatorships trying as best they can to resist and/or just live with the dehumanizing effects of political repression and totalitarianism, and then you've got someone who grew up in a democratic country willingly brainwashing himself with idiotic propaganda that normally only works when a secret police organization is forcing people to be outwardly compliant--I just couldn't take it. He got better over the course of W&E and I'll be glad if that's over for good now.


 * It seems to be going that way. If he softens into a Flora-type, that has potential. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, a great deal. Flora was cool. Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

7. I of course have indeed been sick of parallelism for a while now, and HW was a particularly serious offender. W&E got better, but if this review is any indication--and it's certainly gotten me excited--this will be one of the first AH novels to take full advantage of the genre's potential in years. Though this may be a bit premature, it looks like the series will go from a weak opening to a string of installments each stronger than the last: sort of the opposite of post-GW TL-191. Turtle Fan 17:56, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * 8. Other stray thoughts-evidentally the deal the USSR brokers with Japan lets Japan keep Vladivostok. That's a good thing, as I'd grown tired of the "Japan launches attack on strategic enemy, Japan decides fighting is just too hard, Japan takes its ball and goes home" pattern from 191. TR 18:57, July 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * From an in-universe perspective, it makes sense that way because the USSR presumably needs to shut the back door a lot more than Japan does, especially since it could have all of Europe bearing down on it from the west. From an out-of-universe perspective I quite agree. Within one generation Japan had three different opportunities to learn the lesson of "There are no negative consequences attached to attacking the United States; we may not win but we've got nothing to lose." At the end Asia's European colonizers seemed to be somewhat eagerly saying "That goes for us, too, you know." Even a hardass like Taft naturally went to "We'd better not put anything too important out beyond the west coast" instead of "Let's smack 'em around a bit." Turtle Fan 22:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm glad we still have a place to shoot the breeze about these books like we did on the Better Board and its cousins back in the day. A lot of Wiki admin teams are as hard-ass about keeping the talk pages "plot-relevant" as we are about keeping the articles that way. Turtle Fan 18:35, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

And another review
Britain and France do indeed join Germany. http://www.booklistonline.com/ProductInfo.aspx?pid=4774556. Not sure how I feel about that. TR 18:01, July 12, 2011 (UTC)