Forum:Coup d'Etat

Harry Turtledove: Index > Coup d'Etat

I can't help feeling very disappointed by this year's installment. In TBS HT seemed willing to throw out the playbook and give us a radically different version of WWII. But rather than think through the ramifications of everything he'd introduced, HT seemed to set to work reversing everything before we'd had the chance to play with it. It almost reminds me of Philip Roth's Plot Against America. Yes, the "Let's get everything back to where it was before" resolution wasn't anywhere near so complete; but on the other hand, Turtledove's "The Master of Alternate History" while Roth was just dabbling.

The Actual Coup

My biggest complaint was the coup d'etat. To name THE ENTIRE BOOK after one particular event and then have that event occur offstage--even though we had a POV who was perfectly positioned to observe it!!--is unspeakably lame. The only step down from there would be if Willi or Theo or Hans-Ulrich suddenly said "Gee, sure is a shame that the Brits left weeks ago, isn't it?"

This is definitely where HT's 100% everyman approach to this series is hurting it, although I'm resigned to it at this point.

He was inching away from that, with Walsh a conspirator, Peggy a politico, and Weinberg a commissar. Now he's doing a lot more than inching back to it in two of the three cases. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Having you in the position to act as spoiler set my expectations lower, actually. So while I disappointed, I wasn't DISAPPOINTED by how HT handled it. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Kind of like a miniature version of when I got the advanced copy of TG all those years ago, right after we took this place over, and with two or three months to go, everyone at the Better Board got to watch me come to the gradual realization that nothing was going to happen.

In this case, though, you certainly managed to catch up to me quickly all of a sudden. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Trying to give Harry Turtledove some credit. Maybe the Coup D'etat was not just Britain but the conduct of the war. It is often said generals fight the last war that they won until they realize it doesn't work. McGill talks about US Navy realizing there will be no "super-Jutland." Mouradian realizes Tomashevsky capitalizes on his bombers' habits of hastily dropping bombs for maximum effect. The Soviets throw more tanks into the fray. Even the untouchable Rudel gets shot down. All sides are learning.

Learning, sure. But the promotional material did make it pretty clear that we were supposed to expect the overthrow of Wilson as the book's centerpiece. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:48, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

The build-up to the coup was not much better. All we really got was Walsh pitching the idea to Wavell (and I'm annoyed by the fact that I can't figure out how to pronounce his name).

Probably WAH-vel. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

That's what I go with more often than not, though sometimes I move the v- to a -v and call it WAHV-el. Sounds too much like "waffle." Occasionally I make it a long A, though I'm sure that's not right. Sometimes I call him wa-VELL, though it would probably be spelled "Wavelle" if that were correct. (I used to know a guy named Ravelle.) Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

We have a suburb in Brisbane called Wavell. We pronounce it WAY-VIL. Mr Nelg

And a check of the history states that the suburb was named for the general. So WAY-vil it is. TR (talk) 19:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, nice. Thanks, Nelg. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Wavell said no, then reconsidered for God knows what reason.

Well, he didn't say "No, get the fuck out." He'd obviously been thinking about it, as Walsh pointed out. And he didn't blow the whistle on Walsh. That probably means Wavell had been thinking about it, maybe even in contact with some other officers, but didn't feel now was the time, and certainly saw no reason to commit to Cartland's conspiracy. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Right, but he had to work through some issues internally. It would be nice to have gotten at least a hint as to how and why he did so. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

And I'd like to know who else was involved on the military side. Neither HT's characterization of Wavell nor anything I've seen in the historical record suggests he had the force of personality to lead a military junta by himself. Some name-dropping was sorely needed, though I'll admit I probably wouldn't care if it weren't for this project.

Yeah, I agree. Wavell was evidently enough of a leader that he was tasked with speaking to the King, but that doesn't mean he was the leader. Again, Turtledove's tropes work against him. This would have been the perfect time to break with the "follow X POVs to the bitter end" approach and have a few omniscient narrators or at the least, one-off POVs for the coup. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

There is that. It's possible the real leader decided to stay holed up. And I'm amazed the real leader wasn't Cartland. He's now both an MP and a captain, and the latter seems to count for more than the former. Now leaving aside all sorts of other issues, I have to think that people would be a lot less leery about the provisional government if it were run by sitting MPs, especially civilians, than they are with martial-law-imposing Army officers who've never won nor stood for elected office in their lives. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I can see that certain officers may not be inclined to take orders from Cartland. He's a dynamic personality, but he's also pretty young. The failure to mix the civilian in with the martial is one of those common failures of coups. TR (talk) 19:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I guess. It kind of feels like the Army walked out onto the stage while Cartland was singing his song, shoved him out from behind the mic, and took over the show. And it also feels like he doesn't mind in the least. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

And while breaking out of the fixed-POV format would have been valuable here, it's very likely that HT's too set in his ways after all these years. But the thing is, there's no reason Walsh had to get arrested. (No out-of-universe reason; we know it was trumped-up charges in-universe.) I'm picturing HT saying "Oh shit, I don't know how to write a coup! How can I avoid needing to do so? I know! I'll sideline Walsh!" Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'd hoped that, after MwIH and LA, where he played with POV structure, we'd get a little more variety.

Those felt a little different, somehow. Maybe because they didn't have the gravity of a multiple-volume series? Turtle Fan (talk) 22:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion your take on his decision to write the coup off-stage isn't too far from the truth. TR (talk) 19:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I hope I'm wrong, but it's hard to shake that feeling. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

You know, I might walk that comment back. I looked up a couple of other coups. The Greek colonels launched their coup on April 21, 1967, and pretty firmly had the country by like noon. We remember failed coups because they are usually elaborately-but-poorly planned fiascos. Successful coups are usually quick, mostly clean, and abrupt.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the approach he took was probably a rational one in the context of the story. It would have been great to know more about WHO was involved and at what level. TR (talk) 01:18, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind that it was over quickly. But why did HT deliberately sideline Walsh? You want to write the entire coup in one scene? Great. What will Walsh be doing while he observes it? Brawling with police? Throwing up a barricade on Downing Street? Arresting Wilson? Accompanying Wavell to the palace? Hanging out in a backroom somewhere with Cartland or whoever's running the show, receiving reports on a short wave radio? Oh I know! We'll have him locked up in a jail cell for no reason, needing to be rescued. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:08, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath of coup

The aftermath was more interesting, but we got to see so little of it. I didn't count but I don't think Walsh had any more scenes in the final two thirds of the book than he did in the first third. The unpopularity of the coup is far from what I expected, but there's a lot we can do with that. And the indefinitely delayed elections set an ominous tone promising a descent into military dictatorship. We needed to see far more of that. And we certainly needed it more than we needed Walsh to give us by-the-numbers combat scenes in Egypt. Send Rudel there, or just give us offstage updates.

Yes, if HT plays that right, he could create a much different war, and/or a very different UK at the end of all this. Hopefully he does create some crisis there: either the elections don't happen and that leads to a counter-coup or protests or something, or the elections don't produce the desired result. Something. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

The possibilities are endless. Problem is, we also identified endless possibilities for the fall of Wilson's government, and HT essentially gave us "None of the above, it's because the plot requires it." Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

France

Then I thought France's Big Switch Back could deliver the tension that Britain's lacked. The slow build-up showed some promise, but then all of a sudden you've got the green flares coming out of nowhere. Clearly there was some sort of secret agreement in place there, and neither Demange nor Harcourt would have been in position for it, but there still could have been something.

Well, the rumors were interesting, and like the British, there could be a solid pay-off there. The fact that the Maginot Line was being extended, that the French were already supplying the Republic not long after the British coup--it does lead me to wonder if Daladier isn't fully in control any longer himself, or if this whole big switch was purely his plan to get the Germans out long enough to rebuild, trading Russian space for French time.

Ooh, interesting ideas I hadn't thought of. If Walsh's summary of the Hess Agreement was accurate and complete, anyone with a brain in his head should have seen right through it. I like the idea that Daladier agreed because he intended to set a countertrap within a more obvious trap, even if that kind of cleverness seems to be pretty far beyond him.

Hard to say, re: Daladier's cleverness. My limited reading of the man's bio reveals that unlike Chamberlain, who was sure Munich would secure peace, Daladier realized that all they'd done was delay the inevitable, and seems to have tried to make the most of the crappy hand he was dealt, without success. TR (talk) 16:30, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought he was pretty mediocre on the cleverness scale, compared with other world leaders. I understand that below-average intelligence hardly ever attains to positions of national leadership, except perhaps in absolute monarchies and their barely-republican close counterparts (hereditary dictatorships like North Korea). That is, nations where the right to lead is not earned. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:54, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

It would also be interesting if someone other than Daladier is in charge but is keeping him on as a figurehead. That could suggest the French are more interested in keeping due process and legitimate elected governments in place than the British were. I'd have figured France would go autocratic long before Britain. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

This also begs the question as to how aggressively the French will pursue a war with Germany next book. On the one hand, the fact that they're building up the line suggests that they learned something, but that their building up a defensive line might suggest they learned the wrong thing. Personally, I feel as if they're going to repeat the trick of hiding behind the line and waiting for the Germans to come at them. That could work, especially since we only have two books left, and at least half of book 6 will be given over to peace, based on past HT patterns.

I agree the French are most likely going to be content to hide behind the Maginot Line. The rest, I'm going to have to ruminate on a bit. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

The French military could take a page out of the UK playbook and overthrow Daladier, I suppose. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

If the military has a coup they'll switch back to Hitler's side. (I guess that would be FourCo?) The high command may not have been fascist, but it wasn't too far off; there's a reason the Vichy government was crawling with generals and WWI heroes.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe De Gaulle could cultivate a few anti-Germans the way Cartland did? That might give Demange something to do. TR (talk) 19:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would be a steeply uphill climb. And anyway, now that Daladier's already switched back, what's de Gaulle going to claim as his justification? "We should have abrogated the Hess Agreement even more emphatically than we did?" Turtle Fan (talk) 22:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

The rank and file may feel differently, but if they take over, it won't be a coup, it'll be an all-out revolution. Now there's a nice pipe dream to help me get my earlier excitement back. . . . Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

The French do so enjoy their revolutions....TR (talk) 19:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

That they do, though they haven't had one in a while. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

And of course, the thing about how the Nazis were going to behave themselves in order to keep France happy is a pretty gross mischaracterization of the one company-sized standoff.

Thanks Del Rey, although that scene was rather awesome. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

It certainly was. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Pacific War

The Pacific War was handled pretty well; McGill's scenes were interesting and informative, perhaps moreso than anyone else's. (Now there's something I never would have thought I'd say a couple of years ago!) I hope he's not dead. If he is, and he's replaced by someone on another front, we've got no one giving us Pacific War updates. If he's replaced by Joe Orsatti or someone like that--What the hell's the point of that?

If Herb Druce had been made a colonel, rather than a civilian efficiency expert, I'd worry about Pete. But, since Herb isn't a colonel, and since the last words of Pete's scene were not "Pete felt the shark's teeth rip into him" or "The last thing Pete saw was the Zero strafing the water", I think the odds are in his favor for the moment. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

True. Now that I think of it, dying as a POV follows one of four avenues: The most common, realizing you're dying; not being dead yet, but realizing that you will be soon (Jeb Stuart in HFR, for instance, or Yaroslavsky in the last book); someone else watching you die (Featherston, Harcourt, and sort of Ussmak); or being a soldier on the losing side at the end of a Stalingrad equivalent (Tom Colleton, some Algarvian schmuck whose name escapes me). McGill is none of these, his final scene reminded me more of that time that Hip almost electrocuted himself. Still, we can't be sure. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Other characters:

I'll miss Harcourt, he was a nice guy. And Demange seemed to have a lot more characterization through most of the book than he'd ever had before. In retrospect that may have been HT preparing him for promotion to POV. He's colorful and entertaining, which actually has me a little worried. I can think of quite a few examples of HT promoting colorful, entertaining characters to POV only to find that they prove far less interesting than they had before. And even if that doesn't happen, I'll still miss Harcourt.

I will miss him as well. His death served at least two, and perhaps three purposes. 1) The usual "death comes and it's not fair" trope HT uses; 2) to remind us that Dernen's a hell of a shot--I think his apocalyptic War of the Rats with Jezek is back on; 3)My "perhaps" guess: as an officer, Demange was more in the know about things in France than Harcourt was, and that he'd be more useful to what HT will do with France next volume. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Demange was passing most of the rumors along to Harcourt, and if France is going to continue playing the cloak-and-dagger game, we might as well get one degree closer to the source. The other two--I guess. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see him go. I hoped Rudel, Lemp, even Sarah's brother would go instead. For historical characters the first two are extremely boring. Sarah's brother seems to serve no purpose other than the token German Jewish patriot with a bunch of his Kameraden protecting him because they're brothers in arms. Cliche, and even more boring.

Yeah, I think most of us around here are pretty tired of Lemp.

I really can't imagine why Lemp's still around. He's useless. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Rudel: I find the idea of HT having a historical Nazi (who remained a unrepetently a Nazi right to the end of his life) and giving him a redemptive arc appealing, but HT's pretty much backed away from that. Heinrich Jäger, Rudel ain't.

Rudel's very run of the mill, neither better nor worse than most of the other combatant POVs. Of course, one has to wonder why HT bothered picking a historical figure for the role instead of simply making up another fictional character if he's not going to do something unique with him. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with Saul Goldman. If nothing else, he gives Hossbach and the rest a plausible reason to throw in with anti-Nazis later. TR (talk) 16:55, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

If you eliminate Stoss, Hossbach becomes just another front-liner. The only other thing that makes him stand out is his reluctance to engage in conversations, and that's not going to go very far toward keeping him interesting and unique all by itself. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

What I really hoped for with the Re-Switch was to see something like OTL's Normandie-Niemen or 151 Wing of the RAF except with ground troops. The Brits and the Frenchies can't return home (Lemp could have made himself useful here) so they carry on the fight in the USSR.

That could have been cool. TR (talk) 16:55, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

I found I quite liked Weinberg this year. I think it's because HT's changed him somewhat. Now he's a freethinker. A few years ago he was a strict dogmatist. That's why he left such a bad taste in my mouth; we saw a number of characters struggling to maintain some intellectual independence under totalitarian rulers, and then here comes Weinberg having the opportunity for that independence and willingly ceding it to Stalin. But somewhere along the line HT more or less rebooted the character.

I think it was when he realized that he was never going to be the Communist La Martellita wanted him to be, and that he didn't want that. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose. Of course, he'd been with the Internationals for some time already before we met him, he must have met the likes of her before. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

He may have met such people, but I doubt he wanted to have sex with them. Also worth remembering that he did run into trouble with her when he was preaching at Delgadillo for not being sufficiently orthodox. So the independent streak's always been sort of there. TR (talk) 19:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Since W&E it has. In HW he was very into the party line. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Balkans and such

My big peeve with the Spanish Civil War was that there are tons of Magyars/Hungarians but not one Yugoslav. Lots of Yugoslav Communists served in the Spanish Civil War. Since Yugoslavia is not in the game (yet), why not put some of the players to good use?

Well it's not like the Hungarian characters have really done much to distinguish themselves. They're just background filler. Replacing them with Yugoslavs would pretty much be the difference between saying "Hey Laz" and "Hey Boba." Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Unless (dare I dream) HT is saving some of the Hungarian communists for post-war leadership of Hungary, which is for now an enthusiastic ally of Hitler's.

I don't know. I kind of like the idea of Horthy still running things when the war ends. Or maybe Horthy is ousted for Otto von Habsburg or some other monarch? (Let's set aside the legal issues blocking the Habsburgs from getting back in.) HT does have a certain fondness for restoration. TR (talk) 16:58, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Hungary and Romania could prove interesting in that they could bring Yugoslavia and Bulgaria into the war on the side of the Allies as late comers, merely for a territorial grab and to build up good will with the victors. Plus in Yugoslavia's case, it could be a good side-distraction for the internal strife between the Serbs and Croats, both of whom weren't too fond of Hungary.JudgeFisher (talk) 17:44, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Given how much they all hate each other, it does seem strange to imagine a systemic conflict coming and going without a regional war breaking out. That's really not how geopolitics works. Yes, someone should join the Allies if only because someone else has already joined the Coalitions. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:32, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavia and Bulgaria did a half-way decent job of staying neutral for a while in OTL. Yugoslavia was finally invaded, of course, and Bulgaria started out neutral but ultimately quite willingly joined the Axis (although the subsequent war with the USSR was not popular at home); additionally, Bulgaria took back Dorbudja from Romania by way of political negotiations.

Yugoslavia appears to gain nothing by joining the war in this timeline, save, as JudgeFisher suggests, as an opportunity to unify against the Hungarians. Nor can I see any advantage/need for either Italy or Germany to invade Yugoslavia at this point (I'd like to think the Italian invasion of Greece would be something HT would have referenced; since it hasn't, I'll assume it hasn't happened). And Britain and France have shown themselves to be unreliable. Without some other external pressure, I wouldn't be too terribly put-out by Yugoslavia remaining neutral all the way to the bitter end.

Now, Bulgaria on the other hand, could remain neutral, but, now that Romania is fighting the USSR, and since there's nothing that suggests Romania ceded DOrbudja as in OTL, a Bulgarian war against Romania seems pretty probable/plausible (and even desirable). From what I can tell, in OTL, Tsar Boris III more or less hated the USSR, but there was a strongly pro-Russian sentiment in Bulgaria. I don't think we'd see a formal alliance between the two, just a simple co-belligerency, even if Germany attacked Bulgaria to help out Romania. Nor would I anticipate anything formal between Bulgaria and the Western Allies. TR (talk) 22:42, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Czecho and Slovakia...

I further wonder who will liberate Czechoslovakia? The Soviets or the Anglo-French? What does that mean for Jezek?

The Soviets if anyone.

Geographically, they are the best bet. TR (talk) 16:58, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

The Brits and French made it pretty clear they didn't give a shit about Czechoslovakia when they signed the Hess Agreement.

But the Soviets will only get that far if they manage to crush ThirCo, which we're betting against at the moment. (We could be wrong, of course.)

Does it need to be an absolute crush? From a purely geographical standpoint, if the Soviets get a good toe-hold in Poland or Romania, they could drive on Slovakia, theoretically. (I can't see why they'd do that: if their drive is that successful, they'd be better off just pressing on through Poland to Germany.) TR (talk) 16:58, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that by that point they'd be pretty spent and wouldn't be up to tackling the very heavily fortified lines the still-intact German military has hypothetically thrown up in front of them. If they've beaten back the invasion, they will certainly push as deep as they can into the smaller ThirCo members' territory, even if they don't quite feel up to it. Historically, Russia always capitalizes on defeated invasions by extending its sphere of influence as far west as possible, and looking at the Northern European Plain it's not hard to see why; very few terrain features you can build a defensive line around. But if Germany hasn't been crushed it might be too tough a nut for them to crack, so they grab what they can from the rest of ThirCo by way of booby prizes.

I thought of a variation of this, but I'm going to move it to the Cold War section of this page, as it touches far, far more strongly on that than on anything we're talking about up here. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:45, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

If Germany is defeated but not beaten, with or without regime change, at the summit meeting where a ceasefire is negotiated someone may say "Oh, yeah, and you have to leave Czechoslovakia, too. And take that little bitch you've got running Slovakia with you."

Spit-balling: If the military finally ousts Hitler, how likely is it that they just walk away from Czechoslovakia on their own, withdraw back into Austria, and leave Tiso to his fate? There could be value in staying there: if the Czechs are no longer under Germany's thumb, they might smack the Slovaks around and let the Soviets in through the side entrance to Germany. On the other hand, if they aren't holding on to Bohemia, they might think that trading that particular space for time is a better option.

Hmm, a good question indeed. It could easily go either way, based on your two positions. I do think that anyone but Hitler would happily walk away from Czech lands if there was a reasonable expectation that it would allow them to extricate themselves from trouble, and of course it goes without saying that they'd leave the Slovak collaborators to their fates if that's all that's at stake. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:58, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Since France let the Czechs sneak off, and who knows what happened with the government-in-exile, it's going to be hard to say "You've got to turn Tiso over to the new Czech government, whatever form it takes." Turtle Fan (talk) 05:35, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

I suspect Tiso gets hung from a lamp post, or he manages to get to Portugal or Argentina. Not much space in between. TR (talk) 16:58, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

...And Jezek, too

Jezek's okay, but his scenes were repetitive. I really don't give a shit if he kills Sanjurjo or not. HT still hasn't given us any sign that the Spanish situation is going to lead to anything worthwhile, and until he does, I just want to see less of it.

Franco's death is all but HT's saying "The Republic's going to win". Plus see above re Dernen vs. Jezek. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

After the latest game of Musical Alliances, we're once again pretty close to OTL: Germany charging into the USSR with only a bunch of odds and sods for allies (the Poles are pretty good but don't have the numbers to help as much as they might--very similar to the Finns of OTL). Britain and Italy fighting in North Africa, with the latter receiving some German help. France at war with Germany but not doing much about it. The US neutral but screaming itself hoarse rooting for the Allies (government policy wise; public opinion may be a different story). A number of small countries occupied by one or another great powers and pissed off about it. Japan fighting China and the ABDACOM countries. Locals in numerous small Japanese-occupied countries torn as to whether they've been liberated or are simply being treated to another flavor of imperialism. The campaigns in SE Asia seem to be identical to the OTL ones, though of course the war against the US is going a little differently.

So if we follow the Parallelism Express from here on out (in which case I will definitely call this a wasted opportunity, and a pointless exercise besides) and then go into Early Cold War mode, a Spain where the Republicans won could mean a Soviet foothold in Western Europe. That can be interesting in theory, but I really don't see it being enough of a payoff to justify reading about this interminable, irrelevant sideshow for years and years. Especially since that payoff would come right as the series is ending.

Unless this entire six-book series is meant as little more than a prequel for the story HT really wanted to write, about a Cold War where the Warsaw Pact uses its influence in Madrid to make mischief. Oh happy day. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

If HT wanted to tell that story, I think he'd have just told it in a short story, rather like "Ready for the Fatherland". TR (talk) 16:55, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but unfortunately, it's the best guess I can come up with for why HT makes us keep reading the Spanish subplot. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Lemp still sucks

Lemp was boring as ever; now he's got a damned job to do, unlike last year, but we haven't actually seen him do it. All those scenes in the Barents and he never once found a troopship. I guess now that Hitler's declared unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic (Gee, where have we heard that before?) he'll have something better to do next year.

But none of that will change how despicable he was in Narvik. Saying he couldn't, or wouldn't, maintain discipline among his subordinates unless the base commander either forced a lot of prostitutes to come to Narvik against their will or forced a lot of local women to prostitute themselves--what the hell was that? I couldn't believe that HT actually set up that argument in such a way that we were supposed to side with Lemp. The Japanese did that--we saw Fujita take advantage in Myitkyina, which made me think how Lemp would have approved--but that doesn't mean it's something that should be emulated. Disgusting.

I have a feeling that this dissatisfaction is foreshadowing the eventual successful coup against Hitler. Coups and revolutions have started for dumber reasons. I don't think we were necessarily supposed to side with Lemp, only understand that Lemp honestly and sincerely believed this stupid plan. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Well there's been quite a lot of foreshadowing about internal challenges to the regime in this series. Thus far none of them have gone anywhere. Wonder what happened to Bishop von Galen? Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I imagine he's alive. Given what HT was hinting at, I think Galen will be a partial factor in revolutionary something in Germany. TR (talk) 16:55, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

It was looking that way, but then everyone forgot about him after a few scenes. I'm sure he's still alive; after the reaction to his arrest, I have to think the SS would be afraid to execute him. But as long as there's no change to the status quo, why would people suddenly feel like protesting again after they got it out of their systems? Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Fujita's mildly interesting

Speaking of Fujita, his adventures were mildly interesting. They seemed to be taking place in a vacuum, though. He could have been eliminated from the book altogether, and I don't think you'd need to rewrite one word of anyone else's scenes.

To an extent. It was nice to see Szulc and Weinstein, and I'm sure they're pretty fucked. I think that while there was no biowar in India this volume, that comes when things get desperate next volume. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Szulc and Weinstein may not be fucked. Three Marines have escaped already, and Weinstein appeared to have been arranging for more. For a little while there I thought one of the Marines would bash Fujita's head in and they'd make a run for it. Then Weinstein would take over the vacated POV slot, fall in with the CCP, and give us a story similar to Moss's in TG. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Weinstein and Szulc might use the Commie connection and start an insurrection with the Russian logs. Szulc never had any love for Russkies or Commies, but POW camps make for strange bedfellows, and Weinstein is already Red.

Oh absolutely. The only thing that might stand in the way is lack POV coverage. Maybe it will be like Isabella Antonelli, where someone very casually checks in with them long after the fact and gives the readers just enough info to connect the dots. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

If McGill is indeed dead, that might be an avenue. TR (talk) 19:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I guess, but then where do we get our Pacific news? Transfer Fujita yet again? Maybe; I suspect he'll run out of things to do in Burma before too long. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Peggy's not so interesting

Peggy's doing what we figured she would, but in all the wrong places. I was hoping she'd go to the big cities and give us a bit of glamor. All those dreary little whistle stops in Pennsylvania, yawn. And I find it hard to believe that suave, worldly Constantine Jenkins got his start in Erie.

Yes, she was kind of dull. Hopefully she starts doing cooler stuff next book. Something has to bring the US against Germany, right? Right? TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

No, you're right. The problem is, after something does, that something may just lead Peggy to add a couple of paragraphs to her presentation as she continues to putz around the Alleghenies.

I couldn't care less about her marital woes, but I do appreciate that HT has a second plotline going with her. If all she ever did was give speeches, she'd grow extremely monotonous very quickly, especially in said dreary little whistle stops.

Sarah's domesticity continues to provide, at best, a nice respite from constant military POVs. Not unlike Ealstan and Vanai, except they were a bit more compelling.

But what's with the von Galen thing? Talk about not finishing what you start! (And of course, you were right, TR. Del Rey's cover copy writer was just talking out of his ass.)

Soviet POV's are interesting, however

Kuchkov was a bit more interesting than I'd expected him to be, but there's nothing really unique about him. HT's written guys like that more times than I care to count.

True, but it was nice to have a ground troop in the USSR that was Russian. And I liked his 'mat'. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

It certainly was colorful. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I missed Yaroslavsky, but HT made Kuchkov just as interesting in his own way. Kuchkov is a good foil to Mouradian too in some ways. I chuckled at the orchard incident with the Ukrainian nationalists.

You know, it kind of hit me out of nowhere earlier that this is the first book in a long, long time where Turtledove has explored living conditions for civilians in the USSR in a meaningful way. There are no civilian POVs, but just about every character in Russia wound up interacting with civilians and letting said civilians tell their stories, and the two Soviet military POVs gave some insight into concerns common to all Soviet citizens, uniformed or otherwise. You'd really have to go back to the middle of Worldwar for the last time that part of the story came through so strongly. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:58, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

TF doesn't give a shit, but we make him talk about it anyway

Anyone I didn't mention didn't do anything I gave a shit about. My earlier opinions on each of those characters remain unaltered.

Rudel seemed like he'd grow. He's staying stunted.

Meh. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Mouradian is likeable. It won't surprise me if he wound up in Moscow next volume, flying Stalin to safety. He just seems to be heading that way.

I like him, but I like him neither more nor differently than I did a year ago. All I got out of him this book is some chances to read scenes by someone pleasant.

But if you're right about his having Stalin on board, then the little man will for a time be completely within Mouradian's power. Stas loves not the regime, so he may decide to do something. Perhaps he'll deliberately crash the plane, figuring that giving up his life is a worthwhile price to pay to eliminate a totalitarian. Which would be an almost-amusing inversion of the first scene of the series. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

And I'm just throwing that out there based on his observations that he's continuing to move east towards Moscow. I think his last scene was something like "he was taking off east of Smolensk, and that couldn't be good."

Anyway, I don't see the Soviet drive to Berlin of OTL, not with only two books left. The Germans seem to have figured out the bad winter problem already. That weakness in OTL is probably blunted here. So hell, why not consider the fall of Moscow and Stalin dying in a plan crash? TR (talk) 19:31, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Prediction - Smolensk will be this war's Stalingrad. In OTL Stalin said not a step back from his namesake city, this war it's gotta be Smolensk. The Soviets break the German war machine in Smolensk and probably push back into Poland. Will there be a Kursk equivalent? Minsk?

I can buy Smolensk as decisive. It fell pretty quickly in OTL, but that was a month after Barbarossa began. Surprise is not an advantage Germany has here. The upcoming horrible winter is almost certainly going to be blunted by two years of fighting; the Germans know what to expect and can cope. So the USSR doesn't have that advantage. And the big edge Germany had (Britain and France) is now gone. TR (talk) 16:55, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

I prefer not to assume there will be a Stalingrad equivalent in the hopes that HT will opt for something new and original. Of course, I know there will be one. There always is. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Don't have to tell me twice. I'd also be willing to consider a war where the Germans are driven back and forced to admit they lost, but aren't really beaten. Sarah sort of alluded to the possibility a bit at the end. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:28, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Just like WW I.

And WWI analogs are plentiful in this series (well, many historical events may be analogized to other events, but you know what I mean). TR (talk) 16:55, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's far closer than the rough parallels that can usually be drawn between two events by someone so inclined. And given that the leaders of this war lived through WWI, they're very likely to react to it in ways that make sense to a WWI mentality, and the consequences of their reactive decisions will thus beget closer parallels still. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Theo--don't laugh, but he feels more and more like a kindred spirit. Certain of my personality, ah, quirks seem to have been directly imported into him.

Sometimes I can sympathize with his desire to be left alone with his thoughts. It seemed dialed up this year, though. I was wondering if he's got some sort of social anxiety disorder. The scene where he had to go back to regimental HQ to try to find a replacement vacuum tube? The prospect of talking with strangers--even a purely business "Do you have this part?"--had him honestly scared to death.

Though that made it all the more heartwarming when he did what he did to protect Adi, knowing how much that cost him. Speaking of which, I was thinking about giving that busybody an entry on Minor Fictional Characters, since he's showed up twice now and has had some game-changing potential. We don't have his name, but "Mr Snoopy" is such a brilliant nickname that I'd happily use it. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Dernen grew more interesting again. When he was looking at the moon with curiosity, I thought for sure he was done for. TR (talk) 04:13, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

That scene was magical. After I read it I went on ebay and looked at telescopes. Didn't buy one, but I thought about it. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Baatz. I'm glad that bastard's finally gone, and Dernen may grow a bit in the next book now that he can come out of that shadow and be a section commander himself. I'm somewhat unsatisfied by the means of Awful Arno's exit. I always figured Willi or one of his buddies would shoot Baatz in the middle of a large battle and let everyone think the Soviets or the French before them had done it. Dernen being a crack shot would seem to have made it more likely. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:23, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say this aloud, but with Baatz still alive, he could become a POV at some point. TR (talk) 16:55, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. God I hope not. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:19, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Wishful thinking - Kuchkov mows Awful Arno down and adds insult to injury with some juicy mat expressions to the dying or already dead Baatz.

That works. I was always rooting for Dernen to shoot him in the back. Compared to that, being killed by the enemy is just impersonal bad luck. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:58, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Summing up

Overall, not a bad book, but very disappointing. Our predictions were for the most part way off. Now I don't expect HT to write what we predict, but when what he writes is far less interesting than our predictions, it's very hard to get excited about the book.

Yes, the coup thing was the most frustrating. I still basically enjoyed this one, and I'm still looking forward to 2F, and I am intrigued by what HT has set up here. Ironically, given the way things are, the USSR could still be in a world of hurt before the whole thing is done. Plus Britain could stop being a democracy for a good long while, as could France, and I can't see any Normandy style invasions anytime soon, even if the US and Germany are at war on page one of 2F. But, yes, the centerpiece event of the book taking place off stage kind of left out some of the air of the volume.

I worry we're going to start sliding back to the rough parallelism that defined HW. If the premise ends up being "The lists of which countries won and which countries lost is the same as it was in OTL, but the war changes them, and in ways very different from how it changed them in our history," we've still got a worthwhile AH. British politics being as they are is the biggest and most dramatic development along those lines. However, the fact that HT did so little to chronicle them, instead sending Walsh back to some half-assed battle against the Italians where all he can do is recount the same combat- and leave-taking scenes we've read dozens of times before, is not encouraging. Neither is the fact that every time HT teases us with the possibility of Hitler being toppled by a faction within Germany, those anti-Hitlerite forces very quickly become distracted from their work by trying to figure out whether the female prisoner Hamnet Thyssen sent back to the Rulers ever stirred up social unrest with her newfound feminism.

But I'm still interested in the series and looking forward to Two Fronts. Just not with as much enthusiasm as I'd looked forward to this year's book. (And of course, nothing close to the enthusiasm I used to feel back in TL-191's golden days. Reading a Turtledove novel by Del Rey in the late summer does invariably kick up a lot of nostalgia, though.) Turtle Fan (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Cold War

I was thinking about this today when I had to make a solo roadtrip. What will the post-war world look like?

As of right now, the USSR does not look like it's poised to be a global super-power as in OTL. Given HT's publishing schedule, I don't see a western drive doing much more than getting the German-alliance out of Soviet territory. Then, it has to start thinking about getting Vladivostok back.

Vladivostok might be this war's Kharkov. In OTL four battles were fought for control of Kharkov. We could see at least two. I could also see a partition of Poland instead of Germany, as well as Soviet rule in Hungary and Romania. Wonder what happens to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, maybe even Greece and Albania. Did Mussolini bite off too much in N. Africa?

Time will tell. Or maybe it won't; HT has been known to leave us hanging with regard to issues like that. :( Turtle Fan (talk) 15:39, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, Stalin is going to have a much better reason to be paranoid of his neighbors and the rest of the world in general, save perhaps the US (which may be giving the USSR stuff again, if that Studebaker is supposed to mean something). He'll be viewing everyone as a possible enemy now, which in turn will make him appear a threat to the rest of the world.

Someone said Lend-Lease aid was trickling into the USSR by way of some secondary Pacific port whose name escapes me. I think it was when Walsh was chatting up the Major.

The port was Magadan. on the Sea of Okhotsk.

Ah, thanks. Turtle Fan (talk) 15:39, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Anytime! In OTL vice president Henry Wallace visited Magadan in 1944. The Soviets cleaned up the forced labor camp and presented it as some sort of Siberian industrial wonderland. Wallace admired the prisoners' craftmanship and called Magadan a combination of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Hudson Bay Company. Of course he later apologized for falling for the ruse. If in Two Fronts the US does join the war against Hitler, or even assists in the recapture of Vladivostok, it would be funny to see the Vice Pres stop by for some hot Russian tea and a three-hour tour.

It's worth pointing out that the identity of the VP after the 1940 election has not been revealed yet. The conditions that led to Wallace are in place here, of course, but the issue wasn't raised. TR (talk) 15:47, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

No, and given that Guffey was mocking Landon for splitting the Republican vote, it's hard (but by no means impossible) to mock the other party so enthusiastically while your own has internal conflicts. You'd think he'd at least worry that he was inviting people to remember Democrats' short-lived woes. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:44, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

But you're right, of course. The Soviets will win the war. They may extend into some of the territory of the SecCo/ThirCo members who border them directly, but not into Germany itself. Unless maybe the Westerners conquer Germany outright and give the USSR control of a zone as a way of saying "Thanks for being the only country that was in the fight the whole time" and/or "Sorry we joined SecCo and stabbed you in the back."

That, or maybe they win the race to build the atom bomb, but as you say that's an unknown variable, and since HT is being unusually reticent about who's working on it, we should leave it out of the calculus for now. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:30, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Just wanna say I'm a long time "listener" and "first-time caller" - I think the focus might be on biological/chemical weapons. Fujita was at one point wondering about British biowarfare capabilities. Maybe the doomsday weapon is not atomic but biochemical.

Stick around, make yourself at home. Rise through the ranks and gain administrative powers.

Welcome aboard. Turtle Fan (talk) 15:39, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone!

Bio and chemical weapons in WWII analogs are quiet common in HT works. While I think it plausible that there is an a-bomb project somewhere (probably the US) that HT can't quite tell us about, yes, biochemical weapons getting around in the next book seem within his tropes. Japan finally decides to hit India. Since they used theirs first, Britain and perhaps the US don't lose sleep over using theirs on Japan. TR (talk) 17:21, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

The Brits had a facility somewhere in the Orkneys for researching the potential of weaponized anthrax. They didn't declassify their findings until 2001--by amazing coincidence, at the height of the whole anthrax-in-the-mail scare. And I'm pretty sure, though not completely certain, that the stockpiles of mustard gas to be used in the event of Operation Sealion that we saw in Worldwar were historical as well. Britain could respond in kind to germ warfare in India. And of course it won't stop there. Turtle Fan (talk) 15:39, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I've read something similar about gas for Sea Lion. So, it's at least an enduring truism. TR (talk) 15:47, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Having read only the related articles here rather than the WorldWar books themselves, but didn't that happen when The Race invaded Britain? If so, then I would think HT used a historical background fact for that and could again. ML4E (talk) 20:17, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

When the Lizards first invaded Britain, Churchill sent someone under a flag of truce threatening to use new and terrifying weapons if they didn't withdraw immediately. Atvar assumed he meant nuclear weapons, but his intelligence people assured him the Brits were nowhere close to developing those, so he ignored the warning. The Brits used mustard gas very liberally in repelling the invasion. Skorzeny and Jager reflected on this and Jager said "You know, I'll bet those bastards were saving that shit for us if we'd crossed the Channel!" To which Skorzeny said "They were, but don't worry, we had something even nastier to use on them." The next thing you know the Germans are using weaponized nerve gas, and soon enough all the human powers are doing the same, including the Brits, who gradually phase out mustard in its favor. It became pretty standard from there on out and was still being used by the humans in the Race-German War of 1965. I honestly don't remember whether the Race ever used it themselves. They did find it unspeakably horrible. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:44, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, I don't think the USA will be in a much better position than in OTL. It will defeat Japan somehow, but I don't think it will be as absolute as OTL, either, especially since the A-bomb is an unknown variable.

Granted. Japan's position really is quite strong: They don't need to worry about a Soviet invasion of China, various factors have come together in such a way that prevents ABDACOM from coordinating too closely, the US has no Pacific carriers (though that advantage won't last long), Australia's in even more dire straits than it was at the comparable point in OTL, the political situation in Britain has got to work to their advantage somehow (though notice they've yet to take Singapore, a trick they pulled off in OTL about five months after declaring war on Britain), we haven't had any indications that they're facing any partisan warfare to speak of in the countries they've forced into the Co Prosperity Sphere (though it does appear they took and are running Burma by force; at this point in OTL, they were still playing nice with a protectorate created by sweet-talking pro-independence leaders), and their nasty secret weapons program is bearing fruit. And of course there's no evidence the Allies are working on atom bombs.

It just dawned on me that Herb Druce with his security clearance would be a good person to reveal a possible a-bomb project. He needn't be a POV for that, either. He could come home one day, white as a sheet (much to Peggy's panic), guzzle a few sifters of something very strong, and say something cryptic to Peggy (but obvious to the reader) about the new things he's seen. TR (talk) 17:21, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. Wouldn't surprise me. Turtle Fan (talk) 15:39, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Or per the above discussed, some biochemical weapon program, anthrax, etc

Their defeat won't be like in OTL. It will be closer to it than were any of their three wars against the US in TL-191, which taught the lesson "We might as well attack them, because even if we run out of juice, we can disengage without any consequences." Somewhere halfway between those two extremes, I'm sure.

And if Japan is still holding its own in Siberia after the Allies finish off Germany, if the West is feeling another Red Scare coming on they and Japan might arrange a Medium-Sized Switch. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:30, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the defeat of both Germany and Japan will be like in World War I. Nobody will march into the ruins of Berlin or Tokyo but they will nonetheless be defeated. This whole war is a bit like World War I with a dash of the Napoleonic Wars. World War I to the effect that there's no blitzkrieg, no marching over France or capturing millions of Soviet troops behind blitz lines. Napoleonic to the effect that alliances shuffle and reshuffle, for example Austria.

I agree. We'll see no absolute defeats this war. TR (talk) 17:21, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

The Napoleonic parallels inspired us to abandon the name Axis in favor of Nth Coalition. We only do that informally on the talk pages, of course. Turtle Fan (talk) 15:39, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a fully-developed alternate Cold War is something HT has sort of threatened in the past, but the only one he's actually done is Colonization. Everything else is a side story (AWoD, RftF, Black Tulip) or the aftermath long after the fact (Glad., TV-WS, the various post nuke stories). It might be time for that? Or maybe a World War III that sees the first use of a-bombs, rather than a full-blown nuclear apocalypse. TR (talk) 01:18, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

WW III might come in the 1970s, possibly a multipolar alliance world. I can foresee a Soviet occupied Democratic Republic of Poland a la DDR in OTL.

I actually had a not dissimilar thought about at least some territorial cession by Poland to the USSR, resulting in a smaller Poland at least. "West" and "East" Poland are consistent with the HT style. TR (talk) 15:47, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

It's likely. Where the balance of power lies between the two is the big question. The more the needle tilts toward West Poland, the better off the country is altogether. But the only way to make it tilt very far in that direction is to have the Germans oust Hitler and replace him with a moderate who can patch things up with the West. That allows Germany to negotiate its peace with the Soviets from a position of some strength, at least. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:44, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Either or both would be interesting. Of course, we don't even know if HT's got a sequel series planned at all. But even if he doesn't, he might set the stage for those situations and then lower the curtain, as he did with Darkness--and with TL-191, though Darkness is a better analogy in this case. (If Gizzi's still out there, wouldn't he be miffed!) Turtle Fan (talk) 06:30, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, no reason to think it's coming at all. I'll slip on my Gizzi hat long enough to point out that GW was going to be four books, then became something bigger only after Breakthroughs dropped. And I recall this series was initially announced as a trilogy, but then became a six-book series just after HW dropped. But I'll take the hat off before I use the "E" word.

But it occurs to me that the nature of the Cold War being what it is, AH takes are somewhat limited to 1) The East wins; 2) the West wins earlier or differently; 3) it goes hot at some point (consequences will vary); 4) the war just continues on. Rewriting how it begins (as could happen here) probably offers more options. TR (talk) 17:21, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

I actually believe that's what will happen. When you look at the way time is progressing, it looks as the though the war will be over by late '43, early '44. I don't think any atomics will be used, and that World War III will be the subject of the next series. However, if Harry dose do a squeal series to TWTPE, it will depend on sales of the current series. Or he might also get fed up with all the people saying “This is F***ing impossible,” and spend the last half of the last book explaining the possibility of WW3, dropping interesting hints as to what could happen.. I hope that's not the case. Watching him during his interview at that comic con for the launching of The Big Switch, he seemed as though he was enjoying himself, and I really hope he dose with the whole series.

Part of the reason I WANT this series to work is because I'm sick and tired of reading in Amazon Reviews this phrase. “I used to be a HT fan but not any more because this scenario is batspit impossible.” Not exactly in those words but you get the idea. Every time a dumb idea fails it's a blow against creativity. That means more and more people don't take risks and instead stick with the same old tired, safe and generic scenario’s we've treaded and retreaded a Ba-Jillion times before.

But back to the topic, I believe that the final book will be filled with unrestricted chemical warfare and that could lead to the end of the war. I believe atomics won't appear in this war, but then again, I believed that the CSA would never get the bomb in TL-191. I can see England and Japan using gas weapons against each other. Australia might have a go at it as well. Link and Link. But that's just hoping, and as my Dad always said, “You know what Hopping did don't you? Stuck a feather in the ground and was hoping he'd grow a chicken.”

Well put. There is a definitely a mentality in the online AH-reading community that thinks somehow plotting AH is a scientific endeavor, and that plausibility is an objective gold standard that can be applied to fictional works. This overlooks the fact that "plausibility" is completely subjective to the individual be its very definition. Moreover, history routinely likes to use concepts of plausibility like so much toilet paper, a fact that such people seem to recognize when discussing historical events, but then promptly forget when it comes to AH. TR (talk) 15:47, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

As Turtledove himself once said (perhaps in exasperation to such critics) "Fiction has to be plausible. History only has to happen." Turtle Fan (talk) 00:44, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being anal there; Back to the point. This unrestricted chemical warfare could lead to a "War of 1812" style ending where both sides withdraw having achieved nothing and gained nothing, with all sides having major victories here and devastating defeats there. Mr Nelg

I might be channeling AJP Taylor and Fritz Fischer, but whom will the Germans blame for this war's "stab in the back"?

The Anglo-French would be obvious ones, seeing as they did indeed stab Germany in the back. (Obviously, they entered a devil's bargain in the first instance, and the back-stab was the ethical remedy to that bargain. Germany, I suspect, will see things differently.) However this ends, Germany's relationship with the rest of Europe is going to be abnormal to say the least, particularly if they aren't absolutely defeated as in OTL. (Don't trust Britain, don't trust France; you can trust the Russians to want to kill you; mixed feelings on Italy, Poland, et al., depending on how the war shakes out).

There's also those military leaders who tried twice to remove Hitler. And the Jews and the Communists. Even repressed as they in fact are in Germany, they always make good scapegoats TR (talk) 15:47, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

TR, you call the Big Switch back the "ethical remedy," but--while one is certainly extremely skeptical at best of the ethical rightness of being on Hitler's side--it was pure self-interest that drove them to switch back; rather purer than the original switch, which, assuming Walsh was not being an unreliable narrator when he summarized the Hess Agreement, offered France very little and Britain less still. It's not fondness for the Soviets that led to the events of this book at all, where it is hatred for the Soviets that led to the events of the last one; and Soviet relations with their Western European allies will be even less cordial than they were in OTL. Certainly there will be no trust at all between the two camps unless it's a situation where each has a significant handle on the other that allows them to hold each other to their respective sides of the agreement.

Now we talk about Cold Wars, and we talk about Hitler being overthrown. I have a hunch that there will finally be a successful coup against Hitler and a provisional government will be set up, led by a German general who's not a big fan of Nazi ideology.

(For some reason Alfred Jodl keeps coming to mind, though from what I can tell it's hard to say what his political opinions might have been.)

I wish HT'd told us who was doing what in those previous attempts. Given past HT tropes, Carl Goerdeler and his merry band would be an obvious place to look for candidates, especially when one looks at what Goerdeler wanted to happen after July 20, 1944. The problem is that most of that group overlaps with the vague schemes of 1938 in OTL. So, if the SS swept up Franz Halder, they probably grabbed all of the soldiers, like General Karl Beck (the intended president).

If the SS did that, they cleared the way for new parties who weren't connected to anything in OTL to make mischief. I sort of picked Jodl at random (and he was near the surface of my mind because he features prominently in so many of those YouTube videos where they screw with the subtitles from Der Untergang). Really, pretty much anyone who's not a staunch National Socialist could do it, especially considering how many different angles the party's ideology has been challenged from over the course of the series. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

If HT is in twee mode: Claus von Stauffenberg wasn't actually part of any anti-Hitler schemes until he was injured until 1943 in OTL, so he's probably pretty safe in this series. It's not necessary for him to be injured in this series to get him on the side of the resistance. He appears to have been a devout Catholic. And Catholics aren't really happy with Hitler these days. (You know, actually, that isn't so unbearably twee: Stauffenberg as President; we can still even say Goerdeler as chancellor, or Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, or someone or other random.)

There's also Rommel--he wasn't involved in ANY plots until 1944, so he's also certainly safe. TR (talk) 02:20, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and now that you mention it, I think he's pretty likely for this out of universe reason: If HT is going to convince the general public that the Germans are suddenly the good guys now, he may want to make selling that case easier by choosing a German general who's remembered positively by Anglophone historians. Rommel's almost the only one.

Heinz Guderian might fit the bill too. I don't see him wanting to attain a position of political leadership (unless perhaps there was absolutely no one else he could trust to keep the military free of political interference, something he rather despised). He'd be a likelier choice for military dictator than Archibald Wavell, though, that's for damned sure. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Representatives of this moderate new government go to Britain and France and America if need be and lay out the following: Hitler is gone. Even if the Allies don't trust the new regime to reform its predecessor's irredentist ways, Germany is no longer in a position to follow an expansionist course anyway. The Soviets are on the move. By this point they will have rolled into the territory of some ThirCo member or other, and they will presumably have made it clear that they're there to stay. Stalin has a long memory for insults, and Western Europe paid him a pretty severe one.

Germany, under new and enlightened leadership, will still have a chance to fight the Soviets to a stalemate before they plunge deep into Central Europe, but only if they're free to focus all their efforts on the Eastern Front. The offer to the Western Allies is peace. Not a demand that they switch sides. Peace. As a show of good faith, the Germans will withdraw from Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Egypt--maybe even Czechoslovakia, based on my suggestion for how that might end up. The Germans send every man they have east, stop the Soviets short of the German border, and then the Western Allies--probably the US, which is likely to be the least mistrusted of the bunch because it didn't sign the Hess Agreement, though making a separate peace with Germany will still hurt its credibility--mediates a peace. The Soviet sphere of influence is now far enough west that they can claim a major victory, but not so far west that they can make a serious run at being the dominant power of continental Europe. Germany--where the military government eventually gives way to something even more pleasant, say an elected constitutional government led by someone like Adenauer--serves as the West's buffer state against Soviet expansion, and as soon as can be considered proper, becomes the beneficiary of some Anglo-Franco-American military aid. That way, even if Stalin (and eventually his successors--and since we're talking an alternate Cold War, wouldn't it be interesting if staunch Stalinists continued to run the place after his death, sort of like "Joe Steele"?) wins whatever games he plays in Poland and the Czech Republic (see below), it won't go any farther than that. (Spain is the wild card, but cut off from the Soviet Union it will probably chart an independent course eventually, even if it remains Communist while doing so.)

Not sure if that's an answer to Nelg's question, but it's what that question made me think of. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:44, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

I can buy all of the above. TR (talk) 02:20, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Transplant from Above

I cut and pasted this from the Pacific War section in the hopes of slowing the topic drift which inevitably defeats our best efforts to keep these pages somewhat organized.

A variation on [Soviet "liberation" of Czechoslovakia] would be if the Brits and French, after going through whatever political acrobatics they wind up with, suddenly decide that they do still care about Czechoslovakia after all, or rather that they don't want the Soviets going on an imperial tear just as their most powerful neighbor loses its ability to form an effective check on Red expansionism. So they say "We're sending the government-in-exile back to Czechoslovakia, and if you interfere we'll switch sides yet again!" And a variation on that is the premature dissolution of Czechoslovakia. Interesting, that: the Czech Republic with its prewar government and the support of the Western powers, including a post-Nazi German regime (led by, oh, let's say Konrad Adenauer), pressing irredentist claims against the Soviet client state of Slovakia. The Slovaks are torn between their resentment of the Soviets and their own Communist collaborators, on the one hand, and hatred for the Czechs, for a whole host of reasons old and new, on the other. Now let's imagine all the military resources the superpowers poured into preventing the Iron Curtain from shifting one way or the other in the late 40s through the 80s, and see almost all of that poured into so small an area as Czechoslovakia. That's where your WWIII tinderbox is, and by God will it be a hot one. Assume no one used atomic weapons in WWII and the fear of them isn't strong enough for the nuclear deterrent to stay anyone's hand, and I'd say that war is a certainty. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:58, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

That would be pretty flipping awesome, actually (storywise--it also has the potential to be depressing as hell).

That's why I love that most AH is written as fiction. It allows us to get excited about world wars and the like getting really badass without feeling guilty about all the suffering we're wishing on tens of millions of people. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Let's step back and look at what HT would leave in place for various countries:

Germany would be Weimar 2.0, dealing with several of the same issues that it did post Versailles (perhaps not as harsh economically, but other concerns are still there). The specter of Nazism and Communism would be hanging over the restored republic, waiting to poison everything all over again.

Perhaps. I'm banking on the hope that, having seen the expression found once before Germans' legitimate resentment at an unjust peace, the Allies will decide they're interested in rehabilitating Germany this time, not punishing it.

How far-fetched is that hope? Depends on a few things: Who the new government is and how convincingly they disavow Hitlerism. How well inclined the German emissaries leave the Westerners. How aggressive the Soviet Union seems to be as Germany's ability to resist it winds down. And of course who's running France and the UK. If the provisional government is still in place in Britain it is likely to reject any offer of a separate peace out of hand because it resembles the Hess Agreement, even if the resemblance is only superficial and unfair to bring up. If a proper Parliament has returned to Westminster Abbey, the offer will get a fair hearing. As to what the government's action is, obviously much depends on the makeup of that Parliament. Similar questions about France, though we can't outline them in similar detail thanks to the lack of a Walsh equivalent. The US . . . Roosevelt hated Hitler. Now his and Hitler's terms of office lined up pretty much exactly; there were only, I believe, fifty days on which they did not overlap. Hard to say how open he'd be to working with Germany if someone else were running the place.

In the best case scenario, Germany can be a stable if not thriving state if it can construct a Western European alliance system around itself. To do this it will have to take on the unpleasant but vital task of serving as frontline ally, the main buffer state keeping the Soviets contained. Perhaps it won't border the Soviet sphere of influence directly; leave that to West Poland, the Czech Republic, a rump Romania, whatever. But Germany is going to be the first country which future Soviet expansion will meet that can weather an all-out assault. If Germany can't fill that role, it will fall to France.

Whoever the new president is will need to convince the Allies not only of his country's importance, but of his government's trustworthiness. At the same time, he will be able to make only so many concessions without inviting a second coup from someone who thinks he's selling out the nation (so I'm afraid Adenauer is out after all, even though I think he's really the only chance for Germany to end up with a decent human rights record any time soon). I'm not sure exactly where the tipping point would be; if the Westerners are suspicious of the regime change, they will probably ask for more than can safely be conceded. We also need the Soviets to cooperate by behaving like a credible threat that might conceivably try to expand all the way to Western Europe if it can get Germany to fold. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Britain could now have set an unfortunate precedent of the military intervening when it just doesn't like the government (rather like the Turkish army and Islamic governments). I imagine some vote will finally come before series end, but there might be some ugliness before that.

I think the best case scenario with Britain might actually be a mildly Wilsonian Cabinet. If it's more than mildly Wilsonian, the Army won't allow it to take office, and we wouldn't want it to, anyway. Anti-Wilsonian Conservatives would be associated with the very unpopular military government (though notice how far back Cartland has stepped from that government, though we'd expected him to be heading it) and wouldn't win a mandate fairly.

Actually there's no way the Wilsonian and Churchillian factions of the Conservative Party could function together, is there. They'll probably have to split the party altogether. Meanwhile, the days of the Liberals being able to command a majority were long past by the POD, and while Labour did win a majority in the first postwar election, I'm not sure I can see it happening under these changed circumstances. Expect both to gain seats over their 1935 totals (and whatever they picked up in by-elections between then and the coup). Maybe they could form a majority between them, but there really was a lot of bad blood there. I'd look for one or the other of them to be the senior partner in a coalition that also includes the Wilsonian Conservatives; members of other parties would probably rather be associated with Wilson than the generals.

Thankfully, that's the Cabinet that would probably be most receptive to the steps needed for building the Western European coalition I've envisioned. Of course, the generals could always overthrow them, as you say; the military seemed extremely reluctant to displace an elected Parliament at first, but the longer they're in power--and that's going to be a while, based on the ominous references to delayed elections--the weaker the taboo becomes. 04:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

France would still be in the Third Republic, for good and for ill. Panicky about Germany, panicky about the USSR.

Now I just outlined my best case scenario for Germany and then explained how the most likely outcome I see in Britain would also be the one most conducive to allowing Germany to achieve that best case scenario. At the risk of appearing to be forcing everyone into the positions my pipe dream requires, if they're panicky about both of the Continent's other great powers, a scenario where Germany is just strong enough to preclude a serious Soviet push west, but no stronger than that requires, is what they should be working toward. The only better outcome would be if both countries destroyed each other, and that won't happen.

Of course, you did say panicky, and people in that state of mind don't necessarily work rationally toward their best interests. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Then there's the US. Really, HT could go either way here: remain part of the global community or return to isolationism. Now, FDR might try to succeed where Woodrow Wilson failed, and rehabilitate the League of Nations, with full US participation/membership. And that's the main reason I can see FDR running again in 1944, even if the war's over. But I can also see him wheeling and dealing and standing aside if it might get him what he wants on the LoN. Personally, I prefer to see this latter course, with FDR opting to support Henry Wallace in 1944 (just assuming Wallace is VP for the purposes of this hypothetical, because he's never been a serious political anything in an HT work, and in OTL, he did what he could to prevent the Cold War).

Marshall would also be a good choice. I find the prospect of his presidency a good deal more interesting than I do Wallace's, but that's just me.

Marshall would be good, but I think he might be handicapped in this TL. In reviewing his bio, I notice he didn't become Chief of Staff of the Army in 1939, when his predecessor, Malin Craig, retired. Craig was a proponent of preparedness. With the war coming a year earlier, HT could plausibly have Craig forgo retirement. Another handicap for Marshall is the fact that the Army is in holding pattern until the USA makes gains in the Pacific. It seems to me that the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy would be in the public eye more than the Chief of Staff of the Army.

I agree Marshall may never be Chief of Staff in this timeline, whether because Craig stayed on longer or because Roosevelt had other very qualified candidates to choose from. The thing is, the job he really wanted was commanding in Europe, and he chafed under the need to remain in Washington. If he's not Chief of Staff, he may get that job. (This is of course assuming that the job exists, that the US Army lands in force somewhere in Europe or Africa. In which case the second handicap you've identified falls away.) Naturally, being in command in Europe can be segued into a presidential run; the OTL commander in Europe did it very successfully. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Just random thoughts. HT will do as he will, and President Marshall is an appealing thing (so much so that I've decided for myself that Marshall was president 1949-1953 in Worldwar, not that many people care). But much like Taft, HT has kind of flirted with Wallace (mainly in NftF); this seems like an opportunity to "make it official". TR (talk) 19:10, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

I can go along with Marshall following Hull in Worldwar, though as you say, it's really just a little fantasy to amuse the few of us who care. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

What's a good deal less subjective is pointing out that Wallace's base of support was deep but narrow. Most people thought he was too far left and too easily fooled, as the incident in the Soviet port city illustrates. When early polls showed that Dewey might actually turn out to be a credible challenger, the DNC executive board insisted that he be dropped from the ticket over Roosevelt's protests.

That is true, too. And if the world does turn against the USSR again (and in many ways, Stalin looks worse than Hitler in TWPE), then Wallace is a pretty unlikely candidate (which doesn't preclude HT from having Wallace run in 1944 and getting beaten thoroughly.)

If Roosevelt retires, he's going to want to make sure that the next Democratic candidate is someone who can build on what he's done, not someone who's going to get clobbered by an isolationist dupe. He liked Wallace personally, but I highly doubt he'd encourage Wallace to run in his place. And Wallace won't have a prayer of getting the nomination if Roosevelt publicly discourages it.

Now he could move his OTL plans up one election cycle early and run a vainglorious third party campaign. He might even siphon off enough Democratic votes to hand the election to Taft, as Landon had given it to Roosevelt in this timeline's last election. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if Hitler's safely beaten and the war is won, I do think Roosevelt will retire. When he was first elected, he never set out to be a four-termer. In 1940 he didn't think any other candidate in either party had what it took to handle Hitler, and in 1944 he wanted to see the war through.

It seems to me that I've read speculation with some evidentiary basis that FDR planned to resign once the Axis surrendered. TR (talk) 19:10, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

But if that chapter of world history is closed, I do think he'd happily retire rather than take on a new project. Assuming, of course, there's someone he can trust in position to succeed him. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

However, there would be strong elements arguing for isolationism, and that would certainly have a greater appeal than it did in OTL. I can think of no better Harding-redux than Robert Taft, whom HT has flirted with a few times.

Yeah, Taft would be great. Not the only option, but certainly the one that's most closely associated with HT. And in this series he seems more interested in bringing out old favorites than in introducing new historicals, rather to the frustration of our article-writers.

But as for the election in general, I do believe interventionism will carry the day. As we know, this war borrows quite a lot from WWI. If that parallelism holds, as the war winds down people will be looking to avoid the fatal mistakes of 1919, now that they've seen where those led them. That (and the Soviet threat, and of course the fact that we're not expecting Germany's defeat to be total enough that they have to accept whatever terms they're given) is why I don't see the Western Allies really sticking it to Berlin in the peace negotiations. For the same reason, I think Americans will know better than to try to pretend Europe doesn't exist afterward. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. After the Hess Agreement, even the most ardent interventionist will have to concede that Britain and France aren't the most trustworthy countries. That's a hell of a campaign them for the GOP in 1944. TR (talk) 19:10, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason to keep on top of them, lest Europe become a complete clusterfuck. I can conceive of situations where isolationism wins, certainly, but I do think it's the less likely option. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

One last counter-argument that's both in- and out-of-universe: in 1940 of this TL, the isolationists were sufficiently unified and vocal enough to run a candidate. This strikes me as HT foreshadowing just which way the GOP will go as the series progresses. TR (talk) 19:42, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

HT of course can completely ignore all of these random thoughts. TR (talk) 02:20, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Two (not-so) interesting thoughts:

1. In OTL, Stalin was desperate enough at one point to ask for either a second front or for Allied troops on the Eastern Front. The fact that he was willing to have them be completely under their own command illustrates how desperate he was. In the series, there's not much chance he'd ask Britain and France to do that since they already paid him a visit. He'd probably ask the U.S. if Moscow's threatened or Japan, drunk on its success, decides to re-enter the war.

HT played with that as well, back in Worldwar. Stalin asked Roosevelt to lend him an army and offered to give it complete and total autonomy. (Whether he actually would have kept that promise is . . . interesting grounds for speculation, I suppose.) Roosevelt said no, mainly because the US Army had all it could handle containing the Race in its own territory. (Ah, Worldwar. That really was a great series.) Turtle Fan (talk) 19:18, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

1. A wish of mine in HT's WW II books was always to include two great spymasters of that war: Dusko Popov, who some claim inspired Ian Fleming's James Bond, and had info on Pearl Harbor, etc. or in the alternative, Richard Sorge, the USSR's spy in Japan who provided a lot about Barbarossa. Granted, neither one of those events quite happened in this series the way they did in OTL, but these two awesome characters could spice up a (I hate to say it) somewhat cooling-off series.

We all have our favorites that we wish HT would include. By now he's done so many WWII-ish stories that he's long since hit up all the most obvious choices. However, each new installment shakes loose a few new ones. Our position here is to root for as many new historical figures as possible in any AH or straight historical fiction project by HT, because then we get to write new articles. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:18, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Can, and usually does. Though frankly I find coming up with them to be more fun than reading the series these days, even though I've grown progressively more excited about it since washing the boring taste of HW out of my mouth. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:55, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

China

After editing Chiang's page, it occurs to me we haven't really addressed China's fate. I think we generally agree to the proposition that Japan won't be totally defeated. So where does that leave China?

One obvious answer is that the war in China will continue on more or less after Japan has disengaged from its war with the rest of the world. It may even continue on as the series itself concludes.

I lean toward this one, I'm afraid, especially with the Medium Switch variation.

Another is that Japan finally, having been mauled and overextended, withdraws from China altogether. It seems unlikely given how strident the Japanese government was about China, but you can't rule a place by simple willpower alone. This begs the question as to who rules China afterward: Chiang or Mao? (Chiang would be nice for some variety.)

Chiang would indeed be nice. I will say that Mao did quite a lot to start sewing the seeds of his Civil War victory after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, and Chiang was too oblivious to counter these moves. A few stray comments that have filtered through here and there suggest that this dynamic has not changed.

Obviously, much would be revealed if Weinstein ends up as a POV in the same situation as Bobby Fiore. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:09, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

One scenario sort of touched on by TF in his "medium-switch" suggestion way up above: the West gets panicky about the USSR, and decides to make deals with Japan. This includes brokering a peace wherein Chiang (with much arm-twisting) accepts Japanese "protection" over the areas of China they control, and he gets to run what's left. Western powers then tighten up their remaining spheres or influence in China, or carve out new ones, or whatever. Japan agrees give back most of what it took from its enemies in the Pacific and maybe creates a few more Manchukuos. TR (talk) 17:24, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

That would be in keeping with HT's TL-191 tropes, certainly, and also complements the discussion above about the West deciding containment is more important than seeing the war through to its end. Of course, if the Japanese use widespread biological warfare, Western electorates may howl for blood. Of course, the British India Army is the one that seems in the most danger of germ warfare, and the British government isn't necessarily responsible to its electorate anymore. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:09, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

MacArthur appears dead; who will replace him?

Any thoughts as to who might fill the "void" left by MacArthur (presuming he is in fact dead)? This seems to be a vague theme of the series, with prominent historicals dying early and leaving a void to be filled by less prominent historicals (Cartland/Wavell replacing Churchill is the obvious example, although we now see Sanjurjo "preempted" Franco). So any candidates jump out at people?

(Kimmel also died early, but given his career trajectory in OTL, I think Nimitz is more or less a sure-thing.) TR (talk) 21:28, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

The obvious choice would, I suppose, be Jonathan Wainwright. I was also thinking Joseph Stillwell.

Wainwright it is. TR (talk) 15:06, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

You know, I never cared much for Wainwright. True, he inherited an impossible situation, and at any rate following a larger-than-life personality like MacArthur is tough even if you can succeed where he failed. Nevertheless, he always struck me as a bit of a weenie. That's why I tried to suss out an alternative option (that, and it felt pathetically unimaginative not to consider the possibility that it's someone else.) Turtle Fan (talk) 22:57, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

I keep wondering if the Japanese capture of Vladivostok will play out into some US/USSR anti-Japanese action in Northeast Asia. In OTL Wainwright was liberated near Mukden by the Red Army along with many Allied personnel. Is HT setting us up for some sort of D-Day at Vladivostok with these connections? Or am I reading too much into it as usual?JudgeFisher (talk) 03:22, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

I too have thought that the US might help the Soviets get Vladivostok back. Unlike D-Day, this can be a two-pronged assault: Americans launching an amphibious attack, Soviets making an overland drive from some point off to the northwest. Doing it that way allows each side to maintain a somewhat independent command structure, which would no doubt be attractive given that Americans still seem to find the USSR distasteful. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:34, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

It really is tough to make guesses like this. Since HT decided to introduce Wavell in London instead of Egypt (where Walsh could have met him anyway), we can't assume people are in the same positions as they were in OTL. So it could just as easily be Eisenhower or Marshall or anyone, really, as it could any of those we're used to thinking of as Pacific guys. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:57, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

I know, I'm just trying to find ways to keep myself excited about the series. TR (talk) 15:06, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear ya. TBS and the promise of CdE really had me excited, but the more I digest CdE the more it feels like it only exists to cancel out TBS. I don't feel all that invested in any of the characters; some of them interest me, but not nearly enough so that I'll be on the edge of my seat all winter wondering what happens to them next. And as for upcoming plotlines . . . It really does feel like a return to the parallelism of HW that had us wondering why HT was bothering with the story at all. I keep telling myself "He can't hide an entire ongoing second front offstage, so at least we won't see the event for which the entire book is titled pathetically swept under the rug again." And even then, myself answers back "At least, you hope he can't." Turtle Fan (talk) 22:57, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

You know, with all these great military leaders dead in this series, it seems Turtledove is flipping things upside down. On the American side MacArthur seems to be dead, and on the Soviet side Andrei Vlasov seems to be a dashing Hero of the Soviet Union instead of a traitor. Wonder if he'll keep playing with that dichotomy? JudgeFisher (talk) 21:50, October 1, 2012 (UTC)