Talk: Two Fronts

Comments

Creating this is probably very premature, but hell, if Silver let's a title slip, might as well run with it. We can move it if it gets retitled between now and July, 2013.

In the meantime-I suppose a successful Coup d'Etat could account for Two Fronts. But not automatically. TR 17:39, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

I also don't see much point in creating a 2013 Works category yet. While I'm sure it will be justified in the fullness of time, right now it seems silly to have one item with a tentative title. TR 17:46, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty impossible to speculate about the title without having read CdE, but I'd suggest that the book would not be called "two fronts" simply in reference to the resumption of one of the two-front wars the belligerent powers were already in earlier in the series: Germany fighting the British and/or French while also fighting the Soviets, or the Soviets fighting the Japanese while also fighting the Germans. In either of those cases the title would fairly scream "Hey, you can skip Books 3 and 4 and not miss much!" (with the unspoken caveat of "And since Book 1 is barely readable, you can just about write off the whole series up to this point!") The British are currently in a two-front war, which is pretty new for them as of the end of TBS, but by the time CdE ends that will become old news.

So the two-front scenario is one which is a new development, probably realized or at least heavily hinted at at the end of CdE. Maybe the US finally gets involved in Europe--almost certainly as an enemy of Germany, especially with FDR having been reelected. Maybe they've had casus belli for a while but public opinion couldn't stomach waging war against a traditional ally like Britain (even though the tradition of an Atlanticist alliance was not a very longstanding one in the early 1940s, or wouldn't've been by then if they hadn't been firmly on the same side of the first half of WWII). After the eponymous coup d'etat in Britain in Book 4, that impediment is removed and the US can jump on Hitler.

Or maybe in Book 4 Germany falls, possibly dragging France or even Britain down with it, and the Soviets turn their attention to revanchism in Northeast Asia. Now Japan is fighting on two fronts--three if you count the Second Sino-Japanese War, though for some reason people often don't--as Washington and Moscow do a little bromancing, beating up on Japan and congratulating one another on resisting the temptation to fascism that overtook all the other great powers.

But either of those would shift the focus of the series away from Europe. While it's not impossible that HT would decide to do so, that particular whisker's going to stick up when Occam gets out his razor. So maybe the two fronts refers to Britain and/or France (but probably Britain, since it's the country with a home front POV who's into politics, assuming of course he continues doing through CdE what he was doing when we left him off) fighting both at home, as politics turns bloody, and abroad.

Also, I quite agree that the 2013 category can wait. Turtle Fan 20:17, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Cover-Copy

Intro

This seems to be a preliminary summary.  I expect something more detailed as we get closer to the release date.  

http://www.risingshadow.net/library?action=book&book_id=39529  TR (talk) 18:15, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

D;oh, and I was right: this is already out at Del Rey:

http://www.randomhouse.com/book/206971/war-that-came-early-two-fronts-by-harry-turtledove TR (talk) 18:17, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

I approve of the more vague approach in this volume as compared to the last couple. Helps keep my expectations lower/more reasonable. The downside of course is that there isn't a whole hell of a lot to base speculation on.

What do we make of the cover? The medal is a Soviet medal with the Russian inscription "For the Defense of Leningrad." Is it just creative and artistic or does it foreshadow anything?JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I highly doubt it's Leningrad specifically; the cover medals we've seen thus far haven't corresponded with specific actions like that. It would be fair yo ecpect a more Soviet-centered story generally, just as last year's was more Brit-centered . . . well, in theory it was. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Cover discussion: File talk:TwoFronts.jpg. I'm beginning to think that medals are the new theme for the cover art. The paperback version of TBS has an entirely different cover from the HC, sporting an Iron Cross. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I guess. I find the speculation tends to be more interesting than the reading, so I'd prefer more hints. I'm sure Silver and other reviewers will provide them. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

"Eastern" Europe

"Russia and Germany go toe-to-toe in Eastern Europe"— When the last volume ended, Germany and its allies were on Russian soil, much further east than Eastern Europe. Is that a summary-writer gaff or does that mean the USSR is pushing the Germans back out?

Not to be too pedantic but Europe is generally considered to extend east to the Ural Mountains which is east of Moscow. So being in Western Russia but east of Moscow is still in Europe. ML4E (talk) 19:41, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'd had the same thought. The location of the line between Eastern and Central Europe really is a matter of opinion. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

I guess I know that in my rational brain, but some part thinks of Russia as an Asian country geographically. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Conventional Weapons

"Germany wheels out new tanks and planes"--Nelg can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Tiger I came into being in 1942, so something analogous to that. Planes are more nebulous, but I doubt we'll see jets.

Well, yes, the Tiger I was rushed into combat as early as 23^rd September '42. The wiki site says this and yes, that was what happened. However, they also had mechanical problems, which Harry also stressed in the Worldwar saga. The reason I bring this up is it may be premature, but it leads me to think we may be experiencing Heinrich Jaeger all over again.

As for the planes.  Well, I'm going to have to say it could very well be the FW-190.  I can't find any reference to the plane in Coup D'Etat, surprising how it ends at late '41 and the plane was already flying by then. That's the only thing I can think off. Unless Harry decides to throw us a curve ball and pulls another Worldwar on us and have the Germans start throwing the Heinkel He 178 or 280 into combat.  Mr Nelg

In OTL the fancy tanks didn't get mass produced and ultimately didn't make the difference. Also, are the Nazis using the Skoda Works in Czechoslovakia to upgrade their arsenal?JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I think I recall something about the Germans using Skoda from an earlier installment, yes. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed correct. In “The Big Switch,” Pg. 127 Kindle, it's mentioned that the Germans got the place back up and running, but only turning out Czech tanks. Mr Nelg

Thanks for the verification. So maybe the Nazis will have Skoda manufacturing German tanks in this book. JudgeFisher (talk) 07:22, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Just been thinking lately. The tanks made me wonder. The books probably going to end at the end of 1942, or the beginning of 1943. Harry might decided to end the book with a Battle of Kursk analogue, hence why that guy mentioned the new German tanks. I think that the Russians may launch their own offensive against them and the Germans surprise them with new tanks.  My theory is that Germany will be hard pressed on two fronts in book five, and look like she's going to lose only to pull out an ace at the last minute.  That's one theory and that's just going by the assumption that Harry has grown tired of using Stalingrad analogues.  Mr Nelg

While that would be a welcome change, I somehow think there can be no Kursk before Stalingrad. But I've been proven wrong before.JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The Kursk analogue would be a massive tank vs tank battle. A Stalingrad analogue would have a huge army fight it's why into an industrialised city, before being trapped inside. Why would you need to have that kind of analogue before you can have huge tank vs tank battle?  Mr Nelg

OTL's Battle of Kursk was an attempt by the Germans to eliminate the Soviet bulge at Kursk created precisely because of their defeat at Stalingrad. While we tend to think of it as the world's biggest tank battle, it was also the world's biggest defensive works - ten times deeper than the Maginot Line and three times what was necessary to contain the Germans.  I am not disagreeing with you though; maybe HT is envisioning that there will be a large tank vs. tank battle that stands on its own.  I guess I should clarify what I meant by no Kursk before Stalingrad: my gut feeling is that HT won't let go of the Stalingrad analogue. We had hints of it with the mention of the front line petering out somewhere near Smolensk. But maybe after the defeat at Smolensk, the Germans get another chance by winning at the ATL "Kursk." - the Soviets may not have the intelligence they had in OTL to prepare for the attack and lose their momentum, confidence, elan, what have you. Basically I don't expect HT to go the way of Robert Conroy and do a "Russiascrew" in this series the way Conroy does it in...oh...every book of his ;-) JudgeFisher (talk) 07:22, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

"Japan deploys weapons of a different sort in China"-their various bio-weapons, obviously. The more interesting question is: will they release stuff in India? The plan was shot down in CdE, but a year later, things might be more desperate.

That is a possibility, but they'd have to be in the dire straights they were in '45 for that to happen, as we know that historically, the Japanese did try to lunch germ weapons against the US with balloons; and failed. Before they decided to use them, the Japanese High Command believed that they could defeat the US by decisive conventional battle. After that became impossible, THEN, they resorted to the germs, but not on the battle field.

The Japanese know the instant they use these weapons on any of the western powers, the genie will be out of the bottle. If they do use germs against the US or British, then it'll be a propaganda disaster worse than OTL Pearl Harbour. I'm going to say no on that matter, and that they'll stick to using them against the Chinese. But it will cause alarm in the Western Powers, and make them sit up and take notices.

This is the one aspect I honestly can't predict. You have to remember, that there's no OTL pearl Harbour shock to the US. The US has suffered defeat after defeat, so the nation will be looking for some kind of pay back. When the tide of the war turns in favour of the US, the germ weapons could very well end up creating a divide among the nation as to continue pushing against the Japanese or call it a day. That's just one theory. Mr Nelg

Another theory on how the germ weapons might spill out onto the battle field could be through escalation. We know that the Japanese will use them against the Chinese, and that their research is more wide spread than OTL. So, my theory is that the western powers will take alarm at this, and send the Chinese germ weapons of their own. The Chinese could even use them against Japanese settlers in Manchuria as payback for using them on Chinese villages, Which they did in OTL. The Japanese could discover this and use them against the western powers on the claim “They started it.”  Mr Nelg

"Seeds of Rebellion"

"And here are the seeds of rebellion"-Now that's interesting. We've already had the one rebellion in the UK, but it's not really a legal one. But we've also had the two failed coups in Germany, with Galen still a dangling plot line.

It's very likely in Germany. It's always possible in the USSR if Stalin looks weak enough, though we really don't have the POV coverage to do it right there. It's an outside possibility in France, since there seems to be a pretty wide divide between high command and ground pounders. No potential for it in Japan, nor in the US; though at the intersection between the two, I've always thought it would be interesting to do an AH where smooth-talking Japanese propagandists plus memories of the brutal colonization of the Philippines leads the Filipinos to rise up against the US, as the Burmese did against the Brits before realizing the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere was no bargain. Naturally the Filipinos would reach the same conclusion sooner or later.

I guess there could be another round in Britain, especially if the junta keeps postponing a general election. One thing I didn't see coming in CdE--aside from the fact that HT didn't actually bother writing the event he named the entire book after--was that there's more popular support for Wilson than for the junta. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting indeed. We know that Harry is attempting to put world war I into world war 2, and what caused the Russians and the Germans to bow out was the home front cracking first. Russia only has one front going at the moment, but if she erupts into rebellion, that could hinder her war with Germany. Give Germany hope of fighting a two front war and possibly dragging it out longer with the British and French realising that they may have to be the ones to defeat Germany rather than relying on the sheer numbers of Russians to help do it for them. I'm going to say that there will be rebellion in Russia.  Mr Nelg

The blurb was something about "orders that once issued cannot be taken back," What if the Nazis pressure the Poles to do something about their Jews or the Nazis will do something for them and the Poles refuse? Although that may not be smart, England and France being so far away, and the USSR so close.JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Possible. You've got to figure that's coming at some point, though as with the A-bomb, it's not too clear why HT would pointedly ignore it all this time just to pull it out later. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I could see something like that, since it does later remind us that the Jews aren't in death camps yet.

On the other hand, he also says "commanders issuing orders", which suggests to me, anyway, the possibility of one of those horrible bloody battles where lives are lost in terrifying numbers for little to no gain.

Commanders does suggest a more military problem, yes, and a ridiculously bloody all-for-nothing battle fits that bill.

Then there are groups like the Einsatzgruppen and Waffen-SS who sort of blur the line between military and ideological leadership. The latter has already attempted one massacre that we know of, and we also saw other characters talking about it elsewhere, so it's gained a certain notoriety among characters as well as readers.

If there are a lot of racist Nazi bastards in positions of military leadership, and they're sick of being kept on a short leash for the sake of maintaining an alliance, the obvious trick would be to use military necessity as a stalking horse to make increasingly draconian anti-Jewish measures in the occupied territories more palatable to the allies in question. If these groups of rebels include a statistically significant percentage of Jews, conditions could be right for such a move.

Of course, military necessity is most urgent in the USSR, and any rebellions there can only help ThirCo; even if they're fighting ThirCo as well as the Red Army, they're still diverting resources that the Soviets would otherwise be able to use on the primary front. No matter how many checks there are against Hitler's racism in this timeline, it's damned impossible to imagine that Jews of all people would have "help the Nazis win" as their first choice. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:57, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say HT/Germany has been ignoring the Jews, or rather, that the less rabid approach probably demonstrates that the Germans have more to worry about here, and that the Jews are gaining a comparative benefit. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, poor choice of words. On the other hand, the fact that HT is investing so much in showing a different path for the Final Solution makes it hard for me to accept that it's all going to wind up in the same place in the end. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:57, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

But then again, there's also this:

"Dangerous new nationalist powers arise in Eastern Europe." That could be just about anyone, really. Perhaps the seeds of rebellion are in Slovakia or Poland?

That's what jumped out at me. TR (talk) 18:52, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

If they're considering European SSRs Eastern Europe, it could be Soviet minorities. Since we have an Armenian POV, he'd be well positioned to give us some of that.

That could tie in with the previous point about "seeds of rebellion". ML4E (talk) 21:46, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty certain it will be the Banderists/Ukrainian nationalists, as was foreshadowed with their encounter with Ivan Kuchkov. Then again, it may be Hungary and Romania, which gives credibility to my theory of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia coming into the war.JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Foreshadowing? It's confirmed that they exist in this timeline, but that doesn't make anything inevitable. As for Hungary and Romania, they've bern pretty insignificant to date storywise. I guess that could change, but it would have to be built up to pretty quickly to avoid the feeling that it's come out of nowhere. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the Banderists. Early independence for the Ukraine is a thing HT likes to play with sometimes. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

If Eastern Europe means west of the Soviet border, Poland and Slovakia would be the obvious places to look. FirCo and SecCo didn't give them any grievances to speak of, but Germany may be a whole lot crankier now that Britain and France have left.

As to Poland, I have to once again remember that Smigly-Rydz died in December 1941 of a heart attack, and that HT seems to enjoy having the scheduled natural death of a historical figure just play havoc with the plot. It still appears to be 1941 when CdE closes, so Smigly-Rydz could still drop dead, and just throw Poland out of whack, which in turn might create German intervention, etc. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Heart failure is indeed a natural cause of death, but while some people are certainly much more prone to it than others, it's most often triggered by some very specific environmental factor. Smigly-Rydz's environment in this timeline is about as different from the same point in OTL as can realistically be expected.

True it is different, but it's worth remembering that he was interned for a time, then on the run for nearly two years before his death. I'm not sure how one can measure stress levels of that nature, but in TWPE he's trying to keep the USSR from overrunning the country while keeping an eye his alleged ally, and now he has to deal with the fact that Britain and and France have bailed.

I'm not going to bet the farm on it, but Smigly-Rydz's death sure fits the HT trope. TR (talk) 23:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that. If HT wants some sudden change in the status quo in Poland, anyway, this would seem to be the obvious way to do it. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:38, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Still, it's a good place to start. If he dies, of course, much depends on his successor. The only likely successor I can think of offhand who could possibly be interested in breaking with ThirCo is Anders, and only because he raised a volunteer force of Poles to fight alongside the Red Army in 1941. And then he switched sides within the Allied camp by leading them to British Palestine via Iran just a few months later. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:57, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that Moscicki might decide to actually act like a president if Smigly-Rydz dies, and pull Poland out of ThirCo. Moscicki, from what I can tell, wasn't particularly pro-USSR, but he was frustrated with SR's more right-wing tendencies. At the minimum, he might pick a more moderate Inspector General to succeed Smigly-Rydz and let him worry about things.

As for a successor-Anders would be an obvious twee HT choice. Someone else mentioned Sikorsky a while back; Sikorsky did succeed SR in OTL, but that was more a consequence of circumstances. Still, he was trying to reopen ties to the USSR when he died, and he would be another tweedom. TR (talk) 23:22, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

You know, one thing that's sort of bugged me about this series from the get go is that so many political leaders turn up but don't actually do anything. Their countries do something, or factions within the countries, but the men in charge are just sort of going along for the ride. I don't necessarily mean they're allowing others to make decisions for them, but they do seem to be lurching along on plot-convenient inertia. Take Smigly-Rydz: Poland's German alliance appears to be just a function of circumstance, and the fact that a right wing Russian-hating militarist is in power appears not to have factored in at all. Sure, Stalin fabricated an excuse to invade Poland by saying Smigly-Rydz was giving him a grievance, but he could have done that no matter who was in charge. A few hints that Ribbentrop was engaged in secret negotiations with S-R, negotiations that would be equivalent to OTL's Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, would have added a great deal of interest value to the story. And it would have taken minimal effort on HT's part: Constantine Jenkins mentions to Peggy that they've noticed a lot of unusual activity down the street at the Polish embassy.

Even more bang for our buck could be had by S-R acting not as an agent of the Polish government but on his own personal authority and as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This way the secret negotiations also include German support for a military coup to replace Moscicki, consolidating military and political power. Then Smigly-Rydz looks like a German puppet and there's a real tension in Poland over whether his rule is legitimate, even as the war against the USSR remains popular. Now there's no doubt his death will be significant, as it forces the question of whether Poland will remain in the Coalitions without the personal charisma of the strong man who forced the nation into them.

Instead we have just the name Smigly-Rydz. If you're not familiar with who he was and what he stood for from other sources, he might as well be Joyce Peterman.

So my point is, choosing a successor to Smigly-Rydz, or transferring leadership duties to some other office, is really only meaningful as a game changer if HT departs from this unfortunate trend and has a powerful individual within a small country take some initiative. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:38, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Poland is in any position to make Germany its enemy, seeing how it would be sandwiched between Germany and the USSR as in OTL. France and England can't be of much help due to geographic restraints. Keep in mind Romania and Poland had very good relations up until World War II started due to their common front against the USSR, and that's going relatively well for them in this series.  Furthermore, the Banderists/Ukrainian nationalists weren't well disposed towards the Poles either. There were many clashes and massacres between the Polish forces and the Banderists during the war. JudgeFisher (talk) 07:30, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but rebels have been known to take on hopeless causes. It could also be that Poland, perhaps under Smigly-Rydz's successor, makes what it thinks is a very reasonable request for a greater role in ThirCo's leadership, or some other move to ensure its independence; Germany takes issue, and things snowball from there until unrest is provoked. Of course, Germany hasn't really done much to clip Poland's wings to date. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:21, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the leadership change in Poland results in the Germans just flat out dismembering it and teaming up with the Banderists/Ukrainians.  In OTL, Yugoslavia signed the Tri-partite Pact in March of '41, but a pro-British coup broke with it. The Nazis invaded Yugoslavia and supported the Ustashe/Croats in carving up Yugoslavia. That could be the dangerous new nationalist powers - a puppet Ukraine with large parts of Poland annexed to it. JudgeFisher (talk) 21:58, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

In response to a similar pro-Soviet coup, maybe, though that's not all that likely. In response to anything short of that, it's way, way too extreme a response. And it would shoot between the eyes any hopes Berlin might still harbor of attracting new allies. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:27, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

There's also Estonia and Lithuania, but neither has made any sort of a splash to date, so I don't see why that should matter. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

They were mentioned in passing, but yeah, not very relevant. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Atomic Bomb

This is really crawling out on a limb but I have a sense that we're finally going to see the beginnings of a nuke this time, based on what I read. On the shorter blurb we have the reference to "the now-unfamiliar war." I'm not sure what makes this situation any less familiar than the earlier ones. Total war in Europe is nothing new, neither is double-crossing allies. If it's supposed to be unfamiliar to the OTL-familiar reader (though surely anyone lacking the mental flexibility to accept these changed situations would have given up on Turtledove many years ago), having the Brits and French switch back makes this war more like OTL WWII than it was in Books 3 and 4.

I think the blurb writer is taking a holistic view of everything (e.g., war in '38, Spain's ongoing, the big switch, the big switch back, Poland is a German ally, no mass murder of the Jews yet, US in the Pacific only). Taken altogether, I think it's fair to say that the war is only passingly familiar when compared to OTL. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but again, less so now than it was last year, when no such comment was made. Imagine if you used to know someone who was rather on the plump side, then ran into them years later and found they'd dropped a tremendous amount of weight, but you said nothing. Then six months later you saw them again; they were still much thinner than you remembered, but had more meat on their bones than the last time you'd seen them. Is that the point at which you'd comment? Turtle Fan (talk) 22:18, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

But, but I'm not trying to get people to buy that person. I've also seen that person. We have no idea if the blurb writer has actually read TF--it's quite possible this is a summary of a summary. TR (talk) 23:26, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. And in the last fifteen years I've seen an awful lot of evidence that the Del Rey blurb writers don't know much about the books at all. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:45, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

So where can the shakeup come from? I was thinking of some new superweapon, and of the new military doctrines it would necessitate. That could be the germ warfare in China, but the main focus of the story is the European theater, so that would really only matter if everyone and their brother suddenly said "Hey, I need to get me some of that!" and a worldwide bio-weapon free-for-all broke out.

The other option would be nuclear weapons. Now I know of course that if HT just started dropping hints about them now, they wouldn't have an effect within the scope of this book; not even the faculty of a school best known for its classical languages programs could have a bomb ready that quickly, even if they had an above-ground lab located well within a hundred miles of a hostile border. Still it's a thought.

Slightly more than a thought is "[T]he United States, England, and France do what they can to strengthen themselves against imminent danger," from the longer blurb. It's possible they're already envisioning the nuclear deterrent. I can't think of much else that would call for such a coy comment right next to the far more specific descriptions of what others are doing. If the Western powers were just souping up their own tanks and planes, that comment would hardly be appropriate--unless it's a red herring?

Well, we know France is rebuilding the Maginot Line. We also know that Herb Druce is doing "things" in the States. The blurb writer may have made an intuitive leap, as it would certainly be logical for all three to do something or other (pillboxes on the Isle of Wight; ships patrolling New York Harbor; what have you). TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. I guess I'm biased toward assuming that the hints in the blurb will have the most dramatic payoff possible. I really should know better by now. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:18, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Now I have to wonder if the US, UK, and France are working together on the hypothetical nuclear project or not. They're allies in the Pacific, but that's a sideshow as far as just about everyone is concerned, and the French in particular are being almost as halfhearted about it as they were about the Second Mexican War. The US isn't even involved in Europe, so even considering FDR's pre-PH hatred of Hitler, and knowing that he was of course right, committing the resources the Manhattan Project required seems like overkill.

Furthermore, now that the Brits and French have both double-crossed TWO allies in so short a period, it would be foolish for anyone to commit to cooperating with them on something so important and sensitive. So an American program, and an Anglo-French program, if they trust each other? Three programs, if the Brits and French don't trust each other? For traditional enemies, their interests seem to remain pretty closely aligned while everyone else is constantly reshuffling.

On the other hand, the Manhattan Project was a collaborative effort drawing on pooled resources and personnel from across most of the Anglosphere, and really every country that participated held at least one key to the puzzle without which success would have been very unlikely. So if the US tries to do it all in-house, and the Brits either do the same or cobble together a team of partners which doesn't include the US (Canada and South Africa are obvious candidates, Canada for the brain power and South Africa for the world's largest uranium deposit; however either government feels about London's newfound penchant for musical chairs, neither can really afford to alienate it), it's quite possible both projects will fail.

In reviewing the history, even in the opening stages, British-American cooperation was very crucial in making Manhattan a reality. In the UK, Frisch and Peierls figured out in June 1939 that the critical mass of uranium was an order of magnitude small enough to be carried by a bomber. This kick-started the British a-bomb program in March 1940, and this information, when finally shared with various Americans in 1941, was pretty crucial to making the U.S. bomb project a reality.

I'm willing to believe that the US at least is in the very early stages, for reasons described elsewhere (in summary: the Einstein-Szilard or its analog could be written as early as September/October, 1938 in this timeline--the details would be different obviously; the war and early German success followed by the big switch would probably create more panic in Roosevelt, etc.) But Britain's early breakthroughs are pretty key to the whole thing, and whether or not they even took place is up for debate.

In TWPE, Britain is obviously at war in 1939. Frisch and Peierls's work might have been interrupted, halted, or unaffected. Thus, whether or not the UK is working on a bomb is pretty much author fiat. If they are (the various physicists could have decided to keep their mouths shut after Churchill's death; Chamberlain could have called the bomb a boondoggle a la Featherston, etc.), I'd bet dollars to donuts the more authoritarian tendencies of Chamberlain and Wilson would have prevented any sharing with the US, even though they were not officially enemies. FDR's swipe at them after the big switch would probably confirm that position. Moreover, I doubt FDR would trust Britain (or France) with such information after the big switch. Even after the British coup, the precarious position of the new government would make them a bad partner for FDR to rely on. Thus, any US project is probably on its own. (Which probably also means that any theoretical advantage an "early start" might have given it is neutralized.)

Agreed on all points. However, if HT decides he wants atomic weapons in this series, I find it hard to imagine he won't have them. By any sane measure, the Confederate atomic project should never have borne fruit at all, even in a best-case scenario. Instead we had the Snake delay it for more than a year by shooting down Fitz's initial proposal. We had the thing based out of a college best known for its classical language programs, and well within the range of US reconnaissance aircraft. Rather than do proper counterintelligence--because the counterintelligence chief was forever being sent off on wild goose chases--they relied on US command being too dumb to put "We know who's running the project, and we know where he works" together; it worked for them for way too long. The closest we had to involvement by a single OTL Manhattan Project veteran was a peek at the notebooks of Fitz's British counterparts--and that not until the final act. And the Rebs STILL manage to deploy their first bomb before the US does. Not only that, at the time the war ended they also had more advanced information on upgrading to hydrogen bombs. If HT won't let things like that stop his characters from going nuclear, the issues you've raised certainly won't, either. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:18, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing France's atomic history: it could go nearly any old way HT wants. Bertrand Goldschmidt, a one-time assistant of Marie Curie's, and who appears to be more or less the father of the French bomb in OTL, had to flee France after Vichy began persecuting the Jews. He wound up as part of the Manhattan Project working on plutonium extraction. After the war, he came home and put what he learned to good use.

I doubt he'd have the resources to make much of a weapon, but he obviously didn't have to flee France either. So it's possible a nascent French project exists in 1941/1942 (which is still more than they had in OTL). TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

He wouldn't have had to flee France, but he might have done so anyway; Halevy did. Granted the circumstances were very different, but at the same time, no Jew would think that potentially putting superweapons at Hitler's disposal was a good idea. He might have started sabotaging his own work, or he might have resigned. On the other hand, he might also have trusted his government not to share with Germany, and worked with greater urgency if he felt a nuclear deterrent might be essential to France maintaining independence within SecCo. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:18, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I wouldn't mind being wrong about all this. I'm coming to realize that a WWII into which the atomic bomb never factors has potential. Furthermore, it could easily wind up being the biggest lasting change to the endgame of the war over OTL, now that the Big Switch has been negated. There's always Communist Spain (though notice that the war "drags on;" I guess the Republicans still won't manage to close the deal), but I couldn't care less about that at this point. Drags on is right. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:29, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

From the 80 page preview it can be rather strongly inferred that Herb Druce's trip to Tennessee is going to be Oak Ridge. And we all know what that means.JudgeFisher (talk) 01:45, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

*yawn* Lemp

Oh, and I see reference to "thrilling submarine battles." If I believed Lemp was on the verge of doing something thrilling, or anything that falls short of mind-numbingly boring, that would have me somewhat excited. Alas, I don't believe it for a second. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:36, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Lemp's encounter with the Soviet tank-plane thing-a-ma-bob was as exciting as it would ever get with that guy. And I use "exciting" rather loosely.JudgeFisher (talk) 04:58, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

He's at his best in those scenes where he acts as something of a barometer for political pressure in the homeland. I wish we'd see him transferred to a role where he does that permanently. Looks like that won't happen. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts--he seems to have a sense of when things are going bad in the government. Maybe he leads a mutiny somewhere, although, I'd just as soon see him replaced by Donitz. TR (talk) 18:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I feel like his moving to a role that plays more to this secondary strength is a ship that's sailed. And I'm not sure I do want him to lead a mutiny, seeing as the only "grievance" that's really had him angry with his superiors is when they rejected his demands to start throwing Norwegian women into sex slavery. That's not the cause of a group of rebels I care to root for.

I'd be happy to see him replaced by anyone. Herb Druce, Constantine Jenkins, Papa Goldman, Max Weinstein, what's-her-name (Rudel's squeeze), even Arno Baatz. Anyone from any area of the story who looks remotely ready for a promotion. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:24, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Exploring WW I and WW II parallels in the series, what if Lemp leads some sort of equivalent of the Kronstadt Revolt, say the Kiel Revolt? Sailors dissatisfied with their government's policy rebel, ultimately get put down. We get the best of both worlds: Lemp does something exciting and Lemp gets "disappeared" JudgeFisher (talk) 07:36, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for sending him out in a blaze of glory. Again, however, it's a pretty disturbing idea that we'd be expected to side with the character who's demanding that women be forced into sex slavery. One hopes he'd find something else to rebel over if that's what he ends up doing; however, nothing else to date has gotten him excited, and he's seen some pretty ugly developments. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:24, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

All Quiet on the Two Fronts

I can't really think of anything more to say about what I expect or want from this book. Still, it strikes me that it's unusual for us to have said so little on it this late into the year. I can tell you I'm not at all excited about the book and am planning to wait till the library gets a copy in so I won't have to spend money.

Still, any new thoughts anyone's had as it gets closer? Any new reviews or something anyone's seen? Turtle Fan (talk) 04:26, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I went back and skimmed through the previous books a little. Found one little detail that got my OCD going.  The Russian who surrenders to the French in CdE is Yevgeny Borisovich Novikov.  In TBS, Anastas Mouradian meets a Captain Boris Novikov in Siberia.  Now, the Russian naming system makes Yevgeny "Son of Boris" Novikov...coincidence, laziness on HT's part, or is he setting us up for something else? What purpose did Yevgeny's surrender serve since the Frenchies re-switch sides? For sheer irony that someone surrenders to the French? JudgeFisher (talk) 04:36, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Why would he have given them related names? Well it could be any of the three reasons you've suggested, or it could be a little nugget for attentive readers to home in on. He's been known to do that. The one I found was in HB, when an amiable older Lizard casually asked whether Jonathan knew Telerep. It's a bit of a mystery why I knew exactly who Telerep was six and a half years later.

As to why a Soviet would surrender to the French--a lot of scenes gave a pretty strong impression of the French just standing around while trying to muster up the gumption to follow where Britain had led. Reminders that they were still actively waging war against the USSR were needed. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:12, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. Just like we already had a Ms. Mouradian in Gunpowder Empire, a Mr. Mouradian in Curious Notions, and a Saul Goldman in Southern Victory.

I wouldn't read too much into those other examples. They involve common names which signal ethnicity clearly in characters whose ethnicities feature ptominently in their arcs. More importantly, none of them are in the TWTPE continuity. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:22, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm slightly embarassed to admit that I did pre-order the book on Amazon. I want to see if Pete McGill is dead, what happens to Vladivostok, where the germ warfare is going (I should say where HT is going with it), and if the U.S. does go to war with Hitler. Other than that, I just feel some sense of obligation to finish this six-book series.JudgeFisher (talk) 03:11, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

CdE left me pretty disappointed. As I'd feared--but had not expected--based on my comments above, all it really did was quickly negate TBS, the best book of the series. It raised no new issues which caught my interest. As to old ones, like when the US will finally enter the European war and whether anyone's building atomic bombs and most importantly if there's ever going to be a point to the boring-ass Spanish subplot, we haven't gotten any hints yet and I see no reason to believe that will change.

You know, I'd quite forgotten that Pete's spent the last year in limbo. He's grown on me since HW when I mourned the tree that died in vain to provide pages for his scenes, but he's still not holding my interest. If we'd left Sam Carsten in a similar bind, I'd have lain awake many a night wondering how he'd fare. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:22, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

No doubt - all of this series' characters are as flat as the pages they're written on. Once in a great while, someone shines through but then fades just as quickly. Two Fronts and the sixth book will probably take us to 1944, and I worry HT will just leave us with some "fine mess" ending which will do nothing more than show that this war made the geopolitical situation even more f-d up than WW I.JudgeFisher (talk) 05:09, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

I was really excited about Walsh till he sat out the coup. Now it's like he's been reset to what he was before. I want to care about Peggy but she's not giving me much reason. I liked Sarah at first, I've cooled on her. Mouradian's all right. Weinberg seems to be getting better all the time; shame he's stuck in Spanish purgatory. The rest I don't care about and never have. I fear Demange has too much personality for POV.

I had the same concern when I saw Kuchkov as a POV but it worked out OK so it may do the same for Demange. For the rest, I agree. ML4E (talk) 19:56, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea where the story's going and I care less and less. The immediate reversal of TBS reinforces my initial impression that it's going to be another tribute to parallelism and will end up the same as OTL. If the Republicans ever win in Spain--assuming their war doesn't just drag on ad infinitum with no result, which is looking likeliest--and everything else is the same as before, we'd have the possibility of a Soviet client state on NATO's western flank. Mildly interesting, but hardly worth a years-long from-the-beginning WWII AH to get there. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:14, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

No Previews!

It's worth pointing out that things really are quiet on multiple fronts as pertains to this book. We are now 40 days out from the scheduled publication date, and there don't seem to have been any reviews posted or any excerpts made available. With previous volumes, we were seeing reviews, longer blurbs, the first couple of sub-chapters, etc as early as mid-May--at least two months in advance of publication, in other words.

True. And those are typically the stimuli that get us going. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:00, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the paperback edition of CdE is scheduled to release the same day as TF, which is unusual. TR (talk) 01:12, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

So we won't even have that sneak peak.

Well, here's something to chew on for the hell of it. The Spanish Relublicans' position has grown slowly stronger, and I know TR is expecting they'll win in the end, but they seem to be in no hurry whatsoever to put the proverbial ball in the end zone. What if, instead of one side winning, the civil war drags on and on and on, with shifting alliance systems in the larger conflict constantly rebooting the situation as various great powers turn it into a proxy war? Sort of like OTL's Angola. The Republic has more Stalinists than anything else, but it's still deeply factionalized, and governments other than Moscow have always been involved. The Brits and French have turned the faucet on and off several times depending on their interests. At one point the French were playing both sides at once. The Czechs had no reason to care about Spain, but their own government-in-exile has found war makes strange bedfellows. If it can happen to them it can happen to just about anyone. As for the Nationalists, they've been cozy with Germany all this time. With Italy it's a bit more up and down. None of us believes Germany will win in the end, whatever else happens. At some point they'll notice they're on a sinking ship, and will look for a life raft. Well, hopefully; they have lost their best leader, the one who in OTL so deftly switched from a sort of associate member of the Axis to a similar relationship with NATO. Still, the Republic's playing that game, makes sense their opponents would as well. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:00, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

I guess I can buy it. Turtledovian tropes don't quite seem to favor that, IMHO, but he does have it in him to surprise us on occasion. TR (talk) 15:25, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

The way I figure it is, if HT really does want the Republic to win, he's already passed up some very organic opportunities to make it happen. And if he wants the Nationalists to win, he'd have them meet with more success--unless maybe their ability to outlast a more dynamic enemy is supposed to provide a moral to the story? So I was trying to think of other options. And since we've got nothing else to discuss this year, might as well spitball something like that. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:07, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

What will happen to Gibraltar? Now that the Brits have re-switched, will they attempt to re-take Gibraltar? Will the Americans do it for them? I don't think the Republicans are that strong...yet. JudgeFisher (talk) 14:48, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

One gets the sense the Brits retook it already offstage. Maybe the Germans made the Nationalists give it back before the original Big Switch. They must have done something to sweeten the pot.

Anyway, the fact that Walsh's journey to Egypt (groan, he could have been so much more interesting than another dime-a-dozen front-liner) was uneventful implies Gibraltar has been resecured. It's unlikely that the Nationalists would let a large force pass by unmolested to fight their two most important allies. If it was retaken by force I'm sure the Brits did it. Farming it out to the Americans would be neither necessary nor desirable. There's no real reason for the US to do it either. The most compelling motivation would be a feel good gesture ("Hey, isn't it great we're all friends again? I'm so happy you switched back that just for that I'm gonna help you out.") Other reasons get remoter and sillier from there. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:00, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: if the Brits retook Gibraltar, I think* HT would have told us . It seems too important a thing not to at least address. While it does appear to be the case that the Brits were unmolested on their way to Egypt, that could very readily be explained by the fact that the Nationalists just didn't have the resources to do much to the Brits,** and the Brits were far more interested in keeping Egypt safe than playing tug-of-war over Gibraltar at the moment.

I think it's safe to assume that the Nationalists still have Gibraltar until HT says otherwise. As I think about it, that could make an interesting plot point for the post-war. Even if the Republicans decisively win, there is no guarantee that they'll want to give it back to the UK. TR (talk) 15:25, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

*--Perhaps "hope" is a better word than "think".

**--I did a very little research--in OTL the Republicans couldn't pull off keeping the Nationalist Army of Africa out of the Strait, and the Brits are almost certainly in better shape than the Army of Africa, while there is no reason to think that the Nationalists are in better shape than the Republicans in those circumstances.

On further reflection you're probably right. Retaking Gibraltar would be a bit too big to happen offstage. So was the ouster of Wilson, but at least we know that happened. Imagine if the Brits just stopped being mentioned in Europe altogether and Walsh spent all his scenes sightseeing without commenting on the coup. CdE could have been worse, though going ad absurdum like this to prove it doedn't really flatter the book.

So no, I don't suppose HT consciously decided to change Gibraltar back without telling anybody. However, I do believe it's possible that he's forgotten about it altogether. It's hardly gotten more attention up to this point than, say, Festherston's temptation to start pill-popping did before that was dropped without a trace.

As to the Republic's didinclination to return Gibraltar, it did send me down a chain of what ifs I found mildly interesting. If the Republic eins the civil war, and the Stalinists win the second civil war that would likely follow, and the increasing parallelism causes the real war to end in a familiar place, you'd have Spain as a Warsaw Pact member. In that situation, letting Britain back into Gibraltar would be the last thing in the world they'd want to do. If NATO didn't then decide that Gibraltar was worth starting The Big One over, they'd have to accept a Soviet navy which could easily project power into the Atlantic. And then the whole containment policy would need to be rethought. The only way to keep it intact as such would be to say "If we can't stop them from getting out of the Med, we'll have to stop them from getting in." Yugoslavia becomes all-important, and its neutrality far harder to maintain.

I'm actually starting to think this series would be more interesting if it had skipped from 1936 to 1949 rather than to 1938. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:07, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Zionism?

Had a thought - if the Nazis let the European Jews more or less be, does that mean no Israel, or support for the idea of Israel? JudgeFisher (talk) 20:21, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

The Holocaust certainly accelerated the process in OTL at multiple levels. Take that event away, many of those pressures are gone, others are muted compared with OTL.

You might have an increased push compared to where things were before the war. In addition to Germany's mistreatment of the Jews within its own borders, you have the ghettos in Czechoslovakia, the reports of massacres in the USSR, and the fact that the governments of both the UK and France weren't very sympathetic to the issue. On the other hand, I don't get the sense that Jewish characters we've met have completely given up on their respective home-countries yet, so I don't see a stream of Jewish refugees making their way to Palestine as happened after the Holocaust.

My two cents, anyway. TR (talk) 20:48, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the Goldmans are still looking for some good in the Germans vis-a-vis von Galen, even the archetypal Russian Ivan Kuchkov has some respect for his Jewish comrades. I'm sure Stalin wouldn't let them leave. Maybe Weinberg gets disillusioned with the Republic and leads something? Or, in the alternative, some portion of Poland, Slovakia, maybe even Germany gets lopped off and re-shaped into a "European Israel?" JudgeFisher (talk) 14:54, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Finally an excerpt

Here. TR (talk) 16:26, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

So that does answer a couple of questions and shoot down one prediction so far:

1) McGill lived.

That bit about peeling scalps reminded me that I experienced that two years ago. Thoroughly unpleasant. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:11, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

2) Gibraltar is still in the Nationalists' hands.

Yes, that clears things up a bit. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:11, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

3) Since Smigly-Ridz died on December 2, 1941 in OTL, and the first Walsh scene takes place on Christmas, and there is no reference to Smigly-Ridz having died, I guess he get's a reprieve. TR (talk) 16:35, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Would it necessarily have been the first thing on Walsh's mind? HT's gotten better with the infodumps over the years; characters no longer blurt out news that neither affects nor interests them the first chance they get.

Rudel's failure to mention it, now,may be slightly more telling. Or not. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:11, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Two out of three ain't bad :) 

From Rudel's section, it's looking like HT's setting us up for a showdown at Smolensk. I'm kinda hoping Demange and the Frenchies become some sort of a lost batallion that will just stay as an auxilliary division in Russia. From Walsh's section, it might not be impossible that if and when Italian Libya falls, perhaps with some assistance from (what I'm assuming still is) French North Africa, the English go for Sicily, and the French drop down through Northern Italy. Of course, that all depends on how both France and England fare against the Germans. JudgeFisher (talk) 19:06, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Demange and his men stranded in Russia could be a promising turn of events, but I think the needs of the story will find him making his way to the Western Front safely sooner rather than later.

Ah, that would be cool, though. More interesting than cookie-cutter combat scenes, anyway. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:11, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

The Walsh scene appears to be incomplete. I hope the decision to cut that scene was more of a space consideration for the preview rather than hiding the fact that he dies on Christmas. While HT hasn't used Walsh to the best effect (i.e., giving us a POV into the British coup), I do like the character. TR (talk) 22:10, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I remember worrying the same thing about Carsten after reading the excerpt gor DttE. Turns out the scene just ended abruptly. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:11, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Getting news from the series has piqued my interest slightly, but I still think this might finally be the year I hold out for a library copy, or at least a drop in price. Especially since I'm looking forward to finally joining the Lost Legion party when I finally get the chance. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:11, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Update: 80 pages at DelRey

Well, 76 pages of actual story, plus 4 pages of title and copyright info, etc. Walsh is fine, Demange does go west, Jezek's still a hero, Peggy has an awkward day, Sarah has a fucked-up shitty day, Franco is still dead, Smigly-Ridz continues to be not-dead, and HT makes an uncharacteristically glaring error by calling the NKVD the KGB (and I'm really inclined to think an editor saw "NKVD" and changed it out of ignorance; I'm also inclined to worry about HT's mental health). TR (talk) 15:33, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

So far nothing that makes me jump for joy or makes my jaw drop. Is HT using Mouradian as the host of "Meet the minorities of the USSR"? "This week, Mouradian gets an Udmurt mechanic!"

There are worse things Mouradian could be. TR (talk) 23:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

When Demange is in Murmansk, he makes mention of the NKVD, so the KGB must be lazy editing, lazy writing, or a little of both.

I guess. TR (talk) 23:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Is Sarah going to become HT's version of Shoshanna from Inglorious Basterds?

Well, since fictional characters have done a pretty good job of killing historical figures in this series, I guess I can see her rushing forward and shooting Hitler from a crowd or something. TR (talk) 23:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Lemp couldn't have bored me more if he tried. Fujita's a close second. Rudel is only interesting when he's in the air.

I just sort of scanned those, although I personally enjoy Fujita. I'll read them more thoroughly when I have the book in hand. TR (talk) 23:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Pete and his buddy mention Ernest King. Is he the big cheese in the Pacific now? JudgeFisher (talk) 18:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

That or he's Chief of Naval Operations generally as in OTL. TR (talk) 23:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Kirkus Review

A maddeningly vague review from Kirkus may be found here. TR (talk) 22:06, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Haven't we seen that before? It feels very familiar (and not just the half that's recapping previous volumes). Turtle Fan (talk) 03:33, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

The reviewer says there will be some left-field surprises, I guess I'll take those. The hint is that the post-war world will look a lot differently. But how? I already wondered about no Israel, we all somewhat agree that it's looking a lot like a socialist/communist Spain. I'll venture to guess no communist Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, no Greek Civil War. No NATO because the Soviets won't be as big and no trust in England and France.  No sympathy for Poland, no Katyn Massacre. Not sure about China though. Mao was a wily guy. JudgeFisher (talk) 01:50, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the mildly interesting possibility of Spain being a Soviet satellite in western Europe--hardly interesting enough to justify this years-long slog through its heretofore irrelevant subplot--I really don't know what it will look like. The time for a coup against Hitler seems to have come and gone, so I'm not counting on a military dictatorship suing for peace and surviving into the postwar world. The war is reverting to a more parallelistic model, so I suppose the early OTL Cold War is a good place to start any inquiries into what's to come. But as I still don't know what HT's getting at with this war, there's not all that much I can think to say about what's to come.

I've been kind of thinking (for no reason other than HT's penchant for parallelism) that Spain might wind up looking like China in OTL, with the Nationalists forced off onto an island in the Mediterranean and claiming to the be "real" Spain, and the Republicans running the show on the mainland. "Red" Spain then becomes a Soviet ally more out of a need for allies than anything.

That would be quite excellent! Perhaps the Nationalists end up controlling Gibraltar, which, given its geostrategic location, would force pretty much everyone to have to deal with some unsavory characters in order to get in and out of the Med. So, instead of the Suez Crisis, we could have the Straits of Gibraltar Crisis. JudgeFisher (talk) 01:02, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar's tiny, though. How long can a regime last if that's all the territory in the world it can claim? Certainly not enough that great powers will tolerate any serious attempts to threaten freedom of navigation on such an important route.

If there's to be a Taiwan to Spain's China, I'd look to Morocco myself. Obviously that would put the Nationalists into a new round of conflicts. Maybe they lose a fight with Moroccans for the good parts of that country and their bulwark is reduced to the howling wilderness of modern-day Western Sahara. Even that would give them more credibility than Mediterranean islands, or for that matter the Canaries. (Corsica and Sardinia would both be worth running as rump states if Spain had some traditional claim to either of them, but it doesn't.)

Maybe Andorra or the Basque country could conceivably come into play as well?

Well, if we want to belabor the parallels on no evidence, I vote for the Balearic Islands, myself. Still not big. TR (talk) 17:35, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

A population of 1.1 million as of 2010 (presumably a good deal smaller in the time we're talking about) and having a portion of Spain's population that's a hair under one out of forty, which may or may not have remained constant over the past seventy years. I guess it could support a rump regime, but it would be highly irrelevant (which is likely the only way the Republic would tolerate it).

By contrast, Taiwan's population is 23.32 million, which is only 1.7% of that of the PRC; but it's certainly got enough to form a respectable nation-state in its own right. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I'd say Taiwan is important more due to its geostrategic proximity to Northeast Asia than its large population. There are roughly 30 million Kurds in the world, but they haven't found a patron willing to support their statehood. Being so close to Gibraltar and the Mediterranean would probably warrant a lot of interest in a non-Communist alternative Spanish state. JudgeFisher (talk) 18:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if we're looking to Asian civil wars for parallels, it's also possible Spain herself will end up divided. True, everything we've seen for the last few books has gone the Republic's way, but I don't get the sense that they're moving toward a final victory. More and more I'm leaning toward a permanent stalemate rather than a Republican victory as the ultimate payoff for this long slog. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Early on I'd wondered if there would be a North Spain and South Spain when all was said and done. Then there was a brief period where both sides were in all or nothing mode, but as you point out, the Republic's throttled back a bit. With France and Britain supplying them more, and with Franco dead, the Republicans might decide to really prosecute this thing to the end. Or not. TR (talk) 17:35, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I just can't shake the impression that, if the Republicans were going to win, they'd be well on their way to doing it by now. Things have been going better for them than in OTL, but since they lost in OTL, an improvement does not mean a victory. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

As I'm clearly riding the geopolitical train lately, I'd say Spain's fate depends a lot on whether or not Italy remains fascist. If the fascists in the Mediterranean are too strong (I suppose Portugal might factor in here), the balance will tip against them. If they're too weak, they might be propped up against the Communists. JudgeFisher (talk) 18:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't ruled out a German coup myself, but that's more from stubbornness on my part than anything. HT has had Hitler live long and prosper a couple of times, but he's only had him overthrown once. I feel that HT's owes us that. Plus it fits the WWI parallel game. TR (talk) 21:21, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Well, a few stray thoughts do come to mind. In OTL the Big Four occupation of Germany very quickly became the USSR versus the other three, even if Paris did require a fair amount of cajoling to tow the Anglophone line. Now that certain great powers have shown themselves to be less than rock solid as alliance members, it's possible we'll see more of a four-cornered occupation.

I don't see much reason to expect a full occupation based on the publication schedule if nothing else. I think I've addressed that elsewhere. TR (talk) 21:21, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not. I was using it more as a starting point and as a quick allusion of the power-sharing dynamic that emerged among the victorious Allies. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

In fact I suppose the postwar situation is likely to look more like that writ large: a number of powers, each with their own agenda, making and breaking temporary alliances with the mutual understanding that it's only for the short term. A situation more like nineteenth-century Europe than twentieth, rather than the systemic conflict which sucks everything into the bipolar clash of two almighty civilizations. If no nukes emerge such a situation becomes even more likely.

This certainly seems to be the theme HT is playing with: that WWII could have just as easily been another stupid European war of the 19th Century (yes, I meant to say 19th). Certainly a continuation of the "great game" mentality into a Cold War would be consistent with that theme. TR (talk) 21:21, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

I find that interesting, and it's nice to be reminded that WWII can be understood as just another war, even if the Third Reich probably is the most distasteful regime in European history. In the popular imagination it's leaned far too much toward this epic clash of titans with the fate of the soul of humanity on the line. That's starting to change, but the alternate viewpoint is usually steeped in the bias of pacifism on principle. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

It looks like nukes will be a certainty since Herb Druce is going to an undisclosed place in Tennessee - read : Oak Ridge. Maybe the prevailing view will be that the A-bomb is just a real big bomb and not an instrument of mutually assured destruction. JudgeFisher (talk) 01:02, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Tennessee? Is that from the pages up on Del Rey's site? I haven't made it over there yet. We've been wondering for a while about atomic weapons. As of the end of CdE, nary a peep about them. I find I've rather come to enjoy eliminating them from consideration, it opens up all sorts of avenues of the imagination that would ordinarily be closed off. I wouldn't want to see them suddenly thrust back into the picture at this late date. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

It is in the preview. He says he's going to Tennessee. When Peggy asks why, since he usually has all manner of stories about waste, he says he can't talk about this Tennessee trip.

I see. Yes, that would seem to qualify as writing on the wall. I wonder why HT's waited so long; he's had opportunities to drop hints before now. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm still on board with no use of bombs. HT let's us know its 1942 in the Peggy scene, and we have one more volume after this. I just don't think there's enough time to build and use it. TR (talk) 17:35, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

"'Mike, did you compute how many years till we have this? . . . '

. . . "'I tried. I failed. The question is indeterminate.'

"'Why?'

"'Because it involves a breakthrough in theory. There is no way in all my data to predict when and where genius may appear.'" -Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

I do hope you're right, but if HT's suddenly decided he's determined to get bombs into the story (having previously toyed with the idea of leaving them out) it would not strain credibility to the breaking point to say "They came up with the right idea sooner." The amount of time between innovation and production is dependent of external factors, but in OTL the gap was quite small. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth considering what will happen if the UK's unelected junta remains in power for a long time. Even if they remain fairly liberal in all matters except those relating to actually calling for an election, their presence long-term sets a dangerous precedent. Someone else can always seize power by force and push their own agenda; it can even be Wilson's allies themselves. Between decolonization and economic depression, the bleakness of OTL postwar conditions, if they're approximated in this timeline, is an environment which would offer quite a few catalysts for major confrontations in that other kind of politics.

The junta has to have an election for no better reason than to avoid precisely this situation. And they know it. Naturally, knowing what they should do and actually doing it are two different things; history's proven that endlessly. That having been said, the situation you suggest would make an interesting story. TR (talk) 21:21, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

They won't call an election as long as it looks like Wilson is leading in the polls (though I don't suppose anyone's actually taking polls as we understand them, at least not openly). If that state of affairs remains in place much longer, after a while they might gradually get used to the idea of not calling an election and postpone it indefinitely. Would be interesting to see if that costs them the confidence of the crown; though if they don't care about the electoral system, that's certainly not going to prove a fatal hang-up for them. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Cartland certainly paid lip service to the notion of keeping things as legal as possible in this extra-legal situation. If George VI said aloud that elections really ought to be held, I'm inclined to think an election will be held. They could use the Iranian model of setting out a series of vague qualifications and then disqualifying anyone they didn't like (Wilson) from gaining leadership of any of the parties, thereby effectively disqualifying them from becoming PM. I might be overly optimistic; letting a person under house arrest send missives to the papers is less dangerous than risking that person become the head of government, afte rall. TR (talk) 17:35, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt at all that the junta seized power with the best of intentions and that everyone who supported it believed they'd restore democracy ASAP. Political realities after one has taken power . . . can force plans to change (Guantanamo Detention Center).

The Iranian system has the Grand Ayatollah as the ultimate arbiter of who is and isn't eligible to run for President, if memory serves. Grafting that onto Britain would possibly mean the King claiming veto power over each party's leadership selection process. I wonder if he'd be willing to go that far. As his public declarations of confidence in the junta are pretty much the entirety of the generals' ability to claim legitimacy, it's easy to see the fortunes of the army and the crown becoming very closely intertwined indeed.

Of course, even if the King doesn't want to get involved in party leadership selections, he does retain the (theoretical) power to reject Parliament's choice for Prime Minister. If a Conservative majority (unlikely) or a coalition of anti-junta MPs (more realistic) says it's Wilson, I guess he could say "Nope, go back and choose someone else." Hell, maybe his private assurance that he will do so if it comes to that is what convinces the generals to call the election. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

The latest news from Egypt are eerily parallel to some of the scenarios.JudgeFisher (talk) 18:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Globally this raises all kinds of issues. One that I'd like to bat around is the fate of decolonization. I don't know what sort of welcome Aung San would get in that London (obviously it would depend on who's in No 10, but the odds on Atlee would seem to be long indeed at this point). It's certainly worth considering that whoever is in charge will refuse to accommodate the demands of indigenous leaders. Then what happens? Open rebellions? Out-and-out war? Dear God, can you imagine what a disaster the Indian War for Independence would be?

(I'd say Atlee has a better chance than anyone the Conservatives can field, but the part of me that just wants something different for the sake of difference is pulling for the Liberals and Sinclair.)

Well I certainly imagine that the Conservative Party is too deeply fractured to unite behind any leader, so that makes Labour the largest party with its act together. But that only matters if electoral politics remain in play. I certainly can't see Atlee seizing power by force. I can see Labour chucking their centrist leader, getting back to their not-yet-distant militant roots, and cobbling together some sort of socialist militia to make a play for power, if coups become the norm; but Atlee himself would not be involved in such a thing. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

In my rooting around on the internet, I see Arthur Greenwood, Deputy Leader of Labour, was part of Churchill's cabinet and was instrumental in giving Churchill the majority he needed to pass a resolution to keep the war against Germany going in 1940 (a thing that people who criticized TBS seem to overlook.) Given HT's ability to randomly pick historical figures out of a hat, Greenwood seems intriguing TR (talk) 17:35, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Not familiar with him. But as you know, I'm always eager to have new articles on historical figures. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

If HT is deliberately running on this sort of prolonged 19th Century mentality, yeah, we're going to see much ugliness. TR (talk) 21:21, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, the Indian WfI could make for a very interesting AH story in its own right. Maybe some day. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

All right, I guess I did find that question to be of interest after all. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:34, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if they can muster up an occupation of Germany. I'm still of the opinion that Poland gets partitioned or a part of it lopped off. I think the best they could do is call some sort of conference a la Congress of Vienna. Certainly no UN and no League of Nations. I foresee the UK and France more or less running the show in Africa, putting down revolts in the Middle East and Asia, and trying to play sides off each other (Hindu vs. Muslim, Christian vs. Muslim, etc.) until they simply can't and just withdraw, leaving the regions to tribal conflict and major ethnic cleansing or population exchanges. Although a communist Spain may be a good jumping board for the Comintern to cause trouble in the Mediterranean.

I agree about Germany (see above). Since partitioning Poland is a historical theme, I won't be surprised if it happens. I can see that event elevating tensions between the West and the USSR again. Certainly the USSR now has a comparatively better grounds to demand territorial cessions, and Britain and France can't do anything about it practically, beyond getting whatever (preferably non-Nazi) German government to "defend" the rest of Poland.

Speaking of some sort of unitive West is not going to be meaningful at all, I don't think. Britain and France would do well not to trust each other, and no one else in their right mind would trust either of them. And if the Soviet sphere of influence only extends as far west as "somewhere in Poland," there's not going to be the imminent threat to force them into circling the wagons. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Well, we are speaking of a west that briefly united against the USSR when it was in their respective interests, but you make a valid point. TR (talk) 17:35, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

They did, but that will surely be understood as a mere temporary coalition. The name we selected for it, SecCo, is quite appropriate. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

It'll be a free-for-all anything goes, since there'll likely be no Potsdam, no Yalta and no Teheran. No spheres of influence other than as far as your bayonets reach. Wonder if any side will try to co-opt former Nazis the way they did in OTL? JudgeFisher (talk) 01:02, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Oh I can't imagine they wouldn't! Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Some more observations from the Kirkus Review  -  Japanese pilots in China? Does that mean Fujita dies and we get a new Japanese POV? Ukrainian partisans? Are they a new POV? historical figures die off stage? Are they referring to MacArthur, Kimmel and Franco - or we'll see more obituaries? JudgeFisher (talk) 06:14, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

HT's pattern is to promote POVs "from the bench" so to speak. We haven't met any Japanese pilots, yet. So either HT throws in the pilot in the opening half of the book and then quickly promotes him, or it's just a prominent secondary character. Same response to the Ukrainian partisans.

I'm also betting on prominent secondary. That is more or less the point of Fujita's current assignment, after all. And it's conceivable (though I don't know how worthwhile) that he would join an air crew as a payload specialist or something. I still would have preferred that the Marines beat him to death in an escape and replace his POV duties with Weinstein among the Chinese communists. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Deceased historicals?

As to deceased historicals, I'm anticipating new ones. Just seems silly to call attention to prior deaths in prior volumes. I'm still banging the gong for Smigly-Ridz. TR (talk) 21:21, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you on Smigly-Ridz, Wondering if von Galen lives? Perhaps Mussolini bites the dust earlier, Sanjurjo would have to live to be this timeline's Chiang Kai-Shek as we discussed above. Can't really think of anyone else. Bandera maybe? He's largely a non-factor. JudgeFisher (talk) 01:02, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that the only way to restart the stalled developments in Munster from the last book would, unfortunately, be the execution of von Galen. Of course, after the reaction to his arrest, the SS would surely be afraid of the fallout. Still, it's the only thing I can think of that would allow Sarah's story to do something other than chunter along, business as usual. Well that and the sudden implementation of the Final Solution, but I don't think HT's made a point of relative--very relative--good behavior by the Nazis just to chuck it at the tenth hour. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read along in the preview, as Sarah's life gets a rather grotesque jump-start. Not Final Solution level, but bad enough.

Moved by some vague desire to "mark" this week's anniversary, I've been forcing myself to read Ralph Peters's highly enjoyable novel Cain at Gettysburg in as close to real time as possible. That's really left me with no time to check out the lengthy excerpt. But I'll get to it as soon as I'm done. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

However, von Galen's death is a logical and plausible one; the SS ought to be afraid of the fallout, but then again, they could just as easily decide killing him would solve the problem--it is the SS, after all.

Yeah, the SS were not shrinking violets in this area. Fun fact (well, more of a morbid fact, really): There really was an arrest warrant sworn out against von Galen by the Gauleiter of Munster. It was countermanded by Himmler for fear that it would provoke unrest. If he and everyone in his chain of command weren't afraid to allow that order to be executed, they might not object to allowing the bishop himself to be executed, either. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Von Galen was enough of a German nationalist and anti-Communist that he could be a "sanitary" alternative to Hitler in the eyes of many Germans. Or come close enough only to end up 6ft below. JudgeFisher (talk) 18:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Off on a tangent speaking of historical character deaths: There seems to be an odd little theme at play in this series wherein there's a sort of tit-for-tat wherein every historical figure who lives longer begets someone who dies sooner. (I don't have any reason to think HT is doing this on purpose.) Sanjurjo lives, so Henlein dies. Cartland lives, so Churchill dies. Admittedly, this semi-serious observation of mine sort of falls apart in CdE, where Franco, MacArthur, and Kimmel all die, but the only person who definitely lives longer is...wait for it...Lemp, who is also a POV. Smigly-Ridz also got a reprieve, so maybe we're "even", or maybe von Galen must die so Smigly-Ridz can live? TR (talk) 17:35, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I forget, didn't Milton Wolff die, too? Turtle Fan (talk) 23:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

We don't know. He was in bad shape last we saw him. His injuries were enough to keep him out of the story, anyway. TR (talk) 03:46, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

This somewhat ties in with the one-line snippet from TBS where Andrei Vlasov is doing great against the Nazis. Complete role-reversal from OTL. Same with Manchuria. In OTL Zhukov routed the Japanese, in this series, they occupy Vladivostok. So I don't expect Operation August Storm either. JudgeFisher (talk) 18:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking about this point for some reason, and another candidate popped into my head: Alfonso XIII of Spain died in February, 1941. HT didn't address it in CdE, but he did in passing address Sanjurjo's plan to restore Alfonso in W&E. Unlike other figures, Alfonso's life doesn't seem to have been impacted much by the war coming early. HT might just have another mention in passing to the effect of "Alfonso didn't live to see the Nationalists win, but his son, Infante Juan might get the throne, etc. etc." TR (talk) 23:07, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

That would make for thrilling literature. Certainly it would not have any real relevance, but it is the sort of thing that gives HT's stories flavor, so I guess it might happen.

I'm about out of ideas for obvious choices among people who are at all central to the story. Still, you never know. In a war story, just about anyone can credibly be bumped off during an air raid or a visit to the front or something. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:37, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Dream

So this wasn't exactly up there with one of Jelay's famous dreams, nor with TR's hamster wheel ordeal last year, but last night I dreamed that I was reading an online excerpt of Two Fronts (not Two Fronts itself) and that Lucien Galtier was involved. He was driving his wagon and talking to his horse, as he did in the GW books. He was in a forest which I believe was near a combat zone somewhere in Europe, but I'm a bit fuzzy on that point. He reflected on how close he'd been to his grandfather, who had died just the year before.

My initial reaction was excitement that I could add info to this section. Then I thought how improbable it was that Galtier's grandfather would have lived to see 1941. I first recalled that not only was Galtier a grandfather himself, but when last we saw his oldest grandson, the boy was a grown-ass man and was getting married (though that was 1944, not 1942). For that many generations all to be alive at the same time, it would have to be something of a family tradition to begin reproducing as soon as they hit puberty. I mentally reviewed the members of Lucien's family and tried to remember if there were any very young parents in there; I couldn't come up with any. Finally I remembered that Lucien Galtier was dead himself, and at that point I wondered if I had perhaps misread the scene, if maybe the POV was Lucien O'Doull reflecting on Galtier's death. (I didn't remember whether that occurred in 1940 or 1941, but either way it was close enough for young O'Doull to say "last year," especially in early '42.)

However, at no point did I realize that the entire Galtier clan belongs in an entirely different universe from that in which Two Fronts is set. (They are of course from the Darkness series.) Turtle Fan (talk) 18:43, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I've often thought it might be fun to see an appearance or overlap of fictional characters in HT's timelines. Nothing dramatic--Sam Yeager doesn't have to be the protagonist of WW and TWPE, but maybe the Druces are listening to a minor league baseball game on the radio, and we hear about an error on the part of some left-fielder named Yeager.

I've had the same hope. I remember one day many years ago, on one of the boards, we were spitballing a wish list for either DttE or TG (before realizing that the most we could say was "I wish this book would stop sucking") and I said (or maybe I just thought) that it would be nice if Flora went to the "sunbomb" factory, met Jens Larssen, and he turned out to be really happy and well-adjusted. Poor guy deserved it. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:23, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I had a moment of what may have been acid reflux last night. Sounds like you had it better, TF. TR (talk) 19:34, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

My dream the night before was far more disturbing. Hell of it was, I went back to sleep after letting the dogs out, so it was almost as though the dream were punishment for indulging in a lazy morning. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:23, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

GoogleBooks Preview

Here we go gents. I won't give anything away just yet. I will just say it's a mixed bag...some good, some bad.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QICVAOrzbd4C&pg=SL8-PA405&dq=two+fronts+turtledove&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false  JudgeFisher (talk) 01:42, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

I wish the search feature was working. I guess a few days more for that. TR (talk) 03:54, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Amazon, on the other hand, DOES have its search inside up and running. TR (talk) 04:11, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

I can't even think of anything I want to search for. But I guess you can satisfy your Smigly-Rydz curiosity now. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:27, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Glad I didn't bet on that; another for the "longer lived" page. But I did find out at least one off-screen historical death. And HT continues his pattern of not doing anything with Rommel, even though the Afrika Korps does play a role. They just have a different commander. TR (talk) 05:58, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

One POV death, one supporting character death, one mention of Von Galen. The historical death was someone I totally wouldn't have thought of. The Manhattan Project - we weren't exactly wrong, despite a slight of the hand by HT. Ridz-Smigly only gets mentioned in passing in some indeterminate past tense. We see the new German tanks, and it looks like Mr. Nelg might have been correct in his predictions. Nothing much on Vladivostok. Fujita goes for a trip - not to India. A certain Belgian collaborator gets a mention - new historical character page for us. Certain scenes have quite a bit of repetition we've sadly gotten used to in previous books. Someone we considered for a POV does indeed become a POV. Nothing on Finland, nothing on the Baltics, nothing on the Balkans. This book has the feel of a Marvel Comics series I read a while back called Ruins, where everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong. Another side note, a Polish friend informed me there is a controversial book in Poland called the Ribbentrop-Beck Pact, proposing indeed that Poland should have joined the anti-Comintern Pact allying with Germany against the USSR. JudgeFisher (talk) 06:12, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Smigly-Ridz: I looked it up on Amazon. As Judge Fisher says, it's in the past tense so it's possible he did die and no one mentioned it. Given that we have no Polish POVs (there's the waitress whom Rudel's shagging, but it looks like he gets transferred west, so that would be the end of her, right?) and that, as I discussed somewhere above, Smigly-Ridz has himself made only a minimal personal impact, I don't find it too hard to imagine that no one would feel the need to mention his death. I know that I've only thought of, say, Hugo Chavez's death on maybe half a dozen fleeting occasions since I learned of it. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:03, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

So much blame was thrown on Smigly-Ridz by Stalin in HW and W&E. I gotta think he if died, even of natural causes, Radio Moscow would just make huge propaganda hay out of it. Either way, we aren't going to know for sure in this volume (Search inside is not perfect, but it's close enough, so I'm confidant that's the only reference to the man.). TR (talk) 19:43, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but totalitarian propaganda can be a strange thing. Stories get unexpectedly buried for all sorts of reasons. Maybe someone felt that bragging about enemy leaders dying of natural causes would make listeners wonder why they weren't bragging about enemies killed by the Soviet war machine instead. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:43, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

von Galen: That reference is rife with inconsistencies. First a nitpick, they refer to von Galen as an ARCHbishop. Munster is and has always been a diocese; his title was regular bishop until he was promoted to cardinal a few months before his death. The seat of the archbishop who oversees Munster is Cologne.

A good deal more important, though, is "Archbishop [sic] von Galen had presumed to protest the way the Reich disposed of mental defectives (though he'd never said a word about the way the Reich treated its Jews). Not so, he wrote extensively against the Nuremberg Race Laws. He attacked them using theology, morality, history, and even satire. Hell, he went to bat for the Jews in TBS in his only direct appearance. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:03, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that Lord Cranborne continues to be Lord Cranford.

On the plus side, that KGB gaff seems to have been a one-off. TR (talk) 19:43, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the one reference to S-R said that he had asked "the Fahrer" for help. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:43, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

The Belgian and the dead POV: Feel free to name-drop. I don't want to put in the name of every collaborator I can think of (which isn't many at all) and hope for a hit. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:03, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Léon Degrelle is the collaborator. Spoiler font: Willi Dernen is the dead POV; and is replaced by Arno Baatz. I don't know who the dead secondary character is that the judge is referring to. The actor I referred to is George Raft--Turtledove must of have seen a documentary or something. The off-page dead historical is Montgomery; I'm starting to think HT has about as much use for that dead guy as he does for MacArthur and Rommel. He's replaced by Claude Auchinleck. Walther Model runs Afrika Korps. TR (talk) 19:43, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Arno Baatz? That's awful. (Er, no pun intended.) That's the complete opposite of what I've been wanting for years.

The supporting cast member who died is: Mike Carroll JudgeFisher (talk) 02:06, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Him I really don't care about. By the way he has the same name as a very conservative local politician here in NJ, which always created a little dissonance for me when I was reminded of the character's politics. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:17, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

As for all the commanders . . . Well, if he keeps hitting the same famous few over and over, we'll never get new historical articles. Granted, he hasn't hit Rommel "over and over," or at all. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:43, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Sanjurjo being the exception, a lot of commanders in this series die in naval and aviation situations. Which made me think, what of Yamamoto? JudgeFisher (talk) 02:06, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

HT could write him in, of course. Killing him might be a quick and easy way to reverse Allied fortunes in the Pacific. Given that he hasn't had a role in the series that we know of (granted one assumes he's been busy offstage), it would also be a cheap trick if it's leaned on too heavily as a game changer. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:17, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

The pacing seems to be picking up here, as well. The midterm congressional elections come at about page 200. I also saw another historical--an actor of some note whom HT seems to have just picked out of a hat. TR (talk) 06:15, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

There's also a mention that the Brits/French agreed the Low Countries would be part of the German sphere of influence in their peace agreement. Shades of Yalta?JudgeFisher (talk) 07:06, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Always nice to learn a little something about the Hess Agreement, even if it's coming years too late and past the point where it would be relevant; but this partial answer to a small question just serves to raise a much larger question: Why did the democracies go along with this agreement that so obviously favored only Germany on the face of it? I really want to see HT's notes on this: "So Chamberlain and Daladier are smart enough not to fall for Munich, but then they're dumb enough to fall for an even more one-sided diplomatic ruse, one that the Nazis didn't even bother trying to sugar coat." Turtle Fan (talk) 19:03, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Chamberlain and Daladier didn't have the opportunity to be clever at Munich, and were only really marginally brave. Hitler was attacking Czechoslovakia. They could stand by and let it happen, or they could attack Germany. They made what they obviously felt to be the less terribly choice, and then obviously spent nearly 2 years or so regretting it. TR (talk) 19:43, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but once the battle has been joined you'd think they'd want something to show for it, if only so they could claim they'd disengaged with honor. They didn't even get peace out of the deal. Essentially it was "We're giving the Germans everything we had been fighting to keep them from getting, and we're going to help them get even more, on a front that's not in our sphere of influence and which offers us no spoils." It only makes sense if they'd been part of a conspiracy to turn their countries into German vassals. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:43, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

That scene with the French civilian in the bar sheds some light. Maybe they just wanted to take the war away from the civilian populace, which would make the war in the USSR like some far off colonial war, yes soldiers die and get maimed, but you're not at risk of the Zulus, Hmong, Boers or Russians coming for your average John or Jacques. JudgeFisher (talk) 02:06, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

I just can't buy that having the war happen "over there somewhere" is worth giving away the store. The Hess Agreement really makes no sense at all. (Actually, I've kind of started to feel like there's roughly an inverse relationship between this series's interest value and its realism.) Turtle Fan (talk) 05:17, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

I can. These are the people who cheered when Daladier came home and announced the Munich give away in OTL and who fought for a month half heartedly before surrendering. They just didn't want to fight Germany again. And if letting the Low Countries stay German means getting Germany off French soil--it's a short sighted trade, but a rational one in the choice of evils analysis. TR (talk) 05:15, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

These examples show how far they were willing to go for peace. Peace is not what they got. They wound up in a war against a country which had given them no grievances, and more importantly, a war from which they would gain nothing. Sure it was farther away, and that's not insignificant, but even with all tbeir shortsightedness it was still no bargain. And the Brits, who were far tougher in OTL even if they'd been just as reluctant to start a war, don't even gain that much; they weren't facing a German invasion at all.

Really, picture it. Hess comes in and says "Give us everything we've tried and failed to take from you, then go protect our other flank." No one thought to counterpropose "How about we give you everything you want, we go home, and you promise to leave us alone"? Hess wouldn't've objected to that unless he were crazy. Now he may have been, according to some sources, but the western negotiators must have been crazier still to allow it. The whole thing reminds me of a Pearls Before Swine strip where Pig openly brags about how badass he is because he paid for an ordrr at a fast food drive in and drove away without his food. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:06, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

early release

I've noticed this on the new books shelf at the bookstore, did anyone pickup a mistaken early release yet? (I assume some stores would do that; and that the copy I saw on the new releases display shelf isn't the only one out in the stores)

I haven't seen it. Back in 2004 I had reserved a copy of RE at my bookstore and they called me to pick it up three or four days before its release; of course I jumped on it before they realized their mistake. But I've never seen anything on the shelves early, and this year I haven't even looked. (I reserved a copy from my public library; I'm second on their waiting list, so I won't get it right away. I just don't have enough interest in the series anymore to want to spend money on it if I can get it for free with a little patience.) Turtle Fan (talk) 19:44, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Aw look, it finally came out. I am one of the fifth on the waiting list in my local library.Zhukov15 (talk) 19:37, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

A week ago. I'm second at mine. Never having tried to get a new Turtledove book from there before, I had no idea how long I'd wait. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:31, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm on Chapter 12. Should we move to the forum soon? JudgeFisher (talk) 03:53, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

A Brief Recap

So I've finally got a copy of Two Fronts from the library and just realized I'm a bit fuzzy about what hell happened before this book. Can anybody give a brief recap about the events leading up to Two Fronts. Thanks.

Extremely brief: Nothing happened in HW, things started happening in W&E, lots of stuff happened in TBS, but it doesn't matter because CdE cancelled that one out. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:21, August 14, 2013 (UTC)