Turtledove Days of Infamy
- Thread starter Dspoh001
- Start date
Lateknight
Banned
Terriable drivel implausible premise lifeless characters and a plot that goes nowhere what's not to hate?
True, but that doesn't mean it wasn't good. Remember, this is harry turtle we're talking about. A lot of his books were implausible. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy them.
At least Turtledove doesn't refer to every USN aircraft as a "Wildcat"...
It was the first Turtledove book I read.
Overall I liked it, but did feels parts of Hawaii and the surviving Royals were portrayed poorly.
Overall I liked it, but did feels parts of Hawaii and the surviving Royals were portrayed poorly.
Read it two or three years ago. I remember reading that it was implausible but I had fun with it.
Long time ago I read the first one, too implausible to go on reading the second one.
Have the two books.
The IJN managed to invaded Hawaii and managed to repel the first American attempt to retaking the islands. By book two, the occupation takes its toll as the Japanese had to focus on other important places in the Asian-Pacific Theatre. The Japanese did try to have nighttime bombing raids on the US West Coast but those were a one time only raid. Eventually the IJN get destroyed by the second American retaking reminiscent of the Battle of Midway, and Hawaii is retaken and Genda commits suicide.
Does anyone find the idea of native Hawaiians trying to sized with the Japanese ludicrous? The books have one ambitious Hawaiian made provincial governor as the puppet king and a hypocrite for marrying a white wife while trash talking about how whites stole Hawaii. However, he is frankly among a minority that sided with the Japanese while the rest had enough street smarts that it is stupidly suicidal as one scene had one American G.I. revealing that an entire Hawaiian unit only shot two times before waving the white flag.
Is it also weird that I find that the Japanese characters had common Victorian adequate to not to swear in contrast to the Americans who can say "fuck" and "shit?" I cannot find any other Japanese common serviceman to have foul languages except one scene where some guys tried to rape one woman supporting character along the lines of "suck my dick?"
The IJN managed to invaded Hawaii and managed to repel the first American attempt to retaking the islands. By book two, the occupation takes its toll as the Japanese had to focus on other important places in the Asian-Pacific Theatre. The Japanese did try to have nighttime bombing raids on the US West Coast but those were a one time only raid. Eventually the IJN get destroyed by the second American retaking reminiscent of the Battle of Midway, and Hawaii is retaken and Genda commits suicide.
Does anyone find the idea of native Hawaiians trying to sized with the Japanese ludicrous? The books have one ambitious Hawaiian made provincial governor as the puppet king and a hypocrite for marrying a white wife while trash talking about how whites stole Hawaii. However, he is frankly among a minority that sided with the Japanese while the rest had enough street smarts that it is stupidly suicidal as one scene had one American G.I. revealing that an entire Hawaiian unit only shot two times before waving the white flag.
Is it also weird that I find that the Japanese characters had common Victorian adequate to not to swear in contrast to the Americans who can say "fuck" and "shit?" I cannot find any other Japanese common serviceman to have foul languages except one scene where some guys tried to rape one woman supporting character along the lines of "suck my dick?"
Typical Turtledove with too many PoV characters and a plodding plot that could have been handled in far fewer words.
But overall I liked it...maybe especially because I read it during a cruise from Los Angeles to Hawaii. The fact that a successful Japanese invasion of Hawaii was very implausible is irrelevant. It's a novel, people. And its presentation of life in Hawaii under Japanese occupation rang true for the most part, together with a few interesting details regarding restoration of the puppet Hawaiian monarchy under a loser surfer dude and the ironic end of one Japanese Hawaiian.
But overall I liked it...maybe especially because I read it during a cruise from Los Angeles to Hawaii. The fact that a successful Japanese invasion of Hawaii was very implausible is irrelevant. It's a novel, people. And its presentation of life in Hawaii under Japanese occupation rang true for the most part, together with a few interesting details regarding restoration of the puppet Hawaiian monarchy under a loser surfer dude and the ironic end of one Japanese Hawaiian.
It was, okay at least. Not nearly as bad as some of his other work, and not a lot of pointless sex scenes as filler. That's always a plus.
But, believeble? Eh, sorry but no. Japan couldn't take Hawaii.
Couple of reasons:
First, and most importantly: Japan doesn't have the resources. They were stretched thin as it is taking the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia. They do not have the capacity to lift an army to Hawaii, keep the fleet there, and invade. If they try it will fail, and the wasted resources won't be available for their more important campaigns. In other words, the strike south will be a bloody failure without the fleet there to provide support. Additionally, remember a point Turtledove DOES make, it is twice the distance from the Japan to Hawaii as it is from the US to Hawaii. That's important. To keep the planes flying, the ships running, etc. requires fuel. Fuel which has to be shipped from Japan. The capacity to do so simply doesn't exist, not on the time period Turtledove requires. OTL one of the big reasons Japan didn't launch a third wave was that by doing so they would exhaust their fuel supply and be forced to abandon the destroyers on the way back to Japan. Now, imagine that instead of sticking around another six hours they instead were there for days. No ship is making it home from that.
Second, the American defenses were too strong. Despite the myth that has developed around Pearl Harbor it didn't damage the American ability to defend the island. There were 45,000 marines there, who know the terrain, and who have just enough space to defend in depth, while still maintaining a front so narrow it cannot be flanked. Oh, one other thing, the northern beaches? They are known as wonderful surfing areas, because the waves can be some twelve feet high. Imagine trying to land in that kind of water. Its suicide.
In other words, logistics are completely ignored, as with much of Turtledove's work, etc.
For your point about Turtledove being a historian, yes he is and he does have a PhD...in Byzantine history. WWII and the Byzantine Empire are ever so slightly different subjects. Its like saying that because I'm an accountant I can do a corporate tax return. I can't, I'm an auditor by training and profession. The one does not lead to the other.
Last edited:
Nothing. Read "Hawaii under the Rising Sun" (1984) by John Stephan and published by the University of Hawaii Press. University presses don't normally print schlock by amateurs. According to Stephan, Japan seriously considered Hawaii invasion scenarios from as early as 1909 through 1941 but in WW2 decided against it for the logistic and resource limitation reasons mentioned by others. But the fact that Japan considered an invasion and actually went so far as to plot the details of naval forces, aircraft, manpower, and supply such an effort would take. Imperial Japan made a lot of extremely bad decisions in WW2, so why not create novels around this one? Some people on this board are too hung up on so-called reality and plausibility. Actual nations sometimes attempt some really implausible things some time.
To be completely honest, it's not unlikely.
A lot of the former Ali'i and other upperclass Hawaiians did marry into white families.
Not sure how strong the independence movement was, though.
I never said they couldn't attempt it, just that they wouldn't be successful. And please note, I said I enjoyed the books despite their implausibility. It was the OP who wanted an explanation of why they were implausible.