2018 Turtledoves - Best Cold War to Contemporary Timeline Poll FINAL

[Callan]

In fact the main problem is that people are confusing implausible with impossible

I am not.

My main gripe with NDCR is this: it is simply impossible for Nelson Mandela and the ANC to make any kind deal with the South African Government (especially one led by Andries Treurnicht) which maintains the system of Apartheid in any form. It just wouldn't happen. It is not just wrong to suggest that that is possible, it is offensive to Nelson Mandela and the cause he stood for to suggest that he would. And that level of disregard for history in the name of allegedly good writing goes to the heart of the problems with NDCR.

 

[Admiral Halsey]

I am not.

My main gripe with NDCR is this: it is simply impossible for Nelson Mandela and the ANC to make any kind deal with the South African Government (especially one led by Andries Treurnicht) which maintains the system of Apartheid in any form. It just wouldn't happen. It is not just wrong to suggest that that is possible, it is offensive to Nelson Mandela and the cause he stood for to suggest that he would. And that level of disregard for history in the name of allegedly good writing goes to the heart of the problems with NDCR.

Except you are mistaking implausible for impossible. I honestly read the whole thing as a Molotov-Ribbentrop style deal.(something that if OTL was a story would be called impossible and ASB) Something that's gonna eventually break and everyone knows it but at the moment there is something uniting the two.

 

[Callan]

Except you are mistaking implausible for impossible.

I'm not, though. It's not implausible for Mandela to do a Molotov-Ribbentrop deal because it's impossible for him to do it; it goes against all his words and deeds on the subject. Making him do that is effectively turning him into a fictional character. My evidence for this is the fact that he rejected a peace deal from P.W. Botha OTL because it would require him to renounce political violence.

Something that's gonna eventually break and everyone knows it but at the moment there is something uniting the two.

That is not an accurate reading of the history of 20th-century South Africa.

I feel like you're being very disingenuous about what people are saying what is impossible and implausible about the TL, as well as the fact that a high level of implausibility generally makes for a bad quality TL. The best and most original AH stories are not doing implausible things, they are doing things that are plausible that most people don't realise are plausible, based on PoDs that aren't well-known. Not making OTL figures say and do things that are antithetical to their real life beliefs and actions.

 

[SargentHawk]

This is not the place for this conversation gentleman. Its a tradition to make posts boosting a timeline, but its down right rude and unsportsmanlike to shoot others down

 

[Admiral Halsey]

This is not the place for this conversation gentleman. Its a tradition to make posts boosting a timeline, but its down right rude and unsportsmanlike to shoot others down

If it seems like I'm trying to shoot down NSS I'm not. Hell I did say I like it better them NDCR after all.

 

[Callan]

This is not the place for this conversation gentleman. Its a tradition to make posts boosting a timeline, but its down right rude and unsportsmanlike to shoot others down

If I cannot discuss the merits of a Turtledove Nominated TL here, where should I? Especially considering how impervious to criticism the TL's author has been in the actual thread. I'd generally ignore NDCR completely but you can only take the 'let's pretend it doesn't exist' thing so far. When it's literally at the Turtledove-winning stage, I don't see why I or anyone else shouldn't express opinions on the nominees.

I don't mean to be unsporting. If you're going to vote for any one TL, don't vote for Presidential, vote for @CanadianTory's Lazarus, Icarus and Canadian Politics; a TL which has had much more dedication than my own piece of Flash Fiction.

 

[Admiral Halsey]

I feel like you're being very disingenuous about what people are saying what is impossible and implausible about the TL, as well as the fact that a high level of implausibility generally makes for a bad quality TL. The best and most original AH stories are not doing implausible things, they are doing things that are plausible that most people don't realise are plausible, based on PoDs that aren't well-known. Not making OTL figures say and do things that are antithetical to their real life beliefs and actions.

The main two things I'm seeing being complained about are the Prague spring and the Mandela deal. The first I always thought Khrushchev just blanked on it. It's happened before to leaders and him becoming paralyzed over what to do is my own theory on why he didn't crush it.

As for Mandela the PoD is during Ikes presidency. There is another 30+ years post PoD for his views to change or something to happen that could convince him to take the deal. This isn't a Notler situation here as there are many things give how changed the world is during the 30+ years since the PoD that have again may have changed how willing he'd be to make a deal. Something you seem to be ignoring.

 

[Callan]

It's happened before to leaders and him becoming paralyzed over what to do is my own theory on why he didn't crush it.

Any Soviet leader who "blanked" in such a scenario would be replaced by one who didn't in pretty short order. It's the main reason he didn't in Hungary in 1956.

As for Mandela the PoD is during Ikes presidency. There is another 30+ years post PoD for his views to change or something to happen that could convince him to take the deal. This isn't a Notler situation here as there are many things give how changed the world is during the 30+ years since the PoD that have again may have changed how willing he'd be to make a deal. Something you seem to be ignoring.

Again, "butterflies" doesn't wash here, as you can't just handwave something such a dramatic reversal without explanation. Butterflies work when they're explained and are based on real life events. "Hillary Clinton is a Republican politician" is a plausible butterfly because she was a Republican in the 1960s and switched parties based on their shifting positions in the late 60s; different nominees, election results and personal circumstances for the woman herself might change that. "Nelson Mandela compromises on Apartheid" isn't remotely plausible because it involves him going back on everything he stood for, and there aren't butterflies capable of penetrating his cell on Robben Island present in the TL.

 

[Napoleon IV]

The main two things I'm seeing being complained about are the Prague spring and the Mandela deal. The first I always thought Khrushchev just blanked on it. It's happened before to leaders and him becoming paralyzed over what to do is my own theory on why he didn't crush it.

If a Soviet leader post-Stalin became paralyzed over what to do the Politburo would tell him. The moment the Politburo heard that Czechoslovakia was sounding out NATO they would go to Khrushchev and say "Look Nikita Sergeyevich, we're invading Czechoslovakia. Are you with the program or do you want to step aside?" At any rate, a reader's headcanon isn't enough; the author actually has to explain why something happened. Actually, here's a tip for TL writers: if you're going to include something unusual or implausible you have to take the time to explain why it happened. It may make perfect sense to you, but to the readers it's going to seem like you just threw something in there without thinking it through.

 

[Zharques]

I'm sorry, but the continual hate for NDCR has become a little irksome now lads. Conditions change who people are, and we are all shaped by the world around us. A NDCR-verse Mandela, with Nixon elected in 1960 is not going to be the same as 1960 JFK OTL verse Mandela.

it is simply impossible for Nelson Mandela and the ANC to make any kind deal with the South African Government

It isn't though. Sure, it was for OTL Mandela, but this isn't OTL Mandela. As I said above we are shaped by our experiences everyday. So many years of differing experiences there is absolutely no reason to say that he wouldn't cut a deal. The Congressmen has given enough justification for this. Ergo, the argument should be instead "I don't like this timeline" as opposed to "this timeline is bad".

Especially considering how impervious to criticism the TL's author has been in the actual thread.

Yeah nah mate, sorry but this simply isn't true. The Congressman has copped criticism after criticism in his thread, some of which has made his revisit his work and style, others of which have not. I applaud his continued resilience, especially since a work he has poured years into continues to receive relentless criticisms based on the direction he wanted to take. And the criticisms he faces DOES seem disproportionate compared with other timelines.

 

[Jack Hawksmoor]

All these people are liking my posts in this thread, but I'm not actually getting any new votes from it

If you're interested, my timeline is in my signature - it takes the "contemporary" part of the category seriously, and has the distinction of being perhaps one of the only timelines to predict a multitude of real-life events before they actually happened [so much that I wrote a joke ending riffing off of that fact]

I honestly did not expect to enjoy a timeline with such a POD that much. I've spent the evening reading it and I was amazed how original it kept being despite the close timeline.

It gets my wholehearted endorsement.

 

[RyanF]

Does the defence of NDCR's portrayal of Mandela count as whitesplaining?

 

[Gonzo]

I don't mean to be unsporting. If you're going to vote for any one TL, don't vote for Presidential, vote for @CanadianTory's Lazarus, Icarus and Canadian Politics; a TL which has had much more dedication than my own piece of Flash Fiction.

I strongly echo this. Lazarus has been a real joy to read and would certainly be a worthy Turtledove winner.

 

[Heavy]

Ergo, the argument should be instead "I don't like this timeline" as opposed to "this timeline is bad".

What if you dislike it because you think it's bad?

Edit: Actually, shouldn't it be taken as a given that people think something is bad if they don't like it? Granted, that won't always be the case, but surely it is so overwhelmingly often enough that the assumption can be safely made?

What's the point of all this hair-splitting?

 

[Redolegna]

I am not.

My main gripe with NDCR is this: it is simply impossible for Nelson Mandela and the ANC to make any kind deal with the South African Government (especially one led by Andries Treurnicht) which maintains the system of Apartheid in any form. It just wouldn't happen. It is not just wrong to suggest that that is possible, it is offensive to Nelson Mandela and the cause he stood for to suggest that he would. And that level of disregard for history in the name of allegedly good writing goes to the heart of the problems with NDCR.

Even if we were to leave the matter over Mandela slide, which we shouldn't, there is then the problem that this sort of things pop up everywhere. To use one example I'm familiar with, de Gaulle fails to reform the Fourth Republic and not only stays on, but meekly agrees to be elected a completely irrelevant President in NDCR. Which, no. Any passing knowledge of de Gaulle would show that he was willing to commit career suicide many times over rather than that. And did. Twice. And this won't change because of 'the distance of the POD'. By the time the POD occurred, de Gaulle had had his formative experiences, and those were the constant parliamentary crises of his childhood and youth, and the complete collapse of the Third Republic in 1940.

Plus, after being succeeded by a military man who never showed a willingness to participate in politics and did not join the OAS to try and keep Algeria French whereas a good many did, the eventual PM is a man whose only passing acquaintances with politics is some questionable ties with Vichy and the occupying Germans.

And that's supposed to bring plausibility?

 

[Callan]

Conditions change who people are, and we are all shaped by the world around us. A NDCR-verse Mandela, with Nixon elected in 1960 is not going to be the same as 1960 JFK OTL verse Mandela.

You're right, but by the time of the PoD Mandela had already gone through the formative experiences that would make him unbending and uncompromising on the cause of black liberation and destroying Apartheid.

I'm astonished by the amount of people how don't understand who butterflies work.

Ergo, the argument should be instead "I don't like this timeline" as opposed to "this timeline is bad".

No. Stop telling me what I think. I dislike the TL because it is bad. They are not mutually exclusive things.

 

[Geordie]

You're right, but by the time of the PoD Mandela had already gone through the formative experiences that would make him unbending and uncompromising on the cause of anti-Apartheid.

I'm astonished by the amount of people who don't understand who butterflies work.

This. All of this.

If the PoD is the US presidential election of 1960, I fail to see how Mandela, who was over forty at the time, and involved in liberation politics since the second world war, would change his mind on such a fundamental topic as apartheid.

 

[galileo-034]

Even if we were to leave the matter over Mandela slide, which we shouldn't, there is then the problem that this sort of things pop up everywhere. To use one example I'm familiar with, de Gaulle fails to reform the Fourth Republic and not only stays on, but meekly agrees to be elected a completely irrelevant President in NDCR. Which, no. Any passing knowledge of de Gaulle would show that he was willing to commit career suicide many times over rather than that. And did. Twice. And this won't change because of 'the distance of the POD'. By the time the POD occurred, de Gaulle had had his formative experiences, and those were the constant parliamentary crises of his childhood and youth, and the complete collapse of the Third Republic in 1940.

Plus, after being succeeded by a military man who never showed a willingness to participate in politics and did not join the OAS to try and keep Algeria French whereas a good many did, the eventual PM is a man whose only passing acquaintances with politics is some questionable ties with Vichy and the occupying Germans.

And that's supposed to bring plausibility?

That one, Congressman changed it in the Finished TL version, having de Gaulle shot by a Communist in 1958 and replaced by Bidault.

 

[Redolegna]

That one, Congressman changed it in the Finished TL version, having de Gaulle shot by a Communist in 1958 and replaced by Bidault.

Because those are two things that would happen.

 

[Heavy]

I'm confused - are there two versions of this story up for two different awards?