How plausible is Turtledove's "The War that Came Early?"
- Thread starter lanem
- Start date
Not amazingly plausible; as with most HT works, there's an annoying degree of parallelism, before, in book 3, a major strategic decision taken by the allies which is a combination of *wall-banger*, *ASB*, *ass-pull* and ridiculous straw-manning.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Not at all plausible. The Nazi Germany of 1938 would have been torn apart in six months. Admittedly one could actually make a very fascinating series about the result of a Franco-British-Soviet-Czechoslovak victory over Hitler in six months but nobody's yet done that. It's in a sense akin to Shattered World in presenting the USSR of 1938 as much weaker by relation to 1938 Germany than was in fact the case. Even with the USSR relying on Romania's good graces to move to the border, in 1938 the USSR's armies are still in the first stages of the Purge, which Stalin *will* relent upon for the duration of the war, while with an undermanned and undergunned Nazi force the actual fighting will be a combination of Czech, Soviet, and French. I highly doubt that Hitler's generals would have actually gone through with the coup in 1938 when the USSR jumped in the war, they feared the consequences of a Soviet victory too much for that.
I don't understand the dogmatic assumption that Germany would automatically have lost in 1938.
Britain did not want to fight. France did not want to fight. In 1939-1940, when they in theory did want to fight, they let Poland go down, then settled into the Phony War until France fell and Britain was pushed off the continent.
I realize on paper that France and Britain were theoretically in better shape than Germany militarily speaking. But even France and Britain did not realize or understand this. Moreover they did not want war. They did not want to relieve 1914-1918 again. Henc Munich.
The USSR didn't share a border with Czechoslovakia. The actual help they could have rendered without invading at least one country they'd made territorial claims against was pretty nil.
In the series itself, the war comes because Konrad Henlein is assassinated and Hitler declares war. Chamberlain and Daladier are dealing with a fait accompli. They can either throw their hands up and go home, or they can declare war. No reason for the populations and militaries of their respective countries to be particularly resolute or determined in those circumstances, especially since it now seems that Britain and France are once again fighting a war because some eastern European murdered some vaguely important German.
So for me, no I don't find much implausible with the fact that France and Britain pussyfoot around in the first volumes of the series.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Note my argument says very little about France but rather more about the Czechs (let's see the Germans shoot their way through mountains against 1,000,000 men and do well at it, they didn't do well unless they were machine-gunning women and children in the back) and the Soviets. At a time when Germany had very little functional armor at all and the USSR had the biggest tank park in Europe. Poor quality tanks v. statistically negligible amounts of tanks = massacre.
Note my observations about the USSR not sharing a border with Czechoslovakia. You still have to cross Poland and Romania to even produce the statistically negligible amount of tanks.
And while your disgust for the Nazis is understandable, even commendable, it doesn't really change the fact that the Germans were capable of doing more than machine-gunning women and children in the back. That disgust certainly isn't proof in and of itself that the Germans couldn't have subdued Czechoslovakia or that the USSR would have been able to get enough ground forces into Czechoslovakia to make a difference.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Romania IIRC had promised to give the USSR access by rail to the theater, and the Soviets were intent on browbeating Poland into it as well. Too, the Czechs are not the Poles, their terrain makes an initial offensive difficult and their leadership relative to 1938 Germany is far more of an even match.
The USSR intending to browbeat Poland does not automatically mean Poland would have been so brow beaten. Indeed, since they were able to carve off a chunk of Czechslovakia for themselves in OTL, they'd have a lot more to gain by telling Stalin to go pound sand than to let the country who'd already attacked them once in living memory cross their frontier, and made continued territorial claims against them.
I've never come across the idea that Romania had promised the USSR a clear path, but in reviewing the history: diplomatic relations between the two countries had pretty well frozen by 1936, and in 1937, the USSR was demanding Bessarabia again. So such an agreement seems woefully short-sighted if true.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Yes, when Czechoslovakia was unwilling to fight. I don't think the Polish military dictatorship will be more significant in 1938 than Italy was in 1940.
The Romanians made the guarantees in 1938, yes, but it was not known until after Soviet archives were opened in 1991. And the guarantee included strict requirements that Soviet troops focus only on the enemy in front of them. Put the USSR of 1938 v. the Germany of 1938 and the Soviets win a cakewalk.
My point is not that Poland will be a useful ally for Germany (thought it won't hurt), but that it is an unlikely route for the USSR.
If the Romanians made that deal, and if they stick to it, and Stalin actually puts competents in charge of the campaign, then, yes, I suppose there could be a quick German defeat. Not "would", but, maybe "could".
Snake Featherston
Banned
I just said the Soviets would try to browbeat the Poles, I didn't say they'd do a good job of it or succeed at it.
No could, but would. The Germans have next to nothing in terms of armor against an enemy with a great deal of poor-quality armor and have to bang their way through the mountains. Against an enemy who's cohesive and who will have far superior discipline and strategic positions to the Soviet army. Add the sheer raw muscle of the Red Army to this and Hitler's regime collapses before it even gets far with T-4, much less the Holocaust.
Don't mistake the Nazis of 1938 for those of 1940. A lot changed in that timeframe.
MSZ
Banned
Pretty implausible. There are too many things that are simply wrong. On top of my head:
1) Hitler declares war - OTL he only did issued such a declaration against the USA, in every other situation he just ordered an attack
2) France and UK going to war just because of this declaration - which didn't change the OTL reasons for which it didn't happen OTL
3) The Hlinka Guards mounting a successful rebellion in 1938 - it barely existed in 1938
4) Poland joining Germany and abandoning France as an ally by attacking Czechoslovakia for no reason - didn't happen OTL (Tsesin was German when the Poles took it over), went completely against the Franco-Polish Alliance which was the cornerstone of its foreign policy.
5) Stalin attacking Poland with no reassurances - goes against Stalin nature, he was quite causious, wouldn't start a Red Alert War.
The idea of the story isn't bad; it might have happened, but would require different PoDs and would play out much different than what the story gives us.
1) Hitler declares war - OTL he only did issued such a declaration against the USA, in every other situation he just ordered an attack
2) France and UK going to war just because of this declaration - which didn't change the OTL reasons for which it didn't happen OTL
3) The Hlinka Guards mounting a successful rebellion in 1938 - it barely existed in 1938
4) Poland joining Germany and abandoning France as an ally by attacking Czechoslovakia for no reason - didn't happen OTL (Tsesin was German when the Poles took it over), went completely against the Franco-Polish Alliance which was the cornerstone of its foreign policy.
5) Stalin attacking Poland with no reassurances - goes against Stalin nature, he was quite causious, wouldn't start a Red Alert War.
The idea of the story isn't bad; it might have happened, but would require different PoDs and would play out much different than what the story gives us.
They and the UK fight a half-assed war in Ethiopia until 1940. They haven't done anything in Europe so far. Mussolini seems to be playing it smarter here than in OTL.
I don't know all that much about it, TBH, but it can't be any more implausible than the German Confederation in For Want of a Nail or any number of things that have happened, or might happen, in DoD.
I have only read the first two and whilst hot on the army side of events his dealing of the naval aspects doesn't show a lot of deviation. Lemp still sinks a passenger ship and their is a sort of Battle of the River Plate in reverse when the Admiral Scheer sinks three British cruisers. The naval causualties in Norway seem to be remarcably similar. However Germany would have had virtually no U-boats and torpedoes that didn't work.
The various individual stories are the things that make the books readable. Hisheroes seem to be largely NCOs. Personally I quite enjoyed reading about Sergeant Walsh's cat but it seems to have disappeared maybe it became the ships cat on the troopship and is destined for several lives like the mythical cat from the Bismarck
The various individual stories are the things that make the books readable. Hisheroes seem to be largely NCOs. Personally I quite enjoyed reading about Sergeant Walsh's cat but it seems to have disappeared maybe it became the ships cat on the troopship and is destined for several lives like the mythical cat from the Bismarck