There's no way to know for sure, of course but I'd guess whoevers desk it landed on initially liked it and those did others the initial reviewer explained the premise to. But after things moved forward others got their hands on it, not just higher up in the food chain, but also other departments including and especially marketing once it reached the "release might happen" state. And given how often I've read negative reports about Sealion Press being staffed with Twitter-mob types over the last few years, it was only a matter of time until it reached the notice of someone who took offense over the mere concept that Stalin could be more evil, than Mussolini in any world. That's not how he or she phrased it of course and hid behind the "correct" buzzwords instead, which no one else there dared contradict.
I've only read the first few pages of this TL. I don't much care for the "extracts from different sources" style of TL. That's my personal taste, and has no implications one way or the other regarding the quality of the TL. Since I have only read a portion of the TL, I cannot comment on it one way or the other.
As a publisher, and one who has had books and anthologies published through SLP, I
can comment on the publishing process.
Regarding SLP as a large publishing house with various desks and staff higher up the food chain is not how small press works. SLP (and Sergeant Frosty Publications, my own publishing company) operate with tiny, tiny numbers of staff. I can't know for sure how many people are involved on the staff of SLP; my guess would be 2 or maybe 3, tops. SFP consists of 3 people total; me, a cover artist, and a proof reader. As owner and publisher, I'm the only person involved in the decision making process. I'll listen to the views of the proof reader who has, after all, read every word of the submission carefully (I pay them, so they'd better read every word carefully, or I'll be looking for a new proof reader). I would be astonished if the staff levels of SLP is significantly different from that.
The concept of various departments existing within SLP is simply away with the Fairies. Small press publishing is not big publishing companies. We're operating on a shoestring, and poor decisions can have major repercussions. If I publish a book that doesn't at least cover costs, I'm in trouble. We simply don't have the resources to take a punt on a book that may be a poor bet. At least, not without being aware of the risk involved.
And given how often I've read negative reports about Sealion Press being staffed with Twitter-mob types
I know the main people involved in running SLP. If those are the reports you've read, those reports are, quite simply, wrong. Tom is left-wing, for sure, and politically active. I'm not sure he's got a Twitter account. I've certainly not come across him there, and I frequent the writing sections there (for obvious reasons). I'm always on the lookout for authors of YA Historical Fiction. The SLP Twitter account is run by Thomas, who is, first and foremost, an academic.
The depiction you give is simply wrong, and the reports you got that from erred.
You're right that they have no obligation to publish anything as any other publisher, but I still find it shocking considering how many works in the AH community who do not endorse racist regimes but still portray problematic scenarios and time periods(Man in the High Castle, pretty much all of Turtledove's works, hell even the timelines from my friends here about Rome and North Korea fir example) would never be published under similar rulings/scrutiny
I can speak with authority from the point of view of a small press publisher what the decision making process would have been (in general terms. Obviously, I'm not privy to specifics in this case. I'm not the publisher.)
I have four decision points in the run up to publication. Firstly, does the concept grab my attention. If it does, then I'll give the author a notice to proceed, although I'd make it clear that this is an expression of interest, not a formal commission. The first stage is simply a potential publication, one that needs to be nurtured.
Secondly, I'll look at a full first draft. That's when I'll make a semi-firm decision. I'll highlight what needs to be changed (for example, I had to tell an author to cut out a couple of sex scenes. The book was aimed at an 8-12 age range. Sorry, not going to happen. Other than that, the book was a good one and, with the relevant changes, is now published, and making steady sales). It's a semi-firm decision based on the full first draft. It's not a final decision.
Thirdly, when the book has been proofed and is more or less ready, I'll have a discussion with the proof reader, who'll give me a run-down of the book in detail. That way, I have a clear idea of the full book from a different pair of eyes.
Fourthly, and finally, I'll try the first couple of chapters, maybe the first 10% of a book, out on people who fit the target readership. I don't give a damn what people outside of the target readership think of the book. I'm not trying to sell to them. I'll listen to what they say about the book, whether they want to read more, what they think of it.
Then I read the first 10% myself in some detail. I'll flick through it as a potential reader might when picking it up off of the shelf. The book needs to persuade that potential reader to hand over their hard-earned money on the book. If they put the book back on the shelf, I don't pay the mortgage. If they buy it, I do.
I'm not interested in aspects like: "Does the tone change towards the end?" or "You need to read it with this context in mind," or whatever. Either I'm (and by I, I mean the target reader) persuaded by the first 10% of the book and occasional flicks through the rest, in which case I'll go ahead and publish. Or I'm not, in which case I don't.
"If you read the book in full" cuts no ice with me. None whatsoever. The reader isn't going to slog through a book to find the hidden gems deep inside.
This is the point at which I make my judgement call. Do I think the book will cover costs or not? That's the only question I have in mind.
I can pretty much guarantee SLP went through a similar process. The precise details might be different, but function follows form, and all that is of interest is whether the publisher thinks the book will make a profit. That's why we're doing it. We're not charities.
Well, except when we're publishing something like
Building a Better Future, an anthology where all the proceeds are going to the Ukraine appeal with the Red Cross, to help, in a small way, with the huge costs of reconstruction of that country. But that was a policy decision by the management of SFP (me) to do so.
I don't know the AH market as well as Tom (also known as the Management of SLP) does. He's got all the details of what has sold well and what hasn't, and he'll have a fair idea of the market. My impression is that the Extracts from Sources style is one that simply isn't that popular. There's a reason why so few books of that type have been published in the last decade. Doubtless there are some; Drake's Drum, for example, manages to do so. But, in general, that doesn't seem to be a common style at the moment.
And, with just having read the first bits of it, I can quite see why, given the situation in Ukraine, a publisher would get very twitchy indeed about something that appears to praise Benito Mussolini as a great saviour of the Jews.
It's quite likely SLP didn't handle rejecting the piece as well as it should. That's almost certainly down to a lack of time and an excess of pressure. Indeed, getting any sort of explanation as to why a piece is rejected is something of a rarity. I always try to give a reason for rejecting a piece, and I've never known an author take it well. More typically, a piece will simply be rejected without explanation.
But I can guarantee that the decision was based upon a publisher calculation that with the market in the current situation, they deemed that a book would (or would not) make a profit.