DBWI: The Turtledove TL-191 Discussion Thread.

[VidaLaVida]

Do you think Turtledove was conscious that as Hitler is obviously TTL's Featherstone, he deliberately made his personality so different. Otherwise he'd be accused of simply ripping off OTL (more than he already is)? I think he went a bit too far in making Hitler really fucked up. I mean - similar to your points - he was pretty much celebate, bad tempered, a non smoker, non drinker, vegetarian, unpopular during GW1/WW1 and then there was that bit in 'The Centre Cannot Hold' with his infatuation with his own neice, who ends up committing suicide because of him! Sure, you could have maybe one or two of any of those traits, but it's like Turtledove's taken every bad and weird trait you could think of and plonked them all into one man.


I know he wasn't a main character, but he was mentioned quite a bit, but Mussolini in Italy seemed too much of a clown. His posturing as a tough guy but then he seemed to mess up in so many ways which often ended up in Hitler bailing him out. I'm sure Turtledove mentions him to inject a bit of comedy, but its too much and just doesn't seem very realistic to me.

I think yes, that Turtledove was somehow trying to differentiate Hitler from Featherston. But there could've been a lot of ways to do this in a more redeemable way. Maybe he could've played up Hitler's artistic side and love of Wagner, for example, and made him a genuinly cultured man who loved German art and music and could produce it himself. That would be different, certainly; Featherston may have been a shrewd politician, but he was a very, VERY provincial man. I've never, ever been able to finish reading Over Open Sights, and it's not because of the disgusting content, it's because the guy writes like a C-average high school student the night before the essay assignment is due, trying to stretch one thesis ("I hate n***ers! I hate Whigs! I hate Socialists! I hate Yankees!") out into a whole book.

Turtledove lost an opportunity to do something different with Hitler, by maybe making him a genuinly eloquent and culturally-sensitive individual. Alas, according to the book, his Mein Kampf is just as crappy a read as Over Open Sights.

And yeah, Mussolini was unrealistic to me, too. Obviously, he's meant to be the Francisco Jose II analog: the weak, unwilling minor power leader who becomes Featherston's stooge. But again, Francisco Jose was at least a human being: a spineless, talentless loser of a human being, but still. Just another example of Turtledove putting entertainment before realistic history: if the funny pages have taught us anything, it's that if you have an evil, cat-stroking villain, he's gotta have a bumbling doofus of a sidekick!

The idea of Churchill being so staunchly democratic and anti-fascist is something I and other Brits have big problems with. In OTL, he was a huge stain on this nation. Yes the regime in theory was a Silvershirt-Conservative coalition and he was the Conservative side of it. But it was a coalition nontheless and the Conservatives were willing and eager participants, under Churchill's lead. It was Churchill and his supporters who engineered the internal coup within the Conservatives to oust the moderates such as Baldwin, Chamberlain and Halifax so they could link up with Mosley's mob. (The idea that in TTL - Churchill actually has Mosley arrested and interned for the duration of the war is funny I suppose.)
But then thinking about it in OTL, Churchill was a mainstream politician until the end of GW1 in what was one of the most democratic countries in the world at that time. So I suppose in a scenario where Britain comes out of GW1 victorious, democracy isn't under threat and Churchill continues in that tradition. I can understand that, but why does it have to be Churchill who becomes the big icon and hero? I mean in TTL, he even falls out of favour sitting as a back bench MP and writing history books. Why not just leave him like that? sure, he's not a monster in TTL - we get it - fine, but why make a hero out of him?

That's actually a very interesting point, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to get a real British perspective on this issue. Well, on one hand, it could partially just be Turtledove playing with expectations and showing us how different things could've been. But on the other hand, maybe it's something more; in contrast to the caricatures that are Hitler and Mussolini, maybe Turtledove was actually making an attempt at nuance and relativism with Churchill, demonstrating that, when certain historical figures are put in different situations, they could've had the opportunity to be different, and maybe even better, people, and leave a more positive legacy behind them.

Here on AH.com, the Post-1900 Forum is constantly filled with "WI: Jake Featherston, Champion of Democracy" or "DBWI: President Featherston a Dictator" threads. You can see why, right? Because it's possible. As I said above, Featherston was a human being with tiny slivers of positivity in him. If he had had the chance at a fulfilling military career, or if he had grown up in a Virginia that was part of an undivided United States, maybe he could've been happier and more stable. He could've become the first Radical Liberal President of the Confederate States, or a respected U.S. Senator from Virginia.

From what I've read about Churchill, there's similar potential with him, too. If the circumstances that Britain underwent in the early 20th century were different, maybe there could've been a chance where his positive traits, like his stubborn determination and quick wit, were given the chance to shine. He could've gotten help for his Bipolar Disorder and become a more mentally grounded individual. Mosley...I don't know, I can't think of a way to fix him, but with Churchill, I think the kernels were there.

Hell, this is actually a common pattern I've seen among quite a few major Entente leaders; the idea that they could've been good people and leaders if given the chance. You ever read any biographies about Tsar Michael II, for example? His early years really show that he could've been somebody other than an autocratic tyrant who made Alexander III look like a teddy bear: the way he criticized his brother Nicholas over his handling of both of Russia's failed revolutions in 1905 and in early 1917, his youthful flirtation with British-style constitutional monarchy, etc. It may be a controversial point given today's quick assumptions and years of history being written by the winners (I'm thinking especially of the propaganda drilled into the British people during the German postwar occupation), but it's something that it's important to be reminded of: that people are not born good or bad, but are shaped by circumstances.

On the other hand, we go back to Hitler, and we see Turtledove utterly fail at consistently showing this principle. Somehow, I don't think the people of TL-191 will be posting "WI: Adolf Hitler, Champion of the Weimar Republic" threads on the TTL Alternatehistory.com anytime soon.

btw, as a Briton, what's your opinion about the strong Anglo-American alliance that emerged over the course of the story? I know a lot has happened between our countries, but to me, this was one of the more positive aspects of the story. We have way too much in common culturally to have wasted so much time fighting; I think it's good to think that we could've found common ground a lot sooner, and without so much pain along the way.

 

[Tom_NUFC]

btw, as a Briton, what's your opinion about the strong Anglo-American alliance that emerged over the course of the story? I know a lot has happened between our countries, but to me, this was one of the more positive aspects of the story. We have way too much in common culturally to have wasted so much time fighting; I think it's good to think that we could've found common ground a lot sooner, and without so much pain along the way.

You know, its both logical and encouraging. Pretty much what happened from 1914 for the next 30 years or so, has wiped out the fact that Britain had been one of, if not THE leading nation in terms of advancing democracy and placing so much value on democratic traditions.

The United States owes its entire existence to those British values of democracy and rights. So if Britain had stayed completely neutral during the war of succession (American civil war as Turtledove terms it) then I think its totally plausible that the events he describes would have drawn Britain and the US together. Had Britain been able to continue those democratic values, then they have so much in common.

Even during the interwar years there was kind of a kinship between the Socialists in the US and Labour in Britain. But then as we got into the mid 30s, loads of Labour's prominent politicians and members were harassed, beaten and even murdered by the Silvershirts and imprisoned by the regime. One in particular was a pretty firey female Labour MP called Ellen Wilkinson ('Red Ellen') who, during the 1920s and early 30s was almost echoing many of the same points that Flora Blackford (nee Hamburger - as she was at the time) was saying. But with the two countries going in different directions, it became impossible for Labour in Britain, and other Socialist parties in the Entente countries to either form or maintain relationships with their counterparts in the Alliance powers. Ellen Wilkinson was arrested and imprisoned in about 1938/39 after extensive harassment and she died in prison. I don't know if she and Blackford ever corresponded at any point (I know there was some clandestine correspondence took place between Labour and US Socialists during the interwar period), but its just tragic that the chance to work together didn't/couldn't take place.

It kind of puts a whole different spin on things because in OTL its been that the US and Britain have been enemies since 1775, with flashpoints of 1812, 1860s, 1880s, 1914 and 1939 and periods of distant even icy neutrality in between.

This one, with Britain remaining neutral in the 1860s, there's a long period of friendly but distant neutrality up until 1915-1917 and then a strong alliance and friendliness. Sure the interwar period, the US were isolationist, but still largely friendly with Britain.

There's a lot of people I think who can't get past it, simply because of the history of OTL.

I think its sad that in OTL events pitted probably the two greatest democracies against each other which led one (Britain) into a ruinous and evil regime during GW2.

At first glance TTL may seem a bit black and white by having the US and the continuing democratic Britain on the same side, but for all his flaws, I think Turtledove got that spot on - it makes so much sense. Its redeeming, and I could be wrong, but I gather that in TTL no two democracies went to war with each other. I think that's perhaps a critique of the tragedy of OTL that two democratic countries should be able to sit down and work out their differences because if they both believe in democracy then there's already a lot of common ground to be rational and work it out without resorting to war. I think Turtledove's saying as you say, a lot of pain could have been avoided if at some point Britain and the US had sat down and talked.

Maybe that goes right back to the British Minister, Lord Lyon's visit to Abraham Lincoln at the White House to inform him of the British government's position. I believe Lincoln asked, even pleaded for a deal to be struck with the British. Lord Lyon was known to be personally sympathetic to Lincoln but said straight out he had to carry out the instructions of the British government. Perhaps he should've gone back, because they didn't know about Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. If Lord Lyons had gone back and informed them, maybe that could have changed things? Even in the 1880s and then again with the GW1 looming, there could have been room. But maybe by then the relationship and grudges were just too deep.

 

[Superman]

I think it's pretty unrealistic that the French didn't support the Rebs(OOC: I live in CT, so in TTL, I would probably call them by their TTL nickname) during the War of Secession. Sure, the British were divided over it, but the French wanted a puppet in Mexico, and they couldn't do that with America big and strong right above them. The book shows the French Intervention in Mexico, which apparently failed in TL-191, but the French wouldn't be that dumb!

 

[LNSS]

I think it's pretty unrealistic that the French didn't support the Rebs(OOC: I live in CT, so in TTL, I would probably call them by their TTL nickname) during the War of Secession. Sure, the British were divided over it, but the French wanted a puppet in Mexico, and they couldn't do that with America big and strong right above them. The book shows the French Intervention in Mexico, which apparently failed in TL-191, but the French wouldn't be that dumb!

It faield because they had the Germans next to their homeland. Napoleon III was an idiot in this story

 

[GeorgeUK]

Mosley...I don't know, I can't think of a way to fix him, but with Churchill, I think the kernels were there.

Hell, this is actually a common pattern I've seen among quite a few major Entente leaders; the idea that they could've been good people and leaders if given the chance. You ever read any biographies about Tsar Michael II, for example? His early years really show that he could've been somebody other than an autocratic tyrant who made Alexander III look like a teddy bear: the way he criticized his brother Nicholas over his handling of both of Russia's failed revolutions in 1905 and in early 1917, his youthful flirtation with British-style constitutional monarchy, etc. It may be a controversial point given today's quick assumptions and years of history being written by the winners (I'm thinking especially of the propaganda drilled into the British people during the German postwar occupation), but it's something that it's important to be reminded of: that people are not born good or bad, but are shaped by circumstances.

On the other hand, we go back to Hitler, and we see Turtledove utterly fail at consistently showing this principle. Somehow, I don't think the people of TL-191 will be posting "WI: Adolf Hitler, Champion of the Weimar Republic" threads on the TTL Alternatehistory.com anytime soon.

btw, as a Briton, what's your opinion about the strong Anglo-American alliance that emerged over the course of the story? I know a lot has happened between our countries, but to me, this was one of the more positive aspects of the story. We have way too much in common culturally to have wasted so much time fighting; I think it's good to think that we could've found common ground a lot sooner, and without so much pain along the way.

For me, Mosley was one of the most grating parts of the series. Britain wins WWI...and yet he still deserts the Labour Party in favour of fascism, just as he did in OTL.

As for the post-war occupation, it would certainly explain Germany's predilection for tea, fish & chips, and complaining about the weather. Not sure about the battered bratwurst though. When I played in last year's German Open (OOC: Nothing saying I can't be TTL's Rory McIlroy ) the course would have been equally at home on the Scottish coast.

Speaking of Britain and Germany, does anyone here reckon the new "Silver Bullet" line to Hamburg will be completed on schedule? And what do you think of the plans to extend it so it'll be possible, eventually, to travel nonstop from London to Berlin by train?

 

[Tom_NUFC]

I think it's pretty unrealistic that the French didn't support the Rebs(OOC: I live in CT, so in TTL, I would probably call them by their TTL nickname) during the War of Secession. Sure, the British were divided over it, but the French wanted a puppet in Mexico, and they couldn't do that with America big and strong right above them. The book shows the French Intervention in Mexico, which apparently failed in TL-191, but the French wouldn't be that dumb!

I know what you're saying. But as you say, Britain was divided, so it's plausible that Britain stayed neutral. I think that if Britain was neutral, France may have pro-Confederacy feelings but would probably be reluctant to act alone without British support. I think it stems from the fact that the US found the 191 Orders which exposed the Confederate positions. Of course, it didn't result in an immediate US victory, but it strengthened them and caused Britain (in particular) and France to remain cautious, and then the Confederates never regained the advantage to sway Britain and France decisively into their corner.

 

[Tom_NUFC]

For me, Mosley was one of the most grating parts of the series. Britain wins WWI...and yet he still deserts the Labour Party in favour of fascism, just as he did in OTL.

As for the post-war occupation, it would certainly explain Germany's predilection for tea, fish & chips, and complaining about the weather. Not sure about the battered bratwurst though. When I played in last year's German Open (OOC: Nothing saying I can't be TTL's Rory McIlroy ) the course would have been equally at home on the Scottish coast.

Speaking of Britain and Germany, does anyone here reckon the new "Silver Bullet" line to Hamburg will be completed on schedule? And what do you think of the plans to extend it so it'll be possible, eventually, to travel nonstop from London to Berlin by train?

It'll be completed at our end on time, not sure about the Germans. They might not get their high speed line in place, so we might all spend a few years on their slower lines!

The line to Germany is great news. Its taken a while though. How many decades has the Edinburgh to Marseille line been running now?

 

[Luath]

You know on the subject of Railways, you would be amazed at just how many Germany steam enthusiasts are fans of British Railways. You see after the war the Deutchbahn embarked upon a rapid modernization program, which saw the large desalinization of the Bahn and the last Steam services in Germany ended in 1965.

However in Britain, the modernization process happened at a much slower pace, also the rampant destruction wrecked upon the rail system during the war allow the new 'British Railway Executive' to start afresh. Thanks to the work of Robert Riddles and his team, BR ended up fielding the most modern fleet of Steam Locomotives in Europe and many were to end up working well into the 1980s.

As a result nearly every steam fan in Germany decamped en-mass to Britain. Carl Von Zarel, an enthusiast from Saxony founded the 'Locomotives club of Germany' which arranged many railtours in both Germany and Britain. To this day there is a huge group within the Railway modelling community, Germans, that exclusively model BR and Hornby plc does a roaring trade on the continent as a result.

 

[GeorgeUK]

It'll be completed at our end on time, not sure about the Germans. They might not get their high speed line in place, so we might all spend a few years on their slower lines!

The line to Germany is great news. Its taken a while though. How many decades has the Edinburgh to Marseille line been running now?

I think it's going to be the 20th anniversary this year since the Paris line was extended to the Riviera.

As for the steam thing, it's also interesting that many of the Riddles designs still had at least 10 years of service ahead of them at the same time the Silver Bullet first entered service. And some of the Stanier designs were over 50 years old when steam ended in the 1980s, and (mostly) as good as new!

One interesting thing is how TTL's Germans will be viewed by the British come 2012. I can imagine that a few British football fans ITTL would mention the war whenever Britain and Germany play each other, similar to the way certain groups of Irish fans do OTL. (Thank god they don't do that in golf as well, if they'd seen me win the Irish Open at the 72nd hole there'd have been a riot! )

 

[Tom_NUFC]

Well, it was a long time ago. It'd probably not be so different. Germany would probably reintegrated into the international community by the mid 50s. a few jingoistic comments here and there, but as in OTL they're probably getting outdated and fewer.

It'd be interesting to know how British and German industry developed post war.

I wonder if the British motor industry declined the way Germany's did in OTL.

The Germans make loads of cars, but mainly for foreign companies.

I mean look at the Bug. An iconic German car from the late 50s to mid 90s - the design barely changed. Massive global success. Then after Deutschewagen went under, the Bug brand was bought by Alvis and revamped about a decade ago. There's lots of jokes here about the irony of such a famous German car now being British!

Sure BMW are still around, but they were bought by Ford and now have Namibian owners - Windhoek Industries. They're still German made though and I think in reality they can still be classed as German.

Horch are owned by Austin.

The only indepedent German car maker is Mercedes Benz, but they also spen a time under Ford ownership and these days, although a German company are actually a consortium of international investors, and Ford still has a stake in them. Lovely cars, but out of the price range of most people!

Oh yeah and they have Opels in Germany which is merely what the Germans call Vauxhalls!

 

[jycee]

On the whole Britain thing, I for one found it really clever how Turteldove solved British politics to have them stay democratic / pro-labour. Including the moment where King Edward VIII abdicates for and American actress, and then on top that King Albert takes the name George VI since the name would have no stigma in TTL.

The whole Churchill being the hero is interesting. A few good ideas comments have been made about him, and I hope it has something to do with the idea of democracies not going to war with each other. However, the fact that he uses Churchill as a stand-in for President LaFollette, makes me wonder if maybe Turtledove's own political opinions are in display there. Is he that staunch s Democrat? Or am I reading too much into that.

 

[CaliBoy1990]

Well, it was a long time ago. It'd probably not be so different. Germany would probably reintegrated into the international community by the mid 50s. a few jingoistic comments here and there, but as in OTL they're probably getting outdated and fewer.

It'd be interesting to know how British and German industry developed post war.

I wonder if the British motor industry declined the way Germany's did in OTL.

The Germans make loads of cars, but mainly for foreign companies.

I mean look at the Bug. An iconic German car from the late 50s to mid 90s - the design barely changed. Massive global success. Then after Deutschewagen went under, the Bug brand was bought by Alvis and revamped about a decade ago. There's lots of jokes here about the irony of such a famous German car now being British!

Sure BMW are still around, but they were bought by Ford and now have Namibian owners - Windhoek Industries. They're still German made though and I think in reality they can still be classed as German.

Horch are owned by Austin.

The only indepedent German car maker is Mercedes Benz, but they also spen a time under Ford ownership and these days, although a German company are actually a consortium of international investors, and Ford still has a stake in them. Lovely cars, but out of the price range of most people!

Oh yeah and they have Opels in Germany which is merely what the Germans call Vauxhalls!

Actually, the Bug made it's debut in the late '40s, not '50s....(well, unless you live in Britain, which didn't see the Beetle's introduction until 1957 from what I know), and the company was branded Volkswagen outside Europe by the parent company, as requested by Ferry Porsche, when the company first started selling cars in the U.S. in 1948(my uncle is a former hippie and used to own a '49 model; it only made about 24 hp but the 69 mph top end was pretty adequate for the day).

Also, Ford did indeed totally own Mercedes for a time but only from 1950-55 and actually spent more time as part of Chrysler, from 1966 until 1985, during which time Ford had no ownership whatsoever. As for today, Ford does once again have a stake in the company, but only in their truck manufacturing division.

@jycee: He is indeed a liberal Democrat but his politics weren't THAT heavily inserted in there, though.

 

[GeorgeUK]

Well, it was a long time ago. It'd probably not be so different. Germany would probably reintegrated into the international community by the mid 50s. a few jingoistic comments here and there, but as in OTL they're probably getting outdated and fewer.

It'd be interesting to know how British and German industry developed post war.

I wonder if the British motor industry declined the way Germany's did in OTL.

The Germans make loads of cars, but mainly for foreign companies.

I mean look at the Bug. An iconic German car from the late 50s to mid 90s - the design barely changed. Massive global success. Then after Deutschewagen went under, the Bug brand was bought by Alvis and revamped about a decade ago. There's lots of jokes here about the irony of such a famous German car now being British!

Sure BMW are still around, but they were bought by Ford and now have Namibian owners - Windhoek Industries. They're still German made though and I think in reality they can still be classed as German.

Horch are owned by Austin.

The only indepedent German car maker is Mercedes Benz, but they also spen a time under Ford ownership and these days, although a German company are actually a consortium of international investors, and Ford still has a stake in them. Lovely cars, but out of the price range of most people!

Oh yeah and they have Opels in Germany which is merely what the Germans call Vauxhalls!

I imagine so, given that idiots like that Deutschland_Uber_Alles (OOC: Rule_Britannia's German counterpart) who was banned eons ago would be a tiny exception rather than the rule.

It's also ironic that the that Germany proclaimed themselves masters of the seas after the SGW, and now all their ships are built in Portsmouth.

 

[Tom_NUFC]

They still have a hell of a lot of influence and economic power though.
All things considered, we've turned out OK.

I wonder if the present-day TTL Germany turned out as well. I think it's hard to guess to be honest.

They didn't have any cities superbombed like we did, but its clear that they were going to suffer, because as the war ended, that was looking like a very nasty split in the Allies and Britain, the US and Russia all want their piece of Germany. I can't see too many problems between Britain and America. They will get along well enough. But them and Russia, that could kick off at anytime, and that's not going to be pretty for Germany. The Third Great War (or World War as Turtledove calls them) beginning in a war ravaged, devastated country. at least we didn't have that problem.

Maybe we should be wondering about present day Japan in TTL, because they had superbombed cities, but it looks like the Americans will step in there alone, so the conswequences of the British and American split with Russia for the Japanese should be a lot less or non existent. So maybe TTL Japan is a better comparison for OTL Britain?

 

[Solroc]

One interesting tidbit in the series was how HT took Baseball, a sport with only regional popularity in New York and New England and had it become the national pastime in this timeline just as a butterfly of the War of Secession lasting longer.

Its a bit late, but Turtledove explained it during an interview that those soldiers exported it all over the South as they kicked the Confederates' asses along the way. That kind of makes sense, considering there may have been Union soldiers that settled down there after the war. Still, its strange that it would become a national past-time in TL-191; I mean, baseball is taking hold in the West Coast but its still a minor sport, compared to basketball, soccer, hockey, and especially football.


Sports aside, what intrigued me about Turtledove's How Few Remain is how they treated the Philippines. Its kind of sad of how the Americans how they treated them, especially the Moros in the island of Mindanao, but I guess that's expected considering they were under some kind of jingoism, "White Man's Burden" or something. At least the Americans gave the Filipinos some sort local government, from what my grandfather said when he was escaping to the U.S., the Japanese were beginning to make the island of Luzon a "home island" (read: ethnically cleanse the island of natives) after the end of the SGW.

 

[VidaLaVida]

One thing that was really interesting to me as well was the evolution of different ideologies, and how they turned out differently. One of my favorite things about alternate history in general is just to see how different belief systems could have been interpreted differently in various national cultures and political contexts. Turtledove did this in some interesting ways.

Take socialism, for example. When I read the series and saw that Red Russia only became a tyranny no different from the Romanovs, just with different slogans and better industry, at first I thought it was a cop-out to just assume that Russia always has to be like that and can't become a decent democracy. But the more I think about it, it's actually quite logical, and it's a great example of how an ideology like Marxism can be encouraged in different cultures.

We in the United States became the world's first socialist country, but our socialism is based off of the Lincolnist interpretation of Marx. And one of the crucial factors for that is while Marx said that proletarian revolution is inevitable and that the working class are destined to violently overthrow capitalism, Abraham Lincoln disagreed, saying that violent revolution should be an absolute last resort, and that the working-class and socialist activists must only resort to it when peaceful, democratic means have been exhausted. And sure enough, Socialists of the early 20th century adopted that principle; Eugene Debs, Flora Hamburger-Blackford, Upton Sinclair, all of these important figures in American Socialism advocated the ballot box over the bayonet, and Socialism was adopted through honest, nonviolent campaigning.

When you think about it, it makes sense that Lincoln would adopt this course; for all its problems, the United States of the 19th and early 20th century was a democracy, with a real if limited possibility of democratic reform. Even on the anti-socialist conservative spectrum, Theodore Roosevelt encouraged the Democrats to adopt a Progressive Conservative approach that maintained a capitalist system while still offering improvements in the lives of the working class. So it makes total sense that Lincolnist U.S. Socialism turned out the way it did: having been interpreted in a democratic society, it put a faith in democratic proceedings that original Marxism did not. Of course, the downside of that is because, due to our national tendency to waste time being partisan and opinionated, and go through all the debates and checks and balances before anything is decided, social change has been a lot slower to happen than was initially envisioned by early 20th century Socialists. But still.

Now, in TL-191, they did an interesting inversion of this with Russian Leninist Socialism. There, as in OTL, Vladimir Lenin interpreted Marx in the context of Russia, an autocracy where the tsar was considered the master and owner of all the people, the concept of civil liberties was taken for granted, and reform attempts from Peter the Great to Alexander II were done with the purpose of strengthening the autocracy rather than tempering it. It was also a place where attempts to improve the political consciousness of the masses utterly failed; consider the Narodniks, who went out to the countryside in 1874 in an attempt to inspire the peasants to revolution, and where shocked and disappointed to find that they, a bunch of middle-class and rich city slickers with high-faluting intellectual ideas, were only greeted with confusion and distrust by peasants who only wanted to farm their crops, drink vodka, go to church, and revere the tsar who they considered to be the father of their country.

So Lenin interpreted Marx in a different way; whereas Lincoln said that violent revolution could be averted, Lenin not only said that violent revolution was fully necessary, but that the proletariat was not necessarily capable of handling it on their own and needed the guiding hand of a group of revolutionary leaders to teach them how to be proper socialists.

So look at this: in the United States, a democracy founded on popular consent, Socialism was reinterpreted with a greater faith in the decision-making ability of the masses. But in Russia, an autocracy which was founded on the belief that the masses were unruly and disorganized and needed the strong, fatherly hand of the tsar to teach them how to be good subjects and decent Orthodox Christians (a propaganda line which, in OTL, was explicitly expressed from the reigns of Alexander III all the way up to Michael II), Leninist Socialism ended up taking pretty much the same view but with a Socialist twist: that the masses didn't know what's best for them, and needed a class of professional Socialists to teach them how to be good, class-conscious proletarians.

I know a lot of people have complained about how Red Russia under Lenin and Stalin was depicted, but to me, it actually makes sense that Socialism would be interpreted in a way to create little more than a Red Tsardom.

It's why I'm always interested in alt-Socialist Revolution TLs. I remember reading the great TL "Broken Chains" here on AH.com. It was an interesting look at if the OTL Negro Socialist uprisings in the Confederate States had been successful. I think that TL did a great job of looking at, again, how Socialism would've been interpreted in the unique context of the C.S.A.: how race and racism replaced class conflict as the more important issue, the ways in which poor whites and poor Negroes were divided because of this, how chaotic it was because, since this was happening in the states-rights and local-government-happy Confederate States, a lot of the Socialism was provincial and disorganized in character. Anyone else ever read this story? What did you think?

In TL-191, it appears that the only other early 20th century Socialist revolution was in Germany after its defeat and the fall of the empire. Any speculation as to what a Socialist Germany would've looked like?

 

[Tom_NUFC]

Great post! Some really interesting opinions there about Socialist Russia.
I personally think Marx himself would have hated the Soviet Union, but then he envisioned that the Socialist revolution would begin in a fully industrialised country. Britain or Germany were his top two guesses. To make it fit, as you have pointed out the Russians had to deviate from the Marxist script somewhat. As the US did in OTL, in a very different way.

Even had it occurred in Marx's choices if Britain or Germany, it still wouldn't have been to his script. Local tailoring would have been required.

A Socialist Germany in the aftermath of the Great War. It's certainly very
plausible and all the conditions were there. I'm going to have a proper think and get back to you in that one but I have two initial thoughts. The first being that it might not have been too bad. The second being... No, actually I'm going to hang fire on that one!

 

[Solroc]

Another socialist movement was going on I believe, in the most unlikeliest of all places: America's southern neighbor, Mexico.

It was mentioned in Breakthroughs and Men of Iron since the First Great War was just about over and Turtledove needed filler. But was is interesting is that this conflict was a lot longer that Russia's "October Revolution." Something about Pancho Villa ITTL being one of the main socialist leaders in Northern Mexico along with being a notorious bandit to the Americans; his southern counterpart was Emiliano Zapata a.k.a. "Atilla of the South" by America's puppet regime. What happened to those two, did they succeed or did they get killed because Turtledove does not mention Mexico at all after Chapter 9 of Men of Iron?

 

[Tom_NUFC]

I'd assume that it must have petered out or I think we'd have heard a lot more about it, being on the US's doorstep and all.

So a Socialist Germany. I think it all depends on when it actually occurred. The aftermath of the Great War I think was far to chaotic to have seriously prevailed. HT portrays the quelling of that pretty well. The German army hadn't actually been defeated and Germany was disgraced but not invaded and still in tact as it were. It's obvious that the Freikorps would prevail, they were much better equipped and trained.

A more gradual growth is more likely in a similar way to the Nazis are described as taking power. Butterflying Hitler wouldn't be hard to do. Do that and leave the far right as a rabble of small disorganised groups and yes, the Communist Party could easily be in there. Would it lead to a war? I'm not sure. Take the Spanish Civil War - you can see the Germans along with the Soviets aiding the Republicans. HT reckons Britain and France were more worried about Communism than the Nazis, so maybe that means they jump in with Italy and aid the Nationalists, leading to a bigger European war?

If it did, I can't see it being as bad as either the TL-191
WW2 or OTL SGW2. Fir one thing there will be no mass extermination of Jews or Blacks.

 

[GeorgeUK]

At first glance TTL may seem a bit black and white by having the US and the continuing democratic Britain on the same side, but for all his flaws, I think Turtledove got that spot on - it makes so much sense. Its redeeming, and I could be wrong, but I gather that in TTL no two democracies went to war with each other. I think that's perhaps a critique of the tragedy of OTL that two democratic countries should be able to sit down and work out their differences because if they both believe in democracy then there's already a lot of common ground to be rational and work it out without resorting to war. I think Turtledove's saying as you say, a lot of pain could have been avoided if at some point Britain and the US had sat down and talked.

IIRC there's a brief blurb in Drive to the East about how Finland, despite being a democracy, is technically at war with the allies due to being threatened by the Soviets.