The World of Turtledove's In the Presence of Mine Enemies

So some questions about the Royals. Was Elizabeth still married to Philip ? Was Elizabeth the Queen M other alive and killed during WW3 as well ? Did Margaret at least despise the Nazis personally since they were responsible for the death of her father ,her sister and maybe her mother as well ? Who was Margaret married to ? Did Wallis have any influence after Edward died ?
 
So some questions about the Royals. Was Elizabeth still married to Philip ? Was Elizabeth the Queen M other alive and killed during WW3 as well ? Did Margaret at least despise the Nazis personally since they were responsible for the death of her father ,her sister and maybe her mother as well ? Who was Margaret married to ? Did Wallis have any influence after Edward died ?
Good questions! Queen Mary the Queen Mother died of injuries on October 3, 1940, five days after King George VI died in the same Blitz raid.

Hmm. So, Philip and Elizabeth were already acquainted and "talking" by 1939, with the future Queen expressing an interest (though only 13, with him being 18). By the time of the death of King George VI, Philip is serving with the RN in the Indian Ocean, though with the crisis and the invasion, I'd imagine he's transferred back to Britain. Elizabeth II and her court are evacuated just before her 16th birthday in 1942. Philip would be 21 and, if he's alive, on a ship. Now, a lot of people had been against the match to begin with. It's conceivable that, even if Philip had survived to this point, the courtiers would have tried to secure another match for the queen. I never established who she married, just that she, along with her husband, son, and two daughters, perished in WWIII.

As far as Margaret, I honestly saw her as more of an anti-Elizabeth. Yes, she disliked the Nazis for upending her life, but after the armistice, she asked to return to London instead of being "stuck in provincial Canada" in the late 1940s/early 1950s, a request that the Queen and the court denied. She grows up disliking life in Canada, and although shocked and horrified at the sudden and abrupt death of her sister, she's happy to be back in the UK and gladly accepts her role as heir and then as Queen in her own right in 1975 when Edward VIII dies. Now, for the twenty-six years she is on the thrown she is basically a puppet of the BUF and the Nazis, but an active puppet.

Margret was married to the fictitious "Prince Harold" and their eldest child is the future King Henry IX, who is born in the chaos of 1971 and is still in his prime during the 2012 SS Coup and other events of the Book.

Hadn't thought about Queen Wallis in a sort of "Queen Mother" role. But you're right to bring her up. OTL she lived until 1986. Accounting for the added stress of actually being on the thrown with her husband and dealing with the harshness of the early post-war years, I could still see her outliving "David" to at least 1980 or 1981. But to be honest I think I like the idea of her being the "widow in the shadows" and not overwhelming Margret, though possibly becoming a trusted confidant.

Did you have any thoughts/ideas on this?
 
Good questions! Queen Mary the Queen Mother died of injuries on October 3, 1940, five days after King George VI died in the same Blitz raid.

Hmm. So, Philip and Elizabeth were already acquainted and "talking" by 1939, with the future Queen expressing an interest (though only 13, with him being 18). By the time of the death of King George VI, Philip is serving with the RN in the Indian Ocean, though with the crisis and the invasion, I'd imagine he's transferred back to Britain. Elizabeth II and her court are evacuated just before her 16th birthday in 1942. Philip would be 21 and, if he's alive, on a ship. Now, a lot of people had been against the match to begin with. It's conceivable that, even if Philip had survived to this point, the courtiers would have tried to secure another match for the queen. I never established who she married, just that she, along with her husband, son, and two daughters, perished in WWIII.

As far as Margaret, I honestly saw her as more of an anti-Elizabeth. Yes, she disliked the Nazis for upending her life, but after the armistice, she asked to return to London instead of being "stuck in provincial Canada" in the late 1940s/early 1950s, a request that the Queen and the court denied. She grows up disliking life in Canada, and although shocked and horrified at the sudden and abrupt death of her sister, she's happy to be back in the UK and gladly accepts her role as heir and then as Queen in her own right in 1975 when Edward VIII dies. Now, for the twenty-six years she is on the thrown she is basically a puppet of the BUF and the Nazis, but an active puppet.

Margret was married to the fictitious "Prince Harold" and their eldest child is the future King Henry IX, who is born in the chaos of 1971 and is still in his prime during the 2012 SS Coup and other events of the Book.

Hadn't thought about Queen Wallis in a sort of "Queen Mother" role. But you're right to bring her up. OTL she lived until 1986. Accounting for the added stress of actually being on the thrown with her husband and dealing with the harshness of the early post-war years, I could still see her outliving "David" to at least 1980 or 1981. But to be honest I think I like the idea of her being the "widow in the shadows" and not overwhelming Margret, though possibly becoming a trusted confidant.

Did you have any thoughts/ideas on this?
So that answers Queen Mary-Georges mother but I was actually asking about Elizabeth- Georges wife and Elizabeth and Margarets mother. Did she die when George did or did she survive and live in exile till WW3 and die with Elizabeth in the nuclear attack. So I was also wondering exactly who composed Elizabeths family ie the names of her husband son and two daughters ? I could see things going either way with Wallis but there is a chance she would have been resentful and jealous of Margaret and her son since she never had a child with David. Also depending on how much of a true fascist believer she was Wallis could have caused real problems for Margaret and Britain,
 
Last edited:
So that answers Queen Mary-Georges mother but I was actually asking about Elizabeth- Georges wife and Elizabeth and Margarets mother. Did she die when George did or did she survive and live in exile till WW3 and die with Elizabeth in the nuclear attack. So I was also wondering exactly who composed Elizabeths family ie the names of her husband son and two daughters ? I could see things going either way with Wallis but there is a chance she would have been resentful and jealous of Margaret and her son since she never had a child with David. Also depending on how much of a true fascist believer she was Wallis could have caused real problems for Margaret and Britain,
Oh the Mary I was referring to was Elizabeth's mother, not her grandmother. I forgot they both were Mary *facepalm*
Mary of Teck, wife of George V, would have survived the Blitz and evacuated to Canada, and bitterly disowned her son once he became the Nazi puppet, and probably passed away near the same time OTL, so early 1950s.

As I said, I never made a call there one way or another with regards to Elizabeth II's husband and children. I'm tempted to say she still ended up with Philip, though if not I'm unsure who would be a suitable alternative. I have a feeling that, with the more tragic death of her father that her only son will be named George, and it's anyone's guess for the princesses. Her marriage would likely have been done earlier, around the time she turned 19 or 20, so we are looking at 1945 or 1946, whether it is to Philip or some other man (a Canadian?).
Prince George would be born in 1947 or 1948, making him 22-23 when he dies in the nuclear attack. Most likely the middle daughter would be two or three years younger than him, born around 1950, and the youngest might just be hitting 18, being born around 1952.

Wallis could indeed become resentful of Margret. OR, as an interesting alternative, becomes a sort of surrogate mother figure in her final years to the new heir and later Queen.
 
Oh the Mary I was referring to was Elizabeth's mother, not her grandmother. I forgot they both were Mary *facepalm*
Mary of Teck, wife of George V, would have survived the Blitz and evacuated to Canada, and bitterly disowned her son once he became the Nazi puppet, and probably passed away near the same time OTL, so early1950's
Eizabeths mother was also named Elizabeth -George VIs wife and mother of Elizabeth and Margaret known as the Queen Mother Elizabeth OTL, Mary of Teck was George Vis mother and grandmother to Elizabeth and Margaret so 2 different women with 2 different names to be clear . So still wanted to clarify when and how each died ? Specifically did the Queens mother Elizabeth die with her husband George VI or was she evacuated to Canada and killed during WW3 with her daughter and surviving family except Margaret ?
 
Last edited:
Eizabeths mother was also named Elizabeth -George VIs wife and mother of Elizabeth and Margaret known as the Queen Mother Elizabeth OTL, Mary of Teck was George Vis mother and grandmother to Elizabeth and Margaret so 2 different women with 2 different names to be clear . So still wanted to clarify when and how each died ? Specifically did the Queens mother Elizabeth die with her husband George VI or was she evacuated to Canada and killed during WW3 with her daughter and surviving family except Margaret ?
*facepalm*
Well, I definitely got all my wires crossed. Here's the correct information:
- Queen Elizabeth (Bowes-Lyon), the wife of King George VI, dies on October 3, 1940, just days after her husband died (Sept. 29), both victims of the Blitz.
- Queen Mary, the wife of King George V, dies in the early 1950s in Canada (she evacuated there with the rest of the Court in February 1942)
- Queen Elizabeth II (AKA: Queen Elizabeth of Canada), daughter of King George VI, dies on July 4, 1971, during the nuclear attack on Ottawa, along with her husband and three children.
 
So according to this https://turtledove.fandom.com/wiki/Third_World_War_(In_the_Presence_of_Mine_Enemies) page the American attack inflicted significant damage on the Reich but the Reichs attack killed one third of the US population. What were the results of these attacks at the time and in the future ? Exactly what did the Reich suffer in American attack ? Also in the 2020s was the American South the most prosperous area of the country since it was relatively untouched by WW3 and had a big majority of its population that for the most part would have gone along and gone along eagerly with most of the Nazi program. President Thurmond being an obvious visible example - has such loyalty paid dividends for the South ?
 
Last edited:
So according to this https://turtledove.fandom.com/wiki/Third_World_War_(In_the_Presence_of_Mine_Enemies) page the American attack inflicted significant damage on the Reich but the Reichs attack killed one third of the US population. What were the results of these attacks at the time and in the future ? Exactly what did the Reich suffer in American attack ? Also in the 2020s was the American South the most prosperous area of the country since it was relatively untouched by WW3 and had a big majority of its population that for the most part would have gone along and gone along eagerly with most of the Nazi program. President Thurmond being an obvious visible example - has such loyalty paid dividends for the South ?
So some thoughts on this:

- RE: US losing 1/3 of its population in WWIII: So in OTL, the US was just shy of 180 million people in 1970. I am assuming the population would be lower TTL without America's involvement in WWII and no subsequent post-war baby boom, so the population when the war breaks out in 1971 is somewhere around 165 million, maybe a little lower. That means 1/3 would be somewhere in the ballparks of 55 million. Based on similar population math grounded in OTL numbers and trying to account for a lower population, I'm estimating that between the deaths of the majority of the African American and Jewish population and high casualties around the nukes cities, that accounts for close to 30 million. I don't think it is unfair to assume more deaths from limited military engagements, along with the protracted New York siege, along with things like starvation caused by disrupted food supply lines, illness, etc, so that could get us close to that 55 million mark.

- RE: South being "most prosperous": seems likely. None of the nukes hit in the South, and there were no major military engagements there. However, there would have been heavy guerilla-style fighting there for some time as the SS worked their way through the region, so there would have probably been several years of disruption. That said, most of the white population would have been all too eager to help things along, and so I would imagine we would see heavy investment in infrastructure improvements and overall recovery efforts. So yes, this seems likely.

- RE: American attacks on the Reich: this is mentioned in passing, but what damage that was never is. Maybe getting one or two nukes off and hitting cities somewhere in the Reich? Secondary cities, obviously, not Frankfurt or Munich or Bonn or Berlin or anything like that. Or perhaps a military target somewhere in the wider Empire? I also think this means that in the opening engagements after the nukes but before the surrender maybe there was some success in conventional warfare, maybe a major naval engagement, where America won a battle but lost the war.
 
The Nazis considered the natives honorary Aryans. Seriously
Yes, at some level. I think we came to a consensus later in this thread that the Nazis wouldn’t want to exterminate the Native Americans, but there would still be racial restrictions on them and keeping them as second class citizens.
 
Yes, at some level. I think we came to a consensus later in this thread that the Nazis wouldn’t want to exterminate the Native Americans, but there would still be racial restrictions on them and keeping them as second class citizens.
iirc it was the Sioux in particular that were considered to be Aryan because Hitler liked Curtis LeMay novels :p that's mainly in an OTL sense, though, and i don't recall any mention of it in the book. i'd imagine that Amerindians deemed acceptable by Nazi racial doctrine would probably be in the same boat as some other non-white races considered okay by the Nazis both IOTL and ITTL--i do distinctly remember it being mentioned that Asian Indian peoples were mostly spared in the aftermath of the Axis takeover because no amount of mental gymnastics could deny that the Indians really were an Aryan people (if you remember, they had to twist the definition beyond recognition IOTL to justify their persecution of the Roma, another "authentic Aryan" people; keep in mind that i'm not using the word in the Nazis' deliberately bastardized sense when i say "authentic Aryan", since "Indo-Aryan" is a valid descriptor for those respective peoples) and, in the same breath, that after the Jews were mostly exterminated they started focusing on other Semitic peoples, particularly the Arabs. i could see there being a big persecution campaign against mestizo peoples in Latin America by virtue of them being mixed-raced by definition mainly as the local untermensch that the Nazi-aligned puppet governments persecute to justify the regime

EDIT: i only just realized nearly a month later that i was thinking of completely the wrong person when i said "Curtis LeMay novels" XD i can't remember who the actual author was, but i'm just about 100% certain that it really was because Hitler liked their Western books
 
Last edited:
iirc it was the Sioux in particular that were considered to be Aryan because Hitler liked Curtis LeMay novels :p that's mainly in an OTL sense, though, and i don't recall any mention of it in the book. i'd imagine that Amerindians deemed acceptable by Nazi racial doctrine would probably be in the same boat as some other non-white races considered okay by the Nazis both IOTL and ITTL--i do distinctly remember it being mentioned that Asian Indian peoples were mostly spared in the aftermath of the Axis takeover because no amount of mental gymnastics could deny that the Indians really were an Aryan people (if you remember, they had to twist the definition beyond recognition IOTL to justify their persecution of the Roma, another "authentic Aryan" people; keep in mind that i'm not using the word in the Nazis' deliberately bastardized sense when i say "authentic Aryan", since "Indo-Aryan" is a valid descriptor for those respective peoples) and, in the same breath, that after the Jews were mostly exterminated they started focusing on other Semitic peoples, particularly the Arabs. i could see there being a big persecution campaign against mestizo peoples in Latin America by virtue of them being mixed-raced by definition mainly as the local untermensch that the Nazi-aligned puppet governments persecute to justify the regime
Good ol' Curtis LeMay :p

I am in total agreement with all of this. The Nazis would likely give the Amerindians a "pass," just like they did the Indians according to the books.
 
So Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert , Jim Baker and the rest did they generally break good or bad ?
 
So Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggert , Jim Baker and the rest did they generally break good or bad ?
Hmm. That is an interesting question. Lets take a look

Graham: Born 1918. Began his ministry in the 1940s. So he would still be doing this ITTL. Graham, despite his conservative political bent, would not have supported the Nazis racial politics. He wasn't in support of segregation and was in fact friendly with MLK. So, my guess would be that he either happens to be in a city that gets nuked, or he dies in a Nazi camp for refusing to become a mouthpiece for the new Thurmond government. It's possible that, fearing such action would anger too many people, that Graham is just placed under house arrest and prevented from speaking, depending on how light a hand the new government wants to take.

Roberts: Born 1918, ministry also started in the 1930s/40s. So, like Graham, he'd still be on this track ITTL. Like Graham, Roberts was also against segregation. My guess is that he'd probably be in the same camp (literally and figuratively) as Graham once the Nazis come to town. One might argue that, with the University and ministry "empire" more rooted in Tulsa, he *might* compromise to save his family and legacy and give lip-service to the regime.

Falwell: Born 1933, ministry started in the 1950s. One *could* make the argument that maybe he would go down a different path, but probably not. He was definitely racist, so assuming he survives the war, he supports the new regime and his ministry efforts receive monetary support.

Swaggert: Born 1935, ministry started in 1955. I'd imagine that he probably follows a similar path to Falwell (though I couldn't find much on his views on race so I'm basing that on the fact he grew up in Louisiana in the 1940s and 50s more than anything else).

Baker: Born 1940, started ministry in 1961. Again, I'd imagine that he follows a path similar to OTL, but he's still relatively young and unknown by 1971 when the hammer falls on the US. He was first working with Pat Robertson (b 1930). Again, can't find much on race itself for either of them, but I could see them going along with the regime. Blame the loss to the Nazis on godless liberalism, etc.
 
Hmm. That is an interesting question. Lets take a look
All sound likely but what about Pat Robertson who as we know is not only a contemporary Evangelical minister but has a definite political bent as he ran for the Republican 1988 presidential nomination OTL? Also what is the current status of apocalyptic end of the world Christianity in an America where Armageddon actually happened in the 1970's ? Is there still something like the Left Behind books by Tim LaHaye ? Also any ideas about popes after Pious XII ? Does Joseph Ratzinger or another German rise to the office ITTL ?
 
Last edited:
Interesting thoughts on the ItPoME timeline!

As for me, one thing I've had a lot of trouble with is getting into Heinz Buckliger's head. What made him the person he is in the book? What convinced him that the Reich couldn't continue as it had been under Himmler and later, Haldweim?

I had the idea that maybe, when he was in university, he met an Iranian exchange student somehow and that got the ball rolling.

But still, I would love to flesh out the man's character more even if just for my own benefit, and I'm not really coming up with anything.
 
So a few more thoughts and questions about WW3 . I actually think there is room to have at least two more major western and Midwestern American cities nuked if only to make the disaster more coast to coast in scope and even less Southern, How about Kansas City and Las Vegas or Denver and St Louis ? So in addition to the South being left alone on purpose as per arrangement with Thurmond can we assume that New York and Los Angeles were left not nuked to help along the long planned SS extermination actions focused on those two cities ? What was the total killed in the Reich and Japan ? Also did the Reich or Japan use the war as a chance to deal with any longstanding unresolved internal or external issues ?
 
Last edited:
Interesting thoughts on the ItPoME timeline!

As for me, one thing I've had a lot of trouble with is getting into Heinz Buckliger's head. What made him the person he is in the book? What convinced him that the Reich couldn't continue as it had been under Himmler and later, Haldweim?

I had the idea that maybe, when he was in university, he met an Iranian exchange student somehow and that got the ball rolling.

But still, I would love to flesh out the man's character more even if just for my own benefit, and I'm not really coming up with anything.
Turtledove wrote this book as a direct analog to the events at the fall of the Soviet Union with Gorbachev, so I am assuming that Buckliger is a loyal German patriot who looks at his country, sees the rot, and wants to fix what he can...not realizing how deep the rot goes. It would be interesting on the specifics though, and open to ideas/suggestions.

So a few more thoughts and questions about WW3 . I actually think there is room to have at least two more major western and Midwestern American cities nuked if only to make the disaster more coast to coast in scope and even less Southern, How about Kansas City and Las Vegas or Denver and St Louis ? So in addition to the South being left alone on purpose as per arrangement with Thurmond can we assume that New York and Los Angeles were left not nuked to help along the long planned SS extermination actions focused on those two cities ? What was the total killed in the Reich and Japan ? Also did the Reich or Japan use the war as a chance to deal with any longstanding unresolved internal or external issues ?
KC, LV, or Denver could possibly have also been nuked. The official "nuke list" was never specified in the book. St. Louis, however, was mentioned as having survived.

As for NYC, I'd imagine that would have been kept for prestige as much as the practical matter of keeping a good transportation hub intact (ditto Chicago, for that matter). LA, probably for similar reasons (although LA wasn't mentioned in the book, that was a decision on my part).

I'm really not sure about just how bad the damage was for the Reich and Japan, or what else they might have had to deal with. Open to suggestions there.
 
KC, LV, or Denver could possibly have also been nuked. The official "nuke list" was never specified in the book. St. Louis, however, was mentioned as having survived.

As for NYC, I'd imagine that would have been kept for prestige as much as the practical matter of keeping a good transportation hub intact (ditto Chicago, for that matter). LA, probably for similar reasons (although LA wasn't mentioned in the book, that was a decision on my part).

I'm really not sure about just how bad the damage was for the Reich and Japan, or what else they might have had to deal with. Open to suggestions there.
Thanks I will give it some thought. BTW did you notice these questions ?
All sound likely but what about Pat Robertson who as we know is not only a contemporary Evangelical minister but has a definite political bent as he ran for the Republican 1988 presidential nomination OTL? Also what is the current status of apocalyptic end of the world Christianity in an America where Armageddon actually happened in the 1970's ? Is there still something like the Left Behind books by Tim LaHaye ? Also any ideas about popes after Pious XII ? Does Joseph Ratzinger or another German rise to the office ITTL ?
 
Top