Timeline 191: When Turtledove Changed His Mind

[Jack Douglass]

So most people who have studied a little bit into the Harry Turtledove fandom, specifically that of one of his most popular series Southern Victory or Timeline 191 have heard the theory that Turtledove originally did not intend for the US to win the Great War, but rather to lost it and to play out an analogy to the Weimar Republic in OTL with Gordon McSweeney acting in parallel to Hitler and the Nazi Party. There is some evidence to suggest that this was indeed Turtledove's original plan, such as Turtledove's cryptic statements on why he decided to kill off Gordon McSweeney, "he couldn't imagine a character like [McSweeney] playing a role in peacetime." If indeed Turtledove did plan for this to take place originally then I believe I have pin-pointed at what point in the series Turtledove changed his mind regarding the war's outcome. In the middle of the first book of the series, American Front, there is much emphasis given on the Confederate counteroffensive at Hopkinsville and Cadiz, a whole POV section is granted to Abner Dowling fore-spelling doom for the 1st army as the Confederate offensive begins, however with such buildup it is surprising that the battle happens off-page in the book, and the only information we have regarding takes place after the attack was stalled, as if the pages containing the battle were for whatever reason removed, and then Downling's concern is played off as if it wasn't a big deal. This is the point in the book when things start to go bad for the Confederates, losing in Pennsylvania and Kentucky, and the Red Rebellion begans to take root. I believe that originally the Confederates would have won at Hopkinsville and Cadiz and played a battle that paralleled the battle of the Marne. And that given this victory the Confederates would have eventually won the Great War.

 

[A_H_nikky]

You may like this thread -if you aren't aware of it already https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...of-the-presidency-of-gordon-mcsweeney.319250/

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I believe that originally the Confederates would have won at Hopkinsville and Cadiz and played a battle that paralleled the battle of the Marne. And that given this victory the Confederates would have eventually won the Great War.

Remembrance combined with the fact that the USA outweighed the CSA by a huge margin makes it pretty much impossible for them to lose the GW1. It would take more than kicking them back a bit in Kentucky to knock the USA out. More like losing Philadelphia and some other important place, like Boston. Which was well beyond the CS's capabilties.

So I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Turtledove changed his mind because he must have realised that it was nigh impossible to get a victorious CSA in 1914.

- BNC

 

[Indicus]

I dunno. Remembrance always seemed to me to be a parallel of French revanchism, and Confederate military success in the Second Mexican War a parallel of Prussian military success in the various German unification wars.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I dunno. Remembrance always seemed to me to be a parallel of French revanchism, and Confederate military success in the Second Mexican War a parallel of Prussian military success in the various German unification wars.

Remembrance was a parallel, yes, but I think it was much larger than anything that happened in France. After all, you had stuff like peacetime rationing with Remembrance, and I don't believe that was ever the case in France.

The Second Mexican War actually reminds me a lot of the war of the 7th Coalition (1815), as basically everyone jumps on the USA in the same way that everyone jumped on Napoleon.

- BNC

 

[bguy]

Remembrance combined with the fact that the USA outweighed the CSA by a huge margin makes it pretty much impossible for them to lose the GW1. It would take more than kicking them back a bit in Kentucky to knock the USA out. More like losing Philadelphia and some other important place, like Boston. Which was well beyond the CS's capabilties.

So I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Turtledove changed his mind because he must have realised that it was nigh impossible to get a victorious CSA in 1914.

Turtledove also foreshadowed a U.S. win in the First Great War pretty heavily at the end of HFR when he has TR vow that as President he would never lose a war against the CSA.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

If it was planned, I assume he quickly changed mind when looking at OTL WWI - You have basically the same alliances as OTL, but the USA is divided in resources with the larger side allying with the CPs form day one. Given how near the CPs were to winning before the US entry, I can hardly imagine what the Entente can do to tip the scales.

Good Mexico is pro Entente, but Italy is neutral, ...

I was wondering how long it took the CPs to win the game...

 

[The Gunslinger]

It seemed to me that it happened somewhere in the end of the first book to midway through the second.

There were just so many deliberate parallels to Germany that he sets up in the start that it's difficult to think that isn't his original end goal.

America winning makes more sense in the long run though.

 

[Nivek]

Or maybe Turtledove played us with a red herring? when it might be give too much credit maybe he did planned that way to play us, played the pararell and later showed us that things could got pretty wild, as say: It Can happen here right? even north or south....

 

[Trotsky]

There were originally supposed to be four books, with Great War: Settling Accounts wrapping up the series in 2001. IIRC HT had intended for the Confederates to be annexed right then and there.

 

[Kuamong]

There were originally supposed to be four books, with Great War: Settling Accounts wrapping up the series in 2001. IIRC HT had intended for the Confederates to be annexed right then and there.

That's new. Got any sources for that?

 

[Trotsky]

That's new. Got any sources for that?

His website.

 

[Faeelin]

His website.

What website?

 

[TR1]

What website?

https://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/turtledove.html is the website

https://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/breakthroughs.html review of Breakthroughs that came while GW was a four book series.

https://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/bloodandiron.html review of Blood and Iron explaining that the series was expanded.

 

[Faeelin]

That's not his website, I think?

 

[TR1]

That's not his website, I think?

Steven Silver runs it, but it is the official Harry Turtledove website.

 

[Jack Douglass]

Remembrance combined with the fact that the USA outweighed the CSA by a huge margin makes it pretty much impossible for them to lose the GW1. It would take more than kicking them back a bit in Kentucky to knock the USA out. More like losing Philadelphia and some other important place, like Boston. Which was well beyond the CS's capabilties.

So I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Turtledove changed his mind because he must have realised that it was nigh impossible to get a victorious CSA in 1914.

- BNC

The United States also heavily outweighed the Confederates in the War of Secession and The 2nd Mexican War, and the Confederates still won, now in 1914 the industrial and population deficit would be even less with the added advantage of having Canada fighting the US in the North. And even with Remembrance that doesn't take away the fact that the United States has pretty bad Generals in Daniel MacArthur and George Custer. And if Industrial Strength and manpower were the sole components to winning wars then the entire POV for this series would be mute.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

The United States also heavily outweighed the Confederates in the War of Secession and The 2nd Mexican War, and the Confederates still won, now in 1914 the industrial and population deficit would be even less with the added advantage of having Canada fighting the US in the North. And even with Remembrance that doesn't take away the fact that the United States has pretty bad Generals in Daniel MacArthur and George Custer. And if Industrial Strength and manpower were the sole components to winning wars then the entire POV for this series would be mute.

The War of Secession and the Second Mexican War were both fought in a much more Napoleonic manner - with armies numbering tens of thousands marching around, occasionally meeting, having a battle and then one side withdrawing. Industry in such a situation takes a back seat to generalship, which we know the CSA did considerably better in.

The Great War however, relied on industry. Armoured cars, barrels, poison gas, huge artillery barrages all require a lot of industry, and those were the things that were going to matter in deciding the outcome of the war, at least if it lasted more than six weeks. IIRC, the encounter being described as the turning point occured in January 1915 or therabouts, by which time the trenches were already pretty well set up. The absolute worst that offensive could do is push the US out of Kentucky and back into Ohio. That alone won't decide the war. Nothern Kentucky isn't Philadelphia or something like that.

Also, Daniel Macarthur was a division commander at this point, so he isn't really going to decide things.

- BNC

 

[Jack Douglass]

The Second Mexican on the Louisville front was far more similar to the Great War trench combat than to the War of Secession, and industrial might certainly isn't the only consideration one must take into account when weighing the CS against the US, the US after all was far less committed to fighting the war than the CS, having an entire party opposed to the war effort, whereas the Confederacy had both parties totally committed to continuing any war against the US. If the socialist had won the 1916 election and Eugene V Debs had become president in 1917 he would have sought peace with the CS. Perhaps fighting on for a while hoping to get a better deal out of them.

And my point wasn't that a victory at Hopkinsville and Cadiz would've won the war right then in there, but it would have halted the US advance into Kentucky and turned the war into a stalemate, but into the Confederacies favor, just like what happened to the French in 1914 at the battle of the Marne.

 

[bguy]

The United States also heavily outweighed the Confederates in the War of Secession and The 2nd Mexican War, and the Confederates still won

Except it wasn't just the United States vs the Confederates in those wars. The Confederates had both Britain and France fighting alongside them in the Second Mexican War and had the threat of the British preparing to intervene in the War of Secession. Having the most powerful empire in the world backing them means the Confederates did effectively outweigh the US in both of those conflicts. Whereas by the First Great War, the US now also has European allies on its side, which largely cancel out the Confederate's European allies, and makes it pretty much a straight US vs CS fight which the US is going to win every time.

now in 1914 the industrial and population deficit would be even less with the added advantage of having Canada fighting the US in the North.

Even with Canada fighting alongside the Confederates, the CSA-Canadian alliance is still outnumbered more than 2-1 by the US. Those are terrible odds for the CSA and that's before we even take into account the fact that 1/3 of the Confederate population has no reason to be loyal to the Confederate government.

And my point wasn't that a victory at Hopkinsville and Cadiz would've won the war right then in there, but it would have halted the US advance into Kentucky and turned the war into a stalemate, but into the Confederacies favor, just like what happened to the French in 1914 at the battle of the Marne.

OTL a stalemated front ultimately favored France because they had the British and Russians helping them fight the Germans and thus their alliance block had the Germans outnumbered (and blockaded.) Thus time was on their side. But that is not the case for the CSA in TL-191. They are badly outnumbered and have a substantial disloyal minority within their country, so they need to win the war quickly before the U.S.'s greater resources can grind them down or the African-Confederate population rises up.