Alternate History, or What Might Have Been....

[Glocksman]

One of my favorite genres of SF is Alternate History.
For some reason, the 'what if' concept is one that I find fascinating. An example of this include the anthology 'Hitler Victorious'



David Brin (for once) wrote a good story that's reprinted in this book titled 'Thor meets Captain America'. The plot synopis is that the Nazi death camps were used to create 'death magic' or Necromantic spells that brought the Norse Gods to life in order to fight for Germany. However, Loki defects to the Allies.

The story takes place in the early 1960's and North America and Japan are just about the only places on Earth not under the Nazi jackboot. But the Allies are losing the war and a commando mission is launched to plant an H-Bomb in the Nazi 'Valhalla".


There are other stories that explore the possibility that after a Nazi victory the US would have settled into a Cold War with Germany similar to the one we engaged in with the USSR, and that Germany's policies would have mellowed somewhat after WW2 ended.

A search for literature of this type reveals that WW2 is a popular subject for this kind of SF.

Another well known author in this genre is Harry Turtledove

He's written several books that explore alternate endings to events such as the US Civil War (The Great War series) and an Alien invasion of Earth in 1941 (the Worldwar series).



The Worldwar series in interesting in that the tech level of the aliens isn't that much more advanced than today with the exception of fusion powered sublight spacecraft. The aliens are lizards that are in a cold sleep for the 20 year journey to Earth. They also literally believe that their Emperor is a god.

The Great War series has the USA allied with the Kaiser and the CSA allied with France and Great Britain. The US/Germany alliance wins the war at a terrible cost and imposes a Versailles style peace on their opponents that lead up to another war.


He also co-wrote 'The Two Georges' with Richard Dreyfuss.

This one takes place 200 years after the revolutionaries in the colonies settled their grievances with George III peacibly.

Are there others who are fans of this SF genre?
If so, why? What is your favorite era for AH? Who's your favorite author?

[RedImperator]

I love alternate history. My only complaint about it is that the genre is filled with hacks who don't understand enough about real history to write convincing alternate history (numerous "Hitler conquers the world" or "The South wins the Civil War and the North becomes a backwards wateland" stories come to mind).

[HemlockGrey]

I hate the very idea of the Confederate States of America, so I couldn't bring myself to read Turtledove's stories about it.

I do, however, think that I shall read his book- I forget the name- in which Spain conquers England...

[Glocksman]

I do, however, think that I shall read his book- I forget the name- in which Spain conquers England...

Ruled Britannia.

My only complaint about it is that the genre is filled with hacks who don't understand enough about real history to write convincing alternate history (numerous "Hitler conquers the world" or "The South wins the Civil War and the North becomes a backwards wateland" stories come to mind)

That's why I like Turtledove. He has a PhD in history (Byzantine), His characterizations are sometimes flat, but he gets his facts pretty straight.
The only error that stood out to me was when in Guns of the South, he describes how to handle an AK-47 by stating that you put the safety on, insert a magazine, and then retract the bolt.

The safety/selector lever on the AK series weapons blocks the bolt handle from being retracted when it is in the 'safe' position.

Other than that, I haven't seen any glaring factual errors of his that jump out at me

[RedImperator]

My complaints about Turtledove are more literary than factual. His latest work has just seemed rushed and it seems that since he's the 500lb gorilla of AH, his editors are letting him get away with stuff that really shouldn't make it past the first revision, like his tendancy to fall in love with a new expression each book and beat it to death by having every character and the third-person narrator use it repeatedly (with some variations for regional dialect thrown in). And, as you said, his characterizations can be flat, and the problem becomes worse when he has to write in essentially redundant characters because one of them has an important role to fill later (Reginald Bartlett, for example, was originally supposed to give us the Confederate grunt's perspective, but he got largely pushed aside by other Confederate soldiers who needed to have a Life Changing Event happen in order to become maniacs in the follow-up series).

[jaeger115]

I personally would like to write a series based on what if Hitler died before he came to power.

[Typhonis 1]

Did Command and Conquer Red Alert adress that?Hitler dying before coming to power?

[jaeger115]

Did Command and Conquer Red Alert adress that?Hitler dying before coming to power?

Yes, but it was gameplay based on wankfest ridiculously powerful weapons and technology. I'd write it based on realistic history and characters and the occasional war machine.

[Glocksman]

My complaints about Turtledove are more literary than factual. His latest work has just seemed rushed

Ruled Britannia, The Center Cannot Hold, or both?

I was a little disappointed with Center, but I've read worse.

Now the Worldwar series is something else.
The one character in all that works that I just cannot stand is Sam Yeager.

Here we have an officer in the US military who hands over information directly to the invaders of Earth that leads to the destruction of a US city via H-bomb because he's upset that we destroyed an Alien colony ship.

To put this into perspective, it's the moral equivalent of an officer giving information to the Germans or Japanese because he's upset at the civilian deaths incurred during the USAAF bombing raids.

Such an officer would have been rightfully court-martialed and executed.

IMHO, the only proper fate for Yeager is to be strung up from the nearest lamppost like the traitor that he is.

I know Turtledove's trying to have make the aliens seem more 'real' by having Lizard/Human interactions and friendships occur, but betraying your country because it destroyed a spaceship full of aliens coming to occupy your planet is reaching just a little....

[Vendetta]

Surely the paradigm of the genre is The Man in the High Castle.

You really all should read it. It's ace.

[jaeger115]

Surely the paradigm of the genre is The Man in the High Castle.

You really all should read it. It's ace.

What's it about?

[Vendetta]

It's an alternate outcome to WWII, with America neatly devided between Germany and Japan.

And the story of someone inside that world writing an alternate history where the Axis was defeated and America's still free, and the reaction to that by ordinary people.

It's by Philip K Dick, Headfuck comes as standard.

[kojikun]

The movie Fatherland deals with a post victory Nazi Germany. In the movie, an american reported is investigating reports of deathcamps (noone knows about them in the story) and the Gestapo is out to stop her. Hitler is still alive and is 60 or so and seems to have mellowed out.

[Sea Skimmer]

I like alternative history. But I have a big problem with people claimed that things like Germany winning WW2 are realistic. The story can be fine, but far too much bull gets passed off as "possibul with only a few minor changes" or "compleatly realistic"

[Vendetta]

I like alternative history. But I have a big problem with people claimed that things like Germany winning WW2 are realistic. The story can be fine, but far too much bull gets passed off as "possibul with only a few minor changes" or "compleatly realistic"

It's called fiction

Stop searching for 'realism', you don't need it and it will only hamper your enjoyment of perfectly good unrealism.

[RedImperator]

My complaints about Turtledove are more literary than factual. His latest work has just seemed rushed

Ruled Britannia, The Center Cannot Hold, or both?

I was a little disappointed with Center, but I've read worse.

Now the Worldwar series is something else.
The one character in all that works that I just cannot stand is Sam Yeager.

Here we have an officer in the US military who hands over information directly to the invaders of Earth that leads to the destruction of a US city via H-bomb because he's upset that we destroyed an Alien colony ship.

To put this into perspective, it's the moral equivalent of an officer giving information to the Germans or Japanese because he's upset at the civilian deaths incurred during the USAAF bombing raids.

Such an officer would have been rightfully court-martialed and executed.

IMHO, the only proper fate for Yeager is to be strung up from the nearest lamppost like the traitor that he is.

I know Turtledove's trying to have make the aliens seem more 'real' by having Lizard/Human interactions and friendships occur, but betraying your country because it destroyed a spaceship full of aliens coming to occupy your planet is reaching just a little....

I actually haven't read Ruled Brittanica yet. I thought The Center Cannot Hold was better than Blood and Iron, but definitely not his best work. It probably seems rushed because he's trying to cram 20 years into three books, but it's still annoying to see things that never should have gotten past the rough draft, like repeatedly having every character use the same phrase.

I loved the World War series, but I wasn't thrilled with Colonization. And yeah, Yeager is a traitor to his country. You could have had the US blow up the colony ship and get found out by the Lizards without totally wrecking a major character.

[Sea Skimmer]

I like alternative history. But I have a big problem with people claimed that things like Germany winning WW2 are realistic. The story can be fine, but far too much bull gets passed off as "possibul with only a few minor changes" or "compleatly realistic"

It's called fiction

Stop searching for 'realism', you don't need it and it will only hamper your enjoyment of perfectly good unrealism.

Passing something of as just fiction or fantasy is different then making an active effort pass it of a possibul alterative history. I dislike when people do that, even if the stroy is just fine, as a work of total fiction.

That was my entire point, and it went right over your head.

[Glocksman]

Passing something of as just fiction or fantasy is different then making an active effort pass it of a possibul alterative history. I dislike when people do that, even if the stroy is just fine, as a work of total fiction.

So are you saying that there is no possible set of conditions under which Germany could have won WW2?

[kojikun]

heres a condition that would have given germany the upper hand: wait 5 more years.

or not invading russia until they conquered britain (and hopefully space as well since that would give them the advantage of not not being attacked through italy later in the war).

[Glocksman]

Another way Germany might have won would be if the Italians had stayed neutral and Hitler did not honor his pledge to the Japanese to declare war on the USA.

Mussolini's Balkan adventures cost Hitler 2 months of spring weather before he finally launched Barbarossa.

And the US being fully preoccupied with the Pacific war would put an end to Roosevelt's trying to bait Germany into declaring war on America,

[Sea Skimmer]

Passing something of as just fiction or fantasy is different then making an active effort pass it of a possibul alterative history. I dislike when people do that, even if the stroy is just fine, as a work of total fiction.

So are you saying that there is no possible set of conditions under which Germany could have won WW2?

Essentially. Every plan I've seen for Germany winning WW2 that even come close to reality skip the entire WW2 aspect and instead have Germany fight a series of disconnected campaigns, always finishing off one threat before moving on. But those, while militarily and economically possibul, are totally impossible from a political standpoint. Still I'd give credit for 2 out of three.

Anything which has WW2 starting as historical and ending in a German victory is full of shit. No matter how they utilize there resources they just didn't have enough. It might take till 1947 and the B-36 toting nukes, but Germany was going to end up in ruins somehow. You can't beat 2/3's of the worlds manufacturing capacity with a fraction of the other 1/3 to start out with.

[Sea Skimmer]

heres a condition that would have given germany the upper hand: wait 5 more years.

or not invading russia until they conquered britain (and hopefully space as well since that would give them the advantage of not not being attacked through italy later in the war).

The Soviet Union was actively preparing the attack Germany in 1943. And in any case would be impossibuly strong by 1944 even if it didn't attack first. Germany would be crushed.

Defeating the UK in its self is very hard though.

[Sea Skimmer]

Another way Germany might have won would be if the Italians had stayed neutral and Hitler did not honor his pledge to the Japanese to declare war on the USA.

Mussolini's Balkan adventures cost Hitler 2 months of spring weather before he finally launched Barbarossa.

Just means German has further to retreat. Its logistically impossibul for Germany to advance far enough to take Russia out of the war. You've also removed hundreds of thousands of troops from the Axis order of battle for Barbarossa and a couple hundred miles of attack frontage. The end result could acutally be a shorter advance then historical.

Though keeping Italy out the war is quite a feat, since the RN is going to be limiting how much oil and other resources they can import, just as they did with Spain.

And the US being fully preoccupied with the Pacific war would put an end to Roosevelt's trying to bait Germany into declaring war on America,

Actually it would greatly increase his efforts, both active and passive. And the overwhelming might of US production will be even more available to Russia and the UK. If Germany starts sinking that swarm of transports heading for Murmansk, and the US is already at war with Japan it's going to declare war on Germany. Once isolationism is broke it doesn't come back.

[Glocksman]

The war started out as a series of disconnected campaigns. The Allies didn't immediately attack the Rhineland in 1939 after Poland was invaded. The US didn't officially become a combatant until December 1941.

The 1940 Blitzkrieg that removed France from the war left only England to oppose Germany. The US leadership certainly sympathized with the UK, but there was a strong isolationist feeling in the country that simply did not want to get involved in the war. If the US isolationists had defeated FDR's 1940 reelection and denied Britain the aid that FDR sent it, then the UK very well could have been forced to surrender due to the U-boat blockade.

Germany was not set up for a long protracted war, but neither was England or the USSR.

US Lend-Lease was an important part of the USSR's war machine:

The USA supplied the USSR with 6,430 planes, 3,734 tanks, 104 ships and boats, 210,000 autos, 3,000 anti-aircraft guns, 245,000 field telephones, gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, steel and five million tons of food. This was enough to feed an army of 12 million every day of the war. Britain supplied 5,800 planes, 4,292 tanks, and 12 minesweepers. Canada supplied 1,188 tanks, 842 armoured cars, nearly one million shells, and 208,000 tons of wheat and flour. The USSR depended on American trucks for its mobility since 427,000 out of 665,000 motor vehicles (trucks and jeeps) at the end of the war were of western origin.

The US dispensed about $50 billion dollars in lend-lease during the war to many countries: 60% to UK, 20% USSR, 20% France, China, others.

Given the huge amount of supplies given to the USSR by the Western powers, it's not a stretch to say that without it Hitler could have won.


Here's a newsgroup post that quotes Marshal Zhukov:

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic], we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of American deliveries."

The UK's only real strength in 1940 was the Royal Navy. The Army left most of it's heavy weapons behind at Dunkirk (Hitler could have let the panzers crush the BEF, but he listened to Goering). The RAF had barely enough aircraft to defend the island, but less pose a serious threat to Germany.

The Navy defended the ocean shipping that the island nation's survival depended on. Without oil, food, bauxite, and other goods that England lacked on her own soil, Germany could starve her into submission.

[Glocksman]

If Germany starts sinking that swarm of transports heading for Murmansk, and the US is already at war with Japan it's going to declare war on Germany. Once isolationism is broke it doesn't come back.

If Germany proclaimed its neutrality in a US/Japan war, FDR would have had a hard time indeed justifying to Congress the diversion of vitally needed equipment to a country that many Americans even then saw as just as bad if not worse than Germany while putting the war that we were fighting on the back burner.


You forget that a majority of Americans did not want to enter the war before Pearl Harbor. FDR even proclaimed that he would not send our sons to die in a foreign war (all the time planning to do just that)

A slim majority developed that favored aid short of war to Britain, but that majority did not exist for aid to the USSR.

Hell, Harry Truman once said (before the US entry in the war) that the ideal outcome of the war would be for the Nazis and the Communists to bleed each other to death.

A US/Japan war without Hitler's declaration on the US would have resulted in Lend-Lease to the USSR probably being shut down in order to divert resources to rebuild the US fleet and build up the US military.