tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post8153830642926633418..comments2024-03-11T06:48:32.094-05:00Comments on Alternate History Weekly Update: Problems with American Civil War Alternate HistoriesMitrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12415640801753049329noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-15640900765069885272020-04-18T20:51:53.070-05:002020-04-18T20:51:53.070-05:00Being a historian by training I find that the Time...Being a historian by training I find that the Timeline "Order:191" is likely one of the better DPs in the American Civil War. McClellan was a cautious General, and Lee would have beaten him on Northern Soil, it is not speculation, a matter of fact. The follow up book, "How Few Remain, and the Great War Trilogy are both very good." That being said, I could not stand the nature of the rest of the book in that series. It was entirely implausible, in my mind, for the Confederacy to go down the rout of the Nazi's even with a defeat in The Great War. Even if that were the case, Turtledove makes a grave error in his judgement in that the Confederate book series mentioned above, and that is the continuation of the "Holocaust" of the Confederacy in the middle of a massive war with the United States. It would have been a massive drain on military resources, and the only reseason that the Holocaust continued in our timeline is that Hitler was unhinged. I could go on, because the grand strategy laid out in the books in that version of WWII is iffy at best. Anyone would understand that you don't drive east into the mountains, even but west into Michigan while forming a true defensive fortification to the East, and basically allow the United States to bleed themselves white. Which would have happened, but I digress because I don't want to give away too much of the plot, mainly had an issue with this book series for a long long time, even though he is one of my favorite authors, and Guns of the South is an absolutely excellent novel, and, I would argue, presents one of the more accurate representations of General Lee which is out there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-68125751189945324962013-03-05T12:02:43.215-06:002013-03-05T12:02:43.215-06:00Good points here, I think you underestimate the ec...Good points here, I think you underestimate the economic causes of the Holocaust (Jews as scapegoats for instance) in dissecting the chance of a black holocaust by a beaten down South but that is the alt his mantra right?<br /><br />Enjoyed your article regardless!Chucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080248961176338496.post-3254061051351197732013-03-02T20:37:02.663-06:002013-03-02T20:37:02.663-06:00Hi I enjoyed your analysis. I am looking for a bo...Hi I enjoyed your analysis. I am looking for a book along these lines. I read recently that the South would have seceded even if Stephen A. Douglas had been elected. However, I doubt Douglas would have used war to keep the South.<br />So, then we would have had two nations. I think the biggest issues would then be would the Americans have entered World War I sooner and would this have stopped the Bolshevik revolution? Would this have led to smaller, kinder war and thus, no WW2?<br />Of course, Alaska, Canada and Latin American would have all be up for grabs under this scenario. And I have no idea what Japan and China would have done.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08102504100211748537noreply@blogger.com