Re: RI October 2024

On 11/19/2024 1:21 PM, William Hyde wrote:

Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

In article <vhgg0u$1f9mv$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde  <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:

Here we are again, possibly less late than usual with books from October.
As is traditional (and possibly required): The links below are Amazon
affiliate ones which could potentially earn me something should you
choose to buy through one.
>
====
>
Acts of War: A World War II Alternative History
(The Usurper's War Book 1)
by James Young
https://amzn.to/3UAZsmc
>
Collisions of the Damned: The Defense of the Dutch East Indies
(The Usurper's War Book 2)
by James Young
https://amzn.to/3AryUx3
>
Here's the first two books of what I believe is to be an alt-hist
WWII trilogy.
>
The jumping off point for this universe is that the British take
out Hitler in a bombing raid on Berlin.  They had no idea where he
was -- it was just one of those lucky accidents of war.  Or, in
this case unlucky accidents of war.
>
Unlucky because taking out Hitler proved a very good thing for the
Germans.  Himmler came in after sidelining Goering (possibly fatally,
I don't quite recall),

>
Plausible enough, but I suspect that "Der Treue Heinrich" would have
been dead in the same ditch as Goering and the generals would have taken
over, in effect at least.  Perhaps with a nonentity like Hess as titular
leader.
>
Of the leaders only Goebbels had any talent for backstabbing, but I
don't think the army would put up with him.
>
Besides, if the author wants a German leader who is keen on peace
Goering is the ideal choice.  Having looted to his heart's content, he
was happy to enjoy his wealth and status (and morphine) without the
risks of war.
>
  and said to the Brits basically: Look Hitler

was really a loose cannon and things got out of hand.  What's done
is done, and we're not giving back anything our boys died for, but
is there really any reason we still need to be at war?
>
Churchill said 'yes', but was eventually turfed out in favor of
Eden

>
Let me guess, the author looked up a list of UK cabinet members and
threw a dart?  Eden was well down the list of possible PMs at this
point, with only the war having restored him to the leading circle from
the pariah status he was consigned to in the late 1930s.
>
And if peace broke out certainly an appeaser like Halifax would have
been handed the job.  Might as well say they gave the PM position to
Brendan Bracken.
>
>
  who turned out to be what some people have always suspected

and made peace.

>
And some people think that Washington was George III's illegitimate son.
>
Or at least I could convince some of that.
>
Sounds like an author to avoid.
>
William Hyde
>

>
No, this is entirely my fault.  Rather than going back to the book
while I was writing the review, I was going on my memory which was
entirely wrong on at least two issues: battle cruiser vs battleship
and Halifax vs Eden.  I don't know why I had Eden on the brain when
I was definitely familiar with Halifax, but it was Halifax who was
the accommodationist PM in this setting, not Eden.

 Makes sense then.
 An author not to be avoided.
 I'm still going to run with the George III thing as soon as I can find a likely victim.
   William Hyde

Seeing as George III was born in 1738 and George Washington was born in 1732, that did not happen.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III
and
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington
Now if you want to talk about George II, ...
Lynn