by Harbinger,
I got a DEGREE WOOO 2:1! I am simply great bow down before the Lord of History. Ahem after that brief aside on with the review.
The lights are going out over Europe the year..... 1938. Errrrrr that does not sound right? I know that you may well be questioning how a young (rakishly attractive) man with a History degree can say that, but trust me I have a reason. For my Birthday in March Hagelrat (in a display of uncharacteristic sisterly affection) bought me this book. I am eternally grateful not only do I love getting new books, but also it panders to my historical obsession. This is a fictional book so don't switch off quite yet. This is an example of what historians call Counter - factual History, or more colloquially 'What if' history. Naturally as a person who has spent three years studying history in depth, I found it hard to divorce myself from looking at the book in a historical sense rather than a literary one. So I apologise in advance if I go to much into the Historiography of the book.
First of all Turtldove had to invent a convincing way in which the war could start a year early. In an obvious reference to the Great War, his chosen method was assassination. A senior Nazi official is killed in Czechoslovakia, meaning the Munich Agreement never takes place. The Book is structured in an interesting manner, with each chapter containing the point of view of people from all sides of the conflict. The one draw back can be that you occasionally forget who each character is. I quite like his portrayal of Germans (and indeed other members of the Axis), as the temptation is to show them as all heartless monsters when most of them were just ordinary people like everyone else. Indeed he grasps Hitler's motivations perfectly. Many have blamed Neville Chamberlain (PM of UK) and Edouard Deladier (PM of France) for not standing up to Hitler. However, that would be underestimating Hitler's desire for war. He so desired war, that he viewed appeasement as a frustrating tactic used by the Allies to undermine him. This is something which the author grasps very well.
First of all Turtldove had to invent a convincing way in which the war could start a year early. In an obvious reference to the Great War, his chosen method was assassination. A senior Nazi official is killed in Czechoslovakia, meaning the Munich Agreement never takes place. The Book is structured in an interesting manner, with each chapter containing the point of view of people from all sides of the conflict. The one draw back can be that you occasionally forget who each character is. I quite like his portrayal of Germans (and indeed other members of the Axis), as the temptation is to show them as all heartless monsters when most of them were just ordinary people like everyone else. Indeed he grasps Hitler's motivations perfectly. Many have blamed Neville Chamberlain (PM of UK) and Edouard Deladier (PM of France) for not standing up to Hitler. However, that would be underestimating Hitler's desire for war. He so desired war, that he viewed appeasement as a frustrating tactic used by the Allies to undermine him. This is something which the author grasps very well.
The sheer amount of research that the author had to conduct is simply impressive, he understands the domestic situations of even some of the smaller nations involved in the war and the weapons and vehicles that were used. Interestingly the Spanish Civil war is still going on and this impacts on the opening of the Second World War.
I do not agree with all his interpretations of what the likely results of an earlier war. For example he indicates that the Polish would have been hostile to anyone allied with the Russians. This is true but there would still have been suspicion and hostility towards Germany as the Nazis and other Nationalists had made threatening noises towards the Poles for years (mostly over the 'Bleeding Frontier'). However, this is not a literary criticism. There are some flaws in a literary sense that concern me. I think there is a little too much going on. He tries to cover both the Spanish Civil War, the War in Europe and the conflicts in Asia. Also with 2-3 (or sometimes more) characters representing most of the belligerent nations it becomes rather hard to follow.
I think a bit of editing is required and perhaps splitting the book up into a series of books. I feel he has perhaps taken too much upon himself. It is still however, in places a well written book worth reading if like me your interested by this aspect of History, and especially military History.
I am thinking of including a note of what Book I am going to look at next. So continuing a historical theme I shall hopefully be completing a review of a Biography of Lord Kitchener.
I do not agree with all his interpretations of what the likely results of an earlier war. For example he indicates that the Polish would have been hostile to anyone allied with the Russians. This is true but there would still have been suspicion and hostility towards Germany as the Nazis and other Nationalists had made threatening noises towards the Poles for years (mostly over the 'Bleeding Frontier'). However, this is not a literary criticism. There are some flaws in a literary sense that concern me. I think there is a little too much going on. He tries to cover both the Spanish Civil War, the War in Europe and the conflicts in Asia. Also with 2-3 (or sometimes more) characters representing most of the belligerent nations it becomes rather hard to follow.
I think a bit of editing is required and perhaps splitting the book up into a series of books. I feel he has perhaps taken too much upon himself. It is still however, in places a well written book worth reading if like me your interested by this aspect of History, and especially military History.
I am thinking of including a note of what Book I am going to look at next. So continuing a historical theme I shall hopefully be completing a review of a Biography of Lord Kitchener.
TTFN
0 comments:
Post a Comment