Alternate History Realism And Novel-Writing
I grew up on the post-WW2 adventure movies, books, comics, etc. I also read WW2 history. The fiction was more fun. The real world of WW2 and its aftermath is a world of the power of mass, of attrition. The world essentially bludgeoned the Axis to death with vast numbers of machines and a lot of Soviet blood. 95% of the fictional focus on spy rings, secret agents, super-science weapons, black ops … was pure fantasy and most of the remainder didn’t matter much outside the specialist literature. Even if the rocket planes and the other junk work, the numbers just don’t add up.
-Scott Palter
If you want to get a good flame war going on an alternate history forum, you just need to raise the question of Operation Sealion, Adolf Hitler’s plan to invade Britain in 1940. It has a fair claim to being the most heavily debated point of divergence in the alternate history community, not least because – on paper – it offers Hitler the chance to defeat the British and secure his western border before invading Russia. However, that chance exists only on paper. One does not have to be a pedantic nit-picker to realise that the odds of Hitler succeeding if he launched the invasion were actually very low. In order to win, Hitler would have to do the equivalent of rolling a dice six times and getting the same number every time. His decision to cancel the invasion was actually the right choice for him to make.
This does not, of course, make for good fiction. A novelist who wishes to explore a Britain dominated by Germany may be perfectly aware that Operation Sealion was a nonstarter, but he has no obligation to refrain from writing a book set in a Nazi-occupied Britain. The purists may argue that such a Britain could never have happened, unless the Nazis had the help of Alien Space Bats (for example, the 1950s Britain depicted in Doctor Who: Exodus), but this does not make the book bad fiction. The book’s setting may be impossible, yet this does not mean that exploring the world and the people caught up in it is inherently a bad thing.
There has always been, I feel, a gulf between novelists who write to entertain and timeline realists who insist that points of divergence, and the consequences of a changed POD, must be as realistic as possible. The former wants to draw in the readers by making the story as exciting as possible, by pitting their characters against their enemies in a very different world or simply exploring the brave new (alternate) world. Alternate history novels are often, at base, genre novels set in alternate worlds, drawing in readers who like the genre in question and are willing to accept or overlook the alternate history aspects. This is very true of entry-level alternate history books: Harry Turtledove’s WorldWar series combines aspects of science fiction as well as military fiction, while his The Two Georges is a detective story set in an alternate world. They also have the advantage that one does not have to know much about real history to enjoy the novels.
A novelist will choose his scenarios based on what is best for the story. A realist does not have that option. He may argue that the idea of Hitler refusing to declare war on the United States in 1941, after Pearl Harbour, is inherently unrealistic, and the idea of him declaring war on Japan instead is so absurd that it doesn’t require any further discussion. This works well, when it comes to developing a timeline such as the ones published by Sealion Press, but is often much less exciting than a novel (although they can serve as a setting for a novel, such as The Marsh War, which is based on The Moscow Option) and they do not always attract readers who are not already interested in alternate history. The novelist, on the other hand, will often go with the more exciting option of Hitler not declaring war, which would change World War II beyond recognition.
Much of this, I suspect, comes from the thrill of imagining very different worlds. A world in which the Confederate States of America makes its independence stick and does just fine afterwards may be unrealistic, and I would argue that yes it is, but it would also change the face of the world. A world in which Imperial Germany wins the First World War in 1914 will be very different from OTL, or a world in which Germany wins in 1918. These worlds would present very different challenges to the inhabitants, and create grounds for stories that might be unrealistic but are very exciting. An Imperial Germany that won in 1914 would be confident enough to pick a fight with the United States, or try to invade Britain, while Germany that barely scraped a victory in 1918 would be much less inclined to cause trouble, not least because most of the problems of OTL would still exist and could no longer be blamed on the OTL scapegoats.
This also exists at the tactical level. A realist will argue that Operation Sealion is flatly unrealistic. A novelist, particularly a military-fiction novelist, would ignore that and explore what would happen if the Nazis tried anyway. A realist might argue that a British victory in North Africa in 1940 was unlikely, but – again – a novelist would dismiss that and use it as the basis for a story. And why should he not? A spy novel following the intrigue in Vichy-ruled French North Africa after the British conquer Libya and are now massing on the French border would be very exciting, even if it wasn’t realistic.
The realist cannot afford to overlook details the novelist can pretend don’t exist, such as a bridge leading out of Washington DC that the Confederates somehow forgot to take during their attack on the city. A novelist can wave his hands and declare “Hitler took Britain in 1940;” a realist cannot do anything of the sort. A novelist can depict military units performing operations that are completely impossible, in the real world, and get away with it in most cases. I suspect more people would have overlooked American troops performing impossible marches in Stars and Stripes Forever if the rest of the book had held up a little better. A nit-picker might argue that the American tanks of an alternate-1944 will be very different to the ones depicted, but again the novelist won’t care; the realist, by contrast, will try to find ways to justify alternate tank development.
That said, the demands of a novel are often very different from the demands of a realistic timeline. At base, the Second World War was a contest of economics and the Allies (certainly after 1941) severely outweighed the Axis. It is simplistic to say that America outmatched Japan on a scale of nine-to-one, not least because as this doesn’t include superior American technology and training, but is effectively true. A novel often needs to overlook such grim economic realities to ensure a certain degree of tension, perhaps even help us to root for the underdog. I have a theory this accounts for some of the more controversial aspects of our community – the Lost Cause myth suggests the CSA was the underdog, even though this was not remotely true, and there are people who support the underdog without realising that just because someone is the underdog doesn’t make them the good guys.
There is, of course, a more controversial problem. Alternate history requires the author to use characters that are based on real people, either as POV characters (Robert E. Lee in The Guns of the South, Vyacheslav Molotov in WorldWar) or side characters encountered by the main characters (General Grant in How Few Remain, Otto Skorzeny in WorldWar), and it can be difficult to depict those characters in a manner that pleases everyone or even anyone. How would such a character react in a very different situation, or if they grew up in a very different world? The realist can depict such controversial characters as bad, without any need to present them as decent people even in their own minds, but the novelist does not have such freedom. If he is using a historical character’s POV, he must present the character as he would have been – or as close to that as possible – which raises uncomfortable questions if that character is meant to be the hero. If he is using the historic character as window dressing, the main character is unlikely to see him as we would see him. It is vanishingly unlikely, for example, that a young German officer attached to Adolf Hitler would see him as a genocidal monster – and if he did, it would raise the question of why he didn’t execute Hitler on the spot. A decent novelist would devise the story to allow the hero to eventually realise that the historic character is a monster, but this is difficult to do properly. It is far too easy for someone to accuse the author of whitewashing very real atrocities and the monsters who committed them. It is also possible to be far too simplistic – for example, Robert E. Lee in Leather Pants or MacArthur the Death Eater – purely to suit the demands of the story.
This can even be true of an entire society. It is unrealistic to expect the Germans of an alternate 1950s to know the details of each and every Nazi war crime, let alone feel shock and disgust; it grows worse as the years go on and the Nazis brainwash successive generations to believe that the crimes never took place or that they were somehow justified. A person born and raised in such a society will not question what has been taught, at least at first; it was relatively rare, for example, for Southerners to oppose slavery even when it was very clearly not in their interests, something that will only get worse if the South has fought and won a war to preserve slavery. A novelist must present a character slowly coming to understand that his society is not perfect, which can be very difficult (and also lead to controversy). He must also push technological development to absurd levels – Conrad Stargard or Schooled in Magic; unrealistic, from a real world point of view, but a very common demand for a tech uplift-themed novel.
The novelist also must try to work towards a relatively happy ending. The realist may study a timeline and conclude the bad guys are going to win, at least for the moment. The novelist has a certain obligation to make sure the good guys come out ahead. The Draka series is surprising, at least in part, because the bad guys win; their victory is, in many ways, the exact opposite of the novels in which the good guys win but there is some trace of the bad guys left to rebuild if left alone. The fact that Stirling portrayed his Draka POV characters as ‘good guys caught in a bad system’ only adds to the shock; they do not make any attempt to reform their society and indeed, if they tried, they would likely not succeed. The hints of reform at the end of The Stone Dogs are gone by the time of Drakon.
This owes much to our modern day perceptions. The concept of Robert E. Lee turning into an ardent abolitionist seems absurd, and given that Lee was a slave owner I would say it really is absurd, but it serves a useful purpose if the novelist wishes us to accept Lee as one of the good guys. The days in which slavery was regarded as a net good for everyone are long gone and good riddance; it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to accept a slaveowner as a hero. The controversy surrounding The Guns of the Southowes much to Turtledove’s need to present Lee, and Southerners in general, as better than the time-travelling Afrikaners. It works fine, from a novelist point of view, but much less for a realist.
Of course, the historical Lee had no way to know how his descendants, and those of his people, would judge him. Even when someone asserts that they would not have made poor choices in an alternate world – Oswald Mosley, for example, insisted he would not have collaborated with the Germans if they had successfully invaded Britain, but he made those assertions in his autobiography, which was published in 1968 and later repeated in a letter to Kenneth Macksey (who wrote Invasion). Was he telling the truth, or writing with the benefit of hindsight, in the certain knowledge the Germans not only did not launch the invasion, but lost the war? We have no way to know.
I am both a novelist and a timeline writer. I enjoy parsing out what might have happened if something had gone differently, and working out how the ripples of change spread across the entire world. I also enjoy creating worlds for my stories that are not, in my opinion, wholly realistic. Nor do they have to be. A reader who complains the setting is unrealistic is a reader who is essentially missing the point – the idea is to have a world to explore, not one worked out in every detail. It is quite possible that the destruction of the British Army at Dunkirk in 1940 would not have been that serious, in the greater scheme of things, but a novelist would use it to help streamline the invasion of Britain in his novel. Realism comes second to excitement; I will happily admit that I once advised an author to hand wave details rather than plot them out because someone would try to tie him down, rather than accept the world they were being shown and go from there.
There is, I feel, an interesting conflict between novelists and realists in the alternate history committee. Personally, I consider this to be futile – and dangerous. Most alternate historians entered the community through reading alternate history novels and going from there; my first alternate history novel was Tilting The Balance, followed rapidly by Hitler Has Won, neither of which are noted for strict realism. By contrast, many realistic timelines can be dry and unexciting to the casual reader; For Want of a Nail: If Burgoyne Had Won at Saratoga is a remarkable piece of work, and is rarely challenged as one of the more extraordinary contributions to alternate history, but it is also more of an alternate history textbook rather than a novel.
Realism is important. But so too are the demands of a novel.
And you know what? Real history is unrealistic.