The Borders of Genre: The Glorification of Fascism Within Alternate History

[OwenM]

I'm surprised no-one has brought up the War of the Worlds actually as a colonialism analogy. Of course in that the diseases work the other way around to how they usually did historically...

I'd imagine Wells was thinking specifically of malaria in Africa there

 

[Geordie]

Yes, as I said, I didn't want to divert from the subject of the thread.
Returning the thread to this original subject, in the thread about @moth's previous review about Guns of the South, @Geordie said at https://forum.sealionpress.co.uk/in...t-cause-and-harry-turtledove.3743/post-757105 that only the most egregious alternate history writers tried to whitewash the Nazis.

I haven't read the thread beyond this post yet, but I feel that there's a clarification that I need to issue here. At the time, I meant "all but the most egregious authors don't try to whitewash the Nazis". Looking back, it should now also be read "all but the most egregious authors don't try to whitewash the Nazis".

Some do, as @David Flin says, rather lead to an unspoken "and that would be a good thing", but I don't think huge numbers of AH writers think "I'm going to make the Nazis look really cool". That being said, they can easily glorify them, or any other horrendous regime, without trying. Just through lack of critical engagement with what exactly a Nazi/Raj/Fourth Shore/Pied Noir/Viceroyalty of Peru/VOC/Empire of Brazil scenario means for many of the people living in it, or prematurely killed by it.

While deliberate glorification is bloody awful, unthinking glorification is still glorification. Other people have probably said this better, so I apologise if this is waffling repetition of points already made, but this is essentially clarifying a position I took last year, so I believe I need to speak.

 

[Gary Oswald]

This article now has more than twice the comments of any other article we've posted.

I do in particular think it is very very funny that the longest conversation about African colonisation we've had in this subforum has happened in a thread about nazi victories and not, just for example, any of the 40 odd articles actually about African colonisation we've published. The internet is great.

 

[Pete U]

This article now has more than twice the comments of any other article we've posted.

I do in particular think it is very very funny that the longest conversation about African colonisation we've had in this subforum has happened in a thread about nazi victories and not, just for example, any of the 40 odd articles actually about African colonisation we've published. The internet is great.

Which (alarmingly) reinforces the point that AH is more interested in Nazis than other, less explored areas of history.

Or that it's easier to comment on an area we 'know' about

 

[Death's Companion]

This article now has more than twice the comments of any other article we've posted.

I do in particular think it is very very funny that the longest conversation about African colonisation we've had in this subforum has happened in a thread about nazi victories and not, just for example, any of the 40 odd articles actually about African colonisation we've published. The internet is great.

Well none of us actually colonised Africa whilst most of us have read works on Nazi Victory and enjoy Alternate History so "does writing or enjoying Alt history contaminate you with Nazism" has a bit more relevance.


EDIT: Alternatively maybe you should consider your next Article "WI if Nazi timetravellers attempted to conquer 1300s Mali to fund Wunderwaffe for WWII? See if that increases views and discussion.

 

[Gary Oswald]

Well none of us actually colonised Africa whilst most of us have read works on Nazi Victory and enjoy Alternate History so "does writing or enjoying Alt history contaminate you with Nazism" has a bit more relevance.

No but like a lot of the last 4 pages of this thread, has actually been about African colonisation.

Which, to be fair, is probably at least partly because I will always try and drag the conversation there.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

EDIT: Alternatively maybe you should consider your next Article "WI if Nazi timetravellers attempted to conquer 1300s Mali to fund Wunderwaffe for WWII? See if that increases views and discussion.

Maybe it could be on the most obscure POD that would produce a world both changed and yet recognisable?

Chris

 

[ChrisNuttall]

That's the premise of Civilisations but with South America colonising, IIRC

There's Aztec Century, which shows the Aztecs invading Britain - no real attachment to OTL beyond the basics, but it does exist.

Chris

 

[SpanishSpy]

EDIT: Alternatively maybe you should consider your next Article "WI if Nazi timetravellers attempted to conquer 1300s Mali to fund Wunderwaffe for WWII? See if that increases views and discussion.

WI: Nazi time travelers attempt to steal Mansa Musa's gold caravan to fund more wunderwaffen?

 

[Charles EP M.]

Just through lack of critical engagement with what exactly a Nazi/Raj/Fourth Shore/Pied Noir/Viceroyalty of Peru/pVOC/Empire of Brazil scenario means for many of the people living in it, or prematurely killed by it.

The Algeria thread linked to earlier was unsettling by discussing genocide as a way to get France absorbing North Africa, rather than how France absorbing North Africa requires a genocide.

 

[Warthog]

The Algeria thread linked to earlier was unsettling by discussing genocide as a way to get France absorbing North Africa, rather than how France absorbing North Africa requires a genocide.

There are sadly quite a few timelines that do this, casually handwave (part of) a native population in setting up the timeline and get annoyed when you want to discuss what a horrible thing that would be rather than the cool new white settler country they're creating.

 

[Geordie]

Other people have probably said this better, so I apologise if this is waffling repetition of points already made, but this is essentially clarifying a position I took last year, so I believe I need to speak.

This pretty much covers it.

It may not be a white wash, the intent might not be to create a whitewash but the need of a lot of people here to ignore the moral implications even while working with the best intentions opens the genre up to the problem that many want to brush off here.

 

[Warthog]

Snip

Thanks for the detailed post strong agree

While deliberate glorification is bloody awful, unthinking glorification is so glorification.

Yes, and to some extent it's the bigger problem as it more common and more insidious.

 

[Warthog]

It may not be a white wash, the intent might not be to create a whitewash but the need of a lot of people here to ignore the moral implications even while working with the best intentions opens the genre up to the problem that many want to brush off here.

Very much

Also, if I may misquote Chancellor Gowron "Who cares about motives? What matters is that on that day you acted as a f***ing racist"

 

[Nyvis]

This article now has more than twice the comments of any other article we've posted.

I do in particular think it is very very funny that the longest conversation about African colonisation we've had in this subforum has happened in a thread about nazi victories and not, just for example, any of the 40 odd articles actually about African colonisation we've published. The internet is great.

If you want people to discuss something, start by throwing shade at the fandom they belong in to get them posting is the lesson.

 

[Callan]

If you want people to discuss something, start by throwing shade at the fandom they belong in to get them posting is the lesson.

Don't do this.

This got so much traction because, like it or not, "WI the Nazis won" has been the most well-known AH scenario for a very long time and, like or not, that premise in large part defines the genre. I don't agree with every single thing in the article but when an article raises some fairly existential questions about the AH genre, it's going to get people talking. I'd like to think we're beyond "let people enjoy things" framings.

 

[Usili]

Like, I am going to be honest in that to a large extent, I do kind of agree w/ Moth's take on this in that to a large extent, those TLs that involve a Nazi victory or surviving Nazis, are to an extent pro-Nazi. There is never actually a critical examination as to the consequences of what does it actually mean in terms of the consequences of it in a human toll.

TNO for instance is an example in my view of something that is a Nazi victory that just utterly fits in as being pro-Nazi. It fundamentally rests upon the completely and utter batshit idea of the Nazi state winning and upon all of their propaganda being a success. It has the whitewashing of fucking Heydrich to say the least, which is utterly utterly fucking reprehensible. And that isn't counting all the other fucking shit it has present in it.

The fact of the matter is that to in terms of general alternate history and even to the lay person, if you ask them what alternate history means, it means either the Nazis or Confederates winning. And that is fundamentally a massive massive issue.

If you want people to discuss something, start by throwing shade at the fandom they belong in to get them posting is the lesson.

I am at least going to state, I am really confused at how this is being described as a fandom and it feels like the entire antithetical to trying to describe AH. Alternate history is not at all a fandom and trying to describe it as such is like, is something I find ridiculous? One cannot exist in a space of actually having a genre w/ published books, and then to say it exists as a fandom. It is mutually incompatible.

 

[iainbhx]

Keep washing your hands there.

MOD POST:

Much of this discussion has been heated but civil, this and a couple of other of your posts have not. This one is the most blatant breach of Rule 1. You are, after a considerable number of warnings, kicked for a week.

 

[Hendryk]

TNO for instance is an example in my view of something that is a Nazi victory that just utterly fits in as being pro-Nazi. It fundamentally rests upon the completely and utter batshit idea of the Nazi state winning and upon all of their propaganda being a success. It has the whitewashing of fucking Heydrich to say the least, which is utterly utterly fucking reprehensible. And that isn't counting all the other fucking shit it has present in it.

Then there's the notorious Watch on the Rhine in which the SS are the good guys. Kratman explicitly laid out his ideological angle in the afterword:

Dear reader, we wanted to shock the hell out of you.

Right now, Western Civilization, however much many of its members may refuse to admit it, is involved in a world war. No, it has seen no entire cities destroyed; no trenches have drawn their scars across entire continents. It is a world war all the same. Moreover, it is a world war that is putting to the test every notion of individual liberty, freedom of conscience, and rule of law that the West prizes. And should we lose we will see, or our grandchildren will, the erasure of all that is good in Western Civilization.

We cannot afford to lose.

Yet winning will have its price, too. Just as the invasion John described is ordained to change humanity into something that one of Hitler’s Waffen SS would recognize and call home, so too will this war change us. Because side by side with the virtues of Western Civilization are paired vices that may destroy us: a narrow legalistic mindset, an emphasis on form over substance, and an unwillingness to do the ruthless and violent things we must if we are to survive. This list is not exhaustive. Perhaps worse than these things, however, the West has nurtured at its own breast a set of execrable, vile, treacherous and treasonous villains that seem to seek at every opportunity to do all they can to ensure its destruction.

In such a case, there is no ambiguity: it's a story about the SS because the authors want us to understand that only fascism can save western civilization from the traitors in its midst.

 

[Nyvis]

Don't do this.

This got so much traction because, like it or not, "WI the Nazis won" has been the most well-known AH scenario for a very long time and, like or not, that premise in large part defines the genre. I don't agree with every single thing in the article but when an article raises some fairly existential questions about the AH genre, it's going to get people talking. I'd like to think we're beyond "let people enjoy things" framings.

Just because the criticism is legitimate (it really really is) doesn't mean it doesn't also have the effect you generally get when criticizing a fandom, which is everyone from it showing up to discuss it.

If that felt like I was making light of the issue, I apologize, that wasn't the goal.

I am at least going to state, I am really confused at how this is being described as a fandom and it feels like the entire antithetical to trying to describe AH. Alternate history is not at all a fandom and trying to describe it as such is like, is something I find ridiculous? One cannot exist in a space of actually having a genre w/ published books, and then to say it exists as a fandom. It is mutually incompatible.

I interact very little with AH as a published genre beyond my activity on SLP. The problem described in this thread does exist in published works (which are, as people pointed out before, mostly AH as a setting rather than AH as the focus of your work), but it is even worse in the non published side of things where fascist and colonial apologia (not just positive depiction but open defense of the logic) run rampant. It also has dynamics very similar to fandoms. I also interact with fanfic writing space and AH is in fact just history fanfic, but since history is not copyrighted, that can be published. Do bear in mind this isn't a criticism of the writing quality or "seriousness" of the genre. I've found fanfics better written than a lot of publishing books, and I think the barrier is frankly quite artificial.