Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Alternate History Lounge. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Robert Conroy's "1945"; Spoilers
Topic Started: Dec 28 2007, 11:19 PM (487 Views)
CT902
Serf
[ * ]
What did you all think of Conroy's "1945"?

I thought it was a pretty good work.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Custer
Member Avatar
Resident Kamikaze Warrior
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It was a good read. Parts of it were hokey - MacArthur's arm landing on the guy's back after a Kamikaze strike - but I enjoyed reading it, which surprised me given what I've heard about Conroy's other work.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Funion The Barbarian
Serf
[ * ]
I like some of his other books, 1901 (?) and didn't he write one about the Civil War as well? I know that some of you real history buffs don't like him b/c he stretches possibilites but for thoughtless reading, I thought they were fun. So I might pick this one up as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eamonhart
The Liquor Lord
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
I hated 1901, I thought it beyond belief but as a cheesy pulp read I guess it was okay.
_______________________________________________________
'No arsenal, no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'
-- Ronald Reagan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Makkabee
Count
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Conroy didn't properly research several of the characters in 1901, Nelson Miles being the prime example of this.

The biggest problem with the book is the sheer illogic of the ending, though. OTL the Reich lost WWI and the left toppled the government, claiming that bad leadership had gotten Germany into this mess. Hitler toppled the Republic and argued that it wasn't bad leadership that had caused Germany's defeat but disloyal elements within the Reich -- Jews and Socialists, especially. Therefore a new government was needed to deal with the Jewish/Socialist menace.

In 1901 the Reich loses a war and revolutionaries topple the government. They should argue that they had to do so because bad leadership got Germany into the mess it's in now. Instead they blame the Jews. If the defeat is the Jews' fault then the former government was less to blame and less deserving of overthrow. Blaming the Jews weakens the legitimacy of the new government. But Conroy can't seem to get out of this "the Germans is Nazis!" mindset.

I was willing to suspend disbelief on the frankly silly notion that the Germans would invade the United States to force concessions in the Pacific, but Conroy just piled too many other absurdities on top of that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eamonhart
The Liquor Lord
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
My favorite part of the book was that the main battle took place in my hometown.
_______________________________________________________
'No arsenal, no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'
-- Ronald Reagan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Custer
Member Avatar
Resident Kamikaze Warrior
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh, you're talking about 1901.

I was going to ask if your hometown was in Kyushu.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Funion The Barbarian
Serf
[ * ]
I forgot about the ending of 1901...it is a bit silly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · Alternate History Media · Next Topic »
Add Reply