Talk:Settling Accounts: The Grapple

Possible Situations

If you go to Turtledove's offical website, you can then link into a site that shows the book covers of the novels he has writen. The book for The Grapple has a bridge on it, and I seem to recall an event in WWII, though I can't think of what it was. Could this be a clue? Anyone have a guess? -SAS- 16 Feb 2006 EST

It would make sense if this were an analogue of Operation Market Garden, ie the disastrous airborne operation to take the bridge in Arnhem. Suitably fitting with the origin of the series, Jerry got his hands on some rather detailed operational info while it was underway. This goes well with the other references that remind us America didn't exactly fight and win WW2 on its own - 'operation redbeard' being on the same date as Operation Barbarossa, for starters. - An Australian 8 May 2006 local

On the bridge photo, it would make a lot of sense if there's a battle anywhere along either the Ohio or Mississippi River. 199.181.178.37 16:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the book, I think we can safety say that the front cover is a shot of paratroopers droping behind the lines near Chatt., TN. Jon 00:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a scene in the book where Michael Pound masquerades as a CS tank and manages to capture a bridge over a river (not sure which one). It could be a reference to the railroad bridge over the Rhine that was left standing, allowing Allied soldiers to invade Germany, but that's probably a stretch.

Verification sources

I noticed a question about verification in the history of this article. The main plot's sentence source appears to be from the review of "Settling Accounts: The Grapple" that is found on Turtledove's website. On the subplots mentioned; it's kind of obvious from the end of the previous book that at least for a chapter are those that will be going on. Also based on the end of the previous book I'd expect one of POV characters listed to die in either chapter one or two and the other not to last much longer. Jon 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Still speculative, though. --Stlemur 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Patton is NOT a standin for Stuart

Currently the article states this. Pattons style of fighting is a whole lot different than Stuart's. Patton (at least in this timeline) feels most comfortable attacking, even with the situation calls for defensive actions. The historic Stuart got sacked outside of Atlanta after successfuly keeping his army intact against a much larger Union force and was replaced by Hood who in three battles threw his army away. In addition the incident with the shell-shocked solider and Patton seen in this book is highly similar to that the Patton in our timeline in the Italian campaign. Jon 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon, Jeb Stuart was not a participant in the Atlanta campaign, nor was he in the Western Theater at all during the war, and he did not command an army (he commanded the cavalry in the Army of Northern Virginia). Anyway he was already killed (D. May 1864) by the time Hood took over the Army of Tennessee from Joe Johnston (July 1864).

Patton is NOT a standin for Rommel, either

Morrell is quite obviously the analogue of Erwin Rommel, not Patton. Even the name is a give away: Erwin -> Irving, Morrell is practically an anagram of Rommel, etc. Also, Morrell's career somewhat parallels Rommel's, including the early advocacy and development of armored battlefield tactics. I think Patton is simply a standin for Patton! Ronnotel 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If Morrel is Rommel, who's Guederian? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless we can find a source that says "character x is a standard for historical figure y" then we should avoid speculating, because we can just as easy be wrong. For example, Morrel is an analog to Rommel and yet he is fighting against the analog to the Nazis. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Section breaks

The main body of this article needs section headers. Too much text in a single block makes for difficult, confusing reading. Ronnotel 20:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

More parallelism

"General George S. Patton, in this history a main Confederate commander, does far less well on the defence than he did in the attack on Ohio two years before, his pugnacious instincts making him squander irreplaceable resources on futile attempts at counter-attack."

Like Johnston, right? Who fruitlessly attacked Sherman's advancing columns as they were advancing on Atlanta. 68.100.6.192 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)