Customer Reviews

Cold War Hot: Alternate Decisions of the Cold War

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

It is the unfortunate fact of collections of allo-historical scenarios like "Cold War Hot" (including the "What If?" books and "Virtual History") that the tend to be rather uneven in their quality. This is due to the reality that a collection of diverse writers will necessarily have different talents and different focuses which are more or less conducive to the writing of alternate history. That said, "Cold War Hot" ranks highly among the alternate history collections, and includes some of the best and most original pieces I have encountered.

Obviously, "Cold War Hot" examines various alternate paths that the Cold War could have taken that would have resulted in either combat where there was none, or in a greater, more violent operational tempo. Divided into ten chapters, the book considers every time period from the Berlin Blockade through 1989. It is notable that when compared to other similar collections, the authors generally spend very little time discussing what actually did happen; in fact, other than a "what really happened" section at the end of each chapter, the content is probably at least eighty percent allo-historical. While this is great for someone well versed in the various Cold War flashpoints, it could be frustrating for someone who has only a vague grasp of twentieth century history, so be forewarned.

The first two chapters are probably the weakest; the first deals with an air battle surrounding the Berlin Airlift, and the second with a successfully executed North Korean invasion of South Korea. Aside from the fact that both are rather predictable jumping off points, neither one is fleshed out particularly well and they both end rather abruptly. They aren't terrible, but they're definitely the week spots in this collection.

The next scenario somewhat belies the title of the book as it presumes a pacification of Vietnam achieved at a much lower level of violence. While a little bit slower than the other chapters, it is still very well written and posits a thorough and believable alternate path for the Vietnam intervention.

Chapters four and eight deal with events in the Middle East; the first around the Six Days War and the latter around the Yom Kippur War. From an operational standpoint, these are probably the two most thorough scenarios, as orders of battle are examined in detail, and armed clashes occur across the breadth of the Mediterranean. While the basis for both scenarios is well established in alternate political histories, it is in the "hot" aspect that they really shine.

Chapters five and six are my two favorites, as they deal with the most esoteric 'what-ifs' in the book. Chapter five in particular is in my experience completely original as it examines the consequences of a violent Quebecois revolution in the late 1960's. As someone who witnessed the relatively peaceful attempts at secession in the late 1990's, this was an eye-opening and thoroughly enjoyable scenario. Chapter six deals with a Soviet invasion of communist China. This is another scenario where the military aspects are thoroughly detailed, and it contains probably the best presentation in terms of fiction versus history. Moreover, this scenario has the added bonus of nukes and chemicals weapons being deployed and used, which only adds to the tension.

Chapter seven is another Vietnam scenario, and serves as a nice counterpoint to chapter three, as it deals with the ultimate escalation, an invasion North Vietnam. This is another chapter that is extremely strong in operational details, and especially order of battle and the deployment of specific units. Some of the dialogue is a little hackneyed, but overall this is a great chapter.

Chapter nine deals with a different outcome for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. While there is some military action, this chapter's focus is primarily in the political realm, and it is largely successful. However, there is one glaring mistake in this chapter: there is a map which should display forces as "Soviet/Indian" and "Pakistani", instead it shows "U.S." and "Russian" which was extremely confusing for a few pages until I picked up on the error.

The final chapter I won't even describe briefly as it is completely out of right field, and doing so would spoil it. That's not to say that this is an unbelievable scenario; while tongue is planted firmly in cheek, it is not utterly beyond the realms of possibility, and it was great fun to read.

Ultimately, this is a very successful collection, with some genuinely original scenarios, and generally good to excellent writing all around. Each scenario is firmly rooted in history and entirely logical alternate decisions, and each ends up in a very different set of circumstances, which are the two hallmarks of the best alternate history writing. My only complaint (aside from the map error detailed above) is that the editing is sub-par to say the least. There are numerous grammatical errors and incorrect word substitutions that can really break up the flow of the narrative. That said, they don't detract anywhere near enough to avoid reading this otherwise highly enjoyable collection.

Jake Mohlman

I make it a point to read every book military historian and intelligence officer Peter Tsouras writes or edits, both his straightforward and well-written histories and his series of books examining alternative historical scenarios. Now, the genre of "alternative history" is chock full of very bad books written by fantasists with little grounding in historical circumstances or understanding of human complexity, but Tsouras's books are so rich and thoughtful that they should enjoy a special category all to themselves. In Cold War Hot, Tsouras has assembled a team of subject-matter experts (historians, soldiers, intelligence officers) to examine what might have gone wrong--or right--at ten key points in the Cold War. Accomplished authors, from Paddy Griffith and David Isby to Tsouras himself, use sound historical frameworks to ask what might have happened had blood been drawn in Berlin in 1948, or if the United States had waged a "serious" war against North Vietnam, if the Soviets had won in Afghanistan (a particularly pertinent topic), or if an ill-fated Red Army invasion of Western Europe had, indeed, occurred in the late stages of the Cold War. Each entry stands alone and every chapter is well-written, expertly argued--and a great deal of fun. This is one of those rare books that is a marvelous treat to read, while also providing uncanny intellectual stimulation. At a time in our nation's development when original, creative, "out-of-the-box" (yeah, I hate that cliche, too) thinking is at a premium, Cold War Hot is a much timelier book than its subject matter might make it appear. Very highly recommended!

A good collection of stories, running the gamut from the Berlin Airlift to a humorous story about a Warsaw Pact invasion of Europe. There aren't any apocalyptic nuclear war scenarios, and the Vietnam scenarios (of which there are only two) both reek of what the authors think should have been done, not what was really plausable. I would have enjoyed more in-depth scenarios, and a few that covered a simple Warsaw Pact invasion. All in all, what scenarios were covered were done rather simply, and skipped around, not covering Europe or nuclear warfare.

Seeing that a Warsaw Pact invasion of West Germany, leading to all-out battle on the "Central Front", is now firmly in the realm of alternate history, one would have hoped that there would be at least a couple of stories about possible campaigns in Germany. However, the stories in this book deal with things like an alternate Korean War, a clash between U.S. and Soviet naval forces in the Mediterranean during the Yom Kippur War, several stories on alternative outcomes to the Vietnam War, a Sino-Soviet war, and (the last entry in the book) a completely tongue-in-cheek story about a NATO plan to wreck the combat effectiveness of the Red Army. Fun, interesting and overall well-written, but when I think of "Cold War Hot", I really want to read about "the big one" - the clash between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Really for the hardcore alt-hist fan.

Three-and-a-half stars, actually.

I was excited to see yet another great alternate-history collection come out from Greenhill books, and I was especially glad to see that this one dealt with the Cold War rather than yet another about the Second World War. However, despite the fact that the book was good enough to help me get my alternate history fix, there were many problems with the book and it is probably my least favorite of Greenhill's alt-history compilations.

Cold War Hot consists of ten scenarios written as pseudo-historical essays. They run the gamut of the Cold War along linear lines, beginning with the Berlin Airlift, than going through the Korean War, Vietnam, the Six-Day War, the FLQ and a Communist Revolution in Quebec, a Sino-Soviet War, Vietnam again, the Yom Kippur war, a different Afghanistan leading to a different Indo-Pakistani war, and finally a satirical alternative collapse of the Soviet Union.

Many of these scenarios were quite entertaining, a couple of them even helped to highlight issues and details of the Cold War. However, there were a number of problems with the book, and a number of ways it could have been much better. Here they are:

1. A Right-Wing Political Bias.

Now, I'm left-wing myself, but I try my best to be objective; even so, I have to say that Cold War Hot had a right-wing bias. From comments against Vietnam War opponents to a distorted view of possible policies enacted by a second Carter administration, the authors' bias often hindered my enjoyment of their writing. (Oh, and I didn't find Red Lightning to be very funny.)

2. Limited and repetitive scenarios.

Two scenarios deal with Vietnam and two deal with the Middle East. As well, the Berlin Airlift scenario and the two Middle East ones had very little change from historical reality and had very little actually happen.

3. Scenarios left out.

It might sound clichéd, but I would have liked to see one Cuban Missile Crisis scenario. As well, why not something dealing with the Suez Canal and the Hungarian uprising? Or maybe something in the 80s with Nicaragua or El Salvador? Or maybe a conflict that results out of a different ending of the Second World War?

4. The lack of nuclear conflict.

I understand why the authors didn't want every scenario to end in a nuclear war, but why did only one actually involve nuclear conflict? (And that one was the Sino-Soviet war, again showing the authors' bias, as only dirty commies would actually use the bomb.) Again, not every scenario had to have nuclear war, but more definitely should have. As well, it would have been quite interesting to see how nuclear war between the US and the USSR would have been different over the course of Cold War; how would it play out in the 50s as compared to the 60s or 70s, how bad would the devastation have been? All this was left unanswered.

Cold War Hot was readable and enjoyable, but it did not live up to its promise.

The two most recent reviews cover the flaws of this book pretty well. The authors of the segments are both overly fond of military jargon while being surprisingly ignorant of political and social realities of the time. And at least one segment is just plain insulting to everyone's intelligence. Alchoholism might have been someting of a problem in the Soviet military, but even for whimsy, suggesting throwing vodka bottles at Soviet soldiers would have easily defeated a Soviet attack on Western Europe is ridiculous. Even for fiction. The stories suffer variously from a lack of ambition (as with the ones that come out with no historical consequences, like the one dealing with the Berlin Airlift), or excessive ambition which leads into total fantasy.
As another reviewer mentioned, the book in this same series that deals with the Third Reich taking alternate actions has far better written and more plausible stories. Just read some Cold War novels from the 80s if you're feeling the urge for the old days, and avoid this very lackluster effort.

I really wish Amazon would let us give half stars. Personally, I think this is a three and a half star book. I choose four out of a combination of generosity and general disagreement with the more critical reviews.

I have read a number of these Greenhill/Tsouras alternate history anthologies. While I have quibbles with some of the individual stories, overall the series has been quite brilliant. This installment does not rise to this level.

To me the biggest problem is the individual authors here generally lack a broad vision found in the other installments. I do not know exactly why this is as the writers have good pedigrees. I think some of them even have excellent short stories in the other Greenhill alternate history works. But the stories tend to have a limited scope and end abruptly. A good example is James Arnold's "Pusan Disaster". I don't necessarily disagree with his analysis that had the North Koreans pushed harder and faster, they would have won. But it simply ends with Communist victory. There is no mention of how such an outcome impacts such issues as Japanese pacifism, the goings on in Vietnam, the general flow of the Cold War, etc. In the other installments in this series, authors of abruptly ending stories often used footnotes to flesh out the future flow of events. Not here. Some of the articles even end with history seeming to fall back into line as we know it. There is nothing necessarily wrong with a story like Mr. Hathaway's "First Blood" where Allied and Soviet air forces shoot it out during the Berlin Airlift but nothing really changes down the road. There is certainly some value to such an analysis. However, I think its bad form to do so in a small tome like this one. If Tsouras was limited to 250 or so pages, he should have reserved space for zingers.

And then there is Tsouras' own article. I couldn't bring myself to read it, but scanned it enough to get a good understanding of it. It was very cute. But cute has no place in an anthology like this!

Despite this, some of the articles are quite excellent and make this book a worthwhile buy for alternate history aficionados. Now, I shall take some space to respond to some of the prior criticisms with which I disagree:

1. The Vietnam Scenarios: Many of the prior critiques show a strong dislike of the two Vietnam scenarios. Personally, I found Griffith's civil affairs focused story the best and most plausible of the lot. He gives us a good point of departure (McNamara listening to different advisors) and runs it to a reasonable conclusion (Republic of Vietnam becomes a palatable option and American resolve isnt drained dry on a secondary front of the Cold War). Kiley's revenge fantasy is much more problematic. The fatal flaw here is he doesn't explain what happened with the 50-60,000 Chinese Soldiers who garrisoned North Vietnam in the period of this invasion. Are they not present? Did Mao tell them not to fight the Americans? We don't really know. But I know one thing. There is no way the NVA could stand up to the US armed forces in a combined arms battle.

2. No Nuclear General Exchange: I entirely support not having one of these stories in here. What is the point of having a story where something bad happens, the US President and Soviet Premier press buttons, a whole bunch of people are vaporized and mankind goes back to the Bronze Age (if not further)?

3. No NATO/Soviet War in Central Europe: Having such a scenario would not have been completely wrong. However I hearken back to my limited space comment. If you're going to publish a book like this with less than 300 pages, do you want an article on a topic which has been written about in great depth by the likes of Clancy, General Sir John Hackett, etc.?

All an all a good book. But it could have been much better.

I had high hopes for this book-maybe too high. Two things stood out: (1) WAY too much emphasis on the military and not nearly enough on the political/philosophical aspects (2) A real lack of imagination in the events described.

The writers seemed to be from the "old" Tom Clancey school - pack as much military jargon into as few paragraphs as possible. After a while the mind swims as you read about the "3rd Corp of the 22nd Battalian or the 5th Armored Division or the 56th Motorized Unit..." or the rather esoteric nomenclature about the various types of tanks, jets or ships. A quick glance at the contributors revealed an overwhelming number of military authors when what was needed were some from the political and literary fields. I am sure that Newt Gingrich or Gary Hart or even Bill Clinton could have written an adequate tale.

Characters were shown at their most extreme - Stalin (cunning and evil), Johnson (frustrated), Carter (ultimate Capitulator), generals (crusty), soldiers (obedient and patriotic), blah blah. These all have elements of truth but tell us something we didn't already know.

Some stories were extreme - Pakistan holding off a combined onslaught by the USSR and India or China holding off a massive Russian attack by sheer numbers. "Lightning" provided humor in an otherwise pretty dreary read. "The Invasion of North Vietnam" was perhaps the most daring while most were much ado about nothing. The problem I had with these "alternate realities" is that in the vast majority, history was not dramatically changed.
Also there were no nuclear exchanges to amount to anything.

THIRD REICH VICTORIOUS, edited by the same author, was richer in both literary and conjectural components.

I was looking forward to reading this book and once I got it I was a little disappointed. Some of the scenarios were entertaining and kept my interest while others were just plain boring. The scenario involving an Afghanistan-Soviet-Pakistan-India war was downright boring and uninteresting to read. The last scenario dealing with a NATO attack on the collapsing Soviet Empire was ridiculous. I found it hard to believe that by firing bottles of vodka at attacking Russian troops would have eventually defeated them. Overall it was an okay read, but nothing to get excited about.

"What if" history has an inherent interest and it is not surprising that much of it deals with battles. The writers of these alternative essays are all military officers and only one of them is a professional historian. The result is quite deadly: this is not remotely as provocative a book as Niall Ferguson's Virtual History because there is no real discussion of historical events. None of the essays shows much interest in the relevant historical literature. Whether it is the Berlin Blockade, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the various Israeli-Arab conflicts or the Afghan war, the authors show no interest in examining the scholarship on the opposing side's motives. Carolyn Eisenberg, Bruce Cumings, William Stueck, Kathryn Weathersby, Jian Chen, Raymond Garthoff, William Duiker, David Elliott, Robert Buzzanco, Neil Sheehan: none of them make an appearance.

A basic principle of counterfactual history is that except for the basic change posited in the "What if" you only minimally change the events in question. For example, once you have Lee win the Battle of Gettysburg, you can't give the South nuclear weapons. But the authors know too little about history to know what is a minimal change. As a result there is little control over the author's flights of fancy, except their own prejudices. As such, one possible alternative, nuclear war, never appears. The chapters on the Berlin Blockade, The Six-Day war, a Soviet-Sino war, and the Yom Kippur War all ends properly contained. One suspects this relatively happy result is because the authors realized a nuclear war would undermine the anti-Communism and nuclear deterrence they have devoted their lives to supporting. Another author has Jimmy Carter winning re-election and thereby insuring the Soviet victory in Afghanistan, which involves both the Soviet Union manipulating India to attack Pakistan, and Pakistan under its despised military dictator successfully resisting. One would think after September 11th, even American conservatives would realize not to glamorize the Taliban's patrons. Peter Tsouras comes up with a strikingly silly chapter in which a Soviet invasion of Western Europe is stopped and reversed simply by flooding the invaders with good vodka.

More seriously we have two attempts to refight the Vietnam War. In one the war is easily staunched in 1963-64 because the Americans buy out the landlords, get rid of corruption, and get Britain, Canada and Italy to send military help. Now where is the constituency in Vietnam who will both fight the NLF and allow the Americans to do this? Where was the constituency in the American army and pro-war supporters who believed that both corruption was a problem and that land reform was a solution? The second is even sillier: the United States plans an invasion of North Vietnam and it works perfectly! Now since the United States couldn't crush the NLF and the North Vietnamese Army after more than a decade in South Vietnam, if they couldn't crush them in the 1970 invasion of Cambodia, if their South Vietnamese proxies had to run away with their tails between their legs in Laos in 1971 and if the Americans couldn't rout the North Vietnamese invasion in 1972, why should we think they could easily beat the North Vietnamese in their own country in a matter of weeks? If the idea was possible you would think someone would have seriously suggested it at the time. Indeed, the whole article is strategically flawed. The whole invasion depends on the idea that China will stay neutral, except the right-wing braggarts who might have pushed the idea in 1970 hated China, and could therefore not provide a reason why China would not intervene. But then everything goes well. The Americans have excellent intelligence in the North before the invasion (yeah, right); notwithstanding the major preparations for an invasion the Americans gain complete tactical and strategic surprise, and they decapitate the North Vietnamese leadership with a series of brilliant raids. Why not just have a fairy wave a magic wand and make the North Vietnamese go away?

However it is the one paper by a professional historian, Sean Maloney, that is the worst in the book. Desperate to make his native Canada a player in the imaginary Cold war, he has a major crisis over Quebec in 1968. Everything about this scenario is silly. De Gaulle is assassinated (by whom?), a left-wing government takes his place (how? The Fifth French Republic has distinct procedures when a president dies), who're actually Soviet agents (who? When?). The Germans agree to reunification on pro-Soviet terms and NATO collapse (why?). One might think this is more important than anything in Canada, but Maloney has the FLQ launch a major insurrection and the Canadian government powerless to stop it. Now to understand what's wrong with this, you have to realize that the FLQ were a small group of malcontents who exploded a few bombs, and in 1970 murdered a Quebec cabinet minister and kidnapped a British diplomat. Once they did they were promptly crushed. The FLQ had minimal popular support and Quebec society was not such that it would ever gain the limited sympathy that the IRA and ETA did. The idea that it could ever launch a major insurrection that would not only paralyze the Canadian government but also require American intervention is a fantasy. It is like thinking that the Weathermen and the Back Panthers could overthrow the American government. Moreover, once after having concocted this idiotic fantasy, Maloney criticizes the Canadian government for not being able to defeat his fevered dream. This book says little about alternative history. It does provide some light on recent events though. The authors show little capacity for self-criticism, blame civilians for making things worse, and have no respect for their enemies. No wonder Iraq is such a mess.