Customer Reviews

What Ifs? Of American History

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

History is often written as if outcomes were inevitable, as if the colonies were ordained to win the American Revolution or the Union to prevail in the Civil War. But history is contingent, and the only way to fully appreciate the significance of a given event is to think about what might have happened if things had turned out differently.

At first, I was a little put off by the "What If?" series of books, thinking the essays were probably more like works of science fiction than reliable articles about history. For the most part, I was mistaken, and I recommend this book and its prequels ("What If?" and "What If2?") to anyone seeking a better understanding of some of history's conspicuous turning points.

The essays generally fall into three categories. The first, which I enjoy the most, explain the historical context of a given occurrence and then engage in limited (but very illuminating) speculation about what might have happened if that event hadn't turned out the way it did. Examples of this type include Theodore Rabb's "Might the Mayflower Not Have Sailed" and John Lukac's "No Pearl Harbor?: FDR Delays the War."

Other essays also offer up the historical context but move on to engage in much bolder speculation. An example is Caleb Carr's "William Pitt the Elder and the Avoidance of the American Revolution," which explores a cascade of assumptions about how the 19th and 20th Century would have been different if Britain had kept the 13 colonies (the intriguing conclusion being that the world might have been better off). The problem with this approach is that it assumes that events in the rest of the world would have stayed on more or less the same path notwithstanding a dramatic change in the outcome of the American revolution. This enables Carr to speculate, for example, on a 19th century summit between Disraeli and Bismarck, but I wonder if either of those two persons would have played the same role in history had the events of the late 18th century been dramatically different than what they actually were.

The final type of essay dives right into the counterfactual world without clearly setting out the historical context. Examples are Andrew Roberts "The Whale and the Wolf, " which immediately launches into a history of a hypothetical Anglo-American War of 1896 and Ted Morgan's "Joe McCarthy's Secret Life," a tongue-in-cheek speculation that McCarthy was really a Soviet spy. For my tastes, the problem with these essays is that they spend very little time distinguishing between what did and didn't actually happen, which means that the reader is less likely to learn about history than about the author's speculations.

On the whole, "What Ifs? of American History" is a very entertaining and readable book. If you enjoy it, consider getting the other two "What If" books, as well as Victor David Hanson's "Ripples of Battle" (which shares many features with the "What If?" series).

Robert Cowley has done it again!

After two first-rate "what if" books covering alternative endings of major events in World History, Cowley and his distinguished coterie of authors (James McPherson, Jay Winik, Caleb Carr, Cecilia Holland, et. al.,) have taken on the major events of American History and have provided a fresh view and sometimes not too pleasant alternative endings to them.

Consider this: Jay Winik's "John Wilkes Booth's Wildest Dream" - a Union angered by the assassination of Lincoln enacting retribution on Southern leaders, with the South in turn resorting to widespread guerrilla warfare, which by the time Grant takes office, is practically uncontrollable. Winik had already alluded to the possible horror of guerrilla warfare had Lee NOT surrendered at Appomattox; here he elaborates on it.

In another essay, Anthony Beevor writes an intriguing "what if" Eisenhower had given the "green light" for American forces to seize Berlin ahead of the advancing Red Army in the spring of 1945, and the probable consequences of such an order. We now know that Stalin was prepared to order Red Army commanders to open fire if the U.S. 9th Army had entered the city.

Or a Nuclear Holocaust where the United States, having experienced a Soviet tactical nuclear response in Cuba, and several strikes on the United States itself, resulting in the deaths of both JFK and Lyndon Johnson, resorts to a massive Nuclear assault on the Soviet Union? A quarter of a million Americans are killed, but that is nothing compared to the virtual obliteration of the old USSR, where only a tenth of the population survive the American air and sea bomber and missile assaults - and the world is so revulsed by this overkill that America is ostracized for the next three decades. Wow!

And that is just the tip of the alternative history iceberg...consider a Nixon Presidency that survived Watergate, or an America wracked by Labor Strife in 1877!

About the only faults that I can find in this remarkable work is the regurgitation of James McPherson's brilliant essay on an alternative Antietam which turned in a Lee victory at Gettysburg, an "event" already visited in the first "What If" volume. Also no alternative 9/11 or war on terror essay, as this book ends with Nixon and Vietnam. It also might have been fascinating to see alternative endings to Little Big Horn, where Custer was victorious over Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, or a turn of events in the Spanish-American War. Hope Mr. Cowley and his associates will take on these and other events next time around.

This is the third collection in the superb "What If" series, and the first to focus exclusively on American History. The first caveat I would give to anyone thinking of making a purchase is that two of these essays (by David McCullough and James McPherson) are repeats from the first volume in the series. I would secondly note that the quality of the essays included here vary wildy.

Some, like the speculation on John Tyler's ascendency from Vice-President to President upon the death of William Henry Harrison, and the possible outcome of a third U.S. war with Britain (circa 1896) are quite informative. At least one, a telling of the Cuban Missle Crisis as if it precipated World War III, is quite chilling. Others, however, are less engaging. Anthony Beevor's recounting of Eisenhower's decision at the end of World War II not to march on Berlin, for example, adds little to the controversy that wasn't already there.

Overall, a worthwhile collection for those who love counterfactual historical speculation, with the above reservations.

I have to say that this edition of "What If?" does make you think, especially about what could have happened regarding the history of the U.S. had things gone a diffrent way.

I've found a lot of the senarios presented in this book(particularly the ones on Pearl Harbor, Joe McCarthy and JFK) to be fasciniting and it really does make you think and look back.

I would definitely recommend this book to any fan of history.

The introduction to one of the selections in this book suggests that it can be thought of as an "American Baedeker of roads that could have been, or almost were, taken." That's as good a description of any of this third volume in the "What If?" series of historical speculations. Once more, editor Robert Cowley has assembled a panel of noted historians and novelists, who offer all sorts of intriguing possibilities--an America without a revolution; what might have happened if the plot to assassinate Lincoln had also succeeded in killing Vice President Johnson; what might have been the consequences if the US and Britain had actually gone to war over a South American boundary dispute in 1896; and what might have happened had John F. Kennedy not been murdered. The tone of the pieces varies from the tongue in cheek (speculation on what the true motives behind Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-Communist crusade might have been) to the truly frightening (a picture of the world in 1972, ten years after the Cuban Missile Crisis leads to a widespread launch of nuclear weaponry).

Playing "What If?" can be an interesting parlor game, but it can also help to illuminate the importance of real-life decisions. In the scenario of a world where both Lincoln and Johnson are killed, the resulting chaos triggers a decision by Robert E. Lee to endorse the wish of Jefferson Davis and many others in the Confederate military--not to lay down arms at that point, but to continue the fight as a guerrilla war, one that might have ended up costing countless more lives and prevented the nation's sectional breach from ever healing.

With contributions from writers of the caliber of Caleb Carr, Robert Dallek, Tom Wicker and Jay Winick, the reader can be assured of an entertaining as well as a thought-provoking read. My one complaint is about the decision to include two pieces from the first book in the series, published in 1999. The jacket copy says these are pieces any American history collection would not be complete without. That strikes me as a rather thin excuse for the recycling. A big part of this book's audience will obviously be readers who have purchased the first two volumes, which are still easily available. If the publishers wanted to include some reprinted material, they could have easily mined the rich archives of the alternate history genre.--William C. Hall

Unfortunately, the defining characteristic of the "What If?" series of books (edited by Robert Cowley) is their scattershot approach to alternate history. While the first volume was fairly sound, "What If? 2" and now "What Ifs? of American History" are plagued by uneven quality of writing, questionable conclusions and most surprising, a pronounced lack of allo-historical content. For a series that defines itself by what might have been, the lack of authors willing to make leaps into the future is a serious, perhaps even crippling problem for any future editions. Identifying tipping points is generally well done, but that is something one finds in conventional history; it is projecting a meaningful alternate outcome rooted in historical fact that defines alternate history, and it is that projection that is becoming less prevalent with each passing volume.

That said, I don't want to indict every author who contributed to "What Ifs? of American History", as there are some genuinely excellent contributions. However, taken as a whole the seventeen chapters are something of a let down. This is true not least because two of the pieces are reprinted from the original "What If?"; while there is nothing wrong with them in their own right, I find it sorely disappointing that a major hardcover release couldn't drum up new contributions.

The problem with many of the contributions is that they find an engaging turning point, and then fail to flesh it out. This is true from the start in "Might the Mayflower Not have Sailed?" which makes a compelling case that this was possible, and outlines significant consequences, but never ties them together to paint a cohesive portrait of how a different America might have evolved.
"The Northwest Conspiracy" is another work that is admirable for a number of reasons. First, it identifies a relatively obscure event (which always make for the most interesting divergences), and secondly, it offers a superb overview of the gross violations of the Constitution committed by the Lincoln administration during the Civil War. Nonetheless, the speculation never evolves into genuine alternate history, and therefore the piece is something of a let down. Finally, there is "The Revolution of 1877" which does delve into some alternate history, but which could have been fleshed out to even greater effect.

"William Pitt the Elder and the Avoidance of the American Revolution" has the opposite problem as it draws conclusions that are to my mind entirely unsupportable. Carr's portrait of the British Empire as a force for benevolent change doesn't seem to be born out in the historical record. The same is true of "JFK Lives" which seems all to ready to ignore Kennedy's cynical manipulation of Cold War politics to his own ends, his relative clumsiness in foreign policy, his hawkish advisors and his indifference to any real momentum in the civil rights movement. Finally, there is "Joe McCarthy's Secret Life" which while somewhat allo-historical is really more of a secret history. An amusing, tongue in cheek look at one of America's most loathsome politicians, but not really alternate history.

Next are three works that never go anywhere. "No Pearl Harbor? FDR Delays the War" and "If Eisenhower Had Gone to Berlin" both change history and then predict virtually identical outcomes. Such considerations are valuable in traditional history, but they aren't really alternate timelines as things rapidly converge back to what we know in months or years. Finally "'His Accidency' John Tyler" raises an interesting question about presidential succession, and then fails utterly to answer what the impact would be.

Now with the negatives aside, let's focus on the highlights. "Lew Wallace and the Ghosts of Shunpike" is a far ranging contribution that posits military, cultural and political impacts springing from the battle of Shiloh. Next is "Beyond the Wildest Dreams of John Wilkes Booth" which examines a Constitutional crisis and a guerilla South to great effect. "The Whale Against the Wolf: The Anglo-American War of 1896" is another interesting military piece that also addresses the shocking absence of Canada (and Mexico) from this book in any meaningful sense.

"If the U-2 Hadn't Flown" suffers from some of the problems above, but ultimately offers so much detail on the consequences of Gary Powers' ill-fate flight it overcomes them. Which brings us to the highlight of the book "The Cuban Missile Crisis: Second Holocaust". Written from an entirely allo-historical point of view, this piece offers a realistic divergence with realistic consequences. Of particular note is the author's appreciation of how vastly larger the U.S. nuclear arsenal was than the Soviet. Not only does this justify the level of destruction of the author envisions, but it is a salient point in that the Kennedy administration seemed to have bought into the myth of the missile gap, in spite of blatant evidence to the contrary. This willful ignorance led Khrushchev to believe Kennedy something of a bumpkin, and ultimately contributed to the decision to deploy missiles to Cuba in the first place.

Finally there is "What If Watergate Were Still Just an Upscale Address?" which like the U-2 piece isn't exactly allo-historical. However, it likewise makes up for this fact with a wealth of detailed consequences.

As one can see, I have mixed feelings about this book. Ultimately, the good outweighs the bad, and I can honestly recommend it to history and alternate history lovers. That said, I think that the overall direction of this series and the consistency and methodology of the contributions need to be seriously considered before any future releases. As such, I know that I will turn a more critical eye to any future books, and will probably hesitate before making a purchase.

Jake Mohlman

Imagine what the US would be like if the Pilgrims hadn't landed at Plymouth Rock, the Confederacy had won the Civil War, JFK hadn't been assassinated, or the Cuban Missile Crisis had escalated into nuclear war, or even what if the Watergate burglary had never been detected? The essays contained in this book speculate on what might have happened if history had taken a different course in these and other important events in our history.

And they are fascinating essays. They describe a world that might have been. Events like the US delaying in joining World War 2, or how the US would have been viewed by the world after the "Two Days War," in which the USSR was almost totally destroyed, or how the US government would have soldiered on in the mid 1860s if both Lincoln & Johnson had been murdered, as was the original plan.

It's always an interesting and fascinating theory to think about events and how they might have played out differently had the circumstances and chances been different. The authors of the essays in this book have done a marvelous job of portraying their "alternate histories." It's enough to make the reader think "What If" about other numerous historical events not covered

As a gamer, I have a special fondness for the What If series. Many gaming scenarios have been built around the different realities occuring from alternate history - heck, anyone can speculate on a different outcome of the Civil War, World War II, or the possibility of World War III. What If brings a level of expertise to the table, "preeminent historians" according to the back cover.

An important staple of an alternative history series is education, demonstrating how things could be different if a particular event or choice wasn't made. I learned a lot more about World War II from this book by what didn't happen, which helped reinforce why events unfolded as they did. In that regard, alternate history scenarios are a great teaching tool.

Unfortunately, the editor (and I blame the editor, Robert Cowley) doesn't seem to be able to rein in his writers. With this many essays, there's bound to be some differences in quality. But the writers never agree on the RULES of the essays themselves.

Not all the essays actually lay out alternate history. Some of the essays are essentially summed up as "WHEW! Boy are we lucky things turned out the way they did!" Which isn't nearly as educational as showing what could have happened. There are plenty of other experts that can simply tell us about the near misses of history.

Not all of the essays are grounded in actual history. It's fine to lay out alternate history, but for a neophyte who isn't familiar with the timeline of events, speculation without a comparison to the actual events just muddles the waters. When the writers use active voice, you have no idea if our guide to history is in fact speculating or retelling actual events as they happened. Opinion? Fact? Hypothesis? It's never clear.

Finally, some of the essays are outright fiction, Joe McCarthy's Secret Life being the most egregious example. So what, exactly, is this essay trying to prove? How easy it would be for McCarthy to actually be a member of the communists he was rooting out? What's the lesson here?

Some of these essays have been reprinted from the What If series before, which is odd - I imagine the group interested in this series already read the first volume and their inclusion "as a bonus" seems a little disingenuous. If the plan was to have this volume be a reference, it falls short of its goals.

That said, What Ifs? of American History is an interesting if uneven collection of opinions, predictions, and history lessons about America. Worth reading, but you might want to keep a history textbook nearby.

Some of the counterfactuals (especially the Civil War ones) were quite informative and/or entertaining; they explained why small changes in history would have mattered, and created vivid alternative histories.

Others were so vague and speculative as to be uninteresting; for example, the essay on the 1960 U-2 incident suggests that the Cold War would have somehow ended earlier had it not occurred. However, the author fails to explain why the detente between a lame-duck President Eisenhower (then in his last year of office) and Khruschev would have been more durable or historically important than the detente of the 1970s between Nixon and Breshnev.

Most history books are written in a monotone voice and many of them are also white-washed. But this book is very different from normal history because it sparks the mind for new thoughts and new possibilities, or what could have happened.

This book is pretty amazing from the story of what could happen to the Mayflower to other unimagineable things that could pop up into the mind. I liked this book very much, but the only downside is that sometimes the essays and stories get a bit dull at times.