Customer Reviews

What if...?

5 star:		(39)
4 star:		(38)
3 star:		(20)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

As you already know after considering the book, this is a series of counterfactuals - the "What Ifs" of historical events. The focus is on military events and run from 480 BC to the Chinese Communist revolution of the late 1940s. Roughly one-third of the writings focus on world history prior to 1830 (Greek warfare, Napoleon wins at Waterloo), one-third on American history (Revolution - Civil War) and one third 1900 World History (WWI - Cold War). Each counterfactual is authored by respected historians including Stephen Ambrose (whose contribution is surprisingly weak), James McPherson, Cecelia Holland and Stephen Sears. There is also a series of interesting, smaller, one to two page articles spread out through the book.

The authors take various approaches to the challenge. Some launch into intriguing 'what ifs' and their consequences. These include the impact of Alexander the Great's pre-mature death, ways the American Revolution could have easily failed and what if the Battle of Midway had been won by Japan. Other authors take a different approach of only reviewing how events could have been different or how variants were avoided, but they never discuss the impact of the alternative event. This is the only weakness of the book in my opinion. Most articles joyfully carry through on the full description of how events could have differed and how the world would be different if they had turned out this way. For example, would Lincoln have negotiated peace with the Confederacy if Lee's orders for Sharpsburg had not fallen into McClellan's hands allowing the South to win this battle?

Finally, the scenarios are relatively realistic. There are no discussions of 'what would have happened if the Americans had automatic weapons in 1776...' The articles are very interesting for historians and those interested in military history. The broad discussions and topics also make the reading captivating and easy to read. Each article is less than 15-20 pages long, so you won't have to read "war & peace" to cover the topic. Enjoy!

There have been some accusations that this book is "light" history, and I can see why the charge is made. But as a university professor, I in no way felt that the volume was too lowbrow.

It is true that at times the authors spend far more time summarizing the real-life events than exploring their alternate scenarios in sufficient detail. Although this was probably necessary for a general audience that may not already be aware of the details of Poitiers or the Golden Horde, it did often leave a hungry feeling in the pit of my stomach. In many cases, I wished there had been a much lengthier version of the scenario available.

I also agree that more consideration of "second-order counterfactuals" would have helped, but the general point of this work is well-taken, and should jolt the reader out of the lazy sense of historical determinacy into which we all tend to drift when we're not thinking very hard about the past. As must have happened with many readers, the book also caused me to run through the past 15 years of my own life in search of equally intriguing near-miss counterfactuals-- "what if I had moved to Rhode Island in 1996?", "what if I had married Ms. X after all?" I mention this anecdote because it is good evidence that the book can work its magic on the reader's mind despite the flaws that have been mentioned.

The bottom line is that I found this book hard to put down _despite_ reading it for the most part in a loud and seedy neighborhood bar.

History, like everything else, has fads that come and go. It seems that now counterfactual history is the fad of the day. Nevertheless, the exercise presented in What if? is, to say the least, very interesting. But is it useful? I believe it is, but not from the point of view of the historian, because history, no matter how you want to put it, is about things that happened not about things that didn't happen. What if? is useful from the point of view of the decision maker, and to be more specific, from the point of view of the decision making process. Some essays contained in the book base their assumptions on circumstance, or a chance, like the famous "lost orders" that influence the outcome of the US Civil War. Others essays, the ones that are really useful, explore the decisions behind the historical events. Only these essays serve a wider purpose, not only of entertainment, but of greater insight into things that truly could have been different.

I read everything I can get my hands on relating to military history. This has been a great year for readers with my interests, with the publication of 'Blackhawk Down', 'The Thin Red Line', 'The Triumph & the Glory', and 'Hart's War' among others. Now the year is topped off with a bang by this intriguing collection put together by Mr. Cowley. The what-ifs are mind-boggling, this book really makes you understand and appreciate the elements that combine to drive historic events, and how everything could have been so very different but for THAT ONE LITTLE THING that determined the outcome.

This book is well described by its subtitle: "The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been." The twenty essays and numerous sidebars are actually only by American and British, so the use of "World's Foremost" is a bit of a reach, but nonetheless, there is a nice variety amongst the essays. Almost all of them are lively and compelling examples of what is known in jargon as "counterfactual reasoning," providing plenty of food for thought to chew on.

The essays progress in chronological order, and in general I enjoyed the ones that concentrated on the older events more, perhaps because they are more removed from time and consciousness and thus are easier to credit. As might be expected, John Keegan's brief "How Hitler Could Have Won the War: The Drive for the Middle East, 1941" is the exception here. In general, the more titillating notions are found in essays like Thomas Fleming's "Unlikely Victory: 13 Ways the Americans Could Have Lost the Revolution." or Cecelia Holland's "The Death that Saved Europe: The Mongols Turn Back, 1242." Irrespective of one's particular interests, this is a spectacular anthology of alternate history. It should be noted that the maps accompanying each essay are outstanding.

I like alternate history and thought this would be interesting. However, it was rather dissapointing. Battles are described in detail but what ifs are barely mentioned(several paragraphs at the most). Since that's the title of the book I expected a lot more than that.

The reason I could not go with 5 stars was due to the lack of notes. There are events described that are familiar, but there are many that unless a good deal of prior knowledge is brought by the reader, the full benefit of a given essay is missed. On balance this is a great read. I am new to the, "Counterfactual Study" of History, but I am also a new fan. One note of caution, there are authors who make value judgments about a given Culture/People that may clash with a belief a reader may hold dear, but these are the exception and not the rule. It did seem at times inappropriate to make value judgments about History even if an alternate one is proposed. As it was still being treated as "A" History if not "The" History, should not the same objectivity be maintained? An alternative outcome of events does not require a value Judgement, or an editorial to be admitted or even needed. I am not advocating a view, rather stating that no personal views by the Author are needed. Tell us your theory, not who or what you may not like about who is involved. Anyway it is a great book. Do you know when the Declaration Of Independence was signed? I thought I did. No one I asked got the date correct either. I spent some time researching the issue because I had trouble believing that what I read was correct, and that even my small poll showed no one else knew the date either. This is an example of where a footnote would have been helpful. There are also some great details. Did you know the Kaiser volunteered to be shot at by Annie Oakley? What if she had shot him instead of what she did hit? Or how about a New York Taxi-Driver than came within inches of fundamentally altering the 20th Century? Or how one blow of a battle-axe caused disorientation of he who was hit, but the second blow, having been prevented by a bodyguard changed history. Big events do alter History; this book demonstrates how totally unforeseen events, individual action, or the smallest detail or mistake can have the same impact as an event thought to be a major turning point.

Good synopsis of some of the more pivotal moments in history. It provides an appreciation of the importance of chance and seemingly minor actions and events. A little too much emphasis on what did happen with an occasional lapse in transition. Otherwise an excellent read. Good, brief lessons on world history.

There are a lot of horrible alternative history books out there. In my opinion some of the worst are by the popular writer Harry Turtletub. Other than his Guns of the South, I find most of his stuff really really bad.

I was very pleased to see a book of alternate history written by distinguished historians. John Keegan the Great Military History, McCollough from American Experience and Author of Truman, and Caleb Carr just to name a few.

As historians, teachers, history fans, we can argue all day about some of the scenerios and what ifs found in this book. That is the fun part. Who Knows....

But the bottom line is this: the book is very thought provoking. The scenerios are food for thought. The historians who are used in this collection know there stuff and can write.

This is a fun book to read and even better to debate. Its time and money well spent.

The premise is sound: take a bunch of the most prominent Anglo-American historians, most of whom are also excellent writers, and ask them what might have happened if some event in their area of expertise had come out differently. The title's claim that the book brings together "the World's Foremost" historians is obvious puffery--no non-Anglo-American historians are represented.

The formula followed by most of the essays in "What If?" is to take some pivotal event in history, describe what really happened, and ask how that event might have come out differently. In general, you don't get a lot of speculation about what would have happened next. Thomas Fleming's essay "Unlikely Victory" focuses on 13 ways in which the colonies might have lost the American Revolution. Fleming doesn't give you much speculation about what would have happened in a world in which the colonies law. Put another way, you don't get a lot of alternative history here; instead, you get a lot of speculative history about specific events. To be clear, I am not identifying this as a flaw, just trying to be clear about what you're going to get.

As with any collection of essays, "What If?" is something of a mixed bag. Some of the essays are really quite good. Fleming's "Unlikely Victory" really does a good job of identifying 13 ways the colonies could have lost. Moreover, Fleming doesn't push the analysis beyond the bounds of plausibility. Fleming concludes that some of his 13 ways, for example, were more likely to end in stalemate than outright British victory. The logistical and political problems faced by the British make it hard to imagine they could have won a clearcut victory. In contrast, John Keegan's essay on how Hitler could have won World War II struck me as far less plausible. Keegan speculates that in lieu of attacking Russia, Hitler could have struck through Anatolia into Iraq and maybe even Persia. I very much doubt whether Germany had the logistical infrastructure to support an attack of that magnitude over such great distances. Moreover, would it have been advisable for Hitler to expose such an extened flank to the Soviet's south? Surely a more plausible scenario is an August 1940 invasion of Britain.

On balance, however, the bulk of the essays reward reading. James McPherson is one of my two favorite Civil War historians (Shelby Foote is the other.) He assumes that the order for Lee's 1862 invasion of Pennsylvania did not fall into McClellan's hands and Lee is able to outflank McClellan, draw him out of Washington, and beat him decisively (at Gettysburg no less!). Britain and France threaten to intervene, forcing the Union to acknowledge Confederate indeependence. The essay is plausible and well-written. (It also uses the same plot devices as Harry Turtledove's excellent alternative history of the Civil War--i.e., the non-lost order of 1862.)

Victor Davis Hanson's essay on the Battle of Salamis was also quite interesting. The Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BC really was one of the pivotal events in the history of the West. It was also a very close-run thing--closer in fact than most of the other events analyzed in "What If?" I have read several accounts of Salamis, but Hanson's is probably the best--clear, well-written, and succinct. I especially liked Hanson's thoughtful analysis of Salamis' implications for the evolution of democracy. The Athenian land forces were dominated by elites--men of property. The navy was comprised mainly of the lower levels of society. Hanson plausibly claims that as a naval victory Salamis was a victory for democracy. With the navy in ascendancy, the polity had to expand.

In sum, highly recommended. You probably won't want to read "What If" in one sitting. Instead, I like to dip into it periodically to read an essay or two. Most of the essays are pretty short, so this approach works well. You won't enjoy all the essays, but you'll enjoy enough to make the purchase price well worth paying.