What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been

Rating:
Summary: Uneven
Review: I started reading this book with great expectations of an intellectual stroll through history. On the whole, the essays contained in this book were disappointing, although (as one should expect) there is an uneven quality of entries.

First off, the reader should be aware that the book does not, in general, provide "alternative history;" instead, it is a compilation of important moments in world history (with weight on US history). Perhaps it should have been called (as is another, regrettably unread, book on my shelf) "Turning Points in World History." Some of the essays are excellent - inspired and thought-provoking (e.g., the first essay by W McNeill on ancient Jerusalem). Others are silly - the first such, by Lapham on Teutoburg, induced me to do a web search to discover his credentials (he hadn't appeared to have given it much thought). Some were infuriating (why did I waste my time?): for example, McPherson's essay on the "Lost Orders" in the Antietam campaign (OK, here comes the rant). Sure, this was a random, low-probability event that had a major effect on the war, and could easily had turned out otherwise. But McPherson (a highly regarded historian) goes on to speculate that, absent the discovery of the orders, the 1862 campaign would have been similar to the 1863 MD-PA campaign, with the Confederates moving north as far as Harrisburg and the Susquehanna, then concentrating (from the north and west) at Gettysburg; while the Union army, shielding Washington, moved up from the southeast (OK...). But then he supposes that the armies somehow switch positions, with the Union army attacking the Confederates from the north and west at Gettysburg!?!

Well, I know it's just for fun, but I'd like to see the authors put a little bit more into it. As it is, I can recommend this book for its entertainment value, and occasional nice essay. But, most of the time, you could probably do better yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Uneven, but overall excellent
Review: For anyone who likes history, this book is an uneven, but overall excellent and very enjoyable, series of exercises in "counterfactual" history. Not the silly, frivolous, or nonsensical kind, where Robert E. Lee all of a sudden is given a nuclear bomb, but instead serious, meaty (even highly PROBABLE) ones, like what would have happened if there hadn't been a mysterious plague outside the walls of Jerusalem, or if there had been a Persian victory at Salamis, or if Genghis Khan's drunken third son (Ogadai)had not died just as his hordes were poised to conquer (and probably annhilate) Europe, or if Cortes had been killed or been captured Tenochtitlan, etc.

The major flaw with this book is that the essays are of somewhat uneven interest level, style, and quality. Personally, for instance, I found the essay on the Mongols to be fascinating, sending chills down my spine! "D Day Fails" by Stephen Ambrose, on the other hand, didn't do much for me at all, nor did "Funeral in Berlin." In general, I would say that the essays covering earlier periods in human history tend to be better than ones covering more recent history. Possibly this is in part because the later periods have been covered to death. I mean, how many "counterfactuals" on the US Civil War can there be before we get sick of them? But a well-written, tightly-reasoned counterfactual which, based on events hundreds or even thousands of years ago, quite plausibly leads to a result where there is no Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or Western culture at all, is absolutely fascinating in my opinion. If nothing else, books like "What If?" show how important CHANCE is in human history, as well as the importance of the INDIVIDUAL, as opposed to some Hegelian/Marxist-Leninist historical "inevitability." The bottom line is that it is rare that anything is truly "inevitable", and the aptly titled "What If?" gives us some excellent case studies.

Rating:
Summary: Take your time
Review: I've been a history buff my whole life, and as an adult I became one of those people who naturally looks for different ways to do the same old thing. So I easily assumed that this fun "what if" genre of looking at history would be fascinating to me.

And I was right, at least at first.

But over time, reading this book wore me down. That isn't a criticism of any essay in particular: I think that several -- such as Lewis Lapham's exploration into the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, Thomas Fleming's piece about how the American Revolution Could have been lost, and John Keegan's view on how Hitler's war could have been won -- are particularly strong. But like certain kinds of desert, what started out as a tasty indulgence just became too much to enjoy.

We've all had the experience of sitting next to a know-it-all guest at some dinner party, someone who has an unusual explanation for everything and who won't listen to anything or anyone who doesn't support what he thinks. That mind-numbing feeling is the similar to the one I had after reading a few of these essays in a row.

Does that mean you shouldn't buy this book? No, not necessarily. But if you do buy it, my suggestion would be to take it in stages. Read an essay or two and then switch to something else, and then come back to it. As for me, the purchase What If 2?, which once seemed assured, will have to wait a while.

Rating:
Summary: "What If" you bought this book?
Review: 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!

Rating:
Summary: Not-very Original Historical Fluff
Review: This is a collection of essays by various historians on alternate military outcomes in history, arranged in chronological order from Ancient times to 1983. Although there are some interesting essays on the American Revolution and a few other areas, the book is very disappointing. The "big name" historians provide the worst-written essays, almost afterthoughts. The essay by John Keegan on what if Hitler had pursued a Mediterranean strategy in 1941-2 totally ignores logistics and Nazi political objectives. Stephen Ambrose's essay on what if D-Day had failed rests on non-military reasoning and is ridiculous (as if the Allies would have abandoned D-Day because of bad weather). In light of Peter Tsouras' excellent "Disaster at D-Day", Ambrose's essay appears pathetic. Other essays are rather pedestrian, like several on what if the South had won the Civil War. Yawn. How many times is this going to be passed around? Many interesting and almost situations, like Operation Sealion, or what if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia in 1990 are ignored. None of the essays do a very good job on strategic analysis and assume too much about single win/loss results (e.g. a Southern victory at Gettysburg was unlikely to have won the war, since the North had already lost several battles without any real reduction in its will to win). This book is a collection of not-very original quasi-historical fluff.

Rating:
Summary: Potential did not give way to Kinetic
Review: This series of stories had tremendous promise but they got too mired down in the - pardon the pun - nuts and bolts of the matter. This is MILITARY history with a capital "M" and a sharp salute. While this is interesting within the context of a story a little can go a long way. Some of these stories are fairly interesting while others read like punishment exercises by the Marines.

Of course these are better than the abominable Turtledove monstrosities (in which despite earth-shaking action changes the characters remain the same) but that is not saying much. I look forward to another WHAT IF of a decidedly less military tone.

Rating:
Summary: Too Microscopic
Review: Had the South had won the Civil War, would California and Texas have ended up as independent nations? Could the North and the South have reconciled? Or would this have led to another continental war?

I approached 'What If?' expecting macroscopic analysis of those sorts of questions. While some questions of this sort were answered, the counterfactuals were on the whole more microscopic, e.g, if factor X (weather, military decision, or good timing) was existent/nonexistent, would war Y have occurred? If so, who would have won? Often, little is said about the ramifications were the outcome of an entire war reversed.

History is more engaging, in my opinion, when taken on a macroscopic level, when the international balance of power is affected by consequences of military struggle, because it forces the reader to truly appreciate its ramifications. Instead of the macroscopic "Had Nazi Germany won, would there have been a nuclear war?" this book gives us "What would have happened had Hitler not attacked Russia?"

That this book is written by military historians should reveal its specific nature. This is not to say that the book was not readable nor enjoyable. It was. However, it is better suited for those who prefer the minutia of military history.

Rating:
Summary: Very Interesting Book
Review: This book seems like it really nails down good the major turning points in World History and provides very insightful alternate outcomes. My only complaint was that the reader is better off being very learned in all kinds of history because for when the book gives you what really happened and then gives you what could have happened and you are reading it parts at a time, it is very easy to confuse fact with fiction. To combat this problem I guess if the reader is not a history buff then the reader ought to read a chapter in one sitting. The book also seemed loaded with expressions of speech not easily understood by all and the English was hard to follow at times.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book of Counterfactual History with Keegan and Ambrose
Review: Great Book of Counterfactual History with Keegan and Ambrose

A friend of mine with whom I always discuss history recommended this novel and I glad he did. It was an enthralling read and I finished its' 395 pages over three days. It was a hard book to put down.

One of the topics we often discuss is counterfactual history or "What-if" scenarios. It's just plain fun to imagine what might have been if Custer never had a last stand or the Spanish Conquistadors hadn't have conquered the New World. What if Hitler had won W.W.II? The book explores history from this perspective of imagining how things might have been different if our history didn't occur. Having twenty plus distinguished historians who really know their stuff guide you through "what-if" scenarios makes for a good read. By the way, "counterfactual" is the word that academics prefer to use for "what-if" scenarios.

The book's full title is "What of? The World's Foremost military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been." The title fully describes the book's contents and all of the twenty scenarios describe how history could have taken a different turn had factors as uncontrollable as the weather were different. The twenty scenarios range from ancient history and the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians to the final scenario supposing what if Mao and the Chinese Communists hadn't have defeated Chiang Kai-Shek and the Chinese Nationalists. Every scenario was well written and discussed. The book has already provided my friend and I with great conversational fodder.

The book includes essays by: William H. McNeil, Victor Davis Hanson, Josiah Ober, Lewis H. Lapham, Barry S. Strauss, Cecilia Holland, Theodore K. Rabb, Ross Hassig, Geoffrey Parker, Thomas Fleming, David McCullough, Allistair Horne, James M. McPherson, Stephen W. Sears, Robert Cowley, John Keegan, Theodore F. Cook Jr., Stephen Ambrose, David Clay Large, Arthur Waldron, and others.

The historical distribution of the essays is as follows:

- Four essays cover Ancient History (The Hebrews, Persians, Romans and Greeks).
- Two essays cover the Dark Ages (Islam, Franks, and the Mongols).
- Three essays cover the 16th century (Hernan Cortez, The Spanish Armada, and the Ottoman Muslim Siege of Vienna).
- Five essays cover the 18th and 19th centuries (The American Revolution, Napoleon, and the American Civil War).
- The final six essays cover the modern period (W.W.I, W.W.II, and the Chinese Communist Revolution of Mao).

I thoroughly enjoyed this book and highly recommend it.

Review by: Maximillian Ben Hanan

Rating:
Summary: MISTAKES
Review: very interesting views about what if scenarios. my interest in this book faded after reading STEPHEN W. SEARS "A Confederate Cannae and Other Scenarios". His essay stated that Stonewall Jackson was killed at the Battle of Bull Run 1861 By a "federal volley" wich mangled his left arm.Stonewall Jackson was actually killed at chancellorsville in 1863 by friendly fire. These mistakes just made me wonder if other facts in the book where correct or not.