Rating: 
Summary: Pretty good for the most part
Review: Each essay does a great job of outlining the facts leading up to the battle and the book is worthwhile just for that. But the "what if" scenarios are for the most part unrealistic - for example that Europe would have been better off if it had been under Moslem control in the middle ages. It makes you wonder what some of these guys and gals are smoking.
Rating: 
Summary: -Good Ideas but not enough depth-
Review: I am a dedicated history and counterfactual history enthusiast. I have read just about all of the alternate history I can lay my hands on - I think it's a wonderful means of learning how close we've come to disaster. This book was a fascinating read in terms of topic, but had very little to offer in terms of analysis. Each short essay explores a different possibility, and granted many of them go into some depth explaining how the possibility might have come to pass, but the level of depth included for each scenario is truly insufficient. Kenneth Macksey, on the other hand, really understands how much information is necessary for an alternate history: in his books, The Hitler Options, and Invasion, he gives excellent alternate history accounts. So does Peter Tsouras in Gettysburg. This book just doesn't give enough. The best thing it has accomplished has been to give recognition to a valid means of studying history.
Rating: 
Summary: Fabulous
Review: I purchased this book three days ago and have already finished it. It's an interesting twist on military history by some of America's foremost historians. The essay are fascinating, well written, and really get you thinking. What If is a masterpiece -- I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: serious history that's fun, too
Review: i have read this book, and it's excellent: rigorous analysis of the sources and imaginative and knowledgeable recreation of the past as it might have been, by some of the best historians in the country (mcneill is my idol). a great intellectual game for history buffs.
Rating:
Summary: Eh?!?
Review: Okay, I'll be honest. I haven't actually read this volume, so I'm basing my opinion on the earlier article that appeared in MHQ early in 1998. And the result is... I hope that the amount of counterfactual speculation in this book-length volume exceeds what was in the magazine entry as otherwise it would be pretty pitiful. The entries in the magazine essay suggested some good possibilities, but none of the authors had any guts to carry their ideas further. I hope (knock wood) that in this book version that they developed some "intestinal fortitide".
Rating: 
Summary: Great Beach Reading History
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: "History" As Pornographic Fantasy
Review: This earns 2 stars for its intriguing concept, and chapters by major scholars (William McNeill, Geoffrey Parker, Ross Hassig, etc.) are certainly worthwhile. Presumably they wanted to try something different, and they acquit themselves conscientiously as always. But so much of this book is fatally problematic, even offensive, that the whole project trivializes the practice of history. Counterfactual exercises can have genuine value apart from mere diversion. But too many contributors here are inattentive to logical implications, sloppy with facts, and downright biased toward particular outcomes. Counterfactuals are generally handled better by philosophers of history (usually philosophers), who thoroughly explore real probabilities and control for numerous variables. The presence of macho blowhards (Stephen Ambrose and John Keegan, once respected historians) and rightwing cranks (Victor Davis Hanson) is a telling sign. Arthur Waldron's chapter on China is sorely disappointing after his fine "Great Wall of China." Here he rehashes long-discredited McCarthyite loss-of-China nonsense, and smears George C. Marshall, whose sage but rejected assessment of 1940s China reinforced his deserved reputation as a great public servant. And now the ultimate reactionary fantasy: not only does Robert E Lee win at Gettysburg, he gets to defend the high ground against fruitless Union assaults! That laughable scenario will warm the hearts of neo-Confederates everywhere; just imagine them getting off on that fantasy---hence "pornography" in the review title. For a truly historical, and enlightening, counterfactual approach, see N. Lawler, "Soldiers, Airmen, Spies & Whisperers: The Gold Coast in World War II." Her work succeeds precisely because she considers actual policy options weighed by the Allies in the dark days of the war. "What If's" many flights of fancy simply reveal that provocative doesn't necessarily mean thought-provoking.
Rating:
Summary: Fairly realistic alternative history scenarios
Review: When I saw the title for this book, I must admit that I was pretty sceptical of the thesis of the book. 'What if' scenarios infinitely abound throughout history, but even the most unlikely of situations can and does occur in reality. The problem with hypothetical scenarios is that they are often analyzed in a rather unrealistic context. In reality, if an unexpected defeat or victory does occur it only rarely decisively concludes a war. Most of the time the opponents refuse to admit defeat and continue their struggle despite the likely ultimate outcome. Still, I thought that many of the scenarios, especially the ones on WWI, WWII, and the Cold War, were expertly written and devastatingly realistic.
Each of the 20 scenarios is written by a noted historian who examines the most significant hypothetical scenario during the era he or she covers. Starting off with a successful Assyrian siege of Jerusalem scenario, the book ends with a capitalist mainland China absorbing an impoverished Communist Manchuria. But the meat of the book examines the struggles of the traditionally Western powers. Two scenarios covering the American Revolution really highlight exactly how truly fortunate the US was ever to come into existence. Washington, Cortes, and Nimitz might have been resolutely determined, but they were also incredibly fortunate to win against massive odds.
To give you an idea of the quality of writing for this book, one needs only look to the list of its contributors - Keegan, Ambrose, Horne, McCullough and many more historians are included. Overall, the writing style was great, but of course with so many contributors the quality of analysis varied writer by writer. My favorite scenario, though, was the Cold War's 'Funeral in Berlin' by David Clay Large who illustrated just how fatally close the superpowers came to a violent - and most probably nuclear - confrontation.
Rating:
Summary: Dissapointing
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: What if...it were ALL written by top quality writers?
Review: The premise of this book is explained by the title. The "What ifs...?" range in time from the failed Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. to an extremely tense period in the Cold War in November of 1983. There are 40 different scenarios in all. For me, the most interesting were the scenarios concerning the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs and the American Revolution. Each of these had multiple "What ifs?" and I am now convinced that 2 of the luckiest men in all of history were Hernan Cortes and George Washington. They both could have failed in so many ways (13 are identified for Washington) and yet they perservered and had military success.
An unintended "What if?" is the reader's ineveitable comparison of these historian's writing styles. More than once I thought to myself, "What if this story was written by a better writer?" However, most were very good, especially the ones written by well-known historians Stephen Ambrose and James M. McPherson.
|
