Rating: 
Summary: Counterfactual musings as a check to social historians!
Review: I liked this rather interesting book by Robert Cowley (Ed). Like other reviewers here I preferred the counterfactual accounts more distant in time as they are, indeed, easier to credit. There are few poor accounts, the worst and most clearly implausible is John Keegan's 'How Hitler could have won the war: The drive for the Middle East, 1941.' This counterfactual account completely and utterly ignores Hitler's pre-occupation with Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union as the preferred area for Liebensraum. The oil Hitler so desperately needed, which Keegan imagines he would have got with ease in the Middle East, was also available in the Caucusus/Baku oilfields in the Soviet Union - so Hitler was killing two birds with one stone in heading east - and there were cogent reasons why Hitler and much of the German Staff believed a Soviet collapse would occur within weeks of Barbarossa opening. Keegan's 'tale' only has basis and weight based on what we know now, not what Hitler knew then. The best tale, ironically, comes immediately after Keegan's spurious outpourings. Williamson Murray's 'What a taxi driver wrought', all page-and-a-quarter counterfactual of what might have happened if the New York taxi cab that hit and injured Winston Churchill in 1931 actually killed him. The briefness of the piece contributes immensely to the chilling feeling of 'What If?' (especially for me as a British citizen), with comments from Murray of 'American historians in a beleagured democracy at the end of the twentieth century never put the blame for the great Nazi Victory in the war of 1939 to 1947 on this by now obscure event... After all, everyone agreed that history is entirely the result of great social movements and the actions of the millions who make up humanity - certainly not the product of a few great men...And so America's armed forces (after the surrender, by Lord Halifax of Britain's fleet to Hitler in 1940) again prepare to meet the Nazi forces in South America, and the wars for America's survival never seem to end.' In this Murray concisely and implicitly points out the very reason that counterfactual studies are of use and interest to today's historians otherwise blinkered by the politically correct notion of 'social movements' over 'individual's actions'.
An interesting book.
Rating:
Summary: Wrong Title
Review: The title of this book should have been: "Defining moments in History and What could have been". Each easy is about 4/5 Historical review for a situation and 1/5 or less about What could have been. There are a few chapters that had almost nothing on "What If?". However, all these moments in History are of such great importance and sometimes little understood, that I believe just learning about them from this book is worth the read. The "What If's?" are interesting in about half the chapters, some thou just don't make sense. In the end I am glad I read the book and feel I have learned a few things I never knew about History and how things could have been different.
Rating: 
Summary: false advertisement
Review: the premise of this book is great, what would have happened if certain events in history had turned out differently. the problem is that most of the contributors didn't read their assignment correctly. there are pages of what happened, and then a few paragraphs of how it could have turned out differently, and then a few sentences on what the world would be like if it had happened another way (sometimes not even that). it's an ok book for information on certain events in history (though there are far better books that are more detailed and better written on each time period). I'd have to say Stephen Sears' essay on the civil war was the best of the bunch (even ambrose was a let down). this book is not what it says it is.
Rating:
Summary: Oh, Gee.
Review: I bought this book just for an essay that was about the Mongols. I thought reading about what if the Mongols didn't withdraw and to continue to fight in Europe would be interesting. The essay was so stupid. It was obvious that the woman, who wrote it, had studied the Mongols' history so poor. I cloud say that she didn't even study anything at all. She just wrote things she heard from the people who think the Mongols were nomadic barbarian cannibals. She had mentioned "The Secret History of the Mongols" (the oldest, and most valuable source about the Mongols) in her essay. Shame on her, even at least if she really did read that book, her essay would've been totally opposite. I know it. Everything that she said on her essay was that if Ogodai khan didn't die, there would've been just plunders and slaughters in Europe. Any elementary school student knows better than that. Therefore I don't think she is qualified to write such an essay for the book titled "What If?" Everything she wrote sounds like from just a commoner who has superficial knowledge about the Mongol Empire, not from Mongolist, who actually studied about it. I wonder if she ever read, or heard anything about Pax Mongolica, and the people who introduced Europeans to the paper money, gunpowder, paper printing, or people who always encouraged interstate trade, or first diplomatic passport in human relationship, and etc? Robert Cowley shouldn't have taken this stupid waste-of-time essay in his book. Rest of the essays seemed OK. But, I bought this book for an essay about the Mongols; and I rate this book by this essay. Maybe I should say if you just got this book, PLEASE DON'T READ the essay "Death that saved Europe". It will be waste-of-time. And it is not interesting as the others.
Rating:
Summary: Very spotty
Review: Like many collections, the quality of this work depends a great deal on the particular author of that section. Several areas are excellent, particularly those dealing with the civil war and ancient history. Several others are rather poor, often giving little facts and making considerable leaps. Every historian, amateur or otherwise, enjoys playing the What If game. By its very nature it is speculative and, even if done well, is fun to pick holes in. Unfortunately, several parts of this work make too many assumptions while giving too little supporting data to back it up. That said, several parts of it are fun and, for whatever reason, there are a lot of used copies around. For $... it is worth picking up to read the few excellent chapters it contains.
Rating:
Summary: Counterfactual History
Review: Really great stuff on counterfactual history. I'm developing an interest in the techniques of political forecasting, and am studying different methods in logic and statistics. To me, counterfactual historical theories are an important way to build into one's mind healthy limits on what one is willing to say about the future. Probably the best essay is from a Montana State professor on "what ifs" in the Cold War. Some of it is positively chilly, while at the same time putting us into the mentality of the Soviets. It is a useful reminder that not all events are caused by rational calculation, an point made by Stratfor which it ignores quite often. One of my favorites is the essay on the Mongol withdrawal from Europe. The scourge of the Mongols on history is commonly forgotten, but still influences cultural mindsets in Russia, China, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, and I think irreparably damaged the most enlightened and moderate movements in Islam. Obviously this has enormous impact on our understanding of these cultures today. The "Lost Order" piece is also excellent. I think Ambrose did the D-Day "what if" sequence, which is also good. The varying styles of the authors also informs each piece. In between major essays are little one-page blurbs that are just as provacative as a 20-page piece on Napoleon. I recommend the paperback version. It still has good quality paper and typeset. Also, for those curious, take a look at: 'Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics' (1996); edited by Philip E. Tetlock and Aaron Belkin
Rating:
Summary: An Amusing Diversion: Nothing Less, Nothing More
Review: "What If?", edited by Robert Cowley and Stephen Ambrose, presents a collection digressions to the "counterfactual" aspects of military history. While one will likely spend a number of entertaining hours with the book, it falls short of the greatness one might expect from its renowned contributors. Virtually all history buffs have performed mental gymnastics about the possibilities of the course human history if the outcomes of specific events had been different. Here, some of the most prominent military historians, such as Pulitzer Prize-winning authors Stephen Ambrose and David McCullough, present scenarios of alternate outcomes of, for example, the Battle of Gettysberg and the D-Day invasion, that are both intriguing and plausible. However, this also leads to the book's major shortcoming. That is, these historians, illustrious as they may be, are often quick to overextend the lasting effects of the alternate histories they present. Case in point: The effects of the conquests of an older Alexander the Great are extrapolated to the present day, suggesting a profound result encased in a vacuum from events in the rest of time and space. The books greatest strength thus becomes its greatest weakness. This is a book that all readers can approach with the expectation of entertaining provocation of thought. However, one who seeks history written for the more serious student may find himself, if not sufficiently circumspect in approaching this book, moderately disappointed by "What If".
Rating: 
Summary: WHAT IF....WHO KNOWS?
Review: I found this book interesting in part but I cannot really recommend it for this reason: It is possible to take any historical, natural or personal event and mentally change an element in the sequence of events that apparently brought it about, then write a story about how things might have worked out differently. The resultant work is not history, natural history or biography, it is pure fantasy. Historical events are so complex that even knowing that something has acutally happened, it is only with the utmost difficulty that historians attempt to explain what has happened or why. The idea that a historian sitting in an armchair could change around some causative event and then explain what the resultant events would be is sheer nonsense. No man or machine is brilliant enough to do that.
Rating:
Summary: Intriguing and thought provoking
Review: What if WWI was a brief six-month war? No Nazi Germany? No WWII? No communist Russia? No Cold War? These speculative essays really make you think about how the world got to where it is today.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of fun
Review: A great read. I learned a lot - even about events that I thought I knew about. All subjective stuff, but a lot of good insight.
|
