Rating: 
Summary: What if Hitler had a goatee?
Review: When I first saw "What if?" in the bookstore, I knew this book would be very interesting and intriguing. Sure enough, it was...I read the book with great anticipation and found the alternative histories given by the world-renowned authors rivetting and thought provoking. What a "history-buff" like myself will find most amiable about the book are the "alternative" histories discussed addressing a wide gammet of areas. Everything from "What if Alexander the Great had been killed in battle" to "What if Hitler had attacked the Middle East instead of Russia" are discussed. For the most part, the book does an exceptional job in covering a multitude of historical contexts. The book's main strength is its ability to make the reader think how different our world would be today had simple historical "twists" taken place. For example, one of my favorites is the alternative scenario offered on Alexander the Great. Had the young conqueror been killed early in a campaign against the Persians (Which almost happened litteraly by a few seconds), our current idea of the present world would have been vastly different (hints...the "infant" stages of democracy in Greek city states would have ceased to exist, thus no U.S. government...)Sounds far fetched, but once you read the tangible possibilites you feel lucky he didnt die on that battlefield and lived another 20 years! The only fault I found in the book was the use of different writers which equates to various style of writing. Thus, some chapters are great, while others are fairly lack-luster...for example, the sections written by Steven Ambrose on WWII are rivetting, which others (i.e. those who wrote the "American Revolution" sections) I found quite boring and I wanted to skip them, but prodded myself through them...However, this is my opinion, and the next reader may find what I thought boring, to instead be a masterpiece. Either way, ( I highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a fun read or curious to know what our world might have looked like today, had these alternative "what if's" occured...
Rating:
Summary: Counterfactuals?
Review: I did enjoy this book, although all of the essays are of very uneven qualities. In general all of the essays can be put into two separate categories: 1. Gee, imagine if this had changed. These historians give you the details so you can think of an alternate history on your own, and don't really speculate at all. I came here partly to read what the world's foremost military historians thought about "counterfactuals", not get subtle hints from them. The worst ones are probably the first essay and Thomas Fleming's American Revolution essay (which basically is 13 ways we would have lost miserably, but doesn't really say anything beyond "if this hadn't happened we would have lost miserably"). The second category gives you pages and pages of exposition, then gives you a page or two on what might have happened. I liked these better, since that was the reason I got the book and all. The best essays in the book (to me) are every one from Josiah Ober's "Conquest Denied" to Cecilia Holland's "The Death that Saved Europe." In general I also enjoyed the essays that took place before the American Revolution, since from the American Revolution afterwards alternate history writers have written just a bit too much. For example, if I see another "if the Nazis had won" book i'm gonna tear out my hair. Argh! I wouldn't say it's a "bad" book at all, even the essays that didn't really deal with alternate history were interesting just from an historical point of view. Just don't expect all of them to have "The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been" because some of them aren't "foremost" and some of them don't "Imagine what might have been."
Rating:
Summary: Mixed bag with some real taste treats and a few stinkers
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Why not?
Review: "What If's" covers says that it details changes in history that might have occurred at critical junctions if some minor, or major fact, was altered. Usually the authors try to change a "minor fact" so that the events that come after seem more probable. Sometimes they don't even do that. How much you enjoy this book will depend on how much you know about the various historical events discussed. If you have studied history, the What If format, is probably something you have discussed with your friends or professors. What if Hitler won WWII, What if Saddem had invaded Saudi Arabia after Kuwait or had invaded Kuwait during the Cold War? What if Kennedy had invaded Cuba? As a teaching tool, What If's can be very useful because we can determine why particular choices was taken, instead of the What Ifs. As a fantasy format, "What ifs" can be plain fun. I liked many of the chapter found here, but not all. One author, for example, questioned what would have happened if the weather was bad on D-Day. He details how the forcast was part, or all, luck. But, luck or not, it was true so this chapter, for me, was more fantasy then possible reality. The more interesting chapters for me, were ones like how Washington almost was shot, but the solider hestitated and lost that chance forever. This almost did happened, it could have happened, and therefore it seemed more real. But, whatever your personal preferences, What if is a good read so why not read it.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating and provocative
Review: The NYT reviewer was right to describe this book as "fascinating and provocative." What began as a collection of articles in Military History Quarterly evolved into this collection of essays by such noted historians as John Keegan, Stephen Ambrose, David McCullough, Thomas Fleming and others. Military history can be a dull, dense topic, but editor Robert Cowley has done a fine job of assembling these essays into a form that is breezy and accessible without betraying the weight and complexity of the issues involved (this book helped get me through a painfully long, six-hour delay at the airport). Almost anyone with an interest in history -- or an interest in just a good story, for that matter -- will enjoy this book. You do not need to have a deep background understanding of the history discussed to understand and follow along. I only had one quibble with the book. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim readers will note that a few of the authors are quite explicit about their assumption that God, if He exists, does not interfere in the affairs of men, and that the events described within are matters of pure chance. Despite their hubris, I hope the authors will understand that some of us prefer to see this book as a record not of chance, but of the "Divine Providence" to which the American founders constantly referred. That one blemish notwithstanding, this is an excellent book. Get it and read it.
Rating:
Summary: Have You Ever Wondered?
Review: What if George Washington had been captured on Long Island in 1776 and summarily executed by the British?? What if Robert E. Lee and his forces had achieved a decisive victory at Gettysburg in 1862? What if the Normandy Invasion (D Day) had failed in 1944? Your guess is as good as mine but the guesses of eminent historians are much better. Specifically, David McCullough, James M. McPherson, and Stephen E. Ambrose, respectively, who ask "What if?" in reference to these key situations in military history. Others speculate on, for example, "The Immolation of Hernan Cortes" (1521), "The Repulse of the British Fireships" (1588), "How Hitler Could Have Won" (1941), and "China Without Tears" (1946). Robert Crowley has done a masterful job of editing this anthology of essays. You may disagree with many of the answers to the repeatedly asked question "What if?" but I am certain you will be entertained as well as informed while reading this splendid book. My hunch is that the eminent historians had at least as much much fun formulating their speculations as readers now have when sharing them.
Rating:
Summary: A good reminder that democracy is very hard
Review: This collection of essays will open up a wide range of new possibilities. Alternative or counter factual histories help people realize that history did not have to occur the way it did. There were many paths that might have been taken and many developments that would have changed the world we live in today. This is a fun series of brief essays outlining a variety of turning points. It is well worth reading if you simply want to broaden your appreciation of how different the world could be and the kinds of factors that shape historic events.
Rating:
Summary: The Inevitable Debate
Review: Editor Robert Cowley's collection of counterfactual essays -- unpublished suppositions by some of our foremost historians -- is the "stuff" that forms the crux of some of the longest and greatest debates among military historians. Stephen Ambrose and John Keegan, among others, present issues that have plauged historians, past and present, for years. Some of the arguments are original, some classic, and others lacking in plausible substance, but each one is interesting reading in its own right. Fans of counterfactual history will enjoy this book for what it is: a refreshing perspective on a handful of military events that might have changed the course of history. "What If" is not a pervasive exploration of policy or strategy, but a fun read, plain and simple. Thought provoking, speculative, and thoroughly fascinating, "What If" is an enjoyable book by any measure.
Rating:
Summary: A Mixed Bag of What-Ifs
Review: What If?, edited by Robert Cowley, was at different times fascinating, frustrating, informative and unclear. Each What If? scenario was written by a different historian. They each handled the assignment so differently that there was no consistency to their approaches and styles. Some of the writers, such as Geoffrey Parker, writing on the Spanish Armada created very believable scenarios that did not stray too far from the realm of the possible given the historical personas and circumstances. To enjoy some of the later scenarios would require more knowledge of each of the battles, such as all of the battles of the Civil War, than this particular reader possessed. At other times, a particular author spent much time making the situation clear for the reader. Writing these scenarios would assuredly have been fun for the historian, sometimes giving them room to grind an ideological axe, but this book was not always as consisently fun for the reader. When it is was good, though, it was very good.
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking, well written
Review: The exceedingly negative reviewers of this book seem to have an academic axe (jealousy?) to grind. It should be obvious that the short, provocative essays here aren't meant to compete with comprehensive book-length treatments. If you really do find, say, speculations on the American civil war "boring" go ahead and skip this excellent collection. "You may not be interested in war, as Trotsky said, "but war is interested in you."
|
