Rating: 
Summary: Some thoughtful analysis of possible alternate histories
Review:
Alternate histories are a staple of fiction, especially in science fiction. Most of these have a back ground common to our history, and then turn at a single point, for example President Lincoln isn't assassinated. This approach provides an easy way for the author to have a setting the reader is familiar with, but then allow the author make up a story. Alternate histories are very popular and can be very entertaining.
"What If? 2" tries to tie into this market. The book has a number of chapters, most of which are short historical articles on why each of several key events had a great impact on our society. Most of these are interesting and some are even fascinating, but they aren't really entertaining.
If you are interested in pure entertainment, then this book isn't for you. If you are interested in some thoughtful discussion about key points in history, then this book is worth reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Be careful what you wish for
Review: After reading WHAT IF, Volume 1, I stated that I eagerly awaited another collection of a non-military nature. Well, that's what I got and the result is a huge disappointment. As another reviewer noted, the bad ones were too long and the good ones were too short. My number one objection was the lack of an alternative story. IN many of these, 80% of the writing was a review of what actually happened. So, in the one about Socrates, we get a lot of Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Perfect Forms, battles, but almost no philosophical suppositions of a world without Socrates. In the one in which Jesus is not executed, the author could not help but keep referring to "actual" history and apologizing for even discussing the subject. The list goes on - the Chinese exploration tale centered on what happened with the Ming dynasty rather than an alternate tale. The Cleopatra tale involves a lengthy review of past history. The people who read these stories already KNOW the history - they want a brief forward followed by the story, not another rehash of World Events 101. Where is the imagination, where is the spark? Very poor execution.
Rating: 
Summary: Okay, but very disappointing.
Review: After the huge success of the 1999's "What If?", a superb foray into the speculation of hardly inevitable military events, there comes this book. It does not focus completely on military history, like it's predecessor... The main problem of the book is this: the bad essays (and there are many) are way too long, and many potentially good ones (Cecilia Holland's on the Battle of Hastings, which does not explore the possibilities of a victory by Harold at all) are too short. The opening chapter on the possible death of Socrates in battle is very heady and not rewarding. The next scenario, on a possible victory by Antony and Cleopatra, is more intriguing; but the chapter on the survival of Jesus Christ is (in my opinion) surprisingly vague about the worldwide aspects of this event. And so on and so on. Only a few essays even approach those in the original: "Napoleon Invades America" (which has the interesting mix of fascinating facts and equally interesting counterfactual speculations that made the original so worthwhile), "The Fuhrer In The Dock", "The Great War Torpedoed", "No Bomb, No End", and "The Luck of Franklin Roosevelt" are the best. The rest are at best mediocre, and don't come close to those essays' precedents. The worst essay, perhaps, is the one by Alistair Horne (who wrote arguably the best essay in the original, "Ruler of the World") on what would've happened if the Franco-Prussian War had never happened. So far, so good. But when we get into the explanation, WHY is it avoided? Because Napoleon III visits a medium, and the spirits of Napoleon and Minister De Talleyrand advise him. What the **bleep** kinda garbage is that? The essays on Socrates, Theodore Roosevelt's presidency, and Lenin not being sent to Finland Station are close. Bottom line: "What If? 2" is readable, but not even close to the superb original...
Rating:
Summary: More What Was Than What Might Have Been
Review: Any collection of essays by various writers is going to have its share of hits and misses, and What If 2 is no exception. Some of the contributors dive head-first into the premise and wallow in it. Others stick their toes in, decide it's too cold, and jump right back out. Every essay is useful as a quick overview of historical events, many of which will be unfamiliar to the general reader except in broad outline. For that alone, the book is worthwhile. The counterfactual histories themselves, however, vary in quality from writer to writer. The best is, perhaps, John Lukacs' tale of Teddy Roosevelt's third term; Lukacs writes as if, in fact, TR won in 1912, and chides his fellow historians for not asking what would have happened if Woodrow Wilson had won. One of the weakest is Victor Davis Hanson's opening essay about Socrates: what if Socrates had been killed in battle before he met Plato? Well, turns out we would never have heard of him - imagine that! One of the most enjoyable aspects of What If 1 was its focus on events that truly could have turned out differently but for a single moment or decision. The same cannot be said of most of the sequel's essays. For example, Josiah Ober's counterfactual involving the triumph of Antony over Octavian; rather than mark Actium itself as the turning point, Ober goes back to Antony's Parthian campaign. If Antony had defeated the Parthians, Ober posits, Octavian would have ultimately lost. But how likely was an Antony victory over Parthia? Not very. By contrast, Charles I escaping the plague because he happened to leave London a week before it broke out is more intriguing; unfortunately, Theodore Rabb's counterfactual speculation is limited to a few paragraphs at the end. Overall, as other reviewers have concluded, What If 2 is a mixed bag. It does not entirely live up to its promise and premise, but it does not completely disappoint either.
Rating:
Summary: History as the actions of individuals
Review: As someone who has been an avid amateur student of history for 50 years, I have been dismayed by the current trend toward the "de-individualization" of history. When I read biographies of Davy Crockett, Crazy Horse, Cyrus, Galileo, Peter the Great, and others as a child, I developed the distinct impression that history was shaped by the actions of individuals in the context of their times. Only later, as an adult perusing my children's history books, did I learn that I was out of step with modern historiography. Their textbooks devoted as much, or more, print to those who were simply present as to those who drove events. What If 2 provides a much-needed refutation of this "modern" trend. Counterfactual history offers potent arguments against those who explain everything in terms of broad historical forces. Any thinking person must admit that history would have been very different if Antony and Cleopatra had won at Actium, if Jesus had not been crucified, if the Franco-Prussian War had not been fought, or if Lenin had not made it to the Finland Station. Most of the essays in this collection are well-expostulated explorations of alternative timelines such as these. Unfortunately, the quality is uneven. My advice: if a selection starts to drag, skip to the next one. It will be better.
Rating:
Summary: Counterfactuals, if they are credible, blow me away.
Review: If you love history, you probably have one. These two volumes are worth your time. It helps to know about what really happen & the various historian/authors usually supply background. Of course, unless you enjoy history, you're probably not reading this.
It's simple. Take a historical event & create a plausible alternate outcome. Three examples stood out for me. What if the Allies had lost on D-Day? The Germans throw the invasion back into the sea? It could have happened. Does the U.S. give up & turn it's attention to Japan? Does FDR get reelected? Mushroom clouds over Europe in 1945?
Pontius Pilate pardons Jesus instead of condeming him to death. Chtistainity is changed. No salvation through Christ's death on the cross. No cross, the ultimate symbol of the faith. Jesus dies of old age, confused, a great prophet maybe, but not the savior.
The French win the Franco-Prussian War or even if that stupid little war nevers occurs, history could have been profoundly changed. The unification of Germany could have been slowed down. The German Empire might not ever existed. Without that, a little skirmish in 1914 Europe would never have become World WarI. Without World War I, no World WarII, no Communism, no cold war.
Create your own scenario. Some of the histrians realy get into the aftermaths of their stories. Others not so much so, leaving you clamoring for more. But the reader or listener, can fill in the blanks. There are no right or wrong answers because it never happened.
Rating:
Summary: Counterfactuals, if they are credible, blow me away.
Review: If you love history, you probably have one. These two volumes are worth your time. It helps to know about what really happen & the various historian/authors usually supply background. Of course, unless you enjoy history, you're probably not reading this.
It's simple. Take a historical event & create a plausible alternate outcome. Three examples stood out for me. What if the Allies had lost on D-Day? The Germans throw the invasion back into the sea? It could have happened. Does the U.S. give up & turn it's attention to Japan? Does FDR get reelected? Mushroom clouds over Europe in 1945?
Pontius Pilate pardons Jesus instead of condeming him to death. Chtistainity is changed. No salvation through Christ's death on the cross. No cross, the ultimate symbol of the faith. Jesus dies of old age, confused, a great prophet maybe, but not the savior.
The French win the Franco-Prussian War or even if that stupid little war nevers occurs, history could have been profoundly changed. The unification of Germany could have been slowed down. The German Empire might not ever existed. Without that, a little skirmish in 1914 Europe would never have become World WarI. Without World War I, no World WarII, no Communism, no cold war.
Create your own scenario. Some of the histrians realy get into the aftermaths of their stories. Others not so much so, leaving you clamoring for more. But the reader or listener, can fill in the blanks. There are no right or wrong answers because it never happened.
Rating:
Summary: This Book is Really About the Meaning of History
Review: Most alternative history texts are supposed to entertain as well as to instruct. When these texts are novelized counterfactuals--like any book by Harry Turtledove--the focus is on entertainment. However, when the ostensible purpose is simply to explore what might have been, then that author is crossing the gray line that separates fun from fact. In WHAT IF?, a select group of military historians each zoomed in on a critical turning point in battle history, and just as a train engineer can switch rails with the flip of a switch, so did each of these deflect factual events with a minor tinkering. The impact on the buying public was sufficiently jarring for a sequel, called unsurprisingly WHAT IF?:2 to also resonate. Here the focus is mostly, but not exclusively on matters military. Typically, a noted expert describes an actual event as it really happened. Then, this expert will introduce an historical wild-card, the future ramifications of which the expert will explore. There are twenty-five essays, beginning with the early death of Socrates, and continuing with essays that span centuries at a jump. The choice of topics is not unexpected in most cases. What if Jesus had not been crucified is one that has been contemplated eleswhere. Or what if William the Conqueror had himself been conquered at Hastings in 1066? Other issues are more original: What if Hitler had begun his war in 1938 when his Wehrmacht was less lethal than it would be one year later? Or what if Pope Pius XII had been more forceful in protesting the Holocaust? Most reviewers have considered the relative merits of individual essays. Some essays, one reviewer might argue, simply would have been most unlikely because of one historical reason or another. My focus is less on the legitimacy of one essayist's visual acumen or future hindsight and more on the sweep of alternate events that this text calls counterfactual history but is really playful history. When one reads that Jesus survived the crucifixion or that a defeated Hitler sat in the prisoner dock in Nurenberg, then one is forced to review history in much the same way that a professional historian might. What really did happen? What might have happened then becomes yet another isolated factor in what did. The thought processes, the logical sifting of cause and event, and the working out of an Asimovian sweep of Imperial Psychohistory then lead the reader into areas where only the gifted and daring historians tread. How each reader reacts to each essay is less a function of what the essayist brought to the historical table and more of what the reader himself can supply. In WHAT IF?:2 the reader is challenged to rethink long held assumptions of the iron grip of history and perhaps to find out that this iron is quite flexible after all.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad, but wish for more...
Review: Some of the earlier chapter's were well written and very intriguing, such as "What if Jesus Had Lived?" and "China's exploration carried further". However some of it wasn't all to interesting such as "What if Hitler had lived?", to sum it up as the book says, it wouldn't matter, bleah! It is still worth it if you liked the first book that they did. However if you're not much of an alternative history nut to begin with, don't bother.
Rating:
Summary: Thumbs up
Review: This book is composed of 25 essays by different authors. The topics are all historical what ifs. What if Jesus had not been crucified? How would history have played out differently?
Most of the essays spend most of their time giving the reader a history lesson. Before they can go off on their creative imaginings, their what ifs, they first must tell us what actually happened.
In fact one of my complaints with the book is that too much of it is an explanation of what happened, and too little of it is getting to the point of how history would have changed had one event not happened.
Here are the counter-factual events discussed. Socrates dies before becoming Plato's teacher. Antony and Cleopatra defeat Octavius. Pontius Pilate spares the life of Jesus. William the Conqueror becomes William the Loser. The medieval Chinese discover America before Columbus does. Martin Luther is burned at the stake. Charles the First doesn't provoke the English civil war against the Puritans. Napoleon's forces in the New World do not die off from illness, and proceed to make a big move in America. Lincoln doesn't sign the Emancipation Proclamation. France doesn't provoke war with Germany in the 19th century. Teddy Roosevelt defeats Woodrow Wilson on the eve of World War One. Germany unleashes all-out submarine warfare in World War One. Lenin is not permitted to return to Russia in time for his revolution. Franklin Roosevelt's career is derailed before he runs for president. Hitler does not sign Chamberlain's peace pact over Czechoslovakia. Winston Churchill is not called to be prime minister; Lord Halifax is. Australian resistance to the Japanese in World War Two does not materialize. The Allies fail to break the Nazi Enigma code machine. The Pope openly protests the Holocaust before it takes much of its toll. Allied forces are given free reign to blitz Germany as fast as they can. Hitler is taken alive. America does not nuke Japan. Truman is not FDR's running mate - Henry Wallace is. Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy do not attain the political heights. Pizarro the conquistador does not discover potatoes in Peru.
If these topics intrigue you, buy the book and get the opinions of 25 authors on these subjects. Some of the essays are interesting and enlightening, some are controversial, some will just seem incorrect to you. But I give the book a thumbs up overall.
For one example, the essay on Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon doesn't really tell you an awful lot about how the world would have been different without them. It just tells about their early careers, and how it would have easily been possible for them to fail to reach the heights.
The essay on Jesus doesn't seem to really hit the mark. It basically says that a Jesus-based Judaism would have spread to the Roman world. I don't believe that. I don't think Christianity would have become the official religion of Rome if Jesus was simply considered a prophet, not a savior. And without Jesus's death, he certainly would not have died for anyone's sins. I think Jesus's crucifixion was necessary for the birth of Christianity. So I disagree with the essay.
The essay on America not nuking Japan seems to be well informed and one of the better ones. The conclusion is unlooked for - that nuking Japan was the best and most humane choice open to America, and that although Japan was actively seeking a negotiated settlement, its insistence on retaining its entire government intact would have simply meant five more years of war, with starvation for millions of blockaded Japanese, since an armed invasion could never have succeeded, alone or with Russia's help, against one million fanatical Japanese warriors who knew exactly where the attack was coming.
I'm amused to learn that without the potato, western civilization would not have dominated the world. I like them baked, myself. No butter. Just sour cream.
|
