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: Another good collection of historical challenges.
Review: "What If 2," though not quite as strong as the first "What If," collection (and featuring historians, on average, who are not nearly as well known as such first volume luminaries as Stephen Ambrose and David McCullough) is still an enjoyable and stimulating collection for those who like history. While most of the scenarios of the first collection concentrated on military battles, the second features a lot of political twists and turns as well.The alternate scnerios this time out include, "What if Socrates had been killed at the Battle of Delium before he made his mark on Greek philosophy?" "What if William the Conqueror had not won the Battle of Hastings?" "What if Martin Luther had been executed in 1521?" "What if the Germans hadn't transported Lenin to Russia in 1917?" "What if the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 had been avoided?" "What if FDR hadn't allowed the progressive Henry Wallace to be dumped as VP in 1944 in favor of Harry Truman?" Indeed, "What if any of seven plausible scenerios had kept FDR from the Presidency?" All of these are great questions, presented in the highly readable narrative style that has come to define this series. My only quibble is that a number of the essays present the questions without really giving an answer. One is left to ponder the "What Ifs" without the essayist presenting the likely alternate reality. Nevertheless, this is still a very enjoyable read for those with a passion for history.
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: 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: 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: I Predict You Will Be Disappointed
Review: As a long-time fan of history and alternate history, I looked forward to reading this sequel to "What If?" but came away keenly disappointed. As other reviewers have observed, the essays are very uneven. Most of them do not deal in any length with what supposedly happens after the "what if" event, but simply discuss in general terms why the historical context was important. The worst essay asks what would have happened if Pope Pius XII had not "kept silent" about the Holocaust. It is premised on the demonstrably false claim that the Pope simply did "keep silent," and the ludicrous notion that a word from him would have stopped Hitler in his tracks. The libel against Pius XII which started with "The Deputy" thus grows with each passing generation of anti-Catholics, until a supposed "historian" opines that leaflets dropped on Europe with a message from the Pope would have stopped the death camps. The author not-too-subtly implies that Catholics wanted to see Jews exterminated anyway (reminding us coyly that "Hitler was Catholic," but omitting any mention of his hatred of the Church and of Pius XII). He also downplays the actual (and successful) efforts of Catholic leaders which saved hundreds of thousands of Jews and others from death, at a time when liberal icons such as FDR could not be persuaded even to allow more European Jews to immigrate to the US.
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: Not so hot.
Review: Back in 1997 Niall Ferguson edited a collection of essays called Virtual History, which offered some scholarly discussion of counterfactuals. That book had a tory tinge to it (Could have we avoided Cromwell, the first world war, and that nasty business with the colonies in 1776? Why yes! Could we have avoided the cold war, created a United Ireland, and under the presidency of a living JFK solved the problems of the sixties. Nope, sorry, out of luck), but it was scrupulous and based on a solid understanding of both the scholarly literature and what actually happened. This collection of essays is not of the same standard. Some of the historians aren't even historians, such as Lance Morrow on Johnson, Kennedy and Nixon in 1948, and the understanding is considerably less rigorous and thorough. Take, for a start an essay on whether the great Ming expeditions of the 1400s could have discovered America? This undoubtedly would have made a difference to world history had they found America first. But as Jack Goldstone pointed out last year it's not at all surprising that the expeditions were cancelled. There was very little on the East Coast of Africa (let alone the West coast) to justify the expense of continuing them. There is also an anachronistic tendency to read into the past what we know about today. I remember a counterfactual written in the People's Almanac during the seventies, which dealt with the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and it included the utterly unbelievable plot twist of having Solzhenitsyn raise a successful rebellion against Stalin. The same flaw occurs in John Lukacs' essay on Theodore Roosevelt winning the first world war a year early, which has Roosevelt preventing Trotsky's return to Russia at a time when the real Roosevelt would not have known who he was.
Consider also the essay on what would have happened if Jesus had not been crucified. The author speculates that if Jesus had not died the Roman Empire would have been so interested in its message of giving Caesar his due, they would have protected and sponsored it after Jesus inevitable death so that it would last long enough for Constantine to make it the official religion. The result is that Europe would still be Christian, indeed it might even be more Christian. But clearly the author has subordinated a historical understanding of what happened to a cheaply ironic result. First off, we do not fully know whether Jesus' teachings were as sympathetic to the authorities as they are presented in the gospels. There is, after all, a gap of thirty to sixty years between the events they describe and their creation. Secondly, and more important, as G.E.M. de Ste Croix pointed out in his classic The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, the most striking thing about Jesus was his isolation from the larger Hellenic-Roman world. What is often viewed as a betrayal or a declension of Christianity, was actually St. Paul's tranfer of this isolated rural and peasant view to a more commercial and cosmopolitan world. Had Jesus lived, there is no reason to believe that anyone outside of Palestine would have any interest in what he thought. Especially unconvincing is George Feiffer's essay on what would have happened if Lenin had not been able to get back into Russia on the sealed train. The answer, Feiffer says, is that there would have been no revolution and Russia would have happily lived ever after, under the Democratic rule of the Constituent Assembly. I strongly disagree. First off, it is clear by July 1917 at the latest that Russia faced a military defeat, which would have a devastating effect on both the legitimacy of any government and on the economy. Second, it is clear, as one can see from the work of William Rosenberg and Lars T. Lih, that the Russian economy faced by 1917 a severe economic crisis that not simply made the government unpopular, but clearly unravelled the links between the state and the larger society. Third, it is clear from the works of Wildman, Rosenberg, Koenker, Mandel, Figes and many others that the outbursts of peasant, worker and soldier protest were not something that could simply be turned off by stopping the Bolsheviks. In fact, it is clear that the Bolsheviks benefited from a wave of spontaneous protest, and that this radicalism benefited Lenin's position against his more moderate colleagues. After all, for most of the four months before the Revolution Lenin was in hiding, yet the state still fell apart without his direct assistance. Fourth, Oliver Radkey pointed out decades ago that the Constituent Assembly lacked a stable majority and that had it not been summarily dismissed by Lenin, the Socialist Revolutionary Party (a rural populist party) would have split into its left, right, and Ukrainian wings. Fifth, Russia would still have been torn apart by national conflict, while representatives of the old order would still have tried to overthrow a socialist government, no matter how moderate it was. So if you really want to look at a good counterfactual about the civil war, try reading Steven Hahn's 1990 article in the American Historical review. Likewise there are better books one could read on the possibilities of the cold war than the uninspiring essay on Henry Wallace written by the uninspiring biographer of Acheson, James Chace. Fundamentally, this is a book of counterfactuals, which doesn't take the historiography seriously.
|
