What If? 2: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been

Rating:
Summary: Nice premises - disappointing execution
Review: The premises that are the basis of this book are, for the most part, intriguing. The problem is that the 20-25 pages allowed for each essay simply don't give the writer enough time to fully explore the ramifications of the twist in history that he or she has suggested. Counterfactual history needs more room for development -- much more than the format of the What If? books can allow.

Rating:
Summary: Nice Job
Review: The stories in this collection are very original, with creative departures and stories. I found some of them to be very implausable, however, most seemed possible. I enjoyed this volume more than its predecessor, and if you enjoyed the first What If?, than I'm almost positive that you'll like this one as well.

Rating:
Summary: Uneven
Review: This book contains some great essays, and does not limit itself only to military history as the first volume did. Unfortunately, it is entirely too focused on modern and western history. If modern history is your interest, you will thoroughly enjoy this book; if not, hope for a more balanced third volume, and -- in the mean time -- enjoy the fine writing and analyses in this one.

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.

Rating:
Summary: fun, but uneven
Review: This is a fun 'guilty pleasure' for anyone who likes history, but I was surprised at the uneven quality. Some authors clearly gave a lot of thought to their counterfactuals, and plausibly draw Very Large conclusions from Very Small changes (e.g what if an obscure middle-aged Greek named Socrates had died in battle?). conversely, however, some of the counterfactuals wind up drawing Very Small conclusions from Very Large changes (what if Hitler had been brought to trial after WWII? After much hemming and hawing, the author basically concludes, "not much").

Rating:
Summary: Presidents A Pope And The Potato
Review: This is the sequel to the excellent first volume of counter factual history that was presented in the original, "What If ?". The possibilities of how history may have unfolded if the path that did take place was altered are literally endless. Not all the scenarios are as entertaining or thought provoking as others, and in general the first of these two books was more consistent in both subject matter and presentation. The majority of the alternate histories that are presented are very worthwhile for contemplation, however there are some exceptions that make an otherwise worthy continuation, place second among the two books readers have been offered.

The first book was largely based on military what if scenarios. This second volume tries to take a broader look at events, however conflict of one sort or another is usually a factor. The book opens with one of the better and most far reaching counter factual scenarios. The death of a single individual that can modify a portion of history is less scarce than one whose death could arguably change history fundamentally. The first scenario asks what if there was a single death at Delium in 424 B.C., and the life lost in battle had been that of Socrates? In the broadest sense no less than the Western intellectual tradition that flowed from this man would have been replaced by a very different set of criteria. If there were no Socrates, then who would have taught Plato, would he even have aspired as he did? This initial foray into what if is excellent.

The Chinese traveled widely by sea, in ships that were up to 400 feet in length and 150 feet wide. Their ability to have "discovered" the world that Columbus eventually stumbled upon was not only within their capabilities, it is again an alternative historical outcome that holds fantastic variables. The Pontificate of Pope Pius The XII is a controversial one. Whether one studies his behavior prior to becoming Pope, The Vatican Concordat signed with Germany in 1933, or his inaction as Pope to use his influence during the war, the decisions he made were epic even as he believed his decisions to do very little were equally important. The world will never know what a Pontiff who used his authority before Hitler began his onslaught on humanity might have accomplished, what lives he may have saved. I believe it is reasonable to say that had he been an aggressive defender of humanity without regard for sectarian beliefs there would certainly be more people that would have lived through the war.

There are a total of 25 scenarios for the reader to choose favorites from. Pontius Pilate decides not to condemn Christ to death is a major historical shift, however the presentation does not rise to the gravity of the issue. Others are not unfamiliar, such as what if England had been lead by a Prime Minister named Halifax instead of Churchill? The hour would have happened, would we still recall it as "their finest hour"?

An essay on the potato may seem trite, however it is as meaningful as most other discussions you will read. If this spud had not been found in Peru by noted explorers and was not spread around the world, how different would history be, the answer may surprise you.

This second, in what I hope will be a continuing series, is not as strong as the first. With few notable exceptions, both the scenarios proffered, and the manners they are examined are very worthwhile. There are some writers included that are not up to the task they chose, but overall the book is well worth a reader's time.

Rating:
Summary: A very disappointing sequel
Review: To a long-time fan of alternate history, both fiction and scholarly counterfactuals, this book is a real disappointment, especially compared to the excellent first volume. Most of the "what ifs" the contributors posit are interesting enough. What if Pilate had heeded his wife's dreams and Jesus had been sent back to Galilee uncrucified to die of old age? What if Harold Godwinson hadn't been killed at Hastings and the English had fought the Normans to a standstill? What if Charles V and the Church had had enough of Luther right off the bat and had consigned him to the stake at Worms? And more than twenty others by authors whose work I respect, especially Thomas Fleming, William H. McNeill, and Cecelia Holland (though she's a novelist and not in any way an "historian"). But my complaint is the same in every single case: *Where's the beef?* Each chapter is an historical essay laying out the real-world situation, but none of them actually elaborate on the changes they suggest! It's as if a "real" historian can't be seen actually playing with a counterfactual. What they have to say is interesting, perhaps, but we've seen it all before. I sat down with this book in expectation of a series of challenging mind-experiments in cause and effect -- and I didn't get any. There's a third volume in the works, I believe, and I hope Cowley pays attention to his critics.

Rating:
Summary: Delicate Balance between Fiction and Reality
Review: Unlike "What If? 1", which was entirely about military counterfactuals, "What If? 2" has the additional merit to consider military and non-military counterfactuals. To his credit, Robert Cowley manages again to put together a "dream team" of historians. As Cowley correctly points out in his introduction, events manipulate great men and women probably as much as great men and women manipulate events. Over time, men and women unfortunately tend to drift from one extreme to another in their approach to history. Action or inaction of great men and women, the impact of the environment on their behavior as well as broad social, economic and political trends are ultimately equally important in understanding history properly.

Unsurprisingly, readers will probably perceive the counterfactual essays to be of uneven quality in both volumes of What If? Some history buffs could blind themselves to their supposed knowledge of specific events about which speculation is made. The participating historians are usually efficient at first explaining to their audience what really happened and then exploring counterfactuals. This approach generally has the merit of making history accessible to a wide audience. In evaluating each essay on its merits, readers could follow the advice that Geoffrey Parker gives in his contribution about the counterfactual victory of the Invincible Armada in 1588 to "What If? 1": 1) Only small and plausible changes should be made to the actual sequence of events and 2) After a certain time, the previous pattern may reassert itself (pg. 151-152).

As a side note, Cowley and his team of historians could eventually write a "What If? 3" which focuses on the Middle East. Some thought-provoking topics that they might consider could be for example:

1) What if the Spanish Umayyad dynasty had been able to contain the Christian Reconquista?
2) What if the Mongols had not taken Baghdad?
3) What if the original U.N. plan for the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two apparently viable states had been implemented successfully?
4) What if a viable Palestinian state had evolved into the "Costa Rica" of the region?
5) What if Reza Khan had followed the example of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk?
6) What if one side had won the war waged between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s?
7) What if the coalition had invaded Iraq in 1991 instead of 2003?

This new "What If?" sequel could serve two different but complementary purposes: 1) Look at an alternative course to past events and 2) Influence the shape of the future from thinking out-of-the-box. This "What If? 3" could become quite possibly a best seller on Amazon because of the current events in the Middle East and the overwhelming focus on the Western world in the first two renditions of "What If?"


Rating:
Summary: Here's a 'what if' for you...
Review: What if in 1963, Rudolf Hochhuth, hadn't written the libelous play The Deputy? We may have been spared having Pope Pius XII becoming the official whipping boy of the anti-Catholics. I give this a book a 1 for a couple reasons, and not just because of the Pius XII essay. First of all, the "good" essays are mediocre at best, especially if you compare them to the works of the original What If? Second of all, some of the essays are really asking you to stretch your imagination past believability. The whole point of the 'what if' scenario in these books was to give a depiction of a crucial event in history and explain what probably would've happened if it had gone different, with as much plausibility as possible. That's what made the original What If? so great.

However, the final nail in the coffin was the Pius XII essay. It ignores the fact that before the war Pius XII (or Eugenio Pacelli as he was known when he was the Vatican Secretary of State) was a well-known opponent of Nazism. In 1935, he gave a speech that denounced Nazism at a time when people like FDR and Churchill (both big government guys themselves) didn't think Hitler was such a bad guy. Pacelli said in his speech that the Nazis "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."

Dr. Joseph Licthen, a Polish Jew and official for the Jewish Anti-Defamation League wrote: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: `The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.'"

The appeared "silence" of Pacelli, now known as Pope Pius XII, is a misconstruction of facts based upon a play. Pius was hardly ever Hitler's Pope, as some "historians" are leading people to believe. Pius knew that he'd have to be careful with everything he did or Hitler would tyrannize the Jews even more and go after the Catholics as well. His statements were carefully distributed, but still urged Catholics to do what they could. The appeared silence occurred after the Nazis arrested Catholic priests in Denmark for opposing the Nazis. Catholic and Jewish friends of the Pope urged him to be careful or Hitler might start targeting him.

The essay also ignores much of the Pope's humanitarian work and his efforts to help the Jews. Pius hid a lot of Jews in the Vatican and on his summer estate and would even pay the ridiculous fines that Jews had to pay to keep the Nazis from taking them from their homes.

There's so much scholarly evidence that shows that the image of Pius XII has been misconstrued, and misunderstood. Unfortunately though, anti-Catholicism is an attitude that is still widely tolerated. I end this review with a quote by Albert Einstein, a quote he said about the Catholic Church's efforts to help the Jews.

"Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."

Rating:
Summary: Here's a 'what if' for you...
Review: What if in 1963, Rudolf Hochhuth, hadn't written the libelous play The Deputy? We may have been spared having Pope Pius XII becoming the official whipping boy of the anti-Catholics. I give this a book a 1 for a couple reasons, and not just because of the Pius XII essay. First of all, the "good" essays are mediocre at best, especially if you compare them to the works of the original What If? Second of all, some of the essays are really asking you to stretch your imagination past believability. The whole point of the 'what if' scenario in these books was to give a depiction of a crucial event in history and explain what probably would've happened if it had gone different, with as much plausibility as possible. That's what made the original What If? so great.

However, the final nail in the coffin was the Pius XII essay. It ignores the fact that before the war Pius XII (or Eugenio Pacelli as he was known when he was the Vatican Secretary of State) was a well-known opponent of Nazism. In 1935, he gave a speech that denounced Nazism at a time when people like FDR and Churchill (both big government guys themselves) didn't think Hitler was such a bad guy. Pacelli said in his speech that the Nazis "are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of social revolution, whether they are guided by a false concept of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult."

Dr. Joseph Licthen, a Polish Jew and official for the Jewish Anti-Defamation League wrote: "Pacelli had obviously established his position clearly, for the Fascist governments of both Italy and Germany spoke out vigorously against the possibility of his election to succeed Pius XI in March of 1939, though the cardinal secretary of state had served as papal nuncio in Germany from 1917 to 1929. . . . The day after his election, the Berlin Morgenpost said: 'The election of cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism and practically determined the policies of the Vatican under his predecessor.'"

The appeared "silence" of Pacelli, now known as Pope Pius XII, is a misconstruction of facts based upon a play. Pius was hardly ever Hitler's Pope, as some "historians" are leading people to believe. Pius knew that he'd have to be careful with everything he did or Hitler would tyrannize the Jews even more and go after the Catholics as well. His statements were carefully distributed, but still urged Catholics to do what they could. The appeared silence occurred after the Nazis arrested Catholic priests in Denmark for opposing the Nazis. Catholic and Jewish friends of the Pope urged him to be careful or Hitler might start targeting him.

The essay also ignores much of the Pope's humanitarian work and his efforts to help the Jews. Pius hid a lot of Jews in the Vatican and on his summer estate and would even pay the ridiculous fines that Jews had to pay to keep the Nazis from taking them from their homes.

There's so much scholarly evidence that shows that the image of Pius XII has been misconstrued, and misunderstood. Unfortunately though, anti-Catholicism is an attitude that is still widely tolerated. I end this review with a quote by Albert Einstein, a quote he said about the Catholic Church's efforts to help the Jews.

"Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty."