The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been

This is a disappointing book that mostly confines its "what if" questions to speculations about the absence of Clausewitzian friction. In short, if things were different, they would have been different.

There are a couple of good essays amongst the chaff. The first essay on WWI speculates about a delayed British entry into the ground campaign and about the effects if Germany kept a strong right and did not push the French out of the sack by attacking Nanci. John Keegan's essay on Germany's strategic options in 1941 is also good. Both ask reasonable questions based on alternatives known and available to the participants. Both also allow us to draw lessons from the alternative history presented. Politicians in 1914, were more scared by the consequences of inaction than they were by those of action. Hitler's strategic vision was clouded by his ideology.

Most of the essays ask silly questions like: What if Hitler had been killed in WWI? Or, what if Churchill had died in the 1931 taxi accident. I guess both are asking us to consider the "Great Man" theory of history.

The worst chapter is the one that looks at all the luck, chance and friction that led to the US victory at Midway. What is the lesson here? That if friction and luck were not operative things would be different? One might as well speculate on how things would be different if there was more chance and friction.

I like alternative history that makes one think and draws out the causes of actual history. A good example is a old book that is very hard to find called What if... Or History re-written. Of particular interest is an essay by Churchill - before he was killed by the taxi I guess - that speculates about a Confederate victory in the Civil War.

I like alternate history and thought this would be interesting. However, it was rather dissapointing. Battles are described in detail but what ifs are barely mentioned(several paragraphs at the most). Since that's the title of the book I expected a lot more than that.

There is relevance to Revelation, Genesis and Daniel here in 2,001. How? If you have and know how to use your concordance (and are feeling so inclined) you will discover that our space program is very reminisant of the tower of babel (sorry to burst your bubble) and the so called fall of mankind in the garden of eden (if you are looking for common threads you will find them). If you will recall, the snake promised that the (increased) knowledge that came with the fruit (like the increased knoweledge predicted to happen, like what we see today)would enable Eve, and later Adam, to become as the gods who said, come, let US make man in OUR image. Then, after the close call with extinction at the (so-called "flood") (which I am allowing for some possibility in my mind may have occurred in some facsimile) It is said that after repopulation, in BABYLON, that the tower of Babel was constucted and that would (enable man to) reach up into the heavens so they could be with the gods and become as the gods (having their own charriots of fire). Obviously, humans once again seek to become as the gods while trying to work out their own salvations (preserve ourselves from extinction). Why else build the tower of babel? A world wide flood with but a few surviving (think of it in symbolic terms, because currently I do, too) is a close call with extinction. Then, fastforward to Babylon, in Daniel. Daniel is said to have interpreted a dream of king Nebucanezzer's(sp?) to which the king erects an image of solid gold as a symbol that his (man's) kingdom shall endure forever (a form of denial that persists as Daniels interpretation predicts that all subsequent kingdoms shall be inferior to Babylon in splendor). Fastforward to our space program of today. Once again, it appears, we are repeating what those kings Babylon attempted, as predicted in revelation that the Babylon in the last days would do, which is to construct towers that will enable us to reach up (travel) into the heavens and attempt, you guessed it, a settlement on Mars (we spend billions if not trillions on this currently). Why? Ultimately, we know that we are not being good stewards of the Earth (there is a passage that says that god comes to destroy those who destroy the Earth. Funny, conservatives are usually the worst when it comes to being conservationists). So, our space program serves as our foot out the backdoor in case (when) we have trashed the Earth too much or... Like it or not, there is much relevance here and the towers of old may have been our early ancestors trying to copy what they saw in their day. Those pharohs of Egypt may have not been so mistaken when they went to such great lengths to preserve their bodies. With todays scientific minds, it is easy to see that they may have been hoping to have their well preserved cells cloned into making a twin (hey, a twin of the king and his family is better than no twins at all)

Thank you very much for your time and co-operation !

Each essay does a great job of outlining the facts leading up to the battle and the book is worthwhile just for that. But the "what if" scenarios are for the most part unrealistic - for example that Europe would have been better off if it had been under Moslem control in the middle ages. It makes you wonder what some of these guys and gals are smoking.

This earns 2 stars for its intriguing concept, and chapters by major scholars (William McNeill, Geoffrey Parker, Ross Hassig, etc.) are certainly worthwhile. Presumably they wanted to try something different, and they acquit themselves conscientiously as always. But much of this book is so problematic that the whole project trivializes the practice of history. Counterfactual exercises can have genuine value apart from mere diversion. But too many contributors here are inattentive to logical implications, sloppy with facts, and downright biased toward particular outcomes. Counterfactuals are generally handled better by philosophers of history (usually philosophers), who thoroughly explore real probabilities and control for numerous variables. The presence of macho blowhards (Stephen Ambrose and John Keegan, sometime respected historians) and rightwing cranks (Victor Davis Hanson) is a telling sign. Arthur Waldron's chapter on China is sorely disappointing after his fine "Great Wall of China." Here he rehashes McCarthyite loss-of-China nonsense and smears George C. Marshall, whose sage but rejected assessment of 1940s China reinforced his reputation as a great public servant. And now the ultimate reactionary fantasy: not only does Robert E. Lee win at Gettysburg, he gets to defend the high ground against fruitless Union assaults! That laughable scenario will warm the hearts of neo-Confederates everywhere; just imagine them getting off on that fantasy---hence "pornography" in the review title. For a truly historical, and enlightening, counterfactual approach, see N. Lawler, "Soldiers, Airmen, Spies & Whisperers: The Gold Coast in World War II." Her work succeeds precisely because she considers actual policy options weighed by the Allies in the dark days of the war. "What If's" many flights of fancy simply reveal that provocative isn't the same as thought-provoking.

Good synopsis of some of the more pivotal moments in history. It provides an appreciation of the importance of chance and seemingly minor actions and events. A little too much emphasis on what did happen with an occasional lapse in transition. Otherwise an excellent read. Good, brief lessons on world history.

I can't recommend this book enough, a wonderful collection of learned essays about history as it might have happened. If you are a fan of history or even the 'alternative history' genre of Science Fiction, this is a must buy !

This book is fantastic. Every page of every essay keeps the reader enthralled. The best part about this book is that the longest essay is about 30 pages long, so if you don't have alot of time, you can read one essay and put the book down. This is a must have for any history buff. Awesome!

very interesting views about what if scenarios. my interest in this book faded after reading STEPHEN W. SEARS "A Confederate Cannae and Other Scenarios". His essay stated that Stonewall Jackson was killed at the Battle of Bull Run 1861 By a "federal volley" wich mangled his left arm.Stonewall Jackson was actually killed at chancellorsville in 1863 by friendly fire. These mistakes just made me wonder if other facts in the book where correct or not.

this was a very enlighting book and really opened up my mind and made me appricate history as it is for instance if germans had lost to romans than the whole world would be roman and there would be no germany. a very intresting book on military history that i recomend every body intrested in history to read.

The amzing thought provoking ideas brought forth in this thrilling expedition back through the depths of our rich culture. This is a most read with a few great laughs and some heartwarming american triumphs.

I received a hardback book with a different cover to the one in the picture. However, I believe (I hope!) it contains the same text as the one in the picture so I will keep this item, as I can't be bothered to return it for the price I paid.

They state Europe would have been better off had we been defeated by moslems? They deny the foundations of our very existence. How can "distinguished" historians write this? Waste of money - Literary trash - leave it on the shelf.

the book I received was unusable. It had a strange bright blue sticky substance across the bottom of the book, which glued at least two thirds of the pages together and I could not read it without damaging the pages.
I am returning it.
It did arrive promptly though.

This book was a rare English venture into the world of 'counterfactualism'. The authors probably wish they had never embarked on the journey.

The late A.J.P.Taylor once remarked that it was not the business of the historian to ask what else would have happened, if some significant event had not occurred - in other words to ask the question 'What if?' But it is a question which appeals to the general public; and from time to time some historians in the USA and in the UK have pandered to the taste for it. Notably, Dr Christopher Andrew hosted a series of Radio programmes in 2004, dealing with such questions as 'What if D-Day had failed?' and 'What if Elizabeth I had married?' The participants included distinguished historians; and it was all good knockabout stuff; but not serious history.

This book, and at least one sequel, was published during the vogue for counterfactual history; and it is a model of its kind. A book to while away an idle hour; but it can then be discarded, for there is no point in debating the finer points of any of these argument. One man's guess is as good as another's, because the entire corpus of knowledge on the subject is based on speculation, rather than evidence.

The only point in counterfactual history is to highlight what DID happen: to show that, while we tend to take what did happen for granted, it can actually be rather bizarre. For example, it is quite surprising, that Britain emerged victorious from the Second World War; but is it really necessary to ask 'What would have happened if Hitler had won?' in order to appreciate the unexpected character of the British victory, at least from the standpoint of 1940?

The counterfactual craze seems to have come and gone. In Peter Ackroyd's 'Foundation' (2011) he writes ''If' is not a word to use in history'. Quite. A.J.P.Taylor was right all along.

Stephen Cooper

The writers imagine counterfactual events and how that would affect our present world. One particular peace about the war between the Athenians and the Persians really shows how racist and biased the scholars could be. The author of this horrendous piece Victor Davis Hanson explains that if the Persians had won at Salamis the world as we know it would be different because the only chance at intelligence and civilization and human progress would be taken away because ofcourse the Greeks were the only ones capable of spreading such progress. He explains that a world run by the Persians or other Eastern nations would be a world of darkness and oppression. But ofcourse the Greeks won the war and gave the West a chance to defeat the East thus saving humanity and installing civilization. Without the glorious West we would be nothing and we owe everything we are to the Greeks. This is the same self serving propaganda we are taught in school here in the US. The west can never go wrong. Thanks to these historians, racism prevails.

This is fun to read, and the military historians do a GREAT job giving the context of the battles and the historical impact they had. However, most of the "What If's" end up being "the world would be a very different place." Well, duh.

On the plus side, it was unusual to read a book like this written in 1999, before the anti-Bush/anti-America frenzy permeated academia. The essays were written at a time when military success and the peaceful administration of government were approved of. Nice!

The best essay in the collection was Thomas Flemings's 13 what-if's about the American Revolution.

////////////

This book pointed me toward a few other things for my wish list:

Cecelia Holland's historical novels
Theodore Rabb's "The Secret History of the Mongols" and "Climate and History"
Thomas Fleming's "1776: The Year of Illusions"