Reddit reviews What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been
We found 18 Reddit comments about What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Counterfactual questions can be useful, but I've generally had an ambivalence toward them for several reasons. There's one reason, in particular, though, that I'd like to use to open up further questions and comments.
Most who frequent this subreddit might be familiar with this book. It's a fun read, but a quick look at the table of contents reveals that the essays are overwhelmingly addressing questions about military. Now, this isn't surprising, given that the book's concept is an expansion of an earlier one focused solely on military history. Thirty-three of the forty-five essays in the book revolve around "what-if-this-person-lost-this-battle" or "what-if-a-certain-war-had-been-won-by-the-other-side."
I figured that a lot of those essays were written with a different audience in mind, and since it wasn't my cup of tea, I didn't give it much further thought. But after reading this question and looking back through the book, I think that table of contents might explain my uneasiness with counterfactual historical questions.
It wasn't the fact that those questions were overwhelmingly on a subject for which I had only a tangential interest that bothered me, but that all of them, save for a handful, were placing the power to significantly alter history into the hands of a few great men. Napoleon Bonaparte, Otto von Bismarck, Robert E. Lee, Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, V. I. Lenin, and George Washington all figure prominently in these essays; there is little about everyday people, scant minority voices, and nothing about women.
However, I wonder if this isn't just a casualty of the way these questions are posed; even the most intriguing essays that attempt to incorporate multiple voices - the one at the end asking what would happen if potatoes were never transplanted to Europe from Peru is a good example - end up ultimately placing the power of changing history into the hands of a single man. In this case, it's completely on Pizarro bringing back the potato; there's no chance that peasants in Europe would have chosen not to cultivate it, there's no room to speculate if it might have gotten there by some other means.
This raises several questions, then (and this is the TL;DR version): Are counterfactual questions only useful or interesting when they're posed about the "big players" in history? Is it possible to ask such questions about "lesser" figures? And does focusing on the counterfactual marginalize the power/agency that everyday people had to alter the course of history?
This book is a great read for a look at what could have been.
These historians have an extremely in-depth take on the situation in China directly after WWII. It is obviously too long for a 5 year-old explanation, but I will sum up some of the things that happened.
Basically during the civil war in China, Chang Kai-Shek had fought back Mao Tse Tung's forces into northern China near the area of Harbin, Chang Kai-Shek had the momentum to completely destroy them but was stopped at the urging U.S. General George C. Marshall who did not understand the nature of China's politics and war, and a temporary peace was brokered.
I'm getting fuzzy here, but I think Chang Kai-Shek wanted to just have a 2 separate states with Mao controlling North China and Chang controlling everything else. Marshall was insistent that they reconcile their differences and reach a coalition government. Both parties refused and the Communist forces gained strength over the next few years and eventually drove the Nationalists out of the country to Taiwan in 1949.
Had they just split China it almost invariable would have ended exactly how East and West Germany ended and the way Korea is now. The part of China that Chang Kai-Shek had control over is the part that is extremely rich now and the Northern part that the communists controlled is still not an economic powerhouse. This would have had some of the farthest reaching effects. Likely no Korean War or Vietnam War. Russia wouldn't have had an ally in the area and all of the Cold War would have been extremely different. (sigh)
In my opinion, this is the biggest tragedy in history, second only to the assassinations of key political figures in the U.S. in the 1960s.
Relevant
I'm more inclined to trust wikipedia than what a poster on reddit says he learned about this from an alternate history "what if" book.
Especially since I can't find anything else, anywhere on the net that says the same story, but I can find claims of a similar, but different story, that "Slav" stems from the Latin word for slave.
So no. I don't think it is very likely that Brodie is correct.
I have a feeling this is the book in question:
>http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428
The lead author has also apparently plagiarized much work.
Oh, and the author of the section on the mongol empire, is a historical novelist, not a historian, with a B.A. Not exactly a great source.
Here's [Keegan's map] (http://imgur.com/p93bJoh) from ['What if?'] (http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428).
I've skimmed the relevant pages, and his argument is that there was very little standing between the Wehrmacht and the oil, especially if they took the southern route. Also, I imagine the Soviet Union would have been happy to stage a repeat the carve up of Poland and the Baltic states, given half a chance.
Just recently bought three alternate history books that have some what if's
Election of Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, how Germany might have won the war in 1915, etc.
Some of the stories do overlap if you take a look at the books but I will come back with my impressions of the WW1 chapters (Would take a very long time for me to read all three books)
The books are
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-II-Robert-Cowley/dp/042518613X
http://www.amazon.com/Collected-Eminent-Historians-Imagine-Might/dp/0399152385
I have a handful that are part of a setting for some stories I'm not yet working on (busy with the far-future stories right now).
Before I give examples, let me plug these great books, very handy for this kind of worldbuilding:
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428
He came close. It means no William the Conqueror, no Norman England, and England remains part of the Scandinavian/Germanic economic world instead of becoming part of the Romance/Mediterranean economic world. One plausible outcome, since England shifting its engagements southward had a chilling effect on Nordic economies, is that in the alternate timeline Nordic westward expansionism continued and expanded, resulting in much earlier European expansion into North America, which in turn results in a very different dynamic. The Europeans brought horses and diseases, but not guns or industrialization, which means the dynamic of their interaction with the natives was on quite different terms.
It was close enough that if not for the three-fifths clause of the US Constitution, Adams would have won. It was close enough that the electors had to vote several times in order to obtain a valid result. With Adams winning, Jefferson is not in a position to reverse course on US engagement with Toussaint Louverture's government in St. Domingue. The US continues in its course toward recognition of a Caribbean state founded by a slave revolt. The divide in the US over slavery came to a head earlier. There was no Louisiana Purchase, both because Jefferson's administration wasn't there to test the constitutional powers of the presidency by attempting it, and because Napoleon, deprived of Haiti by the US support of its rebellion, elects to fortify New Orleans, turning the US and Napoleonic France into rivals. That common rivalry drives the US and England into compromise that results in a smaller US and a stronger British America. By the late 1800s, North America is a collection of loosely-allied republics, city-states, and members of the British and French commonwealths.
In the real world as the end of the Revolutionary War approached, officers of the Continental Army grew increasingly concerned that they would not be paid, and the compensations promised them for their service would not be forthcoming. A rebellion in the ranks formed, with officers writing to Washington demanding that the promises of Congress be honored. Washington was shocked and infuriated, but agreed to meet with the officers and, meanwhile, urgently pressed Congress to come up with some sort of relief to forestall an open revolt. He then met with the army and, solely by force of charisma and persuasion, convinced them to lay down their arms and back off. What if he hadn't? His health was not at its best, and he was profoundly upset at the incipient rebellion. Suppose he suffered a bout of ill health and couldn't make the meeting? Or suppose he just decided he was too outraged by the officers' conduct to treat with them? In this alt history the army marches on Philadelphia where it is met by Adams and Jefferson serving as spokesmen for Congress. They negotiate a set of promises to fulfill Congress' obligations, making good with land grants in the event that enough hard currency isn't available. This agreement establishes a precedent that military service has to be paid for and must be based on a valid contract, which completely changes the basis of power in the future United States.
There are more, of course, but that's enough off the top of my head. Read the What If? books. They're golden.
In this book there's an essay about what would might happened if the Mongols had conquered Europe. If I remember correctly, the author concluded that it would have taken a lot longer for the Renaissance to happen and we would be technologically behind where we are today. I don't remember the exact rationale for that, though.
That exact scenario is explored by historians in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428
thanks.
Another idea I had, was to adopt the mythos, and the hellenization. But scrap the cities, and people. Make new people. Then of course... I guess I'd just have some sort of stock fantasy setting.
Or better yet. Adopt specific cities and places... but flesh out the rest. Maybe I could have Athens, Carthage, and Rome. Maybe I can scramble the cities around. What would happen historically if Rome were 600 miles closer to Athens... what if Troy never fell; and now it's modern day Greece?
I'm probably just over-thinking it. I do like the... oh crap; you changed history, bravo, your names will be remembered forever. You win!
What if looks like a good book
Something that doesn't dive in too deep but is about military history and a fascinating Tour De Force are counterfactual essays. An historian ponders what a different outcome in some important event (like a battle) could have changed. I read a book called "What If?" and was pleasantly surprised and entertained.
Read one of these long ones linked here by all means, but these essays take you to a lot of places and are a good read for in between.
In a sense, any use of counterfactuals could be considered fiction. The case I gave considered how things might have played out, but didn't. It's certainly not simply contained to novels though. The historian Livy was the one that posed the Alexander question and concluded Rome would have kicked Alexander's butt. This is certainly engaging in a little bit of fantasy, but also helps Livy deal with real historical questions like to what extent was Alexander's success his own and not a consequence of weaknesses in a decadent Persian empire.
This was a book I read growing up which is very, very pop, but has some big names - David McCollough, Stephen Ambrose, Keegan. These are not fiction writers (well, maybe Ambrose wrote more fiction than he meant to).
Here is a more recent one by Niall Ferguson.
Of course you can write counterfactual novels just like you can write historical fiction.
Honestly, I don't think its worth arguing about whether Alexander or Nazis is more popular. Questions about Alexander are certainly older, and I'll take that as a win.
I originally read about this from this book: What if, but believe it or not, wikipedia have a pretty comprehensive list of all the military formations slated for operation Downfall.
If you prefer a more "non-fiction" approach, the "What If?" books are quite interesting.
What If? is a lot of fun to read and sounds right up your alley.
I second that thought. What if...? has a chapter with a scenario in which Alexander dies earlier and the conclusion is that Hellenistic culture and egalitarian values wouldn't have spread so much in Europe and parts of Asia were it not for Alexander.
I've found this series of books on the subject to be really interesting. They do tend to look at things from a rather America-centric viewpoint, mind you.
I'm not a historian, but I think that since most historical events happen for many different reasons, history is not likely to be radically different is a single one of those changes. Nevertheless, there's a lot of room for today's world to be quite different if certain very small details turned out differently - mostly involving the outcomes of particular battles due to random factors such as the weather.
I actually just finished reading a book called What If? about how the world would be different if small changes had been made. It's a little fantastical, but it's dangerously addicting.
If I had to choose one historical event to change, though, I'd make there be a nice breeze from the east in Tampa on January 27, 1991.