The Collected What If? Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been

What If #1-2

by Robert Cowley

Like new hardcover with dust jacket

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Alternate History, Essays, Reference, World History, Anthologies

827 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 2001

About the author

Robert Cowley is an American military historian, who writes on topics in American and European military history ranging from the Civil War through World War II. He has held several senior positions in book and magazine publishing and is the founding editor of the award-winning MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History; Cowley has also written extensively and edited three collections of essays in counterfactual history known as What If?

As part of his research he has traveled the entire length of the Western Front, from the North Sea to the Swiss Border.

He currently lives in New York and Connecticut.

-Wikipedia

Reviews

[Googoogjoob · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a very frustrating book. (Actually, two books.) Historians (and a few non-historian authors of popular history or historical fiction) are asked to come up with essays about how history could've taken different courses. The main problem with this book is that few of the authors seem to really understand what to do with the premise: each one chooses a potential point of divergence from our real-world history... and then often that's it. That is- most of the essays are focused on explaining the context of a potential point of divergence, explaining how it could oh-so-easily have turned out differently, and then... that's it. Most of the essays only sort of vaguely imply what might have changed as a result (if the Romans had won the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, most of modern Germany would have been Roman, without any real exploration of what that'd mean for Germany or for Rome; if Chiang Kai-shek had been more prudent and capable, there might be two countries called China, a smaller communist one in the north and a larger nationalist one in the south- again, without much exploration of what this would mean for international relations or the course of the Cold War). A few of them are willing to extrapolate what might have happened out maybe a year or two after the point of divergence, then disclaim further imaginative exploration as being impossible to do very concretely.

Basically, I think that while this book has some value, and some of the essays are very well-written, almost none of the writers (perhaps because they are mostly trained to, and have experience in, writing rigorously evidence-based history) seem to be willing to take the imaginative leaps necessary to make this compelling, and the editor does not seem willing to prod them to do so. The exciting thing about good alternate history fiction is not simply the knowledge that our real-world history could have easily turned out differently: the excitement is in seeing how different the world could have been as the result of such relatively minor differences.

It's like if The Yiddish Policemen's Union was a short story about Anthony Dimond getting hit by a car and dying, which ended with "after this, maybe some Jewish refugees settled in Alaska... but here we begin to delve into speculation, which cannot be carried very far." The point of divergence is only interesting insofar as it is a tool that an imaginative author can use to tell an interesting story set in an interesting alternate world, which is recognizably similar to ours in many ways, but intriguingly alien in others. Most of the authors in this collection do not seem to realize this, and fail as a result.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Ruminations on Strategic Situations in History and the Ramifications if Such Situations Had Happened Otherwise"

This is a very long, if more accurate, title for this book. Since that would be a real mouthful (not to mention very hard to put on the cover), the book is simply entitled, "The Collected What If?" I have read many of the one star reviews of "The Collected What If?" on both Goodreads and Amazon and the problem, as I see it, is what people are perceiving this book to be. I don’t blame editor Robert Cowley, but rather, the publisher for not correctly marketing this book. This is a collection of scholarly essays by prominent historians that discuss key points in history. With the exception of only a few essays, none of them are actually Alternative History (or, the more pretentious name, Counterfactual History). Many of them discuss the historical and social aspects of these key points and their impacts on the history. I found some of these essays to be Excellent, many of them Very Good, and only a handful to be disappointing. As an example, while one of the really good essays, “The Presidency of Henry Wallace" by James Chace, does not mention what a Henry Wallace presidency would look like until the last page or two, it is fascinating to learn, among other things, that Henry Wallace advocated for Civil Rights reform twenty years before LBJ signed it into law. The bottom line is, if you are looking for scholarly essays on history that discuss possible alternatives if things were different, I think you will really like this book. However, if you are looking for true, entertaining Alternative History novels, I might suggest, among others, Harry Turtledove, Robert Harris, and Philip K. Dick.

[Rick Strong · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting collection of counterfactuals, or hypothetical historical scenarios in which one or more parameters are changed, and possible alternate outcomes are examined. Since this is a large collection of pieces by different authors the quality and interest vary through the book, but on the whole I liked reading most of them and some were very compelling.

Some examples:

* During the Ming Dynasty China had an impressive fleet commanded by the very capable Zheng He. What if this fleet had been allowed to continue its voyages and to discover the New World rather than being recalled during the 15th century?

* What if Antony and Cleopatra had won at Actium?

* What if the Mongols had overrun Europe?

* What if Lincoln had not signed the Emancipation Proclamation?

* What if Germany hadn't sent Lenin back to Russia to take them out of WWI?

* What if the Allies hadn't won WWII?

Alternate-history SF is one of my favorite genres; this was an enjoyable opportunity to see these ideas explored by historians.

[Drew Cook · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh oh what if what if

[Tom Darrow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Actually two books in one. This is a collection of essays by many well-known historians discussing the "what if's" of history. For example, what if Jesus hadn't died on the cross or D-Day had failed?

Bad things about the book...
1) it's very long (over 800 pages). My copy is hardback, which makes it even worse to carry around.
2) There are certain periods (especially WWII) that have many essays, while other periods are skipped through very quickly.
3) the essays vary greatly in quality... most are easy to read, but there are a few that are written in either too elementary of a style or are too intellectual in their word choice.

Good things about this book...
1) there is a large variety in topics. Normally, I might not have chosen to buy a book about the Reformation or dipliomatic history, but they are all included here.
2) The essays run about 15-20 pages each, which is an ideal length to read one before bed, or several in an afternoon.
3) Most of the essays are well written. They explain the concepts that need to be explained for non-historians, but not in so much detail as to lessen the naritive style.

[Keith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great collection of essays by prominent historians that look at alternative, or in the parlance of the historian counterfactual, history. Some of it is scary, such as the prospect of Europe as conquered by the Mongols (which was in fact more likely to have happened than not), some of it amusing (such as when Robert E. Lee's army holds fast on Cemetery Ridge outside Gettysburg following the victory at Antietam. I've never before considered the Franco Prussian War to be the single most important event in determining the course of the 20th century, or the potato to be one of the reasons the Industrial Revolution could occur. Definitely worth a read for history buffs.

[Sherrie · Rating 3 out of 5]

What If? is the most interesting question we can ask when studying history. Some of these essays really embraced that mindset and wrote fascinating counterfactuals about key moments in history. Those essays left me daydreaming afterwards about what the world would be like if Jesus hadn't been crucified or Churchill died before WWII (he was hit by a car, so it's not unreasonable). Some essays...were just history with a paragraph at the end saying, "what if this didn't happen? Nobody knows!" which I find a bit of a cop out. I'm looking at you, writer of the essay about potato cultivation. Weaksauce.

Overall, a fun read. I recommend it to my history nerds out there.

[Maggiemii · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some of the history recaps can be a bit slow and read like textbook excerpts. This is particularly true of the explanations of individual battles, as the first volume contemplates the possible results of historic military operations turning out differently. However, the extra background information is absolutely worth it. The alternative worlds imagined by the authors who contributed to this book are fascinating but in many situations horrifying.

[Andrew Hodgson · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite books personally. I get what some reviews say that the What Iffing is modest or restrained in many chapters but I feel that protects the book’s credibility, and some predictions are quite bold.

I think this is a good book to read about a broad number of subjects and events. There is always the option to study further those events or authors that one finds most interesting and then wonder What If for yourself.

[Allison · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great collection of well-written essays, and a fresh way to learn about significant (though sometimes less known) historical moments. Helps one remember how little control mankind has over the outcome of major events and how much we really do rely on, what one might call, miracle or grace.

[booklady]

Hey Laine! Guess what? I found this on my shelves! Remember when you told me about this book that day at lunch? Well, I had it all along! It looks really good too! Thanks for the tip!

[Science and Fiction · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are forty-five historical events selected for this collection, the contributing writers mostly professors of history, the idea being: what might have happened in history if certain events had played out differently? These are mostly in the form of short essays, and a few of the historical events have more than one entry (for a total of forty-nine essays). Given the range of contributing authors it was inevitable that the depth of speculation and level of creativity would vary significantly. My intellectual curiosity and enjoyment level ranged from three to five stars, so I’m giving an overall four-star rating. But it is the five star standouts that render my ultimate Spock accolade: Fascinating! (Don’t forget the arched eyebrow!)

The back cover asks the teasing questions that almost guarantee you will want to read the book and find out the answers: What if Pontius Pilate hadn’t ordered Jesus Christ’s crucifixion? What if Abraham Lincoln hadn’t abolished slavery? What if the Allied invasion of D-Day had failed?

Don’t expect extended fictionalization in the manner of Philip K. Dick’s Man in the High Castle (about a world where Nazi Germany won the war). These essays are more like a sober analysis of probabilities, and some left me shrugging my shoulder without much wonderment, while others worked their way into my mental crevices and just won’t go away. These latter have also become the occasional talking point whenever I find someone willing to suffer my enthusiasm. Specifically, (for me) two essays stand out:

Victor Davis Hanson’s entry on the battle between the Greeks and Persians at Salamis in 480 B.C. This was not merely another battle, but a supreme confrontation between East and West. Without the Greek victory here, the very concept of individualism and democratic rule which form the basis of Western values, life would have been very different in the aftermath. Repressive theocratic rule throughout the known lands versus an ideal which champions individual creativity and freedom.

Robert Cowley’s entry on events in 1914: “The World War That Should Never Have Been.” Cowley shows the beyond-the-scenes events that rarely get discussed in the facts-and-dates only approach of most history books. Decisions were made by people in power that seem almost fickle and based more on ego than on rational thought. Even allowing for alternate scenarios for how the war might have started out as a regional brush fire, rather than a full-fledged multinational conflagration, there were numerous opportunities for people in power to come to a compromise that would have amounted to no more than a “gentleman’s disagreement.” Any one of these moments of possible reconciliation would have spared the world not only the horrific conditions of protracted entrenchment and chemical warfare, but the aftermath of economic ruin and embittered feelings which played out again in the Second World War, and the consequences continuing onward through the Cold War. All it would have taken is for one person to tell another “Well, I don’t like it, but I can live with it. Let’s not kill each other over this.”

It is also important to see how my two favorite essays differ in how to approach problems. In the conflict between the Greeks and the Persians compromise is not really an option; the ideologies are as different as fire and water. The only solution is either for one side to win decisively, or to have a massive DMZ partition and the two sides forever remain separate. In the Europe of 1914, where all countries have a shared Judeo-Christian cultural foundation, compromise makes the most sense, especially before things get out of hand.

This is a keeper for my library, sections of which I will read again, and always with the same question: what can we learn from this – how can we avoid the same pitfalls?

[Claudia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Done!
I have to admit, I like 'what if?'. I like looking at a moment and time and visualizing what would have happened if only "this" was different. Every time someone fantasizes what they would do if they won some large jackpot, it's a what if. Or a counterfactual as they are sometimes called. Many fantasy novels revolve around what if magic was real...

The possibilities are basically endless but in this book, 49 different scenarios were proposed and examined by historians in their field. They attempted to keep their speculations realistic and within the realm of possibility.

Admittedly, some were much more detailed than others simply due to more knowledge being available to the historian. Those are scenarios that change directions in more recent times - what if the Allies didn't break the enigma codes in World War II? What if FDR had not changed his running mate from Wallace to Truman? What if the Soviets invaded Japan in 1945? Napoleon won at Waterloo? If D-Day had failed?

Of course, there are also the ones that much less history is available so moving forward in time gets blurry and not so easily predicted. What if Pilate decided to spare Jesus of Nazareth? What if William the Conqueror failed at Hastings? What if Socrates died in battle in 424 B.C.E. before his reputation as a philosopher was certain? His name might never appear in any book save maybe the most esoteric of Greek philosophers and certainly then-toddler Plato could certainly not have been taught by him. What if the Ming dynasty decided to continue with Zheng He's explorations of the Pacific and Indian Oceans instead of draw back into xenophobic isolation - the great era of exploration would have been lead by China and not Europe.

Most of the scenarios - and some chapters carry variations on a theme - are connected with battles and war. This side wins and that side loses can make all the difference in morale, supplies, support and political determination for the next battle or to even continue to fight. If the Persians won at Salamis, then the Greek culture that Imperial Rome and Western Civilization would have followed may have never existed.

Basically each chapter starts with a summary introduction as well as a few lines regarding the historian. Initially each chapter delves into what did actually happened (as it is known) and then the change which leads into how history might have proceeded from that point. One of the biggest negatives (as well as a big positive) is that each scenario is written by a different historian. Some are easy to read and before you know it, the chapter is over. While others get bogged down in details, overwhelming the reader with what did happen and the what if only consumes the last few pages.

The book does end on a rather bizarre note - what if Pizarro didn't discover potatoes and have them brought to the Old World. Don't just think about your burgers without fries but potatoes enabled small scale farming to provide nutrition to more people especially safeguarding rural populations during wartime. As it eventually became a field crop that shared the land with grain, the countryside began to move into the urban factories, mines and even migrating to other countries.
And it's just a potato.

[Shawn Fahy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just finished "The Collected 'What If?'" (2001), which is edited by Robert Cowley but is a collection of short(ish) stories by a variety of authors. The odd title comes from this being a compilation of two books, "What If?" and "What If? 2", both of which are collections of stories about how history might have been radically changed with some minor detail going a different way. Two of the stories in this compilation are ones that I distinctly remember reading before, so I wonder if this isn't my second time reading this one? I can't recall exactly when I might have read it before, but it could have been any time in the last 20 years. One of these is about the possibility of the Chinese not canceling their seafaring exploration program (which used larger ships in greater numbers than European explorers ever did) in the 15th century and the other was about how the humble potato radically changed history by being brought back to Europe by the Spanish.


A variety of authors means that the readability of the stories varies greatly. One by Lewis H. Lapham is written in such a flowery way that I couldn't even follow parts of it. The era being discussed also seemed to affect my interest in the story, the more familiar I was with an era, the more rapt my attention (the various stories stretch from ancient Greece to the Cold War). The stories aren't written in the "alternate history" genre, with a fictional script set in a counterfactual timeline, but rather the history of a specific event is laid out and then ways that things could have gone differently are discussed. Because of this, this book might be a good introduction to specific parts of history to many; it not only gives an account of what actually went down, but why the details of what went down are important. That said, if non-fiction history books aren't your thing then this probably isn't the book for you.

[PhilomathicJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed the hell out of this book, although it wasn't precisely what I envisioned. Not giving it much thought, I'd expected each counterfactual tale to take a tweaked moment in time (say, Alexander the Great dying early) and spin a yarn about the aftermath.

This wasn't entirely inaccurate; some of the essays did more or less adhere to that format. However, most of the essays spent far more time describing the events as they actually happened. Which, duh, is pretty darn important. I love history, but my knowledge can be spotty, so setting up much-needed context for the ensuing "what ifs?" was, in retrospect, the obvious route to take. Heck, in many of these essays the actual counterfactual speculation was more of a perfunctory endnote than it was the focus.

While that might seem like a weakness, I actually found it to be a strength. It turned what I thought was a bunch of historically-based speculative fiction into 800+ pages of history lessons. That might sound daunting, but the format--a collection of essays stretching from 701 BCE to the 20th century--means that you can bite off as much as you want at any given time. This book collects two separate volumes, and I ended up reading the first one, taking a break for a while and reading something else, and then came back to tackle the second.

My only "gripe": this sucker's massive, and reading it can get a little awkward. But that's a small price to pay for a wealth of historical information with some fascinating ruminations on how things might have turned out if they'd gone just a little differently.

[Tatiana · Rating 3 out of 5]

So this one is a little questionable to me for several reasons.

Firstly, it's worth mentioning this is a combo of two books. The first one is all about wars and battles, and the second one is mainly about things adjacent to wars and battles. That isn't my issue with this book. The issue is a seeming lack of quality control.

"Eminent historians" in the title is also suspect. There are some highly respected writers, like Stephen Ambrose, and a good chunk of university professors, but some of these people have the qualifications that they wrote a book or two. Anyone can write a book about a historical event, but that doesn't mean it's good or passes any kind of rigorous evaluation (looking at you, Tim Pat Coogan).

Also, many of these essays spend more time recounting what actually happened than posing what MIGHT have happened. I was still mostly ok with this because I wasn't familiar with the intricacies of many of these events, so I still enjoyed reading about them. But that's not the point of the book. I found it off-putting that literally the first essay basically states that its alternate universe is too complicated to predict so it doesn't really try to suggest alternate events at all.

This is very good for casual reading but there are better counterfactual narratives readily available.

[Anson Cassel Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

This hefty book of 45 essays is the combination of two previously published volumes, What If? and What If?2, the first treating military questions alone, the second both military and non-military. As would be the case for any book of essays written by so many authors, there is a considerable range of both technique and significance of theme. Nevertheless, the overall quality is very high, the best of the essays are truly thought provoking, and the worst are at least accessible to the general reader. I consider it a strength that most emphasize actual history and limit speculation to immediate and plausible alternatives. As the editor notes, this book is not historical fiction nor is it filled with frivolous counterfactuals of the sort that speculate about “what would have happened if Hannibal had possessed an H-bomb or Napoleon, stealth bombers.”

My one caveat concerns the physical awkwardness of reading a book that is more than 800 pages long and printed on thick stock. The spine is 2 ½ inches across—about the size of my 2800-page reference Bible—and the book will not lie flat without persuasion from heavy objects. Even these aren’t enough for reading the first and last of the essays.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 Stars What if scenarios are one of my favorite history topics. The alternate history works of Harry Turtledove are some of the first non-Star Trek fiction I remember reading. This book is two collections together. The first one is definitely better than the 2nd one. My main issue was that too many of the essays spent so much time on the "what actually happened" part that they neglected the "What if" parts. Several of them also fell into the trap of "and then Western Civilization as we know it would have fallen." Some of them were quite excellent. I had no idea Churchill was hit by a taxi in New York in 1931 and I learned about the darker aspects of FDR.

Full disclosure that I did not read one of the essays.

[Kathy Sebesta · Rating 5 out of 5]

What would have happened if Jesus hadn't been crucified, if Midway had gone the way the numbers said it should, if the Spanish armada had won? And many more scenarios that could have wound up differently had something - something small - happened another way.

Written by world-renowned historians, these are tantalizing thoughts, intriguing What Ifs. Because it's a compilation of so many different people the writing is somewhat uneven; because I don't know as much about all the situations they write about I also found some speculations more interesting than others.

This book includes both the first and second volumes.

[Elaine Bickle Perkins Bazydlo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned a lot from reading this book. I was frustrated by two things - there are some words that are incorrect - ‘one’ where it should have been ‘on’ and the use of ‘throve’ (not a word) when the writer should’ve used ‘thrived’ and a few more. This is poor editing in my opinion. Also, I had to look up a lot of words. Sometimes these words were obscure and a more commonly word could’ve been used. It appeared like the author was showing off and it affected the continuity of the story for me. Overall, I’m glad I made the effort. I can proudly say several gaps in my knowledge of world history were filled.

[Jack Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was certainly fascinating to read most of the essays in this book and consider how vastly different the world might be if only even the most minor detail had been changed in many instances of turning point history. But for me, the great value of this book was noticing how much social background and political bias affected each writer’s approach to counterfactual history and their subject. I had many epiphanies of empathy to go with my discoveries of events I either never knew happened or of which I only had a passing knowledge.

[Andrew Bailey · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's hard to give this a single review, as it is a large anthology with many different authors. There are some real gems to be sure, and quite a few dreadful entries, but it was still overall a pretty enjoyable read. The main issues are a frustrating lack of willingness to engage in speculation on the part of most of the authors, leaving you feeling that each entry finishes just as it's getting good.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found many of the questions to be thoughtful, if slightly predictable, counter-factuals and appreciated the manner in which the author(s) were able to provide evidence for their hypothetical outcomes. Some of the questions, and alternative histories, were composed well enough to deepen my appreciation for the real history of events.

[Avaris · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went into this expecting to enjoy myself and I was not let down. I learned a lot I didn't know, EG giving Washington dictatorial powers which shows more about his character than stepping down after two terms, but also had fun exploring alternative scenarios. History may be set in stone, but the future is just as fluid as a river carving the canyons.

[Bill Silverman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of these counterfactual conjectures are fascinating. My favorites include David McCullough's "What the Fog Wrought," the Revolution's Dukirk, August 29, 1776; Stephen E. Ambrose's "D Day Fails;" and Robert Cowley's "The Soviet Invasion of Japan."

[Lisa Montgomery · Rating 4 out of 5]

September is proving to be one of those months where I jump around from book to book. This one is 827 pages so it will take a bit.
I especially liked the bit of how Napoleon considered to invade America. 827 pages

[Nick Danoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting historical scenarios. It's an anthology so the writing isn't all consistently great, but most essays are excellent.

[Jimyanni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating look at a lot of turning points in history, and how things might have been different if they had turned differently.

[Shannon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting at times but occasionally too far-fetched for my tastes.

[Megan · Rating 1 out of 5]

They made a lot of suppositions without really supporting them. Some essays were better than others, though.