What do you think?
Rate this book
Virtual History: Alternatives And Counterfactuals
What if there had been no American War of Independence? What if Hitler had invaded Britain? What if Kennedy had lived? What if Russia had won the Cold War? Niall Ferguson, author of the highly acclaimed The Pity of War, leads the charge in this historically rigorous series of separate voyages into “imaginary time” and provides far-reaching answers to these intriguing questions.Ferguson's brilliant 90-page introduction doubles as a manifesto on the methodology of counter-factual history. His equally masterful afterword traces the likely historical ripples that would have proceeded from the maintenance of Stuart rule in England. This breathtaking narrative gives us a convincing, detailed “alternative history” of the West-from the accession of “James III” in 1701, to a Nazi-occupied England, to a U.S. Prime Minister Kennedy who lives to complete his term.
566 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1997
106 people are currently reading
1653 people want to read
About the author
Niall Ferguson
102 books3,305 followersNiall Ferguson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, former Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and current senior fellow at the Center for European Studies at Harvard University, a visiting professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing, and founder and managing director of advisory firm Greenmantle LLC.
The author of 15 books, Ferguson is writing a life of Henry Kissinger, the first volume of which--Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist--was published in 2015 to critical acclaim. The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild won the Wadsworth Prize for Business History. Other titles include Civilization: The West and the Rest, The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die and High Financier: The Lives and Time of Siegmund Warburg.
Ferguson's six-part PBS television series, "The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World," based on his best-seller, won an International Emmy for best documentary in 2009. Civilization was also made into a documentary series. Ferguson is a recipient of the Benjamin Franklin Award for Public Service as well as other honors. His most recent book is The Square and the Tower: Networks on Power from the Freemasons to Facebook (2018).
(Source: Amazon)
The author of 15 books, Ferguson is writing a life of Henry Kissinger, the first volume of which--Kissinger, 1923-1968: The Idealist--was published in 2015 to critical acclaim. The World's Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild won the Wadsworth Prize for Business History. Other titles include Civilization: The West and the Rest, The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die and High Financier: The Lives and Time of Siegmund Warburg.
Ferguson's six-part PBS television series, "The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World," based on his best-seller, won an International Emmy for best documentary in 2009. Civilization was also made into a documentary series. Ferguson is a recipient of the Benjamin Franklin Award for Public Service as well as other honors. His most recent book is The Square and the Tower: Networks on Power from the Freemasons to Facebook (2018).
(Source: Amazon)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
July 7, 2021
I don't think I've ever read a book of alternate history which wasn't actually fictional tales of "what could have been." This was more a collection of in-depth essays into either why such an alternate event could never have happened or what could have been changed here or there to make such an alternate viable. Each entry, in some ways, builds upon the previous, to create a sort of overall alternate scenario which is then expanded upon and detailed in the afterword.
I've also never read a collection of alternate history stories which was proceeded by a 90-page introduction in which the editor attempts to shoot down the "Marxist" idea of determinist history...which ironically actually convinced me even more of the idea.
It's an interesting read if you are really into the "mechanics" of alternate history and less the fictional detailing of an actual scenario.
I've also never read a collection of alternate history stories which was proceeded by a 90-page introduction in which the editor attempts to shoot down the "Marxist" idea of determinist history...which ironically actually convinced me even more of the idea.
It's an interesting read if you are really into the "mechanics" of alternate history and less the fictional detailing of an actual scenario.
June 18, 2016
A re-read & an upgrade from a 2 to a 4 Star rating
A lot was spent on the introduction but i’ll admit to skipping that after around 20 pages as was too disjointed for me to follow & wanted to get right to the meat of it! Have to admit you would need to know about each era & the politics of the actual history when reading about the virtual theories otherwise its quite hard to follow & perhaps picture, as well as separate the fact from the fiction. England without Cromwell was a little staid for sure.
Would America have come about if no AWI was of more interest & the hypotheses raised of note I would say...... if not in 1776 then it would have occurred at another juncture so goes the theory & probably revolved around the slave trade & caused a North/South war & separation thereafter.
Irish Home Rule in 1912 got my attention & again I liked the way it could have played out, with a suggestion that an even worse scenario could have been created with a unified Ireland being likened to Yugoslavia with all it’s religious division.......?
Britain staying neutral in WWI with the general consensus, that, it would have kept its empire & financial power as the world leader but it got dragged into a war in the west by backing France/Russia entente or if it didn’t back it.... it encouraged a German/central powers invasion of both or either.... was in a no win situation really & by doing the right thing? Gave up its empire.....
The next sees a Britain invaded by Germany by virtue of a number of scenarios mostly revolving around that if Hitler had actually had a plan in early 1940, it was more than achievable but it seemed the will was not really there for all manner of reasons.....
What IF Hitler had defeated Uncle Joe.... it seemed plans to “regermanise” the East were in place through Himmler & others which had already started to be enacted in Poland through 1941, a well known factor was the late start for Operation Barbarossa as the Germans had to move through the Balkans to bail out the Italians leaving them short of capturing Moscow & Leningrad as winter hit their forces in late 1941.... another was the fixation of capturing Stalingrad which doomed/lost a quarter of a million german & axis forces.........
cold war was quite lame but mainly as it’s only been presented by western historians as the Kremlin still has its files classified so it was a very short chapter & not that thought provoking tbh which is a real shame........
JFK is covered too, a what if he lived scenario which made him out to be a bit of a villain really, not quite the saint his assassination portrayed him to be.......
then there’s the non-fall of the Berlin wall which again was thought provoking.
The Final chapter puts all the virtual realities together & plays out the whole period from the English Civil war to the fall (or not?) of the Berlin wall & it makes for a great finish to a book which Ive much more enjoyed second time around by virtue of reading small chunks at a time.
A lot was spent on the introduction but i’ll admit to skipping that after around 20 pages as was too disjointed for me to follow & wanted to get right to the meat of it! Have to admit you would need to know about each era & the politics of the actual history when reading about the virtual theories otherwise its quite hard to follow & perhaps picture, as well as separate the fact from the fiction. England without Cromwell was a little staid for sure.
Would America have come about if no AWI was of more interest & the hypotheses raised of note I would say...... if not in 1776 then it would have occurred at another juncture so goes the theory & probably revolved around the slave trade & caused a North/South war & separation thereafter.
Irish Home Rule in 1912 got my attention & again I liked the way it could have played out, with a suggestion that an even worse scenario could have been created with a unified Ireland being likened to Yugoslavia with all it’s religious division.......?
Britain staying neutral in WWI with the general consensus, that, it would have kept its empire & financial power as the world leader but it got dragged into a war in the west by backing France/Russia entente or if it didn’t back it.... it encouraged a German/central powers invasion of both or either.... was in a no win situation really & by doing the right thing? Gave up its empire.....
The next sees a Britain invaded by Germany by virtue of a number of scenarios mostly revolving around that if Hitler had actually had a plan in early 1940, it was more than achievable but it seemed the will was not really there for all manner of reasons.....
What IF Hitler had defeated Uncle Joe.... it seemed plans to “regermanise” the East were in place through Himmler & others which had already started to be enacted in Poland through 1941, a well known factor was the late start for Operation Barbarossa as the Germans had to move through the Balkans to bail out the Italians leaving them short of capturing Moscow & Leningrad as winter hit their forces in late 1941.... another was the fixation of capturing Stalingrad which doomed/lost a quarter of a million german & axis forces.........
cold war was quite lame but mainly as it’s only been presented by western historians as the Kremlin still has its files classified so it was a very short chapter & not that thought provoking tbh which is a real shame........
JFK is covered too, a what if he lived scenario which made him out to be a bit of a villain really, not quite the saint his assassination portrayed him to be.......
then there’s the non-fall of the Berlin wall which again was thought provoking.
The Final chapter puts all the virtual realities together & plays out the whole period from the English Civil war to the fall (or not?) of the Berlin wall & it makes for a great finish to a book which Ive much more enjoyed second time around by virtue of reading small chunks at a time.
read-enough-of
August 25, 2013I will write only about the 90 or so page introduction to this volume by the editor, Niall Ferguson, which I began by reading assiduously and ended by skimming quickly.
Counterfactual history is history written mainly in counterfactuals – sentences of the form “if x had/had not been the case, then y would/would not have been the case.” (Obviously, most sentences in such a history might not actually be counterfactuals, but the main theses will be.) Of such historical endeavors, four questions must be asked, and it is surely the main job of an introduction to a volume of essays of counterfactual history to state these questions and discuss the possible answers to them. a) Which counterfactual suppositions (the “if” parts of counterfactuals) make interesting counterfactual history? There is not much interest in wondering what things might have been like had Lincoln been a Martian spy or had Chamberlain mooned Hitler in Munich. b) Are counterfactuals capable of being true or false? And if so, what makes one true and another false, and how might we determine their truth or falsity? c) If the answer to b) is no, then by what standard do we assess the value of a counterfactual? Interest? Plausibility? Verisimilitude? And d), how do we operationalize a measure of whatever answer we give to c)?
Ferguson does address a). His answer is that we should restrict ourselves to suppositions that were seen as possible by the people to whom they pertain. If Chamberlain really did consider mooning Hitler, then the supposition that he did would be a permissible one by this criterion for counterfactual historicizing. Presumably, it never crossed Chamberlain’s mind and would not have been seen by anyone then as a likely course of events, so in fact it would not be a good basis for counterfactual historicizing. Ferguson’s answer successfully serves to exclude some worthless suppositions, but probably excludes too much. Perhaps no-one in Britain during the Industrial Revolution worried about an end to the supply of iron; but it might be interesting to think about what might have happened had iron become unavailable.
About the remaining issues, Ferguson, as far as I can tell, says nothing whatsoever, essentially rendering his introduction irrelevant to the essays that follow. What he does do is to give a whistle-stop tour of philosophies of history, particularly focusing on issues of determinism. It seems plausible that one’s views on determinism might have some impact on one’s views on counterfactual history. But what that impact might or should be is far from evident. One could be a determinist, in the strictest, Laplacean sense and hold a variety of views about the answers to a) to d) above. If Ferguson wanted to dwell on determinism in the philosophy of history in this context, this is what he should have attempted to articulate.
I was amazed that no mention at all was made of the work of David Lewis, who has provided the most sustained philosophical treatment of counterfactuals in existence. Lewis certainly has things to say that bear on questions a) to d). And I noted some pretty shoddy summary of Hume that makes me question the quality of his descriptions of other figures. Finally, he mentions Robert Harris’s novel Fatherland and says that the possibility of a German win in WWII also inspired several “less successful” novels, such as Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle! In what counterfactual universe is Dick’s novel less successful than Harris’s (though I don’t disparage the latter at all)?
Counterfactual history is history written mainly in counterfactuals – sentences of the form “if x had/had not been the case, then y would/would not have been the case.” (Obviously, most sentences in such a history might not actually be counterfactuals, but the main theses will be.) Of such historical endeavors, four questions must be asked, and it is surely the main job of an introduction to a volume of essays of counterfactual history to state these questions and discuss the possible answers to them. a) Which counterfactual suppositions (the “if” parts of counterfactuals) make interesting counterfactual history? There is not much interest in wondering what things might have been like had Lincoln been a Martian spy or had Chamberlain mooned Hitler in Munich. b) Are counterfactuals capable of being true or false? And if so, what makes one true and another false, and how might we determine their truth or falsity? c) If the answer to b) is no, then by what standard do we assess the value of a counterfactual? Interest? Plausibility? Verisimilitude? And d), how do we operationalize a measure of whatever answer we give to c)?
Ferguson does address a). His answer is that we should restrict ourselves to suppositions that were seen as possible by the people to whom they pertain. If Chamberlain really did consider mooning Hitler, then the supposition that he did would be a permissible one by this criterion for counterfactual historicizing. Presumably, it never crossed Chamberlain’s mind and would not have been seen by anyone then as a likely course of events, so in fact it would not be a good basis for counterfactual historicizing. Ferguson’s answer successfully serves to exclude some worthless suppositions, but probably excludes too much. Perhaps no-one in Britain during the Industrial Revolution worried about an end to the supply of iron; but it might be interesting to think about what might have happened had iron become unavailable.
About the remaining issues, Ferguson, as far as I can tell, says nothing whatsoever, essentially rendering his introduction irrelevant to the essays that follow. What he does do is to give a whistle-stop tour of philosophies of history, particularly focusing on issues of determinism. It seems plausible that one’s views on determinism might have some impact on one’s views on counterfactual history. But what that impact might or should be is far from evident. One could be a determinist, in the strictest, Laplacean sense and hold a variety of views about the answers to a) to d) above. If Ferguson wanted to dwell on determinism in the philosophy of history in this context, this is what he should have attempted to articulate.
I was amazed that no mention at all was made of the work of David Lewis, who has provided the most sustained philosophical treatment of counterfactuals in existence. Lewis certainly has things to say that bear on questions a) to d). And I noted some pretty shoddy summary of Hume that makes me question the quality of his descriptions of other figures. Finally, he mentions Robert Harris’s novel Fatherland and says that the possibility of a German win in WWII also inspired several “less successful” novels, such as Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle! In what counterfactual universe is Dick’s novel less successful than Harris’s (though I don’t disparage the latter at all)?
July 5, 2015
-Imaginativo pero basándose en cosas con diferente grado de probabilidad o incluso de sensatez.-
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Con prólogo de Thomas Carlyle y epílogo de Niall Fergusson (que coordina y también colabora con uno de los trabajos), seis ensayos que proponen diferentes devenires hipotéticos de nuestra historia, desde una España sin enfrentamiento fratricida hasta la inexistencia de una Perestroika, pasando por diferentes escenarios ficticios en el desarrollo de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, entre otros temas, pero que a diferencia de la publicación original no presenta tres trabajos sobre una América bajo dominio inglés, una Argentina sin peronismo y una Unión Europea bajo auspicio del liderazgo alemán (en el siglo XIX, no sean malos pensando en la actualidad…), con la intención de centrarse más en el siglo XX.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ensayo.
Lo que nos cuenta. Con prólogo de Thomas Carlyle y epílogo de Niall Fergusson (que coordina y también colabora con uno de los trabajos), seis ensayos que proponen diferentes devenires hipotéticos de nuestra historia, desde una España sin enfrentamiento fratricida hasta la inexistencia de una Perestroika, pasando por diferentes escenarios ficticios en el desarrollo de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, entre otros temas, pero que a diferencia de la publicación original no presenta tres trabajos sobre una América bajo dominio inglés, una Argentina sin peronismo y una Unión Europea bajo auspicio del liderazgo alemán (en el siglo XIX, no sean malos pensando en la actualidad…), con la intención de centrarse más en el siglo XX.
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
September 24, 2015
Another remarkably well researched book by Niall Ferguson. Those that are fond of history and question purported historical facts will love this book. The author first lays down the ground rules and looks at probable events that did not happen but could have happened and would have changed the course of history. He, quite correctly, does not subscribe to the deterministic view of history. For him history had to do a lot with individuals and their actions. There are indeed some fascinating alternative courses of history that come up for discussion. Perhaps the most interesting is the conclusion relating to British participation in the Great War (1st World War). In authors view, there was a possibility of the British not participating in what became the Great War. This was quite probable and if that had happened, Germany would have played the dominant role in the continent ( quite similar to the one it is playing now as an economic power), Hitler would have never come to power and the 2nd World War would not have happened.
The American engagement in Vietnam could have taken a different course had Kennedy been alive. However,Kennedy's statement " our object is to bring Americans home and permit South Vietnamese to maintain themselves free and independent country" is quite reminiscent of what is now happening in Iraq and even Afghanistan.
All in all a very interesting book but does not belong to the category of masterpieces like "Ascent of Money" by the same author.
The American engagement in Vietnam could have taken a different course had Kennedy been alive. However,Kennedy's statement " our object is to bring Americans home and permit South Vietnamese to maintain themselves free and independent country" is quite reminiscent of what is now happening in Iraq and even Afghanistan.
All in all a very interesting book but does not belong to the category of masterpieces like "Ascent of Money" by the same author.
February 22, 2011
This is one the more interesting books I have read on counterfactuals, or alternative history, as they are better known. Edited by Scottish historian Niall Ferguson, the collection is focused on British and European history, and features a number of historians fleshing out their what-ifs. Three of the books nine essays are on World War II, which seems to be the main focus of alternate history these days. But the book also explores paths not often encountered, such as an English Civil War or American Revolution that never happened, a Europe dominated by the Kaisers Germany after the First World War, and the non-collapse of the Soviet Union. The book begins with an excellent examination of the logic and theory behind counterfactuals. The only weak point of the book is a silly afterword where Ferguson awkwardly combines all nine of the essays and unsuccessfully creates an alternate timeline.
March 22, 2022
Interesting book, IF you manage to survive the introduction ( which is really long and not only long but a huge walkthrough through history, history's history, philosophy, and a lot of other stuff) so be prepared to be really mentally challenged by one of the longest and toughest introductions I've ever seen. I was tempted to skip it but somehow I've managed to finish it but I am pretty sure that I will have to re-read it because well, a lot of stuff just slipped through my mind without understanding too much of it. The rest of the book is more or less okeish, even if the Irish Home Rule is not necessarily something really interesting or at least something to be aware of if you're not from the UK. Unfortunately, I hoped to see more alternatives to the events discussed in the book but instead, I found more of the "why it did or didn't happen" instead of "what it could have been" but the book remained interesting to me. And the last chapter was indeed what I've wanted to see in the first place- the alternate history I was looking for and the idea of Stalin as the patriarch of the Orthodox Church made me laugh for good, I really did not see that coming :))).
It is NOT an easy reading (even without the introduction) and you need to have some good knowledge of history from various parts of the world for at least the last 400 years or so in order to be able to understand why this happened or not.
It is NOT an easy reading (even without the introduction) and you need to have some good knowledge of history from various parts of the world for at least the last 400 years or so in order to be able to understand why this happened or not.
November 15, 2019
"История не имеет сослагательного наклонения" – мы слишком часто слышим эту фразу от детерминистов, марксистов и прочих душнил, в результате чего альтернативная история стала жанром про попаданцев; а что если посадить писать зарисовки на тему профессионалных историков, и чтобы каждый аргумент и гипотезу подкрепляли аргументами и в целом писали академично, как настоящую историю (местами даже слишком, нудновато). Получится книга про попаданцев без попаданцев!
December 9, 2022
To appreciate alternate history, one must have a v.good knowledge of (conventional) history itself. While I am quite well-read in 20th century history of the (Western) world, I skipped the sections related to American and Irish independence etc.
Secondly, the authors of the various pieces were in no mood to explain their theories in lucid detail. Which was a pity since Ferguson himself is the author of a few bestsellers and could have insisted on better outreach. I had to keep skimming every now and then, many-a-times failing to get the nuances. And was dissatisfied as a result.
Avoid unless you are a professional historian of the West.
Secondly, the authors of the various pieces were in no mood to explain their theories in lucid detail. Which was a pity since Ferguson himself is the author of a few bestsellers and could have insisted on better outreach. I had to keep skimming every now and then, many-a-times failing to get the nuances. And was dissatisfied as a result.
Avoid unless you are a professional historian of the West.
October 15, 2020
A rare miss for Fergusson whose work I normally enjoy.
It was too long and just plan boring in my view
It was too long and just plan boring in my view
July 26, 2013
Niall Ferguson at his best can be spell-binding, and his research and ability to tie together disparate facts to weave together his unique tapestry of analysis and historical account can be unsurpassed, but his output is uneven. I haven't even rated some of his lesser works as they were just that boring. Virtual History isn't terrible--and Ferguson is only part-writer, editing together other counter-factual historians to create plausible alternate histories--but he falls prey to the 'transport a real world event into the alterate universe' weakness (what if in the alterate world, the Argentinians actually won the Falkland war?-- this after 300 years of complete disparate history result in completely different great powers) and does not create ironies or power-reversals that are the pleasure of the best alternate universe / uchronie writing. at best a 3/5
March 22, 2019
A book that begins with a hundred page introduction on the history of history is not going to be light reading. This certainly wasn't. Does not, for the most part, do what I expected it to do. In each of the possible scenarios, it discusses how things could have been different (or not) in excruciating detail without really going into what that might mean beyond that point. More a book for historians than for the casual reader.
August 12, 2025
A review of Chapter Eight of Virtual History:
In the days following President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Life magazine published a special issue in his honour. Within its pages was a quote from his widow, Jacqueline Kennedy, that became a defining part of how her husband came to be remembered.
Jacqueline spoke of her late husband’s love for the musical Camelot, saying that his favourite lyrics were:
“Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment, that was known as Camelot.”
By linking her husband’s presidency to a musical retelling of the legendary court of King Arthur, Jacqueline cast JFK’s time in office as a brief, noble era of hope and promise, tragically cut short.
The image stuck. Ever since, the Kennedy years have been remembered in mythic proportions as a “brief shining moment” embodying the ideals of an American golden age filled with possibility but frozen in time by tragedy.
Despite it becoming well known that Kennedy’s private life was riddled with infidelities, recent polling consistently ranks John F. Kennedy as the fourth most popular U.S. president in history, reflecting widespread admiration and enduring nostalgia.
However, historian Diane Kunz challenges this high standing, arguing that JFK’s legacy does not merit such praise. In her analysis, Kennedy was a mediocre president whose achievements have been overshadowed by the circumstances of his assassination and the mythic Camelot narrative built around him.
Kunz writes that:
“More recently, it has become clear that Kennedy’s private life was anything but Arthurian. But his reputation as a public figure — as a great President gunned down in his prime — has been subjected to far less scrutiny.”
Had Kennedy lived to serve a second term, how might history have come to judge him?
Civil Rights
On civil rights, the contrast Kunz draws between Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson is stark. For all his eloquence, Kennedy often dragged his feet. Johnson, by contrast, had the political will and skill to get legislation through.
The turning point in civil rights wasn’t Kennedy’s leadership but his removal:
“In fact, the legislation that Kennedy had requested languished in Congress, becoming law only in July 1964. Only Kennedy’s death made its passage possible. For the assassination removed from office a president who at heart was not committed to civil rights, substituting one who was.”
Kennedy had plenty of chances to push harder. But he didn’t.
The Vietnam War
The same pattern holds when we consider Vietnam. Many assume that Kennedy would have withdrawn from the war. But in reality, domestic political pressures — such as Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign — would likely have pushed him deeper into the conflict:
“With Goldwater watching eagerly for any sign of softness on Communism, Kennedy would have been obliged to reaffirm his commitment whether he liked it or not.”
Even earlier in his presidency, Kennedy had shown poor judgement in foreign affairs, most notably the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which he inherited from Eisenhower but chose to approve anyway:
“The failure of the Bay of Pigs operation… proved the worst defeat of the Kennedy administration. The United States and its leader appeared both incompetent and impotent.”
The Kennedy presidency, shorn of its myth, looks increasingly ordinary.
The appeal of Kennedy-as-hero is emotional. It does not fit with the record of the man in office. Kunz’s essay is persuasive because it refuses sentimentality.
How Should History Remember JFK?
While Virtual History offers many compelling counterfactual essays, Diane Kunz’s chapter stands out as a clear-eyed reassessment of one of the most famous (and often mythologised) figures in modern history.
As someone who grew up with a very Irish and staunchly Catholic grandmother, I understand why it’s tempting to view JFK as a heroic figure. But I’ve long felt he was, at best, a mediocre leader, remembered primarily through the lens of legend — largely because of his tragic assassination.
In time, I believe Kunz’s verdict will find wider acceptance. The tendency to view Kennedy as a heroic martyr has obscured the fact that, in life, his leadership was cautious, sometimes hesitant, and far from truly transformative. As she observes:
“When Kennedy died… he left behind a country determined to worship at the grave of a President whom, in truth, it had not particularly respected in life.”
Had Kennedy lived to serve a second term, history would likely have judged him as a middling president, with his missed opportunities and flaws becoming more apparent over time. The passage of decades has begun to chip away at the Camelot illusion, and I expect that trend to continue, resulting in a more accurate — and often more critical — assessment.
The Kennedy presidency is a story frozen in time — admired more for what it might have been than for what it actually was.
This review was first published on my Substack: https://frbenedictskipper.substack.co...
In the days following President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Life magazine published a special issue in his honour. Within its pages was a quote from his widow, Jacqueline Kennedy, that became a defining part of how her husband came to be remembered.
Jacqueline spoke of her late husband’s love for the musical Camelot, saying that his favourite lyrics were:
“Don’t let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment, that was known as Camelot.”
By linking her husband’s presidency to a musical retelling of the legendary court of King Arthur, Jacqueline cast JFK’s time in office as a brief, noble era of hope and promise, tragically cut short.
The image stuck. Ever since, the Kennedy years have been remembered in mythic proportions as a “brief shining moment” embodying the ideals of an American golden age filled with possibility but frozen in time by tragedy.
Despite it becoming well known that Kennedy’s private life was riddled with infidelities, recent polling consistently ranks John F. Kennedy as the fourth most popular U.S. president in history, reflecting widespread admiration and enduring nostalgia.
However, historian Diane Kunz challenges this high standing, arguing that JFK’s legacy does not merit such praise. In her analysis, Kennedy was a mediocre president whose achievements have been overshadowed by the circumstances of his assassination and the mythic Camelot narrative built around him.
Kunz writes that:
“More recently, it has become clear that Kennedy’s private life was anything but Arthurian. But his reputation as a public figure — as a great President gunned down in his prime — has been subjected to far less scrutiny.”
Had Kennedy lived to serve a second term, how might history have come to judge him?
Civil Rights
On civil rights, the contrast Kunz draws between Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson is stark. For all his eloquence, Kennedy often dragged his feet. Johnson, by contrast, had the political will and skill to get legislation through.
The turning point in civil rights wasn’t Kennedy’s leadership but his removal:
“In fact, the legislation that Kennedy had requested languished in Congress, becoming law only in July 1964. Only Kennedy’s death made its passage possible. For the assassination removed from office a president who at heart was not committed to civil rights, substituting one who was.”
Kennedy had plenty of chances to push harder. But he didn’t.
The Vietnam War
The same pattern holds when we consider Vietnam. Many assume that Kennedy would have withdrawn from the war. But in reality, domestic political pressures — such as Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign — would likely have pushed him deeper into the conflict:
“With Goldwater watching eagerly for any sign of softness on Communism, Kennedy would have been obliged to reaffirm his commitment whether he liked it or not.”
Even earlier in his presidency, Kennedy had shown poor judgement in foreign affairs, most notably the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which he inherited from Eisenhower but chose to approve anyway:
“The failure of the Bay of Pigs operation… proved the worst defeat of the Kennedy administration. The United States and its leader appeared both incompetent and impotent.”
The Kennedy presidency, shorn of its myth, looks increasingly ordinary.
The appeal of Kennedy-as-hero is emotional. It does not fit with the record of the man in office. Kunz’s essay is persuasive because it refuses sentimentality.
How Should History Remember JFK?
While Virtual History offers many compelling counterfactual essays, Diane Kunz’s chapter stands out as a clear-eyed reassessment of one of the most famous (and often mythologised) figures in modern history.
As someone who grew up with a very Irish and staunchly Catholic grandmother, I understand why it’s tempting to view JFK as a heroic figure. But I’ve long felt he was, at best, a mediocre leader, remembered primarily through the lens of legend — largely because of his tragic assassination.
In time, I believe Kunz’s verdict will find wider acceptance. The tendency to view Kennedy as a heroic martyr has obscured the fact that, in life, his leadership was cautious, sometimes hesitant, and far from truly transformative. As she observes:
“When Kennedy died… he left behind a country determined to worship at the grave of a President whom, in truth, it had not particularly respected in life.”
Had Kennedy lived to serve a second term, history would likely have judged him as a middling president, with his missed opportunities and flaws becoming more apparent over time. The passage of decades has begun to chip away at the Camelot illusion, and I expect that trend to continue, resulting in a more accurate — and often more critical — assessment.
The Kennedy presidency is a story frozen in time — admired more for what it might have been than for what it actually was.
This review was first published on my Substack: https://frbenedictskipper.substack.co...
July 12, 2023
Alternative History he can do...
---
As always, Niall Ferguson has his team of fact checkers which are nothing but manatees dropping rubber balls into a box which is essentially a randomizer for ideas, facts or opinion making.
---
Tyler Cohen just uses Chat GPT with his writings and, he'll write down idiotically false facts and quotes about Francis Bacon.
so it's a tie
---
Amazone
Solid Historical Research
8/10
Overall, I found "Virtual History" to be an excellent exploration of the value of counterfactuals in historical writing. There is no debating the quality of the writing in this book. From the rousing introduction, to the various essays, and the clever conclusion, the authors do a superb job of engaging the reader in their various areas of expertise. That said, the work overall is somewhat uneven.
I believe this stems from the fact that the various historians don't all share the same comfort level with projecting the consequences of their counterfactuals. Some barely scratch the surface of what might have been, while others go into extensive detail (in particular, "What if Hitler had Invaded England", my favorite). However, this complaint speaks more to the flow of the work overall, and not to the quality of each essay.
In conclusion, "Virtual History" is an outstanding work, that shows top notch research and excellent writing.
My one caveat to the potential reader would be that this is not a particularly light, easy reading book
Jake Mohlman
---
What Is This Book Trying To Be?
4/10
Believe me, I really tried to appreciate this book as either a thought-provoking exploration of scenarios of alternate history, or as a solid study of the art of history itself. I was disappointed both ways.
Strangely enough, this book is purported by the publisher and editor to be both of those things, but the results prove otherwise.
This book is very unfocused and academically arrogant, and it barely even explores counterfactual history, except at an extremely basic and dry interpretation of the term.
Note: This book is from England and is quite Anglo-centric, so a working knowledge of British history might be an asset before you begin (this is not a criticism, just a recommendation).
This book gets off to a horrendous start with Ferguson's 90-page introduction in which he attempts to explore the nuances and importance of counterfactual history.
Instead he delivers an extremely tedious and repetitive treatise on the study of history itself, which has little to do with the supposed focus of the book.
A large portion of this intro is dedicated to "determinism" vs. "predestination" in history, but this is historiography rather than an exploration of counterfactuals. This is also written in that dry and verbose academic style in which it is more important to endlessly pile on repetitive evidence in order to impress one's colleagues, than to actually enlighten the reader.
Ferguson shows a sheer desperation to confound other historians who don't think highly of counterfactuals, and in the process forgets that he is writing a book for the public.
He also complains about researchers in his field not being taken seriously, but then insults people in other fields who are interested in counterfactuals, such as sociologists and fiction writers.
After this tedious start, the book doesn't get much better, as various historians contribute chapters on key episodes in history.
With only a few exceptions, each author commits the errors of the introduction by failing to explore counterfactuals, which is supposed to be the point, and merely shows off his own historical knowledge in tedious ways.
One noteworthy exception is the essay on home rule in Northern Ireland. Otherwise, the pattern here is to spend 95% of the essay describing what really happened in a straight historical fashion, then briefly knock off a few possible alternative scenarios without really exploring them, as if the editor forced each author to do this.
In the end, this book can't figure out what it wants to be, and you will be unable to figure out why you're reading it. Is it trying to comment on the study of history itself, or present straight history with an intellectual twist, or explore counterfactuals?
It tries to do all of these, with disappointing levels of success, and is only unfocused as a result. If you decide to tackle this, good luck - you'll need it.
doomsdayer520
---
Not up to the caliber of Ferguson's prior efforts
4/10
What else can I say?
This book is extraordinarily dry and verbose. There is very little "alternate history" here.
It really is best described as a work about other works of alternate history, aka Stephen King's "Danse Macabre".
As a big history buff, I did not enjoy this and the last few chapters were forced reading.
Rochambeaux
---
As always, Niall Ferguson has his team of fact checkers which are nothing but manatees dropping rubber balls into a box which is essentially a randomizer for ideas, facts or opinion making.
---
Tyler Cohen just uses Chat GPT with his writings and, he'll write down idiotically false facts and quotes about Francis Bacon.
so it's a tie
---
Amazone
Solid Historical Research
8/10
Overall, I found "Virtual History" to be an excellent exploration of the value of counterfactuals in historical writing. There is no debating the quality of the writing in this book. From the rousing introduction, to the various essays, and the clever conclusion, the authors do a superb job of engaging the reader in their various areas of expertise. That said, the work overall is somewhat uneven.
I believe this stems from the fact that the various historians don't all share the same comfort level with projecting the consequences of their counterfactuals. Some barely scratch the surface of what might have been, while others go into extensive detail (in particular, "What if Hitler had Invaded England", my favorite). However, this complaint speaks more to the flow of the work overall, and not to the quality of each essay.
In conclusion, "Virtual History" is an outstanding work, that shows top notch research and excellent writing.
My one caveat to the potential reader would be that this is not a particularly light, easy reading book
Jake Mohlman
---
What Is This Book Trying To Be?
4/10
Believe me, I really tried to appreciate this book as either a thought-provoking exploration of scenarios of alternate history, or as a solid study of the art of history itself. I was disappointed both ways.
Strangely enough, this book is purported by the publisher and editor to be both of those things, but the results prove otherwise.
This book is very unfocused and academically arrogant, and it barely even explores counterfactual history, except at an extremely basic and dry interpretation of the term.
Note: This book is from England and is quite Anglo-centric, so a working knowledge of British history might be an asset before you begin (this is not a criticism, just a recommendation).
This book gets off to a horrendous start with Ferguson's 90-page introduction in which he attempts to explore the nuances and importance of counterfactual history.
Instead he delivers an extremely tedious and repetitive treatise on the study of history itself, which has little to do with the supposed focus of the book.
A large portion of this intro is dedicated to "determinism" vs. "predestination" in history, but this is historiography rather than an exploration of counterfactuals. This is also written in that dry and verbose academic style in which it is more important to endlessly pile on repetitive evidence in order to impress one's colleagues, than to actually enlighten the reader.
Ferguson shows a sheer desperation to confound other historians who don't think highly of counterfactuals, and in the process forgets that he is writing a book for the public.
He also complains about researchers in his field not being taken seriously, but then insults people in other fields who are interested in counterfactuals, such as sociologists and fiction writers.
After this tedious start, the book doesn't get much better, as various historians contribute chapters on key episodes in history.
With only a few exceptions, each author commits the errors of the introduction by failing to explore counterfactuals, which is supposed to be the point, and merely shows off his own historical knowledge in tedious ways.
One noteworthy exception is the essay on home rule in Northern Ireland. Otherwise, the pattern here is to spend 95% of the essay describing what really happened in a straight historical fashion, then briefly knock off a few possible alternative scenarios without really exploring them, as if the editor forced each author to do this.
In the end, this book can't figure out what it wants to be, and you will be unable to figure out why you're reading it. Is it trying to comment on the study of history itself, or present straight history with an intellectual twist, or explore counterfactuals?
It tries to do all of these, with disappointing levels of success, and is only unfocused as a result. If you decide to tackle this, good luck - you'll need it.
doomsdayer520
---
Not up to the caliber of Ferguson's prior efforts
4/10
What else can I say?
This book is extraordinarily dry and verbose. There is very little "alternate history" here.
It really is best described as a work about other works of alternate history, aka Stephen King's "Danse Macabre".
As a big history buff, I did not enjoy this and the last few chapters were forced reading.
Rochambeaux
Read
January 1, 2021As I understand it, it goes like this: there's a thing called the past, consisting of things that happened before the present, the existence of which, unless you're dealing in theoretical physics or fooling about with philosophy, is at least a useful working assumption; there's a thing called history, which consists of things people have written about the past; there's a thing called historiography, which consists of things that people have written about things that people have written about the past; and there are counterfactuals, which are things that didn't happen in the past but might have done. This is a book exploring counterfactuals.
I'm sure you know this, but it's as well to get it straight.
Now, it's fun to play with counterfactuals and, in another universe, this would have been a fun kind of a book. That's what I was expecting when I picked it up, based on such trivialities as the blurb and the cover, but it turns out I'd been mislead (or mislead myself). This wasn't a fun book; it was an interesting one.
Interesting is good.
It consists of a longish introduction, a set of essays, and, actually rather unsatisfyingly, an afterword that tries to tie the contents together into an alternative history.
The introduction - and here I'm going to sound rather pretentious, so forgive me - is a lengthy apologia for the use of counterfactual arguments by serious historians, covering themes from historiography, philosophy and scientific argument. This dispelled, quite effectively, any suspicion that the book might be light-hearted fun, but set me up quite nicely for the essays.
(It takes a while to spark up my spare brain-cell)
The essays are...
Actually, I'm just going to prune the last two from this statement, because those covering Kennedy and Gorbachev are rather different in tone from the others.
The earlier essays are cautious, scholarly, detail-heavy explorations of episodes of North-Atlantic-facing history, using the question "what if" to present evidence that doesn't necessarily fit into the usual narrative. All bar the first two deal with events in the twentieth century, and all are careful, detached weighings-up rather than emotive speculation.
I like this approach very much: it's interesting rather than fun, but highly enjoyable in a strenuous kind of way.
After all this genteel burrowing about in archives come the last two essays, and I have to admit they were a bit of a shock. The last two essays aren't careful, detached weighings-up; they are, or contain, or are coloured by (take your pick) emotional responses. I suppose that might be inevitable given that they deal with more recent events, but my goodness they feel opinionated (in the case of Camelot Continued verging on rude). Iconoclasm can be just as distasteful as hagiography. Oh, and anyone referring to Boston as the most Irish city in the world gets an automatic black mark from me.
Of course, that intrusion of personality may be to your liking, and it does give those last two essays a liveliness that you could possibly miss from the preceding writing (yes, I'm hedging, I didn't like it one little bit), and there is still much there that is of interest, but the last two writers are much more interested in presenting one side of a case than in looking at both sides of an argument, and... I just prefer the other approach. Is that so bad?
So: those are the essays - the meat of the book - and they represent a pretty good way of looking at the finer detail of events, and a useful antidote to the grand narrative view of history.
The afterword is a bit of fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously. I'm sure you can see the logical problem with it.
And I'm done.
I'm sure you know this, but it's as well to get it straight.
Now, it's fun to play with counterfactuals and, in another universe, this would have been a fun kind of a book. That's what I was expecting when I picked it up, based on such trivialities as the blurb and the cover, but it turns out I'd been mislead (or mislead myself). This wasn't a fun book; it was an interesting one.
Interesting is good.
It consists of a longish introduction, a set of essays, and, actually rather unsatisfyingly, an afterword that tries to tie the contents together into an alternative history.
The introduction - and here I'm going to sound rather pretentious, so forgive me - is a lengthy apologia for the use of counterfactual arguments by serious historians, covering themes from historiography, philosophy and scientific argument. This dispelled, quite effectively, any suspicion that the book might be light-hearted fun, but set me up quite nicely for the essays.
(It takes a while to spark up my spare brain-cell)
The essays are...
Actually, I'm just going to prune the last two from this statement, because those covering Kennedy and Gorbachev are rather different in tone from the others.
The earlier essays are cautious, scholarly, detail-heavy explorations of episodes of North-Atlantic-facing history, using the question "what if" to present evidence that doesn't necessarily fit into the usual narrative. All bar the first two deal with events in the twentieth century, and all are careful, detached weighings-up rather than emotive speculation.
I like this approach very much: it's interesting rather than fun, but highly enjoyable in a strenuous kind of way.
After all this genteel burrowing about in archives come the last two essays, and I have to admit they were a bit of a shock. The last two essays aren't careful, detached weighings-up; they are, or contain, or are coloured by (take your pick) emotional responses. I suppose that might be inevitable given that they deal with more recent events, but my goodness they feel opinionated (in the case of Camelot Continued verging on rude). Iconoclasm can be just as distasteful as hagiography. Oh, and anyone referring to Boston as the most Irish city in the world gets an automatic black mark from me.
Of course, that intrusion of personality may be to your liking, and it does give those last two essays a liveliness that you could possibly miss from the preceding writing (yes, I'm hedging, I didn't like it one little bit), and there is still much there that is of interest, but the last two writers are much more interested in presenting one side of a case than in looking at both sides of an argument, and... I just prefer the other approach. Is that so bad?
So: those are the essays - the meat of the book - and they represent a pretty good way of looking at the finer detail of events, and a useful antidote to the grand narrative view of history.
The afterword is a bit of fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously. I'm sure you can see the logical problem with it.
And I'm done.
April 16, 2022
The 'what ifs' of history are fascinating to both historians and casual history buffs alike, and even academics as straight-laced as Niall Ferguson, the editor of Virtual History, and his co-contributors cannot resist the speculation. Though lacking the vim and populism of Robert Cowley's later trilogy of What If? books, the historians in this collection manage to explore, convincingly, an England without a Civil War, an America without a Revolution, a British Ireland, a First World War without British intervention, a Nazi-occupied Britain and Europe, an even colder Cold War, a demythologised JFK completing a full presidential term, and a USSR enduring its crisis of the early Nineties.
Despite refuting E. H. Carr's famous dismissal of 'what ifs' as 'parlour games', Ferguson et al. are not here to loosen their ties and kick off their shoes, conjuring up images of swastikas over Whitehall or Union Jacks over the White House. Following the principle identified by Hugh Trevor-Roper that "history is not merely what happened; it is what happened in the context of what might have happened" (pg. 95), theirs is a serious pitch for the validity of 'what ifs' as a useful historical diagnostic tool.
There are both benefits and drawbacks to such a staid thesis. The benefits are almost entirely on the academic side: the book convinces us of this tool's usefulness both in deepening our understanding of the historical record (following Trevor-Roper's maxim) and in providing a "necessary antidote to determinism" (pg. 89). The latter is a significant part of the appeal of 'what ifs', rooting out the complacency in historical narratives that, say, an American sense of liberty meant the United States was inevitable, or that Allied righteousness and democracy meant victory in the Second World War was foreordained. In a delicious (if over-long) afterword, Ferguson knits each of the historical 'what ifs' discussed in the book into one long counterfactual history, in which an Anglo-American Empire (absent an eventful 1776) faces off against a German continental hegemon. Ferguson's delivery of the narrative is uncanny, and you can readily imagine a world in which events proceeded in this way. When Ferguson's afterword, without breaking character, concludes that following "the two decades after Kennedy's fall from grace, it is tempting to see the subsequent break-up of the Anglo-American Empire as inevitable" (pg. 439), it is easy to see his point, aping as he does our conventional historical lines about the inevitability of the USSR's collapse. Consider our progressive narratives duly shaken, our Western achievements and reprieves duly qualified.
However, Virtual History is rarely as bracing as its topics – Nazi Britain, Royal Americans, etc. – might suggest. The more casual reader will find this book hard work. It too often gets bogged down in the historiography, with each chapter taking its sweet time to get to the point, sucking the life out of many of the arguments. Ferguson and his co-contributors tend towards economic history, which is dry even at the best of times, but even so you would wish for a less dispassionate (perhaps even joyless) definition of the titular 'virtual history' than the following: "the counterfactual scenarios… are not mere fantasy: they are simulations based on calculations about the relative probability of plausible outcomes in a chaotic world" (pg. 85). Academics might appreciate this precision, and will be able to lean heavily on the book in the debate around counterfactual history, but the more casual reader of Virtual History will find that same weight presses unbearably upon them.
Despite refuting E. H. Carr's famous dismissal of 'what ifs' as 'parlour games', Ferguson et al. are not here to loosen their ties and kick off their shoes, conjuring up images of swastikas over Whitehall or Union Jacks over the White House. Following the principle identified by Hugh Trevor-Roper that "history is not merely what happened; it is what happened in the context of what might have happened" (pg. 95), theirs is a serious pitch for the validity of 'what ifs' as a useful historical diagnostic tool.
There are both benefits and drawbacks to such a staid thesis. The benefits are almost entirely on the academic side: the book convinces us of this tool's usefulness both in deepening our understanding of the historical record (following Trevor-Roper's maxim) and in providing a "necessary antidote to determinism" (pg. 89). The latter is a significant part of the appeal of 'what ifs', rooting out the complacency in historical narratives that, say, an American sense of liberty meant the United States was inevitable, or that Allied righteousness and democracy meant victory in the Second World War was foreordained. In a delicious (if over-long) afterword, Ferguson knits each of the historical 'what ifs' discussed in the book into one long counterfactual history, in which an Anglo-American Empire (absent an eventful 1776) faces off against a German continental hegemon. Ferguson's delivery of the narrative is uncanny, and you can readily imagine a world in which events proceeded in this way. When Ferguson's afterword, without breaking character, concludes that following "the two decades after Kennedy's fall from grace, it is tempting to see the subsequent break-up of the Anglo-American Empire as inevitable" (pg. 439), it is easy to see his point, aping as he does our conventional historical lines about the inevitability of the USSR's collapse. Consider our progressive narratives duly shaken, our Western achievements and reprieves duly qualified.
However, Virtual History is rarely as bracing as its topics – Nazi Britain, Royal Americans, etc. – might suggest. The more casual reader will find this book hard work. It too often gets bogged down in the historiography, with each chapter taking its sweet time to get to the point, sucking the life out of many of the arguments. Ferguson and his co-contributors tend towards economic history, which is dry even at the best of times, but even so you would wish for a less dispassionate (perhaps even joyless) definition of the titular 'virtual history' than the following: "the counterfactual scenarios… are not mere fantasy: they are simulations based on calculations about the relative probability of plausible outcomes in a chaotic world" (pg. 85). Academics might appreciate this precision, and will be able to lean heavily on the book in the debate around counterfactual history, but the more casual reader of Virtual History will find that same weight presses unbearably upon them.
February 24, 2020
Эссе очень разноплановые.
Открывающий книгу обзор Фергюсона - попытка галопом описать многовековую дискуссию на нескольких десятках страниц. Смелый эксперимент завершается весьма плачевным результатом: победителем спора провозглашен Карл Поппер, изучать альтернативы историкам милостиво позволяется, но только те альтернативы, которые рассматривали современники событий.
В результате, в большинстве последующих эссе много места и времени читателя убивается на изыскания, а рассматривалась ли та или иная альтернатива современниками или нет. Поэтому те, кто надеется, к примеру, в статье "Кайзеровский Европейский союз" найти что-то про возможную организацию "Кайзеровского союза" как альтернативы Версальской системе будут жестоко разочарованы: никакого глубокого изучения этого вопроса там нет.
То же касается и большинства других статей. Исключением можно назвать разве что работу про ирландский гомруль как альтернативу независимой Ирландской республике. Ее автор Э. Джексон, действительно, погружается в детали и анализирует саму альтернативу, возможные варианты ее реализации и возможные последствия этих вариантов.
Что до заключительного эссе, свода всех альтернатив воедино, то его жанр - скорее исторический водевиль, чем историческое исследование. Читается оно, соотвественно, легко и доставляет наслаждение английским юмором автора.
Открывающий книгу обзор Фергюсона - попытка галопом описать многовековую дискуссию на нескольких десятках страниц. Смелый эксперимент завершается весьма плачевным результатом: победителем спора провозглашен Карл Поппер, изучать альтернативы историкам милостиво позволяется, но только те альтернативы, которые рассматривали современники событий.
В результате, в большинстве последующих эссе много места и времени читателя убивается на изыскания, а рассматривалась ли та или иная альтернатива современниками или нет. Поэтому те, кто надеется, к примеру, в статье "Кайзеровский Европейский союз" найти что-то про возможную организацию "Кайзеровского союза" как альтернативы Версальской системе будут жестоко разочарованы: никакого глубокого изучения этого вопроса там нет.
То же касается и большинства других статей. Исключением можно назвать разве что работу про ирландский гомруль как альтернативу независимой Ирландской республике. Ее автор Э. Джексон, действительно, погружается в детали и анализирует саму альтернативу, возможные варианты ее реализации и возможные последствия этих вариантов.
Что до заключительного эссе, свода всех альтернатив воедино, то его жанр - скорее исторический водевиль, чем историческое исследование. Читается оно, соотвественно, легко и доставляет наслаждение английским юмором автора.
August 15, 2023
this is a book on counterfactual history, but by mostly actual historians rather than pop historians. the most interesting insight here is that history is less about specific incidents and more about casual paths. that is, any meaningful answer to "what if X had happened instead of Y" depends on specific assumptions about *how/why* X would have happened -- in isolation, the fact that "X happened" tells you very little about what would follow.
for example, "what if germany won WWII" leads to very different outcomes under different assumptions about "how did germany win" did hitler invade the USSR before it was too close to winter? did churchill die/britain surrender? did the US stay out of the war? did german scientists get to the atomic bomb first? each of these will lead to very different answers about "what happens next".
pointedly, many essays come to the conclusion that Y was pre-ordained, there was no way X could have happened. other essays are more analyses of the type "X would almost certainly have happened, were it not for some extremely unlikely accident which led to Y instead".
very interesting book but with an undue focus on fairly obscure, though important, periods of british history (which will mostly interest people who are already interested in british history). and a few chapters are nakedly ideological. but otherwise a fun read.
for example, "what if germany won WWII" leads to very different outcomes under different assumptions about "how did germany win" did hitler invade the USSR before it was too close to winter? did churchill die/britain surrender? did the US stay out of the war? did german scientists get to the atomic bomb first? each of these will lead to very different answers about "what happens next".
pointedly, many essays come to the conclusion that Y was pre-ordained, there was no way X could have happened. other essays are more analyses of the type "X would almost certainly have happened, were it not for some extremely unlikely accident which led to Y instead".
very interesting book but with an undue focus on fairly obscure, though important, periods of british history (which will mostly interest people who are already interested in british history). and a few chapters are nakedly ideological. but otherwise a fun read.
February 3, 2019
You should not let the cover startle you or dissuade you from picking up this book. Yes, that is Adolf Hitler on a British one-penny stamp. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of counterfactual history, then this book might not be for you. And then again, it might be absolutely ideal. Ferguson has collected a stellar assortment of articles covering a wide array of topics – from the hypothesis of how a devolved Home Rule for Ireland might have panned out, over the implications of a succesful Operation Seelöwe (Battle of Britain) to questioning the inevitability of Soviet collapse after 1989.
The research done on each article is immense – and the reference/notes section is impeccable. It took me quite some time to get through it despite my love for history – my mind tends to wander, after all. But my experience with this book actually led me to buy another by the same author – Colossus, a book about the US as a modern imperial superpower. I have not gotten around to reading it at the moment, however.
That said, it is a very entertaining book – but it is a book that you need to “be ready for”.
The research done on each article is immense – and the reference/notes section is impeccable. It took me quite some time to get through it despite my love for history – my mind tends to wander, after all. But my experience with this book actually led me to buy another by the same author – Colossus, a book about the US as a modern imperial superpower. I have not gotten around to reading it at the moment, however.
That said, it is a very entertaining book – but it is a book that you need to “be ready for”.
June 23, 2024
This is a book first published in the UK, in the mid-nineties. Before the meat of the book begins with the essays on the counterfactuals there is a detailed explanation on why counterfactuals can be useful, often why there are not. It certainly left me with the idea that it's worth thinking about these questions, as irrelevant as they are because the alternative histories did not happen.
It has a mostly Anglo-American and European focus and while i found the chapters on aspects of history that i consider i am fairly well informed at, there was still lots to think about in the chapters where i don't. I may be alone in this but i did find it interesting that now we are nearly thirty years after the publication of this book that the proposal in the essay on what would have happened had John Kennedy survived seems to be the orthodox view. I am on the right hand side of the Herring Pond however, maybe those in the US would feel differently. That there are alternative view points as much as there are alternative histories has always been so.
I have plenty of food for thought after having read this book.
It has a mostly Anglo-American and European focus and while i found the chapters on aspects of history that i consider i am fairly well informed at, there was still lots to think about in the chapters where i don't. I may be alone in this but i did find it interesting that now we are nearly thirty years after the publication of this book that the proposal in the essay on what would have happened had John Kennedy survived seems to be the orthodox view. I am on the right hand side of the Herring Pond however, maybe those in the US would feel differently. That there are alternative view points as much as there are alternative histories has always been so.
I have plenty of food for thought after having read this book.
October 8, 2025
There are some interesting chapters here, but the 90-page introduction and the longer than necessary afterword drag this down.
The introduction puts the idea of counterfactual thought into the context of historical thought, but in my opinion it could have been omitted entirely or at least cut down to a much smaller size. I wonder what the book would have been like if the Introduction had been cut down? Hmm, counterfactual thinking!
Everyone, every day, thinks about alternatives to what has happened. What if I hadn't eaten that second helping? What if I hadn't left for work at that moment? What if I had not gone on vacation to that place? It is natural, therefore, to wonder what would have happened if some historical event had been altered in some way, and in fact it is the only way we can hope to avoid repeating bad moments.
As for the counterfactual chapters, they were fine.
The introduction puts the idea of counterfactual thought into the context of historical thought, but in my opinion it could have been omitted entirely or at least cut down to a much smaller size. I wonder what the book would have been like if the Introduction had been cut down? Hmm, counterfactual thinking!
Everyone, every day, thinks about alternatives to what has happened. What if I hadn't eaten that second helping? What if I hadn't left for work at that moment? What if I had not gone on vacation to that place? It is natural, therefore, to wonder what would have happened if some historical event had been altered in some way, and in fact it is the only way we can hope to avoid repeating bad moments.
As for the counterfactual chapters, they were fine.
December 26, 2018
Star less for the Introduction; another one for two quite boring chapters - Irish Home Rule as one of the decisive moments in history?? Charles II Scottish adventures??? American War of Independence also without the nerve. But the rest is really fine and intriguing. Well maybe with some exception of the chapter on the fall of the Soviet Union. Far too many bizarre conclusions and thesis. However to read these days how leaders of Germany, France or Italy reacted to the very idea of Germany unification... absolutely priceless.
The concluding part ... well, that needed whole lot of strong alcohol. Free fall on all accounts.
All in all: now on Brexit, Mr. Ferguson! You’re the most suitable boy!
The concluding part ... well, that needed whole lot of strong alcohol. Free fall on all accounts.
All in all: now on Brexit, Mr. Ferguson! You’re the most suitable boy!
April 20, 2025
I was a bit disappointed by this one. The book is kind of cursed by being overly intellectual and lacked any of the imagination alternative history is built around. Every scenario goes along the lines of "Here's something that could've gone different, would be crazy if it did.." with little actual theorizing. This is all on top of a brutal 90-page introduction from Niall Ferguson, which felt very indulgent and like a university reading. It's OK if you're more interested in the history around certain periods that are talked about, but be prepared for some academic language and little actual alternate history.
July 19, 2020
Обычно, когда размышляешь о событиях прошлого, они кажутся предопределенными.
Да что там. Пути развития целых стран, народов и человечества кажутся предначертанными нам судьбой. События обрастают тайнами, теориями. И как итог все они сплетаются в один антропоморфный миф.
В книге на примере ярких, и во многом поворотных, исторических событий пытаются развенчать укоренившейся детерминизм.
В итоге невольно ловишь себя на мысли, что ты же и сам верил в эту предопределенность и оказуаливал причины и следствия. И мне кажется, это хороший эксперимент над собой.
Да что там. Пути развития целых стран, народов и человечества кажутся предначертанными нам судьбой. События обрастают тайнами, теориями. И как итог все они сплетаются в один антропоморфный миф.
В книге на примере ярких, и во многом поворотных, исторических событий пытаются развенчать укоренившейся детерминизм.
В итоге невольно ловишь себя на мысли, что ты же и сам верил в эту предопределенность и оказуаливал причины и следствия. И мне кажется, это хороший эксперимент над собой.
February 14, 2020
Didn’t read the whole thing. My mistake—I was expecting a collection of stories rather than essays. The 100 page introduction is intriguing, thought-provoking, philosophical. The first essay interested me because we just finished talking about the English civil wars in my literature class. The rest? I don’t think so. I think I should return to it another time if I am looking for a specific historical event. Qué chido que the “Book Description” here on Goodreads is in Spanish.
October 25, 2024
Interesting enough; my favourite bit was the afterword, it was a little silly but it made a good point about the fragility of writing history I feel. Definitely a slog through the first half (especially the introduction) but there was some interesting stuff here and a number of great thought experiments. It’s definitely of it’s time though, especially the last piece about Gorbachev. Altogether I’m glad I finally read it (we discussed it in extension history five years ago can you believe).
May 2, 2020
A ridiculous book. Too academic for general readers, too fanciful for academics. All the joy of alternate history is stamped to death by 80-page academic essays and an unreadable 100-page introduction. Finally, the choice of material is heavily weighted toward recent British history. Ferguson was not the right person for this task.
June 21, 2017
An enjoyable presentation of some less fanciful counterfactuals. I read the essays on the scenarios which particularly interest me in the twentieth century: some made sobering reading. No all Ferguson's introduction was rather arid, but his concluding essay was a counterfactual tour de force!
Read
August 15, 2022Counterfactuals on historic events, some more contrived than others. The introduction was overly lengthy, in my opionion. If the purpose of the book was to engage those nominally interested in history, it would fail. It was a tough read for a dedicated lover of history!
September 21, 2022
Very good
Very interesting, very easy to read book which takes a somewhat more in-depth look at counterfactual histories, carefully exploring different options in the cases chosen. Well worth reading.
Very interesting, very easy to read book which takes a somewhat more in-depth look at counterfactual histories, carefully exploring different options in the cases chosen. Well worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews