What do you think?
Rate this book
Greenhill's Alternate Decisions
The Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of World War II
In this compelling book, ten military historians focus upon what might have happened if at ten crucial turning-points of the war Hitler had taken a different direction, or how he would have reacted if the Allies had changed course. There is a striking conviction about these self-contained scenarios. All are within the bounds of what could genuinely have occurred, projecting only from factual situations and the options that were available. Technical innovations and weapon capabilities retain practicability, with later technology excluded. Real people behave in character.
The Hitler Options is a fascinating collection of original studies raising new possibilities, and will grip the reader as much by its thought-provoking content as by the sheer excitement of campaigns and battles that might have dramatically changed the history of the world.
The Hitler Options is a fascinating collection of original studies raising new possibilities, and will grip the reader as much by its thought-provoking content as by the sheer excitement of campaigns and battles that might have dramatically changed the history of the world.
237 pages, Hardcover
First published May 1, 1995
47 people are currently reading
183 people want to read
About the author
Kenneth John Macksey
55 books16 followersBritish author and historian who specialized in military history and military biography, particularly of the Second World War. Macksey was commissioned in the Royal Armoured Corps and served during the Second World War (earning the Military Cross under the command of Percy Hobart). Macksey later wrote the (authoritative) biography of Hobart.Macksey gained a permanent commission in 1946, was transferred to the Royal Tank Regiment in 1947, reached the rank of major in 1957 and retired from the Army in 1968.
Amongst many other books, Macksey wrote two volumes of alternate history, one, entitled Invasion, dealt with a successful invasion of England by Germany in 1940 and the other describing a NATO–Warsaw Pact clash in the late 1980s. The latter book was done under contract to the Canadian Forces and focuses on the Canadian role in such a conflict. He was an editor and contributor to Greenhill's Alternate Decisions series since 1995.
In Macksey's Guderian – Panzer General, he refuted the view of historian Sir Basil Liddell-Hart regarding Hart's influence on the development of German Tank Theory in the years leading up to 1939.
Amongst many other books, Macksey wrote two volumes of alternate history, one, entitled Invasion, dealt with a successful invasion of England by Germany in 1940 and the other describing a NATO–Warsaw Pact clash in the late 1980s. The latter book was done under contract to the Canadian Forces and focuses on the Canadian role in such a conflict. He was an editor and contributor to Greenhill's Alternate Decisions series since 1995.
In Macksey's Guderian – Panzer General, he refuted the view of historian Sir Basil Liddell-Hart regarding Hart's influence on the development of German Tank Theory in the years leading up to 1939.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
February 28, 2026
Few historical works invite readers to rethink inevitability as compellingly as this one. Reading it thoroughly feels less like moving through a conventional military history and more like walking through a hall of branching timelines — each corridor opening into a different version of the 20th century.
By the time I finished the book, I was left with a lingering sense of intellectual unease, the kind that only counterfactual history can produce: the unsettling awareness that what happened did not have to happen.
Kenneth Macksey’s central premise is deceptively simple. Instead of retelling World War II as a fixed sequence of events, he asks a provocative question: what if key decisions had been made differently? This approach immediately shifts the reader from passive observer to speculative participant.
The Prologue says: In this book historians contemplate ten options which were open to the Führer. They fall into two categories: in the first Germany possesses the initiative and in the second the Allies adopt strategies which, had they been chosen at the time, would have forced new and undesirable options upon Hitler. Each option is written as if none of the other alternates had taken place….
You are no longer merely learning history — you are inhabiting its possibilities.
The book focuses on pivotal moments where alternative choices by Adolf Hitler might have reshaped the war’s trajectory. Yet, crucially, Macksey does not indulge in sensationalism. There are no wild, implausible fantasies here. Each scenario is grounded in military logic, logistical realities, and the constraints of the time. That restraint gives the book its credibility and intellectual weight.
The following chapters make up this book:
1. Operation SEA LION: Germany Invades Britain, 1940
2. Operation SPHINX: Raeder’s Mediterranean Strategy
3. Operation WOTAN: The Panzer, Thrust to Capture Moscow, October–November 1941
4. Operation ORIENT: Joint Axis Strategy
5. Germany and the Atlantic Sea-War: 1939–1943
6. Through the Soft Underbelly: January 1942–December 1945
7. Operation GREENBRIER: Defusing the German Bomb
8. The Jet Fighter Menace: 1943
9. Operation ARMAGEDDON: Devastation of the Cities, 1943
10. Bloody Normandy: The German Controversy
So, structurally, the book unfolds as a series of tightly argued essays, each centred on a decisive turning point. These include strategic decisions on the Eastern Front, the handling of Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the invasion of the Soviet Union, and the Mediterranean theatre.
In each case, Macksey carefully reconstructs the historical context before pivoting into the counterfactual. This method ensures that speculation emerges organically from reality rather than floating above it.
One of the book’s greatest strengths lies in its analytical clarity. Macksey writes with the precision of a military historian but avoids the density that often makes such works inaccessible. His prose is lucid, purposeful, and refreshingly free of jargon.
Even complex operational discussions remain readable because he consistently foregrounds consequences over technicalities. The focus is always on what decisions meant, not merely how they were executed.
What makes the book vivid is not just its ideas but its atmosphere. As each alternate path unfolds, you begin to feel the fragile contingency of history.
The fall of France, the siege of Moscow, the desert campaigns in North Africa — all begin to shimmer with unrealised alternatives. The war ceases to feel inevitable. Instead, it becomes precarious, almost improvisational.
This is where the book becomes deeply thought-provoking. Traditional histories often present outcomes with retrospective certainty. We know how things end, and that knowledge subtly reshapes how we interpret earlier events. Macksey dismantles that illusion. By rewinding history and replaying it with altered decisions, he restores uncertainty to the past. The effect is disorienting but illuminating.
One particularly compelling dimension of the book is how it reframes Hitler himself. Rather than portraying him as an omnipotent architect of war, Macksey depicts a leader whose catastrophic decisions were often rooted in stubbornness, ideological rigidity, and personal misjudgment.
This approach neither absolves nor mythologises him. Instead, it situates him within the messy realities of leadership — where ego, miscalculation, and chance intertwine.
The counterfactual scenarios also reveal the structural limits of individual agency. Even when Macksey explores alternative decisions, he shows how deeply outcomes were shaped by logistics, industrial capacity, geography, and alliances. In doing so, the book avoids the common pitfall of “great man” counterfactuals. It acknowledges that while individuals matter, systems constrain them.
The chapter exploring alternative outcomes on the Eastern Front is especially gripping. Macksey examines how different strategic priorities — such as focusing more decisively on Moscow or altering the timing of operations — might have delayed or complicated Soviet resistance. Yet he remains careful not to overstate German chances of ultimate victory.
This balance between imagination and realism is one of the book’s defining virtues.
Equally engaging are the sections dealing with the Mediterranean and North Africa. Here, Macksey highlights how seemingly peripheral theatres held disproportionate strategic significance.
A more coherent German focus on the Mediterranean, he suggests, might have strained British supply lines and altered the balance of power in unexpected ways. These chapters underscore how World War II was not a monolithic conflict but a mosaic of interconnected fronts.
The book also excels in conveying the role of timing. Again and again, Macksey demonstrates how narrow the margins were. A delayed offensive, an earlier redeployment, a different prioritisation of resources — small shifts that could have cascaded into enormous consequences.
This emphasis on temporal fragility lends the narrative a quiet tension. You begin to sense how history hinges not only on decisions but on moments.
Stylistically, the writing has an understated authority. Macksey does not dramatise unnecessarily. Instead, he allows the scenarios themselves to generate drama.
This restraint gives the book a sober tone that suits its subject. After all, these are not speculative fantasies about fictional worlds; they are alternate versions of a war that reshaped millions of lives.
Reading the book also prompts deeper reflection on the nature of counterfactual history itself. There is often skepticism toward “what if” narratives, dismissed as academic parlour games.
But Macksey demonstrates their value when handled rigorously. Counterfactuals, in his hands, become analytical tools. They illuminate causality by showing how outcomes depended on choices rather than inevitabilities.
Another noteworthy feature is the book’s moral undercurrent. Though primarily analytical, the narrative quietly underscores the stakes of decision-making.
Each alternate timeline carries implicit human consequences — prolonged wars, different postwar borders, altered geopolitical alignments. Even when not explicitly stated, the human cost hovers in the background, lending the speculation a sobering gravity.
The book’s pacing contributes significantly to its readability. Each scenario is self-contained, allowing readers to pause and reflect before moving on.
Yet together, the chapters accumulate into a broader meditation on contingency. By the end, the cumulative effect is powerful: the war feels less like a fixed historical monument and more like a precarious chain of decisions.
For readers familiar with World War II history, the book offers the added pleasure of recontextualisation. Familiar events appear newly strange when viewed through alternative outcomes. Battles you thought you understood suddenly feel unstable.
Narratives you assumed were inevitable begin to dissolve. This intellectual defamiliarisation is one of the book’s most rewarding aspects.
For newer readers, the book still works remarkably well. Macksey provides enough historical grounding to make each scenario comprehensible without prior expertise.
This accessibility broadens the book’s appeal, positioning it somewhere between scholarly analysis and intelligent popular history.
One subtle but important strength is Macksey’s refusal to romanticise alternate victories. Even in scenarios where Germany appears strategically advantaged, the tone remains analytical rather than sensational.
There is no triumphalism, no indulgence in revisionist fantasies. This ethical seriousness prevents the book from drifting into problematic territory that sometimes haunts alternate histories of World War II.
As the chapters progress, a deeper philosophical layer begins to emerge. The book becomes less about Hitler specifically and more about the nature of historical causality. How much of history is shaped by individuals? How much by structures? How much by chance? Macksey never explicitly turns the book into a philosophical treatise, but the questions arise naturally from the material.
By the final chapters, the reader is left with a lingering sense of historical humility.
The past appears less solid than we tend to believe. Events that now feel monumental once balanced on knife-edges. This realisation fosters a more nuanced understanding of history — one that resists both determinism and oversimplification.
In terms of narrative impact, the book leaves a quiet but persistent aftereffect. It does not overwhelm with emotional intensity, nor does it seek to dazzle with dramatic flourishes. Instead, it works slowly, reshaping your mental model of history.
Long after finishing it, you find yourself revisiting its scenarios, replaying its possibilities.
What ultimately makes *The Hitler Options* compelling is its intellectual discipline. It proves that speculative history need not be frivolous. When grounded in evidence and analytical rigor, counterfactuals can deepen rather than dilute historical understanding. Macksey treats the past with respect even as he reimagines it.
If there is a limitation, it lies perhaps in the inherent constraints of the form. Counterfactual essays, by nature, cannot fully simulate the cascading unpredictability of real history.
No alternate timeline can capture the total complexity of global conflict. Yet Macksey acknowledges this implicitly through his measured tone. The book does not claim to rewrite history — only to illuminate its fragility.
In the end, reading this book feels like standing at a crossroads repeatedly, watching history choose one path while glimpsing others fading into shadow.
It is a reminder that the world we inhabit is only one of many that might have been. That sobering insight lends the book its enduring resonance.
For anyone interested in World War II, strategic decision-making, or the philosophy of history, this is a deeply rewarding read. It challenges assumptions without sensationalising them, stimulates imagination without abandoning rigor, and invites reflection without moralising.
More than anything, it restores uncertainty to the past — and in doing so, makes history feel vividly, unsettlingly alive.
Most enjoyable and recommended.
By the time I finished the book, I was left with a lingering sense of intellectual unease, the kind that only counterfactual history can produce: the unsettling awareness that what happened did not have to happen.
Kenneth Macksey’s central premise is deceptively simple. Instead of retelling World War II as a fixed sequence of events, he asks a provocative question: what if key decisions had been made differently? This approach immediately shifts the reader from passive observer to speculative participant.
The Prologue says: In this book historians contemplate ten options which were open to the Führer. They fall into two categories: in the first Germany possesses the initiative and in the second the Allies adopt strategies which, had they been chosen at the time, would have forced new and undesirable options upon Hitler. Each option is written as if none of the other alternates had taken place….
You are no longer merely learning history — you are inhabiting its possibilities.
The book focuses on pivotal moments where alternative choices by Adolf Hitler might have reshaped the war’s trajectory. Yet, crucially, Macksey does not indulge in sensationalism. There are no wild, implausible fantasies here. Each scenario is grounded in military logic, logistical realities, and the constraints of the time. That restraint gives the book its credibility and intellectual weight.
The following chapters make up this book:
1. Operation SEA LION: Germany Invades Britain, 1940
2. Operation SPHINX: Raeder’s Mediterranean Strategy
3. Operation WOTAN: The Panzer, Thrust to Capture Moscow, October–November 1941
4. Operation ORIENT: Joint Axis Strategy
5. Germany and the Atlantic Sea-War: 1939–1943
6. Through the Soft Underbelly: January 1942–December 1945
7. Operation GREENBRIER: Defusing the German Bomb
8. The Jet Fighter Menace: 1943
9. Operation ARMAGEDDON: Devastation of the Cities, 1943
10. Bloody Normandy: The German Controversy
So, structurally, the book unfolds as a series of tightly argued essays, each centred on a decisive turning point. These include strategic decisions on the Eastern Front, the handling of Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the invasion of the Soviet Union, and the Mediterranean theatre.
In each case, Macksey carefully reconstructs the historical context before pivoting into the counterfactual. This method ensures that speculation emerges organically from reality rather than floating above it.
One of the book’s greatest strengths lies in its analytical clarity. Macksey writes with the precision of a military historian but avoids the density that often makes such works inaccessible. His prose is lucid, purposeful, and refreshingly free of jargon.
Even complex operational discussions remain readable because he consistently foregrounds consequences over technicalities. The focus is always on what decisions meant, not merely how they were executed.
What makes the book vivid is not just its ideas but its atmosphere. As each alternate path unfolds, you begin to feel the fragile contingency of history.
The fall of France, the siege of Moscow, the desert campaigns in North Africa — all begin to shimmer with unrealised alternatives. The war ceases to feel inevitable. Instead, it becomes precarious, almost improvisational.
This is where the book becomes deeply thought-provoking. Traditional histories often present outcomes with retrospective certainty. We know how things end, and that knowledge subtly reshapes how we interpret earlier events. Macksey dismantles that illusion. By rewinding history and replaying it with altered decisions, he restores uncertainty to the past. The effect is disorienting but illuminating.
One particularly compelling dimension of the book is how it reframes Hitler himself. Rather than portraying him as an omnipotent architect of war, Macksey depicts a leader whose catastrophic decisions were often rooted in stubbornness, ideological rigidity, and personal misjudgment.
This approach neither absolves nor mythologises him. Instead, it situates him within the messy realities of leadership — where ego, miscalculation, and chance intertwine.
The counterfactual scenarios also reveal the structural limits of individual agency. Even when Macksey explores alternative decisions, he shows how deeply outcomes were shaped by logistics, industrial capacity, geography, and alliances. In doing so, the book avoids the common pitfall of “great man” counterfactuals. It acknowledges that while individuals matter, systems constrain them.
The chapter exploring alternative outcomes on the Eastern Front is especially gripping. Macksey examines how different strategic priorities — such as focusing more decisively on Moscow or altering the timing of operations — might have delayed or complicated Soviet resistance. Yet he remains careful not to overstate German chances of ultimate victory.
This balance between imagination and realism is one of the book’s defining virtues.
Equally engaging are the sections dealing with the Mediterranean and North Africa. Here, Macksey highlights how seemingly peripheral theatres held disproportionate strategic significance.
A more coherent German focus on the Mediterranean, he suggests, might have strained British supply lines and altered the balance of power in unexpected ways. These chapters underscore how World War II was not a monolithic conflict but a mosaic of interconnected fronts.
The book also excels in conveying the role of timing. Again and again, Macksey demonstrates how narrow the margins were. A delayed offensive, an earlier redeployment, a different prioritisation of resources — small shifts that could have cascaded into enormous consequences.
This emphasis on temporal fragility lends the narrative a quiet tension. You begin to sense how history hinges not only on decisions but on moments.
Stylistically, the writing has an understated authority. Macksey does not dramatise unnecessarily. Instead, he allows the scenarios themselves to generate drama.
This restraint gives the book a sober tone that suits its subject. After all, these are not speculative fantasies about fictional worlds; they are alternate versions of a war that reshaped millions of lives.
Reading the book also prompts deeper reflection on the nature of counterfactual history itself. There is often skepticism toward “what if” narratives, dismissed as academic parlour games.
But Macksey demonstrates their value when handled rigorously. Counterfactuals, in his hands, become analytical tools. They illuminate causality by showing how outcomes depended on choices rather than inevitabilities.
Another noteworthy feature is the book’s moral undercurrent. Though primarily analytical, the narrative quietly underscores the stakes of decision-making.
Each alternate timeline carries implicit human consequences — prolonged wars, different postwar borders, altered geopolitical alignments. Even when not explicitly stated, the human cost hovers in the background, lending the speculation a sobering gravity.
The book’s pacing contributes significantly to its readability. Each scenario is self-contained, allowing readers to pause and reflect before moving on.
Yet together, the chapters accumulate into a broader meditation on contingency. By the end, the cumulative effect is powerful: the war feels less like a fixed historical monument and more like a precarious chain of decisions.
For readers familiar with World War II history, the book offers the added pleasure of recontextualisation. Familiar events appear newly strange when viewed through alternative outcomes. Battles you thought you understood suddenly feel unstable.
Narratives you assumed were inevitable begin to dissolve. This intellectual defamiliarisation is one of the book’s most rewarding aspects.
For newer readers, the book still works remarkably well. Macksey provides enough historical grounding to make each scenario comprehensible without prior expertise.
This accessibility broadens the book’s appeal, positioning it somewhere between scholarly analysis and intelligent popular history.
One subtle but important strength is Macksey’s refusal to romanticise alternate victories. Even in scenarios where Germany appears strategically advantaged, the tone remains analytical rather than sensational.
There is no triumphalism, no indulgence in revisionist fantasies. This ethical seriousness prevents the book from drifting into problematic territory that sometimes haunts alternate histories of World War II.
As the chapters progress, a deeper philosophical layer begins to emerge. The book becomes less about Hitler specifically and more about the nature of historical causality. How much of history is shaped by individuals? How much by structures? How much by chance? Macksey never explicitly turns the book into a philosophical treatise, but the questions arise naturally from the material.
By the final chapters, the reader is left with a lingering sense of historical humility.
The past appears less solid than we tend to believe. Events that now feel monumental once balanced on knife-edges. This realisation fosters a more nuanced understanding of history — one that resists both determinism and oversimplification.
In terms of narrative impact, the book leaves a quiet but persistent aftereffect. It does not overwhelm with emotional intensity, nor does it seek to dazzle with dramatic flourishes. Instead, it works slowly, reshaping your mental model of history.
Long after finishing it, you find yourself revisiting its scenarios, replaying its possibilities.
What ultimately makes *The Hitler Options* compelling is its intellectual discipline. It proves that speculative history need not be frivolous. When grounded in evidence and analytical rigor, counterfactuals can deepen rather than dilute historical understanding. Macksey treats the past with respect even as he reimagines it.
If there is a limitation, it lies perhaps in the inherent constraints of the form. Counterfactual essays, by nature, cannot fully simulate the cascading unpredictability of real history.
No alternate timeline can capture the total complexity of global conflict. Yet Macksey acknowledges this implicitly through his measured tone. The book does not claim to rewrite history — only to illuminate its fragility.
In the end, reading this book feels like standing at a crossroads repeatedly, watching history choose one path while glimpsing others fading into shadow.
It is a reminder that the world we inhabit is only one of many that might have been. That sobering insight lends the book its enduring resonance.
For anyone interested in World War II, strategic decision-making, or the philosophy of history, this is a deeply rewarding read. It challenges assumptions without sensationalising them, stimulates imagination without abandoning rigor, and invites reflection without moralising.
More than anything, it restores uncertainty to the past — and in doing so, makes history feel vividly, unsettlingly alive.
Most enjoyable and recommended.
April 14, 2021
Contrary to what one might think, most of the alternate decisions posed in this book end with an Allied Victory even earlier than what occurred in reality (I'm tempted to say "the Home timeline" because I read too much Harry Turtledove). The biggest takeaway, however, is that Hitler may have lead Germany to victory - if he weren't Hitler. Almost every decision presented here, which may have led to victory, requires Hitler to act out-of-character and to abandon his nature.
December 31, 2016
Within the realm of alternate history literature and scenarios, World War II is particularly prominent for fiction authors and historians to ponder on. In The Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of WWII, ten military historians—which included book editor Kenneth Macksey—looked at scenarios which could have changed the course of the war towards the Third Reich and its Axis partners against the Allies or that the Allies could have decided to the detriment of the Nazis.
The scenarios ranged from the decision to invade England soon after the end of the Battle of France to the Axis securing the Mediterranean before turning to the Soviet Union to linking up with the Japanese to focusing on a jet fighter instead of a jet bomber. While eight of the scenario focused on decisions benefiting the Nazis, two focused on decisions the Western Allies could have made to fight the war differently. The two Allied focused scenarios, “Through the Soft Underbelly” and “Operation ARMAGGEDON”, were among best written in the book along with the Nazi focused “Operation SPINX”, “Operation WOTAN”, and “Operation GREENBRIER”.
While the five other scenarios were just as interesting, the style the author chose to write them undermined their overall effectiveness to some degree especially when compared those scenarios cited above as. Then ten scenarios came up a total of 216 pages, which came out to just barely 20 pages per scenario when excluding maps used for each. This short length for each scenario to be developed in my opinion hurt some of the less impressive scenarios and could have added depth to some of the best as well.
Overall The Hitler Decisions is a good book for those interested in alternate history, especially concentrated around World War II. Yet, there are some drawbacks with the relatively short length average of each piece that hurt some of the scenarios along with stylistic choices.
The scenarios ranged from the decision to invade England soon after the end of the Battle of France to the Axis securing the Mediterranean before turning to the Soviet Union to linking up with the Japanese to focusing on a jet fighter instead of a jet bomber. While eight of the scenario focused on decisions benefiting the Nazis, two focused on decisions the Western Allies could have made to fight the war differently. The two Allied focused scenarios, “Through the Soft Underbelly” and “Operation ARMAGGEDON”, were among best written in the book along with the Nazi focused “Operation SPINX”, “Operation WOTAN”, and “Operation GREENBRIER”.
While the five other scenarios were just as interesting, the style the author chose to write them undermined their overall effectiveness to some degree especially when compared those scenarios cited above as. Then ten scenarios came up a total of 216 pages, which came out to just barely 20 pages per scenario when excluding maps used for each. This short length for each scenario to be developed in my opinion hurt some of the less impressive scenarios and could have added depth to some of the best as well.
Overall The Hitler Decisions is a good book for those interested in alternate history, especially concentrated around World War II. Yet, there are some drawbacks with the relatively short length average of each piece that hurt some of the scenarios along with stylistic choices.
November 1, 2022
The premise of the book is interesting enough, 10 What If scenarios about how WW2 could have turned out differently. Naturally, as is often the case with such works, they tend to focus on how Germany (and in one scenario Axis) could do better and avoid their mistakes. Even with short chapters, about 20 pages per scenario, this book would be interesting. sadly it's the execution where entire thing falls apart. I'll give a brief run down of the issues each scenario has.
Operation Sea Lion, the 1940 invasion of Britain is something of a Holy Grail when it comes to WW2 althist.
Operation Sphinxwhere Germans focus on Mediterranean instead of Soviet Union in 1941.
Operation Wotancovers another big question of early WW2, namely the late focus Gemrans gave to Moscow during Barbarossa and whether going for Moscow early on would be a war winning move.
Operation Orientposits that Japan does better in their attacks against British in early 1942, push into Indian Ocean and in turn Germans focus on Mediterranean as well
Germany and the Atlantic Sea War 1939-1943 is, as name indicates, scenario about different German approach to submarine war
Through the Soft Underbelly where Allies adopt Mediterranean strategy and focus on Italy, Balkans and southern France instead of cross Channel invasion.
Operation Greenbrier where Germany commits more resources to nuclear weapons program
The Jet Fighter Menace gives Germans operational jet fighters earlier and in greater numbers
Operation Armageddon where Allies conduct different air war and focus on destroying more German cities.
Bloody Normandy where Rommel gets more tanks in June 1944 and his approach on how to conduct defense prevails.
So out of 10 scenarios only 3 could be considered good and realistic, one has some good points and rest are just bad, showing poor research, loading the dice for Germans and waving away the very real constraints they faced. And of course these scenarios focus on UK and US with Soviet Union playing a supporting role, if that. Which can be understood, these are either old scenarios, scenarios based on old work or written for this book in early 1990s when Soviet archives were still getting opened only slowly and knowledge of soviet part of the war was still misunderstood and seen through lenses cast by post war German accounts.
Not a good book at all.
Operation Sea Lion, the 1940 invasion of Britain is something of a Holy Grail when it comes to WW2 althist.
Operation Sphinxwhere Germans focus on Mediterranean instead of Soviet Union in 1941.
Operation Wotancovers another big question of early WW2, namely the late focus Gemrans gave to Moscow during Barbarossa and whether going for Moscow early on would be a war winning move.
Operation Orientposits that Japan does better in their attacks against British in early 1942, push into Indian Ocean and in turn Germans focus on Mediterranean as well
Germany and the Atlantic Sea War 1939-1943 is, as name indicates, scenario about different German approach to submarine war
Through the Soft Underbelly where Allies adopt Mediterranean strategy and focus on Italy, Balkans and southern France instead of cross Channel invasion.
Operation Greenbrier where Germany commits more resources to nuclear weapons program
The Jet Fighter Menace gives Germans operational jet fighters earlier and in greater numbers
Operation Armageddon where Allies conduct different air war and focus on destroying more German cities.
Bloody Normandy where Rommel gets more tanks in June 1944 and his approach on how to conduct defense prevails.
So out of 10 scenarios only 3 could be considered good and realistic, one has some good points and rest are just bad, showing poor research, loading the dice for Germans and waving away the very real constraints they faced. And of course these scenarios focus on UK and US with Soviet Union playing a supporting role, if that. Which can be understood, these are either old scenarios, scenarios based on old work or written for this book in early 1990s when Soviet archives were still getting opened only slowly and knowledge of soviet part of the war was still misunderstood and seen through lenses cast by post war German accounts.
Not a good book at all.
August 10, 2008
This book looks at what might have happened if Hitler and others would have made different decisions. First part of the book is about Hitler's invasion of Britain.... which never happened in reality. Fascinating stuff.
But, the book is a little too technical in parts. It would be so much better if it read like a novel. Very historical though and based on factual possibilities. So I give the authors that. There are parts of the book where I had to remind myself what they are writing as if it was history, really has never happened and taken place.
But, the book is a little too technical in parts. It would be so much better if it read like a novel. Very historical though and based on factual possibilities. So I give the authors that. There are parts of the book where I had to remind myself what they are writing as if it was history, really has never happened and taken place.
March 30, 2022
Some very interesting scenarios, very few of which change the results of the war. Credit to the authors for realizing that the superiority of the Allied forces precluded a German victory for just about any scenario you could come up with after 1941 ended.
August 26, 2020
I first read The Hitler Options probably 20 years ago. While perusing my book shelves, the book caught my attention and I had a desire to reread it, which I just completed.
The Hitler Options is alternative history. What would have happened if Hitler or the Allies had chosen a different course of action? Ten different authors each tackle a scenario, including the invasion of Britain (Operation Sea Lion), concentration on the capture of Moscow (Operation WOTAN), concentrating on attacking Italy and the "soft underbelly" of Europe and others. Some of these scenarios are fascinating and makes one wonder if they would have succeeded. Others seem a bit more far-fetched.
The problem is that each scenario is written in they style of the individual author. Some are engrossing and told more as a story, while others are a bit too technical, written by someone who has a strong knowledge and love of military strategies, batallions, movements, etc. In those tellings, the stories suffer due to the technical information and jargon.
Overall, the book is fine, but not as engrossing as I would have hoped.
The Hitler Options is alternative history. What would have happened if Hitler or the Allies had chosen a different course of action? Ten different authors each tackle a scenario, including the invasion of Britain (Operation Sea Lion), concentration on the capture of Moscow (Operation WOTAN), concentrating on attacking Italy and the "soft underbelly" of Europe and others. Some of these scenarios are fascinating and makes one wonder if they would have succeeded. Others seem a bit more far-fetched.
The problem is that each scenario is written in they style of the individual author. Some are engrossing and told more as a story, while others are a bit too technical, written by someone who has a strong knowledge and love of military strategies, batallions, movements, etc. In those tellings, the stories suffer due to the technical information and jargon.
Overall, the book is fine, but not as engrossing as I would have hoped.
March 15, 2026
⭐⭐½
Interesting alternate history scenarios about different strategic decisions during WWII. I liked that each chapter explored a different possibility and ended with a “Reality” section explaining what actually happened. However, the book does get very technical with lots of military unit names and jargon, which made parts of it feel dry. Still an enjoyable read overall and better than some similar books I’ve read.
Interesting alternate history scenarios about different strategic decisions during WWII. I liked that each chapter explored a different possibility and ended with a “Reality” section explaining what actually happened. However, the book does get very technical with lots of military unit names and jargon, which made parts of it feel dry. Still an enjoyable read overall and better than some similar books I’ve read.
May 30, 2023
Picked up in Milwaukee from a withdrawn library book sale cart.
A range of counterfactuals. some depend on "if X battle had gone differently", others look at alternative technologies or strategies. The former often chain advantageous outcomes together, e.g. in Operation Sealion the putative German victory does rather depend on everything going in the Axis' favour. Likewise, some of the alternative strategies seem to assume quite a lot by way of logistics and implementation.
Despite its thesis of how Hitler might have won, most tend to suggest a different, perhaps longer, route to Allied victory and the "soft underbelly" essay on invasion of Italy rather than France actually suggests it might have shortened the war. There is often a plausible sense that while a different strategy might have succeeded in itself, by diverting resources and focus one side could have given other openings to the opposition. This tends to be true in wargames, which this series of thought experiments, in their way, are.
A range of counterfactuals. some depend on "if X battle had gone differently", others look at alternative technologies or strategies. The former often chain advantageous outcomes together, e.g. in Operation Sealion the putative German victory does rather depend on everything going in the Axis' favour. Likewise, some of the alternative strategies seem to assume quite a lot by way of logistics and implementation.
Despite its thesis of how Hitler might have won, most tend to suggest a different, perhaps longer, route to Allied victory and the "soft underbelly" essay on invasion of Italy rather than France actually suggests it might have shortened the war. There is often a plausible sense that while a different strategy might have succeeded in itself, by diverting resources and focus one side could have given other openings to the opposition. This tends to be true in wargames, which this series of thought experiments, in their way, are.
January 13, 2023
Thought provoking what ifs
I like seeing real world what ifs played out. Fantasy time travel is fun but reality of what could have been makes you think and thank God things worked out the way they did. Really enjoyed this book would recommend this to anyone who wondered what if…
I like seeing real world what ifs played out. Fantasy time travel is fun but reality of what could have been makes you think and thank God things worked out the way they did. Really enjoyed this book would recommend this to anyone who wondered what if…
December 11, 2018
Andy's review
Downloaded this e-book largely because of the price, & I am not sorry I did - I especially enjoyed the chapter on Operation Sphinx.
Downloaded this e-book largely because of the price, & I am not sorry I did - I especially enjoyed the chapter on Operation Sphinx.
February 17, 2019
Boring
August 16, 2019
Perfectly adequate what-if scenarios. Which, yes, the best word I can think of for my review is 'adequate'.
September 7, 2020
Interesting Options
Thought provoking scenarios of what could have been. The scenarios are all well thought out with factual content and outcome.
Thought provoking scenarios of what could have been. The scenarios are all well thought out with factual content and outcome.
December 21, 2024
Some of the alternative scenarios could have turned out differently. Many are very interesting and could have occurred with other compounding alternative scenarios.
April 16, 2024
It was fine. A bit dated in some respects and lacking an overall focus (as books like this tend towards). A somewhat misleading title since some of the alternate decisions aren't made by Hitler, but by other nations, etc. Some of the scenarios were better written than others, but more than one ended in a place that didn't seem to be justified by what happened (looking at you, U-boat campaign scenario). Not bad, but not one of the best of this sort of exercise.
May 16, 2015
I posit that this boot is best-suited for fans of detailed military history and technical works of military history. While it includes some relatively interesting bits of alternate history, I'd hesitate to call it a standout in the genre.
August 24, 2024
I must admit that I began reading this book with some reservations. Far from falling into frivolity, it analyzes other possible alternatives in different scenarios of the conflict, through the use of extensive information and precise data.
March 8, 2012
What he could have done to have won. Okay, mostly. nothing new on this subject any more.
February 23, 2015
For me a 2 since i was not looking for narrative but for others maybe 3. For a more historical discussion of what ifs see aptly "What if?" By Deutsch & Showalter"
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews