This collection of essays is nothing less than superb.

A great collection of articles by recognised authorities. I got it as a bargain book but would be more than happy to pay full price - or more!

We have heavyweight authors such as William Manchester, Stephen Ambrose, Caleb Carr, John Keegan, and others write essays covering all aspects of World War II in this heavyweight volume of 688 pages. The essays are fairly short so you can put the book down and come back to it later without feeling you have to pick up where you left off. From familiar stories such as the invasion of Normandy to an interesting story on Germany's Black Knight, Field Marshal von Rundstedt and another on General Curtis LeMay will provide you, the reader, with additional information whatever your background on World War II. As mentioned, the book is long, but the essays enable you to break the book up into managable parts so you are able to pioneer your way through it successfully. Don't be intimidated by the length. It is worth the time to wade through it.

This is a collection of essays by various historians on alternate military outcomes in history, arranged in chronological order from Ancient times to 1983. Although there are some interesting essays on the American Revolution and a few other areas, the book is very disappointing. The "big name" historians provide the worst-written essays, almost afterthoughts. The essay by John Keegan on what if Hitler had pursued a Mediterranean strategy in 1941-2 totally ignores logistics and Nazi political objectives. Stephen Ambrose's essay on what if D-Day had failed rests on non-military reasoning and is ridiculous (as if the Allies would have abandoned D-Day because of bad weather). In light of Peter Tsouras' excellent "Disaster at D-Day", Ambrose's essay appears pathetic. Other essays are rather pedestrian, like several on what if the South had won the Civil War. Yawn. How many times is this going to be passed around? Many interesting and almost situations, like Operation Sealion, or what if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia in 1990 are ignored. None of the essays do a very good job on strategic analysis and assume too much about single win/loss results (e.g. a Southern victory at Gettysburg was unlikely to have won the war, since the North had already lost several battles without any real reduction in its will to win). This book is a collection of not-very original quasi-historical fluff.

For anyone who likes history, this book is an uneven, but overall excellent and very enjoyable, series of exercises in "counterfactual" history. Not the silly, frivolous, or nonsensical kind, where Robert E. Lee all of a sudden is given a nuclear bomb, but instead serious, meaty (even highly PROBABLE) ones, like what would have happened if there hadn't been a mysterious plague outside the walls of Jerusalem, or if there had been a Persian victory at Salamis, or if Genghis Khan's drunken third son (Ogadai)had not died just as his hordes were poised to conquer (and probably annhilate) Europe, or if Cortes had been killed or been captured Tenochtitlan, etc.

The major flaw with this book is that the essays are of somewhat uneven interest level, style, and quality. Personally, for instance, I found the essay on the Mongols to be fascinating, sending chills down my spine! "D Day Fails" by Stephen Ambrose, on the other hand, didn't do much for me at all, nor did "Funeral in Berlin." In general, I would say that the essays covering earlier periods in human history tend to be better than ones covering more recent history. Possibly this is in part because the later periods have been covered to death. I mean, how many "counterfactuals" on the US Civil War can there be before we get sick of them? But a well-written, tightly-reasoned counterfactual which, based on events hundreds or even thousands of years ago, quite plausibly leads to a result where there is no Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or Western culture at all, is absolutely fascinating in my opinion. If nothing else, books like "What If?" show how important CHANCE is in human history, as well as the importance of the INDIVIDUAL, as opposed to some Hegelian/Marxist-Leninist historical "inevitability." The bottom line is that it is rare that anything is truly "inevitable", and the aptly titled "What If?" gives us some excellent case studies.

Heard the taped version of WHAT IF?: THE WORLD'S FOREMOST
MILITARY HISTORIANS IMAGINE WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, edited
by Robert Cowley . . . I often speculate about lots of things, and so do the contributors to this book--including Stephen E. Ambrose, John Keegan, David McCollough, and James M. McPherson (to name just a few).

For example, what if:
George Washington had never made his miraculous escape
from the British on Long Island in the early dawn of August 29, 1776?

a Confederate aide hadn't accidentally lost General Robert E. Lee's plans for invading the North?

the Allied invasion on D Day had failed?

These and a whole host of other questions are considered . . . the resultant answers are often fun, but at the same time, sometimes frightening . . . as in, Hitler's case . . . had he not attacked Russia when he did, he might have moved into the Middle East and secured the oil supplies the Third Reich so badly needed, thus helping it retain its power in Europe . . . can you just imagine the present-day implications for that scenario?

If you're a history buff, this is a MUST read . . . but methinks
that others will enjoy it and become much more interested
in the subject as a result . . . I know that I'm now looking
forward to Coweley's follow-up effort, WHAT IF? 2.

Any collection of essays by various writers is going to have its share of hits and misses, and What If 2 is no exception. Some of the contributors dive head-first into the premise and wallow in it. Others stick their toes in, decide it's too cold, and jump right back out.

Every essay is useful as a quick overview of historical events, many of which will be unfamiliar to the general reader except in broad outline. For that alone, the book is worthwhile. The counterfactual histories themselves, however, vary in quality from writer to writer. The best is, perhaps, John Lukacs' tale of Teddy Roosevelt's third term; Lukacs writes as if, in fact, TR won in 1912, and chides his fellow historians for not asking what would have happened if Woodrow Wilson had won. One of the weakest is Victor Davis Hanson's opening essay about Socrates: what if Socrates had been killed in battle before he met Plato? Well, turns out we would never have heard of him - imagine that!

One of the most enjoyable aspects of What If 1 was its focus on events that truly could have turned out differently but for a single moment or decision. The same cannot be said of most of the sequel's essays. For example, Josiah Ober's counterfactual involving the triumph of Antony over Octavian; rather than mark Actium itself as the turning point, Ober goes back to Antony's Parthian campaign. If Antony had defeated the Parthians, Ober posits, Octavian would have ultimately lost. But how likely was an Antony victory over Parthia? Not very. By contrast, Charles I escaping the plague because he happened to leave London a week before it broke out is more intriguing; unfortunately, Theodore Rabb's counterfactual speculation is limited to a few paragraphs at the end.

Overall, as other reviewers have concluded, What If 2 is a mixed bag. It does not entirely live up to its promise and premise, but it does not completely disappoint either.

When I first found out that there was going to be a "What If? 2" and that it wasn't going to focus exclusively on military matters, I was very excited. As much as I am a fan of military history, I was very interested to see how historians of other disciplines might predict how our world could be different today. Unfortunately, having finished the book, I am rather disappointed. That's not to say that the quality of the writing, or the turning points are sub-par, they're not. In fact, in terms of composition and selection of historical turning points, this book is actually more original and uniform than its predecessor.

That's what makes this book so disappointing: there is great potential, but it never lives up to its self-proclaiming goal of telling the reader "what if?" The background research is solid, and the authors in almost every instance make a cogent, educated case as to why history turned on a given moment or person. Unfortunately, in almost every instance they fail to follow up with any meaningful speculation. In fact, there are very few alternate scenarios that extend for more than a few paragraphs.

Considering how successful the first volume was in regards to alternate histories, this volume's lack of them is inexcusable. What else can the reader expect in a series entitled "What If?" than a detailed exploration of how our world could be different today. The only explanation I can think of is that counter-factual history is an immensely useful tool in political-military history, but it is less so (or at least less utilized) in social history. It therefore seems probable that many of the writers in this edition were unsure as to how to weave a different world after having identified their turning point.

At any rate, this isn't a terrible book, but it is pretty disappointing. As I have mentioned above, the research and writing are excellent. Furthermore the points of departure for are some of the most unique I've come across in alternate history. Unfortunately, the "what if" scenarios never really pan out, and as a result the book never lives up to its title. This book will get you thinking about some overlooked episodes in history, but it will, for the most part, be up to your imagination to supply the counterfactual.

What If? 2 continues the work of What If? 1 by offering interesting looks at alternatives to known history (counterfactuals) written by well known historians. What If? 2 is even better than its predecessor because it does not stick to military issues, but examines a wide range of cultural and biological possibilities. For example, the most intriguing chapter is a look at what would have happened had Jesus not been crucified, but lived to an advanced age. The postulated result is a true Judeo-Christianity imposed on the world by an apparently permanent Roman Empire. Another remarkable chapter describes the probable impact of a Ming Chinese trans-Pacific voyage of discovery in the 15th century. Military affairs are not entirely neglected, as there are discussions of alternate endings for the Battle of Hastings, the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I, among others. Finally, there is a fine examination of the role of the potato in history. I hope there is a What If? 3, 4, etc.