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.