Customer Reviews
Familiar history imagined as something completely different... - By: Jeremy Bevan, 03 May 2008 
`Counterfactual' history - what might have been - is a fascinating approach to events of the past, one that can shed new light on why what actually took place happened as it did. In this collection of short essays, contemporary historians ask questions like `What if the Spanish Armada had won ?' & `What if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded ?'. The questions are handled well - writers generally don't play fast & loose with the `real' versions of events - & the answers are nearly always fascinating, if sometimes a little whimsical (David Frum's account of Al Gore winning the 2000 US Presidential Election being a casein point). I particularly enjoyed Conrad Black's speculation on what might have come to pass if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbour - it threw into sharp relief Roosevelt's farsighted preparations for war that had been underway for some considerable time prior to that. And the scenarios that flowed from Anne Somerset's Spanish-subdued, Isabelline (rather than Elizabethan) England, including a rather different Shakespearean `portfolio' of history plays, had me musing for days. A fascinating and, by & large, successful exercise.
Misleadingly titled propaganda - By: Mr. J. Halligan, 16 Sep 2007 
Atrocious rubbish.
A more honest title might have been "How things might have happened." Instead of exploring the long term implications of certain events happening differently, the authors merely detail why these actual events may have occurred. Soin "What If Charles I had Won The Civil War?" we are treated to a (boring) list of alternative events rather than considering whether, for example, the Glorious Revolution would have taken place.
But the worst thing about this book is that it is a smug, self-satisfied justification of neo-con values. Robert's introduction includes a vicious attack on left wing & Marxist historians & basically continues from there. The last linesin the book by David Frum are laughable.
"Can you imagine if Bush had beenin charge?"
"Yeah what a disaster."
I write this on the same day as it has been announced that 1.2million Iraqis have diedin the war.
Still, what can you expect from a man responsible for a book titled "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush" (Still can't figure out whether that was a joke or not).
I suppose I should have known what to expect when I saw Conrad Black amongst the contributors. Maybe he can do a sequel from his prison cell?
Stick to other What If books - By: R. Servini, 16 Jul 2007 I was rather disappointed with this book I found it rather difficult to read since it does not state how this alterative could have arisen.
The other `What if' series provide a background to the actual events & a number alternative courses. It also makes clear that the planners had more workable alternatives suggested to them, at the time, but these were not taken up/or rejected.
This book just launches into an alternative history without any background or why it arrived at its conclusions & just writes the alternative events as if they are fact & just sticks to the one alternative as though this is the only one that could have been possible.
A typical example would be the Armada it just states that they were successful destroying the British ships (how?) & having a successful land force (why?) . It gives no indication of how they destroyed the British ships or how they would overcome British opposition it is just assumed that if the British suffered 1,000 injured infantry they would lay down arms & let the Spanish do what ever they liked. You might as well have said that the Spanish had martian help The book just ignores facts. You probably could get more fact from a historical novel than this rubbish. It is books like this that give serious historicans ammunition to say the alternative -`what if....' Series is cold fish.
Shame on the authors of this book.
The only good thing about this book is the introduction. Which gives a strong & convincing case for having an alternative history. The rest of the book provides a good demonstration for not having an alternative version of history.
Roberto
A disapointment - By: Simon Welch, 21 Nov 2006 
Books of this sort rely heavily upon the unbiased views of the contributors. Unfortunately, this book starts well but falls away seriously as it moves into more modern history, The final piece, regarding the handling of 9/11 by an Al Gore led government is simply laughablein its partisan approach.
There are better books of this type out there.
Dissapointing Second Half Mired In Political Bias - By: buddingpasha, 29 Jan 2006 I have read othersin this series but I have to say the second half of the book by the contributions of Simon Heffer, Conrad Black & David Frum. I am astonished that these guys feature as contributors. Predictably Simon Heffer embarks on a tirade against Michael Heseltine, Conrad Black assures us if the US entryin WW2 & David Frum assures us that Bush was/is best as leader of the Free World. Keep your day jobs guys & leave your predjudices there, you get enough air time there!
