What Might Have Been: Imaginary History From Twelve Leading Historians by Andrew Roberts

What Might Have Been: Imaginary History From Twelve Leading Historians Reviews

• 
  Will Ansbacher

  In a word – disappointing.
  It begins with the front cover, of a Nazi flag planted on the moon, a misleading and weak attempt at hooking a wider audience: none of the essays are about that. The fact that leading German scientists with certain known sympathies were later employed by NASA is mentioned only briefly in the introduction.
  
  A few essays are quite good – “Napoleon triumphs in Russia”, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand surviving the bullet in 1914, but overall the quality is uneven and the topics unevenly distributed (three on Tudor England alone).
  
  Several of the contributing academics were clearly unfamiliar with writing for non-historians; they waded right in with the counterfactuals and no context at all. I know enough history to recall, faintly, the elements of the Gunpowder Plot and the Cavaliers & Roundheads but not always enough to see where fiction deviated from reality. And really, the catholic/protestant schisms of 17th century England aren’t interesting enough to support two essays.
  
  Some, like Stalin fleeing Moscow in 1941, lacked any interesting outcome that was significantly different from reality. Others were just an opportunity lost –“Margaret Thatcher is assassinated at Brighton”, was wasted on a stultifying examination of the power-struggle that would have occurred among the Vegetables.
  
  And then there are these two. One by His Ponderousness, Lord Black, “The Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbour”, didn’t even count as counterfactual, it was simply a statement of all the reasons why the US would eventually have entered WW2 anyway.
  But by far the worst was the last, where David Frum was allowed an embarrassing parody involving a US president Al Gore after he had beaten Bush in that gerrymandered “hanging chad” election. ("Leading Historian”? He’s a neo-con journalist and paid rightwing flack!)
  
  Come to think of it, the whole collection has more than a whiff of conservative superciliousness about it. What did I stumble into?
  
• 
  Andrew McAuley

  A pretty poor collection overall. I found the main problem wasn't in necessarily the theories, but that most of the dozen shorts just couldn't carry an interesting narrative. There were about 4 which were quite interesting, I think only 2 of them were particularly interesting. I found it strange that the writers could have taken a fun topic like exploring 'what might have been' and making it actually rather dull. The notable odd one out of the lot was the very final one in which the historian has decided it seems to write a satire taking a dig at Al Gore rather than an even half-hearted attempt at what really might have been. The last instalment was so different to the others to make it seem very out of place, it might not have been a bad thing if it wasn't that it actually wasn't really very funny.
  
  It may not have helped that each of the writers wrote their own peice in their own choice of style: some wrote what passed off as factual reports on the pretend events, others wrote what did happen and then what could've happened, one or two wrote pretty much entirely just what happened with a paragraph or two at the end saying what might have happened differently. In large part they were also only concerned with looking at the short-mid term effects of the alternative history, and I think in some cases chose rather mundane topics to base their analysis on given that they could've chosen anything in human history- Thatcher dying in the Brighon bomb springs to mind, which although not the worse of the bunch, really only concrned the outcome over the late 80's-90's and didn't even consider the effect on Norther Ireland politics.
  
  Somehow nobody thought to look at such things as if the Nazis built the atom bomb first, or if Lincoln lost the Presidential election or if LBJ had signed off on the use of nuclear strike on North Vietnam.
• 
  Chaundra

  I was really intrigued by the idea of this booked and so picked it up when it was on sale at Borders a number of years ago. My overall view of this collection of short essays is rather mixed. The first thing to probably bring people's attentions to is the fact that these are (mostly) historians, rather than fiction writers and so the writing is a bit cold and more analytical. The best essays were those that drew on this as a strength and overtly aired the issues and necessary guesswork required to make any of these alternative realities plausible. Unfortunately, only half of the authors took this path, and those that did not really suffered from it - the opening essay is perhaps a case in point. I eventually just had to skip it in order to be able to get anywhere with this (rather slim) volume. That is not to abjure these individuals as historians, I have no doubt they are well respected for good reason, just they are not necessarily used to writing for a lay audience. Fortunately, the majority of the writers engage with the process with vigor and a goodly amount of wit, which makes them interesting and thought provoking to read.
  
  Something must be said about the last essay as well - I wish I had paid attention to the political progeny of the author before diving in, because it was eye-rollingly partisan in the extreme. If all you want is a glorification of the Bush presidency and something very akin to slander against Al Gore, then you will probably enjoy it. If that is not your bag and you were hoping for something perhaps a bit more thoughtful, then I recommend stopping at the very good Simon Heffer essay.
• 
  Michael

  An interesting collection of essays, but sadly the story suggested by the book cover, "What if the Nazis Got to the Moon First" isn't one of them.
  
  The collection was spoiled for me by the last two essays, which appear to have been written by twin right-wing apologists, separated at birth by the Atlantic Ocean. They were so clearly politically biased that I wonder why any discerning editor would have allowed them through.
  
  Those quibbles aside, interesting, as I said, but not a keeper.
• 
  GooseReadsBooks

  As this is a collection, I feel I should preface this review by saying that some of the essays submitted for this book are five stars and of great quality, and some of them are less than three stars. The stars I have given are my attempt to average it all out.
  
  Some of the essays in this book are incredible and pose fascinating alternatives. I feel that some of the strongest are 'What if Stalin fled from Moscow in 1941?' and 'What if the gunpowder plot had succeeded?' They look into interesting ideas and present fascinating but realistic alternatives. It feels like reading a history book when this book is good, except it's an alternate timeline.
  
  The chapter on a possible Napoleon victory in Russia is a great speculation that seems realistic and takes into account the long-term nature of empires. I felt some great points were raised about how the continental system could have become a bureaucratic mess.
  
  The Benedict Arnold hypothesis is quite poor as it doesn't really speculate at all.
  
  The two worst entries are the final two in the book. The chapter on a world in which Thatcher was assassinated, and Hesseltine took over feels less like speculation and more like the writer slandering the subject. The writer speculates that Hesseltine would fail on every level, somehow win an election and then hand over to labour in 1992. It seems implausible that a figure of that standing could be so incompetent. I feel that the true subject of their chapter is more of an attack on one-nation conservatism.
  
  The chapter on how Al Gore would respond to the 9/11 attacks is satire. It is very funny as a caricature of Gore and feels like something Amrando Iannucci might write. I would say it's the most amusing but the least interesting scenario because it contains no realistic speculation.
  
  Despite the fact that some great historians have contributed to this book, it could probably be skipped. It's not very long, so it might be worth reading, but overall, I don't think I got a great deal out of it.
  
  
• 
  Tom

  An interesting concept, the introduction sets the tone for the rest of the book. The author
  attacks the idea of historical determinism, with a particular, critical, focus on Marxist and neo-liberal (i.e. Francis Fukuyama 'End of History' thesis) historical analysis. There are some great alternative stories that are set out and a possible view of what the aftermath may have looked like.
  
  The main problem I have with this book is that it is rather uneven. For instance, the chapter on the English Civil War is far to dense for me. The more interesting chapters on Napoleon and Lenin do make up for this but towards the end you do get a very ideologically driven narrative of 'what if'? Not that this is a bad thing but it's not what I expected.
• 
  Paul Pryce

  Purchased in Tesco’s - I thought in the 90s but not by the publication dates - the cover was fairly evocative but overall pretty disappointing. Maybe if I read again now I’d enjoy it more having read a little around actual history. Not sure I could recount much/any of the content.
  Not a great read.
  (Funny how people who rate it poorly leave a review, nearly everyone who rates it a 5 star doesn’t !!)
• 
  Mark Jones

  A wasted opportunity. A couple of the essays are interesting but none offer any real glimpse into "what might have been". The editor clearly has a right wing agenda too and some of the essays, such as the ones about Thatcher and Al Gore are embarrassingly bad.
• 
  Rosa

  Short and quick read but really not all that great.
• 
  A. Bowdoin Van Riper

  The “alternate history” subgenre encompasses everything from straight fiction (like Robert Harris’s Fatherland) to straight non-fiction (like Robert Cowley’s What If? series). This slender volume by Andrew Roberts covers the spectrum. Anne Somerset’s essay on the conquest of England by the Spanish Armada is faux history written from within the alternate timeline it describes, as is Roberts’ on what Russia might have been like had Lenin been assassinated in 1917. Simon Montefiore’s reimagining of the siege of Moscow in 1941 is fiction (complete with imagined characters and dialogue) written the same way. Conrad Black’s essay on the consequences of the Japanese not attacking Pearl Harbor recounts the Roosevelt administration’s “back-door” aid to Britain (which created, he argues, a de facto state of war between the US and Germany) and projects how it might have evolved had the Japanese not intervened. David Frum’s brief sketch of President Al Gore and his cabinet dealing with the 9/11 attacks is outright, unrepentant political satire rather than serious history.
  
  What Might Have Been is noteworthy for that eclecticism, and also for its authors’ choices of turning points. There are a few old chestnuts here – the Armada conquers England, Britain backs the Confederacy in the Civil War – but many more that will be new even to veterans of the genre: What if Franz Ferdinand had survived assassination in 1914? What if Stalin had fled Moscow in 1941? What if Margaret Thatcher, who survived an IRA bombing of her hotel in 1984, had died instead? The book is also noteworthy, however, for its (mostly British) authors’ implicit assumption that readers will have an intimate knowledge of modern European – specifically British – political history. That’s not an unreasonable assumption, especially for a book published in UK for British audiences, but it can make some of the essays slow going for American readers.
  
  If your last European history course was a long time ago, by all means give the book a try . . . but keep your favorite search engine handy, or give yourself permission to say: “You know what? I, personally, don’t care whether Charles I won the English Civil War,” and move on to the next essay.
• 
  Jack

  For me this was a somewhat uneven book.
  
  I am a big fan of "what if" histories and this was going to be different because the short stories were written by historians . Some were very interesting; some a little interesting; and some - OMG - I fell asleep.
  
  Worst - - 1980 British politics - an in depth - with way, way too much detail - discussion of what would have happened if the IRA bomb in 1984 had killed Prime Minister Thatcher. Half way through I thought the world would have been a better place if the IRA had removed the author from history (oh, I know, that is a very harsh thing t say - but YOU try reading this story.)
  
  If you revel in history of central European politics of the early 20th century, then the story of Archduke Ferdinand escaping assassination would be your cup of tea. I found it dry and boring.
  
  The winner was the last story. David Frum's "102 Chads fell off in Florida" is a satirical look at President Al Gore and his handling of the 9-11 crisis written from a conservative's point of view. Oh, it was nasty.
• 
  Charly Fitzpatrick

  Entertaining but fairly light-weight collection of essays of "What Ifs" or "Counterfactual" history. The historians include Conrad Black who I thought was a criminal and his piece on "The Japanese Did Not Attack Pearl Harbour" states "not much" would have been different. Editor , Andrew Roberts' piece "Lenin Was Assassinated At Finland Station" is good fun and well thought out as is Antonia Fraser's "The Gun Powder Plot Succeeded". "The Brighton Bomb Killed Margaret Thatcher" by Simon Heffer is just a anti-Michael Heseltine rant - in fact there is more than a whiff of right-wing politics throughout this book. However, "Stalin Fled Moscow in 1941" by Simon Sebag Montefiore is excellent as is Norman Stone's "Archduke Franz Ferdinand Survived Sarajevo". I was given this book years ago and have just got round to reading it - glad I did.
• 
  Mathieu Gaudreault

  Dosen't live up to expectation. The last chapter is total neo-conservative trash, even liberal Obama took out Ossama Bin laden(that David Frumm boss failed to neutralized). The chapter on Lennin assasination is inacurate and poorly researched(Lenin was actually wounded by Fanny Kapaln shot wo why create a fictionnal Oswalovitch?) and Kerensky was paid by the westerner alliies so stay at war so the communist would even without Lenin took power because the war was so unpopular.
  
  Also even if the german would have taken Moscow Stalin would not have been toppled because he controlled the state and actually the Soviet did plan and prepare to transfer their capital to Kubiyashev.
• 
  Richard

  Fascinating book, that showcases what the world might be like today had history taken a different turn. Some of the chapters are harder to get into than others if you're not familiar with that particular time period of history so it's worth reading up on unfamiliar times beforehand so you can truely appreciate the consequences of the decisions that were made. Some chapters do only discuss the immediate effects of each event whereas I would have like to have seen a discussion about it's impacts upon today's society but overall still a fascinating read.
• 
  David Vernon

  This book has been in my 'to read' pile for sometime and so it was finally with some anticipation that I opened it and started to read. And I didn't bother finishing it. The essays were very uneven in quality. They lacked structure and overwhelmingly the essays mixed reality with fantasy to such a degree that most of the time I was unaware which was which. And for someone who loves history this was disappointing.
  
  Conrad Black's essay was poorly written and remarkably dull. Andrew Roberts' selection of historians has been overwhelmingly disappointing.
• 
  Fiona

  Interesting read for those with a huge interest in history. Those who just like history or know very little actual facts will soon be drowning with this book. There are a number of "what if" stories and they are intriguing but if you don't actually know the real story, you will soon get very confused.
  So be cautious with this one - not a holiday read!
• 
  Ipswichblade

  As ususal with these sort of "What If" some of the essays are better than others. Nothing especially groundbreaking but an easy enough read
• 
  MpaulM

  Such a fun book to read and I learnt about some history that I never knew about in school too.
• 
  Katie

  Less formal then the other two I read. I liked it.
• 
  Gavin Lavelle

  The best thing is the cover, and one or 2 of the early essays. Most of it is smug, Neocon shite
• 
  Simon

  The historians engage more in fantasy than actually applying principles of history.
• 
  John

  As pedantic as a university History major's essay with none of literature's adventure or art. A colossal waste of time. I couldn't finish it.
• 
  Becca Ehling

  Brilliantly written and thought provoking--is all history inevitable? Do leaders and individuals matter?