|
What Ifs? Of American History | 
 enlarge | Creator: Robert Cowley
Publisher: Berkley Trade
Category: Book
List Price: $14.95
Buy Used: $0.50
You Save: $14.45 (97%)
New (9) Used (29) from $0.50
Rating:  18 reviews
Sales Rank: 111350
Media: Paperback
Pages: 320
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.8
Dimensions (in): 8.9 x 5.9 x 0.9
ISBN: 0425198189
Dewey Decimal Number: 973
EAN: 9780425198186
ASIN: 0425198189
Publication Date: September 7, 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: The book is clean but may have highlights.
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Did Eisenhower avoid a showdown with Stalin by not taking Berlin before the Soviets? What might have happened if JFK hadn't been assassinated? This new volume in the widely praised series presents fascinating "what if..." scenarios by such prominent historians as: Robert Dallek, Caleb Carr, Antony Beevor, John Lukacs, Jay Winick, Thomas Fleming, Tom Wicker, Theodore Rabb, Victor David Hansen, Cecelia Holland, Andrew Roberts, Ted Morgan, George Feifer, Robert L. O'Connell, Lawrence Malkin, and John F. Stacks.
Included are two essential bonus essays reprinted from the original New York Times bestseller What If?(tm)-David McCullough imagines Washington's disastrous defeat at the Battle of Long Island, and James McPherson envisions Lee's successful invasion of the North in 1862.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 13 more reviews...
 Very boring; returned the book after one day May 21, 2007
J. D. Seagraves (Michigan)
A family member gave me this book, knowing that I was a fan of American history and "what ifs" of all varieties. I've never been a fan of the ultimately ahistorical Harry Turtledove-style novels, and I was interested in reading some alternative history that was a little more academic in scope. That said, this book was horribly boring. I'm not a light reader - just look at my other reviews - but I couldn't even begin to get into this book. Nothing interested me in the least, and after giving the book a try for less than twenty-four hours, I finally had to just take it back. It is one of only two books I've ever returned - that's how brainsuckingly uninteresting it was.
Not so good. April 11, 2007
Peter Finn (Sacramento, CA, USA)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
This is a good book if you like having an intellectual lecture to you. I was expecting something more along the lines of Turtledove or Birmingham and this was more like a dry analysis of what might have been as opposed to an interesting series of stories.
 Kind of Disappointed March 16, 2007
Nitin Bhojraj (Chicago, IL)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I truthfully wanted to enjoy this book. I really did. After reading this book, I now believe that there's very little point in analyzing what didn't happen as opposed to what did. It also seems like any historian can make up any silly hypothetical situation and write about it. For instance, the first chapter about how things would be different if the wind blew the Mayflower in a different direction. Well, sure, I don't think you can argue against that. What if aliens came down and gave President Truman the technology to develop the nude bomb? It seemed to me like that would have been just as valid of an essay to read.
Maybe I'm not being fair. There are some essays on key moments in American history, such as what if JFK wasn't shot. Unfortunately for me, I found the essays about the key moments in American history to be boring. And I love reading about history.
Other people here seemed to have loved this book, so I may be wrong.
 highly uneven June 23, 2006
Michael Lewyn (Jacksonville, FL)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Some of the counterfactuals (especially the Civil War ones) were quite informative and/or entertaining; they explained why small changes in history would have mattered, and created vivid alternative histories.
Others were so vague and speculative as to be uninteresting; for example, the essay on the 1960 U-2 incident suggests that the Cold War would have somehow ended earlier had it not occurred. However, the author fails to explain why the detente between a lame-duck President Eisenhower (then in his last year of office) and Khruschev would have been more durable or historically important than the detente of the 1970s between Nixon and Breshnev.
 Great book with one notable omission, possibly two December 10, 2005
Stephen J. Snyder (Lancaster, Texas United States)
4 out of 9 found this review helpful
That omission would be a highly plausible counterfactual of us not entering World War I.
First, in the real world, WWI, as opposed to WWII, had no moral dimension to it, except as Wilson tried to impose it. So, another president could have gone in a different direction, especially one insisting that Britain's blockade by extension (not directly blockading Germany, but instead shipping to neutral countries, and interdicting supplies shipped in excess of prewar transactions, on the grounds that Sweden, Denmark or the Netherlands would then transship the excess to Germany) was just as much against international law as Germany's sink-on-sight submarine blockade zones.
Could we have had that "other president"? Absolutely. In fact, we nearly did.
Wilson beat Republican challenger Charles Evans Hughes in 1916 by one of the narrowest electoral vote margins in our history, 277-254. And one state made the difference. If Hughes had gained 4,000 votes in California, he would have won the electoral-college majority, through he lost the popular vote.
Let's say that enough voters are suspicious about Wilson's claims. Let's say that former Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, who resigned in 1915 after he thought Wilson had gotten too close to war over the Lusitania, takes to the stump to put Wilson on the spot. And Hughes gets those 4,000 votes.
Being from California, let's say he cares less about the European conflict. Not being a Wilsonian, he's also more of a realist on foreign policy. And he holds true to Washington's warning about entangling alliances.
So, after being elected, he announces an embargo program similar to Jefferson in the early 1800s. That alone would have made the British snap to attention.
Don't know why this counterfactual wasn't in the book; it could easily have happened -- more easily than some that made it.]
Our history, and that of the world in general, would have been incredibly different. A negotiated peace would have been likely, although grudging on both sides, on the Western Front, as all parties involved would realize that the outcome would be too much to risk. France and Britain would know they couldn't hold off Germany by the middle of 1918. Meanwhile, if the rest of history had gone according to reality, the Germans would see the war-weariness of their own people, combined with propaganda from the newly-estabished Soviet Union threatening revolution.
All powers in the war sign an armistice as a prelude to peace, then send combined armies east to overthrow Lenin. On the west, France accepts the loss of the rest of Lorraine to Germany, plus, say, Morocco as a colony. Germany also is allowed Luxembourg and, say, one-third of Belgium. Half of the Kingdom of Poland, ruled by the Czar, also goes to Germany. France and England both pay indemnities.
In Russia, an incredibly brutal war ends with one of the more liberal Grand Dukes on the throne of a ravaged country. Ukraine and the Baltics go independent.
====
A second, possible one?
The capital isn't in Washington, DC any more. (And, having the capital in the spot where it could have been would have been more likely to keep us out of WWI.)
After the Civil War, Horace Greeley proposed moving the capital west, to St. Louis. St. Louis was almost dead center geographically. Still an important river city, it also had transcontintental railroad connections via the Kansas Pacific to Denver, then jogging up to Cheyenne. The Eads Bridge across the Mississippi would eventually complete the last link.
Feasible to move the capital? More so, if one Civil War-era counterfactual is allowed.
As a war measure, Congress decides to stop work on the Capitol rotunda for the duration.
Greeley then makes his remark soon after the war.
After Grant is elected in 1868, with today's Grant's Farm being located in St. Louis, the idea gains steam.
North and South see it as a healing measure, a symbol of a new start, along with a renewed western focus to our country. With the connection to his land, Grant, and even more so his cronies, blood relative and otherwise, see the opportunity for massive graft.
Washington is a podunk small town. St. Louis is at that time already above 500,000 people.
Sacrilege to abandon the Mall, with all of its monuments and memorials? Nonsense.
The obelisk of the Washington Monument and the original Castle of the Smithsonian are the only two items there.
|
|
|
SEO and Marketing TipsBETA RELEASE | |
