What if strategic alternatives of wwii

An international journal on international history, the Review publishes articles, notes with documents, bibliographies, and reviews, on everything that affected, or was affected by, the relations between all states, throughout the world, throughout history.

Request Permissions. The International History Review. Cite this Item. Read and download Log in through your school or library.

Purchase article. Be the first to ask a question about If the Allies Had Fallen. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. May 30, David Dowdy rated it really liked it Shelves: wwii , non-fiction. This is a pretty decent book that ponders all the what-ifs but it includes many good history lessons about major events along the timeline of World War Two and in the separate theaters.

Much of the book deals with Germany and only touches on axis power in Italy and Japan. The motivations of world leaders is striking when you think of how they reacted. The result is, though you can't change history, you can certainly score the choices taken that made it. There are reminders throughout about the ge This is a pretty decent book that ponders all the what-ifs but it includes many good history lessons about major events along the timeline of World War Two and in the separate theaters.

There are reminders throughout about the genius given to the German nation that was squandered in bad decision after bad decision. When you think of the technology developed by the German military and intelligence arms, it's amazing that the allies didn't fall. Everything from prototype missiles and jet engines to a fleet of killer submarines and advanced code enciphering was on their smorgasbord.

Yet blundering, paranoia, and impatience made effective use of their technology only for a relatively short few years. The book discusses Germany's lack of a proper blue water navy but it doesn't discredit Germany for not advancing a four engine long-range bomber. Added to their capabilities, both would have made a significant difference. Especially if the Germans had not tried to go so far and so fast. Probably the biggest lesson from the book is that nations should not put all their faith in a single figurehead leader who's cleverness can only be found in his or her bellicose words and who sits in front of a cadre of yes men and women.

We should guard ourselves from these people. Their kind did not end with Hitler. They are in the human DNA. The second lesson is that a world leader might not think they are starting a world war and may try to hide behind their duplicity.

Eventually they will have made the world their enemy and their gains will be taken away. Germany blinded themselves with arrogance and a total lacking in intelligence about the military capabilities of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They apparently had no idea that their codes had been broken in the UK. Finally, the chapter outlining the final stage of the war in Europe where the Soviet Union and the Allies move to crush Germany is pretty dramatic.

There are numerous daily accounts that provide a peek into the decisions made by the political and military leaders right up to the point where they came up to each other's fronts and stopped along the line that soon became the division of Germany into east and west states. Sep 19, Jill Hutchinson rated it liked it Shelves: wwi-wwii , military-history , world-history.

This is a scholarly book which offers an alternative history to the outcome of WWII and it is not an easy read. It differs from other "what if" books in that it avoids contrary-to-fact assumptions such as a second Napoleon in command of France or the Wehrmacht equipped with different models of tanks and aircraft. Instead the theories are based on behaviors possible in the context of circumstances requiring concrete decisions other than those actually made. Although the edition shown in this revie This is a scholarly book which offers an alternative history to the outcome of WWII and it is not an easy read.

Although the edition shown in this review is the Kindle edition, I read the actual book and have one complaint. The typeface was exceedingly small which made it very difficult to read.

I would recommend this book to the reader who is serious about strategies of warfare and making the right decisions at the right time. Otherwise, it might be a struggle. May 15, Brendan rated it really liked it. This is by far the most scholarly approach I have seen to the fascinating subject of counterfactual history. It addresses scenarios ranging from the tactical e. All of the scenarios addressed are interesting because they address situations where multiple options were actually available to people and countries and different decisions could have been made.

The authors also do a very careful job of analyzing all of the repercussions and limitations of each scenario. An army that pulls back from a salient also shortens the enemy's lines. A decision to build more of one kind of ship or airplane reduces the materials and manpower to build other kinds. The result of a battle or operation on the European Front changes the situation in the Pacific Front.

The result of this careful analysis is that in most cases, the authors conclude that the alternative scenario would not have changed the final outcome, or would barely have affected it. In doing so, they dispel many of the more popular what-ifs about the War. Most of the scenarios involve speculating on what would have happened, but a few alternative scenarios are written like they would have been had they actually happened, describing the day-by-day progress of an American advance to Berlin and the damage caused in a Japanese third strike at Pearl Harbor.

These latter scenarios tend to be indulging authors who'd like to write techno-thrillers more than anything else, as it's impossible to determine how accurate these stories of things that didn't happen might have been. It is interesting how such scenarios might have played out at a tactical level, though. While the book is fascinating reading throughout, there is a very high level of assumed knowledge.

Every scenario assumes that the reader has a working knowledge of the major campaigns, weapons, strategies, decisions and people involved in World War II in the European, Mediterranean, Eastern and Pacific Theaters. A reader whose knowledge of World War II is Pearl Harbor and D-Day or a page summary of the war from a high school history textbook would likely feel lost reading this book.

Tackle this book after you've read at least a full history of World War II. Jan 29, Singleton Mosby rated it liked it Shelves: world-war-2 , alternative-history. For me this book was kinda of a mixed bag. First of all you shouldn't judge it by its cover. I did and expected some great alternative histroy fiction. It hardly deals with alternative endings of the war as the cover suggests. Not too worry however as it is a rather good book once you have overcome the wrongfootedness of your first impression.

Every chapter, every subject, is written by a different author. Some are better For me this book was kinda of a mixed bag. Some are better then others, and strangest of all, some are scholarly treaties, others are well-written what-if scenarios.

The difference in writing style between the chapters is kinda weird. The more as neither of the writers introduces his piece so you sometimes don't know if it is history or alternative history for quite some times. But, enough knackering. Overall the book is good and treats the subject deeply. Recommended if you are interested in WWII but not so much if you want to read some good alternative history. View 2 comments. Jun 25, Jarrod rated it it was ok Shelves: military-history , wwii-history.

This is a dangerous book. There are parts that are brilliant - the piece by Mr. Love and the ending regarding Hilter's character making most of this book implausible. Then there are parts that are just sad. I almost gave up on the book when I read about the "atomic holocaust". It's obvious the liberal slant of that piece of the book and the lack of research into why the bombs were expedient. Read about the Pacific theater and the mind set of the Japanese people and leadership to understand why t This is a dangerous book.

Read about the Pacific theater and the mind set of the Japanese people and leadership to understand why the shock of nuclear weapons was needed. A land invasion of the main-land of Japan would have been a complete and total catastrophe. True research into what it would have taken to invade and conquer the mainland shows hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides.

Much of the fallacy in this book can be chalked up to academia spouting ideas from behind a keyboard without getting in the field. The reasoning behind decisions of what actually happened is not expounded upon for those parts of the book where the actual events are re-told.

For example, there are many times when a supposition is laid out for something different happening, then what would have happened is speculated on without going into detail about how this was against the grain of the contributors. If anyone studies anything to do with why Germany invaded the USSR in , you know it was for lebensraum living space and the Germans could not care less about the people living there. It wasn't to conquer, it was to free up space for the German people.

The current inhabitants would have been made slaves or killed through genocide. The book is also too sporadic in how it is handled. It seems dis-jointed where there is not a fluid consciousness of thought. Several thoughts are conflicting and repeated where there is obvious non-collaboration of thought. Speculation of what the US would have done with a British defeat is laughable.

This is disheartening after reading some of Overy's other works. The amount of materials we were giving to the Soviet Union in late more or less allowed them to beat back the Germans where their industry was unable to produce.

None of this is covered. Though an interesting concept of a book, I was overall disappointed because of how much was really implausible due to what I have read on what actually happened.

I would propose that the change be made for "X" to happen, explain how it would have happened explicitly in the confines of raw materials, personnel and agendas and then explain the actual reasonable outcomes. Lastly, keep personal agendas out of it. You don't like that the atomic weapons were used, too bad. I suggest studying how long the battle would have happened had we not done that and re-publish.

View 1 comment. Mar 30, General Greysorrow rated it really liked it Shelves: alternate-history. As I'm sure other reviewers have already mentioned, this is more of a study on the potential of an Axis Victory rather than a detailing of potential "What If? Don't get me wrong, there are "What If? But whereas many books of this nature will answer the question by providing the scenario and extrapolating past it, this book more presents all of the his As I'm sure other reviewers have already mentioned, this is more of a study on the potential of an Axis Victory rather than a detailing of potential "What If?

But whereas many books of this nature will answer the question by providing the scenario and extrapolating past it, this book more presents all of the historical, psychological, situational, and contextual reasons for why actual history occurred in the manner in which it did. In essence, the players involved determined the outcome of the War, and the only way to change the War is to change the players.

In much the same light as some other books I've read, specifically those regarding an alternate history of the American Civil War, history happened the way it did because of the various factors involved, not some random roll of the dice, and the outcomes which led to the world in which we live are essentially inevitable given the variables that were present. One mile southeast of Ground Zero, Nagasaki.

Image courtesy of the US National Archives. Finally, there remained the option of Soviet participation in a final campaign in the Japanese Home Islands. This would inevitably result in a divided Japan, like Germany and Korea. Given the example of the , to , Japanese who died in Soviet hands on the Asian continent after the end of formal hostilities , it also would produce massive additional deaths in a Soviet occupation zone.

Richard B. Frank is an internationally renowned expert on the Pacific war. After graduating from the University of Missouri, he was commissioned in the US Army, in which he served for nearly four years, including a tour of duty in the Republic of Vietnam as an aero rifle platoon leader with the st Airborne Division. Greene Award.

Invasion or Blockade? This article is part of an ongoing series commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II made possible by Bank of America. On December 7, , Kermit Tyler was called about aircraft approaching Pearl Harbor and told the radar tech not to worry about it.

His reply has been debated for the past 80 years. As the American military desperately tried to protect Pearl Harbor, US anti-aircraft shells fell everywhere—and the Japanese got the blame. Weisgall, Naval Institute Press, No Recipe for Victory Invasion or Blockade?