kentons's review against another edition
3.0
This was an interesting book and not quite what I expected. I thought it was going to be a novel, not a study. While I still enjoyed it and the questions it raised particularly around geopolitics, I can't help but think that the author sets himself up for added criticism by trying to be so methodical. When it is so carefully laid out to be extremely accurate, you can't help but pick away at the various counterfactuals and search for bias. Had it been just a novel, you could have just enjoyed the thoughts.
mary_clark's review against another edition
3.0
This really was two long essays on the what ifs of no World War I. I wish there was a deeper exploration of some of the topics that were summarized in two or three sentences.
joneal233's review against another edition
3.0
Certainly an interesting concept, and makes you ponder the other what ifs in history. (I was intrigued by his theory that if Elan Gonzalez drowned and did not cause a PR mess for Janet Reno and the Dem Party, that Gore would have clearly one Florida in 2000, and Gore likely would not have engaged in the Iraq war.)
I personally am not knowledgeable enough on all of the political tensions before WWI to state whether if Franz Ferdinand lived, than WWI would not have happened Since, Lebow is a professor of Political Theory, I am going to go ahead and give him that one. It is a nice thought to think that WWII, Hitler and the Holocaust, mostly likely Stalin's regime, and possibly even Mao's reign would not have existed. The idea of the top 3 mass murders in history not having the chance to rise to power is certainly a nice thought. Of course there is no way to predict if another monster may have risen to power...
This book at times reads like a thesis paper, rather than a book for the lay historian. So it is not always super approachable. Nevertheless it does offer some nice brain food. Some of his postulations are interesting...Joe Kennedy Jr(JFK's older brother) became president instead. Just because the eldest brother died in WWII, would that make him the more likely candidate? Honestly not sure on that one. His "counterfactual" words are interesting, but in some cases I felt that were not backed up by proper theoretical speculation. I do agree that the advances in the sciences, the rights of minorities and women, and the ascendance of the United States would certainly have been slowed down. (Both world wars were a major boost to all of those.) Some of his more specific ideas seem more of the author's extra speculation rather than an analysis of consequences, especially as he progresses farther away from the the WWI era. (Which, honestly is to be expected.)
There was one silly factual error that irked me though: FDR was not the nephew of Teddy Roosevelt. They were something like 5th cousins. However, Eleanor was Teddy's niece, so I guess he was a nephew in law?
I personally am not knowledgeable enough on all of the political tensions before WWI to state whether if Franz Ferdinand lived, than WWI would not have happened Since, Lebow is a professor of Political Theory, I am going to go ahead and give him that one. It is a nice thought to think that WWII, Hitler and the Holocaust, mostly likely Stalin's regime, and possibly even Mao's reign would not have existed. The idea of the top 3 mass murders in history not having the chance to rise to power is certainly a nice thought. Of course there is no way to predict if another monster may have risen to power...
This book at times reads like a thesis paper, rather than a book for the lay historian. So it is not always super approachable. Nevertheless it does offer some nice brain food. Some of his postulations are interesting...Joe Kennedy Jr(JFK's older brother) became president instead. Just because the eldest brother died in WWII, would that make him the more likely candidate? Honestly not sure on that one. His "counterfactual" words are interesting, but in some cases I felt that were not backed up by proper theoretical speculation. I do agree that the advances in the sciences, the rights of minorities and women, and the ascendance of the United States would certainly have been slowed down. (Both world wars were a major boost to all of those.) Some of his more specific ideas seem more of the author's extra speculation rather than an analysis of consequences, especially as he progresses farther away from the the WWI era. (Which, honestly is to be expected.)
There was one silly factual error that irked me though: FDR was not the nephew of Teddy Roosevelt. They were something like 5th cousins. However, Eleanor was Teddy's niece, so I guess he was a nephew in law?
canada_matt's review
5.0
The Butterfly Effect posits that an event on one side of the world could be responsible for something on the far side of the globe, or so I am led to believe. Richard Ned Lebow offers a similar, yet much more complex, argument in this book, which delves not only into alternate history, but also counterfactual developments in the 20th century. Lebow creates an argument about what might have happened if Archduke Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated in June, 1914. His argument is that there would have been no Great War, which would have negated the rise of the Nazis, no Holocaust, and therefore no Israel. On its surface, this is enough of a brain cramp, but Lebow goes further. This academic geared book goes deeper to look at what the world might have been like in politics, science, social movements, and even the arts. Examining the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ worlds that could have come to pass, Lebow lays out some fairly convincing arguments that there would never have been a successful Russian revolution, therefore no communists that made a claim for government control. That would have negated a Cold War (as we know it). However, without the rush to find some technological solutions to adapt to wartime issues, things like blood coagulants and jet engines would have been shelved, crippling the world for a lot longer when it comes to some key breakthroughs. Lebow offers the reader some interesting counterfactual arguments about how the world might have been vastly different, but not entirely ‘better’ in the long run. Quite eye opening and well researched, this piece left me wondering and wanting to know more. Recommended to those who love alternate history pieces, as well as the reader who has a penchant for academic ‘what if’ theories.
Being a great fan of history, particularly areas that relate to politics, I was immediately drawn to this book. I have a great interest in the Great War, particularly because of all its political machinery and what brought it about. Lebow does a masterful job of recounting the events that led up to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and how things spiralled out of control from there. His ability to step back and posit a new narrative, doing so not out of thin air but with research and well-placed arguments, makes this book a must read for those who love pulling on the strings of ‘what if’ and ‘could it be’. Lebow offers both sides of the coin, arguing effectively that there would be good from a lack of the Great War, but also some truly negative developments. His arguments are not only sound, but they leave the reader to really think and wonder about an alternate reality that could have drastically changed where we are today. Using some of the necessary lingo to best tackle such academic discussions, Lebow presents his arguments in an easy to decipher way and does not pull any punches. While some may call it fantasising and silliness, if one gives some serious thought to what is being presented, it makes a great deal of sense. Full of concrete examples over seven long and detailed chapters, Lebow makes his case quite effectively. His work may not be for those who read for pure enjoyment, as there are some in-depth discussions that only history buffs will likely enjoy, but those who can stomach the read, it is well worth the time and effort.
Kudos, Mr. Lebow, for a truly eye and mind opening experience. I will have to read some more of you counterfactual pieces, as this was quite interesting for me to ponder.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/248185-a-book-for-all-seasons
Being a great fan of history, particularly areas that relate to politics, I was immediately drawn to this book. I have a great interest in the Great War, particularly because of all its political machinery and what brought it about. Lebow does a masterful job of recounting the events that led up to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and how things spiralled out of control from there. His ability to step back and posit a new narrative, doing so not out of thin air but with research and well-placed arguments, makes this book a must read for those who love pulling on the strings of ‘what if’ and ‘could it be’. Lebow offers both sides of the coin, arguing effectively that there would be good from a lack of the Great War, but also some truly negative developments. His arguments are not only sound, but they leave the reader to really think and wonder about an alternate reality that could have drastically changed where we are today. Using some of the necessary lingo to best tackle such academic discussions, Lebow presents his arguments in an easy to decipher way and does not pull any punches. While some may call it fantasising and silliness, if one gives some serious thought to what is being presented, it makes a great deal of sense. Full of concrete examples over seven long and detailed chapters, Lebow makes his case quite effectively. His work may not be for those who read for pure enjoyment, as there are some in-depth discussions that only history buffs will likely enjoy, but those who can stomach the read, it is well worth the time and effort.
Kudos, Mr. Lebow, for a truly eye and mind opening experience. I will have to read some more of you counterfactual pieces, as this was quite interesting for me to ponder.
Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/248185-a-book-for-all-seasons
mary_clark's review
3.0
This really was two long essays on the what ifs of no World War I. I wish there was a deeper exploration of some of the topics that were summarized in two or three sentences.
stephend81d5's review
4.0
interesting what if history cases book looking at different ways the world could of been if franz Ferdinand had lived either good or bad
mabith's review
1.0
What If books are a common thing anymore, and a world without the world wars is a common topic in them. Lebow takes a different tack than I've seen before. What I've read prviously makes me think that Germany and Austria-Hungary would have used any slight pretext for war, and lacking a good one would have created one themselves. Lebow sees them as more cautious but doesn't ever explain way.
Organization is a big problem in this book. The very last chapter "A Look Back at the Real World" actually focuses mainly on the What If world, and rather than summarizing and strengthening his positions he uses it to bring up topics he's barely addressed in the rest of the book.
He switches between the real world and What If world in the middle of paragraphs, and the only real separation comes when he talks about the differing lives of specific people in the middle chapters. He mentions changes as if he's already explained them but that explanation comes chapters later or not at all.
At times he directly contradicts himself. First he mentions in passing that JFK's older brother Joe, killed in WWII, would become president without the world wars. Then later he says JFK never would have been nominated without the wars due to pervasive anti-Catholic bias, then chapters later he's back to Joe as president, nothing about how he overcame the more severe Catholic bias of the imagined world. There were several of these contradictions.
Lebow gives a random date for the creation of a League of Nations in a world without the wars, but no explanation for why it would come about at that time. He speculates that a certain person would have been a patient of Freud solely because they were Jewish and most of Freud's patients "came from Jewish professional families," with no mention of what problems would have brought the patient there. He spends 2 1/2 pages speculating on the possible career of an artist who actually died as a teenager. I made a lot of similar notes throughout the book.
In the end he offers almost no justification for any of his ideas about the world without the wars, even the most basic ones. It almost seems like this book was an outline or proposal for a novel, rather than a stand-alone piece of non-fiction writing.
Organization is a big problem in this book. The very last chapter "A Look Back at the Real World" actually focuses mainly on the What If world, and rather than summarizing and strengthening his positions he uses it to bring up topics he's barely addressed in the rest of the book.
He switches between the real world and What If world in the middle of paragraphs, and the only real separation comes when he talks about the differing lives of specific people in the middle chapters. He mentions changes as if he's already explained them but that explanation comes chapters later or not at all.
At times he directly contradicts himself. First he mentions in passing that JFK's older brother Joe, killed in WWII, would become president without the world wars. Then later he says JFK never would have been nominated without the wars due to pervasive anti-Catholic bias, then chapters later he's back to Joe as president, nothing about how he overcame the more severe Catholic bias of the imagined world. There were several of these contradictions.
Lebow gives a random date for the creation of a League of Nations in a world without the wars, but no explanation for why it would come about at that time. He speculates that a certain person would have been a patient of Freud solely because they were Jewish and most of Freud's patients "came from Jewish professional families," with no mention of what problems would have brought the patient there. He spends 2 1/2 pages speculating on the possible career of an artist who actually died as a teenager. I made a lot of similar notes throughout the book.
In the end he offers almost no justification for any of his ideas about the world without the wars, even the most basic ones. It almost seems like this book was an outline or proposal for a novel, rather than a stand-alone piece of non-fiction writing.
More...