[retired_princesspouty]

Originally posted by alilaw:
On topic btw, and partly inspired by Kershaw talk, I've just ordered his Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World. Hopefully should be good - I love short, detailed history on very specific important events, so I'm looking forward to it.

I was semi-interested there - but then, on looking on Amazon, found that there's an addition to the title: 1940-41

Kinda narrows down the options a bit doesn't it?

[retired_boombalabutt]

If that's his latest work I think it flirts with counter-factualism a little which, if it were any other historian, would put me off.

[retired_princesspouty]

Originally posted by Dave Vessey:
If that's his latest work I think it flirts with counter-factualism a little which, if it were any other historian, would put me off.

So he's extended the 10 decisions and gone a "what if this decision hadn't been made?" route?

They can be interesting sometimes, but its not something I would actively go for.

[retired_boombalabutt]

I'm not 100% sure. He seemed to have something of a penchant for "what if" questions during his seminars. He's probably done the period/topic to death all on his own so a novel approach couldn't hurt.

[retired_princesspouty]

I must admit that when I'm pondering on historical events, I do sometimes go the "what if?" route. It's not really a conscious thing though.

Having said that, I prefer to think of my own, rather than read someone else's.

[retired_gozadera2007]

LOVE counter-factual history personally. I actually think that to an extent it's a fairly instrinsic part of historical analysis - not overblown, fantastical different worlds drawn from one minor point, obviously. But counter-factual history moves away from the 'foundationalism' I was talking about earlier in the thread, the idea that all major events are inevitable.

I've got the first two books of the Robert Cowley edited What If? series, which has some great little essays in it. There's one in particular I remember which imagines a world where Winston Churchill was killed by a taxi in the 1930s, as opposed to just being injured (which actually happened). Basically postulates that with Halifax unopposed and taking over from Chamberlain, Britain would most likely have sought a treaty with Nazi Germany in 1940 (which iirc was the position of a number of the cabinet at that time) and would have received a harshly dictated peace. It's exercises like this - a small amount of counter-factualism - which highlight how small events and individuals CAN have lasting and great effect on the course of history.

[retired_princesspouty]

The problem with counterfactualism is that it only chnages one thing (like the death of churchill) then assumes everything would have been the same.

For example, the death of Churchill is assumed to mean that Halifax would have been unopposed to replace Chamberlain... but why? The gap left by Churchill may well in all probability have been filled by another person. The alteration of one event creates endless change in subsequent events - even those not seemingly directly linked.

From that viewpoint counterfactualism is essenytially futile. It is interesting if approached with a fictional mindset.

[retired_jenn912010]

I was quite into counterfactual history a couple of years ago, mainly because I read this fella. Gone off it recentlt, because it's very rarely done well by most historians.

[retired_start66]

Every time I'm in a book shop I want to buy Fateful Choices but I can't justifuy it in hardback.

Can anyone point me in the way of a good book on the Japan/China side of WWII please?

[retired_boy_0429]

Any recommendations on the social and/or political history of Spain in the late fifteenth/early sixteenth century?