Archduke Franz Ferdinand Lives!: A World without World War I

by Richard Ned Lebow

The "Great War" claimed nearly 40 million lives and set the stage for World War II, the Holocaust, and the Cold War. One hundred years later, historians are beginning to recognize how unnecessary it was. In Archduke Franz Ferdinand Lives!, acclaimed political psychologist Richard Ned Lebow examines the chain of events that led to war and what could reasonably have been done differently to avoid it. In this highly original and intellectually challenging book, he constructs plausible worlds, some better, some worse, that might have developed. He illustrates them with "what-if" biographies of politicians, scientists, religious leaders, artists, painters, and writers, sports figures, and celebrities, including scenarios where: there is no Israel; neither John Kennedy nor Barack Obama become president; Curt Flood, not Jackie Robinson, integrates baseball; Satchmo and many Black jazz musicians leave for Europe, where jazz blends with klezmer; nuclear research is internationalized and all major countries sign a treaty outlawing the development of atomic weapons; Britain and Germany are entrapped in a Cold War that threatens to go nuclear; and much more.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Alternate History, Politics, Historical, World War I, War

256 pages, Hardcover

First published January 7, 2014

About the author

Richard Ned Lebow FBA is an American political scientist best known for his work in international relations, political psychology, classics and philosophy of science. He is Professor of International Political Theory at the Department of War Studies, King's College London, Bye-Fellow of Pembroke College, University of Cambridge, and James O. Freedman Presidential Professor Emeritus at Dartmouth College. Lebow also writes fiction. He has published a novel and collection of short stories and has recently finished a second novel.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

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/...

[David Hakamaki · Rating 4 out of 5]

What would the world be like if Archduke Franz Ferdinand would not have been successfully assassinated? Would the world have turned out differently or would it have made no difference? Would we have experienced World War I (and II)? This book is a insightful look at the geopolitical world and the ramifications of the assassination of the Archduke (and Sofie). The author does a nice job exploring what the most likely scenarios would have been, should the Archduke survived an assassination attempt or never been the target of an assassination. The book builds a picture of what the world was like, not just in Austria-Hungary. It follows the players involved in the major countries, their political stance, as well as the aftermath of the assassination.

The author then juxtaposes the scenario with what would have happened (in the years and decades beyond 1914). He brings life to the various countries, their political status and rationale, as well as two different outcomes (a good and bad). Because there are no certainties in guessing a future, the author first explains his basis for the proposed "future", then walks through the various countries, notable figures and what is most likely to happen. Because he takes both sides (a positive outcome and negative outcome), it allows the reader to see what possibilities were possible, as well as derive their own "alternative future".

Although the geopolitical aspect of the book is somewhat lengthy, it is necessary to show the level of understanding in the basis for the author's scenarios. There are a lot of people discussed to make it fairly entertaining, the focus is on the politicians and "power brokers" that caused (or would cause) the affairs of 1914 and beyond. This is not a novel, but a set of chronologic scenarios that start around 1914 (and a bit before) and end at various times in the 20th century.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ambitious, but flawed. 2.5 stars.

For a further review: http://susannag.booklikes.com/post/75... .

[Alex · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[Bryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting concept, lazily executed.
The book felt poorly organized and incomplete. Lebow imagines both the best and worst possible world without World War I, but too much of the description of the best world is spent describing what happened in the real world. The explanations for how his counterfactual worlds develop were wanting. How does modernity develop without the shock of World War I? How is Barack Obama even born in a world where the civil rights movement in the U.S. is delayed? Controversial ideas are asserted without any reference to back them up. There are only two pages of endnotes, which literally say, "Readers interested in any of the lives of the historical figures I treat will nearly always find multiple biographies of them." I did appreciate his explanation of how preventing Franz Ferdinand's assassination could prevent WWI (contrary to the powder keg picture we have of Europe), and telling two histories was a good way of showing how we can't be sure what would have happened. But overall, this book needed more legwork before it should've been published.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Counterfactuals have long fascinated me. In the case of the First World War, previous reading had made it clear that a) Franz Ferdinand’s assassination very nearly failed and b) most European nations were by no means eager to go to war in 1914. Lebow’s book builds alternate worlds on these two suppositions, inferring that if the assassination had failed there would not have been a first world war. He takes the view that there was a window of only three years when war could have been triggered. Had this not occurred, the subsequent events of the twentieth century collapse like a house of cards. Without the First World War, there would have been no Second World War, no Holocaust, and no Cold War between the USA and USSR.

Lebow also takes the view that without WWI no communist regimes would have been established, although I found that claim less convincing. Whilst Russia and China’s communist dictatorships may have been precipitated by world wars, in the counterfactual worlds envisaged here workers' rights and representative democracy would have been slower to spread in Europe and beyond. Surely this could have created conditions of pervasive worker dissatisfaction, especially as without WWI to decimate the population there would have been a lot more unemployed young men? A recession/depression under such circumstances could have been seized upon by communists. That then raises the question of whether an absence of seismic war-induced political change would have stored up enough social fractures to create conditions for civil war in European countries. Who knows - definitely not me, as I’m not even a historian. Nonetheless it is fascinating to reflect upon.

‘Archduke Franz Ferdinand Lives!’ presents two families of counterfactuals for a world without WWI. In the happier set, Europe remains peaceful, democratic reform gradually spreads, and America never gains hegemony. In the worse alternate world, Germany and its 1914 allies become increasingly authoritarian and militarised, provoking a Cold War between Germany and the British Empire. In this pessimistic counterfactual, Lebow envisages a nuclear exchange between the UK and Germany in the 1970s, although he notes that this would not create nearly as many casualties as the two world wars. Also discussed is the notion that without world wars medical, military, and information technologies would have developed much more slowly, although the extent to which they may have developed differently isn’t addressed. Likewise, without the wars America is described as a superpower but not hegemonic, more parochial, and slower to address its institutionalised racism, sexism, and antisemitism. I also wonder if religious values and lack of Cold War could have prevented America’s conspicuous consumerism?

In short, this book raises far more questions than it answers, which is fair enough. Every question it poses by definition cannot be answered without some sort of machine that allows observation of alternate universes. (Even if such a machine existed, it would create further academic arguments about whether observation of alternate universes changes them, which alternate universes are closest in probability to our own universe, exact points of divergence, and whether there is any point in a study of history that involves each historian choosing their own favourite alternate universe then writing about it.) Lebow divides his counterfactuals into broad description of the significant events that differ from actual history and brief alternate biographies of key figures. The former worked better for me than the latter, although it was striking to realise how many prominent scientists, writers, and artists emigrated as a result of world wars. The potted biographies did offer an appealing bit of colour at times. Obama’s stint as radical governor of Hawaii was my favourite, followed by Churchill’s defection to the Labour Party. Also memorable: ‘Yet another polio epidemic claims the lives of thousands of young people and maims even more. John Lennon and David Cameron are two of its many victims.’ There seemed to be a gap between the geopolitical and the personal, though. I would have liked more on the social and economic trends that were contingent on WWI. Nonetheless, a thought-provoking book that makes you wonder, like Candide, whether we live in the best of all possible worlds. In my opinion and Lebow’s, the answer is a resounding no, but neither do we live in the worst.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I started this book and the author laid out his methodology for what he calls “counterfactual history” I was intrigued. He argues that anyone can say “if A happens/doesn’t happen then B will happen/not happen which will produce C….into infinity.
As such, it’s important when positing hypotheticals that we take the previous actions of the actors involved into account and from there try to extrapolate what they might do in a different world. He takes this approach and constructs the best and worst possible worlds that could have developed if Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated in Sarajevo and WWI never happened. An example of this might be, if there was no WWI, the rise of the Nazi’s becomes less likely as does World War II. Without the Nazis Adolf Hitler probably doesn’t rise to the position of power that he did. He may still have been a rabble rouser and anti-semite but would have lacked the platform to do anything about it. This is sound reasoning.
If the book had stayed in these lanes of probability it could have been something truly fascinating. Sadly, it veers off the logical alternative history road far more than it stays on it. While it’s interesting to imagine that without a World War the youngest Kennedy brother who was being groomed for the Presidency may have achieved it instead of being shot down and killed over France, some of his “predictions” are downright bizarre.
Why for example does Richard Nixon become a radio televangelist? Why do his rivals accuse him having inappropriate relations with teenage girls at his church? When finally the author constructs a world where a paranoid and jealous Nixon hires someone to break into a fellow evangelist’s office to get damaging information on them, we are officially riding the author’s flights of fancy.
Did I mention that Humphrey Bogart never makes Casablanca (no Nazis remember?) but instead becomes an advocate for migrant grape pickers in California? That Barack Obama due to Civil Rights gains being pushed back decades never becomes President but Governor of Hawaii instead, where he fights the President at the time about detaining Japanese Americans in camps?
Without any real explanation behind any of these bizarre things, the book devolves into just off the cuff ramblings anyone could do.
Imagine that without a WWI Germans invest heavily in scientific research not for the military, but for human flight. By 1943 Germans have sprouted wings and routinely send these birdmen/women to spy on the French. The French have only developed fishmen/women so enlist the United States to help stop the Germans. The US drops a massive bomb on both countries and civilization ends.
There. Can I get a book deal now too?

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting what if history cases book looking at different ways the world could of been if franz Ferdinand had lived either good or bad

[Benjamin Espen · Rating 1 out of 5]

I received this book for free as part of LibraryThing's Early Reviewers program.

As part of my Lenten penance this year, I am choosing to work through my backlog of advance reader copies that I never quite got around to. I have a dozen or so sitting on my library shelves, quietly gathering dust.

This is another case where I have no idea why I haven't read this book yet. It is alternative history, a subject I find interesting enough that there is an entire static page dedicated to it on my site. My first introduction to the the subject was the volume What if? The World's Foremost Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. I think I read it as an undergraduate, and I happened upon John's site shortly thereafter. You see what happens?

Lebow summarizes alternative history thus:

"Counterfactual means contrary to facts. A counterfactual describes an event that did not occur. In everyday language counterfactuals can be described as what-if statements. This nicely captures their purpose: they vary some feature of the past to change some aspect of the present. Some people use counterfactuals to imagine different futures, although strictly speaking they pertain only to the past."

Lebow takes the position that the Great War was truly an accident of history. It is not only contingent, it wasn't particularly likely. He lists six ways in which he thinks the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand altered what was an otherwise stable European political order:

1) The assassination of the Thronfolger created a fear of escalation in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The political leaders felt they couldn't let this go without encouraging more of the same.
2) Franz Joseph and Kaiser Wilhelm were both shocked and offended by an insult to amour propre.
3) Franz Ferdinand had been the primary advocate of peace in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
4) Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, chancellor of the German Empire, may have been swayed to risk war by the assassination.
5) The German Socialist party, the Social Democrats, were so appalled by the assassination that they were willing to throw their support to war to punish Serbia.
6) Created an environment in which Kaiser Wilhelm and von Bethmann-Hollweg could feel like they hadn't actually chosen war.

I'm not enough of a specialist to really evaluate Lebow's list. (4) and (6) seem pretty speculative to me, but I'm not familiar with the character of Kaiser Wilhelm and von Bethmann-Hollweg, which is what Lebow says he based this judgment upon. I could buy the other four without too much fuss.

However, whether this historical judgment is correct isn't really the point of the book, in my opinion. We can learn something from alternative history, even if we think the alternative isn't particularly likely. What is interesting about alternative history is the attempt to understand the mechanics by which history unfolds, which is important in shaping what we choose to do.

Lebow has chosen a somewhat unusual point of departure for his alternative history. WWII is a much more common point of departure for alternative history. As it happens, John J. Reilly chose to investigate what might have happened if the Germans had won the Great War. Lebow went for something far more bold: let us posit that the Great War never happened, and peace really did have a chance. What might have followed?

Lebow follows this down two paths: the best and worst plausible worlds given his departure from history were true.

Lebow's Best Plausible World
*The British and Austro-Hungarian Empires survive, but the Russian Empire does not
*Germany's early lead in science and technology is maintained
*Europe remains the center of gravity of the world, but is closely pursued in most economic measures by the United States and Japan
*Israel is never created
*The rest of the Middle East develops in much the same way as Lebanon in the historical world

This is a more peaceful and multipolar world, but it does have some downsides. Mostly in absence of the many technologies that were created as part of the war efforts in both world wars. It is also less dynamic, staying much the same through the end of the twentieth century as it was in the 1950s.

Lebow's Worst Plausible World
*The British and Austro-Hungarian Empires survive, but the Russian Empire does not
*Germany's early lead in science and technology is maintained
*Europe remains the center of gravity of the world, but is closely pursued in most economic measures by the United States and Japan
*Israel is never created
*The rest of the Middle East develops in much the same way as Lebanon in the historical world

If that list looks the same, that is because it is. Lebow's worst possible world is very much like his best, with the difference that the culture evolves in unpleasant ways. The Germans become more militaristic, the United States becomes more isolationist, and the Russians more paranoid.

In this worst possible world, all of the least pleasant features of the countries mentioned are exaggerated, and eventually Cold War between the German and British Empires turns hot. A nuclear exchange follows a breakdown in communication created by a false alarm.

I didn't find Lebow's alternative worlds particularly compelling, or plausible, even given his premise that preventing the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand could have completely prevented the Great War. Our models of history are just too different. This passage in the final chapter sums that difference up:

"In an earlier collaborative study of the phenomenal rise of the West in the modern era, my colleagues and I argued that it had many causes, most of them contingent. The same can be said about China's cultural, military, and scientific superiority for almost two millennia. Above all it depended on the creation and maintenance of central authority over a vast land area and population. Nothing was inevitable about this development, and in its absence the landmass we call China would have developed into different political units with different languages."

*Everything* about the creation of a central authority in the valley of the Yellow River was inevitable. It has now happened three times in the same place, with a remarkable continuity of culture and language. That is as close as we get to inevitable in history. Demography and geography and social dynamics all align to make this happen.

Lebow isn't really interested in these things, and it shows in the kind of worlds he imagines. Lebanon was different than the rest of the Middle East because the Lebanese, Maronite Catholics, were different. Less inbred, and less clannish, which are closely related things, the Lebanese were relatively Westernized and prosperous. Most of the rest of the Middle East lacks the human capital to do that. Banning cousin marriage could help fix both things, but it is unlikely to happen.

The other thing that rang false to me is the Whiggish stance that art would suffer under authoritarianism in the worst world. There have been many, many great artists in regimes that were authoritarian, and even in worse ones. As John Reilly noted in his own alternative history speculation about World War I, Weimar culture, which Lebow praises, and Nazi culture, which he does not, were the same artistic culture. The Nazis made some visually arresting art, in pursuit of horrible ends.

The one thing I truly appreciated was Lebow's attempt to make sense of what the Spanish Civil War would have looked like in the absence of its major outside sponsors in our world. It definitely would have still happened, everybody in Spain hated each other, but it might have had fewer repercussions elsewhere.

In the end, it looks like my reluctance to pick this book up was justified. Memento mori!

[Matthew Yglesias · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t know what the audience for this book is but I loved it. It’s not an “alternate history” book, it’s just a book written by an international relations scholar arguing that absent Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination World War I would not have happened. He pushes back, in other words, against the view that the “real” causes of war were deep and structural and argues that absent the assassination the factors that left Europe ripe for war would have passed by 1917 or so.

He then tries to sketch out what the world would have been like.

If it were up to me “arguing counterfactuals about World War One” would be a whole genre of book.

The author’s view is that absent WWI you get no Bolshevik Revolution, nothing like Nazism, no Holocaust, and thus no Israel. He sees decolonization unfolding more slowly and more on European terms — a non-partitioned India becomining a self-governing commonwealth dominion for example — and generally a world that is richer and less violent. He also thinks the absence of WWII mobilization and anti-Nazi propaganda means the US stays racist and anti Semitic for longer.

He has one vision in which Germany and Austria democratize and the German-speaking world is the global center of science. In another; Germany and Austria stay authoritarian and locked in a Cold War with Britain and France that leave things more fragmented. In either case, with slower civil rights progress, fewer European intellectuals fleeing Hitler, and no postwar shift of artists to the non-destroyed USA, America remains more of a backwater in cultural terms.

I don’t agree with all of his takes (he weirdly neglects the possibility that Austria-Hungary might collapse or that a less-exhausted Europe would have meant longer and more brutal decolonization wars) but they’re not crazy and I’d love to read five more books offering different takes on some of these points.

[Rose · Rating 3 out of 5]

I guess Richard Ned Lebow hasn’t seen Community because otherwise instead of “the Worst Plausible World” he should have called it “the Darkest Timeline.”

Also as a Buzzfeed Unsolved fan imagine my surprise to read that the victim of the unsolved 1974 Florida machete murder would have been First Lady of the United States in an alternate timeline where World War I didn’t happen??? Wild

[Karen (Living Unabridged) · Rating 1 out of 5]

I usually enjoy a good counter-factual, but this is big NOPE.

First, the author is inconsistent in applying his own rules. (One chapter he goes on about how the US would not have elected a Catholic president without the intervening world wars and in another chapter he writes about the US electing Joseph Kennedy Jr who would have had a politically active wife and been a better president than JFK...)

Second, the author's politics are very different from my own which made me unable to grant some of his premises. (Right in the beginning he asserts that if Elian Gonzalez had drowned with his mother instead of making it to Florida, then Al Gore would have been elected and the US wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Which he presents as a much better alternative than real life. For several reasons, I just CANNOT with that.)

Third, he drifts into some crazy speculation about random folks. For instance: Humphrey Bogart. Because everyone was wondering what Bogie would be doing without the Great War, I guess. [/sarcasm]

Engaging in a giant "What if" can be a fun and / or thought provoking exercise but this attempt is not well done.

[Melanie Rigney]

I was very intrigued by the concept of this book and had just read an excellent biography of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie. This was such a disappointment by contrast; I couldn't get past about page 75. I found the writing style tedious and slow going. I have read a number of well-researched works that indicated Europe was a powder keg ready to explode; this author posits that peace would have prevailed but for the assassination, which just doesn't seem to follow. I would have liked to have seen more supposition about how the relationships between the nations of Europe or even simply within Austria-Hungary would have played out if Franz Ferdinand had ascended to the throne at some point. It also did not seem to me that the author truly understood the factors that led to the Russian Revolution, which in many ways had begun before the assassination.

[Jamie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thanks to Goodreads for this First Reads win.

I wish I could say more good things about this book. I had high hopes for it, and while the author does come up with several believable scenarios and he backs them up well, I have just not been able to finish. The writing is dry and somewhat repetitive. I'm going to keep trying to finish the book, but after so long with it sitting on my Currently Reading list, I felt I needed to post my review. I'm going to keep hoping to get reengaged in the reading, and with luck I can give a happier review at some later date.

[Bmarshall · Rating 1 out of 5]

The most fortunate thing I can say about the book is that it is mercifully short with significant space between lines and in the margins. The remainder of the book is just dreadful as Lebow tries to imagine alternative worlds, but provides little detail and fails to really put together a story worth reading. Harry Turtledove, whose greatest accomplishments tend to just reframe actual events by changing the location, has a far stronger grasp on what alternatives tomorrow could bring.

[Michael Brady · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a goodreads giveaway. Lebow's assessment of first order effects were pretty good but as with all such alternative histories the second order impacts of small changes are anyone's guess. It would benefit from a different style of presentation that made more clear when the author was moving from historical to alternative futures.

[Tobias · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interestingly enough as a thought experiment, although for something that's supposed to be about the whole world, Lebow's treatment of Asia was egregiously bad. Barely even tried to imagine how differently Asia would or would not look in either his better or worse worlds. It's a huge flaw in my opinion.

[Peggy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Difficult

While the history he records is fascinating, the positive unfortunately doesn’t outweigh the negative. It is well worth reading, but you may find yourself mentally saving, “What?” And having to go back and re read Plan many days of reading and possibly note taking.

[John Wharton · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting idea, but he seems to repeat himself and restate his conjectures again and again. In my opinion this could have been a fascinating series of essays looking at the subject, but 238 pages gave me a feeling of padding the subject out.

[Dan Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kept trying to get into this book because I really enjoy alternate history but this just didn't grab me.

[Jon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too short, too dry and based on false premises. Meh.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s ok. Good idea, but the execution is a bit limp, and the speculation about individual people such as Nixon or Churchill is just weird.

[Mike Burke · Rating 1 out of 5]

A disappointing book. The author rambles about. Not sure why I put it on my reading list. Don't recommend.

[Allen McDonnell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Started Strong, finished far too political to enjoy.

This book starts very strong and the first half gives some good scenarios about the consequences and developments of a world without the first world war. Unfortunately as the second half of the book progresses the author repeatedly uses scenarios where Republican or more conservative European politicians do evil things while Democrats or liberal European politicians do only good things. Once or twice as a pet spite would be fine, but when it happens in scenario after scenario it gets boring pretty quickly. The author is clearly an academic with deep historical knowledge. Unfortunately the deep biases from living in that intelligentsia prevent the author from even exploring the possibility that good things can come from other world views and systems. For example, from the beginning the author posits that globalism is a net good for humanity while dismissing without even tacit consideration that it is economically devastating for the working class in western nations. All military spending is seen as wasteful and useless while social programs are seen as a universal good without question or examination. I could go on but I think I have made my point. I gave the book three stars for the first half and the fact that the writing is clear, concise and certainly drives the authors viewpoint home.

[Ben Lund · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was definitely more scholarly than I was expecting. I had thought that it would be more along the lines of a Harry Turtledove alternate history fiction, but it was an in depth look at actions, reactions, and people and how the political and economic climate of the time influenced the actions that occurred in actual history and how a small change or two could have changed the world for the better, or the worse. It was really interesting, of course it is all conjecture, but it's not a guessing game, the author reverts to facts each time he introduces a change so it seems very logical. Certain people in certain positions, or removed from positions create a ripple effect, and all stemming from one incident in Sarjevo in 1914. Good read.

[Kenton Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Sarah Duggan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This has an interesting premise but the execution is often convoluted. It’s not always clear if the author is discussing actual or speculative events, especially in political sections. Still, there are some interesting points about the significance of early 20th century events, especially to the US. There is also some fun fantasy speculation, especially about Hawaii.

[David Bisset · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating alternative history

What could have happened if World War 1 had not taken place. Lebow's presentation of the possibilities is extraordinary, and convincing. He writes with great authority. His knowledge of international affairs is remarkable.

[Maggie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great counterfactual book that explores the effect of the assassinations at Sarajevo. Not completely academic - kinda anecdotal, repetitive and some pronoun abuse - but I didn't mind the casual feel. It felt like he was positing his theories and was very easy to follow.

[Walaka · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://heisathark.blogspot.com/2014/0...