I'll just leave this here, in the What If section.

Grauniad - Prof. Evans - 'What if' is a waste of time
Counterfactual history is misguided and outdated, as the first world war debate shows





Lovely weather we're having, for the time of year.

 

Anyone who doesn't like Hastings is OK in my book

 

How's ya Daffs doing? Mine look fabulous darling.

 

To claim a single debate on a topic proves a tool is a "waste of time" is inane. Especially if he is correct about both of the participants presenting weak cases. The rest of his arguments appear to be less than convincing to me as well. What it does show is that he simply doesn't understand the values while he may have a decent grasp on the negative aspects.

 

I rather think Prof. Evans is widely enough read that his argument rests on a tad more than the recent WW1 stuff, as evinced in the second half of the article.
And I suspect his point is more that counterfactuals might be an entertaining diversion, a bit of fun, but are apparently becoming more than that to some. Far more.
It's a passing comment piece, not a manifesto, but I suspect it's the sort of thing what-iffers should bear in mind.

 

''What Ifs'' should be gone through in depth before an event not after.

 

I think Evans is right : a lot of the "if's" are suspect = they are trying to change reality,mostly to make a German victory possible .

Exemple : the "if" Dönitz had 300 U Boats in september 1939 :this is implying,but hiding : and if the allies had not more ASW ships /aircraft .

 

If only they did a 'What If' before invading Iraq :lol:

 

Which time?

 

Is that like Hammer time?

 

That may be but the article states:
"Counterfactual history is misguided and outdated, as the first world war debate shows."
When it clearly does no such thing.

What if's can be nothing more than entertianment or they can be a useful tool in examing history. The same is pretty much true of any tool. It can be used for many things some of which may not be relevant to the job at hand. The article consistently ignores some of the most useful things about what if's as far as learning about history goes.

Perhaps but the way it's written it appears very onesided and arrogant to me.

Certainy correct for the before part. Whether or not they make sense after the fact depends on why you are doing it. After action reviews are conducted by most professional servoces and most have an ellement of what if in them.

What if's can't change reality. Many what if's are fantastical and of limited or no value in understanding history on the other hand that doesn't mean that all are. Again any tool may be misused but that doesn't mean the tool is useless.

 

Some local information.
'The First World War debate' refers directly to a current (in my opinion, deliberately created by the channel it was aired on) spat between Hastings and others about the origins of the war. A debate that has rotated largely on suppositions & opinion to present counterfactual possibilities, and has created the most ridiculous amounts of heat (in as far as history generates real heat) for really very little solid informational worth.
So yes, 'the WW1 debate' has shown counterfactual's knickers a bit - it has become silly.

 

WI's are the mixing of fiction with reality:the more fiction,the more fantastic things one can prove .

The authors of WI's tried to lead us in the usual suspect direction,in the Wolkenkukuksheim were Germany is winning the war .

In exceptional cases,WI's could be used,on the CSQN that the protagonist is a)proving that the WI is possible b ) that Germany would have a reason to do B instead of A.

Some years ago,someone presented a new WI: what if Dönitz had 300 UB in september 1939.Immmediately,people asked him a) to prove that this was possible b ) why Germany would construct 300 UB.

The result was that he left ,foaming of indignation,,making a lot of dust by goose-stepping,and never returned .

In a lot of years, I never have seen a useful WI.

 

What if's have a hard time proving anything. Fiction proves nothing. A well reasoned and argued one can disprove some theories though and teach the participants a lot about what actually happened.

NO. That may be true of some but not all. I've seen a fair number of what if's that don't even deal with Germany in WWII though. So you are overgeneralizing.

CSQN? I don't understand what your are trying to say here.

It would have to have been quite a few years ago. I've seen that one proposed quite a number of times. I've never seen it proposed in a form that was realistic though for the reasons you've stated and others.

That indicates to me one of two things:
1) You've been looking in the wrong places.
2) A lack of vision.
Certainly what if's can have a fair amount of utility in the form of intertainment. On the other hand the implication here is are they useful as far as understanding history. I would argue that they have taught me a lot about history. To be useful in this role however a fair number of constraints have to be applied. The first and most important is that what if has to be reasonable. I.e. the point of departure (POD) has to be clear and something that could have happened. In the case of the 300 Uboat one the POD would have to be sometime before 1937 but I can't think of anything even then that would be reasonable. It helps if there is only one POD as well. From that point reasonable reactions on all sides have to be considered. One of the most useful aspects as far as learning about history comes at that point. People need to research and discus what is reasonable, I have learned a great deal delving into various historical details for instance to either support or refute a point is such debates and have learned a lot from others who have done the same. It all comes down to how the tool is used or misused. Pointing out one or even a number of cases where it has been misused does not mean it is not useful. Indeed one can consider games and simulation as what if's and they also can teach a lot as can after action reviews.

 

CSQN = conditio sine qua non .

 

Let's take the WWI discussion : Ferguson against the others : very simplified,Ferguson (a failed economist and failed historian) claimed that the British intervention in WWI was stupid,that without this intervention,the Empire still would exist and that the continent (EEC) would know a benign German rule .



To prove this,he has first to prove that without the British intervention,Germany would win,that the intervention was the main reason of the fall of the Empire,that in 2014,Germany still would rule the continent,and that this rule would be benign and that the German domination of the continent would not be a threat for Britain .




Of course,we never will see these proofs (which do not exist),because the only reason for the Ferguson claims is that he is an attention-seaker,and we are living in a society where the more stupidities one is telling,the more publicity one is getting .

The proverbial exemple is Webster Tarpley.

 

Let's not. It is essentially meaningless as to the question at hand.

Again a single or even multiple examples of a tool being missapplied does not prove that the tool is useless.

Furthermore it's not at all clear that the what if you mention is indeed useless. By itself the starting point of a what if will not have a great deal of value unless there is a lot of data, analysis, and reson provided to support it. The value, for the most part, comes from the debate/discussion/analysis which follows.

 

Then your statement is incorrect/flawed. Indeed one could choose to examine a what if specfifically to illustrate how improbable/impossible it was. They can also be used to invalidate certain hypothesis as well.

 

Prof. Evans chatting about this on Start The Week this AM:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03yn667
(21:00 onwards)