I'm looking for ideas on books to read discussing what might have happened if the war had ended differently. For example, what if the Axis powers has won the war, or if Hitler had survived but the Axis powers has lost?
Google the book titled "Fatherland". HBO made a movie on it in the early nineties. As a matter of fact, at one time you could see the movie on YouTube.
There's this author with the last name of Turtledove that makes a living writing revisionist versions of historical events. Most center or start in the American Civil War with the timeline going past WW2. I guess there is a place for everything.
Yeah I know what you mean. I read some articles on wiki covering some of his work (sort of like Cliff's Notes). It didn't do anything for me. There's too much actual history to read about for me. But like I mentioned earlier, there's a place for everything.
If the Axis powers had won.....you probably wouldn't be getting to choose to read revisionist views but you would not have a choice of what to read. The problem I have with revisionist views is that the reader is taken down a path where he begins to accept some basic "givens" about things that are part of the writer's premise. If you have not studied the hard core facts and boring figures the reader can easily make the mistake of accepting these items. Nothing is more harmful to the memory of what actually happened than to have a large group of readers engage in this thought and bringing forth the false premises as fact. This has to be done for the writer to engage in selling his entertainment which is not fact or it is selling his point of view to smoke up the real facts. Here on the forum I am hoping most of the readers will inform themselves of all the facts before engaging in this form of entertainment. I think it takes years of professional study to become so informed so personally I will choose to only view the information from historical perspectives. There is more information coming out regularly that makes this a pretty full plate. As long as veterans are alive that lived this period there will be additions to this history. I will point out a revisionist view where this has happened and took a great deal of discussion in many threads to debunk this revisionist viewpoint. It was assumed by revisionists that the Atomic Bomb was used to cause an extreme number of deaths which we as Americans should feel guilty for having used it and arguing that it should not have been used at all based on their assumptions that Japan would eventually surrender. However this disregarded the facts. If you do not believe so you should view the archived threads on this subject which when put into historical perspectives, show the A-Bomb actually saved lives on both sides. I was proud that this forum brought to light those facts when all was dug up on the decisions that led our leaders to use the A-bomb.
Victor, I have read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and other materials and I understand fairly well WWII in Europe. I take you don't like revisionist history but I take it you won't mind if I have an interest and read to satisfy that interest.
Ill sum it up in few words: REVISIONIST HISTORY SUCKS PRUNE PITS-----PERIOD and its nothing more than some idiots spin on things. No thanks but, ill stick with ACTUAL history. That said, what was asked about in post Nr 1 is, nothing more than a fictional account on things and not revisionist--big big difference twixt the two.
You might try the alternate history section here too. There are a number of variants discussed in detail there on this subject.
I think we need to make a distinction between revisionist history and alternate history. To me, alternate history scenarios fall, necessarily, in the realm of fiction. In alternate history, an author simply alters a known outcome, e.g. the Axis wins, and imagines what would ensue from that premise. Or, suppose that the American carriers had been at Pearl Harbor; how might the war have progressed in the Pacific? Ultimately, the answers are unknowable, but a good author can have fun with his imagination. Revisionist history, on the other hand, tends to take contrary views of why actual events occurred. Frequently, revisionists appear to have an agenda; for example, FDR was an evil man who conspired to allow Pearl Harbor to occur to bring the US into the war. Another area that is prime territory for revisionism is the decision to use the atomic bomb. From my perspective, revisionists tend to cherry pick data which supports their presumptive conclusion. To me, this is the antithesis of how historical research should be conducted. All that said, if you enjoy alternate history scenarios, have fun. Read Turtledove, or examine some of the posts in our Altrenative History forum. It can be an enjoyable exercise. Just be aware of people who claim to be historians who, with little actual documentation, or limited documentation, attempt to put a new spin on events that occurred. Having an ax to grind is not the way to study history.
Indeed revisionist used to be a rather positive term in history circles until it became another term for those who try and deny such things as the Holocaust. A rather classic example of the positive shool of revisioist is Shattered Sword it revises or if you prefer corrects a number of misunderstandings of what really happened at Midway. I could give examples on the other side but won't as they don't deserve the space. Alternate histories or "what ifs" are a totally different breed of fish. It's WWI but the Letter's Time stories are on the web and most quite good. See: Letterstime: An Alternate History of World War I Here's the wiki page for alternate histories: List of alternate history fiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia