- This topic has 4 voices and 4 replies.
-
Posts
-
Noticing that the “What if” thread about Lee in the west (in the Civil War section) brought to mind a discussion that I had with my Eastern Front (WWII) professor on the value of “counterfactual history” vs the typical “what if” scenarios that are often posed.Unlike the scenario "What if the U.S. Navy had jet fighters at Pearl Harbor" (remember that movie?), counterfactuals are calculatd to 1) be historically reasonable, and 2) designed to address a specific point with the intent of highlighting that (or other relevant) point.Examples of "counterfactuals" from the discussions that we had in the class mentioned above:1) How would the war on the Eastern Front have been different if Hitler had decided to surround Stalingrad and hold it under seige while Army Group South thrust into the Caucuses?2) How would the war on the Eastern Front have been different if Hitler had assumed the strategic defensive in 1943 rather than attacking the Kursk salient? Would it have changed the outcome of the war?My favorite was, how would the outcome of the war have changed if Stauffenberg's assasination attempt of Hitler (Operation Valkyrie)had been successful in July 1944?Another was "How would the war in Europe have been different if the British had not cracked the ULTRA secret or if ULTRA had been compromised?"So, my question to the group -- Are counterfactual historical arguments part of a valid historical method, or is it just fodder for discussion amongst folks who have nothing better to do? Do they help us understand history better?
As long as you and others know it's a what if situation, I think it could help you understand it better. But most of my "what ifs" are more like "Why did they did that? What were they possibly thinking?"
What if Hannibal had a hydrogen bomb with him when the Carthaginians were on their way to attacking Rome at the Battle of Zama?Oh, wait - these are supposed to be somewhat "reasonable", eh? ;DReally, since we can't know for sure what would have happened with an alternative course of historical events, "What if?" scenarios are really limited in value for historians. Yes, we might be able to reasonably determine some immediate things that may have occurred, but there's no way of possibly knowing the chain of events that would have followed.But you know what? I still think that "What if?" scenarios from history are good to raise for the limited value they provide. When making decisions for our own future, we often think of different effects that could potentially follow from different courses of action. I think it's easier to plan in this way if we have considered alternative history. For example, we know what happened when Stauffenberg's assassination attempt failed; we theorize what may have happened had he been successful. Having studied this, we have a better idea of how future assassination attempts (given similar circumstances) might play out. To me, that shows that "What ifs" can be helpful, even in limited ways.
Counterfactual musings are only good for explaining why things happened the way they did; not the way they could have happened. At least that's how I look at it.
Another was "How would the war in Europe have been different if the British had not cracked the ULTRA secret or if ULTRA had been compromised?"
Here's my take - for the example above it forced the students to fully examine the impact of ULTRA intelligence. Would the German's have been able to more effectively resupply Rommel in North Africa? Would Montgomery have been effective at Alamein? What did Montgomery know as a result of ULTRA? And there's so much more. So, what's the value of counterfactual in this exercise? It makes the student examine and realize the extreme value that ULTRA brought.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
