Cold War Hot: Alternate Decisions of the Cold War

Three-and-a-half stars, actually. I was excited to see yet another great alternate-history collection come out from Greenhill books, and I was especially glad to see that this one dealt with the Cold War rather than yet another about the Second World War. However, despite the fact that the book was good enough to help me get my alternate history fix, there were many problems with the book and it is probably my least favorite of Greenhill's alt-history compilations. Cold War Hot consists of ten scenarios written as pseudo-historical essays. They run the gamut of the Cold War along linear lines, beginning with the Berlin Airlift, than going through the Korean War, Vietnam, the Six-Day War, the FLQ and a Communist Revolution in Quebec, a Sino-Soviet War, Vietnam again, the Yom Kippur war, a different Afghanistan leading to a different Indo-Pakistani war, and finally a satirical alternative collapse of the Soviet Union. Many of these scenarios were quite entertaining, a couple of them even helped to highlight issues and details of the Cold War. However, there were a number of problems with the book, and a number of ways it could have been much better. Here they are: 1. A Right-Wing Political Bias. Now, I'm left-wing myself, but I try my best to be objective; even so, I have to say that Cold War Hot had a right-wing bias. From comments against Vietnam War opponents to a distorted view of possible policies enacted by a second Carter administration, the authors' bias often hindered my enjoyment of their writing. (Oh, and I didn't find Red Lightning to be very funny.) 2. Limited and repetitive scenarios. Two scenarios deal with Vietnam and two deal with the Middle East. As well, the Berlin Airlift scenario and the two Middle East ones had very little change from historical reality and had very little actually happen. 3. Scenarios left out. It might sound clichéd, but I would have liked to see one Cuban Missile Crisis scenario. As well, why not something dealing with the Suez Canal and the Hungarian uprising? Or maybe something in the 80s with Nicaragua or El Salvador? Or maybe a conflict that results out of a different ending of the Second World War? 4. The lack of nuclear conflict. I understand why the authors didn't want every scenario to end in a nuclear war, but why did only one actually involve nuclear conflict? (And that one was the Sino-Soviet war, again showing the authors' bias, as only dirty commies would actually use the bomb.) Again, not every scenario had to have nuclear war, but more definitely should have. As well, it would have been quite interesting to see how nuclear war between the US and the USSR would have been different over the course of Cold War; how would it play out in the 50s as compared to the 60s or 70s, how bad would the devastation have been? All this was left unanswered. Cold War Hot was readable and enjoyable, but it did not live up to its promise.

It is the unfortunate fact of collections of allo-historical scenarios like "Cold War Hot" (including the "What If?" books and "Virtual History") that the tend to be rather uneven in their quality. This is due to the reality that a collection of diverse writers will necessarily have different talents and different focuses which are more or less conducive to the writing of alternate history. That said, "Cold War Hot" ranks highly among the alternate history collections, and includes some of the best and most original pieces I have encountered.Obviously, "Cold War Hot" examines various alternate paths that the Cold War could have taken that would have resulted in either combat where there was none, or in a greater, more violent operational tempo. Divided into ten chapters, the book considers every time period from the Berlin Blockade through 1989. It is notable that when compared to other similar collections, the authors generally spend very little time discussing what actually did happen; in fact, other than a "what really happened" section at the end of each chapter, the content is probably at least eighty percent allo-historical. While this is great for someone well versed in the various Cold War flashpoints, it could be frustrating for someone who has only a vague grasp of twentieth century history, so be forewarned.The first two chapters are probably the weakest; the first deals with an air battle surrounding the Berlin Airlift, and the second with a successfully executed North Korean invasion of South Korea. Aside from the fact that both are rather predictable jumping off points, neither one is fleshed out particularly well and they both end rather abruptly. They aren't terrible, but they're definitely the week spots in this collection.The next scenario somewhat belies the title of the book as it presumes a pacification of Vietnam achieved at a much lower level of violence. While a little bit slower than the other chapters, it is still very well written and posits a thorough and believable alternate path for the Vietnam intervention.Chapters four and eight deal with events in the Middle East; the first around the Six Days War and the latter around the Yom Kippur War. From an operational standpoint, these are probably the two most thorough scenarios, as orders of battle are examined in detail, and armed clashes occur across the breadth of the Mediterranean. While the basis for both scenarios is well established in alternate political histories, it is in the "hot" aspect that they really shine.Chapters five and six are my two favorites, as they deal with the most esoteric 'what-ifs' in the book. Chapter five in particular is in my experience completely original as it examines the consequences of a violent Quebecois revolution in the late 1960's. As someone who witnessed the relatively peaceful attempts at secession in the late 1990's, this was an eye-opening and thoroughly enjoyable scenario. Chapter six deals with a Soviet invasion of communis

I make it a point to read every book military historian and intelligence officer Peter Tsouras writes or edits, both his straightforward and well-written histories and his series of books examining alternative historical scenarios. Now, the genre of "alternative history" is chock full of very bad books written by fantasists with little grounding in historical circumstances or understanding of human complexity, but Tsouras's books are so rich and thoughtful that they should enjoy a special category all to themselves. In Cold War Hot, Tsouras has assembled a team of subject-matter experts (historians, soldiers, intelligence officers) to examine what might have gone wrong--or right--at ten key points in the Cold War. Accomplished authors, from Paddy Griffith and David Isby to Tsouras himself, use sound historical frameworks to ask what might have happened had blood been drawn in Berlin in 1948, or if the United States had waged a "serious" war against North Vietnam, if the Soviets had won in Afghanistan (a particularly pertinent topic), or if an ill-fated Red Army invasion of Western Europe had, indeed, occurred in the late stages of the Cold War. Each entry stands alone and every chapter is well-written, expertly argued--and a great deal of fun. This is one of those rare books that is a marvelous treat to read, while also providing uncanny intellectual stimulation. At a time in our nation's development when original, creative, "out-of-the-box" (yeah, I hate that cliche, too) thinking is at a premium, Cold War Hot is a much timelier book than its subject matter might make it appear. Very highly recommended!