32. What if?

Context:

Used to open the episode as a vivid example of counterfactual fiction, with the hosts quoting its premise of Adolf Hitler celebrating his 75th birthday in 1964 Berlin. The novel imagines the Nazis winning World War II and is described as 'hugely popular.' A compelling read for anyone interested in alternative history thrillers exploring what a Nazi victory might have looked like.

Context:

Discussed at some length as a serious academic analysis of counterfactual history by the former Regius Professor at Cambridge. Evans analyzed Dominic Sandbrook's own counterfactual essays for the New Statesman, noting they became parallel histories rather than true what-ifs. The book also categorizes counterfactuals as wish fulfillment, dystopian fantasies, or fictional self-indulgence, and critiques conservative historians' counterfactual essays about Britain and Europe as politically motivated responses to the loss of empire and the growth of the EU.

Context:

Tom Holland describes this as a science fiction novel imagining a world where Babbage and Ada Lovelace successfully invented the computer, resulting in a technologically advanced Victorian England run by computers. He uses it to illustrate how technological counterfactuals are essentially pure fantasy because technology emerges from very specific cultural, economic, and social circumstances that cannot simply be transplanted to different periods.

Context:

Referenced as a book that distinguishes between different kinds of counterfactuals — specifically time-limited counterfactuals (zeroing in on a single decision point) versus broader spiraling fantasies. The hosts use this framework to argue that narrow, decision-focused counterfactuals are more intellectually valid than sweeping alternative histories.

Context:

Discussed in considerable detail as a book whose entire thesis is built on counterfactual reasoning. Scheidel argues that the industrial revolution required the collapse of the Roman Empire because that collapse generated a fragmented Europe whose competition enabled industrialization. The book systematically works through counterfactuals — showing that Philip II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler, and even the Mongols could never have imposed a unitary empire on Europe. Dominic says he is 'definitely going to read that book,' and Tom praises Scheidel as a 'brilliant historian.'

Context:

Mentioned by Dominic as one of his favorite alternative history novels, depicting a Catholic England. Referenced in the context of recommending counterfactual fiction to listeners.

Context:

Described as a pretty good alternative history novel that is not as well known as Fatherland. The hosts note it was also televised, though Dominic suggests it was better on the page than on screen, having only seen the first episode of the TV adaptation.

Context:

Tom mentions being 'entertained to see that realised on screen,' referring to the Amazon TV adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel about the Axis powers winning World War II. Referenced in the context of discussing favorite alternative history works.

Context:

Tom Holland calls this 'the best counterfactual novel,' describing it as depicting a 'Finlandized' Britain that has become a satellite state under Nazi domination after suing for peace in 1940. It comes up naturally during the discussion of what might have happened if Churchill had died in 1931 and Britain had negotiated terms with Hitler, making it a powerful companion read to that historical debate.

Context:

Tom Holland discusses at length how Herodotus' account of the Persian Wars contains the very first counterfactual in historical writing. Herodotus imagines what would have happened if the Athenians had gone over to the Persians or sailed away to Sicily, concluding the Spartans and all other Greeks would have been conquered. Tom uses this to argue that counterfactual reasoning is embedded in the very origins of historical writing.

Context:

Referenced via Walter Scheidel's discussion in The Escape from Rome: Livy proposed an ancient counterfactual about what would have happened if Alexander the Great had lived longer and invaded Italy — would the Romans have been conquered? Tom mentions this as another example of counterfactual thinking in ancient historiography.

Context:

Mentioned as a 'fantastic new history of the Aztecs' whose author the hosts hope to have on the show in coming weeks. Referenced in the context of a listener question about what would have happened if Cortez had failed in Mexico. A listener interested in the actual history of the Aztecs rather than counterfactuals would find this valuable.