Im a great fan of alternate history both fictional and extrapolation. Bevin Alexanders book How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: The Fatal Errors that led to Nazi Defeat is of the latter category. Extrapolating an alternate history is difficult to due to the fact that just because one alters a few key events does not necessarily mean that the future would have played out like the author predicts; however, it does make food for thought on how things could have been. This was the hope that I had when I started this book. How would Alexander play out the battles and campaigns that he had selected? How did he see the tide moving if General So-And Such had done this not that?
Unfortunately, Alexander failed to follow through this the premise of his book. Basically, he took several key battles or campaigns in condensed versions mixed with a few should have sentences or paragraphs. This is very little in-depth analysis of how these pivotal battles could have altered history is something different had been done. Its not like Alexander did not have material to work with as much of what he proposed were courses of action that the German generals wanted to do in the first place only be over ridden by Hitler. All Alexander had to do what play them out in a realistic, logical manner to support his thesis but he doesnt. In reality the book is little more than a Cliff Note compilation of battles that are more extensively written about.
Not to be completely harsh on the book, Alexander does do an excellent job of covering these battles. This is a great book for someone who wants to read about these events without being bogged down by some of the weightier tomes out there. I just wish there was a little less what did and a little more what if.