Counterfactual History - An essential tool for historians or a fool's errand?

Last month the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna hosted a conference for trainee diplomats. One of the key questions posed was, 'If Franz Ferdinand was not assassinated in 1914, would World War I have happened and would the Austro-Hungarian Empire survived?' This is not an uncommon question, especially in light of the anniversary events taking place this year, but it does lead to the question whether counterfactual history, or 'what if' history, is a serious academic exercise or a fun task that sheds little light on the past.

There are many classic 'what if' questions to pose - and they normally revolve around someone dying or surviving. What if Hitler had been killed in the trenches? What if Lee Harvey Oswald (or insert your favourite conspiracy theory suspect as appropriate here) missed JFK? What if Henry VIII's older brother Arthur had not died in adolescence and become King instead? The main argument against the usefulness of these question is perhaps that it puts too much emphasis on individuals shaping history. The 'Great Man' theory of history was at its height in the 19th Century and with so much development in the field since then towards much larger, structural causal explanations it perhaps doesn't deepen our understanding of the past, despite being a provoker of fierce debate.

What appears clear is that these questions can often be very good starting points. By taking a single event, and reversing the outcome, we can gain a much better understanding of that event in isolation and, from that, begin to assess its impact on what came next. The Archduke's murder is a gripping story of intrigue, incompetence, chance and sandwiches (look it up) but it does give us a doorway to into the wider European issues of the time, which ultimately provoked the Great War. If the chauffeur doesn't get lost on the Apple Quay in Sarajevo and drives straight to the hospital as planned, we can take the accepted trigger cause out of the picture and really assess whether the war would have happened when it did and involve who it did. In this sense, the question is valid as it allows us to look more closely at the underlying factors at play.

We should also ensure not to take the fun out of History - even those with no real passion for the subject will probably find themselves eager to let their imagination run riot as they rewrite history in their own name and then try to work out what the consequences of their alternative universe would be. This is valuable in and of itself. However, the main job of the historian is to interpret the past at it actually happened and whilst counterfactual history is enjoyable and can be illuminating, it cannot be used to gloss over the hard graft of working on what actually happened. So, continue to ask yourself 'what if' but don't ever forget the 'what happened'.

For those interested in counterfactual history, try the book, 'Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World 1940-41'. Written by Ian Kershaw, leading historian on Hitler's Third Reich, it looks at ten decisions made during the early stages of World War II and considers alternative histories. Well worth a read. Link to it on Amazon is here.

S Shergold