Matthew William Frend

I won this book on Librarything and forgot I had it on my kindle, but found it again to review it. The author knows a lot about history and warfare based on his content and writing style and his premise was kind of interesting. He basically shifts between the Second World War and several hundred years in the future. He also introduces post war Russian occupation and general Patton's involvement in some things that influenced the future world. He also had a future premise that asked, what if one small part of history had changed and set a whole AI research scenario on how it would have changed their current experience. The thing were all interesting. Plus, he had a future world where there was harmony in every country like a global peace treaty had happened. That is a very unlikely scenario but this is fiction and the what ifs and how would it be accomplished kept me reading. I found the book interesting enough to finish and very unique in its perspective. I like "What if" premises and the details were well done. I also saw that the author left room for a sequel, though if you never read the sequel you would still feel like you experienced completion and were not left on a cliffhanger, which is good. There was a bit of cussing but it was only when military people were arguing, so it was realistic. So all in all it was a good book that makes you ponder the what ifs.… (plus d'informations)

In the future, humans live in a utopia. They use an AI to look at an alternate end to WWII. Have you wondered how things would have gone had the USA kept fighting after the war ended? This book looks at that reality.

While this book is marketed as SciFi I think it of a historical fiction book since the majority focuses on the the war. This book is a lot of guns and tanks interspersed with some vague hand-wavy science in a rather vague (but utopian) future that is watching the alternate reality play out. This book has so much potential but it ended up being rather uninteresting.

There is also at least one inaccurate point when the author talks about cloning. While it is not about the process itself (which I know far less of so won't comment on), it still irked me. He says that no sentient lifeform capable of cognitive thought or self-awareness has been cloned shortly after saying that this society has cloned "tool-wielding apes". There is already much evidence for these traits in the higher apes, and indeed, in many other species. It may be minor but it still stuck out to me.… (plus d'informations)