How Hitler Could Have Won World War II: Although that's the title, it isn't actually the focus of the book itself. Alexander starts out decently - in the prologue he states how he believes Hitler could have won the war (by focusing on North Africa and the Middle East and not attacking Russia). After that, however, things go downhill.

The bulk of "How Hitler Could Have Won World War II" is a survey of the war itself, from the invasion of France to Germany's surrender. During parts of the narrative, there are connections made to the book's subtitle: "The Fatal Errors That Led To Nazi Defeat." Alexander takes a critical look at many of Hitler's military decisions, especially those that brought him into conflict with his generals. Although these "fatal mistakes" are mentioned, not much more is said about how Hitler could have won World War II.

Even as a history of the war, Alexander's book doesn't stand up very well. It is short (300 pages paperback) and is only able to give a cursory glance at much of what went on in the European theater. The Pacific theater is ignored. Alexander tends to focus disproportionately on events in North Africa and Italy, without giving the other fronts all the attention they deserve. This could be excusable if he used the opportunity to elaborate on his theory of how Hitler could have won - but unfortunately he does not.

Personally, I felt that "How Hitler Could Have Won World War II" was a decent book, but I felt it could have been better. It takes shape as little more than a brief history of World War II, and there are other books that do a much better job with that topic (like "The Second World War" by John Keegan). This book strikes me as one that should be borrowed from the library and read; if I were able to do it all over again, I probably wouldn't choose to buy it. ( )