There is a serious aspect to this question, Buffy. Yes, it is speculation about things that didn't happen and so at one level is a waste of time. But there is also a fundamental impact on how one looks at history: is it the traditional 'kings and queens' view, in which individual's decide what happens, or it it the 'great forces' view, in which individuals actually have very little influence and can merely make fine adjustments to the final outcome. The way you regard history has fundamental influences on the way you perceive life in general. As it is put in '1984' - (without looking up the exact quote) - he who controls the past controls the present. He who controls the present controls the future. The whole issue of 'social history' was the cause of great and furious debates throughout the latter part of the last century.

My own view is that neither approach is complete. I think that a better model is one of several points of equilibrium. Take my Panama example. There are clearly at least two possible outcomes: the one that actually occurred and the Soviet-owned one, and one relevant factor was how decisive individuals were. On the other hand, I think something very like the first world war would have occurred anyway even if Sarajevo hadn't happened.


... and if hamsters were 10 foot tall, killing them would be a lot more dangerous!