To an extent, history is a narrative composed by the historian, who does his best (we hope) to weave together the who, what, when, where, how, and why of an event or related events in time. The historian constructs and produces an interpretation. When an accepted interpretation of an event is questioned, we’re often witnesses to a bombardment of charges of revisionist history. Well, revisionist history doesn’t trouble me in the least; I’m all for revising our interpretations of historical events with the aim of arriving at more accurate understandings.
I’d bet the bookshelves that come May we’ll be hearing charges of historical revisionism; that’s when the ever provocative Pat Buchanan’s book questioning the orthodox narrative of World War II will be published. If the title is any indication, Buchanan will argue that the second world war was an unnecessary disaster.
My knowledge of history is too dry and barren to know whether Buchanan’s cup contains any water, or if all is there is a cleverly crafted mirage—I do have several history books on the shelves, and I do plan to read them someday—so I’ll have to leave the evaluation of Buchanan’s claims to those with a post-kindergarten comprehension of history. Whatever the case, we should be open to alternative tales and entertain revised narratives. After all, the story of history is partly a construct.
H/T: Blackadder
Pages
