Much of what we assume to be true or are encouraged to believe to be true is simply wrong. Whether propagated by politicians and think tanks, populists or the media, the family tales of childhood or your Facebook friend's feed – fake history is everywhere and it impacts, ever more, on our modern world. One of my all-time favourite books is David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories, and on its surface Fake History seemed to offer something similar. I did find this book entertaining and informative. But I had two main problems with it. Firstly, I think the author is just a little too open in using the book to display his political opinions. Would I be saying this if I didn’t agree with all of them? Well, that is a speculative question. But I would say that I was more annoyed with it interrupting the flow of historical discussion. This is a mixed bag that deconstructs "great lies" of history and attempts, with varying degrees of success, to find parallels with the current political reality. The brilliant chapters on the hyper-mythologised version of Winston Churchill and weaponising of WWI/WWII memory in modern Britain will resonate with any Brit who has had the misfortune to question Churchill's legacy or, heaven forbid, neglected to wear a paper flower. I even liked the chapter on the dubious origins of "curry." I liked some of the chapters. The Churchill chapter and the Britain in WW2 chapter were interesting and made me think.

The problem is that there is no easy way to fight this battle and, with the internet (especially via Facebook) the challenge is growing. Trump could never have become President nor Johnson PM without all the factors that Otto so rightly shows. Their lies are bought into by millions and continue to be as so many have been transfixed in the past. I do however have issues with the structure of the book. I found the chapters somewhat misleading in their titles. Each seem set up to discuss a certain historical myth, and yet only a small fraction of those chapters actually discuss what is stated that they are there for. I am aware that the author doesn’t owe me anything and my annoyance with this may be down to my Autism. But my experience in debating taught me the value of getting to the point. But in fairness some of the stories and arguments laid down by the author in those chapters were entertaining and informative. His discussion about food and language was absolutely fascinating and taught me a lot. I regard the improvement of the condition of the British people as the main aim of modern government” It is a great book to read but be assured it is certainly not a strict factual account of history with balanced views on what might have happened. Instead the sources are carefully edited to bear out the opinions of the author and meet his agenda. Whilst stating how our history is based on the version we read or were taught when younger, he clearly chooses the versions he wants to make his point. Let's get the problems out of the way first: this is a really inadequately edited book. There are numerous typos and other errors scattered throughout it, which no publishing house worth its salt should have let through. The writing is uneven at times and seems almost as if it was rushed, while the narrative is also fascinating in places. The overall premise of the book, however, is difficult to argue with, that "History, much like modern life, is in short full of bullies, self-promoting charlatans, bigots, bastards, and liars." Another way of putting it is that "the person who shouts the loudest gets all the acclaim," which is mentioned by way of explaining why Thomas Edison is widely regarded as the inventor of the light bulb, when it's not really that simple.Sandbrook, Dominic (27 May 2021). "How the culture wars came for history". UnHerd . Retrieved 27 December 2021.

According to English, anything Churchill did was mainly for the purposes of self-promotion. When Churchill achieved anything good, it apparently can be attributed to the influence of his wife. English gives as an example of this the social reforms Churchill introduced while at the Board of Trade. However, Churchill stated his support of social reform as early as 1899, five years before he even met Clementine. While campaigning in his first ever election, Churchill said: After a very brief period he had accelerated the morale of the officers and men to an almost unbelievable degree. It was sheer personality …. No detail of our daily life was too small for [Churchill] to ignore. He overlooked nothing…. I have never known an officer take such pains to inspire confidence or to gain confidence; indeed he inspired confidence in gaining it”for history geeks like myself this book makes for a very interesting read as i learned a lot of interesting facts reading this book. for anyone who isn’t head over heals in love with history however this book doesn’t fully do what it says on the tin and you’d be forgiven for getting bored of the endless tangents.

Now, to the dogs: Scott took dogs on the Discovery having taken Nansen's advice, and their diet of fish was also recommended by Nansen (not Scott). According to the late great Wally Herbert, it takes a person around two years to become competent at running dogs, Scott had no chance of managing this, whereas the Norwegians would have been running dog teams for years, due to, y'know, living in the Arctic. A quote from Cherry-Garrard is then cut down to make Scott appear hopeless and emotional, the full quote being "He [Scott] cried more easily than any man I have ever known. What pulled Scott through was character, sheer good grain which ran over and under and through his weaker self and clamped it all together." We only get the bit about him crying. Journalist and author Otto English takes apart ten of the greatest lies from history and shows how our present continues to be twisted and manipulated by the fabrications of the past. Ráadásul ezzel dédelgetjük azoknak a lelkét is, akik velünk értenek egyet - hisz valójában mi is azt szeretjük a legjobban, ha ki van mondva nyíltan, hogy az "ők" és a "hülyék" tulajdonképpen szinonimák. Ettől valahogy jobban érezzük magunkat. The Crisis in British Journalism Byline Times investigates media monopolies, their proximity to politicians, and how the punditocracy doesn’t hold power to accountLejön az egészről, hogy a prioritás a szerző részéről saját indulata megélése volt. Aminek következtében szó sincs építkezésről. Pedig ha csak a fejezetcímeket nézzük, hihetnénk azt is, English egy ívet kíván létrehozni. Hisz azokban világosan meg van határozva egy állítás (pl.: "Régen az emberek azt hitték, a föld lapos"), amit a szerző bizonnyal cáfolni kíván, valamint ott az alcím is (pl. "A történelemhamisítás története"), ami mintha arra utalna, hogy egy általánosabb tematikus rendbe lesznek illesztve a fejtegetések. Aztán kiderül, hogy ilyen tematikus rend jószerével nem létezik, English csak csapong, össze-vissza hajigálja elénk mindazt a tudást, amit innen-onnan összecsipegetett, nem csoda, ha az ember egyes fejezetek végén őszintén elgondolkodik azon, hogy volt-e itt mondva valami érdemleges, vagy csak ventilált egy jóízűt az író saját magának.