Whether it's virtuous leaders in just wars, martyrs sacrificing all for a cause, or innovators changing the world for the better, down the centuries supposedly great men and women have risen to become household names, saints and heroes. But just how deserving are they of their reputations? 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. The Crisis in British Journalism Byline Times investigates media monopolies, their proximity to politicians, and how the punditocracy doesn’t hold power to account

The reason the Norwegians were (and still are) so good at polar travel is because it's where they live, they do it all the time, they learn to ski before they can walk. Nansen is a towering figure in Norway, and rightfully so (just don't Google his nudes). Amundsen will always be a polar hero, but he is not so highly regarded due to falling in with the likes of Mussolini and his big interest in The Fash during his later years. Dobbs, Gregory. "Otto English on the myths of 'Fake Heroes' ". Good Reading . Retrieved 8 October 2023. Much is made of Scott's sentimentality around the killing and eating of dogs, as if it's a failing or a weakness. This seems incredibly odd to me, would you want to kill and eat your pets? Don't think so buddy. If anything the failing here was becoming too attached to the dogs, unlike the Norwegian team who saw them as more of a means to an end. It ends up sounding like "Scott liked animals, god what a loser!"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.

There is absolutely no reliable evidence that Scott's wife Kathleen had an affair with Nansen, I wasn't sure why this was included at all. The Cost of Living Crisis Byline Times investigates the causes and consequences of Britain’s biggest recession for 30 yearsBOOK REVIEW: Tearing down myths white men tell other white men". BusinessLIVE . Retrieved 27 December 2021.

It's all nonsense. I don't think that's a spoiler because I think that the word "Fake" in the title gives the game away a little. Our decisions, like Brexit, are not based on our national character but on our made up history. Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World is both important and timely. It looks at the stories we tell both on a personal and political level, and how they shape the society in which we live. Essentially, almost everything is built on lies, but it's important not to let a good story get in the way of the truth. 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." Mivel a másik oldal hülyéi úgyis hülyék, ezért nyugodtan szálljunk bele a mítoszaikba páros lábbal. Küldjük el Churchillt a búsba, például. Meggyőzni ezzel se fogjuk őket, de legalább szórakozunk rajtuk.This book dismantles the lazy and pernicious tropes of the past as Otto English sets out to redress the balance and reclaim truth from those who seek to pervert it. The premise of this book is to explore and debunk ten great history myths which are frequently passed off as truth. The author sets his case straight away. Fake History is based on lies which are used to push agendas today. This often comes with idealising a past which bares little resemblance to the reality (as much as we can tell it) those gone before have lived.

Amusingly, even when English is trying to be evenhanded, he gets his facts wrong. For example, he credits Churchill for cancelling the dispatch of troops to Tonypandy, ignoring the fact that Churchill reversed his position within a day because of widespread rioting in the town. The soldiers didn’t kill anyone but their presence brought the rioting a close immediately. 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. For those uninitiated, Roland Huntford's 'Scott and Amundsen' is incredibly biased against Scott, and includes falsehoods that have been debunked since, some of which have been merrily repeated in Fake Heroes. *sigh*English, Otto (27 July 2021). "England's Upper Classes – A Dangerous Cult". Byline Times . Retrieved 27 December 2021. Russian Interference Byline Times leads the way in exposing the anti-democratic influence of the Kremlin over the affairs of other nations Omissions aside, English also makes numerous factual errors. Each one in itself may be minor, but as they are so many that they collectively undermine the value of English’s book. For example, Churchill was observer of the Cuban insurrection, but he did not fight for the Spanish. As Churchill put it “I have not even fired my revolver. I am a member of General Valdez’s staff by courtesy only, and am decorated with the Red Cross only by courtesy”.