Through What is history?, EH Carr mainly suggests what he considers the essential ideas of historiography; first of all that complete objectivity regarding History is an "impossibility"[1]. Writing on this topic, Carr challenges the previously accepted school of history, led by Acton and Ranke, which believed that history should be written "objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian"[2] where the "facts speak for themselves". '[3]. Furthermore, the book discusses what leads to the formation of an interpretation, as well as the idea that everything happens for a cause and that nothing is the result of chance, all linked to the idea that nothing in History can be objective. Ultimately, What is History?, is effective in achieving Carr's goal of presenting a new interpretation of the topic of historiography; convince the reader that this is the correct point of view. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay EH Carr believed that when it comes to historiography, it is a necessity to "study the historian before you begin to study the facts"[ 4]. In line with this, it is essential to review Carr as a historian to review his book for usefulness and reliability. He was a British diplomat who first took a role in government in 1916 before becoming a historian and expert on the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1929. As a respected diplomat and historian, Carr has a credibility that allows this book to be useful and considered a sensible and thoughtful new interpretation of historiography, and although this is his first publication in the field of historiographical theory, this in no way makes Carr's interpretation any less valid or well presented. In his book, Carr very successfully dispels the idea that History should be objective through his argument that all History is, by its nature, subjective and influenced by the historian. His reasoning is that historians, writing about an event, have therefore decided that it is worthy of being written into history and that it is a 'historical fact'[5]. Carr effectively uses an example that cleverly helps demonstrate his point; millions of people have crossed the Rubicon, yet the only crossing that is "a historical fact"[6] is that of Caesar. In addition to this, Carr argues that “a historian… is the product of history”[7], suggesting that historians form their interpretations as a result of the situation in which history has placed them, and will therefore inherently be biased. As far as objectivity goes, the argument put forward by Carr is very clear and concise throughout, with the use of examples making it clear to the reader exactly what the point Carr makes is. Likewise, as it allows for greater reader understanding, What is story? it is not written in what would normally be considered an academic manner. This is not to say that the book is not sophisticated and intellectual in the theory it explains, but because compared to many historical publications, EH Carr chooses to use a more everyday choice of vocabulary so as to allow the book to be accessible to a wider audience . wider audience; both intellectuals and non-academics. This helps Carr in his goals and is effective in convincing more people that his interpretation is logically valid since non-academics can understand the basics of the argument, but at the same time historians can analyze the argument with a scholastic method to appreciate the reasoning behind Carr's view. Furthermore, the concise nature of the publication means that it does not take much time to read, thus making it suitable for those looking for.?.