Through What Is History?, EH Carr mainly suggests what he considers to be the essential ideas of historiography; mainly that complete objectivity regarding History is an “impossibility”[1]. In writing on this subject, 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 historian's interpretation"[2] where “Facts speak for themselves”. '[3]. Additionally, the book discusses what leads to the formation of an interpretation, as well as the idea that everything happens because of 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 on 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 should not be banned”?Get the original essayE H Carr believed that when it comes to historiography, it is necessary to “study the historian before you begin to study the facts”[4]. With this in mind, it is essential to examine Carr as a historian in order to examine his book for its usefulness and reliability. He was a British diplomat who first took on a government role in 1916 before becoming a historian and expert on the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1929. As a respected diplomat and historian, Carr enjoyed credibility which makes this book useful. and considered a sensible and thoughtful new interpretation of historiography, and although this is his first publication in the field of historiographic theory, this in no way makes Carr's interpretation less valid or less good presented. In his book, Carr very successfully dispels the idea that history should be objective by asserting that all history is, by nature, subjective and influenced by the historian. His reasoning is that historians, by writing about an event, have thus decided that it deserves to be written in history and that it constitutes a “historical fact”[5]. Carr effectively uses an example that expertly helps demonstrate his point; that being said, millions of people have crossed the Rubicon, but the only crossing that is “a fact of history”[6] is that of Caesar. In addition to this, Carr asserts that "a historian... is the product of history"[7], suggesting that historians form their interpretations based on the situation in which history has placed them and that they will have therefore intrinsically prejudices. Regarding objectivity, the argument Carr makes is very clear and concise throughout, with the use of examples making it clear to the reader what exactly the point Carr is making is. Likewise, insofar as it allows a better understanding of the reader, what is History? is not written in a manner that would generally be considered academic. 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 in order to allow the book to be accessible to a wider audience. wider audience; intellectuals and non-academics. This helps Carr in his goals and is effective in convincing more people that his interpretation is logically valid, because non-academics can understand the basics of the argument, but simultaneously historians can analyze the argument using a scholastic method to appreciate the reasoning?.