Page "What Is History?" Paragraph 19

In general, Carr held to a deterministic outlook in history.

In Carr's opinion, all that happens in the world had a cause, and events could not have happened differently unless there was a different cause.

In Carr's example, if one's friend Smith suddenly starts acting out of character one day, then it must be understood that there is a reason for the strange behaviour, and that if that reason did not exist, then Smith would be acting normally.

Carr criticized counter-factual history as a " parlour game " played by the " losers " in history.

Carr contended that those who engaged in counter-factual speculations about Russian history, such as if Count Pyotr Stolypin's land reforms were given enough time, would the Russian Revolution have been prevented, were those who were uncomfortable about the fact that the Bolsheviks were the " winners " of Russian history and their opponents were not.

Likewise, Carr asserted those who stress the importance of " accidents " as a central causal agent in history were the " losers " of history, who wished to explain away their defeats as the workings of chance and fate.

In the same way, Carr argued that historians must concern themselves with the " winners " of history.

In Carr's example, it is those who score centuries in cricket matches who are recorded, not those who are dismissed for ducks, and in the same way, Carr maintained that a preoccupation with the " losers " would be the equivalent of someone only listing the losers of cricket games.

Carr dismissed the free will arguments made by Sir Karl Popper and Sir Isaiah Berlin as Cold War propaganda meant to discredit communism.

In a similar way, Carr took a hostile view of those historians who stress the workings of chance and contingency in the workings of history.

In Carr's view, such historians did not understand their craft very well, or were in some way identified with the " losers " of history.