Different historiography in alternate timelines

What are some ways that historiography could be different in alternate timelines?

For example, if there was a decades-long cold war between the Axis and Allies, the British Empire would probably be seen as liberal to this day, and more closely associated with the alliance of many nations against the Axis, than for the colonialism aspects.

If the Soviet Union survived, but instead of liberalizing, similar political developments occurred within it as within our timeline's Russia and post-Soviet states, communism would be seen as more socially right-wing than it is perceived today. People might more reliably separate Soviet-style communism from internationalist communism in rhetoric.
 
Do you mean popular historiography, as in public perception, or academic historiography, as in how subjects are analyzed? You seem to be leaning towards the former, but with the latter, the most obvious example of changing historiography would be history being considered more akin to anthropology as a subject. In certain labour history circles, there's a continuing debate between the Old Left (i.e. Social Democrats, general historians writing on labour, 'Great Man' historians) and New Left (i.e. societal-based history, Marxists, non-aligned Communists, anthropological historians), so hypothetically, in a New Left style democratic socialist country, the very meaning of 'history' could change.
 
Do you mean popular historiography, as in public perception, or academic historiography, as in how subjects are analyzed? You seem to be leaning towards the former, but with the latter, the most obvious example of changing historiography would be history being considered more akin to anthropology as a subject. In certain labour history circles, there's a continuing debate between the Old Left (i.e. Social Democrats, general historians writing on labour, 'Great Man' historians) and New Left (i.e. societal-based history, Marxists, non-aligned Communists, anthropological historians), so hypothetically, in a New Left style democratic socialist country, the very meaning of 'history' could change.

I just want to build on this a bit to point out that it's hard to underestimate the impact of the 60s and 70s on the humanities and social science side of the house. Lethargic Lett isn't wrong in saying that there is "still" debate between the old and left in a few places, but to be perfectly frank, that is really the "new old left" versus the "new left," if you take my drift. I think if you could somehow put historians of similar age from the 1930s and the 2000s into a room together, there would likely be a degree of mutual near-incomprehension bubbling over into sneering contempt of what historical topics were priorities, and why, and how to talk about them.

More so than in physical sciences, which have certainly changed dramatically, but at least there is some continuing base of method, mathematics, etc., so in theory there could be some more mutual understanding if the "older" crowd had some time to catch up.

You're extrapolating so far into this alternate future that it's basically choose-your-own-adventure, but I think you are right. If Europe isn't demolished, if decolonization and the 60s don't shake up the English-speaking world, I cannot see how, so to speak, you could get here from there.
 
Last edited:
Top