The Politics of Historical Inquiry: An Open Letter to Antony Beevor

Antony Beevor’s recent comments on the “fictionalisation” of history raise issues that merit serious discussion. Yet his casual dismissal of those who question the official narrative of 9/11—by lumping them in with claims that the CIA created AIDS or that Princess Diana was assassinated by intelligence services—reveals a deeper problem in contemporary liberal discourse. It is a tactic designed not to clarify but to foreclose inquiry.

This rhetorical manoeuvre is familiar: associate any critical examination of state actions with the most outlandish theories circulating online, thereby discrediting legitimate questions by association. Yet the documented record surrounding 9/11 cannot be so easily brushed aside.

Germany, Egypt, Russia, and Israel warned Washington about a potential attack involving hijacked planes. Despite surveillance by US and German intelligence, Mohamed Atta and other hijackers were repeatedly allowed to enter and re-enter the US, enroll in flight schools, and move freely, despite multiple police and immigration encounters. The FBI Minnesota warned Washington that Zacarias Moussaoui might plan to crash a plane into the World Trade Center, but was told to stand down. Additionally, a National Security Decision Directive authorizing military action in Afghanistan was already on President Bush’s desk on September 3, 2001, a week before the attacks.

These are established facts, not fringe theories. As Patrick Martin pointed out shortly after the attacks, “It is not necessary to believe that the American government planned every detail… to see that the most significant unresolved issue of September 11 is the role of American intelligence agencies behind the scenes.” The concern isn't whether the Bush administration organized the attacks but whether parts of the government viewed a major terrorist act as a convenient pretext for advancing a militarist agenda that had been forming since the 1990s.

Zbigniew Brzezinski openly stated in The Grand Chessboard that American global strategy “does not command popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being.” 9/11 created exactly that threat. The 9/11 Commission, as David North noted, was “a cynical and mendacious exercise in politically-expedient cover-up.” No official has ever faced consequences for what was, at best, a major failure of the entire national security system.

Blending this rational, evidence-backed analysis with internet myths serves to shield the ruling class from revealing its own criminal tactics. It is not about defending historical truth but about upholding political convenience.

Beevor’s concerns about historical fiction are understandable but not the main issue. This genre has existed since ancient times; for example, Shakespeare’s history plays are valued more for their artistic quality than strict accuracy. The real problem is the erosion of historical awareness, especially under New Labour, which replaced rigorous history with nationalist myths, superficial skills-focused teaching, and identity politics. A society that can see history as class struggle threatens the current social structure, leading to the decline of quality history education.

The issue isn't that novelists distort the past. It's that the ruling class is uninterested in a society that comprehends its history. Defending history today means not only resisting distortions but also confronting political efforts to erase historical awareness entirely.