How do you call it when you falsely explain an event by something that happened after?
Like saying "A wrote X book, and when we read it, we can see he was expecting WW2", when there is no link between these elements.
(Idk if I'm understandable here, I'm not a /his/toryfag)
>>858486
You mean a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
>>858501
Kinda, but really in a specifically historical point of view. Maybe there is no word for it in english, we have one in french but I can't remember it either.
(Anyway that's what I was looking for, thanks anon)
>>858486
I don't know but I have to say that it's quite a common misperception of history. Too many historical figures get bashed for something they couldn't anticipate or worse yet, acted in the best way possible according to their situation.
>>858550
Exactly this. My professors use this word a lot when they talk about Cinema History, but it's probably a misconception about History in general.
It certainly is hard to keep that in mind, but it's an effort worth making if we want to have a "clean" conception of History, I think.
>>858486
Are you thinking of an "anachronism?"
>>858599
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian's_fallacy
???
