Carr's views about the nature of historical work in
What Is History? were controversial. In his 1967 book
The Practice of History,
Geoffrey Elton criticized Carr for his "whimsical" distinction between the "historical facts" and the "facts of the past", saying that it reflected "an extraordinarily arrogant attitude both to the past and to the place of the historian studying it". Elton praised Carr for rejecting the role of "accidents" in history, but said Carr's philosophy of history was an attempt to provide a secular version of the medieval view of history as the working of God's master plan with "Progress" playing the part of God. British historian
Hugh Trevor-Roper said Carr's dismissal of the "might-have-beens of history" reflected a fundamental lack of interest in examining historical causation. Trevor-Roper said examining possible alternative outcomes of history is not a "parlour-game", but is an essential part of historians' work. Trevor-Roper said historians could properly understand the period under study only by looking at all possible outcomes and all sides; historians who adopted Carr's perspective of only seeking to understand the winners of history and treating the outcome of a particular set of events as the only possible outcomes, were "bad historians". In a review in 1963 in
Historische Zeitschrift,
Andreas Hillgruber wrote favourably of Carr's
geistvoll-ironischer (ironically spirited) criticism of conservative, liberal and positivist historians. British philosopher
W. H. Walsh said in a 1963 review that it is not a "fact of history" that he had toast for breakfast that day. British historian
Richard J. Evans said
What Is History? caused a revolution in British historiography in the 1960s. Australian historian
Keith Windschuttle, a critic of Carr, said
What Is History? is one of the most influential books written about historiography, and that very few historians working in the English language since the 1960s had not read it. ==Editions==