I don't really disagree with you by much. It just seems like a matter of framing to me.

>It is damn near impossible to say "this happened solely
>because that"

History is story-telling. We're working with the same set of facts, and even though I disagree with how you've strung those together, I don't think you've said anything factually incorrect, much less dishonest. So even if the project of saying that "this thing led to that thing" is really complicated, the process of moving toward a clearer understanding seems really important. Especially when we're run by an honest-to-god fascist with no desire to play by the rules of historical story-telling.

To me, the way it should work is you analyze some uncontested facts and tell your story. I get viciously angry and tell you that you're wrong, based on the same uncontested facts and/or additional ones, from reframing the scope of the story we're telling by geography or year or perspective. And then some third sucker comes in and explains that we're BOTH incredibly misguided, offering another new story. And then you and I both turn on that dumb-dumb, in spite of mostly disagreeing before their presence.

Storytelling and arguing. I've got a class full of incredibly dedicated women right now that I'm trying to teach 20th century history (this isn't my typical area of interest and my background in it is VERY limited) and this is the chaotic, messy process that I'm trying to teach them.