History by definition is inaccurate because what is written down, recorded and interpreted is done by humans. We always manage to fudge-up something either due to incomplete or incorrect information, ignorance, bias...etc.
The thing about history is that our knowledge of it is always changing/evolving as new things come to light. New theories are tabled and evaluated...etc.
A couple of examples:
1. After the Bismarck was sunk the British claimed they sunk it. The Germans argued that the ship was scuttled. You can imagine which of those arguments went down in the history books.
But eventually the "history" was challenged when the wreck was explored and it was proven that the Germans did in fact scuttle the vessel.
2. Nick and I were discussing the statements I made regarding the devastation that was present at the end of the war and my statement that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what led to the Japanese finally surrendering. This was what I was taught and was in all of the books I'd read on the subject.
He stated that there is a new(er) theory that part of the reason they surrendered was due to the Russian advancement, which would have lead to the assassination of the Emperor or something along those lines.
Now, I have not done any further research on #2, but I know there will be conflict about it because of what it implies. But it is yet another example of "evolving history".
That all said, that is still "honest" history. Something that is completely different from the revisionist history (or whatever you want to call it) that is supposedly taught in Japan regarding the war.