This is a really interesting, overdue piece which makes many good points. It is somewhat flawed though.

1. All countries have national stories; very, very few are ruthlessly honest with themselves about their pasts. https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1354468536404619266

Japan and Italy, for example, absolutely are not. The Japanese still refuse to unreservedly apologise for what their leaders did in China and Korea during the war; and just watch camera-happy Japanese tourists hurriedly walk past exhibits about their country's role in the war.

The US' egregious failure to be remotely honest with itself about its hideous past is at the very roots of its ongoing, alarming conflict right now. Spain never fully cleansed itself of Francoism: VOX' rise is all part of that.

Argentina rants about 'colonialism' while being one of the most colonial places on Earth. Australia has never made remotely proper amends for how it treated - and continues to treat - its indigenous peoples.

Even where I am, a pretty enlightened place overall, Fructuoso Rivera, Uruguay's first President, is STILL celebrated by many despite slaughtering all remaining indigenous peoples; and some on the right hark back to the fascist dictatorship and blame everything on the Tupamaros.

Why does the United States' 'national story' begin in 1776? Why doesn't it begin when indigenous peoples first settled there - or as an absolute bare minimum, in 1620?

The answer is because history is always written by the winners. Very often: the killers.

But more benignly, it's also because almost everyone relates their own lives to stories: to meaning-making. And almost everyone *wants* to believe good things about their country - or at least, a story which makes it out to have been on the side of righteousness.

There's also something akin to victimology to consider here too. Very much part of Aaron's story are the unspeakable things the UK and US did to Iran in 1953 - but that's to act as though history somehow stopped right there. It didn't.

It didn't in Vietnam, which rebuilt itself after US atrocities there. It didn't in Korea, it didn't in Japan: nuked twice, for heaven's sake. It didn't in South America either.

National stories, in other words, are always more complicated than many like to act.

But broad, sweeping narratives are also normal. Very much part of human nature, and of nationhood, and of patriotism itself.

The one country in the world which has been extraordinarily, ruthlessly, brutally honest with itself is Germany. I'd even argue: maybe too much so.

In the 2000s, I met loads of young, very liberal, very chilled out German students in the UK: with no sense of roots in their country of birth at all. Which was inevitable: because they'd been educated from birth onwards that their country was evil. Patriotism was evil.

So naturally, they put down roots elsewhere, and Germany even suffered something of a brain drain. Plus, if you keep berating your people about something they weren't responsible for eight decades ago, you'll eventually get a backlash. Hence the rise of AfD.

So I think Aaron's wrong to argue that Britain's somehow unique in its mythology - above all because myths are in the eye of the beholder.

There's no real 'truth' in most national stories; only the massively, wildly differing perspectives of those who lived through them.

But that's not to say that Britain doesn't have its share of myths. It does, and then some. In my case, it took me moving thousands of miles away to see the UK for what it is: so much of what it 'stands for' is complete bullshit, but its soft power is absolutely extraordinary.

Language, culture, sport, movies, music and history have all combined to convince unbelievable numbers of people around the world that Britain is some beacon of liberty, light, hope and stability.

The much, much messier reality is overlooked, constantly.

2. Aaron's recapitulation of Britain's role in the war is also rather questionable.

- Dunkirk isn't celebrated because of 'victory'. Nobody thinks that! It's celebrated because we avoided disaster. More by luck than judgement; we muddled our way through.

Ever noticed how often England football managers would describe penalties as a 'lottery' after losing yet again to Johnny Foreigner? How some of those teams would be celebrated, even glorified?

Again: avoidance of defeat (in open play I mean).

And besides: weren't penalties some evil ruse designed to benefit the Germans anyway? Shouldn't the teams just have played on til someone scored a winning goal?

(Note: these aren't MY views. This is the stuff pundits and columnists have come out with over the years).

But beyond Dunkirk: while yes, the US was helping us economically throughout, Aaron's skipped this massive period between Summer 1940 and Summer 1941. Britain hanging on made one huge difference: Hitler invaded the USSR to force us to sue for peace.

The Soviets were our last hope, our last 'continental sword'. When the Nazis invaded, it was commonly assumed they'd destroy the Red Army very fast; even Churchill expected as much.

But when that didn't happen, suddenly Hitler was trapped in a two-front war. And doomed.

It is absolutely true that the role of forces from so many other countries who came to Britain's aid should be celebrated and commemorated vastly more than it is. It's a disgrace that it isn't.

But Britain's role in defeating Nazi Germany wasn't negligible. It was significant.

And that it was the only country on Earth to be involved in BOTH world wars from the beginning and win both is significant too. Of course that's going to play a major part in our sense of ourselves; it's just that's helped contribute to extreme post-imperial hubris now.

Ernie Bevin's comments which Aaron cites? On the one hand, it's bloody hilarious we still thought we were so vital given we were literally bankrupt.

But on the other: which European country played by far the biggest role in creating the Western Alliance? Britain.

The Attlee government's desperate pleas to Washington were hugely important in persuading it to provide Marshall Aid and set up NATO. That government featured great, brilliant ministers: Bevin was the greatest Foreign Secretary of all time in my view.

And Isle of Man be damned - I'd argue that yes, Britain's *is* the Mother of Parliaments.

What we absolutely aren't is the Mother of Democracy. And our parliamentary and political systems are fit for the nineteenth century, not the twenty-first.

We need a written constitution.
We need a fully updated, pluralist Bill of Rights.
We need electoral reform and proportional representation.
We need federalism.
And we need a fully elected second chamber.

And with electoral reform and proportional representation, our two ridiculous dinosaur parties - held together for purely negative reasons, not positive ones - would collapse more or less instantly. Resulting in actual choice and genuinely representative politics.

My conclusion? Narratives are ALWAYS biased and ALWAYS flawed. Britain's is, Aaron's is, mine is, all nations and all peoples' are.

Which is why history itself is never fully resolved. There's always debate, argument, revision... and so many differing angles and perspectives.