I'd look at the traditional narrative surrounding WWI first. It's always said that the war started due to Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated. Dig deep. Who was he? Who killed him and why exactly? They seem like simple questions that have already been answered in every history lesson, but once you read enough you see there's much more to the story.

WWII was set up the same way. The war started due to Hitler "invading" a sovereign nation right? Then he just continued to invade countries for no good reason. What is a plebiscite? Did these "invaded" nations vote to join Hitler or to reject him? Even the orthodox history books get this one right. They just breeze right through it in every book I've seen though. What was the Haavara Transfer Agreement? Why did Hitler waste his time on this if he was hell-bent on exterminating all Jews?

The Civil War is another great example but I will spare all the details. The point is that, for all major histories, people tend to want a simple explanation that they can feel good about. For the Civil War, that explanation came in the form of freeing slaves while ignoring the other major factors that contributed to the story. For WWI, it was all about defending the Austro-Hungarian empire that tragically had their favorite son assassinated by a crazed terrorist. For WWII, it was about stopping a madman from invading the world and forcing us all to speak German. Anyone who's read enough knows that these are just feel-good explanations that make the reader feel as though they have some kind of moral authority over the past.