Most works of fiction borrow from historical events. Therefore, for anyone to understand a particular work of literature, he/she has to be familiar with its historical context. “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” is a novel set in Czechoslovak. This means that it would help the reader if he/she has an understanding of Czechoslovak’s history. Milan Kundera the author of this book disagrees with this notion. The author maintains that the events that transpire in his novel do not necessarily reflect the history of Czechoslovak. Even if this was the case, there is still an undeniable relationship between history and fiction in “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”. This paper will explore this relationship in a detailed manner. Kundera, the author of “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” has previously dismissed the notion that all history can be explained rationally. The author had lived through the dictatorship of the Soviet Union. In his opinion, the absurdities and cruelties he encountered when this regime came to force, could not be explained rationally. For instance, he questioned the drive behind Russia’s bid for world domination. His argument was that there were no prior events or circumstances that could help explain the rationale behind Russia’s actions. The author believes history is basically made of existential situations. Following the author’s way of thinking, there is a way to describe Soviet Czechoslovak existentially. It can be defined by its location, political situation, historical background, communist influence, and culture. Therefore, the circumstances faced by most of the characters in “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” coincide with the above definitions. For instance, submission to Soviet authority, flight from political intolerance, and self-exile are all circumstances that can be easily related to Czechoslovak’s history. In his book, Kundera notes that incase the French Revolution was to happen again, Robespierre’s contribution would be compromised. This is because the circumstances surrounding this revolution have been belittled by authors and historians. Kundera quips that “years of revolution have turned into mere words, theories, and discussions…frightening no one” (Kundera 4). The author is wrong by making this assumption. Robespierre is not dead and gone. The only thing Robespierre has done is to assume different forms. To some he is a hero and yet to others he is a frightening villain who goes around cutting off people’s heads. Whenever a historical turmoil is over, the people who come after it has happened can only approach it from a historical perspective. The same is true of the Czechoslovak in “The Unbearable Lightness”. The author had a firsthand experience with the situation when it happened. Therefore, his “fiction” cannot be likened to that of a today’s author on the same subject. This is probably why Kundera felt that literature and history could not be compatible. For instance, the author feels that literature either overstates or understates history. His claim that Robespierre is two different entities is understandable. The Robespierre who “occurs only once in history” is very hard to locate (Kundera 4). However, many other variations of the cha