It is the Victors that write history...

I've heard this phrase mentioned here more than once.
It alludes to the fact that since the Allies won the Second World War, they wrote the history of that conflict to suit and flatter themselves.

Do most people agree that history for the most-part has been written in a manner that accurately reflects the events that took place?

Would you have expected an honest appraisal had the Germans, Japanese or Russians been tasked to record this period of history for the masses?

Thoughts?

Tim

 

This is very true, however it has become increasingly common / popular to take a more balanced view of what actually happened*. Max Hastings, for example, wrote his series of books on WW2 because he was so fed up of the 'the Western Allies were military geniuses that never failed' line of history that was pushed after WW2 that he wanted to show that actually the Allies did a lot of things wrong. Of course, he was immediately branded a 'Germanist' (and still is) :roll: .

*This is true of all areas. Few things that are 'known' in history have escaped a more critical look nowadays.


As to 'what would history look like if Germany or Japan written it - take a look at the row over the current generation of Japanese history textbooks! They lost the war and are still refusing to admit that half of what happened did in fact happen.

 

Generally, a lot of distance in time helps somewhat to gain some perspective though one is still left with the dilemma that the published sources that you draw upon to form your historical hypothesis are going to be more numerous from the winning side.
Revisionist history is often worse than the flawed history it replaces since it often lacks any semblance of objectivity but was motivated by an agenda i.e. to completely disprove the earlier version.
As long as humans have the ability to think subjectively, to discriminate and possess empathy for those with shared cultural values or ethnicity then history will be skewed.
It's a human thing.

 

Actually the Germans did get to write a lot of the early histories of WWII. Their many memoirs and campaign studies helped start the myth of German invincibility and the Hitler stab in the back theory. As in: "Germany had the best doctrine, tactics, weapons, soldiers, etc. and would have won except for that dumkopf Hitler".

 

too soon

its still too soon for anybody to write an unbiased history of WWII. there is a truism that good history takes 100 years. after that long most of the axe grinders have died and historians can reduce the masses of raw material to a fairly good idea of what really happened. we have better more unbiased work on the US civil that we do WWII for just that reason.

 

But then you face the problem of source material...

The Norman Conquest happened almost 1,000 years ago, but you will not find an unbiased account of it (not even the one I wrote! )

 

the normans were a bunch of raciest ,intolerant , homophobic wifebeaters and they were all white men too ,therefore all that is written of the norman conquest must be disconstructed with extreme prejudice...also they did not bathe very much ,didnt brush their teeth ,had realy goofy haircuts and were overly fond of red meat and drink...

 

really, can you proove al this?

Okay, about those vikingraids over Europe. Euhm, we belgians started those. Here's the proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgC-dciWs8Y

 

So, I can point out a whole lot of people right now that statement applies to. What's yer point?? :smok:

 

That "bias" can be baised? The Normans were very non-PC by today's standards, but quite reperesentative of their time. We tend to look at their accounts through the filter of our times, which makes the Normans look like bad guys.

 

Although the Normans were very different to the Anglo-Saxons, who were comparatively very cultured, and whose women had freedoms that were not regained in Britain until the 1960s/70s. Mind you, they did have a fondness for big mustaches.

 

Those woman had big mustaches :-?

 

Nothing wrong with a little 'stache. Church girls have them as well.

 

In the United States today, in the Southern states (the Carolina's, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana) alot of the people still resent Yankees :evil: (Northerners) for losing the US Civil War (called The War of Northern Aggression in the South)and their treatment of the Southern states during and after the reconstruction. Any Civil War literature or history book that is written by a Yankee writer is heavily biased against the South. But this will also go both ways, although the books about the war that come out of the South are never read by the mainstream public because they already believe the Yankee bias because they wrote the history books. And because the North continues to this day to slam the South about the war, we still hate the "Damnyankees".

 

When I went to Virginia, I was really quite surprised by the sheer number of Confederate flags, and the amount of stuff that had 'The South will rise again' plastered all over it.

 

A book on WW1 call Mud, Blood and Poppycock had a side note on bias and how it effects to history.

When exactly this took place the book didn't make clear but certainly post WW2. Sandherst miltary college found itself with an American on the pay roll, so they decided he'd be just the person to teach the American Civil War. A little while later they noticed the ACW was being taught as the Northern War of Agression.

 

Ricky:
Each state personalizes their auto license plates.
South Carolinas' uses the following message...
"Remember the Civil War? We didn't actually surrender."

Just kidding of course.
I'm just a Yankee from Southern Indiana.

Tim

 

Let's face it, even today ww1 is portrayed as good guys (antante) beating bad guys (Germans, us the A-O, Turks and Bulgarians). But if we won ww1, there would not be a ww2 and mid east would not be such a problem right now. Bloody Italians, Brits, French, Russians, Japanese, Sebs and Montenegrins etc. Not US as they came when it was practicaly over

 

Yeah TISO.
And if that crazy "Young Bosnia" lad hadn't assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in Sarajevo in 1914...
maybe no WW1. It was all about mutual protection pacts, remember?

Tim

 

The American War of Independence is perhaps one of the best examples - what was essentially a revolt over taxes is now hailed as a struggle of the free democratic Colonists against the tyrannical British.

The Dutch Revolt, also known as the Eighty Years' War, is basically the same thing. The whole conflict broke out simply because the Spanish king did not respect the archaic self-ruling rights of Dutch cities and dared to levy a 10% income tax. 10%! We're free and independent now and we're paying 35%... Nevertheless, the Dutch Revolt is still regarded as the righteous casting off of the Spanish yoke by the protestant Dutch.