We have to seek the historical truth in the middle and to take into consideration the historical moment as well as who documented it.
War is a tragedy. And the losers in a war having been destroyed and devastated are left at the will and mercy of the winners. We are led to believe that winners are those who direct the course of history and they are to decide what will be written in the textbooks. In this essay I will investigate and show that indeed winners respectively those in power write the history, providing substantial examples.
The history is as true as the victors say it is. Beresford (2003) claims that there is much evidence to justify that indeed, winner write the history. He narrates about a recent discovery that he made about submarine warfare during the World War II. Bereford (2003) never doubted it that German submarines were torpedoed. However when the archives were opened few decades later, the myth clashed, as apparently it was only one such recorded submarine attack. Is this fair This rhetorical question pervades generations of historians and scholars. My opinion is that it is not fair for history to be written by the winners, but the facts show something else.
Bereford (2003) cited Jean-Luc Picard who famously said that the victors invariably write the history to their own advantage. In his article Wollman (2003) asks why we are flooded with terrible cases of war crimes committed by the Iraqis, however none such occasions are shown for the U.S violations. He quotes that according to the A.U.N. resolution it is forbidden to use uranium shells because it is declared as a weapon for mass destruction. Nevertheless, U.S. military has regularly used it, which will cause deadly diseases in the civilians and which doctors started to document recently. The mistakes of the victors have to be hidden. New, displaying revelations are not allowed, because they are painfully reminding of the past mistakes. It is a common trait for the winners to want to forget their faults. That is why the history is written only with the version that today's winners provide. The version of the losers will be heard and revised at least half a century later.
When studying history, people have to be careful with the sources they use. They have to consider that we never hear the losers and if we did, we have to weigh their story as well. The most dangerous pitfall that we can fall into is to believe that every source of misleading just because we are slaves to the clich - history written by the winners. This might lead us to suspect the authenticity of every document, since surely if it is written, the winners did it. We can never to able to solve this historical dilemma, and the likelihood to trust the winners is greater than vice versa. I believe that the majority of historical evidence is based on true facts, which are not constantly manipulated by those who take power.
(2) How does this fact shape the portrayal of societies unlucky enough to lose a pivotal confrontation
Not only do the winners write the history, but for the sake of history at least what is left for the losers is the chance to revise it. I know that the Vatican, for example, is absolutely strict about the historical facts and does not allow for the archives to be opened if a century has not passed since the event. The