Do u think that written history speaks the truth or every country writes its own twisted truth ?

Question

As examples, most people know that the Russians defeated Hitler & natzi Germany ,but American history tells a different story. America was defeated in Vietnam, but yet again we have a lie written in our history books. America lost the war in Iraq, but years from now, it will be written in our history books something else.

Answer 1

*shrugs* The winner writes history.

Answer 2

Sounds like you are rewriting history to your twisted wants... I read unbiased history sources and get more than one take. True historians have a balanced approach... The Allies defeated Hitler not just the Russians. As a matter of fact if the Allies would have let Hitler go he would have taken Russia easy. The English were holding down Africa the Nazis were pressing into Russia while the Allies pounced deep into the heart of Nazi Germany. The Russians helped clean up Germany after they were defeated. America helped mostly in the Japanese side of WW2 but did contribute to the defeat of the Nazis. It was an Allied victory! America withdrew from Vietnam. Vietnam was a conflict of resistance to communism. We never tried to win it. The war in Iraq was won and now the new Iraqi government is hitting problems that must be dealt with. Your opinion is fuzzy...

Answer 3

Why does a different opinion to you mean a lie by America, and not a different perspective?

I had a university professor who taught us that Russia won world war II, but his support for his argument was the fact that more Russians died than soldiers in other countries. By that logic, if every person in the country had been wiped out, they would have been even more instrumental for the victory, instead of mere cannon fodder.

Maybe he was just a bad Professor, but that and the fact of delay when Hitler overstretched his military resources was the best he could come up with.

It is also legitimate to say that if the US hadn't come in, the allies might have lost. That doesn't mean that Europe is going to think we 'won the war' since they fought longer and lost more and without them the war also might have been lost. From America's standpoint they would have lost more in that case, since Europe is where the battle was, and frankly, America was isolationist until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

There is room for more than one truth, and understanding all points of view is the only way to come to a real sense of the 'truth' for oneself.

Answer 4

Every country writes its own history to cushion up the bad, and glorify the good. If you'll notice, most textbooks you will read are pretty eurosentric, meaning they focus on the good parts of European countries and The U.S. I live in Italy, but I go to an American shcool. In my school there are many kids from all other the world, and they all agree that in their home countries, they do the same, to varying degrees.This is done for several reasons A) to gloryfy ones country B) So children will come to love there country (how lieng to them accomplishes the task, I dont know) and C) printing a textbeek, you need permission from the government, no ones gonna give you permission if they dont like what you wrote.

its like my teacher said "no textbook from any country is 100% accurate, if you where to combine textbooks from each country, somewhere you will find the truth"

Though, its not just lies, its how they use words with negative (or positive) conotation with out explanation. Like "______ was a genius, he was skilled at creating clever and effective plans to accomplish his task." vs "______ was a scheming man, constantly tricking and planning to get his way" They both basicaly talk about the same thing, a man who comes up with plans, but the tones are TOTALLY different

take all textbooks with a grain of salt, and as someone said above "the winner rights the history book"

Answer 5

The Mexicans lost the southwest but they also tell a different story.Without the help of the US the world might still be under Nazi rule.It was a combined effort by all free nations and you are wrong but that's never stopped you from posting before so why would it now ?You are great at distortion of facts and bastardization of truth.Do you write the Mexican text books on history?

Answer 6

I think it changes as we go along, we are doing it right now, like how the british shot at dawn soldiers for the first world war have all been pardoned - yet what right does this government have of doing that? Everyone in that war would've gone home if they could, if we didn't shoot them we would've lost the war and all the men who did fight would have had their lives wasted.
I'd love to know what future history books say about this war though!

Answer 7

Yes to a degree. A big difference is that a Democracy with [inherent free speech rights] critiques it's history over time. Oh and BTW Britain/ US are the prime reasons for Germany's downfall. Without that Second front Stalingrad would now be called bethlshgarden

Answer 8

I think that every historian write his opinion on the event that happened so the events may be true but the results that happened on it may be particular false I am not studying history but Iike to read it so much .

Answer 9

I think its better to say they done it together !! If it wasn't for American supplying Stalin with much needed arms and America intervention..Russia wold have been crushed !

Answer 10

You MUST consider the source. I gather the truth is somewhere in the middle.