Do the winners write the History books?

[Dan]

This might be a little bit politics oriented, but I want to put it as more of a general idea. I was just thinking about the communism thread and have been wondering how it's convenient that the sides that lost WWII, Germany and Axis just so happened to be the evil side as well. Or look at the Cold War, Russia loses that, and hey they too were evil and corrupt. The Civil War, Southerners were trying to enslave people. Does good always win or are the winners always good?

How would our perceptions be different if it were otherwise? I mean sure, the Nazis commited atrocoties, but think of the Romans, they set out to conquer the world and pretty much killed every nation that stood in their way. They enslaved thousands if not millions from foreign civilizations, they regarded their own race to be superior to all others. They didn't actively persecute one race or group like the Nazis, but they generally thought of most of the European "barbarians" as being almost animals. They became ruled by a dictatorship. And still most would regard Rome as one of the greatest civilizations in history. But the Nazis were evil. Or were the Romans evil?

The atomic bombings, 80 000 people killed instantly in Hiroshima, all in order to end the war quickly. But before any talks, another 40 000 killed in Nagasaki, just to make the point stick. Hundreds of thousands died later of sickness. But it was the right choice, not the same as horrible Luftwaffe or V2 bombings of London. Dresden too was just fair retaliation. The winners were the good guys.

 

[ailevation]

Right or Wrong? What's REALLY right and what's really wrong?

 

[kirovman]

Do the winners write the History books?

I think so. We also get so many movies where the 'good guys' win.

But in truthfulness, there usually isn't a good side in war. World War 1 for example, a war between colonial powers, all equally as bad as each other.

World War 2 was a bit different though, Hitler was genuinely mad, evil and genocidal.

I think the Romans did use a lot of cruel ways, but at the time, everyone took that as the norm.

But good and bad is all relative, and it's not black and white.

 

[ComradeBadger]

The winners write the contemporary History. Revisionist and counter-revisionist History can be written by anyone, and is generally more useful

A good example of this is A J P Taylor's The Origins Of The Second World War




In reaction to what kirov said... be wary of anachronistic tendancies - judge the past and the people of the past in context, and on their own terms.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Russia = evil.
America = evil.
Britain = evil, at least in the empire days
Rome = evil.

Hell thinking about it, has there ever been a single large, powerful empire that's not evil? Maybe empires are inherently nasty.

 

[kirovman]

Russia = evil.
America = evil.
Britain = evil, at least in the empire days
Rome = evil.

Hell thinking about it, has there ever been a single large, powerful empire that's not evil? Maybe empires are inherently nasty.

You have to be evil aggressive and assertive to be powerful.

That's why the buddists don't lead the world.

 

[15357]

Right or Wrong? What's REALLY right and what's really wrong?

Wrong = liberals

Right = Nationalism

 

[Absinthe]

Wrong = liberals

Right = Nationalism

Puh-leeze.

 

[kirovman]

Numbers, Albert Einstein said something about Nationalism being the plague of mankind.

 

[15357]

Numbers, Albert Einstein said something about Nationalism being the plague of mankind.

He was wrong.

Whats bad about xenophobic nationalism?

 

[kirovman]

He was wrong.

Whats bad about xenophobic nationalism?

You breed racism, suspicion of foreigners and some kind of false ideas that your country is unbreakable in the face of the enemy. Good for military morale, but I find it foolish for normal civilian living in most cases. And for what, I ask? So Big Brother can advance his war machine?

 

[15357]

Nooo, for the continued prosperity of the fatherland.

 

[kirovman]

Nooo, for the continued prosperity of the fatherland.

What about the prosperity of the individuals living there?

 

[15357]

Them as well?

 

[Absinthe]

Xenophobic nationalism is a good thing? How so? You can make vague statements about prosperity if you like, but they amount to nothing without actual explanation.

 

[kirovman]

Does it take Nationalism to achieve that prosperity though?

Oops, I think it's going a bit OT TBH. :O

 

[15357]

Xenophobic nationalism is a good thing? How so? You can make vague statements about prosperity if you like, but they amount to nothing without actual explanation.

not xenophobic, but just nationalism. We work harder as one, for one.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Lies all lies.

 

[kirovman]

not xenophobic, but just nationalism. We work harder as one, for one.

That's what you were indoctrinated to believe! :O

 

[Jintor]

Yes. The winners write the history books. All history text-books within China are full of stuff praising the communist party, oh they saved us from years of warfare, blah blah blah, and then the Nine Commentries are never mentioned, the Party thinks for you, there was never any massacre, so on, so forth.

The Communist China Party is a very, very apt example.

 

[Que-Ever]

what? no, only losers write history books =(
the winners are out doing something victorius.

 

[The Monkey]

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.

-Sir Winston Churchill​

 

[Top Secret]

Haha. 8th grade history year. We walk into our History class, sit down. Teacher says "Did you all bring your text books?" half the people kind of give an unenthuesed "Yeah." and then he says "Don't bring them. They're useless and full of lies. Losers don't write history books. Only winners."

 

[Mr-Fusion]

We work harder as one, for one.

We're all humans. Nationalism is just more primitive thinking imo that accomplishes nothing for the good of humanity and just creates further pointless division. Of course you've probably been brainwashed with the "Race x is better than race Y for reasons abc" so it'll be hard to break the mould you've been cast from.

Like religion, i would expect nationalism to become extinct in the coming centuries as world education standards improve, if we can last that long of course.

 

[OvA]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything said in this thread.

 

[xcellerate]

yes, this is why france doesn't have history books.

 

[Que-Ever]

Haha. 8th grade history year. We walk into our History class, sit down. Teacher says "Did you all bring your text books?" half the people kind of give an unenthuesed "Yeah." and then he says "Don't bring them. They're useless and full of lies. Losers don't write history books. Only winners."

my eighth grade history teacher was also the woodshop teacher 8(

 

[ríomhaire]

Yes they do. If the allies lost World War 2 then Hiroshima would be thought of to be the worst war-crime ever to most people.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Yes they do. If the allies lost World War 2 then Hiroshima would be thought of to be the worst war-crime ever to most people.

Actually, Dresden probably would've.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

In a random aside, in HL2, if the Combine had managed to brainwash Humanity, then they'd be completely praised as saviours for saving us from our barbaric ways, and restoring unity to the planet.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Top Secret]

Yes they do. If the allies lost World War 2 then Hiroshima would be thought of to be the worst war-crime ever to most people.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives.

 

[bvasgm]

If we hadn't bombed them we would have invaded them. Millions of Japanese and American soldiers would have died. Using the Atomic bomb was the lesser of two evils.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

He was wrong.

Whats bad about xenophobic nationalism?

xenophobia is wrong.

But in essence an enemy is really needed all the time. This does not mean it has to be human. I think the Italian fascists (before the alliance with Nazism and racism came to take over there) accomplished that superbly. During peace time and peace within politics in the country, the mosquito became the enemy. It was causing mass disease problems in the swampy regions and such. It became a national cause to defeat the problem and through draining swamps, using methods that deter breeding, etc, they actually stopped the problem. So (if accomplished right, it's dangerous) it can lead to prosperity.

If we hadn't bombed them we would have invaded them. Millions of Japanese and American soldiers would have died. Using the Atomic bomb was the lesser of two evils.

People also don't realize that even if we just bombed them constantly instead of invading that firebombing would have killed more people.

Firebombing caused more destruction and death for each city it happened to than either of the A-Bombs. It's just that it's considered non conventional that people freak out. It's apparantly better to kill twice as many people via 'normal' means than to kill half as many through a 'weird weapon'

 

[DeusExMachina]

Y axis ftw.

 

[Sulkdodds]

On Hiroshima: it also arguably contributed to the Cold War being as Cold as it was. Without Hiroshima as an example of how nasty nuclear weapons could be, either Russia or America might have ended up actually using them.

 

[ríomhaire]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives.

It was a direct attack on civilians, that's the very defenition of a war crime.

 

[Sulkdodds]

As I recall, Hiroshima and Nagisaki were both very important to the war effort, with arms factories and military bases with a lot of army personell.

 

[Beerdude26]

It was a direct attack on civilians, that's the very defenition of a war crime.

That happens in every war. Some war has more than the other, though *looks at Iraq war*

 

[bvasgm]

It was a direct attack on civilians, that's the very defenition of a war crime.

Killing hundreds of thousands to save millions isn't a crime.

 

[Beerdude26]

Killing hundreds of thousands to save millions isn't a crime.

It is, but not in war