"History is written by the victors"

[Agadanik]

David Thompson wrote:

"The victors write the history" is false. There's plenty of material available that wasn't written by "the victors."

Hi David

Sorry to come back to my intial point regarding this question. Isn't this just a timeframe issue, certainly for the published media?

Andy H

There is more to it, Andy. It depends on where you sit. In non-democracies, the victors certainly do. If you lived in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s, you would only learn that the 1968 Warsaw Pact intervention was "brotherly assistance". If you lived in Poland before 1989, the Katyn massacre would be always be the work of the Germans. David looks at it from an American point of view, where access to information is unrestricted - but there are still plenty of places in the world where that is not the case.

Yes, Internet is changing all that. But how many Belorussians belong to this esteemed Forum?

[Andy H]

Agadanik

I agree that your physical geographical posistion will "taint" my viewpoint.

Also market forces dictate. Vietnam for example. Though I'm sure Vietnam published books on the war, there distribution would have been limited. Whereas the US-being the defeated-published '000's of books on the subject, but there version. At least until Vietnamese sources were accessed for cross-referencing.

Andy H

[Agadanik]

Also market forces dictate. Vietnam for example. Though I'm sure Vietnam published books on the war, their distribution would have been limited. Whereas the US-being the defeated-published '000's of books on the subject, but their version. At least until Vietnamese sources were accessed for cross-referencing.

Andy H

Vietnam is a good example. However, I rather think it's political forces, not market. Market forces are expansionary, whereby political forces in non-democracies are, by definition, restrictive. That's why market forces in a democracy allow us to read David Irving at will, while the Vietnamese cannot read any of the American books you mention.

[Andy H]

while the Vietnamese cannot read any of the American books you mention

Agreed again, but they are allowed to read there versions and thus prove in there limited access that the 'Victor does write the History'

Andy H

[ritterkreuz1945]

Of course it is written by the victors, how else would you have had Nurnberg, with out talking about Katyan, or Dresden?
To think otherwise, is just being a little naive, or possible silly.

The above is naive and silly. Nuremberg was not an excersise is history-writing.

Well, Did they EVER bring the Soviets officiers in and try them in the court at Nurnberg?

And why should they have done that? It was a trial against Nazis, not Communists.

No Sir,
I think you are wronge. It was supposed to have been a trail of war crimes against humanity. If the US, Or USSR were guility..they too should have been there. And since they weren't. It holds very very little validity with me. THE VICTORS made both the rules, and wrote the history.

Sgt. Michael Gray

[ritterkreuz1945]

"The victors write the history?" #

Initially and broadly yes, without a doubt. For the victors have the upper hand in access and control to relevant information.
However this advantage decreases over time and a more balanced view emerges.

What we have seen through history, is that this transistion is becoming shorter and shorter, as technology keeps evolving and society demands answers (even before a question is complete in some cases) and reasons for courses of action.

Andy H

GOD,
You could not have said it any better Sir,
I agree wholeheartedly. With time, the victors control of how they want to be seen is dilutted, and the truth is know. 50years is what most people hold a godd litmiss test.

Sgt. Michael Gray

[David Thompson]

Andy H -- You remarked:

Isn't this just a timeframe issue, certainly for the published media?

I think that the timeframe issue establishes that the maxim is false. The sweeping grandeur of the claim "The victors write the history" becomes ridiculous when accompanied by the priviso "for a short period after the end of the war, at least." That truthful addition completely undermines the gratuitously self-pitying or cynical purpose of the observation.

[Andy H]

I think that the timeframe issue establishes that the maxim is false. The sweeping grandeur of the claim "The victors write the history" becomes ridiculous when accompanied by the priviso "for a short period after the end of the war, at least." That truthful addition completely undercuts the gratuitously self-pitying purpose of the observation.

Hi David

Well that's surely the reality. Those that believe this maxim are only concerned with a short-term reality then. They need to quantify or clarify exactly what boundaries exist within the statement.

Immeadiately after WW2, most books were written and sold by and to the Victors, as those that were defeated had better things to be doing or spending there money on. As these countries reclaimed there posistion within the world, they had the means to challenge the percieved facts as written earlier and open the debate up to a growing and more information driven society.

Andy H

[David Thompson]

When I was growing up, the only English language books on fighting on the Eastern front in WWII were those written from the German point of view, since the Soviet documents were either secret or untranslated. Here are just a few of a large number of examples from the early 1950s.

Night Combat
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=55411
Terrain Factors in the Russian Campaign
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=55016
The German Campaign in Poland (1939)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54998
Operations of Encircled Forces: German Experiences in Russia
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52398
German Defense Tactics Against Russian Break-Throughs
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53017
Combat in Russian Forests and Swamps
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52239
Warfare in the Far North
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=52117
German Antiguerrilla Operations in the Balkans (1941-1944)
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/a ... BALKAN.HTM
The German Campaigns in the Balkans
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/balkan/intro.htm
Airborne Operations: A German Appraisal
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/104-13/104-13.htm
Rear Area Security in Russia: The Soviet Second Front Behind the German Lines
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/20240/20-240c.htm

[Andy H]

Yep me too, most were published from the mid-50's onwards. At that time Germany was being re-intergrated into active European defence, Russia was the new bogeyman.

A lot of these books were semi-memoirs written about events that didn't matter a single jot to those popn's of the Western Allied powers. As you say since nothing was coming from the Soviet Union to counter the claims this was taken as almost gospel-Germany being our new friend.

Andy H

[CoffeeCake]

I think the statement "History is written by the victors" is very much true. For me, the most recent thing that comes to mind is the Balkan Wars. Franjo Tudjman was never indicted before he died in 1999, but Slobodan Milosevic was. After Operation Storm was completed in 1995, there are reports of Croat Army soldiers forcing, sometimes raping and killing if not complying, Serb people out of their homes. I'm not condoning what the Serbs did to people, but justice is not equally served, especially if you are the winning side.

[David Thompson]

CoffeeCake -- You said:

Franjo Tudjman was never indicted before he died in 1999, but Slobodan Milosevic was. After Operation Storm was completed in 1995, there are reports of Croat Army soldiers forcing, sometimes raping and killing if not complying, Serb people out of their homes. I'm not condoning what the Serbs did to people, but justice is not equally served, especially if you are the winning side.

(1) Croatians accused of committing war crimes during "Operation Storm" have been indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY). See http://www.un.org/icty/cases/indictindex-e.htm

(2) What is the evidence which shows that Franjo Tudjman commanded or ratified the war crimes committed during or after "Operation Storm" and should have also been indicted?

(3) Under these circumstances, how does your observation show that "The victors write the history"?

[Jon G.]

I don't think the truism that 'the victors write the history' has any universal value. Nor do I think, with respect, that mentioning war crimes cases against 'victors' does much to falsify this quote.

'The victors write the history' has no value in making judgment on a work of history because...

1) It can only have meaning in contemporary history. If I were to produce a work on, say, the Second Punic War, would I not be free to chose whether my sympathy would be with Carthage or with Rome?

2) It can only have meaning to political/military history and other conflicts where a clear winner and a clear loser can be determined - colloqually also referred to as Dead White Men. If I were to produce a work on, say, the Black death of 1347-1350 and its causes and effects, how would you determine if I were on the 'winning side' or on the 'losing side'?

3) Minority history (which you could call 'loser history' with an un-PC term) remains a popular subject in universities today.

In this particular part of the forum, 'the victors write the history' smacks heavily of the last ditch argument of the Holocaust denier. In a broader context, the term is meaningless.

[Graywolf]

Graywolf wrote:

Since many of David Irving's books are available for free download from his internet website at:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/index.html

how does the Irving bookstore example establish the truth of the proposition that "the victors write the history?"

The fact that he has been marginalized from mainstream history and has to publish his books on the Net for free in order to reach an audience?

Lots of material is available on the internet for free in order to reach an audience. The fact that Irving has both an audience and a venue shows that the maxim "The victors write the history" is false. There's plenty of material available that wasn't written by "the victors."

Aha, OK, but don't you think that to most of us "history" here means *mainstream* history, the stuff you see on TV and read in school.

[Graywolf]

Irving enjoyed brisk sales for writing "Hitler's War", and he's an admitted admirer of the man. He continued to be well respected for almost 20 years, in fact.
The point is when he was proved to be a liar, book stores and publishing houses could no longer in good faith continue to be associated with him.
So, it has nothing to do with the "losing" side.

Funny, all I can recall is slurs like "Nazi apologist", "racist", and "anti semite" (odd, to say the least, considering the fact that Irving is a Jew himself) and the *truth is no defense* verdict, but I can have missed something I suppose.

Well, Irving is a racist, so that's no slur.
He is a "Nazi apologist", in the sense that he's tried for many years to repair senior Nazi's reputations.

Irving isn't Jewish; that's a rumour started by "fellow revisionists" that had no basis in fact. I think it's called publicity nowadays.

And, since Irving initiated a libel suit, he wasn't on the defence, but on the offense. And since he lost by a defence of truth, and one of the slanders was that he lied, it has been proven in court he's a liar.

If you're interested, look at "Lying about Hitler" by Richard Evans.

Irving admitted a long time ago to having a Jewish mother.

He didn't lose his libel suit because he was wrong, but because the court ruled that he fit the description of a "racist", a "Nazi apologist" (slur invented by Lipstadt), and an "anti Semite".

If you're interested, read the verdict.