Don't believe the history, it's written by winners. True or not? Discuss

Don't believe the history, it's written by winners. True or not? Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/books/2006/jun/24/featuresreviews.guardianreview4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It's hard to keep records when your country gets sacked

Leftists lost the Spanish Civil War but history is more kind to them than to Franco.

It's actually written by ancient aliens.

Any examples of kindness?

I thought the Ukraine got rangebanned.
Is Russia actually evil for invading the poor defensless Crimea?

I prefer the other quote "History is a fable agreed upon". Academics write history, not war generals.

Have you read For Whom the Bell Tolls?
That's because the leftists have already conquered Australia. If you had taken history class in Franco's Spain you'd see a different picture.

It got unrangebanned.
Invaded Crimea is not the the example I am looking for.

No, I haven't.

The fact that Franco's historians straight after the civil war destroyed historical records and for almost 50 years taught the story that Franco was good Catholic man and leftists were terrorists and traitors.

Now, if you take any class on the Civil War or read any book on the topic (e.g. Anything by Antony Beevor) you will see that Franco was fascist mass murderer that destroyed Spain etc. etc.

Basically, even though they won the war, 50 years on, they no longer are portrayed as victors or good people.

Only if you gt your history books from commies. George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia wasn't particularly flattering and Antony Beevor's "The Battle for Spain" is the most balanced book I've read on that topic.

Yes and no.
Recognize that the Victors may want to demonize enemies, but they also didn't write history with nu-males as the target audience.

We wuz annunakis and shit !

Spain's pact of a peaceful silence and forgetfulness is being eroded as we speak.

The general trend is towards teaching of Franco's horror. Google the recent uncovering of mass burial sites and the conversation that modern Spanish historians are trying to force the public to have.

If you've read Beevors writings then you would know that what he rights STRONGLY contradicts the writings of Franco's historians.

They were the victors and immediately wrote the history, but decades on what they have being is being erased by new historians like Beevor and Helen Graham.

Sounds about right. The left are traitors. Too stupid to realize how far there head is up thy own asses. Maybe he saved Spain by getting rid of all the degenerate nation hating libtards.

2edgy4me

Did the right side win in the Spanish Civil War? If so why..

In The Guardian's article was written that Franco killed more people than commies. Isn't it the true reason why history is more kind to leftists than to Franco?
theguardian.com/books/2006/jun/24/featuresreviews.guardianreview4

Franco let the Germans rape and pillage his country despite being a """"nationalist""""".

Germany was the bull, Spain was Franco's wife and he let Germany ravage her, just so he could hold onto his power and his shekels.

He also refused to let Spain industrialise until the 70s, making Spaniards be the niggers of Europe for decades.

No, I hate when people parrot that line
Yes in military history the victors will sometimes skew the truth somewhat, but it's more like one group in a battle wasn't actually outnumbered as much as we are told rather than the battle never happened
Can't really expect much from a non-country though

i never truly believe anything i havent seen with my own eyes

information is easily manipulated

That's part of the reason.

Also lots of British and American historians started writing history in support of the leftists, because Spaniard army featured International Brigades (losts of Eastern Europeans, Americans, Irish and British fought for the Republican and the Communists).

But the fact remains that whilst it usually true that the victor writes the history (e.g., America) sometimes it's not always the case.

I don't know about Franco's historians, I only knew about pro-republican writers. I read Beevor's book a while ago.

As I remember it, he does a great job at remaining impartial as usual and not trying to portray one side as the good guys.

Where can I read more about this? Only in Antony Beevor's "The Battle for Spain"?

I wonder why nobody hasn't mentioned that Holocaust didn't exist.

no it's written by God

Primary Sources desu yo

As mentioned, and I agree, Beevor's book is the best. It's a long read but it gives good account to both sides.

E.g., both sides were violent and killed for fun, both sides had good and bad objectives.

Spanish civil war is really interesting because it occurred right before WWII, and although it started as a civil war between left and right, by the end it was a war between Soviets and Germany/Italy.

As Dan Carlin would say, in the end it's the only history we have

Russian Wikipedia tells that Antony Beevor is a pseudohistorian, the English one tells that he is just a military historian. What source I should believe?

It's not that much it is written by winners (because unless you genocide the enemy they will still let records) but mostly it is perceived by their lenses.

Just look at Napoléon, 200 years later he is still considered as a manlet (despite being taller than the average during his era) and a warmonger (despite having always fought on the defensive side and often tried to find a peaceful resolution through diplomacy, aside of Russia who still broke an agreement and created the casus belli).
Same goes for the french revolutionnaries, they were the worst butchers this country ever saw (WW1 aside) and still they are considered like heroes today while the royalists are seen as oppressors.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US would be considered as one of the most evil and corrupted nation that ever existed in 150 years while it was considered as a beacon of freedom and as an eldorado from the XIXth to now (even if it is less and less with the growth of the federal government).