Who writes history? (WWII, ancient, war, events)

[ESFP]

Winston Churchill said, "History is written by the victors." One of many examples: America claims 730 U.S. soldiers killed, 7 MIA at Khe Sahn during the Vietnam War in 1968. Vietnam claims 11,900 U.S. soldiers killed and captured at Khe Sahn during the American War in 1968. Can anybody explain this?

[LordBalfor]

Churchill is essentially correct.
In the example you mentioned, I tend to trust the US numbers on US losses (it would be fairly easy to determine if these number were off by too much) but not on enemy losses (way toooo many cases of "enemy killed inflation" have been documented).

Ken

[Niners fan]

History is written by the victors to the extent that history is shaped by statistics released by the victors (the government). I agree with LordBalfor in that I believe the US stats in this case.

However, each generation of historians "rewrites" a lot of history for two reasons. One is for individual historians to make a name for themselves. The second is because events are reexamined through the prism of the time. While somewhat useful, we run the danger of losing sight of the motivations and viewpoints of the players in a certain event.

[Tricky D]

History can only be written by the survivors ( you can't win or loose from destiny), but if they are reliable sources is another matter.

[Thyra]

Sometimes it is not Who writes history, but HOW...Norman Cantor, a history writer and professor, wrote a book "Inventing History" where he explains that
Writers can tend to put their own 'spin' on events, depending on their polotics,perspective, and also the era in which they write.

[Dd714]

Well in the vietnam case you have a war that was a victory for North Vietnam, and at best a draw for the U.S. So you have two histories right with each side having different interpretations of events. In that case I would tend to beleive the U.S. casualty figures as well as the U.S. accountability for it's own casualties was more controlled.

I think Churchill's proclamation is more applicable for the ancient wars of conquest where one civilization conquered the other and entirely wiped out the other or assimilated the other culture, particularly before the periods when records and written history was not well developed except by a few scholars. Now, with some exceptions, you have periods of war but with the losing country and it's culture surviving to a certain extent. So you have a case of Japan, in Japanes textbooks, denying their war crimes in China and either downplaying or skipping over the events of world war 2 like it never happened. The Japanese history of World War 2 was of a minor event, fought for national honor and to "liberate" other asian countries from the western colonial powers.

So, as much as I admire Churchill, I would say his statement no longer applies.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Dd714

So you have a case of Japan, in Japanes textbooks, denying their war crimes in China and either downplaying or skipping over the events of world war 2 like it never happened.

True, but how about American history?
I mean we can blame the Japanese from being brutish and such, but how about imprisoning American citizens just because they are oriental? To me that is even a greater sin, since there is no difference between this and the racial profiling the Nazis are guilty of.
Isn't imprisoning your American citizens as you did during WWII on the count of race not a crime against humanity?

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

True, but how about American history?
I mean we can blame the Japanese from being brutish and such, but how about imprisoning American citizens just because they are oriental? To me that is even a greater sin, since there is no difference between this and the racial profiling the Nazis are guilty of.
Isn't imprisoning your American citizens as you did during WWII on the count of race not a crime against humanity?

Sure it is - it's well publicized as a "wrong" in american history, one of those things in history we aren't proud of, it took 30 or 40 years to realize it. But it's not been hidden as part of history. Reperations being made, politician speaches on how wrong it was, and people like you and I know about it.

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by Dd714 True, but how about American history?
I mean we can blame the Japanese from being brutish and such, but how about imprisoning American citizens just because they are oriental? To me that is even a greater sin, since there is no difference between this and the racial profiling the Nazis are guilty of.
Isn't imprisoning your American citizens as you did during WWII on the count of race not a crime against humanity?

What the US did to it's Japanese-American citizens was definitely shameful and SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED, but it in no way excuses the atrocities (far more brutal) that the Japanese committed.

It's also interesting to note that (after a delay admittedly) the US fully acknowledged it was wrong to do so and US History books fully document and accept this fact.

As mentioned previously, in Japan - although they have finally admitted what they did - the history books apparently still gloss over the brutality they inflicted.

Ken

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

What the US did to it's Japanese-American citizens was definitely shameful and SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED, but it in no way excuses the atrocities (far more brutal) that the Japanese committed.

I am not making excuses for committing atrocities, but the fact is that America still uses the same tactics with their Guantanamo detention camp.
Yes, you have offered your excuse and teach in your history classes that imprisoning American orientals on the basis of their race is a grievous mistake, yet to me Guantanamo is proof that you do not learn from your mistakes in history.