It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

History is written by the victors.

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
With this same statement, the following can also be added, "The first casualty of war, is the truth".

Herman Goering, also said the following: "'The victor will always be the judge and the vanquished the accused'.

Throughout our history, as we know it, it would appear that he history is always recorded by the winner, by the conqueror or by the survivor. It stands to reason therefore, that our "history" is indeed jaded, and merely the recordings of a biased point of view that might indeed not be the truth, but rather the recollections of whomever it is that is recording the history.

This is why history is more a matter of interpretation, and not factual memorization and regurgitation. For example, all the historical accounts of The Huns, are written by the Romans, so we only get their point of view, their "history" as they recorded it. Yet, it is not really factual, from an objective point of view. If we look at more modern history, lets say WW2, you will see that until recently, Japanese text books made scarce mention of Pearl Harbour, yet discussed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in depth. Similarily, U.S textbooks made bare mention of the suffering in those cities, while the horrors of Pearl Harbour is discussed in depth.

One only has to look at the Vietnam War, to realize that some goverments, does indeed record documents in a deliberate untruthful manner. Sometimes it is to comfort the citizens, other times it is to foster the look of power for the ruling regime.

The bottom line is that actual absolute factual truth is beyond reach. The Dutch historian Johan Huizinga once said that the historian is a wrestler with the angel of death. Historians will continue to wrestle with that angel, in hopes of getting nearer the truth. In the final analysis, all one can do is interpret and analyze.

That is why it is so important for us, to analyze to be objective and to look for the truth. History as we know it, is not the truth, it is a mere collection of tales, written by those in power, to influence future generations with whatever they want us to believe.

History is nothing more than a fable, that was agreed upon. I urge all to not just take history for what is written on the net or in a book, dig a bit deeper, get both sides of the story, use your skills of interpretation and your analytical mindset to deduct, what is indeed the true history, the real history, the unbiased history. Learn from that, and take it to heart, that sometimes the truth is hidden deep, not the fairytale that is written in "history" books.

His story. The answer is in the name. "His-story" told by the victor.

vvv
edit on 5-4-2012 by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2012 by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-4-2012 by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


obvious statement is obvious

like how taliban members in Afghanistan are "terrorist" even though if the US was invaded and our rebels fought the oppressors we would be "freedom fighters"



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


My middle name is Victor and I must say that I have never lost anything except time and brain matter....and maybe a few patients



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


If the recording of history is predictably wrong.
Then could we not account for the errors to get a clearer picture of what happened (assuming that the accounts are even true in the most basic sense)
For example, was the battle of troy really about trade relations.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnorantSpecies
 


Indeed, sometimes, these "errors" as you put it, is where the truth is buried. In most cases, history is a one sided affair, so what we read, is what we tend to believe about what happenned, for example at Troy. To understand what the real history is, all bases needs to be covered, all records obtained, then analyzed and a conclusion needs to be reached, taking into account all the information.

However, that is not always possible, since not all that data is always obtainable. Just don't take everything written down about our history at face value.

vvv



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by IgnorantSpecies
 


Indeed, sometimes, these "errors" as you put it, is where the truth is buried. In most cases, history is a one sided affair, so what we read, is what we tend to believe about what happenned, for example at Troy. To understand what the real history is, all bases needs to be covered, all records obtained, then analyzed and a conclusion needs to be reached, taking into account all the information.

However, that is not always possible, since not all that data is always obtainable. Just don't take everything written down about our history at face value.

vvv
Sorry, my example was very poor.
But obviously you knew what I meant.

Yes one of the things a lot of winning sides do is destroy the losers culture, records etc..

I don't believe everything that is written down, I don't trust humans enough.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
The thing that annoys me is the way the rebels/resistance of the second world war would be called insurgents now, certainly makes them sound like the bad guys. (admittedly, if the resistance is killing our troops they are the bad guys but you know what I mean.)
edit on 5-4-2012 by moonrunner because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by moonrunner
 


Exactly mate, exactly.

It is sad to see history twisted to fit the agenda of those in power.

The is, there always seem the need for a "good guy" and a "bad guy". Whichever one wins, is the one that gets to record how it happened, and that is what generations later will see, no matter how biased, or wrong it is.

vvv



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Except the bible where it records that the Hebrews failed and failed and failed again. Still within all that failure they overcame but have never won a victory.
The bible love it or hate it, still one of the greatest history books ever.

Isnt God amazing



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


My grandfather,who fought in WW2,used to tell me:"don't trust the teachers,for they will teach you lies.If you want to learn the truth search for yourself."He was referring to history,after he saw what the history school books were teaching us about WW2.He was there fighting and most of the things he read in that schoolbook were like reading science fiction.

I study military history(especially the second war era) and i have come to understand that the truth is always somewhere in the middle.Of course there are cases where the truth is so far away that even with Humble telescope you wouldn't find it.
An example is the Greek history during WW2.They made heroes out of traitors and Documents and newpaper articles that proved that those "heroes" weren't exactly hero material,disappeared(i found some after a lot of research) and all for political gain of some parties after the war.

There are countless examples that history has been altered or deleted for political correctness and other purposes.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
i didn't take the time to read your thread to be honest, mostly because i found it funny you took two qoutes from the beginning of MW2 (Modern Warfare 2, yes the Video Game)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WanderingThe3rd
i didn't take the time to read your thread to be honest, mostly because i found it funny you took two qoutes from the beginning of MW2 (Modern Warfare 2, yes the Video Game)


Its funny, because they probably took it from Herman Goering that said it initially.

vvv



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


oh of course, but it just made me giggle and think some ones been playing cod lately,

I've read it now though, very true, unless there is more then one to succeed, then you'll have multiple stories which happens to be our case right now. learn about the same history in another country, they have a totally different prospective on things
edit on 5-4-2012 by WanderingThe3rd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by someguy0083
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


obvious statement is obvious

like how taliban members in Afghanistan are "terrorist" even though if the US was invaded and our rebels fought the oppressors we would be "freedom fighters"


The Taliban were freedom fighters when they fought the Russians and the US was arming them.


edit on 5-4-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phantom traveller
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


My grandfather,who fought in WW2,used to tell me:"don't trust the teachers,for they will teach you lies.If you want to learn the truth search for yourself."He was referring to history,after he saw what the history school books were teaching us about WW2.He was there fighting and most of the things he read in that schoolbook were like reading science fiction.

I study military history(especially the second war era) and i have come to understand that the truth is always somewhere in the middle.Of course there are cases where the truth is so far away that even with Humble telescope you wouldn't find it.
An example is the Greek history during WW2.They made heroes out of traitors and Documents and newpaper articles that proved that those "heroes" weren't exactly hero material,disappeared(i found some after a lot of research) and all for political gain of some parties after the war.

There are countless examples that history has been altered or deleted for political correctness and other purposes.


Yes, this I agree with, I see this in one particular situation today, its not what either side says necessarily, but the truth is kind of exactly in the middle, what they do is mix truth with falsehood, the portion of truth they use is what supports the lies.. therefore if you can hear both sides, and pick something in the middle, you are very close.

My thread www.abovetopsecret.com... (which is long and rather boring) illustrates this very completely.

The real truth appears to be what no one wants to hear. And whoever wins will wipe out the historical record of what the loosing side had to say. Question everything, and seek knowledge above all else.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


And that is why historians and archeologists look for as many sources as possible, from as many viewpoints as possible - this, at least, gives a more balanced understanding of history.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by someguy0083
reply to post by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
 


obvious statement is obvious

like how taliban members in Afghanistan are "terrorist" even though if the US was invaded and our rebels fought the oppressors we would be "freedom fighters"


The Taliban were freedom fighters when they fought the Russians and the US was arming them.


edit on 5-4-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


Sorry Boncho, you are wrong on this. The Taliban did not even exist when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan - they only came about after the Soviet withdrawal. During the Soviet invasion, the Mujahaden (as they came to be known) took up arms. These fighters were generally recruited from local warlords. After the Soviet invasion, many of these same warlords actually became members of the Northern Alliance (therefore fighting the Taliban when they were formed) or simply returned to being warlords of no fixed allegience (apart from tribal). The Taliban actually only formed in 1994.
edit on 5-4-2012 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian


Sorry Boncho, you are wrong on this. The Taliban did not even exist when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan - they only came about after the Soviet withdrawal. During the Soviet invasion, the Mujahaden (as they came to be known) took up arms. These fighters were generally recruited from local warlords. After the Soviet invasion, many of these same warlords actually became members of the Northern Alliance (therefore fighting the Taliban when they were formed) or simply returned to being warlords of no fixed allegience (apart from tribal). The Taliban actually only formed in 1994.

 


You are absolutely right.



My mistake. I do believe there are other examples for the point I was making but Ill just leave it at that.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Ha, you are usually right and the point was certainly a valid one - just a bad example! Personally i like using Mandela and the ANC for that point.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by boncho
 


Ha, you are usually right and the point was certainly a valid one - just a bad example! Personally i like using Mandela and the ANC for that point.


I suppose we could use Noriega as well.




new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join