History Is Not Written By The Victors

[@beknown63]

“Monetized videos are not made by the victors” -KZbin

[@HistoryExplained]

You can say that again! 😫

[@theofficialsikris]

@@tarkfarhen3870 I too enjoy drugs.

[@Ratwithagatpewpew69]

Well this comment section became very spicy

[@jayfrank1913]

@@tarkfarhen3870 Please go away, person who doesn't get the point of the video and comments about something unrelated and was debunked years ago.

[@jayfrank1913]

@@Ratwithagatpewpew69 Spicy is too mild a word for it. This "Legit" dude is a straight up white supremacist who missed the point of the video.

[@kingandcountry1242]

PH: “History is not written by the victors” KZbin: “Unfortunately for you, history will not see it that way.”

[@namelessking4146]

EXECUTE THEM

[@marcino457]

Fellow men of culture I see

[@townhall6788]

Exactly

[@correctionguy7632]

wait a fucking darth maul reference?

[@clone9159]

@@correctionguy7632 yes

[@schizoidboy]

I recall something from my first day at an American history class in college. Our teacher told us an anecdotal story of two guys playing cards and one said he read a great book on the Battle of the Bulge. The other guy said he'd like to read it because he fought in that battle. The other guy assumed that because he fought in the battle that he already knew everything about it. (This all relating to personal accounts described in the video) But then the veteran tells him all he knew about the battle was his half-track was redirected by guys he thought were MPs, possible German infiltrators, and they ended up trapped in a snowstorm shooting in all directions. They weren't even sure who they were shooting at and when they finally got out of their position they were surrounded by desperate German soldiers trying to surrender to them... This was probably the most important history lesson I ever got.

[@alicorn3924]

that's... really... I dunno, thought provoking..? just... yeah

[@highjumpstudios2384]

Many such cases

[@АлпамысРустембек]

For some reason, I found this story to be hilarious

[@menschman1464]

“History is not written by the victors” KZbin: it’s not written by you either. YEET.

[@theofficialsikris]

@@tarkfarhen3870 I too enjoy drugs.

[@johanmikkael6903]

@@tarkfarhen3870 Okay Ok sign member

[@James-2248]

Daway Legit, okay

[@menschman1464]

Daway Legit how did you even get here from my comment.

[@toatsmcgoats727]

just because the founding fathers meant it to be that way doesn't mean that white ethnicity defines america. it's called the great american melting pot for a reason. it evolved past the original and frankly intolerant view the founding fathers had. it is now a global symbol of diversity weather you like it or not.

[@nielsmichiels1939]

*_"History Is Not Written By The Victors"_* (meanwhile in north korea) _"Our glorious leader Kim Jong Il invented the hamburger."_

[@marcus2249]

but since when did North Korea win?

[@Danny-ss8il]

@@marcus2249 they didn't they just claim to be the victor and the ppl of N Korea wont know the real history

[@marcus2249]

@JC Denton nono, in something that matters

[@garybehunin3071]

NIELS MICHIELS one they are also completely censored that they don’t know what is life outside of Korea (beside the ones who have escaped)

[@DarronGA]

But again, that's not actual human history. That's national propaganda

[@DisappointingRooster]

"History is not written by the victors." Hmm that's what a victor would say...

[@ele7864]

nice

[@nicklion6585]

Its true history is actually written by the victors given that many more people know about the German war crimes in WW2 vs the US or British war crimes

[@nicklion6585]

Or at least heavily influenced by them

[@tristanwentink5735]

@@nicklion6585 History is about more than just war crimes. There's probably plenty of studies that go in depth on war crimes and such, but most people only get basic history that doesn't revolve around telling that the Germans weren't the only one that commited warcrimes - even though they certainly did it more often. Aside from that, what you just said generally is typical wehraboo whataboutism.

[@nicklion6585]

@@tristanwentink5735 OK why have we never learned about the millions of people that Chruchhill killed by forcing the Indians to continue exporting food even when they where starving to death

[@rangergxi]

History is written by the sponsors.

[@ilimitadouc]

Oy vey shut it down!

[@USSAnimeNCC-]

What coward they are lol

[@michaelcollins1196]

I want to read a history book written by RAID: Shadow Legends

[@xenoblad]

@@tarkfarhen3870 it sure is nice we were able to subvert the racist, sexist, and classist intentions of the founding fathers. You're probably happy since you are none of those bad things, RIGHT!?!!

[@britishgrenadier2800]

432423429482 History is written by tonight’s sponsor, Raid Shadow Legends!

[@thenotflatearth2714]

In China they actually taught us that Americans started the Korean War which ended with victory of communism, and Soviets helped Poland in 1939, anything to make reds look good

[@SaaaakuraDev]

The only time I sympathize with reds is during the war in Vietnam

[@shepherdlavellen3301]

As a Chinese I honestly don't know what was written in our history books since I either slept through or was doing my homework during history lessons. And I cheated during exams with answers bought by our teachers prior to the exams (cheating only works for history politics and geometry if your major is science)

[@MDPToaster]

The NotFlat Earth But hey, at least history isn’t written by the victors. It’s just a set of lies we all agree upon.

[@WingMaster562]

hello~ Since you claim you're from China and have studied there, I was wondering, what do they teach about the Tienanmen Square Massacre? I'm really curious.

[@alanywalany6460]

The US is responsible for the Korean War since they abolished the popular government and set up a puppet regime led by a corrupt fuck

[@elephantyarn7378]

Love all the people saying this video is wrong by bringing up incidents that make the victors look bad. Hmmm, it's almost as if history is not just written by the victors, because otherwise you wouldn't even know that story.

[@sharky7002]

When you realize what side this argument is used for you’ll understand there’s no point in reasoning with those people

[@elephantyarn7378]

@@sharky7002 Oh I'm well awate it's mainly used by neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates who wish to defend their disgusting tumors of white supremacy.

[@peanutsbuttissilent]

Sometimes people gotta get more stupider 😢

[@comlain2513]

"U SAID UR NOT ALLOWED TO ATTACK ME BUT U JUST DID SO THAT MEANZ UR RONG" top mind of youtube right here folks

[@SirBiscut2470]

​@@comlain2513 were you drunk when you wrote this???

[@24YOA]

"History is not written by the victors" Potential History: says 'Nazi' KZbin: **DING DONG YOUR VIDEO GONE**

[@ElkaPME]

Jason Buford yes, it has the potential to to do that (and othen times, so many)

[@wouterkessel4852]

For a non-historical channel if they say the word 'war' in the first minute of the video they have a 50/50 chance of being demonitized

[@LazyAndFabulous]

@Jason Buford No, that's the worst logic, it only implies it with the word Nazi, due to controversy, however the moderation is usually on hurry and impatient or theoretically artificial intelligence programming, which equals ASSHOLE. Excuse me now I'm going to perform my intense strategy to steal people's car by make them read my username, intended.

[@mr.fantastic7756]

Americans and British are truly Masters at Propaganda 😤🙏 much respect! They for sure surpassed even the Nazi's in this regard! Truly an art form perfected by the West.

[@LazyAndFabulous]

Superior Tendency

[@infinitejinpachi]

lmao this guy still thinks WW2 actually happened

[@leonardogomez8812]

infinitejinpachi Yeah, unlike that time communist space aliens ruled the world until daddy Ronald Regan chased them away with Star Wars which totally happened :D Seriously, please tell me that this is a joke

[@subbot365]

@@leonardogomez8812 yep, you fell for something that wasn't even bait, just sarcasm

[@beneyweneys]

lmao You still think guys exist

[@phoenixcristinelli4071]

so true because there's no clear footage that hasn't 'colourised'... more like doctored

[@buster7797]

Imagine thinking history exists

[@Sarkast]

I've got a buddy who is currently writing a thesis on ww1. Pulling primary sources from foreign offices to help understand what their respective countries were doing during the days leading up to the declarations of war. They're finding some interesting things between England and Russia that weren't previously known. History evolves all the time.

[@patrickhenry1249]

How’d that go?

[@pilotbug6100]

Update?

[@stephen9381]

“History is written by the victors” Guy named victor: UNLIMITED POWER!!!

[@canthi109]

super power!

[@jasondouglas6755]

AND HE WILL HAVE HIS REVENGE!

[@lixobounce6588]

​@@jasondouglas6755 Steiner, Kravchenko, Dragovich must die

[@Victor-07-04]

Well… 😂

[@LordComradeAnarchoCapitalus]

Victor: "Guess I control the timespace continuum"

[@svalfish1716]

I feel like “History is written by the victors” is something that applies to, like, ancient dynastic China, not WW2. The main difference being the scrutiny of factual history.

[@TheLauncherofMissile]

he's only looking at this in a anti wheraboo standpoint as he does with most things. I don't remember being taught about native american government sanctioned genocide for one

[@TheXenoxen]

Yeah. The phrase seems to apply to more "ancient" battles where our sources are historians with very little credibility (i.e. The Trojan War and the Iliad) or sources that seem extremely biased.

[@chad_bro_chill]

@SwooshBear, boy would I have liked to have gone to your school, then. Like the Holocaust, my school beat the Trail of Tears etc into us pretty much every damn year well beyond the point of desensitization. (Obviously, the proper thing would be somewhere between our two extremes, between not teaching it at all and teaching it far too much).

[@TheXenoxen]

@@chad_bro_chill It's made worse when history teachers paint one side as good and one side as bad, rather than teach the reasoning and the social viewpoints of the time period which led to those actions.

[@TheLauncherofMissile]

@@chad_bro_chill I learned about the trail of tears too, but it was like a one day thing. And that pretty much covered the whole atrocities committed against natives thing for us

[@shaiikoisbetter9152]

Germany:doesn’t lie about its history and is very sorry for what it’s done Japan: I’m gonna do what’s called a pro gamer move

[@DimoB8]

Turkey: *secretly laughs in Armenian Genocide*

[@nahuelleandroarroyo]

@@DimoB8 hey! It was not a genocide if the definition did not exist at that time!

[@sgtmarcusharris4260]

​​@@nahuelleandroarroyo " The concept of mass murderer wasn't established yet so therefore it wasn't mass murderer" What difference does it being a genocide or not make it was a genocide just admit it

[@GetShocKeD1]

A SIEGE USERNAME IN A POTENTIAL HISTORY VIDEO! THERE IS ANOTHER!

[@TheKumarImpressions]

Meanwhile british and americans who did more genocides than japan:

[@jeffreytam7684]

While I agree that “History is Written by the Victors” is a gross misrepresentation, it must absolutely be acknowledged that our own nationality and background influence our perception of events. For example, my view of the Ostfront, as an 18 year old Canadian, will be vastly different of that of an 85 year old Russian. Our perspectives are not directly dictated by whether our sides won or lost, but they are absolutely influenced by the information that we respectively have

[@zachariahwade8482]

Jeffrey Tam if you were well read on the subject and had studied Ostfront scholars from varied backgrounds (Russian, German, US etc) why wouldn’t you have much the same perspective as the old Russian dude ??

[@jeffreytam7684]

Because I haven't lived through the events and therefore don't have the same emotional connection to them.

[@zachariahwade8482]

Jeffrey Tam obviously if you’re talking about a veteran of the Ostfront, he will have first hand experience while you only have secondary. But weren’t we talking about the arc of history ?? Ivan the veteran might have first hand experience of combat or military life in Russia, but he will just as likely have a poor knowledge of the larger conflict.

[@angelkitty11]

In Vietnam, Vietnam War is "American War".

[@zachariahwade8482]

Potato Productions Well that depends. The Nazi’s and the Confederacy lost and are rightfully viewed by the winners as not deserving respect. But a generation later the Daughters Of The Confederacy were erecting statues in public places and I read today that the SS officer who was convicted of ordering the massacre of GI’s at Malmedy got a hero’s funeral that was attended by 6000 former SS men when he died in the 1960’s!! So sometimes the losers do command respect.

[@barrybend7189]

Reupload? But my take is history is written by the survivors.

[@thatguyoverthere9634]

It's written by surviving evidence

[@Aragon1500]

It's definitely written in a way where lies are intentionally injected into the narrative based on where you stand in the world. Historians like all groups commit group think

[@comradefreedom8275]

Gaia Gear.

[@nikitab.6600]

@Leon Lopez that is for all intents and purposes impossible. For example country A destroyed country B. But, both countries do not exist in a vacuum. People from countries C,D,E,and F get to see the destruction and some of their citizen who are currently in country B get a front row seat. Not to mention country A might have different factions that have reasons to dig up dirt on each other. Not to mention of refugees from country B escaping to the surrounding area. The amount of genocide that a country has to do in order to make sure that only their view of events stays would make Pol Pot look like a choir boy.

[@nikitab.6600]

@Leon Lopez what are you talking about? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines_(900-1565) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Malaysia en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indonesia en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srivijaya en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Singapura en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_Sultanate en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johor_Sultanate en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brunei en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-colonial_Timo And this is a 10 minute search on wikipedia, a not really accurate, encyclopedia that barely scratches the surface. I did not even try to search up the history of a India, Thailand, China, and Vietnam, countries that had dealings with southeastern Asia. Neither did I search the history of Islam, Hinduism, or any other major religions that took hold there. Now imagine someone who has years of research and does a comprehensive search about the history of this area.

[@connorhalleck2895]

I think you’re missing the point of the phrase... most people don’t read “history” they just are exposed to propaganda. Winners have access to more propaganda outlets. Also, the losers are often dead or at least oppressed. Becoming a historian requires certain material conditions, and those struggling to survive don’t often sit down to write a book. And then there’s cultural bias on top of that. So maybe the phrase should be “colloquial understanding of past events is colored by the biases and political goals of the victors” but that’s not as catchy

[@Vitorruy1]

You could say that history in this context means a popular narrative but theres plenty of very smart people on the internet who think real historians are just pandering to the winners side and never fact check anything. I guess the video was a reply to those guys.

[@JohnDoe-wt9ek]

Well then who determines what is propaganda and what is legitimate, fact checked history?

[@scipioafricanus2071]

@@JohnDoe-wt9ek There are always uninvolved and neutral parties, that record history at the same time as the victors and losers. They still might each have their own biases, but it gives us a better understanding of what happened. Historic events don't happen in a vaccuum.

[@okkj1878]

You just btfo his whole video.

[@NeostormXLMAX]

@@okkj1878 is this any surprise this man was a shill?

[@Master_of_Turtles]

As an archaeologist and historian, despite the fact I know this will get buried beneath older comments, I'd like clarify some facts a bit and argue that history was written by the victors, or at least those who saw themselves as the victors throughout much of human history, and that due to it being true historically, this sentence just somewhat just got applied onto modern historians. During the Roman time we have multiple sources inflating enemy army number and ideas of other cultures we know are untrue, just look at Herodotus. During the Byzantine era this was often the case, with emperors having official historians made to write historical works to praise them (look at Procopius, historian of emperor Justinian). We have an overt number of sources from colonists and conquistadors about the colonization of the Americas and nothing collected from the side of the indigenous people. At one point, a few hundred years later, people, who called themselves historians were even discrediting their structures, society and technology as being made by the Spanish to seem more impressive, as this would make the accomplishments of the first Spanish settlers more prestigious. So while history is in a quite healthy phase today and the documents written are reviewed, most of our sources are biased and for many parts of history, are the only ones we have. So some guessing or material culture is necessary to see deeper into the facts, especially during the periods of big, long lasting empires.

[@johnsmith-sp6yl]

very well worded and the only thing i'd disagree with is that it can't apply to modern historians. some things have been scrubbed from record by historians because of political pressures; works of art and etc. things are changing, slowly, in small ways imperceptible if looked at incrementally. the 1968 invasion of the CZ was called "bloodless" by some news outlet recently, which is a laughable load of shit. objective historical phenomena are being squeezed and twisted into narratives. in school americans are taught that the soviet union collapsed due to pressure from the west. it collapsed because the people living there were sick of the shit. nobody is immune to propaganda, and propaganda will never go away.

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

That’s why archaeology is so important. That’s the hard evidence we can use to construct better perspectives on biased sources.

[@nickkurzy2246]

At the same time though, look at what the majority of PH's channel is about: World War 2. We may not have accurate accounts from both sides of ancient conflicts, but we do have many accounts on all sides of the first and second World Wars. PH is specifically making this video to counter the point that dumbasses arguing about Wunderwaffe and other axis BS state as they lose the argument. I will agree that much of ancient history is written (mostly) by the victor, or at least not by the loser. It's hard to find a Carthaginian account of the 3rd Punic War considering that... ya know...they all died.

[@creatinerd]

Very true. I remember reading tons of crappy Roman anti-germanic propaganda which, from our modern perspective and level of knowledge, is just ridiculous (well, in the end the Romans weren't the "victors" though). The only difference from our modern age is that now people can way easier inform themselves about conflicts and their participants due to the globalisation of everything. That doesn't stop victors or anyone from spreading lies though, it just raises the chances of people knowing more than just those lies.

[@LegendKingY2j]

@@creatinerd i'd say the romans got a cultural victory, their latin culture remained in history, unlike the Mongols for example who even after conquering long pieces of land still got forgotten and didn't give any cultural legacy

[@CaptainAhab117]

It's difficult to have these kinds of conversations because often when one disagrees with the commonly accepted historical narrative many will assume that you are doing so with malicious intent. I've been told many times that I'm somehow defending Stalin and Communism when I tell people about the misconceptions we have about the eastern front. I'm no Communist sympathizer and I believe there are many reasons to criticize the Soviet regime, but I'm still going to point out all the reasons why Enemy at the Gates was a terrible historical movie.

[@toatsmcgoats727]

wow one of the few reasonable people i have seen in this comment section. thank you for your contribution.

[@CaptainAhab117]

@@toatsmcgoats727 That's just the first example I thought of because he brought it up in the video. Try having that kind of conversation about the American civil war and see how long it takes for someone to start throwing insults.

[@toatsmcgoats727]

oh my gosh i know. my great grand mother was a huge proponent of the states rights argument and the moment you disagreed was the moment you would hear her start cussing people out.

[@CaptainAhab117]

@@toatsmcgoats727 People like to live in a world of cozy black and white narratives that don't challenge them to think too deeply about their own worldview.

[@Aragon1500]

Stalin puppeting eastern europe was geopolitical. Just like allying with Korea and China he wanted secure borders. Russia has always wanted a buffer between them and Moscow just like they want warm water ports. Although I don't know if Stalin would have stuck to his socialism in one country stance or not post war if the US just focused on negotiating and enforcing said negotiations. Stalin was authoritarian like the entire bolshevik movement they literally purged their moderates but ironically the industrialization they wanted saved Russia from Germany. Marxist Leninists are flawed in their execution due to bad theory. Can't exactly expect the state to whither away when you give it total control of the economy. Still preferable to facism though.

[@leiladekwatro3147]

"History is written by historians" yah, the ones that didnt get killed and erased from history

[@pawechya5020]

By winners

[@KazmirRunik]

Something that happens primarily (if not solely) under authoritarian rulership, like the Catholic states, communist Russia, the d'ar al Islam, Napoleonic France, and Nazi Germany. Hell, Mao in China outright ordered the demolition of Chinese historical sites. I don't recall Tiananmen Square being leaked by any victors.

[@nbewarwe]

@@KazmirRunik That's also why we, in the modern world, view these "victors" as terrible regimes

[@dismemberedlamb9104]

Someone’s gotta tell their story 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@PutraRhm]

This

[@republicofnewengland8648]

"YEET" - A Random German Soldier on 5:24

[@subbot365]

kek

[@DeVolksrepubliek]

Bro was like 😼✊🏿”yessss”

[@robertjohn8711]

I think you’re taking the saying too literally, what it means is that history will always look more kindly on the one who won. Look at the anti federalists or Carthage

[@kaderpdi1982]

bias will soon fade out as more evidence is found like carthage

[@Samm815]

@@kaderpdi1982 True but until Post-Modernism took effect it was truth, truth, and nothing but the truth.

[@niklasmolen4753]

It is about what is taught in schools and said in popular TV. That's what people know. What is to be studied in school is chosen by politicians who certainly have a political agenda in their choice. It can be completely alienating from what historians know. Everyone knows about the Nazi genocide, but few know about the Communists' genocide and abuse. Or that French women were subjected to more rapes by Allied soldiers during the liberation than by German soldiers during the occupation. What knowledge to teach to the people is selected. That is what is meant by "The history is written by the victors".

[@karakas9905]

You can look at any quote and call it bad when you over analyze it. The quote still stands true. Technically, history is written by writters and those on the winning side have it easier to convince people of their truth.

[@Samm815]

@Madam Meouff What I meant was "modernism is what something is." Post-modernism is what the author thinks it is. I like post-modernism becuase its another way of looking at things.

[@AesirUnlimited]

*Reads title* Historians named Victor: Am I a joke to you?

[@lolmenx4]

I feel attacked

[@rajatsinghbhandari9549]

*historiographers

[@AragornRespecter]

Hey I’ve seen this one before

[@homelessswede9675]

What do You mean it’s brand new

[@anzaca1]

@@homelessswede9675 He uploaded this video a few days ago.

[@useablelobster]

I've got two identical KZbin notifications...

[@pyrdepavkki1601]

@@anzaca1 what happened to it?

[@noodlehousefilms3028]

@@pyrdepavkki1601 it got taken down

[@chillin5703]

Yeah sure ill just reference carthaginian sources on the punic war though

[@MisterCOM]

@Jason Buford just go to library of Alexandria and pay the service costs to have the clerk fetch and make you a copy of the relevant papers that you require

[@MisterCOM]

@Jason Buford he doesn't know imagine not knowing how to enter it

[@MisterCOM]

@Jason Buford that is a way, normally you knock twice long and twice short and say the phrase

[@bullrun2772]

Yay

[@thepopulargirl1784]

Must be interesting knowing all of Roman history from the Vandal's perspective.

[@juless4131]

I always interpreted the statement of "history is written by the victors" as referring to how history is depicted in media, (games, movies.) in which case I do believe it is fair to say that the "winning" side is generally glorified

[@kibbles5724]

Generally the side with the bigger propaganda engine and media tech at the time will have the most information created and disseminated from their point of view. A victorious army or country can only do so much damage control once that occurs. I think that's what this video is really getting at. As another commentator has said, the nature of war has changed a lot due to changing ethics, laws, and media. In ancient times I'm sure it wasn't unusual for whole groups to be wipped out and therefore never heard from or seen of again.

[@deaththekid3998]

The Last Samurai. Enough said.

[@advakart4208]

not really. we took constantinople in 1453 and the entire west is still butthurt :/

[@Pratt_]

Except when it isn't honestly... and History and how it's depicted in media are totally different thing. Media are an artistical interpretation of historians' works. One is done by historians, the other by artists using (or not unfortunately) historians' work. It's like saying that there must be sound in space because of the Star Wars movies. Or that New York's gang wars were a mix of singing and dancing battles and terrible acting because of West Side Story. All of that to say that it's kind of a sophism to say that media's treatment of History is suggested is the meaning of this sentence. I'm not an English native speaker and I try my best to not sound condescending because I'm pretty sure you know that, I would actually guess that you're hoping that nobody actually take this sentence seriously. Also, especially with today's media, telling the "other side of the story" is quite popular. And you will see quite a lot of media being pretty nuanced on an historical subject or even siding with the looser. It's been a while since a movie about native Americans, whether it would be pre-Columbian civilisations or North American tribes, isn't treating at least a little bit how unfairly they were treated. Most WWII movies nowadays (and definitely all the good ones) don't show the Allies as the spotless heros with a kind and pure heart, and German soldiers as blood thirsty single minded genocidal hords anymore. Hey just took Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers or Fury, you see in each of them American soldiers committing war crimes, usually execution of POW. Doesn't sound like glorifying the winners to me.

[@longiusaescius2537]

@Pratt_ they've toned it done but it's still there

[@DangerNuggett]

Johnny: *says the Nazi word* KZbin: "so anyways I started demonitizing"

[@zerodiniro3273]

@@tarkfarhen3870 no

[@darthsyphilis2204]

Remember if you see this nazi in public punch him in the face

[@prouddegenerates9056]

Daway Legit The American people used teachings and technologies form around the world.

[@DangerNuggett]

@@tarkfarhen3870 do you wanna roleplay with me on my minecraft server?

[@DanT-dh8lz]

@@darthsyphilis2204 nazi or not thats still assault

[@MrNoobthenub]

History has a survivor's bias

[@Joesolo13]

This should really displace written by the victors. Look at how many statues across the American South deify objective traitors who lost a war defending slavery, started because they lost an election. Had the union been half as brutal as the descendants of slave holders claim half those descendants would even be here

[@Mericaa47]

No shit Sherlock!

[@rorrim0]

@@Joesolo13 technically the confederacy weren't traitors. States are allowed to succeed, and are also allowed to wage revolution against the government of they deem it tyrannical. The Confederates were made up of states that broke off one by one and the union let this happen because it was within their right to do so and they just assumed those states wouldn't last long. They didn't plan a coup against the north, if the confederates had won the war it would've only established them as a separate nation temporarily until a possible financial collapse, according to accounts I've read.

[@rorrim0]

@RadTheLad The confederates were made up of states that weren't doing well economically, that's why I said possible economic collapse because it was very likely. The confederates money was worth very little, they weren't as industrialized as the north, and weren't as rich because in hindsight slavery wasn't all that profitable, at least with the technology the south had, because the only reason it was profitable in the first place was the invention of the cotton gin. Thought it's not exactly my main point, I'm simply stating it's not accurate to call the confederacy traitors because they exercised their state rights to break away from the union, which is something states can do. No one called the people or politicians who threaten to have California secede from the USA traitors if Donald Trump was elected. It's in the right's of the people who live in California to decide, if they want to be apart of the USA. because the USA was not formed to be a tyrannical entity.

[@rorrim0]

@RadTheLad Most reactions I saw were most along the lines of calling a bluff. While California has very valuable land, infrastructure and industry, its on the verge of bankruptcy, and if it did become a separate country, without the USA or drastic conservative changes, California would become a third world country. I dunno what reaction's your referring to but people just say shit. "Well, people dont give two shits about liberty if they have to pay for it." I think that's a bit too cynical, though i can't tell if your attaching this statement to. Just in general, or a certain point in time? I need more context to what you mean to actually comment if you want to talk about it. I do agree with that outlook on the cotton gin.

[@ryanalving3785]

There was a Pharaoh in Egypt, to increase his own glory he tore down every reference and artifact he could find that mentioned his predecessor (the ancient Egyptians took the view that unrecorded events never happened). He used all of his predecessors artifacts as building materials inside the walls of his own tomb, and under the foundations. Subsequent to his death, his tomb was plundered to oblivion and we know very little about him. Archeologists eventually discovered the artifacts hidden inside the structure, and now we know about that Pharaoh. The victors may write history in the short term, but in the long term the truth will out.

[@traiancoza5214]

Unfortunately, some truths will remain buried forever.

[@disunityholychaos7523]

@@traiancoza5214 or some long time even forgotten * cries on what language or life/history of Indus-Valley society, the various Pre-discovery America, whatever the heck happened to south east asia that has undocumented history *

[@NeostormXLMAX]

hopefully the anglos empire will be obliterated, perhaps even the horrendous English language would vanish and people will learn the truth about ww2

[@tanker00v25]

@@NeostormXLMAX bad bait

[@vercot7000]

@@NeostormXLMAX >horrendous english language Yes and languages like german are so beautiful right? With their rough pronunciations that make the speakers sound autistic?

[@Blackphoenix-kb5pi]

I feel that this quote is only relevant in the past where entire cultures could be wiped out by another civilization.

[@TheKillbot555]

Even then sometimes stuff will still survive. We thought Troy was a just a myth until we found it. The Greek's wiped it off the face of the earth and we still heard about it.

[@Aragon1500]

It's more like who controlls access to information. Like countries can have completely different narratives about the same events even if they're democratic in nature

[@shawnjavery]

You don't have to take the phrase entirely literally. Its accurate to the extent that the historical narrative is controlled by the winners. A good example would be how in Germany austerity policies were championed with a view that the hyperinflation in the 1920's caused the Nazi's to take power. It's a narrative that suits what the people in power want to do at the time, even though there'z not much to support this factually, hyperinflation was a deliberate German policy to screw the French war debt payments. It's not true that the winners are able to erase history per se, but they can determine how its viewed as part of a cultural understanding.

[@olbradley]

@@TheKillbot555 For several years I never knew if Troy was actually real or not until about a year ago in Latin class.

[@nathanjora7627]

Shawn Javery So What you’re saying is... The french did nothing wrong and the Nazis *only* came to power because they tried to rob the French of rightful war reparations they owed us after WW1, copy that. What ? That’s inaccurate ? Why would I care, we won WW1, and WW2, technically, and any way De Gaulle won the first presidential elections in my country, so we write (at least our) history, checkmate atheist !

[@gaiuscaligula2229]

"History is written by the victors" doesn't apply to conflicts from basically the early modern period onward, if you go back further though to times where sources are more sparse you won't find a Carthaginian source for the Punic Wars or a Celtic source for Julius Caesar's campaigns in Gaul, and indeed the History is written by the victors in these situations. In fact i'm pretty sure the original usage of that quote was in relation to Classical/ancient history rather than recent events. Also in relation to ancient history written sources are equally as important as archaeological finds. Gibbon wouldn't have been able to properly write "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" if it wasn't for the wealth of medallions, inscriptions, coins and other finds on top of the written sources. Applying this quote to WW2 is really really fucking stupid.

[@nomad5544]

His assertion isn't that the quote itself is always wrong all the time, but rather that a lot of people misuse the phrase in relation to more modern conflicts like the Civil War and the world wars, you can see in the description that he thinks lost causers and wehraboos might get pissy with this video, because it counters something they say to support their respective sides in their respective wars. That being said, I do agree that the phrase is very true in relation to ancient history and think you have a solid point, if misunderstanding his point a little.

[@gaiuscaligula2229]

@@nomad5544 I wasn't so much trying to argue his point, I agree with him. More making a statement that the quote can be applied to ancient/classical history (at times) but shouldn't be applied to history in general. I don't think he really covered it's use beyond WW2 that's all as i've seen people use that argument talking about things further back. looking back I don't think my original post puts that across to well!

[@nomad5544]

@@eaminy9454 That's fair. You make a good point.

[@historymogul2867]

To address yours and a few other comments in this section, I agree based on his assertion based on his understanding of the quote, I just disagree with his assertion. I don't believe the quote specifically relates to the silencing of the opposition in most circumstances, but rather, the widespread use of misinformation or biased info by the allied to the masses, representing a different view of history than what is painted through the lens of history. For example, a very basic example, in the Civil War, we commonly refer to battles using their northern names, such as the Battle of Bull Run, versus the Battle of Manassas. This example is a minor idea, as rather than being a misrepresentation, it merely represents the bias of history. A larger example would be in WW2 and post-WW2, where the history behind Russia and Japan is commonly forgotten these days. The Germans, while absolutely one of the worst regimes in the history of mankind, in comparison, Russia and Japan are seen as much less worse. Thing like the Great Purge, Gulags, etc.FOr Japan, we have the Batan Death March, The Rape of Nanking, etc. These are just a few examples of atrocities committed that were swept under the rug due to their victory (Japan not so much lol, but because they became a key American ally in Asia, very few Americans except for historians and history enthusiasts would know). In conclusion, its not a matter of silencing and erasing history in its actuality, as yes, history is most definitely (modern times especially) written by historians, but it is also written by the victors, because it isn't the historians who decide the curriculum. This is also just on the discussion of modern warfare, and the effects of victors writing history, not including the numerous issues of historical documentation centuries ago.

[@gaiuscaligula2229]

@@eaminy9454 I guess so, without straying too much into "What if" territory, undoubtedly state sponsored censorship would have played a large factor in what would be written about WW2 today if the Allies hadn't won WW2. And even in Russia their official line about Russian POW's in German service is uncompromising to this day. That's not what happened though and not the world we live in (I hope) where serious works of peer reviewed academia are inclined to dismiss historical evidence due to political bias and government pressure.

[@pyromania1018]

The Seven Rules of an Objective Historian: 1. The historian must treat sources with appropriate reservations. 2. The historian must not dismiss counter-evidence without scholarly consideration. 3. The historian must be even-handed in treatment of evidence and eschew "cherry-picking". 4. The historian must clearly indicate any speculation. 5. The historian must not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of documents. 6. The historian must weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict their favored view. 7. The historian must take the motives of historical actors into consideration.

[@alfaw.8107]

I feel like I’m getting deja vu

[@AragornRespecter]

I have been in this place before

[@MidlandsAirsoft]

higher on the street And I know it's my time to go

[@eagletanker]

Deja vu

[@TribuneAquila]

Eva get that feelin' Of sexual healin?

[@dustinjames1268]

I'm not disappointed in the replies KZbin comment section finally making me smile

[@nestcamo1181]

History isn't written by the Victors but it is taught by them. Case in point; I'm not the only one that remembers " and the natives showed them how to put fish under their corn plants so they grow better." You either get a sanitized version or it's completely skipped over in school. Edit: The point I wanted to make, is the difference between insurgents and freedom fighters. The difference is what side you are on. Just like terror bombing and strategic bombing. The difference is who is doing it to whom

[@deogthepoeg7872]

Nest Camo school is also for general education and not for specific details about every exact event

[@RickJaeger]

"This'll grow you some nice fishcorn bushes"

[@panzerschiff9805]

A better way to say it would be "History is though by everyone different to fit their narrative" Some will analyze everything to the bone, some other will victimize the Nazis, another guy may put America as the whole reason the Allies won WW2. As long as someone has a Narrative/ Bias...they will tell history to appeal their bias/narrative. Point is, History is often abused as a tool to fit someone's narrative and will often overlook or outright ignore some parts of History to push their bias.

[@sandshark2]

Ludwig The Medic you can expand this to literally everything too. Religion, politic, economy, etc. Humanity sucks in its ability to find truth

[@krusk3544]

@@deogthepoeg7872 There's a difference between being general and lying

[@MegaKoutsou]

History is written by those who write history

[@ltcitadel]

xD 10/10

[@H.J.Fleischmann]

All right, argument time. Sorry if this is a repost, but I can not see my original attempt at posting this comment. History is written by those that are capable of writing it. What do I mean by this? Well, while not necessarily always the victors, if there was a major war, like we are wont to have, and a city or two gets destroyed or annexed, with their populations partly enslaved or dispersed (I am talking about Classical Period for now), those left over from the losing side are going to be less capable of writing a bunch of tablets and scrolls about what happened and the preservation of their works up to that point might come into question, as there would be those on the other side who are doing the same thing while likely putting their own slant on it... Which they almost all did. Unless you want to believe that Rome was actually founded by gods and such, in which case, good for you. As such, there is going to likely be a slant on things favouring this or that narrative, as people have biases. And if the losing side does not have the ability or audience to spread their own accounts to directly, then it will likely be the winning side's stuff that gets more of the attention. Two older examples of this would be the Roman accounts of the Gallic Wars, where they claim to have killed over a million Gauls, enslaved over a million more, destroyed nearly a thousand towns, killed thousands of Germans, and done this all with less than a hundred-thousand men and less than fifty-thousand casualties. My next example, comes from someone I know (Thank you Oats). The Battle of Khadesh is controversial, as we do not know whether the Egyptians actually won a victory there or had a draw. Hell, they might have even been defeated for all we know, though we generally favour victory or draw. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kadesh ) ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars ) Now, an issue with the idea that you can rely on internal communications, is that people lie and can delude themselves as well. Officers reporting that they have more men than they do so they can collect more money (this is something that happened in the British army in the Eighteenth Century), pilots claiming great victories where there have been nothing but defeats, so on. An example of this, would be the Battle of Formosa, where the Japanese pilots managed to convince their own side that they had achieved a great victory. This is despite the fact, that they had lost soundly, and this misinformation made it all the way up their chain of command. I will link the Wiki article below. Now, as for peer review... While what I am going to bring up is not history related, it is a case which showcases the issues with the peer review system. Currently, there is an ongoing scandal in criminology where five papers managed to pass peer review, despite making up data. People are liable to allow things to pass peer review due to their own personal interest. Be it monetary, confirmation bias, ideological bias, or something else. ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJfdnYZrq7hmZ5Y ) So in short... History might not always be written by victors, but they are usually the most capable of writing it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa_Air_Battle 'Surviving Japanese pilots returned with tales of a stunning victory. It was reported that practically the whole U.S. Third Fleet had been sunk and that the American carrier force was left in shambles. Though some members of the IJN command were initially skeptical of such reports, this narrative was carried forward by members of the cabinet until it reached Emperor Hirohito. He congratulated the Navy and Army for their success. Newspapers in particular trumpeted these claims, repeating ad nauseam that the U.S. task force was broken and in retreat. Even those unconvinced members of the IJN, up to and including Toyoda, believed some kind of victory had been achieved off Formosa.[47] Actually, the Formosa Air Battle represented a rout of Japanese air forces and a turning point for future naval operations. Upon realizing the scale of the Japanese defeat suffered on 12 October alone, Vice Admiral Fukudome lamented, "Our fighters were nothing but so many eggs thrown at the stone wall of the indomitable enemy formation."[48] In response to the American strikes on Formosa beginning 12 October, newly formed carrier units like the Japanese 634th Naval Air Group (NAG) were detached from their ships in the IJN's Fourth Carrier Division. Posted to the land-based 2nd Air Fleet, the 634th NAG experienced rapid attrition throughout the remainder of the month. By January 1945 this group had no personnel capable of maintaining flight operations. At the same time, older carrier units like the 653rd Naval Air Group, which had just finished rebuilding after losses suffered during the First Battle of the Philippine Sea, were detached and similarly integrated into the 2nd Air Fleet. Over the course of the Formosa Air Battle alone the 653rd NAG lost almost half of its available aircraft.[49]'

[@francocavalletti9217]

Son how am I supposed to take you seriously when you use Wikipedia as a source?

[@H.J.Fleischmann]

@@francocavalletti9217, by not being an elitist jackass and actually looking at the articles, as they are all well sourced and written? I am not sure on second thought, that might be a tall order.

[@christtofferhanson1275]

I got to thank you for this because this is exactly along the lines of what I was thinking through this video. Along with the fact that you can't get many first hand account of people that died in the battle (meaning that normally the side with the most information is the one that won). People lie either on purpose or accidentally due to misremembering and false memories. I just wish this got more attention, especially for being an amazingly detailed view.

[@francocavalletti9217]

Ok I understand what you're saying I read the articles and formed an opinion of mine about this, but I still RESPECTFULLY disagree.

[@dirtysniper3434]

In all my 3 years of studying to get my ba in history I was told and firmly believe wikipedia is not a good source. Yes yes ik they have to give evidence but usually the evidence is claims by journalists

[@CapitalTeeth]

I thought this phrase meant that when a war ends, the side that won gets to discuss what happened to the side who lost, with the losers not being there anymore to say what really happened.

[@denmichaelmalayo9716]

Yeah, but some people also think the latter. So, It is nice to debunk these kind of thinking, especially discussing facts.

[@justmonika2345]

The phrase is meant to get you to question the winners. It's not implying that the losers are right, just that things are a lot more complicated than that. Every side has their own reason to fight in a war.

[@Joesolo13]

@@justmonika2345 yea but you also get people using it to basically make up whatever they feel is true and ignore evidence to the contrary.

[@teurdle7720]

@@justmonika2345 yeah but for the most part I say people using the quote to defend Germany during Ww2 which just doesn’t really apply considering how well they documented everything they did 💀

[@jgnogueira]

​@@teurdle7720 i agree with recent history that is pretty well documented is an absurd claim, however there is some true for older times, if you take into accounts natives for example the common narrative we have is "they were savages., the end"

[@PhelippeMitsu98]

Lengends say that those german soldiers and t34 are still fighting

[@sigmar2331]

History is written by the victors Me big brain: History is written by people

[@ArcturusOTE]

@joseaca I hug bren: Heestree made bi brain

[@leonardogomez8812]

Well you aren’t wrong lol

[@ozymandias8523]

Woke: History is written with hands

[@Caboose4859]

My history teacher said this in reference to the Eastern Front of WW1, which is why there aren’t many books and studies on it compared to the Western Front, despite it being equally as important.

[@colt6320]

"Equally as important." Hahahaha.

[@GrosserHund87]

@@colt6320 cope

[@sanaralerx9488]

“Equally” More like 10x more.

[@GrosserHund87]

This phrase can be true, when the victories are so overwhelming that there's not a shred of the losers left, and all you get is the victors propaganda. Alternatively there are things like the "black legend", how the Europeans and the British smeared the Spanish over the ages, leaving a permanent image of backwards and violent peoples.

[@billyaepicgamer8642]

We have a lot of people who believe Stalin and Zhukov simply sent bodies into Germany. In reality, Zhukov was one of the smartest generals in human history and was the only ones who could tell Stalin he was an idiot.

[@Cigar_viking13]

I might make an argument that immediate history is written by the victors. Long term meaningful analysis creates real history.

[@noscopesallowed8128]

Exactly my thought too. I feel he's too adamant about history "never" being written by the victors.

[@ptfodity]

No lol, post-modern historians have been actively destroying history and twisting it. The other day i saw a tik Tok talking from a "historian" talking about how Julius Caesar is a gay icon, the video had a million likes.

[@belland_dog8235]

@@ptfodity Then that wasn't a fucking historian then mate.

[@johnrambo5795]

@@ptfodity He wa probably bi sexual. So it has atleast some Truth to it

[@moic9704]

México lost the Mexican American war But Mexican writers started to write about the war almost immediately After the events

[@fulcrum2951]

1) History is either written by the literate or by someone who would bother to record what was happening at the time 2) History was written by the survivors, can't write history if you're dead 3) History needs to also be read, not written. You'll see so many accounts of what happened in the past and if one takes them for granted will give a skewed interpretation of it

[@Humberto4790]

That still doesn't mean that the victors didn't write history. For example, when the Spaniards conqured Mesoamerica, they burned many Mayan books, and made many exaggerations to justify to the Spanish queen that they should attack the mesoamericana such as the Mayan and Aztec empire. Unlike the Mayans, the Aztecs didn't have a writing system, still though for the longest of time, their descendants such as mestizos and full blooded natives were living under an oppressive Spanish racial caste system where they were considered inferior. Under their society, they were fed this daily, so you could make the argument that the victors do write history in some cases.

[@Autissima]

@@Humberto4790 I think the problem is the disconnect between somewhat recent history, where we were able to get enough contemporary records, because enough people could write, and not enough had been destroyed. For conflicts before like 1500 it was not that hard to just eradicate your enemies' culture etc.

[@carso1500]

@@Humberto4790 the simply fact you know all that means that history isnt writen by the victors, because the victors are considered as the villains of the story

[@Humberto4790]

@@carso1500 But a lot of that information was heavily suppressed until after the independence.

[@DeaconShadow]

The quote can only be interpreted as anywhere near being literal if you assume that all of histories “losers“ were completely wiped off the face of the planet. Since that doesn’t happen, the quote, as it is used by many all right dick wads that rant about the “bias“ in the mainstream media, is invalid and trite.

[@PsychShrew]

Cameraman: exists Tanks: "I'm gonna pretend i didn't see that"

[@MeeesterBond17]

They're smart, they know they can shoot him but the universe won't allow him to come to any harm.

[@redhotchilipaper5596]

Yet, in Russia, it is forbidden by law to condemn the actions of the Red Army during WW2. You completely misinterpreted the meaning of the phrase. It’s about how, people in a few countries like to present historical events in a different light in order to justify the actions of said country. This has nothing to do with what the subjective reality is. It’s what historians figured out as a merit of research and hard work.

[@darmok-hm6jx]

It’s what historians figured out as a merit of research and hard work. And then they are sent to prison. RE: holycaust investigations. I misspelled it on purpose. The most tyrannical of governments are those which make crimes of opinions, for everyone has an inalienable right to his thoughts. - Baruch Spinoza

[@boboddyb2217]

Then it's not "History is written by the victors" but "The spoils of war go to the victor". Russia not allowing you to criticize the red army is more so abusing it's status as a WW2 winner, rather than rewriting history. Same with the allied war criminals who never got a trial, but the nazi ones did. It's about abusing your victory. That doesn't mean you can't try to change history as a loser either. Look at the confederacy, how many people remember it's independence as an issue of "states rights" rather than slavery and see the statues of confederate generals as a celebration of southern culture and heroism despite the fact most of those statues were erected by the KKK to further white supremacy and to celebrate slave owners who fought for their own greed against other americans.

[@treetheoak8313]

@@boboddyb2217 This... But no people are reactionary and think that "winners" = my nation, religion, my side of the conflict.

[@darmok-hm6jx]

@@boboddyb2217 This may be off subject, but I found this to be fascinating. It's about a slave that joined the Confederate Army, then was captured by the Union and was sent to military prison. Dr. Bill Keys became very famous after the Civil War. https:/kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqGkdIuuqcepjKM; "There is little value in being well adjusted to a sick society." - Phillip K Dick

[@Shadow962775]

When I was in school, the federalist papers were mentionwed in history class almost every year. I had never even heard of the anti-federalist papers until I was in my 20s. The Katyn Massacre was officially blamed on Germany until the 90s, when the truth could no longer be doubted, but if the Axis had won WWII, the Soviets would have been completely "exposed" from that point onwards. This is the kind of stuff the quote about victor's history is talking about. Taking a vague aphorism meant to convey a general truth: that historical narratives and understanding are subject to the biases of those who "win," and deconstructing it by taking it literally than is necessary is midwit shit.

[@doesanythingmatter1326]

Well that's the problem, many people do take it to heart and act like they whole life is a lie, this comment sounds like u only waited till about a minute into the video before deciding to go down to the comments to rant.

[@mc-ps-playa5569]

You had shit teachers. Sorry bro

[@charlesboehme3298]

I’d say history was written by the victors during ancient times when the losing side would often have their culture wiped out and the survivors absorbed into the victor but the phrase doesn’t really apply once you get past the year ~1000 AD

[@Danny-ss8il]

Yeah this is true

[@Danny-ss8il]

@taniths 1st and only sgt iron on duty what does advanced in there own way even mean

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

That’s why written sources on ancient times are more frameworks. Not actual history. Archaeology is what determines the hard truths of ancient times.

[@toastytoast9800]

alot of ancient sources were also lost or were written centuries after

[@Wolfen443]

Yeah, the ability to keep records of more modern times means that there are often two or more sides to an story.

[@TheA1ternative]

Personally I've always said "History is written by the Survivors".

[@goobynoob6660]

hmmm. i have this strange feeling that i've seen this somewhere before

[@Professionaldumbass6998]

Deja vu, is what I’ve heard it called

[@samrparker1224]

"History isn't written by the victors" KZbin: Whether or not we'll delete your video isn't written by you

[@Warrior-Of-Virtue]

To quote one of my favorite games, "Anyone can write a book. And they can put whatever they want on its pages. Anything. Used to be we thought the world was flat...I believe there's also a book claims the world was created in seven days. A bestseller to."

[@connorhennessey1316]

5/5 I would recommend a standardized source section in your descrtiptions. Your an amateur historian, but still a historian. Making it easy to track down where you get your information is a great way to keep your audience informed.

[@johnyricco1220]

1:10 There’s the counter to your point right there. Historians choose to ask certain questions and not ask other questions. If different people won their historians would ask different questions than ours. Hence bias is inevitable.

[@blinblin8042]

if I want to know if a banana is yellow and I ask is the banana yellow? The awnser will be yes, but does that change the fact that an orange is orange? Or does that mean that the banana taste beter no (they both delicious). So how does me asking if the banana is yellow make me biased?

[@Rednukegaming]

@@blinblin8042 sure, because historians ask such simple questions like 'who won world war 2?' 'The allies' - my job here is done - historian, according to you

[@toatsmcgoats727]

you know there are historians from the loser's nation too. and did you forget that the chief of staff for the nazis wrote the history books for the eastern front. is he not one of the losers? or does this point conflicting with your view make him one of the victors all of the sudden.

[@blinblin8042]

@@Rednukegaming Thats not the point I was trying to make. What I am trying to say is if you ask a certain question it doesnt change other things. Asking if the nazi party did any good things doesnt suddenly change the fact that they commited soooo many war crimes. You will get bias when you only look at the question "did the nazi party do any good things?", but then you take it out of the context. Taking stuff out of context creates bias. Its not necessarily about the asking the question.

[@teru797]

Imagine a bunch of friends who believe a certain viewpoint gathered around to discuss whether or not some outsider from an enemy nations version of events which happens contradicts what they've heard is true or not. And then claim that there is no bias. hah... even if the science community TRUE theories that were scoffed at have later turned out to be correct and then become mainstream. Yeah...

[@economicerudite4924]

Pretty sure it was Napoleon who said this (he’s one of the people it is attributed to), which is funny because he lost but history massively favours him - his own memoirs became a huge source and also he’s regarded as a genius by historians in basically every country excerpt for the UK

[@hallamhal]

No, he's regarded as a genius here too, albeit as more of an 'evil genius'

[@longiusaescius2537]

He's right

[@FrontTowardsAnemone]

this is really good video, but I've always thought 'history is written by the victors' as more of a statement about who writes the textbooks, who funds the research papers, who sets the school curriculum etc. which I think absolutely has been used to warp history and our understanding thereof

[@evanhunt1863]

It's more written by people who CAN write it and have a vested interest in getting their story heard. Case in point: the Confederate States of America.

[@maxdoom3521]

It basically boils down to these people believing only openly authoritarian/totalitarian regimes are capable of lying or propaganda, nd that people with credentials also won’t lie or twist the truth or simply skip over certain parts. All of that of course, is fucking stupid.

[@longiusaescius2537]

Exactly

[@Tiger_V20]

Captain Price: "History is written by the victors" vs Potential History: "history is written by people who use sources and list them in the back of their books"

[@gunarsmiezis9321]

Well have fun writing in North Korea that Kim didnt invent the burger. It doesnt matter what you put at the end of that book its of to concentraton camp with you. Those who have the power get their way.

[@darmok-hm6jx]

@NotFBIAgent Then they are edited by their employers before publication. We live in our imaginations desiring to fulfill our phantasies

[@Leemacht]

Price also said after that "History is full of liars". So yeah, that's not too different from PH.

[@FlagAnthem]

Don't tell that to Southern revanchists

[@JastwatchingYT]

@@gunarsmiezis9321 did you think you got them with the "Aha moment"?

[@dj-chemicalz811]

If there's one thing I learned researching the US civil war it's that history is not always written by the victors sometimes it's written by the losers and they're always SUUUUUPER bitter about losing

[@therealmp40]

Actually it really depends in what situation you use the phrase. I personally use it when talkin about the dirtier side of the allies during the war, since it's barely talked about and in public knowledge, the extent of the things that were done. So you could argue that it's true, history is not written by the victors, but the victors do choose what history they want to keep out of their books.

[@therealmp40]

@joseaca I wasn't saying exactly that what they did was control what goes into the history books, it's a bit more complicated. Technically you can find information on whatever you want about the war, but the problem is with what information is pushed to the public, the amount of people that know about it. Even if you think about it, lots of stuff wasn't documented until decades after the war, and even then, most times what was documented was already known by the perpetrating country, it's just that no one in the public knew about it. Of course no country is gonna start showing off how many civilians they killed in bombing runs or how many POWs they executed, but hey, that just means that they get to choose what they want to tell, then if someone else comes along and shows the world what happened, that's something else. If you'd like me to rewrite the phrase, then it would be that the victors choose what to keep out of the history books, and it's up to the curious to uncover the whole picture.

[@niklask8753]

So history is written by the victors...

[@jwdominionpyroraptor4775]

So Allies-bad Axis-evil

[@gay.mer9328]

@@jwdominionpyroraptor4775 Axis were evil, allies still evil, slightly less so.

[@TheKumarImpressions]

​@@gay.mer9328 i am na zi

[@HeyItsJakegaming]

whilst procrastinating for revising for history I somehow managed to watch a video that taught me more about sources than my teachers did

[@zhegod1598]

The problem is that not everyone looks at credible historians and learns about history that way. Many people never care about history further than the stuff they learned at school, which is often very focused on their own country and seldom goes into detail (That may differ from country to country, so I can only talk about my experience with history in school.) Also sometimes war propaganda sticks with people. Just think about the anti-french sentiment in the US during the Iraq war. That kinda sticks to this day. Just think about all the ''Haha France always surrenders'' jokes. That also rewrote history to some extent, cause it made people believe that france surrendered all the time throughout history, which is wrong of course. An very interesting case to the whole rewritting history topic is WW1 in my opinion. Many people, to this day, blame Germany alone for it. In this case the victors actually tried to rewrite history. Just look at article 231 of the treaty of Versailles. But that's not the only reason people believe it to that day. Germany started WW2, so they must have started the first one as well. They are just warmongerer, just like the allied propaganda always told us. That's, at least, what some people believe to this day. (Of course stuff like general anti-german sentiments in certain countries may play into that perception as well.) In conclusion: Actual history may be written by credible historians, but the actual perception of history by the general population is being ''dictated'' by politicans and other groups, that try to push certain agendas. Of course that differs from country to country. That's just my take on the topic. But I'm no historian, so I might be completely wrong.

[@nikitab.6600]

Great points. Except one thing Germany is actually largely to blame for ww1. Not totally, but largely. In fact the idea of "everyone equally responsible, just poor Germany scapegoated" is actually kind of wrong. It is more of a hindsight thing, people know that the post ww1 treaties allowed the Nazis to take power, hence modern historians have a negative view on the treatment of Germany during and immediately after ww1.

[@DanDan-du9mo]

@@nikitab.6600 In what way is Germany responsible for ww1? Germany was Austria-Hungary's ally, it simply got dragged in a war it had no interest being in. And if I'm not mistaken, Germany's first military action was a counter attack, not an attack.

[@nikitab.6600]

@@DanDan-du9mo um, no Germany gave Austria a "blank check" for war, they also egged Austria on to the max. Here read the entire article; it is wikipedia, but is a decent place to start. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis

[@nikitab.6600]

@@DanDan-du9mo This is wikipedia but look through the link sources and read through all the article from beginning to the end. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis It was Germany that egged and organized Austria-Hungary to start a major war against Serbia and did everything to make sure that it would be a major war and not a local one. It was Germany that worked tirelessly behind the scenes to get the war started. The only time they started having second thoughts is when Austria already declared war on Serbia and the Germans realized the full extend the war would take. Not to mention it was Germany to declare war on France, and Russia. Occupied Luxembourg, invaded Belgum etc, etc. Also, a kicker the Triple Alliance was a defensive pact. Technically, the only way Germany should have gotten dragged into a war was if someone declared war on Austria or Italy. In fact the mistake of the Allies post ww1 was not punishing Germany too much, but not punishing it enough. Ironically, most people now, historically think that Germany is "scapegoated" by the "victors". But that is not the case at all. In fact because people think that way, shows that "history is not written by the victors".

[@zexal4217]

@@nikitab.6600 Also, the 1912 war council pretty clearly shows Germany's desire for a war. They were afraid of Russia and so wanted to beat them before 1917 rolled around. Them supporting Austria led to the war but just as easily anything else could have caused it.

[@AwayWithYouVileBeggar]

Like a great man once said: *Deja vu * *I've just been in this place before* *Higher on the street* *And I know it's my time to go*

[@olbradley]

It's almost harvesting season.

[@AwayWithYouVileBeggar]

@@olbradley I WILL DRINK FROM YOUR SKULL!

[@olbradley]

@@AwayWithYouVileBeggar Me lord

[@void-creature]

“History is written by the victors” Me, a MGS fanboy: “And he who controls the battlefield, controls history “

[@ignaciodeluna2885]

That's what I was thinking too bro . Metal gear is so freaking relevant and informative. Specially the prediction about censorship. Probably one of the best series out there.

[@onyhow]

“And he who controls the battlefield, controls history “ Something something Lost Cause, something something Napoleon propaganda post-Waterloo, something something people writing about the Mongols, something something Clean Wehrmacht and more and more and more...

[@drakejoy2902]

@@onyhow hahahhahah. And also something about the versailles treaty causing German expansionism.

[@NeostormXLMAX]

*those who control the present control the past* you can argue that if the previous victor is defeated, the new winner could shine a better light on the past which they erased

[@longiusaescius2537]

@onyhow mald more about dead men from a century ago

[@romanbellic810]

History is written at the bowling alley. STRIKE hard and SPARE no one or your empire will SPLIT up. -300

[@someyoutubechannel9309]

joseaca Let's go bowling

[@megasnowey7177]

I love how "history is written by winners" is used as a serious statement by forgotten one nyx in pokemon insurgence

[@dr.mantistobboggan4065]

"History is written by victors" usually translates to "I'm mad cuz my side hasn't won!", because I don't hear this phrase uttered anywhere when talking about bloody Vietnam War and something.

[@user-mn8lz7gf6d]

It isn't an absolute truth, but examples like the Katyn massacre illustrate it quite nicely.

[@viracocha6093]

The Chinese lost to the Mongols, but during the Ming Dynasty things having to do with the Mongols were, for the most part, portrayed in a very negative light. Also, Medieval Persian texts about Alexander the Great didn’t consider him a swell guy, either.

[@gunarsmiezis9321]

What you said does not disproove "History is written by the victors" it merely prooves "The pen is mightyer than the sword."

[@user-ck8yy9ne1w]

The Ming dynasty was the victors over the mongols, so I don't see your point. Also, much more of the world holds positive views of Alexander than negative, even back then so the phrase still holds up. Regardless, the phrase is still generally true. Sure, you may find exceptions and such, but broadly speaking, the winners' side of the story is told and believed more than the losers'; not that they have no say at all.

[@budakbaongsiah]

Lindisfarne too.

[@budakbaongsiah]

@The Nova renaissance Yes, because being a real threat from the 8th century to the 11th century did not matter.

[@Aurora-bv1ys]

@@gunarsmiezis9321 the ones who have the sword get to decide who gets the pen

[@lhumanoideerrantdesinterne8598]

As a former history student, I have to agree with this video and the way it describes the writing process of researchers, but I'd still say that the saying "History is written by the winners" holds some water. First, this saying mostly applies to the popular conception of history, rather than academic research. For instance, people tend to view the "Muslim Empire" of the Middle-Ages as one fully cohesive and unified entity, while any historian who studied it will know that it was actually made of multiple rivals and competing dynasties that fought more often than they cooperated. For most people, internal dissent is smoothed out in their view as long it didn't lead to outright civil war. Same thing for most independentist movements. Except for the most high-profile ones, those who succeeded or at least lead to a lot of Troubles (pun intended) they tend to get ignored by the general public since it's easier to simply view history as the countries named on a map and the kings on a list. The second thing is that historian can also be biased. The process you describe is in indeed the one used by "the good ones" in your own words, but I have never met the perfect historian. You mention Irving who is indeed the laughingstock of the community, but there are countless subtler examples of historical bias and error much more often lead by mistake or laziness than actual malice. And although peer reviews are a great tool to get rid of most of it, they are not perfect and of the hundred of facts that a single essay can contain, it's not that rare that a few shifty ones go through the net. These are then considered to be valid sources to be used later and it can then take decades before later historians realize they were dubious. Third, even assuming that historians were perfect robots that relied only on absolutely safe sources the nature of conflict between people means that most sources will come from the winners' side, either because the losers are dead, imprisoned or censored or that their accounts were destroyed. We have a lot of primary sources on the invasion of Mexico by Cortes and his merry gang, but practically nothing from the Aztec's point of view. And even though we know that there is more to the story than what we are already aware of (and is plenty horrifying already) there are still parts that are missing and we will probably never be able to do a thing about it. An interesting counter-example would be the nazis. Thanks to their policy of burning records and hiding proofs, we will probably never be able to know exactly the full extent of their atrocities. In this case, the losers managed to alter history in there favors to the point that a bunch of morons still get tricked be neo-nazis into thinking the holocaust was a hoax. It still proves my point though, no matter how rigorous the historical process is, it can always be tempered with. So, although saying "history is written by the victors" as a be-all end-all argument is a gross oversimplification, it's important to remember that history indeed tends to favor the most powerful side and be aware of that bias, especially for those who have to study it. Still, a nice video to explain how historical research works.

[@aickavon]

Indeed, historical biases can be seen in some of the silliest of places. Like with examples of Homosexuality in ancient civilization being often just described as historians as 'really good friends'.

[@areosmithwagon9890]

7:45 but that's an excellent example of the opposite! The victors and losers of this instance were not america and germany, but america and russia! While it may have been germany as the loser at the time the history is set, the history was written during the cold war, and america did not want to let russia shape the american public's opinion of themselves. (not to mention the friendship america shared with many fascist nations at the time)

[@MicMixAniTuber]

Your video is great and I love your channel but you focus on the "correct way" of doing historical research too much without taking into account the historical and sociopolital context of writting history. Your opinion only applies to events recorded after the 1950's when the science of historiography really became... well a science. Prior to that memoirs, autobiographies and accounts could appear as they were in history books. Additionally historians are not writting in a void, they are affected by the political climate of where they live. Not all historians live in countries with freedom of expression and democratic principles. And last but not least your understanding of the word "victor" is limited. It used to mean the military victor but nowadays you can also see situations where the ideological victor is superior to the military victor. We have seen many ethnic groups gathering international support even though they are weaker than their adverseries. That is because they have the ideological upper hand and their version of the history prevails. Keep up the good work buddy and I can't wait to see more videos from you!

[@shepherdlavellen3301]

when it comes to Eastern Front or China things really become sceptical since Soviets and Japanese do have problems with inflated reports, Germans seemd to have the same kind of problem in the late stage of the war, as for Chinese I doubt there were any reports to begin with, there weren't even enough evidence for the Tokyo Trial

[@MDPToaster]

Shepherd Wu And let’s not forget how terrible the Soviets were at keeping records, especially in their space program.

[@shepherdlavellen3301]

@@MDPToaster it's really hard to argue with other people about Soviet history since the whole country was biased, even historians could just be working for propaganda department.

[@MDPToaster]

Shepherd Wu I’m talking more about how the Cosmonauts were usually a bit drunk in space, but that’s an excellent point.

[@shepherdlavellen3301]

@@MDPToaster I know the Russians have a notorious reputation when it comes to safety, but drunk cosmonauts, is it true or is it a meme

[@SamsIsDead]

Look, most of your points are good, but I have some critiques -first of all I don't think that this quote refers to factual history like you described. I think it more refers to what the general populace believes to be true. A true historian will always write documents from a neutral point of view, but every person has their beliefs and their nationality, various things that can influence their writing bit by bit. Moreover, it doesn't have to be a lie necessarily. It can be simple as not presenting some facts i.e. unconsciously cherry picking. This might happen over time to the extent that some events are almost completely forgotten. -what if the primary sources aren't reliable? What if witnesses are killed, tortured into saying things or documents are forged specifically in the interest of someone. Look at the United Kingdom, for example. Now I don't want to sound like a retarded you know what, but the UK was actually the first to break many of the rules of war during ww2. Even Wikipedia admits this - Dieppe Raid proving that the allies were the first to breach the Geneva convention. And things like this occured throughout the entire duration of the war, such as the allies bombings of Italian and German cities, targeting civilian buildings. However nobody really talks about these things or can talk about them without being called a racist. This is what I understand by "history is written by the victors" - certain information being suppressed to confirm to one's point of view. -Coming from a former Soviet state I can also confirm this. While I wasn't present back then, my parents were and they always talk about how freedom of speech is suppressed. In fact, it's not just my parents, it's everyone I know who wasn't a member of the party. I also hear them talk about their history classes, where information was censored or purposefully distorted to fit the nationalistic point of view of the party. If that is not history written by the victors then I don't know what is. -look at the Romans. Did they not write their own history? In which they were always the "good guys" coming to "civilized" or "stabilize" different regions? Do you think that the history of the Punic wars was taught from a fair point of view, detailing how in the first or third one the Romans were actually the aggresors? Or do you think "the evil punics sacked out cities so we have the right to invade"?

[@Joesolo13]

If you're talking about pop history He's still right. Pop history is just low information history. The only way to fix that is to introduce people to more detailed, accurate history with peer review and such

[@moic9704]

My personal example of how "History is written by Victors" is utter nonsense is the Mexican American War (1846-1848) When the war ended, Mexican writers started to write works about the war, actually one the most important books about the war Apuntes para la Historia de la Guerra was written the very same year the war ended and of course mexicans didnt ask permission to the american victors to write it And the same applies to many other wars and historical events.

[@FlagAnthem]

people ignoring neutral spectators do exist

[@moic9704]

@@FlagAnthem There is a very good book about Santa Anna written by Will Fowler. Fowler is neither Mexican nor American, he is an spaniard of british origin...

[@bkjeong4302]

Isn’t this a reupload? Anyways....as I pointed out in the comments for the previous video, historians are not immune to distorting history due to poor data, lack of access to primary sources, or even the same misconceptions being parroted within an echo chamber. So while history isn’t always written by the winners, it’s not always written by the losers either and in most cases distortion happens in both directions. WWII historiography and military historiography in particular is prone to this due to the confusing nature of combat and many individuals intentionally or unwittingly reporting falsehoods even in primary sources. Recent cross-referencing from Allied, Soviet and Axis sources has found that a lot of long-held “truths” about many WWII engagements, individuals or weapons have been biased towards one side or the other. Notable examples would include: - inflated German tank ace kill counts - inflated pilot kill counts (interestingly, this is one case where inflation becomes smaller the more experienced the pilot is) - some strategic/operational moves by the Axis being far dumber than previously assumed to be (the entire Midway operation, for example) and some others being far more justified (I.e. Germany shifting to smaller numbers heavier tanks due to being incapable of mass tank deployment) - inflated naval AA killcounts (for all sides), sometimes to extreme extents. The most extreme example on the Allied side is probably the Battle of Santa Cruz, especially in regards to USS South Dakota. For the Axis it’s probably Philippine Sea. - the effectiveness of battleships during Operation Overlord (turns out they were actually cost-ineffective and did surprisingly little damage, and much of the fire support that actually did its job was from destroyers). - pretty much the entire nature of the Battle off Samar (TLDR-it was a far more balanced fight than often assumed, if not in the American favour, the CVEs actually did have some strike capability instead of having to rely entirely on non-anti-ship weapons, and the Japanese had no chances of achieving their objective anyways), a good example of how one instance of bad historiography (Morrison in this case) can become widely accepted and defended even when cross-referencing shows the narrative to be largely misleading and in many places false.

[@robertmejia916]

“History is written by the victors” *KZbin has entered the chat

[@taritakuma8895]

I think a more accurate take is that history is written or taught by the ruling regime. While history published in academia is likely low in bias, the history that the general public are exposed to are highly biased by the the ruling government. In U.S., in high school, when I was taught about the the Vietnam War, it was breezed over. Essentially, the Vietnam War happened and now time for the next topic. Meanwhile in Japan, students may be taught about WW2, and if they learned about it, it was that Japan was the victim.

[@Dylan_Sterling]

That’s definitely interesting, when I was a junior in high school we learned about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and our history teacher had us do some research on it before he taught about it. That’s how I learned that it probably didn’t actually happen.

[@SirBiscut2470]

I think the education system has changed, as we went in depth about it at my school.

[@jonskowitz]

Perhaps a better version of the saying would be, "History is taught/spun by the victors"?

[@Rangerman69420]

But it can also be spun by the losers lmao

[@Nonsense010688]

@taniths 1st and only sgt iron on duty did you know who told us the story of the Varus battle? Hint: it was not the victorious Germanic tribes.

[@Nonsense010688]

@taniths 1st and only sgt iron on duty and because of that Germania totally ended up under roman control. Oh wait it. It didn't. And it turns out your BS is that BS. You can try to spin it everyway you like but victors don't simply wright history. Especially roman defeats, we usually know, from the romans.

[@Nonsense010688]

@taniths 1st and only sgt iron on duty You gave them examples implying that the statement "history is written by the winners" would be true. I gave a counter example. You answer with a BS spin that somehow that was actually a not a loss for the romans. And now you complain that you can't proper discuss things. *insert surprise pikachu face". As for your "point": except all the many circumstances the victor doesn't. Including for example the romans: as I said, most roman defeats we know of, we know by romans. Because despite of them being a monarchy later (and not exactly holding up to modern standards before that anyway), it doesn't look like it was really possible for the romans, despite usually winning the wars and if not, at least be the only side that actually writes things down (against the Germanic tribes for example), to cover up they loses. In this case (romans vs germanic tirbes) is literally the losers who control history because they are the ones doing the writing.

[@Nonsense010688]

@taniths 1st and only sgt iron on duty Also I didn't wrote anything about what I think you think. Any insecurities you need to work out?

[@Arkeze]

How dare you, that’s my favorite quote to sound smart. I guess I just sounded stupid 😂

[@YB--iy8nh]

Well at times it is still true

[@tulimartin1]

It's not stupid at all. PH is just extremely biased and has a narrow understanding of world history and politics.

[@tristanwentink5735]

@@tulimartin1 Yeah, uh-huh. Says the guy with such an username and a skull with a SS hat as profile picture. Clearly you're exactly the kind of person who likes to use this quote to support your made-up view upon the world. A view that likely is all about anti-semitism, racism and white-supremacy. Shut your edgy ass up and go be a little bitch on pol.

[@YB--iy8nh]

@@tristanwentink5735 I mean in the other side of things like colonialism

[@tulimartin1]

@@tristanwentink5735 not a single valid arguement in your comment, you are a waste of time

[@darklitebug]

I've not heard this saying in this context. Most of the time I hear it as the victors get to whitewash their own bad sides. I.e. It took a long time for me to know that the allies engaged in the bombing of civilian targets quite often. Stuff like that. Not necessarily that the losers get disgraced in history, but that the winners get to put their best foot forward. They get to be the heroes.

[@kaiserwilhelmthe2nd349]

I’m planning on writing a 90 chapter book (637 pages total,) about my great grandpa’s late ww1 and entire ww2 experiences he’s told me about and has documentation from German reports, logistics, maps, and enemy resources about said events. Is it considered reliable since it has enemy and friendly army reports. (My great grandpa was in the army in late 1917 for the Germans and as a 2nd LT for the Waffen SS from mid 1934 till late January of 1945.) I looked and fact checked the official documents from many sources and they have legit information. Should I do it? The info ranges from battles in trenches near Amiens in WW1 all the way to him getting captured in a burning library in Aachen, Germany by 12 American infantrymen supported by a M10 and M5a1 Stuart tank

[@kelbyreid7254]

History is written by those with book deals and good marketing.

[@cyberhermit1222]

The small hats control the publishing houses and media.

[@rookatemyssd]

The term history is written by the victor is a true statement when looking at broad cultural impacts of events and wars, however when looking at events or battles it is not true.

[@kimjongun7148]

Would you like cheese with your whine?

[@siyacer]

"Monetization is uploaded by the victors." ~VicTube

[@mikaxms]

Potential History: History is written by historians. Victors: Hahaha! KZbin: Demonitized baby!

[@pyromania1018]

I showed my dad your "Germany Could Not Win" videos, and he enjoyed them. I'll be sure to show him this one.

[@fGlassmanN]

But wouldn’t people just reply that “peer review is just another way to ensure conformity to the victors’ perspective of history”?

[@deogthepoeg7872]

Felix Wedemeyer it's not a peer review if it's only from people in your perspective group.

[@inkoalawetrust]

Yes they would, in fact several people have already used this excuse.

[@Joesolo13]

They may well. Doesn't make it valid

[@Nghilifa]

@@inkoalawetrust That's not really an excuse at all, we've seen plenty examples of this in recent times. Take scientific racism for example, that was a SOUND ideology when it first came to light, and it wasn't refuted until several decades, if not centuries later (if one can say that it has been fully refuted at all). The saying "history is written by the victors" doesn't just refer to academia, it also refers to how history is used POLITICALLY as well as SOCIALLY, because that's how history AFFECTS the common person(s) in their day to day lives.

[@justbrody2589]

Wait what? I watched this a bit ago. Did it get taken down?

[@sanaralerx9488]

Just Brody It was privated, so no. Not sure what happened.

[@Kurvaux]

Sanaralerx Likely demonetization

[@lastsaneman19]

"What were you doing 3 weeks ago at 2pm?" God, PH, you're really swinging for the fences there. I couldn't tell you what I did 3 days ago at any pm.

[@mauserism]

is this a reupload or have I been sniffing too much StuG exhaust

[@simonkimberly6956]

Braeden Collins yummmmmm StuG exhaust.

[@arkinthedark3674]

"Potential history is a sayer of things."

[@memeboi6017]

When I think of the phrase ''history is written by the victors '' i tend to think of stuff like the firebombing of tokyo and hamburg , basically horrible stuff that the allies did but aren't often discussed in history.

[@maxgrozema1093]

Those bombardments aren't talked about because at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials all parties agreed to not condemn indiscriminate bombing campaigns as war crimes since every warring power with an air force did them. I get you are not from Japan or Germany? Because I know that they talk enough about the allied bombings in Germany. Even saw a memorial to victims in a South German village.

[@memeboi6017]

@@maxgrozema1093 No because i've never been to germany

[@user-dk9dx3xb2t]

Yes it is

[@雷-t3j]

That just goes to show that people do talk about it, because you are not nearly the only person who has brought this up, again, and again, but at least you haven't acted like these were unforgivable warcrimes that show the allies were 100% evil. The axis was way worse, all powers that could bombed civilians, and if the price of defeating nazi germany is dead germans who were probably nazi's, that price was worth it.

[@longiusaescius2537]

@user-cx9nc4pj8w totally doesn't view WW2 as a religion btw

[@somerandomguy___]

*reads title* I think captain price disagrees with you

[@Aloemancer]

Why is this getting reuploaded?

[@NinjaMan47]

I'm guessing KZbin slapped his original with demonization so he reupload and cut out the thing they hated

[@Belgianmapping1830]

“Big brain redditors” Never thought that sentence would ever exist

[@wizar6712]

"Another video in such a short amount of time! I'm on a roll!"

[@tomm9963]

"History isn't written by the victors" *ANGRY KZbin NOISES*

[@vortex6818]

History is not written by the victors It is written by the author

[@bergerheisen9903]

PH: what happened to the video KZbin: gone reduced to atoms

[@icecold1805]

History is written by someone. Let's hope that someone be a Historian. But WW2 has shown you it's not always historians.

[@sharky7002]

“History is written by the victor” The Vietnam war:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The war in Afghanistan:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The Russian civil war:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The first Chechen war:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The soviet afghan war:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The napoleonic wars:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The first Boer war:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The war of 1812🗿🗿🗿🗿 Byzantine-ottoman wars-🗿🗿🗿🗿 The Algerian war:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The ottomans conquest of the Balkans:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The Korean War:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The Franco-prussian war:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The first and third Anglo-afghan wars:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The mongol invasion of Japan:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The Mongol invasion of India:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The Mongol invasion of Vietnam:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The 2003 Iraq war:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The Iran Iraq war:🗿🗿🗿🗿 The Korean War:🗿🗿🗿🗿 Literally any military conflict that ended in a white peace:🗿🗿🗿🗿

[@thepulle4722]

/pol/ be like: but muh big nose man suppress “””the truth”””

[@The-kr9rb]

lol

[@Nuuk_Nuke_Nook]

Pol is made out of racist fucks who are all like "Haha, i am very funny for insulting people and spreading my anti-semite propaganda, and dissapointing my ancestors who've fought the evil scourge of Facism."

[@tulimartin1]

@@Nuuk_Nuke_Nook are you going to cry? you sound pretty upset

[@ryantheking12]

@@tulimartin1 Turns out people dislike murderous insane people. Shock i know

[@tulimartin1]

@@ryantheking12 shittalking on the internet = murderous insanity

[@AbrahamLincoln4]

*"iT wAs aBoUt sTatEs rIgHts"*