Why is History credited as it is?

therefore read all you can from both sides

the winners and losers

but that is up to you to do ( truth )

But even in reading the loser's side of their view you never know what they were really thinking then. There could be tons of information not known to us that would alter the way we see History events.

true

the only thing you can do is dig into the subject to see the truth

The losers often write as well, even if they don't write the newspaper articles and textbooks immediately after the war. But historians search for many kinds of sources. They read the German accounts of WWI and WWII, for example.

It's tough to do objectively, but so are many things.

"It's tough to do objectively, but so are many things."

Very true Jebediah

One should, it seems, distinguish the academic discipline of historical research and writing from what passes as history within society. Beginning around 1850, the rules and methodology of critical and "scientific" historiography began to be formed; there was a recognisation that a historian should attempt to write objective accounts of the past, based upon authentic data, and that once published, it was subject to scrutiny and debate amongst peers.

It's not only written by the victorious, although that's happened quite a bit. The phrase isn't an absolute judgment that applies to all recorded history; it's an allegory that those studying history should remember that such could well be the case. Besides, history isn't a robot that's consists of exact, objective truths. Its written by individuals so of course it comes from their own perspective. This isn't a reason to discount it, it's a "grain of salt" that readers should take when examining anything recorded by humans.



Very true! Nor could I know what you were thinking when you wrote this. The point is: What's recorded are clues, ideas and the way events were viewed by the viewers - take it as such. There's no way we can know all thoughts of all persons for all events with absolute certainty. History is a line of bread crumbs that spell something in the sand - take it as such



And there is! So (as suggested), if you're interested in some particular aspect of history, read other accounts and views. Even then, you can't and won't "know it all" - but that's not to say it's not a worthwhile and enlightening endeavor.

And yes, there is more to history than WWII - our favorite cliche for describing history. I've been diving into historical readings for quite some time now and I continue to be ASTOUNDED at just how much is out there; heroes and villains relegated to relative obscurity from the masses and rich accounts that virtually no one hears about. The only way to get a well-rounded view is to really dive deep!

But yea, forgive the personal accounts; we're all shackled by how we view things, and view them in just that light. For those areas where you have a personal interest, dive more and I doubt you'll be disappointed.

Thanks

You ask the right question: questions just like this would've been asked tens of thousands of times before either the first or second world war, and yet history nevertheless meant WWI and II.

From this POV, history can't be attacked; history would never be possible without censorship, therefore no error simply means no history to begin with.