History Revisionism

Throughout  recorded  history,  a country’s historians  have
slanted  their  histories  to reflect  most  favorably  upon  the
actions of their own nation.

And by the same token,  the historian who deviates from this
practice  is derogatorily put down as a revisionist and his  work

As a corollary, if another nation’s historians rewrite their
nation’s  history  to reflect more the views of another  nation’s
perceived wisdom, these historians are praised.

This  has occurred with Russian historians who in  the  90’s
have written differently about the communist years.

And  has  occurred with Japanese historians who in the  90’s
have written differently about the events of the 20th century.

As for United States history,  no one has dared to  question
the official view of things.

For starters,  nobody has questioned the divine right of the
Europeans  to  conquer  the  Aborigine  peoples  of  the  Western
hemisphere, in many cases to massacre and annihilate them — men,
women  and  children  — or  to transfer them  in  deadly  forced
marches  to undesirable locations;  an early version  of  “ethnic

Nobody has raised a protest against the systematic violation
of  the  United  States government’s treaties with  these  people
(misnamed  American Indians),  nor against the  nearly  universal
rejection of their efforts to enforce the terms of these treaties
by U.S. courts.

We  praise ourselves for being a country of laws,  which are
to be enforced equally for all citizens.

We have a court system, ending in the Federal Supreme Court,
where the minutest nuances of these laws are endlessly argued.

We have advocacy groups for every imaginable cause, prodding
for rectitude on the narrowest points of wrongs or injustices.

But  as for rectitude of the wrongs and injustices  done  —
and  being done — to the American Indian,  nothing is being done
by anybody.

Treaties  are the supreme law of the land,  and yet when  it
comes  to our treaties with the Indians,  we openly violate  them
with impunity.

To  be fair,  the New York Times has often publicized  these
cases, although without editorial comment on the outcomes.

And  then  we  have  the  Monroe  doctrine,   warning  other
countries to keep hands-off affairs in the Western hemisphere.

Conversely,  we  took  it upon ourselves to  meddle  in  the
affairs  of other countries in this hemisphere when it suited our

As  recently as 1989 under President Bush,  we undertook  to
invade  Panama and dispose its President,  putting our puppet  in
charge;  and as far as we know,  continue to occupy that  country
with our troops.

Monroe  doctrine  and  gunboat  diplomacy.  Haiti,  Spanish-
American war, Nicaragua, Cuba?, Mexico?, Costa Rica?, Panama,

As  another “Veteran’s Day” approaches — November 11th —
we  are  reminded  that this was originally  “Armistice  Day”  in
commemoration  of  World War I,  the war to save  the  world  for

Of course,  we may ask why the United States got involved in
this  war in the first place,  which after all was an internecine
war  between two blood related kingdoms — the House  of  Windsor
and the House of Saxony (Prussia?).

Prince  Albert,  husband of Queen Victoria,  was a prince of
the German House of …..

But  ignoring this for the moment, what  right  — other
than as victors — did Britain, France and the United States have
to  carve  up  Germany  into pieces,  to  re-work  the  political
boundaries of Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere, thus setting
the stage for World War II.

Again, we may ask why the United States got involved in this
second world war?

Granted, Hitler was a bad dictator.

But so was Stalin,  who,  together with his predecessors had
murdered  30 million of his countrymen,  and ruled the  survivors
through terror and repression.

Granted,  Mussolini  had invaded and conquered  Ethiopia  in
’33, a fact conveniently ignored for 8 years.

Granted, the Japanese had invaded China, a fact conveniently
ignored for 4 years.

Furthermore,  it  was Germany and Russia who jointly invaded
Poland and carved up the land between them.

So  why Britain and France declared war on only Germany  and
not also on Russia is for thei statesmen to explain and justify.

And then Russia invaded and conquered Latvia,  Lithuania and
Estonia; and invaded Finland.

Until  Germany invaded Russia,  both were equally guilty  of
agression against their neighbors.

As  the  war  clouds  swirled  around  Europe,  does  anyone
reasonably argue that,  after Germany had crossed the Channel and
conquered England,  they would be able to cross the Atlantic  and
conquer the United States?

As a matter of fact,  Germany apparently did not feel it was
within  their  power to fully conquer and occupy France  and  its
colonies;  and  set  up the Vichy puppet government to rule  over
southern France and the French Empire.`

Regardless,  after  getting into World War II,  why  did  we
agree  to such a rotten peace after surrender that our government
felt compelled to maintain and strengthen our huge armed  forces,
and to virtually occupy Germany and Japan until today.

Certainly,  one will say, we had to be prepared for conflict
with the Soviet Union and its allies.

If  this is so,  then why didn’t we take Churchill’s advice,
and  let Germany and Russia exhaust themselves on the steppes  of
Russia,  leaving  the Western democracies strong to pick  up  the
pieces and impose a true peace accord on Europe.

If  we had treated Russia as equally a bad actor as  Germany
and  Japan,  we  would  have  been spared  the  Korean  War,  the
Vietnamese War,  the conquest of Cuba and Angola, the Philippines
insurgency, etc., etc., etc.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s