Re-touching history?

[GUNSLNGR]

An interesting discussion, or rather, an interesting conclusion regarding history.

How should history be written? Should we record the evil men do in order not to repeat it? Or should we emphasise the bravery the people have shown in battles, protecting their values? Or both?

What should we include? What should we leave out? What should we not only leave out, but ban alltogether? (I am referring to initiatives in EU to ban both Nazi and Communist/Bolshevik symbols).

Little by little, the future generations will loose a grip of what really happened :-/

Churchill, I believe, wrote that "history is written by the victors." But, I believe that is not really true any longer. In the U.S., revisionist history has run amok. If a piece of history doesn't meet with someone's current social/political viewpoint then it is either left out, dramatically changed, or villianized.

The rule has become: if the myth is more interesting than the truth, print the myth. German military superiority may be among those printed myths. The problem starts when the myth becomes reality to many, the truth is discarded and the creation of things like a Hitler become easier.

I don't believe its just future generations that have lost a grip on history, it's our own as well. The purpose of history is view how you got to where you are today, not to judge those who have come before you.