Wednesday 30th of October 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

perceptions of history.....

Historical revisionism began as soon as the Second World War had ended. Both the Serbs and Russians were involved in this process and allowed history to be reinterpreted in front of their eyes. We had once believed that evil wouldn’t repeat itself if we acted like “gentlemen” and graciously turned a blind eye to the actions of our neighbors, compatriots, and allies during WWII. Even today, we often talk about “Nazi Germany.” 

 

Serbia’s deputy PM: Why the West has been twisting history since WW2

 

Since the end of WWII, there’s been a campaign to criminalize the Soviet Union, its descendants and partners

 

By Aleksandar Vulin

 

But this is not true. There was no “Nazi Germany” – it was simply Germany. You won’t find Wehrmacht stamps with the word “Nazism” written on them; the decisions to execute Serbs, Russians, and Jews weren’t made in the offices of the Nazi Party – they were made by regular German officials; the German state was not called “Nazi Germany” but was referred to according to the Constitution and laws; and Hitler was not a “Nazi dictator” but a legitimately elected representative of the vast majority of the German people.

And so, whenever we talk about “Nazi Germany” or “fascist Italy,” we allow people whose ancestors had committed those atrocities to convince us that the crimes had been committed by someone else. Seven million German soldiers fought on the Eastern Front – and how many of them were members of the Nazi Party? Seven million German citizens consciously, voluntarily, and legally killed Russians, Serbs, Jews, and the Roma, since the ruling ideology of the German state called these individuals ‘subhuman’ and decided that they should be annihilated.

The first Soviet soldiers were killed by Western allies not decades after the war – they died in 1944 near Niš, when the US Air Force strafed a Soviet Army vehicle column. Several years ago, we erected a monument as a reminder of this forgotten tragedy for which no one ever apologized. Even then, the message was already clear.

Are you aware that this year, Russia will not be able to take part in the main events on the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz? Is there a greater insult to common sense, historical truth, and the memory of all those murdered at Auschwitz than the fact that the liberating nation has not been invited to the commemorative event simply because Russia’s policy is currently “unpleasant” to the Polish leadership?

This is why historical revisionism occurs, and why Russians and Serbs are labeled as criminal, genocidal peoples.

WWII revisionism and preparations for future conflicts started as soon as victory over Germany had been achieved; it didn’t take long for the world to forget that this victory came at the cost of tens of millions of Soviet lives.

Generations born during WWII and in its aftermath could not be easily convinced to fight against the Soviet Union. For them, the horrors of the war were still too vivid and terrifying, and plunging the world into a new conflict filled with violence and horror was out of the question. The time to prepare for ‘great revenge’ had come only half a century later, when the war generation stepped down from the political and historical stage. The falsification of history started after the reunification of Germany (the country which lost the war) and the breakup of Yugoslavia and the USSR (the country which won the war). The descendants of war criminals felt ashamed not of their ancestors’ crimes, but of losing the war, and thus felt the need to revise history and reshape the world. This is why they want to portray Russians and Serbs as murderers and villains, people incapable of bringing freedom to others since they themselves lack it. And currently, we see a new attempt to settle scores with the Slavs – first of all with the Russians, and then with all the allies of Russia.

Like the Russians, the Serbs naively and, in a historical sense, recklessly, believed that they had liberated someone. That’s not true. In 1944, Belgrade was liberated because its citizens had resisted Nazi occupation for four long years; Zagreb, on the other hand, wasn’t liberated because, from 1941 until the fall of the Ustaše regime, it considered itself free and the people didn’t object to its system of values. Had [Ante] Pavelić [the founder of the Ustaše fascist organization] participated in the 1944 elections, he would have won, since the vast majority of people would’ve voted for him. No one can convince me that the majority of Croats were unaware of the existence of Jasenovac, Jadovno, and other concentration camps or that they didn’t support the horrors taking place there.

No matter how much we’d like to believe it, the Red Army didn’t liberate Vienna – the overwhelming majority of Austrians voted in favor of uniting with Germany. The crimes committed in Serbia weren’t perpetrated by the SS, most of whom had been sent to the Eastern Front, but by the Wehrmacht, which shelled Kraljevo, Kragujevac, and Podrinje.

We naively assumed that we were liberating countries that in reality felt free under German rule. This misunderstanding explains why we feel resentful of their ingratitude, while they insist, “But you are the ones who occupied us; we were free under German rule.” It is also the reason why today we see monuments to Soviet soldiers being taken down – they remind those people of their defeat in WWII. This is why history, and the conclusions drawn from it, are being reinterpreted today, influencing political and other decision-making processes.

If the Russians and Serbs had put an end to their dictatorship and oppression – which gave them a natural sense of superiority – then any evil inflicted on the Russians and Serbs was permissible and, in fact, was seen as one’s civilizational duty. But in order to settle scores with Russia, Serbia, and the Slavs, first these nations had to be dehumanized. They needed to be portrayed as people devoid of human dignity and values and turned into rapists, robbers, and criminals. Against such people, evil and war are justified and even necessary measures. We, the Serbs, know what it feels like to hear lies being told about your people, and what it’s like when someone commits the worst atrocities to justify their own evildoing.

We, the Serbs, know all too well how many lies had been told to justify the bombings of the Republika Srpska and later the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia  (SFRY). Today, Russians are witnessing this firsthand, as they find themselves unjustly accused of mass war crimes while their own victims and losses are ignored.

Carl von Clausewitz taught us that war is merely the continuation of politics by other means, but we may add that war is simply the continuation of political narratives, and each war is an extension of the previous one. Today, it is clear that the bombings of Serbia did not end. As long as they want us to recognize Kosovo, the bombing campaign aimed at dismantling Serbia and destroying its territorial integrity is still very much alive. Even now, when we hear calls for Serbs to betray their own interests and impose sanctions against Russia, we see that the bombings of Serbia have not come to an end, because such demands could have been put forward in occupied Serbia in 1944, but not in free Serbia in 2024.

We, the Serbs, know how many lies were needed to justify the immense suffering inflicted upon our people. This is precisely why it was necessary to rewrite history, tear down monuments in honor of the liberators, and present our people as murderers, rapists, and villains. This is why they needed to turn our democratic systems into examples of tyranny, with fraudulent elections and corruption – because a nation devoid of free and fair elections cannot claim to bring freedom to others.

And this is why today, Serbia and Russia "must" be presented [BY THE WEST/US/UK/EU] as nations that have no right to make independent decisions.

https://www.rt.com/news/606682-west-trying-rewrite-history/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without historical context…”

         Gus Leonisky

 

writing history....

The idea that "history is written by the victors" is often attributed to Winston Churchill, but it was actually first expressed by Hermann Göring, Churchill's enemy in World War II. At the Nuremberg trials, Göring said, “Der Sieger wird immer der Richter und der Besiegte stets der Angeklagte sein,” which translates to "The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused". 

 

By Lorris Chevalier

History, as the saying goes, is written by the victors. This common adage reflects a significant truth: the narratives we inherit often reflect the perspectives of those who prevailed. But what if history were not solely written by the winners? What if we also considered the voices of those who were defeated? By incorporating these overlooked perspectives, we could gain a richer, more nuanced understanding of the past. This article explores how the narratives of the defeated—from the Fall of Rome to the Viking invasions and the Battle of Roncevaux—can reshape our view of history.

When history is written by the victors, it often reflects a narrow, one-sided perspective. Victorious powers craft narratives that may serve political or ideological agendas, portraying themselves as just and noble while demonizing their enemies. These accounts, while informative, often lack nuance and fail to capture the full complexity of historical events.

 

However, the history told by the losers can also be ideologically driven. The stories of the defeated, while offering a counter-narrative, are not necessarily more objective. They too can be shaped by the need to justify actions, garner sympathy, or uphold certain beliefs. Despite these biases, exploring the perspectives of the defeated is crucial for a more comprehensive analysis of history.

The Voices of the Defeated

The narratives of the defeated can humanize individuals who were dehumanized or vilified in dominant historical accounts. They provide insights into the motivations, struggles, and contexts of those who lost, contributing to a more rounded understanding of historical events. These narratives also reveal the mistakes made by all parties involved, offering lessons that are crucial for preventing the repetition of historical errors.

By examining the stories of the losers, we gain a deeper understanding of the long-term impacts and legacies of historical events—insights that go beyond the immediate outcomes for the victors. Victory, after all, belongs not just to those who win battles, but to those who shape the narrative of history.

Case Study: The Fall of Rome

The Fall of Rome, which refers to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, is one of history’s most significant events. It marked the end of ancient Rome and ushered in profound political, social, and cultural changes that would shape Western civilization for centuries. However, the story of Rome’s fall is primarily told through the eyes of the Romans themselves—the defeated.

Here are five of the most important sources:

  • Ammianus Marcellinus (circa 330–395), a Roman historian and soldier, offers a first-hand account of the events leading to the fall of Rome in his work Res Gestae. His writings provide insights into the military and political challenges faced by the Roman Empire during his lifetime.
  • Orosius (circa 375–418), a Christian historian, wrote Historiarum Adversum Paganos, interpreting the fall of Rome as divine punishment for paganism. His perspective reflects the religious interpretations of his time.
  • Zosimus (5th century), a Byzantine historian, chronicled the decline of the Roman Empire and the rise of Byzantium in Historia Nova. His account is notable for its critical view of Roman leadership and the impact of external threats.
  • Procopius (circa 500–565), a Byzantine historian, authored The Secret History, a clandestine account that provides a scathing critique of the ruling elite and their role in the empire’s decline, offering a unique and often controversial perspective.

These accounts, while invaluable, are limited by their perspective. No primary sources inform us about the peoples who invaded Rome. The absence of the victors’ voices from these accounts shapes our understanding of this event and its reception, especially in how it influenced the medieval consciousness that the world is finite and heading toward its imminent end.

Case Study: The Vikings

The Viking invasions of England and Paris are other examples where the perspectives of the defeated dominate the narrative. For the Viking invasions of England, one notable first-hand account comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Compiled over several centuries, this chronicle offers contemporaneous reports of Viking raids and invasions in England, starting in the late 8th century. The entries vary in detail and perspective, providing a valuable historical record of the events.

As for the Viking invasions of Paris, the primary source is the Annals of St. Bertin, which includes a detailed account of the Siege of Paris in 845. The Annals of Fuldaalso provide additional insights into Viking activities in the Carolingian Empire during the 9th century. These annals were contemporary historical accounts written by scholars and chroniclers of the time.

However, apart from archaeology, we have very few sources from the Viking perspective. Their lives are reconstructed in mosaic through the eyes of Westerners, often biased by the civilizational lens that depicts the barbarian as inherently savage. The vision of the shaggy, muscular, primitive Viking is entirely nourished by these sources, offering a limited and often skewed view of Viking culture.

Case Study: The Battle of Roncevaux

The Battle of Roncevaux, fought in 778, is primarily known from the Song of Roland(La Chanson de Roland), an Old French epic poem. The authorship of the poem is uncertain, but it is attributed to a poet named Turoldus or Turold. The Song of Rolandis a chanson de geste, a type of medieval epic poem that recounts the heroic deeds and tragic events, including the Battle of Roncevaux, during Charlemagne’s campaign in Iberia. While the poem is a work of literature rather than a historical chronicle, it provides insights into the cultural and literary aspects of the time and the way events were remembered and portrayed.

 

This battle, known primarily through this literary text, exemplifies how the losers’ narratives can be ideologically driven. The Song of Roland depicts Muslims with particular, sometimes stereotypical traits, reflecting the Christological ideology of penance and suffering for others. This portrayal is a reminder that even the narratives of the defeated can be shaped by the need to uphold certain cultural and religious beliefs.

Why did medieval Westerners write their history even in the event of defeat?Recording historical events, even defeats, is a way for societies to preserve their identity and cultural heritage. It helps them understand their origins, the challenges they faced, and the lessons they learned. Understanding the reasons behind failures also helps in making better decisions in the future and avoiding similar pitfalls.

These stories become part of a collective consciousness that shapes the narrative of a nation’s past, fostering a sense of shared history among its people. Documenting defeats often includes recognizing the sacrifices made by individuals and communities during challenging times. This helps in honouring the resilience and bravery of those who faced adversity. Therefore, documenting defeats holds leaders and decision-makers accountable for their actions, allowing for a critical examination of past choices and contributing to more transparent and responsible governance.

Writing about history, even in defeat, is a form of cultural expression. It reflects the way a society interprets and communicates its past, shaping its cultural narrative and fostering a sense of continuity. Specifically choosing to report defeats may be attributed to a cultural trait particular to medieval Christianity. The idea of defeat being perceived as good, in the image of Christ who obtained victory through His Cross, exemplifies this paradox. As the saying goes, “The last will be the first,” so defeat can indeed become a victory.

 

Dr Lorris Chevalier, who has a Ph.D. in medieval literature, is a historical advisor for movies, including The Last Duel and Napoleon.

 

https://www.medievalists.net/2024/08/when-losers-write-history-unveiling-medieval-perspectives/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without the Vikings…”

         Gus Leonisky