Is there really a Right or wrong side of History or is History written by the victors?

When my dad was in high school all of his classmates went to rallies. They had big gathering in stadiums and at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan. Some kids went to aryan rallies that were pro-Hitler and some (like my dad) went to Marxist rallies. After the war people wanted to forget how popular Aryanism was in the USA. They got caught on the wrong side of history. Later on it was the Marxist association that could lose you your job or you freedom (McCarthy era). In the 80's, 90's and 00's being a radical progressive was a stigma. Now a socialist candidate won New Hampshire.

The point is there can be a situation where neither side of history is the right side and it can change over the decades.

"Is there really a Right or wrong side of History or is History written by the victors?"

The victors wrote the Treaty of Versailles which is not regarded as more a punishment than a viable peace.

Stalin was revered in Stalinist Russia but since is now viewed as more of a despot.

Manifest Destiny was seen as a popular thing in the USA and totally correct; it's now viewed as basically a genocide.

To some point you are correct; many think The Manhattan Project was 'USA nuking Japan' and the reasoning being justified over some twisted logic 'many would have died if we invaded' - totally oblivious to the reality it was a partnership between the USA, Britain and Canada with 'if we don't nuke them we might suffer lots of casualties' just an inane 'justification' to resort to using nuking against ourselves...

But on the whole History has a way of sorting itself out over time in most things despite any spin placed upon it.

That is a really intelligent question! And is a question most of us don't give much thought to until someone asks it.

Those terms are very inflammatory and judgmental, aren't they? I'm sure the Japanese people don't consider themselves to be "on the wrong side of history" after World War II. And who is worthy of being the right or wrong side of history after the European Christians pillaged the Middle East after the Crusades?

I would say that people choose winners and losers by whatever is socially acceptable in their country of origin or religion of origin during the time that they live.

In some cases, positions of acceptance do change when new facts are uncovered, like Christopher Columbus, who did not discover America after all. So should we banish him from the "right side" of history now? And would it really matter? (Except to maybe the Italians, who would be pretty mad that they would have to cede that honor to the Danes or some other worthy country of origin?)

And yes, it would seem that the rich and powerful are in control of how history is written or propagandized. It is up to each of us to find the truth and decide for ourselves to accept the official view of history or whether being on the right or wrong side even matters.

Yes i Get abused Because i tell this True Story americans would rather abuse the Truth than research it

merica with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Göring's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?

For the government did sanction dubious transactions—both before and after Pearl Harbor. A presidential edict, issued six days after December 7, 1941, actually set up the legislation whereby licensing arrangements for trading with the enemy could officially be granted.

Often during the years after Pearl Harbor the government permitted such trading. For example, ITT was allowed to continue its relations with the Axis and Japan until 1945, even though that conglomerate was regarded as an official instrument of United States Intelligence.

No attempt was made to prevent Ford from retaining its interests for the Germans in Occupied France, nor were the Chase Bank or the Morgan Bank expressly forbidden to keep open their branches in Occupied Paris. It is indicated that the Reichsbank and Nazi Ministry of Economics made promises to certain U.S. corporate leaders that their properties would not be injured after the Führer was victorious.

Thus, the bosses of the multinationals as we know them today had a six-spot on every side of the dice cube. Whichever side won the war, the powers that really ran nations would not be adversely affected.

And it is important to consider the size of American investments in Nazi Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor. These amounted to an estimated total of $475 million. Standard Oil of New Jersey had $120 million invested there; General Motors had $35 million; ITT had $30 million; and Ford had $17.5 million. Though it would have been more patriotic to have allowed Nazi Germany to confiscate these companies for the duration—to nationalize them or to absorb them into Hermann Göring's industrial empire—it was clearly more practical to insure them protection from seizure by allowing them to remain in special holding companies, the money accumulating until war's end. It is interesting that whereas there is no evidence of any serious attempt by Roosevelt to impeach the guilty in the United States,

reason FDR was afraid of Upsetting Corporate USA whose Cooperation was desperately needed to win the War in the Pacific

History is always written by the victors. Thats why everything should be challenged and tested. History, in particular (along with politics), is the least objective of subjects. CBS (title invented to obscure function) need to be applied to any subjective report and any associated categorisations.

Yes, and yes. Historians go through periods where, for various reasons, they tend to follow a particular theme. "History written by the victors" is unfortunately, one of those themes. The ability to look at an issue dispassionately tends to come after time. It is a rare historian who can look at an event with truly neutral eyes.

right/wrong side of history is jargon used by people to try and convince you that you will be judged harshly by future generations

but we can't really know how future generations will judge us, by what criteria

The right side is the true one.