Tales of the years gone by

Scientists have to invent stuff, figure out how and why things happen. Weathermen and Economists have to forecast and say why things will happen the way they think it will happen. You would think historians, who just have to write about things that have already happened, might do a better job of it.

No.

Historians just have to muddle things up. Put it some national pride and emotional sentiments into this field, and it makes one wonder whether anyone knows what did happen.

What got me into this, was this whole thing about Russia or rather the erstwhile Soviet Union not being given the due respect it deserves for its role in defeating Nazi Germany. For the US anyway, WW2 was all about Pearl Harbour, Normandy and Hiroshima. Being the cowboys and saving the world from the Nazis and the Communists. I think they rather hoped the Nazis and the Communists would wipe each other out, but things did not go as figured, and hence they had to step in.

The leaders of the Western nations pissed off the Russians by not acknowledging their contributions in defeating Nazi Germany, when they gathered recently in Normandy for the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Obama was the only to mention the Russian contribution, by stating that the Russians suffered the most losses on the Eastern front. Then he went on to say that , had it not been for the Allies opening the Second front, Nazi Germany would have taken over the entire continent.

Russia lost 13.6 million of its people, 16 times higher than the combined losses of US, Britain and France. It is the Russian opinion, that by the time the Western Allies landed, the Red army which was rolling across Eastern Europe, would have crushed the Nazi forces, with or without the help of the Allies. It is their view, that the Allies chose to open the Second Front not to stop the Nazis but possibly to prevent the Reds from sweeping Europe. This Churchill admitted to in his memoirs.

Then there is the view that Russia aided Hitler, when it signed the Non Aggression Pact. Though recently available documented evidence shows, that Russia had no choice, as its plea for support from the West European nations to keep Hitler in check, went unheeded.

Medvedev established a Kremlin Commission "to counter attemps to falsify history to the detriment of Russia's interest". This was before the Normandy meet. In a few months time, the world will mark the 70 th anniversary of the start of WW2.

Closer home, does anyone know what exactly happened with respect to the Partition. Everyone has their own opinion. Their own views, and all seemingly with irrefutable proof. Growing up in India, you are fed the Indian view on things, and brain washed to think that Indians are right, Pakistanis are wrong. Nehru the hero, and Jinnah the villain. The Brits possibly think that Mountbatten was the genius.

So , how credible can history be? Can a system be devised, where the truth comes out, even if it hurts? Or is there no such thing as the truth. Is it that the story of people will inevitably be flawed as the people themselves are.

***Most of this is drawn from a recent article in the Hindu. It was written by a Russian, and I have hence tried not to take things directly from that article.