The winners write history.

[Cyrano]

If we defeat today's Republican Party, and drive them from all access to power, history will view them as some deviation from the norm, caused and led by a single orange maniac. (And, of course, many books will be written to delve deeper into this crazed era.)

But what if they win? What if they seize complete control of our government. Well, I suppose history will record how "crazy, woke, liberals" almost succeeded in perverting American education. Not to mention that they wanted all fetuses destroyed, but we're stopped by "Dear Leader." And, of course, America's doors will be closed to all immigrants. White, Christian nationalism has prevailed. -- But then, all books being banned means there won't be any written history to which to refer.

Wouldn't you like to be around 50 years from now to see which of these two histories become "reality?"

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. No. Corrupted histories get corrected. Avoid the trap of thinking America is everything

Republicons won't write all the histories even if they win. There is just too much information available.

It is a colossal error to think and write as if America is the only country that means anything and writes the only histories. It is a monumental mistake to assume that Canada, Europe, and the rest of the world are not watching and writing.

[Cyrano]

2. What if Germany, Japan and Italy had won WWII?

Do you really believe that the history that is currently accepted by much of today's world would exist?

More likely, Hitler would be viewed as a George Washington, Mussolini would be viewed as an Abraham Lincoln, and, Japan might not even exist, since Hitler would have gone after them as soon as he owned the rest of the world.

If you don't really believe that history is written by the winners, then why was Nikki Haley still trying to peddle the shit that the Civil Was was about "a form of government." If the South had won, no person living today would have ever heard the word "slavery."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Nonsense. There are many German, Italian, and Japanese histories of WW2

As well as Swiss, Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian histories of WW2.

Americans have written definitive histories of the Napoleonic wars. We should forget those histories?

[Cyrano]

4. German, Italian and Japanese history are accepted because they lost.

Do you really believe that history books would record what occurred if they had won? My guess is, we'd all be speaking German.And the history that everyone believes about Nazi barbarism would be mentioned nowhere.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Your fantasy depends on there being no foreign trade, no internet, no phone calls, no travel

Instead of being absolutist, you would have gotten some traction if you wrote that histories would be suppressed. But instead you fell into the all-or-nothing fallacy and imagined a total victory with a total hermetic isolation afterward. Neither is possible. Nothing short of that would realize your totalist fears.

[MineralMan]

6. And perhaps, you are incorrect.

You are writing responses like a teacher would write. Are you qualified to be so sure of yourself? You use a dominant voice. I'm not entirely sure that is justified.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Perhaps I am incorrect

I have not done an enumeration of history books on WW2 from non-American sources. I am confident they exist, but to get to the level of "many" I'm less sure about although I think it is probable.

On my main points of the advisability of avoiding the black-or-white all-or-nothing fallacy and of the trap of USA-centrism, I am quite sure. Part of my motivation is to counter be bleakness and despair that sometimes runs as a dark undercurrent to threads on DU.

Note, I think you could correct me on the number of history books without doing an enumeration or necessarily finding an enumeration. There might be some analysis or meta-analysis that would weaken or shoot my point down. Or there might be various suppressions that could serve as counter-examples. The one the OP brought up about Nikki Haley is weak although it is illustrative and therefore supportive of the OP's view, though not the absolutism that was expressed. Interesting that you have not discussed the thesis of the Original Post or the responses to the thesis. Perhaps you endorse the totalist aspect of the conjecture or the American-centric approach that it expresses. Or perhaps not.

As you suspect, I am not a historian. I am entitled to an opinion. But I have been a teacher in a couple of different scenarios and got commendations for it, though it is not my profession. My profession is software and there, as in many walks of life and aspects of life, clear thinking leads to greatest success, so I cultivate that in myself. I may have disturbed your equilibrium by expressing it with some degree of determination but I do try to write persuasively.

If I'm not mistaken, you are or were a teacher. (Once a teacher, always a teacher?) Is it so terrible to write like a teacher?

[Drum]

7. ...