'The Winner Writes the History' 

Not always.  For example:

'The History of the Rebellion' by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon and former advisor to Charles I and Charles II. This is his account of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (British Civil wars) and he was on the losing side.

It was the losers who wrote the books of Kings and of Chronicles covering the defeat and destruction of the kingdom of Judah by the Babylonian Empire.

Tim of Aclea wrote:

'The Winner Writes the History' 

Not always.  For example:

'The History of the Rebellion' by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon and former advisor to Charles I and Charles II. This is his account of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (British Civil wars) and he was on the losing side.

It was the losers who wrote the books of Kings and of Chronicles covering the defeat and destruction of the kingdom of Judah by the Babylonian Empire.

Fair enough! But it is just a general saying about history. Whatever country you live in the bias will be in favor of those in power wherever you might be.

The winner writes the History - not always through bias but access to relevant material is part of that. I have recently been reading assorted accounts of my father's RA regiment in North Africa and Italy - and what a muddle it all is of units moving about all over the place  and not quite what I recall from my father's accounts  either. The formal stuff remined me of boards games like Risk with counters pushed about in hope more than skill. I might be wrong but I sensed too many chiefs doing the bidding and not enough Indians to do it for some of their placing. Broadly they came out all right but the detail is more telling. And of all History likewise, I guess we do not get all the detail, do  we? Winners fudge the best lines, the failed ones lose, destroy or deny theirs....or embroider esteem raising editions to keep face. There are many cracks in the icefield of any event's cold fact. Treading with care is advised.