Nations are not only defeated in battlefields. They are also defeated politically, economically, socially and culturally which subsequently change the whole national character and mindset for generations to come. After overpowering their enemies and crushing them completely when conquering nation writes history of the conquered people, it is written with such a style that defeated nation feels itself inferior comparing to conquerors. History is used not only to subjugate mind but also make subject nation pliable to be ruled.

There are some important components for the construction of conquerors’ version of history. For example, first of all, every aggressor wants to have moral and political justification of his attack and occupation. One or more pretexts are invented to convince his own people and other nations that his attack is under extreme compulsion to defend the honour of his country and people. To make it more justifiable, it is further argued that war is waged to protect civilization, and to save humanity from barbarity. In most of the cases the real economic and political motives are not openly discussed and kept hidden from the public eyes. The propaganda which follows, creates euphoria and public becomes enthusiastic to help their rulers to fight for higher values. At this stage, emotions undermine rationale.

In writing history, aggressor puts forward his image as a just and the adversary as an oppressor and tyrant to his own people; therefore, it becomes incumbent upon him and his nation to liberate the exploited people from tyranny and oppression. He poses as liberator and thus victory becomes a blessing to the occupied country and its people. In this version of history, the aggressor soon finds collaborators who not only help and cooperate with him but fight against their own rulers. The role of these collaborators is admired in the history and they are portrayed as wise and sagacious who helped their people to come out from sluggishness.

The other argument justifying aggression is the concept of decline of society that was attacked. It is told that there was widespread corruption, political instability, and social discontent among people. Moreover, it was said that the economic situation was deplorable and, as a result of it, the country was on verge of collapse.

The version of history changes as soon as the conquest becomes complete Now, brighter picture emerges in which the occupying force created a strong and stable government, improved economic condition, eliminated corruption, and restored law and order. Thus, the country was saved from destruction and annihilation due to the intervention of foreign power.

One of the important aspects of this historiography is that the aggressor highlights detail of his moral courage and military might. But generally he also praises bravery of his opponents in defending their country. The reason is that in this way he wants to show that he had occupied the country after stiff resistance and not without any fight. Resistance gives justification for occupation. Without  resistance the victory becomes hollow and ackluster.

The new history creates an image of the vanquished from its own angle and the defeated nation does not provide any opportunity to defend or to correct historical narrative that is not in its favour. As a result of it, the construction of history that is made by conquerors becomes valid without challenge.

Change comes when nations fight wars of liberation and become independent after a long and arduous struggle. During this process, leaders of the liberation movements are required to use of history in order to fulfill their political ends, therefore, attempt are made to glorify the past to counter the causes of their subjugation. A comprehensive plan is made to retrieve their lost past and reconstruct history to re-discover their traditions and values and strengthen their national identity.

However, there is another aspect of it. In some cases, subject nations are so much integrated to the culture of their conquerors that they loose their national identity and align themselves with foreign culture. They accept their version of history and recognize the aggressors as their heroes who had liberated them from their inefficient rulers and, after elimination of their out-dated traditions, introduced them to modern values and new ideas. Having these notions of foreign culture, they no longer take any interest in their history and traditions. They adopt a different point of view of history; after rejecting the past, they concentrate on present and regard the arrival of conquerors as harbinger of new age.

These two different points of view divide the society into two antithetical groups: one who refuse to recognize foreign culture and values and make efforts to conserve and preserve their own identity; the other group, after breaking their relations with their indigenous culture, integrate with the foreign culture and assume the role of modernizers.  Believing that their culture has lost all energy and vitality and is not in a position to adapt in a new atmosphere and help the society to progress. The conflict between forces of continuity and modernity in most cases remains unresolved but keeps the society moving.