Facts are never clear. I know, that's a contradiction right? There is evidence to suggest a lot of things, and sifting through, and making a judgement is history. Those who create history are human, and are biased and make errors. Yet you say How can that be ? When the people who write the facts are flawed, can we really call them facts anymore? The debate is in deciding what facts are right. Who was the most objective in recording them ?, Who should we believe ? You say, For whom?, How?, Who did it affect?, Your simplistic view of history may be suitable for everyday life, but it does not suit intelligent discussion. For example, Can we say with absolute honesty that Australia was discovered in 1606 ? what about earlier? Post colonialists would argue that there are more sides to the story than just white and black, enemy and ally. Post modernists would abandon objectivity. So.. Facts ?.. In whose book ?