Allowing history to speak for itself seems highly risky, and most governments would agree. Letting individual characters express their own stories through their own voices means asking for trouble. Everyone would write their own lexia, with no author in command to link them together. How can governments deal with such chaos?

History is therefore usually regarded as inherently paradoxical, and that's why governments have always felt the need to rewrite the truth to suit their motivations. This Orwellian statement, though macabre and pessimistic, is surprisingly accurate. The human mind fails miserably at dealing with judgment involving fuzzy concepts. It would rather not hear about cases where either side is, to some extent, justified. Seeing as how every world government to date has done something wrong (whether any government to date has done anything even remotely decent, however, is a question you certainly don't want to pose to Henry Louis Mencken) it seems reasonable to assume that they would subvert truth to ensure support. Obviously, if the truth possessed only one valid interpretation, one which would require the people to wholeheartedly trust their government, then all would be well. Actual history is rarely Boolean as required by such governments, and that's why it has been rewritten, over and over again, by a mind-witheringly great number of alleged authorities.

History is, by its very nature, paradoxical. Paradoxes, by their very nature, give you a nasty migraine when you think too much about them. Therefore, who in their right mind would tackle paradoxes when erasing them remains an available alternative?

Ask any historian.