Hello, Mike! We've missed you ---

Let's try this from a different angle and see how it looks.

The Soviets, the Germans and the Japanese have their versions of WWII, and we have ours. The Japanese lost and have yet to come to terms with defeat. Their histories leave out many uncomfortable parts of the story. The Soviets won and have yet to come to terms with victory. Their histories also leave out many uncomfortable parts of the story.

Soviet historians tend to celebrate the struggle as a victory of good over evil. Their Japanese counterparts simply omit detailed accounts of the war as a chapter in their history too painful to review.

American and particularly German historians have handled the more unpleasant aspects of their involvement in WWII in a more honest, constructive manner. German histories are much more likely to credit the successes of their adversaries and usually refrain from portraying either side as being good or evil. To address your point more directly, a German historian would be highly unlikely to describe the officers who conspired against Hitler as traitors.

Time heals most wounds, and the process becomes easier for those who don't have a dog in the hunt. Who's upset about the failed European revolutions of 1848? Does anyone care which side won the Hundred Years War? By the same token, I tend to believe that most Southerners who are okay with results of the CW don't know or care what really happened.