Depends on the standards set wherever you're reading said history. The concept of "right" and "wrong" can't possibly apply to the overall history of the world because so much happens concurrently and values differ so much across so many countries. Even countries who share similar roots will have wildly differing concepts of right and wrong, or even origin stories.
Pakistani history classes start their timeline at the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad bin Qasim in the 7th century AD. Indian history classes start off during the Vedic period and depending on whether or not the school is a religious one, they may start earlier with the Vedic myths of creation. Note how neither country starts off at the Indus Valley despite that being the international academic consensus. The Indus Valley predates the creation of the Vedas, and it predates the conquest of Sindh. Shared history forces both countries to attempt making amends with one another. It does not benefit either country to make peace when so much more money can be made demonising the other side.
Even in times when shared history is acknowledged, it can also be a point of contention as well. Pakistan glorifies the Mughals and the Delhi Sultanate whilst India is quick to point out how the Mauryans and the Guptas predated both of them and oversaw a much longer lasting golden age. The point of course is that the truth of the situation is far more complex, but that reality won't ever be the case so long as there's a reason to demonise the other side.
If that's the case for India and Pakistan, it stands to reason that this phenomena can be observed elsewhere. The countries that once formed Yugoslavia would definitely have plenty of reason to dilute their history with a narrative, as would Japan and China. Given these discrepancies, it stands to reason that there isn't a "right" or "wrong" side that applies to world history as a whole. It just "exists" and keeps going leaving us to interpret it.