In this case, both are wrong. But neither of those are "American facts" or, "Russian facts", they are both Simply wrong.
But facts aren't wrong according to you?
You might think me facetious for pouncing on something like this, but I actually think you've hit a real nerve where history writing is concerned.
I'll just submit for consideration that:
If one looks at those facts Americans or Russians, or anyone with an agenda for that matter, bring up when claiming something like "We won WWII", then every single thing they put forwards in their argument will almost always be factually perfectly correct.
The other part of this is otoh how facts are established. That goes on the much tricker subject of how we know things; how all these facts about what happened in something like WWII (or anything in history) gets established. How do we come to know these facts?
But what's really at stake is interpretation and comparison. And that is a lot harder than simply stating facts. You still have to establish what a fact means.
Like one historian looking at the Egyptologist attempt at writing the history of the campaigns in Syria of Thutmosis III:
Lots of facts... We even have entire army records for parts of his reign (things like how many, marching where, how far travelled in a day, flour consumed in baking bred for the men, goats and sheep stolen from locals). Yeah, lots of facts, but absolutely no way of putting them in any meaningful relationship to anything. This makes the knowledge of these facts interesting, but almost entirely opaque to interpretation, i.e. answering "what does this mean?"
Steph where do these reply ideas come to you from? 
