"Revisionist History" is not necessarily a bad thing as new evidence emerges due to the declassification of documents, accessing previously unused sources or for any number of reasons.
All history is subjective and bias inevitable. Dig deep and most historical accounts of anything are riddled with mythology, propaganda and the apocryphal accepted as "Truth" or "Fact". Few historians have matched Thucydides for objectivity.
Here at SubSim some of the most respected historical works that are constantly referenced by respected Members of the Forum are in many respects "revisionist" in how their interpretation of event differ from the conventional account.
Shattered Sword rewrites the Battle of Midway in a manner that answered many of those nasty little logical contradictions in the mainstream narratives.
Hitler's U-Boat War changed the narrative of the Battle of the Atlantic by concentrating on the convoys that got through instead of the traditional merchant ship body-count and feasting on the Allied disasters that featured in most popular works.
Currently great work is being done on the history of World War 1 as German records believed lost in Allied bombing raids or carted off into captivity in 1945 are discovered in archives where they have laid for decades. More English language historians are using French, Belgian, Austrian and Russian documents previously ignored or unavailable and these are challenging the orthodoxy of the common accounts of the war and backing up the new narrative with some impressive evidence.
There are certainly some schools of thought that intentionally project their political or social agendas into history. Rather than raving about them, one should identify their bias, deconstruct their arguments and offer up evidence that suits your agenda. Because you know you have one: we all do somewhere.
It's a great time to have an interest in history if one can keep an open and skeptical mind.
|