 | This articlemay containexcessive orirrelevant examples. Please helpimprove it by removingless pertinent examples andelaborating on existing ones.(September 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Inhistoriography,historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account.[1] It involves challenging theorthodox (established, accepted or traditional) scholarly views or narratives regarding ahistorical event, timespan, or phenomenon by introducing contrary evidence or reinterpreting the motivations of the people involved. Revision of thehistorical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation as they come to light. The process of historical revision is a common, necessary, and usually uncontroversial process which develops and refines the historical record to make it more complete and accurate.
One form of historical revisionism involves denying the moral significance or accuracy of thehistorical record.[2] This type of historical revisionism is calledhistorical negationism, and is contentious as it often includesdenying the veracity of genuine documents, ordeliberately manipulating statistical data to reach predetermined conclusions. The destruction or alteration of cultural heritage sites is also considered a form of illegitimate historical revisionism when it serves to deny the cultural or historical claims of ethnic groups.[3] Negationists may use the term "revisionism" to portray theirpseudoscholarship as legitimate, especially in the context ofgenocide denial.[4][5]
Historical revisionism is the means by which thehistorical record, the history of a society, as understood in itscollective memory, continually accounts for new facts and interpretations of the events.
Revisionist historians contest the mainstream or traditional view of historical events and raise views at odds with traditionalists. In the field ofhistoriography, the historian who works within the existingestablishment of society and has produced a body ofhistory books from which he or she can claimauthority, usually benefits from thestatus quo.[citation needed] As such, historical revisionism can produce significant controversy within society.
Revisionist history is often practiced by those who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, ethnic minority historians, those working outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, essentially historians who have the most to gain and the least to lose in challenging the status quo. In the friction between the mainstream of accepted beliefs and the new perspectives of historical revisionism, received historical ideas are either changed, solidified, or clarified. If over a period of time, the revisionist ideas become the new establishmentstatus quo aparadigm shift is said to have occurred.
Historians are influenced by thezeitgeist (spirit of the time), and the usually progressive changes to society, politics, and culture, such as occurred after theSecond World War (1939–1945); inThe Future of the Past (1989), the historianC. Vann Woodward said:
...these developments will and should raise new questions about the past, and affect our reading of large areas of history, and my belief is that future revisions may be extensive enough to justify calling the coming age of historiography an "Age of Reinterpretation". The first illustration happens to come mainly from American history, but this should not obscure the broader scope of the revolution, which has no national limitations.[6]
The philosopher of science,Thomas Kuhn, said, in contrast to the quantifiablehard sciences, characterized by a single paradigm, thesocial sciences are characterized by several paradigms that derive from a "tradition of claims, counterclaims, and debates over [the] fundamentals" of research.[7] The philosopherKarl Popper said that "each generation has its own troubles and problems, and, therefore, its own interests and its own point of view."[8]
Historians distinguish historical revisionism from historical negationism, which is a form ofdenialism.
In contrast, historical revisionism entails the refinement of existing knowledge about a historical event, not a denial of the event, itself; that such refinement of history emerges from the examination of new, empirical evidence, and a re-examination, and consequent re-interpretation of the existing documentary evidence. That legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges the existence of a "certain body of irrefutable evidence" and the existence of a "convergence of evidence", which suggest that an event – such as theBlack Death,American slavery, andthe Holocaust – did occur; whereas the denialism of history rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence.[9][10][11] HistorianDeborah Lipstadt states thatHolocaust deniers, such asHarry Elmer Barnes, disingenuously self-identify as "historical revisionists" toobscure their denialism as academic revision of the historical record.
The process of historical revision involves updating the historical record to accommodate developments as they arise. The historical record may be revised to accommodate for a number of academic reasons, including the following:
The release, discovery, or publicization of documents previously unknown may lead scholars to hold new views of well established events. For example, archived or sealed government records (often related to national security) will become available under thethirty-year rule and similar laws. Such documents can provide new sources and therefore new analyses of past events that will alter the historical perspective.
With the release of theULTRA archives in the 1970s under the British thirty-year rule, much of the Allied high command tactical decisionmaking process was re-evaluated, particularly theBattle of the Atlantic. Before the release of the ULTRA archives, there was much debate over whether Field MarshalBernard Montgomery could have known thatArnhem was heavily garrisoned. With the release of the archives, which indicated that they were, the balance of the evidence swung in the direction of his detractors. The release of the ULTRA archives also forced a re-evaluation of thehistory of the electronic computer.[notes 1]
As more sources in other languages become available historians may review their theories in light of the new sources. The revision of the meaning of the Dark Ages is an example.[12][13]
DNA analysis has had an impact in various areas of history either confirming established historical theories or presenting new evidence that undermines the current established historical explanation. ProfessorAndrew Sherratt, a British prehistorian, was responsible for introducing the work of anthropological writings on the consumption of legal and illegal drugs and how to use the papers to explain certain aspects of prehistoric societies.[14]Carbon dating, the examination ofice cores andtree rings,palynology,scanning electron microscope analysis of early metal samples, and measuringoxygen isotopes in bones, have all provided new data in the last few decades with which to argue new hypotheses. Extractingancient DNA allows historians to debate the meaning and importance of race and indeed current identities.[15]
Government bodies may engage in historical revisionism for political gain.[16] For example, in schoolbooks' history on Europe, it is possible to read about an event from completely different perspectives. In theBattle of Waterloo, most British, French, Dutch and German schoolbooks slant the battle to emphasise the importance of the contribution of their nations. Sometimes, the name of an event is used to convey political or a national perspective. For example, the same conflict between two English-speaking countries is known by two different names: the "American War of Independence" and the "American Revolutionary War". As perceptions of nationalism change, so do the areas of history that are driven by such ideas. Wars are contests between enemies, and postwar histories select the facts and interpretations to suit their internal needs, TheKorean War, for example, has sharply different interpretations in textbooks in the countries involved.[17]
For example, as regionalism has regained some of its old prominence in British politics, some historians have suggested that the older studies of theEnglish Civil War were centred on England and that to understand the war, events that had previously been dismissed as on the periphery should be given greater prominence. To emphasise this, revisionist historians have suggested that the English Civil War becomes just one of a number of interlocking conflicts known asWars of the Three Kingdoms. Furthermore, as cultures develop, it may become strategically advantageous for some revision-minded groups to revise their public historical narrative in such a way so as to either discover, or in rarer cases manufacture, a precedent which contemporary members of the given subcultures can use as a basis or rationale for reform or change.[18]
 | This sectionpossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(August 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
For example, in the 1940s, it became fashionable to see the English Civil War from a Marxist school of thought. In the words ofChristopher Hill, "the Civil War was a class war." AfterWorld War II, the influence of Marxist interpretation waned in British academia and by the 1970s this view came under attack by a new school of revisionists and it has been largely overturned as a major mainstream explanation of the mid-17th-century conflict inEngland,Scotland, andIreland.
Issues ofcausation in history are often revised with new research: for example, by the mid-20th century the status quo was to see theFrench Revolution as the result of the triumphant rise of a new middle class. Research in the 1960s prompted by revisionist historians likeAlfred Cobban andFrançois Furet revealed the social situation was much more complex, and the question of what caused the revolution is now closely debated.[citation needed]
As non-Latin texts, such asWelsh,Gaelic and theNorsesagas have been analysed and added to the canon of knowledge about the period, and as much morearchaeological evidence has come to light, the period known as theDark Ages has narrowed to the point that many historians no longer believe that such a term is useful. Moreover, the termdark implies less of a void of culture and law but more a lack of manysource texts in Mainland Europe. Many modern scholars who study the era tend to avoid the term altogether for itsnegative connotations and find it misleading and inaccurate for any part of the Middle Ages.[19][20]
The concept offeudalism has been questioned. Revisionist scholars led by historianElizabeth A. R. Brown haverejected the term.
In recounting theEuropean colonization of the Americas, some history books of the past paid little attention to theindigenous peoples of the Americas, usually mentioning them only in passing and making no attempt to understand the events from their point of view. That was reflected in the description ofChristopher Columbus having discovered America. Those events' portrayal has since been revised to avoid the word "discovery."[21]
In his 1990 book,The Conquest of Paradise,Kirkpatrick Sale argued thatChristopher Columbus was an imperialist bent on conquest from his first voyage. In aNew York Times book review, historian and member of the Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee CommitteeWilliam Hardy McNeill wrote about Sale:
McNeill declares Sale's work to be "unhistorical, in the sense that [it] selects from the often-cloudy record of Columbus's actual motives and deeds what suits the researcher's 20th-century purposes." McNeill states that detractors and advocates of Columbus present a "sort of history [that] caricatures the complexity of human reality by turning Columbus into either a bloody ogre or a plaster saint, as the case may be."[22]
Historians in China and from abroad long wrote that theManchus who conquered China and established theQing dynasty (1636–1912) adopted the customs and institutions of theHan Chinese dynasties that preceded them and were "sinicized", that is, absorbed into Chinese culture. In 1990 American historians explored Manchu language sources and newly accessible imperial archives, and discovered that the emperors retained their Manchu culture and that they regardedChina proper as only one part of their larger empire. These scholars differ among themselves but agree on a major revision of the history of the Qing dynasty.[23]
| This articlecontainstoo many or overly lengthy quotations. Please helpsummarise the quotations. Consider transferring direct quotations toWikiquote or excerpts toWikisource.(June 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The military historianJames R. Arnold argues:
The writings of SirCharles Oman and SirJohn Fortescue dominated subsequent English-language Napoleonic history. Their views [that the French infantry used heavy columns to attack lines of infantry] became very much the received wisdom.... By 1998 a new paradigm seemed to have set in with the publication of two books devoted to Napoleonic battle tactics. Both claimed that the French fought in line at Maida and both fully explored French tactical variety. The 2002 publication ofThe Battle of Maida 1806: Fifteen Minutes of Glory, appeared to have brought the issue of column versus line to a satisfactory conclusion: "The contemporary sources are... the best evidence and their conclusion is clear: GeneralCompère's brigade formed into line to attackKempt's Light Battalion." The decisiveaction at Maida took place in less than 15 minutes. It had taken 72 years to rectify a great historian's error about what happened during those minutes.[24][25]
After the proclamation of theArgentine Republic in late 1861, its firstde facto President,Bartolomé Mitre, wrote the first Argentine historiographical works:Historia de Belgrano y de la Independencia Argentina andHistoria de San Martín y de la emancipación sudamericana. Although these were criticised by notorious intellectuals such asDalmacio Vélez Sarsfield andJuan Bautista Alberdi and even by some colleagues likeAdolfo Saldías, both stated a liberal-conservative bias on Argentine history through theNational Academy of History established in 1893, despite the existence ofcaudillos andgauchos.
During theRadical Civic Union government ofHipólito Yrigoyen, historians followed the revisionist view of anti-mitrist politicians such as Carlos D'Amico, Ernesto Quesada and David Peña and their theories reached the academy thanks to Dardo Corvalán Mendilharsu. Argentine historical revisionism could reach its peak during theperonist government. In 2011, theManuel Dorrego National Institute of Argentine and Iberoamerican Historical Revisionism was established by the Secretary of Culture,[26] but this one suffered a rupture between21st century socialists andnationalists. Three weeks after theInauguration of Mauricio Macri, the institute was closed.
The historian andAmerican Historical Association memberJames M. McPherson has said:
The fourteen-thousand members of this association [i.e., the American Historical Association], however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuingdialogue, between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning.The unending quest of historians for understanding the past – that is,revisionism – is what makes history vital and meaningful ... Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution.[27]
On resistance to the works of revised history that present aculturally-comprehensive historical narrative of the US, the perspectives ofblack people,women, and thelabour movement, the historian David Williams said:
These, and other, scholarly voices, called for a more comprehensive treatment of American history, stressing that the mass of Americans, not simply the power élites, made history. Yet, it was mainly white males of the power élite who had the means to attend college, become professional historians, and shape a view of history that served their own class, race, and gender interests at the expense of those not so fortunate – and, quite literally, to paper over aspects of history they found uncomfortable. "One is astonished in the study of history", wroteDu Bois in 1935, "at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over.... The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value, as an incentive and [as] an example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth".[28]
After the Second World War, the study and production of history in the US was expanded by theG.I. Bill, which funding allowed "a new and more broadly-based generation of scholars" with perspectives and interpretations drawn from thefeminist movement, theCivil Rights Movement, and theAmerican Indian Movement.[29] That expansion and deepening of the pool of historians voided the existence of a definitive and universally-accepted history, therefore, is presented by the revisionist historian to the national public with an history that has been corrected and augmented with new facts, evidence, and interpretations of the historical record. InThe Cycles of American History (1986), in contrasting and comparing the US and the Soviet Union during theCold War (1945–1991), the historianArthur M. Schlesinger Jr. said:
... but others, especially in the United States.... represent what American historians callrevisionism – that is readiness to challenge official explanations. No one should be surprised by this phenomenon. Every war in American history has been followed, in due course, by skeptical reassessments of supposedly sacred assumptions... for [historical] revisionism is an essential part of the process, by which history, through the posing of new problems and the investigation of new possibilities, enlarges its perspectives and enriches its insights.[30]
The historianForrest McDonald is often critical of the turn that revisionism has taken but admits that the turmoil of the 1960s America has changed the way history was written:
The result, as far as the study of history was concerned, was an awakened interest in subjects that historians had previously slighted. Indian history, black history, women's history, family history, and a host of specializations arose. These expanded horizons enriched our understanding of the American past, but they also resulted in works of special pleading, trivialization, and downright falsification.[31]
In 1986, the historian John Hope Franklin described four stages in the historiography of the African experience of life in the US, which were based upon different models of historical consensus.[32]
In reaction to the orthodox interpretation enshrined in theVersailles Treaty, which declared that Germany was guilty of starting World War I, the self-described "revisionist" historians of the 1920s rejected the orthodox view and presented a complex causation in which several other countries were equally guilty. Intense debate continues among scholars.[33]
The military leadership of theBritish Army duringWorld War I was frequently condemned as poor by historians and politicians for decades after the war ended. Common charges were that the generals commanding the army were blind to the realities oftrench warfare, ignorant of the conditions of their men and unable to learn from their mistakes, thus causing enormous numbers of casualties ("lions led by donkeys").[34] However, during the 1960s, historians such asJohn Terraine began to challenge that interpretation. In recent years, as new documents have come forth and the passage of time has allowed for more objective analysis, historians such asGary D. Sheffield andRichard Holmes observe that the military leadership of the British Army on theWestern Front had to cope with many problems that they could not control, such as a lack of adequate military communications, which had not occurred. Furthermore, military leadership improved throughout the war, culminating in theHundred Days Offensive advance to victory in 1918. Some historians, even revisionists, still criticise the British High Command severely but are less inclined to portray the war in a simplistic manner with brave troops being led by foolish officers.
There has been a similar movement regarding the French Army during the war with contributions by historians such asAnthony Clayton. Revisionists are far more likely to view commanders such as French GeneralFerdinand Foch, British GeneralDouglas Haig and other figures, such as AmericanJohn Pershing, in a sympathetic light.
Revisionist historians of theReconstruction era of the United States rejected the dominantDunning School that stated that Black Americans were used bycarpetbaggers, and instead stressed economic greed on the part of northern businessmen.[35] Indeed, in recent years a "neoabolitionist" revisionism has become standard; it uses the moral standards of racial equality of the 19th century abolitionists to criticize racial policies. "Foner's book represents the mature and settled Revisionist perspective", historian Michael Perman has concluded regardingEric Foner'sReconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (1988).[36]
The role of American business and the alleged"robber barons" began to be revised in the 1930s. Termed "business revisionism" byGabriel Kolko, historians such asAllan Nevins, and thenAlfred D. Chandler emphasized the positive contributions of individuals who were previously pictured as villains.[37] Peter Novick writes, "The argument that whatever the moral delinquencies of the robber barons, these were far outweighed by their decisive contributions to American military [and industrial] prowess, was frequently invoked by Allan Nevins."[38]
Prior to the collapse of theSoviet Union and the archival revelations, Western historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higher.[39][40] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives also became available and provided information that led to a significant revision in death toll estimates for theStalin regime, with estimates in the range from 3 million[41] to 9 million.[42] In post-1991 Russia theKGB archives remained briefly open during 1990's, which helped creation of organisations such asMemorial, which engaged in research of the archives and search of secret mass burial grounds. After Putin came to power however, access to archives was restricted again and research in this area once again became politically incorrect,[43] culminating with forcibly shutting down the organization in 2021.[44]
Soviet Union frequently resorted to changing itsofficial history to suit changes in state policy, especially after splits in theBolshevik leadership or change of political alliances.[43] The bookHistory of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) was subject to numerous such changes to reflect removal of Bolshevik leaders previously trusted by Stalin but did not support him unanimously.[45]Great Soviet Encyclopedia was also redacted frequently, with subscribers of the paper book receiving letter to cut out pages e.g. aboutLavrentiy Beria orNikolai Bukharin and replace them with unrelated articles.[46] Historic photos were also frequently edited to remove people who later lost trust of the Party.[43][47]
The process of rewriting history of USSR and post-1991 Russia was once again restarted in 2010's afterRussia's first attack on Ukraine and intensified after 2022full-scale invasion in Ukraine. History school books received significant changes which reflected the changes in the official history narratives: for example, while 2010 books openly mentioned decrease oflife expectancy in Soviet Union caused shortages and insufficient spending on public healthcare, new 2023 books vaguely states that life expectancy has generally increased and instead focused on unspecified "achievements in the sphere of education and science". In chapters on Stalin, he's once again presented as a great tragedy to ordinary Russians and any mentions of repressions have disappeared. Similar changes were introduced in chapters discussing Soviet economy, space program,Brezhnev,collapse of USSR,perestroika andglasnost, where the phrase "freedom of speech" started to be used inscare quotes and presented as something harmful.Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 which was presented as Soviet contribution into the fight against radical Islamism, completely contradicting both Soviet and post-Soviet narratives.[48]
Also, since 2014, Russian law enforcement started to prosecute public statements which do not comply with the current version of Russian history. Article 354.1 ofCriminal Code of Russia which makes "rehabilitation of Nazism" a crime has been applied both to actual statements praisingNazism, but also to statements which recalledNazi-Soviet cooperation 1939–1941 orSoviet war crimes conducted in other countries. In some cases article 20.3 ofCode of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses is also being applied in these cases.[49]
The orthodox interpretation blamed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan for causing the war. Revisionist historians of World War II, notablyCharles A. Beard, said the United States was partly to blame because it pressed the Japanese too hard in 1940 and 1941 and rejected compromises.[50] Other notable contributions to this discourse include Charles Tansill,Back Door To War (1952); Frederic Sanborn,Design For War (1951); and David Hoggan,The Forced War (1989). The British historianA. J. P. Taylor controversially argued that Hitler was an ineffective and inexperienced diplomat and did not deliberately set out to cause a world war.[51]
Patrick Buchanan, an Americanpaleoconservative pundit, argued that the Anglo–French guarantee in 1939 encouraged Poland not to seek a compromise over Danzig. He further argued that Britain and France were in no position to come to Poland's aid, and Hitler was offering the Poles an alliance in return. Buchanan argued the guarantee led the Polish government to transform a minor border dispute into a major world conflict, and handed Eastern Europe, including Poland, to Stalin. Buchanan also argued the guarantee ensured the country would be eventually invaded by the Soviet Union, as Stalin knew the British were in no position to declare war on the Soviet Union in 1939, due to their military weakness.[52]
Theatomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have generatedcontroversy and debate. Historians who accepted PresidentHarry Truman's reasoning in justifying dropping atomic bombs to force Japanese surrender end of World War II are known as "orthodox," while "revisionists" generally deny that the bombs were necessary. Some also claim that Truman knew they were not necessary but wanted to pressure the Soviet Union. These historians see Truman's decision as a major factor in starting theCold War. This perspective asserts that Truman ignored or downplayed predictions of casualties.[53]
Historians debate the causes and responsibility for theCold War. The "orthodox" view puts the major blame on theSoviet Union, while a "revisionist" view puts more responsibility on the United States.[54]
America in Vietnam (1978), byGuenter Lewy, is an example of historical revisionism that differs much from the popular view of the U.S. in theVietnam War (1955–75) for which the author was criticized and supported for belonging to the revisionist school on the history of the Vietnam War.[55][56] Lewy's reinterpretation was the first book of a body of work by historians of the revisionist school about thegeopolitical role and the U.S. military behavior in Vietnam.
In the introduction, Lewy said:
It is the reasoned conclusion of this study ... that the sense of guilt created by the Vietnam war in the minds of many Americans is not warranted and that the charges ofofficially, condoned illegal and grossly immoral conduct are without substance. Indeed, detailed examination of battlefield practices reveals that the loss of civilian life in Vietnam was less great than inWorld War II [1939–45] andKorea [1950–53] and that concern with minimizing the ravages of the war was strong. To measure and compare the devastation and loss of human life caused by different war will be objectionable to those who repudiate all resort to military force as an instrument of foreign policy and may be construed as callousness. Yet as long as wars do take place at all it remains a moral duty to seek to reduce the agony caused by war, and the fulfillment of this obligation should not be disdained.
— America in Vietnam (1979), p. vii.[57]
Other reinterpretations of the historical record of theU.S. war in Vietnam, which offer alternative explanations for American behavior, includeWhy We Are in Vietnam (1982), byNorman Podhoretz,[55]Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954–1965 (2006), byMark Moyar,[58] andVietnam: The Necessary War (1999), byMichael Lind.[59]
It is generally accepted that the foundations of modernchronology were laid by the humanistJoseph Scaliger.Isaac Newton in his workThe Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms made one of the first attempts to revise the "Scaligerian chronology".[60] In the twentieth century the "revised chronology" ofImmanuel Velikovsky can be singled out in this direction, perhaps it initiated a wave of new broad interest in the revision of chronology.[61]
In general, revisionist chronological theories suggest halving the duration of theChristian era, or consider certain historical periods to be erroneously dated, such asHeribert Illig'sPhantom time hypothesis[62] or the materials of the "New Chronology", a proposed revision of eras by academicianAnatoly Fomenko, albeit one widely rejected by mainstream scholars aspseudoscience.[63]
Informational notes
Citations
The ability to revise and update historical narrative – historical revisionism – is necessary, as historians must always review current theories and ensure they are supported by evidence. … Historical revisionism allows different (and often subjugated) perspectives to be heard and considered.
20 million.
Its lies and suppressions were too obvious to be overlooked by readers who had witnessed the events in question: all but the youngest party members knew who Trotsky was and how collectivization had taken place in Russia, but, obliged as they were to parrot the official version, they became co-authors of the new past and believers in it as party-inspired truth. If anyone challenged this truth on the basis of manifest experience, the indignation of the faithful was perfectly sincere. In this way Stalinism really produced the 'new Soviet man': an ideological schizophrenic, a liar who believed what he was saying, a man capable of incessant, voluntary acts of intellectual self- mutilation.
Further reading
Media related toHistorical revisionism at Wikimedia Commons| International | |
|---|---|
| Other | |
