Rewriting the Past: The Threat of Historical Denial

Why people want to refute historical events that have been validated by eyewitness accounts and studied deeply by reputable historians and scholars is beyond comprehension. It is either an attempt to seriously influence people in order to do something nefarious, or just to create controversy to get more clicks on their websites and generate income. Maybe it’s both, I’m not sure, but it’s definitely not helpful.

I recently read an interesting political essay in the Wall Street Journal titled “Why the Far Right Hates Churchill” that highlights this issue. What I took from the essay is that revisionists are trying to damage Winston Churchill’s legacy by blaming him, not Hitler, for escalating World War II, despite overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary. These revisionists are spreading these claims through podcasts and other online forums because of their preference for isolationism and their deep distrust of institutions. 

The essay stresses the historical reality that Churchill was not the Prime Minister when Hitler invaded Poland and only became prime minister in 1940, after Nazi aggression had already spread across Europe. His insistence on resisting Hitler and allying with Stalin was pivotal in preventing Nazi domination of Europe. Without Britain’s resistance, Hitler might have defeated Russia, altered the course of the war, and reshaped the global order disastrously.

There are always those who deny events from our past: the maltreatment of Indigenous people, slavery, the Holocaust, among other historical realities. They do this without concern for the people and families who lived through these terrible events and for the multiple generations that continue to struggle to this day.

It’s truly sad to see people influencing others in this way, and even worse, making a fortune by twisting and trying to change historical facts.

Some of these revisionists have no idea what it is like to live under such conditions, because they were born and raised in democratic countries that benefited from the decisions Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and other leaders made during World War II—not to mention the millions of people who died defending freedom.

It is unfortunate that these individuals are wasting their time promoting nonsense instead of using their talents for good.

70 thoughts on “Rewriting the Past: The Threat of Historical Denial”

  3. The revisionists have been hard at work for the last few years. But I saw similar behavior nearly 20 years ago, when the EU began having problems with Russia. Around the time of Ltvinenko poisoning. Suddenly, Russia was being written out of the history of ww2. It was a wake-up call for me, as to how easily history could be changed. Since then, I have seen major attempts to shift the narrative on many topics. Especially about slavery.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. There are always those who will try to erase or change history, but those people aren’t accounting for the incredible curiosity that humans have. We will find the truth eventually and inform a new generation.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  7. Great Britain changed a lot after World War I, and it was devastated by World War II. I venture to say that Great Britain never really recovered from these wars. But the people of the UK would be speaking German now if they had not resisted Hitler’s aggression. Still, the psychological impact is undeniable. But appeasement, as practiced by Chamberlain, never works, whether it’s with terrorists or rogue political leaders. This is a lesson that some leaders (and others) still haven’t learned. History must be viewed within the context of the times or it becomes distorted. We can’t impose current mores and values onto the past. The same people who cry foul now might’ve acted differently in the past.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Dawn, for your excellent comment. You’re spot on. We need to keep history in its context, learn the lessons it offers, and then do our best not to repeat them. People supporting different camps of ideas today would most likely act differently if they were actually living through those historical events.

      Like

      Reply

  12. A great and solid critical analysis of the subject Edward. We are in the midst of a multi-faceted cyclone of competing idealogies. It’s a dangerous time and citizens have to step up and fill the gaps that traditional media sources don’t have the resources to cover. Mike

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you very much, Mike. You’re absolutely right. We need to keep educating ourselves on the facts and share what we learn with others. Critical thinking is more important than ever in today’s environment.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  13. Good points, Edward. Sometimes, I see this denial as a form of coping … maybe these people aren’t able to accept how evil a human being can become, so they overcompensate by denying it altogether. Other times, yes – definitely attention-grabbing. No matter the reason, these things are disturbing, and that’s compounded by how influential social media has become.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Yeah, it’s a little bit insane. I’m glad you mentioned technology because I brought that up in one of my comments. That’s one of the problems, social media and other online platforms make it too easy to spread this kind of nonsense. But of course, we have to respect freedom of speech, so it’s really up to the people to see past that and pursue facts instead of getting sucked in by the algorithms.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  16. Sad and incomprehensible as you said, Edward. I’m grateful to you for highlighting truth and calling out insane distortions, the ridiculous and infantile denial of facts. We are the resistance! ❤️

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  17. It is really sad to see all sorts of manipulation of truth, distortion of facts, and neglect of people’s suffering. Also sad is the unwillingness to not learn from the past and keep repeating the same schemes. You expressed it well in the last sentence: “It is unfortunate that these individuals are wasting their time promoting nonsense instead of using their talents for good.” Another profound post, much worth reflecting on. Especially now, at these messy times, when we see much nonsense repeating, regardless of people and scenarios being different. Thank you, Edward, for always highlighting pertinent aspects of our human society. Much appreciated!! Sending light and blessings to you, today and always. 🙏✨

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Susana. I agree, it’s sad to see those unwilling to learn from the past. When things get difficult, they’re the same ones who will be complaining and wondering what happened. Blessings to you, my friend.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  19. I agree! I also may be the only person that thinks this, but I think tearing down historical statues whether good or bad is part of our history that can’t be changed and we should learn from it not destroy it, along with renaming buildings, shouldn’t be done.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. There’s definitely a danger in this ongoing back-and-forth of changing names and removing statues. Just look at what’s happening with the Army bases, millions of dollars are being wasted on renaming them. People think it’s just a matter of changing a couple of signs, but in reality, a lot of manpower and funding are allocated to these efforts.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  22. Thank you for raising this topic, Edward, and doing so so eloquently. There are only negative reasons for people to push revisionist history when they know otherwise: to gain control, to incite violence, to incite fear and hate. And it’s happening all the time, certainly from too many US politicians. It’s heartbreaking.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Jane. It’s heartbreaking, and it seems that the more technologically advanced we become, the worse it gets. As I learn about AI, I’m thinking about the implications of all this and how people might use it to advance their agendas.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I agree about the concerning uses of so-called AI. What I dislike about the ubiquitous use of that term, AI, is that people start to think there’s intelligence involved. You’re right, there’s no filter being used in these “AI” programs that determines that revisionist history or “alternate facts” are part of the millions of records they’re scanning. It sure seems dangerous to me!

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  23. An essential topic. Thank you, Edward. Those who wish to rewrite history desire to, at best, confuse people, and, at worst, to tame them. They burn books after they have removed them from libraries. They want all of us to live in fear lest we say or write the wrong thing.

    Fear will cause people to self-censor. In the Nazi era, the rewrite of history made parents afraid to speak the truth around their children, terrified that the kids would contradict teachers who had themselves been placed on a leash or decided to join the new true believers. Instead, Hitler Youth learned the lessons desired by the Third Reich and wore their own uniforms

    Oklahoma is in today’s news for a plan to give out-of-state teacher candidates a history test to make sure they conform before giving them a job.

    We are on the edge of a world we thought was behind us and impossible where we live.The Stoic philosophers of antiquity told us that we would not know ourselves until we were tested. The test has come. It is a time to be brave.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you for your comments, Dr. Stein. I couldn’t agree more with what you said. I actually read the news article this morning about what Oklahoma is trying to do, which is unfortunate and aligns perfectly with everything else happening in our universities and the media. Say the wrong thing, and it’s almost certain you’ll lose your job, research funding, or even get sued. We’re getting dangerously close to repeating mistakes from the past, and we would definitely benefit from the Stoic virtue of fortitude.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  24. Unfortunately, I have had encounters with individuals that clearly had been listening to some “hot take” history podcast. What alarmed me the most was that the listeners I encountered were not unintelligent people at all, yet just parroted the complete lunacy they had heard. I detest revisionism in all it’s forms–to include reframing historical context through modern norms–but the stuff in that article and on some of the referenced podcasts are outright malicious conspiracy generators. It’s nuts!

    –Scott

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. It definitely is. I like the point you made about “reframing historical context through modern norms.” I totally agree with you there. History needs to stay in its original context, and we need to do the work of finding lessons to be learned without processing those events through today’s norms. I know, as humans, we have the tendency to do that, but we need to keep it to a minimum. Thank you, Scott.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. You said it much better than I did, Edward. I really liked that you commented on the WSJ article. I know many think it’s fringe, looney stuff, but I think it’s important and more prevalent than we want to think. Good topic, Edward!

        –Scott

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  25. As a journalist (Chicago Tribune), my attention to detail, honesty, and ability to present the “truth” from all sides were basic to my integrity and earning my audience’s trust. Today, credible writers compete with sensationalism, fake news, and fairy tales. It’s disturbing to know how many people believe the “news” that comes from media deemed entertainment and what we used to call rag sheets. The facts and reality are still available. Consumers need only turn the station and read from trusted sources.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. It’s incredible how many websites and “online journalists” now exist, passing as credible. I mean, it’s okay to read commentaries from some of those sites from time to time just to see their view on a subject, but they are not a substitute for real journalism from trusted sources, as you mentioned. Thank you, Mary.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. Spot on, Brad. Some of these people are master communicators, and then you have social media with its algorithms, once you click on one of those misleading posts, you keep getting more until your entire feed is filled with that kind of propaganda.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          1. Yes some have malicious intend but with regards to the followers I think ego and a lack of integrity often has something to do with it. Saying offensive things, conspiracy theories, making odd claims, to get attention even if it is negative. It is a dumb person’s attempt at feeling smart and important.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

Leave a reply to Jane Fritz Cancel reply