Revisionist history pisses me off, especially when it is so widely accepted without argument.
Which revisionist history?
I suspect that it's just a dirty word, right?
A perfect example of revisionist history is the script that was created to go along with the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II exhibit at the Smithsonian. When the script came out, Veteran's groups, main stream historians, and lots of others went absolutely nuts. It essentially excused Japan from any blame and pegged the United States, Britain, and other allied nations as the sole cause of the war and the sole guilty parties in waging a war of extermination. It focused on Allied "atrocities" such as the firebombing of German and Japanese cities, and especially on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, while largely negating or "pardoning away" Japanese and German atrocities. If one reads between the lines, the entire premise is that upwards of 300,000 Chinese that the Japanese "allegedly" slaughtered in the Rape of Nanking? They all committed suicide.
The Smithsonian had to set up a special commission to review the script. A revised script was submitted, but it wasn't much better. In the end, the Smithsonian had to abandon the entire script.
The script is online, and it's monumentally disgusting.
That said, am I claiming that the United States and other nations were without blame for various and sundry acts leading up to, and during, the war? No. But the script focused almost solely on the activities of the western allies and ignored the role that the Axis powers played in sparking and prosecuting the war.
And that is the hallmark of revisionist history.
Another excellent example of revisionist history?
Japanese school books.
There's virtually NO references to Japan's activities in the Pacific area from the beginning of the 20th century through the end of the war. It's largely ignored, especially activities such as the Rape of Nanking, the massacres in the Philippines, etc.
The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere is portrayed as a wonderful, harmony filled collaboration of noble Asian peoples against the evil Western White Devil, not as the excuse for Japanese expansionism and subsequent subjugation, exploitation, and in many cases, eradication of what the Japanese themselves called inferior races.
Japanese history books that attempt to give a more even handed portrayal of Japanese excesses are routinely rejected by the Ministry of Education. IIRC one Japanese historian who wrote such a history book was stripped of his University of Tokyo professorship.
What DOES get a LOT of play in Japanese history books in regards to World War II? The "oh poor us, we were attempting to forge a wonderful alliance between the Asian peoples with love, harmony, respect, and understanding, and we got atom bombs dropped on us by the evil white devil United States."
It's one great big "pity us because we were wronged" party.