The adventure of one word: "revisionism".
---
In our youth, in Greece, this word was first heard when it was used by Marxist-Leninists (usually Stalinists of the KKE) to characterize the members of the Euro-communist KKE-Es.
After many years a debate was ignited around the world about the genocides committed by the Nazis, especially the holocaust, and about the historical difference and similarity between Nazism and (Stalinist) Communism.
There has been a series of covert-Hitler Western historians who on the one hand relativized the Nazi genocides and on the other equated these genocides with Stalinist mass murders and genocides.
They theoretically did this simulation not from the side of a progressive or conservative liberalism (like others) but from a far-right perspective.
They were (also) called "revisionists", as revisionists of the common post-war historical truth that until then was structured as a common inter-ideological Western finding that Nazism was an ideology and a political practice that exceeded (to the worse "above") any limit of murder , inhumanity and monstrosity.
The attitude of these revisionists was strongly criticized and with strong arguments, and they were put on the sidelines of the serious historiography.
The big scandal broke out when a right-wing German historian and thinker, Nolte, made a similar historical analogy, between Nazism and Communism, without falling for the propagandistic naiveties of pro-Hitler revisionist historians.
He approached them in a way that gave their fundamental arguments a more "solid" footing.
His central objectionable argument was that Nazism-Fascism was a totalitarian "answer" to the pre-existing totalitarianism of Communism.
We must point out at this point that "parallel" to all these far-right "fermentations" there was a wide range of anti-Stalinist and even anti-communist leftists and liberals, who weighed (and still weigh) the "two totalitarianisms ” (Fascism/Nazism-Communism) as essentially similar, but they do not blame Communism more, leaning rather towards the “traditional” post-war view that Fascism is (was) worse.
However, the postwar historiographical inter-ideological "social contract" developed its first cracks.
What else happened that widened the rift in postwar historiography?
We saw briefly and by way of examples that the first to break the democratic anti-fascist narrative convention in the Western world were first far-right historiographers hiding within the mainstream of the Western non-fascist right, ''then'' came Nolte's challenge.
The left as an anti-fascist/anti-Nazi ideological and political force (and alongside it anarchism with its own alternative but therefore anti-fascist narratives) fought back, not by restoring the common inter-ideological anti-fascist post-war narrative, but by attacking BOTH the "revisionist Hitlerian far-right" AND the "revisionist right" of the Nolte type, but ALSO in the centrist social democratic and liberal "space", accusing them (liberalleftists-socialdemocrats ect) of being in an essential, as capitalist, anti-left partnership with the far-right, etc.
The dirty unacceptable "revisionist" historiographical and ultimately narrative attack of the right on the left, was answered by the left with an almost equally vagrant and lumpen narrative, which implicitly incriminated all anti-totalitarian leftists and liberals, classifying them in the broad term of (historiographic- narrative) "revisionism".
No hope, no light, NOTHING changed.
