In common language, the term "revisionism" has taken on a negative meaning: it is understood not so much as an error in historical reconstruction but as a conscious falsification, dictated by a "malicious, criminal" intent. A prime example is Holocaust denial, which in many countries has even become a proper criminal offense. And it is truly singular that in democratic countries where the fundamental principle is freedom of opinion and expression, some historian (one by recognized profession) is even condemned for their reconstruction and interpretation of historical facts, as if the democratic state could establish a historical truth by law. This is truly an exception.

But beyond this, which seems to me a contradiction of democracy, even the not entirely negative interpretation of Fascisms and a not entirely celebratory interpretation of the Resistance and analogous anti-fascist movements is considered not a different historical interpretation but a conscious falsification, to be condemned without IFs and without BUTs, as an act of evil, we might say.

We do not share these revisionist reconstructions which seem to deny what, according to the prevailing view, appears to be contrary to the truth, but we want here to clarify the concept of revisionism, delving into its meaning and relative implications.

First of all, let's say that every historical work is always a revision: whoever writes history is always revising what others have written; there is no ultimate and definitive reconstruction or interpretation, and this actually happens in all fields of knowledge. Even a scientific text that is not merely popularizing is actually revising what others have written, or rather, what the scientific community considers valid up to that moment.

Therefore, we can say that in general, every non-popularizing work is a revision of what is generally accepted.

It certainly seems wrong to me to think that the Holocaust did not happen, but if someone supports this thesis, in order to refute it, their arguments, their reflections must be examined. I cannot say that this thesis, because it is revisionist, is false and dishonest, but on the contrary, if I show that it is false, then I can say that this revisionist work is false. But we cannot say a priori which interpretation is truer, the traditional or the innovative (revisionist), even assuming that an ultimate and definitive truth exists.

 

I would also note that alongside proper scientific history, there is a history that I would call "history of the homeland" (storia patria), which has the purpose of exalting ideals that we consider positive and foundational, and perhaps one might think that it is more important than the scientific one, which, from a certain point of view, is true. Ultimately, it is very important for an entire people to recognize itself in certain ideals that make it a nation, rather than a real critical knowledge that always and anyway puts everything in doubt.

To give an example: in school books we find an unqualified exaltation (senza SE e senza MA) of our Risorgimento (the name itself indicates it) in which the patriots, the liberals are the good guys, the reactionaries and the Austrians are the bad guys.

In reality, the events are much more complex and the general judgment can also be considered from other points of view.

For example, we consider Garibaldi and Mazzini as fathers of the homeland, but in effect post-unification Italy is completely different from the one dreamt of by Mazzini and Garibaldi. The facts are interpreted in a certain way, some ignored and others exalted and sometimes even falsified.

It seems that all the people were with the liberals and oppressed by the absolute monarchs and their followers: in reality this is not the case, because liberalism was the patrimony mainly of the educated classes and therefore of the affluent ones. Thus, the Garibaldini are glorified but post-unification brigandage is ignored. Everyone knows the battle of Calatafimi and the Volturno, but few know about the massacre of Pettorano and the battle of Macerone.

We sometimes have real falsifications. Thus, for example, in the very famous "La spigolatrice di Sapri" (The Gleaner of Sapri), taught for over a century in all schools, a peasant woman (gleaner) is shown as fascinated by and supportive of the “300 young and strong who have died,” killed by the wicked Bourbon soldiers: in reality, they were massacred by the peasants and even by the peasant women, who were also fierce and ruthless, while those who surrendered to the soldiers had their lives spared and were freed a few years later with the arrival of the Garibaldini.

But the idea of an Italy freeing itself from foreigners and pro-Austrian kings has shaped our national consciousness, a prerequisite for our nationality. But in reality, only Lombardy-Venetia was part of the multi-national Austrian empire.

Thus, the Neo-Bourbon revisionists re-evaluate the Bourbons: it is necessary then to examine their arguments which can perhaps be rejected, but we cannot say that their interpretation, being revisionist, is wrong.

Revisionism is seen above all in the evaluation of the Partisan struggle and of Fascism.

There is always talk of a German invasion, but in reality, if Italy surrendered to the Allies (it was called an armistice), certainly the Germans could not allow them to pass through our entire territory undisturbed to reach their borders.

In reality, as in the Garibaldian enterprise, it was always a civil war in which one part of the Italians continued to believe in Fascism and to fight as allies of the Germans, and another part, the partisans, revolted against them, while the great majority only waited for all that horror to finally end, thinking that the outcome of the war was already certain and therefore everything was useless.

Then, especially in the 60s, the sanctification of the partisans was born.

Certainly, the partisans were on the right side, but this does not mean that they were not caught up in the tragedy of war.

War is not a sports competition where the one who breaks the rules loses, but a horrible tragedy where the one who uses the means that lead to victory wins, no matter how terrible.

Atrocities are inevitable due to hatred, fear, vengeance: combatants are not noble knights without blemish.

That there were atrocities committed by the partisans too is obvious; one does not need to read Pansa, it is enough to see "La ragazza di Bube" (Bube's Girl), whose author was certainly not a Fascist.

The atmosphere was the one described, in which Bube kills the son of the marshal who had nothing to do with it.

But our republic is founded on democracy and therefore it is necessary for the entire people to become aware of this, thus identifying the partisans with good and the Fascists and Germans as evil.