Editing Historical negationism (section)

===In textbooks===
{{anchor|in textbooks}}

====Japan====
{{Main|Japanese history textbook controversies}}
[[File:Revisionists Yasukuni 1.jpg|thumb|300px|A member of the revisionist group “[[Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform]]” erects a banner reading "[Give] the Children Correct History Textbooks".]]
The [[Japanese history textbook controversies|history textbook controversy]] centres upon the secondary school history textbook ''Atarashii Rekishi Kyōkasho'' ("New History Textbook") said to [[whitewash (censorship)|minimize]] the nature of [[Japanese militarism]] in the [[First Sino-Japanese War]] (1894–1895), in annexing Korea in 1910, in the [[Second Sino-Japanese War]] (1937–1945), and in the [[Pacific War|Pacific Theater]] of [[World War II]] (1941–1945). The conservative [[Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform]] commissioned the ''Atarashii Rekishi Kyōkasho'' textbook with the purpose of traditional national and international view of that Japanese historical period. The [[Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology|Ministry of Education]] vets all history textbooks, especially those containing references to imperialist atrocities due to a special provision in the textbook examination rules to avoid inflaming controversy with neighbouring countries; however, the ''Atarashii Rekishi Kyōkasho'' de-emphasizes aggressive Japanese Imperial wartime behaviour and the matter of Chinese and Korean [[comfort women]]. When it comes to the [[Nanking Massacre|Nanking massacre]], the textbook only refers to it as the Nanking Incident, mentioning there were civilian casualties without delving into specifics, and mentioning it again in relation to the Tokyo tribunal, stating that there are multiple opinions about the topic with controversies continuing to this day (see [[Nanking Massacre denial|Nanking massacre denial]]).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shinta |first=Ichiro |date=2001 |title=「つくる会」の歴史教科書を読む (Reading Thukuru-kai's History Textbook) |url=http://zenchokyo.web.fc2.com/kyoukasyo.htm |website=Zenchokyo Osaka (National Association for Education and Research of Korean Residents in Japan, Osaka)}}</ref> In 2007, the [[Ministry of Education]] attempted to revise textbooks regarding the [[Battle of Okinawa]], lessening the involvement of the [[Imperial Japanese Army]] in Okinawan civilian mass suicides.<ref>[http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070623a1.html Okinawa slams history text rewrite], ''The Japan Times'', 23 June 2007.</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Gheddo |first=Piero |url=http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Okinawa-against-Tokyo%E2%80%99s-attempts-to-rewrite-history-9666.html |title=Okinawa against Tokyo's attempts to rewrite history |publisher=Asianews.it |access-date=4 December 2013}}</ref>

====Pakistan====
{{further|Pakistani textbooks controversy}}
Allegations of historical revisionism have been made regarding Pakistani textbooks in that they are laced with [[Indophobic]], Hindu-hating and [[Islamist]] bias. Pakistan's use of officially published textbooks has been criticized for using schools to more subtly foster religious extremism, whitewashing [[Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent]] and promoting "expansive pan-Islamic imaginings" that "detect the beginnings of Pakistan in the birth of Islam on the [[Arabian Peninsula|Arabian peninsula]]".<ref>[http://archives.dawn.com/archives/30854 Curriculum of hatred], [[Dawn (newspaper)|Dawn]], 20 May 2009</ref> Since 2001, the Pakistani government has stated that curriculum reforms have been underway by the [[Ministry of Education (Pakistan)|Ministry of Education]].<ref name="Jamil">{{cite web|url=http://www.itacec.org/document/nep09/NCERT%20Pakistan%20paper%20BRJ.pdf|title=Curriculum Reforms in Pakistan – A Glass Half Full or Half Empty?|last=Jamil|first=Baela Raza|publisher=Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi|access-date=10 April 2011}}</ref><ref name="Jalal">{{cite web|url=http://www.tufts.edu/~ajalal01/Articles/conjuring.pdf|title=Conjuring Pakistan: History as Official Imagining|last=Jalal|first=Ayesha|work=International Journal of Middle East Studies, 27, (1995), 73–89|access-date=10 April 2011}}</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/pakistan-textbooks-religious-extremism The threat of Pakistan's revisionist texts], ''[[The Guardian]]'', 18 May 2009</ref>

====South Korea====
12 October 2015, South Korea's government has announced controversial plans to control the history textbooks used in secondary schools despite oppositional concerns of people and academics that the decision is made to glorify the history of those who served the Imperial Japanese government ([[Chinilpa]]). Section and the authoritarian dictatorships in South Korea during 1960s–1980s.The [[Ministry of Education (South Korea)|Ministry of Education]] announced that it would put the secondary-school history textbook under state control; "This was an inevitable choice in order to straighten out historical errors and end the social dispute caused by ideological bias in the textbooks," [[Hwang Woo-yea]], education minister said on 12 October 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20151012000678|title=Ministry unveils plan for history textbook publication system|first=The Korea|last=Herald|date=12 October 2015|access-date=17 October 2016}}</ref> According to the government's plan, the current history textbooks of South Korea will be replaced by a single textbook written by a panel of government-appointed historians and the new series of publications would be issued under the title ''The Correct Textbook of History'' and are to be issued to the public and private primary and secondary schools in 2017 onwards.

The move has sparked fierce criticism from academics who argue that the system can be used to distort the history and glorify the history of those who served the Imperial Japanese government ([[Chinilpa]]) and of the authoritarian dictatorships. Moreover, 466 organizations including [[Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union]] formed History Act Network in solidarity and have staged protests: "The government's decision allows the state too much control and power and, therefore, it is against political neutrality that is certainly the fundamental principle of education." Many South Korean historians condemned [[Kyohaksa]] for their text glorifying those who served the Imperial Japanese government (Chinilpa) and the authoritarian dictatorship with a far-right political perspective. On the other hand, New Right supporters welcomed the textbook, saying that "the new textbook finally describes historical truths contrary to the history textbooks published by left-wing publishers", and the textbook issue became intensified as a case of ideological conflict. In [[History of Korea|Korean history]], the history textbook was once put under state control during the authoritarian regime under [[Park Chung Hee]] (1963–1979), who is a father of [[Park Geun-hye]], former [[President of South Korea]], and was used as a means to keep the [[Fourth Republic of Korea|Yushin Regime]], also known as the Yushin Dictatorship; however, there had been continuous criticisms about the system especially from the 1980s when Korea experienced a [[June Democratic Struggle|dramatic democratic development]]. In 2003, reformation of textbook began when the textbooks on Korean modern and contemporary history were published though the Textbook Screening System, which allows textbooks to be published not by a single government body but by many different companies, for the first time.

====Turkey====
{{main|Turkish textbook controversies}}
[[Education in Turkey]] is centralized, and its policy, administration, and content are each determined by the Turkish government. Textbooks taught in schools are either prepared directly by the [[Ministry of National Education (Turkey)|Ministry of National Education (MEB)]] or must be approved by its Instruction and Education Board. In practice, this means that the Turkish government is directly responsible for what textbooks are taught in schools across Turkey.<ref name=armenianweekly>[http://armenianweekly.com/2014/12/04/textbooks/ Akcam: Textbooks and the Armenian Genocide in Turkey: Heading Towards 2015], ''[[Armenian Weekly]]''</ref> In 2014, [[Taner Akçam]], writing for the ''[[Armenian Weekly]]'', discussed 2014–2015 Turkish elementary and middle school textbooks that the MEB had made available on the internet. He found that Turkish history textbooks describe Armenians as people "who are incited by foreigners, who aim to break apart the state and the country, and who murdered Turks and Muslims." The Armenian genocide is referred to as the "Armenian matter", and is described as a lie perpetrated to further the perceived hidden agenda of Armenians. Recognition of the Armenian genocide is defined as the "biggest threat to Turkish national security".<ref name=armenianweekly/>

Akçam summarized one textbook that claims the Armenians had sided with the Russians during the war. The 1909 [[Adana massacre]], in which as many as 20,000–30,000 Armenians were massacred, is identified as "The Rebellion of Armenians of Adana". According to the book, the Armenian [[Social Democrat Hunchakian Party|Hnchak]] and [[Armenian Revolutionary Federation|Dashnak]] organizations instituted rebellions in many parts of [[Anatolia]], and "didn't hesitate to kill Armenians who would not join them," issuing instructions that "if you want to survive you have to kill your neighbor first." Claims highlighted by Akçam: "[The Armenians murdered] many people living in villages, even children, by attacking Turkish villages, which had become defenseless because all the Turkish men were fighting on the war fronts. ... They stabbed the Ottoman forces in the back. They created obstacles for the operations of the Ottoman units by cutting off their supply routes and destroying bridges and roads. ... They spied for Russia and by rebelling in the cities where they were located, they eased the way for the Russian invasion. ... Since the Armenians who engaged in massacres in collaboration with the Russians created a dangerous situation, this law required the migration of [Armenian people] from the towns they were living in to Syria, a safe Ottoman territory. ... Despite being in the midst of war, the Ottoman state took precautions and measures when it came to the Armenians who were migrating. Their tax payments were postponed, they were permitted to take any personal property they wished, government officials were assigned to ensure that they were protected from attacks during the journey and that their needs were met, police stations were established to ensure that their lives and properties were secure."<ref name=armenianweekly/>

Similar revisionist claims found in other textbooks by Akçam included that Armenian "back-stabbing" was the reason the Ottomans lost the [[Russo-Turkish War (1877–78)|Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78]] (similar to the post-War German [[stab-in-the-back myth]]), that the [[Hamidian massacres]] never happened, that the Armenians were armed by the Russians during late [[World War I]] to fight the Ottomans (in reality they had already been nearly annihilated from the area by this point), that Armenians killed 600,000 Turks during said war, that the deportation were to save Armenians from other violent Armenian gangs, and that deported Armenians were later allowed to retrieve their possessions and return to Turkey unharmed.<ref name="armenianweekly" /> As of 2015, Turkish textbooks continue to refer to Armenians as "traitors," deny the genocide, and assert that the Ottoman Turks "took necessary measures to counter Armenian separatism".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Arango|first=Tim|date=16 April 2015|title=A Century After Armenian Genocide, Turkey's Denial Only Deepens|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/world/europe/turkeys-century-of-denial-about-an-armenian-genocide.html|access-date=22 February 2022|website=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> Students are taught that Armenians were forcibly relocated to defend Turkish nationals from attacks, and Armenians are described as "dishonorable and treacherous".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kafanov|first=Lucy|date=24 April 2015|title=Turkey, Armenians battle over genocide 100 years later|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/23/turkey-armenia-genocide-massacre-anniversary/26261059/|access-date=22 February 2022|website=[[USA Today]]}}</ref>

====Yugoslavia====
Throughout the post war era, though Tito denounced nationalist sentiments in historiography, those trends continued with Croat and Serbian academics at times accusing each other of misrepresenting each other's histories, especially in relation to the Croat-Nazi alliance.<ref name="Kolander267">{{cite book|last=Kolander|first=Patricia|chapter= "Malevolent Partnership of Blatant Opportunism?" Croat-German Relations, 1919–1941|editor1-last=Bullivant|editor1-first=Keith|editor2-last=Giles|editor2-first=Geoffrey J.|editor3-last=Pape|editor3-first=Walter|title=Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural identities and cultural differences|year=1999|publisher=Rodopi|isbn=9789042006782|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jXKk-gs-VNEC&q=Serbian+historiography+tito&pg=PA267|page=267}}</ref> Communist historiography was challenged in the 1980s and a rehabilitation of Serbian nationalism by Serbian historians began.<ref name="Brunnbauer364">{{cite book|last=Brunnbauer|first=Ulf|chapter=Historical Writing in the Balkans|editor1-last=Woolf|editor1-first=Daniel|editor2-last=Schneider|editor2-first=Axel|title=The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 5: Historical Writing Since 1945|year=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780199225996|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=eJ4SDAAAQBAJ&q=Serbian+historians+debates&pg=PA364|page=364}}</ref>{{sfn|Perica|2002|p=147}} Historians and other members of the intelligentsia belonging to the [[Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts]] (SANU) and the [[Association of Writers of Serbia|Writers Association]] played a significant role in the explanation of the new historical narrative.<ref name="BieberGalijas2016">{{cite book|last1=Bieber|first1=Florian|last2=Galijaš|first2=Armina|title=Debating the End of Yugoslavia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PwspDAAAQBAJ&q=Serbian+historians+debates&pg=PA120|year=2016|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781317154242|page=117}}</ref><ref name="Ramet19">{{cite book|last=Ramet|first=Sabrina Petra|title=Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia From The Death of Tito to the Fall of Milošević|url=https://archive.org/details/balkanbabeldisin04edrame|url-access=registration|quote=Serbian historians debates.|year=2002|publisher=Westview Press|isbn=9780813339054|page=[https://archive.org/details/balkanbabeldisin04edrame/page/19 19]}}</ref><ref name="Ramet322">{{cite book|last=Ramet|first=Sabrina P.|title=The three Yugoslavias: State-building and legitimation, 1918–2005|year=2006|publisher=Indiana University Press|isbn=9780253346568|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FTw3lEqi2-oC&q=Serbian+historiography+tito&pg=PA322|page=322}}</ref> The process of writing a "new Serbian history" paralleled alongside the emerging ethno-nationalist mobilization of Serbs with the objective of reorganizing the Yugoslav federation.{{sfn|Perica|2002|p=147}} Using ideas and concepts from Holocaust historiography, Serbian historians alongside church leaders applied it to World War Two Yugoslavia and equated the Serbs with Jews and Croats with Nazi Germans.{{sfn|Perica|2002|p=150}}

Chetniks along with the Ustashe were vilified by Tito era historiography within Yugoslavia.<ref name="Ramet129"/> In the 1980s, Serbian historians initiated the process of re-examining the narrative of how World War Two was told in Yugoslavia which was accompanied by the rehabilitation of Četnik leader [[Draža Mihailović]].<ref name="EmmertIngrao42">{{cite book|last1=Emmert|first1=Thomas|last2=Ingrao|first2=Charles|title=Conflict in Southeastern Europe at the End of the Twentieth Century: A" Scholars' Initiative" Assesses Some of the Controversies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gUqOAQAAQBAJ&q=Serbian+historians+controversy&pg=PA42|year=2013|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781317970163|page=42}}</ref><ref name="Drapac282">{{cite book|last=Drapac|first=Vesna|chapter=Catholic resistance and collaboration in the Second World War: From Master Narrative to Practical Application|editor1-last=Rutar|editor1-first=Sabine|title=Beyond the Balkans: Towards an Inclusive History of Southeastern Europe|year=2014|publisher=LIT Verlag|isbn=9783643106582|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lISdAgAAQBAJ&q=Serbian+historians+debates&pg=PA282|page=282}}</ref> Monographs relating to Mihailović and the Četnik movement were produced by some younger historians who were ideologically close to it towards the end of the 1990s.<ref name="Stojanovic249">{{cite book|last=Stojanović|first=Dubravka|editor1-last=Ramet|editor1-first=Sabrina|editor2-last=Listhaug|editor2-first=Ole|title=Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two|year=2011|publisher=Springer|isbn=9780230347816|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gkiEDAAAQBAJ&q=Serbian+historians+debates&pg=PA111|page=249}}</ref> Being preoccupied with the era, Serbian historians have looked to vindicate the history of the Chetniks by portraying them as righteous freedom fighters battling the Nazis while removing from history books the ambiguous alliances with the Italians and Germans.<ref name="MacDonald138">{{cite book|last=MacDonald|first=David Bruce|title=Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian victim centred propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kBjrJyen4FEC&q=Serbian+historians+controversy&pg=PA138|year=2003|publisher=Manchester University Press|isbn=9780719064678|page=138}}</ref><ref name="Ramet129">{{cite book|last=Ramet|first=Sabrina P.|title=Serbia since 1989: Politics and Society under Milopevic and After|year=2005|publisher=University of Washington Press|isbn=9780295802077|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dhITCgAAQBAJ&q=Serbian+historiography+tito&pg=PA129|page=129}}</ref><ref name="Subotic201">{{cite book|last=Subotic|first=Jelena|chapter=The Mythologizing of Communist Violence|editor1-last=Stan|editor1-first=Lavinia|editor2-last=Nedelsky|editor2-first=Nadya|title=Post-communist Transitional Justice: Lessons from Twenty-five Years of Experience|year=2015|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781107065567|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=twFEBgAAQBAJ&q=serbian+historiography+partisans&pg=PA201|page=201}}</ref><ref name="Finney353">{{cite book|last=Finney|first=Patrick|chapter=Land of Ghosts: Memories of War in the Balkans|editor1-last=Buckley|editor1-first=John|editor2-last=Kassimeris|editor2-first=George|title=The Ashgate research companion to modern warfare|year=2010|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781409499534|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qUjCI13U5VUC&q=Serbian+historians+debates&pg=PA353|page=353}}</ref> Whereas the crimes committed by Chetniks against Croats and Muslims in Serbian historiography are overall "cloaked in silence".<ref name="Becirevic46">{{harvnb|Bećirević|2014|p=46}}</ref> During the Milošević era, Serbian history was falsified to obscure the role Serbian collaborators [[Milan Nedić]] and [[Dimitrije Ljotić]] played in cleansing [[History of the Jews in Serbia|Serbia's Jewish community]], killing them in the country or deporting them to Eastern European concentration camps.{{sfn|Perica|2002|p=151}}

In the 1990s following a massive Western media coverage of the [[Yugoslav Wars]], there was a rise of the publications considering the matter on historical revisionism of [[former Yugoslavia]]. One of the most prominent authors on the field of historical revisionism in the 1990s considering the newly emerged republics is [[Noel Malcolm]] and his works ''Bosnia: A Short History (1994)'' and ''Kosovo: A Short History (1998)'', that have seen a robust debate among historians following their release; following the release of the latter, the merits of the book were the subject of an extended debate in ''Foreign Affairs''. Critics said that the book was "marred by his sympathies for its ethnic Albanian separatists, anti-Serbian bias, and illusions about the Balkans".{{sfn|Djilas|1998}} In late 1999, Thomas Emmert of the history faculty of [[Gustavus Adolphus College]] in [[Minnesota]] reviewed the book in ''Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans Online'' and while praising aspects of the book also asserted that it was "shaped by the author's overriding determination to challenge Serbian myths", that Malcolm was "partisan", and also complained that the book made a "transparent attempt to prove that the main Serbian myths are false".{{sfn|Emmert|1999}} In 2006, a study by Frederick Anscombe looked at issues surrounding scholarship on Kosovo such as Noel Malcolm's work ''Kosovo: A Short History''.<ref name="Anscombe770"/> Anscombe noted that Malcolm offered a "detailed critique of the competing versions of Kosovo's history" and that his work marked a "remarkable reversal" of previous acceptance by Western historians of the "Serbian account" regarding the migration of the Serbs (1690) from Kosovo.<ref name="Anscombe770">{{harvnb|Anscombe|2006|p=770}}. "Noel Malcolm, who offers a detailed critique of the competing versions of Kosovo's history... Here is a remarkable reversal, as Malcolm, like other Western historians, had previously accepted the Serbian account."</ref> Malcolm has been criticized for being "anti-Serbian" and selective like the Serbs with the sources, while other more restrained critics note that "his arguments are unconvincing".<ref name="Anscombe770771"/> Anscombe noted that Malcolm, like Serbian and Yugoslav historians who have ignored his conclusions, sidelines and is unwilling to consider indigenous evidence such as that from the Ottoman archive when composing national history.<ref name="Anscombe770771">{{harvnb|Anscombe|2006|pp=770–71}}. "Malcolm is criticized for being anti-Serbian, and for using his sources as selectively as the Serbs, though the more restrained of his critics only suggest that his arguments are unconvincing. Most of the documents he relies on were written by enemies of the Ottoman Empire, or by officials with limited experience of the Ottoman Balkans... Malcolm, like the historians of Serbia and Yugoslavia who ignore his findings, overlooks the most valuable indigenous evidence. Unwillingness to consider Ottoman evidence when constructing national history is exemplified by the Serbian historians..."</ref>