ꠁꠔꠤꠀꠡ ꠛꠤꠔꠟꠣꠘꠤ

ꠅꠁꠟꠉꠤ ꠘꠤꠎ ꠘꠤꠎ ꠡꠣꠞꠕꠞ ꠟꠣꠉꠤ ꠝꠘ ꠝꠞ꠆ꠎꠤ ꠁꠔꠤꠀꠍ ꠛꠣꠘꠣꠘꠤ ⁕

ꠃꠖ꠆ꠖꠦꠁꠡ
ꠝꠥꠟꠔ ꠘꠤꠎ ꠘꠤꠎ ꠗꠞꠝꠤꠅ ꠨ ꠞꠣꠎꠘꠤꠔꠤꠇ ꠨ ꠎꠣꠔꠤꠅꠔꠣꠉꠤꠞꠤ ꠇꠥꠘꠥ ꠡꠣꠞꠕ ꠢꠣꠍꠤꠟ ꠇꠞꠣ ⁕

Ideological influence

The principal functions of negationist history are the abilities to control ideological and political influence.

History is a social resource that contributes to shaping national identity, culture, and the public memory. Through the study of history, people are imbued with a particular cultural identity; therefore, by negatively revising history, the negationist can craft a specific, ideological identity. Because historians are credited as people who single-mindedly pursue truth, by way of fact, negationist historians capitalize on the historian's professional credibility, and present their pseudohistory as true scholarship. By adding a measure of credibility to the work of revised history, the ideas of the negationist historian are more readily accepted in the public mind. As such, professional historians recognize the revisionist practice of historical negationism as the work of "truth-seekers" finding different truths in the historical record to fit their political, social, and ideological contexts.

Political influence
History provides insight into past political policies and consequences, and thus assists people in extrapolating political implications for contemporary society. Historical negationism is applied to cultivate a specific political myth, sometimes with official consent from the government, whereby self-taught, amateur, and dissident academic historians either manipulate or misrepresent historical accounts to achieve political ends. For example, after the late 1930s in the Soviet Union, the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and historiography in the Soviet Union treated reality and the party line as the same intellectual entity, especially in regards to the Russian Civil War and peasants rebellions;Taisia Osipova, "Peasant rebellions: Origin, Scope, Design and Consequences", in Vladimir N. Brovkin (ed.), The Bolsheviks in Russian Society: The Revolution and the Civil Wars, Yale University Press, 1997, . pp. 154–76. Soviet historical negationism advanced a specific, political, and ideological agenda about Russia and its place in world history.Roger D. Markwick, Donald J. Raleigh, Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001, , pp. 4–5.

Techniques
Historical negationism applies the techniques of research, quotation, and presentation for deception of the reader and denial of the historical record. In support of the "revised history" perspective, the negationist historian uses false documents as genuine sources, presents specious reasons to distrust genuine documents, exploits published opinions by quoting out of historical context, manipulates statistics, and mistranslates texts in other languages.Tennent H. Bagley, Spy Wars¸ Yale University Press, 2007. , , p. 105. The revision techniques of historical negationism operate in the intellectual space of public debate for the advancement of a given interpretation of history and the cultural perspective of the "revised history".Dionne, E.J. Jr. Cold War Scholars Fault Stalin: Soviet Historians Lean to U.S. View. The Washington Post. 26 July 1990. LexisNexis Database (Retrieved 12 October 2011). First Section, p. A3. As a document, the revised history is used to negate the validity of the factual, documentary record, and so reframe explanations and perceptions of the discussed historical event, to deceive the reader, the listener, and the viewer; therefore, historical negationism functions as a technique of propaganda.Nagorski, Andrew. Russia's New Normal: The Cold War may be over, but that doesn't mean the threat from the Kremlin has entirely disappeared. Newsweek; World Affairs. 17 March 2008. LexisNexis Database(. Retrieved 12 October 2011)Vol. 151 No 11.  Rather than submit their works for peer review, negationist historians rewrite history and use logical fallacies to construct arguments that will obtain the desired results, a "revised history" that supports an agenda – political, ideological, religious, etc.

In the practice of historiography, the British historian Richard J. Evans describes the technical differences, between professional historians and negationist historians, commenting: "Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly. They do not present, as genuine, documents which they know to be forged, just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments, if this is the case, or, indeed, abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability, or otherwise, simply because they want, for whatever reason, to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures, as impartially as possible, to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not willfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, to make their arguments more plausible."Richard J. Evans. David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, 6. General Conclusion  Paragraphs 6.20,6.21

Deception

Deception includes falsifying information, obscuring the truth, and lying to manipulate public opinion about the historical event discussed in the revised history. The negationist historian applies the techniques of deception to achieve either a political or an ideological goal, or both. The field of history distinguishes among history books based upon credible, verifiable sources, which were peer-reviewed before publication; and deceptive history books, based upon unreliable sources, which were not submitted for peer review.Falsifier:
 Jon Silverman How 'Holocaust denier' fought and lost on the BBC web-site 18 November 2005
 Malte Herwig "The Swastika Wielding Provocateur" in Der Spiegel 16 January 2006 The distinction among types of history books rests upon the research techniques used in writing a history. Verifiability, accuracy, and openness to criticism are central tenets of historical scholarship. When these techniques are sidestepped, the presented historical information might be deliberately deceptive, a "revised history".

Denial

Denial is defensively protecting information from being shared with other historians, and claiming that facts are untrue, especially denial of the war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated in the course of the World War II (1939–45) and the Holocaust (1933–45). The negationist historian protects the historical-revisionism project by blame shifting, censorship, distraction, and media manipulation; occasionally, denial by protection includes risk management for the physical security of revisionist sources.

Relativization and trivialization

Comparing certain historical atrocities to other crimes is the practice of relativization, interpretation by moral judgements, to alter public perception of the first historical atrocity. Although such comparisons often occur in negationist history, their pronouncement is not usually part of revisionist intentions upon the historical facts, but an opinion of moral judgement.
 The Holocaust and Nazism: The historian Deborah Lipstadt says that the concept of "comparable Allied wrongs", such as the expulsion of Germans after World War II from Nazi-colonized lands and the formal Allied war crimes, is at the centre of, and is a continually repeated theme of, contemporary Holocaust denial, and that such relativization presents "immoral equivalencies".Barry Loberfeld, "Denying the Other Holocausts": Professor Lipstadt's Own Assault on Truth and Memory, Liberty, May 2002
 Proponents of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy often use historical examples of non-chattel slavery to claim that enslaved white and black slaves faced the same conditions. While other forms are abhorrent, only the former involves legally-mandated generational slavery.
 Connected to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy is the Irish slaves myth, a pseudo-historical narrative which conflates the experiences of Irish indentured servants and enslaved Africans in the Americas. This myth, which was historically promoted by Irish nationalists such as John Mitchel, has in the modern-day been promoted by white supremacists in the United States to negate the mistreatment experienced by African Americans (such as racism and segregation) and oppose demands for  slavery reparations.

ꠇꠦꠐꠣꠉꠞꠤ:ꠁꠔꠤꠀꠡ