An example of a historical event from different perspectivesWatch
By which I mean untrue explanations of the same event which served the needs of both countries? Contrasting views on the same issue, where only one was true or neither? Where explanations were untrue and yet they proved to be useful for the country?
E.g. the historiography of the Cold War - a rough summary...
Orthodox historians - Americans in 1950s/60s - it was all the Soviet Union's fault because they were aggressively expanding into Eastern Europe
E.g. Arthur Schlesinger
Revisionist historians - Left-wing Americans in late 1950s/1960s/1970s - the Wisconsin School - it was all America's fault because they were 'economic imperialists' and were trying to dominate the world economically
E.g. William Appleman Williams
Post-Revisionist historians - historians post 1990 and the collapse of USSR + opening of Soviet archives - actually, it was all Stalin's fault because he was crazy and paranoid. E.g. John Lewis Gaddis
Read about the "Stab-in-the-back-myth" that became popular in Germany after WW1.
Basically, they thought that the German army would have won WW1 but they were betrayed by their politicians & civilians.
Do you think Japan covering its war crimes works as a good example? That from the outside there were terrible crimes, but the country itself silenced them for their own benefit.
A recent example of this:
More recently, Charlottesville incident in 2017, seen as a white nationalist terrorist attack by many (including me) and a defence of tradition/heritage with violence provoked 'on many sides!' by others