The Attraction to Revisionist History: A Dangerous Fascination

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged within certain corners of conservative politics—an attraction to revisionist history, particularly when it comes to World War II and Nazi Germany. Royce White, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota, is the latest example. In a resurfaced social media post, White declared that “the bad guys won” World War II, suggesting that the war’s outcome merely represented competing globalist and communist interests, rather than a moral triumph of good over evil. His remarks have stirred controversy, but more importantly, they reflect a larger and deeply concerning fascination with the darker chapters of history by some on the political right.

This attraction to invoking Nazi Germany or drawing false moral equivalencies between the Allies and Axis powers is more than just rhetorical recklessness. It speaks to a deeper malaise in parts of modern conservatism, one that seeks to exploit history not as a guide to moral clarity but as a tool for political provocation. Why, we must ask, are figures like White—and others—so willing to flirt with revisionism? What does it say about the state of conservatism when its spokespeople attempt to rewrite history’s most clear-cut battle between freedom and tyranny?

World War II is remembered not only for its scale but for its moral clarity. The genocidal horrors of Nazi Germany, which claimed the lives of six million Jews and millions of others, were met with an equally firm and determined Allied response. Though the Allies were not without fault, the war was a battle between democracy and totalitarianism, between liberty and oppression. To question this narrative, as White does, undermines the historical record and disrespects the memories of those who perished in the fight against fascism.

White’s suggestion that there were “no good guys” in World War II reflects a profoundly misguided view of history. In his attempt to draw parallels between the Allied forces and the Axis, he dismisses the moral distinction between those who fought for freedom and those who sought to enslave the world under authoritarian regimes.

While critiques of the post-war order, including crony capitalism or global governance, have their place, they should not be confused with a revisionist distortion of history. To imply that the defeat of Nazi Germany was merely a globalist ploy is not only irresponsible, it diminishes the monumental stakes of that conflict and the sacrifices made by millions of people to secure a world free from totalitarianism.

White is not the first Republican figure to invoke Nazi imagery or reimagine the Second World War to provoke. Over the years, conservative figures have increasingly used inflammatory references to Hitler or Nazism, seeking to energize the base by drawing parallels between today’s political climate and history’s darkest chapters. This tactic plays into the worst instincts of political posturing, often turning historical tragedy into a crass tool for political gain.

However, this form of provocation carries real dangers. When politicians casually reference the Nazis or distort the outcome of World War II, they erode the very foundation of historical understanding, risking a dangerous normalization of the symbols and ideologies that should remain relegated to the past. History, after all, is not merely a collection of events to be debated for rhetorical effect; it is the record of humanity’s triumphs and failures, meant to inform our path forward. When figures like White blur the lines between historical fact and revisionism, they betray a core conservative principle: respect for tradition, truth, and the lessons of the past.

More troubling than the historical distortion is the growing embrace of authoritarian rhetoric by some figures on the right. White’s remarks about globalists and post-war cronies tap into the populist strain of resentment that rejects the principles of liberal democracy in favor of conspiratorial thinking. This shift reflects a deeper temptation within certain segments of conservatism toward authoritarianism—a willingness to undermine democratic norms in pursuit of power.

True conservatism, however, is grounded in a belief in restraint, order, and the preservation of democratic institutions. It recognizes that power, when unchecked, leads to corruption, and that democracy, though imperfect, is the best guarantor of liberty. The revisionism espoused by figures like White represents a betrayal of these principles, as it distorts the truth in pursuit of a narrative that justifies authoritarian impulses.

The conservative movement stands at a crossroads. It can continue to indulge in the provocative rhetoric of historical distortion, or it can return to its roots as a defender of truth, liberty, and democratic order. Figures like Royce White, with their embrace of revisionism, offer a vision of conservatism that is unmoored from reality and dangerous in its implications.

Conservatives must reject this temptation. The fight against Nazism was not a morally ambiguous conflict—it was a battle for the soul of humanity, and the right side won. To suggest otherwise is to betray the memory of those who fought and died in that conflict, as well as the very principles that conservatism claims to uphold.

The task of modern conservatism is not to distort history for short-term political gain but to learn from it, defend its lessons, and ensure that the freedoms secured through immense sacrifice are preserved for the future. Only by embracing this mission can conservatism remain a force for good in the world.