>>20043There's a lot of liberal history as well, I would say that is actually the majority. IMO these are far more harmful because they're not just preaching to the choir, and they're not politically explicit.
Of course the liberal historians become obviously right-wing when it comes to left-wing events. They will not directly glorify fascistic and imperialistic counter-revolutionary forces but will instead relativize and omit essential facts so that communist revolutions appear as violent attacks by a small clique on the moderate civilized status quo, while (attempted) counter-revolutions are painted as general resistance to the aggression of that small clique. In liberal view communism is always merely a deviation from the progression to the end of history, and it happened in "backward" countries not because their starting point was different (weak bourgeoisie, usually compradors) but because their culture wasn't sufficiently westernized.