Revisionism should add evidence, not impose present standards

Which revisionist interpretations of Royal Navy history are most irritating, and can revisionism be useful?

Revision is useful when new evidence warrants it; the problem is judging past actors solely by present-day standards.

Revision is a normal part of historical inquiry. New evidence can change nuance, context, or the substance of an interpretation, as the release of Bletchley Park material demonstrates. Problems arise when history is read backward from present assumptions. A sound revision should add new knowledge while asking what standards and information were available to people making decisions at the time.