We need Revisionists!

I remember how much I hated Historical Revisionism back in my high school days. They flipped everything upside down! And in most cases modern revisionists are indeed bad people. Just think of the multitude of views people hold which justify Stalin's foreign policy as "defensive"... And all the people who praise industrialization as an accomplishment of communist regimes! These are, sadly, the only revisionist views taught in our schools today. However, I am very unsatisfied with the orthodox versions of historical interpretation as well. One thing I oppose there is the arbitrary division of brutal totalitarian leaders and strong authoritarian rulers. Everyone who knows me knows that I am a great admirer of Thomas DiLorenzo and his revisionism in American history. The same is true for Thomas E. Woods, another American historian.
So what history would I like revisited? Well, pretty much all of it! Historians up to now have been following their pro-statist and pro-democratic agenda to please their leaders. In other words, there really is a immense group of court historians of democratic regimes (nb. it is these modern democrats that always decry court historians as terrible propagandists of the ancien régime).
So let's look at one example: Generalissimo Francisco Franco. He is the victim of many prejudices of today's court historians. Firstly, he is all too often labled a "fascist". This is not surprising - pretty much every opponent of democracy is today called a fascist for no apparent reason while the real ideological fascists (as I have explained on this blog) are mostly today's western leaders. In fact, Franco did use the national-syndicalist Falange in order to aid him in his fight against radical hordes of murderous communists. Then, promptly, he went on to imprison most of the Falange leaders (after all they were dangerous fascists!). Fraco was an authoritarian ruler, but not a fascist. The most apt description of Mr. Franco would probably be "a fierce anti-Communist dictator". Secondly, Gen. Franco is often equated with the likes of Hitler (because Hitler supported his side during the Spanish Civil War) and Stalin (because he persecuted political opponents). On the Hitler support issue, we really need some revisionism. Hitler in fact despised Franco. At one point he went as far as to say it was a mistake to support him and that he should have supported the Reds! Why did Hitler say this? Because Franco did not kill the King and he did not eliminate Catholicism from Spain. In this Hitler also decried Mussolini while praising Stalin for being more efficient (Stalin supported the Reds all along... and he did a good job eliminating the Church and the Tsar!). On the issue of persecution of opponents, the criticism against Gen. Franco has merit. It is doubtless that he killed many innocent people. However, it is also doubtless that of the people he had killed (less than 50,000 by all accounts) an enormous majority were communists (i.e. aggressive human leeches). I also reject any comparison of Franco to Stalin who was killing 12,000 a day back in the USSR at this time.
There can be no doubt Francisco Franco was the best option for Spain at the time. Any state is evil and bad. His was an authoritarian and nationalist regime. But certainly he cannot be placed in the same category as people who killed countless thousands (including US Presidents like Wilson, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, or LBJ). I do not admire dictators, but we need some revisionists here to set the record straight and expose the democratic leaders for who they really are, instead of just demonizing great men.