I think it's worse than that - it distorts our record of history. In another couple of hundred years, if people want to find out what happened, they'll see how it was banned and realize that most information that we did publish must have been biased. They could reasonably assume that it's largely false since no serious well funded attempts to refute it were allowed. So they could conclude that they have no idea what really happened. They might conclude as you did, that it might not have happened, otherwise information about it wouldn't have been subject to so much suppression.
We should probably make the same conclusion today. Since when have legally enforced official versions of history been trusted over free and open research?
We should probably make the same conclusion today. Since when have legally enforced official versions of history been trusted over free and open research?