I think you may have opened a can of worms. Nearly every country has some aspect of its past that is disagreed-upon--and countries may have completely opposing views of an event between them. Some that I can think of that I've argued over or described (admittedly playing loose with your 'industrialized democracy' parameters) :

• The American Civil War
• Legacy of the Soviet Union (though it seems the bloc that misses it or wishes for some aspect of it to return is stronger than ever).
• Indian independence movement and the role of Gandhi. Modern Indian political divisions roughly coincide with historic loyalties to a figure or movement within independence.
• Japanese and Chinese tensions today are not helped by Japanese denials or whitewashing of WWII atrocities, or frequent Chinese reference to them).
• Modern Scotland independence movement, built more on an evolving relationship over centuries than any single person or event.
• Pick an American president. Any American president. Nixon is in the news this week, and the memory of Watergate has taken a turn where many argue that his criminal activity did not make him a 'net-bad' president. These people argue that his policies benefited the nation more than the scandal damaged it.
• Hungary's president recently called for the institution of illiberal democracy, saying that liberal democracy has brought with it equal disadvantages to those under communism.

I could go on all day though I'd be happy to expand on any of the above. But what you're describing occurs any time a modern political disagreement can be found to have historic roots, or that a modern figure makes historical references to prove a point.