Introduction
This essay examines Deborah Lipstadt’s assertion that Holocaust deniers exemplify a troubling relativist approach to truth, which has permeated popular culture and raises questions about whether disinformation should be granted the same intellectual status as verifiable history (Lipstadt, 1993, pp. 18-19, 26). In addressing this, the essay first outlines the nature of historical knowledge, focusing on its reliance on evidence and interpretation. It then assesses the historian’s responsibility to objectivity and empiricism, exploring how these principles are challenged by denialism, postmodernist critiques, and notions of progress. To ground this discussion, the essay draws on the Irving-Penguin Books and Lipstadt case as a pivotal example of the collision between historical truth and distortion. By critically evaluating these themes, this essay argues that while absolute objectivity may be unattainable, historians must uphold empirical rigour to counter disinformation and maintain the integrity of their discipline.
The Nature of Historical Knowledge
Historical knowledge is fundamentally constructed through the systematic analysis of primary sources, such as documents, artefacts, and testimonies, alongside secondary interpretations by scholars. Unlike scientific knowledge, which often seeks universal laws, history is interpretative, shaped by the historian’s context, perspective, and the incomplete nature of the archival record (Carr, 1961). This interpretative element does not, however, equate to relativism; rather, historical claims must be substantiated by evidence that can withstand scrutiny. For instance, the Holocaust is documented through extensive survivor accounts, Nazi records, and physical evidence from concentration camps, forming a robust body of knowledge that is widely accepted as factual (Evans, 2002).
Nevertheless, the subjective dimension of history—where historians select and weigh evidence—can open the door to challenges, as seen in the rise of Holocaust denial. Deniers exploit this interpretative space to cast doubt on established facts, often framing their distortions as ‘alternative perspectives’ (Lipstadt, 1993, p. 19). Thus, while historical knowledge is grounded in empiricism, its narrative form and dependence on human judgement make it vulnerable to misuse, necessitating a commitment to rigorous standards among historians.
The Historian’s Responsibility to Objectivity and Empiricism
Objectivity in history refers to the aspiration to present facts without undue bias, while empiricism demands that conclusions be rooted in verifiable evidence. Historians are tasked with navigating personal and cultural biases to construct accounts that reflect the past as accurately as possible. As E.H. Carr (1961) famously noted, history is a dialogue between the historian and the facts, but those facts must be diligently sought and critically assessed. This responsibility becomes particularly acute when confronting distortions like Holocaust denial, which reject overwhelming evidence in favour of conspiracy theories or ideological agendas.
However, achieving pure objectivity is arguably impossible. Historians are products of their time, influenced by societal norms and personal beliefs, which can subtly shape their work (Jenkins, 1991). Despite this, the commitment to empiricism—through methodical source criticism and peer review—serves as a safeguard against subjectivity. Indeed, the historian’s role is not to claim absolute truth but to build arguments that are transparent, evidence-based, and open to revision in light of new findings. This balance is critical when disinformation seeks to undermine historical consensus, as seen in the case of Holocaust denial.
Case Study: Irving v. Penguin Books and Lipstadt
The legal battle between David Irving and Penguin Books, alongside Deborah Lipstadt, exemplifies the clash between historical truth and denialism. In her book Denying the Holocaust, Lipstadt accused Irving of Holocaust denial, alleging he manipulated evidence to minimise Nazi responsibility (Lipstadt, 1993). Irving, a self-styled historian, sued for libel in 2000, claiming his reputation was damaged. The trial, held in London, became a landmark case, testing whether courts could adjudicate historical truth.
The defence, led by historian Richard Evans, meticulously exposed Irving’s distortions, such as his dismissal of gas chamber evidence at Auschwitz and misrepresentations of Hitler’s role in the genocide (Evans, 2002). The court ultimately ruled in favour of Lipstadt, finding Irving to be a deliberate falsifier of history and an antisemite. This case underscores the historian’s duty to empiricism; Evans’ rigorous analysis of primary sources not only debunked Irving’s claims but also reaffirmed the importance of evidence over rhetoric. Furthermore, it highlighted the dangers of granting disinformation the same platform as history, as Lipstadt (1993, p. 26) warned, showing how such equivalency can erode public understanding of the past.
The Idea of Progress and Historical Interpretation
The notion of progress—an Enlightenment belief in the continuous improvement of human society—has long influenced historical writing, often framing history as a linear march towards betterment (Bury, 1920). This perspective, however, can distort historical understanding by imposing teleological narratives that ignore setbacks, complexities, or alternative experiences. Holocaust denial, for instance, can be seen as a rejection of progress, as it seeks to erase a pivotal moment of moral reckoning in modern history. By denying the genocide, figures like Irving implicitly challenge the post-war consensus on human rights and collective memory, which emerged as a response to Nazi atrocities (Lipstadt, 1993).
Historians must therefore approach the idea of progress critically, recognising it as a construct rather than a universal truth. Their responsibility lies in presenting evidence of both advancement and regression, avoiding the temptation to fit history into predetermined narratives. This empirical focus ensures that events like the Holocaust are neither diminished nor mythologised but understood in their full complexity.
Postmodernist Critique and Relativism
Postmodernist critiques of history, notably from thinkers like Keith Jenkins (1991), argue that historical narratives are inherently subjective, shaped by power structures and cultural contexts rather than objective truth. While this perspective fosters critical awareness of bias, it risks sliding into relativism, where all interpretations are deemed equally valid. Such a stance is problematic when applied to Holocaust denial, as it could legitimise baseless claims by framing them as just another ‘narrative’ (Lipstadt, 1993, p. 18).
Historians must therefore navigate this critique carefully. While acknowledging the influence of perspective, they must reject the notion that all accounts are equally credible. Empirical evidence remains the bedrock of historical inquiry, distinguishing scholarly history from distortion. As the Irving-Lipstadt case demonstrated, rigorous methodology can effectively counter relativist challenges, ensuring that verifiable facts prevail over ideological fabrications.
Conclusion
In conclusion, historical knowledge, while interpretative, is grounded in empirical evidence and critical analysis, distinguishing it from disinformation like Holocaust denial. Historians bear a profound responsibility to strive for objectivity and uphold empiricism, even as they acknowledge the limits of absolute impartiality. The Irving-Penguin Books and Lipstadt case vividly illustrates how this commitment can defeat distortion, reinforcing the importance of evidence over rhetoric. Moreover, engaging critically with concepts like progress and postmodernist relativism enables historians to construct nuanced accounts that resist both teleological bias and the dangers of unchecked relativism. Ultimately, in an era where disinformation permeates popular culture, as Lipstadt (1993) highlights, historians must remain guardians of factual integrity, ensuring that history is not reduced to mere opinion but stands as a disciplined pursuit of truth. This duty is not only academic but societal, safeguarding collective memory against those who would rewrite the past for ideological gain.
References
- Bury, J.B. (1920) The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into Its Origin and Growth. Macmillan.
- Carr, E.H. (1961) What is History? Penguin Books.
- Evans, R.J. (2002) Telling Lies About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial. Verso.
- Jenkins, K. (1991) Re-thinking History. Routledge.
- Lipstadt, D.E. (1993) Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Free Press.
