In order to answer what good history is, we must understand the concept of history itself. Simply; History is a way of constructing knowledge about the world through research, interpretation, argument and debate. With this in mind, we can answer the question of what makes good history through analysing the trial between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt. This case can be relived accurately through the move Denial; History on Trial. This, with a range of other references will allows me to analyse the standards required for good, credible history. Personally, I believe there are several factors that must be assessed to make history good; the reliability, good evidence – and the importance, the best history is that of which betters the world.
In order to refer to the trial, a brief overview of what took place is needed. In 1996, British author David Irving filed a claim against Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher penguin books that Lipstadt had slandered him in her book ‘Denying the Holocaust’ . Lipstadt’s book aims to disprove Holocaust deniers through a number of reasons. Irving being Holocaust denier himself therefore attempted to sue her for libel in the High Court of Justice. However, the presiding judge, Charles Gray, concluded that Irving was “an active Holocaust denier (…) anti- Semitic and racist” . In 2006, Irving later was arrested to the charge of denying the Holocaust in Austria, where it is a legal crime.
Firstly, in order for history to be reliable it must have a good agenda. This means that the historian must not suppress evidence or worse, falsify it for it to fit into what they want to believe, Richard J Evans even calls this the ‘cardinal sin’ of history . A historian must go into the question with a clear mind which can look at a variety of evidence in order to form a conclusion based on fact, not opinion. Although Irving argued that he had ‘no political agenda’, it is clear that this is the crucial mistake Irving made which led to his loss. The defence team proved that Irving had an ‘anti-Jewish political agenda’ with his denial ‘the product of political bias and political extremism’ . Simply; Irving was anti-semitic and therefore falsified and ignored certain evidence in order to prove his point who used ‘arcane sources to afront established opinions’ as Trevor- Roper put it. This is bad history, as it the only purpose that should have is to reach a conclusion on fact in order to understand a past occurrence. Although it is hard not to have an agenda as everyone has personal opinions, as long as you ignore this agenda so that it does not interrupt your research, it is acceptable. For example, Lipstadt had been brought up in a ‘traditional Jewish Home’ and studied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem therefore will clearly feel anger towards Irving. However, this did not lead her to make up evidence or suppress evidence therefore she can still be marked as a good historian, unlike Irving.
However, we must acknowledge that good History requires good expert evidence. This, although specifically chosen, was something that Irving succeeded in. Irving was indeed very educated on German History. He read German, spent years in the archives researching the German side of the Second World War and was the author of around 30 books on the subjects. On the other hand, Deborah Lipstadt had never step foot in a German archive, or even read German. Even Richard Evans can admit that he ‘knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field’ but this extensive research is let down through the lack of his ability for his research to ‘be tested against new information and new interpretations that appear’ therefore shrinking his ability as a specialist on the Third Reich. Irving although has a depth to his knowledge has no width and variety unlike Lipstadt, this variety is critical to coming to a conclusion on an event. This close-mindedness is clearly seen as he even writes a book called ‘My version of real history’ this book in itself turns proper historians away as historians pride themselves on good discussion and debate to conclude the truth, not keeping to their ‘version’.
Furthermore, good history also depends on its importance. For example, new research is much more important than research which has already been conducted. The most important history is that which challenges and changes the way that we think. This (if supported with good evidence) can be the best history. History such as holocaust evidence found in the archive written by Eichmann the leader of the final solution. These authentic documents helped put names to over 250,000 of those who had been murdered allowing htose people to be remembered, and most importantly allowing us to learn from our mistakes, or bring justice by disproving deniers such as David Irving to admit that he may have to ‘revise my views’. The history which we can learn from what is right and wrong in order to better ourselves to avoid such a disturbing act of human genocide from ever happening again is undoubtedly the most important.
To conclude I believe that there are clearly two main parts of good history. Good evidence; this means not only good evidence with width and depth in both their sources but selectively chosen not for agenda but for how reliable they are and the facts which they entail. With these sources checked, the best history is that of which betters the world; for the future through learning mistake or giving justice to those such as David Irving who disrespects the clear facts for his own betterment and success or to commemorate those affected such as those 6 million Jews who tragically passed in the Holocaust, or Thomas Edison who discovered the light bulb, or Emily Pankhurst who founded the suffragette movement, or Richard J Evans who helped the holocaust survivors have their justice by bringing down false history.
2019-10-1-1569967833