All Historians are Revisionists:

“The Nobel Prize, Revisionism and Falsification of History”

by Carl O. NORDLING

(A French version of this article so titled was published in Ecrits de PARIS, June 1992.)

History research is a scientific discipline. Or, at least, it should be, even if this discipline has a lower status than what is generally called Science. For instance, there is no Nobel Prize for History. But those there are (for Physics, Chemistry and Medicine) do not mark these disciplines as superior ones. By the selection of the laureate it is emphasized, year after year, that the most deserving scientists are not those who defend the old "truths" against new discoveries and new theories. On the contrary, those who succeed in revising our conception of certain states of things are considered having rendered the greatest service to humanity.

The theory of relativity is a good example of such a revision. It remains a great disgrace for the Swedish Academy of Sciences that this theory was never honoured with a Nobel Prize to its originator. At that time, too many scientists committed themselves to defending the established "truth". So did also Adolf Hitler, who moreover declared theory of relativity invalid. This was done without any reference to scientific arguments. The repudiation was based solely on the notion that the theory of relativity represented "Jewish science". That is to say, the man who had formulated it, Albert Einstein, was a Jew. According to the Nazis, the Jews were declared enemies of the “Aryans” – therefore any theory launched by a Jew must be false to Germans and other Aryans. This means that observation and evidence was not considered at all in deciding between truth and falseness. Instead it was asked: Is this said by one of ours, or is it something that our adversaries assert? This attitude is typical for totalitarian states such as those of Hitler and Stalin. It should be foreign to societies devoted to the freedom of thought.

The totalitarian attitude is of course no more justified within the discipline of history than it is within physics. Historians like physicists and other scientists occupy themselves with new findings and new angles of approach. With other words, they revise our conception of the course of events. It is often difficult to decide at an early stage if a new historical theory is better than the old one or not. This is something that usually becomes clear only after a period of criticism and discussion. (Precisely this was the case with the theory of relativity.) As for historical facts, they are often quite understandable even to laymen, who may therefore take their stand on various theories after due presentation.

The French TV has let us know that the British historian David Irving has produced some new data concerning the Auschwitz concentration camp. But at the same time, it kept silent about what has been revealed and about how this has been done. Government TV nowadays is an equally effective moulder of public opinion as was Hitler for the Germans of the Third Reich. And the mass media in certain countries have recently let their audience know that David Irving is a "revisionist". This in turn is said to be tantamount to "Falsifier of History”. Which all smacks of the Nazi statement that Einstein was Jewish and therefore as a scientist tantamount to a charlatan. Both statements are of course exorbitant. All historians are naturally more or less "revisionist". For all we know, deliberate forgery is exceptional among historians. It is much more common that a historian permits his prejudices to influence his choice of sources so that objectiveness gets lost. Therefore, all historical research must be examined critically before the results are accepted. Such scrutiny may in many cases be performed in the mass media as well as in the specialist literature.

In his books, David Irving has revised many historical conceptions. Thereby he has always accounted carefully for his sources. It should not be too difficult to find the faults in his presentation. To say quite simply that some of his works are without any foundation (as was done in the TV) is an insult to the intelligence of the audience. It is also an offence against Irving, who would hardly risk his reputation as a historian by bringing up statements without at least some foundation.

Also, it seems totally abortive to treat research about Nazi extermination of Jews in a lump with the activities of Neo-Nazis and skinheads. To search for facts and to shout slogans in the street are actually two entirely different things. The faults and mistakes that certainly exist in the works of Irving, as well as in those of Faurisson, Leuchter and Rassinier, should be established by means of criticism based on facts. That Irving has been apprehended by the German police, or that Faurisson has been sentenced to a fine, does not prove that they were mistaken essentially. Émile Zola was sentenced to prison for what he had written, but he was none the less right about a miscarriage of justice having been done by a French court. The origin of the financing of the Leuchter report, or the possible Marxist faith of Rassinier have nothing to do with the question whether they were right or wrong in their conclusions and assertions.

Presently, we know that a well-known historian has brought new findings and new conclusions about what happened in the Auschwitz camp. It seems very likely that there are other findings that speak against his conclusions. Perhaps his reasoning can be criticised in other respects as well. The mass media should consider it an important task to enlighten the general public about Irving’s representation as well as about the objective criticism against it. Specialist historians could – and should -- contribute to the latter. As an onlooker and reader one cannot be satisfied with alleged new findings and conclusions being treated as if they were nothing more than scanned slogans. After all, Auschwitz is not just an “insignificant detail” in the history of World War II. It is one of the crucial places of recent European history to which hundreds of books have been devoted.