In In Defense of History, historian Richard J. Evans defends mainstream historiography against the claims of postmodernists that ultimate historical truth is not only unattainable but does not exist. Evans criticizes postmodernist thinkers who argue that all history is merely interpretation and no one perspective is better or any more valid than another. The notion of postmodernist's that no historical theory is any more valid than another combined with the American belief that both sides of an argument should be treated fairly is a dangerous on in Evans' view, leading to the evolution of Holocaust denial because all views are legitimized when none is more valid than another.
Evans' In Defense of History makes the case the mainstream historiography can lead to some valid conclusion about the meaning of history. He sees postmodern criticism as undermining any form of critical perspective. When there is no grounds for holding one view as superior to another and no facts are valid, then there is no reason to prefer the views of a Holocaust denier over a standard historian's account of the Holocaust. Instead, Evans argues that through careful shifting of historical record, some interpretations of history will prove to be better founded in fact or record than others. Unlike postmodernists, Evans does not see history as ideology used to bolster social institutions. Neither does he see history as dead. Rather, he claims that the past "really happened, and we really can, if we are very scrupulous and careful and self-critical find out how it did, and reach some tenable conclusions about what it all meant" (Evans. P. 220). Evans does make the claim rather firmly and soundly that objective knowledge is possible, in contrast to postmodernists who see facts as unable to exist outside of the limitations of language.
Despite his critique of the postmodernists, Evans does offer the work of some postmodern thin...