f the very few who has openly denied the Holocaust. On his web site he has written a document entitled ‘Did Six Million Really Die?’ Irving discusses a number of “facts” which deny Adolf Hitlers role in the Holocaust. Whether or not his argument is correct is irrelevant, what is relevant is the fact that it is obvious that Irving has privileged some evidence over other evidence. Throughout the document Irving places much emphasis on the evidence that supports his argument, while scarcely mentioning and denying contradictory evidence. Consequently, it is evident that a historian’s personal bias inevitably affects their choice and use of evidence, therefore adding an element of subjectivity to history. A historian’s personal bias not only shapes their choice in material but also inevitably affects their interpretation of the evidence. R.G.Collingwood put forward his view in the essay ‘The Limits Of Historical Knowledge.’- “…historical thinking means nothing else than interpreting all the available evidence with the maximum degree of critical skill. It does not mean discovering what really happened, if ‘what really happened’ is anything other than ‘what evidence indicates.’ The interpretation of evidence inevitably means the inference of personal bias and as a result subjectivity. Keith Jenkins uses the uncertainty about Hitler’s intentions after gaining power as evidence of the unreliability and subjectivity of historical evidence. The significance of the Hossbach Memorandum, in which Hitler outlined his plans to acquire extra territory for Germany, has been under considerable debate in the past few years. Some have interpreted Hitler’s plans as an honest declaration of intent; while others, notably A.J.P. Taylor, have doubted its genuineness, suggesting that it was a plan which Hitler hoped would justify increased expenditure on arma...
