This thesis discusses how Holocaust deniers use, or abuse, history to argue for their historical interpretation. More precisely the thesis discusses how the historian David Irving argues in court during the English law case David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt. Even though the case is famous and has been studied before, no one has carried out a systematic study of Irving’s arguments and his use of history during the trial. The analysis is based on Klas-Göran Karlsson's typology of six different uses of history: scientific, existential, moral, ideological, political and educational and non-use of history. According to Lipstadt, Irving is both a typical and a prominent case of a Holocaust denier. In this thesis, I argue that this makes Irving a perfect example for studying Holocaust denial as a phenomenon.

Results of this study show that Irving’s arguments foremost can be categorized as ideological, scientific, or rather pseudoscientific, and non-use of history. Irving seems to approach single historical documents with a scientific, or pseudoscientific, use of history, but his broader conclusions are often ideological. Irving uses insignificant evidence to dismiss more substantial evidence and does not apply the same source criticism when he evaluates different historical materials. Many of his arguments could be categorized as ideological use of history, since they are not based on any historical evidence. Instead, they are rather wild speculations, often based on the notion of “common sense”. Irving’s arguments could also be categorized as non-use