The silliness of this claim is evident if you look at the claims of Holocaust denialists. Do any of them claim that their truths are as equally valid as other truths? Do any of them ascribed to a postmodernist approach to historical empiricism? Do any of them claim to be offering up just one view of history in contrast to others?

All of the denialists I have seen and interacted with believe that there is one truth, that they have it, that everyone else is wrong. Furthermore they believe that postmodernism in general is some kind of Jewish plot like relativity theory. These guys are not subtle philosophers of epistemology. They are asserting that either evidence exists or doesn't exist for their point of view. They aspire to be the "hardest" kinds of empirical historians, not language-challenging, rule-bending, overly-clever philosophers.

The next question to ask is whether the reception of these cranks has anything to do with postmodernism. I haven't seen any evidence of this, either. The tolerance of alternative viewpoints in the USA has nothing to do with postmodernism, and in some countries (i.e. Germany) denialist points of views are actively silenced by the courts as hate speech (for better or worse). What's postmodern about that?

This sort of claim strikes me as either having one of two origin points. One is that postmodern philosophers sometimes like to confess a sin in order to take credit for it. Bruno Latour, for example, has argued unpersuasively that maybe the climate change denial or creationism advocacy or legal deconstruction of certain types of scientific claims owes something to postmodernist theory. Again, I don't see any evidence of this — these kinds of things existed well before postmodernists started vaguely questioning the meaning of truth, and absolutely nothing that any of these modern-day science denialists say shows them to have read anything postmodern, much less claimed lineage to it. I think Latour likes to imagine that he's opened up some kind of dangerous line of thinking in his work, because we all like to be thought of as a little dangerous.

The other line of thinking is people wanting to discredit postmodernism, i.e. if you get rid of objective standards of truth, look at what rabble you let in. This is a dubious assertion even on pure philosophical grounds, but as a statement of political consequences, it again falls flat, for the main fact that nobody of consequence has yet to really argue seriously that we should base our legal, political, or social systems around postmodernism. This seems like just a variation of guilt by association/Godwin's law if deployed in this fashion.

If I were looking for reasons to explain an apparent growth in Holocaust denial in the last 30 years there are many, many other historical forces I would see as being more powerful than the so-called growth of postmodernism and attacks on Western rationalism, which frankly have not been very fashionable since the 1980s. If one picks up the newspaper today, or turns on the television, one finds an endless song about the benefits of Western rationalism ("technology, technology, technology!" sing the angels, with only occasionally concessions that some kinds of technology might not always be good, but don't worry, better kinds of technology will save us!).

What has happened in the last 30 years that might contribute more tangibly to the growth of Holocaust denial? How about... the Internet? How about... the fact that most of the few remaining survivors of the Holocaust have died? How about... a resurgence of anti-Semitism in many parts of the world, not unrelated to unrest in the Middle East? I mean, these things seem like much more viable candidates than "the world became more postmodernist" which frankly I see zero evidence of being actually true. Even within academia, postmodernism no longer rules the day.

The first obvious counter to this assertion is to point out that postmodernists did not necessarily invent or advocate "relativism" as such but rather observed that it existed; the position thus is to say, "No, the present stage of capitalism [or whatever you want to call the current juncture of history and society] creates the conditions for holocaust denial, postmodernists merely observe those conditions."

The other response is to point out that postmodernism and critical theory have been at the forefront of observing how power relations construct histori(ographical|c) narratives (See Foucault) and therefore in working to dismantle the colonialist narratives of history, which would demonstrate that indeed there is a standard (Based on observing the power relations of discourse) that would repudiate holocaust denial from a critical theory/Foucauldian angle, even if it's not the same standard that Evans himself would favour. I cannot imagine a (typical) postmodernist scholar actually giving practical or material support to holocaust deniers, for example, though I'm sure that's not what Evans means.

Ultimately, the lack of concern of some theorists with the "factual accuracy" of discourses, vis-a-vis their work, should not be taken as a statement for or against the notion that "factual accuracy" is meaningless or dead, etc.

Furthermore, Evans argues that the increase in intensity and scope of Holocaust denial in the past 30 years reflects a postmodernist intellectual climate where scholars deny texts have fixed meaning, argue that meaning is supplied by reader and in which attacks on western rationalism are fashionable.

To turn "western rationalism" back on Evans, one can point out that this (I mean, assuming you're not omitting some part of his argument in paraphrasing him) flirts with the post hoc fallacy.

This isn't to say, I'm not claiming to prove the negative that postmodernism did not, in any way, aid or encourage holocaust denial; but I find Evan's argument (As you paraphrase it) to be unconvincing. To make Evans' case convincingly, I think one would have to look at holocaust denial discourses and demonstrate how they are situated in a continuum of postmodernist discourse; ie, we would have to show that deniers themselves are aware of and using this "climate of relativism." I'm not an expert on holocaust denier discourse, though, so I'll bow out of that particular discussion.

Please slaughter me in the replies if I butchered anyone's ideas or discourses in writing this post, I'm somewhat hurried at the moment.

PS: I wouldn't mind seeing Evan's actual words on the subject, this is the first I've heard of it.

PPS: This assertion, in generalised form, is by no means unique to Evans; if anything, it's the most common criticism of postmodernism and can be phrased as "If all viewpoints are equally valid, then what stops [x group with abhorrent ideas]'s ideas from being valid?" Which problematic on multiple levels and based mostly on a cartoonish idea of what postmodernism is.

Is Holocaust denial really "thriving"?

Does anybody have any links to papers or other evidence that shows Holocaust denial is actually increasing (or decreasing) in the last 30 years?