False History?

In Zoe Druick's essay Documenting false history: Errol Morris and Mr. Death, the author describes that Fred Leuchter's self-deception contributes to his making of false history. However, according to what parameters could one define an interpretation of a historical event is false? What is false history? I don't attempt to discuss Leutcher's interpretations of Holocaust since his arguments were obviously contested. However, in Linda Williams's essay, she mentions "relative truth" (Williams, 20,) which means, in my point of view, owing to the trauma of inaccessibility to the past, there exists no ultimate truth. Trivialization of history as narrative approach in postmodernity implies more emphases on individual interpretations and seemingly insignificant event. In other words, individual perceptions now might be greatly involved in the making of history. Thus, result of this making of history is fictionalized to a certain degree since no one could guarantee his or her interpre
tation of memories, historical facts, or historical materials are complete, correct, and without self-deceptions. Historians and documentarians both possess their own perspectives and sometimes, they will tend to present certain facets of historical event to support their arguments, could one consider this kind of historical interpretation false?

Pi-Ju Liang