1940s and 1950s, was characterized by a renewed faith in objectivity among American historians. In the wake of World War II, the historical profession experienced a revival in status, as well as a trend toward greater equality in the hiring practices of history departments. Novick dates the fourth period of American historical study from the 1960s to the present. According to Novick, the social and political upheavals of the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam War era lead to a renewed questioning of history's claim to objective scholarship. Increased awareness of underrepresented groups—such as women, African Americans, and other ethnic minorities—led to a splintering of the field of history into a series of sub-fields, including African-American studies, women's studies, ethnic studies, and the scholarship of the New Left. While Novick describes the current state of historical scholarship as chaotic, in which all claims to objectivity have been delegitimized, he offers no alternative theory or methodology for bringing greater unity to the historical profession.

The Holocaust in American Life concerns the developments in American conceptions of the Holocaust since World War II. According to Novick, during World War II, the United States government downplayed the plight of European Jews under Adolf Hitler's regime for fear of alienating American popular opinion against the war effort. In the post-war era of the late 1940s and the 1950s, Novick asserts that the Jewish experience in the Holocaust continued to be largely unacknowledged by the American public. He notes that, during this period, the term “Holocaust” had not yet been widely applied to the Nazi extermination of European Jews, and those who had lived through internment in concentration camps had not yet been termed Holocaust “survivors.” American public conceptions of the Holocaust, however, changed radically during the 1960s and 1970s. Novick points to two major phenomenon which significantly altered the American perspective on the Holocaust. The first was the highly publicized Adolf Eichmann war crimes trial in Israel during the early 1960s, which brought to light the extent of the Nazi atrocities committed against the Jews. The second was the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973, which concerned American Jews who feared the annihilation of the state of Israel. These concerns spurned Jewish-American organizations to raise awareness of the Holocaust as a means of garnering American support for the state of Israel. Efforts to memorialize the Holocaust in American popular culture increased throughout the 1980s and 1990s, culminating in the opening of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., in 1993. Novick believes that the Holocaust has actually been overemphasized in American culture, arguing that American sympathy for the Holocaust victims and survivors has been manipulated by prominent Jewish organizations in order to preclude any criticism of Israel's policy toward the Palestinians. Additionally, while memorialization of the Holocaust has been employed as a means of strengthening Jewish identity, Novick feels that it has ultimately drawn focus away from the theological elements of the Jewish religion. He also contends that this overemphasis on the Holocaust has drawn attention away from other oppressed groups in American culture, such as African Americans and Native Americans.

Critical Reception

While many critics have found The Resistance versus Vichy to be a bold and well-researched work of scholarship, others have argued that the book offers scant original historical analysis. Critics of That Noble Dream have almost unanimously concurred that the work raises several important questions regarding the field of historical study, though a number of scholars have disagreed with Novick's conclusions. Reviewers have commented that one of the greatest strengths of That Noble Dream is Novick's social history of the academic historical profession. David Noble asserted that, “No other scholar has made such a marvelous contribution to our understanding of the history profession during its first century.” Many critics, however, regarded Novick's intellectual history of the “objectivity question” as a central weakness of the book, claiming that Novick does not adequately address the subject. Some took issue with Novick for failing to adequately define his use of the term “objectivity,” while others asserted that Novick oversimplifies the debate among historians over objectivity versus relativism. Critics were divided on Novick's assessment of the current state of the historical profession. Some agreed with Novick that the field is in a state of crisis. Joseph M. Levine, for example, commented that That Noble Dream “is useful and timely, for it reminds us that the historical profession is indeed in crisis, that its traditional convictions about the point and purpose of history have been challenged and cannot be left to stand in their original formulation.” Others, meanwhile, asserted that historical scholarship remains unified by basic theoretical and methodological values. Novick was criticized for his scant and oversimplified treatment of women historians, as well as developments in women's history. Hilda L. Smith observed, “It is not merely that [Novick] presents a brief and inaccurate understanding of women's history; he also provides an inadequate understanding of women in the historical profession.” Linda Gordon concurred, “Novick's treatment of women's history is so scandalously misinformed that it becomes disrespectful. … Novick misses not only the rich theoretical debates within women's history … but he also misses the academic politics.” The Holocaust in American Life has garnered a mixed critical reception. Many critics agreed that Novick's historical narrative of the development of American conceptions of the Holocaust since World War II is well-researched, insightful, and accurate. Many, however, strongly disagreed with Novick's conclusion that the Holocaust has been over-memorialized in American culture. A number of reviewers asserted that Novick fails to comprehend the significance of the Holocaust itself. Steve Hochstadt, for example, commenting on the strengths and weakness of The Holocaust in American Life, observed, “A valuable, insightful, and solidly documented analysis of the use of the Holocaust by a significant segment of American Jewry is woven together with a superficial, distorted, and tendentious presentation of the Holocaust itself.” Several pointed out that Novick's perspective is too narrow, failing to take into account the broader cultural and historical contexts through which Jews and non-Jews understand the Holocaust. As Jeffrey Herf commented, “The problem with The Holocaust in American Life is not that all of Novick's criticisms are wrong, but that he makes them without sufficient nuance and balance. He would have written a much better and more convincing book had he examined the host of other and equally plausible and not at all pejorative reasons for the emergence of the Holocaust as a theme in American life.” Some reviewers, however, agreed that Novick offers an important critique of how memorialization of the Holocaust has been manipulated by prominent public figures and national organizations to promote specific political agendas. Lawrence Baron, for example, observed, “Novick's analysis of Holocaust commemoration should not be misconstrued as a form of Holocaust denial, but rather as a warning against reducing the Holocaust to trite lessons that enhance Jewish identity or advance a variety of contemporary causes.”