I suppose whether history can be objective depends on the meaning of the word "objective" and the importance attached to it. If one means Olympian impartiality I don't think that is achieveable. At least it is hard to think of many historians which are impartial in that sense. However a historian can be honest, charitable toward one's subjects(which means understanding their perspective-though not blindly accepting it), and diligent in the effort to find out what happend. Bias is not incompatable with the search for truth-a policeman is biased against his suspect and a scientist biased for his hypothisis. However a historians sympathies should not be so strong as to overcome his honesty.