The question is wrong in a number of major respects.
Prior to the Rankean transformation of historiography, "history" as we know it was not written at all. Prior to Ranke, and his contemporaries, people wrote largely fanciful reports of the past, drawn from documentary records and beliefs (such as the "Whig" interpretation of history) that lay outside of what could be drawn with reasonable inference from scholarly theory combined with close textual reading with faith to the reported behaviours of those living in the past. "Historians" made stuff up prior to Ranke. None of these pre-modern works meet the interpretive standards that we know as "history," and holding them to our standards would itself be an anachronism, one of the "sins" of historical interpretation for the modern disciplinary historian.
After Ranke, history became that which historians as a disciplinary group of Westerners, drawn from the elite, did not disdain. This was modified by changes in technique of interpretation and attention to new source sets or interpretive perspectives. However, since Ranke, history has been a scholarly discipline and history has been written by historians.
Whether this makes History a "science" or not is another matter. The hardest sciences solidified as exclusionary practices during the 19th century, the same period in which historiography solidified as an exclusionary practice. Both claim to produce truthful knowledge about empirical reality. The practice of science makes claims about experiment or critical observation as verification; most of which were shown to be more complex than thought by philosophers of science. The practice of history makes claims about critical reading of texts and speech as verification; many of which have been shown to be more complex than thought by historians of ideas, linguists, and philosophers.
clearly there is no absolutely objective view of relations, because the stronger country will not allow "bad" books published!
In modernity "bad" books are regularly published, smuggled and read. It is prohibitively difficult to prevent the creation, dissemination and acceptance of bad books, even in "totalitarian" societies in modernity. Moreover, it has been found to be useful to let historians write "bad" books, and then argue about them, in most advanced capitalist societies.
While the idea of "objectivity" in general may be suspect, the idea of a strong consensus of scholarly opinion in the free scholarly press that is subject to review is more defensible. To the best knowledge of historians as scholars, certain things appear to be the least worst current understanding.