Springtime for Hitler: UK schools teach not to "judge" Hitler

This is one of those stories that takes your breath away. Seems that a 16 year old UK kid is enamored of Hitler. He did all sorts of great things for his people, only bombed the UK cities because it was in retaliation for UK "carpet bombing" of Germany, needed French land to feed his people, killed the Jews because he was "mad" and so on....

One could dismiss this as the idiocy of a male teenager... But his mother reports that there is a new curriculum in UK schools which fights prejudice against Germans and teaches the students not to "judge" Hitler.

No comment necessary... except that it happened at Disneyland... probably in Fantasyland...

EU helps twart academic boycott of Israel

According to the JTA, Israel has signed an agreement with the European Union that thwarts efforts to impose a British academic boycott of Israel.

Under the terms of the agreement Israeli universities will participate in the major public/private research partnership to develop green air transport.

A final [I hope] word on Ward Churchill

The Eugene Or. Register -Guard has an editorial praising both those who protected Ward Churchill's right to free speech and the university process which uncovered his many lies, fabrications, plagarisms and the like.

While I agree in essence, I keep asking why didn't anyone look at his credentials, articles, and claims [about Native American ancestry for example] before this whole thing blew up? Were they so excited about getting a supposed Native American on faculty that they were willing to ignore some of the warning signs?

How about the fact that he did not have a Ph.D. and yet was made chair of a department? [Apparently he was honest about this and yet the university hired him anyway.]

Was the university willing to make such a serious compromise [the Ph.D. is the university union card] a reflection of how little it thought of a deparmtnet of Ethnic Studies [which is where Churchill was housed]?

If this is indeed correct, it's behavior such as this which gives affirmative action its bad name.

In the end the university acquitted itself well. Before that however....

David Irving making movies....

From today's Independent:

The sinister Holocaust denier David Irving appears to be plotting a comeback. Strangely, it will be set against the backdrop of one of our most esteemed centres for understanding international affairs.

Irving, who once rubbished the idea that Auschwitz existed to murder Jews - "It's baloney; it's a legend" - was spotted filming yesterday in one of the hallowed halls of Chatham House.

The institution prides itself on its independence, but might this be a bit much?

Over to Chatham House.

"It was a private booking, you don't need to give a name, you just pay the rental fee," says a spokesman. "We didn't know it would be him." Wonderful!

The only thing I like about this is the moniker the paper gives Irving, "sinister Holocaust denier." It's a fact. Makes all those years of legal travail worth it.

YouTube watchers keep you eyes open, that's where this will probably end up.

Some thoughts on genocide

I spent a quiet day today reading Adam Lebor's book, Complicity with Evil. It is a searing indictment of the United Nations for its complicity in th genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda, and, now -- even as I write -- in Darfur.

Having just spent time in Sarajevo and visited Srebrenica it brought the tragedy of what happened there into vivid focus.

Lebor's thesis is that the United Nations essentially allowed these tragedies to happen when it could have stopped any of them by acting forcefully in the beginning. In each case -- certainly in the case of Bosnia and Rwanda -- it knew precisely what was coming and did nothing. These were, in the words of Lebor, carefully if not meticulously planned genocides.

While the UN and its leadership -- Boutros Ghali and Kofi Anan in particular -- come in for the brunt of the responsibility, they are not alone.

This was not a mattter of ancient hatreds, as some people termed it. These were people who had lived in harmony. [As was evident from what remains in Sarajevo.]

Lebor's point is that not only did the UN fail miserably in this case, it continues to do the same in the case of Darfur. He also faults the Arab League which, when it met on this topic in 2004, came up with its standard explanation for all its problems -- it blamed Israel and Jews.

Lebor's thesis, in additional to the failure if not complicity of the UN, is that a "rich European Muslim culture what could have forged a new relationship between Islam and the West vanished forever under a rain of Serb artillery shells." [p. 249]

Islamic countries sent mujahideen fighters to Sarajevo and other parts of Bosnia. Their type of Islam was and is very much at odds with that of the Bosnians'. Some of these mujahideen were connected with AlQaeda. They have helped more radical Islam to take root in Bosnia.

[Interestingly, I heard from a number of Bosnians complaints that the only help they get from Muslim countries is mosques, rather than help to their very weak economy.]

For people who care about these tragedies, this is an important book. For those who feel that they don't know enough about these tragedies, this is an essential book to read.

Criminalizing Holocaust and genocide denial: An academic forum

For a round table discussion about criminalizing denial of the Holocaust and other genocides see the recent issue of FrontPage

Firing Ward Churchill: Univ of Colorado President in today's Wall St. Journal

Previous posts on this topic

In an excellent and hard hitting piece in today's Wall St. Journal University of Colorado President Hank Brown makes it clear why Ward Churchill was fired. In short, Churchill proved himself to be a falsifier of history, a plagiarizer, and someone who, when his mistakes are revealed, blames everyone but himself.

In short he is antithetical to all a university should stand for.

My question is: how did this guy get hired in the first place? How did he get promoted to the chair of an academic department? If he hadn't shot off his mouth about Little Eichmann's would the truth have come out? [Rumor has it that people had been complaining for a long time but no one took their complaints seriously.]

See also Marty Peretz's comments on this.

The Armenian Genocide: a shameful Congressional retreat

For a detailed article on how the Turkish government is using former members of Congress [e.g. Gephardt, Livingston, and Solarz] to further its attacks on the historicity of the Armenian genocide see Michael Crowley's article in the New Republic, K Street Cashes in on the Armenian Genocide.

Turkey is engaged in a full court press to try to stop a resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. I was sad to read that Jewish organizations seem to have backed down from taking a stand. I assume that they are sensitive to the fact that Turkey is the only Muslim nation with such close relations with Israel.

They are also strongly aware of the presence in Turkey of a Jewish community which could well be endangered should the government not protect it.

Nonetheless, it does not feel good to see this genocide become a political football...... I wonder what Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, who was responsible for bringing this to the world's and certainly America's attention would say now???

On this matter Hitler may actually have been right [I never thought I would write that] when he said: Who today remembers [or speaks of] the annihilation of the Armenians?

Maybe if more people had spoken of it then, subsequent histories would have been different.

And, who knows, if the Turks are successful in denying this genocide, who knows what other denial efforts will yet be successful....

Now there's a scary thought...

And who said history was not relevant?

Ward Churchill [the one who called the 9/11 victims (and me) Eichmanns] fired: But not for that

Ward Churchill who claimed to be a Native American but was not and who called the 9/11 victims, particularly those who worked in finance and investment, "little Eichmanns" was fired yesterday by University of Colorado.

He had called me an Eichmann for ignoring the genocide of Native Americans in my book Denying the Holocaust because I was destroying another people. [If that makes sense to you let me know.]

Some free speech advocates will rise up to his defense. They should not. He was not fired for this.

A university committee investigated and found, according to the Rocky Mountain News,

# Historical facts: Churchill manufactured events in which European Americans intentionally spread smallpox to kill Indians. In one such event, the Army is said to have distributed tainted blankets to Mandan Indians. But no evidence backs the claim.

Elsewhere, Churchill claimed the United States adopted a formal racial code to identify Indians, similar to the code used by the Nazis to identify Jews. U.S. law includes no such code, legal scholars say.

# Plagiarism: Churchill published an essay on water issues in Canada that closely resembles a pamphlet by a Canadian environmental group. He also borrowed a work on fishing rights originally published by Canadian scholar Fay Cohen.

# Falsifying sources: Churchill wrote essays under the names of other people, which he then cited as independent sources in his footnotes.

In the academic world these are capital offenses. Watch now as Churchill hits the trail and presents himself as a victim...

Related posts

Museum exhibitions by petition: silly... and dangerous

According to the JTA, a petition signed by 100 "scholars and leaders" has been delivered to the United States Holocaust Museum calling for mention of the Bergson group in the permanent exhibition.

[The USHMM's website mentions them but the permanent exhibition apparently does not.]

While I think the permanent exhibition should absolutely include mention of them, I refused to sign the petition when it reached me a few weeks ago.

Good museums do not decide on the basis of petitions, otherwise known as public pressure, what should and should not be included in their exhibits.

Furthermore the petition is not just from scholars who might have studied the topic. According to the JTA it was signed by former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, leaders of rabbinical seminaries from the three main Jewish religious denominations, two former Israeli Cabinet members, two members of Congress and prominent Holocaust survivors.

While I respect these people [my guess is some of them are my good friends] this is not how exhibits should be created.

As historian Michael Marrus wrote when he declined to sign:

The staff at the USHMM has earned wide respect because of their professionalism and the care that they take with respect to their mandate. I may not agree with their every decision -- although I am not aware of any at the moment with which I disagree -- but I certainly want to see them accorded the professional space within which to operate. [The] petition seems to me to move rather in the direction of politicization of a respected institution.

Leave aside the merits: if this kind of mobilization were to become an accepted means to changing exhibits we would have a museology defined through public pressure. I would not like to see this happen and I don't think that this is in the interest of the educational and commemorative work to which we are both committed.

Well said. This is ludicrous.

Now let's wait as the predictable cast of characters who seek every opportunity to criticize the USHMM, come out of the woodwork in protest.

Attention Authors [1]: Be afraid, very afraid.... especially if you write about the Saudis and their support of terrorism

Whenever David Irving's libel case against me comes up someone inevitably asks: How could he sue you in the UK? I explain that my book was bought and published by Penguin UK and therefore he could drag me into a UK court.

Turns out that now the reach of UK libel laws has been greatly extended. It's a frightening development. In an earlier post I wrote about Rachel Ehrenfeld and how she was sued for libel by the Saudi Khalid bin Mafouz for writing that he had supported terrorism.

But here's what makes Ehrenfeld's story quite different from mine: her book was NOT published in the UK. Some people in the UK [I wonder if it was the Saudis or their lawyers???] bought a copy over the Internet.

Bin Mafouz pounced and Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay him damages. Now the American courts have come to her defense. [Scroll down at this link to find the New York Law Journal report on the Ehrenfeld case.]

Now the Saudis have silenced another book. This one is by J. Millard Burr, a former relief coordinator for Operation Lifeline Sudan, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Robert O. Collins, professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

They have written a number of books on Darfur and Sudan. Their most recent book, Alms for Jihad was published by Cambridge University Press. [Since their book was published in the UK, their case is closer to mine than Ehrenfeld's.]

The authors explore how, in the words of Michael Rubin, writing in the New York Sun:

The Saudi royal family played a pernicious role, founding and promoting charities to spread militant Sunni Islam, not only as an inoculation against resurgent Shi'ism from revolutionary Iran, but also to radicalize the Muslims in Europe and America.

The British lawyers for Khalid bin Mahfouz and his son Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz wrote Cambridge University Press saying they intended to sue the Press and the authors for defamation against their clients.

Cambridge University Press contacted the authors,and they provided detailed material in support of their claims made in Alms for Jihad.

Nonetheless, Cambridge University Press decided not to contest the argument and next week they will apologize in court.

As Rachel Ehrenfeld has just written to me in an email: "Get a copy of “Alms of Jihad” before it’s banned..."

[To satisfy the different leanings of readers of this blog I have provided links to Amazon, B&N, and Powells. I would have provided a link to Cambridge University Press but the book seems to have been buried deep within the Cambridge University Press website How's that for rewriting of history?]

Bin Mahfouz apparently has amassed a number of judgements by default, in other words the case was not tried on its merits. Everyone just caves, pays a fine, and gets out of Dodge as fast as they can.

Cambridge Press had pretty deep pockets but it too folded. If I were a reporter writing about this I would see what connections it has with the Saudis... That would be interesting to know.

And now I return to the main point: Why isn't this pattern of silencing by the Saudis of authors who are critical of them been the topic of an article in the mainstream press?

There are important legal precedences here, especially in the Ehrenfeld case, and a disturbing pattern of silencing of criticism by the Saudis.

Where are the free speech advocates now???

Denmark and Switzerland: The beginning of a trend or two stupidities in quick succession?

In the previous post I reflected on the Danish Arts Council official who said, regarding a grant to a Holocaust denier, we don't censor opinions. A few weeks ago I posted on the Swiss Foreign Minister who proposed to the Iranians holding a conference at which all views of the Holocaust would be represented... including deniers'.

Is this a disturbing trend or just stupidity on the part of two bureaucrats... or both? I don't mean to suggest that either one is a closet denier. On some level that would be less disturbing. Since they are not, what it suggests is that denial is increasingly being thought of as a "point of view."

These two folks' minds are so open their brains fell out.

Denmark: A victory for Holocaust deniers

Denmark, according to the Danish paper Information,it turns out has given a substantial grant to a Holocaust denier who called the Diary of Anne Frank a forgery, contended that the gas chambers never existed and argued that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated.

While that grant may well be attributed to a bureaucratic snafu, it's the response of the government official from the agency making the grant that's shocking. When the story broke the Arts Council said that it does not deal in censorship and "it is not our job to judge [people's] opinions."

HOlocaust denial = an opinion. This as I predicted years ago in Denying the Holocaust is precisely deniers' goal: to enter the conversation as an "other side" or another "opinion."

They are not an "opinion." Their work is, as has been repeatedly shown, a "tissue of lies."

From the British Courts: A strange libel case that gives pause to authors and comfort to terrorism

There is currently a court battle going on which sounds absolutely absurd. In short, Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American and founder of the American Center for Democracy, wrote a book which mentioned Khalid Salim bin Manfouz, accusing him of funding Hama and Al Qaeda. The Washington Times has an column summarizing the outlines of the story.

Bin Mafouz sued Ehrenfeld in London for libel. As most readers of this blog know, the burden there is on the defendant. But here is the kicker: Ehrenfeld never published her book in the UK. A couple of copies were sold as special orders over Amazon which posted a chanpter of the book on the Internet.

Bin Mafouz is essentially a "libel tourists," who find some sort of weak connection in the UK to use that vanue to sue. The judge ruled that she must apologize to bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. She has not done either and, therefore, cannot travel to the UK, a servere impediment for someone who does research on terrorism and jihad.

Miss Ehrenfeld countersued in New York and last month the court said her case had merit and that she could appeal in this country. The court found that this case had implications for the First Amendment and for all authors.

Actually, as the Washington Times details, the French have extensive evidence linking bin Mafouz to Osama bin Laden.

This case, therefore, should be of great interest to writers and to those who believe that a vigorous fight against terrorism must continue. It's surprising that this case has not gotten more attention from the media. Could it be that Ehrenfeld is linked with neocon folks????

David Irving: Already showing patterns of future behavior in his student days

Hannah Gay has written a book on the history of Imperial College in London. The following excerpt concerns David Irving's activities during his time there. Hannah Gay has given me permission to post this here.

From Hannah Gay, The History of Imperial College London: Higher Education and Research in Science, Technology and Medicine (Imperial College Press, 2007)

In the 1950s and 60s student journalists still reported on day-to-day college life in the student papers. A new fortnightly student paper, Felix, was founded in 1950 with the purpose of keeping students informed of college events and The Phoenix became a review journal.

In 1958 it was edited by David Irving, the future controversialist historian and serious minimiser, if not denier, of the Holocaust.1 Irving had come to the college in 1956 and had founded an organization called the National Guardian Movement which he claimed was an anti-Communist movement but, given its literature, was clearly inspired by the British Union of Fascists. It had some student members from Imperial and some from other colleges in the university.

Irving soon became well known in the college. A gifted journalist, he helped in the running of The Phoenix after the editor had been injured in a mountaineering accident. He worked hard, contributed a number of drawings and short articles and, despite some misgivings among board members shaken by the content of some of his articles, was asked to take over the editorship in 1958.

At first he appeared to have had a good idea, namely starting a series on old students, 'They Came to Imperial'. But his first subject was the German industrialist Fritz von Thyssen and it is clear that Irving was interested in him solely for his connections to Hitler. This and other questionable content led to Irving being fired from the editorship. But, for reasons not entirely clear, he was then asked to edit the 1959 carnival magazine for the University of London Union.

That year the carnival was to raise money in support of the World University Service and its work with black students in South Africa. Irving produced a magazine but secretly inserted some extra inner pages. In these he is said to have defended Apartheid, included racist and sexist jokes and cartoons, claimed that Hitler's regime was 'the first great unifying force that Europe had known for six hundred years', and reprinted material from Oswald Mosley's journal Action.2

News of what he was up to leaked out of the Imperial College Union press room where the magazine was being set up, but Irving managed to get the copy as far as the printers before it was found and destroyed. People at the college were genuinely shocked by what had happened. The Rector, who expressed outrage, avoided the embarrassment of what to do next when Irving failed his exams and had to leave.3

While racist jokes were rare in student publications of this period, sexist jokes and articles were still acceptable. It would appear that the only people who objected to the Spring 1958 issue of The Phoenix edited by Irving), which by today's standards was outright sexist, if not misogynist, were some women students. Judy Lemon wrote a spirited reply which was published in the following issue but her response was largely ignored.

By the time Brian Flowers became Rector in 1973 blatant sexism was no longer acceptable. Flowers led from the top in combatting it and in encouraging women to come to the college.4 By then times had changed, and students would have thought twice before making the kind of jokes in print that earlier had been unremarkable. However, life was not that comfortable for outspoken feminists....

1. Irving had come to the college as part of a new venture to attract good arts students into the sciences. These students were given instruction during their first year at the college designed to allow them to enter regular first year science courses in their second year. This experiment was abandoned after a few years.

2. Quotation in Felix, 6 May 1959. Information on the content of the >missing pages is taken from issues of Felix in the same period. Irving's actions were a hot topic for several weeks.

3. Irving's love affair with Hitler was evident already when he was a student, though at the time he appears to have been viewed simply as a crank, albeit an intelligent one. On failing his exams, Irving did not immediately leave the area but continued working as a labourer on the new physics building site, something he had already been doing for about a year.

4. In 1975 about 10% of the student body of approximately 4000 students were omen.

Defending the BBC...

Some readers have defended the BBC for leaving the post referred to in the previous post up on its website. They say that the post is only critical of Zionism, what's wrong with that?

Well the post doesn't just criticize Zionism. It's antisemitic and is full of misstatements of truth [i.e. lies]. Let me quote it in full:

Zionism is a racist ideology where jews [sic] are given supremacy over all other races and faiths. This is found in the Talmud. There is a law called Baba Mezia which allows jews to lie as long as its to non-jews. Many pro jewish supporters will cringe at this being exposed because they know it exists, yet they keep quiet about it, hey frip, jla and co [the aliases of other people taking part in the discussion]. The Law of Baba Mezia!! Tsk tsk tsk! It's in the Talmud."

This is classic antisemitism. Only thing new about it is that instead of attacking Judaism it replaces Judaism with Zionism.

The BBC stands firm on antisemitism..

Even the media outside of the UK has covered the BBC's major problems this past week. First it was a trailer on a movie about the queen which made it look like the queen had stormed out of a photo shoot with Annie Leibowitz [she did not]. The BBC apologized.

Now it turns out that the BBC has been fixing the way certain quiz shows come up by rigging the calls and the votes.

Therefore, the following story should not come as a surprise. The BBC received a blatantly antisemitic post on it website citing how the Talmud supposedly makes it OK to cheat non-Jews.

This attack on the Talmud is, by the way, is an increasingly popular theme in antisemitic literature. It's not new but it used to be just the province of the crackpots... no more.

According to the BBC's own rules

"posts that are removed include ones that are considered likely to disrupt, provoke attack or offend others or are considered racist, homophobic, sexually explicit or otherwise objectionable."

Despite this policy the BBC refused to remove the post. I guess antisemitism is so common in the BBC's world that it's no longer objectionable...

It did however trip over itself to apologize for referring to Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Thank God for that....

On Sarajevo and genocide: Some reflections from home

This past week was a remarkable learning experience. I met fascinating people doing fascinating work on various aspects of genocide. I realize that there is much I have yet to learn but I walk away with one overriding conviction.

Scholars must do scholarship. Politicians and ideologues can do ideology and politics, but scholars must concentrate on scholarship and let the facts lead them where they may.

This is true whether it is in reference to the Holocaust, Rwanda, and the former Yugoslavia among a myriad of other places. Scholars must be allowed to ask tough questions and to follow the facts. There will always be differences of opinion on how the facts should be interpreted but the facts must never be shaped to fit a particular outcome.

Sometimes scholars might ask questions which seem to suggest that they are diminishing the suffering of a particular group or are suggesting that it was the group's "fault." In fact, they might be doing what scholars do: asking uncomfortable questions.

For example, let's say a genocide occures in the wake of a group declaring its independence when the group in question did not have the power to protect its people. In response to its declaration of independence it's people get massacred and genocide is committed against them.

The group which declared its independence explains that it thought the world would not let such a thing happen and expected the world organizations [e.g UN and NATO] to come to their defense. The organizations, not surprisingly, fail to do so and genocide occurs.

Who's at fault?

I don't think such a scenario in any manner, shape, or form diminishes the horror of genocide or the complete guilt of those who committed the act. They have done something for which they carry full responsibility and should be punished accordingly.

However it does leave open the quesion: does the independence declaring group carry some responsibility? Can we fault the leaders who acted in this manner without sounding as if we are in some way condoning the genocide?

Nor should scholarly findings be determined by vote. That's just nuts.

The Palestinian Mickey Mouse may be dead but the bumble bee carries on

According to a MEMRI dispatch, Farfour the mouse who was killed by an Israeli who wanted his land, has been replaced by Nahoul, a bumble bee who is apparently Farfour's cousin [cousi?... don't ask after all it is a children's show... or at least supposed to be one].

Should be endlessly fascinating.

The Guardian's report on ICA debate

For a report on the ICA debate in London on EU law's against genocide denial see today's Guardian website.