BBC radio documentary on the 2000 libel trial

In the wake of Irving's Austrian conviction and sentence, on Feb. 26, BBC Radio 4 aired a 40 minute updated documentary (link below is to audio and will open in new window):

David Irving: The London Trial

The inside story of the famous libel trail in 2000 in which Irving sued the American historian Deborah Lipstadt for calling him a holocaust denier and falsifier of history.

In a Feb. 28 review of this program, Gillian Reynolds notes in The Telegraph:

No point arguing with deluded minds

[...]
There was much here I didn't know or hadn't remembered. So why, if the material was gripping enough for me to make four pages of notes, and given that I am an admirer of both Cockerell's and Hyman's work, did I feel this programme seemed out of place?

Perhaps if it had happened on Monday or Tuesday night, I wouldn't have. By Sunday, the story had had a lot of coverage and analysis. People, from Monday onwards, were saying that for an Austrian court to bring to trial an offence committed 17 years ago was dubious. This is not an argument I, personally, accept. If a law is broken, the culprit should be tried and, if guilty, sentenced.

My big reservation is about something different from timing. This was a good programme, dispassionately presented, but could anyone listen to it and be convinced that Irving was anything other than deluded? This newspaper, I seem to remember, took the decision not to describe him as a "historian" some years ago.

But if there really are political parties or religious activists who take him seriously and, like him, deny the existence or the record of the Nazi death camps, would they be persuaded otherwise by Cockerell's account of his humiliation in court six years ago? I doubt their response would be the one Radio 4 was seeking.

Irving expands on Holocaust "views"

Today's BBC news has an article based on another interview with Irving. There's an audio available of the interview in which he ludicrously claims that Anne Frank's diary "proves that [he's] right" - notwithstanding the fact that he had previously adhered to that tenet of the "revisionist bible" which has declared the diary to be a hoax. Here are some excerpts from the article:

Irving expands on Holocaust views

Jailed British historian David Irving has again said he does not believe Hitler presided over a systematic attempt to exterminate Jews in Europe.

During his trial in Austria, Irving said he had changed his mind over claims the Holocaust did not happen.

But, speaking from his cell later, he told BBC News the numbers killed at Auschwitz were smaller than claimed.

He is appealing for a reduction in the three-year jail term. Prosecutors are seeking for it to be lengthened.

The Austrian state prosecutor's office said it believed Irving's sentence for Holocaust denial was too lenient in light of a possible sentence of up to 10 years.

[...]

Speaking from prison, where he is in solitary confinement for 23 hours each day, Irving told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he now believed there had been cases of Jewish people being gassed during World War II.

But he said that while he accepted 1.4 million were killed in the so-called "Operation Reinhard" camps which included Treblinka and Sobibor, he did not accept that large numbers were murdered at Auschwitz.

He claimed there were two "small" gas chambers there, not the large-scale gas chambers identified by other historians.

"Given the ruthless efficiency of the Germans, if there was an extermination programme to kill all the Jews, how come so many survived?" he said.

When asked whether there was an organised programme to exterminate the Jews in Europe, overseen by Hitler, Irving told Today: "That is absolutely wrong and nobody can justify that.

"Adolf Hitler's own involvement in it has a big question mark behind it."

[...]

Speaking on Today, Richard Evans, professor of German history at Cambridge University and a witness against Irving at a libel trial in 2000, dismissed the latest comments.

"He was, I think, arrogant enough to believe that he wouldn't be arrested," said Professor Evans.

"But having said that, I think the Austrian action is ill-advised. I don't think that law which bans Holocaust denial is really necessary any longer and I think it's really regrettable the vast media circus that's surrounding Mr Irving now [is] just simply giving prominence to his absurd views."

Irving's views: "straight from the Munich beer halls of 1923"

William Rubenstein, professor of modern history at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, argues - in a posting to the U.K.'s Social Affairs Unit blog - that:

Irving holds absurd views about the Holocaust and his dislike of Jews comes straight from the Munich beer halls of 1923 - but he should not have been imprisoned.

[...]

As everyone knows, David Irving was recently jailed for three years in Austria for propagating the denial of the Holocaust. His conviction raises many very serious questions about both Irving himself and the nature of free speech, and deserves a close discussion. The issues here are, I think, much more complicated than is apparent at first glance.

First, as to Holocaust denial, there is no doubt that it is one of the most offensive and shocking of all aspects of modern anti-semitism. It is also absurd.[...]

It has also entered, even more dangerously, into the rhetoric of Islamic anti-semitism, most recently in the statements of the appalling President of Iran. I state these self-evident propositions here purely to show that I fully understand the evil nature of Holocaust denial.

Secondly, there is David Irving. Irving is such a complex character that writing about him in a brief space is very difficult. As an historian - and entirely apart from any question of his views on the Holocaust - he has been a highly energetic and arguably important researcher of primary evidence about the Nazi period whose judgments are often reasonable.

Nevertheless, he is also evidently full of deficiencies. Like most non-academic historians, he fails to place his narratives in a wider contextualized framework.

[...]

It seems clear, however, that Irving has a chronic, deep-seated, ideological problem (to put it no more strongly) about Jews, whom he often refers to on his website as the "traditional enemies". Irving dislikes the Jews - although not necessarily individual Jews - and his attitude towards them seems to come straight from a Munich beer hall in 1923 - they are all Marxist revolutionaries, international financial swindlers, white slavers, and so on - to which he has added a particularly venomous hostility towards Israel and its policies more commonly associated in the Western world today with the extreme left. [...]

[...]

One can understand why Austria, Hitler's homeland, should make Holocaust denial illegal. [...] Obviously, I fully understand (and understand from a personal perspective) the anguish of Holocaust survivors and their relatives who encounter such propaganda, but there is no rational reason to punish the exposition of Holocaust denial while leaving other perhaps equally offensive forms of expression untouched. Criminalising Holocaust denial simply invites all other groups to lobby for enacting similar legal penalties against their pet hates [...]
[...]

The Austrian government acted unwisely in prosecuting him, although I might have a different view if he could be shown to be working with Austrian neo-Nazis. It will also be interesting to see what would happen if the odious President of Iran ever visits Vienna - not a lone wolf autodidact, but the head of state of a country of 70 million people which is developing nuclear weapons and wants the State of Israel destroyed - he is also a Holocaust denier. Let us then see if the Austrian government has the courage of its convictions over this question.

Is Irving any different from a racist skinhead?

In the Feb. 26 edition of The Scotsman, Brian Wilson asks:

Is David Irving any different from a racist skinhead?

LIBERAL angst alights on some very odd causes. Acres of newsprint and innumerable hours of broadcasting time have been devoted to tortured discussion of David Irving's temporary fate - three years in an Austrian slammer after being convicted of Holocaust denial.

It is doubtful whether many of those who regard Irving's incarceration as an attack on freedom of speech and a counter-productive act of martyr-creation would give a moment's thought to the fate of a gormless skinhead, convicted of shouting anti-Semitic or other racial poison at someone in a city street.

Yet what is the qualitative difference? If freedom of speech is an absolute, then surely the overt racial abuser is entitled to benefit? Why should Irving, by awarding himself the spurious titles of 'historian' and 'academic', be treated with any higher regard, particularly when his influence has been far greater than that of any mere camp-follower? Unlike most Britons who espouse similar views, Irving does not have the excuse of under-education. He knew the laws of Austria and believed he could flout them, boasting that he had already bought the first-class air ticket that would return him to Britain. His sentence has proved that supposition wrong. Good. Austria has its own perspective on these matters and has every right to make and enforce laws that reflect it.

There can be no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, for very good reasons. Competing freedoms have to be balanced, and the freedom of vulnerable minorities to be protected from abuse and harassment is just as precious as the right of individuals to hold and express their views. The aim of a liberal democratic society must be to achieve a balance of freedoms, rather than to assert the primacy of one over the other.

[...]

However, the sensible recognition of such constraints sits uneasily with grander claims to a generalised belief in freedom of expression. "You can say anything about anyone who can be relied upon not to strike back" may be uncomfortably close to the reality - but it is not a particularly elevated sentiment. Yet I wonder how much of that double-standard underlies criticisms of the Austrian court? Maybe the ultra-right ravings of people like Irving have become so familiar, or separated in time from the events that they seek to deny, that their full capacity for evil is no longer recognised.

That would be dangerous indeed. Political advocates of extreme anti-Israeli positions are usually careful to deny the charge of anti-Semitism. In reality, the two are closely interlinked. Holocaust denial forms an integral part of the propaganda tide against Israel among its would-be destroyers. Anyone who, like Irving, contributes to the bogus intellectualisation of that affront has a great deal more to answer for than the skinhead in the street.

Since Irving was convicted, his nemesis - the American academic Deborah Lipstadt, whom he sued unsuccessfully after she described him as a Holocaust denier - has written: "During my trial, Irving kept trying to introduce evidence of a world Jewish cabal or global conspiracy against him. He described me as 'the gold-tipped spearhead of the enemies of truth', his euphemism for the Jews. He laughed at survivors, declaring them liars or psychopaths."

Lipstadt wrote that she took no satisfaction from Irving's imprisonment, believing that "the best way to counter Holocaust denial is to teach [its] history". The two approaches are not, however, incompatible. Each generation needs to know about the Holocaust, not only as the ultimate parable of man's inhumanity to man, but also as a deterrent to superficial assumptions about the rights and wrongs of contemporary events.

It is impossible to understand the case for the state of Israel without an awareness of the persecution that the Jewish people have suffered. As James Cameron wrote: "The introduction of the Jewish state into the Arab heartland exalted many hearts and broke many more... it produced the most intractable conflict of our times." For any balanced view, it is necessary to be aware of both sides of the history.

The images that we see so regularly of prosperous Israel and impoverished Palestine conceal as much as they reveal. There is enough in the histories of each to make the stones weep. Any humane rational assessment must surely recognise the right of both to exist, because the expulsion of one by the other is unthinkable. And while we cannot legislate for that outcome, we can at least stand firm against purveyors of hatred and ignorance within our own society, whose aim is not only to deny history but to finish the job.

Some insights into David Irving's background from his brother

People frequently ask me how did David Irving become the kind of person he is. I provide the few details I know about his life [father was a naval officer who abandoned the family and left them in poverty] and then say, I really don't know.

Furthermore, I caution for looking for a "rational" explanation for his antisemitism and racism. They are prejudices and prejudices are irrational. Therefore, to seek a rational explanation is useless. [Can you rationally explain why someone hates all Black people? It makes no sense, unless they are beset by a prejudice.]

In this article Irving's twin brother tells a great deal about his childhood and how he liked to do the outrageous [e.g. giving the Nazi salute when a German bomber knocked down a London home] even as a child.

In addition to the insights about his childhood, note that Irving who claimed bankruptcy after my trial, moved into a Mayfair home worth £1 million. So much for the so-called financial ruin I caused him by defending myself.

'David, what on earth would Mother think?'

By Olga Craig(Filed: 26/02/2006)

Nicholas Irving leans forward. "Let me try to explain my brother. Some years ago, he invited his publisher and wife, a Jewish couple, to his home for dinner. He was rather bewildered when the chap stormed out before the meal had even begun.

David simply could not understand why this Jewish gentleman was offended when he sat at the table to discover that it was laid with cutlery embossed with the Nazi swastika [...] he truly thought it was hilarious."

Even as a child, David had a horribly malicious sense of humour. He loved to play cruel pranks [...] Like the time, when we were six, that he gave a 'Heil Hitler' salute when a German bomber destroyed a nearby house. I knew it was wrong, I wouldn't do it, but David went right ahead. Anything to outrage, anything for attention."

The home he shared with his girlfriend, Bente Hogh, and their daughter, Jessica, 12, before he went bankrupt, was a £1 million apartment in Mayfair.

Even after he lost a £2 million libel battle against the American academic Deborah Lipstadt, who had accused him of Holocaust denial, he still managed to rent a £6,000-a-month Kensington home. Nicholas, by contrast, is a balding, mild-mannered and self-effacing former civil servant who lives in a £70-a-week maisonette in a shabby council block by the Barbican.

[...]

"All my life I have thought of my relationship with David as akin to looking after a sick relative," Nicholas says. "I'm sad he's in jail for three years, after all he's my brother, but I thought he would get at least five. He antagonised the court - but then he's been antagonising people all his life.

"Take the driving incident, for example," he says. A few years ago David was driving his Rolls-Royce with Nicholas in the passenger seat when they were overtaken by a small, battered car. David honked his horn and yelled at its driver. When the car stopped and its irate driver got out, David turned to his twin and said: "I'm not being overtaken by a black man."

[...]
[Regarding his trip to Austria] "I mean, what part of 'you cannot come here' didn't he understand," says Nicholas.

[...]

"But, like now, he liked to shock, to scandalise. When the house down the road was bombed and he gave his Nazi salute, he egged me on to do it, too. I remember him saying: 'Like this Nicholas, click your heels together like this.'

[...]

I don't think he's ever been scared of anything in his life. Then, of course, there was the time he chose Mein Kampf, Hitler's book, as his school prize. Yet for all that, our best friends were another pair of twins, friends of the family - and they were Jewish."

At school, David, unlike Nicholas, was something of a loner who specialised in playing malicious pranks on teachers. "David was incredibly clever but instead of doing homework he would be up in his room plotting ever more cruel pranks."

The twins' Latin teacher was an elderly man suffering from sciatica who needed to relieve the pain by leaning on things every few moments when he walked.

"David worked out where he would stop and he would take the peg out of the blackboard so that, when the master leaned on it, he and it crashed to the ground. Then there was our French master. David spent hours making an intricate model of him that tapped a pencil as was his habit and left it on his desk to
humiliate him."

When pupils were allowed to stage mock elections, David led a neo-fascist party.

[...]

"I want to say to him: 'David, what on earth are you doing? And what on earth would Mother think?'"

Irving's "views" back to "normal"

An article in the Feb. 26 edition of The Independent indicates that Irving's "views" are back to "normal". This article also gives some insight as to why Irving's daughter had (according to Irving) declared that it was "cool" that her father was in jail. Here are some excerpts:

From his cell, just two days after he recanted his views on the Holocaust, David Irving reverts to extremism

As he starts a three-year sentence in Austria, the historian continues to voice his controversial views

By Bojan Pancevski in Vienna and Steve Bloomfield

Far-right author David Irving's repudiation of his views on the Holocaust and Hitler's role in it has not lasted very long. In a prison interview just days after he told an Austrian court he had been wrong to deny the Holocaust, he reverted to insisting that the slaughter in Nazi death camps was exaggerated, and that Jews "bear blame for what happened".

[...]

But he appeared in high spirits and denied he was having personal difficulties, insisting that his Danish partner, Bente Hogh, could not visit him because she was sick. A series of interviews she has given to the British press in recent days appear to belie this.

A shortage of money now means Ms Hogh and the couple's 12-year-old daughter Jessica face eviction from their expensive London flat. She told the Daily Mail that Jessica now carries a copy of Anne Frank's Diary to make plain her disagreement with her father. "She hates his views. She is a lovely girl, bright and clever, and it is not her fault who her father is. It is easier for her when he is not around."

The author was jailed on Monday for three years for denying the Holocaust during two lectures and in a newspaper interview in Austria nearly 17 years ago. But despite the conviction, the 67-year-old did not shy away from the subject. Irving complained that the Jews held far too much power and predicted their disproportionate control in the US would see a second Holocaust "in 20 to 30 years".

Just days after he told the Viennese court "I've changed my views", he said it was part of the human condition to dislike Jews and that they were at least in part to blame for the 3,000 years of hatred they had had to endure.
[...]

Irving no free speech martyr

This post is written, in great measure, in response to Z's comment about deniers eating their young [previous post]

Z may be right. Irving wanted to be the showpiece and he may think this conviction is a big win for him. After all look at all the pr he is getting.

I have two responses to that: During my trial he got lots of pr -- especially since I remained silent. Many people worried he would "win" the pr battle as a result. But then came the damning verdict and he also got lots of pr, but all the wrong kind.

Secondly, he is now saying racist and extremist things from his cell [see article in the Independent, I will post in a bit]. And he has recanted his recanting,

Given all that, I think the man is rapidly going to lose any shred of credibility which he still had.

The mantra that must be repeated all the time is:
A) this man was and is an opponent of free speech.

B) British publishers are afraid to publish any book which is critical of him because they know he will threaten a law suit.
If you write about David Irving for UK publishers you are toxic

C) He courted this conviction -- apparently
some of the people who invited him may even have informed the police of his exact whereabouts. And I doubt that they would have done so on their own.

D) He thought it would be fun. And he wanted the media attention

E) And now he is paying the consequences.

Those of us who oppose these laws must keep all this in mind. These fact do not make the laws right. But it does raise questions about whether David Irving is the one we should be defending.

All those of you who are rushing to your compose comment options to berate me and tell me that free speech is for everyone, even those whose views we despise, wait. You are correct.

But, nonetheless, after having made my views crystal clear about my opinions on these trials, I am not going to turn a man who is an avowed opponent of free speech and who got himself arrested because he thought it would be fun and who is now spouting antisemitic comments from his jail cell into a poster child of the victim.

David Irving is an intellectual thug who would deny others their free speech whenever he gets the chance. Does he deserve his? Yes.

Do I have to promote him as a terrible victim? No.

And now it is a beautiful Sunday in Roma. I am going to the outdoor market where the only thing I have to worry about is being cheated [why should this flea market be any different from all others] or pickpocketed [so far Pickpockets 0, DEL 1, i.e. I foiled an attempt on my wallet on Friday].

Lipstadt in Newsweek

Opinion: Silence Hate With Truth Freedom of speech must apply equally to those with loathsome as those with virtuous views

Newsweek

March 16, 2006 issue

Friends thought I would be celebrating last week after an Austrian court sentenced British writer David Irving to three years in jail for denying the Holocaust.

Several years ago Irving sued me for describing him as doing just that, and for calling him a "Hitler partisan." I had good reason. Describing Hitler as "the best friend" the Jews had, he claimed that "More people died in Senator Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in gas chambers in Auschwitz." He also threatened to form an organization called Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars, and call it by its acronym: ASSHOLs.

The judge ruled for me and, describing Irving as anti-Semitic and racist, denounced his claims as "perverse," "misleading" and "unreal." Irving last week tried to convince the Austrian court that, as a result of new evidence, he had changed his views. But the three presiding judges dismissed the about-face, comparing him to a "prostitute who has not changed her ways for decades."

Still, I don't feel like celebrating. I dislike curtailing free speech. Only last week, London's Mayor Ken Livingstone was supended for a month after likening a Jewish reporter to a Nazi prison guard.

The violence accompanying the publication of the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad have caused many Europeans to wonder whether those doing the protesting (and particularly those calling for the death of the cartoonists) understand the nature of democracy and free speech.

Like many, I winced when other European papers republished them. But they had every right to do so. To jail someone for denying the Holocaust, while supporting the right of the cartoonists to lampoon other religions, smacks of a double standard.

David Irving is no poster boy for free speech. He has a legal action pending against a reporter who has criticized his work. He once threatened to sue an American scholar and his publisher if they did not remove critical remarks about him from a book. When it finally appeared in the U.K., after a long delay, those statements were gone or greatly toned down.

Now this same man sits in jail protesting the violation of his free speech. To be sure, denying the Holocaust has a different resonance in Germany and Austria. But would it not be more effective if they shunned and marginalized those who glorify Hitler or deny his wrongdoings, rather than banned them?

I countered Irving's hate speech—for that is what it is—with honesty. In court we proved that every one of his claims was bunk. The judge's overwhelming ruling in my favor was devastating for all Holocaust deniers, as their core arguments collapsed under the light of day.

Ironically, had there been an English law against Holocaust denial, we might never have had the chance to demonstrate that denial is just a web of lies. My defeat of Irving was sweet because it was based on reason.

Instead of looking to the law, let those with a fidelity to historical accuracy fight these liars and haters using facts and genuine research as their weapons. Greater openness, not less, may sometimes cause pain. But in the end societies will be stronger for it.

A Positive Outcome from the Irving trials: Deniers "eat their own"

As some folks at The Holocaust History Project have observed, as a result of what happened to Irving in both trials, i.e. he was forced to recant his positions, deniers have begun to attack one another.

Deniers are, as one pundit put it, beginning to "eat their own."

In a letter from December 30, 2005, Germar Rudolf [who goes by many different names and whose so called study of the gas chambers we proved to be so full of holes that Irving's lawyer withdrew it without using it as evidence, see History on Trial, pp. 294-95] to Fred Tobin, a leading Australian denier:

"David Irving is a disgrace for historians and revisionists alike. He does not know what he is talking about."

And a similar kind of statement about Irving from the British Nazi newsletter "Final Conflict" [January 20, 2000]. This was written right after Irving was forced to acknowledge at my trial that there were gas buses that were responsible for the death of 97,000 Jews.

RUDOLF ATTACKS IRVING FOR BACKING DOWN:

Dear David,

I thought that this might end so. I don't know which devil rides you, but how can you make such a statement.... You disappoint me. I didn't expect you to do any better, though, as you are no Revisionist and obviously have hardly any idea about the odds and evens of the Holocaust story, but was that necessary? It doesn't look too good for you if you continue making such stupid admissions.

For the story on Irving's admission that he was wrong about the gas busses see ">THE INDEPENDENT - London, 20.01.2000:

David Irving admitted to the High Court yesterday he had made a false public statement that the gassing of Jews in trucks by the Nazis during the Second World War was only done on a limited and experimental basis.

Wall St. Journal Editorial on Irving's sentence

An editorial in Friday's Wall St. Journal takes a positon very similar to the one I have taken.

The Journal notes Irving's insidious influence on our understanding of history, e.g. how he has shaped our view of what happened at Dresden or Churchill's role in the lead up to World War II.

I particularly like the fact that they recognize Irving as a "pseudo-historian" and they wisely note that had Irving not gone so far as to jump on the Holocaust denial bandwagon he might have continued to have a truly invidious impact on the popular historical perceptions.

As is so often the case with this man, Irving brought the house down on his own head.

Defending the IndefensibleFebruary 24, 2006; Page W13

There are many reasons to regret the decision by Austrian authorities to prosecute, sentence and imprison for three years or more British pseudohistorian David Irving. Liberal democracies ought not to be in the business of criminalizing speech, except speech that incites violence.

Prohibitions against specified types of speech, such as Holocaust denial, have a tendency to invite further prohibitions and risk rendering the concept of free speech a nonsense. Imprisoning people for their views alone has a way of turning louts into "martyrs."

And just when the Danish government is under unprecedented attack for its refusal to intervene in the editorial decision-making of a private newspaper, it seems perverse to offer Muslim provocateurs an example of a European country
catering to one set of sensitivities but not another.

But that's the least of it. By imprisoning Mr. Irving, Austria has now forced serious people to come to the principled defense of a detestable man.

Press accounts usually describe Mr. Irving as a Holocaust revisionist" or denier. That he is, as a British court found in 2000, when it ruled against him in a defamation suit that he had brought against American scholar Deborah Lipstadt.

But Mr. Irving is something worse, partly because he is something better: A man of learning and a certain kind of intellectual brilliance, he made dishonest use of both qualities in an attempt to restore the reputation of the Nazis and blacken those of their victims.

Sometimes this has been to noted effect: When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls the Holocaust a "myth," he is doing so in large part on the authority of Mr. Irving (whom the Iranian government recently invited to speak).

But often Mr. Irving's influence has been felt in ways that we are only dimly aware of. Consider his first book, on the February 1945 Allied bombing of Dresden, in which he put the civilian death toll at between 100,000 and 250,000. That estimate -- grossly exaggerated, as later scholarship would show -- became widely accepted and helped spark a now popular perception that Germany was as much a victim of World War II as it was the instigator.

Or take "Hitler's War," Mr. Irving's attempt to rescue the Fuehrer's reputation by casting Winston Churchill as the real warmonger. Mr. Irving's Hitler revisionism never caught on among serious scholars, but the Churchill revisionism did.

Here lies Mr. Irving's real cunning. For decades he successfully presented himself as a serious historian of admittedly outre views, when in fact he was the opposite: a propagandist posing as a scholar. His methods were "controversy" and the "challenging of taboos," typically catchphrases of the left that he
adapted to his own purposes. This tactic was ultimately far more insidious -- and effective -- than his forays into Holocaust denial, calibrated as those often were.

Had Mr. Irving only restrained himself slightly, the damage he might have done to our collective historical perceptions could have been incalculably greater.

Fortunately, perhaps, anti-Semites almost inevitably out themselves: Their views flare like hives, often inadvertently and on inconvenient occasions. Ahead of the recent verdict, Mr. Irving had already been bankrupted, not only financially but reputationally, thanks to the efforts of Ms. Lipstadt and
others.

That's where he might have remained for the rest of his life had it not been for the ill-timed intervention of the Austrian police and judiciary.

Now the rest of us have the unpleasant task of reminding ourselves of exactly who this man is -- and extending a begrudging hand of rescue.

Christopher Hitchens in Wall St. Journal

In Thursday's Wall Street Journal Christopher Hitchens one of his ringing denunciations of the verdict. I found it to be a somewhat strange and rambling piece. What I found most surprising is his claim that Irving is not a Holocaust denier.

You may have to spend time on some grim and Gothic Web sites to find this out, but he is in fact not a "denier," but a revisionist, and much-hated by the full-dress "denial" faction.

The pages on Goebbels, as in his books on Dresden, Churchill and Hitler, contain some highly important and damning findings from his work in the archives of the Third Reich. (The Goebbels book contains final proof that the Nazis financed Sir Oswald Mosley's blackshirts in England: a claim that Mosley's many sympathizers have long denied.)

It is true that one can find material in Irving's book which "deny the deniers," e.g. his claim that in November 1941 Hitler ordered Himmler to stop the liquidation of the Jews. It seems to have escaped Irving that you can only stop something which is underway.

There are many such points. However, given all Irving has said about the Holocaust [and his so-called retraction in the court] there is no doubt that he is a denier.

Two different views of Irving's sentence

Richard Cohen (who was the first to break the C-SPAN controversy, almost a year ago) has written about Irving's sentence. His verdict:

Don't Jail Irving. Ignore Him

[...]

[Irving] is a man of justifiably small following, a claque of bigots so addled by the virus of Jew-hatred that they cannot see the evidence before their own eyes. The many pictures of the Holocaust, the films, the artifacts, the testimony of victims and perpetrators alike is to them proof of a different kind: the ability of Jews to hoodwink the world. It never happened. The Holocaust is a lie.

Now Irving has admitted the lie is his. There were gas chambers at Auschwitz, he now admits. The Jews there did not die of disease, but were murdered outright and then fed into the ovens. This confession of truth was extracted by a dilemma. Irving was facing jail time in Austria for the crime of denying the Holocaust. His penitence got him very little. A judge hit him with a three-year sentence.

A little delicious satisfaction is allowed. Irving is a liar. He is an anti-Semite. He has squandered his considerable gifts at dreary research for the glad rags of demagoguery. He had a Web page. He gave lectures. He sued and was sued. He picked the pockets of the gullible. Years ago, he mistook justifiable criticism by some Jews as an attack by an entire people. This is the odd talent of the anti-Semite: to see all by seeing one.
[...]

These governments, particularly Austria, have transformed the imbecilic into something exotically taboo. By banning these ideas, the various European governments accord them a certain respect: See, why are they afraid of us? It must be because what we say is true.

Let Irving howl his idiocy in freedom. He doesn't deserve to be jailed. He deserves to be ignored.

On the American Thinker, J.R. Dunn, a former editor of the International Military Encyclopedia, references the above article, but notes:

[...]
There have been comments claiming that this is a PC sentence. There have even been comparisons drawn to the Danish cartoon jihad.

But those interpretations won’t stand. Consider what Irving was accused of: in his book Hitler’s War (a volume I have been relieved of the burden of ever having to read), he stated not only that Hitler had no idea that anything like the Holocaust was being carried out, but that furthermore there was “not a shred of evidence” that any exterminations occurred. According to Irving, a small number of deaths were caused by disease and hunger.

In the strictest technical sense, Irving had some justification. Scientific historiography, of the school of Leopold von Ranke and other 19th century German historians, demands documentation as historical evidence. Documents don’t lie, as opposed to faulty or self-serving personal accounts. If there’s no documentation, there’s no history. And that’s what Irving has always contended – that there is no documentation concerning the Holocaust, no memo reading “Kill the Jews,” signed, “A. Hitler.”

But is this historiographic critique in fact true? Doesn’t it depend on what we take “documentation” to mean, on how we apply the term? [...]

[...]

And all this over and above the testimony – from the survivors, from the Germans who took part in or witnessed the crime of attempted genocide, and from the Allied rescuers. Hundreds of thousands of them, in total. Do those count for anything at all? Do situations exist where the historiographical rules on the 19th Century must be updated to get at the truth? And is it possible that threshold was breached in this case, involving the Holocaust?

Did Irving consider any of this, at any time, before drawing his conclusions? The record fails to show it, even though he had to know that such evidence existed and what it must mean. If that’s the case, he lied. He lied about what he knew. He lied about the facts. He lied about the implications of those facts.

[...]

So why did he lie? Well, it seems that along with his career as a historian, Irving also had a sideline as a public speaker. He spoke throughout Europe, apparently on a regular basis (though only a handful of occasions, such as that 1988 speech in Austria, are verifiable with hard evidence) to whatever fascist, anti-Semitic, or Neo-Nazi organization would have him. On at least one occasion he is reported to have told the crowd that they would be the ones to carry the task onward, that the future was theirs.

That’s why he lied. Because he was a believer. As I suspected when I first encountered him, two decades ago, warned by that unmistakable shiver up the spine. A believer in the most imbecilic, most debased, most utterly discredited ideology of the modern age.

None of this amounts to a crime, as we judge things in this country.

The Austrians think differently – they have no choice. Austria was seriously implicated in the Endlosung (Eichmann’s main office was in Vienna), and remains today the most anti-Semitic nation in Western Europe. A deeply-rooted fascist movement exists in the country (one of its offshoots actually gained power in 2000). As is also the case in Germany, anti-extremist laws are a necessary means of social prophylaxis.

Irving chose to defy them, and now he is paying the price.

To us, Irving’s crimes are metaphysical, and can’t really be punished on this plane. He offended against his profession, against his art, and against the standards of honest scholarship. He offended against his society and his civilization. And at the last, he offended against what Burke called “the eternal chain” – that endless filament of memory, obligation, and love that binds together the living, the unborn, and the dead.

Somehow, a three-year term doesn’t seem like enough. But it’ll do.

Tom and Jerry [the cartoon characters] and the Jewish conspiracy -- I kid you not, this is for real

You can't make this stuff up.

According to a report by MEMRI, the Cultural Advisor to Iranian Education Ministry gave a lecture on Tom and Jerry [remember the cartoon characters of our youth?] and described them as "A Jewish Conspiracy to Improve the Image of Mice, Because Jews Were Termed Mice."

[WARNING: If you are eating something while reading this stop. You will choak with laughter and then disgust.]

Last week Iran's Channel 4 reported on a lecture by Professor Hasan Bolkhari that was given at an Iranian film seminar. Bolkharis is both a member of the Film Council of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) and cultural advisor to the Iranian Education Ministry.

In his lecture he said regarding "Tom and Jerry":

The Jewish Walt Disney Company gained international fame with this cartoon.... This cartoon maintains its status because of the cute antics of the cat and mouse - especially the mouse.

[Note: Did anyone tell him that Walt Disney was an antisemite? The guy must be turning in his grave to hear the company described as the Jewish..]

"Some say that the main reason for making this very appealing cartoon was to erase a certain derogatory term that was revalent in Europe."

[...]

"If you study European history, you will see who was the main power in hoarding money and wealth, in the 19th century. In
most cases, it is the Jews. Perhaps that was one of the reasons which caused Hitler to begin the antisemitic trend, and then the extensive propaganda about the crematoria began... Some of this is true. We do not deny all of it.

[Note: He had to get in a bit of Holocaust denial. But see how he says "some of this is true." This, I predict, is the new Iranian way of trying not to look like complete idiots. They now will say we "don't deny everything, we just question some things abou the Holocaust." Maybe Irving guilty plea made them do that.... Maybe they had enough sense to realize that they were becoming the laughing stock of the world.]

"Watch Schindler's List. Every Jew was forced to wear yellow star on his clothing. The Jews were degraded and termed 'dirty mice.' Tom and Jerry was made in order to change the Europeans' perception of mice. One of terms used was 'dirty mice.'

"Mice are very cunning...and dirty."

[...]

"No ethnic group or people operates in such a clandestine manner as the Jews."

[...]

Hitler had behind-the-scenes connections with the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion ]. Tom and Jerry was made in order to display the exact opposite image.

[...]
The mouse is very clever and smart. Everything he does is so cute. He kicks the poor cat's ass. Yet this cruelty does not make you despise the mouse. He looks so nice, and he is so clever... This is exactly why some say it was meant to erase this image of mice from the minds of European children, and to show that the mouse is not dirty and has these traits.

Note: For all you folks who think education can cure animus, please note that Hasan Bolkhari (b. 1962) holds a Ph.D in Islamic Philosophy and, among other things, teaches philosophy of art at Tabatabaei and Al-Zahra Universities in Iran.

"You can't trust anyone anymore... Even antisemites":

Tongue in cheek commentary from Ha-Aretz [and an example of why humor is sometimes the best weapon].

Brunhilda [aka Lady Renouf aka Miss Newcastle, Australia 1968] gets exposed by the Sydney Morning Herald

Those of you who read History on Trial might remember "Brunhilda," the well dressed woman with big blond hair who clung to Irving's side throughot the trial. Turned out she was a "Lady" as a result of a 3 week marriange to a New Zealand tycoon who discovered -- after marrying her -- that she was a charlatan.

The defense team dubbed her "Brunhilda." In a long article the Sydney Morning Herald exposes her background and takes her to task. It is worth reading to see the kind of people Irving attracts.

She admitted to the paper that Irving's purpose in visiting Austria was a publicity ploy.

[Note: He has succeeded in getting lots of publicity but I seriously doubt he thought he'd also get a 3 year sentence. ]

Here are some selections from the Sydney Morning Herald regarding the fromer Miss Newcastle:

Last year, she attended a New Orleans conference where she shared the rostrum with form Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, the British National Party, Germany's neo-Nazi NDP and France's National Front.

Lady Renouf is eager for her views to be publicised and admitted that Irving's seemingly brazen return to Austria - where he was long wanted for Holocaust denial - was designed to bring on a trial and thereby gain publicity.

The publicity was not just welcome for Irving politically, but
also monetarily, as he made sure a copy of his magnum opus Hitler's War was included in every trial photo of him as he was led around in shackles.

Thoughts from Rome on Holocaust denial laws, the Armenian genocide, and more

Despite having been swept up in the media reaction to Irving's sentence, I have begun to teach and to meet people at the Gregorian. Last night, after my first class, Father Madigan, head of the Inter-Religious program at the school, took me to the local wine cask.

He knew that I had two Turkish Muslims in my class. He had just had a discussion before the class with one of them about Holocaust denial laws as compared to Turkish laws against discussing the Armenian genocide.

This was Father Madigan's comment: I told the student that Turkey is using the law to protect a lie. The European countries which rely on Holocaust denial laws are using the law to protect lies about the truth of "what we did during Holocaust."

While I am still against the laws, I was deeply intrigued by his formulation of the matter. I was touched by his use of the first person plural. BTW, he was born well after the war.

If you like spoofs, you will love "David Irving in Complete Denial"

If you enjoy spoofs and think that they are a good way of contextualizing an absurd situation, then you will "enjoy," David Irving in Complete Denial

Cetainly if you are a fan of the Daily Show, this is for you.

Google censors an antisemitic video.... And I am sorry they did

In the last few hours Google Video removed two of revisionist Michael A. Hoffman II's three videos from its free video online website (http://video.google.com).

According to Hoffman [take anything a denier says with a grain of skepticism] he received the an e-mail from Google informing him that his "videos violate our Program Policies. The titles of the videos are listed at the end of this message. According to our policy, we are removing the following videos: World War Two Revisionist Charles Provan [and] Deborah Lipstadt, "Amalek" and David Irving..."

The video, which was a virulent attack on me by Hoffman, was introduced by David Irving. I had actually placed a link to the video on this blog.

Hoffman attributes its removal to "behind-the-scenes pressure that was exerted on Google." In his statement about the removal he clearly attributes the pressure to me.

Now here's the rub. I am sorry the video is gone. It was such a blatant example of the venomous hatred these folks feel towards Jews. It also was a prime illustration of their delusional conspiracy theories. I had used it in a number of speeches to illustrate their thinking.

I showed clips of it to some of my students to illustrate contemporary antisemitism. They got it without my having to say anything.

Now it's gone....

[At least I know that there is lots more of this kind of stuff out there and I will easily find a replacement for this video. That's what modern Hebrew would describe as hatzi nechama, half a consolation.]

Irving strikes a defiant note regarding Free Speech...

He is now depicting himself as a free speech martyr -- even though he says he's not. I must note that he does not sound like the kind of person who would try to silence someone with whose views he disagrees.... hmm.
He said to London Times

I come from a free country, I am not going to let anybody silence me. We’re going to appeal. My lawyer’s working on it at the moment.

Freedom of speech means freedom to say things to other people that they don’t want to hear. And if that causes offence to them then that’s partly their problem and partially mine. Freedom of speech is the right to be wrong, basically. Sometimes I’m wrong.

Media Whirlwind III

Well the whirlwind has subsided. Today I talked to Iraeli [Galei Zahal], British [Cambridge University], Danish, and Canadian news outlets. Wrote an oped which JTA published and am working on something for Newsweek.

The JTA oped -- which I have some trouble posting -- challenges those in the Jewish community who are hailing the verdict. I argue that the best way to fight deniers is with history and with evidence not with laws.

But this is nothing compared to the past two days. As with most media stories, they begin to subside after a few days. The difference here is that David Irving is sitting in jail. So this is not going to go away.