|
Updated Sunday 15 May, 2011 12:18 PM |
|
|
Join Writer Development Section Writer Development Member Section
This Day in Alternate History Blog
|
Telling lies about
Hitler: The Holocaust, history and the David Irving trial How do we know that ‘history’, as
read in the history books, is real? How
do we know when historians are being honest with the truth, or if they are
subtly pushing their own agenda? The
trial of David Irving, the controversial historian of WW2, exposed such
questions to public scrutiny for the first time.
Richard Evans, an expert witness for the defence, has written this
account of the issues behind the trial and what happened in the court. The book begins with an overview of the
work of Irving. Irving began his
career as an ‘amateur historian’ and conducted extensive research in the
German achieves. Author of over
thirty books, Irving’s work slowly degenerated into pushing a more positive
view of Hitler, who Irving clearly admired.
The author makes the very good point that it was Irving who
brought the libel suit, but most people consider it his trial, not the
authoress, Deborah Lipstadt, of the book he wanted removed. The next few chapters discuss the
‘reality’, as compared with Irving’s books.
It becomes clear to the person who can be bothered to wade through them
(Evans’ is not the best writer, even though its clear he knows his history),
that Irving has constantly made ‘mistakes’ that always benefited Hitler.
Whenever there was a shadow of a doubt, Irving gave it to Hitler,
commenting in court that ‘a man is innocent until proven guilty’.
Evans notes that people had to pinch themselves to remember that it was Hitler
Irving was talking about. Irving
also reduced the numbers of Jews killed by the Nazis, while increasing the
number of Germans killed at Dresden, attempting to press the view that the war
crimes of both sides in the war were roughly equivalent.
Evans convincingly debunks his claims. Evans them discusses Irving’s
membership – although it’s not clear if Irving is a member or a guest
lecturer – of various right-wing/anti-Semitic groups.
Irving was clearly an important spokesperson for them and the whole cause
of holocaust denial, representing their best chance to alter the historical
record, and he was clearly involved with them.
Evans is hesitant about detailing how involved he was, perhaps because of
obstructionism, or perhaps he was never sure himself. The final two chapters discuss the trial
and its aftermath. Irving was a
determined and impressive prosecutor at first glance, but faced with constant,
probing, questions, he crumbled. Irving
won minor points, but lost on almost all of the major points – and he
accidentally addressed the judge as ‘mein furhur’!
Irving lost the trial and was ordered to pay costs, although, as he was
bankrupt, that might not have been a real issue. The aftermath of the trial saw Irving vilified and soundly
trashed, most of his interviews saw him being mocked and degraded, while he had
little prospect of recovering. Those
two chapters are the most readable of the book. The trial does raise some important
points though. Is there too much
holocaust-reminding going on? The
holocaust was tragic and barbaric, but it does not compare with the
extermination of the Cathars, or with the rampages of Genesis Khan.
With Israel’s behaviour in Palestine, do they have any rights to claim
special treatment any longer? As
Germany becomes more assertive, they might return to Jew-hating, simply because
they are reminded of their grandfathers crimes at every step.
(Those who watch Faulty Towers will know what I mean.)
There were other victims of Hitler and his cronies, blacks, Russians,
homosexuals, not to mention many Germans whose only crime was hating Hitler, so
why are the Jews so important?
|
