Click here to go back to issues list
Should those who hold discredited and potentially damaging views, such as revisionist historian, David Irving, be allowed a public audience?
Echo Issue Outline 2000 / 14: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
What they said ...
'No one should listen to him or anyone who shares his views ever again'
Lord Greville Jenner, British Labour peer
'Irving says that without freedom of speech, he would even be denied the right to be proved wrong'
Nigel Jackson, author of The case for David Irving
On April, 11, 2000, On September 24, revisionist historian, Dr David Irving, lost his British High Court libel action against Professor Deborah Lipstadt.
Justice Charles Gray concluded, among other findings, that Mr Irving had been demonstrated to be 'anti-Semitic and a racist' and a 'pro-Nazi polemicist'. Mr Irving's impartiality and his handling of evidence were challenged in Justice Gray's ruling.
The case has continued to provoke debate, as has the whole issue of the legitimacy of revisionist history.
Both prior to and after Justice Gray's judgement, David Irving had indicated that he wished to visit Australia once the case was over. The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has already suggested that Mr Irving would not be allowed to enter Australia.
Background
David Irving is a British revisionist historian who has disputed the accepted view of Nazi atrocities committed against Jewish people during World War II.
David Irving has claimed that the number of Jewish people killed in World War II was between one and four million, rather than the generally accepted six million.
David Irving has also disputed what is usually referred to as the `final solution'. The `final solution' is the phrase used for Nazi attempts to exterminate all Jewish people living in conquered territories in Europe. Dr Irving claims that this was not, in fact, a deliberate policy of Hitler's, and, to the extent that it occurred, was orchestrated by Goebbels.
In addition, Dr Irving has claimed that there was no gas chamber at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
In 1992, Dr Irving was fined $10,000 in Germany for `defaming the memory of the dead'. This is an offence under German law. When he appealed against the fine, it was increased to $30,000. Attempts have been made to extradite Mr Irving to Germany where he could face a jail term.
Also in 1992, Canada expelled Dr Irving as an undesirable.
Dr Irving has also been expelled from Austria for apparent involvement with neo-Nazis.
In 1994, the British High Court sentenced David Irving to prison, for three months, for contempt of court, and later he was found to have deliberately given false evidence.
The Italian border police also denied Dr Irving entry to the country at the Rome airport.
In 1986 and 1987, Dr Irving was granted entry to Australia and toured the country without incident.
In February, 1993, the Australian Government denied Dr Irving an entry visa to come to Australia a third time and in July, 1996, Mr Irving was denied entry to Australia a fourth time.
On the question of the libel action brought by David Irving, he sued Professor Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin over claims made in her 1995 book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing assault on Truth and Memory.
Mr Irving claimed as libellous suggestions that he was a Holocaust denier. He also disputed and considered libellous a number of other claims made by the Professor.
The defence put by Professor Lipstadt was that the allegations that she had made about David Irving were not libellous because they were justified, that is, they were true.
After a trial that last 30 days, Justice Gray judged that the majority of the allegedly libellous statements made by Professor Lipstadt about Mr Irving were true and therefore he found in favour of the defendants.
The full text of Justice Charles Gray's judgement against David Irving can be found at http://mindit.netmind.com/proxy/http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-00-00.html
This is a lengthy document, however, it repays carefully reading.
It demonstrates that Justice Gray was, in most instances, unconvinced by David Irving's arguments and accepted the defence of justification put by Professor Lipstadt's team, however, it also shows that there were some claims that Professor Lipstadt had made about David Irving that Justice Grey did not consider to have been justified.
Justice Gray's judgement is included as part of the Nizkor Project site.
The NizKor Project was established to supply information to counter the arguments of revisionis hitorians, also referred to as Holocaust deniers. The Nizko Project's site map can be found at http://www.nizkor.org/fast-track.html
This site includes a large collection of media reports dealing with the Irving/Lipstadt libel trial. An index of these
reports can be found at http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/press/irving-v-lipstadt.html
One of the reports is a comment written by Professor Deborah Lipstadt shortly after the verdict, favourable to her, was brought down in the Irving/Lipstadt libel trial. The comment was originally published in the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix on April 28, 2000. It is titled I was wrong to laugh It gives, in some detail, Professor Lipstadt's reasons for defending the libel accusation. The article can be found at http://jewishaz.com/jewishnews/000428/laugh.shtml
Though intended to counter Holocaust denial, the Nizkor Project also includes a number of sources that either defend or are favourable to revisionist historians. These include an extract from the book by Australian writer, Nigel Jackson, titled The case for David Irving.
This can be found at http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/australia/nigel-jackson.html It includes some arguments in defence of David Irving and gives an explanation of the origins of revisionist history.
The text of a transcript of an interview David Irving gave on the "AM" program, Radio Station 2BL, Sydney, on November 8, 1996, to Julie Posetti can be found at http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/australia/2bl-transcript-1196.html
In it David Irving defends himself against accusations that his addresses have provoked violence and claims that some of the incidents which have occurred may be attributable to deliberate attempts by his opponents to discredit him.
The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) is a United States-based group which aims to defend revisionist history. Its particular concern is what it refers to as 'gas chamber stories and war crimes trials'.
The site can be found at http://www.codoh.org/
It includes a detailed defence written by David Irving to claims made about him by Professor Jeffrey Shallit. The article is titled David Irving's Reply to Jeffrey Shallit's "Lies of Our Times"
It can be found at http://www.codoh.org/irving/irvshallreply.html
David Irving self-publishes as Focal Point Publishing. His Internet site can be found at http://www.fpp.co.uk/
This site also includes a link to the full text of Justice Gray's judgement. In addition it includes a number of excerpts from Justice Gray's judgement which David Irving believes are favourable to him or various of his views.
These excerpts can be found at http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/judgment/extract1.html
The Simon Wiesenthal Center is a fully-staffed information resource centre on the Holocaust, Twentieth-century genocides, antisemitism, racism, and related issues. Its resources are available to researchers, media, students and the public.
Its home page can be found at http://www.wiesenthal.com/resource/index.html
The Centre has spoken against the views put by David Irving.
The Simon Weisenthal Center has a set of arguments countering many of the claims made by revisionist historians. These can be found at http://www.wiesenthal.com/resource/revision.htm#3
Some of these countering arguments relate directly to claims at issue in the Irving/Lipstadt libel trial.
A valuable source of firsthand evidence regarding the Holocaust is the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation
In 1994, after filming Schindler's List, Steven Spielberg established the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation 'to chronicle ... the firsthand accounts of survivors, liberators, rescuers, and other eyewitnesses of the Holocaust.'
The Foundation has recorded more than 50,000 unedited testimonies.
Its home site can be found at http://www.vhf.org/
Arguments in favour of views such as those of revisionist historian, David Irving, continuing to be heard
There are three general arguments put in favour of views such as those of revisionist historian, David Irving, continuing to be heard.
The first is a general freedom of speech argument. This position has been put several times by David Irving, especially in his various bids to gain entry to countries such as Australia to which he has regularly been denied admission.
When asked in a radio interview, broadcast in Australia in 1996, how he would react were he allowed into Australia, David Irving stated, 'Well, I will rejoice for Australia - for the Australian people that freedom of speech has been restored there.'
According to this line of argument, any person should be able to put a point of view so long as it is not intended to provoke violence or racial hatred, and is not libellous or otherwise offensive as defined by the laws of the country concerned.
Denying any person the right to put an opinion is claimed to be an unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression.
In response to suggestions that his opinions and public statements are designed to promote violence and racial hatred, Mr Irving disputes this. He has claimed that the threat of violence is actually a ploy used by those who oppose his views and is thus a means of trying to censor him.
Mr Irving made this claim in a radio interview broadcast in Australia in 1996.
Referring to the vandalism of synagogues that occurred prior to one of his proposed visits to Australia, Mr Irving stated, '... certain people ... had an interest in daubing synagogues with my name in order to ensure that I'm kept out...'
Most recently he has cited the findings of Justice Gray who judged, 'I accept that Irving is not obsessed with race. He has certainly not condoned or excused racist violence or thuggery' and Justice Gray has also been quoted by Irving as having stated, 'I accept that when he has spoken at [right-wing] meetings, Irving has not expressed himself in extremist or anti-Semitic terms."
The second argument supporting the right to be heard of those with views such as David Irving's relates particularly to academic freedom. This point has been made by Professor Deborah Lipstadt.
Referring to Holocaust history, Professor Lipstadt has stated, 'We are not dealing here with sacred canon and I defend the right of historians to re-examine and ask questions ... If somebody could come up and prove that it was less or more than 6 million Jews who perished, that's okay.'
(It needs to be noted that Professor Lipstadt does not believe that this sort of academic freedom should apply to David Irving. Professor Lipstadt claims of David Irving, '... this man is not an historian. His work is a tissue of lies, manipulation and distortion.)
David Irving has claimed that he is entitled to the right to be read, heard and subjected to peer review in the same way as any other academic.
As paraphrased by Australian defender Nigel Jackson, David Irving has claimed a willingness to alter his judgements if they are shown to be wrong. Nigel Jackson has written of David Irving, '[He is] prepared to admit that he could be proved wrong on some issues...'.
Mr Jackson, who has published a book titled, The case for David Irving, has further stated that without the public airing of his judgements, David Irving 'would even be denied the right to be proved wrong'.
Related to this is the claim that Mr Irving is a reputable historian and that a number of his judgements regarding the Holocaust have the support of other historians and/or derive from primary sources.
This position has also been put by Nigel Jackson who has claimed, in a letter published in The Age on January 30, 2000, that a 'French survivor of the Nazi concentration camps, Paul Rassinier, was exposing the relevant lies and exaggerations of other former prisoners ... in the 1950s and early 1960s.'
Finally there has been an argument put that an excessive focus on the Holocaust, including the suppression of those who appear to deny its occurrence, could actually foster anti-Semitism.
David Cesarani, professor of modern Jewish history at Southampton University, has recently suggested this possibility.
Professor Cesarani has quoted Sam Schulman, who, writing for The Spectator, has stated, 'a new kind of anti-Semitism may emerge in the 21st century, in reaction to the attempt to make the Holocaust central to our civilisation.'
Professor Cesarani, while not endorsing this view, quotes historian Tim Cole, who has stated, 'Museums such as the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and movies such as Schindler's List have as a self-conscious goal ... the aim of disproving the claims of those who deny the Holocaust.'
Cole has apparently criticised the quality of such films and museums and has suggested 'it amounts to attempting to counter the reality of the Holocaust by offering in its place a representation of the Holocaust that tends to blur the critical distinction between reality and representation.'
According to this line of argument it is important to present the evidence for the Holocaust with a minimum of artifice and dramatic re-enactment. It would also appear to be important to use historical evidence and debate, rather than suppression, to counter the positions of those such as David Irving.
It appears that Professor Lipstadt was initially reluctant to contest David Irving's libel allegations and that as a general rule she prefers not to engage in debate with Holocaust deniers because she believes that discussing their views gives them too much academic credibility.
There are others who believe that only discussion of this kind can establish historical truth.
The suggestion has been made that without such debate David Irving's claim that he is the victim of an international conspiracy intended to silence him might gain credibility.
Professor Cesarani has stated, 'To the young man clad in a black parka, black trousers and black baseball cap ... the notion, no matter how paranoid, of an international Jewish conspiracy to destroy a hero of the far right will appear just so much common sense.'
Arguments against views such as those of revisionist historian, David Irving, continuing to be heard
There are three major arguments against views such as those of revisionist historian David Irving continuing to be heard.
The first argument is that such views are so great a falsification of the truth that they simply do not deserve to be given public exposure.
The Australian in its editorial of April 15, 2000, stated, 'If the role of the historian is to present the facts, Irving's assertion that the deliberate destruction of millions of Jews never took place flies in the face of a body of reliable evidence.'
This position has been put by Professor Deborah Lipstadt who has argued that David Irving does not deserve intellectual tolerance or respect as a contributor to the Holocaust debate because 'The evidence demonstrated this man is not an historian. His work is a tissue of lies, manipulation and distortion.'
Professor Lipstadt has further stated, 'Normally, I don't debate with these people on principle because I don't think they should be treated as "the other side".'
Professor Lipstadt has added, 'It would be the equivalent of asking astronomers to debate whether the earth is flat. It's lunacy.'
The second argument against Holocaust denying positions is that they should not be heard because they are a misrepresentation of perhaps the most evil or heinous series of actions in human history.
According to this line of argument, that revisionist history is said to misrepresent events involving the mass murder of millions of people, motivated by simple racial and religious prejudice, makes it imperative that such lies are not presented to the public.
It is claimed that any argument that serves to exonerate Hilter or to minimise the nature of the atrocities committed under the Third Reich increases the possibility that such events could happen once more.
This position has been put by Professor Lipstadt who has claimed that as the survivors of the Holocaust die and are no longer able to give living testimony to the events they witnessed, then the likelihood becomes greater that those who deny the Holocaust will be believed.
Professor Lipstadt suggests that this creates a real danger that in the future events such as the Holocaust could occur again.
Professor Lipstadt has argued that for this reason also views such as those of David Irving's cannot be tolerated.
'I see them as a clear and future danger,' Professor Lipstadt has stated.
This point has also been made in an editorial published in The Australian on April 15, 2000. The editorial states, 'The court judgement may do something ... to discourage those sympathisers with a view of history as distorted as the Nazi ideology.'
Relatedly, Michael Berenbaum, a former president of the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation has stated, 'Hitler gave fascism a bad name. If the magnitude of the crime can be diminished, then fascism can enjoy new prominence.'
Michael Berenbaum also makes the point previously made by Professor Lipstadt, '... if the Holocaust is denied while the witnesses are still among us, what will happen after they are no longer?'
On a more immediate level it has been suggested that positions such as those argued by David Irving encourage violence and civil unrest.
This is one of the bases on which David Irving has been denied entry to Australia on four occasions.
Sydney radio interviewer, Julie Posetti , in an interview with David Irving in 1996, when he was again attempting to enter Australia, raised what she suggested was David Irving's record of promoting racism and violence in countries where he had spoken.
She stated that in a number of countries including Canada and Germany, Mr Irving had been 'blamed as one of the catalysts for ... unrest.'
The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has indicated that he does not believe that David Irving should be allowed entry to Australia on this occasion either.
Mr Howard has been reported as saying, 'We have a view that because of his record [Mr Irving] should not come to Australia.'
Finally it has been argued that views such as those put by David Irving should not be heard because they are an affront to those who survived the Holocaust and to all those who lost family and friends through this atrocity.
This view has also been put by Professor Lipstadt. She has been reported as having said that the way in which Mr Irving denigrated Holocaust survivors in court was 'horrible, just horrible.'
Professor Lipstadt has also claimed that the position espoused by David Irving was effectively 'dancing on the graves' of Holocaust victims.
Many of those who seek to repress or refute the views of revisionist historians such as David Irving appear to believe they have a duty to both the survivors of the death camps and to those who did not survive to ensure that truth prevails.
In an interview published in the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix on April 28, 2000, Professor Lipstadt states, 'I shall never forget, as I entered the court on the first day, being told by survivors: "We are counting on you." Nor shall I forget being enveloped after the trial by a man outside the courtroom who said: "My parents died in Auschwitz. In their name: thank you."'
Historians such as Professor Lipstadt believe that to have revisionists dispute the Holocaust is unacceptably offensive to those who have suffered through it.
The same point has been made in an editorial published in The Australian on April 15, 2000. The editorial states that the views put by David Irving are unacceptable because they 'assert that the survivors of such places as Auschwitz and Dachau are involved in a huge conspiracy.'
The various criticisms of David Irving were summed up by British Labour peer, Lord Greville Jenner, who stated, after Justice Gray's ruling was released that, 'No one should listen to [David Irving] or anyone who shares his views ever again'
Further implications
There appears to be a widely held view that with the adverse judgement made by Justice Gray, David Irving has been fatally wounded. It has been suggested that his academic credibility has been destroyed and that financially he may well be ruined because he will have to pay the legal expenses of Professor Lipstadt, estimated to be some millions of pounds. It has further been noted that Mr Irving's British publishers are now reconsidering whether they wish to continue handling his work.
However, predictions of David Irving's disappearance from the historical scene appear a little premature. Firstly it now seems likely that Mr Irving will appeal Justice Gray's judgement. Secondly, though his financial situation appears very difficult he does have a range of options. He could declare himself bankrupt in the face of his inability to pay the millions of dollars worth of debt he has incurred. He may also be able to have many of his expenses met by overseas supporters who have already, it has been suggested, contributed significantly to his cause.
With regard to Mr Irving's British publisher possibly ceasing to handle his work there are a number of possibilities that could see his work continue to come into print. Firstly, the large amount of publicity Mr Irving has recently received may well make his work appear more rather than less attractive to some publishers. Secondly, Mr Irving apparently already self-publishes to some degree. He may decide to extend what he does in this area. Included in his self-publishing endeavours is his Internet site. This is another avenue through which he could seek to disseminate his ideas.
It is also the case that Mr Irving, though apparently highly influential, is not the only revisionist historian with popular currency.
Thus, the views currently put by Mr Irving are unlikely to go away.
It seems likely that those who defend and promote the Holocaust will have to show a general readiness to debate the Holocaust question with revisionists such as David Irving.
A combination of withdrawing attention and discouraging publication of his works or his admission to other countries is unlikely to make Mr Irving's views disappear. It seems more likely that what is needed is for the historical facts, to the extent that they are known, to be discussed and debated as often as possible.
Sources
The Age
15/1/00 page 31 news item, 'Irving reveals extradition bid'
23/1/00 page 15 comment by Professor David Cesarani, 'The risks of Shoah business'
30/1/00 page 14 letter from Nigel Jackson, 'Jewish plot'
30/1/00 page 14 letter from Dr Daniel Mandel, 'Unholy alliance'
5/2/00 page 9 (News Extra section) comment by Michael Berenbaum, 'Beware the growing assault on the truth of absolute evil'
6/2/00 page 14 letter from Gary Max, 'Hateful lies'
6/2/00 page 14 letter from Colin Nettelbeck, 'Unreliable witness'
28/2/00 page 15 comment by Robert Manne, 'In denial of evidence'
29/2/00 page 2 news item by Stephen cauchi, 'Irving interview under attack'
12/4/00 page 12 news item by Simon Mann, 'Historian Irving loses libel case over Nazi slur'
13/4/00 page 11 news item by Simon Mann, 'Defiant Irving says court loss won't silence him'
The Australian
1/2/00 page 1 news item by Jamie Walker and Cathy Pryor, 'Naturalised daughter gives barred historian way in'
2/2/00 page 3 news item by Megan Saunders, 'Irving still not wanted: Howard'
2/2/00 page 11 analysis by Jamie Walker, 'History on the line as revisionist goes for broke'
17/3/00 page 7 news item, 'Irving tells court he's victim of "vilification"'
12/4/00 page 9 news item by Jamie Walker, 'Irving pays dearly for Nazi denial'
13/4/00 page 8 analysis by Michael Horsnell, 'Keeping the Holocaust memory alive'
14/4/00 page 5 news item by Jamie Walker, 'Irving: no donation will be denied'
14/4/00 page 8 news item, 'Canberra urged to uphold Irving ban'
15/4/00 page 20 editorial, 'Court upholds truth of Nazi horror'
15/4/00 page 26 comment by Jamie Walker, 'In denial'
The Herald Sun
14/1/00 page 4 news item, 'Holocaust a "big lie"'
12/4/00 page 36 news item, 'Historic Holocaust ruling near'
13/4/00 page 33 news item by Christine Middap, 'Irving will renew bid for visa'
13/4/00 page 33 news item, 'Historian's career washed up'