Navigation Salon Salon News email print
Arts & Entertainment
Books
Comics
Health & Body
Media
Mothers Who Think
.News
People
Politics2000
Technology
- Free Software
Travel & Food
_______
Columnists

 

Current
Wire Stories

Click here to read the latest stories from the wires.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Also Today

For a full list of today's Salon News stories, go to the News home page.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon


  
Advanced Search  |  Help

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon News

Willful misbehavior or tragic accident?
The Justice Department would have a tough time proving police deprived Diallo of his civil rights when they shot him, one expert says.

By Daryl Lindsey
[02/29/00]

Taking on the untouchables
John McCain's decision to attack the leaders of the religious right is refreshing because Republican leaders have too long been cowed into submission by these bigots.

By Joe Conason
[02/29/00]

Allah's pulpit thumper
Louis Farrakhan makes a bid to unify Islam in America -- and to be its No. 1 evangelist.

By Ted Kleine
[02/28/00]

The Elián González of the Himalayas
The 14-year-old Karmapa faces Chinese vengeance, accusations of espionage and the political intrigues of Tibetan Buddhism.

By Carole Zimmer
[02/28/00]

Brutal verdict
Behind the acquittal of four officers is a clear indictment of standard police procedure in Giuliani's New York.

By Bruce Shapiro
[02/26/00]

Complete archives for News

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -




Hitler's apologist | page 1, 2, 3

But Irving argues that even the testimony of survivors and eyewitnesses is unreliable. He rejects all eyewitness testimony about gas chambers at Auschwitz, for instance, most of it presented during the Nuremberg trials after the war. He thinks former camp officials lied to cooperate with Allied investigators to save their necks, and former inmates trumped up stories as revenge on their captors. On the other hand, he accepts without skepticism accounts by Hitler's adjutants when they exonerate the Fuhrer.

And while Irving accuses "establishment" historians of overlooking documents he has discovered, he rejects out of hand key documents that have been a foundation of mainstream Holocaust history. He ignores, for instance, the astounding death tolls listed in reports from the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile killing units that shot Jews and communists caught behind the German advance eastward. (One report listed 363,211 Jews killed in the last third of 1942.) Such figures are probably inflated, he said, to "show off."

Other times Irving defends himself by saying he just made mistakes. He misread an "order from Hitler" to SS leader Heinrich Himmler to spare one trainload of Jews from Berlin as an order to spare all Jews. Further probing by the defense showed Himmler issued the order before meeting with Hitler anyway.

But the defense says Irving's "mistakes" and interpretations point in one direction only: toward the exculpation of Hitler and the denial of the systematic slaughter of the Jews because they were Jews.

The defense has also tried to link Irving's mistakes to what it describes as his racism and right-wing ideological bent. For two days the court listened to Irving's past speeches in which he said black news anchors should be allowed to report only on muggings and drug busts, and that he "shuddered" to have his passport checked at British immigration control by a "Pakistani." The defense recited a rhyme Irving taught his 9-month-old daughter that made headlines in the British press the next day: "I am a baby Aryan/not Jewish or sectarian/I never will marry an/ape or Rastafarian."

He has also claimed that Jews bring misfortune upon themselves by virtue of their race. "If I was a Jew, I would be far more concerned, not by the question of who pulled the trigger, but why; and I do not think that has ever been properly investigated," Irving once said. "There must be some reason why anti-Semitism keeps on breaking out like some kind of epidemic."

Still, Irving thinks he is winning this case, as his Web site makes clear. He hides nothing: He posts full transcripts of the trial (until the transcript company forbade him to do so Feb. 7), he posts links to every press clipping (regardless of how unfavorable it is to him) and he writes a "Radical's Diary," in which he shares his take on the day's proceedings.

The loser of this trial must pay its entire cost, which could mean financial ruin for Irving. But in some ways, he could win no matter how the sober-faced Judge Gray rules. Deborah Lipstadt refuses to debate Holocaust deniers because "it would elevate their anti-Semitic ideology to the level of responsible historiography," according to the first chapter of the book at the heart of this lawsuit.

But through his lawsuit, David Irving has entered the ring with the world's leading Holocaust historians. He has had his day in court.
salon.com | March 1, 2000

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Heather World is a freelance writer living in London.

Sound off
Send us a Letter to the Editor

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Print this story  Get a printer-friendly version

Email this story  E-mail a friend about this article

Backflip This Story  Backflip this article to find it again

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Search Salon


  
Advanced Search  |  Help

Salon | Search | Archives | Contact Us | Table Talk | Ad Info

Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business | Audio
The Free Software Project | The Movie Page
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus

Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.