PDA

View Full Version : Irving in prison - Der Spiegel article


Hakluyt
01-19-2006, 10:27 PM
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-395810,00.html

Holocaust Denier on Trial

The Swastika Wielding Provocateur

By Malte Herwig

British historian and Holocaust denier David Irving, arrested last month in Austria where his views are illegal, is busy preparing his trial in a Vienna prison. Could this be the eccentric Hitler admirer's final act of provocation?

At night, when the pale winter sun has slipped behind the rooftops of Vienna's Josefstadt district, a jungle comes to life in the prison yard at the city's old Imperial-era prison. "That's when they start yelling from the windows and talking to one another," says David Irving, "it all begins at nightfall, just like in the jungle."

The elderly gentleman in a suit and tie who sits down behind the plate glass window in the prison's visitors' room doesn't seem to belong here. But, despite his appearance, David Irving seems to have settled in quite nicely. According to the prison's administration, Irving, who is here in detention awaiting trial, gets along well with the other prisoners. If only they could all be so polite, says a guard, clearly impressed by Irving's model behavior.

Irving, 67, appears cheerful and focused and says he is being treated well. Occasionally he does betray a penchant for hyperbole, though. "Someone sent me ink, thank God," he says. Irving is writing his memoirs, 20 pages a day. There is little else to do for a writer behind bars, and there's a tradition about writing while incarcerated. "Perhaps I should call it 'Mein Krieg' ('My War')," says Irving, grinning on his side of the plate glass divider. His daughter finds it "cool that Daddy is in prison," he adds, and one has the impression that Daddy himself still sees the whole thing as part of an adventure. David Irving is a man marooned on the fringes of society, but adventure is part of his business.

Before leaving London for Austria, he left behind 60 blank checks and packed eight shirts, even though the trip was only scheduled to take two days. He is always prepared for anything, says Irving, meaninfully raising his bushy eyebrows. "Be prepared," the motto of the Boy Scouts, is apparently also his motto.

He knew that there was a warrant for his arrest in Austria. In 1989, then Chancellor Franz Vranitzky personally threatened Irving with immediate arrest if he ever showed his face in Austria again. But the stubborn Hitler apologist saw Vranitzky's threat as an invitation to return to Austria as quickly as possible. "I come from a family of officers," he growls from behind the plate glass, "we march towards cannon fire." But he did make a mistake when it came to picking suitable shoes. Prisoners are allowed to walk in the prison yard every day, but Irving has, "unfortunately, only one pair of very expensive shoes," and they're slowly falling apart.

Lust for Controversy

He plans to have his pinstripe suit sent to him for his trial on February 20. It's Irving's battle outfit, the same suit he had made by the most expensive Savile Row tailor for his London trial six years ago. This polite Anglo-Saxon treats Holocaust denial in the same way his countrymen treat rugby: a sport for hooligans, played by gentlemen.

The self-confident, self-taught writer has always enjoyed causing uproar, especially among mainstream historians, ever since the 1960s when he began digging up documents written by Hitler's cohorts. Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel's memoirs, SS leader Adolf Eichmann's notes, Hitler's propaganda minister Josef Goebbels' diaries -- the media-savvy author has been adept at marketing his finds to the public and promoting his own works. His sensationally written and extensively documented biographies of leading Nazi figures were bestsellers up until the 1980s.

Despite admiration for Irving's detective skills, his work increasingly came under fire after 1977, when his biography of Hitler was published. A respected military historian until then, Irving quickly became Hitler's willing discoverer, using his finds to prove the guilt of Himmler, Heydrich and others while claiming that his revered Führer was entirely blameless.

Irving, who was still giving lectures in the fading East Germany in 1990 under the title "A Briton fights for the honor of the Germans," chose contemporary history and not politics as his pulpit. "Standing in front of 10,000 people who waited an entire day, and who are now sitting on hard benches drinking their beer, waiting for you to speak -- that's the ultimate reward," he said in 1992 during a speaking tour. Auschwitz expert Robert van Pelt considers Irving hysterical. "He's quite a good speaker, but he gets his energy from his audience, and he tells them what they want to hear."

Far-Right Figurehead

David Irving denied the Holocaust, denied Hitler's guilt and mocked the survivors of the Nazi concentration camps. Thanks to his derisive remarks on what he called the Allies' "victors' view of history" and his snide treatment of established historians, Irving soon became a figurehead for right-wing extremists and a welcome agitator at events hosted by the far-right German People's Union (DVU), where the eternally unteachable could listen to him lecture on "what it was really like" in the "Third Reich."

British historian David Cannadine has called Irving's books "abnormally biased and irresponsibly sensationalist." In a court hearing in 2000, fellow historian Richard Evans testified at length on Irving's clever manipulation of his sources.

Nevertheless, the sheer wealth of material in Irving's books has always made them a treasure trove for historians, and they can be found in many German libraries. "Historians of the period between 1933 and 1945 appreciate his energy as a researcher more than they would ever care to admit," says world-renowned American contemporary historian Gordon A. Craig. "If we wanted to silence Irving, we would be paying a high price for eliminating what we view as an annoyance."

The fact that his books turned into right-wing underground literature available only through obscure publishing houses and on the Internet is not just the result of his revisionist approach to history, but also his provocative appearances in the neo-Nazi scene. Ever since the 1990s, when it became clear that he could no longer convince any respected publisher to publish his books, the historian has transformed himself into a traveling salesman on all things relating to Hitler. His London apartment, which the Sunday Telegraph has called a "one-man Hitler university," is filled with Hitler, Göring and Goebbels monographs which he has published himself and sells from the trunk of his car whenever he speaks in basements and bars.

"They have burned my books," Irving sighs. A master of the insinuating bluff, an expert at setting false trails, Irving adores the glitter of the outrageous. He knows that burning books is a taboo, but conveniently ignores the point that the publisher had to pulp some of his books for legal reasons, and that that isn't the same as book-burning.

When David Irving entered the public arena in the 1960s, he quickly became a star. According to historian Richard Evans, the early writings of the "revisionists" were more of a "perverse form of entertainment" for readers. Someone like Irving, who in fact had displayed considerable talent as an author, was practically tailor-made for the talentless pamphletists.

Smokescreens of Historical Detail

The vast quantities of archive material he deploys in his thick books is intended to suggest objectivity. In truth, criticizes contemporary historian Peter Hoffmann, this overwhelming wealth of detail is nothing but a smokescreen.

British historian Paul Addison described Irving as "normally a giant when it comes to research, but often a schoolboy when it comes to judgment." As horrific as it sounds, there is reason to believe that he is not just driven by the lucrative business of the Holocaust denial industry, but also by a scurrilous and ultimately banal delight in provocation.

This delight is not uncommon among the upper classes in England, as Prince Harry's recent appearance at a party wearing a swastika armband demonstrates. Irving takes advantage of the considerable tolerance of his countrymen, whose regard for freedom of opinion protects even the most tasteless pronouncements of an eccentric.

It is no coincidence that a man like Irving comes from a country where "Führer" jokes are still part of the standard repertoire of the tabloid press, and where delight in provocation is considered acceptable even in polite society. Irving undoubtedly has as many detractors in Britain as anywhere else. But statements such as "more people were killed in the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car in Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz," with their blend of sexual innuendo and deliberate affront, are a reflection of the trivial ignorance with which many a product of the British boarding school system tries to show the world belongs to him. "He is a megalomaniacal class tyrant," says Holocaust expert Deborah Lipstadt, against whom Irving filed a spectacular lawsuit six years ago, at the end of which, however, the judge in the case declared him an anti-Semite, a racist and a liar.

"Yes, I did many silly things", says Irving simply, noting that the British way of doing things isn't always polite.

Young Rebel

Irving, who grew up without a father, started rebelling against the established order when he was a schoolboy. When he won a book award at school, he asked for Hitler's "Mein Kampf" as his prize. It was the same impetus that prompted him to drape a Soviet flag over the gate of his school. He had merely intended to shock people, Irving told Britain's Observer newspaper in 1992. "It was all in good fun, and when I write, I try to introduce a bit of fun onto each page." In 1993, he told another interviewer that he had no political agenda apart from enjoying seeing "other historians make fools of themselves."

Irving is unaware of moral or even human contradictions. He is too amoral to even understand that jokes such as the one about Kennedy's car are an affront to the survivors of the Holocaust. Irving's understanding of history is not unlike that of the Nazis. History is a panorama of eating or being eaten. Only the strong can win, and Irving reserves his unabashed admiration exclusively for the strong.

One of those people is "Bomber" Harris. In his first book, Irving turned the world's attention to the horrors of the bombing of Dresden. Nevertheless, he insists that Air Marshall Sir Arthur Harris was a great man. "I'm talking about a commander. Like Dönitz," he explains, his eyes flashing. "Someone who can send 20,000 young people to their deaths each day is a great commander." Given these views, Irving's admiration for Hitler comes as no great surprise.

Irving seems proud to answer questions through the prison's plate glass window. Questions about everything. For example, why did he first call the Hitler diaries forgeries at the legendary Stern press conference, only to recant a short time later and tell a British newspaper that they were genuine? "It was a gag," he is quick to say, "something like entertainment. None of that had anything to do with contemporary history. I wanted to see how the historians would react." Judging by Irving's expression, he seems to believe that this kind of behavior is perfectly normal, and that the humorless Germans are nothing but spoilsports.

Suddenly everything begins to make sense: the "Third Reich" as a grandiose, second-hand adventure playground, the revisionists as playmates and the material the stuff of adventure novels, the kind Irving used to read as a child growing up in the country. In those days, in the 1940s in the county of Essex near London, England wasn't a multicultural society, the Empire still existed and a small boy with a dreamy look in his eyes could spend hours listening to stories about his uncle, who was serving far away with the Bengal Lancers.

Yearning for the Days of Empire

Irving is a monarchist, "of course." He mourns the Empire and the lost security that an orderly class society once offered the white English middle class he grew up in. He doesn't like the fact that England's cricket team includes dark-skinned players, he hates the new world and he despises Tony Blair's New Labour.

Only three months ago, he moved to a new apartment not far from Downing Street "to provoke the establishment," but also because it was closer to Buckingham Palace. "I enjoy watching soldiers march by each morning when I look out the window of my apartment." The Austrians, says Irving disdainfully, are merely jealous of the British monarchy.

How does he expect his upcoming trial to turn out? "I would be less confident," says Irving innocently, "if I didn't know that the world's intellectuals are on my side." He says that he has already received "many letters of support."

A few days later, in a Vienna coffeehouse, his attorney, Elmar Kresbach, opens his briefcase and pulls out a stack of letters he has received in recent weeks. Kresbach can only shake his head when he thinks about the bizarre material that's been clogging his mailbox ever since he became Irving's defense attorney. "He doesn't understand it himself," says the attorney, referring to his client, "and I believe that he too is becoming fed up with the crazies."

Back at the prison, Irving growls: "It's ridiculous that someone should go to prison for that." He says he is only responsible for his own books, and that his Hitler biography is even available in the prison library. It's a typical Irving maneuver: triumphantly, he presents a discovery, but without revealing the complete truth, thereby drawing attention away from the actual question. Shouldn't someone have to take responsibility for what he tells a willing public in stifling back rooms and auditoriums? It isn't Irving's books that landed him in prison, but his lectures -- sentences like this one, which he dictated to an Austrian reporter in 1989: "There were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. All witnesses who claim otherwise are psychiatric cases." Indeed, the Vienna public prosecutor's office plans to use tape recordings of some of Irving's appearances in Austria as part of its indictment.

The Irving case is bizarre. "Yes, we did have a book by Mr. Irving in our library," says prison warden Peter Prechtl, but adds that prison officials removed the book from circulation "for security reasons" as soon as they were made aware of it. It wasn't Irving's Hitler biography, but his book about the 1956 Hungarian uprising. Prechtl himself has no idea why the book should constitute a security risk.

Austrian Sensitivity

The Austrians' highly sensitive treatment of the brown Briton shows just how delicate the matter is in Austrian politics. After Irving discovered his books in the prison in Graz where he was being held previously and, as was reported in the press, autographed them for prison guards, Vienna officials wanted to play it safe. "Irving was dropped into their laps like a hot potato," says one insider, "and now they're not sure what to do with him."

The case ultimately exposes a certain irony: A Briton who expresses doubts about the Holocaust is arrested in a country that knows full well that it existed, but spent decades essentially ignoring it. In the past three decades, not a single Nazi war criminal has been sentenced in the Alpine republic, which once styled itself as "Hitler's first victim."

But, like any good Boy Scout, Irving is skilled at setting traps and playing games with the Austrian judiciary and his liberal adversaries -- precisely those who, in the name of freedom of expression, now feel the need to protest the imprisonment of a man whose views they deeply despise. "If you had told me, a few months ago, that I would be demanding David Irving's release one day," says Irving's sharpest critic, Deborah Lipstadt, "I would have called you insane."

But the Holocaust historian doesn't want to see Irving become a martyr in the name of freedom of speech. "I'm against censorship," she says, "no one stands to benefit from throwing this guy into prison." The price Lipstadt is paying for such liberalism? Germany's right-wing, extremist "National-Zeitung" recently quoted her in an article titled "Worldwide Protests against Irving's Arrest."

Shortly after his arrest, Irving announced, through his attorney, that he no longer questions the existence of the gas chambers in Auschwitz, claiming that newly-discovered documents have convinced him otherwise. One can practically see the smokescreen rising from Irving's cell and hear someone uttering the word "epiphany."

Irving's attorney, Elmar Kresbach, a confident and experienced criminal defender who usually represents murderers and Mafia gangs, will highlight his client's naiveté and reformation when he appears before an eleven-member panel of judges on February 20. Kresbach makes no secret of his conviction that "in a free society, it must be possible to be able to say something that is wrong and offensive without being criminally prosecuted."

But Kresbach also wants to prevent his egotistical client from using the trial as a soapbox. "He won't be saying much," says Kresbach, leaning back in his chair as if to emphasize his point. "This is an Austrian jury court and not some Holocaust discussion group."

Irving is playing a despicable game. The Austrians will make short work of him.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Fade the Butcher
01-19-2006, 10:30 PM
This is crazy.

Crowley
01-20-2006, 12:09 AM
I send Irving an automatic $10/month, but really, if the man is doing time in a Jewcell it's time to up the contribution to $20/month. Anybody interested in donating can do so at http://fpp.co.uk/recurring/index.html.

cerberus
01-20-2006, 06:38 AM
David Irving is above all a self publicist , he loves a headline.
What you are actually doing is paying for his headline.
He is not in a Jew cell , its an Austrain one.
The man responsible for him being there is called David Irving.
Speak of which , do you help pay for his bill to Lipstadt as well , another act of total folly which he is asking you to pay for.
Included in this bill is his appeal. He then withdrew the basis of his appeal and so left himself or "you" with an additional bill.
Just want to be sure you are getting VFM.

Intrepid
01-20-2006, 07:00 AM
David Irving is above all a self publicist , he loves a headline.
What you are actually doing is paying for his headline.
He is not in a Jew cell , its an Austrain one.
The man responsible for him being there is called David Irving.
Speak of which , do you help pay for his bill to Lipstadt as well , another act of total folly which he is asking you to pay for.
Included in this bill is his appeal. He then withdrew the basis of his appeal and so left himself or "you" with an additional bill.
Just want to be sure you are getting VFM.

Personally, I like David Irving, and I've always enjoyed his unique takes on the war. That said, I agree to a certain extent with you, as he brings these things upon himself. As I always have, I gladly purchase his works, but I'll not donate a penny for his bandstanding and bizarre PR campaigns. None of this takes away from these ridiculous restrictions being placed on historical interpretations rampaging throughout Europe, however. That's the real issue here, not Irving's approach.

Crowley
01-20-2006, 12:03 PM
David Irving is above all a self publicist , he loves a headline.
What you are actually doing is paying for his headline.
He is not in a Jew cell , its an Austrain one.
The man responsible for him being there is called David Irving.
Speak of which , do you help pay for his bill to Lipstadt as well , another act of total folly which he is asking you to pay for.
Included in this bill is his appeal. He then withdrew the basis of his appeal and so left himself or "you" with an additional bill.
Just want to be sure you are getting VFM.

I think Irving is great. I know he's somewhat of an egoist and don't care in the least. Whenever he comes to town I attend his dinner parties and always have a great time, of which, by the way, he never charges any fee. His books are available online free for download too.

Anybody anywhere who is jailed for "holocaust denial" is in a jewcell.

cerberus
01-20-2006, 12:23 PM
Last Irving I bought was his Goring Biography which I didn't like. It would seem that his talent is more of a researcher than a writer - he takes too much lea way with the facts and is unreliable.
His website reflects his schoolmasterish approach " Please Mr.Irving take me to" ( Bit like "Please sir may I be excused").
Restrictions ? I see a clear difference between interpretations and the telling of lies.
Sorry but is what it boils down to. ( IMO).
On an individual level I feel some sorry for him but I can't understand why he has to do this to himself time and time again and then portray himself as being put upon.

Fade the Butcher
01-20-2006, 05:04 PM
cerberus,

Do you actually believe David Irving wants to be in jail?

ironweed
01-20-2006, 05:50 PM
cerberus,

Do you actually believe David Irving wants to be in jail?

Dunno that he necessarily wants to be, but it sure as hell looks like he has no problem playing the martyr.


Before leaving London for Austria, he left behind 60 blank checks and packed eight shirts, even though the trip was only scheduled to take two days. He is always prepared for anything, says Irving, meaninfully raising his bushy eyebrows. "Be prepared," the motto of the Boy Scouts, is apparently also his motto.

He knew that there was a warrant for his arrest in Austria. In 1989, then Chancellor Franz Vranitzky personally threatened Irving with immediate arrest if he ever showed his face in Austria again. But the stubborn Hitler apologist saw Vranitzky's threat as an invitation to return to Austria as quickly as possible. "I come from a family of officers," he growls from behind the plate glass, "we march towards cannon fire." But he did make a mistake when it came to picking suitable shoes. Prisoners are allowed to walk in the prison yard every day, but Irving has, "unfortunately, only one pair of very expensive shoes," and they're slowly falling apart.


Perhaps he'll write his own variation on [Letter from Birmingham Jail] (http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html) ? :p

Fade the Butcher
01-20-2006, 05:52 PM
I am catching a whiff of a conspiracy theory here. :p

Eisenhans
01-20-2006, 07:12 PM
I have a notion to send the man money. I need to get my pay, however...

Jimbo Gomez
01-20-2006, 07:15 PM
He knew the risk and chose to enter Austria anyway. Don't encourage stupidity.

cerberus
01-20-2006, 07:22 PM
Dunno that he necessarily wants to be, but it sure as hell looks like he has no problem playing the martyr.

Fade , Ironweed and I seem to be thinking along the same lines on this one.
I do think that if Jesus jumped off the cross David Irving might be tempted to take his place.
Let's see two of us , no can't be a conspiracy "theory" , it must be true.:p
I wonder in his own mind does he see himself on a parr with Hitler in Lansberg , would not surprise me and as sure as Hades someone will pick up on it.
This is crazy.
Fade , did you ever think that may be D.I. , may not be crazy but does occasionally does crazy things ?

Fade the Butcher
01-20-2006, 07:56 PM
Fade , did you ever think that may be D.I. , may not be crazy but does occasionally does crazy things ?It's all a conspiracy. :p

raven
01-20-2006, 08:23 PM
He knew the risk and chose to enter Austria anyway. Don't encourage stupidity.
Why did Irving get arrested anyway? He just stepped into the country and was arrested because of his past OUTSIDE of Austria being a holocaust denier?

Btw is it just me or does it seem fucked up that they are locking people up for a long time for their views but give rapists and other such degenerates menial sentences (if they are pressed charges at all). What makes Mr. Irving so evil in comparison to a gang-rapist who gets 1.5 years in Sweden (not kidding), 4 months in Finland (definately not kidding) and an armed robber who gets 30 days in Canada (I'm fucking serious).

There is a guy in Canada who is in jail for criticizing black crime in Canada and he has thus far served almost 2 and a half months and he has another 15 and a half to go. Compare that to the armed robber who was out after 30 days and then involved himself in a gang turfwar shortly after which claimed the life of an innocent 15 year old passerby. If these light sentences on "minority" criminals and heavy sentences against those of european descent for being politically incorrect aren't signs of institutionalized, anti-european racism I don't know what is.

Jimbo Gomez
01-20-2006, 08:27 PM
Why did Irving get arrested anyway? He just stepped into the country and was arrested because of his past OUTSIDE of Austria being a holocaust denier?


And exactly how is that relevant to my post?

This is equally stupid as it would be for Salman Rushdie to make an announced visit to Teheran (yes, I know the fatwa has been revoked so noone dare getting cute here :nono: ).

raven
01-20-2006, 08:39 PM
Nevermind I just noticed that he was ordered not to show his face in Austria. :D

Eisenhans
01-20-2006, 09:59 PM
Maybe if he were wearing a Hitler mask nobody would notice.

Or one of those little plastic glasses with the nose and moustache. Those work like magic.

Excorcism
01-20-2006, 10:24 PM
cerberus,

Do you actually believe David Irving wants to be in jail?

I certainly think so if he went to Austria in the first place while he knew full well the government had him red flagged.

raven
01-20-2006, 10:35 PM
David Irving is a fool to purposely get himself arrested. This guy could have immigrated to the United States and have been free to continue doing what he's doing. I believe you neighbours down south still honour your first amendment right?

Crowley
01-20-2006, 11:25 PM
Burn Irving in effigy. The son of a bitch. :rolleyes:

cerberus
01-21-2006, 02:03 AM
It's all a conspiracy
Absolutely :)

Hakluyt
01-21-2006, 03:01 AM
Actually he was supposedly given assurances that he wouldn't be arrested, search the Phora for the article about his initial detainment last month

Jewcell
The law he is being held under was enacted by Austria's government immediately following the war, though, and had nothing to do with the Holocaust per se - it's about not defaming the memory of war dead etc. They are simply enforcing that (stupid) law to the letter. Hardly a Jewish conspiracy.

Starr
01-21-2006, 04:13 AM
Actually he was supposedly given assurances that he wouldn't be arrested, search the Phora for the article about his initial detainment last month

Given how crazy these laws are is this something he is going to believe? The mention of his daugher thinking it is cool that he is in jail was a strange comment. I am sure he recognizes that spending some time in prison is going to turn him into a martyr(as someone already pointed out) and is also going to create an interest(even if small) in him and the "revisionist" topic in general. So yes, he may not have thought being arrested was the worse thing. If anything else it does draw some attention to these insane laws.

Crowley
01-21-2006, 12:22 PM
Actually he was supposedly given assurances that he wouldn't be arrested, search the Phora for the article about his initial detainment last month


The law he is being held under was enacted by Austria's government immediately following the war, though, and had nothing to do with the Holocaust per se - it's about not defaming the memory of war dead etc. They are simply enforcing that (stupid) law to the letter. Hardly a Jewish conspiracy.

The only difference between holocaust denial and defamation of the dead is legal terminology.
Both terms serve the same end of enforcing official history at the point of a gun.

raven
01-21-2006, 01:46 PM
So wanting to investigate on the exact number instead of just blindly stating 6 million is the same as defamation/disturbance of the dead? :confused:

Totenkopf
01-21-2006, 10:41 PM
The Times January 20, 2006

We can't deny the deniers
Ben Macintyre
Austria's action in locking up David Irving, the extremist historian, is offensive to free speech



TODAY DAVID IRVING, the infamous and discredited British historian, languishes in an Austrian jail. Just writing that sentence makes me feel happy. The next sentence is much harder to write. He should be released.
Irving was arrested in November during a visit to Austria to address a right-wing student group. He was charged with denying the Holocaust, a crime in Austria, in two speeches he had given in that country in 1989. The indictment quotes his description of the Nazi gas chambers as a “fairytale”, and his claim that Hitler knew nothing about the slaughter of Jews: “There were no extermination camps in the Third Reich,” he is quoted as saying. If convicted, he faces up to ten years in prison.



Irving’s views are repulsive and wrong. He is a deeply offensive crank, and a litigious one, who has tried to use the libel laws to silence his critics. Five years ago, he sued the American historian, Deborah Lipstadt, after she described him as a Holocaust denier, and lost. In a withering 333-page judgment, Mr Justice Charles Gray described him as an anti-Semite, a racist and a neo-Nazi sympathiser who had “persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”.

Irving’s opinions are indefensible; his right to hold them, however, must be defended. For reasons of both principle and expediency, he should go free. Freedom of speech includes the right to be hopelessly, demonstrably and repeatedly wrong. It is not to be applied selectively, depending on the nature of the speech in question, but universally and consistently. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is unequivocal: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

To defend free speech when we happen to share the speaker’s opinion is an easy task. Take Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish writer who is facing trial for saying, in defiance of the official Turkish view of history, that his compatriots carried out the genocide of Armenians during the First World War. Many writers (including this one) have defended his right to do so. Far harder, but just as essential, is the defence of speech that we find morally disgusting and intellectually bankrupt. When a conference in Turkey on the Armenian question was cancelled under state pressure, the liberal West was outraged; when Iran recently announced a conference to question the authenticity of the Holocaust, the West was, once again, outraged. But in the case of both Irving and Pamuk, the issue should be settled in the court of public discussion, not the law courts; so long as speech does not directly incite racial hatred, it must remain free.

In 1947, when the Austrian law against minimising Third Reich atrocities was promulgated the fear of resurgent Nazism was real. But should it still apply today, when Holocaust denial has been so thoroughly exposed for the malicious nonsense it is? There should never be an official version of history that cannot be questioned. History will often fall into the wrong hands, where it may be twisted to suit a preconceived prejudice, but that is a lesser evil than undermining freedom of speech.

Lipstadt herself, after a career spent destroying the arguments of Nazi apologists, believes that Holocaust denial should not be a crime, and that keeping Irving in Josefstadt prison is counter-productive.

The trial of Irving, due to start next month, risks saving him from the intellectual oblivion he and his views so richly deserve. Before the Austrian police arrested him, he was a fringe academic addressing a group of loopy far-right radicals wearing silly hats in a basement in Vienna. Now there is a real danger that he will become a martyr for the extreme Right. After his humiliation in the High Court, Irving all but vanished from the world’s attention; his arrest has generated headlines around the world, and by putting his views on trial, they will gain a credibility that they simply do not merit.

For Austria, beset by the rise of the far Right in the unpleasant shape of Jörg Haider, Irving has appeared at a politically opportune moment. Sticking the “revisionist” in prison for something that he said 16 years ago, based on a law nearly 60 years old, is a neat way for Austria to demonstrate its liberal bona fides. Of the nine countries with laws banning Holocaust denial, Austria is the strictest. Yet the country has too often shied away from admitting its Nazi past.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre estimates that some 40 Nazi suspects are still living in Austria, and accuses Austria of a lamentable record in apprehending war criminals.

Irving is in prison for writing about the Holocaust, in a country where people who took part in the Holocaust are still at liberty. Irving would be able to argue that the people who operated the gas chambers should be prosecuted before people who make speeches about them, except that he is on record as saying that the gas chambers never existed. Ironies don’t come much more savoury than that.

Irving and his like have caused deep anguish to survivors of the genocide and their families. But the vast majority of people know that the Holocaust happened, that Hitler caused it, and that those who argue otherwise are not interested in the truth. We should not need laws to enforce that knowledge.

The way to arrest the pernicious myth of Holocaust denial is not through the police, but with rigorous analysis, followed by disdain. When the deniers assemble in Tehran for their “scientific” conference on the Holocaust, their claims should be listened to attentively, demolished scientifically, and then laughed off the stage and forgotten. They should not be arrested.

Let Irving go. In Lipstadt’s words, “let him fade from everyone’s radar screens”. He is a blip, a tiny spot beyond the outer edges of rational debate that has attracted unwarranted attention. He has a right to be wrong; and once he is at liberty, we can all exercise our own inalienable right to ignore him.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1068-2000977,00.html