WW2 Taboo

I have always been a fan of history—military history in particular. The Civil War and both World Wars have been subjects of keen interest to me. With WW2, my interest is limited to the European theater—the Nazis. I suppose this is mainly because they posed the greatest threat to the Western World. There was a very real possibility that Hitler could have conquered the world, and rather than fighting a Cold War with Communists, we could have been up against the Nazis, alone, America with no allies because they all would have fallen under the Nazi flag.
I have read many books by many historians of the war that wasn’t supposed to happen (after all, it did follow the so-called War to End All Wars). WW2 historians I have read with relish include John Toland, Antony Beever, Joachim Fest, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Alan Bullock, Laurence Rees, Leon Goldensohn, Catherin Merrridale, Ron Rosenbaum and Giles MacDonogh, to name a handful.
Another WW2 historian I read is David Irving. For those of you who know David Irving, I now need to “indemnify” myself, lest some of you believe I am a neo-Nazi, which I promise you I am not. I am a left-leaning libertarian who believes that a society can never have too much personal freedom. I am not anti-Semitic and I believe Hitler, Himmler, all Nazis, especially the SS and most of the Wehrmacht, were among the most evil people to walk the earth. They invaded countries, broke treaties, caused the deaths of tens of millions, including six million Jews in death camps.




Who is David Irving? It would be better if you did your own research, but I will offer an encapsulation here. Roughly speaking, he is an historian of WW2 who has primarily focused on the German point of view. He has scribed more than a dozen books, about Hitler, Goering, Goebbels and Rommel; he has stretched into other areas of history as well, including a three-part bio of Churchill (the third part is not yet completed) and the anti-communist Hungarian uprising of the 1950s. He is now at work on a book on Himmler. Some of his books were edited by the now-deceased Tom Congdon, who was the line editor of Peter Benchley, the author who gave the world the book Jaws, on which the great Steven Spielberg film is based. It has been said that Congdon’s contribution to Jaws was rather large; I will leave it there.
Irving, an Englishman who speaks German fluently, is known for the way he conducts his research. He relies on original documents written during the time he is studying: diaries, memos, notes, orders, etc.—he does not use existing books written about his topics as references, claiming that many of them are incorrect, based on data derived from questionable or downright false original sources. He does the digging himself, literally on some occasions, going so far as searching with Geiger counter for papers believed to be buried somewhere in Germany.
Irving is reviled by the mainstream world for his views. One of the biggest issues surrounding the man is his claims that Hitler did not order, and was not a major supporter of, the Final Solution. He believes this because, of the thousand and thousands of documents that passed before his eyes, not one connects Hitler to the Final Solution. Nothing like, “And, Himmie, take care of those Hungarian Jews like you did in Holland while you are at it.” I, and many others, say to Irving, so what? Hitler, common sense would seem to dictate, deliberately put nothing about the Final Solution in writing, confining his orders to words, acting more like a Mafia chieftain than a head of state.
Most historians agree that Irving in fact “misuses” his research to concoct conclusions preferable to him; for example, it is preferable for him to say there was no single effort to exterminate Jewry emanating from Hitler, but that Nazis “in the field” separately took it upon themselves to commit genocide on the horrifying scale that they did, primarily to make room: Lebensraum.
A colleague of mine pointed me to a website wherein Irving, among other things, is quoted as blurting, "I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz." He is also known to have described Anne Frank’s diary as a forgery.
“It is so breathtakingly bizarre that one has to wonder about his sanity,” said my colleague, Nathan Weber.
“The best that can be said is that this kind of statement shows he is every bit the holocaust denier that most historians accuse him of being.”
A holocaust denier? I don't think so -- the man admits he is not a holocaust denier, and in fact, writes all about what happened to the Jews throughout his various books. He does tend to make tasteless remarks, but I think it is his way of thumbing the eye of the "traditional historians" who have caused him so much grief (breaking into his house, having him arrested, etc.). The issue with Irving is that he simply does not believe Hitler was a hands-on manager of the holocaust, such as Goebbels and Himmler were, and that he, in fact, wanted to put off the Jewish question until the end of the war. That is not what I think; that is what Mr. Irving thinks.
So why do I read this “crackpot,” as Nathan calls him? Well, as I said earlier, I read a lot of historians. I read Irving for the Nazi POV, for gossip about the Third Reich, for knowledge regarding how Hitler fought the war, nearly conquering the world, and how he ultimately lost it. I also read Irving because, on a craft level, the man is a superb writer. He knows how to use words. (In an essay he admits Congdon, of Jaws’ fame, taught him a few things about writing, too.) To read Irving is to become absorbed in clear, concise, well-organized prose. A writer myself, I find much to emulate in his style. Again, this has nothing to do with his subject matter and everything to do with his craft as a wordsmith.
When I want to read about the Holocaust, I read books about the Holocaust. I don’t go to Irving for this information. What I am trying to say is, reading Irving doesn’t necessarily make you a Nazi (though Nazis and skinheads are certainly great fans of his and, unfortunately, I believe he does cater to them).
No matter what you think of David Irving, if the man implements a speaking tour, people should be allowed to attend it without having to worry about bodily harm.
We are talking about basic freedoms here. We all of us have heard at sometime in our lives, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it.” Amen.
We are getting at the roots of what it means to be an American. Sadly, I think the only ones really aware of this are immigrants; who else studies the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? Not your average American citizen, I daresay.
As Americans we enjoy Civil Liberties, which includes the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech, which can only be restricted if it threaten the public order or is obscene. Watch an Irving event on You Tube or anywhere else; if you turn off the volume, you’d swear he was giving a talk about the benefits of broccoli. There is no incitement to disorder at David Irving’s events, at least on the surface. He's not one of those guys standing on a street corner doing the Seig Heil or hiding beneath a sheet.
He held a recent lecture in the United States, including in New York, and I was invited (I was probably on some list because I have purchased some of his books). It was with great curiosity that I opened my narrow mail box in the lobby of my co-op to find a postcard with Irving’s picture on it. He has a penetrating gaze, is wearing a white V-neck shirt and in one hand is holding a pair of eyeglasses. He is seated behind a paper-covered desk.
The event was said to be focused on “Hitler, Himmler and code breaking.” Date, time and place were not given as, Irving noted, he must be careful about security due to the protests his lectures draw like flies...
It was only $15 to attend, an unbelievably reasonable rate to hear an internationally known historian speak but I could not attend the event. My presence was required at a wedding in Brooklyn that very night.
How did the event turn out? First of all, Irving’s website, from which he offers free downloads of his books, as well as sells them, and from which he maintains an updated blog, was hacked into and destroyed by a group morally opposed to Irving; they proclaimed on various websites that they stole the names of people who belonged to Irving’s mailing list, as well as those who purchased books from him—and those who registered to attend the NYC event. There were veiled hints, which turned out to be untrue, that credit card info was also obtained by these “heroes” of anti-fascism, as they described themselves.
Let Mr. Irving tell you in his own words what happened. Here are excerpts from a personal email he sent to me, but that he obviously wrote for a larger audience:

“… Valet parking aids our entry into the hotel with a truckload of boxes… All goes well for two hours, and the talk is well under way when we hear shouting and screaming outside the doors… They [the anti-fascists] are clearly in the building already… I order four men to bar entry; [one man] stands several paces back in the “second defense line” poised with [pepper] spray, ready to disable the first attackers who get in. Several people use cell phones to call the police, I dash to the phone on the counter which I have earlier found by chance connects directly upon pick-up to the reception desk, and shout: “Send up police and security to the sixth floor, there is a mob rioting outside and smashing things.” Over two dozen thugs have ridden up in the elevators and are flooding out onto our floor. I rapidly put the video display to safety under a table, but we can not hope to protect the valuable goods on display if the mob breaks in. It is twenty minutes before we can restore order. For several minutes they kick heavily at the doors trying to get in, in vain, while I continue with my talk.
No sign at first of poor Jaenelle [his young American assistant], who has reached our level on the sixth floor… [she is] then attacked with pepper spray by the leader of the mob. Security men clear the landing. Jaenelle reels into the room, her face blotched, her clothes soaked in water, and clutching her eyes and gasping for breath. Security comes in, and leaves; the mob have scampered off before New York’s finest could get their hands on them. The … Hotel management handle the emergency superbly and with great aplomb, reassuring us that their security staff is now in control… donating bottles of iced water to us while we wait. Next time, says their security chief, let us know in advance if trouble is expected, and we will be ready for them. The NYPD officers are equally uncomplimentary about the attackers.”

I believe in protest as a natural right in a democracy. But when it spills over into violence and threats, than the self-righteous moralists lose the high ground in my opinion. All these protestors did was give Mr. Irving all the free press he could want.