"Holocaust Denial"

I didn’t want to have to go here, but … here goes.

The conflict in Palestine inevitably brings up the topics of Zionism as an ideology, which then inevitably ties into the mass murder of Jews during WW2. Let me say up front that I would prefer not to have to use the term “Holocaust”, because it’s an inherently theological term that is misapplied to an event that was not driven by theology. I know that many will disagree with that assessment, arguing that anti-semitism among Christians in Europe led to the mass murder of Jews. My counter argument is that, while there was ideological anti-semitism among Christians in Europe, the Nazi “Final Solution” is based in post-Christian racialist ideologies rather than in Christian theology as such. As for the history of the Jews in Europe, that’s too complex a topic to enter into today, and as for those who would argue that the mass murder of Jews during WW2 somehow legitimizes the dispossession and even genocide of the Arabs of Palestine, my position is simple: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Yes, there are additional big issues involved here, but … time.

For readers who may not follow the comments here, the reason I raise this topic has to do with a comment that appeared to me to suggest “holocaust denialism”. I felt compelled to delete that comment, especially because it contained a link to a tweet by Stew Peters which further linked a brief and rather scurrilous video of Bishop Richard Williamson. As with many of these sorts of people, they raise legitimate historical issues, including regarding Jewish influence in Western societies, but also mix in claims that I will simply assert are anti-historical. Such as, typically, that the total number of Jewish deaths during WW2 in Europe is wildly inflated and that there were no death camps utilizing gas chambers. The topic of Jewish influence in Western societies is a legitimate topic and is one that has been raised by serious mainstream scholars—both Jewish and non-Jewish. On this substack that issue will be kept separate from anti-historical claims as described above.

Another reason for writing this post is that a second comment raised—once again—the subject of Tucker Carlson’s interview of Darryl Cooper. I’ve already offered my own views of that interview, Recommended Reads, Briefly Noted, 9/7/24, so I won’t repeat myself, but the interview remains a hot topic among Neocons. At the time I assumed that Cooper was influenced in his opinions by Pat Buchanan’s views on WW2. However, the second comment I referred to provides a link to an article by Ron Unz which, among many other things, delves into the topic of David Irving in the context of the Tucker interview: American Pravda: Tucker Carlson, Darryl Cooper, and Holocaust Denial. So, first, full disclosure. I have occasionally read articles at the Unz Review, although prior to today I can’t remember the last time I did so. A very well known Jewish publisher, and ardent supporter of Israel as it is, recommended Unz’s writings to me a little more than a year ago. I took a look and moved on. Unz is a smart guy and a talented writer. I share his taste for revisionist history and current events but, well, I just moved on. I’ll put it this way: I had the impression that there’d be too much to sort through and I was already busy enough. I don’t mean to be flip when I say that. Unz is very sharp, but I do disagree with some of the things he writes.

Again, that brings us back to David Irving. Irving is, or was, a legitimate and even ground breaking historian of WW2—not just a Darryl Cooper before podcasts existed. Reading Unz’s account of Irvings troubles I was struck by how similar Cooper’s and Buchanan’s views are to Irving’s. I suspect, but don’t know for sure, that both were influenced by Irving’s books. Irving’s overall view, for our purposes here, is basically: WW2 never would have happened but for the arrogant Poles and the dastardly Churchill, who forced Hitler into a war that Hitler never wanted. The Final Solution was more or less the product of Nazi unpreparedness to deal with all the prisoners on the Eastern Front—and maybe Hitler didn’t even know about it. That’s the 25 words or less version. I certainly agree regarding the negative assessment of Churchill, but I certainly also disagree with the rest. I don’t want to oversimplify—in making his case Irving unearthed a lot of new or overlooked facts and offers perspectives that need to be incorporated into any revision of standard historiography. For example, the view that Hitler never wanted a war with Britain may well be correct—there’s plenty of evidence for that. But Irving also makes wrongheaded arguments on very consequential topics that his facts don’t support. So, the idea that Churchill’s determination to continue the war led to all the millions of deaths? That’s just too simplistic.

Anyway, there’s more to Irving than Unz let’s on or, perhaps, truly understands. Irving did, in fact, adopt some dodgy “facts” that could legitimately fuel at least the suspicion that he was a holocaust denier, in the sense that he seemed to minimize the extent of the mass murder of Jews. Irving himself denied the charge, but my view—non-expert—is that his use of “facts” was, at times, reckless. I get the impression that Irving, among other things, enjoys being a gadfly. That’s OK, but it can get you into trouble.

Even more reckless than some of his argumentation, however, was Irving’s decision to sue Deborah Lipstadt and her British publisher for libel. Lipstadt is a bit of a professional “holocaust denier” hunter, and she had accused Irving of being a “holocaust denier.” I say Irving’s decision to sue Lipstadt was reckless because of the nature of British libel law. You can read all about the case here—Irving v Penguin Books Ltd—but suffice it to say, Irving lost. And because of the nature of British libel law Irving’s loss involved very negative consequences for him (bankruptcy, loss of reputation, imprisonment, etc.) that could have been avoided with a bit more circumspection. I’m not arguing in favor of censorship. I’m arguing against reckless lawsuits. Unz tends to portray Irving as simply a persecuted truth teller, but it’s not that simple when Irving is the one who brought the lawsuit. Lipstadt was entitled to defend herself against the charge of libel.

Irving moved on, and got himself jailed in Austria for denying gas chambers at Auschwitz. In fairness to Lipstadt—because Unz does portray Irving as a victim in all this—she did express regret of a sort:

Despite her acrimonious history with Irving, Lipstadt has stated that she is personally opposed to the three-year prison sentence Austria imposed on Irving for two speeches he made in 1989, where he claimed there had been no gas chambers at Auschwitz. In Austria, minimizing the atrocities of the Third Reich is a crime punishable with up to 10 years' imprisonment. Speaking of Irving, Lipstadt said, "I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech. Let him go and let him fade from everyone's radar screens ... Generally, I don't think Holocaust denial should be a crime. I am a free speech person, I am against censorship."[21][22]

Now, just to show how complicated real life can be—and just in case you were starting to feel sympathy for Lipstadt. She is not a terribly sympathetic figure. I’ve cued this video up at the link—Judge Nap has been featuring Lipstadt, although he seems not to know who she is—for the portion that has Lipstadt (but the entire video is recommended):

SCOTT RITTER : Israel Suicidal for Invading Lebanon

Judge Nap: Only one person has spoken about [Israel's terror pager attack] from the United States government--a woman by the name of Deborah Lipstadt, who's the State Department Envoy to Combat anti-Semitism. She was speaking at something called the Israeli American Council, a pro Netanyahu lobbying group funded by Miriam Adelson. I think you'll be scandalized by what she said:

First voice: After October 7th there was a feeling around the world that Israel is weaker and uh ...

Lipstadt: You wanna beeper?

[General laughter and applause. Lipstadt smirks.]

Judge Nap: To mock mass slaughter and a war crime!

Ritter: She should be fired--that's instant termination. I can guarantee you that the State Department didn't give her permission to make that statement, because the State Department knows that what Israel did was an act of terrorism. ... But she can't be terminated because the Israeli Lobby will never let her be terminated. But that is disqualifying as a diplomat, it's disqualifying in terms of just being a moral human being.