Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Christopher Hitchens' Holocaust Denying Buddy Speaks in NYC

Posted by Max Blumenthal, AlterNet at 7:00 AM on July 26, 2008.


"I think the word 'Holocaust' is odious," he told me. "It's American commercialism at its worst." -David Irving
irving1

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

On July 18, the world's most prominent Holocaust denier, David Irving, parachuted into New York City to deliver a talk to a few dozen supporters. It was Irving's first major stateside appearance since his release from an Austrian prison where the British writer spent a year for "trivializing the Holocaust" -- a crime in that country. Irving is the author of numerous books on Hitler and the Third Reich. With support from the Southern Poverty Law Center, I produced a video about Irving's New York lecture, "Springtime For Irving," containing an exclusive interview with Irving, along with a look at his Nazi sympathizing supporters. In it, Irving issues a rousing defense of Hitler, blames Jews for their own persecution, and reveals his strange friendship with Christopher Hitchens.

When I reached Irving on his cellphone 15 minutes before his talk was scheduled to begin, I learned that it has been suddenly moved to the basement of a Catholic church on the Upper East Side. Irving's advance man, Michael Santamauro (owner of the New York-based roommate service roommatefinders.com) had conned the church's priest into hosting the lecture by claiming he was the leader of an anodyne "book club." "Someone made a reservation to have a discussion of a book. The name was not David Irving. We knew nothing about it. We thought it would be just something nice for the community," the visibly shaken priest, Fr. Angelo Gambatese, explained to me. "And it turns out that it was David Irving. We were completely deceived. And really we're outraged, because we do not cater to that kind of bigotry, and I'm really sorry that this happened."

Irving opened his talk with a defense of Hitler, claiming that the Fuhrer had no knowledge of the Final Solution and played no role in its implementation. "Adolph Hitler was being kept out of the loop and was probably not at all anti-Semitic by the time the war began," he insisted. Irving also claimed, "Hitler wanted a little war, but it got out of hand." Irving's outrageous views have prompted Richard Evans, professor of modern history at Cambridge University, to state, "If we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian."

In 1996, Irving filed a libel suit in England against the historian Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, for supposedly defaming him in her book, "Denying the Holocaust." In 1998, a court ruled that the assertion that Irving is a Holocaust denier was "substantially true." The judge, who Irving referred during the trial as "Mein Fuhrer," stated:

Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

When I challenged Irving's twisted notions about the Holocaust and confronted him with some of the vitriolic statements he has made over the years, he struck a defiant pose. "I think the word 'Holocaust' is odious," he told me. "It's American commercialism at its worst." He reiterated past anti-Semitic remarks calling Jews as the architects of their own persecution: "I think the Jews have to ask themselves why is it that every time they arrive somewhere as pitiful refugees in a country after a few years they have to move on... They don't ask themselves what they could do to change the way that they are disliked."

While Irving heaped scorn on Jews and other minority groups, he volunteered warm words of praise for his most high-profile defender in the media, the writer Christopher Hitchens. "I can't speak for Christopher Hitchens," Irving told me, "but he's a good friend and a great man... We've been good friends since and we've been good friends after."

In an article for Vanity Fair in 1996, Hitchens called Irving a "great historian," and argued that Irving's book, "Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich," deserved to be published by a mainstream publisher. St. Martin's Press had initially agreed to publish it, but backed out when it became a target of protests because of Irving's Holocaust denial and historical distortions. "He wrote a very, very fair account of the controversy [over "Goebbels"] in his magazine and he impressed me by his fairness," Irving said.

Then, in February 2006, after Irving was jailed in Austria, Hitchens published another defense of Irving's "free speech," this time on the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page. "It was very decent of him because it wasn't the popular thing to do," Irving told me.

"And you're still good friends with him?" I asked Irving. "You're still in touch with Christopher Hitchens?"

"Yes, I think it's fair to say that," he responded. "I really don't want to incriminate him."

Springtime for Irving: A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan

Digg!

Tagged as: race, anti-semitism, hitchens, hate, conspiracy, hitler, jews, holocaust, nazis, david irving, home news

Max Blumenthal is a Nation Institute Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow whose work regularly appears in the Nation. A winner of the USC Annenberg Online Journalism Award, he is also a Research Fellow at Media Matters for America.


Korean Warships Exchange Fire on the SK/NK Border
The two sides blamed each other for the confrontation, which left one North Korean boat engulfed in flames.
Post by Staff. November 10, 2009.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele: My Fellow Republicans Fear Me Because I'm Black
Shouldn't this tell him something about the party he's representing?
Post by Steve Benen. November 10, 2009.
So the Stupak Amendment Sucks: Here's What You Can Do About It
Find out how your representative voted on and call their office, to thank them or to tell them that you'll be supporting a pro-choice democrat in the next primary.
Post by Jill Filipovic. November 10, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A tenuous connection?
Posted by: zipper696 on Jul 26, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Trying to tie Hitchens to Irving in some unholy "Twins of Evil" picture is stretching it more than a little.
Without doubt Irving is a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite and a Hitler apologist.
In contrast, Hitchen's interventions have been examples of a misplaced sense of "fair play", when Irving was being excoriated by the media for his views and seemed likely to be tarred and feathered for them Hitchens thought it right to speak out and in effect "whilst disagreeing with his words, defend his right to say them".

Hitchens can anger and upset people on his own account, he certainly doesn't need to be classified as some kind of fellow traveller of the pseudo-Nazi cause.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A tenuous connection? Posted by: greenPuker
» RE: A tenuous connection? Posted by: pb120669
Hitchens and Irving: Guilt by Association?
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Jul 26, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a former fan of Christopher Hitchens, I was appalled by his enthusiastic endorsement of the Attack on Iraq. I have also been saddened by what I perceive as a precipitous decline in his literary and journalistic skills.

At the same time, I have sufficient respect for the values that sustained his writing for over thirty years to protest, if nothing else, the title of the article denigrating him for his alleged ideological overlap with David Irving, an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier.

Guilt by association is an unfair form of argument which opens the door to unlimited abuse. This is an egregious example.

Let us not forget that Hannah Arendt was the lover of the "Blackforest Philosopher" Martin Heidegger, and that Kurt Vonnegut openly admired Louis-Ferdinand Celine.

To esteem some aspects of the thought and art of otherwise scurrilous characters is not in itself a crime. To defend free speech is always commendable. To condemn people because of their supposed connections betokens an attitude of mind that is utterly contrary to fair, democratic and progressive politics.

In an article of over eight hundred words, the allusion to Christopher Hitchens occurs only in the final quarter, and is limited to contextless quotes and to affirmations by Irving himself. As a legitimate attack on Hitchens, it does not pass the "smell" test.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CaliforniaDan5
Posted by: CaliforniaDan on Jul 26, 2008 3:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am very disturbed by the poor choice of the article's title. There is no indication that Hitchens is in any way a friend of Irving. The 1996 article shows that he was complaining that the suppression of Irving's writings was incorrect in the same way that the ACLU would complain of free speach suppression here in the states. John Keegan made the same point and was not mentioned in the article.

If you read 'War and Peace", the book is made much stronger by the passages from the fictional 'Word Empire Lost'. The historical picture is incomplete if you don't show what the fascists were thinking.

It looks like the article was written to take an unfair poke at Hitchens, even though Hitchens' anti-fascist credentials are much stronger than the authors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK-what's this guy saying?
Posted by: g on Jul 26, 2008 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not sure what Hitchens (whom I despise) has to do with the whole sorry story. I am just trying to figure out Irving's "argument." Am I mistaken, or is he saying at the same time that the Final Solution did not happen, and that it did happen but poor Adolf was too busy with other things to pay attention to what his evil minions were doing? I must have missed something...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The video
Posted by: alter on Jul 27, 2008 1:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the video shows is that Max Blumenthal is unable to be objective about David Irving. The people interviewed, even if they do not articulate Irvings's point of view very clearly, are not criminals. Max could read the book by Rabbi Yakov M. Rabkin A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism and also some of the new historians of Israel such as Tom Segev who question the role of the Holocaust in Israeli politics. The point is that Zionists and The Jewish Agency did collaborate with the Nazis and did make possible the non-resistence of Jews to Nazi roundups. Of course they probably would not have done so had they understood what was happening but they did collaborate. No one denies the death chambers nor the cruelty of the industrial killing. The West went to war because of German aggression, not because of the disgraceful and cynical anti-Semitism. Nazis paraded in Madison Square Garden after the fall of France and before Pearl Harbor. Who in America wants to recall this or even knows it? Many might deny it but the facts are there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is not a very good article
Posted by: lkonstan on Jul 28, 2008 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to agree with many commentators. Hitchens has taken many politically odious positions, for which he rightly deserves to be harshly criticized, but wasting time tarring him with "guilt by association"--and a tenuous association, at that--does a disservice to AlterNet and to the left. Unless there is more evidence against Hitchens, this article is a waste of time.

This article does a reasonable enough job laying out the problems with Irving's loony views, but only demonstrates that Hitchens defended Irving's right to articulate his loony opinions and that Hitchens claims that there is some serious content in Irving's work on Goebbels. To admit the debatable merit of a particular work--apparently St. Martin's Press agreed--is not to accept whole Irving's beliefs. There is no damning indictment of Hitchens here.

Moreover, freedom of speech is meaningless unless that freedom extends to those with the most odious, hideous, politically nasty views. What this article most resembles, in my view, are the spurious charges of "guilt by association" leveled by the political establishment at Chomsky over the the Faurisson affair.

We need to be better than the political establishment if we want to win a better world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you serious?
Posted by: memememe on Jul 28, 2008 1:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Terrible, terrible 'journalism' in every way. You urgently need to have a meeting on editorial policy and standards. Any more of this insulting junk and I'll stop reading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]