|Irving vs. Goldhagen|
In the evening William C., a local chiropractor, drives me over the 26 mile causeway to downtown New Orleans, to the magnificently decorated synagogue in St. Charles Avenue where Daniel Goldhagen is to speak on his book Hitler’s Willing Executioners.
It came out last May and, of course, my own book Goebbels, Mastermind of the Third Reich was sacrificed by St. Martins Press, to give “Professor” Goldhagen a clear run with his work, as Frank Rich admitted in his syndicated OpEd piece at the time – no nasty confrontations on talk shows, etc., with somebody who might really know what he was talking about when it came to the Nazi era.
The rotunda is packed with over a thousand listeners, and there is a sprinkling of police outside. A rabbi reads an introduction, while a thin, badly shaven young man, with a gaunt face reminiscent of Key West’s HIV-positive population, slouches on a chair at stage-right.
This turns out to be Goldhagen. His talk is disappointingly bland – delivered without notes in a disconcertingly gentle, laid-back voice, at such a slow and hesitant pace that one wonders whether he suffers perhaps from some chromosome defect that the newspapers have been too polite to mention.
Goldhagen utters a ninety minute tirade against the “ordinary Germans” who he claims were fully aware of what was going on, and were willing and indeed eager to make up the firing squads when it came to getting rid of the Jews.
As he talks of the zeal with which these “ordinary Germans” rounded up, tortured, mocked and killed their opponents, I think involuntarily of the West Bank, of the Arab children shot down with live ammunition, and of modern prime ministers who send assassins into neighbouring countries armed with nerve-gas syringes to dispose of their opponents.
Dr. C. afterwards remarks that he has never before heard so much hatred spewed forth in a House of Worship. The same thought occurs to me: it was undiluted Volksverhetzung, far more ugly than the kind which now earns revisionists and other searchers for the truth hefty prison sentences in Europe.
Goldhagen finally rambles to a conclusion – mid-sentence, mid-paragraph, in fact mid-lecture for all anybody can tell, since the whole talk is utterly shambolic from start to finish, without starting point, mile-markers, or objective. If he is a lecturer in politics at Harvard, I feel endlessly sorry for his students. One wonders how he got the job; one must ask his father, a long-time benefactor and professor at the university. Goldhagen Jr. probably picked up at least a $20,000 fee for his performance this evening.
At question time I get to the microphone, and challenge him:
‘Professor Goldhagen, we have listened with enormous interest to your talk, but forgive me if I now voice some criticism.
‘I too am an historian, an English historian who has worked for thirty-five years at the other end of the spectrum, as I might put it, questioning most closely every member of Hitler’s private staff about what decisions were taken at the very highest level.
‘Let me make plain that there can be no doubt whatever as to the scale of the killings of Jews carried out on the eastern front during Hitler’s Russian campaign. But you are aware that your book has attracted much informed comment world-wide, both for the narrowness of its focus and for the cavalier manner in which you used archival records during your visit to Ludwigsburg.
‘For instance, you claimed in your talk to have used the interrogation records of ‘literally thousands of the Perpetrators,’ as your call them; but we know that in fact you used scarcely a hundred if that.’
At this, I can feel the temper of the audience behind me rising. I press on:
‘What concerns me most however is the claim that it was only ‘ordinary Germans’ who carried out the killings. This is totally untrue and might lead to the very wrong conclusion that because Germany was finished – squashed flat during the appalling military conflict of World War II – therefore the Jews of the world no longer have anything to fear.
‘We know the make-up of the police battalions which carried out the killings on the eastern front, the battalions to which you attach such emphasis. In these units the Germans were in a minority – most of the men were drawn from units of the Baltic states, the Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians, as well as a large number of Ukranians and other Russians too. And surely this raises a fundamental question, which you would have done far better to address – ’
The audience are now very restive, as it has dawned on them that I am not a Goldhagen fan.
‘ – Why did you not ask the far more important question: why everybody joined in getting rid of their Jews with such zeal, ‘Why us?’ Let’s face it, when Germany said to her neighbours, in 1942 and 1943 and 1944, ‘Give us your Jews,’ Hungary, France, Slovakia, etc., could not hand them over fast enough! There was no reluctance to do so.’
This generates uproar, but I carry on:
‘And when other countries like England, Sweden and so on were invited to take in these Jews nobody, nobody, wanted to have them.’
At this there is a sprinkle of applause.
‘Why did you not address that far more vital question? Why did nobody want the Jews! You address only the question, ‘Who did it?’ and you fail to ask the far more ominous question ‘Why us?’’
The answer is more verbal Jello from Goldhagen. He is clearly furious to have been accused of “inventing,” as he (not I) put it, and he has no real answer to my point that, as he said, the Jews are now “complacent” about the risk of it all happening again.
The chairman makes a point of saying that no more questioners will be allowed to “make statements.” So it seems I got in not only under their radar, but right under their skin as well.
David Irving, from issue 13 (December 1, 1997) of his Action Report
Jewish Ouster Dates
A list of 46 European states and cities which expelled Jews once or more than once from the 11th to the 19th centuries for economic exploitation, monopolizing or “sharp practice.” Dates of expulsion are also given. Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins, editors, The Jewish Almanac, N.Y., Bantam Books, 1980; pp. 127-129; reportedly a fuller list of 77 areas from which Jews have been expelled appears in Paul E. Grosser and Edwin G. Halperin, Anti-Semitism: Causes and Effects.
“One of the tactics deniers use to achieve their ends, is to camouflage their goals. In an attempt to hide the fact that they are fascists and antisemites with a specific ideological and political agenda – they state that their objective is to uncover historical falsehoods, all historical falsehoods.” Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, p. 4
“There’s a definite political agenda,” she said. “This is not just Looney Tunes history. These are people who want to make national socialism respectable again. And how do you make a thoroughly discredited movement respectable?
“First of all, you deal with moral equivalencies. You say, ‘Oh yes, the Germans bombed London, but the Allies bombed Dresden. There were Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz, but the Americans had camps for the Americans of Japanese descent.’ But there’s no moral equivalency for them to bring up about the Holocaust. So instead, they are left denying the Holocaust. And denying it in such a way that you almost hear them saying, ‘It didn’t happen, but it should have.’” Deborah Lipstadt, Los Angeles Times, 7 January 2000
Independent historians are accused of following “a definite political agenda.” Of course, Jewish individuals and groups do not have “a definite political agenda” when they seek to suppress opinions which differ from their own. The Jewish Holocaust has not been used to promote “a definite political agenda” in Palestine or anywhere else.
The Jewish control of the financial system and the media is not the result of “a definite political agenda” but because Jews are such wonderful and loveable people. If the Holocaust had never happened, people would continue to deliver a large proportion of their wealth to world Jewry all the same – because Jews are simply wonderful and loveable people. Germany and Switzerland would still pay billions in reparations, even if the Holocaust was exposed as a myth.
So it should be plain to all that Jews do not have “a definite political agenda” when they penalize those who “deny the Holocaust.” For if any mean-spirited “neo-Nazi” starts asking awkward questions he will be destroyed, socially, financially and judicially. This is not because Jews are following “a definite political agenda” but merely because they are wonderful and loveable people.
What is most interesting is that world Jewry fights “neo-Nazis” with such energy and dogged determination when everybody knows that National Socialism was an evil system which was completely destroyed. No sane person could have sympathy for Adolf Hitler and his vicious programme when they can embrace God’s “Chosen People” instead, for they are simply wonderful and loveable people.
Perhaps this is because “neo-Nazi” is really a euphemism for the Jews’ greatest fear – a renewal of Christianity, and a growing number of people heeding our Redeemer’s words about the true nature of these wonderful and loveable people.
Maguire, 20 July 2001, on David Irving in the High Court:
|For Jessica Irving:|
I am a baby Aryan
Not Jewish or sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.