h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

With regard to the entry I think it requires a lot more work than it has been done so far. It is frustratingly one-sided and particularly the first quotation produces more of an emotional effect than an effective argument. On the other hand, while the author of the entry is free to assume a critical viewpoint, this should not be emphasised when s/he has still not clearly presented the other person's viewpoint. Also it would be appreciated if the quotations were extracted from Irving's published writings instead of speeches; this is because, if extracted from a speech:

- I cannot check the veracity of the quotation.
- I still can think that, in the context, or with appropriate voice modulation, the interpretation of the words would radically change.
- Normally the speech is not subjected to the thorough revision we give to what we write, so I still could consider that if Irving did not write what he said, perhaps it was because he did not actually think in those terms.

Now with regard to Irving himself: I think that the key issue here is the preservation of an academic environment where people feel free to research. Do I have a right to question history? Or is history something about which only official versions can exist? What about the modern theories about history itself, where a lot of biases have been revealed in previous studies? Is this not enough ground to go back over the facts over and over again in a continuous fashion? And what about the political interests in history? Can I say that the history I know is true just because I know it? In the old URSS and many other 'closed' countries history was rewritten and retaught many times to fit the political interests of the state; how can I be sure that we are not being part of the same phenomenon if we keep some history chapters as untouchable?

My opinion is that we need people like Irving even if the only thing they achieve is to shake the dust from old books and newspapers. Researchers like Irving are part of a process which is vital to keep alive and that is socially menaced every time we mock or prejudice people who dare to think/act different. I am talking about the scientific process.

What we call 'truth' is something which emerges in a continuous process of enquiry and testing. The facts, whose veracity must be firstly asserted, are fit with theories which then compete in the grounds of tests. If a theory fits every fact but one, then it is not true. You do not require more than one unexplained fact to reject a theory. The process then demands that the theory is modified or dropped.

The holocaust is not a fact, and it is not true because a lot of people says so; that would be bad science and it would be equivalent to say that astrology is true for the same reason. The holocaust is a *theory* which explains the personal reports from many people, and the documental evidence gathered during and after WWII. It appears to us as a 'truth' because is the theory that best fits the accepted facts. If there was any fact not properly fitted by this theory, then it should be changed somehow. If there were new facts that were not accounted for in this theory, then it should be changed. If the veracity of the facts was to be questioned, and there was ground for it, then the theoey could also be in similar position to competing theories. Then additional critera should be used (e.g. Occam's Razor).

The role which Irving assumes is a very difficult one not because what he is doing is loony, but because it touches sensitive fibres in modern society. I do not regard it as different from many works of research where the vision about old historical 'facts', say, of Roman times, have radically changed during the last years. Nobody cares much if Roman history is changed, but each person has an oppinion if we talk about contemporary history because we feel directly affected by it. Were Nazis bad guys? From my viewpoint they were, and they would be if they killed just one person and not millions. But for some people it seems that a smaller holocaust means Nazis-were-not-so-bad-after-all. This is shallow, and is the same kind of reasoning which makes most people regard Americans as something completely different from Nazis even if they (or better their president) killed a lot of persons with the atomic bomb, showing the same disregard for human lives that the Nazi showed towards the people they killed.

As I see this subject, Irving should be allowed to publish, to be discussed, to hold debates, to test his theories and other people's theories changing them according to the results, etc without the smallest external pressure arising from what he thinks. To say that this is what happens today would be incredibly naive. Nevertheless, this is how every researcher should work, and in this way we would be still not sure that we are getting closer to final 'truths', but at least we could say that we are doing our best.

Eduardo Unda-Sanzana
[email protected]

eduardo,

I completely agree that, a. we take far too much for granted, and accept all sorts of dubious truths on the basis of hearsay, and b. orthodoxy is as much of a prison now as it was in the middle ages.

If we're ever going to find the truth, historians must be as free to question "established" truth as scientists. And, yes, the holocaust has become a sacred cow, and a justification of current abuses. Like splinters of the "true cross", if everyone who uses the Nazi holocaust to justify their own actions were really Hitler's victims, the camps must have covered half of Europe, and the war would have been over in '41.

However, Irving doesn't help the cause of intellectual freedom. There are questions to be asked about who died in the Holocaust, and about who has blood on their hands. But its frankly ludicrous as well as offensive to suggest that the slaughter never happened. In addition, Irving has a political motive for his claims which he makes no effort to conceal. The cause of objective historical analysis hardly benefits when an "historian" clings doggedly to a thesis which all right thinking people view with suspicion, but which, if accepted, would add credence to his own rather dubious political beliefs.

I think the accepted account of the holocaust should be scrutinised and analysed critically. But every time an idiot like Irving says it didn't happen, because that suits his political pipe-dream, freedom of research slips further and further away.

I hope David Irving realises how much he has in common with the hard core of ultra Zionists who refuse to accept that there was any Jewish collaberation, or in the most extreme cases, that any non Jew died (apart from degenerate scum like queers and commies).

I suspect ol' Dave would fit in surprisingly well in the current state of Isreal.

Peace be upon you,

Stella X.

Hi,

Only just read these comments. I think the thing to note that Eduardo Unda-Sanzana misses is that nobody is attacking Irving's right to say what he wants. It is a mistake of (in my opinion) a media that sits on the fence in a way that isn't two-sided, but simply deeply distorting the truth, that Irving has been able to get away with the claim that this is about his right to free expression.

Only, here's the series of events:

1) Irving publishes a book denying the holocaust. It is printed, few deny that he has a right to publish it. Many point out all it's good for is wiping your ****.

2) Lipstadt publishes a book pointing out all the mistakes that Irving made, and how little the term 'historian' fits. It is printed, few deny that she has a right to publish it.

3) One person, however, does. Irving sues her in an attempt to get the book stopped, on the basis it's all lies.

4) A court of law upholds Lipstadt's reading of events. In short, she was right.

Now, nobody is questioning Irving's right "to publish, to be discussed, to hold debates, to test his theories and other people's theories changing them according to the results, etc without the smallest external pressure arising from what he thinks". He, however, attacked this right on Lipstadt's part, and the court told him it wasn't on.

In my defence as the author of the entry, I put in a link to his Irving's homepage, but the editors didn't want to give him any more hits. Put simply, his words speak for themselves, and we don't need anyone else to prove what a looney, and a dangerous looney at that, Irving is.

I think an important point here is that the statements made by David Irving in his books and speeches were not simply alternative theories, but deliberate lies.

In order to win the case Lipstadt and Penguin proved that Irving's falsehoods were committed knowingly. In other words, they are not his opinions at all, as it was proved that he knew they were lies. This was proved in court by examining the source information that Irving used to draw his conclusions, and demonstrating not only that he drew the wrong conclusions, but that he must have recognised the truth and deliberately distorted it.

For this reason it is nonsense to suggest that Irvings theories should be defended in order to preserve the right to challenge the established view of history. The search for truth should always be allowed to challenge accepted versions, but polluting documentary evidence with lies does not help.


Second world war history is entering a stage now where all evidence will soon be from secondary sources. Is it therefore imperative that secondary sources, such as history books, are analysed for their integrity, and that lies and distortion are exposed to protect future research.