History and all that
I’ve been pondering the David Irving story for a couple of days. Much has already been written and I wasn't sure I could add anything. But having a background in history, albeit ancient history I do at least understand the nature of historiography and recognise the danger in laws which prevent historical debate.
20 years ago David Irving was a reasonably well respected historian, though one who was a little too obsessed with the Nazis. Now he’s in an Austria jail after being accused of holocaust denial after claiming in a speech in 1989 that “there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz”.
Austria is just one of a number of countries in Europe and beyond that have laws banning not just holocaust denial but which also do not allow debate on the ‘official’ version of events. Austria no doubt still feels immense guilt over its role in World War II and their complicity with much of the Third Reich. But this is no reason to impose censorship on the analysis and debate of history. It makes it too easy for people, like Irving, who may have more sinister motives to sew seeds of doubt and to exploit these for their darker aims.
An example. No doubt Irving used in his justification for their being no gas chambers at Auschwitz the work of Ernst Zündel. He claimed that chemical analysis showed there to be no traces of cyanide gas residue in the bricks or mortar at the Auschwitz gas chamber. This was later confirmed by the Krakow Forensic Institute and from this doubts were raised. People who hadn’t previously questioned the facts behind the holocaust started to wonder if there was any truth in Zündel’s ludicrous allegations. They are easy to disprove though. As the Russians advanced on Auschwitz in 1945 the SS destroyed the gas chambers looking to cover up the horror of the atrocities committed there. The gas chamber at Auschwitz today was rebuilt by the Russians as a memorial to the dead and a reminder of the horrors of the holocaust after the war. Does this in any way lessen its impact? No. But because the official story is that the gas chamber there was one that was actually used, a story that could have been easily dismissed instead grew and was used to cast doubts on the whole of the holocaust.
History will always be interpreted differently dependent upon the viewpoint of the person describing it. Is the current war in Iraq an illegal, immoral invasion of a sovereign state or a bold strike for freedom and human rights in the Middle East? This chapter in history is still being written but already there is disagreement.
Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist or a man fighting by any means at his disposal for a just cause? Both Thatcher and Reagan described him as a terrorist and the ANC were responsible for many ‘terrorist’ incidents prior to them renouncing violence in 1990. In 1993 Mandela, Thatcher’s terrorist won the Nobel Peace Prize. You think Bin Laden will ever be nominated? And why is the holocaust viewed now as a Jewish matter? What about the thousands of Slavs, Poles, Gypsies and homosexuals murdered? Why do they get forgotten?
History must always be debated without restrictions and without prejudice. All laws that prevent this happening, however well intentioned are always misguided.
"I detest what you say, but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it."
Says it all really.
20 years ago David Irving was a reasonably well respected historian, though one who was a little too obsessed with the Nazis. Now he’s in an Austria jail after being accused of holocaust denial after claiming in a speech in 1989 that “there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz”.
Austria is just one of a number of countries in Europe and beyond that have laws banning not just holocaust denial but which also do not allow debate on the ‘official’ version of events. Austria no doubt still feels immense guilt over its role in World War II and their complicity with much of the Third Reich. But this is no reason to impose censorship on the analysis and debate of history. It makes it too easy for people, like Irving, who may have more sinister motives to sew seeds of doubt and to exploit these for their darker aims.
An example. No doubt Irving used in his justification for their being no gas chambers at Auschwitz the work of Ernst Zündel. He claimed that chemical analysis showed there to be no traces of cyanide gas residue in the bricks or mortar at the Auschwitz gas chamber. This was later confirmed by the Krakow Forensic Institute and from this doubts were raised. People who hadn’t previously questioned the facts behind the holocaust started to wonder if there was any truth in Zündel’s ludicrous allegations. They are easy to disprove though. As the Russians advanced on Auschwitz in 1945 the SS destroyed the gas chambers looking to cover up the horror of the atrocities committed there. The gas chamber at Auschwitz today was rebuilt by the Russians as a memorial to the dead and a reminder of the horrors of the holocaust after the war. Does this in any way lessen its impact? No. But because the official story is that the gas chamber there was one that was actually used, a story that could have been easily dismissed instead grew and was used to cast doubts on the whole of the holocaust.
History will always be interpreted differently dependent upon the viewpoint of the person describing it. Is the current war in Iraq an illegal, immoral invasion of a sovereign state or a bold strike for freedom and human rights in the Middle East? This chapter in history is still being written but already there is disagreement.
Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist or a man fighting by any means at his disposal for a just cause? Both Thatcher and Reagan described him as a terrorist and the ANC were responsible for many ‘terrorist’ incidents prior to them renouncing violence in 1990. In 1993 Mandela, Thatcher’s terrorist won the Nobel Peace Prize. You think Bin Laden will ever be nominated? And why is the holocaust viewed now as a Jewish matter? What about the thousands of Slavs, Poles, Gypsies and homosexuals murdered? Why do they get forgotten?
History must always be debated without restrictions and without prejudice. All laws that prevent this happening, however well intentioned are always misguided.
"I detest what you say, but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it."
Says it all really.
posted by phylos @ 21:23
1 Comments:
Difficult balance matey!
How often has prolonged discussion watered down the true meaning and severity of world events. Time can dilute the longevity of fact and open verbal intercourse can lay down such a web of confusion that interest is diverted or lost completely. I can see why the Austrians are so keen to preserve the memory of the concentration camp horror in its undiluted form, but i agree that a world full of absolute truths is just as dangerous!
Bugger.... I am getting philosphical. Too much private eye!!
Post a Comment
<< Home