I suppose that one can tell that desperation is in the air when liberal journalists produce written copy that is even more blatantly erroneous and distorted than usual. A fine example was recently provided by Tim Adams, writing in The Observer of 24th February. The article in question, on David Irving, entitled ‘Memories are made of this’, was so ‘anti’ as to verge on the farcical. This supposedly intelligent Observer journalist began inauspiciously by confusing a chat-room with a website, for Adams writes that:-

‘...his website, a distinctly odd chat-room in which, typically, he converses entirely with his private obsessions, the unappealing voices in his head.

‘He had, he suggested, the previous night, been at work until 2-3 am, "as usual" pausing only at two "to pray quietly for the souls of the hundred thousand (sic) innocents we British burned alive at this moment in Dresden, 57 years ago.’

Apparently, Adams gets a kick out of attempting to make normal and decent sentiments seem abnormal and crazy. It's only an online diary, Tim, not evidence of psychosis!

Even the fact that Irving's website is "curiously lavish" is held against him. Perhaps Timothy should stick to exploring the tedious websites of various British Government departments, with their broken links and - a real blessing - ‘mug-shots‘ of ministers, which fail to load! Naturally, David Irving is accused of having an "unhealthy obsession" with the Third Reich. This is a bit rich when one considers the deluge of World War II material provided by both Channels Four and Five, not to mention the History Channel, or, as it's better known to afficionados, the Hitler Channel.

But seriously though, while High Court judges and Observer journalists mutter on about ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘right-wing extremism’, Irving actually begins his biography of Joseph Goebbels with the words: "Writing this biography, I have lived in the evil shadow of Dr. Joseph Goebbels for over six years." We have got to the ludicrous stage when maintaining a balanced, neutral view of wartime events - like Harry Elmer Barnes or Liddell Hart did in earlier years - becomes evidence of ‘fanatic's extremism’ or even ‘neo-Nazism.’

History non-partisan

Another of the proper breed of historian, John Toland, put it well when he said that: "I have tried to approach history as a non-partisan, ignoring nationality and ideology, and to portray the horrors of war through the sufferings of ordinary people as well as in the imaginations of the mighty. Throughout it all, I have tried to present living history, human history, with subjective objectivity, in my obsessive search for reality."

The anger of people like Adams seems to be most agitated by David Irving's attempts to ‘humanise’ Hitler. Well, it might be truer to say that he uses documentation and interviews to produce a rounded picture. By the same token, does it ‘dehumanise’ Churchill to learn that he contemplated drenching Europe with poison gas and anthrax, and thought of ‘doing a Dresden’ on the eternal city of Rome? Does it ‘dehumanise’ Churchill to discover that he introduced industrial conscription of women, with all of its concomitant ill-effects on family life, while Hitler did his best to protect German women from the worst side-effects of Total War?

Pathetic smear attempts are made, alleging that Irving got some money for his legal fighting fund from a Saudi prince and a U-boat captain. But isn't it more apposite to recall that the Lipstadt camp in Irving's libel case was backed to the tune of £2 million by millionaire Miles Lieberman, formerly one of the advisors who told Ronald Reagan - the former ‘Acting President’ of the US - what to think? Equally interesting is the fact that some members of the Jewish Board of Deputies advised against such a high-profile contest, thinking that the publicity could do them far more harm than good.

If Lipstadt and Co. really are the defenders of truth, why do they view Irving as ‘dangerous’? The truth needs no defence, but lies do!

What are they so afraid of? That's the crucial question that everyone should ask about the whole Lipstadt-Irving libel trial. We ought to remember too that Irving would have been handsomely rewarded had he toed the establishment line. Undoubtedly he'd have joined Alan Bullock, Hugh Trevor-Roper and Robert Skidelsky in the House of Lords if he'd kept his mouth shut. As it is, the High Court has declared Irving bankrupt. In the interests of dogma, it seems that any effective rebellious voice must be not just defeated, but crushed.

Casting doubt on certainties

Tim Adams goes to on say near the end of his article: "In trying to cast doubt on the biggest certainties of the Final Solution - that it was a wilful industrial programme of genocide, dictated by Hitler; that around six million died; that there were working gas chambers at Auschwitz - Irving had apparently set out to make everything else seem open to question, and Hitler to appear like an ordinary walking, talking human, ‘only’ as evil as Churchill, as evil as Roosevelt, as evil as Truman."

But others besides Irving have cast doubt on these ‘biggest certainties’ notably Israeli expert Professor Yehuda Bauer, who declared in 1989 that: "The larger figures have been dismissed for years, except that it hasn't reached the public yet." Naturally, Adams doesn't mention the curious fact that allegations of a ‘Six-Million Holocaust’ were also made immediately following World War I in 1919.

My own copy of The History of the Second World War, published in 1966 and edited by Basil Liddell Hart, uses the word ‘Holocaust’ only to describe the destruction by atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In nearly 500 large-format pages there are no other references whatever to a ‘Holocaust’, so it's only fair to assume that Liddell Hart must also have been ‘anti-Semitic’, a ‘racist’ and a ‘neo-Nazi’!