David Irving's Latest Antics - Martin Websters viewpoint !
As to David Irving, he thinks he is being terribly clever and manipulative by suggesting that he has had second thoughts about the Holocaust and that, in effect, he is verging on accepting significant elements of the Jewish account, at least in terms of numbers, but that he was right in suggesting that the plan was not transacted at Auschwitz but a Sobibor, Chelmno and other even more obscure and now wholly destroyed extermination camps.
The buildings which comprised these camps may not now exist.
Vegetation may now have reclaimed those sites.
But, if what Irving says is true, there must be sufficient forensic evidence readily on hand not just that camps existed there, but that mass murder on an industrial scale was perpetrated.
Whether such huge numbers of corpses were buried or burned, there must be substantial evidence on hand.
In making such accouncements and in giving an interview to the Jewish Chronicle this week announcing a 20 venue nationwide speaking tour, Irving has made a publicity splash (the JC made him its front page lead story) but he has only served to further expose himself as a chancer and a self-publicisng opportunist who lives on his wits.
Shortly prior to this publicity drive Iriving has been sent out e-mail invitations to right wingers inviting them to garden parties.
He obviously wishes to reconstitute his "client base".
He needs audiences for his meetings, teams of people who would act as security at his meetings, donors to fund his existence and activities, customers for his books, etc. In the past, the hard core of his supportership were people on the "extreme right".
But that was a decade or so ago when such people believed that he was a genuine Historical Revisionist.
By making such pronouncements as he has made in the last week or so, he has disillusioned a large portion of that element.
Doubtless he will play the politician's game of saying one thing to one audience and saying another thing to a different audience and assuring each audience with nods and knowing winks that he only said the things he did say to the other crowd "for tactical reasons". Irving certainly sees himself as a cunning manipulator. In the final analysis, Irving is a cynical huckster who travels from fair to fair in the hope of finding new crowds of people who he hasn't stung last time he was in the neighbourhood.
The latest episode in his history of personal extravagance is to rent a 10 bedroom house in Surrey. What the hell does he need with such a house?
We both know somebody who has worked closly with Irving over decades, and who has long ago formed the opinion that Irving is mad. I think this is a reasonable deduction.
I'm copying this to a few of our friends as I know they are all interested in all the topics raised.