Updated Sunday 15 May, 2011 12:18 PM

Those of you who keep abreast of development in the historical world will remember that David Irving, the famous fringe historian, recently sued Penguin books over a statement in a book that charged him as a holocaust denier and admirer of Hitler. It soon became all-too-easy to forget that Irving had brought the suit as the team of historical experts attacked his work and proved every claim that the author had brought. However, it started me thinking: I’ve been looking for an AH subject that was not war-based and, while there are few bases for proper, world-shaking AHs here, there are a few genuinely interesting points.

What if:

Irving did not bring the case? I suspect that instead of a sharp drop in his reputation, Irving would have had to endure – poor man – a gradual decline in his reputation. However, the person he sued would not have the chance to publicise the whole problem with holocaust deniers, which, instead of being given a good blow, may continue to grow. That said, if people thought he was going soft they might make a charge that he’d have to fight – such as being a member of the Black Satan neo-nazi group.

The charges included one that was personally offensive? British Law is very biased in favour of the plaintiff, in this case Irving. The charges did not, for example, charge Irving with something that was personally offensive, such as him being a nazi himself. Now, even if he was, that would be very hard to prove and Irving might win the case without discussion of the flaws with his books. In which case, Irving would be practically immune to any further charges for several years, in that time, he could write several more problem books.

Irving won outright? This is a bit unlikely, as the charges were very well designed and carefully supported. However, we’ll ignore that for the moment. If Irving won the case, he’ll have a chance to keep pushing forward his views, while the cause of the holocaust deniers will be enhanced. I could see museums refusing to show holocaust exhibitions, as people will claim that they’re based on lies. This could have serious implications for the future, as people will wonder why Israel is making such a fuss about a ‘non-existent’ traumatic event as an excuse for a hard-line in Palestine.

Penguin backed down? Penguin supported the author completely, but they could have dropped the books without a fight. In which case, the author probably could not afford to fight the case on her own, and therefore Irving would win by default – see above. However, Israel could pick up the tab if they had too, but then politics would become involved. More seriously, penguin’s reputation among other authors would go downhill, while other cans of worms would be re-opened.

Irving never supported the Hitler diaries? Irving was the last person the claim the fake diaries were real – and the last to claim that they were fake! However, this may mark the decline in his reputation from respectable, but hated to disliked and distrusted. If he stuck to his guns, he might never have faced the charges.

Politics become involved? There are several nations, notably Germany and Israel, who would have a serious concern in the outcome of the case. What if they became involved? Israel could try to make capital out of this, while Germany might be very interested to ‘discover’ that their crimes are not as large as they imagined. This could get very mucky very quickly.

Conclusion: Irving winning the case, either though the courts or through default, may improve his standing as a historian (unlikely) or increase the prestige of the holocaust deniers. This may mean that neo-nazi groups do get more support or even people just ignoring them instead of opposing them. Israel may get less sympathy on the world stage when next they try to invoke holocaust guilt as a way of getting assistance, Germany might even demand some of the reparations back (!), which would have disastrous effects on the Israeli economy.

Even a defeat, under the proper circumstances, could become a victory, of sorts. Many of you will remember how politics contaminated the OJ Simpson trial; if the case is bankrolled by Israel, Irving might be able to claim that Israeli money had determined the outcome. People tend to be very sensitive to the implication that foreign nations are meddling in internal affairs and Irving may end up a hero – of sorts. People might wonder why Israel is making such a fuss when they’re using what the Nazis taught them in Palestine – any way, its bad for Israel.

Thoughts?

Chris

David Irving – Alternatives