| London, Sunday, April 16, 2000
Richard Ingrams' week Don't write off David Irving just yet . . . he's seen this all before
'Journalists are supposed to be slapdash,' wrote the late A.J.P. Taylor, 'academics to be cautious scholars. I do not think this distinction has any validation.' Even in these degenerate days I doubt very much with a record like his whether any newspaper editor would touch David Irving with a barge-pole. For a start, the risk of expensive libel damages would deter them. Fellow historians, however, are even now, after all that has happened, still prepared to put in a good word for him. Sir John Keegan, the Daily Telegraph's military historian, seemed to value Irving higher than his victorious opponent in the recent libel action, Professor Deborah Lipstadt. Lipstadt was boring but Irving, he wrote, 'has many of the qualities of the most creative historians'. He 'still has much that is interesting to tell us'. Professor D.C. Watt seemed to think Irving had somehow done us all a good turn by questioning the reality of the Holocaust. 'The truth,' he concluded mysteriously, 'needs an Irving's challenges to keep it alive.' In the light of such tributes, anyone who naively thinks
that David Irving has somehow been finished off by last
week's libel verdict should think again. Journalists may
damn him but the professors, the so called 'experts', will
help to keep the flame burning. We need a liar, it seems, to
help to lead us to the truth. |
Sunday, April 16, 2000 |