![](../../std/masthead/WashPost.GIF) Tuesday, June 26, 2001
![Richard CoherA Nasty Turn in an Authors' Feud
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 26, 2001; Page A17
There are events in life which bring to mind the Iran-Iraq war and how hard it is sometimes to choose sides. The latest example, besides the Giuliani-Hanover battle, is the current feud between Christopher Hitchens and Henry Kissinger. Hitchens has called Kissinger immoral and Kissinger has responded by calling Hitchens a Holocaust denier. With the greatest reluctance, I have to root for Hitchens.
My minimal enthusiasm traces back to 1998, when Hitchens, mistaking sex in the Oval Office for the spiriting of atomic secrets to a mortal enemy, betrayed his longtime friend, the White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. In high dudgeon, he gave impeachment investigators an affidavit contradicting what Blumenthal had earlier told them. He acted as if he had saved the nation.
That dirty, dirty deed does not, however, compare with Holocaust denial -- probably the most odious charge that can be brought against anyone, particularly a writer. In some odd way, it exceeds even "anti-Semite" since it suggests a kind of complicity in the crime itself: the cover-up. Holocaust denial by the sane -- a distinction worth noting here -- is coldly malicious, one last kick at the survivors themselves, one last attempt to say they don't matter. It is cruel beyond words.
Kissinger does not need me to tell him that. He is a refugee himself from Nazi Germany, a Jew, and in total command of the historic record. He is clearly vexed by Hitchens, whose latest book is not titled "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" for nothing. Hitchens's verdict, you will not be surprised to know, is guilty. He would like the former secretary of state tried for war crimes -- alleged, imputed and somewhat dated -- going back to Vietnam but including much else. For some reason, some reviewers think Hitchens has overreached.
Kissinger, too, has a book out. It is called "Does America Need a Foreign Policy?" and while no movie sales are envisaged, it has gotten the usual respectful reviews. (The one thing Kissinger has in common with Hitchens is that they are both good writers.) Because he is promoting his book, he has been asked on at least two occasions what he makes of the pesky Hitchens. On both "The News with Brian Williams" and "The Mitch Albom Show," Kissinger called him a Holocaust denier.
"He's a man who has attacked Mother Teresa, Jackie Kennedy, has said the Holocaust never existed," Kissinger told Williams.
"All right," said Williams, "we have you on record, then."
And so we do. But what is the record to which Kissinger refers? It seems to be Hitchens's defense of David Irving in a 1996 Vanity Fair piece. Irving is the genuine article -- a Holocaust denier -- but Hitchens was not so much defending Irving's ideology as his right to be published in America. (St. Martin's Press had caved under pressure and canceled publication of Irving's book, "Goebbels.")
What's more, Hitchens was not the only writer to defend Irving's right to be published. I did, too. And I did so because I had read the British version of "Goebbels." I thought Irving -- an always-eccentric historian who had taken a turn for the worse -- had some interesting things to say and that the book deserved scrutiny by expert reviewers.
Almost instantly, I was taken to task. The criticism was apt. But while I may have been wrong in my judgment, I was no Holocaust denier. The same has to be said about Hitchens. He, too, may have been wrong about Irving (indeed, he has since suggested he was), but that's a long haul from denying the Holocaust.
Hitchens is a provocateur. He writes against the grain -- always well, usually smartly. He has an absolute right to be wrong. So do I and so, for that matter, does Henry Kissinger. Not every detail of the Holocaust is settled. The subject is not inviolate, since, as Hitchens points out, it is often abused for fundraising or propaganda purposes.
Kissinger has combined the silly -- Mother Teresa, Jackie Kennedy -- with the downright crummy. He attempts to silence a critic not by responding to what he says but by virtually questioning his sanity. Hitchens has threatened a lawsuit -- a bad investment if it is his reputation he's defending -- and reluctantly asserted a part-Jewish ancestry, knowing it proves nothing.
No lawsuit should be necessary. Kissinger, as a public intellectual, simply ought to say he's sorry. He could call Hitchens many things -- wrong, misguided, biased, etc. -- but not a Holocaust denier. Character assassination can be tricky. In this case, Kissinger's shot has ricocheted. He's blown a hole through his own reputation.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company A Nasty Turn in an Authors' Feud
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 26, 2001; Page A17
There are events in life which bring to mind the Iran-Iraq war and how hard it is sometimes to choose sides. The latest example, besides the Giuliani-Hanover battle, is the current feud between Christopher Hitchens and Henry Kissinger. Hitchens has called Kissinger immoral and Kissinger has responded by calling Hitchens a Holocaust denier. With the greatest reluctance, I have to root for Hitchens.
My minimal enthusiasm traces back to 1998, when Hitchens, mistaking sex in the Oval Office for the spiriting of atomic secrets to a mortal enemy, betrayed his longtime friend, the White House aide Sidney Blumenthal. In high dudgeon, he gave impeachment investigators an affidavit contradicting what Blumenthal had earlier told them. He acted as if he had saved the nation.
That dirty, dirty deed does not, however, compare with Holocaust denial -- probably the most odious charge that can be brought against anyone, particularly a writer. In some odd way, it exceeds even "anti-Semite" since it suggests a kind of complicity in the crime itself: the cover-up. Holocaust denial by the sane -- a distinction worth noting here -- is coldly malicious, one last kick at the survivors themselves, one last attempt to say they don't matter. It is cruel beyond words.
Kissinger does not need me to tell him that. He is a refugee himself from Nazi Germany, a Jew, and in total command of the historic record. He is clearly vexed by Hitchens, whose latest book is not titled "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" for nothing. Hitchens's verdict, you will not be surprised to know, is guilty. He would like the former secretary of state tried for war crimes -- alleged, imputed and somewhat dated -- going back to Vietnam but including much else. For some reason, some reviewers think Hitchens has overreached.
Kissinger, too, has a book out. It is called "Does America Need a Foreign Policy?" and while no movie sales are envisaged, it has gotten the usual respectful reviews. (The one thing Kissinger has in common with Hitchens is that they are both good writers.) Because he is promoting his book, he has been asked on at least two occasions what he makes of the pesky Hitchens. On both "The News with Brian Williams" and "The Mitch Albom Show," Kissinger called him a Holocaust denier.
"He's a man who has attacked Mother Teresa, Jackie Kennedy, has said the Holocaust never existed," Kissinger told Williams.
"All right," said Williams, "we have you on record, then."
And so we do. But what is the record to which Kissinger refers? It seems to be Hitchens's defense of David Irving in a 1996 Vanity Fair piece. Irving is the genuine article -- a Holocaust denier -- but Hitchens was not so much defending Irving's ideology as his right to be published in America. (St. Martin's Press had caved under pressure and canceled publication of Irving's book, "Goebbels.")
What's more, Hitchens was not the only writer to defend Irving's right to be published. I did, too. And I did so because I had read the British version of "Goebbels." I thought Irving -- an always-eccentric historian who had taken a turn for the worse -- had some interesting things to say and that the book deserved scrutiny by expert reviewers.
Almost instantly, I was taken to task. The criticism was apt. But while I may have been wrong in my judgment, I was no Holocaust denier. The same has to be said about Hitchens. He, too, may have been wrong about Irving (indeed, he has since suggested he was), but that's a long haul from denying the Holocaust.
Hitchens is a provocateur. He writes against the grain -- always well, usually smartly. He has an absolute right to be wrong. So do I and so, for that matter, does Henry Kissinger. Not every detail of the Holocaust is settled. The subject is not inviolate, since, as Hitchens points out, it is often abused for fundraising or propaganda purposes.
Kissinger has combined the silly -- Mother Teresa, Jackie Kennedy -- with the downright crummy. He attempts to silence a critic not by responding to what he says but by virtually questioning his sanity. Hitchens has threatened a lawsuit -- a bad investment if it is his reputation he's defending -- and reluctantly asserted a part-Jewish ancestry, knowing it proves nothing.
No lawsuit should be necessary. Kissinger, as a public intellectual, simply ought to say he's sorry. He could call Hitchens many things -- wrong, misguided, biased, etc. -- but not a Holocaust denier. Character assassination can be tricky. In this case, Kissinger's shot has ricocheted. He's blown a hole through his own reputation.
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
Richard Cohen](../../std/images/richardcohen.gif) A Nasty
Turn in an Authors' Feud By Richard Cohen Tuesday, June 26, 2001; Page A17 There are events in
life which bring to mind the Iran-Iraq war
and how hard it is sometimes to choose
sides. The latest example, besides the
Giuliani-Hanover battle, is the current
feud between Christopher Hitchens
and Henry Kissinger. Hitchens has
called Kissinger immoral and Kissinger has
responded by calling Hitchens a Holocaust
denier. With the greatest reluctance, I
have to root for Hitchens. My minimal enthusiasm traces back to
1998, when Hitchens, mistaking sex in the
Oval Office for the spiriting of atomic
secrets to a mortal enemy, betrayed his
longtime friend, the White House aide
Sidney Blumenthal. In high dudgeon,
he gave impeachment investigators an
affidavit contradicting what Blumenthal
had earlier told them. He acted as if he
had saved the nation. That
dirty, dirty deed does not, however,
compare with Holocaust denial -- probably
the most odious charge that can be brought
against anyone, particularly a writer. In
some odd way, it exceeds even
"anti-Semite" since it suggests a kind of
complicity in the crime itself: the
cover-up. Holocaust denial by the sane --
a distinction worth noting here -- is
coldly malicious, one last kick at the
survivors themselves, one last attempt to
say they don't matter. It is cruel beyond
words.
Kissinger does not need me to tell him
that. He is a refugee himself from Nazi
Germany, a Jew, and in total command of
the historic record. He is clearly vexed
by Hitchens, whose latest book is not
titled "The Trial
of Henry Kissinger" for
nothing. Hitchens's verdict, you will not
be surprised to know, is guilty. He would
like the former secretary of state tried
for war crimes -- alleged, imputed and
somewhat dated -- going back to Vietnam
but including much else. For some reason,
some reviewers think Hitchens has
overreached. Kissinger, too, has a book out. It is
called "Does America Need a Foreign
Policy?" and while no movie sales are
envisaged, it has gotten the usual
respectful reviews. (The one thing
Kissinger has in common with Hitchens is
that they are both good writers.) Because
he is promoting his book, he has been
asked on at least two occasions what he
makes of the pesky Hitchens. On both "The
News with Brian Williams" and "The Mitch
Albom Show," Kissinger called him a
Holocaust denier. "He's a man who has attacked Mother
Teresa, Jackie Kennedy, has said the
Holocaust never existed," Kissinger told
Williams. "All right," said Williams, "we have
you on record, then." And so we do.
But what is the record to which
Kissinger refers? It seems to be
Hitchens's defense
of David Irving in a 1996 Vanity
Fair piece. Irving is the genuine
article -- a Holocaust denier -- but
Hitchens was not so much defending
Irving's ideology as his right to be
published in America. (St.
Martin's Press had caved under
pressure and
canceled publication of Irving's book,
"Goebbels.") What's more, Hitchens was not the only
writer to defend Irving's right to be
published. I did, too. And I did so
because I had read the British version of
"Goebbels."
I thought Irving -- an always-eccentric
historian who had taken a turn for the
worse -- had some interesting things to
say and that the book deserved scrutiny by
expert reviewers. Almost instantly, I was taken to task.
The criticism was apt. But while I may
have been wrong in my judgment, I was no
Holocaust denier. The same has to be said
about Hitchens. He, too, may have been
wrong about Irving (indeed, he has since
suggested he was), but that's a long haul
from denying the Holocaust. Hitchens is a provocateur. He writes
against the grain -- always well, usually
smartly. He has an absolute right to be
wrong. So do I and so, for that matter,
does Henry Kissinger. Not every detail of
the Holocaust is settled. The subject is
not inviolate, since, as Hitchens points
out, it is often abused for fundraising or
propaganda purposes. Kissinger has combined the silly --
Mother Teresa, Jackie Kennedy -- with the
downright crummy. He attempts to silence a
critic not by responding to what he says
but by virtually questioning his sanity.
Hitchens has threatened a lawsuit -- a bad
investment if it is his reputation he's
defending -- and reluctantly asserted a
part-Jewish ancestry, knowing it proves
nothing. No lawsuit should be necessary.
Kissinger, as a public intellectual,
simply ought to say he's sorry. He could
call Hitchens many things -- wrong,
misguided, biased, etc. -- but not a
Holocaust denier. Character assassination
can be tricky. In this case, Kissinger's
shot has ricocheted. He's blown a hole
through his own reputation.![](../../std/dings/square.gif) © 2001 The Washington Post
Company |