Sender: -1.0 (spamval) -- NONE
Message-ID: <44067AB6.ED3DF500 &AElig wayne.edu>
Organization: Wayne State University
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <44056A33020000E30001164E &AElig SCRNCS1.scrippscollege.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603011236190.3918 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:55:18 -0500
To: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
CC: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu, Eva Revesz <erevesz &AElig ScrippsCollege.edu>
From: Andrew Reeves <andrew.reeves &AElig wayne.edu>
Subject: Re: boo to Austria (free speech again)
Status: O

   After the feminism flap I resolved not to get into a new argument
with the younger generation, but this is an exception--you are not
likely to get the view of another actual eyewitness and former victim. I
shall comment only on the conflicting views of my daughter Trixie (who
is in favor of restricting free speech in this particular instance) and
grandson Danny (who is firmly in favor of free speech under all
circumstances). First, let me rectify some misconceptions. To say that
David Irving is "an asshole with a doctor title" is a half-truth. He has
no doctor's degree or according to Wikipedia no finished university
education of any sort, and certainly no professorship anywhere. He has
achieved some note after writing (otherwise very poorly researched)
historical works about World War II in which he exonerated Hitler,
blamed the Western allies especially Churchill for ethical misconduct,
railed against the Jews for exaggerating and lately for altogether
inventing the Holocaust. He has been a notorious gadfly in his native
Britain where he initiated dozens of lawsuits for libel against all who
criticized him (who include my historian friend and former fellow slave
laborer John Lukacs). Of course, he had fans too, especially among those
who delighted in reading that the atrocities of which they were accused
did not really happen. 
   Everybody knows the argument that free speech must not include
falsely screaming "fire!" in a crowded theatre. In some ways the reasons
why Austria (and Germany too, many years ago) enacted their
anti-free-speech laws was similar, and not a wanton curtailment of
citizens' rights with some ulterior motive. It was the recognition of an
absolute moral imperative and a last-ditch effort to salvage what was
still salvageable of the national honor of the German-speaking nations.
There was only one Hitler, but there were hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions, of low-echelon scoundrels who actually carried out the job or
stood on the sidelines, cheering. To these people, David Irving is/was
exactly "what the doctor ordered" in order to carry their heads higher,
reassure themselves that what they did was right after all, and even to
boast to their children and grandchildren that the last word against
Jewish subversion of the world has not been spoken yet. I do not have to
point out the perils of such an indoctrination for the coming
generations, especially when the Israeli/Palestinian problem gives
enough headaches to everybody even without such insidious undercurrent. 
   So, I am afraid that for now I will have to side with Trixie in this
debate. The time will come when this will become unnecessary. In the
first decades of the last century there was a movement in Eastern Europe
denying that Napoleon Bonaparte ever lived; his person and his exploits
were simply the inventions of French chauvinists. Even in our own day,
there is another historical gadfly (Heribert Illig) who claims that
Charlemagne never lived and the whole early middle ages are pure
invention. Of course we just laugh at these assertions today and
tomorrow we shall laugh at Holocaust-deniers also. In the meantime, I
trust that thoughtful people will see that that tomorrow is not with us
yet and for the present we must accept some curtailment of free speech
for the greater good.
   --Danny's Grandpa Andrew