Having now seen "Shoah" in its entirety this weekend, I am stunned by the fact that anyone would dare to deny the existence of the Holocaust which was a singular programme of extermination directed against Jews by the Nazis. Others were caught up this web, but there is no doubt that the Final Solution was intended to exterminate Jews from Europe completely. Had the Nazis not been defeated, this policy would have been carried out everywhere the Nazi's ruled by conquest Every effort was made to hide what was going on so that it could be carried out with as much deception as possible for the world at large and to obtain compliance from those being "transported to the east." A historian in the film described it as a situation where the bureaucracy was called upon to be "imaginative." The Nazi's "imaginative bureaucracy" produced the Holocaust. What is even more stunning is that many of those on their way to the gas chambers did not believe that they were to be executed even when told. One woman who had been told what was going to happen tried to alert everyone she could, but the mothers with children did not want to believe it. She was held back from them until after they had all been gassed and was then tortured for the identify of the one who had informed her about their fate. She finally broke after brutal torture and pointed him out. He was thrown into the oven alive. That's why no one told anyone what was actually happening. It meant certain death. In today's Observer there is the first published interview with David Irving in an Austrian prison where he awaits trial next month under Austrian law: 'Hitler? He was good in parts' "The discredited right-wing historian David Irving was arrested in Austria last year for denying the Holocaust and faces trial next month. From his Viennese prison, he gives his first interview to German author and academic Malte Herwig, who asks if arrogance is at the heart of Irving's desire for outrage - or something more sinister " Sunday January 22, 2006, The Observerhttp://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1692086,00.htmlThis is an excellent interview providing some precision about the law, why he was arrested and which also shows that David Irving is up to his same tricks. This is no one-off arrest. Austria has an average of 25 prosecutions a year according to this article under the 1945 law indicating that they take it very seriously as regards a serious problem in Austria. The writer describes the law and adds: "It also prohibits public denial, belittlement, approval, or justification of National Socialist crimes, including the Holocaust." What is most striking is that David Irving displays his usual tricks but is exposed by this writer's fact checking. He claimed that the prison library has a copy of his book about Hitler. The prison governor said that they did have a copy of one of his books, but it was about the Hungarian uprising. This is the kind of half-truth perversion which careful checking turns up as I've read courtesy of Deborah Lipstadt's books. While visiting David Irving's lawyer, the writer met with the notion that David Irving has no idea about Austrian political groups and right-wing organsations. After going to the Resistance Museum, It's revealed that his association with right-wing groups in Austria goes back to the 1980s. Deborah Libstadt deals with the same kind of denials about knowing the essence of right-wing extremist groups before which he spoke. She writes in "History on Trial" pages 248-9 about David Irving making such a denial in court only to be shown a copy of a letter from the British National Party (BNP) on its stationery which her defence had obtained by discovery. This letter confirmed a speaking engagement. When David Irving still tried to skirt the issue, a slightly exasperated Judge Gray felt compelled to point out to him that it is on BNP stationery. How could he not know the organisation with whom he was dealing? This kind of denial and evading the truth crops up repeatedly from David Irving. He will say anything to suit his purpose of the moment. It requires a great deal of time and energy to pin him down to the reality of what he is doing. Indeed, he tries continuously to be as slippery as possible. The problem of responsibility accrues but is shunned by Irving. Malte Herwig points out: "By pointing to an apparent inconsistency in the authorities' behaviour, he elegantly glosses over the question of whether he isn't also responsible for the things he says in seedy backrooms and provincial diners." I suspect that this will be a key issue in the February trial. Marte Herwig concludes this article with "Let Irving talk, and he will unravel himself. Perhaps his last costume will be that of the court jester." At the very end of Deborah Lipstadt's book about her encounter with David Irving when he sued her for libel she too concludes with "As we fight them, we must dress them--or force them to dress themselves--in the jester's costume." This was at the end of the last chapter entitled "The "Jester's" Costume." (p 302 the penultimate sentence)My problem has to do with the penultimate paragraph in Professor Lipstadt's "History on Trial" where she catalogues the violence which derives either directly or indirectly from the Holocaust denial and the revision of history. She notes specific antisemitic incidents of intensely violent hatred and also expands that to include the events of 9/11 She notes that it was words which incited violence and terrorism. The reach goes beyond antisemitism and includes all of us. I think that this process goes far beyond denying the Holocaust and revising history. It goes to the very core of the dark side of the human character which is exploited by those who wish to gain control over other people by means of fear and violence. This is what makes the likes of David Irving quite dangerous. This is why the BNP leader and an associate are on trial in the UK this week as is Abu Hamza. These are two opposite ends of the same problem. Looming in the background is Iran while the trial of David Irving comes up on the 20th of February in Austria. This has been a fascinating week. These issues must be noted and studied carefully without efforts to obscure reality in order to get at the truth to expose those who would undermine freedom by abusing the right to freedom to do so. It's a dilemma that has to be solved in the real world which is just what is happening in the courtrooms under the democratic rule of law.