And the jackals continue to turn on David Irving

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned how Holocaust denier extraordinaire David Irving had gotten into some trouble with his former fellow travelers in the world of Holocaust denial. Apparently they didn't like the fact that he now concedes that the mass slaughter of Jews "may have" occurred. Of course he still denies that Auschwitz was a death camp (actually, it was both a work camp and a death camp) or that Hitler knew anything about the killings, but he's conceded more than his fellow Holocaust deniers would have liked him to concede, namely that as many as 2.4 million Jews may have been killed.

Now Holocaust denier Paul Grubach has expressed his displeasure with Irving by circulating an open letter to his fellow Holocaust deniers castigating Irving:

Paul Grubach's Public Challenge to David Irving on His Change of Mind on Holocaust--To be widely circulated

Dear David,

You are clearly evading the issue, which is very unacceptable and is not appreciated by those of us who provided you with all types of support throughout the years for your Revisionist activities. You owe us a detailed explanation in regard to your claim that there is documentary evidence that refutes the Holocaust revisionist position.

I represent a considerable number of your supporters who loaned you and gave you money outright throughout the years. Indeed, Paul Grubach loaned you $2000 back in 2004, and I donated the interest that I was suppose to receive right back to David Irving. That means you held my money for over a year to do as you please with it, and then the interest that I was suppose to receive was put right back into your pocket.

Since over the years you received money and overall support from the Revisionist community, it is your duty to give that same community a detailed response to the following question. You took our money and support, now show some decency and respect for us by giving a thorough explanation of yourself. You gave the Revisionist community's ideological enemy support for their viewpoint, now be so kind to give your supporters an explanation of your bewildering statements.

Here is the issue. You told the anti-revisionist, Jewish-Zionist Forward that: "If the document is genuine, it refutes the view of the revisionists that nothing happened."

You told me the document in question, the one that changed your mind about the about the Holocaust, is the Hoefle document, at http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/decode150143_Hofle.html

Presumably, this is an accurate and complete English translation of this piece of evidence. http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Korherr/Heim311242.html

Based upon my preliminary analysis of the document, I believe it only speaks of large scale deportations. There is no mention of any mass murder or homicidal gas chambers. Thus, the document seems to be entirely consistent with the Holocaust revisionist position. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

So my question for you is this: Let us assume the document is 100% authentic and genuine. If this is so, how does it refute the Holocaust revisionist position? Please give a detailed and straightforward response.

All of us do appreciate much of the outstanding work you have done and wish you and your family well being and good fortune. In addition, we would be willing to offer you our support again in the future. We would like to see this rift healed.

However, I and a number of your other supporters just want from you what is rightfully due us. That is, a forthright response to our question.

The Revisionist Community Awaits Your Response,
Paul Grubach

It's a beautiful thing to see the jackals turn on one of their own, as others pile on. One wonders if Irving will be able to count on the same people to buy his books. Of course, perhaps by stirring up this publicity, no doubt Irving hopes to sell more books, perhaps beyond his usual pathetic base of White supremacists, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers.

Fat chance.

In the meantime we are treated to the spectacle of Irving being invited to Oxford University to talk about "freedom of speech" (and later turning down the invitation), while he himself, like all good cranks, tries to stifle criticism with threats of legal action against publications that simply state the truth and call him a Holocaust denier (provoking this absolutely priceless retort from The Jewish Chronicle, which published the contact information for the law firm that represents it), as he publishes his self-serving accounts of his time in prison in Austria for Holocaust denial.