With his arrest in Austria two weeks ago for having denied the Holocaust in 1989, David Irving has once again proved that he is undoubtedly the denial industry's most high-profile and therefore dangerous activist. While the imprisonment, deportation and trial of fellow-denier Ernst Zundel (of German origin, but a resident of Canada for decades), who is facing a stiff prison term in Germany, merited scant attention in the international media, every minor development regarding Irving's incarceration in Vienna has been reported on at length, and his case has aroused a serious debate on the sagacity of the laws prohibiting Holocaust denial.

In fact, there is presently a serious danger that Irving, who is a poster-boy for the abuse of freedom of speech, will be turned into a martyr for the cause in the wake of his prosecution for speeches he delivered in Vienna more than 15 years ago. And this is only one of several ironies in the latest case involving Irving, who is a master publicist and propagandist.

Austria is one of several countries that have passed special laws prohibiting Holocaust denial and proscribing punishment for questioning or belittling the extent of the Nazis' assault on European Jewry. Germany has passed similar laws ?(as well as laws banning the use of all Nazi symbols and the sale of Hitler's "Mein Kampf"?), as have France, Belgium and Poland. Judging from its record in dealing with a wide range of Holocaust-related moral, judicial and economic issues, however, Austria is probably the last country which one would expect to arrest someone like Irving for this offense. For years, the Austrians referred to themselves as "Hitler's first victims," refusing to confront their overwhelming support for the Anschluss ?(union with Nazi Germany in March 1938?) and the proportionally high percentage of their countrymen who played key roles in the implementation of the Final Solution. Leading Holocaust perpetrators such as Adolf Eichmann, Treblinka commandant Franz Stangl, Aktion Reinhard boss Odilo Globocnik and many others were Austrians, as are the two most-wanted Nazi war criminals in the world today: Alois Brunner and Dr. Aribert Heim.

And while under chancellor Franz Vranitzky, Austria finally began to confront its complicity in Nazi crimes about 15 years ago, its current record in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals is abysmal to say the least. Despite an abundance of potential suspects, there has not been a conviction of a Nazi war criminal in Austria during the past 30 years. Just recently Austria refused a Croatian request for the extradition of Milivoj Asner, the former Ustasha police chief of Pozega, to stand trial for his role in the persecution - and deportation to Croatian concentration camps where they were murdered - of hundreds of Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies. ?(Asner, who fled Croatia to Klagenfurt after he was exposed by the Wiesenthal Center's "Operation: Last Chance" project, is officially "under investigation" in Austria, but there is no guarantee that he will ever be charged.?)

When it comes to prosecuting Holocaust denial, however, the Austrian authorities are far more zealous ?(and successful?). According to The Guardian, an average of 35 such convictions are obtained annually. This figure has apparently never perturbed anyone of consequence in Austria, but Irving?s arrest has ignited a public debate, prompting some local liberals to question the wisdom of stringently applying the letter of such laws. To quote sociologist Christian Fleck of Graz University: "Dragging fools and falsifiers of history before a court is
unworthy of a liberal democracy today."

To his credit, Fleck, in the same article in Der Standard, harshly criticizes Austria?s terrible record in prosecuting Nazi murderers, specifically notes the failure to bring Heim and Asner to justice, scoffs at the "crocodile tears" shed by Austrian officials at Simon Wiesenthal's funeral, and makes some concrete suggestions on improving Holocaust education. But the question remains whether laws against Holocaust denial truly contribute to the greater goal of preventing such tragedies in the future. Is this the most appropriate manner to deal with the person who declared that, "There were no extermination camps in the Third Reich" and "Is it not time once and for all to put an end to this fairy tale of the gas chambers," and asserted that Hitler protected the Jews during World War II?

Judging from Irving?s response to his incarceration, the arguments of the liberals do not hold much water. Thus, it was only after his arrest in Austria that Irving suddenly, at least according to his lawyer, acknowledged the existence of Nazi gas chambers, and admitted that his former beliefs were based on individual sources, which may even have been mistaken, and has now reached the conclusion that his former views were "not really worthwhile to hold up."

Oddly, until now, Irving who heretofore actively publicized his views denying the Holocaust, never saw fit to inform the public of this remarkable turnabout, which strongly underscores the effectiveness of the action taken by the Austrians and the laws currently on the books. Perhaps in some future, more perfect, world laws against denying the Holocaust will not be necessary. At the present time, they are fulfilling an important function. In doubt? Ask David Irving.

Efraim Zuroff is the director of the Israel Office of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and coordinator of Nazi war crimes research for SWC.

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m, 1.12.05