Auschwitz?

People have objected to the idea that a historian, unlike a journalist perhaps, could be a troublemaker. (Jeremy Paxman said to me once: first rule of journalism. Always set out to cause trouble.)
On the trouble maker-truth-seeker argument...well some of us are only capable of some things, we all form part of a whole. Irving is if nothing else a useful presence, a necessary part of the ecology. His research throws up questions which people simply have to answer: where is the smoking gun on Hitler's order for the holocaust etc. Maybe that's all he wants: to be respected for what he is capable of. He has always generously shared his research with anyone who asks, and - I posit - generosity might be his defining characteristic. When people find a rebuttal to the questions he raises, I think it is uncharitable for them to beat their chests and say in a rather juvenile way "Ha! We have defeated the evil holocaust denier." Rather, he sees himself as part of the collective endeavour, their success is his. I am sure he takes his work extremely seriously. I think his psychological motivation, as an outsider with no formal training, is to be accepted. And the historical establishment, who fear the dislocations his awkward questions pose, piss all over him. And of course Jews don't like him very much either, since he threatens their status quo.
If anyone has the time it is worth reading the Richard Evans attack on Irving. Evans has never written anything memorable, I had never heard of him, yet somehow he has risen to be the prof of history at Cambridge (in British nomenclature, professor is the top cheese, only one post per university).
He was paid 250,000 pounds to destroy Irving's reputation.
But the account Evans gives is of an Irving who changes his mind and is fairly open about doing so....and he also does something quite sneaky.
which is 1) establish what a holocaust denier is 2) establish that Irving is a holocaust denier because of partly agreeing and consorts with them (consortings meaning attending the same conferences, giving a pat on the back, sharing a cab etc)
And therfore that Irving is a holocaust denier. Without discussing whether what the holocaust deniers or at least Irving (who is far from hardcore, and rejected byu the extremists revisionists, who said I told you so when he lost the trial) have some good arguments.
There is something very show trially in the logic of Evans's investigation.
Like the Stalin show trials: establish what an enemy of the state is, shoiw that X is an enemy of the state, then execute him, rather than show that the enemy of the state has good arguments against communism.