Some Wiesenthal-watchers may have already seen the piece by Lawrence Swaim on Mondoweiss in which Swaim discusses some of the fallout engendered by my treatment of the Nazi hunter in Hunting Evil. Although I lack sufficient authority to dispute his bold assertion that the Simon Wiesenthal Center ‘is not interested in historical truth’, I am somewhat uncomfortable that Mr Swaim uses my revisionist account of Wiesenthal to present a broader argument concerning the Holocaust and its treatment and perception. Mr Swaim is of course entitled to make such extrapolations as he sees fit, but in doing so, he should ensure that he builds his argument on firmer ground.

1. 1.“Wiesenthal’s confabulations were never a matter of published discourse among scholars, so far as this writer can determine, nor were they popular knowledge until quite recently.” I am afraid this is wrong. Many people have been aware of Wiesenthal’s, ahem, inconsistencies for a long time. One need go no further than Betrayal, Eli Rosenbaum’s excellent (published) account of the Waldheim investigation published in 1993.
   

2. 2.“The Wiener Library, one of the world’s oldest and most reputable institutions for the study of the Holocaust, has endorsed this revaluation of Wiesenthal.” This is untrue. When Ben Barkow, the head of the Wiener Library appeared with me on the Today programme in August last year, he did not endorse my book, and neither has the Wiener Library. Barkow merely said that Wiesenthal was ‘a complex and troubling figure’ and acknowledged his ambiguities.
   

3. 3.“The Wiener Library’s Director Ben Barkow concluded that “accepting that Wiesenthal was a showman and a braggart and, yes, even a liar, can live alongside acknowledging the contribution he made.” ” This quote is disingenuous and pulled from the English-language wikipedia page concerning Wiesenthal. Ben Barkow never said these words - they are in fact written by Daniel Finkelstein as a distillation of Barkow’s point of view. Mr Barkow has never said that Wiesenthal was a liar. The only person who says that is me!
   

4. 4.“In fact, the appearance of Walters’ book has some of the characteristics of a literary campaign, although not necessarily of pre-arrangement. Walters’ Hunting Evil was published in Britain on June 18, 2009, at the beginning of last summer.” My book in fact came out at the end of July, and coincided with the serialisation in The Sunday Times. Mr Swaim is right when he suggests there was a literary campaign. There was. It was a straightforward publicity campaign.
   

5. 5.“There is ongoing fallout to the Walters’ book in other areas. On November 26, 2009, there appeared a sensational Associated Press report (carried on Walters’ website) that 12 members of the 15 member international advisory board of the Vienna Wiesenthal Institute for Holocaust Studies have resigned, apparently after a hysterical uproar about the availability of research material to scholars. (The AP report gives as the reason for the international hullabaloo certain objections by scholars “that restrictions on access to files made independent research impossible.”) Inevitably, one of those involved in the AP report warned that unrestricted access to the Institute’s files might encourage “holocaust deniers.” The opposite seems much more likely. The longer people hide the truth about Wiesenthal, the more doubts it will create about how objectively historians are able to write about the Holocaust.” There are two errors here. First, the resignations in Vienna have nothing to do with any fallout from my book. Second, the documents that are being restricted do not concern Wiesenthal, but those of the Jewish community in Vienna. Perhaps this error is my fault, and I should have made it clearer which documents were being argued over.
   

Where Mr Swaim is largely correct is when he highlights the care I had to adopt when dealing with ‘anything having to do with the Holocaust’. I was certainly worried that my attack on Wiesenthal might be perceived as being antisemitic, and I was therefore delighted when Daniel Finkelstein wrote his supportive piece in The Jewish Chronicle.

    Happily, my worries were misplaced. I have found the Jewish community tolerant of my book, and to date, I have received not one word of criticism from any Jew. I’ve no doubt that the Simon Wiesenthal Center is far from delighted, but that is understandable, and they have adopted a (perhaps sensible) policy of silence.

    When my book is published in France later this month and in the United States in May, I shall once again be seeking to ensure that potential detractors do not paint my criticism of Wiesenthal as being antisemitic, or in some way as being an attack on the Holocaust or the fact that it happened. Judging by the reaction in the UK, I am optimistic that once again I will be shown to have been overly cautious.

    The Holocaust is of course a ‘holy of holies’ for most Jews. Nevertheless, it is worth bearing in mind that they are are not the only people who have their sensitivities.