"I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz"
About this Quote
A confession that refuses to confess: Irving’s line is engineered to sound like a sober correction while keeping the moral center of the Holocaust just off-screen. The sentence performs contrition in the narrowest possible lane. He doesn’t say he was wrong about Auschwitz, or wrong about the Holocaust, or wrong to traffic in denial. He says he made a mistake when he said a specific thing. The rhetorical trick is that “mistake” can mean anything from a factual slip to a strategic overreach, and the quote never clarifies which.
The grammar does the heavy lifting. “When I said” frames the problem as the utterance, not the belief system behind it. It’s an apology to the record, not to the dead. Even “there were no gas chambers” is posed as a detachable claim, as if the error is a misstatement about architecture rather than an attempt to erode the evidentiary bedrock of genocide. That selective narrowing is the subtext: concede a point only to keep the broader project alive.
Context matters because Irving isn’t a confused bystander; he’s a notorious Holocaust denier whose reputational and legal battles forced him, at various moments, into tactical retreats. Read against that backdrop, the line functions less as intellectual humility than as damage control - a minimal admission calibrated to defuse consequences while preserving the posture of the persecuted “revisionist.”
It “works” because it mimics the cadence of responsible scholarship (I was wrong; I correct myself) while offering none of its substance: no engagement with overwhelming evidence, no ethical reckoning, no acknowledgment that the original claim wasn’t merely incorrect, but politically purposeful.
The grammar does the heavy lifting. “When I said” frames the problem as the utterance, not the belief system behind it. It’s an apology to the record, not to the dead. Even “there were no gas chambers” is posed as a detachable claim, as if the error is a misstatement about architecture rather than an attempt to erode the evidentiary bedrock of genocide. That selective narrowing is the subtext: concede a point only to keep the broader project alive.
Context matters because Irving isn’t a confused bystander; he’s a notorious Holocaust denier whose reputational and legal battles forced him, at various moments, into tactical retreats. Read against that backdrop, the line functions less as intellectual humility than as damage control - a minimal admission calibrated to defuse consequences while preserving the posture of the persecuted “revisionist.”
It “works” because it mimics the cadence of responsible scholarship (I was wrong; I correct myself) while offering none of its substance: no engagement with overwhelming evidence, no ethical reckoning, no acknowledgment that the original claim wasn’t merely incorrect, but politically purposeful.
Quote Details
| Topic | Learning from Mistakes |
|---|
More Quotes by David
Add to List
