I agree with what Secret Anne X has written regarding Irving’s supposed climb-down. Probably his biggest concession to the Austrian prosecutors was in being definitive that the Germans had murdered millions of Jews. Previously he had said it could have been 1 to 4 million total deaths, but not all of them murders I presume. On gas chambers, at the Lipstadt libel trial he presented a vigorous and logical debunking of Krema II as the instrument of murder for 500,000 Jews at Auschwitz, but he also acceded to the belief that some gassings took place at Bunkers I and II, i.e., the “farmhouse” gas chambers. His belief is based upon eyewitness testimony as I think both sides agree that there are no physical remains or blueprints for the alleged farmhouse gas-chambers. If Irving had recanted on his forensic debunking of Krema II, that would have been news. His previous statements of “no gas chambers at all at Auschwitz” came after the Leuchter Report but not since he became convinced of gassings at the “farmhouses”. I believe he classifies these gassings as more experimental in nature than the beginnings of a systematic assembly-line genocide. But unlike the 34 French historians who wrote in their letter of 1979, “It must not be asked how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible given that it took place”, Irving is willing to entertain evidence that some of the received history may be false or the product of propaganda.
Reasonable people can disagree about the veracity of eyewitness testimony . Secret Anne X makes reference to a lecture Irving gave to the IHR in which he and Dr. Faurisson disagreed on the truth of certain eyewitness testimony. (Found here, with Faurisson’s objections at the end http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n2p14_Irving.html
The discussion in the question period following the lecture revolves around the Bruns testimony, but I think that Faurisson also does not believe the following happened, as related by Irving:
Eichmann himself -- and I wasn't surprised to find it in his papers -- actually witnessed this. He went to see one at Minsk, and being a proper SS officer he went right to the front to make sure that everything was being carried out. He got so close, in fact, that he saw with his very own eyes how the victims were being made to go into the pits and stand there waiting to be shot. (We've all heard these descriptions of it, and I've seen some terrible descriptions from sources that I find credible.) He says he saw that one woman was holding a little child in her arms, petrified, and she held the child out to him, and he writes in his memoirs: "I was a parent too, and I instinctively stepped forward as though to take the child. But at that very moment the salvo of shots rang out. Both were killed only a few feet away from me. The child's brains were spattered over my leather greatcoat, and my driver had to clean the mess off."
At first glance, it would seem impossible that somebody (i.e., Eichmann) would admit to having taken part in such an event, if it had not happened. That would be my take. Faurisson, presumably, would base his skepticism on the part about Eichmann wanting to save the child and the possibility of him being so close that brains would spatter on his coat. IOW, did Eichmann make it up in a concession to his captors that terrible things had happened, but he opposed and was repelled by them? It’s also possible that the part about him witnessing the shootings is true, but the other details were made up by Eichmann to make himself seem more sympathetic. Some would say that anything documented while in Israeli custody is automatically suspect.
I believe Irving is a man who tries to get at the truth but is cautious and conservative in his revisionism. With his contacts and his charisma, he might be the one person able to cause enough of a stir to get the Austrian authorities to reconsider. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Regarding Friedrich Braun’s comment that the Arab/Muslim world is revisionisms’s last hope – I disagree, keeping the Internet free is much more important and in that there are many allies outside of Holocaust revisionism.