Schadenfreude is a German word which has no direct translation into the English language. It means the joy felt at another person’s misfortune. Do not feel guilty about it; it stems from our deep seated instincts. We all experience it when, for instance, an obnoxious loudmouthed braggart sportsperson who is humbled after being defeated by an underrated opponent.

In 1990, when heavyweight boxing contender James ‘Buster’ Douglas achieved an upset victory over the previously invincible and seemingly indestructible Mike Tyson, there was schadenfreude. The arrogant work colleague who constantly interrupts you, lording their ideas over yours, finally stumbles badly in a meeting and gets corrected – there is schadenfreude.

In 2018, when egomaniacal mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor was resoundingly beaten to a pulp by his opponent Khabib Nurmagomedov, there was an overwhelming feeling of schadenfreude.

We also have to be aware of when and where schadenfreude is appropriate and when it is not. 25 years ago, I experienced schadenfreude when David Irving lost his libel case. He sued Penguin Publishers and American academic Deborah Lipstadt for libel. He lost. That was a fantastic victory. Today, when I see David Irving’s condition, there is no schadenfreude.

David Irving has spent his writing career as a Holocaust denier and Nazi apologist. His books minimise and whitewash the guilt of the Nazi regime. His speeches, delivered to gatherings of neo-Nazis and far rightists in Britain and Germany, have sought to rehabilitate the doctrines of Nazism and the ultranationalist Right. In his most famous book, Hitler’s War, he strives to maintain the innocence of the Fuhrer, claiming Hitler had no knowledge of the Holocaust; if the latter took place at all.

In 1963, he published The Destruction of Dresden, focusing on the Allied aerial carpet bombing of that city. The book covered the terrible destruction of the city’s infrastructure and historical assets. However, Irving exaggerated the death toll, and portrayed the Allies as sadistic killers; a portrayal popular among German postwar ultranationalist circles and those attempting to lessen the guilt of the Nazi regime.

In 1968, he published a controversial book The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17. The incident he covered refers to a melancholy story of a British navy Arctic convoy destroyed by enemy forces. Without going into all the details here, it was the first large combined Anglo-American naval operation in the Arctic. Its destruction by German forces has been extensively investigated. 153 merchant seamen were killed.

Irving exploited this tragedy, writing a book that put the boot into senior escort commander Jack Broome. The latter sued Irving for libel and won the case – Irving was ordered to pay 40 000 pounds in damages.

He has craved recognition as a legitimate historian. In the 1990s, he made multiple ‘challenges’ to historians, stating he would willingly hand over thousands of pounds to any historian who could produce a single piece of paper ordering the Holocaust with Hitler’s signature. He knew that no such piece of paper existed, but his stunt was intended to garner more publicity for himself as a legitimate academic simply asking the establishment uncomfortable questions.

In 1993, Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of history, published a book about Holocaust denial, its causes, agenda and main players. In it, she described Irving as a Holocaust denier, antisemite and pro-Nazi. That was like waving a red rag to a bull. Irving, in 1996, launched libel proceedings against Lipstadt and Penguin Publishers.

The case went to trial in 2000 – Irving lost. The judge ruled that Irving indeed was a Holocaust denier, antisemite and a Nazi apologist. I wrote about that case and the issues raised by it in a previous article.

Combating Holocaust denial may seem like a purely academic exercise, but there are political implications in leaving it unchallenged. The Nazi regime, and its murderous collaborators in Eastern Europe, have their defenders and apologists today. Irving’s efforts, while maintaining a veneer of scholarly respectability, contributed to the rewriting of modern history, rehabilitating the doctrines of the ultranationalist regimes.

25 years after that trial, Irving is today a shell of a man. In deteriorating health since 2023, he requires round-the-clock supervision and care. A once proud, egoistic man is now completely dependent on others, experiencing physical and cognitive decline. There are no tears for Irving, I still condemn and deplore his ideology. But now is not the time for schadenfreude. His health is frail, his mind weakened – he cannot defend himself anymore.

There is no schadenfreude at his pitiable condition. I was raised never to gloat or feel joy at another person’s health decline. On the contrary, it is sad; no, I am not going to start a GoFundMe campaign for Irving’s medical bills. It is sad to see an otherwise active writer unable to fend for himself anymore (Yes, Irving is male and in his late 80s). As much as I pride myself on having debated and combated Holocaust denial and its associated ultranationalist effort at obfuscation, I cannot feel any glee at his condition.

No, there is no pity for the man who described Auschwitz and Treblinka as ‘tourist attractions’, but I cannot be happy about his current misfortune either.

Today, in France and Spain, there are ultranationalist parties and writers who are actively defending and rehabilitating the fascist regimes of Francisco Franco in Spain, and the Nazi-collaborationist Vichy government in wartime France. Let’s focus our energies on combating these particular manifestations of historical revisionism and the rehabilitation of far right doctrines. Leave David Irving where he is.