Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Eduardo wrote:In a recent article by David Cole in "Taki's Magazine" (see https://www.takimag.com/article/handica ... vid-derby/), David Cole shows a strong criticism towards Robert Faurisson. In some point of the text, he declares "The mainstream camp wouldn’t compromise on the 6 million figure even though all documentary evidence shows it to be untenable, and the deniers wouldn’t accept the premeditated mass murder of over 2.4 million Russian and Polish Jews from 1941 to 1943, even though all documentary evidence confirms that it occurred". Where is such evidence?
That is Cole using weasel words and chicanery. Be very careful to read exactly what people say.
There is a massive difference between 'documentary evidence' and physical evidence.
Many a slip twixt cup and lip...
'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician
Cole explained his position in a series of video monologues in 2020 which are discussed on the following thread:Eduardo wrote:Where is such evidence?
He says he intends to revise his autobiography to expand his arguments. His main sources are the Korherr report and Himmler's Posen and Sondhofen speeches.
The reason that virtually nobody believes in Cole's "Holocaust-lite" type position is that the Holocaust mythology is interdependent. We don't see opinions on the matter uniformly distributed with people saying <1M, 2M, 3M, 4M, etc across the whole spectrum. You basically see Jews and "mainstream" people saying 6 million (maybe a little less) and you see revisionists saying probably not even 1M with approximately zero executed in gas chambers. If the Auschwitz testimonies and confessions are false then the Treblinka story which rests on the exact same sort of "evidence" only weaker is also doubtful.
Eduardo wrote:.... Where is such evidence?
Always somewhere else.
And of a nature, that "we don't have to show it to you", since "you are not a reputable" historian.
Cole is trying to salvage the story without having to admit that he was too wrong on this in the past. What he does is similar to what David Irving did. Claiming something is evidence for the Holocaust, that simply isn't. I wonder when will main-stream exterminationists go for that bait and promote it as such. Promoting something as evidence for your thesis that isn't will ultimately lead to its demise.
So I like Cole and Irving doing this. Also van Pelt's attempt to shift the Holocaust within Auschwitz may turn out to be useful in the end. They'll dismiss each other stories it turns out hat nothing of what they assert can actually be proven.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests