David Cole on Treblinka

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1650
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Moderator » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:49 am)

[I thought Cole's recent statements about Treblinka deserved a separate thread, so here it is. 'Cole on Treblinka' was initially posted by EtienneSC here: David Cole 2014 book "Republican Party Animal" I have moved it and the responses to this thread. M1]

EtienneSC wrote:Here is David Stein's latest response on Treblinka. I copy it from a facebook post, but it looks genuine. It's interesting that he addresses Mattogno for the first time and mentions Eric Hunt's latest video on Treblinka. He adds little or nothing on the absence of physical evidence at the AR camps, but relies instead on close reading of the few German documentary sources in isolation. The overall reading of the AR story strikes me as problematic, as neither side has an answer to the question "what happened to the Jews?" supported by adequate evidence. There is the usual jostling for position amongst headline revisionists and irrelevant personal animus. There has also been an interesting response from Faurisson over the past few days on Cole's book - which will hopefully be available on his blog soon.
David Cole responds about Treblinka:

Since the release of my book, Republican Party Animal, I have received many emails from revisionists regarding my position, laid out in some detail in the book’s appendix, that Treblinka and the other so-called “Reinhardt” camps were places that functioned primarily, if not solely, as killing centers. To the credit of the revisionist community, most of these emails have been intelligent and supportive. But recently, Fred Leuchter and Robert Faurisson launched a campaign of name-calling against me, with Fred going so far as to declare that I am “not a revisionist.”

Here’s my response.

Regarding Auschwitz, Majdanek, and the other camps that still exist in physical form (and with blueprints, work orders, etc.), revisionists have won. The revisionists of the ‘80s and ‘90s (myself humbly included) won that debate. The public may not know it yet, but we know. We won it fairly, using facts and logic. And much of the credit is due to the efforts of the Institute for Historical Review, which published the work of people like me and Faurisson in the ‘80s and ‘90s.

But that wasn’t enough of a “victory” for some. I have seen abysmal things written about David Irving and Mark Weber, due to what is perceived to be their “weakness,” their “lack of commitment to the cause,” because they accept that many Jews were killed at the “Reinhardt” camps in Poland in 1942 and 1943, and that many were also killed in mass shootings, especially in the occupied Soviet territories in 1941.

Keep in mind, to the Holocaust lobby, the mainstream media, and the academic world, none of this bickering means anything. To them, dismissing the fiction that Auschwitz was an extermination camp with gas chambers makes you a denier. Period. You think what I wrote about Treblinka has in any was lessened the “blackout” against my book? Of course not, and I knew it wouldn’t. Auschwitz has become a matter of faith, a secular religion, and “whoever denies Auschwitz denies the Holocaust entire.”

“Hardcore” revisionist researchers like Carlo Mattogno and Jűrgen Graf have pushed the notion that Treblinka and the “Reinhardt” camps were merely transit camps. Jews were sent there, only to be divided up and sent to other camps. Simple transit camps. This explains the camps’ small size versus the numbers sent there.

I can kill that argument with one sentence.

In their book “Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp,” Mattogno and Graf acknowledge the authenticity of the Korherr Report, which they correctly describe as “made by the statistician Richard Korherr at the beginning of 1943 at the instruction of Heinrich Himmler.” The report, they accept, contains “very accurate numbers of the Jews deported to the supposed extermination camps” (both quotes are from page 106 of the English-language version of the book).

Among these “very accurate numbers:”

Transportation of Jews from the Eastern provinces to the Russian east: 1,449,692

Processed through the camps in the General Government area: 1,274,166

Through the camps in the Warthegau: 145,302

Mattogno and Graf hold that these numbers indicate Jews sent through “transit camps,” on their way to other camps.

But what these two gentlemen fail to mention is the sentence in the Korherr Report that follows those numbers (numbers they admit are accurate, in a report they admit is authentic):

“The above numbers do not include the inmates of ghettos and concentration camps” (in the original German: “In den obigen Zahlen sind nicht enthalten die Insassen der Ghettos und der Konzentrationslager”).

And right there, the “Reinhardt camps as transit camps” theory is dead. Killed. Finished off. Irreparably. My work is done. I’m off to Moe’s to have a drink. Anyone care to join me?

Korherr makes it clear that the Jews “processed through the camps in the General Government” were NOT, following the processing, “inmates of ghettos and concentration camps.” Transit camp theory, RIP.

Mattogno and Graf devote not one word to that sentence. Not one word is devoted to “The above numbers do not include the inmates of ghettos and concentration camps.” Odd, as that seems to be a rather key sentence.

I could stop here. But I won’t. Because maybe you’re thinking, “okay, okay, they weren’t transited through Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec to other camps or ghettoes...maybe they were just set free! You know, to roam about in Ukraine or near the front.” Putting aside the patently ridiculous notion that the Nazis would take over a million Jews (people they considered sworn enemies and communist partisans) out of Polish ghettos, transport them closer to the front, and let them roam free, the Korherr Report still kills that theory, as Korherr enumerates the only remaining countries under Nazi control that still had, by early 1943, sizeable Jewish populations: Romania, Hungary, and France.

He says nothing about a million Polish Jews milling about freely in Ukraine or at the front.

The Jews “processed through the camps in the General Gouvernement” were not thereafter “processed” into other camps or ghettos. They “disappeared.”

Need more proof? Here’s the most important part. In Korherr’s conclusion, here’s what he writes (I’ve kept one sentence in the original German): “From 1937 to the beginning of 1943, the number of Jews in Europe has diminished by an estimated 4 million, partially due to emigration, partially due to the excess mortality of the Jews in Central and Western Europe, partially due to the evacuations especially in the more strongly populated Eastern Territories, die hier als Abgang gerechnet werdenwhich (“which are here counted as departed”).

These Jews are departed. “Evacuations,” along with excess mortality and pre-1941 emigration, constituted a population reduction in West, Central, and Eastern Europe of an estimated 4 million Jews. If the evacuated Jews were merely transferred from Poland to Ukraine, or from Poland to the occupied East, why would these Jews be counted as among those who are no longer in West, Central, or Eastern Europe? Why would their status be equal to those who have died from natural causes and suicide? Use your damn common sense here. It’s as clear as day.

The evacuees were not, by early 1943, in camps or ghettos. They were “counted as departed.” Not departed from the Reich proper, but departed from all of West, Central, and Eastern Europe. Departed. Gone. Not in Ukraine. Not at the front. Gone.

The “Höfle message” confirms the Korherr Report numbers. Mattogno, in his latest book “Inside the Gas Chambers,” mentions Höfle seven times in the book’s main body (Korherr gets two footnote mentions). Why? Because the Höfle document is merely numbers, with no pesky mentions of “diminished/reduced population,” and no argument-killing sentences about how “the numbers do not include the inmates of ghettos and concentration camps.”

Mattogno can use Höfle and his transit camp theory is not jeopardized. But he has no answer to Korherr.

Some revisionists will reflexively ask, “but where’s the physical evidence for the ‘Reinhardt’ camps? Where are the ‘gas chambers?’” I feel partly responsible for the fetish among revisionists regarding physical evidence. Yes, physical evidence is vital to study, when it exists. But if it doesn’t, it’s completely acceptable to build a case through contemporaneous documents. That’s not a “cop out.”

Did the inmates at Treblinka eat? For a year-and-a-half, did they ever ingest food? Did the commandant ever eat? Well, show me the Treblinka stove. Did the inmates ever go to the bathroom? Did the commandant? Well, show me a Treblinka toilet. Show me or draw me a Treblinka toilet. You can’t? Then none existed.

My sarcasm aside, the fact is, we all know that Treblinka existed. Studying the barren land where Treblinka once stood isn’t like looking for Noah’s Ark. We know that what we’re studying did exist. And we know that the camp was razed. The case for Treblinka (and Sobibor, etc.) must be made through documents.

This is not abnormal in the field of historical research. My work in the early ‘90s with physical evidence was never intended to suggest that only by physical evidence can a case be made for a gas chamber, for a camp, for intent, for population changes. I did not study physical evidence to the exclusion of all other types of evidence.

If you want to claim that the Colossus of Rhodes never existed, fine. But your “proof” can’t be “because there’s no photo of it,” or “because we can’t find any remains.” Some things did exist in this world, only to be erased by natural or man-made causes.

The Nazis had over a year to eradicate the traces of Treblinka. And the Soviets and Poles have done God-knows-what to that area since 1945. So the physical landscape as it exists now is worthless. And the survivors testimonies are worthless, too, as they proved in the ‘80s by either purposely or “by fuzzy memory” nearly sending a man to his death for being an “Ivan the Terrible” that he never was (Demjanjuk).

Were the Jews at the Reinhardt camps gassed? Were the bodies buried and then dug up to be burned, or burned immediately? We may never be able to say with 100% accuracy. But, we can say that the “transit camp” theory is bunk. It holds no water. The Korherr Report kills it. Simultaneously, the Korherr Report, coupled with the Höfle telegram, coupled with the March 1942 Goebbels diary entries about liquidating Polish Jews, coupled with the December 1942 entry about having to “answer to some things” regarding what’s happening to Polish Jews “if we do not want to run the risk of becoming gradually discovered,” coupled with Himmler’s admission at Sonthofen about murdering Jewish children and rubbing the Jewish ghettos in the General Government out of existence, creates a good case for mass-killing at the Reinhardt camps.

We don’t have a still-existing Treblinka gas chamber. What we have is documentary evidence that not only points to the Reinhardt camps as being terminal stops, but also voids the “transit camp” theory as a viable possibility.

Mark Weber, David Irving, and I, have all separately come to the conclusion that there is good evidence to regard the Reinhardt camps as killing centers. If Fred Leuchter and Robert Faurisson wish to claim that I am “not a revisionist,” I would humbly suggest that a more accurate solution would be for them to refer to themselves as “deniers,” and reserve the term revisionist for people who follow rather than finesse the evidence.

Two Postscripts

1) In a piece on Inconvenient History, Jűrgen Graf attacked David Irving for his belief that mass murders occurred at the Reinhardt camps. Graf’s position is 100% dependant on the idea that if the Nazis did have four secret murder camps, the Nazi higher-ups would have been blabbing about them left-and-right to every underling and bureaucratic cog.

Graf’s view is that the Nazi leaders had no secrets, and dispensed no information on a need-to-know basis. If Fritz Reuter, an employee in the Department of Population and Welfare in the Office of the Governor General for the District of Lublin, didn’t know the nature of Belzec, if he believed it to be a regular camp, well then, gosh darn it, it was, because the Nazis leaders never kept anything secret. Himmler? Goebbels? They were like Wikileaks. Everything out in the open, 24 hours a day.

If you actually buy that, you’ll buy Graf’s attack on Irving.

When Himmler received the Korherr Report, he insisted that the term “special treatment of the Jews” be removed in the section regarding the General Government evacuees (through Brandt, Korherr was instructed to use the term “processed through the camps in the General Government” instead). Himmler himself told Korherr that the report might be good in the future for “camouflage purposes” (Tarnungszwecken), but that, for now, it would be for his eyes only.

If Himmler insisted on “camouflage” in a report that only he was going to see, doesn’t that give some indication of the level of secrecy surrounding the “evacuations?” If he was that cautious with a document not distributed to anyone else, why would he be expected to scream the truth about the Reinhardt camps to low-level bureaucrats?

2) Ever since my position on Treblinka became known, well-meaning revisionists have been pillorying me with instructions to “watch Eric Hunt’s Treblinka archeology video. Watch it. Oh, just watch it. You’ll see how wrong you are.”

I have never met Mr. Hunt, and I have no beef with the young unsuccessful elevator conversationalist. But I must confess, there was little of value in Hunt’s examination of the Smithsonian Channel’s Treblinka “excavation” show.

To be clear, that Smithsonian program was nutty as a bowl of pistachios. It was empty, meaningless, overwrought, and just plain dumb. There was nothing of value in it. It should rightfully be mocked, and I’m glad young Mr. Hunt invested an hour-twenty in doing so.

Hunt devotes a lot of time to the fact that many survivors – perhaps numbering in the thousands – were sent through Treblinka to other camps. But this is no scoop. As I point out in my book, Reitlinger made this exact point in “The Final Solution” in the 1950s. That possibly thousands of Jews were chosen for labor and sent on from Treblinka to other camps doesn’t negate the horrific figure given by Korherr for the Jews processed through the General Government camps who constitute the Jewish “population reduction” in Europe.

Hunt’s takedown of the Smithsonian Channel’s stupidity is fine enough, but what’s relevant to the discussion here is what Treblinka actually was. Hunt “addresses” that around the fifty-three minute mark in his video. And what he says exposes him as either a liar or a man with no actual comprehension of what he’s speaking about.

His quote:

“We’re told the Nazis used ‘transited to the East’ as a code word to mean ‘gassed at extermination camps.’ Yet there is credible evidence of hundreds of thousands of Jews being expelled eastwards. For instance, this is a report from September 1942, of the Joint Distribution Committee providing medical aid to 600,000 Polish-Jewish refugees in Asiatic Russia.”

This is pure fraud on Hunt’s part. The “report” in question (which is actually a fundraising appeal by the same “Zionist liars” whose “Zionist lies” Hunt repeatedly cautions us about) refers to Polish Jews who supposedly fled to the Soviet Union from Poland after the German invasion in 1939. This “report” with its 600,000 figure refers to Jews who fled long before the German invasion of Russia.

Walter Sanning uses the Joint Distribution Committee claim correctly in his early revisionist work, “The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry.” He accurately states that the 600,000 figure refers to Jews who either fled from Poland into Russia, or who were “evacuated” and/or “deported” by Stalin into the Russian interior in ’39 and ’40 (Dissolution, pages 42 through 44, hardcover edition).

That 600,000 figure is completely, entirely, 100% unrelated to the Nazis “expelling Jews eastwards” in 1942 and 1943. Does Hunt even know enough about basic World War Two history to understand the logistical impossibility of the Nazis expelling Jews to “Asiatic Russia” in ’42 and ’43? Does he know that it would have necessitated crossing the front? During the time of the Battle of Stalingrad? How much World War Two history does this guy know beyond “gas chambers?”

Regardless, Hunt either lied about the Joint Distribution Committee claim, which dealt purely with Jews who either fled or were “evacuated” by the Soviets in 1939 and 1940, or he is simply too ignorant of basic history to understand that in 1942 and 1943, trains were not running from occupied Poland to “Asiatic Russia.”

In any event, his “documentary” adds nothing but misinformation (intentional or due to ignorance) to the legitimate study of the nature of Treblinka.
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1650
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Moderator » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:53 am)

reply from borjastick:
borjastick wrote:One too many drinks and Moe's me thinks.

I look forward to what Hannover has to say about this claim that it's ok for a toilet to be missing as well as 900,000 people from Treblinka!

Another well written piece from David but totally without proof. What he's actually saying is as we cannot prove they went anywhere else they must have died in Treblinka etc. Total bollocks.

The case for the AR camps being transit locations, given their sizes, location on or very close to the Bug river, the train track gauge, and silly me the total lack of human remains to the tune of 900,000 bodies.

The glass is either half full or half empty but for me this is quite clear. They were transit camps precisely because of a lack of proof for any other theory.

Where did they go? They were sent east, expelled, removed, discarded from German controlled territory simply because they were not required in the war effort. They went into Russia, Belarus, Ukraine etc etc.
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1650
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Moderator » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:54 am)

hermod posted:
hermod wrote:As some others here, I think that "the new Cole" (I call him "Mr Stein" to discriminate him from the young David Cole, who was sincere IMO) is now a Zionist agent who is out to save the Holo-myth. The fact that the ADL isn't after him this time and the fact that his book has a mainstream distribution (even in countries where "Holocaust denial" is illegal) are enough evidence of this for me. In the past, the Holocaust industry sacrificed huge parts of the Holocaust narrative in order to save the Holo-myth itself. The Western gas chambers & human soap were some of those parts. I think that Mr Stein is out to sacrifice the doomed gas chamber for tourists at Auschwitz 1 and save the rest of the Holo-myth, mainly the Reinhardt camps as killing centers. With agents such as Mr Stein, the Holocaust industry gets people saying that "even some revisionists think that the Reinhardt camps were killing centers"*. The Holo-myth is like a lizard sacrificing his own tail in order to save his life every time he's caught. When something can't be defended anymore because it's too obviously a fraud, the Holo-myth instantly moves somewhere else, claiming that the "Holocaust" in fact happened at other places than previously thought. After moving from Germany & Austria (and their very graphic scenes of typhus epidemics) to Auschwitz (arranged and guarded by Communist distorters), the center of the Holo-myth jumped eastward again, to the Reinhardt camps and the alleged killing fields of Far Eastern Europe. After claiming for decades here are the undeniable proofs of a Nazi anti-Jewish mass murder, the Holocaust industry now relies 100% on the Soviet wartime trick of "the fascist murderers erased all the traces of their crimes, so you'll have to believe us and our 'witnesses'". That makes the work of revisionists much harder because it's easier to debunk fake things than an absence of things.



*
Some revisionist think that Sobibor and other endlosung camps (but not Auschwits and Madjanek) where at the end murder camps

Missed Jews from the Netherlands after world war ll
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9867
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Hannover » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:56 pm)

Cole's response is simply embarrassing and he can't really believe it himself. He loved the limelight of his 'Republican Party Animal' days which have been snatched from him, sadly he clings to hope for forgiveness.

As for Irving & Weber, yes they accept deportation list numbers as equivalent to those supposedly murdered, but that is illogocal and without physcial and docmentary evidence, see:
Grubach's Letters to David Irving on the Hoefle telegram
German Labour camps - shocking truth decrypts / Jew transits

As for Korherr Report, Korherr settles the issue himself:
Hektor @ Operation Reinhard camps
The well-known, racially persecuted writer H.G. Adler, previously resident in Prague, now in London, wrote in the foreword to the second edition to his extraordinary book Theresienstadt 1941-1945 in 1960:
"It has definitely been determined that the designation of Dr. Korherr as SS-statistician...is not true, because he never belonged to the SS and has been rehabilitated insofar as his behaviour in the National Socialist years is concerned."

Unfortunately, Der Spiegel is publishing the claim of the English historian Irving that in the spring of 1942, at Himmler's order, I calculated the number of Jewish victims. In fact, these figures along with the text were delivered to me in completed form by the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) with the order that not one word or figure was to be changed.

The statement that I had claimed in this regard that more than a million Jews had died as a result of special treatment in the camps in German-occupied Poland and in the Warthegau is also incorrect. I have to protest against the word "died" in this context.

It was precisely the term "special treatment" (sonderbehandlung) that motivated me to inquire of the RSHA by telephone what this term meant. I received the answer that it referred to Jews who would be settled in the District of Lublin.
Dr. Richard Korherr
Braunschweig

Cole seems to think that Jews sent to Treblinka died there, that's laughable. Eric Hunt's capture of the Spielberg videos reveals that endless Jews have stated that they were transited OUT of Treblinka. see: E. Hunt's "Treblinka Archaeology Hoax" Video / READY TO VIEW
So no, they were not "gone".

Here Cole chases his own tail:
Hunt devotes a lot of time to the fact that many survivors – perhaps numbering in the thousands – were sent through Treblinka to other camps. But this is no scoop. As I point out in my book, Reitlinger made this exact point in “The Final Solution” in the 1950s. That possibly thousands of Jews were chosen for labor and sent on from Treblinka to other camps doesn’t negate the horrific figure given by Korherr for the Jews processed through the General Government camps who constitute the Jewish “population reduction” in Europe.
It is no longer just "possible", it is now known fact. And, as shown, The Korherr Report is easily stripped of it's bogus and lethal interpretation. Is this Cole's best shot in attempting to refute the fact that we know endless numbers of Jews were sent elsewhere? He has actually shot himself in the foot with his admittance. But then Cole is merely gaming the 'holocaust' Industry and supremacist Jews. 'Please take me back, please, please!' ... weak and pathetic.

Cole says:
Some revisionists will reflexively ask, “but where’s the physical evidence for the ‘Reinhardt’ camps? Where are the ‘gas chambers?’” I feel partly responsible for the fetish among revisionists regarding physical evidence. Yes, physical evidence is vital to study, when it exists. But if it doesn’t, it’s completely acceptable to build a case through contemporaneous documents. That’s not a “cop out.”
It's not only unacceptable it's preposterous in a court of law to claim mass murder without physical evidence. 'Laughed out of court' seems relevant here.
Cole:
Did the inmates at Treblinka eat? For a year-and-a-half, did they ever ingest food? Did the commandant ever eat? Well, show me the Treblinka stove. Did the inmates ever go to the bathroom? Did the commandant? Well, show me a Treblinka toilet. Show me or draw me a Treblinka toilet. You can’t? Then none existed.
But 'exterminationists' and even Cole claim that Treblinka was "razed", as in disasembled & torn down. No toilets indeed,
The story is that ca 900,000 Jews were buried at Treblinka, imagine the size of the alleged pit/s. Yet study after study has failed to find any such pits even though there are so called eyewitnesses to exact locations.
My sarcasm aside, the fact is, we all know that Treblinka existed. Studying the barren land where Treblinka once stood isn’t like looking for Noah’s Ark. We know that what we’re studying did exist. And we know that the camp was razed. The case for Treblinka (and Sobibor, etc.) must be made through documents.
No one denies that Treblika existed, but no one and nothing can obliterate the remains claimed to have been dumped into enormous pits regardless of any alleged and unproven attempts to conceal them. The ground density and moisture contrast will be forever changed making it an easy find using archaeologist tools such as GPR (ground penetrating radar) & LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging). Cole embarrassingly reveals that he's technically inadequate. Real archaeologists are not. And hey, as has been said, even 'two guys with shovels could do the job, IF...'.
This is not abnormal in the field of historical research. My work in the early ‘90s with physical evidence was never intended to suggest that only by physical evidence can a case be made for a gas chamber, for a camp, for intent, for population changes. I did not study physical evidence to the exclusion of all other types of evidence.
Yes it is very abnormal for anyone to claim that vast numbers of people were killed without physical evidence, especially when those claims defy laws of science. Especially when that physical evidence is supposedly still available for archaeological excavation. The claimed "documents" and their absurd interpretations could easily be shown to be fact IF excavations revealed what these bizarre interpretations allege. No verifiable excavation can be shown that confirms Cole claims, NOT A SINGLE ONE.
Cole becomes even more embarrassing:
If you want to claim that the Colossus of Rhodes never existed, fine. But your “proof” can’t be “because there’s no photo of it,” or “because we can’t find any remains.” Some things did exist in this world, only to be erased by natural or man-made causes.
The colossus of Rhodes does not defy laws of science, logic, and rational thought. There is no reason to reject it.

I'd love to see what Cole has to say about the alleged 'extermination' methods. He conspicuously avoids the laughable Treblinka 'gas chambers' and the alleged "eyewitnesses" preposterous and conflicting statements. But then again, he's desperately gaming the 'holocaust' Industry.
'I beg for forgiveness, I'm really a good Jew'.
Very sad.

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship.
Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The Internet has demolished the lies. The tide is turning.


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Mala
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:39 pm

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Mala » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:30 pm)

David Cole makes so many nonsensical claims in this short piece of drivel that it's hard to know where to start. But in the case of the alleged huge mass graves, he goes way beyond being disingenuous to outright lying. For example:

David Cole:

If you want to claim that the Colossus of Rhodes never existed, fine. But your “proof” can’t be “because there’s no photo of it,” or “because we can’t find any remains.” Some things did exist in this world, only to be erased by natural or man-made causes.


But the remains are, and have always been claimed by the official story to be right were the Germans allegedly left them, only in the form of bone fragments rather than corpses.

David Cole:

The Nazis had over a year to eradicate the traces of Treblinka.


What exactly is that supposed to mean? The Germans allegedly "eradicated" the bodies by "cremating" them (in a way that is the biggest joke I've ever heard) and throwing the remains right back into the same pits the corpses were dug out of and covered with a thick layer of sand. This is supposed to pass as "eradication?" David Cole is not only a liar, he's a stupid liar at that.

David Cole:

My sarcasm aside, the fact is, we all know that Treblinka existed. Studying the barren land where Treblinka once stood isn’t like looking for Noah’s Ark. We know that what we’re studying did exist. And we know that the camp was razed. The case for Treblinka (and Sobibor, etc.) must be made through documents.


Hasn't the reason for all the fraudulent archaeological investigations of Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka been to prove, with physical evidence, that the official story about these camps is true? That last statement by Cole is simply an admission that the official story is and always has been a big lie.

David Cole:

I feel partly responsible for the fetish among revisionists regarding physical evidence. Yes, physical evidence is vital to study, when it exists. But if it doesn’t, it’s completely acceptable to build a case through contemporaneous documents. That’s not a “cop out.”


It's a HUGE cop out. It is alleged by the orthodox "historians" that the physical evidence does exist - right where the Germans allegedly left it.

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby ginger » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:24 pm)

I'm sorry to hear that David Cole is coming to the kinds of conclusions that David Irving has - backpedlling, softening his "denial" of the gas chamber myth and the final solution.

It is fair to ask what happened to the 100's of thousands of people who disappeared into the AR camps. Borjastick asks, in his comment: Where did they go?, and answers: They were sent east, expelled, removed, discarded from German controlled territory simply because they were not required in the war effort. They went into Russia, Belarus, Ukraine etc etc.

I too believe people were sent into the vast space of newly conquered areas of the Soviet Union. If they died of starvation, disease, wartime violence, their remains would be spread out over an area so vast that their great numbers would not be noticed.

It would be foolish for the Nazis to concentrate 100's of thousands of people into one place, kill them, and then be faced with the monumental task of disposing of the bodies. I doubt the Nazis believed they could remove every trace of human remains and of their crime and would be so foolish as to embark on such a plan.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9867
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Hannover » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:29 pm)

Cole said:
The Nazis had over a year to eradicate the traces of Treblinka. And the Soviets and Poles have done God-knows-what to that area since 1945. So the physical landscape as it exists now is worthless. And the survivors testimonies are worthless, too, as they proved in the ‘80s by either purposely or “by fuzzy memory” nearly sending a man to his death for being an “Ivan the Terrible” that he never was (Demjanjuk).
But in his 'Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers', here: http://codoh.com/library/document/987
Cole says:
(36) As the Nazis were preparing to abandon the Majdanek camp, they destroyed the crematorium building. Why were the gas chambers not similarly destroyed? Why would the Nazis leave their weapons of mass murder intact for the world to see? How hard would it have been for the Nazis to destroy the gas chambers, just like they did the crematorium building? At least, shouldn't the Nazis have filled in the Zyklon B induction holes, which serve as direct proofs of homicidal gassings? Either way, the destruction of the crematorium is clear proof that the Nazis had both the time and the ability to demolish buildings in the camp if they wanted to. Why were the gas chambers not demolished?
This is good. "The Nazis had over a year to eradicate the traces of Treblinka", but somehow left entire alleged 'gas chambers' intact at Majdanek even though they had plenty of time eliminate them. Cole, hoisted by his own petard.
There were no indications of mass extermination in which to "eradicate".

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship.
Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The Internet has demolished the lies. The tide is turning.


- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Inquisitor
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:40 am

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Inquisitor » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:09 pm)

It seems to me Cole/Stein is resorting to the very same tactics the Exterminationists commonly do. The notion that a few documentary references vastly outweighs or even cancels out a complete lack of physical evidence to support the official Reinhardt narrative is absurd!

Moreover, in light of Thomas Kues' work on the subject alone, how can anyone seriously suggest the transit-camp theory is merely "bunk?"

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... d_jews.php

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... jews_2.php

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... part_3.php

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... n_jews.php

Thinking people should be able to see where the real bunk lies in this discussion!

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Werd » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:00 am)

Roberto tried and failed. But since he likes to pat himself on the back, it really doesn't matter much.
Werd @ Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Kingfisher » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Jul 26, 2014 3:36 am)

I'm not going to join in any ad hominem attacks on David Cole and I have no problem with him seeking to question the apparent certainties of Mattogno and Graf on the AR camps. On the contrary, he is doing revisionism a service: we will reach the truth through debate and self-questioning more reliably than by sticking dogmatically to an established position.

This said, I can't go along with his too easy acceptance of the Korherr report as slam dunk, next case please. Moderator is right to say that the big unknown for exterminationists and revisionists alike is what happened to the deportees, alive or dead. Orthodoxy says they were buried on site, before being dug up and burned on pyres. Well, firstly this seems like a pretty un-Germanic and inefficient procedure and lack of planning. It also involves no end of questions about logistics: supply and storage of wood, for example. Not to mention that however efficient your operation you are going to leave an awful lot of human remains around in one form or another, burned or unburned. The biggy is what Hannover and Mala have already referred to: 700,000 bodies needs a helluva big hole and a big hole in the ground does not go away when you fill it in again. The ground strata are disturbed for ever; settlement is going to mean that the outlines of the pit(s) will be visible from the air. Sturdy Colls's LIDAR survey did not, as far as I am aware, find anything on a scale resembling what is required. A genuine archaeological investigation could resolve these issues once and for all, but the supporters of the orthodox account are not going to give in on this and I think we all know why.

We don't know what happened to the overwhelming majority of those sent to the AR camps. Lots of plausible explanations can be speculated, but David Cole appears to be saying that because we don't know for sure, one of these (mass murder) must be true. This is argument from ignorance.

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby EtienneSC » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:39 am)

A certain amount of email/facebook exchanges between Bradley Smith and David Stein over the last few days have been posted publicly, principally regarding Robert Faurisson, that are not worth reproducing for any light they shed on the AR camps. The material I have already reproduced above is clearly now in the public domain. Faurisson has also produced a summary of his views on Cole over the years.

In general though, it seems that Cole is positioning himself alongside Mark Weber and David Irving as a "moderate" revisionist, whilst characterizing Faurisson and some others as "deniers", with the key distinction being the version they accept of the AR camps and the Einsatzgruppen actions. There have been similar statements by Irving in 2014 on the AR camps (i.e. stating on the basis of German documents that they were killing centers). Cole is the first of these three "moderate revisionists" to directly address Mattogno's writings and has referred to an essay he intends to publish on Treblinka. It is probably best to wait until Cole publishes his considered opinions with appropriate citations rather than respond to his off-the-cuff remarks.

Cole's criticism of Faurisson are also of some interest, particularly his reference to hard copy transcripts of Faurisson's evidence at the 1985 Toronto trial. Does this exist online anywhere? His personal attitude to Faurisson does him no credit, but that is of no consequence in the greater scheme of things. I think we should accept that his views above were not written with scholarly intent and so the sarcastic tone and invective should simply be disregarded.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Dresden » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:17 am)

EtienneSC said:

"A certain amount of email/facebook exchanges between Bradley Smith and David Stein over the last few days have been posted publicly....."

Here is a link to it:

http://codohfounder.com/david-cole-call ... ley-smith/

David Cole Calls It a Day with Bradley Smith

Published on Friday, July 25 of 2014 by Sonico


David Cole on Robert Faurisson

“I’m going to make this short, and it will be my final word on the subject. I’ve been hearing a lot recently about Robert Faurisson badmouthing me. This is nothing new. This is what Faurisson does. He has systematically alienated, via his unwarranted insults, Mark Weber and David Irving, the two finest revisionist historians there are. Faurisson is displeased that I point out in my book that he froze on the witness stand at the Zundel Trial when asked about the Einsatzgruppen operations in the East after the invasion of Russia. If he is angry, let it be with his own behavior on the stand, preserved in the record of the proceedings (and accurately reproduced by me in my book). If Faurisson does not like Faurisson’s words being recorded, Faurisson needs to take that up with Faurisson. Just as in the case of “skeptic” fraud Michael Shermer, Faurisson is upset that I recounted his own words. Tough shit, boys.

“After my outing, Freddy Leuchter Facebook friended me like we were old pals. I’d met him maybe three times in my life, and I’d never had any conflict with him. A few days ago, Faurisson declared me an enemy, and Freddy concurred. And all of a sudden we were old enemies instead of old pals. The truth is, we were neither. Freddy isn’t a historian; Weber and Irving are. If Weber and Irving are on Faurisson’s enemies list, I am happy to be in their company. I’d rather be Weber’s real-life friend than Leuchter’s Facebook friend.

“Mark Weber and I have been friends for almost a quarter century. It is a friendship built on respect. Have we disagreed? Sure. All friends do every now and then. But we’ve never taken it public or made it a spectacle. Same with Bradley Smith, a friend of mine since 1989. But Faurisson? When he declares you an infidel, he makes a bigger spectacle of it than Cecil B. De Mille on acid.

“I have never sought conflict with Faurisson, but he has come at me time and again, and time and again I have stated that I don’t give one small damn about his opinion of me. He should be thankful to a man like Weber for giving him a forum for as long as he did. Instead, Faurisson strikes out at anyone who “displeases” him, and, in doing so, violates the tenet of a free and friendly exchange of ideas that separates revisionism (in theory if not in practice) from “orthodox” Holocaust historiography.

“He’s insignificant to my work and my life. I’m sorry that he’s bitter, but I can’t help that. He’s not worth another one minute of keyboard-typing. End of story.”
https://www.facebook.com/BigInfidel Scroll down to 21 July.

Smith Asks a Question: I thought David Cole/Stein going off on Faurisson this way was much more than just not necessary. Still, I did want to see the quote “’accurately reproduced’ by me [David] in my book.” I wrote to ask that he help me find that quote in his book, which is not indexed. I made no comment on the ugly, insulting language he used re Faurisson.

Cole Replies: “Are you running the Treblinka piece [this refers to an article he wrote for SR ] or not? If you have my book, the Faurisson comment is on page 30. But that’s irrelevant to the Treblinka piece. The Faurisson comment you quote was from a Facebook post. The Treblinka piece is something scholarly that I prepared specifically for you.”

Following that, I received a second message: “First of all old man, if you’re going to troll my Facebook page, be aware that I do not treat social media like a book or essay. It’s SOCIAL MEDIA. It’s ephemeral. It’s a conversation with my friends on my private page. I do not expect my private conversations to be critiqued as though I were submitting a scholarly essay.

“I’m curious — are you similarly grilling Leuchter on his claim that I am not a revisionist? I used the term ‘reproduced’ as in ‘represented.’ I accurately represented Faurisson’s behavior on the stands based on the trial transcripts (as I was not in Toronto in ’85 to see the trial myself). Faurisson is too unimportant a figure for me to have devoted even one page to reprinting the actual transcripts. It’s a throwaway paragraph about a marginal kook. He was asked on the stand if he had ever studied the mass killings following the invasion of Russia, he admitted that he never had, and it was embarrassing. End of story.”

Smith Replies: “I do intend to run your piece on Treblinka. I think you present it well. I also expect it to be criticized. I did buy your book and perused it all, read the appendix more closely. [Re the quote we are discussing] ‘If Faurisson is angry, let it be with his own behavior on the stand, preserved in the record of the proceedings (and accurately reproduced by me in my book’”

“Is this behavior reproduced in the Appendix? Or? You can save me some 15 minutes or maybe an hour if it you tell me where.”

A bit later I caught up with his question about my trolling his Facebook page where his diatribe on Faurisson appeared.

“I first got it I think from Santomauro. Then I went to take a look. I may be an old guy, you’re acting like a child. I asked you a simple question. You get defensive. You get defensive because you wrote saying you had done something you did not do. Your FB page is private in no way whatever — other than your wish that it were so if you say something there that is not true. If this sounds like I am getting impatient with you, it is because I am.

“Don’t get pissy with me, or have a hissy fit. I do not think I am going to be in the mood for it.”

Cole Replies: “A) My Facebook page is private. But when one of my friends shares something, it can be seen by others. That doesn’t mean that my page is not private. But if one of my friends decides to share something, he can.

“B) If you want me to go fucking dig up the transcript of the Faurisson cross-examination from the Zundel Trial (which I only have in hard-copy, unless you know of a complete online source), I will, just to prove a point. Unlike you, Weber read my book front-to-back, and gave me various positive and negative notes. There was no disagreement regarding the way I presented Faurisson’s behavior on the stand. He was ill-prepared and ignorant on the Eastern Front killings. It will take me several days to find the transcripts. As I said, I will find them, if you insist, but, regardless…

“C) We’re finished. Permanently. You’ve always been a pathetic puppet dancing at the end of Faurisson’s strings, which, considering how unimportant he is in the big scheme of things, is pathetic to an even greater degree. I was prepared to let it go, because I realize your need for money and I equally realize that since the “official” Faurisson / IHR split, having him in your corner helps you out financially. You should have understood that I was being tolerant by letting it go, and you should have refrained from pushing it further. You did not. I, on the other hand, have been willing to let things go, including behavior of yours toward Weber after the 2009 “split” that I consider to be in direct contradiction to your supposed belief in “open debate.”

“Faurisson will be dead soon, and where will that leave you? You’ve alienated Weber, and now you’ve alienated me. You’re not good at long-term thinking. I suppose you’ll still have Rudolf, who, from what I have seen, has been enough of a gentleman to not get involved in the recent attacks against me from Faurisson.

“Parfrey [Cole’s publisher] will run my Treblinka piece as the thing that Brad Smith was too much of a pussy to run unless I kowtowed to Faurisson. Fine. It will only demonstrate that I have (as always) tried to remain independent of revisionist orthodoxy and pressure.

“Your mailing list is drying up faster than Faurisson’s health. I tried to offer you something for the future, out of friendship, not respect. There is no respect there, as there is regarding how I feel toward Weber. But there is/was friendship, and I try to be loyal to my friends, even the ones I find better suited for ridicule.

“No more. We’re through. You do not have the right to use any footage from Gran Tabu. We had already decided mutually that it was owned jointly by you, me, and Rudolf, and that all three parties must give consent before any use can be made of the film. I withdraw my consent.”

Smith Replies: [I wrote to say that I had not replied to the above originally as I was running errands with my wife but that now I was back.]

“Sure, get me the relevant passages with re to Faurisson that you mention [above], even though I did not ask you for them. That’s an expression of your hysteria. But do as you say you will.

“Re your tolerance: it is nothing compared to your hysteria in “defending” yourself. With a bit more manliness, take your time and think about this, you would not feel the need for these lady-like hissy-fits.

“With re to running your article on Treblinka: I did not say or even suggest that I was not going to run it. It’s your hysteria that causes you to think I will not run it. Man up, David. I expect to run it, and have a reply to it.

“Re El Gran Tabu: understood.

“—B”

There has been no further reply from David Cole/Stein. The entire exchange took place on one day, 22 July 2014. It’s all over. One question was too much for the hissy-boy. Perhaps the implications of the one question. Not for me, but for David Cole Stein. Some 25 years and it’s come to an end because of one question. I’m OK with it. When he gets anxious, I just don’t care for the quality of his prose.

A follow-up thought: David Cole Stein now has the opportunity to go off on Smith. The above screed is nothing to what he is capable of. I can picture him doing it even now. And what he does, if he does do it, will be out-of-this-world exceptional. You will never have read anything like it. I almost look forward to it. I do look forward to it. He’s that good.

end
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Breker » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:27 pm)

Good grief! David Cole has become unhinged. Too much libation perhaps. His demeanor, I assume he thinks he is made of Bohemian beatnik stuff, is merely coarse, boorish, and unintelligent. Maybe the compression chamber he dwells in has gotten to him. If nothing else he is making a complete ass of himself, if I may be blunt. Neither his illogical reasoning for accepting the Reinhardt camps narrative or his manner of conversation are helping him establish any desperately needed new credibility. He's now become the ordinary buffoon.
What once was is no longer.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
Creox
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:32 pm

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Creox » 5 years 2 months ago (Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:52 pm)

I agree with Breker 100% and came on to state just that.

What happened to Stein/Cole? This man was revered on this forum up until the time he was outed and decided to step back from revisionism.

His diatribe with Smith is cringe worthy and certainly infantile. Did he always have this kind of relationship with Smith and Faurisson? And if not then why the transformation? He has certainly become a bitter man in any case. What did Faurisson have to say to him any way?

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 760
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: David Cole on Treblinka

Postby Breker » 5 years 2 months ago (Sun Jul 27, 2014 1:10 pm)

Certainly we're witnessing a case of arrested development in Mr. Cole. Plus, it's all too obvious he cares not about facts. What he does care about is making money from his embarrassingly childish, amateurish, and vanity laden book. And for his own welfare we recommend that he put a cork in it.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests