From firstname.lastname@example.org Sat Jun 17 05:06:23 PDT 1995 Article: 22250 of alt.revisionism Path: news.port.island.net!news.island.net!news.bc.net!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e1a.megaweb.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From: email@example.com (DonVH) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: INTERVIEW: DAVID COLE Date: 15 Jun 1995 07:13:11 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Lines: 371 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Message-ID: <email@example.com> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org (DonVH) NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com I have recently had the pleasure of discussing matters of historical revisionism with David Cole. David has also gratiously responded to a series of questions which I put forth to him with the specific purpose of being posted in this forum. His answers are at once, funny, angry, serious,and insightful, but above all, honest. He is critical of revisionists and exterminationists alike. One may disagree with David, but no one can claim that he is insincere. David has appeared on numerous television shows and is best know for his video, “David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper.” And now...without further ado...David Cole... INTERVIEW: DAVID COLE Q: How did you first become interested in Holocaust Revisionism? COLE: I was introduced to revisionism via a number of sources, ranging >from the late David McCalden (who was the first revisionist I ever met) to a friend of mine whose father worked for the ADL. By 1988 I was interested not so much by revisionist literature, which I deemed to be fairly weak in places, but instead by the almost total lack of reliable sources (or in many cases the lack of ANY sources) for the gas chamber / genocide concept. After reading the major mainstream Holocaust books, I became aware that the evidence for the gas chamber / genocide concept was extremely weak...which doesn’t mean that I dismissed the story entirely - I just became aware that the evidence was weak. What bothered me was that the mainstream authors didn’t seem to mind making unsourced claims...nor did they seem to mind that their various versions of events often conflicted. There didn’t actually seem to be one “version.” Each book made different claims about the “genocide plan” and the “gas chambers.” I thought that AT BEST this was sloppy historiography...after all, I had been told since grade school that everything about the Holocaust had long ago been ascertained beyond question. So I thought I’d look into this issue myself. In a way, you can say that I was affected more by the books of the NON-revisionists. This whole subject just SCREAMED out for more research. So I looked at my cobweb-covered social calendar and figured “Hell, I got about ten or twenty years to blow on research.” Q: What, in your opinion, was the fate of Europe’s Jews during the Second World War? COLE: Ah, now isn’t that the question of the hour! You know, after about nine years of research, I think I finally know the answer to that question. If I ever publish again (and I mean a book; I’ve never enjoyed doing videos) I’ll answer that in depth. If any of you Internetters out there are interested in the question of the fate of Europe’s Jews, just take your time and pay attention to the evidence and, if you allow your mind to stay clear, you’ll get to the truth - or, as I’m fond of saying, the truth AS BEST AS WE CAN KNOW IT. Q: For those who have not seen it, what would you say is the importance of your film, “David Cole interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper” ? COLE: My video “David Cole Interviews Dr. Franciszek Piper” was important only in that it has yielded results. Finally, last year, the Auschwitz State Museum (ASM) began telling people the truth about Krema 1. Tourists are no longer told that they are stepping inside a “genuine” gas chamber. Now they are told that the interior was remodeled after the war to LOOK LIKE the kind of gas chamber that is believed by the ASM to have once been extant at the Auschwitz Main Camp (Pressac believes that there was a gas chamber at the Main Camp, but his description of it differs from the ASM’s, so it need to be pointed out that the Krema 1 which is presently on display is specifically the ASM’s version of the Auschwitz Main Camp gas chamber). As far as the Internet goes, I think it should be pointed out that when my “Dr. Piper” video was first released, it was held up to constant (and very immature) ridicule on the ‘net. “Cole’s lying,” it was said. “Cole’s edited Dr. Piper’s comments to misrepresent what he’s saying.” I was called a liar and a fraud. Now that the ASM has changed its spiel to say openly exactly what Dr. Piper told me, and what I reported in my video, the ‘net has grown oddly silent! No apologies from anyone, of course! (Not that I’m asking for any). There was one freak on the ‘net who told me I should “suck demon cocks in Hell for all eternity” because of my Piper video. Where’s this guy now? What does he have to say now? You see, AT FIRST the line was “Cole’s lying about Krema 1 being ‘remodeled’ after the war.” But now that this has been officially admitted the line has changed to “sure it’s been remodeled, but so what?” This is a standard anti-revisionist tactic. When a revisionist points ANYTHING out, the first response is simply to DENY what he’s saying. “He’s lying.” It doesn’t matter if it’s REALLY known whether he’s lying or not. It’s just STRATEGICALLY the best way to deal with revisionists. Just accuse them of lying. THEN, if the thing that the revisionist was pointing out becomes adopted as part of the standard Holocaust line, the tactic CHANGES (out of necessity) to “sure the revisionist is right about this ONE LITTLE TINY POINT - but it makes no difference - he’s still wrong about everything else!” This was the tactic with the Auschwitz swimming pool. The first responses were “there is no pool.” Then, when it became clear that there WAS one, it became “sure there is, but so what? It’s an irrelevant point.” The same pattern occured with the delousing chambers. First it was denied that Zyklon was actually used for delousing in the cmaps. Revisionists were actually RIDICULED for saying so. Then, after Pressac, it became “okay, sure, there were delousing chambers - but so what?” We see the same pattern with the human soap, the Dachau “gas chamber,” the reduction of the Auschwitz death toll (something that revisionists were talking about while Yehuda Bauer was still going through puberty), and many other things. The rule of thumb for those who “battle” revisionists : DENY first. Throw around the word “liar” like a football. Then sit back and hope that everyone believes you and the revisionist goes away or is put in jail or beaten up. But if the worst happens, and the revisionist is proven right, just pretend that you ALWAYS knew the truth of what he’s been saying, and make sure that everyone understands that the revisionist is STILL a liar about “everything else”! All I’m saying is this; it very well might be that the remodeling of Krema 1, the Auschwitz swimming pool, the human soap story, the reduced Auschwitz death toll, the fake Dachau “gas chamber,” etc. etc. ARE INDEED irrelevant to the debate over the existence of homicidal gas chambers, or the existence of a genocide plan. But you only do yourself a disservice by AUTOMATICALLY DENYING the truthfulness of everything that proceeds from the mouths of revisionists. You should skip the first phase, the “liar” phase, and go directly to the second one, the “it doesn’t matter” phase. Several months ago the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s magazine “Response” published an article calling me a liar for saying that there was a swimming pool at the Auschwitz Main Camp. This is exactly the kind of counterproductive strategy that “exterminationists” can’t seem to get beyond. We all know that there was a swimming pool. We also understnad that the presence of this pool IN NO WAY negates the possibility of gassings at Auschwitz. It’s totally irrelevant! But there’s no reason to LIE about anything. Just be truthful. Don’t scream “LIAR - THERE WAS NO POOL.” Just rationally explain “yes, there’s a pool, but at best it was for the few favored Main Camp inmates - one of many perks available to preferred inmates - but it is in no way representative of the experience of rank and file inmates - especially Birkenau inmates.” There, now, doesn’t that feel better!? No need to lie. Don’t underestimate the capacity of your audience to take in seemingly contradictory pieces of evidence. If you can explain something clearly enough, they’ll understand. I was never lying about Krema 1. Period. My interview with Piper has ALWAYS been available in its rough, unedited version - just to show that there were no “creative” edits. But that never really mattered to most of you, now did it? Q: What do you consider to be the most compelling support for the revisionist view of the “Holocaust” story? COLE: The most “compelling” evidence for the revisionist version is the LACK of hard evidence presented by the “exterminationist” side, and the questionable nature of most of the physical evidence. Now, just because the “exterminationists” don’t provide much hard evidence doesn’t necessarily mean that there IS no hard evidence...the gas chamber and genocide stories might indeed be true IN SPITE of the smugness and laziness of the “exterminationists.” Just because most of these people are so sure of their own theory that they feel no need to really go out and PROVE anything DOESN’T MEAN that they wouldn’t find any evidence if they ever just get up off their fat asses and look. I’ve come to really respect Chris Browning. His “Fateful Months” and “Path to Genocide” are real attempts to look for evidence - and he’s not afraid to talk about the many flaws and contradictions in the varous “exterminationist” schools of thought about the “genocide” plan. I think this is why so many others refuse to break a sweat looking for evidence; they’re afraid of having to say “we don’t know that yet.” They have this scenario in their minds that as soon as they acknowledge the gaps that still exist in Holocaust history, within 24 hours Ernst Zundel will become dictator of the world! This sounds ridiculous but it’s true. A lot of these guys have scared themselves silly over the likes of Zundel. In a way, they let Zundel write their Holocaust books because it’s their fear of Zundel that determines what they say and what they don’t. Guys like Browning and Arno Mayer have more of a respect for their audience. They understand that most people can handle knowing about still unanswered Holocaust questions without getting the urge to put on jackboots and brown shirts. Raul Hilberg was candid, VERY candid, about what he didn’t know during his stint as a witness in the first Zundel Trial. I only wish he was as candid in his books! Q: Have you encountered any anti-semitism from the revisionists that you have met around the world? COLE: Have I encountered anti-Semitism from revisionists? That’s a tricky one, because most of them are always on their best behavior when I’m around. The ones, and there are many, who believe in wacky Jewish conspiracy theories or the supremacy of the “white race” rarely let me in on the joke because they know that I won’t share those views. I always volunteer my views on such subjects as religion, race-mixing, conspiracy theories, etc., just so there should be no confusion about where I stand on those things. Plus my best friend, who is black, is REALLY imposing - this is a BIG guy who, by his sheer size, doesn’t exactly encourage candor >from white supremacists who might be in the same room. Anytime he’s around, my revisionist pals are either silent or trying to say something complimentary about black people (like “I really love that Marcus Garvey” or “you people are such great Christians”). One time I was having dinner with Mark Weber and his girlfriend. As we were coming out of the restaurant, a trendy, expensive West L.A. eatery, Weber was talking animatedly about some very “conservative” subjects. And who should come walking up behind us, listening in, but the rapper Ice T, who, as many of you would know, is as far left as Mark is far right. I managed to change the subject before the situation could become dangerous. Still and all, nowadays I wonder if I did the right thing. It’s not that I wish Mark any harm, it’s just that, well, the image of a revisionist historian getting clobbered by a famous rapper...well, as Beavis and/or Butt-head might say, “that would be cool.” Q: What difficulties has your position on the “Holocaust” resulted in for you? COLE: My position has resulted in a plethora of “difficulties,” but the majority of them I now realize were due to my own thoughtlessness, impatience, pig-headedness, and my mishandling of several things that, if handled better, would have resulted in life being a bit easier for me. So I’m not going to bitch about my “problems” because so many of them are squarely of my own making. I’m not a “victim,” with the exceptiions being the times I’ve been beaten up (there’s no reason to do this to ANYONE, no matter how much you disagree with their positions) and the times the media has GROSSLY misrepresented my views. And by that I don’t mean “negative press.” I mean the times they have manufactured quotes from me in order to distort and falsify my positions. Like when “60 Minutes” re-edited my appearance on the “Montel Williams Show” by taking the scene when I’m introduced at the beginning of the show - and I nod “yes” when Montel says I’m Jewish, and placing that affirmative nod after a point later in the show when Montel asks if the Holocaust is a “myth.” So, the millions of viewers who watch “60 Minutes,” saw Montel ask “Is it a myth?” - and then they saw me nod in the affirmative. The deceit is only obvious to the few who have seen the actual video of the “Montel Williams” episode. How can this kind of media behavior be excused? I’ve NEVER said that the Holocaust is a “myth” or “hoax” or “lie.” Yet to all of my family and friends across the country (and to the MILLIONS of other people) who saw “60 Minutes,” this was the unmistakable impression. And of course we all know that the great Mike Wallace wouldn’t lie, right? “60 Minutes” caused me a GREAT deal of pain and grief, and I think that this ranks with one of those things that is NOT in any way my fault, because I’m more than willing to defend (and defend PUBLICLY) any of my beliefs. But I’m not responsible for the gross and malicious behavior of some reporters and producers who, frustrated with the fact that I don’t say what they would LIKE me to say, bypass all boundaries of ethical behavior to “make” me say the words they want to hear. Q: What is the nature of your disagreement with Robert Faurrison? COLE: My dispute with Robert Faurisson was outlined in my article in Bradley Smith’s newsletter “Smith’s Report” #21, as well as in my 16 page response to Faurisson and Henri Roques, which has been excerpted in “Smith’s Report” and distributed widely by Bradley. If you want the details, you can post those items. The bottom line, for those who don’t want the gory details, is that Faurisson thinks I’m an agent for the “Jewish conspiracy,” and that I’ve been sent to infiltrate and destroy his precious revisionist “movement.” And I think that Faurisson is a complete fraud and liar masquerading as a historian...aman who’s spent years misleading people and misrepresenting crucial evidence in order to support his otherwise insupportable positions. We each have our “cheering sections.” Faurisson has the support of all the other revisionists, racists, and right-wingers who have long believed that I’m a “conspirator,” and, as I’ve been finding out since my dispute with Faurisson went public, I have the support of many honest researchers on both sides of this issue who have tried to take Faurisson up on his empty request for “open debate,” only to find out that Faurisson rarely if ever makes himself available to defend ANY of his fraudulent positions, most of which fall to shreds at the first hint of a critical question. The response of the revisionist “community” to this dispute has persuaded me to sever my ties with those few revisionists I ever had “ties” with. The response from Faurisson, Bradley Smith, Mark Weber, and Dr. Robert Countess (among others) has been the same. “How can you be so hard on Faurisson,” they ask, “he’s suffered so badly at the hands of the French government. Have some compassion!” This response really burns me up, not only because it bypasses any discussion of the truth of my specific complaints about Faurisson’s work, but even more because it comes from people who have NEVER given an OUNCE of compassion to concentration camp survivors, even though these people have suffered far more than Faurisson EVER has. To me, nothing is worse than a hypocrite. Time and again these revisionists have derided and mocked camp survivors, bragging that they won’t soften their tone because of the suffering of these people. Bradley Smith, who called Mel Mermelstein a “fraud,” “vainglorious prevaricator,” and “false tale-spinner,” and Elie Wiesel a man “not wrapped too tight,” has lost the moral right to ask me to soften my tone on Faurisson because “the poor man’s been through so much.” Faurisson has been telling revisionists that I’m some kind of villain for being so “hard” on such an “oppressed” man as he. But Faurisson, who took immense pleasure in hounding Otto Frank until his dying day, and who was NEVER swayed by the fact that Frank lost his entire family because of the Nazis, has NO RIGHT to now ask for an immunity from criticism that he has always denied others. Faurisson is suffering? Perhaps. But he has it a thousand times better than a Jew living under Nazism. I refuse to have a double standard. People may not like me, but I never want it said that I’m not fair. I’ve criticized the testimony of survivors and mainstream Holocaust scholars, and I’ll be damned if I’m not going to be just as hard if not harder on a fraud like Faurisson. As I told Bradley in a recent letter, my association with the revisionist “movement” was always conditional; I share very little or nothing in common with any of these people except for a desire to probe the unanswered questions regarding the Holocaust. The minute I felt I could no longer trust the revisionists to be genuinely interested in getting to the truth of the gas chamber / genocide story was the minute I was out the door. As far as I’m concerned now, I’m no more in their “camp” than the “exterminationist” one. This may sound foolish to the smug anti-revisionists of the ‘net, who are probably bursting with sarcastic laughter that I would have EVER really thought that the revisionists had integrity. But back in the real world, it must be understood that both Mark Weber and David Irving are highly competent World War Two historians - and this is something that even a master libel artist like Michael Shermer (of the “Skeptic” and the “Donahue Show”) was forced to admit (I’ll explain the “libel artist” comment: Shermer wrote in his “Skeptic” article that he had evidence “from within my own ranks” that I’m a “racist with a political agenda.” However, in two subsequent tape-recorded phone calls, one with me and one with a fellow “skeptic,” Shermer admitted that this claim was patently false. He even told his “skeptic” supporter that the “racist” claim against me was “the most misleading thing” in his article. This fellow “skeptic” was outraged enough to turn a copy of this conversation over to me. Despite my pleas to Shermer to print a retraction, it’s been a year so far and no retraction. Shermer is not concerned at all about correcting “the most misleading thing” he wrote in his article. Some “skeptic”) Back to Weber and Irving. I’m not at all close to Irving, so I really can’t comment on him. But I CAN say that Mark Weber’s greatest flaw is that he seems to concern himself more with the “movement” than with the integrity of his own work. He might have had a real shot at legitimacy as a historian, but he’s blown it by sacrificing his integrity for “movement” concerns. For example, IHR sells the “Protocols of Zion.” Weber freely acknowledges (privately) that this book is a ridiculous fraud. But he also admits that it’s one of the consistently best selling books they have. Weber would like to drop it, but he’s afraid of losing support. Q: What are your plans for the future? Right now I’m working on a fairly lengthy and time-consuming project. Mainly I’m still in the research phase. I prefer that part. I love doing research. I’m not so big on the “publicity” part. I think that’s a major misconception among people who follow the revisionist debate. I’ve been a part of most of the major media “adventures” (like “Montel Williams,” “Phil Donahue,” “60 Minutes” “The New Yorker,” etc.) and I think some people probably get the idea that I like doing that kind of stuff. But these people get a skewed perspective of my life. At best they see maybe two or three hours out of my entire year. They don’t have a clue about what I do with my roughly 16 or so waking hours each day. I’m really only in my element when I’m researching something. I hate doing the talk shows. Since I declined to appear on “60 Minutes” I’ve gone cold turkey. No more media for a long time. The worst part of the talk shows is, you’re sitting in your dressing room or the green room, waiting to go on, and you’re going over in your mind just WHAT you plan to say for the few uninterrupted minutes of talk time you’ll be afforded on the show. So you’re going over your “best” material. It’s like a comedian, about to go on the “Tonight Show” for the first time, going over his “best” seven minutes! But history isn’t like that. You can’t refine and edit the entire Holocaust into seven minutes! History is all about specifics, details, and digression. It’s an insult to the subject to demand a “brief” digest. Claude Lanzmann had the right idea; the longer the better! But mabe my appearances on the talk shows have yielded some positive results. After all, didn’t the “Montel Williams” episode I did with Mark Weber end up reuniting two long lost brothers, who each thought the other had been gassed at Auschwitz? And I think that my film clips from Majdanek (which I showed on “Donahue”) might also have some positive effects; I’ve been told by a “little bird” (a usually reliable little bird) that there’s a chance that the Majdanek Museum might soon jettison one or all of their “homicidal” gas chambers. Last year, when I met with Majdanek Museum Curator Tomasz Kranz, he seemed ready to do that with their largest “homicidal” (actually delousing) gas chamber. I’m not a betting man, but I’d wager that, more than any concerns about historical accuracy, the major concern of the Majdanek Museum is that without “gas chambers” to view, no one would have any reason to travel to Lublin! I wonder what the response will be on the ‘net if the Majdanek gas chambers, which have been like a “pet project” of mine for the past three years, are officially revised? I mean, right now everyone calls me a liar...
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor