This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
This one has grown increasingly complicated for me and is now something of a small catastrophe. From what I gather, I’ve failed Henri Roques, I’ve failed Robert Faurisson, and now I've failed David Cole. That of course is in addition to Willis and Elizabeth and all those who are rooting for them.
Roques and I didn’t correspond—before the Struthof robbery of Cole, but we certainly didn’t have any problems. But Roques was unhappy that I did not run his letter charging Cole was inventing part of his story about the robbery. I wrote Roques explaining that I would run his account of the robbery in my next newsletter and in a coda asked him to send along what proof he had that Cole had lied about his experience at Struthof, which is what the charge really is, and which I would be willing to publish. Roques didn’t respond to my letter.
Robert Faurisson wrote me outlining what he feels is my negligence or even unwillingness to publish the Roques letter and said he would have to "think about what to do." He suggested that Cole had manipulated me into running Cole’s own long response to Faurisson’s short letter in SR21 so that I would have to cut Roques’s letter from that issue. I wrote Faurisson to say that Cole did not know I would not run the Roques letter in SR21. Faurisson has continued to distribute his letter that says Cole did know, tho Faurisson has no way to know first hand that Cole knew, so it is only speculation.
I faxed Faurisson to remind him that I was planing to do a special publication to house his reply to Cole's reply to his original letter and to urge him to get the material to me by 20 April at the latest, or to inform me that under the pressure of all the other obligations he has that he had decided to not respond to Cole. I haven’t heard from Faurisson since early April, and he doesn’t answer my faxed letters.
For his part, Cole was more than annoyed, he was outraged over the couple or three paragraphs I wrote about him in my (undated) April letter and he wrote me the angriest and most personally insulting letter I have ever received. It’s a real over-the-top missive which makes Willis Carto’s insults appear the fulminations of an emasculate. It kinda hurt my feelings.
Cole was particularly out of sorts over my account of his not fulfilling his agreement to make a video for D&B productions about the physical evidence for the gas chambers and the consequences of that on the Campus Project and on my financial situation, by my characterization of his response to Faurisson’s letter as “disrespectful,” and my failure to defend him, Cole, against Faurisson’s suggestion that Cole wants to exploit the Struthof robbery for money. To that point I want to say that it was my idea to get an interview with Cole after the robbery, not Cole’s.
Cole raised other issues as well, all of which place me in boorish and contemptible light, and ended by breaking with me entirely, writing: “I don’t wish to have anything more to do with 'D&B Productions.' Consider this letter a demand to sever my ties and dissolve the partnership.”
Well, I agreed of course to this demand and am now the proud, sole owner of a kaput video production company which has many unsaleable revisionist videos. David and I still have some business odds and ends to clean up, which we’re taking care of by fax and post. Maybe one day we’ll kiss and make up.
I’m still distributing Cole’s letter, “David Cole Replies to Henri Roques and Robert Faurisson.” I described this letter last time out as Cole’s 8 page reply; since then it has grown to be a 16-page reply. In that part of the “Reply” that replies to Roques, it sets the Struthof record straight from Cole’s viewpoint. The more substantial part of the “Reply” is a critical look at some of Faurisson’s work.
Some time ago I told Cole I hoped he was going to be very careful mounting a serious criticism of Faurisson and to not go off half-cocked because he was annoyed about one thing or another. Cole said: “Faurisson is not going to reply. Take my word for it.” I took the implication to be that some of Faurisson’s work is vulnerable to close examination. Why wouldn’t that be? Scholars who are among the first in their field always run the highest risk of factual and imaginative error. Faurisson had the added burden, because of academic bigotry, of being denied what is so important to the scholar—peer review.
In any event, send me a couple bucks and I’ll send you Cole's 16-page “Reply.” At the same time, please be informed that if you do send the “couple bucks” Cole will not get a single penny of that money. He asked me to make this very plain. Cole will receive no part of the “couple bucks.” I will keep it all for myself.
For the first time in the 15 years I have associated with revisionists, I find myself standing on the dock, as it were, waving good-bye to one associate, one friend after another.
“So long Elizabeth Carto. So long Willis. Bye, Henri Roques. Have a good trip. So long Robert Faurisson. So long David Cole. It’s been good to know ye, every one.”
Additional information about this document
|Author(s):||Bradley R. Smith|
|Title:||The Faurisson / Cole Affair|
|Sources:||Smith's Report, no. 23, May 1995, pp. 3f.|
|First posted on CODOH:||Sept. 19, 2015, 6:17 a.m.|