reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @GermarRudolf
@GermarRudolf - Germar Rudolf (* 1964)
Population Collapse and Wartime Propaganda: How Holocaust Propaganda May Result in the Extinction of the Human Species. Presentation given on March 28, 2026. Also accessible at https://rumble.com/v7crmow, https://codoh.com/library/document/population-collapse-and-wartime-propaganda/
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on Speaker 1, a long-time Holocaust forensic chemist and organizer of institutions promoting “open debate” and free speech, and then shifts to a demographic argument that, in his view, connects population collapse and wartime/social propaganda to the future of humanity.
Speaker 1 describes his background: education in chemistry and interdisciplinary theoretical crystallography/applied math/solid-state chemistry, then entry into Holocaust work as a forensic chemist in 1990–1991. After “thirty five years” of involvement, he says he manages the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust and defends free speech. He is the lead editor of Inconvenient History and previously led the Holocaust Handbooks series. He says many Holocaust Handbooks books are accessible free of charge as PDFs, and that books are also available in EPUB and some audiobooks, with hard copies available for purchase.
He describes projects aimed at accessibility and education: a Holocaust Encyclopedia project published in 2023, available in English, German, French, and Spanish, with Arabic translation in progress; he says it is freely accessible at holocaustencyclopedia.com. He also describes an online Holocaust Academy (holocaustacademy.com) that publishes material teaching “holocaust skepticism” and how research is “used and misused” in politics and society. He claims their first Holocaust Summit in February drew about 5,000 virtual attendees and produced a continuing podcast series with Dave Kahara, “Holocaust,” released on the first Saturday of each month.
He states that the day’s podcast topic (and the talk’s theme) is “population collapse,” contrasting it with replacement/genocide framing and arguing instead for “population collapse and wartime propaganda.” He connects this to what he calls a core demographic trigger: a paper by a “world’s leading demographer” titled “Human extinction from a probabilistic demographic perspective.” Speaker 1 says the paper extrapolates that if current worldwide trends continue, the human species would become extinct by 2339 (3,314 years from then), and he claims problems with the paper include using only five years of data (2020–2025) and COVID-19 as a major event affecting fertility; he says it also lacks granularity because it looks at countries rather than subpopulations.
He argues that fertility does not rebound post-COVID due to a global shift toward “virtual human interactions,” and he claims the “biggest chunk” of internet activity is pornography which, in his framing, reduces real partnership and childbearing. He contrasts this with claims he says mainstream media makes about overpopulation causing disaster, and instead cites statements and headlines that he presents as opposing overpopulation narratives. He references a French conservative think tank (Robert Schumann Foundation) predicting “demographic suicide” by 2050 in Europe, and claims that European fertility is below what he calls reproductive stability (2.1 children per woman). He asserts that contraceptive pills in the U.S. (1950) and Europe (starting in 1960, and introduced between 1961 and 1967) contributed to fertility decline, and he describes an example from Germany in which access was restricted initially to married women with at least three children; he says this policy changed in 1966.
Speaker 1 repeatedly argues that separating sexuality from procreation contributes to extinction-like dynamics in humans. He then provides country-by-country claims: he lists Iran and other Muslim-majority regions plus Sub-Saharan Africa as still above or near reproductive stability, while he describes Europe and several high-income East Asian areas as lower. He identifies South Korea as the “worst case,” claiming fertility at 0.7 children per woman and extinction by the end of the century. He claims Europe’s fertility decline is partially offset by “mass immigration,” while warning about “misintegration,” and then argues that Japan, empty villages in Southern European countries, and China also show similar decline.
He argues that desired family size remains roughly 2–3 children via polling, and that biological timing matters: he claims women’s fecundity peaks around age 28, and that in developed countries average first childbirth over 30 means “statistically” many desired children are not born. He links delayed childbearing and finding partners later with infertility/improbability, family instability, divorce, and negative effects on fecundity. He also claims earlier technology (TV) lowered fertility and that “virtual reality” has worsened this effect; he says older studies found differences based on time and partner focus.
On money, he claims the United Nations data show a correlation between higher income and fewer children, and says this contradicts the idea that lack of money is the primary issue. He asserts that education correlates with lower fertility, and that divorce and being unmarried are associated with further declines. He discusses Swedish and U.S.-specific patterns including “whites only” data and the effects of third-party income; he claims additional income matters differently depending on marital status.
As an example of attempted policy fixes, Speaker 1 describes Germany’s child-allowance and benefits: a monthly allowance per child, retirement credits per child, paid parenting leave, job protection, and free childcare/schooling through college/trade/training. He claims these “financial” solutions had “nothing” or “zero” effect. He then argues “cultural solutions” were politically impossible, and describes a German government commission formed under Willy Brandt in the early 1970s where he says a cultural component was rejected, while he claims financial changes did not reverse decline.
Speaker 1 also argues that states cannot pursue demographic engineering “after Auschwitz,” citing what he says an AI statement returned when he queried this. He asserts his own conclusion is that postwar ethical/political constraints prevent the “cultural” approach he describes.
He is asked about statistics outside Germany, and responds that Germany is “ahead of the crowd.” He argues demographic decline across Europe and elsewhere is worsening, and claims Ukrainian war-related displacement contributes further declines and migration toward Germany.
He then claims culture can be seen through “granularity” by comparing insular groups: he describes the Amish and “Yiddish” (Orthodox Jews) as comparatively high-fertility cases. He claims Amish have roughly 6 children per woman, reject certain technologies for private enjoyment (no TV/phone/internet/tablets at home, real-person interaction), and reports an Amish population forecast: current around 410,000, with an extrapolated curve leading to very large numbers in the U.S. by 2230/2240 under continued fertility and community retention. He also claims Amish retention after leaving early adulthood is around 90% returning. For the Yiddish/Orthodox Jews, he claims an income-fertility relationship that still retains higher fertility rates regardless of poverty, and he contrasts what he describes as work ethic differences and social welfare reliance.
He describes Israel as an outlier: he says Israel’s fertility stays higher than global averages, with religious women having more children; he claims Israel’s polarization between secular and fundamentalist groups drives demographic change. He also uses projected demographic comparisons (including Iran and Turkey) to argue that Israel’s growth trajectory contrasts with declines around it, and he ties this to future social and political conflict.
At the conclusion, Speaker 1 states several “conclusions”: he presents the contraceptive pill as a decisive long-run threat, and then argues the most decisive additional threat is “Western values” and decadence (hedonism, materialism, paganism, individualism). He claims virtual temptations (TV to AI-partner creation) reduce childbearing. He argues “salvation” requires “drastic cultural shifts” prioritizing altruism, family, communal values, and love, and he frames “the meaning of life” as the “creation and raising of new life in love,” contrasting “love education” with sex education. He returns to a recommendation for self-discipline, including avoiding pornography and using technology restraint.
The transcript ends with Speaker 3 listing additional resources: Holocaust Encyclopedia (~600 topics with references), Holocaust Handbooks (archival/forensic research and documentaries), Holocaust Pocketbooks, Holocaust Academy training, the podcast series “Holocaust,” and the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust with the periodical Inconvenient History, along with links to Speaker 1’s personal site.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I believe, is is familiar with who this gentleman is. He is I believe he's the, without a doubt, the leading expert on probably many things, but, certainly, the subject that he's best known for being the leading expert on. And we all know that that's that that subject that until recently, you couldn't even talk about Right. And have a rational conversation. But thanks to him and other circumstances, we're getting to where we can actually have an intelligent conversation with people about that that heretofore verboten subject, the Holocaust.
Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I give credit to the Israelis. They did it in Gaza and now with Iran, and people start listening. It's not me. It's them.
Right. So it backfires on them. Now just a brief rundown of my background. I have a an education as a exact scientist. I had a what they generally call it diploma degree, which is a little higher than a master's degree in The US in chemistry.
And then worked on a PhD in these interdisciplinary theoretic crystallography, applied math, and solid state chemistry. High up in the ivory tower, completely irrelevant to our topic. At the same time, I got my foot into that quagmire that's called the holocaust as forensic chemist. And down the rabbit hole, I went in nineteen ninety, ninety one and came never out of it. Right now, after thirty five years of being involved in it, I'm managing the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, defending free speech where it is most threatened.
In that context, I'm the lead editor of our periodical, Inconvenient History, where papers are being published that is inconvenient to the powers that be. Since '19 actually, 2000, I have been the lead editor of the Holocaust Handbooks, the world's most hard hitting and leading research series, archival and forensic in nature. On that topic, you can find it on the website there. All the books are accessible free of charge as PDF, and many of them in EPUB and some audiobooks. You find things where can buy hard copies too.
After thirty five years of that research, oh, not quite thirty five actually, I started on that project in 2023. So that is thirty two, thirty three years of this research in amassing all this information and being at the center of this web of iconoclastic research, collecting and publishing it, it, and getting it out in translated form in various languages. I have the knowledge, the skill, the opportunity, and kind of also the obligation to put it in a shape that people can actually access that information. And that was a self serving operation because I couldn't find the information that I was looking for in this vast amount of research that I published myself. I wanted something that is makes the information accessible by buzzword, and the idea is to do an Holocaust Encyclopedia.
There it is. It was published in '23, now exists in English, German, French, Spanish. We're working on an Arabic translation. And we're almost there. Unfortunately, I sold my last copy here.
So it is, however, the information freely accessible on holocaust encyclopedia dot com, where you can also order hard copies. So next step was all the information we have is not accessible, but now we reach out. We wanna teach the public the ropes of holocaust skepticism to bring accurate historiography to people. So we established the holocaust academy on the holocaustacademy.com, accessible online. And we are step by step publishing material that helps people to wise up of what's going on in that field of research and how it's being used and misused in politics and in society.
And in that context, down there, you see Holocaust Summit. We had a Holocaust Summit this past February. Our first convention of Holocaust skeptics for the past twenty years online. It was very successful. We had some 5,000 attendees, virtual attendees at that event.
And out comes a series of podcasts that we now do. Meet together with my friend, Dave Kahara, you see here on the left. We call it Holocaust. In the first episode, it's on the first Saturday of every month at 02:00 in the afternoon Eastern Time. I will not be talking so much about the core topic that I'm well known for, but I'm talking today about population collapse.
We hear about a lot about replacement theory, about the genocide against the whites, and I will broaden your horizon a little bit. Population collapse and wartime propaganda. How holocaust propaganda may result in the extinction of the human species. Not just whites, everyone on the chopping block. The actual trigger for me to get into this demographic issue more deeply and and connect it also in the public with the topic that I've been working on it is a paper that was published by one of the world's leading demographers.
You can see his credentials down there. I don't wanna read it. You can read it yourself anyway. He has written a paper last summer, if I'm not mistaken. August 2025.
Right? Human extinction from a probabilistic demographic perspective. And if we go into this paper, actually, and highlight what he says, that's the core statement of his paper. Human population, if current trends worldwide in every country on the planet continue as they have done over the past five years, will become extinct by 2339, three hundred and fourteen years from now. The species.
Now there are some problems with that paper because he has only five years of data that he was comparing between 2020 and 2025. And COVID nineteen is the the big black swan event in there that led to a crash of fertility everywhere because of physical distancing of men and women and social media taking over instead of real context. People are just talking to screens, so that had a dramatic effect. And he used that to make his extrapolation, which is questionable and low granularity. So he was just looking at countries.
He was not looking at subpopulation with some of which have a very interesting dynamic, which I will talk about a little later. However, post COVID fertility is not bouncing back worldwide because there is a general shift that has a transition that humanity has gone Globally, we have adopted virtual human interactions. Massive social impact this has on fertility of humanity. We are and the biggest elephant in the room has been since the invention of the the Internet, the most important aspect, the the biggest chunk of Internet activity is pornography, is pheromone traps, mainly homeruns. Instead of interacting with real females, creating families and having children, they're gone off in front of schools.
And that has become worse. We have now artificial intelligence that can create you the ideal partner. We have all kinds of virtual interactions on social media that replace real interactions and make people, young people unfit for the real world for real interactions. Now, this is completely contrary to what you have heard over the past fifty, sixty, seventy years through mainstream media, and which you're still here today, screaming overpopulation is gonna be the catastrophe of humanity. We all end up in disaster because there are gonna be 2,000,000 people on the planet.
We have eight and a half billion right now. We're gonna have nine within a few years, headed to 10. And here are just some headlines I'm going through quickly. 2022, overpopulation, a serious concern. Overpopulation can kill the planet.
20 three, overpopulation is still a huge problem. 24, planet cannot hold weight of eight point two billion twenty five. There are other voices. They are not looking at the global picture, but something that we are mainly concerned about. And you're not the only ones.
So this is a conservative think tank, a mainstream conservative think tank in France, the Robert Schumann Foundation already eight years ago predicting that by 2050, Europe is in the deep throes of demographic suicide. And that's not just for Europe. That's basically for all European ethnic groups, whether they're in Europe or here in this country, in Australia, and Thurstonia. Now, here's the actual data that you can find at the World Bank of the fertility in Europe, specifically. The red line that you see here that goes flat, that is what you need to maintain a population that's 2.1 children per woman on average.
And all the countries are way beyond that. There's not a single country in Europe anymore that is anywhere close to it. And the last one to go on that nose tag was Albania, which was the most backward country in Europe, if you wish. Backward from a survival point of view is actually forward. Anyway, what caused it?
The introduction of the contraceptive pill in The United States in 1950 in Europe starting, no, should have been 1960. Sorry, that's a mistake. Europe, it was introduced in 1960, Europe in between '61 and '67. Now, some countries make a step by step introduction. Germany, for instance, introduced the contraceptive pill in 1961 under the conservative administration, made it accessible only to married women who have at least three children.
And the reason was they fear that if they give it to unmarried women, we have fornication with impunity, which leads to collapse of family structures. And if we give it to married women that have low kind of children, then it may lead to demographic collapse. A very wise decision back then. However, that was broken down in 1966. The bill became generally excessive to all German women, and the consequences we see shortly.
There's a simple truth. Any other species other than humans on earth that is procreating sexually, there are some that don't don't do it sexually, but when it comes to animal, all of them are sexually, which detaches sexuality from procreation, which go extinct. Are we humans an exception to this rule? And why would we think we are? All the data right now points to we are not.
Europe is not the only problem. When we're talking about the particular present theory, I have a number of countries here that have gone on a similar note. Have a little later than Europe, but basically, if we look here, purple one is Iran. And as conservatives as the mullahs may be, the populations know they are well below reproductive level. We all know that the data of China has massive overpopulation prone to use the one child policy, and they are now collapsing even though they don't have that policy anymore.
The worst case in the world is South Korea, which came from an agricultural country after the Korean War to the most highly developed industrialized nation, I would say, on the planet where fertility rates is at 0.7 children per woman. They're gonna be extinct by the end of the century. Global picture. Here are continents or regions of the earth, and we can see that there are only two regions that right now are still below above reproductive stability. These are the green line here are some of the more conservatives, more backward or forward, depending on how you look at it.
Muslim countries in the Middle East, Northern Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and then all of Sub Saharan Africa to one degree or another. Here is actually the data per country, and you see the heat map where people are still procreating. You see some of the Muslim countries, and in particular, Black Africa. And not so much in South Africa. You see, when we're talking about European populations going extinct, the ones that are going extinct the fastest over here are what we used to call most of them are the Southeastern tigers, tiger states.
South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, even China include Thailand. They are overtaking Europe. And they are headed much faster to an extinction also because they don't have mass immigration. Europe has mass immigration that sets off on the surface. The problem, of course, getting misintegration from non European ethnic entities cause different sort of problem.
What I framed here in green is the current global average of children per woman. It's just a little over reproductive minimum. And it's down by 0.15% over the past five years. If you let that continue another five years, another five years we are at 2.1. We have reached a level where, from that point of view, world population will not grow anymore.
Numerically, will still because you have more younger females now than you had before, so they will have more children numerically. But children per woman, they will not. So from there on, it's a nosedive. Now that's what probably most of us, if not all of us, concerns most. The share of populations of the various continents that we are interested in here, United States, Europe, China, and Africa.
That's in particular, Sub Saharan Africa. Now this graph is a little bit deceptive. It predicts by 2100, end of this century, we will have a little bit over 40% of the population will be sub Saharan Africans, black Africans. And this line here suddenly levels off, and that's a little bit of a trio. You could extrapolate the data.
It gets more and more tricky the more you get into the future because linear extrapolations of current trends is almost always flawed and false in the long run. But if you were to do that, this share of the sub Saharan African population at the work world population would keep increasing and reach probably 90% by the end of the twenty second century. Why people don't have babies apart from the contraceptive pill? Of course, you have already highlighted that. Research has actually shown a lot of polls that the number of desired children that women want to have is unchanged.
Two to three is kind of the ideal family that everyone's more or less dreaming of, with a few outliers that can compensate for each other in both directions. The fact is that female fecundity is around the age of 28. Now that basically means that half the children of the average childbearing woman is born before a woman turns 28 and the other after they have turned 28. Delay of child bearing, particularly in highly developed industrialized nation, is a result of higher education of women. There's secrecy to that.
And there's also a matter of lifestyle because even if you were going to do an education, you still could start a family. It makes it a little difficult. But it is a a lifestyle nowadays in in developed countries to not bind yourself early, to live life to the fullest, to enjoy, you know, to do a little bit of fornication with impunity for ten, fifteen years before you settle down. That is not gonna work with that kind of lifestyle and having a stable family after that is a different issue. So it is a fact statistically that in developed nations and all of them, Asia, America, and that includes more and more, so Latin America, most countries are on the same page.
And Europe, the average start of women having children is over thirty years. So beyond the point when statistically half the children should have already been born. So even if you wanted to, statistically speaking, it's just not possible to have the same kind of children, even if you wanted to, when you just start after 30. It's just the biological clock. It's the improbability of having you know, when you start looking to settle down finally when you're in your thirties and start having children, how likely is it to find a partner?
Getting the older you get, the more difficult it gets. So more than half of the desired children of these women are never born, never conceived. Family instability, that's what I just mentioned the German government predicted. We'll give that out to just anyone, to unmarried women. And that is not the fault of the women, but it enables both sexist and to disregard family as a necessity for sexuality.
And that is then One of the results is that infidelity in marriage and just the sense of the grass screener on the other side of the fence. When I have the option, I can just bail out. This has led to divorce rates go through the roof. And divorce has a devastating effect on the fecundity of females. Then I've already mentioned virtual reality that has a devastating effect.
In fact, there are studies from the 1970s and 1980s that show already TV as such had an impact in lowered fertility in humanity. Because if you have a choice to go to bed with your wife or to sit in front of the TV, that makes a difference. If you don't have a TV and you go to bed earlier and you are more focused with your interactions to your partner, that will result in a more stable relationship and will result in the higher probability of being in trouble. So TV is the first virtual reality impact, negative impact on the community, but it has gotten worse and worse, as I mentioned already. Now money, which you will read in many investigations, oh, it's just because young people don't have enough money.
Money is not the primary issue. And I want to go into the relationship between income and fertility a little bit more detail. The United Nations has has published in a very nice website where you can year by year see the relationship between, on the the y axis here, the number of of children on average per woman and the gross domestic income per capita per person in for every country. And you can see 1950, they were the undeveloped third world, clear separation on their side, poor, but even the the richer ones that were still considered underdeveloped, They had a high growth rate than the industrialized, mainly European countries and also The United States, with higher income per capita and the low fertility. Now I jump forward here from 1915 to 2025.
If you compare that, how it has crashed and we have now a strict relatively strict correlation. The richer our nation is, less children they have. And there you see that the claim, money is the issue, is turning this thing upside down. And basically, what we're seeing here is the effect of materialism, hedonism, and greed. I don't want to share what I have with children.
Material goods are more important than social relationships, family values, than children. This is basically what this shows us. There is some old Swedish data which can get us a little closer to to what we can see in European countries. That shows the upper graph here for women. Max, you're not at home here.
Okay? No need to defend your territory. Come here. Yes. He is.
He's feeling at home. He's feeling comfortable. Wants somebody wants to steal books.
Speaker 2: Has anybody considered the impact of feminism on birthright because it's outright hatred of men?
Speaker 1: Right. Right. Right. I have not specifically looked into it, but of course, it would have a massive detrimental effect. The feminism is a a ramming block that pushes humanism, individualism, and materialism.
That's that's one of the the sharpest weapons. That's one manifestation of it. So when we look at the the the actual correlation between income and and the amount of babies women have women have actually less babies with increasing income in that old Swedish data, which is understandable. The more women focus on education, on on career, the less she has time to settle down and have children. And interestingly, men have more babies with increasing income.
Now the men don't have the babies, of course. What we're actually seeing here, when men provide high income, their female partners have more babies. And whereas hardworking, much earning women prioritizing education and career, when we look at them, childbearing goes down. Here is the relationship between education degree and the number of children women have. Clear correlation.
The higher the education is here with down at the bottom, the blacks, the PhD, the lowest the number of children they have. And it has nothing to do with smart women deciding it is dumb to have children, as I just mentioned. Across platform, the ideal family that females, no matter the educational status, are dreaming of is the same, two to three children. It's just when you postpone it and postpone it and postpone it and get to your thirties, the chance that you will get there. The biological clock is relentless.
And they just clock themselves out of out of childbirth. That's simply the data as it shows here. So they still want the same number, but they can't. We see here the correlation between all women and income is, with the gray line, is almost nonexistent when we go into whites only in The United States. It shows that there is a little bit more of a reluctance of poor or less affluent white women to have children.
And that may be just a smart reaction. If I have less money, I'm holding back a little. And it's not so much with colored people. If I look into how important is third party income, that's what he is. So additional income in addition to what a mother earns.
And you see if that additional income is almost nonexistent, the situation crashes. And if you look actually what are these people, these are unmarried and divorced females. That's what I just mentioned. Divorce, the destruction of the family by this fornication with impunity leads to women fighting for themselves. They have no opportunity, no strength, no means anymore to keep procreating.
That's what you see there. If we take that out and look only at married women, we get back to what I showed before already. There is hardly any correlation between income. However, if you get to the very low end of income, you have a little bit of a decline. Now, we have one example of a country that has done everything they could financially to help boost birth rates.
And that is actually my entry point into my interest in the impact of history on the survival of my own nation, of my own folks. I read this trilogy on the handbook of the German nation back in 1984, a year after it was published. And there was actually a fourth volume after the reunification of Germany. Now interesting, there is one contribution in, I think, the third volume on the future of Germany, written by a professor for sociology at the University of Osnabruck, which later actually became a friend of mine when I got involved in in the Holocaust revisionism, and he was supporting me with that. He, over the years, published a number of papers on that very issue.
And I've translated here for you, The German People in Death spiral, Germany without Germans, rising to decadence, population decline as a political problem, and the final solution of the German questions, all in the eighties. He was actually a member of an investigation no, no, step back a little bit. He also then later published a paper two years after I got involved, and we got to discuss the issue then together. And that's when he became my friend, where he linked the demographic collapse in Germany, the impossibility to do something against it with Holocaust propaganda. And how that works, I want to explain Germany without Germans.
The steady fertility decline that was noticed in Germany due to the contraceptive pill plus the student revolution, which started off kicked off worldwide kind of in 1968, and that proclaimed feminism, sexual liberation, fornication, basically, led to this collapse, step by step collapse of the family and to the collapse of birthrights. Was something that concerned the German government that was in charge in the early nineteen seventies. Willy Brandt formed a commission on the problem. And Doctor. Hepp actually back then not a professor yet, post doc.
He was on that commission and that's how he knew all the things that were tried and that didn't work and why they didn't work. What he and his team in the commission were with the data they collected predicting is three models that could happen. The best case scenario after fooling around the German nation, the German folks, German people become level headed again and get back to a sustainable level of 2.1 children per woman. That is an optimistic scenario. The probable case they predicted is it stabilized at 1.8, a slow decline.
And the worst case scenario for them was it would further the birth rates would further decrease to just 1.4 children per woman. And they suggested a number of patient policies to revert that trend, but we stabilized it. They were financial and cultural in nature. But when the brand government was actually presented that commission report, while they were open to financial issues, they considered cultural solution as politically impossible. So that commissioner of a vote pretty much disappeared in some drawers and was never really re erected upon.
Now, hers Hap's worst case scenario was completely wrong. The last time the German government actually published data on the fertility rate of ethnic Germans was in 2014. 0.8 children per woman. We can't can't even use the plural there anymore. Zero point eight shot per woman.
Not one point four as it predicted. If you look at the data, if we were to go back and show you the the line of the German nation right now, officially, sit at 1.45. Not at 0.8 because they take the total population and that is when it comes to fertility right now already dominated immigrants, not by ethnic Germans anymore. That's why it is bought at 1.45. And that is true pretty much for all European countries.
If you see fertility data of European countries, they offer between 1.8 to 1.3 something. It's called a mix of the indigenous population in some of these country already in the minority when it comes to childbearing women and immigrants of of various kinds. So the financial solutions and that's why come back. That's now that I come back to the financial issue, why it doesn't work. The things that Germany has implemented right now over the years increased it.
Every family that has a single or or actually married couple, whatever it may be, that has gets gets $300 per child as an allowance per month. So if you have five children, would be a thousand $500 per month. You get $50 credit in your retirement benefit for every child. You get eight weeks of fully paid parenting leave after birth, up to one year of parental payment from the government. This is kind of a replacement payment for lost salaries.
So you get basically your most a certain percentage of your original salary paid by the government for a year, up to three years of parenting leave, which means you are guaranteed you can get back to your former employer and get a job. Not necessarily the same, but they can't fire. They can't let you go. And most of all, which most people may or may not be aware of, in Germany, you have free childcare from the age of one onward through age of six, then free public school education, free college, and and and trade school education, and free university education. So the main cost factor that a parent will actually experience when raising a child, that is mainly education, and the impossibility to actually have your own career to go back to work is alleviated by this.
You can, in theory, when the first year, you get paid to stay with your child. The second year, you can give it off to day care. Don't pay a penny. Until they are 25 and have a college degree, don't pay a penny. You get money from the government, 300 per child.
So this is one of the most generous financial models to offset the cost a child has. And the effect was Nothing. Zero. Cultural solutions. Now what do I mean by that?
The suggestion basically is decrease the emphasis in education and media on hedonism, materialism, egotism, individualism. Increased emphasis in education and media on family values, altruism, communal values, national, cultural, ethnic pride, and identity. Impossible to implement, particularly in Germany. Why? Germany suffered democratic decline after World War one because of the total disaster and the civil war like situation they were in after that war.
That trend was reversed between 1939 and 1939 3339 with positive population policies in Germany. There are declamatory measures they did of recognizing women for having a certain amount of children. So not just soldiers got their iron cross for bravery, but mothers got their mother's cross too. And pushing family values and having children was center, front and center during that time. Now that time doesn't have a good reputation in the world these days because, in particular, after Auschwitz, positive population policies are impossible.
I threw actually that statement at Google and it came back with an AI statement. The statement that after Auschwitz positive population policies are impossible reflects a profound ethical and philosophical shift in how states and societies view demographic engineering. The Hodka specifically, the industrial scale extermination of Auschwitz demonstrates that state policies aimed at, quote unquote, improving or, quote unquote, shaping a population can lead to absolute depravity and genocide. We're talking about trying to incentivize people to create and raise new life in love. And society reacts, we can't do that because that ends up in mass genocide.
What? What planet are you on? But you see how depraved the thought processes in western societies have become. We're not talking about Germany here. This is a general statement that comes out of Google AI for general civilization planet wide attitude.
And that attitude is that any policies showing parallels to the National Socialist period are impossible to implement that National Socialism was the absolute evil. You hear that over and over again. So doing the opposite, and that's particularly true for Germany. I have lived in that society long enough to know that it's absolutely, literally true. Doing the exact opposite of what the National Socialists do did is mandatory.
I don't know why these people still speak German. What's the opposite of German? That's what they should should speak. In other words, genocide is mandatory.
Speaker 2: Geller, what's the statistics for other countries besides Germany? Are are they any different?
Speaker 1: No. Germany is ahead of the crowd. As I just mentioned, they they are a productive rate. It's at 0.8 when it comes to the ethnic figures. That is pretty close to what South Korea has.
Only South Korea has no immigration because that's a isolated island with very few countries around that would export, quote unquote. Germany has sucked its European neighbors dry in The Middle East and is importing massive now out of Black Africa to to offset, and they can't survive. If you look at the the disaster that's unfolding, has been unfolding over the past four years in Ukraine, where population reproductive numbers have collapsed even further with the beginning of the war. Most Ukrainians have fled have first gone to Poland, but most have now moved on to Germany. Germany is a very popular place because if you have a family and you have some traditional value and you want to go to a country where you get all those benefits that I've just shown you, Germany is heaven for every immigrant.
I was just showing you the stuff they throw at people with children. It's not German with children. It's people with children. So they they are financing their own replacement there. Mhmm.
And the figures are not much different in in Poland and Italy, I think, are at the same level. Poland doesn't has basically no immigration partner from from from Ukraine. Italy has a lot of immigration, but most move on and go north to Germany. When it comes to Italy, Greece, and and and and Spain, you go into the countryside, you start seeing empty villages. You see them the same way in in in Japan.
You see them in China. It shows at every angle of of society. So the macabre, the grotesque situation we found ourselves in, we will find ourselves in a hundred years is in a hundred years, Jews, well, still, I would assume, but if nothing changes, tell the story how Germans annihilate the Jews in a world from which not the Jews, but the Germans have been annihilated. If finance is not the key, what is? It's culture.
And I can prove it. I spoke about granularity, the lack of granularity that doctor Swanson's research has shown, just throwing every data from one country into one pot. Now I've taken two subgroups, distinct insular subgroups that have isolated themselves from the culture of the surrounding environment, from the culture of hedonism materialism. Little small here is a mature graph. I couldn't pop that up.
It's the Amish and the Yiddish. These are which are Orthodox Jews with a center in Upstate New York. And you see here a relationship between household income and number of children they have. It's clear the richer they get, the less they have. And that's simply because some of these people focus on education and making money, and therefore, they are laid up to the game of having children, and therefore, are less children.
But you see, no matter how poor they get, they have children between six, seven, and eight on average. And that's because of the complete detachment from the surrounding culture. Going on the worldwide stage, have a country. The Amish don't have a country, but the Jews have. And you see the average of the world fertility, Israel, is it developed to some degree a western style country, but they are not following the trend.
If I actually were to go back to the graph that I have, let me quickly show you here. Israel, you see, is here and was there relatively high for a relatively highly developed patient. But it's a mixture of Palestinians and Jews here. So it's a little bit of a sting that can be asleep. But even today, Israel is an outlier.
It's got the Palestinians with their fertility have actually come down with their fecundity of having and so they're to what we see as well with, I think, 2,003 children. Anyway, let me quickly fast forward again. Israel is way higher than the average of the world and way higher than any European American or Southeast Asian country. And if we look granularly into what is going on in Israel, that's what you see. The more religious women are, the more children they have.
So it starts with not religious down there, goes to traditional, but not so religious religious traditional and religious, definitely religious, ultra orthodox. It's where it goes through the roof. What's gone in Israel has been going on ever since the creation of that state. In other words, ultra orthodox Jews by both rights are taken over. And you see that in a radicalization of Israeli society, in a polarization of Israeli society between secular Jews and the fundamentalists, and in a radicalization in a more and more aggressive stance of Jews in the world.
And what they are looking at, now this is a little bit of a deceiving plot, but that shows the projected demographic development of Iran and Turkey, two close countries close to to Israel and Israel. Now Israel has is plotted against a completely different axis here. It has weighed less here. Look here. 60,000, 50,000, 40,000 for Iran and Turkey, whereas we have 10,000 and down to 4,000 here.
So it's a little bit of a misleading graph. That orange graph should be flatter and way down it would be out of the picture here. But it gives you a trend and an idea. Israel is growing. And if the takeover of society by more and more fundamentalist and orthodox Jews keeps on happening, their policies will become more radical, more aggressive, more imperialist.
And they were going to have more and more people to push it through. And the the countries around them will be going through demographic collapse. So this is a conflict. If you look at demography being the driving force at the end of the day of everything on the planet when it comes to life. This is a situation that is going to exacerbate over the coming centuries.
Now the other group that is of interest here is the Amish. And there's an interesting article I ran into. How long does it take for us in The United States until we are all Amish? I said, in Israel, you have the replacement of the secular Jews because they wet themselves out like we secular Europeans do. But in our society, in the midst, we have the Amish.
And I told to show you, they have the same fertility rate as the Orthodox Jews. Now that guy actually with his article relied on sketchy data, and they were not very reliable. And I found some more reliable. And the answer can actually be given to that problem. There is a college in in Lancaster County, which is the core of the Amish population.
That's where they started out from. I actually lived in York on the other side of the Susquehanna River, and I've been in Lancaster County multiple times. And and I've socialized a little bit with the Amish. And my ex wife here in The United States says, except for the beard, you would make a good Amish. So that may be true.
I'm not on board necessarily with their religious attitude. But other than that, I admire them. Elizabethtown College, there are actually a lot of Amish there. And they study because they're in the region. They study the Amish.
They are kind of insular in many more ways than we think. One of them is they don't give census data to to use for of of of data. So it's a little difficult to get reliable data, but they managed to get them. And this is here the development since 1900, how the Amish population has developed. And who knows anything about math sees that this is an exponential curve.
We are currently at 410,000. And how that would extrapolate if things again, extrapolations in an extreme time are problematic, But let's just assume things keep going with them as they have gone since mainly since the end of the second world war. That's really when they when they took on. Before I get to that, Amish fertility rates. You see here two graphs that show difference between Pennsylvania Dutch speakers and those that in general, on average, that's the red line.
So not quite six children per woman. And those who reject phones. In terms of their reject virtual reality for private use. They accept it and use it for work, but not for enjoyment. At home, you don't have a TV.
You don't have a telephone. You don't have Internet. You don't have tablets. You are going to have real person interactions and focus on human values, not pixels on the screen. And the effect is that the birth rates go up.
Here's the development of the number of arms living in The United States when I keep extrapolating. By the year 2230 or '40, we're up to 400,000,000. At current at current fertility level, six children per woman on average. They start having children in the early twenties, and they have a 90% community retention rate, which is higher than the Yiddish by the way. So the tradition of the Amish is that when once they are grown up at age 18, they have a chance to explore the English.
They are let out and they can what they call which is German means basically means jump around. So figure out whether you like it with them or not. 90% come back. Only 10% eventually bail out. And with that retention value, the population doubles every twenty two years and that's the curve you see if it continues that way.
Now I I put here as crosses some points of the forecasted total US population. It's supposed to peak at the year 2050. That is birth rates plus immigration because Latin America is itself going through a population collapse. Mass immigration from Latin America will slow down eventually and come to a standstill. And that's you will see, they predict for the year 2100.
We're gonna be down to 300,000. And after that, all bets are off. And I could not find any data that actually factoring if the Amish continue the way they go, how that would look like. But at the year 2200, we are at a crossroads when the Amish, if things continue as they assume, take over and have the majority beyond that. So then The United States will be German.
Yiddish versus Amish. Now the Yiddish are having a a similar trajectory, but there are differences. And I wanna point them out. The Orthodox Jews have low work ethic, of social welfare, partially parasitic on host society. They will suffer when the host society declines, and it will decline.
Yes. Social welfare payments to Orthodox Jews will come to an end. And all bets are off what's gonna happen with them. With the average, it's the exact opposite, high work ethics. Completely independent of the host welfare system.
As you may know, they have completely bailed out out of the social welfare system and then built their own one, their own system, and so they don't pay into the national fund. Are they are independent or talk. Are interwoven with our society, so they're gonna be frictions as the whole society goes down. But what they lose as a market because we normies, non Amish, reducing numbers, they can easily replace in the long run with the increased numbers they have. So even though the society around them may decline, they have the option of to keep thriving.
We're coming to the end of my presentation here. A number of conclusions. After the invention of the contraceptive pill, which in itself, as I mentioned, threatens human species on the entire planet in the long run, there are additional threats. And the the most decisive one is what they call Western values, the lifestyle of hedonism, materialism, paganism, individualism, in other words, decadence. I have mentioned the brutal impact that virtual reality of any kind from the TV up to artificial intelligence partners, you can create I don't know whether you guys have tried you get bombarded with advertisers.
Create your perfect partner. No thanks. That used to be science fiction stuff when we're getting there. And of course, that's not going to lead to any babies. Salvation lies in drastic cultural shifts of priority to altruism, family, and communal values, a culture of love.
I wanna emphasize that so I'll bail out of this this this slide here for a moment and make a quick diversion. What is the meaning of life? And I could ask you all, and this is an endless discussion that's been going on. And I remember when I was a student and our teachers asked us the question, we all had a different idea about it, but it's because you don't know what you're talking about. Here's my answer.
The creation and raising of new life in love. Because without it, there is no life. What schools teach today is sex education. The plumbing's of the body and basically how to prevent it from it. What they don't teach is the most important thing.
That is love education rather than sex education. Sex is the icing of the cake of love. Creating new life and love. Children. Grown ups in the room, you don't have children.
And the children are sitting over there. Maybe they do know, maybe they don't. But the grown ups of us who have children know that there's no greater love in life. No greater fulfillment you can feel than raising your own having and raising your own children. That's a unconditional infinite love.
Romantic love is always conditional. And unfortunately, it sometimes collapses. If you're wired the right way as a parent and your child is your child, chances are extremely high that this love will not pass. Parental love to children is the deepest emotional feeling we will ever have, the deepest fulfillment in life we will ever feel. And we're talking nowadays, unfortunately, with generations by now of people who have no children.
We are trying to teach that to them. Like people who can see want to teach blind people about color. But I get back to that. I'm not philosophically arguing with any want anymore what the meaning of life is because it's the creation and raising of new life in love because without it, there is some. And that's getting totally lost in our world.
That sends a message to all of us. It's not just about asteroids, it's about everyone. It's about the civilization, the planetary civilization, how we got went astray, focus on cell phones, on cars, on material goods, on social media rates, and and and and click rates, and all the rest of it when the most important things, the love to your child, to your partner, to your family, to your cultural surrounding, to your neighborhood, to your nation, to your people, to whatever it is. Love is like an onion. It starts at the core with a family, with a child, and it grows and grows bigger and bigger and could encompass a whole globe, a whole humanity.
But it needs to be the core value on it, and we have lost it as a civilization planet wide. The contraceptive pill, we managed to invent because we are smart, smart than any other creature. We can decouple chemically sexuality from reproduction. Yes. We are smart.
And we are it looks like not smart enough to put them back together. Because if we keep that separation, we will go extinct. To have the smartness to realize, okay, I can have sex with somebody as much as I want without any effect because we have mechanical means of making sure. But should I really go down that road? Should that be something that is a part of my life?
No. We need to realize it is important for us, for our emotional well-being as individuals because it's the most deeply felt emotion you will ever have when we miss out with him when we don't have children. It is the most important part for us as human beings, as individuals to experience that love and to go down that road of creating and raising new life. But it's also important for our civilization, for our people, for our culture, for humanity to realize that we need to put sexuality back together with reproduction. That requires self discipline to go away from the material, the hedonistic temptations in our society, and the virtual temptation.
To the males in the room and whoever's recorded here, I have read a a a investigation on addictions, because my my ex wife used to be a a a is is a psychologist dealing with various addictions. And that one was an investigation about pornography addiction. They wanted to see what impact on their social life it has on men who are addicted to pornography. As a comparative group, they wanted to study the social life of men who don't do internet pornography. Was impossible.
There are no males on the planet who don't look at screens with naked eye. A 100% includes me. I haven't seen one of you. Self discipline. Not to go into this pheromone trap off.
Joking off that doesn't lead to anything. Close that thing if work is over. And don't bring it back up when it's about recreation time. That is the self discipline that the army showed as a culture. That's why they succeed.
That's why I admire them. We have laughed about them. They use their phone. They have to go into the field to talk to a phone because they can't have the phone at home. The other ones are gonna laugh at mass.
Embracing traditional religious or ethnic group identities. The Amish and the Yiddish, the other ones, they do it religiously. That's why they get away with it because we have the religious freedom that they can do, and they are not playing any race card or anything that antagonizes anyone else because they don't force anything upon anyone. Ethnic group identities is the problem. So embracing religious groups works as the ultra Orthodox Jews and Amish have shown to one degree or another.
Embracing ethnic group identities that makes us proud of ourselves wanting to have children because we wanna maintain our culture and society. We are aware of it. Not religiously based, but based in identity of culture, race, whatever it is, ethnic groups. Does not work because, you know, accusations of racism, Nazism, fascism, whatever it is. So if you steer away with our linguistics from focusing on whites, but propagating as a salvation measure for humanity, a culture of love, I think we stand a better chance that we can, as a group, as our ethnic group, but also for humanity, avert disaster.
Anything is permitted to prevent it from happening again. That's how our adversaries react. What is the it? Of course, the it is the Holocaust. I mentioned that already.
And they identify what we want to do with ethnic identity policies with something that presumably happened, ended up in the gas chambers of Oshins. In The United States, you have a compounded issue with US slavery history and race segregation. That is getting thrown in your faces here in The United States. So what are the choices humanity has? Either we keep embracing the Holocaust narrative and be dominated by religious fundamentalists, Jewish and Amish in nature.
I'm not a fan of any religious fundamentalist because I'm an enlightened person and I like people who react rationally, but I see around me the majority of enlightened non religious people who are not reacting rationally because rational in this situation means put sexuality and reproduction together and raise family values. Or expose the Holocaust narrative for what it is and give religiously moderate enlightened civilization a fighting chance of survival. That's the third option. Alternatively, let's all join the army's feeling desperately needed Yeah. University.
Speaker 2: That gives my vote.
Speaker 1: And look. A lot of Christians, and they are naive Christians. It's kind of cute to see them, and they have no hierarchy in the in the church, so you don't have to submit yourself to anyone talking to you. You're bad. Yeah.
So I have not talked much about my research, as you've noticed. I have books there. If you want to have an overlook of the core of the Holocaust narrative, where it's really rotten and where the they, the post that be, particularly Jewish Zionist lobby groups, draw their strength is the gas German narrative, the unique part of what's said to have happened. There's a book that concisely describes how this narrative was formed, why it is false, Why the other side has even admitted that most aspects of it were false. We have corrected it now.
They keep correcting and correcting, but if you go to the roots you can see how this was created. Who has done it? I have plenty of copies there, but you can also get them online. Another one that is thrown around. The Holocaust was proven at the Nuremberg International Military Journal right after the war.
And I've heard that myself in a discussion with a mainstream historian came up with that argument. And that incentivized me to write that book because I couldn't just put something out of my sleeve. Here is the reputation. And so I've created that. It also exists actually as a documentary.
You can get access to them all free of charge at holocaustnbooks.com or buy them. I have a number of copies over there. If you wanna know more, here are the websites, holocaustencyclopedia.com. Get the access to the information that I've put in a nutshell holocausthandbooks.com, where all the research can be found. Holocaustacademy.com, where you reach out to teach the roads to anyone who who wants to get into the fight to undermine this this dogma that is lethal to humanity, not just to us.
We are at the forefront of it, of course, but at the end, this materialism, hedonism that we have a hard time fighting is going to get us all wiped off the planet. Armrech.us is the publishing arm where you can get hard copies of that book. Thank you. That was my presentation.
Speaker 3: If you want to learn more, here are a few suggested websites. At our Holocaust Encyclopedia, you can find concise information on almost 600 related topics with references to further reading. The results of thirty five years of archival and forensic research into the Holocaust can be accessed free of charge at our Holocaust Handbooks website, where you can also access several documentaries as well as our miniseries Holocaust Pocketbooks, which give easy to read introductions into various topics. Printed copies of these and many other books can be purchased on our websites armreg.us and armreg.co.uk. At our Holocaust Academy, we teach the ropes of skeptical Holocaust research.
It also features our growing podcast series named Holocaust. At the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, we lobby for free speech where it is threatened the most, most prominently with our periodical Inconvenient History. And last but not least, Germer Rudolph's personal website where you can learn more about him.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss the history behind “thought criminals” being persecuted in the West—how it began, which countries and ideologies drive it, and which groups push it. On America’s 250th independence anniversary, I renew the pledge of freedom. I share referenced talks, books, reports, and surveys (including Durov, Verfassungsschutzberichte, and “History at Gunpoint”) and urge viewers to like, share, and repost.
@GermarRudolf - Germar Rudolf (* 1964)
This is a documentation on the history and background of the cancerous growth of censorship and persecution of “thought criminals” in the West. It answers vexing questions, such as: How did it all begin? Which countries are spearheading it? Which ideologies are at the root of it? And which population groups are the main drivers? Buckle up, because it ain’t pretty. At the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence of the United States of America, it is time to renew this pledge of independence and commitment to freedom! Please like, share and repost this video! Links of items mentioned in the video: Pavel Durov, Oslo speech: https://youtu.be/1Yq_5aDdJ24 Telegram Contest: https://t.me/contest Video on IMT: https://rumble.com/v72ildm Swastika Epidemic: https://youtu.be/wlzq4wHNt2M Swastika Epidemic as KGB false-flag op: https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_book_edited/10.7829/jj.4032515, pp. 126-129 “Lectures on the Holocaust,” book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/lectures-on-the-holocaust/ Video on History of Skepticism: https://rumble.com/v75kk0i German Government reports on thought crimes: https://verfassungsschutzberichte.de/ “History at Gunpoint,” book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/history-at-gunpoint/ “History at Gunpoint,” video: https://rumble.com/v7ay6qm Stutthof, book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/concentration-camp-stutthof/ Amazon video: https://rumble.com/v72d4re Amazon book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-day-amazon-murdered-free-speech/ Katie Halper on Israel’s genocide: https://youtu.be/KJnjmH4_KaE Pew Survey: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet/ Telegram cooperation with law enforcement: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvglp0xny3eo “The Chemistry of Auschwitz,” book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz/ “The Chemistry of Auschwitz,” video: https://rumble.com/v72d1p4 Shlomo Kramer: https://youtu.be/7FS06hKUlEo
Video Transcript AI Summary
Gamma Rudolph, manager of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, introduces work-in-progress writing on “History at Gunpoint, How Oppressive Political Correctness Has Corrupted Holocaust Studies,” focusing on a chapter titled “Political Correctness and Censorship.” She connects the theme to a presentation by Pavel Durov, founder and CEO of Telegram, who on June 1, 2026 spoke at the Oslo Freedom Forum about the deterioration of free speech online. Durov’s speech is described as arguing that personal freedoms have been eroded globally through recurring justifications: combating crime, terrorism, and drug trafficking, leading to spying on users and surrendering privacy for “temporary safety,” which the speaker characterizes as a historical scam. Durov is also said to have retold an interrogation experience in France: after three days translating, his French-English interpreter expressed that she left the Soviet Union to escape limited freedoms and disrespected human rights, but now felt “the Soviet Union is catching up with me,” framing it as a return of an oppressive attitude rather than the Soviet state itself.
Rudolph then discusses Telegram-related developments and broadens the argument beyond “digital freedom.” She says that two weeks after Durov’s speech, he announced a “Digital Freedom Contest” on Telegram with $200,000 for a viral video, and that the presented video aims to compete while also acknowledging that some platforms may delete it or the account. Rudolph claims that the source of this “new censorship” is older than the Internet and should be understood socially, politically, and historically, tying it to how World War II ended in Europe and the postwar framing of the conflict. She argues that Germany’s defeat and Soviet expansion produced an outcome worse than before for Poland, but that the victorious powers sold the disaster as a war against “absolute evil” culminating in the Holocaust. She states that she describes how this narrative was legally “cast in stone” during the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal and that, in her account, antifascism became synonymous with ultimate good, creating psychological acceptance of oppressive measures done to fight fascism.
Rudolph further claims that the Holocaust narrative—developed at Nuremberg—becomes a cornerstone of an anti-fascist postwar order, and that critiques face resistance from those invested in it. She describes two “backdoors” to censorship and oppression: granting good intentions to those labeling themselves anti-fascist, and broad consensus tied to the Holocaust narrative. She asserts that France and especially Germany drove tightening censorship across Europe, citing Germany’s post-1933–1945 portrayal as the “ultimate evil” and modern German concepts like “Wehrhafted Demokratie” (which she says allows restricting civil rights in a democracy under conditions framed as protecting privileged minorities and the political system itself). She claims Germany’s censorship escalated from postwar occupation controls through licensing requirements for media (until 1955) and continued left-leaning media dominance, while describing right-wing media as limited.
The transcript then recounts a detailed Germany-centered timeline: it describes Cold War propaganda pressures and denazification debates, then a shift in 1958 when West Germany is said to have created a Nazi hunting office and issued orders to prosecute claims submitted by Eastern bloc countries, particularly Poland. It describes 1959–1960 swastika “epidemic” events on synagogues and cemeteries internationally, later attributed (in the speaker’s account) to a KGB false flag via Soviet defectors, and says this helped kick-start censorship laws. Rudolph discusses later legal changes including replacing “class hatred” with “racial hatred” in 1960 and removing that law decades later. She adds that 1961 and 1964/1965-era Holocaust-related trials increased international attention and public awareness in Germany, contributing (in her framing) to left-leaning radicalization among students and the spread of Frankfurt School ideas.
She claims that German student politics became dominated by socialist/Marxist/communist/Maoist/anarchist groups, leading to what she calls “lynch mob censorship,” including university sit-ins preventing professors from teaching without endorsement and attacks on right-wing groups. She recounts personal examples from Bonn University in the 1980s involving a fraternity member (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) and an event where a flyer was destroyed with swastika knife cuts and a later violent attack on a friend. She then describes changes to Germany’s central censorship authority, arguing it moved from protecting children from pornography and glorification of violence to censoring political and historical writings. She claims the RAF (Red Army Faction) assassination campaign in the 1970s and Cold War intelligence links are associated with lasting civil-rights restrictions. She also states that attorney Horst Mahler read her Holocaust lectures and later changed his ideology.
Turning to France, Rudolph claims France adopted a first censorship law in 1972 banning racial defamation, discrimination, and incitement to hatred, driven by Jewish and anti-racism/anti-antisemitism groups, including a successor to communist-dominated resistance. She then frames the next escalation as targeting Holocaust skepticism. She distinguishes “Holocaust denial” from broader “Holocaust skepticism” and describes a sequence of legal moves: Germany and other European countries are said to have moved toward explicitly illegal skepticism, with Israel in 1986 introducing what she calls the first law dictating research outcomes. She says France followed with a 1990 law, Austria and Germany followed later, and that the European Union passed a 2007 framework decision making bans on Holocaust skepticism mandatory for EU members and aspirants. She provides an account of how “hate speech” laws are used broadly, including not only violent advocacy but also academic and non-violent dissent on topics she lists: Jews and Jewish religion, Zionism and Israel’s actions, dissent on WWII tropes, opposition to mass immigration, non-Christian religious laws, non-heterosexual behaviors, and government-mandated vaccinations.
Rudolph offers a speech-limit principle she calls “peaceful speech,” defining it as freedom of speech that does not advocate, promote, justify, or condone violation of anyone’s civil rights and right to self-determination. She provides examples in which contesting factual claims about gas chambers is presented as permissible, while justifying or advocating civil-rights violations is not. She then returns to enforcement mechanisms: she claims Germany tracks “thought crimes” as “opinion offenses” in Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution reports and says investigations for opinion offenses expanded from about 5,000 in 1994 to about 35,000 in 2024, with an escalation since 2023 that she labels the “Gaza effect.” She gives examples of punishments for individuals and confiscations/burning of a book due to a Latin footnote; she also includes the case of an Austrian professor who allegedly committed suicide after facing prison.
Rudolph shifts to the Internet, describing ISPs blocking domains deemed to spread “thought crimes,” payment processors enforcing bans more powerfully, and banks closing accounts used for transactions. She asserts that platforms and payments can be coerced based on subsidiaries and jurisdiction. She describes the CompuServe CEO case in 1998 as involving illegal content transmission and being dismissed by the speaker’s account. She then describes, as an example, her own experiences with Amazon: she claims Amazon removed an archival study of the Auschwitz camp Stutthof after German demands, later used country-specific “kill switches” for ISBNs, and in her account deleted over 80 Holocaust-skeptical research books overnight after anonymous bomb threats and cemetery vandalism involving Jewish targets. She says she later learned (in her account) that storms caused gravestone damage and that bomb threats were a false-flag operation by a young Jew in Israel acting under money and orders from anonymous channels, which she suspects involved Mossad. She adds that National Socialist materials allegedly remained unaffected at first, but that Amazon later expanded deletions to politically incorrect content. She says Ingram Content Group holds a monopoly in US distribution and later took a print version of a related book out of circulation in 2026.
She further argues that search engines and AI systems are used to suppress content, describing how Google allegedly demotes pages skeptical about the prevailing Holocaust narrative after pressures from groups she names, and that AI systems are barred from consuming certain non-aligned materials into their knowledge bases. She states that censorship expansion forces societies to give up free speech and information in the name of Jewish safety, and she ends by citing social media and major-platform rule adoption timelines (YouTube/Google, TikTok, Reddit, Meta, Twitter/X) as beginning mid-2019 through 2020, with Telegram’s changes after Durov’s 2024 arrest in France.
The transcript includes a quoted clip in which an unnamed speaker compares Israeli actions to Nazi actions, referencing ghettos, starvation, concentration camps, and “systematic extermination,” and claims that Israeli soldiers documented and compared their actions to Nazi conduct, along with a point about public opinion in Israel. Rudolph then wraps up by asserting that those trading liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and by discussing Pew Research on US news sources and the prominence of digital platforms, describing that Telegram is absent from news platform lists as a messaging app.
Rudolph also includes a US-focused warning about attempts to limit the First Amendment, referencing Shlomo Kramer (CEO of Cato Networks) stating it is time to limit the First Amendment “to protect it,” and concludes by arguing that democracy must be guardrailed by inalienable human rights and that without them democratic majorities can suppress minorities’ civil rights. She states that she sees the same historical junction happening globally and argues for resisting book burning, persecution of minorities, and jailing dissidents. She ends with “Give me liberty or give me death” and a call to spread the information by sharing and reposting the documentary.
Full Transcript
Speaker 3: Welcome, everyone. I'm Gamma Rudolph, manager of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, where we defend freedom of speech where it is most threatened. I'm currently in the process of writing a book titled History at Gunpoint, How Oppressive Political Correctness Has Corrupted Holocaust Studies. It's not quite ready yet, but will be in a week or two. Its third and last chapter, titled Political Correctness and Censorship, ties into a presentation that was given by Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of Telegram. On June 1st, 2026, Durov gave a speech at the Oslo Freedom Forum. It focused on the deterioration of free speech online. In 2024, Durov got arrested in France because he wouldn't let Western governments spy on us users. Here is a brief clip of a few essential statements he made during this presentation.
Speaker 4: Personal freedoms have been eroded everywhere in the world, almost without exception. They said, we need to combat crime. We need to do something about terrorism. We need to do something about drug trafficking. And that's why we need to spy on you. For your own protection, you have to give up your essential right to privacy. And this again has been tried countless times in the history of humanity, where we or different nations throughout history have been offered an exchange. Give up some of your essential liberty in exchange for some temporary safety. And this deal, this offer is always a scam and it always turned out to be a scam. It was Benjamin Franklin who said, those who are willing to give up their essential liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Speaker 3: Toward the end of his presentation, Durov retells a story he experienced while being interrogated by French investigators. Here is what Durov reported about the reaction of his French-English interpreter.
Speaker 4: After three days of translating, during one of these pauses between sessions, the translator was sitting there, seemingly shocked. Perhaps she was shocked by the selective and political nature of the charges brought against me. But she looked at me, she looked at the police officers present, and she said, I left the Soviet Union in the 80s because I wanted to escape an environment where my freedoms are limited. I wanted to escape an environment where human rights are disrespected. But now, after witnessing what I've witnessed, I feel like the Soviet Union is catching up with me.
Speaker 3: I feel like I'm back in the Soviet Union. It's not so much about the return of the Soviet Union, but the return of the Soviets, since this is not about the recreation of an oppressive state of the past, but about an oppressive attitude. Two weeks after Durov gave that speech, he announced a contest on Telegram titled Digital Freedom Contest, with a prize money of $200,000 for the best viral video of at least 10,000 views. This video has the ambition to be part of this contest. However, I will not focus exclusively on digital freedom, because that would be short-sighted. First, because censorship in the West is not limited to the virtual realm. Second, if we want to successfully combat censorship, we need to understand where this oppressive attitude comes from, socially, politically, and historically speaking. This quote-unquote new censorship is much older than the Internet, so we must broaden our perspective, both in scope and timescale. And finally, the things I will lay out here will hit the nerve of many censoring authorities and pressure groups. If it didn't, I would be doing something wrong. But as a result, I will not be able to post this video on platforms that will not only delete it, but also potentially delete my account with it, such as YouTube. Other platforms may prevent my video from getting shared or reposted. So, getting to 10,000 views is already a challenge in today's censorship environment online. But I'll do my best. Now, how did the West arrive at this point where it is in the process of giving up some of its liberties? The answer to this question lies in the way the Second World War ended in Europe. This is a map of Europe just before the outbreak of the war. Brown is Germany, red is the Soviet Union. Both decided in late August 1939 to carve up Poland. As a result, France and Great Britain declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union, with the declared goal to defend the independence of Poland. At the end of the war, Germany was no more, so to say, but the Soviet Union had gobbled up several countries entirely, plenty of territories from several neighbors, and had subjugated and enslaved most of Central and Eastern Europe for decades to come. Therefore, if the goal was to regain independence for Poland, the Second World War was a huge disaster. 50 million people died, and at the end, the situation was much worse than before. How could the victorious powers sell this disaster to the world as a glorious victory anyhow? Well, by rebranding it as a war of the world against absolute evil that had culminated in the Holocaust. World War II was not about liberation from despotism in general, but only about liberation from one flavor of it, the one that caused the Holocaust. Fascism, the most extreme embodiment of right-wing ideologies. Atrocities committed by the Allied powers were simply swept under the carpet. That narrative turned even the 10 million-fold mass murderer Stalin into a savior of mankind. That lopsided version of the conflict was cast in legal stone during the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal. I have described how that was done in another documentary. You can find a link to it in the description. What matters here is only that, to this day, antifascism is synonymous with being the ultimate good cause. The term triggers a reflex in us. Yes, antifascism is good, legitimate, necessary. I will not try to convince you otherwise, because opposition to any despotic system is good. However, the term antifascism does more in our brains than trigger automatic agreement. We grant good intentions to anyone who claims that label. And most of us tend to accept oppressive and sometimes even violent measures if they claim to be done to fight fascism. That creates a psychological backdoor to censorship and despotism. Left-wing ideologies are best at exploiting that backdoor because anti-fascism is a mainstay of their worldview and the rest of us grant them noble motives. Moreover, Jews also have a stake in this game because the Holocaust is not only important to justify the disastrous outcome of World War II and to make even Stalin look good. It is also the mainstay of Israel's existence and of modern Jewish self-perception. Therefore, the Holocaust narrative, as developed at the Nuremberg IMT, is the cornerstone of the anti-fascist post-World War order we live in. Any critique of that narrative will be met with the utmost resistance of all those invested in that order. This creates the second backdoor for censorship and despotism, which finds almost unanimous consent everywhere in the world. The current censorship epidemic in the West, as described by Durov, has its origin in Europe, and specifically in two European countries, which have been leading the charge in tightening the censorship screws for all of Europe and the collective West, France and, most of all, Germany. Because Germany between 1933 and 1945 has been portrayed as the ultimate evil, modern Germany uses any measure necessary to prevent the impression that anything like it can happen again. That pries wide open both vectors to censorship and oppression. Germans call this Wehrhafted Demokratie, which translates either to militant democracy, which is too harsh, or defensive democracy, which is too soft. it basically means that civil rights can be restricted in a democracy if exercising those rights could create insecurities for privileged minorities members of the ruling class or for the political system itself so it's the scam mentioned by durov of trading liberties in general for an alleged increased security for some first i want to sketch germany's slippery slide into the censorship trap starting right after the war in fact Germany started with censorship built into the system because the Allies in East and West allowed only the kind of media in their zones of occupation that they found agreeable. In West Germany, until 1955, media had to get a license from the occupational powers to operate. All had to be anti-fascist in attitude, of course. Consequently, most media in Germany, to this day, are left-leaning. The only significant right-wing outlet to ever exist the Deutsche National- und Soldatenseite, the German national and soldiers newspaper, was a CIA operation to control Germany's war veterans after World War II. The conservative Axel Springer publishing house could embrace some right-wing views only because to this day, every staff member has to be absolutely pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, and pro-NATO. Since Germany was at the center of the East-West conflict, its society in general, and media in particular, were the main target of propaganda and subversion by both the US and the Soviet Union. The hot phase of the Cold War started in 1948 with Stalin's brilliant blockade, which ended only in May 1949. It turned into a hot war in Korea a year later. At that point, the US government decided that they need German officers experienced in fighting communist armies that use cruel guerrilla tactics. hence many former high-ranking officers incarcerated by the allies were pardoned or amnestied of course that did not find the approval of antifascists further stirred up by stalin's propaganda they did not want less but rather more denazification among them were not just antifascist meaning left-wing groups both in germany and abroad but also those representing former resistance fighters victims and survivors of the camp system and others who had suffered under the third reich then add to this diplomatic pressure from countries with large victim groups they all lobbied incessantly to increase and accelerate the prosecution of suspected war criminals Until 1958, however, West Germany's government was reluctant to succumb to this pressure, seeing that it came to a large degree from organizations heavily funded or influenced by communist countries. But in 1958, this attitude changed 180 degrees. During that year, West Germany created a Nazi hunting office and invited everyone to submit evidence for the chase. order was issued by the west german government to the prosecution branch to take more or less at face value the claims and evidence submitted in particular by eastern bloc countries among them was foremost poland because that's where the main crime scenes are located all the so-called extermination camps were located there and poland was also home to many witnesses add to this the results of polish court proceedings from the stalinist short trial era right after the war in subsequent decades close to a thousand Holocaust-related trials were launched. As a matter of fact, this office still exists today, and they are still prosecuting people who are in their 90s or even 100 years old and older. A year after the formation of this official Nazi hunting unit, in 1959 and 1960, a series of swastika paintings appeared on Jewish synagogues, cemeteries, community centers, etc., in Germany and many other countries all around the globe. This led to outrage everywhere in the Western world. Only 20 years later did we learn from Soviet defectors of the KGB that this swastika epidemic, as it is called today, had been a false flag operation orchestrated by the KGB. It was very successful in terms of kick-starting in West Germany the introduction of censorship laws. The West German government rewrote the law that was in the books from the Kaiserreich, geared towards suppressing left-wing dissidents. As we know, socialist and communist ideas evolved in Germany, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were Germans. The whole movement originated in Germany. The Prussian monarchy, and then the German Kaiserreich, had a problem keeping this under control. Hence, a law was introduced banning incitement to class hatred, something left-wing radicals are accused of doing. In 1960, the West German Parliament rewrote this law, substituting the term class hatred with racial hatred, assuming that Jews are a race. Some 35 years later, Germany actually eliminated that law altogether, since human races don't exist in the politically correct mindset. Now, you get prosecuted in Germany if you incite the masses in a way capable of disturbing public peace. But I digress. Coincidentally, after the swastika epidemic of 1959-1960 had subsided, the 1961 Eichmann Show trial in Jerusalem captured the attention of world media for many months. This led, for the first time since the Nuremberg trials, to a renewed massive international presence of the Holocaust in public awareness. Just three years later, the large-scale Frankfurt Auschwitz trial started in West Germany, which hammered the topic deep into the German public mind. The growing public awareness of Nazi crimes had a particularly inciting influence on left-leaning students in West Germany. That effect was exacerbated by a group of philosophy professors called the Frankfurt School, who became very popular among these students. All iconic representatives of this school were both neo-Marxists and Jews. They instilled in students not only a rejection of Germany's fascist past, but also of West Germany's capitalist present, and especially its lack of coming to terms with Germany's Nazi past. Many West German students saw their parents' generation, which still ran the country, as responsible for what had happened during the war. They blamed capitalism for having created Hitler and all that's connected to him. These students therefore rejected imperialism, capitalism, German traditions, the current elites, you name it. While the student counterculture movement in the US was rather harmless in hindsight, the so-called extra-parliamentary opposition in West Germany turned violent and revolutionary in 1968. This movement created the first wave of what I call lynch mob censorship. Students organized sit-ins at universities, preventing social science professors from teaching who didn't endorse their radical views. These left-wing radical students also attacked right-wing groups. The student protest movement of the late 1960s permanently turned West Germany's universities into a hotbed of left-wing radicalism and extremism. Ever since the late 1960s, the students' self-governing organizations have been dominated by socialist, Marxist, communist, Maoist, and anarchist groups. Together, they commonly obtain supermajorities of around 70%. There are no right-wing student groups worth mentioning. If they try to run, they get violently attacked. That is the political climate in which, for several generations now, Germany's elites have been educated. Let me give you a personal example of what that climate looked like back then and still looks like today. I studied chemistry at Bonn University from 1983 to 1989. During that time, I joined a Catholic student fraternity. One of our fraternity members was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who in 2005 became Pope Benedict XVI. Hence, my fraternity was certainly not a Nazi organization. In 1987, Our fraternity screened the 1984 anti-abortion documentary The Silent Scream with a subsequent discussion among the audience. I announced that event with a flyer I taped inside the elevator of the dormitory where I lived at that time. Within a few hours, the flyer was shredded by knife cuts and disfigured by a swastika. A short while later, a female student at the dormitory was violently attacked by a left-wing extremist student because she was a friend of mine. This attitude was common among Germans' new elite in formation. It was a foreboding of bad things to come. But back to my timeline. In 1969, West Germany had its first post-war socialist government. Under this administration, the nature of West Germany's central censorship authority changed. Created after the war, it was originally meant only to make pornography and the glorification of violence inaccessible to children. Since the 1970s, however, it is being misused to censor political and historical writings considered to be right-wing in nature. Opposition to mass immigration, dissent on the causes and events of World War II, assessments of the Third Reich that are not all condemning, critical attitudes toward Jews, the Jewish religion, Zionism, and Israel, as well as deviation from the prevailing Holocaust narrative are the primary targets. In 1970, one branch of West Germany's extra-parliamentary opposition moved into a terrorist organization called Red Army Faction, or RAF for short. They assassinated several high-profile personalities in West Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. When the Eastern Bloc collapsed, it turned out that communist East Germany's secret police had trained, funded, and given logistical assistance to the RAF for decades. The RAF's bloody trail led to several measures restricting civil rights in West Germany for the sake of security. While the RAF eventually faded away, the restrictions on civil rights were never reversed. They never are. I bring up the RAF here also because of one of the group's founding members, attorney Horst Mahler, who was the RAF's chief theoretician. He was arrested already in 1970 and watched the RAF's bloody trail only from prison. Alienated by their brutal tactics, he parted ways with them in 1975. In late 1998, or early 1999, he somehow ended up reading my book Lectures on the Holocaust, or rather the first German edition of it. That book critically examines the mainstream Holocaust narrative in a dialogue format of arguments and counter-arguments. You can download a free e-book version of the current English edition at the web address given in the description below. This book, Redbild Mahler. He subsequently contacted me by email, and we had a lengthy exchange of emails on various issues. What is relevant here is his statement that foremost the Holocaust was what drove the students and the counterculture movement in Germany into radical opposition to the current system. After reading my book, he realized that he had been duped. He subsequently threw out the baby with a bath and made a 180-degree turn, ideologically speaking. That's not what can be derived from my book, quite to the contrary. But I digress again. This just highlights the emotional and moral import the Holocaust has in leftist, antifascist circles. They derive moral outrage and justification for oppressive, violent, and even terrorist acts from it. Let's switch over to France for a short while. In that country, the first official censorship law was adopted in 1972, 12 years later than Germany. It was accepted by France's parliament unanimously and bans racial defamation, discrimination, and incitement to hatred. Two lobby groups in particular had been pushing for such a law for many years, the Jewish League Against Antisemitism and the Movement Against Racism, Antisemitism, and for Peace. The latter had evolved from the communist-dominated French resistance movement. Here we see again that members of the main victim groups of National Socialist Germany, Jews and left-wing radicals, managed to get laws implemented that target ideas which are found primarily on the right-wing spectrum. France, with its rich and glorified history of anti-fascist resistance, and Germany, with its permanent need to prove itself beyond suspicion of any Nazi resurgence, are the main driving forces in Europe for censorship. If you grant the government the right to do a little censorship, you soon will find out that they steadily increase that censorship. I have yet to see a government that voluntarily relinquishes control it has obtained over its constituency. The next censorship steps occurred in a field where such measures encounter the least resistance and the most enthusiastic support, limiting or outright outlawing dissent on the prevailing Holocaust narrative. That became a topic because in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Holocaust skepticism gained traction worldwide. Now, a quick explanation on the term I just used. People who don't buy the prevailing Holocaust narrative, hook, line, and sinker, come in many flavors. Some descend only on minor aspects, while others reject the entire story as fake from beginning to end, and then there is any intermediate position you can think of. In my opinion, only the extreme position of total rejection deserves the label Holocaust denial. Since the censorship laws I will explain next potentially target all of these positions, I use a term that catches them all. Holocaust skepticism. Now, this is not the place to discuss the development of Holocaust skepticism. If you are interested in a brief history of that school of thought, I have laid it out in this presentation. You can find a link to it in the description. Early Holocaust skepticism that made some inroads into the public sphere was voiced mainly by individuals in the US and in France, but not so much in West Germany as you might perhaps expect. but the French wave quickly swept over France's eastern border into West Germany. Hence, in 1985, West Germany's Socialists and the Crypto-Marxist Green Party pushed to make Holocaust skepticism explicitly illegal. However, at that point, West Germany had a semi-conservative administration, and they merely tightened existing laws, making prosecutions of dissidents easier. Not pleased by this half-hearted measure, Israel made a diplomatic statement in 1986 by introducing the very first law on the planet that dictates at gunpoint the results of research here in the field of Holocaust studies. Several scandals, dragging on for an entire decade, of French scholars doing iconoclastic criticism of Holocaust sources finally led to a communist deputy in France's National Assembly to introduce a law in 1990 that followed Israel's example. The law was passed with the votes of all socialists and communists, but opposed by all non-left-wing members. The latter did not want to dictate research results at gunpoint. Austria and Germany followed a few years later. While Germany's parliament passed their law in 1994 unanimously, Austria's Libertarian Party FPO, a small minority in their parliament at that time, opposed the law, taking the same stance as France's non-leftist groups. Ever since, the list of countries in the West has grown steadily, which have outlawed Holocaust skepticism to one degree or another. Here is a list of them, sorted by the year each law was enacted, and with a possible maximum prison term in the right-hand column. Austria is the harshest case, where repeat offenders who reach large audiences with their dissent can face up to 20 years in prison. I guess that applies to me, so I better stay away from that country. Here is a map of Europe showing in red the countries that dictate the writing of history at gunpoint with regard to the Holocaust. Gray are countries which make prosecutions dependent on other factors, such as disparaging remarks about the victims, witnesses or survivors, or a rhetoric likely to cause violence or hatred. So, in those countries, strictly academic statements challenging the prevailing Holocaust narrative are not prosecuted. As you can see, There are very few white spots left on the map. One reason for this is that the European Union passed a framework decision in 2007, making it mandatory for all EU members and countries aspiring to become a member to enact laws banning Holocaust skepticism. That same framework decision also makes laws banning hate speech mandatory, meaning laws such as enacted by Germany in 1960 or France in 1972. So what you see here is basically a map showing where in Europe you can still speak your mind without worrying about getting arrested and thrown into prison. But what does hate speech actually mean? I could answer this by saying that for government authorities and their obsequious sycophants in traditional and social media, hate speech is speech they hate. Or I could quote my dear late friend Dr. Robert Countess, who coined the phrase Truth is hate in the eyes of those who hate the truth. And that's the truth. But seriously, in Europe today, depending on each country's specific laws, any criticism of Jews, Jewish religion, Zionist ideology, Israel's behavior in Gaza and Lebanon, any dissent on the standard tropes of World War II, even if solidly backed up by evidence, any opposition to mass immigration, to non-Christian religious laws, rules, and practices, to non-heterosexual behaviors, to government-mandated vaccinations, etc., etc., you name it. Any and all of it can get you thrown into prison. You need not say anything violent or endorse any violence to get in trouble. Even if you argue strictly academically, it won't save you. This is probably a good point to discuss whether there should be any limits to free speech, and if so, where we should draw the line. Here is a line of reasoning that everyone should be able to understand and agree to. We should never use our right to free speech in order to work toward restricting or denying someone else's right to free speech. Because if we do that, then we have no right to complain that someone else is working toward restricting or removing our freedom of speech. Starting from that logic, I expand this to a wider principle, which draws the moral red line of where freedom of speech should end. Freedom of speech is unlimited as long as it does not advocate, promote, justify, or condone the violation of anyone's civil rights and right to self-determination in the past, present, or future, because those who work to deny others their civil rights or right to self-determination cannot expect to have their own civil rights or right to self-determination protected. This is meant only as a moral guideline we should impose on ourselves, not as an instruction for lawmakers. If a speech follows that principle, then I call it succinctly peaceful speech. If any dissent we voice is peaceful in this sense, it ought to be unimpeded. From my own experience, and from what i have learned about many other cases over the decades it is clear to me that some of the thought crimes prosecuted in germany comply with this principle hence should be perfectly legal while others do not most of them that do not would still be legal under the generous free speech umbrella of the u s first amendment but that doesn't mean they are morally defensible to give a drastic practical example You can contest the existence of homicidal gas chambers during the Third Reich until you are blue in the face, but you cannot justify their use, or any other violation of civil rights, or the right to self-determination committed by the Third Reich, or any other regime for that matter. The facts about any crime, real or only alleged, and no matter the crime's size and nature, always need to be open to discussion, just like the facts of any other event. is justify old crimes or advocate for new crimes to be perpetrated. Let's now turn to what is actually happening in those censoring countries in the West. Durov mentioned that thousands of people get arrested in the UK and in Germany for making unpopular or unwelcome statements. I don't know what data he relies on to make such a statement. What I do know is that Germany collects and proudly publishes the number of criminal investigations they launch every year for thought crimes. Of course, they don't call them thought crimes. That would enable people to connect the dots to George Orwell's novel 1984. Instead, they call them opinion offenses. These numbers are published in the yearly reports of Germany's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The numbers are based on figures provided by Germany's Bundeskriminalamt, the German equivalent to the US's FBI. The reports have three main parts, left-wing, right-wing, and foreign or religious extremism. Interestingly, opinion offenses is a category that used to exist only in the section on right-wing extremism. I have seen this category listed for left-wing extremism for the first time in the just released report for 2025, whose data I couldn't include in this chart yet. According to this, left-wing propaganda offenses amount only to a few hundred cases per year. That shows an ideological bias of roughly a factor of 100. The numbers making up beige and green areas of that chart for left-wing and foreign slash religious extremism listed in the reports of earlier years only as quote-unquote other offenses. That sets them apart from violent crimes. If this is specified in the reports at all, it means things like illegal trespassing, damage to property, disorderly conduct, disturbing the public peace, meaning rioting, etc. Since these aren't opinion offenses, I shouldn't even have included them here, but as mentioned, A few cases of propaganda offenses hide in them, apparently too few for the German authorities to mention them separately. You see how over the years in Germany, such investigations have grown steadily from some 5,000 in 1994 to some 35,000 in 2024. Since 2023, the numbers have escalated dramatically. I call this the Gaza effect because Germany has now also made it a crime to criticize Israel, the Jews or Zionists too harshly for what they do in Gaza. But what about the steady growth of investigations before that? Does it prove that the Nazi menace grows steadily in Germany? Not at all. Here is another graph showing the length of the German law most frequently used to suppress certain types of speech. It shows how more and more text has been added over the years because more and more things have become illegal to say in Germany. Germany's laws banning the defamation of the state at symbols, institutions, and representatives, enacted at the start of the Cold War in 1951 and briefly hinted at by Durov in his speech, have been expanded over the years as well, also leading to more quote-unquote thought crime investigations. This shows again that censorship always only increases over time. It's time to put some faces to these numbers, but only very briefly. First, there is engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich, who was put in an Austrian prison for a total of 16 years for peaceful engineering arguments on gas chambers, which didn't line up with the prevailing Holocaust narrative. Or take a book honoring a German history professor after he had passed away. The German authorities confiscated the book and burned it in waste incinerators under police supervision. Why? Because it contained a footnote in Latin language in which another professor expressed his disbelief in the prevailing Holocaust narrative. And last but not least, there is Austrian professor Werner Pfeifenberger, who was harassed, demoted, fired, and eventually prosecuted for an academic paper he wrote praising nationalism over internationalism. When he found out he might have to go to prison for his paper, he committed suicide. If you want to learn more about these and similar cases, grab the free e-book version of my book, History at Gunpoint, that will be out in a week or two. Its first chapter is dedicated to such cases. You can find a link to it in this video's description below. Let's now turn to Pavel Durov's playground, the Internet. Or rather, I will focus on businesses active online, so not just social media platforms. Germany was leading the charge when it comes to censoring the Internet, too, because the CEO of the German section of CompuServe was arrested in 1998 for allowing the transmission of content that is illegal. That, by the way, also included Holocaust skepticism. Ultimately, the case got thrown out because CompuServe is just an Internet service provider, or ISP for short, comparable to a company that builds and maintains roads. Such a company cannot be held accountable for criminals using the road. By now, however, censoring countries like Germany force ISPs and even domain name registrars to block domain names spreading thought crimes. ISP blocks can easily be circumvented with VPNs, though, and censoring registrars simply lose business when they ban certain names. The situation is different when it comes to platforms, as Durov is experiencing right now. If they have any subsidiaries in censoring countries, these platforms can be forced to comply with censoring laws. The most impactful censorship online is done not by social media platforms, however, but by payment processors. 95% of all online payments are done using debit and credit cards. Since the Internet is international, so are the companies involved in processing online payments or accepting and transferring funds. Many of them are forced at gunpoint to comply with the laws of censoring countries. Some limit this to transactions with those countries, while others go above and beyond enforcing these censorship laws on the entire planet, even in the U.S., Brand labels such as Master and Visa have so far refused to censor, but American Express has a history of cutting out companies or individuals who voice opinions banned in the European Union. All banks doing business in countries with censorship laws must also enforce them. They will close bank accounts when they are used to finance thought crimes. HSBC, for instance, the Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation, has a major presence in the UK. In 2020, they closed all three of my bank accounts because one of them accepted payments for books containing thought crimes sent to customers in Germany. In 2007, PayPal added terms to its acceptable use policy, closely following the European framework decision of the same year regarding thought crimes. PayPal, including Venmo, enforces those laws on the entire globe. Other payment platforms, such as Wise and Square, including Cash App, do the same. smaller online payment processing companies limited to doing business in the U.S. would not be constrained by European or Canadian thought crime legislation, but they depend on gateway providers linking their back end to all the banks in the world. These are again companies which have to comply with the censorship laws of all countries on the planet to be able to do business everywhere. Hence, gateway providers such as AuthorizeNet, PaySafe, PaySimple, Cardpoint, and NMI have terminated their services when detecting transactions involving thought crimes. You can imagine what it means for dissidents on any topic when they lose 95% of their income because they cannot accept payments or donations by credit cards. A good indicator for who presses most for censorship and what they want to suppress most urgently can be gleaned from Amazon's history of book censorship. Unfortunately, I have been on the forefront of causing and suffering this censorship. Since 2014, I have been publishing books on Amazon through their CreateSpace print-on-demand platform. In 2015, Amazon removed an archival study of ours on the German wartime concentration camp Stutthof. When I complained about this, insisting that the book was perfectly legal in the UK, where my company was headquartered, Amazon said Germany had demanded they ban it. Since at that point Amazon could not block books only for certain markets, they took it down entirely. A little later, they reworked their database, allowing to switch off books in certain country-specific domains such as Amazon.de. Mind you, this was done not because of some Nazi propaganda or anti-Jewish rant, but because of an academic-style archival study that's actually rather boring to read. Two years later, In early 2017, a massive wave of more than 100 anonymous bomb threats against Jewish community centers hit the United States. Concurrently, several tombstones on two Jewish cemeteries in the U.S. got toppled over. In reaction to this, the Israeli Yad Vashem Holocaust Center and the Board of Deputies of British Jews pressured Amazon to take down my entire research series on the Holocaust. A few days later, Amazon caved in. They reprogrammed their database again, adding a kill switch for ISBN numbers, which takes down that book everywhere across Amazon's various platforms. More than 80 books of mine with skeptical research results on the Holocaust were deleted overnight. Almost nothing else was affected. My publishing company's academic output was the target. It later turned out that severe storms had toppled the gravestones, and that the bomb threats were part of some covert false flag operation committed by a young Jew in Israel who had received orders and lots of money for this through some anonymous channels. I suspect it was a Mossad operation, but cannot prove it. Note that National Socialist propaganda material, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf and drastic anti-Jewish books, were not affected by this takedown. That changed only slowly in subsequent years when Amazon, now empowered by their kill switch, added a steadily growing number of books to the list. Some of them aren't even illegal anywhere. They are simply politically incorrect, such as books critical about transgenderism or COVID shutdowns and vaccine policies. I have documented Amazon's transition from a platform offering a free marketplace of ideas to the world's most dangerous censorship enforcer in this documentary. I put the link to it in the description below. There is also a book on this. A free ebook version of it can be downloaded at the link given in the description. The print version of this book was taken out of circulation in 2026 by Ingram Content Group, claiming that my Amazon book doesn't meet their customers' expectations, which is ridiculous. Now, who or what is the Ingram Content Group? This company actually has a total monopoly on book distribution in the United States. Every book retailer, Amazon included, gets all the information about all books in print in real time from Ingram. Online, as well as brick and mortar bookstores, buy most books they sell from Ingram at a wholesale discount. If Ingram doesn't list a book, it virtually doesn't exist at all. In early 2022, Amazon pressured Ingram to close our account with them making sure our books do not exist anymore for the entire retail book market. We have since recovered from this, but when getting reinstated with Ingram, they refused to distribute the just-mentioned book on how Amazon has become the biggest threat to free speech, and how Ingram enforces Amazon's plot at the back end. I'm sure the book exceeds the end customers, meaning the readers' expectations, but it sure does not please Ingram's biggest customer, which happens to be Amazon. Again, Watch my documentary on this to find out more. Search engine manipulation is another form of censorship. All Internet search engines, by law, have to exclude certain search results in certain countries. If you search for something that touches upon a topic that's regulated by censorship laws in your country, results from Internet domains will be excluded from the search results if they contain material deemed illegal by your government. You can circumvent this by using a VPN, giving you a US IP address, and then using Google.com, for instance. What you cannot circumvent, however, are fake search results. In 2016, web pages with content skeptical about the prevailing Holocaust narrative were listed near the top of Google's search results. That prominence created a positive feedback loop of more people visiting that site and making similar material also more visible. Pressure was exerted on Google by the usual never-forget, never-forgive groups demanding that material skeptical about the prevailing Holocaust narrative be removed. Google subsequently tweaked their algorithms to forcefully demote to a lower rank any material that does not line up with what the mainstream tells you about this wartime event. In extension of this, AI engines such as Google AI or ChatGPT are explicitly forbidden to consume and include any material in their vast knowledge database that does not line up with the prevailing narrative. You see a pattern here. Censorship over and over again forces its way into a free sector of society by using the fight against quote-unquote Holocaust denial as an excuse, and it expands from there. We all have to give up our right to free speech and freedom of information so that the lives of some Jews are allegedly a little more secure. The majority of Jews in Israel and many Zionists around the globe then use that exemption from criticism as a shield to commit war crimes and a genocide. Here, watch this clip, the link to which is in the description.
Speaker 0: It brings me no pleasure to compare what Israel is doing to what the Nazis did. But how can we not? Because you have things like ghettos, you have things like starvation, you have things like concentration camps. You have things like the planned, systematic extermination of people. Now, a lot of people talk about the banality of evil. There was a real cold detachment, industrialized murder of Jews and others during the Holocaust. What's so disturbing about what Israel is doing and the IDF is doing is that they are doing it with glee. And unlike the Nazis, they're not hiding it. And we know this because they document this. They document not just the war crimes, but they document their glee. You even have Israeli soldiers themselves comparing themselves to Nazis. One of them said, I felt like a Nazi. It looked exactly like we were the Nazis and they were the Jews. They, of course, being Palestinians. Another soldier said it is justified and, in fact, essential to learn from every possible source, even, however shocking it may sound, how the German army fought in the Warsaw Ghetto. So there we have Israeli soldiers literally learning from Nazi tactics and comparing themselves explicitly to the Nazis and the Palestinians to the Jews. Ironically, according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism, it is antisemitic to, quote, draw comparisons between contemporary Israeli policies to that of the Nazis. So I guess those soldiers are themselves antisemitic, according to this definition. Another point of comparison, although it's actually a point of departure, is the relationship between the genocide... and public opinion. In Israel, however, everyone knows what's happening. It's documented by legacy media, it's documented by social media, and yet the vast majority of Israelis think that the government is using either an appropriate amount of force or not enough force against the Palestinians.
Speaker 3: And then Jews and Zionists wonder why, in reaction to this, their lives have suddenly become much more unsafe. It's because those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. I will now wrap up this presentation with a brief look at social media platforms. In September of 2025, the Pew Research Center published the results of a survey among a little over 5,000 randomly chosen adults in the U.S., asking them where they get their news from. For several years now, digital devices are the most frequently used sources of news. TV, radio, and printed periodicals have lost out to the Internet for quite some time now. Among those digital platforms, social media and podcasts have a share of some 30%. And here is the breakdown of popularity of various social media platforms regarding news consumption. Note that Telegram isn't on that list because it is mainly a messaging app, not a news platform. Today, all major social media platforms enforce European-style censorship rules. YouTube and Google implemented it on June 5th, 2019. TikTok followed this example on January 8th, 2020. Reddit implemented similar rules on June 29th, 2020. Meta, owning Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, introduced theirs on October 12th, 2020, followed two days later by Twitter, which is now X, under Elon Musk. X has become a little more tolerant, but prevents material skeptical about the prevailing Holocaust narrative from getting shared, forwarded, or listed in search results, hence pretty much quarantines such content. The Internet used to be the ultimate democratic level playing field for everyone, a weapon of mass instruction where widely ostracized views, or those inconvenient to the powers that be, could be shared and spread equally. But then, starting in mid-2019, and within just 16 months, that dream evaporated. Now, free speech does not exist anymore in a meaningful way on any of the major platforms. The video sharing platform Rumble is the only exception here, but it has a minute reach compared to YouTube, for example. The other exception used to be Telegram, albeit only as a messenger app. Until Pavel Durov's arrest in 2024, Telegram never shared IP addresses or phone numbers of its users with any government authority and would not install a backdoor into its app either. Until 2024, Telegram took action against content only if it explicitly promoted glorified or encouraged violence, which is not the case for 99% of all speech, which the other platforms and most European countries categorize as hate speech. But then, exactly a month after Durov's arrest in France on August 24th, 2024, evidently after being coerced at gunpoint by the French authorities, Telegram caved in and started sharing user IPs and phone numbers if authorities present a search warrant. Telegram also blocks access to certain public channels for users with phone numbers registered in countries where the contents of these channels have been tagged as illegal. I'm producing this video in the United States. I could not do this anywhere in Europe because Germany has issued a European white arrest warrant for me in 2023. This happened because a person in the UK had mailed copies of one of my books to members of the German right-wing party Alternative for Germany. This book, titled The Chemistry of Auschwitz, is a highly scientific forensic study of the Auschwitz gas chambers. But that didn't prevent many of those party members from filing criminal complaints against me anyhow. If you want to be baffled by what leads to persecution, censorship, book burning and incarceration of dissidents in Europe, read the free e-book version of this book or watch the video documentary based on it at the links given in the description. For now, I am safe here in the United States, which does not extradite thought criminals thanks to this country's glorious First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thanks to America's wise founding fathers, the United States is the last major nation where its citizens are still free to speak their minds. But there are some who want this to change. Watch this clip showing the Israeli Shlomo Kramer, CEO of Cato Networks, which is a cybersecurity company.
Speaker 1: And I know it's difficult to hear, but it's time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it.
Speaker 3: Fathom that, in order to save the First Amendment, We need to restrict the First Amendment, or put more clearly, in order to save free speech, we need to get rid of free speech. Kramer, too, wants us to trade in our liberty for the illusion of a little more security. I hope that won't fly with the American people. 250 years of independence from Europe are a reason to celebrate and to keep going. Don't succumb to European censorship attitudes. There's one area where I disagree with Pavel Durov. sees cancerous growth of censorship worldwide as a threat to democracy. It is not. I think he confuses a few concepts here. Succinctly put, democracy means the rule of the majority. The terms dictatorship and democracy are not mutually exclusive. If a majority in a democracy decides to dictate to a minority what they can and cannot say, then this is a democratic dictatorship. Therefore, Any democracy must be guardrailed by inalienable human rights, or else it can quickly deteriorate into a mere lynch mob where two wolves and a lamb decide what's for dinner. Hitler was elected democratically, but there was nothing in the German constitution of that time stopping him from restricting and removing civil rights. We are at that junction of history again, this time on a global scale, and this time it's pushed by anti-fascists and by Jews. They argue that, in order to prevent that books get burned, minorities get persecuted, and dissidents get jailed again, as happened in the dark Nazi past, we need to burn books, persecute minorities, and jail dissidents, because that is exactly what they are doing. We need to stop them. Give me liberty or give me death. Thank you for your attention. Please help me spread this information by liking, sharing, forwarding and reposting this documentary.
@GermarRudolf - Germar Rudolf (* 1964)
Learn how Grok lies about the Holocaust https://t.co/xyz0cocMaP
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker recounts that after a one-minute clip arguing that the Holocaust is a myth went viral on X, accumulating 48,000 views within a day, X reduced its visibility, making it undiscoverable and unshareable. The text displayed by Ex Grok artificial dumbness asserts several false points, which the speaker says are all wrong:
- The Holocaust handbooks contain 54 volumes, not 39.
- The Courier Report contains nothing about the number of presumably murdered Jews, and nothing at all approaching 6,000,000.
- The Holocaust death toll cannot be ascertained by comparing prewar with postwar Jewish population data in Europe. In between, there was a massive Jewish exodus, with millions leaving Europe and migrating to Palestine/Israel, the US, and many other countries. The speaker claims to have demonstrated the flawed nature of mainstream demographic studies on this topic.
- Einsatzgruppen reports tally some 750,000 shootings, not over a million, and that topic was not even mentioned in the speaker’s clip.
- The cremation capacities of extermination facilities are a technical question; they do not corroborate exterminations in gas chambers using Zyklon B, which the speaker characterizes as an entirely different map.
Additionally, the memo referenced is described as false on numerous accounts. The speaker states that the actual documented and technically possible maximum cremation capacity of all Auschwitz crematoria was around 1,000 corpses per day, noting that this is only theoretical since the facilities were never operable all at the same time; therefore, the practical capacity at any given moment was much lower. The speaker argues that whatever the number, cremation capacity is not proof of mass murder, or else the capacities of any major city’s crematoria would prove mass murder.
The speaker concludes by urging readers to “check out these websites for more.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: After my one minute clip on why the holocaust is a myth started going viral on x with 48,000 views within a day, x pulled the plug on it by limiting its visibility and making it undiscoverable and unshareable. Ex Grok artificial dumbness now shows the text displayed here with my clip. Everything about this text is wrong. First, the Holocaust handbooks have 54 volumes, not 39. Second, the Courier Report contains nothing about the number of presumably murdered Jews, and most certainly nothing even approaching 6,000,000.
Third, the Holocaust death toll cannot be ascertained by comparing prewar with postwar Jewish population data in Europe. In between, we had a massive Jewish exodus, where millions left Europe and migrated to Palestine slash Israel, The US, and many other countries. I have demonstrated the flawed nature of mainstream demographic studies on this topic here. Next, Einsatzgruppen reports tally some 750,000 shootings, not over a million, but that topic wasn't even mentioned in my clip. Finally, mammals on cremation capacities, a technical question, do not corroborate exterminations in gas chambers using Zyklon b, which is an entirely different map.
Furthermore, the memo referred to is false on numerous accounts. The actual documented and technically possible maximum cremation capacity of all Auschwitz crematoria was around 1,000 corpses per day. That is only theory, however, as these facilities were never operable all at the same time. Hence, the practical capacity at any given moment was much lower. But whatever the number, this is no proof of mass murder, or else the capacities of any major city's crematoria would prove mass murder.
This is absurd. Check out these websites for more.
@GermarRudolf - Germar Rudolf (* 1964)
Was the Holocaust irrefutably proven in 1945/46 during the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal? Watch my latest documentary to learn the shocking truth about this kangaroo trial. https://t.co/4a0iJArnnz
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2025, Sony Pictures Classics announced a docudrama, Nuremberg, the world will bear witness, slated for November 7 in the U.S. It’s predominantly produced by members of the Seberstein family and loosely based on The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack Elhai, which examines Hermann Goring’s fitness for trial at the Nuremberg IMT. The film and book assume the IMT’s legality and proper conduct, focusing on how evidence was created, gathered, and presented, including material from Nazi atrocities.
Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 discuss a debate with Holocaust skeptic Gamarudov, where historian Michael Van says the Nuremberg trials provide useful evidence for the Holocaust but the film aims to scrutinize the trial’s background rather than its results.
The overview outlines how the IMT came about and was organized. Before the war’s end, Stalin proposed rounding up German leaders for execution; Churchill and Roosevelt fluctuated between harsher and milder postwar justice. The German surrender led Admiral Donitz to ask Germany’s Supreme Court in Leipzig to conduct its own trial, but the Allies arrested and disbanded the German government on 05/23/1945. Americans took charge of organizing the postwar trial. London lawyers drafted procedures, assigned judges and prosecutors from victorious powers, and compiled a list of 24 German defendants. The first volume of the 42-volume IMT documentation is freely downloadable from the Library of Congress.
The video asserts that the IMT was illegal for several reasons, notably jurisdictional issues: an international court requires jurisdiction by participating states, which did not necessarily apply to all states involved. The charges—crimes against peace and crimes against humanity—used new laws and backward application in places. Critics argue that the Allies, as prosecutors and judges, compromised neutrality, and that the Allies themselves had committed crimes during the war, including waging aggressive wars, incarcerating thousands without due process, slave labor, killing civilians through mass bombing, ethnic cleansing of Germans, and mass murder of civilians. The video contends the Allies were not neutral judges of their own actions.
Vyshinsky’s Soviet prosecution is highlighted as controlling the defense’s ability to challenge evidence, with the defense barred from presenting certain issues, including the Katyn affair and a range of Soviet assets and reports. The defense faced limited access to German archives and to allied materials; article 21 allowed judicial notice of official documents, effectively green-lighting Soviet re-investigations and mass grave reports as incontrovertible evidence. The defense’s ability to challenge such “official reports” was constrained.
The video reviews evidence procurement: three Allied trials (U.S., Britain, Soviet) preceded the IMT. The Dachau and other trials supplied evidence later used at Nuremberg but were criticized for coercive practices. Benjamin Ferenc, responsible for evidence collection in the U.S. zone, described harsh methods: short trials, batches of defendants, threats to elicit confessions, and brutal interrogation in Dachau. Ferenc’s testimony and recollections of torture are cited as reflecting broader coercive practices. A former commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höss, testified for Kaltenbrunner after intense pressure and torture; later historians note his testimony’s reliability is contested.
The British trials, including Auschwitz-related proceedings, faced internal investigations revealing torture of German captives. Ian Cobain later published these files in Cruel Britannia. The Soviet approach to evidence is characterized as propagandistic and unreliable, including the Katyn-related mass grave reports and forged or misrepresented forensic outputs. The video emphasizes that many testimonies used at Nuremberg originated from coerced confessions or dubious affidavits, and that several key witnesses offered or repeated implausible or false narratives.
Key documentary examples include: Gerstein’s disputed Zyklon B tale, which the French prosecutor used; the War Refugee Board report (document L22) citing Rudolf Ruber, whose death toll claims and facility descriptions are now viewed as erroneous; gas vans and related documents (Becker document, which the prosecution presented, but is described as forged or misinterpreted). The film argues that the IMT sealed false narratives through dubious documentation and incompatible evidence.
The video concludes by acknowledging the documentary’s scope and pointing to Gemma Rudolph’s The Holocaust, Proven at Nuremberg as the source for a deeper study, alongside David Irving’s Nuremberg, the Last Battle. It asserts that the video does not claim Nazism’s innocence but contends that victors’ trials cannot be entirely fair. The sponsors and producers promote further accessible materials and call for support.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In 2025, Sony Picture Classics announced a new docudrama titled Nuremberg, the world will bear witness. The movie is slated to be released on November 7 in The United States. It is predominantly produced by members of this Jewish Seberstein family and is loosely based on the 2013 book titled The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack Elhai. The book focuses on whether or not Hermann Goring, the highest ranking German leader still alive after the war, was fit to stand trial at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal or IMT for short. The book and the upcoming docudrama take for granted the legality and legitimacy of the IMT and assume that the trial was conducted properly and fairly.
This attitude is understandable because the IMT is usually regarded as the famous beginning of international justice. The results of this trial are consistently cited by mainstream scholars as proof of Nazi warmongering, aggression, and atrocities. In this documentary, we will take a closer look not into the results, but into the background of that trial, how it came about, how it was set up, how evidence was created and gathered, and how the evidence was presented during that trial. In particular, we will shed some light on evidence presented from Nazi atrocities because that's what has shocked the world the most. Wars have always been fought throughout the history of mankind, but a holocaust, gas chambers, and high-tech mass extermination, that was unique.
And the Nuremberg IMT was the first prestigious event where that topic was presented to a world audience. During a debate with Holocaust skeptic, Gamarudov, on Jake Shields' fight back podcast, mainstream historian doctor Michael Van expressed it succinctly as follows.
Speaker 1: I think that the Nuremberg trials provide all sorts of
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Useful evidence for the for the Holocaust. I mean, I got a pretty conventional viewpoint on this. I mean
Speaker 0: You can watch this debate at the link given in the description. First, I will give an overview of how the IMT came about and how it was organized. Already before World War two ended, Stalin suggested repeating what he had done with the Polish elite at the beginning of the war. Round up the top 50,000 or a 100,000 German leaders and execute them without further ado. Churchill and Roosevelt initially agreed, but then the British had second thoughts and suggested executing only the accesses top 50 or 100 war leaders and handing the small fry over to other countries to do their lynching.
Stalin next suggested having a big show trial, the Soviet mock style, before executing the German leaders, but that didn't find approval among the British Americans. They eventually lobbied for a trial closer to their own traditions. In the meantime, the German armed forces surrendered. A week later, the new German government under admiral Donitz asked the occupying powers for permission to authorize Germany's Supreme Court in Leipzig to conduct a proper German trial against suspected German war criminals. That attempt at self cleansing did not go down well with the allies, though.
They simply arrested and disbanded the entire German government on 05/23/1945. That was a violation of international law, but there was no one to complain or intervene. Ultimately, the Americans took charge of organizing the envisioned post war trial.
Speaker 3: The laws of God and of man have been violated, and the guilty must not go unpunished. Nothing shall shake our determination to punish the war criminals even though we must pursue them to the ends
Speaker 4: of the earth. But the president insists on fair trials and appoints supreme court justice Robert h Jackson to persuade the allies to the American view.
Speaker 0: To this end, legal experts of the allied nations met in London in the 1945 with an agreement signed on August 8. Each victorious power assigned their respective set of judges and prosecutors. They devised laws and rules of procedures to be applied and compiled a list of 24 German defendants. All these details can be gleaned from the first volume of the 42 volume series in which the IMT was documented by the allies. You can download them as PDF files free of charge from the Library of Congress's website at www.l0c.gov.
That's the superficial view of things. The truth behind the scenes was much uglier. To bring that in full view, let's step back a little. First of all, the IMT was illegal for a number of reasons. The most important of which is that any international court can have jurisdiction only in such countries which have agreed to this jurisdiction.
For example, today's international criminal court has no jurisdiction in The United States, in Russia, India, or China because neither of them ever recognized that court. Of course, we could just say, screw it. Criminals frequently don't recognize the jurisdiction of any court, yet they get prosecuted all the same when we catch them. So why not the Nazis? Alright then.
What about inventing new laws then applying them backward? That is true for two of the four charges brought against the defendants, conspiring to commit crimes against peace and committing crimes against humanity. Well, you might say that unusual crimes require unusual laws, so let's do away with the principle of not applying laws backward. Fine. But how about this one?
In no court in the world would it be legal to put those who claim to have been wronged, the Americans, the Soviets, and other allies, in the position of being both the prosecutor and the judge. Even if you don't care about legality, this just isn't right. At a minimum, the judges should have been chosen from neutral countries such as Switzerland or Sweden. Furthermore, any really international court would have put all suspected war criminals on trial, not just those of the losers. Because if you look at it closely, the allies have committed all the crimes themselves which they accused the German leaders of, and some of them, they were perpetrating right at the time when they conducted the trial.
Here are a few examples. First, waging wars of aggression. That's exactly what the Soviet Union did when invading Poland together with Germany in September 1939, and then Finland later in 1939, as well as the Baltics and Romania in 1940. Britain planned and was on the way to invade neutral Norway and Sweden, but when the Germans found out about it, they beat the British to the punch but occupied only Norway, thus shielding Sweden from British aggression. As a reaction to this, Britain invaded and occupied neutral Iceland in May 1940, with The US taking over the occupation in July 1941.
Together with the Soviet Union, the British moreover invaded and occupied neutral Iran in August 1941 with The US joining in later. Second, incarcerating thousands without due process. That's exactly what the Americans had done to their citizens of Japanese descent and to all non naturalized German and Italian immigrants. They all ended up in American concentration camps, and we won't even discuss in detail the millions who had vanished into the Soviet gulag. Third, slave labor.
That accusation was levied against the German leaders when, at the same time, the Soviets were deporting hundreds of thousands of Germans and anyone who had collaborated with them during the war to slave labor camps. The French were exploiting tens of thousands of German POWs until 1947. Four, letting hundreds of thousands die of neglect in ghettos and camps. At the same time that charge was brought up, German, quote, unquote, disarmed enemy forces as well as civilians were dying by the hundreds of thousands in American, Canadian, Polish, French, and Russian camps, not to mention the millions who had disappeared and were still disappearing in the Soviet Union's gulag. Five, ethnic cleansing in occupied Poland.
That charge got dwarfed by the biggest ethnic cleansing of recorded human history, decided upon by the allies at war's end and implemented mainly by Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Serbia, that is to say Yugoslavia. Some 10,000,000 German civilians got expelled from their homes in East Germany and all over Eastern Europe. Six, mass murder of mainly Jewish civilians. When more than a million innocent German and Japanese civilians had been gassed, burned alive, and blown to pieces during allied carpet bombing campaigns, and millions of Germans died in East Germany and Eastern Europe in the biggest ethnic cleansing campaign the world has ever seen. After all, the biggest butcher usually wins a war, and it wasn't the Germans or Japanese in that case.
None of this could be brought up by the defense during their trial, though. Stalin's attorney general, who organized the Soviet prosecution team at Nuremberg, Andrei Vyshinsky, spearheaded the compilation of a list of issues that the defense was not allowed to bring up, among them the infamous Ribbentrop Molotov pact on the division of Poland between Germany and The Soviet Union in '39. The other allies also heavily contributed topics to that list they wanted excluded. Vyshynski, by the way, was the man who had organized and supervised the infamous Moscow shore trials during the nineteen thirties. That did not bode well for what was to come from the Soviets.
The worst hypocrisy of all was reserved for US chief prosecutor Robert Jackson. He was the representative of a country that mass murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians by dropping nuclear bombs on undefended cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just a few months after these war crimes, he seriously and falsely accused German leaders of having mass murdered 20,000 Jews with a nuclear blast. Here is The United States chief prosecutor Jackson speaking during the IMT.
Speaker 5: Certain experiments were also conducted and certain researches conducted in atomic energy, were they not? Now I have certain information which was placed in my hands of an experiment that was carried out near Auschwitz. And I'd like to ask you if you heard about it or knew about it. For the purpose of this experiment, the purpose of the experiment was to find a quick and complete way of destroying people without the delay and trouble of shooting and gassing and burning as it had been carried out. And this is the experiment as I'm advised.
A village, a small village was provisionally erected temporary structures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people were eradicated almost instantaneously and in such a way that there was no trace left of them, that it developed the explosive developed temperatures from four to 500 degrees centigrade and destroyed them without leaving any trace at all.
Speaker 0: The Americans weren't the only ones who reframed allied atrocities and then blamed them on the Germans. The Soviets were even more blatant by blaming the Katyn massacre of Polish officers on the Germans, although everyone in court knew that this crime had been committed by the Soviets on Stalin's order. Khachin wasn't on the Soviet don't mention list. Quite to the contrary, the Soviets introduced a fake forensic report created in early nineteen forty four under the directors of the Red Army's surgeon general, Nikolay Bodenko. So why couldn't the Germans cherish that report by presenting their own captain report they had prepared in 1943?
Well, this brings us to the way the allies rigged the rules, making sure no effective defense could be mounted. Here's a quick rundown of the most important issues that hampered the defense. First, the allies confiscated every piece of evidence they could find in Germany. In fact, they hauled train cars full of material out of Germany. The defendants or their lawyers never saw any of it.
Access to that material was simply denied. Only such pieces of evidence were produced that the prosecution deemed important for their case. Exonerating evidence certainly was not part of it. The allies, moreover, would not grant the defense any access to their own archives. In other words, the defense couldn't prepare a defense.
It's as simple as that. Second, the IMT's rules of procedure had one particularly nasty provision that allowed the allies to declare any kind of evidence as uncontestable just by giving it a certain formal appearance. Here's the wording of article 21.
Speaker 6: The tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees, set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military or other tribunals, of any of the United Nations.
Speaker 0: There you have it. The Soviets declared their fraudulent reinvestigation of their own mass graves at Khartoum, an official government report of one of their committees set up for the investigation of war crimes, and bingo, the defense could not challenge it. Many more official government reports of this type were prepared under Budenko's supervision, all of them claiming to prove German massacres perpetrated against peaceful Soviet citizens as the Soviets expressed it. In one case, they even drew a parallel between the Khatun massacre and another massacre alleged to have occurred near the western Ukrainian city of Lviv. Here is what Soviet prosecutor Lev Smirnov quoted from the conclusions of the Soviet forensic report prepared for this case.
Speaker 7: Thus, the Hitlerite murderers adopted in the territory of the Lvov region, the same methods for concealing their crimes, which they employed earlier in connection with the murder of Polish officers in the Cotton Forest. The Expert Commission ascertained full similarity of method in camouflaging the graves in Lisinich Forest with those used to camouflage the graves of the Polish officers killed by the Germans at Katyn.
Speaker 0: But because those camouflage methods applied at Khatun were Soviet in origin, this conclusion necessarily backfires on the Soviets. This gives rise to the suspicion that at least some of the mass graves the Soviets claimed to have investigated were either completely invented or, in fact, Soviet in origin, containing victims of Lenin's and Stalin's terror regimes rather than those of the German occupation. Blaming an enemy for their own crimes has always been a preferred Soviet method of cleaning up their closets full of skeletons. A detailed analysis of the various, quote, unquote, expert reports compiled by Brudenko and his has been undertaken by Italian historian Carlo Matano in part two of the two volume work on the Einsatzgruppen. An ebook version of it can be downloaded free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com volume number 39.
During the IMT, however, the German defense could not challenge any of the claims made by the Soviet prosecution in this regard as submitted in their government reports. The same happened with findings of the various tribunals which the allies staged prior to the IMT. All kinds of things were, quote, unquote, established there, none of which could be challenged by the defense. I'll deal with the circumstances of some of these trials in a short while. Another rule the allies invented to control what evidence could be submitted stated that the tribunal was not bound by, quote, technical rules of evidence, unquote.
It was to allow any evidence which it deemed to have probative value. The flip side of it means, of course, that it could disallow any evidence which it considered having no probative value. That's what happened to a lot of evidence the defense wanted to submit, which was simply ignored. For example, the defense submitted 312,022 notarized affidavits on various topics, most of them inevitably in the German language. The vast majority of this material was ignored by the court.
This evidence has largely disappeared from the radar of historians as it was never published anywhere. It stands to reason that other evidence submitted by the defense did not fare better either. There were several more obstacles of lesser importance erected by the allies in order to make any defense practically impossible. Pause the video to read this list in peace and pick up the book on which this video is based to learn more details about this. Just looking at the way the IMT was rigged, it is obvious that this was a highly problematic trial against almost helpless defendants.
It is hardly surprising that it found prominent critics even among American experts. Here are a number of quotes from some of them. Pause the video to read them. Ultimately, the proof lies in the pudding and not in some person's opinion, no matter how lofty his reputation. Therefore, let's look into the methods used to procure or create evidence.
Three of the four allied powers sitting in judgment over German wartime leaders conducted trials prior to the IMT, The US, Britain, and The Soviet Union. As just mentioned, the findings of these trials were considered unassailable truth during the IMT, hence, could not be contested by the defense. The trials conducted by The US at Dachau and elsewhere in Southern Germany concerned events at former South German concentration camps such as Dachau and Mauthausen and some other minor issues. In the larger picture of World War two in general and the Holocaust in particular, these trials did not have much of an impact. After these trials were over, several defense lawyers voiced accusations of horrible tortures and abuses of defense witnesses and defendants inflicted on them during the preparatory phase of some of these trials and during the trials themselves.
This led to investigations conducted by commissions created by US Congress. Their findings were controversial. Rather than quoting the statements of prominent people on this, I'll focus on the one person who was in charge of collecting incriminating evidence for The US's war crimes branch in The US zone of occupation in Germany. This was the Hungarian born US Jew, Benjamin Ferenc, back then merely 25 years of age. In later years, Ferenc made several revealing statements about the conditions he had set during his efforts to collect, quote, unquote, evidence for the trials he prepared.
Speaker 4: State your full name.
Speaker 2: Oh, no. Yeah. The item. What is
Speaker 4: your residence?
Speaker 2: They were the beginning. It's a war crime trial. It must have been by that time, but but the military commissions which took place in Dachau. The trials were conducted by three officers. None of them usually had any legal training.
The trials lasted a couple of minutes. The defendants were tried in batches, twenty, thirty, 40 at a time. The guards who were picked up in Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenburg, Avent SE, are the camps that I'd been in. The defendants were lined up on benches and a number on their chest, presiding justice would call number seven. Hans Schmidt, stand up.
You're accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, didn't talk about crimes against many war crimes, and that prisoners were beaten, starved, I don't know what. How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty? Not guilty. What have you got to say for you?
I wasn't there. I was a cook. I didn't see anything. I got orders. I wasn't paying my orders.
Whatever. Next, go down the list, go through 20 cases, maybe an hour, then they adjourn themselves, go to the next room, come back ten minutes later. All the defendants are found guilty and sentenced to death. And when I checked in the Landsberg Prison some years later, said, how many people were actually executed here from based on those trials? She said about a thousand.
Nothing to be proud of.
Speaker 0: Farrange admitted in another interview that he used threats and intimidation to obtain confessions.
Speaker 2: He'd bring them into some big room. I'd say, alright. Now line up against the wall. You're gonna have to sit down and write and describe exactly what happened. Anybody who lies will be shot.
That was standard procedure. Mhmm. I was aware of the hate conventions, and I know that that might not be the most appropriate approach, especially today.
Speaker 0: On another occasion, Farrange casually explained how he obtained confessions from his s men in captivity. He stripped them naked, and after a while explained to them
Speaker 6: Now listen. You and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew. I would love to kill you and mark you down a shot while trying to escape, but I'm gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened, when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it.
Or you don't have to do that. You are under no obligation. You can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it.
Speaker 0: Needless to say, this way, Ferenc got any confession he wanted. Interviewed at age 85, he related the following anecdote, exposing his attitude toward the defendants he was prosecuting after the war.
Speaker 2: I was standing there with my m one rifle. They were beating him up, and they then burned him alive. They took him to the crematorium, which was not far away, about from here to the wall, had him on one of the metal trays, which they used to dump the bodies into the crematorium. They put them in, warm them up, take them out, beat them up again, tie them up again, put them in again. Now, I was watching that.
I had no desire to join them, certainly not. And I asked myself, should I try to stop it? I don't think I could have, but I let it run. I let it run, and I went about my other business.
Speaker 0: Ferenc was the person who defined and controlled the conditions under which, quote, unquote, evidence was gathered for the Dachau trials. The medieval witch trials were, in many regards, more humane than what Ferenc staged at Dachau. This scratches only the surface, but it's bad enough. Read the book accompanying this video to learn more about the utterly appalling circumstances of these Dachau trials. The British conducted several trials, one of which involved several defendants who had been involved in running the Auschwitz Camp.
Hence, events that allegedly transpired at this camp played an important role during this trial. Auschwitz is today seen as the epicenter of the Holocaust. Therefore, the way the British prepared and conducted this trial had more impact on the current Holocaust narrative than anything the Americans did in South Germany. Reports on severe abuses of defendants and other individuals in British captivity led to an internal investigation by the British. Since it was conducted in secrecy rather than under public scrutiny, and because its results were never meant to be published, the British investigators could be brutally honest about what they found.
This stands in contrast to their American counterparts who had to consider the power and influence of The US military and secret services running the show in Germany. The results of this British investigation were released only sixty years after the war. British investigative journalist Ian Cobain managed to get copies of these files. He published what he found in several newspaper articles and in a book titled Cruel Britannia, a secret history of torture. The gist of it is that the British systematically tortured almost all of their German captives with the utmost brutality.
One of the victims of such abuse was the former commandant of the Auschwitz Camp, ruler of Huss, who later played a major role as a witness during the IMT. Nowadays, historians know that many testimonies used during postwar trials in Germany were extracted with coercion. This is especially true for Rudolf Huss. Yet still, many mainstream scholars insist that these witnesses' claims are credible evidence. Morally speaking, this turns these scholars into accomplices of the torturers, and they should be treated as such.
If you think it can't get worse than what the British did, think again, because Stalin's Soviet Union tortures its prisoners best. I mean, they knew best how to get out of a prisoner what they wanted, because over the decades, they had refined torture to a fine art. There's no need for grueling beatings that can harm and exhaust the torturer himself, both physically and emotionally. Just put a person into an unaided, moist, stand up cell of such a small floor area that it is impossible to sit down, let alone lay down in it. After just a few days of this exhausting, painful treatment of sleeplessness, every person breaks down.
It requires no one to do anything and leaves no traces on the victim. Alexander Zolchanizyn has described this method expertly in his trilogy Gulag Akipelago. Of course, it would be absurd to think that Soviet authorities under Stalin ever conducted an investigation into torture. There's therefore mostly anecdotal evidence in this regard, such as Zurchinidsin's work. For those interested in Stalin's history of judicial terror, torture, and mass murder, I recommend the 1991 documentary Monster, a portrait of Stalin in blood produced by Russian researchers.
The Soviet state several trials about alleged German war crimes before the IMT, among them the Leningrad show trial from 12/27/1945 until 01/06/1946. During this trial, the Soviets blamed their own Khatyn massacre on the Germans. While the findings of that trial were not introduced during the IMT, the expert report produced during that trial, which quote, unquote, proved the Germans guilt was accepted by the IMT as incontrovertible evidence as mentioned earlier. Two further short trials conducted in 1943 at Krasnodar and Kharkov dealt with alleged mass killings of civilians by the German occupational forces, quote, by hanging, mass shootings, and use of poison gas, unquote. The latter was said to have been committed by the use of so called gas vans.
Powered by diesel engines, their exhaust gases were presumably used to murder victims locked up inside the van's cargo boxes. The nature of these Soviet trials as propagandistic show trials was even confirmed and documented by a paper published in the journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies, which is published by The US Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Jewish run entity defined by its fierce opposition toward any Holocaust skepticism. The same claims about gas vents were again made during the IMT. As evidence, Soviet prosecutor Smirnov later introduced the minutes of a Soviet court martial held on the 10/29/1944, which claims the, quote, annihilation of Soviet citizens in Smolensk in May 1943 by means of asphyxiation through carbon monoxide in gas vents, unquote. When the defense tried to challenge this type of evidence, they were reminded by the IMT's presiding judge with the quote shown here that such a challenge was not permitted.
Hence, the results of any allied show trial was declared sacrosanct truth, period. As already mentioned earlier in the context of Katyn, findings of official commissions were another set of evidence the defense could not challenge, not even with a counter expert report. This is particularly relevant regarding the nastiest aspect of the IMT, that is the systematic high-tech wholesale slaughter of the Jews. In this regard, the Soviets, in cooperation with newly established Polish communist authorities, prepared several so called expert reports on most of the major camps where this genocide is said to have been carried out. Here's a list of all these camps with a document number that each, quote, unquote, expert report received by the IMT and where it was either mentioned during the trial or where it is reproduced in the documentation volumes.
In other words, all of the German wartime camps characterized to this day as extermination camps were covered by Soviet expert reports. Hence, the Soviet claims about the industrial extermination of Jews in these camps by way of high-tech murder methods was declared incontrovertible truth by the IMT without anyone being able to challenge it. So how accurate were the claims the Soviets made in these documents? Let's take a look. The death toll claim for Auschwitz was dead wrong.
The mainstream now claims 1,000,000, but the actual death toll shown by documents is around 135,000. For Belzec, they got the murder method completely wrong. Today, no mainstream scholar ever hints at electrocution as the method once dominating witness states. That method was replaced by diesel exhaust gas. However, this claim was put to doubt by a mainstream toxicologist in 02/2011, doctor Achim Trunk.
He confirmed the fact which skeptics have asserted since 1984. Diesel exhaust gas does not have enough toxic carbon monoxide for the claimed mass murder. Now gasoline engine exhaust is over the range. For Kherno, the death toll was also reduced down to not even half of what was claimed by the Soviets in their IMT report, while the case of Majdanek shows the most drastic revisions ever for any of the camps. Today, just some 5% of the victim count claimed by the Soviets at the IMT is maintained, while five of the originally claimed homicidal gas chambers have been silently dropped.
The Soviets wisely made no specific claims about Sobibor. The witness accounts for that camp were so crazy that they simply decided not to mention anything. For Treblinka, however, they regurgitated the claims made in a propaganda paper spread by the Polish underground in late nineteen forty two. The Treblinka murder presumably happened with hot steam. That's in contrast to the diesel gas chambers claimed later until the newfangled tendency to abandon those as well as just mentioned.
Considering that the expert report on Khatun was completely made up and turned the truth on its head, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the other Soviet reports weren't more reliable either. Even if the defense had been allowed and could have afforded to challenge these reports, they could not have done this because the Soviets never would have allowed German defense teams or anyone else for that matter to go to Poland, forensically investigate the claimed crime scenes, cross examine witnesses, and scour through secret Moscow archives with German camp documents. The existence of these archives was only revealed in the nineteen nineties. By the time this became possible, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, western countries had introduced or were in the process of introducing laws that declare it a crime to challenge the downgraded Soviet narrative with a threat of prison terms. Here's a list of countries which have made Soviet postwar propaganda a compulsory state state religion.
Religion. The left column shows the year when each country introduced their dictatorial law, while the last column gives the maximum prison term imposed when publicly expressing disbelief like I do in this video. While watching this video isn't a crime yet, posting, reposting, linking to it may be a crime in many of these countries. If you want to learn more about the crucial, quote, unquote, expert reports submitted as evidenced by the Soviets, please turn to the book accompanying this video. Let's now scrutinize some other types of evidence presented at the IMT.
Psychologically, very important was a documentary film the Americans screened on the 11/29/1945, just a fortnight after the IMT had begun. The film is titled Nazi concentration and prison camps. It starts out by showing scenes from various German wartime camps that are unknown to most. What matters most is that the film shows dead inmates found in those locations, giving the impression that no matter where the allies looked, people had been murdered in masses everywhere. The fact is, however, that a mass of dead people at the end of the most atrocious and murderous conflict in human history cannot, in and of itself, be evidence for any kind of murder.
It is estimated that some 50,000,000 people died in this conflict. Many of those victims died in Germany toward the end of the war as a result of Germany's total collapse. Hundreds of thousands died in Germany's fire bombed cities. Millions of Germans died during the greatest ethnic cleansing in the history of mankind. Many more civilians died due to starvation.
At war's end, Germany was a giant heap of corpses, figuratively speaking. People were dying like flies everywhere. Particularly bad was the fate of those persons present in any kind of closed facility, such as prisons or camps, which could no longer be supplied with anything, fuel, water, food, medicine, etcetera. Death rates skyrocketed not because of an intentional German policy, but because of the effects of total war. In fact, there was no German policy anymore toward the end.
It was all chaos and mayhem. The allied invading forces took pictures everywhere, including of dead German civilians in bombed out cities. But in their documentary at Nuremberg, they included only those photos they took inside camps and prisons and then misrepresented them as a result of a deliberate German policy. In contrast to these rather unknown places, the used documentary also includes footage from three locations that are known to most people, Bergen Belsen, Dachau, and Nordhausen. While the latter name is not that well known, images such as these taken by the Americans of the camp grounds littered with corpses have been reproduced a zillion times all over the planet.
The footage is no doubt genuine. It's the narrative that came with it which makes this documentary a heinous misrepresentation of facts. What the Americans and British were recording was not the result of a German policy of mass extermination against their camp inmates. Quite to the contrary, this was the result of the American and British policy of mass extermination against Germans carried out with a ruthless campaign of carpet bombing. Like the Soviets, the British and Americans blamed the Germans for the results of their own war crimes.
If you are interested in a detailed analysis of this propaganda documentary, please watch the documentary probing the holocaust, the horror explained, which can be accessed at the video section of the website holocausthandbooks.com. The Soviets also screened a documentary at the IMT showing plenty of dead bodies of which there certainly was no shortage at the end of the war. However, since they showed it after the presentation of their case at the end of the trial day of 02/19/1946, the audience wasn't exactly willing to listen anymore. The primary reason for this was that not even the other allied prosecutors took the Soviet seriously after they had presented their case, let alone the defendants. The Soviet presentation included the claim made five days earlier that the Germans had committed the Katyn massacre.
Everyone in the courtroom knew that the entire Soviet prosecution team were lying through their teeth. Other claims during those days running up to the Soviet propaganda movie were filled with alleged expert reports as mentioned earlier or were based on, quote, unquote, witness testimonies extracted by Soviet investigators using their well known methods. Few in the courtroom had any illusions about the value of what the Soviets presented. Without going into details, I list here a number of claims made by the Soviets that stick out as particularly absurd. Pause the video if you want to take your time to read this nonsense.
The Soviet documentary also shows large quantities of various items said to have been found in the German wartime camps. These items are presented to this day as proof for mass murder claims. The scenes show mountains of shoes found at the Meijernecht camp and large quantities of clothes, spectacles, toothbrushes, suitcases, large bags full of hair, and other items found in storage huts at the Meijernecht and Auschwitz camps. These items are said to have once belonged to inmates who had been murdered or so the Soviets insisted. However, the shoe storage hut at Meidanek belonged to the camp's cobbler's workshop, which refurbished old shoes from all kinds of sources as a recycling industry.
Many of the other items found at Meidernich in Auschwitz will have belonged to former inmates indeed, but their mere existence does not prove that their former owners were murdered. It merely proves that someone left these items behind. At worst, the items prove that the National Socialists systematically plundered their inmates' property. If a collection of items left behind were to prove murder, then any assembly of used clothes and shoes or any other secondhand item for that matter, in fact, every thrift store around the globe would prove that the original owners had been murdered. If you visit the Meidanecken Auschwitz museums in Poland today, you will still see large showcases displaying collections of such items with a claim that their former owners were viciously murdered by the Nazis.
Sure. If you don't buy it and say so loudly, Poland has free room and board for you for up to three years. Regarding the mass extermination of peaceful civilians, high and mid ranking former SS officials played a major role as witnesses by either taking the stand or merely signing an affidavit. Most prominent among them was Will of Huss, the former Auschwitz commandant. He took the stand after the mass murder at Auschwitz had already been, quote, unquote, incontrovertibly proven by the Soviets with their fake expert report.
Ironically, Huss was called to testify for Kaltenbrunner's defense. In his written testimony, which was not submitted to the IMT, Huss claimed that Himmler had ordered him to keep the extermination of the Jews a secret even from his superiors, hence, also from his boss at the Reich Security main office, Ernst Kaltenbrunner. Kaltenbrunner hoped in vain that this would relieve him of any responsibility. After Huss had been put through the British meat grinder, he meekly confirmed during his testimony at Nuremberg the outrageous claims the British had tortured out of him. The value of his testimony can be gleaned from a detailed study of all the statements he made after the war, more than 80.
Italian historian Carlo Matagno has written a thick book about all this in which he exposes 53 falsehoods inconsistencies and contradictions. Huss's hair brained nonsense deserves its own documentary. In this one, I mention only a few highlights. Huss insisted repeatedly that he received the order to turn Auschwitz into an extermination center from Heinrich Himmler during a meeting in May 1941, anyway before the war against the Soviet Union. Entire timeline of subsequent extermination events depends on that date.
The first gassing of September 1941, the use of the main camp's crematorium morgue for gassings in late nineteen forty one or early nineteen forty two, and the rigging of two former farmhouses as makeshift gassing facilities in early and mid nineteen forty two. To this day, the entire orthodox Auschwitz narrative follows this timeline, so it can't be changed without that entire house of cards collapsing. The problem is that this chronology is impossible. Huss insisted that the order came after other extermination camps had already been active for some time. He named Belzak and Treblinka several times and even claimed that he had visited Treblinka to see how extermination was done there in order to learn how to implement Himmler's order at Auschwitz.
However, both Bezac and Treblinka became operational only roughly a year later. Huss mentioned several times a third already operating camp named Walzac. Such a camp never existed. Since Huss became deputy inspector of the entire concentration camp system after leaving Auschwitz in late nineteen forty three, he certainly knew the names of all the camps. I think it was no accident that he invented a camp from scratch.
That may have been his to the world saying, what I'm saying here is nonsense. Huss, quote, unquote, confessed to victim numbers that amounted to a total death toll for Auschwitz of about 4,000,000. In other words, he was made to repeat the invented and utterly false death toll number, which the Soviets had been spreading since they occupied that camp in January 1945. Huss made claims about how gassings were carried out and how the bodies of murdered inmates were made to disappear that are either technically impossible or completely ludicrous. I'll leave it at that here.
Read Platonia's book, accessible free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com, book number 35, if you want to get the full scoop. Here is a list of other high profile SS officers who signed an affidavit and or testified during the IMT with which they confirmed in one way or another the allies' narrative on the extermination of the Jews. The first four of them, however, were talking merely from hearsay and should never have been admitted as witnesses in this regard. Bechtel signed an affidavit claiming that he saw a Himmler order in late nineteen forty four to stop the extermination. No such order was ever found.
Hoeghler and Wisslitz Zaney stated that they had heard Eichmann brag about 6,000,000 murdered Jews. Eichmann denied this during his own trial in 1961 and wouldn't have been in any position to know any numbers anyhow. Former SS judge Morgan babbled nonsense about an extermination camp, Monowitz, which was merely a labor camp, about dead people burning all by themselves without the need of any fuel, and about trains disappearing into an underground extermination factory at Auschwitz to mention just the most preposterous idiocies. Decades later, he told historian John Tolland that he had been threatened and physically abused before his testimony. Surprise, surprise.
So let's ignore these red herring witnesses and turn to the two remaining ones, Ollendorf and von Neumbach Zelevsky. Like hers, they both should have had firsthand knowledge of the actions on the ground. Otto Orendorf was head of Ansersgruppe d for a year. This unit operated in the southern region of the temporarily occupied Soviet Union. At war's end, Orendorf surrendered to British forces.
He was brought to London where he was repeatedly interrogated in the infamous London Cage torture center. After seven weeks of unknown treatment, he admitted responsibility for the mass execution of 80,000 Jews mainly in Ukraine. At Nuremberg, the mass murders of hundreds of thousands of, quote, unquote, peaceful Soviet citizens by German military and paramilitary units like the Ansarsgruppen was unassailably, quote, unquote, proven by numerous Soviet commission reports of the Budanko Katyn style as mentioned before. Knowing that challenging his own extorted confession was as futile as challenging the Soviet commission reports, he talked many of his into a defense strategy based on a lie. They claimed at Nuremberg that they had no choice but to follow a Fuhrer order to murder all Jews.
Years after the war, however, a West German prosecutor uncovered that conspiracy. In fact, there was no such order. Not only that, the existing German orders on how to act in the East diametrically contradict Olandorf's claim. So what did the Einsatzgruppen do? Well, turning to the IMT or the later US conducted Nuremberg trials in search for answers is bad advice.
Ultimately, only independent forensic examinations of mass graves or their traces could have helped as the Germans did at Katyn. But that never happened, so we might never know. What we can say with some level of certainty is that Orndorff had no clue about the alleged murder gas vans, which his unit is said to have used to kill thousands of, quote unquote, peaceful Soviet citizens. The statements he made about them are preposterous nonsense. The only concrete story he managed to convey in this regard was his claim that he once went on a gas vent test ride with a physician.
The task was supposedly to determine that the victims were killed without becoming aware of what was happening. Sure. First of all, we need to keep in mind that Ohrendorf had the rank of a lieutenant general. Generals don't go on test rides with some physicians to verify whether some device works as expected. Next, imagine hot, smoking, stinking, choking exhaust gases spewing into the enclosed space you are in and you don't notice what happens, it simply cannot have happened.
The nonsense of gas van victims falling asleep peacefully stems from a forged document on gas vans, which I'll discuss at the end of this documentary. Olandorf was asked twice to authenticate this document. He did as he was asked, probably with the alternative being some more torture. However, when made to talk about the alleged author of this document, he beveled some more preposterous nonsense, clearly making stuff up to assuage his captors and tormentors. Just as Rudolf Hess', quote, unquote, confessions during the IMT about mass gassings at Auschwitz had a devastating effect on the thus far incredulous defendants, Olandorf's, quote, unquote, confirmation of mass shootings in the East were similarly demoralizing.
Psychologically speaking, these two liars virtually sealed the case for the prosecution. Whereas Oldov was ultimately hanged for his wartime role, another high ranking SS man by the name of Eric von den Bach Zelevsky got away scot free. He was a full general in charge of SS and police forces in the central part of the German occupied Western Soviet Union, basically today's Belorussia. This included the activities of another unit like the one Orndorf headed, Einsatzgruber b. Therefore, Bartzeleski should have been a dead man walking.
Instead, in return for exemption from all prosecution and from extradition to Stalin's henchmen, he agreed to become a witness for the prosecution. He moreover wrote a detailed report about Himmler's heinous crimes. In it, Barzilevsky claimed that the extermination of the Jews, quote, was deliberately planned by Heinrich Himmler already before the war, unquote, and that, quote, Himmler consistently worked toward the war in order to carry out his plan, unquote. Furthermore, that a homicidal gassing facility was planned at the POW camp near Mogilev and that Himmler had announced already before the war against the Soviet Union that he planned, quote, to decimate the Slav population by 30,000,000, unquote. None of it has any basis in facts and is categorically rejected even by mainstream historians as utter BS.
But still, they quote Barzilevskiy to this day as confirmation that it happened, whatever that means. With their case solidly undergirded with s s men's confessions, there was little need to call former camp inmates to testify. Two of them are worth mentioning. First, there's Samuel Reisman, who claimed to have been incarcerated at the Treblinka camp for ten months. Having been in the camp for so long, it actually existed only for one year, he must have known.
And yet, in his various testimonies prior, during, and after the IMT, he asserted that mass murder at Treblinka initially occurred with vacuum, which is technical Hamburg, and later with chlorine gas and Zyklon b. Engine exhaust gases, which are claimed today, were never mentioned by Reisman nor the steam chambers alleged in the, quote, unquote, expert report, which the Soviets introduced during the IMT, which goes to say that no one during the IMT really had any clue about what had happened at Treblinka. Yet still, a many 100,000 fold mass murder was declared the immutable truth. Another victim witness worth mentioning is communist resistance fighter, Marie Claude Vaillon Couturier. She testified about what she claimed to have experienced at Auschwitz three weeks before the Soviets presented their, quote, unquote, expert report on that camp.
In the camp, she worked at the Inmed Hospital as a clerk. From that office position in a completely different sector of the camp, she claimed to have gotten to know that the killings in the gas chambers took five minutes for women and three for men. That can have been hearsay, quote, unquote, knowledge at best. She moreover personally saw pigs fly. No.
Actually, she claimed to have seen immense flames shoot out of the crematorium chimneys, but that's just as technically impossible as flying pigs. She furthermore, quote, unquote, knew, again, at best from hearsay, the impossible feat that inmate corpses were turned into ashes within only, quote, unquote, a few minutes. However, the Auschwitz cremation furnaces took roughly an hour to turn a human body into ashes. Oh, and she also insisted that the SS had invented a spanking machine. I kid you not.
So they didn't have to spank naughty inmates manually. Here's the text from the court transcript.
Speaker 8: One of the most usual punishments was 50 blows with a stick on the loins. They were administered with a machine which I saw, a swinging apparatus manipulated by an SS.
Speaker 0: The only thing that Vayon Couturier proved beyond the shadow of a doubt is the self evident fact that it is a bad idea to let mortal enemies, hear communist versus national socialists, testify against each other because we are unlikely to hear the truth. If you are interested in more details on that lady's testimony and similar effusions from other witnesses of her kind, grab Carlo Matonia's various source critical studies on Auschwitz witnesses, volumes 37, 41, 44, 45, and 46 of the Holocaust handbooks, all freely accessible online. The allies also introduced numerous other affidavits from witnesses who never took the stand, hence never could be cross examined. Under normal circumstances, such texts should not have been allowed as evidence, but that's not what happened. Among the affidavits was that of Abraham Goldfarb, a former Treblinka inmate.
Goldfarb had plagiarized his story from another Treblinka witness, Jan Klarvinik, who in turn had plagiarized the 1942 Polish underground report on steam chambers. That steam chamber narrative is rejected today as untrue. But listen to this clip of a documentary, and you get an idea where the steam chamber line might have originated.
Speaker 9: Welcome to the darkest corner of The USSR's hidden torture methods, the steam chambers of silence. Deep beneath secret prisons like the infamous Lubyanka, there were rooms sealed shut. No windows, no sound, only heat. Prisoners were locked in metal chambers where steam would be slowly released. Not enough to kill, just enough to break them.
Skin would blister, lungs would tighten, and hope would melt into madness.
Speaker 0: Wernicke replaced the steam with engine exhaust, while GOLFORB had the victims initially killed with moistened chlorinated lime. Again, all this proves is merely that no one had any clue what transpired at Treblinka. Or if they did, they didn't tell what they knew, but blurted out whatever brain fart came their way. Goldfarb, Wernicke, and many more brain fighters are covered in Martinio's book on the three big bad camps, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, which is volume 28 of the Holocaust handbooks. Another affidavit was signed by David Manusiewicz, a former Belzec inmate who seriously claimed that a human soap factory operated at that camp.
There is no single scholar on the planet who takes that seriously. Although Manusovich certainly was never in a position to know how many deportees were murdered at that camp, if any, he didn't hesitate to claim a death toll of 2,000,000, which is almost five times the amount assumed by today's orthodoxy. Later, he presumably assisted in the excavation of mass graves and burning of human remains on gigantic pyres near Viev. His technically impossible claims and disconnections are utterly delusional. Manusevich's affidavit is analyzed in detail on pages 518 to 522 of Matonio's book on the Einsatzgruppen.
Manusevich also insisted that he saw an SS father skeet shooting babies with his daughter cheering him on, quote, papa, do it again. Do it again, papa, unquote. All this underlines that Manusevich was evidently willing to babble any nonsense that pleased his Soviet interrogators. Then there is the affidavit by former Mauthausen inmate Hans Marshallek about an interview he claims to have made with a former commandant of the Mauthausen camp, Franz Zerais, while the latter was bleeding to death from bullet wounds. The value of this affidavit results from the fact that some thirty five years later, Marshallik retracted the claims made in it.
And last but not least, we have the affidavit of a nonexisting German soldier, allegedly named Gerhard Ardermetz, on mass graves near Kyiv. It is written in German, but riddled with Anglicisms, meaning it was not written by a German, but fabricated probably by an American. They pushed a narrative about these mass graves that flies in the face of what the Orthodoxy claims about it today. During the IMT, the Soviets introduced a Russian translation of it as USSR 80, possibly to hide the messed up German of the, quote, unquote, original. The Ademetz affidavit is also covered in Martinio's book on the Einsatzgruppen.
As the last section of this documentary, we'll discuss several documents introduced during the IMT, which were meant to undergird claims of mass extermination. First, we have the attempt of the French prosecutor to introduce a statement written by former SS officer Kurt Gerstein. During the war, disinfestation expert Gerstein was responsible for allocating Zyklon b deliveries to the SS camps. He was also corrupt and an art thief. He embezzled over $100,000 of Zyklon b funds in today's value and stole from a Jewish estate a valuable painting of French expressionist painter Henri Matisse.
With Soviet propaganda filling the news about Zyklon B mass murder at Majdanek since mid nineteen forty four and at Auschwitz since early nineteen forty five, Gerstin knew he was a dead man walking. In a desperate attempt to get on the good side of the French occupiers of his hometown, he wrote a text shortly before the end of the war. In this text, he depicted himself as a secret resistance fighter sabotaging the use of Zyklon b for murder. He moreover described in gory details how he saw deputies at Berzac and Treblinka getting killed with diesel exhaust gases. Gerstein's utterly bogus tales are the origin of the diesel murder nonsense that later caught on.
In fact, the French conveyed Gerstein's fairy tale to the Polish authorities in the 1945, which is when the Poles shifted their narrative from steam chambers at Treblinka and electrocution at Belzec to engine exhaust. Today, Gerstein has been discredited as utterly unreliable for a landslide of reasons, and even mainstream scholars won't touch him anymore. But his lies have metastasized like cancer throughout the entire Holocaust body, killing the story in the process. Explaining all this would require a separate documentary. If you wanna get the full scoop on Gerstein, here are two books that cover the entire territory, volumes forty three and fifty four of the Holocaust handbooks, downloadable free of charge.
Back to the IMT. The French prosecutor's attempt failed to bamboozle the IMT judges into accepting Gerstein's statements as evidence. Evidence. It is not quite clear why, but it looks like French prosecutor Dubost hadn't done his homework to give sufficient proof as to the document's origin. The court only accepted several unpaid cyclone b invoices made out in Gerstein's name for cyclone b deliveries to several SS operated camps, which Gerstein had attached to his tail.
But the entire set received a document number, P s 1553, which many regard as a seal of approval. This turned Gerstein's tale for mainstream historians into a reputable IMT related source. To this day, Gerstein's Zyklon b invoices are cited as proof of mass murder committed with Zyklon b mainly at Auschwitz. In fact, the opposite is true. Zyklon b was a pesticide used to kill vermin that transmit serious diseases.
Hence, Zyklon b was saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of camp inmates, not killing them. Talking of Auschwitz, this brings me to another document that, although introduced only in pod, received a seal of approval by the IMT, the so called war refugee board report. This is a compilation of witness accounts of former Auschwitz inmates. It was put together in November 1944 by the US government's War Refugee Board. As an official US report, it was considered self evidently true at the IMT and thus unassailable by the defense.
Only one table from that report listing 1,765,000 Jews as gassed at Auschwitz Birkenau between April and April was introduced during the IMT as document l 22. The core of the war refugee board report is a text written by former Auschwitz inmate Walter Rosenberg, aka Rudolf Ruber. His detailed description of the murder facility and the killing procedure has become one of the most influential testimonies on Auschwitz, not the least because of the US government's endorsement and the IMT's seal of approval. The problem is that it's all wrong, even from an orthodox point of view. As an inmate, Rubin was in no position to know how many deportees arrived at Auschwitz, let alone were presumably murdered in the alleged gas chambers.
His figure of over 1,700,000 victims until April stands in stark contrast to what the Auschwitz Orthodoxy claims today, 500,000 victims up to that point in time. Furthermore, his description of the alleged murder facility, including a sketchy attached to his text, has not even a remote resemblance to any facility at Auschwitz. It took forty years for the false varnish to come off. During the so called first Zindler trial in Toronto in 1985, Vrubber was cross examined for the first time. Caught with his pants on fire, he ultimately had to admit that he used, quote, unquote, poetic license when making his various statements about Auschwitz.
Vrubber's assortment of lies is worth their own documentary. If you want to learn some details about it, turn to volume 41 of the Holocaust handbooks, which deals with Vrubba and his on pages 217 to 243. Gerstein and Vrubba are two cases where the lies of individuals who never testified at Nuremberg received, quote, unquote, document status because some government declared them as such, and the IMT gave its seal of approval. Other documents introduced during the IMT were complete fordris. I already mentioned the affidavit by Gerhard Allemetz.
Another case is the so called Becker document on gas vans, which I mentioned earlier. It was introduced by US prosecutor Robert Jackson already on the second day of the IMT and mentioned several times throughout the proceedings. It is a letter presumably written by a certain August Becker. At the time this letter is dated, 05/16/1942, Becker worked at the motor pool of Germany's security police. The letter is addressed to his supervisor, Walter Routh.
The docket attached by the Americans to this document states that they got it from the British, but that its origins are unknown. That made the document inadmissible under normal circumstances. To quote, unquote confirm its authenticity, US officials coerced Walter Ralf, back then held captive by the Americans, to endorse a copy of this letter as quote, unquote authentic. And as mentioned earlier, they doubled that up by having Otto Ohndorf do the same. The letter pretends to be an inspection and maintenance report of gas vents for executing Jews reportedly used by Ollendorf's Einsatzgruppe d and Einsatzgruppe c, both active in Ukraine.
It is riddled with absurdities which prove conclusively that it is a fake report unrelated to any possible real world events. For example, the Zara vehicles mentioned in this letter were all equipped with diesel engines, but diesel engine exhaust is unsuitable for homicidal gassings. The letter mentions a combined hydraulic air pressure brake, although no such thing ever existed in those solar trucks. The letter insists that every crack in the cargo box needed to be soldered airtight to prevent gas leaks. However, no gas van could ever be sealed airtight because the same volume of gas that was allegedly pumped into the cargo box as exhaust gas needed to escape from the box to prevent pressure from building up.
The writer wants that exhaust gas escaping from cracks might harm the executioners, which is BS. Spread out over many cracks, it would have been far less dangerous than the same gas escaping from the tailpipe. Imagine a German technician warning his superior in a war that cars, trucks, or tanks are too dangerous for soldiers because of their exhaust gas. As his superior, I would declare him either fit for frontline duty or for the insane asylum. And here is the kicker, which I already mentioned when discussing Ohndorf's testimony.
The letter claims that the German executioners did it all wrong by flooring the gas pedal during gassings. This presumably resulted in the victims suffocating rather than falling peacefully asleep. As mentioned before, hot, stinking, smoking engine exhaust gases, whether from a diesel or gasoline engine makes no difference, cannot, under any circumstances, lead to gassing victims falling asleep peacefully. As mentioned earlier, the Americans got this document from the British who did not give any proof of its origin. The British were also the first to spread gas van propaganda during the war.
Roughly three weeks prior to the Kresthundar show trial that started on 07/14/1943, during which the Soviets made their first gas van accusations, the British newspaper Daily Telegraph published this article on 06/25/1943, headlined, Germans murder 700,000 Jews in Poland, traveling gas chambers. That's the same newspaper which spread gas chamber lies already during the first world war with this article published on 03/22/1916. Pause the video to read it. The idea to gas people in, quote, unquote, traveling gas chambers, as the Telegraph put it, is older than the second World War, however. Listen to this clip from the documentary monster, a portrait of Stalin in blood.
Speaker 10: We've come across evidence that long before Hitler's gas vans came into being, Isai Davidovich Berg invented secret gas vans in Moscow. It was a simple airtight van in which prisoners were delivered. And when necessary, carbon monoxide exhaust fumes were piped into the van.
Speaker 0: Therefore, it looks like it wasn't just their cartoon mass murder, which the Soviets blamed on the Germans. The entire gas van story appears to be just another Soviet atrocity rebranded as a German misdeed with some British help. This brings us to the end of this critical overview. Of course, in a documentary lasting roughly an hour, we can scratch only the surface of a trial that lasted one hundred and eighteen days. If you want to delve deeper into this topic, we recommend this book by Gemma Rudolph upon which this video is based.
The Holocaust, proven at Nuremberg, reviewing the evidence presented at the International Military Tribunal. Its audio version is not quite four hours long. Both the audio and PDF version can be downloaded free of charge at holocaust handbooks dot com book section, holocaust pocketbooks. In this book of some 150 pages of text, you can find references to studies, some of which have been mentioned here, which go into the nitty gritty details of many topics mentioned, all of which were dealt with during the IMT only rather superficially. Another highly recommended book is David Irving's Nuremberg, the last battle, which covers with primary sources how the IMT was set up and rigged.
Oh, and one last word. This video does not mean to give the impression that the National Socialists on trial at Nuremberg were innocent of any wrongdoing. The point I wanted to get across is that no trial of the victors over the vanquished can ever be fair. And in case of the NMT, it most certainly wasn't. A quick word before I let you go.
This documentary has been made accessible to you free of charge, and so are the many books of thorough research it is based upon. However, creating this video and creating all these books has not been free of cost at all. So our generosity to make this accessible to you free of charge in return depends on your generosity to both spread the word about our work and support us if you can. So please, if you found this documentary worth watching, spread the word through all the communication channels you had. And if by any means you are able to assist us otherwise, please get in touch.
You can also assist us financially by either purchasing the books in a hard copy or by reaching out and consider a donation. You can also assist me personally so that I can continue my efforts. You can find out the various ways to support me financially on my private website at www.gammarudolf.com. Menu option, pay and donate. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Speaker 8: This documentary was sponsored by the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, Lobbying for Free Speech Where It Is Most Threatened, and by Armreg Limited, an outlet for historical studies, which the powers that be strive hard to suppress. Discover the stunning scope and scale of our research at www.holocausthandbooks.com where you can watch many more documentaries like this one and download free of charge PDF and audio versions of our prestigious holocaust handbooks. Browse the full range of our print, e and audio books at armreg.co.uk and query our stunning uncensored and unconstrained holocaust encyclopedia freely accessible at holocaustencyclopedia.com where you can also purchase hard copies of this extraordinary work in several languages. Thank you for your kind consideration.
@GermarRudolf - Germar Rudolf
The Holocaust – Proven at Nuremberg? Reviewing the Evidence Presented at the International Military Tribunal https://t.co/NswHMLztf0
Video Transcript AI Summary
Sony Pictures Classics announced a docudrama 'Nuremberg, the world will bear witness' to be released November 7, 2025, produced largely by the Jewish Seberstein family and loosely based on Jack Erhai's 2013 book 'The Nazi and the Psychiatrist.' The film questions the legality of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) and probes how the trial was created, organized, and how evidence was gathered and presented, including evidence of Nazi atrocities. The film argues the IMT was illegal for reasons including 'the tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof' and that 'access to that material was simply denied.' It highlights pre-IMT Allied show trials, alleged torture by Ferenc at Dachau, Soviet 'expert reports' and propaganda, and disputed death-toll figures ('The death toll claim for Auschwitz was dead wrong'). It concludes: 'no trial of the victors over the vanquished can ever be fair.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In 2025, Sony Picture Classics announced a new docudrama titled Nuremberg, the world will bear witness. The movie is slated to be released on November 7 in The United States. It is predominantly produced by members of this Jewish Seberstein family and is loosely based on the 2013 book titled The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack Erhai. The book focuses on whether or not Hermann Goring, the highest ranking German leader still alive after the war, was fit to stand trial at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal or IMT for short. The book and the upcoming docudrama take for granted the legality and legitimacy of the IMT and assume that the trial was conducted properly and fairly.
This attitude is understandable because the IMT is usually regarded as the famous beginning of international justice. The results of this trial are consistently cited by mainstream scholars as proof of Nazi warmongering, aggression, and atrocities. In this documentary, we will take a closer look not into the results, but into the background of that trial, How it came about, how it was set up, how evidence was created and gathered, and how the evidence was presented during that trial. In particular, we will shed some light on evidence presented from Nazi atrocities because that's what has shocked the world the most. Wars have always been fought throughout the history of mankind, but a holocaust, gas chambers, and high-tech mass extermination, that was unique.
And the Nuremberg IMT was the first prestigious event where that topic was presented to a world audience. During a debate with Holocaust skeptic Gamarudov on Jake Shields fight back podcast, mainstream historian doctor Michael Van expressed it succinctly as follows.
Speaker 1: I think that the Nuremberg trials provide all sorts of
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 1: Useful evidence for the for the Holocaust. I mean, I got a pretty conventional viewpoint on this. I mean
Speaker 0: You can watch this debate at the link given in the description. First, I will give an overview of how the IMT came about and how it was organized. Already before World War two ended, Stalin suggested repeating what he had done with the Polish elite at the beginning of the war. Round up the top 50,000 or a 100,000 German leaders and execute them without further ado. Churchill and Roosevelt initially agreed, but then the British had second thoughts and suggested executing only the accesses top 50 or 100 war leaders and handing the small fry over to other countries to do their lynching.
Stalin next suggested having a big show trial, the Soviet mock style, before executing the German leaders, but that didn't find approval among the British and Americans. They eventually lobbied for a trial closer to their own traditions. In the meantime, the German armed forces surrendered. A week later, the new German government under admiral Donitz asked the occupying powers for permission to authorize Germany's supreme court in Leipzig to conduct a proper German trial against suspected German war criminals. That attempt at self cleansing did not go down well with the allies, though.
They simply arrested and disbanded the entire German government on 05/23/1945. That was a violation of international law, but there was no one to complain or intervene. Ultimately, the Americans took charge of organizing the envisioned postwar trial.
Speaker 3: The laws of God and of man have been violated, and the guilty must not go unpunished. Nothing shall shake our determination to punish the war criminals even though we must pursue them to the ends of the earth.
Speaker 4: But the president insists on fair trials and appoints supreme court justice Robert h Jackson to persuade the allies to the American view.
Speaker 0: To this end, legal experts of the allied nations met in London in the 1945 with an agreement signed on August 8. Each victorious power assigned their respective set of judges and prosecutors. They devised laws and rules of procedures to be applied and compiled a list of 24 German defendants. All these details can be gleaned from the first volume of the 42 volume series in which the IMT was documented by the allies. You can download them as PDF files free of charge from the Library of Congress's website at www.l0c.gov.
That's the superficial view of things. The truth behind the scenes was much uglier. To bring that in full view, let's step back a little. First of all, the IMT was illegal for a number of reasons. The most important of which is that any international court can have jurisdiction only in such countries which have agreed to this jurisdiction.
For example, today's international criminal court has no jurisdiction in The United States, in Russia, India, or China because neither of them ever recognized that court. Of course, we could just say, screw it. Criminals frequently don't recognize the jurisdiction of any court, yet they get prosecuted all the same when we catch them. So why not the Nazis? Alright then.
What about inventing new laws then applying them backward? That is true for two of the four charges brought against the defendants, conspiring to commit crimes against peace and committing crimes against humanity. Well, you might say that unusual crimes require unusual laws, so let's do away with the principle of not applying laws backward. Fine. But how about this one?
In no court in the world would it be legal to put those who claim to have been wronged, the Americans, the Soviets, and other allies, in the position of being both the prosecutor and the judge. Even if you don't care about legality, this just isn't right. At a minimum, the judges should have been chosen from neutral countries such as Switzerland or Sweden. Furthermore, any really international court would have put all suspected war criminals on trial, not just those of the losers. Because if you look at it closely, the allies have committed all the crimes themselves which they accused the German leaders of, and some of them, they were perpetrating right at the time when they conducted the trial.
Here are a few examples. First, waging wars of aggression. That's exactly what the Soviet Union did when invading Poland together with Germany in September 1939, and then Finland later in 1939, as well as the Baltics and Romania in 1940. Britain planned and was on the way to invade neutral Norway and Sweden, but when the Germans found out about it, they beat the British to the punch, but occupied only Norway, thus shielding Sweden from British aggression. As a reaction to this, Britain invaded and occupied neutral Iceland in May 1940, with The US taking over the occupation in July 1941.
Together with the Soviet Union, the British moreover invaded and occupied neutral Iran in August 1941 with The US joining in later. Second, incarcerating thousands without due process. That's exactly what the Americans had done to their citizens of Japanese descent and to all non naturalized German and Italian immigrants. They all ended up in American concentration camps, and we won't even discuss in detail the millions who had vanished into the Soviet gulag. Third, slave labor.
That accusation was levied against the German leaders when at the same time, the Soviets were deporting hundreds of thousands of Germans and anyone who had collaborated with them during the war to slave labor camps. The French were exploiting tens of thousands of German POWs until 1947. Four, letting hundreds of thousands die of neglect in ghettos and camps. At the same time that charge was brought up, German, quote, unquote, disarmed enemy forces as well as civilians were dying by the hundreds of thousands in American, Canadian, Polish, French, and Russian camps, not to mention the millions who had disappeared and were still disappearing in the Soviet Union's gulag. Five, ethnic cleansing in occupied Poland.
That charge got dwarfed by the biggest ethnic cleansing of recorded human history, decided upon by the allies at war's end and implemented mainly by Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Serbia, that is to say Yugoslavia. Some 10,000,000 German civilians got expelled from their homes in East Germany and all over Eastern Europe. Six, mass murder of mainly Jewish civilians. When more than a million innocent German and Japanese civilians had been gassed, burned alive, and blown to pieces during allied carpet bombing campaigns, and millions of Germans died in East Germany and Eastern Europe in the biggest ethnic cleansing campaign the world has ever seen. After all, the biggest butcher usually wins a war, and it wasn't the Germans or Japanese in that case.
None of this could be brought up by the defense during their trial, though. Stalin's attorney general, who organized the Soviet prosecution team at Nuremberg, Andrey Vyshinsky, spearheaded the compilation of a list of issues that the defense was not allowed to bring up, among them the infamous Ribbentrop Molotov pact on the division of Poland between Germany and The Soviet Union in '39. The other allies also happily contributed topics to that list they wanted excluded. Vyshynski, by the way, was the man who had organized and supervised the infamous Moscow short trials during the nineteen thirties. That did not bode well for what was to come from the Soviets.
The worst hypocrisy of all was reserved for US chief prosecutor Robert Jackson. He was the representative of a country that mass murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians by dropping nuclear bombs on undefended cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just a few months after these war crimes, he seriously and falsely accused German leaders of having mass murdered 20,000 Jews with a nuclear blast. Here is The United States chief prosecutor Jackson speaking during the IMT.
Speaker 2: Certain experiments were also conducted and certain researches conducted in atomic energy, were they not? Now I have certain information which was placed in my hands of an experiment that was carried out near Auschwitz. And I'd like to ask you if you heard about it or knew about it. For the purpose of this experiment, The purpose of the experiment was to find a quick and complete way of destroying people without the delay and trouble of shooting and gassing and burning as it had been carried out. And this is the experiment as I'm advised.
A village, a small village was provisionally erected temporary structures, and in it, approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people were eradicated almost instantaneously and in such a way that there was no trace left of them, that it developed the explosive developed temperatures from four to 500 degrees centigrade and destroyed them without leaving any trace at all.
Speaker 0: The Americans weren't the only ones who reframed Allied atrocities and then blamed them on the Germans. The Soviets were even more blatant by blaming the Katyn massacre of Polish officers on the Germans, although everyone in court knew that this crime had been committed by the Soviets on Stalin's order. Katyn wasn't on the Soviet don't mention list. Quite to the contrary, the Soviets introduced a fake forensic report created in early nineteen forty four under the directors of the Red Army's surgeon general, Nikolay Bodenko. So why couldn't the Germans challenge that report by presenting their own captain report they had prepared in 1943?
Well, this brings us to the way the allies rigged the rules, making sure no effective defense could be mounted. Here's a quick rundown of the most important issues that hampered the defense. First, the allies confiscated every piece of evidence they could find in Germany. In fact, they hauled train cars full of material out of Germany. The defendants or their lawyers never saw any of it.
Access to that material was simply denied. Only such pieces of evidence were produced that the prosecution deemed important for their case. Exonerating evidence certainly was not part of it. The allies, moreover, would not grant the defense any access to their own archives. In other words, the defense couldn't prepare a defense.
It's as simple as that. Second, the IMT's rules of procedure had one particularly nasty provision that allowed the allies to declare any kind of evidence as uncontestable just by giving it a certain formal appearance. Here's the wording of article 21.
Speaker 5: The tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes and the records and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations.
Speaker 0: There you have it. The Soviets declared their fraudulent reinvestigation of their own mass graves at Khartoum, an official government report of one of their committees set up for the investigation of war crimes, and bingo, the defense could not challenge it. Many more official government reports of this type were prepared under Budenko's supervision, all of them claiming to prove German massacres perpetrated against peaceful Soviet citizens as the Soviets expressed it. In one case, they even drew a parallel between the Khatun massacre and another massacre alleged to have occurred near the western Ukrainian city of Lviv. Here is what Soviet prosecutor Lev Smirnov quoted from the conclusions of the Soviet forensic report prepared for this case.
Speaker 6: Thus, the Hitlerite murderers adopted in the territory of the Lvov region, the same methods for concealing their crimes, which they employed earlier in connection with the murder of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest. The expert commission ascertained full similarity of method in camouflaging the graves in Lisinyszcz with those used to camouflage the graves of the Polish officers killed by the Germans at Khatun.
Speaker 0: But because those camouflage methods applied at Khatun were Soviet in origin, this conclusion necessarily backfires on the Soviets. This gives rise to the suspicion that at least some of the mass graves the Soviets claimed to have investigated were either completely invented or, in fact, Soviet in origin, containing victims of Lenin's and Stalin's terror regimes rather than those of the German occupation. Blaming an enemy for their own crimes has always been a preferred Soviet method of cleaning up their closets full of skeletons. A detailed analysis of the various, quote, unquote, expert reports compiled by Brudenko and his ilk has been undertaken by Italian historian Carlo Matagno in part two of the two volume work on the An ebook version of it can be downloaded free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com volume number 39. During the IMT, however, the German defense could not challenge any of the claims made by the Soviet prosecution in this regard as submitted in their government reports.
The same happened with findings of the various tribunals which the allies staged prior to the IMT. All kinds of things were, quote, unquote, established there, none of which could be challenged by the defense. I'll deal with the circumstances of some of these trials in a short while. Another rule the allies invented to control what evidence could be submitted stated that the tribunal was not bound by, quote, technical rules of evidence, unquote. It was to allow any evidence which it deemed to have probative value.
The flip side of it means, of course, that it could disallow any evidence which it considered having no probative value. That's what happened to a lot of evidence the defense wanted to submit, which was simply ignored. For example, the defense submitted 312,022 notarized affidavits on various topics, most of them inevitably in the German language. The vast majority of this material was ignored by the court. This evidence has largely disappeared from the radar of historians as it was never published anywhere.
It stands to reason that other evidence submitted by the defense did not fare better either. There were several more obstacles of lesser importance erected by the allies in order to make any defense practically impossible. Pause the video to read this list in peace and pick up the book on which this video is based to learn more details about this. Just looking at the way the IMT was rigged, it is obvious that this was a highly problematic trial against almost helpless defendants. It is hardly surprising that it found prominent critics even among American experts.
Here are a number of quotes from some of them. Pause the video to read them. Ultimately, the proof lies in the pudding and not in some person's opinion, no matter how lofty his reputation. Therefore, let's look into the methods used to procure or create evidence. Three of the four allied powers sitting in judgment over German wartime leaders conducted trials prior to the IMT, The US, Britain, and The Soviet Union.
As just mentioned, the findings of these trials were considered unassailable truth during the IMT, hence, could not be contested by the defense. The trials conducted by The US at Dachau and elsewhere in Southern Germany concerned events at former South German concentration camps such as Dachau and Mauthausen and some other minor issues. In the larger picture of World War two in general and the Holocaust in particular, these trials did not have much of an impact. After these trials were over, several defense lawyers voiced accusations of horrible tortures and abuses of defense witnesses and defendants inflicted on them during the preparatory phase of some of these trials and during the trials themselves. This led to investigations conducted by commissions created by US Congress.
Their findings were controversial. Rather than quoting the statements of prominent people on this, I'll focus on the one person who was in charge of collecting incriminating evidence for The US's war crimes branch in The US zone of occupation in Germany. This was the Hungarian born US Jew, Benjamin Ferenc, back then merely 25 years of age. In later years, Ferenc made several revealing statements about the conditions he had set during his efforts to collect, quote, unquote, evidence for the trials he prepared.
Speaker 7: Is that your full name? Which took place in Dachau. The trials were conducted by three officers, none of them usually had any legal training. The trials lasted a couple of minutes. The defendants were tried in batches, twenty, thirty, 40 at a time.
The guards who were picked up in Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenburg, Avent SE, are the camps that I had been in. The defendants were lined up on benches and a number on their chest, presiding justice would call number seven. Hans Schmidt, stand up. You're accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, didn't talk about crimes against many war crimes, and that prisoners were beaten, starved, I don't know what. How do you plead?
Guilty or not guilty? Not guilty. What have you got to say for you? I wasn't there. I was a cook.
I didn't see anything. I got orders. I wasn't paying my orders. Whatever. Next, go down the list, go through 20 cases, maybe an hour, then they adjourn themselves, go to the next room, come back ten minutes later.
All the defendants are found guilty and sentenced to death. And when I checked in the Landsberg Prison years later, said, how many people were actually executed here from based on those trials? I said about a thousand. Nothing to be proud of.
Speaker 0: Farrange admitted in another interview that he used threats and intimidation to obtain confessions.
Speaker 7: He'd bring them into some big room. I'd say, alright. Now line up against the wall. You're gonna have to sit down and write and describe exactly what happened. Anybody who lies will be shot.
That was standard procedure. Mhmm. I was aware of the hate conventions, and I know that that might not be the most appropriate approach, especially today.
Speaker 0: On another occasion, Farrange casually explained how he obtained confessions from his s men in captivity. He stripped them naked and after a while explained to them
Speaker 5: Now listen. You and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew. I would love to kill you and mark you down a shot while trying to escape, but I'm gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened, when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it.
Or you don't have to do that. You are under no obligation. You can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it.
Speaker 0: Needless to say, this way, Ferenc got any confession he wanted. Interviewed at age 85, he related the following anecdote, exposing his attitude toward the defendants he was prosecuting after the war.
Speaker 7: I was standing there with my m one rifle. They were beating him up, and they then burned him alive. They took him to the crematorium, which was not far away, about from here to the wall, had him on one of the metal trays which they used to dump the bodies at the crematorium. They put them in, warm them up, take them out, beat them up again, tie them up again, put them in again. Now, I was watching that.
I had no desire to join them, certainly not. And I asked myself, should I try to stop it? I don't think I could have, but I I let it run. I let it run, and I went about my other business.
Speaker 0: Ferenc was the person who defined and controlled the conditions under which, quote, unquote, evidence was gathered for the Dachau trials. The medieval witch trials were in many regards more humane than what Ferenc staged at Dachau. This scratches only the surface, but it's bad enough. Read the book accompanying this video to learn more about the utterly appalling circumstances of these Dachau trials. The British conducted several trials, one of which involved several defendants who had been involved in running the Auschwitz Camp.
Hence, events that allegedly transpired at this camp played an important role during this trial. Auschwitz is today seen as the epicenter of the Holocaust. Therefore, the way the British prepared and conducted this trial had more impact on the current Holocaust narrative than anything the Americans did in South Germany. Reports on severe abuses of defendants and other individuals in British captivity led to an internal investigation by the British. Since it was conducted in secrecy rather than under public scrutiny and because its results were never meant to be published, the British investigators could be brutally honest about what they found.
This stands in contrast to their American counterparts who had to consider the power and influence of The US military and secret services running the show in Germany. The results of this British investigation were released only sixty years after the war. British investigative journalist Ian Cobain managed to get copies of these files. He published what he found in several newspaper articles and in a book titled Cruel Britannia, a secret history of torture. The gist of it is that the British systematically tortured almost all of their German captives with the utmost brutality.
One of the victims of such abuse was the former commandant of the Auschwitz Camp, Rudolf Huss, who later played a major role as a witness during the IMT. Nowadays, historians know that many testimonies used during postwar trials in Germany were extracted with coercion. This is especially true for Rudolf Huss. Yet still, many mainstream scholars insist that these witnesses' claims are credible evidence. Morally speaking, this turns these scholars into accomplices of the torturers, and they should be treated as such.
If you think it can't get worse than what the British did, think again, because Stalin's Soviet Union tortured its prisoners best. I mean, they knew best how to get out of a prisoner what they wanted, because over the decades, they had refined torture to a fine art. There's no need for grueling beatings that can harm and exhaust the torturer himself, both physically and emotionally. Just put a person into an unaided, moist, stand up cell of such a small floor area that it is impossible to sit down, let alone lay down in it. After just a few days of this exhausting, painful treatment of sleeplessness, every person breaks down.
It requires no one to do anything and leaves no traces on the victim. Alexander Zolchinetsyn has described this method expertly in his trilogy gulag a kipelago. Of course, it would be absurd to think that Soviet authorities under Stalin ever conducted an investigation into torture. There's therefore mostly anecdotal evidence in this regard, such as Sergeant Itzin's work. For those interested in Stalin's history of judicial terror, torture, and mass murder, I recommend the 1991 documentary monster, a portrait of Stalin in blood produced by Russian researchers.
The Soviet state several trials about alleged German war crimes before the IMT, among them the Leningrad show trial from 12/27/1945 until 01/06/1946. During this trial, the Soviets blamed their own Khatyn massacre on the Germans. While the findings of that trial were not introduced during the IMT, the expert report produced during that trial, which quote, unquote, proved the Germans' guilt was accepted by the IMT as incontrovertible evidence as mentioned earlier. Two further short trials conducted in 1943 at Krasnodar and Kharkov dealt with alleged mass killings of civilians by the German occupational forces, quote, by hanging, mass shootings, and use of poison gas, unquote. The latter was said to have been committed by the use of so called gas vans.
Powered by diesel engines, the exhaust gases were presumably used to murder victims locked up inside the van's cargo boxes. The nature of these Soviet trials as propagandistic show trials was even confirmed and documented by a paper published in the journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies, which is published by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Jewish run entity defined by its fierce opposition toward any holocaust skepticism. The same claims about gas vents were again made during the IMT. As evidence, Soviet prosecutor Smirnov later introduced the minutes of a Soviet court martial held on the 10/29/1944, which claims the, quote, annihilation of Soviet citizens in Smolensk in May 1943 by means of asphyxiation through carbon monoxide in gas vans, unquote. When the defense tried to challenge this type of evidence, they were reminded by the IMT's presiding judge with the quote shown here that such a challenge was not permitted.
Hence, the results of any allied show trial was declared sacrosanct truth, period. As already mentioned earlier in the context of Katyn, findings of official commissions were another set of evidence the defense could not challenge, not even with a counter expert report. Report. This is particularly relevant regarding the nastiest aspect of the IMT that is the systematic high-tech wholesale slaughter of the Jews. In this regard, the Soviets, in cooperation with newly established Polish communist authorities, prepared several so called expert reports on most of the major camps where this genocide is said to have been carried out.
Here is a list of all these camps with a document number that each, quote, unquote, expert report received by the IMT and where it was either mentioned during the trial or where it is reproduced in the documentation volumes. In other words, all of the German wartime camps characterized to this day as extermination camps were covered by Soviet expert reports. Hence, the Soviet claims about the industrial extermination of Jews in these camps by way of high-tech murder methods was declared incontrovertible truth by the IMT without anyone being able to challenge it. So how accurate were the claims the Soviets made in these documents? Let's take a look.
The death toll claim for Auschwitz was dead wrong. The mainstream now claims 1,000,000, but the actual death toll shown by documents is around 135,000. For Belzec, they got the murder method completely wrong. Today, no mainstream scholar ever hints at electrocution as the method once dominating witness states. That method was replaced by diesel exhaust gas.
However, this claim was put to doubt by a mainstream toxicologist in 02/2011, doctor Achim Trunk. He confirmed the fact which skeptics have asserted since 1984. Diesel exhaust gas does not have enough toxic carbon monoxide for the claimed mass murder. Now gasoline engine exhaust is over the range. For Kherner, the death toll was also reduced down to not even half of what was claimed by the Soviets in their IMT report, while the case of Majdanek shows the most drastic revisions ever for any of the camps.
Today, just some five percent of the victim count claimed by the Soviets at the IMT is maintained, while five of the originally claimed homicidal gas chambers have been silently dropped. The Soviets wisely made no specific claims about Sobibor. The witness accounts for that count were so crazy that they simply decided not to mention anything. For Treblinka, however, they regurgitated the claims made in a propaganda paper spread by the Polish underground in late nineteen forty two. The Treblinka murder presumably happened with hot steam.
That's in contrast to the diesel gas chambers claimed later until the newfangled tendency to abandon those as well as just mentioned. Considering that the expert report on Khatun was completely made up and turned the truth on its head, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the other Soviet reports weren't more reliable either. Even if the defense had been allowed and could have afforded to challenge these reports, they could not have done this because the Soviets never would have allowed German defense teams or anyone else for that matter to go to Poland, forensically investigate the claimed crime scenes, cross examine witnesses, and scour through secret Moscow archives with German camp documents. The existence of these archives was only revealed in the nineteen nineties. By the time this became possible, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, western countries had introduced or were in the process of introducing laws that declare it a crime to challenge the downgraded Soviet narrative with a threat of prison terms.
Here's a list of countries which have made Soviet postwar propaganda a compulsory state religion. The left column shows the year when each country introduced their dictatorial law, while the last column gives the maximum prison term imposed when publicly expressing disbelief like I do in this video. While watching this video isn't a crime yet, posting, reposting, linking to it may be a crime in many of these countries. If you want to learn more about the crucial, quote, unquote, expert reports submitted as evidenced by the Soviets, please turn to the book accompanying this video. Let's now scrutinize some other types of evidence presented at the IMT.
Psychologically, very important was a documentary film the Americans streamed on the 11/29/1945, just a fortnight after the IMT had begun. The film is titled Nazi concentration in prison camps. It starts out by showing scenes from various German wartime camps that are unknown to most. What matters most is that the film shows dead inmates found in those locations, giving the impression that no matter where the allies looked, people had been murdered in masses everywhere. The fact is, however, that a mass of dead people at the end of the most atrocious and murderous conflict in human history cannot, in and of itself, be evidence for any kind of murder.
It is estimated that some 50,000,000 people died in this conflict. Many of those victims died in Germany toward the end of the war as a result of Germany's total collapse. Hundreds of thousands died in Germany's fire bombed cities. Millions of Germans died during the greatest ethnic cleansing in the history of mankind. Many more civilians died due to starvation.
At war's end, Germany was a giant heap of corpses, figuratively speaking. People were dying like flies everywhere. Particularly bad was the fate of those persons present in any kind of closed facility, such as prisons or camps, which could no longer be supplied with anything, fuel, water, food, medicine, etcetera. Death rates skyrocketed not because of an intentional German policy, but because of the effects of total war. In fact, there was no German policy anymore toward the end.
It was all chaos and mayhem. The allied invading forces took pictures everywhere, including of dead German civilians in bombed out cities. But in their documentary at Nuremberg, they included only those photos they took inside camps and prisons and then misrepresented them as a result of a deliberate German policy. In contrast to these rather unknown places, the used documentary also includes footage from three locations that are known to most people, Bergen Belsen, Dachau, and Northausen. While the latter name is not that well known, images such as these taken by the Americans of the campgrounds littered with corpses have been reproduced a zillion times all over the planet.
The footage is no doubt genuine. It's the narrative that came with it which makes this documentary a heinous misrepresentation of facts. What the Americans and British were recording was not the result of a German policy of mass extermination against their camp inmates. Quite to the contrary, this was the result of the American and British policy of mass extermination against Germans carried out with a ruthless campaign of carpet bombing. Like the Soviets, the British and Americans blamed the Germans for the results of their own war crimes.
If you are interested in a detailed analysis of this propaganda documentary, please watch the documentary probing the holocaust, the horror explained, which can be accessed at the video section of the website holocausthandbooks.com. The Soviets also screened a documentary at the IMT showing plenty of dead bodies of which there certainly was no shortage at the end of the war. However, since they showed it after the presentation of their case at the end of the trial day of 02/19/1946, the audience wasn't exactly willing to listen anymore. The primary reason for this was that not even the other allied prosecutors took the Soviet seriously after they had presented their case, let alone the defendants. The Soviet presentation included the claim made five days earlier that the Germans had committed the Katyn massacre.
Everyone in the courtroom knew that the entire Soviet prosecution team were lying through their teeth. Other claims during those days running up to the Soviet propaganda movie were filled with alleged expert reports as mentioned earlier or were based on, quote, unquote, witness testimonies extracted by Soviet investigators using their well known methods. Few in the courtroom had any illusions about the value of what the Soviets presented. Without going into details, I list here a number of claims made by the Soviets that stick out as particularly absurd. Pause the video if you want to take your time to read this nonsense.
The Soviet documentary also shows large quantities of various items said to have been found in the German wartime camps. These items are presented to this day as proof for mass murder claims. The scenes show mountains of shoes found at the Meijernecht camp and large quantities of clothes, spectacles, toothbrushes, suitcases, large bags full of hair, and other items found in storage huts at the Meijernecht and Auschwitz camps. These items are said to have once belonged to inmates who had been murdered or so the Soviets insisted. However, the shoe storage hut at Meidanek belonged to the camp's cobbler's workshop, which refurbished old shoes from all kinds of sources as a recycling industry.
Many of the other items found at Meidernich in Auschwitz will have belonged to former inmates indeed, but their mere existence does not prove that their former owners were murdered. It merely proves that someone left these items behind. At worst, the items prove that the National Socialists systematically plundered their inmates' property. If a collection of items left behind were to prove murder, then any assembly of used clothes and shoes or any other secondhand item for that matter, in fact, every thrift store around the globe would prove that the original owners have been murdered. If you visit the Meidaneken Auschwitz museums in Poland today, you will still see large showcases displaying collections of such items with a claim that their former owners were viciously murdered by the Nazis.
Sure. If you don't buy it and say so loudly, Poland has free room and board for you for up to three years. Regarding the mass extermination of peaceful civilians, high and mid ranking former SS officials played a major role as witnesses by either taking the stand or merely signing an affidavit. Most prominent among them was Wurrf Huss, the former Auschwitz commandant. He took the stand after the mass murder of Auschwitz had already been, quote, unquote, incontrovertibly proven by the Soviets with their fake expert report.
Ironically, Huss was called to testify for Kaltenbrunner's defense. In his written testimony, which was not submitted to the IMT, Huss claimed that Himmler had ordered him to keep the extermination of the Jews a secret even from his superiors, hence also from his boss at the Reich Security main office, Ernst Kaltenbrunner. Kaltenbrunner hoped in vain that this would relieve him of any responsibility. After Hearst had been put through the British meat grinder, he meekly confirmed during his testimony at Nuremberg the outrageous claims the British had tortured out of him. The value of his testimony can be gleaned from a detailed study of all the statements he made after the war, more than 80.
Italian historian Carlo Matagno has written a thick book about all this in which he exposes 53 falsehoods inconsistencies and contradictions. Huss's Hair Brain Nonsense deserves its own documentary. In this one, I mentioned only a few highlights. Huss insisted repeatedly that he received the order to turn Auschwitz into an extermination center from Heinrich Himmler during a meeting in May 1941, anyway before the war against the Soviet Union. Entire timeline of subsequent extermination events depends on that date.
The first gassing of September 1941, the use of the main camp's crematorium morgue for gassings in late nineteen forty one or early nineteen forty two, and the rigging of two former farmhouses as makeshift gassing facilities in early and mid nineteen forty two. To this day, the entire orthodox Auschwitz narrative follows this timeline, so it can't be changed without that entire house of cards collapsing. The problem is that this chronology is impossible. Huss insisted that the order came after other extermination camps had already been active for some time. He named Belzak and Treblinka several times and even claimed that he had visited Treblinka to see how extermination was done there in order to learn how to implement Himmler's order at Auschwitz.
However, both Berzac and Treblinka became operational only roughly a year later. Huss mentioned several times a third already operating camp named Walzac. Such a camp never existed. Since Huss became deputy inspector of the entire concentration camp system after leaving Auschwitz in late nineteen forty three, he certainly knew the names of all the camps. I think it was no accident that he invented a camp from scratch.
That may have been his in the bottle. To the world saying, what I'm saying here is nonsense. Huss, quote, unquote, confessed to victim numbers that amounted to a total death toll for Auschwitz of about 4,000,000. In other words, he was made to repeat the invented and utterly false death toll number, which the Soviets had been spreading since they occupied that camp in January 1945. Hearst made claims about how gassings were carried out and how the bodies of murdered inmates were made to disappear that are either technically impossible or completely ludicrous.
I'll leave it at that here. Read Plutonia's book accessible free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com, book number 35, if you want to get the full scoop. Here is a list of other high profile SS officers who signed an affidavit and or testified during the IMT with which they confirmed in one way or another the allies' narrative on the extermination of the Jews. The first four of them, however, were talking merely from hearsay and should never have been admitted as witnesses in this regard. Bechtel signed an affidavit claiming that he saw a Himmler order in late nineteen forty four to stop the extermination.
No such order was ever found. Hoekel and Wisslitz Zaney stated that they had heard Eichmann brag about 6,000,000 murdered Jews. Eichmann denied this during his own trial in 1961 and wouldn't have been in any position to know any numbers anyhow. Former SS judge Morgan babbled nonsense about an extermination camp, Monowitz, which was merely a labor camp, about dead people burning all by themselves without the need of any fuel, and about trains disappearing into an underground extermination factory at Auschwitz, to mention just the most preposterous idiocies. Decades later, he told historian John Tolland that he had been threatened and physically abused before his testimony.
Surprise, surprise. So let's ignore these red herring witnesses and turn to the two remaining ones, Ollendorf and von Neumbach Zelevsky. Like hers, they both should have had firsthand knowledge of the actions on the ground. Otto Ollendorf was head of Ansersgruppe d for a year. This unit operated in the southern region of the temporarily occupied Soviet Union.
At war's end, Orendorf surrendered to British forces. He was brought to London where he was repeatedly interrogated in the infamous London Cage Torture Center. After seven weeks of unknown treatment, he admitted responsibility for the mass execution of 80,000 Jews mainly in Ukraine. At Nuremberg, the mass murders of hundreds of thousands of, quote, unquote, peaceful Soviet citizens by German military and paramilitary units like the Ansarsgruppen was unassailably, quote, unquote, proven by numerous Soviet commission reports of the Budanko Katyn style as mentioned before. Knowing that challenging his own extorted confession was as futile as challenging the Soviet commission reports, he talked many of his codefendants into a defense strategy based on a lie.
They claimed at Nuremberg that they had no choice but to follow a Fuhrer order to murder all Jews. Years after the war, however, a West German prosecutor uncovered that conspiracy. In fact, there was no such order. Not only that, the existing German orders on how to act in the East diametrically contradict Olandof's claim. So what did the Einsatzgruppen do?
Well, turning to the IMT or the later US conducted Nuremberg trials in search for answers is bad advice. Ultimately, only independent forensic examinations of mass graves or their traces could have helped as the Germans did at Katyn. But that never happened, so we might never know. What we can say with some level of certainty is that Orndorff had no clue about the alleged murder gas vans, which his unit is said to have used to kill thousands of, quote, unquote, peaceful Soviet citizens. The statements he made about them are preposterous nonsense.
The only concrete story he managed to convey in this regard was his claim that he once went on a gas vent test ride with a physician. The task was supposedly to determine that the victims were killed without becoming aware of what was happening. Sure. First of all, we need to keep in mind that Ohendorf had the rank of a lieutenant general. Generals don't go on test rides with some physicians to verify whether some device works as expected.
Next, imagine hot, smoking, stinking, choking exhaust gases spewing into the enclosed space you are in, and you don't notice what happens. It simply cannot have happened. The nonsense of gas van victims falling asleep peacefully stems from a forged document on gas vans, which I'll discuss at the end of this documentary. Olandorf was asked twice to authenticate this document. He did as he was asked, probably with the alternative being some more torture.
However, when made to talk about the alleged author of this document, he battled some more preposterous nonsense, clearly making stuff up to assuage his captors and tormentors. Just as, quote, unquote, confessions during the IMT about mass gassings at Auschwitz had a devastating effect on the thus far incredulous defendants, Olandorf's, quote, unquote, confirmation of mass shootings in the East were similarly demoralizing. Psychologically speaking, these two liars virtually sealed the case for the prosecution. Whereas Olandorf was ultimately hanged for his wartime role, another high ranking SS man by the name of Erich von den Bach Zelevsky got away scot free. He was a full general in charge of SS and police forces in the central part of the German occupied Western Soviet Union, basically today's Belorussia.
This included the activities of another unit like the one Orndorf headed, Einsatzgruber b. Therefore, Bartonevsky should have been a dead man walking. Instead, in return for exemption from all prosecution and from extradition to Stalin's henchmen, he agreed to become a witness for the prosecution. He moreover wrote a detailed report about Himmler's heinous crimes. In it, Barzilevsky claimed that the extermination of the Jews, quote, was deliberately planned by Heinrich Himmler already before the war, unquote, and that, quote, Himmler consistently worked toward the war in order to carry out his plan, unquote.
Furthermore, that a homicidal gassing facility was planned at the POW camp near Mogilev, and that Himmler had announced already before the war against the Soviet Union that he planned, quote, to decimate the Slav population by 30,000,000, unquote. None of it has any basis in facts and is categorically rejected even by mainstream historians as utter BS. But still, they quote Bartzeleski to this day as confirmation that it happened, whatever that means. With their case solidly undergirded with s s men's confessions, there was little need to call former camp inmates to testify. Two of them are worth mentioning.
First, there's Zamuel Reisman, who claimed to have been incarcerated at the Treblinka camp for ten months. Having been in the camp for so long, it actually existed only for one year, he must have known. And yet, in his various testimonies prior, during, and after the IMT, he asserted that mass murder at Treblinka initially occurred with vacuum, which is technical Hamburg, and later with chlorine gas in Zyklon b. Engine exhaust gases, which are claimed today, were never mentioned by Reisman, nor the steam chambers alleged in the, quote, unquote, expert report, which the Soviets introduced during the IMT, which goes to say that no one during the IMT really had any clue about what had happened at Treblinka. Yet still, a many 100,000 fold mass murder was declared the immutable truth.
Another victim witness worth mentioning is communist resistance fighter, Marie Claude Vaillon Couturier. She testified about what she claimed to have experienced at Auschwitz three weeks before the Soviets presented their, quote, unquote, expert report on that camp. In the camp, she worked at the Inmate Hospital as a clerk. From that office position in a completely different sector of the camp, she claimed to have gotten to know that the killings in the gas chambers took five minutes for women and three for men. That can have been hearsay, quote, unquote, knowledge at best.
She moreover personally saw pigs fly. No. Actually, she claimed to have seen immense flames shoot out of the crematorium chimneys, but that's just as technically impossible as flying pigs. She furthermore, quote, unquote, knew, again, at best from hearsay, the impossible feat that inmate corpses were turned into ashes within only, quote, unquote, a few minutes. However, the Auschwitz cremation furnaces took roughly an hour to turn a human body into ashes.
Oh, and she also insisted that the SS had invented a spanking machine, I kid you not, so they didn't have to spank naughty inmates manually. Here's the text from the court transcript.
Speaker 1: One of the most usual punishments was 50 blows with a stick on
Speaker 8: the loins. They were administered with a machine which I saw, a swinging apparatus manipulated manipulated by by an an SS. SS.
Speaker 0: The only thing that Vayon Couturier proved beyond the shadow of a doubt is the self evident fact that it is a better fear to let mortal enemies, hear communist versus national socialists, testify against each other because we are unlikely to hear the truth. If you are interested in more details on that lady's testimony and similar effusions from other witnesses of her kind, grab Carlo Matonia's various source critical studies on Auschwitz witnesses, volumes 37, 41, 44, 45, and 46 of the Holocaust handbooks, all freely accessible online. The allies also introduced numerous other affidavits from witnesses who never took the stand, hence never could be cross examined. Under normal circumstances, such texts should not have been allowed as evidence, but that's not what happened. Among the affidavits was that of Abraham Goldfarb, a former Treblinka inmate.
Goldfarb had plagiarized his story from another Treblinka witness, Jan Kalvinik, who in turn had plagiarized the 1942 Polish underground report on steam chambers. That steam chamber narrative is rejected today as untrue. But listen to this clip of a documentary, and you get an idea where the steam chamber line might have originated.
Speaker 9: Welcome to the darkest corner of The USSR's hidden torture methods, the steam chambers of silence. Deep beneath secret prisons like the infamous Lubyanka, there were rooms sealed shut. No windows, no sound, only heat. Prisoners were locked in metal chambers where steam would be slowly released. Not enough to kill, just enough to break them.
Skin would blister, lungs would tighten, and hope would melt into madness.
Speaker 0: Wernicke replaced the steam with engine exhaust, while Galfaab had the victims initially killed with moistened chlorinated lime. Again, all this proves is merely that no one had any clue what transpired at Tremblinka. Or if they did, they didn't tell what they knew, but blurted out whatever brain fart came their way. Goldfarb, Wernicke, and many more brain fighters are covered in Martinio's book on the three big bad camps, Belzec, Soviu, and Treblinka, which is volume 28 of the Holocaust handbooks. Another affidavit was signed by David Manusiewicz, a former Belzec inmate who seriously claimed that a human soap factory operated at that camp.
There is no single scholar on the planet who takes that seriously. Although Manusovich certainly was never in a position to know how many deportees were murdered at that camp, if any, he didn't hesitate to claim a death toll of 2,000,000, which is almost five times the amount assumed by today's orthodoxy. Later, he presumably assisted in the excavation of mass graves and burning of human remains on gigantic pyres near Lviv. His technically impossible claims and disconnections are utterly delusional. Manusevich's affidavit is analyzed in detail on pages 518 to 522 of Matonio's book on the Einsatzgruppen.
Manusevich also insisted that he saw an SS father skeet shooting babies with his daughter cheering him on, quote, papa, do it again. Do it again, papa, unquote. All this underlines that Manusevich was evidently willing to babble any nonsense that pleased his Soviet interrogators. Then there is the affidavit by former Mauthausen inmate Hans Marshallek about an interview he claims to have made with a former commandant of the Mauthausen camp, Franz Zerais, while the letter was bleeding to death from bullet wounds. The value of this affidavit results from the fact that, some thirty five years later, Marshallik retracted the claims made in it.
And last but not least, we have the affidavit of a nonexisting German soldier, allegedly named Gerhard Aramez, on mass graves near Kyiv. It is written in German, but riddled with anglicisms, meaning it was not written by a German, but fabricated probably by an American. They pushed a narrative about these mass graves that flies in the face of what the Orthodoxy claims about it today. During the IMT, the Soviets introduced Russian translation of it as USSR 80, possibly to hide the messed up German of the, quote, unquote, original. The Ademetz affidavit is also covered in Martinio's book on the Einsatzgruppen.
As the last section of this documentary, we'll discuss several documents introduced during the IMT, which were meant to undergird claims of mass extermination. First, we have the attempt of the French prosecutor to introduce a statement written by former SS officer Kurt Gerstein. During the war, disinfestation Gerstein was responsible for allocating Zyklon b deliveries to the SS camps. He was also corrupt and an art thief. He embezzled over $100,000 of Zyklon b funds in today's value and stole from a Jewish estate a valuable painting of French expressionist painter Henri Matisse.
With Soviet propaganda filling the news about Zyklon b mass murder at Majdanek since mid nineteen forty four and at Auschwitz since early nineteen forty five, Gerstin knew he was a dead man walking. In a desperate attempt to get on the good side of the French occupiers of his hometown, he wrote a text shortly before the end of the war. In this text, he depicted himself as a secret resistance fighter sabotaging the use of Zyklon b for murder. He moreover described in gory details how he saw deputies at Berzac and Treblinka getting killed with diesel exhaust gases. Gerstein's utterly bogus tales are the origin of the diesel murder nonsense that later caught on.
In fact, the French conveyed Gerstein's fairy tale to the Polish authorities in the 1945, which is when the Poles shifted their narrative from steam chambers at Turingka and electrocution at Belzec to engine exhaust. Today, Gerstein has been discredited as utterly unreliable for a landslide of reasons, and even mainstream scholars won't touch him anymore. But his lies have metastasized like cancer throughout the entire Holocaust body, killing the story in the process. Explaining all this would require a separate documentary. If you wanna get the full scoop on Gerstein, here are two books that cover the entire territory, volumes forty three and fifty four of the Holocaust handbooks, downloadable free of charge.
Back to the IMT. The French prosecutor's attempt failed to bamboozle the IMT judges into accepting Gerstein's statements as evidence. It is not quite clear why, but it looks like French prosecutor Dubost hadn't done his homework to give sufficient proof as to the document's origin. The court only accepted several unpaid cyclone b invoices made out in Gerstein's name for cyclone b deliveries to several SS operated camps, which Gerstein had attached to his tail. But the entire set received a document number, PS1553, which many regard as a seal of approval.
This turned Gerstein's tale for mainstream historians into a reputable IMT related source. To this day, Gerstein's Zyklon b invoices are cited as proof of mass murder committed with Zyklon b mainly at Auschwitz. In fact, the opposite is true. Zyklon b was a pesticide used to kill vermin that transmit serious diseases. Hence, Zyklon b was saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of camp inmates, not killing them.
Talking of Auschwitz, this brings me to another document that, although introduced only in part, received a seal of approval by the IMT, the so called War Refugee Board report. This is a compilation of witness accounts of former Auschwitz inmates. It was put together in November 1944 by the US government's War Refugee Board. As an official US report, it was considered self evidently true at the IMT and thus unassailable by the defense. Only one table from that report listing 1,765,000 Jews as gassed at Auschwitz Birkenau between April and April was introduced during the IMT as document l 22.
The core of the war refugee board report is a text written by former Auschwitz inmate Walter Rosenberg, aka Rudolf Rubber. His detailed description of the murder facility and the killing procedure has become one of the most influential testimonies on Auschwitz, not the least because of the US government's endorsement and the IMT's seal of approval. The problem is that it's all wrong, even from an orthodox point of view. As an inmate, Rubin was in no position to know how many deportees arrived at Auschwitz, let alone were presumably murdered in the alleged gas chambers. His figure of over 1,700,000 victims until April stands in stark contrast to what the Auschwitz Orthodoxy claims today, 500,000 victims up to that point in time.
Furthermore, his description of the alleged murder facility, including a sketchy attached to his text, has not even a remote resemblance to any facility at Auschwitz. It took forty years for the false varnish to come off. During the so called first Zindler trial in Toronto in 1985, Vrubber was cross examined for the first time. Caught with his pants on fire, he ultimately had to admit that he used, quote, unquote, poetic license when making his various statements about Auschwitz. Verba's assortment of lies is worth their own documentary.
If you want to learn some details about it, turn to volume 41 of the Holocaust handbooks, which deals with Verba and his on pages 217 to 243. Gerstein and Werber are two cases where the lies of individuals who never testified at Nuremberg received, quote, unquote, document status because some government declared them as such, and the IMT gave its seal of approval. Other documents introduced during the IMT were complete fordrews. I already mentioned the affidavit by Gerhard Adamets. Another case is the so called Becker document on gas vans, which I mentioned earlier.
It was introduced by US prosecutor Robert Jackson already on the second day of the IMT and mentioned several times throughout the proceedings. It is a letter presumably written by a certain August Becker. At the time this letter is dated, 05/16/1942, Becker worked at the motor pool of German security police. The letter is addressed to his supervisor, Walter Ralf. The docket attached by the Americans to this document states that they got it from the British, but that its origins are unknown.
That made the document inadmissible under normal circumstances. To quote, unquote confirm its authenticity, US officials coerced Walter Ralph, back then held captive by the Americans, to endorse a copy of this letter as, quote, unquote, authentic. And as mentioned earlier, they doubled that up by having Otto Ollendorf do the same. The letter pretends to be an inspection and maintenance report of gas vents for executing Jews reportedly used by Ohndorf's Einsatzgruppe d and Einsatzgruppe c, both active in Ukraine. It is rattled with absurdities which prove conclusively that it is a fake report unrelated to any possible real world events.
For example, the Zara vehicles mentioned in this letter were all equipped with diesel engines, but diesel engine exhaust is unsuitable for homicidal gassings. The letter mentions a combined hydraulic air pressure brake, although no such thing ever existed in those tow rod trucks. The letter insists that every crack in the cargo box needed to be soldered airtight to prevent gas leaks. However, no gas van could ever be sealed airtight because the same volume of gas that was allegedly pumped into the cargo box as exhaust gas needed to escape from the box to prevent pressure from building up. The writer wants that exhaust gas escaping from cracks might harm the executioners, which is BS.
Spread out over many cracks, it would have been far less dangerous than the same gas escaping from the tailpipe. Imagine a German technician warning his superior in a war that cars, trucks, or tanks are too dangerous for soldiers because of their exhaust gas. As his superior, I would declare him either fit for frontline duty or for the insane asylum. And here is the kicker, which I already mentioned when discussing Ohndorf's testimony. The letter claims that the German executioners did it all wrong by flooring the gas pedal during gassings.
This presumably resulted in the victims suffocating rather than falling peacefully asleep. As mentioned before, hot, stinking, smoking engine exhaust gases, whether from a diesel or gasoline engine makes no difference, cannot, under any circumstances, lead to gassing victims falling asleep peacefully. As mentioned earlier, the Americans got this document from the British who did not give any proof of its origin. The British were also the first to spread gas van propaganda during the war. Roughly three weeks prior to the Krasnodar show trial that started on 07/14/1943, during which the Soviets made their first gas van accusations, the British newspaper Daily Telegraph published this article on 06/25/1943, headlined, Germans murder 700,000 Jews in Poland, traveling gas chambers.
That's the same newspaper which spread gas chamber lies already during the first world war with this article published on 03/22/1916. Pause the video to read it. The idea to gas people in, quote, unquote, traveling gas chambers, as the Telegraph put it, is older than the second World War, however. Listen to this clip from the documentary monster, a portrait of Stalin in blood.
Speaker 10: We've come across evidence that long before Hitler's gas vans came into being, Isai Davidovich Berg invented secret gas vans in Moscow. It was a simple airtight van in which prisoners were delivered, and when necessary, carbon monoxide exhaust fumes were piped into the van.
Speaker 0: Therefore, it looks like it wasn't just their cartoon mass murder, which the Soviets blamed on the Germans. The entire gas van story appears to be just another Soviet atrocity rebranded as a German misdeed with some British help. This brings us to the end of this critical overview. Of course, in a documentary lasting roughly an hour, we can scratch only the surface of a trial that lasted one hundred and eighteen days. If you want to delve deeper into this topic, we recommend this book by Gemma Rudolph upon which this video is based.
The Holocaust Proven at Nuremberg, reviewing the evidence presented at the International Military Tribunal. Its audio version is not quite four hours long. Both the audio and PDF version can be downloaded free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com, book section, holocaust pocketbooks. In this book of some 150 pages of text, you can find references to studies, some of which have been mentioned here, which go into the nitty gritty details of many topics mentioned, all of which were dealt with during the IMT only rather superficially. Another highly recommended book is David Irving's Nuremberg the last battle, which covers with primary sources how the IMT was set up and rigged.
Oh, and one last word. This video does not mean to give the impression that the National Socialists on trial at Nuremberg were innocent of any wrongdoing. The point I wanted to get across is that no trial of the victors over the vanquished can ever be fair. And in case of the NMT, it most certainly wasn't. A quick word before I let you go.
This documentary has been made accessible to you free of charge, and so are the many books of thorough research it is based upon. However, creating this video and creating all these books has not been free of cost at all. So our generosity to make this accessible to you free of charge in return depends on your generosity to both spread the word about our work and support us if you can. So please, if you found this documentary worth watching, spread the word through all the communication channels you had. And if by any means you are able to assist us otherwise, please get in touch.
You can also assist us financially by either purchasing the books in a hard copy or by reaching out and consider a donation. You can also assist me personally so that I can continue my efforts. You can find out the various ways to support me financially on my private website at www.gammarudolf.com. Menu option, pay and donate. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Speaker 11: This documentary was sponsored by the committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust Lobbying for Free Speech Where It Is Most Threatened and by Arm Red Limited, an outlet for historical studies which the powers that be strive hard to suppress. Discover the stunning scope and scale of our research at w w w dot holocausthandbooks dot com where you can watch many more documentaries like this one and download free of charge PDF and audio versions of our prestigious holocaust handbooks. Browse the full range of our print, e and audio books at armreg.co.uk and query our stunning uncensored and unconstrained holocaust encyclopedia freely accessible at holocaustencyclopedia.com where you can also purchase hard copies of this extraordinary work in several languages. Thank you for your kind consideration.