reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @GermarRudolf
@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.