reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@Lucas_Gage_ - Lucas Gage
Interesting Montel Williams show, featuring Mark Weber and David Cole, on the Holocaust. https://t.co/e9MZBIOgDz
Video Transcript AI Summary
During the discussion about the Holocaust, the revisionists Mark Weber and David Cole questioned the existence of gas chambers and the number of Jewish deaths. They argued that there was no policy or program to exterminate Jews and that the 6 million figure was symbolic and not based on solid evidence. Survivors of the Holocaust, including Ernest and Anna Hollander, shared their personal experiences and refuted the revisionists' claims. Dr. Michael Thaler, president of the Holocaust Center of Northern California, offered evidence and eyewitness testimonies to support the historical facts of the Holocaust. The discussion highlighted the importance of remembering and acknowledging the truth of the Holocaust to prevent such atrocities from happening again.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: No matter how many times we see the footage, it shocks us. During the Holocaust, an estimated 6,000,000 Jews died under the regime of Adolf Hitler. They died from starvation, disease, and gassing. But there are some who say that these pictures are not real, that much of what is known about the Holocaust is fiction and not fact. One person who questions the existence of the Holocaust is mister Mark Weber.
Mark is a Holocaust revisionist. He is the editor and spokesman for The Institute For Historical Review. And also joining us is mister David Cole, another revisionist. He's a member of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. David was recently under the attack or under attack by members of the Jewish Defense League while he was speaking on the subject because David It's Jewish.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for being here. We appreciate you coming. We have all seen the specials, the news clips, the footage. Everyone around the world believes that the Holocaust took place. Why do you think it didn't?
Speaker 1: Well, Montel, it's very important to understand that no one says that those pictures are not real as you indicated at the beginning of the program. The pictures are very real. They're very horrible. They're very tragic and we've all seen them. We've all heard that 6,000,000 Jews died in the 2nd World War during the holocaust.
But it's very important to understand what these pictures show and what they don't show. The people these pictures were taken at the Belsen concentration camp at the end of the war by the British when they liberated the camp. The people showing these pictures and it's a very, very terrible pictures. Nobody denies that. Nobody says it didn't happen.
Nobody says it's not true. These people were victims of starvation and disease. They died in the last weeks of the war. They died in the last weeks of the war As in fact, indirect victims of the war. British, doctors who were at the camp themselves at the time that the camp was liberated And many, inmates who were at the camp, there and elsewhere have also confirmed the conditions at Belsen, although certainly not a not a country club, We're relatively good until the final weeks months of the war.
And that was because in the final weeks months of the war, all of Germany, all of Europe was in complete chaos. All the railroads were were ruined. It was impossible to supply food. It was impossible to supply water. And particularly at Bergen Belsen, Thousands and thousands and thousands of Jews were evacuated from camps further to the east as the Soviets were coming in and sent into this and other camps which were enormously overcrowded.
These people died in large numbers by disease and starvation. But if the policy of the German government had been to exterminate these people, they would not they would have long since been dead and these pictures would not have been taken. In fact, the the German government policy during the war was a very grim one. It was a very harsh one and so forth. As I said, again, no one denies those pictures.
But those people were not victims of a program or a policy of extermination. And that's what Holocaust revisionists say.
Speaker 0: Well, let's let's go back a little bit in history here so we can kind of bring everybody up to speed. As I ask We're history lesson myself. I've done some reading on World War 2 and knew a few things. But just 1933 was when Hitler became the Fuhrer. 1933 was also when Dachau opened.
1938, Hitler entered Vienna, making it part of the Third Reich. 1939, Germany invades Poland. We go on in 1940s. Nazis invade Holland, Belgium, Durham, France, Luxembourg. 1941, they invade Russia.
1941, the first death camp was open. In 1942, the final solution was discussed openly. That final solution was a solution that included the Extermination of the Jews. Is that not
Speaker 1: correct? You raised a lot of very, very good points. There was we know from German documents, we know from German officials during the war, they did talk about something they called Final solution to the Jewish question. The German documents that talk about this. But in the thousands, millions, tons of German documents Seized at the end of the war, the deal with Jewish policy.
There is not a single document, not a single piece of paper which talks about or confirms or even discusses An extermination policy. Yeah. But Mark, wait. Wait.
Speaker 0: Hold on one second.
Speaker 1: Pilar also
Speaker 0: knew that if, let's say, he didn't win
Speaker 1: this war and someone ever found a document that stated that, Life would be real tough for him and everyone else. We know. We have German documents which show exactly what the policy was. And, these documents are in fact very, very important. The German what the German Officials meant by the final solution policy was before 19 end of 1941 was a policy of forced, or or forced expulsion from Europe By forced immigration if if necessary and need be.
After 1941 and in 1942, this policy changed to one of force of of deporting Jews, uprooting them, And sending them to the east. And that meant first to ghettos and camps in Poland. And then later throughout the war, they were sent to the occupied Soviet territories. That's what the German officials during the war said and meant by this final solution of Jewish question. Now at Nuremberg, this of course, this whole issue came up at Nuremberg.
All of the German defendants at the big Nuremberg trial, 1945, 1946, all said that they had no knowledge during the war of any extermination program.
Speaker 0: Wait a minute. I have been a Wait. I have been a German guard at one of these camps, a Dachau, Ostwood, and somebody said, did you participate in the in the The murder of a 1000000 people, I would have said, no. It was you. Homeboy did it.
That wasn't me. And I would have said, no. I never saw this before. I would have lied and said anything that I Could have said to prove that I wasn't involved.
Speaker 1: That that's a that's very reasonable. But what these events have to say was also is also consistent from the from the documents that we have, and and what we know about. And it's also consistent from everything we know about the policy, from from many other sources.
Speaker 0: I will now, David. I mean, I I would think that there are Enough older Jewish people in this country, people who are survivors, people whose families lived through the Holocaust, who would right now, be willing to do exactly what happened to you a couple weeks ago, and that's attacked you because you are Jewish. And to step forward and say this would be like myself stepping forward and saying that the United States government never brought slaves to this country.
Speaker 2: But now if you were to say that, couldn't people then make a case to show that there was, in fact, slavery? I am not trying to aggravate anyone anybody. Of course, I know that I am, gravely aggravating people to the point where they, will actually physically come up and attack me. But I think it raises, many interesting issues, specifically the role of truth in society. What happens when you have Eyewitnesses, and yet you have other evidence, physical evidence, forensic evidence, the evidence of documents and intercepted transmission.
So you make a Point, Montel, you make a grave assumption, a leap of faith when you say, well, the reason we don't have these documents showing, you know, with where the Germans discussed what they did It's because Hitler didn't want him around. I guess, had him burned or something because he knew that it would get him in trouble. But that's making an assumption. Now other people might say we don't have the documents Because there aren't any. Because they never existed.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, what about all the things that you hear about, the gas chambers and all those things that the the mass graves? Graves with Well, now no one doubts
Speaker 2: no one doubts mass graves. No one doubts that there were bodies in this camp. And let me just, for the record, state, I don't doubt It was an incredibly horrible thing that happened to the Jews of Europe, something that, should not be thought of in any, lighter sense specifically because we doubt There were gas chambers. These people were taken out of their villages, split up from their family, and put into camps and made to work as forced labor. And this is a horrible situation, and people died from disease and starvation and just plain being worked to death.
It is not that we are trying to sugarcoat what happened, But it's been many years after the fact that it's time that we brought the fact in, parallel to, the actual history of what happened.
Speaker 0: Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 3: The fact still remains, yes, that 6,000,000 Jews were killed. And whether or not the documentation shows that it was The intent to completely get rid of Jews, it it doesn't matter whether or not the intent was there because it happened. 6,000,000 Jews were murdered.
Speaker 0: And for both David and Mark, that's a very important issue because both of you dispute the fact that 6,000,000 Jews died.
Speaker 2: If I could make a point. Now she said the fact The 6,000,000 Jews died. However, in 1988, the, Auschwitz, where people can go and tour the gas chambers, they lowered their figure from 4,000,000 dead to 1,000,000 dead. So that was 3,000,000 taken out of the equation overnight. Where did these 3,000,000 go?
Were they never there in the 1st place? Were they in the camps? And did they survive? And if you can lose 3,000,000 people overnight, who's to say that 1,000,000 remaining figure is not also wrong?
Speaker 0: Let me ask you this question. Weren't weren't some of these weren't some of these figures ascertain after the fact because they went back and did censuses after.
Speaker 1: The source of the famous 6,000,000 figure is an affidavit by one of the, by somebody who was brought in at the Nuremberg trial in 1945, 46. Even Raul Hilberg, who's considered one of the major, figures in the holocaust, holocaust historians, professor at University of Vermont. He concedes himself that the 6,000,000 figure is is is based upon crude calculations. It is only highly dubious and he says we must reexamine this whole question of 6,000,000. Look, it's very interesting, Montel.
People heard have heard over and over about 6,000,000 Jews dying in Europe during the 2nd World War. How many people in this audience Know how many Germans died during the 2nd World War. How many Americans died during the 2nd World War. How many Chinese died during the 2nd World War. In America, as time goes by, the more time passes, The more there's emphasis on the fate of 1 particular people during the 2nd World War, almost to the exclusion of everyone else.
How many?
Speaker 0: Well, that no. That that is Let
Speaker 1: me let me let me let me
Speaker 0: let me let me let
Speaker 1: me make another point. I mean, right now in Washington, DC, A federal government agency, a taxpayer, funded agency of the federal government, the United States Holocaust Memorial Council is organizing and building an enormous museum in Washington DC. There's no comparable museum in Washington DC to the victims of slavery. There's no comparable museum in Washington DC to the fate of the Indians or any other people. But there is enormous b museum being built under you federal government auspices, the fate of only 1 particular people in one other place.
How many Chinese died during the 2nd World War? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the number of civil Chinese civilians alone who died during the 2nd World War is more than 20,000,000. More than 20,000,000. Who knows it?
Speaker 0: Steven cares. But but are we saying that, therefore, we should not believe what happened to the Jewish people because These other things are admitted, or should we should we stop and say that we believe what happened?
Speaker 1: Montel, it's right and proper to memorialize the dead, the dead of all wars, In the dead of all, genocide or all mistreatment, whatever it happens to be. But what is not right is to take the fate of 1 particular people and in effect make a kind of political football out of
Speaker 0: I
Speaker 2: I I would like to also interject, speaking as a Jew, the Holocaust is an extremely important thing to especially American and Israeli Jews because most American Jews tend to be secularized, and the Holocaust and the shared history of persecution has tended to take the place Of the religion of Jews. Now I'm Jewish. I'm also an a also an atheist. I don't buy many things. I don't buy concepts of mysticism, spirituality, and especially myths.
And I have read both sides of the issue extensively, and I'm not looking to hurt anybody. But I do have to say from my own Point of view that the evidence saying that there were no gas chambers is a lot stronger than any of the evidence that can be presented saying there was. Alright.
Speaker 0: Well, then let's stop there and take a break. And when we come back, We'll find out. Like David said, is it myth, or is it true? We'll find out when we come back. We're talking about the Holocaust and whether or not it happened or it didn't happen.
You had a question, sir.
Speaker 4: Yeah. This is a remark to Dave's earlier statements. He said that they weren't really being peace prosecuted, Persecution. There we go. My point is they they were the Jews were selected specifically to be annihilated.
I think that's more important than the fact that they were selectively chosen out of various groups to be annihilated. And secondly, I I do have to agree with you to a degree that that what happened in Cambodia with Khmer Rouge wasn't Played up as much as the the issue with the Jews, but that still doesn't lessen the fact that the Holocaust occurred.
Speaker 0: And you both say that it didn't occur. Frank,
Speaker 1: we don't we don't say the Holocaust didn't occur. That's really too simplistic. You know,
Speaker 0: the whole What is a revisionist then? Okay. Then then make it simple in that way, sir. Or before you go, because you're you're talking a little heady. I want you to make sure everybody can understand what it is you're talking about.
What is it that a revisionist wants there to be shown in history?
Speaker 1: Revisionists say 3 essential things. We say first and foremost, there was no policy or program to exterminate the Jews of Europe during the 2nd World War.
Speaker 0: Okay. So stop right there
Speaker 1: for a second.
Speaker 0: Don't go too quick. Which refutes exactly what the gentleman just asked you because he said The policy was they were picked out and isolated to be annihilated.
Speaker 1: That's certainly true. So
Speaker 0: you're saying that's not true?
Speaker 1: They weren't they were they were they were they were selectively persecuted. They were picked out. They were put in ghettos. They were put in camps. They were a victim group, but there was not a policy or program to exterminate them.
Speaker 0: Wait a minute. Wait. I want I want you you're gonna run real quick, and I wanna slow you down so we can get every point out of what you're saying. So if they were selected individually as a group to be put into ghettos And to be starved to death, what was the key? Whether or not it was a gas chamber or not, they were starved to death.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. Montel, look. I mean, during the 2nd World War, as you well know, Everyone in California, I think, knows, the West Coast Japanese were also selected.
They were rounded up.
Speaker 0: They were put in
Speaker 1: the camp sure. Well, yes. Europe was not Europe during the 2nd World War was not the United States during the 2nd World War. There was a lot of food, in the United States. There were peace essentially peacetime conditions.
War didn't come here. Certainly, the Japanese were not treated anywhere near as bad as the Jews. But the point is simply that they were selectively persecuted, and that's true. That was certainly true with the Jews.
Speaker 2: And I I just wanna also pipe in and say that I'd like to call you on what you said. So what if there were no gas chambers if they were starved to death? Hey. If if you If if we even make that much of a point, we've refuted a lot of what is in the history books that say there are gas chambers. Now, if all of a sudden the story is gonna change and that the genocide was through Starving them to death.
Well, that makes a great big difference because then all that you've read in your history has been wrong. We're we're not prepared to deviate at all from the facts that are presented to us. And if the facts were ever to that they were starved to death, we would reflect that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Now the 2nd point you said there are 3 points. That was the first point.
Speaker 1: Right. 2nd. The 2nd point, Montel, is that we dispute, the claims made over and over about gas chambers and gassings. That's the weapon of extermination supposedly. It's very important to realize in this context But the holocaust story or the gassing story has changed dramatically over the over the years.
At the big Nuremberg trial of 1945, 46, It was claimed that people were gassed at Dachau, at Buchenwald, and at various camps in Germany proper as well. Right after the war, it was claimed not that people were gassed at Auschwitz, But they were electrocuted to death.
Speaker 0: And then later, we found out that all the gas chambers were in Poland. Give me the
Speaker 1: 3rd point. Is that the evidence for supposedly gassings in some camps has just been They've done away with. It's it's a okay. The third point is we say that no, no nothing like 6,000,000 Jews in Europe died during the 2nd World War. And it's very important in this regard also to realize That every Jew, every Jewish person who in the 2nd World War who died of whatever cause is considered, quote, a victim of the holocaust.
That is Jews who died even in allied bombing attacks. Jews who died, for whatever reason, they're considered victims of the holocaust. So
Speaker 0: that's all so ill. All 6,000,000 is a compilation figure of Every Jewish person who died during the war.
Speaker 1: Look, even a number of prominent holocaust historians have conceded the 6,000,000 figure is essentially It's symbolic in nature. It's repeated over and over, and it's not necessary all all sorts of other things can change, and the 6,000,000 figure will stay the same.
Speaker 0: Okay. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 5: Well, I have 2 things to say. First of all, a death is a death. These people have died. I don't understand why you wanna What what do you have to gain by questioning the facts and history? What is it what's your purpose in all of this?
Speaker 0: Well, let me ask this question. Is Is knowing the truth about what happened in your past important to to you?
Speaker 5: Well, to me, death is death. They have all died. They've It was hurtful to many people. Why is it we have to question whether somebody stepped forth to gas chamber people or whatever? What do you have to gain?
Speaker 2: Well, you see, that is, a philosophically plea based question, not a factual quest question. We know that there were camps we had for the Japanese. What if somebody came along and said we then cut up the Japanese and fed them to crocodile? It is important for us to know what did happen and didn't happen. And if you're not interested in truth and history, fine.
To some of us who are interested In what really happened in the use of truth, the governmental use of truth, how truth can be changed, how truth can be altered, that does matter. A death is a death, of course. But if we say the German people set up gas chambers, you ought to be willing to prove it and ready to prove it.
Speaker 0: But now, wait. Before you even jump in, Mark David, but isn't it very important also to know That if if the plan was if the plan was to annihilate a race of people, if that was the plan, genocide for race of people, Does it then matter if there were gas chambers or if it was starvation? This lady's making a very interesting point. The point is death is death, and they said I'd kill people.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's a Fine line. I'm not arguing it with you that maybe it's a fine line, but then why do we get all the flak when we then try to deny that there were gas chambers based on the facts available? If it is such a fine line, if it just don't matter at all, then we ought to be able to say, well, here's some evidence showing that there are no gas chambers, and They say, well, fine. If it was death, and we'd say, sure. It was death.
All the same and all. The same thing about the idea of there being a final solution. Show us the evidence that there was the idea of a genocide of all the hues. And if you show it to us, and if it passes, at least my own personal, skepticism, when looking at things? Then I will be the 1st person to say I'm Dave the Dunst.
Just, kick me out of the studio, but I wanna see the evidence first.
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Two questions. Make it 1 because I gotta sit. Gotta go to break. Okay.
How
Speaker 1: many, Jews did the Germans have their hands on during the war that they could have exterminated theoretically? That's a very good question. You know, the I I believe that the total number of Jews in Europe who died under German Control or access control during the 2nd world is probably in the neighborhood of a1000000, a1000000 and a half. I don't think that that the Germans even had under the control 6,000,000 Jews during the 2nd World War. This was confirmed, I think, by a report that was issued by the International Labor Office in, by various there's a number of reasons why I say that.
Speaker 0: Okay. We have to take a break. But when we come back, we're gonna meet some survivors of the Holocaust, and they'll tell us what they saw and whether or not what they're saying, both Mark and David, It's true or false. We'll be back in just a We've been talking about the Holocaust with revisionist Mark Weber and mister David Cole. But joining us right now are doctor Michael Thaler.
Michael is a president of the Holocaust Center of Northern California. Michael is also a survivor Who lost more than 60 members of his family in the Holocaust. Also joining us are Ernest and Anna Hollander. They are both survivors, Anna's entire family was wiped out in Auschwitz. And before we even go any further in discussing, Ernest, could you take us back to that day in 1944 When your family arrived at Auschwitz?
Speaker 6: Yes. Sure. First of all, I like to make an opening statement That, I watched the poor on the on television, the revisionist, what they said. And I feel it's completely wrong. It's completely not true, because I've been there, And I saw what happened.
And I came tonight with pain and agony to tell you all that these stories, But I also feel very bad and I feel sorry for these people who after 50 years still claiming there was not a holocaust. They They tried they tried to hide behind the truth. Well, why don't you tell us some
Speaker 0: of the truth, Ernest?
Speaker 6: Let us know Well, this is the truth. In 1939, when Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia, The part of where I live, the Carpathia Mountains, they gave to the Hungarian government. And as they took over the the government, By the way, they fired every Jew from state, city, and county jobs. A Jew couldn't hold anymore a job, a government job. Well, didn't go too long where they started taking all their properties.
And, before the year was over, We have to wear yellow stars. Jews couldn't get out on the street anymore regular. Just certain times, shopping, stuff like that. In 1942, They said that every Jew have to have a Hungarian citizenship papers. Now we had close to 3 quarter of a 1000000 Jews living In Capet Capetian Mountains, more than half didn't have Hungarian citizenship papers.
We were lucky. My father was born under Austria and Hungarian regime, and we were able to get a citizenship to pay for this.
Speaker 0: Okay. But that that's Before the war and so I want you to bring us that's during the war, 1942.
Speaker 6: That was 1941, end of 41. Okay.
Speaker 0: End of 41. But bring us up to the point when we know the historical things that took Place where we need to know whether or not the Holocaust itself took place. What happened in 1944? What did you see with your own eyes when you arrived at
Speaker 6: In 1944, I had 8 brothers and sisters, 4 brothers, 4 sisters. My father and mother, we arrived finally to Auschwitz Where the right away took away my mother and 3 little sisters, and they killed them. Killed them in the crematoriums, In the gas chambers, the rest of the family went to work, the labor camps, where my father was working in a railroad station And, working in a sawmill where he cut off his left arm. The blade somehow cut his hand. They put him against the wall.
They shot him right away. They never kept somebody in the camp if he could learn his piece of bread and a little hot soup.
Speaker 0: But now when you say they took your mother and your 3 younger sisters away right there on the spot and they took them away to the gas chamber. Right? And this was in Auschwitz. How do you know that that's exactly where they took them to?
Speaker 6: This stayed 2 days in Auschwitz. And some people who worked in the crematoriums, Some people who worked in the gas chambers, they told us that they saw all these people who doctor Mengele, the danger of death, Send them to the left. They've been straight into into the gas chambers and into the crematoriums.
Speaker 0: You know, doctor doctor Taylor, you know a lot I mean, a lot about the history The Holocaust. You've heard what both these gentlemen have to say. Do you think that they're right, or is it is it even worth the discussion that we're having today?
Speaker 7: Well, I think that the discussion today is merely to allow those people, Oh, the vast majority, of course, who don't really know what happened, an opportunity to to really find out what the truth is. And what you just heard is a tissue of lies. It's basically a combination of half truths, fantasy, And, and and downright, falsehood. And, you know, I can begin taking it apart very easily.
Speaker 0: Let's start from the very beginning. The the claim is that there were no gas chambers. Right. There was no, plan to annihilate the Jews. Start with the gas chambers and tell me why that's that's central.
Speaker 7: Alright. Well, I'll start with the most recent evidence, though it's been 50 years. Most recent evidence produced by The young, historians in Germany German historians working on German, evidence German documents have shown in the last 5 years that The entire program, including the gas chambers, originated from a program which they, the Nazis called the euthanasia program, which is Typical of the terminology that they use, they always inverted the real meaning. Euthanasia, you know, there's going to be an initiative on the California ballot on euthanasia. And euthanasia literally means mercy killing.
And the way we talk about euthanasia, it means at the request and at the desire of the patient When they want to end their life, okay, the Nazis use that term just the opposite, to kill people, to murder, to mass murder People whom they no longer desired, to be alive because they were useless to them. They couldn't work. They were blind. They were deaf. They even killed Soldiers who came back from the front on this program.
Speaker 0: Now We can get that but that doesn't tell me about gas chambers. Tell me about gas chambers.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 7: In order to institute this program, throughout Germany, there were installations set up With gas chambers, which were disguised as shower rooms, in places like, Hadamar, Gross, Grossek, Brandenburg, Sonnenstein, Hartheim by Lindt and so on, where they developed this entire program where they took up to 80,000 German children and people who were, as I said, useless to the right and simply gassed them with the excuse of taking them to the showers And then cremated them. And by 1941 August 1941, there was such an outcry in Germany from the bishops and from Mistakes that they made by sending 2 urns to 1 family, you know, for 1 child, that they terminated the program. And at that point, They took the staff of this entire program, took them to the killing camps, Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka and many of those people became the commanders and the leading people both in the construction of the gas chambers and and in the use of the gas chambers. They also had experimented with the cyclone b gases during that Eesthenasia program. And so There there is physical proof
Speaker 0: of that.
Speaker 7: Physical evidence, And there is also strong documentation brought out by the German historians themselves. And this was the beginning of that program which was then later applied For the destruction of the Jews.
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Speaker 9: I just my it's a comment and question directed to you 2 on the end. It seems like you're running around. Mark and David, you seem like you're running around, in 2 ways. 1, the gas chambers, you say they're prove it. There weren't any.
Well, inside the 3rd right, proved, talks about it. There are personal experiences that talk about it. That should be enough, and that they they have proof of them being there. Second is that you say 6,000,000, that's, Well, maybe it's less or whatever. Maybe it is.
Maybe it was a 1000000. So what? That's a 1000000 people. I mean, that's a lot. Well,
Speaker 0: now
Speaker 2: We we are not trying to downplay the seriousness that anybody died, but you just said, for example, we ought to have enough evidence. That's enough. Place closed. That's enough. Forget about your questions.
Let me say one thing, and let me present something to you. How, for example, do you, come back at the 2 Forensic studies that have been done to get the supposed gas chamber buildings at Auschwitz and Majanek, Which proves forensically and the first one was conducted by, a man from Boston named Fred Lutcher. Fred Lutcher had built Execution equipment for American prisons, and he was very good at it, and he was recommended for that job. But the 2nd forensic report was done by the people who run The people who run the Auschwitz Museum and it proves that there could not have been cyanide gassings in those chambers. How do you come back to that?
Speaker 0: Alright. We'll find out how we come back to that. As soon as we take a break, we'll take a break. We'll be back right after this.
Speaker 6: German duty when the realms whip up and sight
Speaker 0: the instinctive objects of the
Speaker 6: Jews to an even higher pitch.
Speaker 0: We've been talking about the Holocaust with revisionist and survivors. And for Both Mark and David, if we were to presuppose that the holocaust did not take place and we were to presuppose that there were no gas chambers, There were, no mass burials and no mass mass gassings. Then what we're saying is that someone had a conspiracy to mislead the entire world. Why for 50 years would Jewish people want to conspire to mislead the entire world?
Speaker 2: You see, now you're reading something into that. You're They want to conspire if, if in fact, this was a conspiracy propaganda set up, written by people, presented by people. It was the Soviet government, The British government and the American government and Nuremberg after the war. The reason that this thing because most war propaganda ends up dying x number of years after the actual war. One of the reasons, however, that this, particular issue has grown in importance since the war is because the Jewish people have taken it as a very personal issue.
It is very important in Israel. It is it was very important for the founding of Israel. This does not make them conspirators. It doesn't make them bad People at all, it's an issue that they take very personally. And in the Western world, Jews are usually very successful.
They, and I'm Speaking as a Jew, and I'm not trying to say that they, in any way, do anything wrong to become successful, but what matters to Jews, can oftentimes be reflected in Western society. If you were go to go to Asia, the list this, the Jewish holocaust wouldn't matter one way or another because there are not all that many Jews Well, if any positions of of influence in, country like Cambodia
Speaker 0: Doctor Taylor, you're you're right. Doctor Taylor is like like churning in his seat. What? What did you wanna say?
Speaker 7: Well, first of all, I think it's, already false to call these people revisionists. As the department of history in Duke, the all the professors of history in Duke wrote in response to one of their ads in the campus newspaper, these people are not revisionists. They don't revise. They are deniers. They're basically denying the truth rather rather than revising the truth.
Speaker 0: And and And doctor Taylor, let me ask like, I I let you finish your point, but then there is also the point that they are questioning the history. And we know for a fact. Let me finish my point. We know for a fact that history in this country and the books that we see in this country is written incorrectly in a number of ways. I'm gonna see the 2nd.
Go ahead.
Speaker 7: But every single point where it gets close to the actual data, the actual information, the actual facts, it's falsehood. For instance, this Issue about this man, Leuchter, Fred, or Frank Leuchter junior, who, I just heard quoted as a fore Most engineer, you know, with gas chambers
Speaker 2: proving I
Speaker 0: didn't say
Speaker 2: the word engineer. Okay. He you you know his name. I know why you didn't. Okay.
Speaker 0: Because
Speaker 2: but Fred Luecher might not have Been a licensed engineer, but did he not have the job of building gas chambers and other execution equipment for major American prisons? Was he not profiled on I'm not gonna do monthly.
Speaker 10: He has
Speaker 7: nothing to no.
Speaker 0: But David Langdon As a matter of
Speaker 7: fact, this is a lie. The fact is the man masqueraded as an engineer, a builder of these chambers, and then he as an engineer, a builder of these chambers, and then he was arraigned in Massachusetts for practicing engineering without a license. He is not registered as our engineer. The only, scientific training he ever had was a BA in history. He was hired by a
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Okay.
Okay. So so doctor Taylor, we refuted the fact
Speaker 2: that this
Speaker 0: man had a qualification.
Speaker 7: Question boils down whether there was cyclone b gas used or not. So in 1988, for a fee of $35,000, you, went to, Birkenau and he scraped the walls and he did some hocus pocus and he came out years later with the statement that there was no gas, and the court in Canada in which this was tried threw it out and declared him a non expert. Sorry. We can't hear you
Speaker 0: up there,
Speaker 7: but okay. This is a matter of
Speaker 0: record.
Speaker 1: Alright, doctor Phil. Just stop there for
Speaker 0: a second. Anna, you've been trying to get in.
Speaker 10: Go ahead. I am a living Proof of this. I was age of 13 when they took me to Auschwitz with my family. I'm the only one who survived, And I was invited not too far from the gas chambers, and we knew exactly where then they brought in juice, And they burned them. We smelled.
We breathe that air. We smell that air, and we knew. We used to say to each other, See, we are we are burning the Jews. I was not too far from the crematoriums.
Speaker 0: When it happens?
Speaker 10: When it happens. And I was 13 years of age. At that time, my whole family is wiped out.
Speaker 11: Yes, sir. You know? The holocaust is big business Because, Germany is so far has given the Jews, I think, at least $200,000,000,000. So it's big business. And some of you are still getting $1,000 a month.
And a lot of people don't know this. And then, people don't realize who brought the slaves to America. There were Jewish ships.
Speaker 0: Wait a minute. That's a whole that's a whole another thing. Let's take a break because with the Issue that we're talking about today is whether or not there's a holocaust, we'll talk about slavery and who bought them here later. We'll be back up to this. We've been talking about the Holocaust with revisionists and survivors.
And you want to make a statement.
Speaker 8: Yes. I'd like to ask a question that's specific in nature directed towards David over there. We we have all seen the the pictures that were shown just before the show of the gas chambers of the metal metal gates and everything like that. If you say there were no gas chambers, what were those specific pictures?
Speaker 2: Pictures of what? Now we saw pictures of a mass grave. We saw pictures of dead bodies, and we saw pictures of a crematoria. Did you see pictures of a gas chamber? Because,
Speaker 10: I
Speaker 2: think you were smoking something before the show. We we did not see any pictures of a gas chamber.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.
Accused the guy of being on drugs. What he saw was what it what what I have seen in several specials across the country.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But not the thing. Specials, they showed me those same boatpool. Made the When early, no one doubts that there is a building, for example, that you can go to in Auschwitz and take the tour of, and they say, well, here's the gas chamber. They also will tell you something like, When the Jews died, they all died pressed up against the door.
However, the door to the so called chamber opens in. Now the Germans are not Stupid people. And if they were gonna build a room where hundreds of people would die pressed up against the door, don't you think they would make the door to open out?
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: Alright. Let's go ahead and finish this question. Mister Mandel,
Speaker 6: I am Cyrille Atkinsonil. I must answer a question. He said there was there was no holocaust. There was no crematoriums and no gas chambers.
Speaker 0: He
Speaker 6: said there was no gas chambers. Eichmann's right hand, who the notorious Eichmann was the master builder of Auschwitz, of the crematoriums and the gas chambers, his right hand, He had figured out that to kill a Jew cost 3 quarter of a cent. Then they came out with a cyclone gas that it cost only half a cent. So they saved a penny, a half Whoever was sent by mass killing, and he felt so bad about it that he smuggled out some Papers to the Swedish government, and the Germans had very good very good book You
Speaker 0: see, Ernest, These are things these are points when we go through this and historically wait a second, doctor. When we go through this historically, there's no way for us to know what he was thinking, whether he smuggled this or that. The only thing that we can know is Whether or not there is fact, let this gentleman answer ask finish this question. He didn't finish it very quickly. Right.
Speaker 8: What so what were the, metal chambers that we saw with the metal gates coming out and the dead bodies Well,
Speaker 2: there were crematoria there, and they did cremate bodies. And we say we feel, for example, that the building at Auschwitz that you go to that is said to be the gas chamber was in fact The morgue, and you can actually see where walls have been knocked down, where they used to be separating the place into different rooms. One other real quick thing if I may. Point about the Zyklon B gas that I'd like to make. Now the nature of the Zyklon B is very important.
The Germans said that Zyklon B was there To disinfect prisoners in their clothes to try and cut down on the typhoid epidemic, which we all admit was going on in the camps. If the gas was there not to do that, but to kill Jews, how come There was just as much gas in the camps that were never said to function as execution camps that there are in camps like Auschwitz and camps that were Supposedly meant to function. Okay.
Speaker 0: And now doctor Thail, why don't you answer?
Speaker 7: Look. It's absurd. This whole discussion is crazy. We can't Come in with the mountains of documentation and eyewitness reports and and and and and, case records That clearly established the truth of of what went on with the gas chambers and with the killing squads. I just want to state that my name is Michael Thaler, And I am willing to mortgage my home and put up $50,000 to anyone who comes in with Acceptable evidence, acceptable by scholarly historian standards that there was no gas chambers.
Okay? End of discussion. I'm not going to continue this with these people.
Speaker 0: Alright. Yes, sir.
Speaker 12: Yes. I have a comment. And make
Speaker 0: it very quick because we gotta go.
Speaker 12: First of all, I have the greatest sympathy for all innocent people who die a war, but the Jewish experience is not unique. I happen to be of Ukrainian descent, and 7,000,000 of my people were murdered. And this Proportionate number of the perpetrators of these crimes in the Ukraine, the Ukrainian famine happened to be Jews, Trotsky, Beria, And, I'd like to know when I'm gonna get my reparations for my murdered relatives.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's that's also another issue. We'll we'll take a break, and we'll answer when we come back. We'll take a break. You had a question, sir.
Speaker 13: Yes. I am a holocaust survivor, and I'm the only one left of a family of Seb. I would like to reply to the gentleman that said that Ukrainian 7,000,000 Ukrainians were killed. The Ukrainian were the biggest collaborators with the Germans. They were even hired.
They worked in the concentration camps To help exterminate the Jews. Well, that's
Speaker 0: so But do me a favor. Let's let's start let's let's not go back and forth from 1 one race to that. Let's answer the question about the Holocaust. You were there.
Speaker 13: Also, I also would like to tell you that the lady made a remark. My wife was 14 years old when she and her mother were taken to Auschwitz. And when her mother was ill and she couldn't work any longer, they took her to the crematorium and burned her. Now these are facts that my wife is alive If she is here, she had told me those stories.
Speaker 0: De Brundterel. De Brunderel. De Brunderel.
Speaker 13: De Brunderel. That's right.
Speaker 0: Because she could not work.
Speaker 13: Because she could not work. She was too
Speaker 0: weak to work. See, before you go, Anna, see this, David, this is a point. This is a Jewish gentleman. You are Jewish. Here's a man who who has lived his whole life knowing, having these feelings, knowing what took place in his life.
I have to ask you this because it's coming to me, do
Speaker 2: do you dislike yourself because you're a Jewish and you return the other way? Silly. 2 things real quick. 1st, for as an atheist, and people all over the world every day claim to see god, I'm always willing to prove to believe that people can mislead themselves very easily. But secondly, I also would like to state that, I want people to understand what my peculiar peculiar position is, Which is I hear eyewitnesses and then I hear other forensic and factual evidence.
What am I supposed to do? Would you like me then to just jump to The conclusion, go along with the flow. What if everybody did that about every subject? I have serious questions that I would like to be addressed. No one has yet addressed my question about cyclone b gas.
No one has yet addressed my question about an
Speaker 0: audience that's that's not the parties on cyclone b gas. Go ahead, Anna.
Speaker 2: Well, they should be here.
Speaker 10: I wanna tell David one thing. He should have been where I was. He would have seen what flight is all about. How we want this. How we want we we used to get up Every morning, 3 o'clock in the morning, they used to call put us in in a line, and they used to call us cellophiles.
And they used to pick from each day from us to go to those gas chambers day by day. We lived with that. We dreamt with that. And we slept with that.
Speaker 5: Well, I'd like to
Speaker 14: ask the revisionist. I've heard that you don't believe that there were gas chambers.
Speaker 5: Do you believe that genocide did indeed take place? And what exactly is your definition of genocide?
Speaker 1: If you mean by genocide, the kind of treatment that was meted out to the American Indians or the Black Scot, then there was genocide. There was a see a kind of genocide against the Jews in Europe during the 2nd World War. I would say yes. But the holocaust is defined rather differently. It's defined as the systematic extermination of 6,000,000 Jews.
I do not think that there is evidence for that. The word Holocaust itself is a more or less modern creation. It wasn't used during the war. It wasn't talked about at Nuremberg. Didn't come into popular usage until the 19 sixties or seventies.
Speaker 7: Go ahead, doctor Taylor. I just want to, straighten out a few things, Okay. From our own personal experience. Again, I'm not prepared to discuss this here with these gentlemen who are frauds. The point I'm making now Is this.
I I want to make one point. First of all, there were 7,000,000 Jews just in the area of Poland and Russia alone. There were fewer than 1,000,000 Jews in the rest of Europe. So when the Germans occupied Poland and part of Russia, They were stuck with all these millions of Jews. The majority of those Jews never got to concentration camps.
I heard a glib reference to Ghettos. Well, I came from one of those ghettos. I came from a ghetto. And by the way, there were hundreds of ghettos, not just 1 or 2. I came from one of those ghettos in the Ukraine.
And we started out with 11,000 people in 1941. When the when the Red Army came back in 1944, there were 306 Left. Nobody went to concentration camp. We were taken out and shot. And I myself watched the last 2,000 500 Jews of my town, machine guns that we
Speaker 0: have to try. Right? Break, doctor Phil. Okay. So you know you saw it.
We'll we'll be back in just a second. We've been talking about Holocaust with a revisionist and survivors. Anna, you wanted to make one final point?
Speaker 10: Yeah. I would like to make one point. I came here for one reason, To tell the world that this holocaust happened, and I'm a proof I'm a living proof. I'm here to tell you That never again we should watch out for another holocaust to whom it ever happened. It should never happen.
No. There's no human should let have to kill people.
Speaker 0: We gotta we gotta go. Join us again on the next month
Speaker 6: Tell
@utism_ - Bullzeye 🎯⚡️
@Caroline_452 @frogNscorpion Is this 26 minutes of Jewish Historian and documentary producer David Cole at Auschwitz debunking everything? https://t.co/BXpTzE7hmE
Video Transcript AI Summary
David Cole, a young Jew from the United States, visits Auschwitz with Erich Sundal, a publisher. They question the official narrative of the Holocaust and explore the site. They find inconsistencies in the tour guide's explanations and the reconstruction of certain areas. They discuss the swimming pool, the wall of death, the gas chamber, and the monument. They also mention the controversy surrounding the number of victims and the need for historical integrity. They hope to improve German-Jewish relations and move forward.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Erich Sundal, President of SammisDart Publishers in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Today, I have a very unusual guest on our program. He is David Cole, a young Jew from the United States whom it has been my privilege and my pleasure to meet through my work into this very complex issue of Auschwitz and what happened in Auschwitz. The theme is going to be revisionism, the revising of history. I met David Cole because of my trials and ultimately my victory after a 9 year legal struggle in Canada where I had been accused of publishing false news about the holocaust.
In other words I doubted that the holocaust took place in the way Hollywood always claimed it happened and this young man David Cole, unknown to me, watched many of my video films, spread my newsletters in faraway California. After I won my case in Ottawa, it made international headlines and David Cole and I got in touch with one another via telephone. He said to me that he was going to go to Auschwitz to investigate firsthand as a Jew what he thought might have happened because of theoretical research and historical research, but he wanted to verify it underground. I had no passport at the time and I was still under a travel restriction when the idea began to germinate that he was gonna go there and that I might want to join him. And fate would have it that I would have won my case just in time, got a passport from the German consulate here in Toronto, and I joined David Cole on the ruins of Auschwitz in 1992 for the meeting, for the man.
I was really impressed by this young colleague, this young comrade in arms in the struggle to free the Germans and the Jews from the monkey on their back. Revisionism is the same for Jews as it is for Germans. This young man posted. Okay, David Cole. First of all, we say Chris Scott will say we greet you in Auschwitz together.
In German Jewish relations of the new generation, and I'm certainly honored and glad to be here with you and to do this video. And hopefully, we can make the first steps amongst the new generation of German and Jews to kind of put our shits behind us truthfully, not through Not through pointing fingers at one another as to who did what and so on. We'll go and have a look at the sites together. And since you have spent already a number of days here, you can tell me all the tremendous discoveries that you have made with the help of the officials in Auschwitz. Maybe you can fill us in.
You have been here for how many days?
Speaker 1: We have been here now, for approximately 5 days. We have spent 3 days at Auschwitz, both here at Auschwitz I and at Auschwitz Birkenau. We have been not only looking around on our own, but we have taken the official tour. We had a very friendly tour guide who tried her best to answer our questions but found them a little too taxing for the, spiel that she was given to memorize. So she brought in the supervisor of tours who pointed things out that she could not answer.
The reconstructions at crema 1, for example, we, we were able to get her to specifically point to what they were. And she ended up contradicting much of what we heard as far as the official tor spiel is. And then the day after that, we had an interview with doctor Piper, in his office at, where the staff has their offices down.
Speaker 0: And doctor Piper's function at this museum as well? Is he the director?
Speaker 1: Yeah. He he is, the director he was the director. I believe right now he is in charge of the archives.
Speaker 0: I see. Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: His, title was written in Polish outside his door. We, we took it down, and he also introduces himself with his title on the tape. I see. We spent some time with him, about an hour having him tell us all of the various things that have been reconstructed. He unfortunately affirmed a lot of the propaganda such as, queues being turned into soap by the Nazis.
Speaker 0: He still insists on that?
Speaker 1: He still insists on that. He hasn't learned from the Jewish groups who now claim that that never happened. It shows the power of the propaganda to stay with people even after it has been proven not to be true.
Speaker 0: So he obviously maybe hasn't known about the Yehuda Bauer revelations that he made in Jerusalem Post versus over the Yad Vashem Museum.
Speaker 1: Either he doesn't know or he is so, attached to it that he cannot help but speak of it to another Jew. The horrible things that the Nazis did here. Right there. But certainly, he confirmed to us that that he believed it was done. Right.
And he spoke about it as fact, not as something that is some people say did happen and some people say did it.
Speaker 0: Or whatever. Behind us in this building, if I understand correctly, they used to have the bordello.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right now, it's been turned into a building for archives.
Speaker 0: From your research in this, basically, what happened is the people would be coming through here, through this path, and then the would be the barrier would be down. And, what, German guards would be in this building over here?
Speaker 1: Yeah. German guards would be in this building and looking down from that tower.
Speaker 0: Right. Now David, where do we go from the entrance here? Where will you take us?
Speaker 1: Well, we'll go through the entrance like an inmate would. We'll show you briefly where the inmates lived and in what condition, and then we will walk up towards where the camp officials were and, then finally end up at crima 1, the supposed gas chamber.
Speaker 0: Okay. Good. So we'll sign off for this moment and
Speaker 1: move our
Speaker 0: way. That's good. So David, what are we seeing?
Speaker 1: Well, what we're looking at now is the swimming pool. It has been restored to its original state. Dittliebfelder has slides of it looking this way. In 1987, when David McCalden came here, it was undergoing some kind of reconstruction. We actually feared at that time it might be lost.
They might either bury it or try to make it seem like a burning pit. But in a somewhat unique stroke of honesty for the Poles who run this place, they have restored it perfectly as it was. Now they do not put this on the regular tour. If you sign up and take the tour, you don't come out here. You don't ever see the swimming pool.
If you ask to see it as we did and if you ask to know its function, you're told either, you get 2 answers sometimes. Either that it was a swimming pool for the SS men or the swimming pool for preferred inmates. Inmates, perhaps Kapo's inmates who helped the, Nazis in some way. However, this is in the inmates part of the, barracks. The SS houses are way at the other end of the camp.
If the SS men were to have a swimming pool, most likely it would not be in the middle of the inmates' barracks, but would be further out where the SS men, do not have to mingle with the inmates or swim while the inmates are staring at them with with hatred and envy and and loathing.
Speaker 0: Wasn't there a rule that SS men only could enter the camp itself, unofficial business?
Speaker 1: Yeah, the inmates were allowed pretty much free reign around here. And because it's right in the middle of their barracks, it is very hard to believe that it was only for certain preferred inmates. Carlos Porter has published pictures of inmates sitting in front of the pool with the ladder in the back, the larger ladder. Yeah. And, they look quite happy.
They're wearing their swimming trunks and, many people don't believe that there would be a pool here. But it is also interesting to note that only 3 barracks down is the back of the wall of death. The wall where supposedly 20,000 people or more were shot up against. But this is clearly, an area for the inmates enjoyment. You have benches lining this area.
They can rest here. They can recuperate. The hospital is one barracup. That way, if they were ill, if they are recuperating, they can sit here. They can, swim in the pool.
And the to have constant, not only shooting, but, of course, the impassioned cries of men about to be killed or as they're dying would really not mix with the, the way this place appears to have been built. The wall of death would have been more suited on the outskirts of this cam, because also it is no good for the inmates morale if they are living right among, the wall where they are being shot one after the other. Another important thing to note when you look at this pool, as you can see in the distance, there are 3 starting blocks, which look like they might have been used for swimming races. Contests. Contests.
This is not just a hole hastily dug. You can see there is a very nice fixture that perhaps at one time, water came out of the, mouth of that, Lycuspec. There is a higher diving board, and then we have blocks, starting blocks here. Very clearly this was, one can imagine the inmates having races. One can imagine, people being able to come here and relax after working, but it doesn't really mix with the concept of this as a death machine.
This camp being a place where people come in and they die and they know they're gonna die. Whenever you're taking a tour through Auschwitz, you have to be very careful to, not be fooled by things that have been added since. Now, we have very good aerial photographs, of Auschwitz and Auschwitz Birkenau during the war, but we can only blow them up just so much. And there is, there are little bits and pieces that might very well have been added.
Speaker 0: In your experience, You you saw this on the aerial photo?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. The swimming pool is definitely here. It shows that there was, that this was not just some kind of trapping to fool the world to believe that Auschwitz was humane when in reality people were dying here.
Speaker 0: Good. And so now what we'll do is go down to the wall of death. Have a look at that.
Speaker 1: Sure. Definitely.
Speaker 0: So, David, explain to us what are we seeing here.
Speaker 1: Well, this is the other side of the wall of death. So you can see that there are no bullet marks in it. There are drawings that prisoners have made of the wall of death. There are no pictures of course. And then it's a kind of an interesting thing because we know that there are pictures taken other places where the Nazis had, executed people and yet with 20,000 executions going on at the wall of death, you think that there, there would be just 1 or 2 And, now this has become very much of a shrine, and, now this has become very much of a shrine.
The groups who come here are sometimes Jewish, sometimes Catholic and they leave their mark, depending upon what kind of, religious symbols they are into. We have seen in the past couple of days a lot of Israeli flags planted on this wall which don't seem to be around right now. I suppose they have somebody who clears away the dead flowers and brings, just makes it presentable.
Speaker 0: So David, now we are outside the infamous Auschwitz I gas chamber. That's where the whole story began, really. Here, we are looking at the gallows where Rudolf Hess was strangled. Right?
Speaker 1: In full view of his crime.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. That that's what it says here.
Speaker 1: So the burden of proof now falls on whether this was a crime or not?
Speaker 0: And whether it was, in fact if the crime was committed, whether it was committed in here or not. Mhmm. Now building in the background that we are seeing here is the SS hospital or what?
Speaker 1: Yeah. What's interesting, the 3 buildings on, the end of the camp here are all for the SS. The furthest building was for Hearst. Odd thing is the building in the closest proximity, that gray building over there, the top floor was the SS hospital and the bottom floor was the SS canteen where they ate. As you can see the windows of the hospital are directly across the road from the ventilation chimneys of the supposed gas chamber.
Certainly poor planning on the part of the Nazis, who would be jeopardizing the lives of their own men, not of inmates, but of their own men at the for it's impossible to think that they would construct something so badly. One would have to say that the Germans had no sense of, safety or engineering or anything like this and we know that they do and we know that, they would not have built something in proximity to the gas chamber like that.
Speaker 0: No. This is the entrance, the one that we the natural flax stones we see here. That's the entrance. The alleged entrance.
Speaker 1: Well, now they claim now that the entrance was on the other side. They claim that this entrance, both our tour guide, the tour guide supervisor, and doctor Piper claim that this entrance here is a complete reconstruction. It has been reconstructed for tourists and it is where the tourists are taken in but they now claim that the entrance for what for the victims to be gassed is on the other side of this building. We will shortly go over there.
Speaker 0: And there were also these things that we see on the top here. Mhmm. What are these things?
Speaker 1: Well, the 2 larger chimneys were, the 2 larger, chimneys on the roof were most likely either they reconstructions from the original or they are the original with the little metal roof there. Those there were in fact cremation ovens in this building. We know that to be true but then there are 4 Zyklon B induction chimneys on the roof which we will go and look at shortly, and they are now admitted to have been built after the fact. They are made of course a very flimsy wood. They're completely unconvincing but, the holes in the roof that they are over were also, we now know, drilled in the roof after the fact.
It is, clear that the tour tries to pass these off as original but both the supervisor of tour guides and Doctor. Piper very clearly said that the holes are not original, they are reconstructions, they were drilled in after the liberation and the Zyklon B induction vents on top were put in after the liberation. But I think it's interesting to note that the tour guides are told they're original so that gullible tourists or people who are here to try and observe the supposed tragedy of the gas chambers can feel that they are in the room where it all happened. We also asked Doctor. Piper if there had ever been any repainting or replastering done on the walls of crema 1 because of course crema 1 is devoid of any blue stains from Zyklon B.
He said the walls were all in original shape. I asked him why then there would be no blue stains when there was not only blue staining on the inside of the Lausanne chambers, at both Majdanek and Auschwitz Ausschwartz Birkenau but also on the outside, the Zyklon B was so strong that in fact permeated the brick and came out the other side. He said that the, amount of Zyklon B used to kill people was smaller than that used to kill lice. The problem with that reasoning is at Majdanek, they claim people were gassed and there are blue stains. They're contradicting themselves.
Here people were gassed and the amount of gas will produce blue stains. They cannot have it both ways. Well, we're seeing the exact same thing we saw at the doors at Majdanek, which is that these latch from both sides, from the inside as well as the outside. Clearly, these doors were constructed to close firmly as if in an air raid shelter perhaps, but not to keep anybody in because they can be manipulated on either side. At Majdanek, what they have done, they have clearly cut the inside bars on some of the doors so as not to make it apparent that they could latch from both sides but still these can be manipulated from the inside and then up here we see that this has an addition there's a latch on the inside and nothing on the outside.
And there's a hook on the inside too. We have been told by both Doctor. Piper and the Director of the tour guides that the holes you presently see in the ceiling were drilled here by the Poles after the war, that they were not in this room and had to be put in, had to be constructed. They say, of course, reconstructed, but the burden of proof is on them to show how they knew there were holes in here in the first place. And walls, of course, these walls, they admit to having knocked down when I believe at some point this room was used as a air raid shelter.
And you can see that walls come out from opposite induction chimneys. Interesting to note while we're in this room that in his book by bread alone, Mel Mermelstein talks about, he shows a picture of this gas chamber and he says, note the fake shower heads. And of course, you can see from the picture and you can see from being here that there are no fake showerheads and they have never claimed there to be fake showerheads. Someday, perhaps we will have an idea about all of the changes, who made them, why they were made. But at least now we have the beginning.
We have the admissions. Well, basically, over here, we have the brick barracks. As many of them have new roofs, but as far as the actual barracks, they are in their original state. There were stoves in each of the barracks. You can see there are chimneys in each of the barrack buildings.
The stoves have been removed, but the, the chimneys remain. And, they haven't been tampered with too much. And the the reconstructed chimneys, all those chimneys that we see both there and to our right have all been reconstructed to show people where barracks had been at one time then when we look straight ahead now this is of course where the trains would go they would enter the building we're standing on right now that come through the gate And we all, I think both sides revisionist and exterminationist admit that there were in fact selections that the men and women, were sent to different sites. There was a women's camp, men's camp, where the extermination has taken one step further as they claim that at sometimes all the Jews sometimes only the Jews that couldn't work were selected to go to their deaths. We were told by our tour guide that oftentimes the people selected to die as they were being marched to crema 23 would begin to riot because they would see the burning smoked smokestacks and yet, there is not now nor was there ever any fencing at the farthest end of the camp And there are 2 ditches, 2 rather long running ditches that run over there as well, making it fairly easy for 3, 4000 people to escape.
I mean certainly you have 2 guard towers and they could be firing into the crowd and maybe hit 1 or 200 people but the majority of them would have escaped. It was bad planning to do it that way. The end of the camp looks far more suited for a morgue where only dead people and the people carrying the dead people would go than a gas chamber where thousands of living people would march to their deaths.
Speaker 0: Now that beige patch is the selection ramp you say? Yes. What is that, asphalt or is it concrete or is it
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what that is or what it was during the '40s. And of course, at the very farthest end is the monument to the victims. The plaques are now not inscribed with anything because they had they have lowered their death toll. Doctor. Piper gave us a rather long explanation as to why they originally claimed 4,000,000 deaths and now only claim little over a1000000.
But everybody seems to be saying the same thing in unison now that the 4,000,000 was a mistake and that it never should have been said. But of course, it was said here for quite some time.
Speaker 0: Like force 4 decades.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Indeed. And the figures, like many of the figures for the Holocaust, were taken quite unquestionably from the communists. They were given and we never really questioned much about their accuracy.
Speaker 0: So should we go down then and maybe we'll walk towards the back end still
Speaker 1: Certainly. In time? Mhmm.
Speaker 0: So we are here at the monument where, I suppose, for many years, a lot of people have walked across and read that the Formula victims died here. And, undoubtedly, partly because of the abuses running my trial, A year after my trial in Toronto, this was all chiseled out. And we used to say in these 9th, it happens here that 4,000,000 people got you at the hand of the Nazis. And, when you spoke to doctor Piper, did you ask him about this?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I asked him about the difference in numbers. He gave the same answer as many people do, who are on the exterminationist side, they claimed that the 4,000,000 figure was a mistake, that they, in some way, knew all along that it was 1, a little over 1,000,000 according to them, but the mistake was made and the 4,000,000 number got through. The problem with that answer is twofold. 1st, it shows the superficiality of scholarship on the exterminationist side.
If a mistake can become literally carved in stone, to use the theoretical and in in reality carved in stone, but also it's I think that it existed too long to be written off as a mistake. For too long, the 4,000,000 figure was bounced around, was quoted in the books, was quoted as, truth. I just think this shows how little reality the story was based on in the first place. And fortunately, there there were some inmates like police inmates and some people who were here like fire service officers who had the integrity to speak that they never saw any of these things that was that, were claimed. But, there was a lot of early propaganda that was dropped because it was too ridiculous sounding the steam chambers, electro chambers, much as this is listed in Carlos Porter's book on Nuremberg.
The gas chambers, stuck around, I think, as the last piece of atrocity propaganda to fall. But I think we will see the end of that by the end of this century. I I hope so.
Speaker 0: And I appreciate you taking the time out of that.
Speaker 1: Well, once again, it's truly been my pleasure.
Speaker 0: Terrific. I'm glad that you and I could come down here and meet. Electricity is running out. Light is running out. Time is maybe running out.
Speaker 1: Well, as the day ends, let's say here's to a new beginning in German Jewish relationship and for historical integrity.
Speaker 0: Yes, I hope so, yes, that you and I can turn over a new leaf and get this thing behind us.
@Wordsarewordz - Words are words
Ernst Zündel debates Sabina Citron on the topic of The Holocaust. https://t.co/0kAEcEuV5F
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, a photographer and publisher named Ernest Zundel claims that the Holocaust is a myth and denies the death of 6 million Jews. He argues that the German government was pressured by Zionists and occupation governments to pay reparations. However, Sabina Citron, a Holocaust survivor and founder of the Holocaust Remembrance Association, refutes Zundel's claims and explains that Holocaust denial is a form of propaganda used to whitewash Nazi crimes. She emphasizes the importance of remembering the millions of innocent civilians, both Jews and non-Jews, who died in concentration camps. The discussion also covers hate literature and the legal implications of Zundel's activities. Other speakers in the video provide evidence of the planned genocide and atrocities committed by the Nazis, with one survivor sharing a personal account of witnessing Jews being shot and buried in a mass grave. The conversation also touches on topics such as freedom of speech, censorship, and the dangers of hate propaganda. The speakers express contrasting views, with some supporting Holocaust denial and others vehemently opposing it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good morning. Ernest Zundel, photographer, publisher from Toronto. You claim, mister Zundel, that the holocaust in which 6,000,000 people died, many of them Jews, most of them Jews, is a myth. Why why do you why do you push this? I don't Why is this campaign?
Speaker 1: I don't push it. I defend my ethnic group and my native country against the most massive propaganda lie that still lingers on from the 2nd World war. It is an extortion racket perpetrated against the German people which has netted the Zionists already over a 100,000,000,000 German marks. It is very profitable and the racket is cloaked in humanity and human things. I do wanna tie it into your lead into the story with the Anne Frank diary.
I've got the book here.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: Anne Frank diary of hopes. I have your document by the German forensic section of the Bundes criminaland which has tested in 1980. Many sheets of the 3 diaries and I came up with saying that, they were written many parts in ballpoint pen ink, which only came on the market in 1951. So the writer of the diary was alive in 1951. So either Anne wasn't the writer or she was alive and the dead.
Alright. Let's get back to this German government document.
Speaker 0: Let's get back to this myth that you say That 6,000,000 people, most of them Jews, did not die.
Speaker 1: Good. Very easy to prove. There were no 6,000,000 Jews in the areas occupied by Nazi Germany. The death German government
Speaker 0: Why did the German government, the West German government, pay all these 1,000,000,000 of of, Deutschmarks in reparation if it did not feel that there was some validity?
Speaker 1: Number 1, the West German government is a christening government. It was installed by the allied occupying authorities. It was handpicked, and, all opposition parties that could have represented Germany properly were banned from exercising their political rights. Millions of Germans had lost their rights to vote. The governing party, the ruling elite in Germany, the National Socialist Government, and its organizations were banned from the democratic process.
What we are having in West Germany is what we're having in East Germany, is what we're having in Poland, Hungary, Latvia, and so on, occupation governments, and you don't see the Latvians or the Ukrainians or the Hungarians rebelling too much against the Soviet Union and it's the same thing in West Germany. You must also understand that the Germans were not allowed to trade on the international markets until the military governor of Germany, John J. McCloy, forced Konrad Adenauer to sign quasi a confession of for the German nation that they were guilty of murdering millions of Jews until the Treaty of Luxembourg was signed, the German government published a handbook until 1952 in in which it said that only 300 some 1000 people died in German concentration camps including Jews.
Speaker 0: Alright. Mister Zundel, when we get back, you will meet missus Sabina Citron who is, from the Holocaust Remembrance Association. She's one of the founders and a survivor of Auschwitz. We'll be back. The Cherrington crew flew to Europe through the courtesy of Ward Air.
Good morning, miss, Citron. You want to stop Ernst Zungle. Stop him mailing stuff all over the world. What do you have to say to the things that he said before that commercial break about the myth?
Speaker 2: Well, I would like to say from the outset that I didn't come here to engage in a polemic with this, person. There's no way that I'm going to engage in that. I will touch on the things that You've
Speaker 0: just said, mister, let, mister Zunnel let let him, let her answer.
Speaker 2: That he referred to, but I'm going to speak to you and to your audience but not directly to this person. I think it's demeaning even to to to credit any of the rantings with you know with an answer. You know he took his mantras very very seriously both Hitler and Goebbels felt that the the greater the lie the most likely people are to believe it. And if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it. And this is apparently, the way this man is thinking and operating.
But, see, in order to understand what, this propaganda is trying to do, one has to also, be, quite familiar with the propaganda of Hitler and Goebbels and, at the same time, follow it for some time in order to to come up with a pattern. You see, when I first saw some of the things, I couldn't quite understand what was happening. The outrageous claims, of course, are so, you know, concocted that, you know, one one is just taken aback. You know, how do you respond to that? Elie Wiesel, when when he was trying to deal with this problem all that he could come up with and he is a poet was, you know, the Jewish word of suffering.
Now how do you respond to this kind of of of thing? I mean it wasn't enough. The Jews were were massacred by the by the millions and and to have to face after something like that. But obviously you know if you are if you have seen some of these things and you have followed it for some years then a pattern begins to emerge. Number 1, what this propaganda is trying to do is to, whitewash Nazi crimes, okay, And equate these crimes with other crimes so that their crime become lesser.
In other words, if there was no holocaust, they couldn't have been any any Nazi war criminals if there were no Nazi war criminals therefore, you know, there there was no problem and therefore, the, you know, Nazis didn't perpetrate any any crimes and if there were some, you know, they claimed that some people did suffer but they died of natural causes well, you know, the allies also, or so they alleged committed certain things therefore the record is even and therefore there is nothing much, to worry about because, you know, they did and at the same time they are trying to portray themselves as though the Nazi regime was merely another combatant in the 2nd world war. They were not the aggressors. They did not conquer Europe. They did not send to slave labor, all the people of Europe, not just the Jews. You know, people tend to forget that it wasn't just 6,000,000 Jews, was 11 1,000,000 innocent civilians who went to their death, through Auschwitz and other death camps.
And there were thousands upon thousands of people from Belgium, France, Holland, East Europe, you name it who were sent to slave labor camps, who are not Jews. This the question is also being forgotten completely. So you know, what this person is trying to do is to appeal in different ways to different people and exploiting different with different weaknesses and in different part of society. He speaks one way to the Polish community, another way to the other ethnic East European Communities and still another to, the North American Canadians Americans and still another to the German people. And I would imagine that it isn't the Germans in general that he's speaking to but he's speaking to his comrades and and and and as it were.
Speaker 1: All How did they Alright. Yeah. It's 7 minutes.
Speaker 0: Don't worry. You had 5. Go on.
Speaker 1: Good. First of all, missus Citron and I have met before. Missus Citron was responsible for having my mailing rights revoked through a fraudulent charge to the Canadian government authorities. She was in Ottawa for 5 days of postal hearings. She was represented by counsel.
They were at all times at least 3 lawyers present of from the Jewish side. They hired a communications expert which the government of Canada took over, all my writings were translated at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, they were judged, looked at, I was cross examined by the Jewish side, by the Zionist side, I was cross examined by the government of Canada side for 5 solid days resulting in 741 pages of testimony. After those postal hearings this quasi judicial body called an administrative court, the postal, review board decided that they were wrong and that I had a right to get my mail rights back in a time.
Speaker 0: How long did you use your mailing lose your mailing
Speaker 1: 1 year. No. I I'm a man that communicates ideas. During that time, I stood to be jailed for 5 years if I had broken that postal ban and missus Citron was responsible for a vicious act of censorship not in the public debate but snug around like a bloody thief behind our back to censor me and now that she has lost and now that she has lost she can't even lose graciously. They're back at it again, now they want to change the loss.
And I want to close off with her famous remark about Hitler saying that that the bigger the lie you tell and so on, well, I have to trust I was I knew her tactic. Menkampf, 1943 edition page 230 and 231 Hitler concludes about the technique. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick. The foremost connoisseurs of this truth regarding the possibilities in the use of falsehood and slander have always been the Jews, for after all their whole existence is based on a simple great lie to wit that they are religious community while actually they are raised now. You attribute every Zionist propagandist has always said the Nazis practice the big lie and quoted.
There is the quote in. They are twisting it around like most other things they're doing.
Speaker 0: Alright. What about the hate literature, Joanne? Joanne Cura. She's a lawyer, and she's a member of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multicultural and Citizenship. Is this man pumping out hate literature?
Speaker 3: I think that there there can be no doubt that there's a definition of hate literature which would include, the type of material that mister Zungle is putting out. But my concern is, if I may, first of all, as a lawyer I find it odd that you would call going to the actual body that makes decisions about mailing rights and call that sneaking around. It seems to me that that's entirely the appropriate course of action and you went back to that board didn't you? To have your rights determined by the board. So it's odd that you would describe it that way because that's in fact the body that deals with the granting and revocation of right, is it not?
Speaker 1: The minister using her ministerial fiat deprived me of my mailing rights Mhmm. Without trial for 1 year Yes. Which was ruinous to my reputation and also to my business.
Speaker 3: Do you call
Speaker 2: this justice?
Speaker 0: Do you
Speaker 1: call this justice?
Speaker 3: If it's within the laws
Speaker 2: of our country.
Speaker 1: It's after the fact. I should have been tried first and then my mailing was taken away. In Canada, we are innocent until proven guilty. I was found guilty 1500 scientists were demonstrating outside my home before the trial was even in.
Speaker 3: There was no trial you just said that you're trial.
Speaker 1: It was a judicial it was a judicial review which is tandem on to a court and therefore it was a trial.
Speaker 0: What about the West German police who picked up all your stuff in West Germany and said that it was, Nazi propaganda material?
Speaker 1: I was cleared in the district court of Stuttgart after 1 year's investigation, after again, people like miss the friend of missus Citron, the Simon Wiesenthal complaint to the German authorities that I lost my postal checking account. My bank account was seized in West Germany by the police. All the donors were photographed, the addresses, and all these homes were raided in the largest police raid in Western German history. After 1 year of examining all the material which was was seized during those raids, I was found innocent. There was not enough evidence.
Therefore, it never went to trial. And the hate mongers in Germany from the Zionist side appealed this turn down and were turned down again. So I stand before you once again victimized in West Germany, totally cleared after 1 year.
Speaker 0: You are not allowed to distribute your stuff in West Germany.
Speaker 1: I certainly do. And my the West German government paid all my legal expenses and restored my bank account and apologized.
Speaker 0: Alright. 645-3211 is our number. If you're dining from out of town, wanna get in on this conversation, 645-3211 and make it collect. We'll be back in moments. We have reached the consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, doctor Ernst Koch.
Good morning, doctor. How are you?
Speaker 4: Fine. Thank you. How are you, Tom?
Speaker 0: Not bad. We, have just heard mister Ernst Zundel call your the government that you represent a government. And that's why this government has paid all the reparations to Israel because of the holocaust. What do you say to that, sir?
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know what you understand by quizzling government. You know? We are of the opinion that, the crimes committed by the Nazis against the Jews require a recompetization morally and also on the materialistic side. And, all federal government starting with federal chancellor until today have shared this opinion. So, I don't see any rejectification for the assertion you just mentioned.
Speaker 0: Have you asked the Canadian government to stop, mister Zundel's, shipments of literature and whatnot to to West Germany?
Speaker 4: No. Not that I know of.
Speaker 0: Do you have any questions for for for the council? Mister Zundel.
Speaker 1: You know, doctor Koch, every government that imposes an occupation usually has its. Are you familiar with the Uber Leidungs for Prague and with the Treaty of Luxembourg?
Speaker 4: Yes. Of course.
Speaker 1: Are you are you aware Yeah. How the Zionist pressured the German government for these reparations payments and
Speaker 2: how No.
Speaker 4: I'm not aware.
Speaker 1: You're not aware of that?
Speaker 4: I'm not aware and I'm not willing to discuss that with you.
Speaker 1: Then I recommend to you some books put out by some Jewish authors called Germany's road to Israel for instance, in which they spill all the details.
Speaker 0: Doctor Koch, is mister Zondel the main source of this Nazi propaganda material coming into Europe and going to what many many other countries of the world? Is he the main one?
Speaker 4: Well, then I don't know whether he's the main one.
Speaker 0: What are are you concerned in in in the West German Republic about the the rise of Nazism? I read of gangs of youths going around, especially in football matches.
Speaker 4: Well, we are concerned with an extent, but only to a limited extent because, when you look at the figures during the recent elections
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 4: They indicate very clearly that this movement is not in the upswing on the political side. We have the in Germany, the main representative is the National German Democratic Party. And this party received in 1976 in the federal election 0.3% of the votes. And in 1980 and in the recent election in on the 6th March of this year, they received each time 0.2% of the votes. So, this is not a very disquieting development, although we know we have some problems with the hardcore of these people.
Speaker 0: How about the cons continuing search by the West German government and other agencies for former Nazis? Is this being given the priority you feel that, that it that it deserves?
Speaker 4: Oh, yes. Of course. It did. But, you know, it is very difficult now to bring them to court after 40 years, which have elapsed since these terrible events.
Speaker 0: Do you have any questions, missus Citron, for the West German Council? This is, missus Sabina Citron of the Holocaust Remembrance Association. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yes. I would like to ask whether in fact this person was exonerated or whether, he did not, he is not subject to German law.
Speaker 0: You're talking about Ernst Zungel? Yes. Did you hear that,
Speaker 4: mister I didn't get that.
Speaker 2: I'll repeat myself. The person across was claiming that he was exonerated of distributing or supplying Nazi propaganda to Germany. Now I have seen some of that propaganda and it certainly is Nazi propaganda because there are tapes of Hitler and Goebbels and other such, which is clearly Nazi propaganda. Now was he exonerated under German law or was he some simply not subject to German
Speaker 4: law? Well, he is there was a preliminary proceeding in, 82 and introduced by the public prosecutor's office in Stuttgart, but, the local car the local court has refused to open the trial, with the argument that the simple denial of the crimes committed against Jews by the Nazis is not punishable.
Speaker 2: This is not the question. Here, it is punishable because he is insulting the good name of Jews and, you know, such books as the Jewish Swindle are the title in itself is is is libel and slander and character defamation but I'm referring to some of the other things that he is selling to west Germany namely tapes of Hitler are different types of of, Nazi propaganda, Nazi marches, etcetera. This is clearly Nazi propaganda. I'm not referring to the books. I don't know how your law looks at that but certainly the the tapes which are which have Hitler's speeches, Goebel's speeches, this is clearly against West German law as I understand it.
Speaker 4: Well, miss Titon, I only can refer to what the court said. You know, we have an independent system of of courts, and they have decided in the case of this man you just mentioned the way I have explained it to you. I I can't tell you more than that. I cannot Absolutely. You know?
Thank you.
Speaker 0: Alright. Mister Zuniga, do you have something to say?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Missus missus, Citroen knows as much about German law as he obviously knows about Canadian law. I was specifically cleared on 2 very important points. 1 is unconstitutional activities and the promotion of the revival of Nazism, under the German criminal code, and also the spreading of hate literature. And the trial verdict says very simply, the man cannot be charged with the distribution, I have the court verdict here, I will get it during a commercial and I'll read it to you.
I want and doctor Koch knows that very well. Number 2, she knows nothing about West German of the West German Criminal Code, A mere speech, a historical recording, a a book like Mancom, for instance, which is sold in every bookstore in Toronto, you can purchase in West Germany. It is absolutely legal. Anything to do with uncensored history is not forbidden as it should not be. Do you
Speaker 0: have any comment, mister counsel?
Speaker 4: No. I don't.
Speaker 0: Alright, sir. Thank you very much for taking the time.
Speaker 4: You're welcome.
Speaker 0: Thank you. We'll take a break. We'll be back. We have on the line now, Alan Borovoy, well known leader of the Civil Liberties Association. Good morning, mister Borovoy.
Long time since I've spoken to you.
Speaker 5: That's right. I've missed you.
Speaker 1: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Speaker 0: What do you think of all this question, this debate about this hate literature, Alan?
Speaker 5: Well, I I'm concerned about any toughening up of the legislation, which I have long believed is an unwise piece of legislation. I think the problem you have with a law like this is that it simply is not possible to draft the law so precisely that you're going to nail the kind of racists that you'd like to get without simultaneously running a terrific risk of catching a lot of other people in the same net.
Speaker 0: Give us an example, Alan.
Speaker 1: Well, as
Speaker 5: a matter of fact, one example flows right out of the experience we've had with the hate propaganda legislation. A number of years ago, some young activists were out distributing literature at the Shriners Parade in Toronto.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 5: The literature bore the words Yankee go home. And for that, the police arrested them on a charge of distributing hate propaganda. And while the Crown attorney had the good sense later on to withdraw the charge, in the meantime, their free speech rights were suppressed, and they spent the better part of a day in jail. That's a risk which I don't think a democratic society ought to take against people of that kind. And that's what happens with laws like this because you can't draft it precisely.
Speaker 0: So there's got to be there are there will be people who can get away with, with mayhem, so to speak, because of the rights of the of the majority. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 5: No. I think what it says is that you've always got to evaluate the dangers that you face. At the moment in Canada, the kind of racists who are putting out some of this vile literature, fortunately, are hovering on the periphery of our society. They're marginal creeps. They haven't really made an impact on our society.
And if I have to choose then between going gung ho to get them, and in the course of doing it, imperiling the freedoms of a lot of other people, I'm saying it's not worth it. Now there may be a point where I might balance the risks differently, but it in today's community, it just, in my view, doesn't make sense.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Alan, for talking with us.
Speaker 1: Good to talk
Speaker 0: to you. Bye bye. Bye. Missus Citron, you have something to say about that?
Speaker 2: I definitely have. First of all, the the example which mister Bolivoy gave, Yankee go home. It's not threatening to anyone. The Americans are not a minority and they have never been attacked the way the Jews have been attacked throughout history and they have no concern to their image, I mean any judge could very easily see that and and we could even if there was a judge and a jury they could very easily dismiss that sort of thing. We are talking about incitement to hatred and violence against minorities and Jews have suffered sufficiently under under hate, propaganda which goes back many many centuries and they have been subjected to different, forms of discrimination and persecution for centuries.
We, after the holocaust, do not choose any longer to accept the fact that society cannot function except where antisemitism exists. We no longer want that sort of thing. I don't want to be attacked ever again. My good name should not be tarnished ever again by anybody. I have the same rights as anybody else in this community and I will not permit anyone to use slander and character defamation against me.
Certainly every every person in this community has the same right and I consider my myself completely emancipated and I have that right. But I
Speaker 0: wanted to say something very quickly about, Mr. Zundel's remarks about the postmaster general.
Speaker 2: Yes. It's very interesting. It seems to me, that that my experience there in Ottawa was was was very very useful because it became very clear that truth has nothing to do with this man's activity. He marched in with with a whole, wagon of hate propaganda holding a red covered copy of mind under his arm and and proclaimed himself to be a man who is against violence, a conscientious objector who came to Canada because he was avoiding the draft. And a lot of other things like that came out during those proceedings in Ottawa.
He has, it was pointed out to him if you are a country and just object to what have you done upon arrival and cannot go immediately to a person who is unknown, who was at that time a known, Nazi, namely Adrian Arcand. He he no longer is alive. A number of other things have been pointed out namely that this man wrote a book, the Hitler we loved and why, a book which he has denied writing. He wrote it under a pseudonym, a pen name, a Christophe Friedrich. He has written a number of other things under that name which clearly identifies him as a rabid racist who who expands the same kind of of of of, thing as the Nazis themselves did and he portrayed himself, self, you know, under oath, etcetera as a as a conscientious objector.
Truth has nothing to do with all the activities of this man.
Speaker 0: Ernst Schindler, are you a Nazi?
Speaker 1: No. I'm a Nazi. I admire Adolf Hitler for being a tremendous leader of the German people and, I'm not alone in that. After all, I elected him year after year in plebiscites in the elections. He gained his power democratically.
And John Tolan, the historian who has written 5 books, some totaling up to 2,000 pages in double issues, said that if Adolf Hitler had died in 1938, he would have entered the pages of European history as the greatest European statement statesman of his time. Now, I make no apologies for that, that the, Zionist community and many Jews in North America just adore Menahem Begin and now they adore Yitzhak Shamir, known terrorists and murderers. So, you know if if they can admire their murderers why can't I add, say Adolf Hitler was a great genius. Also as to her research once again it's a little lacking as it was always, I met Adria Arkaim 1962 as a journalist interviewing him for the first time. That was 3 years after I came to Canada.
Speaker 0: Were you a conscientious objector
Speaker 1: I saw that the military draft was coming up, I believed in the holocaust, I believed the Germans killed all those Jews just because they were Jews. And I didn't want to have nothing to do with a country that would do that. And so I when the when the American occupation government pressured the German christling government into using my body again in an in an allied uniform this time using Nazi generals in the West German army but now they were they're Chrislings. I decided I'm gonna go some place where there is no army and Canada was the only country in the whole world where a young man with a troubled conscience and a pacifist could go to. And mrs.
Ciccone, I wanna tell you, I am still a pacifist today. I have never advocated violence, I've been completely cleared of that. But aren't you frightened as a pacifist, mister Zunkel, that your writings, your mailings might rekindle all this business? Mister Cherrington, I have been a writer, a freelance writer for 20 years. Not a single hair has been twisted or hurt on a Jewish head.
I have defended my ethnic group against massive sinist slander by people such as Mordechai Richler who said in an advert in in a in a in a Toronto Star interview that the Germans boiled Jewish babies in the fat of their parents. You know, and and a full page story by another holocaust survivor who said she was forced in Auschwitz to eat human stew. No. I defend my ethnic group. I came here believing in the holocaust in all the lies that are being told that are supposedly history.
You guys are saying in the beginning we are gonna rewrite history. I'm not rewriting you were gonna write. No. I'm not rewriting history. I'm trying to write history.
What we have now is World War 2 hate propaganda posing as history. This is fake history. It has nothing to do with history.
Speaker 0: Then why hasn't there been a massive resurgence of your kind of philosophy in in West Germany?
Speaker 1: Mister Charrington, I have known you since 1961 when you were first on CK Jam in Montreal. You know my career. Would any normal person stick his head out like me and get trampled on, get his postal rights, banned, get himself banned in front of government, get accused by missus Cipron to be something a tandem amount to the devil is ridiculous. Of course, regular people don't go into this. They have families to raise, mortgages to pay.
Only I can afford to do it so far. We'll be back.
Speaker 0: Now you say you're you're a conscientious objector, mister Zundel, in an interview with the, Dick Chapman of the Sun, Toronto Sun. Now, missus, Citron gave this to me. The bond government has never been legitimized by the people. We would certainly execute several 100 of the crop of leaders in West Germany. That's right.
A pacifist?
Speaker 1: Of course. That just means every pacifist is a patsy,
Speaker 0: you know. But when when does a pacifist turn to executing?
Speaker 1: I'm a militant pacifist. When I when I talked about pacifism, it was strictly in the military sense.
Speaker 0: In the military sense?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Traitors.
Speaker 2: A new term?
Speaker 1: You know, traitors are a totally different thing.
Speaker 0: What do I have? A new term?
Speaker 2: A new term. Yes. Military pacifism. Have you ever heard that before?
Speaker 0: No. I can't say
Speaker 1: I have. Well, there you go. I always tell you I was creative.
Speaker 0: Right. Let's find out what the taxpayers have to say. Charington, hello. Thank you for waiting. Good morning.
Speaker 6: Mister Charington. Yeah. I'm sitting here, shaking like a leaf listening to this, mister Sundel read from Mein Kampf. It's horrifying. I I was in a museum at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Israel 2 years ago where they where they have all sorts of, testaments that the that the Holocaust existed, the death camps.
There's articles of clothing, photographs that mister Zundel would probably say were retouched, of of piles of of human hair, and and of of of dead bodies, just piles of them just sitting there. Testimony exists from Eichmann himself that he, said that cyclone b and accepted cyclone b as the perfect, element to help the final solution get on its way, that odorless gas that killed so many in those gas chambers. 3 years ago, there was a holocaust survivors, meeting at the Wailing Wall in Israel. I'm sure missus Citron would back me up on the exact date year of that. But, I mean, where these survivors got together and, shared their experiences, it was moving.
How could that be propaganda? Alright.
Speaker 0: Hold it. What what what do you answer to that, mister Zundel?
Speaker 1: Frank Wallace, an American of, Polish German background, was accused by 11 eyewitnesses, 11 survivors in a courtroom in the United States under oath of the most vicious, heinous crimes. He was deprived of his passport. He was gonna be deported. For 3 years, this man's life was turned into hell by survivors and eyewitnesses. It only turned out after 1 year of appeal hearings that his passport was given back to him, and it turned out that 9 of the 11 eyewitnesses and survivors did not live in Poland, did never see the village where the crimes were supposed have been committed, yet they knew the hour, the time, the day, the house number, the man's uniform, and so on.
Now they were lying, and many many many of those people are lying for profit, lying because they like to get in front of a television camera, the German government had no policy of genocide against Jews or anybody else, and nobody ever died in the German gas chamber except lice. The only person died in a gas chamber, he died in the United States. That's where they had gas chambers. The Germans never executed people with gas.
Speaker 0: This is a talk.
Speaker 2: It's shocking business. Truth or it's I happen I happen to know a little bit about Frank Valas because, the, one of the witnesses that testified against Frank Valas happens to be a friend of mine who lives in Jerusalem and, she was in Kelsey where Frank Valas Could
Speaker 0: you take the hand?
Speaker 6: I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Well, Frank Valas was has, has committed, the crimes that were alleged. I personally was in Kelsey, but I didn't know Frank Valas. I didn't know a man to whom she referred to as being his companion and I know something about that man. His name was Rumpel. He was known by everybody as as as a sadistic murderer.
He would take out, the best looking, Jewish women and he would walk them along the street and shoot them as they were walking. He was known for that. Now Frank Valas according to this friend of mine was a companion of this man. I as I said I personally don't know anything about Frank Wallace because I I have not seen the man. But the way, this person is is is describing Frank Wallace as an innocent human being who was wrongly accused is very curious because, he is saying that he as a, which is which is an ethnic German in Poland, was sent to a a a slave labor camp in in Germany which is incredible because everyone who knows anything about the treatment of Volksdeutsche during the world, these these were the people who were denouncing the Jews and they were hand in glove with the gestapo.
So to claim that this man really wasn't who who my friend says that he was because he actually worked on a farm in in in Germany during during the Nazi period that he was sent or volunteered for farm work as as some other people were sent, forcibly to do slave labor work. Okay. Alright. Hold it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Any other comment, mister Collin?
Speaker 4: Mister chair? Yeah. All
Speaker 6: I could say is that I'm a student. And, I just hope that if we're a strong enough country to get mister Roca out of this country, I just hope that mister Zundel is next. Anybody that can purge our history like that doesn't deserve to be a Canadian citizen.
Speaker 0: What do you say to that, Ernst?
Speaker 1: Emotion. He's just exercising his cheek muscles and certainly hasn't got his brain in gear. As to missus, Citroen, I'm very glad she said what she said because we are videotaping the program and she has just, laid herself wide open. Frank Wallace was 17 years old, he proved beyond the shadow of a doubt to United States court that he was never in Poland during the entire war time after he was taken to Germany to work on a farm. So she even now cannot admit defeat.
What do you think of a person that stares court trial after court trial, verdict of verdict of innocence in the face and is so hateful that she has to keep slandering people with in windows. But how
Speaker 0: can you possibly say that the Germans, the the the Nazi never used furnaces, never used gas?
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm glad that you brought that up. You see, you are so How
Speaker 0: can you possibly see?
Speaker 1: Mister Jenkins, you are so brainwashed, you bring up the furnaces. Yeah. And a crematorium has nothing to do with the gas chamber.
Speaker 0: Alright.
Speaker 1: No. No. But not all right that that's happening.
Speaker 0: The crematorium is to get rid of the the evidence.
Speaker 1: Look, I live within, half a mile of the crematorium in Toronto. That's not a crime. No. The the crematoriums in Europe are are very popular.
Speaker 0: How about the deliberate starving of people?
Speaker 1: So believe me, we were starved and there was nothing Oh,
Speaker 0: I'm starving to the point because when I first heard about it, mister Zundel, was when my uncle was one of the first allied people into Belsen. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm glad you And
Speaker 0: he told me about this when I was a kid and it shattered his life when he saw thousands of dying, emaciated
Speaker 1: people. Mister Charington, Operation Thunderclasp by the United States 8th Air Force knocked out almost 9,000 railroad switching points and everything else. There was no food that could get to those people, not even to the Germans. The German concentration camps suffered towards the end of the war, and if you are on on on a borderline diet, and if you're deprived for 2 or 3 days of food, then you begin to get typhoid and you begin to dehydrate the very bodies in Belton are approved, not of a German crime, of an allied war crime, of fantastic progress.
Speaker 0: Well, how come the staff weren't like that, emaciated if they had no food?
Speaker 1: Well, look, you feed your soldiers first. You feed certainly your prisoners first.
Speaker 0: Couldn't get food there. They got food there for the guards.
Speaker 1: 400 guards as compared to 18,000 prisoners naturally. What do you you if any government makes a choice, and the fact is that the Germans, when Belsen, for instance, was surrounded by the allies, they radioed via the International Red Cross. We've got typhoid in this camp due to these conditions. And the British said, please, keep your guards on duty because the whole of the British army including the German civilians would have been affected by this wartime. We're talking about wartime.
Speaker 0: Hold it right there. We'll be back. Missus Citron.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: During commercial break you mentioned the word garbage. Are you referring to what, mister Zundel said just prior to that break?
Speaker 2: Yes. I certainly do. He also said during the break that he doesn't take kindly to a certain accusations. In 1978, he threatened Mark Bronarkovsky of the of this of the Toronto Sun with a lawsuit for for claiming that he wrote the book, the Hitler we loved and why. At that time, he denied having written that book and he, you know, he wanted to threaten him with a lawsuit.
He said we Germans don't take kindly to this kind of libel and slander. Now he has subsequently admitted to having written the book not only that
Speaker 1: As an absolute lie, missus Hitron. You give me the instant no. You you give me the instant when I said that the minute right now right now.
Speaker 2: He has said during during the hearings in Ottawa that, yes, he used that name, this is his middle name, Christoph Friedrich, and he used that name on on on certain publications. Furthermore, some of his other, attracts have his name. You see, he claimed to have run for prime minister prime minister of Canada, some years ago and he ran as Christophe Friedrich as Christophe Friedrich. Okay? For the for for and he bragged about having run for for the prime minister of Canada.
Now you can imagine that he, thinks he is clever but he is not really all that clever because if he could have made such a silly mistake while on the one hand claiming to to to have never written a book about the Hitler we loved and why and on the other hand using the same name that he wrote the book under to run the for the prime minister of Canada and this he has bragged about during during the the hearing in Ottawa.
Speaker 0: True or false?
Speaker 1: I have have garbled as per usual. Half truths. I have got the postal hearing transcript here, 741 pages. If you wish, we can look it up and find out what I said in Ottawa is very clearly that I contributed pictures which I do quite regularly. I sell advertising agencies, pictures, soundtracks of nazis
Speaker 0: What about the chart the the the statements that that that mister Zundel made about about the death camps? You were in Auschwitz. You were a little
Speaker 2: girl. Look, there is there are documents, all over the world for anyone with with half an intelligence who can find these documents. I don't credit this man with a great deal of intelligence but surely enough to be able to do some research if he was serious about doing doing, you know, trying to document what has happened. Look, Hitler said in 1930 1939 after having entered Czechoslovakia, that if the Jews are going to start the 2nd world war and remember this was January 30, 1939 when he was preparing to occupy Poland and and to push eastwards to to occupy all of Europe, he has said at that time that if the Jews are going to start a second world war, he will see to it that they that they will be, annihilated. Only people didn't believe it at that time.
Now this man is making a similar claim, okay, that the Jews are are will be responsible for the 3rd world war, that there is a a Jewish conspiracy going on, that that they are behind God knows what. They are communist, they are capitalist, they are they are they are everything. The devil incarnate, the similar propaganda to Hitler's propaganda. How how serious can we take this man?
Speaker 0: Okay. We've got to take a break. 64 5:30 to 11. We'll be back, talking about this whole question of hate literature, racism, holocaust with our guests in a matter of moments. Cherrington, good afternoon.
Speaker 7: Yes. Good afternoon. Yes. I'm wondering with, mister Zundel. He seems to, have a lack of witnesses that, you know, otherwise, he, he seems to have a problem with that.
He doesn't seem as if his research is as thorough as it could be. If he had gone to Poland, I know my uncle, for instance, had was in Auschwitz. My uncle was a Roman Catholic Pole. Nothing to do with Jewish at all. Yeah.
But he was in charge of loading bodies onto trucks, dead bodies. Truck after truck after truck. And if my uncle was doing that, there must have been many others who were doing the same thing. Now where are those witnesses? Would they convince mister Zundel?
My mother trained from labor camp to labor labor camp. From train station to train station, there would often be huts jam packed with people holding each other up. They were dead, but they were holding each other up because they were so jam packed into those little huts. What about those people? My mother was Russian Orthodox.
Nothing to do with Jewish people at all. What about witnesses like her? Why doesn't he believe them?
Speaker 0: Alright. Hold on. He'll answer you. Go ahead, mister.
Speaker 1: My mother happens to have been a Red Cross nurse during the 2nd World War. She picked up all kinds of bodies after the bombing rates. Did that confirm gassing or extermination?
Speaker 0: No. But that's bombing rates. What about in the camps?
Speaker 1: Well, in the camps. This lady is
Speaker 0: talking about
Speaker 1: the camps. I'm coming to that. My father was a Red Cross medic. He was picking up German dead from all over the battlefields of Europe. No no issue that I'm gonna accuse the Americans or the Canadians of exterminating those German soldiers.
People in those camps died. That's true. There's not a German that is proud of it. I'm not proud of it. I'm ashamed of it.
We should have done better, given these people better care, better food. First of all, they shouldn't have been there maybe. But the fact is that there are concentration camps everywhere. The Japanese have their incarceration in America and Canada, and the Germans put Jews in German con German concentration camps and others. Now people died in those German concentration camps.
Speaker 0: But they died from natural causes and not from a genocidal thrust?
Speaker 1: The International Red Cross located in Arlesen, the statistical office for the German concentration camp. It amounts to inside the camp to 2 171,000 people and a few in on farms and in in the outside industrial plants to another 90 some thousand. So So there's about 350,000 people who died in German concentration camps. Not a million, not 6,000,000, not 10,000,000 or 11,000,000. It's a grotesque lie.
Speaker 0: What do you say to that, ma'am?
Speaker 7: I think this gentleman here I'm sorry. I'm just so angry. I can barely speak sensibly. But, seems this gentleman is trying to get himself into the footnotes of history, with his own brand of propaganda and lies.
Speaker 2: You. Any comment? Yes. Certainly. What about, the the fact that, that the the world is aware of the planned, genocide by the Nazi regime against against the Jews to say nothing about, the slave labor, that other ethnic groups were were were exposed to.
The fact that all east Europeans were considered just sort of, if I can translate it properly into English in my excited state. They they were considered less than human, the Slavic people and so on. And and the, the final solution to the Jewish question, was referred to in many, many documents, and it certainly doesn't need elaborating. By me. I consider it demeaning to even try and dignify this kind of of nonsense, that this person is is is spouting.
Speaker 0: Charrington, good afternoon.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Good afternoon, sir.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 8: My name is Andrew Zorowski. I live in Toronto. I'm 53 years of age. In 19 in the summer of 1942, I lived with my mother in the village of Kamyin, 3 kilometers east of Pokhos Zachorowski, was a little town in the eastern Poland.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 8: At one moment, I had a friend about my age. His name was George Stopinski. He was the son of a local teacher. Yep. He ran over to me and he says, Andrew, come.
The Germans are going to be shooting the Jews from Pochoz, and they're leading them to the Jewish, cemetery. Yeah. When my mother my mother overheard this, and, of course, she didn't want me to be a witness to that, so she locked me up in the room. But George went around and opened the door, and away we went. We followed the procession.
There was a 42 Jews praying with their hats on and whatever. There were 2 young men about our age. The rest of them were teenagers and older people. The Germans were on a on a back horse. They were leading those Jews.
They were walking through the village. And at the back of the procession, the Germans were pulling a heavy machine gun. We followed them right through the village, past the, Christian Orthodox Orthodox Cemetery, and then another half a kilometer, there was a Jewish, Jewish cemetery. And past that cemetery, there was a a large grave about, say, 40 5 feet long, about 25 feet wide, about 3 feet 3 or 4 feet deep. Now there was beside this grave, there was a hole.
All the Jews were had a, a yellow patches or a, the stars of David. Yeah. And then they were told to take their clothes off and throw it in that hole so they were actually in their underwear. Then the first party was 12. They were step they had to step down into this into this grave, and then the machine gun was ordered to shoot them.
I saw the whole thing with my own eyes. They were shot. They were still moving and jerking in this grave. Then, another party of of of Taine, and another party of Taine, another party of Taine. And they were just shot down cold blood.
1 guy was trying to run. We were hiding in the bush, and as he runs so he's trying to run, he was running in our thing. And, the Germans start shooting at him, and, of course, they killed him before he got to
Speaker 0: to Alright. What do you say to that, mister Ozonew?
Speaker 1: That man undoubtedly witnessed witnessed an event of war, and the Germans did shoot partisans and people who were saboteurs and so on.
Speaker 0: Were these were these were these saboteurs or partisans, mister Calder?
Speaker 8: Sir, sir, it's I insist. I insist. Again, I am a Polish. I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm a member of the of the, Roncesvald here at parish.
Right? I'm not Jewish Okay. Whatsoever. This this this Jews were separated from the ghetto in Pokhos Zakhorotsky from the women. The women were taken somewhere out to the concentration camps wherever.
But the men were not partisans because they were confined behind the barbed wires, behind the, desiccant
Speaker 0: So they were not they they were not partisan?
Speaker 8: And shot in the cold blood.
Speaker 0: Alright. They were not partisans or saboteurs.
Speaker 8: Absolutely not. They were people that were confined in the ghetto.
Speaker 2: Yes. Say something.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: The, it's a well known fact which has been testified to by the perpetrators themselves. The were famous, for for their, mass killings by by the special Nazi killing units. They were they were killing 1,000 upon 1,000 of people, men, women, and children in Eastern Europe. This was before the guest chambers were invented, and these people were run to their death. What about Bob ER?
But but apart from that, the testimony of the perpetrators themselves, there are names of people, the documents which were preserved from the Nazis Nazi time themselves where where they have given a a rundown of how many people were killed, when, on what day, and so on. But there there is another thing that I wanted to I wanted to bring out. I'm I'm just I'm just too upset.
Speaker 0: Alright. Thank you for your call. Let's take another one. Cherrington, hello.
Speaker 7: Hello, mister Cherrington.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 9: I've always been a firm believer in freedom of the pet press, and that goes for writing books, etcetera, not just newspapers. But the more I listen to this, call him a gentleman, the more I think I have to reconsider my thoughts on that. And in the second place, he claims he's not a Nazi. Right? Yep.
Okay. If he's not a Nazi and he's speaking for the German people, then I feel very sorry for some of my German friends who have to
Speaker 8: sit Are
Speaker 0: you speaking with
Speaker 8: and listen to him. Are you speaking
Speaker 0: with a German people?
Speaker 1: Made such a claim whatsoever. Some Germans would be horrified to hear me say what I'm saying. But I 20 years ago, I would have 25 years ago, I would have been horrified to hear somebody like myself also. That was before I learned that I'd been lied to my entire life.
Speaker 0: How did you learn this?
Speaker 1: In Canada, I had to come to this country where the libraries have not been cleaned out by the Queensland government. It is in Canada and America where these facts are only available. I have great difficulty in conversing about this topic in German because all my studies were done in English. This I will I will be forever grateful to this country to allow me the freedom to research and to express it until missus Citron and her senses came along, and to bring this truth to the people. I am interested in bringing the truth to the people about a lie that is so gigantic that nobody would believe that people would lie that, on on such a massive scale.
I want to answer
Speaker 0: But how if it's that massive a lie, how has it stood for 30 years or more?
Speaker 1: It has it has stood by intimidation and terror, to the kind of terror and intimidation that I get, the censorship that missus Citron dishes out, the demonstrations of 1500 screaming demonstrators outside my home egged on by the JDL, burn them, kill them. Why is
Speaker 0: there being a sweep across
Speaker 2: There's 100.
Speaker 0: Across across West Germany. I mean, the the consul general said, you know, they they represent a very small part and
Speaker 1: Mister Cherenkin, there look, there is there are hundreds of writers who have their book banned, books banned in West Germany. There there are dozens of men in jail and women who voice these opinions. It is a crime in Germany to voice this. You know? Why?
Because we have an occupation government that is so Or is it or
Speaker 0: is it that the crime was so heinous that they just don't want to talk about it anymore?
Speaker 1: Okay. If we wanna talk about crimes, then let's also talk about the allied crimes. Crimes. If we're gonna talk about crimes and we're opening up the crime subject
Speaker 0: Are you talking about Nuremberg?
Speaker 1: I'm I'm talking about the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Nazi apartheid, the bombing of heat.
Speaker 0: That was that was during war.
Speaker 1: Also was the execution of these these people who he says were just simple humble sons of priests. They may be black marketeers, I don't know. The Soviet Union, mister Jarrington, brags that many of the party's sons behind the lines who were responsible for the killing of 700 uniformed German men, totally contrary to the rules of war, killed 700,000 German men. And when the allies marched into our village in the Black Forest in Germany, up went the poster saying for every Frenchman killed, the French occupation authorities will execute 100 Germans. You know?
Speaker 0: Alright. Hold it right there. Thank you, man. We'll be back. You have, some problems with identifying some of the people who have come up propagating that it was a myth.
Speaker 2: So I have no problem with them. You
Speaker 0: have I mean, as their veracity, you have the problem.
Speaker 2: Well, no. No. Not at all. I think they they are known propagandists and this man is only referring to them as experts. There's a professor Farizo who has been taken to court in Lyon, France, and was, was thrown out of the university where he was teaching.
This is one of his experts and was given a year suspended sentence for distorting history. France has, legislation dealing with distortion of history and for incitement to hatred and violence. Now the other expert, a so called Richard Harwood was supposed to have been a professor at the University of London in England, he was never heard of at that University. Furthermore, the book, which refer to the 6,000,000 really die was supposed to have been published at a certain address in England and there and when when people check the address, there was at that address, there's no such a thing. It was a private home.
So as you can see the veracity of this person, is certainly leaves a great deal to be desired.
Speaker 1: Yes. I'd like to come back on 2 points. Number 1, I just was speaking to professor Faurisson in California. He is out of jail certainly and the fact that he was kicked out of a French University will also say something about French freedom of speech and academic freedom and freedom of debate. He is an recognized expert in old texts and documents.
And he proved conclusively that in Auschwitz nothing was cast but lice because he went there himself personally. And he was
Speaker 0: Was he an inmate?
Speaker 1: No, after the war, you can go there today. He took soil samples, tested it for the famous cyclone b, went to the local registry where all all the buildings plans were housed and everything else. No gas chamber plans, but there was a, a plan for a dog house and so on. Now, Foresan won his appeal with the exception of one minor fine, where at one time he was supposed to pay CHF1,500,000 to broadcast his recantation over French, radio. Now suddenly, he he he got a slap of the wrist in order to to satisfy people like miss Siron.
Before she mentioned something about self confessed people in these war crimes trials. There was so much torture, beating, starvation, and psychological pressure, hooding going on during those war crimes trials, even in civilized western part of Europe by the Americans, that the US Congress set up a special committee, mister Charrington, to investigate all these tortures and reprimanded these people and removed some of the interrogators. You're talking about Nuremberg? Exactly. And many of the interrogators were Jews, missus Citron.
And we have their names and their ranks, and we their photographs. And there's justice coming for those people too if there's justice in the world. Many of those confessions in Nuremberg were extorted under brutal torture.
Speaker 0: I mean, people like Goring? People like he was tortured?
Speaker 1: Of course. Goring wouldn't be tortured. He's such a famous name, but he was most likely killed.
Speaker 0: Didn't he commit suicide? Didn't he have that cyanide pill in his tooth?
Speaker 1: After he has been frisked, and every body cavity was repeatedly checked, and he was x rayed. Suddenly, like magic, he finds a cyanide pill in his cell.
Speaker 0: Apparently, apparently, they had it he had it in his tooth. However, let's I think we've got time for a quick call. Charington, hello.
Speaker 10: Hi. I'm a 20 year old Christian Canadian who, I'm just deploring this election of mister Zum. On yourself. His racist, intolerant, anti Semitic, and anti Israel comments really constitute nothing more than outright pornography and obscenity. I only wish I only wish the mission is only when all Canadians would have the opportunity to visit the gas chambers and ovens in Europe, which were created by fanatic races like him to exterminate millions of human beings.
And in fact, I actually think all Canadians ought to be required to take courses on the Holocaust and to visit the memorial in places like Poland, Germany, and Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel to understand the vile and obscene nature of mister Zundel's hatred. I'm very upset.
Speaker 0: How dangerous is this man?
Speaker 3: Yes. The the dangerousness is is determined by your understanding of what racism is. I think that if you see what mister Zungle, says and and what he writes as being hate propaganda in the sense that it it's racism against a particular group of people, in this case the Jews, then you see that it's the type of propaganda that literally no Canadian will tolerate. The problem is defining it and putting it within that definition of hate propaganda under our laws. And mister Zandal is very expert at walking that line very carefully and staying just on the right side of it.
And I think that that we have him today on this program, exercising his freedom of speech, may be seen by some callers as was mentioned as as being inappropriate, but I think it's important for everyone to see just how difficult it is to define freedom of speech and its, and its confines. You know, where where does freedom of speech have to end and where do you stop people like mister Zendel from saying the kinds of things they say? It's difficult to do but you know, we live in a democratic society which has to deal with that and hopefully, our laws will reflect the opinion of most Canadians and in that way the hate propaganda legislation that we do have will be strengthened in some way to, to take care of this problem.
Speaker 0: Do you think you'll be put out of business?
Speaker 1: Mister Cherrington, as long as there is freedom in Canada, dissent is safe. But censorship of the kind that the Zionist sponsor, they can carry on their extortion racket. I could be censored because Mr. McMurphy, the attorney general of this province, was quoted in the Canadian Jewish News, giving a speech to some Zionist function that he is a Christian Zionist, you know. None of these people address the issue.
I have the newspaper here, it's a Jewish newspaper called the Jewish Times, half the page is taken up with inflammatory headlines, Arabs bagging the Nazi propagandists and stuff like that. And we have Paul Godfrey, himself Jewish, who says that I do not believe that Jews in this community have any real problems. What the problems are are people like missus Citron, who are professional agitators, who agitate their own community and upset the community at large.
Speaker 0: She is a survivor of our shores.
Speaker 1: I'm a survivor of allied bombing. Am I gonna forever blame Canadians and Americans for bombing our village and towns? We gotta get on with living.
Speaker 0: What do you say to that?
Speaker 2: I can say, that up until now, this man was allowed to abuse freedom of expression, but we have now in the new charter of rights a section which says that you cannot indulge in libel and slander even with our existing laws governing freedom of expression and freedom of speech. And we are we are going to see to it that this man will be stopped.
Speaker 1: We have infiltrated a number of these Zionist meetings and Zionism by the way has nothing to do with Judaism, has very little to do with Jews, they are small vocal minority, they are in effect Jewish Nazis. Now, you are political organization. You are not a religious organization. Don't speak in the royal we. Speak for yourself.
There's thousands of Jews in Israel who demonstrated against the Zionist policies of their government. 400,000 to be exact. So you are not one like your propaganda likes to pro proclaim, number 1. Number 2, I have a perfect right to speak out and if you want to challenge me on the liability and slander laws in front of the Ontario courts, I'll have my day in court. So far, I have done pretty well.
Canadians are fair. What I'm saying is not popular. I understand this. I've been What
Speaker 8: are you saying?
Speaker 0: I mean, every call has been against you, mister Sundar.
Speaker 1: How do I know how you guys are rigging calls? Oh, we wouldn't rig calls. Are you kidding? I've been in this for 25 years. I've been running out.
No. We wouldn't call. 1,000
Speaker 0: people. Calls.
Speaker 1: Anyways I
Speaker 0: mean, people coming on saying they're Christians. They were polls. They were this, that, and other.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, every time a caller comes
Speaker 0: on Why would we why would we rip calls? We went, you know, we invite you all to say your piece, other people. Why would we go to to to the Machiavellian trick of rigging ball?
Speaker 1: Mister Charrington, I'm so surprised that I'm on your show after 20 years of It
Speaker 0: hasn't been going 20 years. I'm not going 3.
Speaker 1: No, I know that. But I on on a show like this after doing 20 years of my work, I want to say the Jewish community in this country, in America and in Germany and the world is perfectly safe from Ernst Schindler. I've been around for 25 years as an intellectual and as a writer. Nobody has been harmed by me. I have suitcases full of invitations to the Canadian Jewish Congress, to Mississippi Citron, to Rabbi Plaut, to Irvin Cutler to come and debate these issues in public, but she doesn't wanna dignify me.
She doesn't But at
Speaker 8: least she came here
Speaker 0: to talk
Speaker 1: to to talk to. No. She does. She doesn't even speak to this person if that isn't something else. My mother was a simple peasant, but she had better manners than that.
Speaker 0: Final word from you, missus Citroen.
Speaker 2: Yes. I as I mentioned in the beginning, I really didn't intend to, to appear on the same, spot as this person. But I feel that Canadians have a right to see this man for what he is and I think that he exposed himself and I hope that I have helped to do that.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much for coming and being with us.
@Wordsarewordz - Words are words
The Holocaust Lie - David Irving (Summer 1995) Bookmark & Share. https://t.co/GUfFhBbZiW
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, British historian David Irving shares his experiences as a writer and the challenges he has faced in publishing his books, particularly his controversial work "Hitler's War." Irving questions the mainstream narrative of the Holocaust, arguing that there is a lack of evidence linking Hitler to the atrocities. He emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech and criticizes laws that criminalize questioning historical events. Irving also mentions his legal battles and attempts to silence him, but remains determined to uncover the truth and fight for his right to express his views. The speaker also challenges the concept of innocence in war crimes and questions the use of the word "genocide" in relation to the Holocaust. He presents evidence challenging the existence of gas chambers and criticizes the financial implications and propaganda surrounding the Holocaust. The speaker concludes by highlighting the need for an even-handed approach to historical analysis and mistrusts the influence of the United Nations on freedom of speech.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've already thanked you all for coming. Those of you here tonight that have heard David Irving speak are aware of his abilities of an order, and no doubt that's why you've come. Those who are not familiar with his speaking abilities but have read his books will not be disappointed. Anyone here not familiar with tonight's speaker is in for a real treat. Those of you who have not yet been exposed to history that has been made according to the facts may be in for a surprise.
If that's the case, do not be aggravated at the bearer of the truth, but rather the repeater of the lies. The works of David Irving are irrefutably documented, so much so that his 15 year old $1,000 challenge to anyone that proves him wrong remains uncollected. On the other hand, however, we have the documentaries and historical accounts by the mainstream media. The same people who give us things like the disgusting WEBN billboards and the Mapplethorpe exhibits. One should be suspect of even the page numbers by used by people who produce such trash.
Because a solid understanding of history is present and anticipating the future, people are most interested in historical questions during times of crisis or when the future seems most uncertain. Today is a good time for an interest in history. Too many people are aware of the symptoms of our trouble but cannot finger the cause. Like ice water thrown on heavy sleepers, the Clinton administration has been shock therapy to wake up complacent Americans to the symptoms. But how many realize the extent that disease ridden, internationalist parasites have infected our republic independent of the Clintons?
Americans need to understand and inform themselves on the origins and causes of the present ills we suffer from. We must destroy the roots of this ignominious growth before it takes us over. It will cure little to focus only on the Clinton administration as the main problem, offensive though it is. To remedy our current situation, we must cut away the dead tissue remaining from all the previous internationalist, socialistic, and anti Christian policies upon which these parasites feed. We must reevaluate the
Speaker 1: propaganda and lies leveled at
Speaker 0: us from media and government,
Speaker 1: not
Speaker 0: Surely, no one thinks that today's treasonous policies were hatched or suckled overnight. This is relatively easy to qualify by pointing out just a few examples of the various tactics, lies, and deceptions spewed at us throughout this century, such as the Federal Reserve Acts of 19 13 and 1933. Our money is controlled by a few international banking houses, not by Congress. As Amschel Rothschild once stated, let me control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws. We were dragged in of these international Of course, to justify for the men leaving their wives and mothers to go fight a war across the ocean, Americans were bombarded with propaganda.
Unfortunately, the truth and what people are told are very seldom the same. This is true especially in the time of war. One of the most internationalist, socialistic, communist sympathizing men we've had in the White House to date was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Despite some of his campaign speeches, his desire was great to again embroil the US into war at the behest of the international bankers. Again, the propaganda machine worked overtime to stir up hatred of the Germans.
With Bolshevik communism as our ally, we were told that Russia's victories were our victories, that America had to fight to save the world to save democracy, that we had to fight for freedom. What we actually did was save communism for Europe. Our intervention not only kept the bloodiest regime in history alive, it added to its expansion. At Yalta, Roosevelt, and Churchill acquiesced to Stalin the peoples and countries of Eastern Europe so much for our fight for freedom. As the Hungarians have said, gladly would we suffer again the worst experiences of our history, even the waging of world war on our own soil.
But God save us from another liberation. In spite of the now popular so called victory celebrations, this country has plenty of room for regret. Adding to the deceitful global policeman policies, we were also lied to about the income tax, Social Security, welfare, the Korean War, Vietnam, the missing POWs, and on and on. If Americans had a better understanding of the sellouts that have been perpetrated by so many preceding administrations, which definitely include Republican ones, People would be ashamed to advertise things like, don't blame me. I voted for Bush.
Today, the conservative today, the terms conservative and liberal are so vented about, they have about as much contrast and usage as Republican and Democrat. The only difference between a conservative Republican internationalist and a liberal Democrat one is the ride. Your destination is the same. People who understand this are reviled as isolationists. The best definition of an isolationist that I've heard to date is someone who is against the subsidizing or the slaughter of foreigners.
Some great men of the past who have been reviled as isolationists are vindicated by historians such as David Irving. David Irving was born in Essex, England in 1938. He is the son of a Royal Navy commander. He received his college education at London University. As an example of Irving's dedication to accuracy, he worked for a whole year in a steel mill in Germany to perfect his fluency and knowledge in the German language.
While working there, Irving began gathering information on the history of those cities that had experienced the full impact of allied bombardment during World War 2. After 4 years of the research, his first book, The Destruction of Dresden, was published. It was 1963, and he was 23 years old. This book alone has sold over a 1000000 copies. He has been described as Britain's most financially successful historian.
His bestseller, The Desert Fox, earned 250,000 in US paperback rights alone. In 1967, Hugh Trevor Roper described him as one of the, quote, few guys I would entirely trust, indefatigable in pursuit of evidence, fearless in the face of it, sound in judgment, end quote. In 71, the London Times said David Irving takes his place in the first rank of historical chroniclers. Irving, who had been highly acclaimed both by critics and the most the world's most prestigious publishing houses, fell from their grace with Hitler's war when he chose to stick with the facts uncovered in his 10 years of research put into the book, thus proving that Irving is more interested in truth than book sales. He was especially reviled after his book Uprising, which pulled no punches about the Hungarian Uprising of 1956.
He was subsequently blacklisted by the ADL of the Bnei Braith. This meant that he was shut out of the big name publishing houses despite their praise of him in the past. Rather than wilt under this discriminatory treatment, Irving turned to alternate publishers, rented a truck, and personally delivered his books to over 480 bookstores throughout England. Determined to defeat him but always unwilling to meet him for debate, his rivals have used various methods in their attempts to dispose of him, such as burglary, arson, and false arrest. It's burglary in that Gerald Gable, a former communist election candidate and later a weekend television producer, big surprise, was convicted for burglarizing Irving's file using a stolen post office identity card.
He admitted membership in an underground organization which had ordered him to steal Irving's research papers to prevent the work on his next book. Arson in that the Sussex Printing Works where Irving's Magazine Focal Point was produced was burnt to the ground by one of Gable's associates who was caught red handed and later received the prison sentence. False arrest in countries such as Austria and Canada, which it's possible the author may touch upon tonight in his talk. Through all of this, the world's most combative and prolific historian remains undaunted. And although his tenacity and obstinacy for the truth has cost him no small amount, His works are still being published by impressive firms and widely read despite the efforts of his enemies.
To quote his slogan, the fight continues to final victory, expensive though it is. With men of Irving's character, we stand on the shoulders of giants. But in his case, we may even reach farther by standing on a stack of his books, books that you can count on due to his British obstinacy to uncover the truth, a knack for which he has become famous. Lastly, we will pass around the hat tonight to pay for tonight's expenses. Room rental alone is nearly $500, and the refreshments are extra.
There was no door charge because it was hoped that everyone would give what they could afford. All money over expenses go to support David Irving in his fight for truth. Please be generous. Now it is my pleasure to introduce and welcome our eloquent speaker, the very British historian, David Irving. I will go ahead and start
Speaker 2: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I guess there wasn't very much else on in Cincinnati tonight. I'm astonished at the numbers of you who have turned out to hear me. I know very few of the faces who are here this evening, and very few of you have met me the hour that I'm going to speak. You'll have a 10 or 15 minute break after that, and then I'll be very happy to take any questions that you want to ask any kind of discussion after that. So let's have no interruptions while I'm talking.
You'll have a discussion after the interval. I'm hoping that you will find it a rewarding journey the coming 60 minutes. Talking of journeys, I've been on the road for the last 7 days driving up from the very southernmost point in the United States. And over the next 3 weeks, my speaking tour, which tonight is the first actual engagement, will take me in a zigzag course from here right up to the Great Lakes and across to New Jersey and back down to the southernmost point in Key West. And then the very next day over to Los Angeles, and I drive up to Seattle and back and then across to Denver and Colorado, all between now October 23rd.
And I do this every year. And you can begin to understand why I'm a thorn in the side of certain people who have a vested interest in propagating their own version of history, which may have very little to do with American interests or with British interests, but it has become big business. And the latter part of my talk will be devoted really to examining parts of that great legend. This drive up here from the southernmost point has, however, been useful in one way because it has enabled me to brush up on my spoken American. I speak quite a lot of languages.
We learn a lot of languages at school. We learn, in my case, French and German and Russian and Latin and all the other useful or useless languages that you need in your journey through life. But nobody ever told me as a writer that I was going to need to learn American. What until I wrote my Adolf Hitler biography, which was published over here by the Viking Press, one of the great names in the publishing industry. And that's when I first discovered that writers, if they want to succeed in life, have to learn to write and read and speak a kind of mid Atlantic English.
Was Winston Churchill, I think, who once said or was it before him George Bernard Shaw that the English language that the British and the American peoples are divided by a common language. And I didn't understand how true that was until this book was being edited by my American editor, Stan Hoffman. And he would come on sentences in this book, which showed to me how very different our life. For example, there's a passage after the bomb attempt on Adolf Hitler's life in July 1944 when the traitors have put a bomb on the Adolf Hitler's table and attempt to kill him, but the war's darkest past for Germany. And he survives that attempt shaken but not stirred, and he goes down into his bunker bedroom with his pants or I would say his trousers in tatters in his shirt sleeves, and he sits on the edge
Speaker 1: of his bed in his shirt sleeves and braces
Speaker 2: and feels his own pulse, 73. And he says to his doctor whose diary I found, you see quite normal. 73. And I described this in the book. My American editor says, Dave, a great scene.
I like it, but we're gonna have to change that sentence a bit. You can't say the Fuhrer sat on
Speaker 1: the edge of his bed in his shirt sleeve and braces
Speaker 2: and tells his pulse. It's gonna have to be he sat on the edge of his bed in his shirt, sleeves, and suspenders. Now what you don't know is that in England, suspenders is what a woman wears to hold her stockings up, what you would call a garter belt.
Speaker 1: So the idea of the fuhrer of
Speaker 2: the greater German right being some kind of prevert who who sits in his bedroom wearing a lady's garter belt to hold his stockings up, That's there was no way around it. That sentence had to go. We had to cut it out. And then we had Ribbentrop, the the Nazi foreign minister I I described in one part our, he had a skeleton in the cupboard too. That's the English expression.
The mid American editor, Stan Hoffman, said, David, we're gonna have to change that. It's gonna have to be written for a head of skeleton in the closet. Now in England, a closet or water closet is what you people call a bathroom. Not that we English tourists expect now to find a bath in that bathroom. Is what the Australians call a dunny or you Americans call a John.
I mean, it's a it's a a language problem. We are that sentence had to go as well. We are tyrannized by language, and so that sentence was cut out. As part of the growing up process of being an author, you learn how to write. I like the American language.
I think it's a very virile language or virile, you would say, virile language. I like to talk of trucks instead of lorries because it has a bit more punch that word. And so you find my books, those of you who've read them, that I've got a kind of mid atlant mid atlantic argot, which I've adopted for my books. So I thoroughly irritate everybody now. It annoys the English people who write to me and say, don't you know how spell labor and favor, mister Irving?
Don't you know they have use in those words over here? And, of course, I annoy the American readers who find all sorts of Anglicisms. They there's this this English touch, which irritates the pants of the American readers. And in particular, my editors, we I had a general who is being summoned to Hitler, and it's quite obvious that he was going to be sentenced to death. And I say the general was sentenced to Hitler, and it was obvious he couldn't expect a promotion that afternoon.
And my editor, he said, you English write that kind of thing with a kind of levity. We Americans, we we can't get away with it. So that sentence had to go as well. It irritates people, but I've been accustomed to irritating people in the last 20 or 30 years because I'm an independent writer. An independent in as much as I don't work for anyone and I can't be sacked.
I've got no university position. I'm not a professor. I'm not a doctor, which is very important in Germany to have a doctor's title in front of your name. Even chimney sweeps a doctor this and doctor that in Germany or Austria. I'm just playing mister David Irving, so I can't be dismissed.
I can't be dismissed from a school. I can't be dismissed now from a publishing house because I set up my own publishing house. When I published the new edition of this book in England, I set up what is called my own imprint. Because I recognize that the day is going to come when so much pressure has been put by these vested interests on my publishers around the world that I don't have another publisher left who is going to publish me unless I built my own publishing house. So I did that too.
I set up my own publishing imprint in England called Focal Point. That's the big f on the back. Not Fuhrer, not fascist, not anything else. Just focal point, the publishing imprint. The only thing that my enemies in England can do now, and they've been trying it, is when I started studying this book and as Rick said, I've been around a lot of bookshops in England.
I like it. It's not 450 bookshops. In fact, the actual total now is 8 70 bookshops in England who sell my books directly delivered by me, and they can't be intimidated, or perhaps they can because for a long time, these people, these the people I call the traditional enemies of the truth, they indulged 2 years ago in a stone throwing campaign. They started smashing the windows of every big bookstore that still stocked my books in an attempt to persuade the bookstore managers through their insurance companies through the back door not to sell my books. And it's an interesting spectacle because I look on this, I don't mind.
I'm not in it for the money. Unlike the traditional enemy as I call them, I'm not in anything for the money. My poor wife, she sometimes frantic with fear as to what's going to happen next week or the week after that. In this small confidential circle, ladies and gentlemen, I can mention the fact that a week ago, I won a colossal libel action against one of England's biggest newspapers. Purely by chance, they libeled me on July 30th.
They published something really stupid about me that was so stupid that there was no feasible defense. They took a document that I published in 1982, a document in which Adolf Hitler years ago, 70 years ago with a bill of the Bavarian financier back in 1922. Hitler talking to the Bavarian financier in the Hotel Stearjarra site in Munich, and Hitler saying to this financier, if I ever come to power, which he did, of course, 15 years later, if I ever come to power, then I am going to settle scores with the Jews. Then he said, I spent all my life fighting the Jews, not as a race, but as a religion. If I come to power, then there's going to be a solution of the Jewish problem.
And I found the actual shorthand record taken by this financier's secretary of the conversation between these two men back in 1922 when both of them, the financier and Adolf Hitler, were hardly heard of. And I published this in 1982 in a journal I published called Focal Point. On the stupid newspaper on July 30 this year, I published that document with a small mistake. They thought it was I who said these words. I spent all my life fighting the Jews.
When I come to power, there's gonna be a solution of the Jewish problem. No. No defense. Under the libel laws of England, they had no defense whatsoever, and so I was able I served the writ on them. I I I took them to the to the court.
We sold
Speaker 1: the whole matter within the
Speaker 2: last 2 months. Very enjoyable experience. It shows that you can fight back, and I am fighting back now because I'm tired of As I told the newspaper thank you. As I told the newspaper I told the newspaper lawyers as we went into court, I said for 30 years I've had to put up gritting my teeth with you newspapers saying slimy things about me in a roundabout way so that you could just get off the occupy studio. And I've been waiting for the open and shut case which would give me the chance to do what I'm doing today.
And that's when that day came. And they hated me for it, but they had to write out the check, and it came a week ago. And until then, it's been touch and go, but I'm going to be invulnerable now for the next year or 2 so I can resume I can resume saying what I've always wanted to say. As Rick told you, I am a professional historian. That is to say I'm not an academic historian.
I don't spend my life sitting behind a desk in a university or a school with no time to go out into the field doing research. I write my books from the archives. When I wrote my very first book, The Destruction of Dresden, I took trouble to find 300 allied airmen who took part in that catastrophic air raid on Dresden in 1945 It's survivors who had been on the ground at the receiving end of that appalling air raid which killed over a 100000 people in 20 minutes. We did that. I never knew about that.
When I was a steel worker in Germany working in the steel works in 1960, one of my fellow steel workers told me what happened that night in Dresden. I was ashamed because I, as an Englishman, had never been told that. And I thought, if I've never been told that, then probably 50,000,000 other English people have never been told that too. And I decided to go and research that. 1st, I was going to write just a newspaper article, then I realized it was far bigger than that.
It was a it was a major story. When that book was published by the little respectable English publishing house back in 1963, and it was serialized by England's Sunday Telegraph Newspaper, which really gave it the push to make sure the book was a success. The book became a bestseller. And suddenly, those of you young people sitting in the audience here who still don't know what you're gonna do when you grow up, take heart from me from the fact that at that time I was 23 years old and I had no idea what I was going to do with my life. I didn't know what I was going to do, but that book became a bestseller and so I decided to become a writer.
I decided to become a historian, and that's what I did the next few years. I've learned it from then until now. In fact, for the 1st few years, it was a pretty routine matter, humdrum. I wrote a book and I had a daughter and I wrote another book and I had another daughter and I wrote a 3rd book and I had a 3rd daughter, and I wrote a 4th book and I had a 4th daughter. And then for 30 years, I ran out of steam and I just wrote books until about a year ago.
I've got a 2 year old daughter now, so the I've got 5 daughters. It's a history of of misfortune, I suppose. But the books have continued to come. I've written 30 books since then and now most of them have vanished. They're not available on the table now.
In fact, this evening, I've sold the final remaining copies of 2 or 3 of my titles. I found them. Unfortunately, among the effects of the man who I commissioned to set up a bookstore for me here in South Carolina 18 months ago, and he was doing a fine job until he was shot in his sleep in the back of his head execution style on February 23rd this year down in Greer in South Carolina. We still don't know what's behind that. And I had the sad duty on my drive up here the last 5 or 6 days of picking up the remaining stock for books from him and, loading them aboard the car.
30 books. What is it that distinguishes my books from all the rest? Why did the other historians get mad as hell when they hear my name? Why is it that they cheer when I get thrown into prison as I was for 2 weeks last February last year? No court hearing, no trial, just picked up from my front door by Scotland Yard police officers, very apologetic saying we're very sorry, mister Irving.
We've got a high court judges order that we've got to take you straight to Pentonville prison for the next 3 months. And then I get the private papers of the Australian prime minister delivered me a few months later in the course of my worldwide campaign for the truth, and I find that these people down in Australia had actually applied to the judge for me to be sent to prison for 2 years for contempt of court to silence me. That's what it's all about. Then when I managed to get freed from prison back in February last year, my solicitor round eyed with astonishment saying, mister Irving, what on earth is going on? And even more astonished when he hears people on the other side saying we apply for mister Irving's passport to be impounded.
That's what it's all about. They're trying to gag me, and set me and chain me to one place because I go around the world speaking my mind and telling audiences like yourselves what I found in the archives. And it was quite a wide world originally. I used to go around the world once every year, the same as I now go around the United States speaking to audiences in South Africa and Australia and New Zealand and Canada, everywhere. Not one of those countries is now available to let me in.
I was deported in handcuffs from Canada in November 1992 on the instructions and at the request of the people that I call the traditional enemy of the truth. They had the money. They had the clout. They had the press behind them, and I fought them for 3 weeks in the Canadian courts beginning in Vancouver and ending up in the courts in Ontario until finally, to our astonishment and to the astonishment actually at the press, I was all deported in handcuffs and put onto a plane in handcuffs at Toronto airport and flown back to Britain. And since then, it's been a running battle, but it's been a very interesting battle because I had the means now worldwide to fight back.
I've got 3,000 people around the world who contribute to my campaign to enable me to fight these actions. And if you fight actions on this scale, you find extraordinary things. In the United States, you've got the Freedom of Information Act. In Canada, they've got the access to Information Act. If you find a liable action in Australia, you can force the other side suddenly by an action called discovery to show you all their cards.
There was gain. They are ordered to show you all the papers they've collected against you, and then you find extraordinary things. Historians, professors who in England have written me oily ingratiating letters saying, learning what wonderful books you write. I would be so grateful if you could give me a clue about where I can find this or can you let me have a copy of that. These same people writing and handwriting to the director of an organization in England, who I won't mention, writing to the director of this organization in England saying, can't you possibly take some to ensure that the next time Irving goes to Germany, he's thrown in prison for a long long time.
And then the director of that organization writing an appropriate letter to the German ambassador saying, next time mister Irving goes to the Germany on a speaking tour, can you possibly arrange him to be arrested and put in prison for a while? And all these letters turning up in the files of the Canadian government, which is where I found them. And these people in England still don't realize I've got photographs of these letters. I going to be using them later on in yet another publication. It's a very they're not gonna have an enjoyable time, these people.
I started 2 operations ladies and gentlemen. One of them is called operation body line, and the other one is called operation ill wind. As in it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. These people are going to find that I am the one who is going to benefit from this ill wind over the next 12 months because I am a fighter and I fight back. When I was banned from Australia 2 years ago, as it turned out, the Australian prime minister, Paul Keating had personally issued the instruction that I was not to be allowed in again.
We know this because the the judge ordered that the prime minister's file should be opened, and he was the one who took the decision. And it turned out that he had been bribed by these organizations of the traditional enemy of the truth not to let me in. They were the ones who were paying the Australian Labor Party colossal sums of money, and so we had to dance to their tune. He was the one who ordered I shouldn't be allowed in. And when I wasn't allowed in to Australia, all the Australian media, to my astonishment, came down on my side.
There wasn't an Australian newspaper which didn't stand up for me and for freedom of speech. They would say all the usual things like why we find mister Irving's views detestable and repugnant. They will always say that kind of thing because if you say one thing about journalists, you can't say they're brave. Journalists are not brave people. I have no not the slightest sympathy for journalists anywhere in the world because they are morally repugnant to me.
They have they are what the Germans call, the whole bunch of them. They are all dependent on their editors say so for their jobs, and they write what they they are on autopilot. They know what they've got. They're not censored by anyone, but they know instinctively what they've got to write. And so they all say, while we don't hold anything of mister Irvin's repugnant views and his disgusting opinions, we do stand up for his right to express.
We do stand up for freedom of speech. And the Australians would telephone me, and I would do live television programs to Australia from my my house in England. And the Australian journalists say, mister Irvin, why is it then you're keeping on this fight? Why is it that your fight carry on the battle like this? And I would say, I've been underestimated.
You've underestimated the English. The English have a reputation, ladies and gentlemen, for marching to the sound of gunfire. We march toward the sound of if they would stop firing their guns, I'd stop marching, but my enemies have not realized this yet. And so the battle goes on, and I mentioned the fact that I would give these interviews from my home in England, and I would broadcast live by satellite to the whole of the Australian continent. This is the benefit, of course.
If they were if they didn't ban me from Australia, I would be speaking to the audiences of perhaps 20 or 30 people in the Outback outside Shepparton or Melbourne or somewhere. But as it is, I'm speaking live coast to coast on prime time television several nights a week when these campaigns are running in Australia. I was interviewed in my home, and here's something for you Americans to think about and chew over. I was interviewed in my home in July 2 years ago by France's biggest newspaper, and I gave an opinion to this journalist sitting in my study in London near the American Embassy, and this journalist reported my opinion quite faithfully in Le Monde, the biggest French serious newspaper. And that journalist and that newspaper and I were subsequently fined last year in the French courts having expressed this opinion.
I'll tell you later on what the opinion is, but think about that. When you sometimes complain about the restraints you live under in the United States of America, take it from me as an outsider, you have something here that is wonderful, and that's the first amendment. The freedom of speech which is constitutionally guaranteed to you, United States citizens, is something that you're so accustomed to, you take it for granted. Don't take it for granted. Fight to protect it.
Fight to stand up to prevent anybody from making any inroads against that first amendment, which guarantees your freedom of speech because otherwise situations will develop like the one I'm about to describe in France where I express an opinion in the safety and security and sanctuary of my own home in London and I find myself receiving an indictment from a Paris court accusing me of having made a certain statement in my own home in England. I've not been in France for 7 or 8 years. And then being fined in absentia by the French court for this opinion I've expressed, which has been published by one of the leading newspapers. But it gets worse because the indictment that has served on me is served on me under a new law passed in France, a law for the amendment of the freedom of speech. Think of those words.
The law for the amendment of the freedom of speech in France, and under that law, it becomes a criminal offense for anybody to challenge the French word is conteste, to challenge or ask questions about crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg tribunal of 1945. Now you all know what tribunal that was. That was the victor's tribunal against the Nazis who were put on trial and eventually hanged. They were railroaded at the gallows. I think it was lord Van Sethard who said the only question which is of interest now is going to be the place of the gallows and the length of the rope.
That was roughly the mood of justice which prevailed at Nuremberg. You couldn't expect justice in that kind of climate. The Germans didn't expect it. They knew they were gonna get justice, and they didn't get justice. But one thing is by plane, that it should be possible for us now, historians, 50 years after the event, to reexamine those events, to reexamine the indictments as served up at Nuremberg, the crimes that the Germans were accused of and say, was this a crime?
Did this happen like that? Did in France, for example, it is a criminal offense, to give you one example. It is a criminal offense to go to France and say, I don't think it was the I don't think it was the Russians. I don't think it was the Nazis who killed the Poles at Katyn in the Katyn Forest in 1940. I think it was really the Russians.
I think it was the Russian secret police. We now know it was the Russian secret police who did that because the Russians have admitted it. Mister Gorbachev has admitted it. Mister Yeltsin has admitted. The Russians have actually given the Polish government photo copies of the murder warrants, the death warrants that were signed by the Soviet secret police for the 15,000 Polish officers who were murdered as prisoners of war in the forest of Katyn near Smolensk in 1940.
So there's no question about that particular crime. But at Nuremberg, it was the Germans who were accused of having murdered those 15,000 Polish officers. So anybody who goes to France now and challenges that fact is committing a criminal offense, and they're gonna be fined like me, and that newspaper, and that journalist. But it gets worse because it is a criminal offense to mention these crimes, to mention the challenging of these crimes. So the indictment that was served on me said, mister Irving, you are accused of having, in July 1993, given an interview to a journalist of Le Monde in which you stated, I do not believe that the dot dot dot existed.
And the words are followed by brackets with the words censored under the Fabius Gesso law of 1990. So they're not even allowed to mention those words in the indictment telling you what you're being charged with. This is helps the reason for that is simple because part of the penalty in France when you have been found guilty of something in France like that is not only you find some horrendous sum, not only you order to pay all the legal costs of all the lawyers who've turned out against you, and it isn't only the lawyers of the government who are against you, You find suddenly in court against you, lawyers representing all sorts of strange organizations of communist veterans and and and Jewish victims and this kind. They've all got their lawyers in court representing these associations and organizations. They've all got an interest in seeing mister Irving punished, and the judge will say, mister Irving, you will pay a fine and you will pay compensation to these.
You'll pay those lawyers. You'll pay compensation to that organization, that organization. Every organization represented in court gets a nice handout, and the final penalty is you're also ordered to publicize in a display advertisement in 5 of France's biggest newspapers the full details of the offense and the penalty. And that, of course, is the most savage, swingeing financial penalty because you know what display advertising costs. And they don't want in that advertisement that you're going to put in the newspapers announcing your penalty, they don't want you to repeat, of course, what you've been charged with.
That's why that's been cut out of the indictment. It's all a bit Orwellian. If you've ever read Animal Farm or 1984, you understand what I'm talking about. The things that George Orwell wrote about it about in the 19 forties, the 19 fifties as being an absurd situation which might one day happen have already happened in many countries in Europe and around the world because vested interest is trying to protect legends. So what are these legends?
I've got no vested interest one way or the other. If I say, as I do, I don't believe in the legend of the Holocaust as it is at present propagated, it's not because I've got a vested interest. I'm not making money out of saying that. No one's gonna come up to me afterwards and say, you done you done well, Irving. Here's the money I promised you for saying.
No one's going to say that. I'm saying it because it's the conclusion that I've come to. And the fact that I say that in fact does not earn me money. It costs me money. My my agent, when I published his book originally in 1977, Max Becker, a dear old American literary agent, one of the best, when I delivered the manuscript to me, he said, David, we got a problem with your Hitler book.
Where are the 15 pages on the holocaust? I said, Max, there aren't 15 pages on the holocaust. He said, well, yeah, but you gotta write them. You gotta put them in. You can't write a biography of Adolf Hitler without putting at least 15 pages on the holocaust.
And I say, Max, my problem is I've written this book based on the archives. I knew all Adolf Hitler's private people. I got to know all his private secretaries. All the girls who had worked as typist to Adolf Hitler, I spent 10 years winning their trust in getting them to look under their beds and find their old cardboard boxes full of diarism and private letters and papers that they're written. I spent 10 years finding out what really happened based on the archives, and in all those archives around the world, there aren't those 15 pages you're talking about, Max.
There's not one single sheet of paper linking Adolf Hitler with what you call the Holocaust, so I'm not gonna put it in. And he says, Jesus, David, if that's your let me tell you what's gonna happen. You're gonna lose the book of the month club. You're gonna lose the Reader's Digest deal. You're gonna lose the Sunday Times contract in England.
You're gonna lose any chance of doing a paperback or softback publication in the United States because all the 7 biggest publishing houses, the paperback publishing houses in the United States who publish paperbacks, the 7 biggest are all Jewish. And they're not gonna pop there. You can forget about doing a contract. You're talking about losing $1,000,000. And in a rather cavalier fashion, I said, Max, what you haven't had, you don't miss.
But he got 10%, of course, about what I hadn't had. And and and he wasn't happy about that at all. And he said, David, I said, I cannot. There is no evidence. He said, for God's sake, David, if you cannot find the evidence, do what the others do, invent the evidence.
I remember him very clearly saying that. That's one thing I remember very clearly. And the other thing I remember very clearly was the day when it came to the Viking press to publish this book. And a few weeks beforehand, we had a meeting with all their sales staff. All the Viking presses leading sales representatives came from all over the country right across the union.
They came to New York, and I had to address them. This this happens in publishing hours. They have 5 or 6 of their leading authors with the the new books of that year that are gonna be published. You get up on the stage, and you talk to the the sales representatives. They sit in front of you, and you tell them what's new about this book.
And as I went on the stage, the sales manager of the Viking press came up to me, and he took me out of the army and said, Dave, we've got a bit of a problem. We've got a bit of a problem with your book Hitler's War. He says, I don't know how to put this to you, but this problem will be solved instantly if you can give me the right answer to the following question. Are you Jewish? It's the kind of question that means nothing to you at the time.
But over the years that followed, that was 1975, 20 years have passed since then, that little question has kept on coming back into my mind. I had to say I'm not Jewish. His face fell. He knew they had a problem, and I felt sorry for him, but there was nothing I could do about it. If I if I was called Irving David, I suppose he might have had a chance.
But being called David Irving, everything was just the wrong way around for him. So that book has been in trouble ever since. A few years ago, I was interviewed by somebody in Time Magazine, and he said, you know, before I had this lunch date with you today, Irving, I went and had a look in our clippings library to get all the old clippings about you. And I tell you another thing I've noticed. Until you published your book Hitler's War in 1975, you couldn't put a foot wrong.
You've got whole page reviews in Newsweek and Time Magazine. You've got wonderful press coverage of everything you did, and then suddenly everything turned sour. And I said, tell me about it. I've I've noticed that fact myself. But it's interesting because when you're standing in the eye of the storm and you see it all that you that you've been visiting quite harmlessly for 30 years.
You find bookshops windows being smashed in. You must be doing something right. You must be doing something right. Otherwise, you as an individual citizen, why else would all these people be getting so mad as hell at you? And the answer is that for 30 years I worked in the archives and people believe what I say.
My voice carries a certain certain authority. I give evidence in court hearings in Canada, for example, against Ernst Zundel. I was called for the defense, and the judge afterwards said in private to the other lawyers, you'd never seen a witness who was as compelling as this English historian because I had the answers. They would show documents on the screen which I'd never seen in my life before, and the prosecution counsel would believe straight away we have the rather like the OJ Simpson case. Mister Irving, how do you explain that document?
Here is the chief of the SS talking about gas chambers in a document, a letter written to him, and I would say straight away, but look again at that letter. It has no security classification on it. If they were talking about the final solution, which was the most, as you yourself say, the most secret of all the Nazi operations, this document would have a security classification on it. It would be stamped as secret or top secret. In German, commander, and if it hasn't got the rubber stamp, it would at least have those initials after the registration number of the letter, g r s or g k d o s.
I'm a commander's eye. And the fact that it hasn't got that security classification means that this document is of what I would call janitorial level. Literally. A perfectly innocent explanation as to why these sinister words like gas chamber come into a German document is because, in fact, it turned out to be part of the coking process for generating the necessary high temperature gases that were used in the crematoria. So what am I saying?
Well, the first thing I say is I came in through the back door, so to speak, when I was writing the Adolf Hitler book, and it occurred to me that nowhere in any of the archives did I find one single document linking Hitler with what is now called the Holocaust. Notice the word that I say is now called the Holocaust. If you look in in the newspapers before about 1970, you won't find that word. It's a modern word. It's a modern word.
It's been generated by the Holocaust lobby because they know how to sell something. They're selling a package. It's got a capital h like Tylenol, capital t, they're selling a word and a concept. And that word holocaust is the first word I'm going to impress on you as being something you should be very suspicious of. You're invited not to open the package, please.
Like a package of Tylenol. Please don't touch the package. You have to buy the whole package without inspecting it. And anybody who does want to open that package and inspect it is then called something else. This is the second word, holocaust denier.
Isn't that absurd? How can anyone deny the holocaust? We've seen the pictures. We've heard the eyewitnesses. Holocaust denier.
There's nothing more absurd, nothing more worthy of repugnance than the holocaust denier. Capital h, capital d. Not somebody who questions the holocaust or somebody who is a skeptic as I am. Bits of the story are undoubtedly true. Let me say this right from the start.
There's no doubt at all, and particularly the young members of the audience here should realize this. There's no doubt at all that the Nazis in their 12 year rule inflicted nameless horrors on large segments of the population, including the Jews and other people whom they disliked. No doubt about that at all. What I do question, the methods. Was it done on a methodical scale?
Was it done as a measure of the German state? If the Nazis massacred the Jews on any enormous scale, was it done on the orders of Adolf Hitler himself? In other words, the man who the German people had elected as their head of state, Or was it something that just happened? Was it premeditated, to use OJ Simpson terminology? Or was it second degree murder?
These are the phrases we all know now if you all have been sitting in front of our televisions. Was it premeditated or was it second degree murder? Was it all planned from the moment Hitler came to power? Or did it just happen because war broke out and because the Germans saw that we allies, the British and the Americans, were burning alive 100 of 1000 of their people every night, and the Germans wanted to hit back at someone, and it's human nature to hit back at somebody who's in your power. Do you want to see what it looks like when a 100,000 people are being burned alive?
Here's a picture of it. Incidentally, there, that picture there. Not a 100,000. Actually, it's it's 40,000 people in the little German town of Fortsheim. None of you have heard of that.
You've heard of Dresden and Hiroshima, but Fortsheim, that was 10 days after Dresden being burned alive, 40,000 people in 20 minutes. And that moment that photograph is taken by one of our airmen from the air. Burned alive, barbecued because they were not the wrong color, not because they were the wrong race, but because they were Germans. They were living on the wrong side of a frontier. And if I can divert here for a moment, I would say that if a crime was committed during World War 2 by any side, and I'm very open minded about crimes being committed by all sides, I don't think the crime was genocide.
This is the other word to watch for. Remember, we got 3 words now, holocaust, holocaust, denial, and genocide. The crime wasn't genocide. It's a a word I make up, innocenticide. The killing of innocent people in war.
That is a crime. If the Jews were killed in Auschwitz or Treblinka or anywhere else, and we'll look at that particular statement in a minute, it wasn't a crime because they were Jews. It was a crime because they were innocent Jews who were being killed. It was their innocence that made them a crime made it a crime and not their Jewishness that made it a crime. But the Jewish community today don't want that.
That's why they've invented the 3rd word, genocide, the killing of a race, because that's what they make money out of. If you enlarge the concept into the crime being the killing of any innocent people, then all sorts of people can qualify, please. The citizens of the citizens of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, the American airmen who suffered when they were shot down and held in captivity, the Australians who were held in Japanese prison camps, all sorts of people suffered nameless horrors during World War 2, innocent people. The people in this photograph, they suffered, but they haven't been able to claim a bent little for being burned alive. But this is it, you see.
The word genocide is a very useful word because it limits the concept of who is entitled to the money, please. Only people have been killed because of their race. But it wasn't their race that made it into a crime, it was their innocence that made it into a crime. So those are the 3 words that are used in the propaganda that surrounds the holocaust campaign today, and it's big money. Big money is involved in this.
The American taxpayer, I'm quite sure you are doing this willingly, are donating between $3,000,000,000 and $4,000,000,000 a year to state of Israel, and you do it willingly because you are guilty. And your guilt is brought home to you again and again as Christian human beings by television programs, which bring it home to you in a subliminal way that you are guilty of the holocaust in some way because you are the same religion at the same race as the Germans who carried out this holocaust crime. And so you pay the money and you don't complain. And if anyone was to stand up and complain about the 3 or $4,000,000,000 going that way, he would be instantly accused of being anti Semitic. And the Germans are paying $1,000,000,000 just under $1,000,000,000 in reparations and restitution for the same reason.
$5,000,000,000 a year going that way upon which that state depends. And you begin to understand why they don't like me when I come along and say, I have got no axe to grind, which is true. I'm not Jewish. I'm not anti Jewish. I'm not anti Semitic despite everything they've done to me, but I am a truthful historian, and I'm going to ask certain questions.
First question is, if they killed 4,000,000 people in Auschwitz concentration camp, this was the original figure. Since we revisionists, as we're called, began campaigning about this 4 or 5 years ago, suddenly the 4,000,000 figure has been abandoned. It's now only 1,000,000. It's extraordinary. They wiped off 3,000,000 off that figure in Auschwitz.
Yet the overall figure of 6,000,000 hasn't changed. I don't understand the mathematics. I'm sure somewhere buried deep in the Talmud is a strange kind of mathematical equation which explains how you can take off 3,000,000 and still end up with 6,000,000, the original figure they started off with. It's like one of those quiz show questions. But believe me, ladies and gentlemen, it's a lot less than a1000000 in Auschwitz.
But I'm not going to say it was only a 1,000 Jews who were killed in Auschwitz because if even 1 Jew is murdered, that's a crime. But what I am going to say is what did happen and what didn't happen.
Speaker 1: And
Speaker 2: I'm only going to deal with Auschwitz because that basically is the capital ship of the whole of the Holocaust campaign. If Auschwitz sinks, and it is, believe me, a very legal vessel indeed now, if Auschwitz sinks without trace, then the whole of the Holocaust campaign is in doubt and open to skepticism, to healthy skepticism, not to vicious malignant skepticism which antisemites might like, but to the kind of healthy skepticism which any ordinary citizen is invited to show to any subject, whether it's the assassination of JFK or the OJ Simpson case or any other event which bulks large on our historical horizon. If they murdered a 1000000 people in Auschwitz using poison gas, why is there no trace of that gas in the buildings of Auschwitz today? This is the first question, and it's a very interesting question because it never occurs to me. It never occurred to me.
I have to admit it that you should carry out the same kind of tests on a building that you carry out in documents as a historian. You remember when the Adolph Hitler Diaries first surfaced in 1983? A man in Germany claimed to have found Adolph Hitler's private diaries, and he earned $9,000,000 from a foolish German magazine to whom he supplied these diaries at the rate of 1 a week because that's how long it took him to write them. Yes, ma'am. And I was the person who exposed those diaries as being fake at that magazine's press conference in April 1983.
But it's the obvious things that you don't spot. I said carry out the tests on the paper, test the ink. When you write with ink, fountain pen ink, the ink begins to oxidize the moment it hits the air, and a good laboratory can tell you, a good forensic police laboratory can tell you how old a signature is. Above all, they can tell you if the ink is ballpoint ink or or or regular ink, fountain pen ink. And I said test the ink, test the paper, test the glue, test the string.
You can do all these. Well, I mean, you've been watching the television the last few weeks anyway, so you know what the bariters can do when they want to age something and test the age of something. But what didn't occur to me was the fact that Adolf Hitler's diaries were stacked up on front of us in that press conference. 72 of them written by this man as it turned out. Not by Adolf Hitler, but by this forger.
And these 72 diaries were all written in identical leather notebooks, rather cheap leather notebooks. That meant that that man, Adolf Hitler, back in about 1922, had gone into his local Barnes and Noble and said, I want 72 of those diaries, please. I'm going to write a diary. And, of course, it isn't like that. And it never occurred to me, never occurred to anyone that diaries extending over the last 20 or 30 years are higgledy piggledy.
Come in all sorts and sorts of shapes and colors and sizes because that's the way you buy them year by year. It's the obvious things you overlook, and none of us none of us historians thought of demanding that there should be tests carried out on the fabric of the gas chambers at Auschwitz. The buildings survived partly. They're in ruins, some of them, others are more or less intact. And eventually, in 1988, as part of this Canadian trial that I mentioned, the case against Ernst Lyndall, the defense lawyers decided to send an expert in gas chambers over to Auschwitz.
An expert in gas chambers. You're only going to find that in the United States, of course, because only the United States gasses people are present. So this expert in gas chambers, a man called Fred Leuchter, was sent over to Auschwitz to test the gas chambers of the Nazi concentration camp. Would these gas chambers work? Is there any trace that they have in the news as gas chambers?
Is there any residue of cyanide gas in the walls? All the obvious questions, and he came back, and he wrote an affidavit for the court, which we eventually published as the Leuchter Report. Photographs of the buildings, photographs of the brickwork, photographs the the actual tests, the chemical tests carried out, the forensic test carried out in the 48 samples that he brought back to the United States, bits of brickwork that he took out of the walls and submitted to the the slightest significant trace of cyanide compound. In the 48 sample, there were colossal traces of cyanide, a 100 and 41 milligrams of hydrogen brickwork. And what is the explanation of that result?
Well, the answer is in that sample he had taken out of a little gas chamber that was used for disinfesting clothing, killing the lice and the vermin in the prisoner's clothing. The clothing was stuffed into this little gas chamber, which looked like a gas chamber. They got a steel door with a peephole and ventilation systems and racks rather like a dry cleaners for wheeling clothing in and out. And he took that sample out of that brickwork, and that's where the colossal cyanide was found. It's significant because all our opponents have said, you don't expect to find cyanide in the brickwork after 50 years.
How absurd. How ludicrous. After 50 years of wind and rain, you're not going to find cyanide compounds, residue of a gas in the brickwork. And the answer is you do. And the proof of that answer is, first of all, they did find the residue in that little gas chamber.
In fact, the walls of that little gas chamber were so soaked in cyanide compounds that they had turned blue. Got photographs of it here. What those blue walls look like, you can see here. Color photographs of the little gas chamber in Auschwitz showing the blue stain on the walls where the cyanide has seeped through the brickwork, forming a compound called ferric ferric cyanide, which is otherwise known by the trade name of Prussian blue. It becomes so permanent it's actually used as a dye stuff.
Prussian blue or Berliner Blau. And when this was denied, a brave German scientist called Gerhard Rudolph and this is a sad story but unhappy ending. Young Gerhard Rudolph, a young 28 year old German chemist, a research chemist working at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. The Max Planck Institute is one of the most prestigious bodies with the kind of reputation of the National Institutes of Health here in Bethesda, Maryland. He decided to write his dissertation on that one subject, the permanence of cyanide compounds in brickwork.
Now having written his dissertation, he then allowed it to be circulated in printed form to 2,000 German chemists professors of chemistry at universities who confirmed that what he'd written was true. Too late, the traditional enemy spotted what he did, and they had him dismissed from his position at the Max Planck Institute. The letters have now been published where they put pressure on the Max Planck Institute then to be dismissed. And 1 month ago, young Gerhard Rudolph was sentenced by the German government to 14 months in prison for allowing his scientific report, his dissertation to be published. Under the German laws for the suppression of free speech, he had infringed against those laws, and he's now been sent to prison for 14 months for allowing his chemical results to be circulated to the professors of chemistry and physics in Germany.
It's a horrifying thought. It's all as though the wheel is coming full circle. The Germans don't realize themselves, unfortunately, those who live in Germany, because they've lived under oppressive regimes for so long, since the beginning of this century, they didn't realize no reason. But think about it in the United States. If a research chemist in the United States had published a report and then found himself being prosecuted because his scientific report came up with politically unacceptable conclusions.
That's what's happening in Germany every day. I have been fined by the German government $22,000 for saying one sentence in a meeting like this in Munich. The sentence that I said was the gas chamber in Auschwitz, which they showed to the tourists, was built by the Polish government after the war. I said that at a meeting on April 21, 1991, and I was fined $22,000 for making that one remark as a historian to a conference like this. Imagine that happening in the United States, a $22,000 fine to give an expert opinion where one is open to being shot down, where anybody can stand up in discussion time and say, Irving, you are talking through your hat.
The facts are obviously as follows. But, no. They protect the legend with $22,000 fines in my case, and with being sent to prison for 14 months in the case of doctor Guillermo Arudolf. This tells us something about the quality of the legend that they're trying to protect, I think. And what about that statement that I made?
The gas chamber they show the tourists in Auschwitz is a fake built by the Poles after the war. I said that in 1991. In the court hearings, we applied I applied to call the director of the Auschwitz State Museum as a witness knowing that he would confirm what I said. The court would not allow us to call any witnesses or to produce any documents in our defense. They said under German law, it is an established fact that that was a gas chamber, and you are not allowed to question it.
You have committed an offense. Fine, $22,000, 30,000 Deutsche Marks. The amusing thing is that the biggest French magazine, Lex Press, which is very similar to Newsweek or Time, The biggest French news magazine, Lex Press, on January 26th this year published a 12 page investigation of Auschwitz on the anniversary of the camp's liberation, and they came to exactly the same conclusion. This prestigious French author, he wrote in French that he had discussed with the director of the Auschwitz Museum and with the deputy director of the Auschwitz Museum, a woman, the artifacts that they showed to the public, and he had come to the conclusion that 60% of what is now on display in Auschwitz is fake, and that in particular, the gas chamber that they showed to the tourists was never used as a gas chamber, and that the Auschwitz Museum authorities have confirmed to him that it was built in 1948, 3 years after the war by the Polish communists as a display exhibit, and this is totally fraudulent, to use his own words, tout I e f u. Everything in it is false.
So I've written to the German government, and 20,000 of my friends around the world have written the same letter to the German government, to ambassadors, consuls general, journalists in Pretoria and Melbourne and Canberra and everywhere around the world. 20,000 letters saying if L'Express has written that in January this year, is it true or is it false? If it is true that that gas chamber is a fake built by the Poles after the war, is it now permitted to say so in Germany or is it still a criminal offense? If it is permitted to say so, then why was David Irving fined $22,000? If it's still a criminal offense, then why haven't you prosecuted the French magazine which was on sale in Germany?
And the replies that have come from the German government before the German government in Bonn issued a central director to all its ambassadors around the world not to reply to this letter, again, an interesting admission of defeat. The replies are truly illuminating and, in fact, hilarious. What other evidence do we have that the holocaust legend is leaking? Well, there are no documents. Not one single page of German wartime documents talks about gas chambers or killing people with gas.
And there are people who say, but Irving, you don't expect to find any documents. The Nazis will have destroyed everything in the last weeks of the war. Well, somebody who says that is unfamiliar with the kind of chaos that exists even in even now in the German archives. If you go to the National Archives in Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington and see the captured German records there, they're still in disarray. The Germans in the final weeks of chaos would not have had time to meticulously go through every single file and folder and document, removing every document in because even if and even if every carbon copy at Hitler's headquarters had been preserved and saved and rescued from Hitler's headquarters in Poland before the Russians arrived there, The person at the receiving end of those orders would have received it too through his teleprinter, and he would have made copies.
And even if every copy of that had been destroyed, there's always some felt fable, some corporal who writes a private diary or who writes a letter out to mommy in which he describes what they did that day. And those documents have turned up now in profusion, but there's nowhere in the private diaries or private letters of the Germans during those years not a single reference explicitly to killing people in gas chambers. There's lots of references to other things being done to the Jews, but the gas chambers just don't survive in the archives. This I find significant because I've worked in the archives, and I know what to expect and what not to expect. And I would expect to have found that by now, 50 years after.
And about 20 years ago, I with a $1,000 bundle of, of notes and come up with 1 single wartime document. I did it to Deborah Lipstadt in Atlanta a few weeks ago, who's my arch enemy here in the United States. I stood up at the back of her audience where she had delivered
Speaker 1: a speech in which she had made mid speed of
Speaker 2: me, not when I was sitting in the back row. And I said, you've quoted this, and you've said you've obtained blueprints and documents of gas chambers on the Moscow archives. Here's a $1,000, missus Lipstadt, if you can show the audience now that blueprint you just talked about because you can't. You know, you've lied. They've lied.
And she she was she she eventually called the police to have me thrown out of of the meeting. That's the only way they operate. People will say not the proof that does the the the documents didn't exist. The Germans managed to destroy every single document that they couldn't have destroyed the documents that we British had. Now you wouldn't know this, but 1942 and 1943, the middle years of the war, we British had developed a computer which was reading the German codes.
And in those 2 years, 1942 and 1943, we had developed that computer to break the codes of Himmler and the SS, And in particular, we were reading every day the messages of the concentration camp commandants of the 7 biggest concentration camps, including Dachau and Buchenwald and Auschwitz. And what do these signals say that Auschwitz is sending back to Berlin every day that we were reading without the Germans knowing it? Remember, they're sending this in their top secret code, so they're not concealing anything. They're sending it in their own secret code, and they have no reason to believe that we British have a computer, which didn't exist in those days, but we built the first ever computer in the world. It was as big as a house, and we were breaking the German codes with it.
The SS codes, the command line of Auschwitz, a man called Rudolf Hoss, was reporting back to Berlin every day what he was doing in his camp, and he was giving statistics, 4 figures every day. The numbers of prisoners who had arrived during the previous 24 hours ending at midnight, the number of prisoners or slave laborers, if you will, who had left the camp during the previous 24 hours, the numbers of prisoners who had who were on hand at midnight, the total in in the camp at Auschwitz, And the 4th figure was losses, Ab Genga, which was correctly interpreted by British intelligence as meaning the number of prisoners who had died during the previous 24 hours in Auschwitz. A minuscule figure which was again broken down into 3 categories. The number of prisoners who had died from epidemics and illness, the numbers of prisoners who had been die who had died from from, shooting, and the number of prisoners who had died from hanging. The British official historian, professor Sir Frank Hinsley, the master of Saint John's College in Cambridge University in in British Secret Service who revealed these facts in an appendix to volume 2.
You can get it in your local library probably at your university of the history of the British Secret Service. He says on analyzing these Auschwitz daily telegrams that there's no doubt that most of the deaths in Auschwitz occurred through natural causes. We could be called them natural causes in a slave labor camp. Typhus in particular, starvation, hunger, overwork, old age. By far, the smallest number of deaths was caused by executions, he writes.
Now that is an academic historian who I trust. He has no axe to grind one way or the other. He's just reporting what he finds in his unusual source of information. The secret reports of the camp commandant himself, written in a secret code which he thought nobody else was reading but himself and the chief of the SS. Why should he conceal if he was killing 100 of 1000 of Jews every day as is now said?
How many Jews is he supposed to have killed every day? Well, the figures you've read them, 50 or 60,000 a day he was killing, but we run up against another problem there, ladies and gentlemen, because if you're killing 50 or 60,000 people a day, be they Jews or anybody else, and if you're cremating 50 or 60,000 people a day, you need the capacity to cremate that number of people. And that's where the statistics break down because we know exactly how many crematoria they had at Auschwitz. They had a large number. They had 5 or 6 buildings there, which went all operating together, but still quite a large number.
And we know that if these crematori were working throughout the period the camp was in operation, they could, working flat out, have cremated about 60 or 70,000 bodies. It's an ugly subject, but we're getting now to final totals. And we've got another figure which kicks in here because if you're cremating 60,000 people a day, you're going to need a huge quantity of coke. We know, and any crematorium expert or manager here in in in downtown Cincinnati will confirm this. If you got a coke operated crematorium, it takes 30 or 40 50 kilograms of coke for each.
So you're looking at a huge quantity of coke being required every day for these figures you read about in newspapers now, about 2,000 tons of coke a day. But we have aerial photographs of Auschwitz who were taken during the war, taken by American and British and South African planes. Photographs that are so detailed. I have them. I have them with me.
Photographs that are so detailed, you can see the people walking around in the streets of the camp. There's no signs of huge quantities of coke, no mountains of coke, there are no huge mass graves either, no pits, no lines of people waiting outside the gas chambers. All these legends begin to dissolve when you look at these photographs under a magnifying glass. We can be very precise about the coke, in fact, because in the Russian archives, which should now become available, why it were too in Moscow, the secret archives in Soviet Union, they found the entire operating documents of the Auschwitz concentration plant, including the quantities of coke that were supplied for the crematoria throughout the entire period. It's a figure worth making a mental note of.
2,188 tons of Coke was supplied to Auschwitz from start to finish, which is enough to cremate 70 or 80,000 bodies again. So you're coming roughly to a figure of about a 100000 bodies, which is again confirmed, oddly enough, by the Russians who released to the western powers 4 years ago the death books of Auschwitz, which contain all the death certificates of everyone who died in Auschwitz. 46 bound volumes of death certificates with a total of 66,000 names. So again, you've got an order of magnitude of how many people died. And if most of those people died of natural causes and a fraction died of of being executed or murder or brutality, This is still a crime.
I'm not denying that, but we then come to a point which I mentioned earlier. The innocent aside fact that comes in Because if of those 100,000 people who died in Auschwitz, even a quarter were murdered, 25,000. Remember the picture I showed you here? On the one hand, 25,000 people being murdered in Auschwitz over the entire war years, and on the other hand, 40,000 people being burned alive in 20 minutes. The whole world talks about the one crime, endless television movies are made about it.
You're all made to feel guilty about it. The other crime is swept under the carpet as though it never happened. And when a British historian comes along and repeatedly talks about it, he's the one who finds himself being put in handcuffs and deported and hounded around the world and finding doors slammed in his face from Pretoria to Vancouver. It gives food for thought. I've only mentioned in this brief talk a very few of the facts which point in the direction that I'm talking telling the truth.
I know of no one document which operates in the other direction. I've got a lot of documents which show the Germans were very brutal. I've got a lot of documents which show the Germans massacring people on the eastern front. I'm not going to gain gainsay that for one moment. It's a question of orders of magnitude of of relativity between the crimes on the one hand and the crimes on the other.
And this is one word which is engraved on my shield as a historian, it's not just the word truth or justice, but even handedness. I think that the time has come 50 years after the war to see an even handedness. I boil with rage at the hypocrisy of other writers and other historians. I have to boil with rage at the hypocrisy of your own government sometimes. I boiled with rage at the time of the Oklahoma bombing last year, earlier this year.
And I think to myself, how many Oklahomans did your government fire at Baghdad during the Gulf War? How many Oklahomans have your citizens in the northern, states financed in Northern Ireland, for example, paid for the benefit of mister Jerry Allen who now comes in and out of the White House. This is the kind of hypocrisy which which irritates me. I I like to be able to stand back and say, if this is a crime, then that was a crime, and no one is going to tell me, David Irving, to shut up even if they bankrupt me. It began with my agent telling me all those years ago, if
Speaker 1: you don't put those 15 pages in that book, you're going
Speaker 2: to lose $1,000,000 in royalties over the next 10 years. And I said, forget the $1,000,000 in royalties. I want to write a book that's going to stand up by itself and go down in history as the one that people put. And my family don't understand me. I know this, and a lot of people don't understand me.
My publishers don't understand me, but I can sleep easy at night. I have no fear of ever being exposed as a fraud. I have no fear that someone is going to come along and say, we've got a document that proves you wrong. And, oh, well, suppose they do find a document that proves me wrong. I'm not going to drop it on the floor and sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist.
I'm not gonna call for that man to be locked up. I'm going to shorten my shoulders and say, well, for 30 years, I've given you a run for your money. I thought I was right. You've proved me wrong. Well done.
But they're not going to succeed. I've got an instinct which tells me that the truth is on my side in this particular fight. It's an interesting battle, ladies and gentlemen, but I have so many friends around the world that I'm convinced that I'm going to win it. Thank you very much. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Just in in conclusion, I mentioned one little example of my open mindedness. The man who took the color photographs which were in the Hitler biography as well photographer called Walter Fence. He's still alive. Eventually, when I got to know him very well, he showed me his collection of 3,000 color transparencies that he took when he was on Adolf Hitler's staff as a film cameraman. That has a picture of him earlier in the book with his film camera taken taking a picture.
Beautiful photographs. And I
Speaker 1: used to go and visit
Speaker 2: him at Lake Constance, which is near Switzerland, as you know. We would talk far into the night, and eventually, he would describe to me how he saw a mass execution going on. Himmler, the chief of the SS, came up to him and said, friends, it's boring here in Hitler's headquarters, isn't it? You want to go on an outing with me? Friends said, sure.
Himmler says, well, we're off to the eastern front for 3 days. For 3 days, they toured the Russian front visiting SS units and police units. And friends has told me the same story over the last 15 years 2 or 3 times, and he adds more and more details each time he tells me. You know, the way the memory remembers things that he didn't really want to say before. And he said one evening as we're drinking, Himmler says to me, hey, friends.
Tomorrow morning, I'm going to go and witness a mass execution. Do you wanna come along? Now I've got to admit this is where the German mentality and the English mentality obviously diverge. If somebody said to me, mister Irving, tomorrow I'm going to go and witness a mass execution. Do you want to come along?
I would find something else to do that morning. Believe me. I'd look at my watch. I'd say, well, my timetable was rather crowded. Thanks for the invitation, but can I give a rain check on him?
Prince said, clicked his hand and said, hi, Fuhrer. I'd be delighted to come along. And he finds himself at 7 or 8 next morning standing on the edge of a field the way you've imagined it. A large windswept desolate field somewhere outside Minsk. It was August 1941.
We've located it now. We know exactly what day it was. Watching as truckloads of civilians have driven up to pits on the far side of the field, being unloaded from these trucks, forced to line up, forced to take off all their valuable clothes and their valuables and put them in boxes and then stand up in a line against the edge of a pit and be machine gunned into this pit. And he watches it for an hour. And he describes various other he's He's telling me the story at 2 o'clock in the morning over a bottle of rather fine wine and his wife who's listening, round eyed.
This is back in about 1980, 1975. She says, Walter, you never told me this. And she's rather embarrassed. He he he's obviously do do you ever say, say, he's let his mouth he's running off his mouth of it. His wife says, Walter, were there women was there were there women and children there being killed as well?
He says, I can't remember. You know, he can remember. You see, I got these people to talk to me. Hitler's private secretary, a dear old lady who died 10 years ago, she was his secretary for 12 years from 1933 until 1 week before he committed suicide. She was with him in the bunker in Berlin, Christa Schroder.
She became so close to me as I worked on her that she actually gave me the only self portrait that Hitler sketched of himself. I I have it in the car outside, a very valuable piece of paper. She said, you know, I think you are wrong about Hitler and the Jews. This is again at like 3 in the morning, a conversation of tea or wine. I think you are wrong about, about the chief, she called him, the chief and the Jews, or Ah, she called him Ah as well.
Ah could be very cruel. And knowing the way with Krista Schroeder to get her to talk was to play her like a fish, not tug, but just reel out a bit of line. I said, well, what do you mean? She said, I was with him on the night of the long knives. Now the night of the long knives in history was in June 1934, a year after Hitler came to power when he decided to liquidate all his senior rivals in the Nazi party, the brown shirts, hence, and a dozen others.
In fact, it was 84 people who were finally murdered that night. She said, I was in Berlin, and I got a telephone call from Ah. He wanted me to fly his trade over to join him in Bard Goldersberg. He needed me. He needed he needed the secretary not to dictate though, but he needed them to talk to.
He needed human company. And they flew down that night from the Rhine city of Bad Godesberg down to Munich, and they climbed into those big Mercedes open limousines and drove out to a town on the outskirts of Munich. She described all this. She said she was with him when he went into the hotel. He arrested all his rivals, had them taken away by the SS, and they were shot later that day in the prisoners, Tadelheim, just lined up against the wall and shot.
It was the first bloody massacre of the Nazi regime. And she said later on that afternoon, they flew back to Berlin, and Hitler was obviously exhausted by the day's events. When they got back to Berlin, the German capital, Hitler vanished into his chancellery, into his building like the White House. He vanished into his chancellery, and she didn't see him for an hour. She said, mister Ernie, I went down into the cafeteria by myself, and I ordered dinner.
The chief and I, we were both vegetarians, and I knew he had eventually come down. And after about an hour, he showed up and he stood in the door, buttoning up his jacket, and he said, so for lanschwode, now I have had a bath, and I feel as clean as a newborn babe again. She told me that, I suppose, 15 years ago, 40 years probably had passed since she she heard him say those words. She'd never spoken unto anybody else, but those words had drifted around in her memory for 40 years, and she had longed to tell somebody this telling sentence, what the chief had said to her after killing his closest friends and rivals. I've had a bath, and I'm as clean as a newborn babe again.
A sentence that really says it all about him and about quite a lot of people. You get the impression that OJ Simpson had a bath and felt as clean as a newborn, but not that I want to prejudge out his guilt, but there we are. We'll have
Speaker 1: a 15 minute break, ladies
Speaker 2: and gentlemen, and then those of you who have stammer, we'll have a discussion afterwards. There's coffee at the back. Thank you. Is there not also a parallel not only between the crimes that the allies committed as such and the crimes that the Nazis committed. I didn't mention the Soviet Union, of course.
Well, the Soviet Union was one of the allies, but I suppose these statistics are so enormous that people don't seem to be able to grasp them. The number of people who died under Stalin's rule rule of terror. I remember when I was very, very small, at that age when you start standing up on your hind legs and groping along the bookshelves of your father's books, finding a book called the Red Terror,
Speaker 1: and
Speaker 2: a book next to it in the in the bookshelves called the Chekhkah. These were 2 books about the the Russian secret police and how they dealt with their opponents in the years after World War 1 and after the October Revolution. And I I devoured them, those those books, and they left indelible pictures impregnated on my mind of massacre and of murder and of atrocity, Horrifying pictures. I mean, I've got some word images still engraved on my mind just from reading those 2 books. And then when I married a Spanish woman in 1959, we then found out a great deal about how the communists had behaved in the Spanish Civil War, including coming to take away her father and and execute him in the courtyard, but they got the wrong one by mistake, and they took, his brother away and executed him instead.
And, so I was brought up in the right school. I knew everything that the communists had done. And one book I wrote in about 1975 was, as Rick mentioned, the the history of the Hungarian uprising of 1956 against the communist occupation of Hungary, for which I had access to a certain number of CIA files, which were very interesting because the CIA carried out in-depth psychological interrogations of a large number of the Hungarian refugees who came to this country after 1956. And there was no doubt in my mind, a very interesting discovery indeed, which I wasn't aware of until I began investigating that. I didn't realize this.
The reason I began writing a book about the Hungarian uprising was entirely irrelevant. I decided to write a book about something other than Hitler and the Third Reich just to show that I wasn't in a rut. But the odd thing was that when I began writing that book, I discovered from the CIA files that the Hungarian people, when they started that uprising, it began as an anti Jewish pogrom. It was essentially an anti Jewish revolution and not an anti communist revolution to begin with for the first few days. The Hungarian people regarded that their government in the 19 fifties as being a Jewish government, and they regarded the secret police, the graded, the AVH, as being a Jewish secret police.
And, essentially, it was because when the Red Army entered Hungary in 1945, they brought back into Hungary all the Jews who had taken refuge in the Soviet Union, and they were the ones who got the plum jobs, and they were the ones who got the trustworthy jobs as secret police chiefs and as torturers. And that's why the Jews were so hated in Hungary by 1956 because they were regarded as the people who had inflicted this nameless misery on the Hungarian people. And so the uprising began as an anti Jewish uprising. Every one of the Hungarian leaders at that time in 1956, Rakosi and Farkas and Gero and the rest Hungarian leaders, they were all Jews. And I never realized that when I set out to write it.
It's an extraordinary fact the way these things are kept away from the public consciousness. And, of course, inevitably when the book came out, I was accused of anti Semitism for having written it. What am I supposed to do when you discover something as a historian? Are you supposed to try and pretend it isn't that? Well, if you do pretend it isn't that, you are doing the Jewish people more harm than good, I think.
I delivered a lecture
Speaker 1: in Shreveport,
Speaker 2: in Louisiana about 6 months ago, and on this occasion, the audience was about as large as this, but half the audience had been taken over by the local Jewish community, and they decided to wreck my meeting by barracking and by interrupting and by being thoroughly obnoxious. And after an hour of this, with the rest of the audience getting very restless at the way they were not being permitted to hear me deliver my lecture, I then said to the leader of the Jewish community who was attacking me, I said, it just came to me like this. I said, I look at myself in the mirror in the mornings, and I know that I am disliked. I've been called disliked by reviewers in England. The Sunday Times called me the most disliked historian in Britain, which caused me to write a letter to The Sunday Times saying, is it the historian's duty to be liked, therefore?
And how do you know that I'm the most disliked historian in Britain? Do you stand in Oxford Street with a clipboard asking people, what do you think about historians? How do you rate David? And, oh, he's most disliked. I know I said to this Jewish mob in my audience that I am disliked, and I know why I am disliked.
Now you people have been disliked for 3000 years. Do you ever look in the mirror and ask yourselves why you are disliked? That might be the no. I didn't mean it in a I didn't mean it in an offensive way. I meant it as a helpful, self analytical way, the way that the communist, the Marxist Leninist advised to self criticize and self analyze.
Have you ever analyzed ourselves as race And said to yourselves, we have been hounded and persecuted and harried and massacred for 3000 years. Why us? They never ask themselves that question, do they? They never ask them that they come along and they harry and persecute others, and they behave in a fairly obnoxious way as I probably behave in their eyes, but they never asked themselves why, and they never cure their own faults. 1 of the the the leader of the of the of this faction in the audience stood up furiously.
From his accent, I could tell not only that he came from England, but from London. And from his accent, in fact, I could tell from which corner of London he came from because England, our accents are like that. We're very class conscious in England. We can tell what class somebody is by their accent, and we can tell which street almost they come from. If you've seen My Third Lady, you'll know this.
And I said, you come from Colindale, don't you? And he said, how do you know that? I said, your accent gives you away. And he was the leader of the gang, and he said, are you accusing us? Are you saying that we are responsible for Auschwitz ourselves?
It is a bit of a dazzling question, and when you think about it, I said, well, the short answer is yes. But that is a cruel answer because to do the question justice, you've got to have a lot of intervening stages, of course. But the short answer, if you want to hop from a to z, is yes. If you hadn't behaved the way you have as a race for 3000 years, first the Russians, then the Poles, then the Galicians, then the Austrians, and the rest wouldn't have harrowed and hounded you from pillar the post, so you end up finding yourselves in Auschwitz. And you've never asked yourselves why.
And they still don't want to accept that. To him that question and my answer was unacceptable. In Germany, it would no doubt have been grounds for another $22,000 fine. In Canada, I would have probably found myself in handcuffs again. But I don't think it was an anti Semitic answer.
It was an attempt to be helpful in a kind of psychiatrist couch way. Analyze yourself. Cast out the mote from thine own eye. Yes. A question.
Yes. Operation Kielhall. You're gonna have to remind me what Operation Kielhall was. I know the code word, but
Speaker 1: That was the, the creation of the Russian citizen.
Speaker 2: Oh, yes. That's right. Tolstoy. Nicholas Tolstoy's book and Howard McMillan. At the end of World War 2, there was a lot of tidying up to be done.
A lot of people found themselves on the wrong sides of the frontiers. In British prison camps, we had large numbers of German, large numbers of Russian soldiers in German uniforms who had fought on the German side. We had British soldiers in German uniforms. There were Yugoslavs who had fought against Yugoslav. There were people who found themselves on the wrong sides of the lines as they crystallized at the end of World War 2.
The question arose what to do with these people. Well, Stalin had a certain leverage because he claimed to hold numbers of allied prisoners or allied troops on his side of the lines that he had found in German camps that had been overrun by the Red Army, and he made it known that he wasn't going to let them go home to the United States and Britain unless we turned over to the Soviet Union and to Yugoslavia the peoples that they wanted, like the Cossacks, like the Vlasov troops who had fought in Russian troops who had fought on on the German side. And so we took the ignominious step of hoping nobody would notice that we were quietly sweeping these people over the frontier into the Russian hands or into the hands of marshal Tito, knowing that they were going to be liquidated as soon as they arrived. Harold Macmillan, who was at that time a relatively lowly officer in the British Army, was part of that operation. It's something that nobody can be proud of, but I think you have to show a certain degree of humanity for the people who took those cruel decisions, rotten decisions, and say that they had been misinformed, and they were led to believe that by taking these ignominious steps, they were saving the lives of British or American soldiers who were in Russian or Yugoslav hands.
And, also, you have to take into account something which is too easily forgotten years later, and this is the climate of opinion at that time. When you wonder how a German soldier can point a machine gun at helpless women and children standing on the edge of a pit, you can't do it unless if you regard it in vacuo. You can only begin to understand that man's mentality if you think yourself back to the climate of 1942 or 1943 and say to yourself, this man has probably been through the streets of Berlin or a fortsheim or some other German town and seen what the allies have done to his civilians, and the climate of brutality and barbarism arises. And that climate of brutality and barbarism doesn't suddenly end when the war ends, like switching off a TV set. It lingers over for months and for years later.
It provides a climate which makes it possible to hold trials like the Nuremberg trial. It provides a climate which makes it possible even now 50 years later for Hollywood still to be churning out films of hatred against the Germans, although in their entire existence, the Nazi filmmakers made only 3 anti Jewish films, the film Judas, the film Der Ewigge Judas, the eternal Jew, and a film about the Rothschilds. Only 3 films made by doctor Goebbels and the Nazi film industry about the Jews, and yet Hollywood has retaliated with tens of thousands of anti German films over the last 50 years because the climate of hatred is still lingering on. What's my best estimate on how many Jews were exterminated or killed? It's an interesting question.
And only only recently, in the last month, the leading Jewish magazine in in England called Searchlight, which is a communist operation, has headlined an article saying David Irving now admits the Nazis killed 4,000,000 Jews. And this is a misquotation of what I said on a live Australian radio broadcast 2 months ago when Australian radio did a live interview with me, and the Australian radio asked me the same question. And I said, from all causes during the entire period of the of the the Nazi regime, from 1933 to 1945, I would estimate that up to 4,000,000 Jews will have died from all causes, including air raids, starvation, epidemics, being worked to death, dying of natural causes, everything else. But this magazine turned it around as now recanted and was saying that the Nazis had killed 4,000,000. To answer your question, if we look just at the case of Auschwitz, I think probably as many as 100,000 Jews died in Auschwitz, which is a brutal slave labor camp where they had no business to be.
The fact that they died in that camp of natural causes, in quotation marks, epidemics, mostly typhus, is neither here nor there. Of those 100,000, probably about 10,000 were actually physically murdered in the criminal sense. The rest died, They fell by the wayside in in Auschwitz. Machine gun in the pits behind the eastern front. In Auschwitz, we're talking about primarily Western European Jews from out from Hungary, France, Holland, and the other countries where they were rounded up.
And, of course, it it raises the logical question. If you're going to kill them and you round them up in France and all these other countries, why ship them all the way across Europe and then kill them when they arrive? It doesn't make sense. It's a logical question. The Eastern European Jews, the Russian Jews who were murdered in the pits, shot in the pits, You can do a few quantitative, analyses there of how many people were killed and isolated.
Don't believe the documents because an SS Einsatzgruppen commander, a task force commander, writes a report to Berlin saying, we have, in the last month, murdered 360,000 Jews. Don't believe that. It was their duty to inflate figures. They wanted to create big figures. They wanted body counts rather like the Vietnam War.
So those figures are unreliable. In fact, that's been shown as early as the Manstein trial of 1940s when the defendant, the the the lawyers defending Field Marshall Manstein examined these documents and said, here's this Einsatzkommando which claims to have killed 300,000 Jews in 1 month, and all they had was 30 men and 2 3 ton pickup trucks. How could they have transported all these people around? Obvious questions, you see. I think probably on the eastern front, up to 200000 or 300000 Jews from Minsk and the other big cities will have been rounded up and liquidated, not just by Germans, primarily by the Ukrainians and by the the native populations themselves who had scores to settle.
Again, this is politically incorrect to mention this. But in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, in particular, the local population had bitter scores to settle with the Jews because during the 1 year when those countries were occupied from 1940 to 1941 under the Hitler Stalin pact, they were occupied by the Soviet Union. The the NKVD, which was the secret police, the forerunner of the KGB, had occupied those 3 countries with the reign of terror and using largely Jewish officers because the KGB or the NKVD was largely Jewish officers at that time, they had carried out a rule a rule of liquidation and purge in those 3 countries, murdering 100 of thousands of local middle class entrepreneur. The priests, the businessmen, the intellectuals were rounded up, driven off at dead of night by the communists, by these Jewish organizations, and murdered. And a year later, when Hitler's armies invaded and marched through these countries, they found the local population busy solving the Jewish problem for them, taking revenge.
Nobody likes talking about that now. But if you read the records, particularly the German military records, where reports are coming to Hitler's headquarters saying, when we arrived in Riga, we found the local population busy exterminating the dunes. What shall we do? From Hitler's headquarters back goes a signal saying, don't interfere. Don't interfere.
This is the true story of what happened. You but you won't it's an unpopular story. Yes. Yes. Well, you're quoting to me figures from the inside of Peter Britannica.
I'm I'm repeating this to the end of the camera and to the audience. You're quoting figures from the inside of Peter Britannica on Jewish population statistics, at the end of World War 2 and the increments or reductions in those populations. I have to say there that you can't do meaningful calculations based on those statistics. I've seen people trying to make calculations based on those statistics and saying before World War 2, there were so many Jews in Poland, so many in Russia, so many in Austria, and doing simple sums on the back of an envelope and proving that nothing happened to them, or very little. You can't do that because you come up against serious, as any statistician will explain, a serious statistician, you come up against superable problems of definition.
What do you mean by a poll? What do you mean by a Jew? Even the Jews now can't decide who are Jewids. I'll give you one example. There's an article in last week's newspapers by the head of the German Jewish community, Ignaz Bubes, bitterly angry at the 300, 30,000 Jews who flooded into Germany from Russia because he says 1 third of those 30,000 Jews aren't Jews at all.
We don't accept that they're Jews. They don't meet our definition of who is a Jew. He's complaining. He said they've come in to Germany because this purely because that was the ticket they needed to get out of the Soviet Union. Who is a Pole?
Who is a Polish Jew? I mean, remember Hitler invaded Poland in September 1, 1939. 3 weeks later on 17th, the Russians invaded Eastern Poland. They declared the part of Poland they occupied to be part of the Soviet Union. Hitler, meanwhile, had expelled all the Jews from his half of Poland over the demarcation line into the Soviet part.
If the whole situation becomes hopelessly confused, you can't do meaningful calculations. And the Jews have benefited from that because, now they are and now they aren't. Now they're here and now they're not. Now they've got a Hebrew name and now they've got a Goldenberg name. They are what they want to be.
They're will of the wisps. You seek them here, you seek them there. You can't do meaningful calculations on the basis of statistics.
Speaker 1: That's not true.
Speaker 2: Yes. Well, I I I still stick by my opinion that you can't do meaningful statistics on the Jewish problem. The Nazis tried to do it. The Jews who tried to do it. You you you any attempt comes to grief on the basis of what is the definition of a Jew and what do you mean by an Austrian Jew and all the rest of it.
Yes. You're next.
Speaker 0: In, for the last 2 decades or so, maybe 3 decades, we've heard the co class 12 cover up the gas chambers.
Speaker 2: 1st of all, I have not seen any documents produced by the Vatican archives which refer to gas chambers. If they did, they would qualify to my mind for the $1,000 reward which I have offered for 20 years. There is no document. The Jewish community began raising a hue and a cry in September 1942. Gerhard Riegner, who was the secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, who sent an entirely spurious and bogus report to London demanding that it should be sent to his headquarters in New York, talking about Hitler having just taken a decision to kill millions of Jews, and they were going to be killed by poison gas and gas chambers in Poland.
And this is the first time that that legend arises. If you look in the British archives, you can see how eventually, a few months later, we turned the legend round and used it as propaganda which we started broadcasting into Germany, which explains where the story then begins to arise for me. We're listening to the echo of our own propaganda. But at the same time, in the British archives, and I've got the files here. I could share it to you after this if you want.
The foreign office official who who looks at this report, he says, the only references to gas chambers that we've seen are in documents provided to us by the Jewish community largely because they concern Jews. These people are not reliable sources. They've always exaggerated in the past and we see no reason to believe these people now. And they went on asking the very pertinent question, why use gas chambers? There are much easier ways of killing people.
What's wrong with a good old fashioned bullet that hasn't, let the Russians down until now? A very pertinent question. Yes. I've heard the title of the book. I haven't read it yet.
If you look in my book, Churchill's War, you'll find I quote a document, a rather unusual document. The question is, did Wall Street bankers finance Hitler? I know what you mean, what you're getting at. The the the German chancellor, Breuning, before Hitler, Hitler's predecessor, he wrote memoirs when when he fled from Germany in 1938. He came to United States eventually, and his papers are in Syracuse University in New York where I've seen them.
He wrote a letter to Churchill in 1937 after he had already gone into exile. And in this letter to Winston Churchill, Bruning, the German chancellor said if you knew the problems I had as chancellor, said I discovered that the major Jewish banks in Berlin had been financing Hitler and that one of the banks was controlled by the head of the Jewish community. I have I have a copy of this letter. Now after World War 2, Winston Churchill wrote to Bruning, the chancellor, who was by then living in the United States, and asked Bruning's permission to quote that letter in his 6 volume history of the 2nd World War. Bruning wrote a reply to a church saying, mister prime minister, I'm very sorry to have to reject your to refuse your your permission to quote that letter.
It was true what I wrote at the time in 1987, but given what has happened to the Jewish community in the years since then at the hands of the Nazis whom they financed, it would be too tragic for this fact ever to become known. And so Churchill wasn't permitted to quote the letter. And I have all these letters because they're in the files of the Time Life Organization, which published the American edition of the Churchill memoirs at Columbia University in the archives of the the then editor of of Life Magazine, Daniel Longwell. And like going through his private papers, I found copies of these Churchill brooding letters, which are very interesting indeed, of course. Needless to say, that didn't stop me from creating them in my book, Hitler's War.
Yes. So Hitler took money from whoever was foolish enough to give it to him. And in this case, the people who were were very foolish indeed. You wanted to ask a question?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. We
Speaker 2: have 2 or 3 more questions then I can go wind up the evening.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm one of those that believes our bill of rights, our freedom of speech has completely wiped out by the United Nations Charter to replace our constitution. Do you influence the United Nations on freedom of speech?
Speaker 2: Do you influence the United Nations on freedom of speech? Well, I I I can only repeat what I said at the very beginning of my talk, which is how dear and how precious I hold your first amendment rights in this country as a foreigner visiting this country and benefiting from those rights. And I deeply regret that you don't seem to cherish the first amendment writers as much as we do who suffer from other countries, where first where the freedom of speech is progressively eroded, and where a scientist can be sent to prison, as in Germany now, because he comes up with a politically incorrect chemical result. This would be unthinkable in this country, and I only hope that you stand firm to the flag of your first amendment rights in this country, and you don't allow any power to erode them or to to to depredate, them, whether United Nations or any other power. I I strongly mistrust the United Nations, and I can't wait for the day when it finally collapse and implodes.
Speaker 1: Yes. I've
Speaker 2: I've seen stories that that, Jenny Jerome, the the the mother of Churchill, was Jewish, and, this has been reported in in, Jerusalem newspaper, I think, a few months ago. And I'm obviously looking into that, that she had Jewish blood in her maternal line. Very interesting indeed. I don't think Churchill was cognizant of that fact. He never mentioned it.
But what is interesting is his links with the Jewish community, which I'll go into in a little bit of detail here, because they're not been gone into by any of the other Churchill biographers for obvious reason. In particular, the main authorized Churchill biographer, Martin Gilbert, hasn't gone into it for the simple reason that he's one himself, and he doesn't want to harp on on on that fact. But, the two basic areas of interest to to look at in Churchill's career are the period when he was in the so called wilderness, when he resigned from Stanley Baldwin's cabinet as a minister. For the next 10 years until 9 1939, he was out of office, out of any office at all. He was just a member of parliament.
So all he had was his salary as a member of parliament and his rather pitiful earnings as a journalist, and yet somehow he managed to to support an enormous country estate, which cost a very large sum of money to support with all the gardeners and the nurseries and the the nurses and the nannies and the cooks and the housekeepers and all the rest of it. He had a private staff of sometimes 20 or 30 people, all supported on his salary as a member of parliament, which was at that time £500 per annum, $750 a year or $2,000 actually because at that time, I think it was $4 per pound. How did he do it? Well, the answer is that from 1936 onwards, he was financed by a little secret pressure group called the focus. You won't find much reference to the Focus in the history books, but it certainly existed, and there are several files of Churchill's private papers relating to the Focus.
The focus was a group of perhaps 30 or 40 leading British industrialists and bankers and former politicians who decided that Churchill was worth keeping afloat, and they funded him. They weren't all Jews. They were primarily Jewish, but they were also left wing, socialist and left wing conservative members of parliament who all decided to keep him afloat. In July 1936, the then chairman of the British, of the Shell Petroleum Company wrote out a check for Churchill with the order of £40,000, which in modern day money would be probably about $700,000, gave it to him as a gift. He was Jewish.
It was a Jewish gift to Churchill, and the intention was that Churchill they they they bought him. He became the pied piper from that moment on, and the one who pays the piper calls the tune. If you look at the events as they really until 1936, he hardly gave Germany a passing mention in his speeches and writings. Other things were more important. From 1936 onwards, he began beating the anti Nazi, anti German drum.
And at that time, there was a great deal of pro German sentiment in Britain as witness to the behavior of the Duke of Windsor, the king. King Edward who king Edward the 8, who ruled for just less than a year after the death of his father was very pro German and pro Hitler and actually got on very well with that outfit when he visited Germany later in in 1937. He was forced to abdicate by the same lobby, but it was this lobby which is financing Churchill from 1936 onwards and which finally maneuvered and engineered his introduction into the cabinet in 1939 and finally his taking over as prime minister in 1940. He fought a war that Britain had no real interest in. I've repeatedly said this.
Any logical perception of World War 2 now, looking back after 50 years, screams to the high heavens, and we can see quite clearly that we should have said we should have said to the Poles in 1939, you've got a problem with the Germans. Sort it out yourself. We should have said to the to the Jews, you've got a problem with the Nazis. Sort it out yourself. It's no concern of Britain and the British empire.
We've got other fish to fry. That's what we should have said. Churchill, unfortunately, was beholden to these people, and he had no alternative. So in 1940, when we had a choice put to us of accepting the very generous peace offer that was put to us, which has been concealed from the history books by the Germans, or fighting a totally senseless war onwards, Churchill took the wrong turning and bankrupted Britain and ruined the British Empire. I first said this in my book, Churchill's War in 1987, and now 5 other major historians have said the same thing.
This has now become known as the revisionist line of history on of of 2nd World War. And I'm the one who actually opened up that path, making people think the unthinkable, looking at the alternative route that we could have taken in 1940. In 1941, just to end this, it becomes very interesting indeed because the Weizmann Papers, which are the papers of Chaim Weizmann, who was the first president of the state of Israel, and he was the leader of the international Zionist movement throughout World War II. The Weizmann Archives foolishly or wisely gave me complete to all the Weizmann correspondence with Churchill. And in the Weizmann archives, all Churchill's correspondence with Weizmann throughout the war years and before the war and all his notes on his meetings with Churchill.
I'm only going to mention one of those letters here. It's a letter written by Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the Zionist movement, at that time living in the United States, to Winston Churchill in September 1941, 3 months before Pearl Harbor, when Churchill is frantically trying to claw the United States into his war because that's his early salvation. And Weizmann writes to Churchill a letter which he says, mister prime minister, unless you grant us what we want, which is the creation of a Jewish army in the Middle East, with our own arsenal and our own weapons and our own uniform and our own flag, unless you grant us what what we want, then you are not going to win us over. And let me tell you what we will do if you do grant us what we want. If you grant us our wishes, then we will act on your behalf in the United States.
And remember, mister Churchill, he writes in his letter, remember, we are the only powerful unified block in the United States which solidly backs the British cause in this war, September 1941. Everybody else is basically isolationist. We are the only ethnic unified group which solidly backs the British cause. We are the only people who are in the position to bring the United States into this war. We did it in the last war, and we can do it again.
Needless to say, I quote this letter in volume 2 of my Churchill biography in a chapter called We Did It Before and We Can Do It Again, and I don't expect to get any applause from the newspaper community in Britain who haven't revealed this letter. But I think it's a very telling document. I'll take 2 more questions then we'll finish. Yes.
Speaker 1: Is there any truth to the idea that Hitler was a descendant of Rothschild? Any truth to the idea
Speaker 2: that Hitler was a descendant of Rothschild? I've never heard it before. I don't think so. I think if so, the Rothschild must have deeply regretted it in the court in the black sheep of the family. Final question.
One more. Yes. Last question. What
Speaker 1: I asked earlier about the BDS camps, I read from 2 sources
Speaker 2: that, and this was directly back to Eisenhower.
Speaker 1: The prisoner of war camps were designed for starvation in German soldiers, and but really it was a Christmas it was a Christmas for the president of the president of Julian Banks.
Speaker 2: Well, it it was a kind of race war, but the the episode you touched on, what happened to the German prisoners in the in the American camps, was in fact investigated in great depth by a friend of mine, Jim Bak, who wrote a book called Other Losses, and he's deeply regretted ever since then having written that book. Until he published that book in Canada, he was a widely respected novelist and historian and one of Canada's best writers doing very well for himself. The moment he published that book in Canada, exactly the same thing happened to him has happened to me since 1977. An attempt to apostrophesize him, an attempt to ruin him by the organized international Jewish community determined not to allow any other episode to distract or divert attention from their own episode, which they've labeled the Holocaust. It's a very interesting case study in the distortion of history and indeed the persecution of those who come up with politically incorrect history.
It would be very tactless, I think, for me as a foreigner and as a guest in your country to start comment on on the the proprietors of the federal government. Thank you so much for having turned out this evening. I'm sure you had our voices
Speaker 1: in the room. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
Ernst Zündel discusses Holocaust literature. A post was quickly marked as hateful. Another post mentions the lack of education on a certain topic.
@Wordsarewordz - Words are words
Ernst Zündel speaks about Holocaust literature. https://t.co/9cW1pFr67N
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ernst Sundl, also known as Mr. Holocaust, shares his experiences and opinions on the Holocaust. He discusses the extensive research he has done on the topic, including reading various books and testimonies. Sundl criticizes what he refers to as the "Holocaust industry," claiming that it has become an industry that profits from the suffering of others. He also questions the accuracy and credibility of some Holocaust literature, highlighting instances where authors have admitted to exaggerating or fabricating events. Sundl expresses his frustration with the powerful Holocaust lobby and the negative impact he believes it has on society. He concludes by stating that the German people have been unfairly vilified and that the number of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Ernst Sundl of Another Voice of Freedom. I'm often referred to by newspaper reporters and the people generally as Mr. Holocaust, because in Canada, I was on trial for 9 years for doubting that the Holocaust as we know it and as Hollywood has made it out to be happened. 9 years of jail being spat at, being knocked to the ground, my house being bombed, my reputation being ruined, my business lost, which I had striven to have built up over 20 years, All my Jewish customers and Jewish acquaintances gone because the media, of course, turned me into this monstrous antisemite. Well, I had to inform myself during those 9 long years and of course before, what really happened during the Holocaust?
What did people mean by the Holocaust? And so I did. What do you see around me here are Holocaust related books. I didn't find those in some local garage sale. I bought those over the years as research material.
There are books in here that are 800, 900, 1200 pages long. There's Raoul Hilberg's The Destruction of European Jewry, a 3 volume set of books that figured greatly in my trial in 1985 and again in my trial in 1988. I had to buy that set of books, and that set me back over a $150 for those 3 books. Now, as you can see, this is no small matter. This is serious business and expensive business.
There are books here by Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Prize winner. There are books here by simple people who survived the 2nd World War and describe their particular fate. There are diaries here, one by a young girl called Anne Frank. Now these books, many of them enjoyed phenomenal success. For instance, The Diary of Anne Frank has turned into a huge international bestseller.
At latest count, it was translated into more than 50 languages, 50, 50 languages. And of course, many of these books have been turned into TV specials or into films and have made the authors immensely wealthy. This has led the former Chief Rabbi of England, Emmanuel Jacobowitz into stating that the Holocaust turned into an industry. And he said, an industry which cheapens and reduces and kind of degrades the real suffering of many people in that 2nd World War. He said the Holocaust industry now feeds novelists, moviemakers, writers, textbook writers, filmmakers and Holocaust Museum builders.
And he shocked the Jewish world by stating that in a conference in Israel. The industry also, of course, has a lobby, like most industry in a modern world, and these lobbyists see to it that the market for their product or for their merchandise is not going to be ruined by people who question the scholarship, for instance, the quality, the content, the rarity, the truth, just like people test other industrial products. And this Holocaust lobby has headquarters in different parts of the world in the United States. It recently acquired a grotesquely well furnished and financed thing called the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, financed by American taxpayer money and built on federal land with inside of the White House. And 1,000, tens of 1,000, by now already millions of people, especially schoolchildren, are led through these halls of horror, where suitably dim light and German sounds, shouts, gunfire, tollful music, colorful and macabre displays are shown to these young impressionable minds And when one leaves through the guest book at this particular Holocaust Museum, for instance, one has to only shake one's head because one can see the effect on these young minds, these young people, how poisoned they go away from a place like that, and yet school buses after school buses pull up in front of this museum and discourage their young victims, who then go in for this brainwashing session in that building and come out warped most likely for the rest of their lives.
Now I, as a German person, find this highly offensive. I find it disgusting. I find it immoral and unethical. And I have spent my young life struggling mightily against these forces of deception and falsification. And in turn, they have hounded me around the world.
I have been jailed in Canada, deported from Canada, a country where I came to 35 years ago, and I've lived here and had my family that I raised here and my business. I've been banned because of my activities from the United States for over 6 years. I've lost my passport at the hand of the German Christling government for about 6 years. I've been arrested and jailed and convicted in Germany for stating my viewpoint. I have been arrested and thrown out of Austria for my viewpoint.
And so to question the Holocaust is a dangerous thing because make no mistake about it, the lobby is powerful and well connected. And of course, 1,000,000 upon 1,000,000 of dollars are being made every day by movies, like the latest Hollywood Holocaust promotion film by Steven Spielberg called Schindler's List. I want to point out what the problem is with some of this Holocaust literature. It makes no difference that famous people like Elie Wiesel, for instance, have written about it, because even famous people are just people, and they are flawed. And so I've put together a little Holocaust resource book, which I use when I do interviews or when I go to court.
One thing that has struck me is that there were some people who at one time wrote passionately about the Holocaust, had second thoughts or suddenly were confronted by truths or by some reporters or by some question. And they took another look at their own writings. One of them was Professor Michel Desboard. In 1986, Michel Desboard, a former inmate of Mauthausen, honorary Dean of the Faculty of Letters at the University of Caen, Normandy in France, member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War, member of the Institute de France said the following. In a monograph on Mauthausen that I published in La Revie du M Guerre modial in 1954, I mentioned a gas chamber on 2 occasions.
When the time of reflection had arrived, I said to myself, where did you arrive at the conviction that there was a gas chamber in Mauthausen? This cannot have been during my stay in this camp, for neither myself nor anybody else ever suspected that there was one there. This must therefore be a piece of baggage that I picked up after the war. This was an admitted fact, but I noticed that in my text, although I have the habit of supporting most of my statements by references, there was none referring to the gas chamber. Now this man, Professor Michel Desbois, obviously is quite a courageous man because he corrects himself.
And he closes by saying, I found myself torn between my conscience as a historian and the duties it implies, and on the other hand, my membership in a group of comrades, whom I deeply love, but who refuse to recognize the necessity of dealing with the deportation as a historical fact in accordance with sound historical methods. I'm haunted by the thought that in 100 years or even 50 years, the historians will question themselves on this particular aspect of the 2nd World War, which is the concentration camp system and what they will find out. The record is rotten to the core. On one hand, a considerable amount of fantasies, inaccuracies obstinately repeated in particular concerning numbers, heterogeneous mixtures, generalizations and on the other hand, very dry critical studies that demonstrate the inanity of those exaggerations. I fear that those future historians might then say that the deportation, when all is said and done, must have been a myth.
There lies the danger that haunts me. Now naturally, he as a former Mauthausen inmate is concerned about the deportations because hugely exaggerated tales about French Jews being killed at the hands of the Germans have been bandied about. And during one of my trials, it was brought out that the French had very accurate records on these deportations from France to Germany and that only 74,000 people were deported from France to German camps. And we had one witness, whom we'll come to again somewhat later, claim that alone in Auschwitz, 150,000 French people were gassed by the Germans. So this is what this professor is warning against.
But there are other Jewish voices and not as recent as this good professor. There was a man in America putting out a magazine, and it was called Jewish Social Studies. In volume 12, January 1950, number 1, he says the following. His name, by the way, is Samuel Greengauss. Some methodological problems in the study of the ghetto.
That's the title of his essay. He says the difficulties in studying the great Jewish catastrophe are manifold. And he goes on and says, last but not least, there is what may perhaps be termed the hyper historical complex of the survivors. Never before was an event so deeply sent by its participants as being part of an epoch making history in the making. Never before was a personal experience felt to be so historically relevant.
The result of this hyper historical complex has been that the brief postwar years have seen a flood of historical materials rather contrived, then again, collected. So that today, one of the most delicate aspects of research is the evaluation of the so called research material. In other words, this man already in 1950 realized that the facts of the Holocaust has then presented only 5 years after the war should be checked and double checked. And he closes by saying, the hyper historical complex may be described as judeocentric, lococentric and egocentric. It concentrates historical relevance on Jewish problems of local events under the aspect of personal experience.
And here comes a clincher. This is the reason why most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies. My case rests. In 1950, Samuel Gringaus, an honest Jew, put the finger right on the problem. And here we are in 1994 treated to the disgusting spectacle of yet another book, again, falling under the description that Greencastle has given called Schindler's List.
But it is symptomatic that people that write in this area, in this genre have written books. For instance, in this case, a book called I Cannot Forgive. And the man was Professor Werbauer. Now I know Werba personally. I watched him degrade himself and disgrace himself in a Canadian courtroom, where he was witness against me.
In his book, I cannot forgive, he states that it is the truth, the amazing true story of a 17 year old Jewish boy, who defied the Germans at Auschwitz and escaped to alert the world to the Nazi horror camps. Now, in the courtroom, in the introduction to the book, one of his writers that helped him write the book said, he, Vrba, he worked with me hard and patiently. Indeed, I would like to pay tribute to him for the immense trouble he took over every detail for the meticulous, almost fanatical respect he revealed to accuracy and for the courage, which this cold blooded survey of 2 ghastly years demanded. Now that was in London, October 1963. Book by Rudolf Berber.
Now it's out under a title called SK from Auschwitz. Just to show you what we are facing. During my trial, Vrba was in the witness stand, and I can give you the exact date. It was January 23, 1985. My attorney stepped up to Rudolf Verba and asked him when he was under oath, I now produce and show to you a book entitled, I Cannot Forgive.
Are you the author of this book? Answer, I'm the co author. Question, did you check it and see that all the contents were true? Some more questions follow and some more answers. And so my attorney asked him, all the contents are true?
Answer, I wouldn't answer in a direct way to this question because this is a work of literature and not a document. And therefore, I would like to make certain remarks on the background of the book, which will make it more clear to you what the book is about. And so on page 1389 in the cross examination of Werba, he says, consequently, what is in the book is a condensed story written in a style which should enable especially a young person untrained and unprepared for the horror of the century without too much trouble to understand to what lowness some parts of mankind as represented by the Nazis were able to descend. Therefore, that book should not be considered as a document, but as an artistic picture of the events, which has got not more value than the artistic picture of the artist who is here now painting or drawing this courtroom to show to the masses of people who cannot come here to give them some idea of what was happening here. And he ends by saying, however, it is understood that it is only an attempt for an artistic depiction of those catastrophic events And the discussion of the book would therefore belong into the realm of a literary afternoon, which I am perfectly prepared to spend with you, Mr.
Counsell. Let me come back to Mr. Vrba's book because in the beginning of the preface, the author best success, there is no chip on his shoulder and bitterness, where it exists, is controlled carefully by undeniable facts, not by fancies, which the years have nourished. In 1985, finally, when we had him under oath in a Canadian courtroom, where he had to face the music, this liar took refuge in artistic license. And I can assure you, as one of my Jewish witnesses during that trial said, his name was Josef Borg, who had taught me many things I know about the Holocaust.
He said under oath in this Canadian courtroom, that same courtroom, that if these Jewish witnesses were put under oath in a Jewish religious ritual that 99.9% of the lying would stop. And I think we ought to consider that when we look at this mountain of anti German hate propaganda that has been so emotionally presented and this book by Vrba, which has sold 1,000,000 over the years undoubtedly has gone through many additions and incarnations, now is published without the reference of it being a truthful rendition with great accuracy and all this kind of stuff. He took a Canadian court case to make this man retract, and yet he still runs around as a Holocaust expert and as a Holocaust witness. Then there's another book in a very similar case, Treblinka. We have a book here by a guy called by Jean Francois Steiner.
Now a foreword was written by Simone de Beauvoir, such a famous person. And this book got a CHF700,000 literary price in Europe for the best documentary on this particular subject and when Ivan the Terrible or Ivan Demiuk was on trial in Israel, one of the researchers for the defense team went to see Steiner and asked him because he had written in this book that he had seen Ivan killed with a spade. He made light of it and retracted. And one of the witnesses who before that had written a 14 page affidavit that he had seen Ivan the Terrible killed, a fellow called, I think, Eliyahu Rosenberg said brazenly in a courtroom in Israel, obviously, I must have been mistaken because the real Ivan is right here pointing at this poor hapless man, Ivan Damianiuk, since exonerated and sent back to the United States. So that's the quality of these books.
We have the diary of Anne Frank, this wonderful bestseller, tearjerker, that has been a textbook in so many schools around the world and in so many languages. Even in Japan, they have a museum to the girl. And yet, the German police investigated pages of the diary and found that they were written in ballpoint pen ink. Now since that time, this is being disputed by Dutch authorities. All I can say is then Germany must have the dumbest, most incompetent cops, And the Germans have rarely been accused of that.
We have a famous book, another one here, The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer, a man who just died well into his late 80s. And when I took political science at Churchill Williams University in Montreal, my professor said, if anybody wrote a history paper based on the information in this book, this international bestseller for the last 30 years, he would flunk him, he would fail him because he said, this book is not history, it is propaganda. Then we have another famous book here, Legends of Our Time by none other than Elie Wiesel, who is the Pope of the Holocaust. And he says an interesting thing in this book, sold in every bookstore in Canada, is that there is a time to love and the time to hate. Whoever does not hate when he should, does not deserve to love, when he should, does not deserve to love when he is able.
Perhaps had we learned to hate more during the years of ordeal, fate itself would have taken fright. He closes by saying, I cry out with all my heart against silence. Now listen to this. Every Jew somewhere in his being should set apart a zone of hate, healthy, virile hate for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. Now, this is the man who hobnobbs with presidents, who goes to the White House and who lectures the American president on whether he could go to make peace between former enemies in the cemetery of Bitburg.
But there are other things that need to be touched on. One is this little publication here by the Jehovah's Witness sect. It's called The Wake. It's published in many, many languages in 12,000,000 copies. And it has an entire article, falls from the beginning to the end about the Holocaust.
I know because it deals with me. Finally, I want to tell you there's a lot of talk about extermination. And the Germans are accused of having this master plan for exterminating the Jews. Well, the details are at once rare and troublesome, as certain writers have said. Here is a plan by a Jewish writer called Kaufmann, called Germany Must Perish.
Any details? In gruesome detail, how to take the Germans, and it says the population of Germany, excluding conquered and annexed territories, is about 70,000,000, almost equally divided between male and female. To achieve the purpose of German extinction, it would be necessary to only sterilize some 48,000,000 people, a figure which excludes because of their limited power to procreate males over 60 years of age and females over 45. Now there is the only written plan of extermination of an entire people, and it's in English. It was published in United States, and the author was Jewish.
And the American media thought it was a sensational idea according to Time Magazine. And Washington, D. C. Posted a provocative theory interestingly presented. So as far as the Holocaust is concerned, the Germans are the real victims, and they have been victimized for the last 50 years.
Jewish people who suffered in the Holocaust and who were still alive were handsomely and fairly compensated, and Germany has paid over €105,000,000,000 marks in compensation. And there ought to be an end to this vilification of an entire people. No 6,000,000 Jews ever died in what they like to call the Holocaust. This is the most outrageous lie of modern times. I am Ernst Schindel speaking for another voice of freedom.
@Wordsarewordz - Words are words
@Wordsarewordz - Words are words
This post got marked as hateful within 2 minutes of uploading it 💀 https://t.co/BywZ29PmWl
@Wordsarewordz - Words are words
@Wordsarewordz - Words are words
Ernst Zündel - (AVOF 37) Cremation Technology & The Holocaust. https://t.co/KQUVwKifwN
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ernst Zundel, President of Sammis Lab Publishers, discusses his involvement in the reprinting of the booklet "Did 6,000,000 Really Die?" and his subsequent trial for Holocaust denial. He presents the testimony of Ivan Lagasse, a crematory expert, who challenges the claims of the Holocaust by explaining the process of cremation and the limitations of the crematory units. Lagasse states that the high numbers of cremations alleged at Auschwitz-Birkenau are physically unrealistic and scientifically unsupported. He also refutes claims of a stench from burning bodies and the ability to determine the ethnicity of the victims based on the color of the smoke. Zundel concludes that the standard version of the Holocaust is a hoax and encourages further research on the topic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'm Erud Sundu, President of Sammis Lab Publishers Limited in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. To those of you who have never seen a showroom by us before, you will wonder why I'm holding up this booklet, Did 6,000,000 Really Die? Well, this booklet dominated 9 years of my life. I had reprinted it, it was the work of an English author, I reprinted it in Canada, distributed it widely to members of parliament, to clergy, engineers, historians and so on and found myself charged by the President of the Holocaust Remembrance Association of Toronto in 1983. She was a Jewish woman called Sabina Citron.
I had been researching and investigating the wild claims surrounding the Holocaust story with some skepticism and had casually talked to engineers and people involved in fumigation of buildings and so on and came to the conclusion that not all was true as concerned the Holocaust. And so when I was charged finally, I had to concentrate my mind on proving that there were some things wrong and did NOK6 1,000,000 really die. And so I dispatched a researcher to the local Toronto Crematory, which is within 500 meters walking distance of where I live and work. And the crematory operator there confirmed a number of my suspicions. Yes, he said it took quite a while to create a body and even with modern equipment, it could take up to 2 hours per body.
And yes, is that it is not true that there is a smell in the air as many of the Holocaust writers and alleged victims and eyewitnesses had claimed that they could smell the stench of burning human bodies from the crematory. Is it totally untrue that for over 130 years, there was no smell associated with the cremation of bodies. That of course was a revelation to me and I thought that a crematory operator, an expert from Toronto could easily come to the court and testify. Well, it wasn't so easy. He kindly but firmly declined because he said it would not be very good for his career and so on.
So then I spoke to my attorney and I said, well, how about if we ask the court to go to the crematory, meaning the jury, the judge, the court clerks, the prosecution and himself and myself and that then we could all together witness a cremation, which is sometimes done to go to not the scene of the crime, but the scene of some action. However, my legal advisors, my attorney and other advisers suggested that, that would be such an outrageous act and it would seem callous and so on that I should not do it, it would backfire on me. Well, finally, I was persuaded by that argument and, cast around to find a crematory expert that could help me and give some expert testimony. I found this man in the person of a man called Ivan Lagasse and Ivan Lagasse's testimony is contained in this book about my trial, it's called Did You Will Die? The Evidence in the Ernst and Young Holocaust Trial in 1988.
You will find it in Page 267 to Page 271. And I'll just quickly quote some background of Ivan Lagaest, the man who finally became my expert on Crematory's and we say here that he testified April 5th April 6, 1988 and his testimony can be found in volume 27 of the court transcripts of my 1988 trial, if you want to verify what I'm going to tell you in a minute. Ivan Nagase was tendered as an expert in the practical aspects of crematorium practice. Nagase worked as a professional embalmer funeral director and crematory manager Humber College in Ontario Humber College in Ontario and in 1979 obtained his diploma in Ontario license. In 1983, he obtained his Alberta license.
You can find that in volume 27, pages 7,383 to 7,394 in the court transcripts of my 1988 trial, date April 5 April 6, 1988. The fact that he is an expert is borne out as we continue on Page 268. In the course of his career, Lageis had dealt with over 10,000 bodies in his work and had cremated over 1,000 bodies himself. The work involved bodies in a variety of physical conditions from accident and fire victims to people who died of highly contagious diseases. Now he used flow charts to explain to the jury, which are for a layman, the process of cremation.
He brought along fire bricks and he let them feel it and touch it, lift it in order to show what kind of material was involved. He also pointed out that these fire bricks are extremely expensive, costing up to $60 for 1 brick and that, therefore, it is a very costly matter if the operator isn't very careful or if the cremation retort is crowded. He was asked to look at the blueprints that we had obtained of the Bokenau Auschwitz Bokenau cremation area. And he indicated after studying it with amazement that the Bow Valley Crematorium where he was the director of and using overhead slides, he pointed to the crematory's cremation chamber, the flame port, the smoke channel and settling chamber and the afterburner. And he testified that it was obvious that the Germans were concerned with environmental effects of the crematory.
La Gaze also found the most amazing and unique part of the Birkenau Crematory to be the stack, calculated to be 45 feet high and therefore very similar to Beau Valley Crematorium stack. In Lagege's opinion, the rate of burn of the Birkenau unit would be as efficient, but not more than his own unit in Calgary. Now I want to be absolutely sure that you understand this. We are talking here the Germans 19 41, 2, 3, 4 technology, and he is working in 1988 at that time in the Bow Valley Crematory in Calgary, Alberta. So the Germans had in those concentration camps state of the art crematories, which were not surpassed anywhere at that time in the world.
And Lageis was saying the only difference was the Germans used coal fired crematories, whereas in Canada, they used natural gas. Now this is an advantage because a coal fired crematory, of course, the ashes are in there, they are glowing, they are hot and you cannot at will cool it down, whereas in a Canadian or North American crematory, you can if you use natural gas because just what you do is you turn the flame down and finally turn the flame off and so the cooling process is much faster. So potentially, in a Canadian crematory, you could reach much higher cremation rates. And then he was asked about the Holocaust claims of numbers of cremations at Auschwitz Birkenau. And Lageries commented on Raul Hilberg's claiming the destruction of European Jews, 2nd edition page 978, capacities of the 46 retorts in the 4 crematories at Wirgenau.
And he said, quoting Doctor. Hilberg, the theoretical daily capacity of the 4 Wirgenau crematory was somewhat over 4,400 persons or cadavers, but with break downs and slowdowns, the practical limit was almost always lower. Laguerre stated that this claim was ludicrous. Based on his own experience, Laguerre testified that it would only have been possible to create a maximum of 184 bodies a day in Bergenau. So the words that he used is preposterous, beyond the realm of reality, ludicrous.
And then he was asked by the defense attorney my defense attorney, Di Chrystie, about Riedlinger, who claimed 6,000 a day to be cremated, others who claimed 8,000 people were burned. And some of them said 24,000 were handled a day. To this, Ivan Lagaest, the Canadian crematory expert says, it was irresponsible. These people were irresponsible with their facts because this doesn't even begin to end the reality at all. It is just physically unrealistic.
Physically unrealistic. In other words, science dares to say the Holocaust, as we have heard it, is basically a hoax because if the story of this massive burning and so on is untrue, The people who claim these ridiculously high numbers of victims have to explain where the bodies went or where they wear or where the mass graves are. They have no answers. Then they take refuge, of course, sometimes in burning pits. And the burning pits simply are equally untrue.
A, I looked at all kinds of aerial photographs of these camps. There are no burning pits, there is no smoke rising from open burning pits, which you certainly would have to see because you see everything else. You see steam coming from a locomotive, why would you not see smoke coming from 4000 or 10000 burning bodies. Also, there are no mountains of coals near the crematory that would be necessary or near the burning pits, they're not there. And Lageries makes another good point is that the Germans had this unique construction of crematories at Auschwitz and there were 3 retorts built next to one another.
He said that's very efficient and it is cheaper to build a crematory like that, but if one brick in one unit became defective, cracked or broke, and therefore, it would paralyze all 3 units. So what seemed efficient at first is very costly and time consuming and expensive after because not only can you not cremate in the one that is damaged, but you cannot cremate in the 2 adjacent ones because you cannot have 2,200 Degrees Fahrenheit radiating around, while the next site is being constructed. Also he said, after crematory, retort is being repaired. It takes between 3 4 weeks to cure it, and you can only start to cremate people slowly, maybe 1 a day or maximum 2 a day and so on rather than 1 every 2 hours or 2.5 hours. That's the reality.
Science has proven that the standard version that you and I hear in Hollywood films or see on television shows or read in these survival books or are exposed to at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC are in effect, if not bold faced outright lies, they are certainly fanciful tales told by people who report hearsay rumors from a 50 year ago wartime situation. Inform yourself, you can get information and books and videos about this topic from us at Sami Stat Publishers and we'll be glad to send them to you. I am Ernst Sendel, thanking you for your time. Au Vida Zen.
Speaker 1: I'd like to welcome everybody. I brought you here to our crematorium that I myself am in charge of in operating. And I wanted you to experience what a modern crematory is, and rather than explain with a lot of words, I preferred that I demonstrate, so we decided to videotape this, this evening, just so that you can get a very good picture as to what we're dealing with here. Now basically the process of cremation, if you think of the human body as being basically mostly comprised of water, the best way to describe the process of cremation would be rapid oxidization of the human body by exposure to heat or flame. So we're not actually burning anything.
The first stage of cremation is dehydration. We have to burn off all the water by evaporation, which is a cleaner part of the cremation because water just produces steam, which doesn't pose a problem. The fats and other body solids are the only part that's really combusted in cremation. What remains is fine bone fragments, which are very brittle because you've removed all of the properties, all the water contents from them and whatnot. Okay, what you're looking at is the inside of the actual cremation hearth itself.
This is the chamber that the human remains are placed in, and this is where the main combustion chamber is. If you look at the top right hand corner, you'll see an opening. Now that area leads into what they call an afterburner chamber. This is a typical retort design. Most crematoriums do not stray from this design very much, even from the 1930s model right through to today.
So the modern crematory actually in the hearth itself hasn't changed. The only thing that's really changed is the control of the draft, the burners are different. In this one, we're using natural gas, some use oil, the older models, particularly in the 30s, they were fired by coal. Now in this one, the human remains are exposed directly to flame. In the coal fired model, the heat is usually radiated.
In other words, the heat is from underneath the floor, the body is not exposed directly to the flame, but it's just exposed to great temperatures and it just combusts on that nature. They are quite a bit slower than these ones because of the nature that we're using gas fired jets and we can expose the body directly to the flame. You'll see the brick is flaking just over here at the side. You can see how fragile it is. I can just knock some of this down.
That's normal spalling. The brick from the heat just begins to flake a little bit and a little bit, and that's the way the bricks wear out. Once the brick has worn about halfway through, about 2 inches in, then we have to rebrick the unit. Now rebricking the unit means you have to rebrick the whole thing. If you rebrick the sides, quite often you have to rebrick the ceiling.
Sometimes in certain cases you may not if you're using an experienced breaker, but typically you're rebricking the entire machine once you're breaking the sidewalls. Okay. Now in a situation where these units are going to go over a major overhaul and repair, it requires a complete shutdown usually up to 3 days of cooling, okay, before someone can actually go in there and work because this floor being several feet thick will still radiate quite a bit of heat even after 3 days, and it gets quite hot in there. Now in the case where we're tearing out, this unit is fairly simple. The ones that I've seen in the blueprints for Berchenau, they had 3 5 units of 3 hearts or 3 retorts.
Okay? So these are if you would picture this as being the center one, these two walls would be sharing the units next to it. Okay. It would be impossible to break just 1 in a situation like that. You have to tear up all 3 since they're all connected and sharing these inner walls, okay?
And that's quite a big job. This unit takes about a good 3 to 4 days to break, just one unit, okay, to tear it out and replace the breaks. And then you have a good day to 2 days of a break in period. Okay. In the case of Birkenau, one of the major problems there, as I mentioned you have to re break 3 of them all at the same time, but where a real problem comes in is where all of the units share 1 stack or 1 chimney.
So in a situation like that, you have to shut down all of the units, because you can't operate units even though they don't need rebricking, because the heat would radiate in from the stack. You'd create a draft in this direction, and it just wouldn't be safe to rebrick it. So it poses a real problem because you have to rebrick after just say the floor you have to replace after 1,000 formations. If you could even stretch that to 2,000 as the modern units are today, you can see the logistics of the problems that you're going to have immediately with that. There are just limit certain limitations that the refractory does have.
Speaker 2: Mr. Legasse, we're very pleased to have you on this interview. In the Calgary Sun on March 11th, the the entertainment editor said, something to the fact that 6,000 bodies a day were gassed and I presume she meant cremated too. How about just let us reduce it to 2,000 and say, how many retorts would be required just to cremate a minimum of 2,000 bodies a day?
Speaker 1: Well, if you could imagine an average 8 hour day, it's possible to do about 3 cremations in that period of time, extending that over to 24 hour period, maximum would be 9 to 10 bodies per day, okay. Taking 2,000 and dividing it by then to 200 units, okay? And even if you did 2 skinny persons that you mentioned earlier, per burn, it's still about a 100 minutes. You know, just to do that, just to give you an idea, you can some statistics, and I'll try to send along copies of this to you. Just in North America, that's Canada and the United States combined, last year, 412,457, just about 400,000 bodies were cremated last year in North America.
And to do that over the entire year, they used 1064 crematories. Just to show you how many units realistically it requires to handle the demand in North America.
Speaker 2: You've all heard stories about the stench that people claim around Auschwitz. Would there be any smell from burning flesh crematorium degree in the years 1930s to 1945?
Speaker 1: No, that's impossible. If there is any stentions, it will not come from human remains. In the blueprint, I had noticed that there was a unit after the fact, okay, it was right by the chimney, okay, well after the crematory and it was basically incinerator for rubbish. That's my nearest guess. So if you're burning certain types of rubbish, at that point, it might be possible that the orders would come from that source.
You have to remember too that we today operate a commentary with FX. We have to be only 1 commission at a time per law, we use safety, there's a lot of consideration in that situation, there's nothing to say that they use the actual cremation chambers to dispose a lot of the rubbish produced in the cat. No one's really thought of that. We just assume that there would only be bodies earned in those units. It could have been rubbish.
Speaker 2: I understand there was factory right in time to store too.
Speaker 1: That's the situation. You can't say that the order didn't come there, you can't say that unless you were there, you can't. It's possible. The important thing that I'm going to stress is that no orders would have come from the bodies themselves being committed.
Speaker 2: What about the so called gas chamber or gas oven legend that they say they put them
Speaker 1: in alive and killed them and cremated them? Well, technically, it's impossible. It's as simple as that. Those stories just simply come from years of telling stories and become exaggerated and one person carries it and add a little bit to it. But it has no scientific foundation to it at all.
Okay? So that's as far as I'm going to comment on
Speaker 2: So probably you've answered the question, what about the stories of the Auschwitz survivors and Holocaust survivors that claim that one body was cremated every minute and a half in a 24 hour period.
Speaker 1: Well, there's no technical support for that claim. There never was, there's a lot of witnesses that claims to be sold and they control figures. But there's no proof, okay, that's been produced to me yet that shows that it's possible to make that rate. The technology as far as I'm concerned does not exist up to date even with using gas burners, I don't think it'd be really possible to do so.
Speaker 2: But would there be any difference in the time element between a skinny body and a fat body?
Speaker 1: No. The fat body contains the fat or oils, oils is another fuel, okay, and will burn. So if you put a charge to reach our area with the least person, the fact will contribute to the cremation itself, okay, to speed that process up. But if you think of a skinny person, they don't have that extra fast, so they don't have that extra fuel, so the temperatures don't reach as high. Okay?
So the unit runs harder with an obese person than with an emaciated person.
Speaker 2: Okay. What is your opinion of the claims of the Holocaust survivors in court testimony under Olin? And I don't know if you were there or not, but one of the witnesses claimed that they could tell on every day what type of people were being cremated because the smoke was a different color for different ethnic groups?
Speaker 1: Well, that has no impact basis to it at all. I find it quite a bit of an exaggeration. Again, the victims exaggerate the stories and try to make them as emotional as possible, in a way I feel for it, in one sense, but it has no fact based, it's just simply you cannot tell by the color of smoke or flame or anything of that nature, what race, color, creed you may be. I think any average man can figure that out on his own. You don't need to be a scientist.
You can see that that's just an exaggeration. I just want to thank everyone for giving me this opportunity to present you with this video. I hope you found it educational and helped to clarify a lot of the mysteries surrounding the process of cremation and give you a more realistic view overview of the entire process. I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that. I think the facts speak for themselves, and until they're presented and otherwise, you have no reason to believe that the, cremations in the camps occurred at the rate they did.
And until that occurs, I think that the whole process or the whole allegation of Holocaust is stopped dead in its tracks so to speak. Until someone can clarify to me and prove to me that cremations can be done at a faster rate than 2 hours, I find no reason to believe that the Holocaust has been presented to us for courage and I don't expect anyone else to believe so otherwise.
@Wordsarewordz - Words are words
No odors come from cremated bodies…. yet there’s 6 million stories from jews talking about the smells of burning bodies.🧐
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
“There was not 1 Jew killed in gas chambers” -Bishop Richard Williamson https://t.co/wTQjFQbSCg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bishop Williamson, are these your words? You claim that no Jews were killed in gas chambers and that the Holocaust is a lie.
Yes, I believe the evidence strongly contradicts the claim that six million Jews were deliberately gassed. I think there were no gas chambers. Historical revisionists suggest that around 200,000 to 300,000 Jews died in concentration camps, but not from gassing.
Fred Leuchter, an expert on gas chambers, concluded that the supposed gas chambers could not have functioned as claimed. He pointed out the lack of necessary safety features, like high chimneys, and the doors were not airtight.
This is not antisemitism; it’s about historical truth based on evidence. Germany has paid significant reparations due to guilt over the Holocaust, but I don’t believe six million were gassed. I must caution you, discussing this could lead to legal issues in Germany.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bishop Williamson, are these your words? There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. Are these your your words?
Speaker 1: You're quoting from Canada, I believe, yes, many years ago. I believe that the historical evidence the historical evidence is strongly against is is hugely against 6,000,000 Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of, Adolf Hitler.
Speaker 0: But you say not one Jew was killed?
Speaker 1: In gas chambers. So there was
Speaker 0: no gas chambers?
Speaker 1: I believe there were no gas chambers. Yes. I think the, as far as I have studied the evidence I'm not going by motion. I'm going by as far as I've understood the evidence, I think, for instance, people who are against what is very widely believed today about, quote, unquote, the holocaust. I think that people those people conclude, the revisionists as they're called, I think the most serious conclude that between 23,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, but not one of them by gassing in a gas chamber.
The you may have heard of the Leuchter report. Fred Leuchter was an expert in gas chambers. He designed 3 gas chambers for 3 states, 3 of the 50 United States for the execution of criminals. So he knew what's involved, and he studied what the supposed gas chambers in Germany at some point in 1980s, what remains of the supposed gas chambers, the crematoria at Birkenau, Auschwitz, for instance. And his conclusion, his expert conclusion was it's impossible that these could ever have served for the gassing of large numbers of people because cyanide gas is very dangerous.
If you if you let's supposing you gas, 300 people that you've crowded into one chamber and you gas them, they're all wearing some clothes. For instance, if they're wearing any clothes, it's very dangerous to go in and pull out the corpses because one whiff of gas that's trapped in the clothing and they space some clothing will kill the person. It's extremely dangerous. In order to once you've used gas people, you've got to get rid of the you've got to evacuate the gas to be able to get into the chamber again and use it. To evacuate the gas, you need a high chimney.
If it's a low chimney, the gas goes onto the pavement and kills anybody walking by. You need a high chimney. Right? I forget how how high you says it must be. If you if there was a high chimney, then the shadow at any most times of day, the shadow would have fallen on the ground, and the allied aerial photographers that flew over the camps would have picked up the shadow of this chimney.
There were never any such shadows. There was no such chimney, which is according to Fred Leuchtt's testimony, there can't have been grass chambers. He looks at the doors, and he says, the door has to be absolutely airtight. Otherwise, again, the gas escapes and kills the people outside. The the doors of the gas chamber that is shown to tourists at Auschwitz is absolutely not airtight, absolutely not.
Speaker 0: So you know What you're saying now is that the holocaust never occurred. Not in the way, history is written today.
Speaker 1: I am going by what I judge to be the historical evidence according to people who have observed and examined that evidence. I believe that what they conclude, I would if they change their conclusion, I would be liable to follow the conclusion because I think they judge by the evidence. I think that 2 to 300000 Jews perished in Nazi in Nazi concentration camps, but nothing like, that none of them by a gas chamber.
Speaker 0: I don't know if you know this. This
Speaker 1: is not antisemitism. What is antisemitism? Antisemitism, If anti if antisemitism is bad, it's against truth. If something is true, it's not bad. I'm I'm not interested in the word antisemitism.
I mean, you know, it's the the word is is is very basic.
Speaker 0: The bishop calls you antisemitism? The
Speaker 1: bishop can call me he can call me a dinosaur. He can call me an idiot. He can call me what he likes. I I'm this is not a question of name calling. This is a question of historical truth.
Historical truth goes by evidence and not by emotion. There's certainly been a huge exploitation. Germany has paid out 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of Deutsche Marks and now Euros because the Germans have a guilt complex about their their having gassed 6,000,000 Jews, but I don't think 6,000,000 Jews were gassed. Now be be careful. I I beg of you.
This is against the law in Germany. If there was a German somebody that's a German state, you could have me thrown into prison before I leave Germany. I hope that's not your intention.
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
An American Industrial Chemist testified that it was impossible to have Mass Gassed people with Zyklon B, in the way it was described. https://t.co/QYMNnSv00r
Video Transcript AI Summary
Doctor William Lindsey, an American industrial chemist, testified about Zyklon B, the gas allegedly used to kill Jews at Auschwitz and other camps. He emphasized the dangers of Zyklon B and the need for careful handling. When questioned about a previous witness who claimed to have handled corpses shortly after gassings, he deemed it highly unlikely. Regarding mass gassings, he stated it was impossible for them to have occurred as described, asserting that no one was intentionally killed with Zyklon B in that manner. Additionally, he challenged earlier claims about flames shooting from crematoria chimneys, explaining that such conditions would damage the brick and mortar structure.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Later, another defense witness, Doctor. William Lindsey, an American industrial chemist, took the stand. He described the properties of Ziklon B, hydrogen cyanide, the gas said to have been used to kill Jews at Auschwitz and at other camps. Doctor. Lindsay said what a dangerous gas cyclone b was and how carefully it had to be handled.
Defense counsel Douglas Christie then mentioned an earlier witness who had claimed to have handled corpses shortly after the victims had been gassed. Doctor. Lindsay said this was highly unlikely. Asked by mister Christie about mass gassings, doctor Lindsay said it was impossible for it to have happened the way it's described. No one was willfully killed with Ziklon B in this manner.
Doctor Lindsey also suggested that earlier testimony concerning flames, day and night shooting out of crematoria chimneys was wrong. He said this would cause a brick and mortar chimney to fall apart.
@PastUncensored - History Uncensored
📜 New York Times Debunks Slaughter of 6,000,000 Jews? Source: @nytimes https://t.co/pGWlAtN0fL
@CathAuthority - Catholic Authority
Bishop Richard Williamson exposes the H*l*caust as a Lie. https://t.co/K9HF7IEBkZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the 6,000,000 figure comes from the imagination of the Jews, who control media outlets due to the permission of Gentiles.
The speaker alleges that Jews believe they are close to their messiah, and godless Gentiles are gullible and accept the "Jewish myth" because it serves as a substitute religion.
Golgotha is now Auschwitz, the cross is the gas chamber, and the 6,000,000 are the redeemer. Therefore, Jews are God, and the godless Gentiles are swallowing it down.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So where did the 6,000,000 come from? It come from the imagination of the Jews. Two and two can also be six. Two and two can also be 6,000,000. And the Jews run the newspapers and they run the television by the stupid permission of the Gentiles.
The Jews today are now convinced that they're coming close to their messiah. The stupid Gentiles, the godless Gentiles will swallow it down because they've got no god any longer. They've lost all sense of truth, objective truth, historical truth, and they swallow the Jewish myth. Why do they swallow the Jewish myth? Because the Jewish myth is a substitute religion.
Gentiles, they are people godless and without religion, and the Jews give them a religion. Golgotha is is is now Auschwitz. The cross is the gas chamber. The redeemer is the Jewish, is the 6,000,000. Therefore, Jews are God, and the stupid godless Gentiles are swallowing it down.
@WyronGaines - Myron Gaines Updates
♦️Myron DEBUNKS the H*Iocaust in 10mins!😳🫣 “The gas chambers? Questionable.. The cremations? Nearly impossible.. The witnesses? Not really credible.. Death camps? No, labour camps.. The j*ws declared war on HitIer first!” https://t.co/c69vmhfM7t
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the conventional narrative of the Holocaust, suggesting that key aspects may be misrepresented. They claim that the gas chambers at Auschwitz lacked gas traces and had doors that opened from the inside. They allege Zyklon B was primarily used to combat typhus, a disease spread by lice, and that the victims' lack of hair in photos supports this.
The speaker cites an expert who designed gas chambers in the US, claiming it would have been impossible to gas millions of Jews with the resources available. They also question the feasibility of cremating so many bodies in the given timeframe with the available technology.
The speaker references a case in Canada where Holocaust survivors allegedly admitted to sensationalizing their stories. They claim Anne Frank's memoirs were partially written with ballpoint pens and that the number of deaths on Holocaust memorials has been reduced. They state that death camps were actually labor camps and that not all victims were Jewish.
The speaker claims Hitler was partly responsible for the creation of Israel through the Havar agreement, which allowed 60,000 Jews to emigrate there in the 1930s. They allege that Jews served in the Nazi military and that there's no documentation proving the extermination of Jews. They conclude that questioning the Holocaust is forbidden because it is the foundation of a narrative that gives power to certain groups.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What? I thought they were trying
Speaker 1: to exterminate them. Gas chambers, death camps, extermination, final solution. What are you talking about? Hillary hated the Jews.
Speaker 0: Yeah. About that. If they would lie to justify the genocide and ethnic cleansing in modern day society, if they would lie about nine eleven, if they would lie about the USS Liberty, but they if they would lie about JFK, if they would lie about RFK, what makes you think that they wouldn't lie about the Holocaust? There's a reason why questioning this event can get you arrested in what? 19 different countries?
I'll tell you why. The Holocaust is the base. If you debunk the Holocaust, the whole fucking house of cards comes crashing down. Did the Holocaust happen? Yes.
Did 6,000,000 die? Well, let's look at some of the evidence. First, they said that millions of the Jews were gassed. Interesting. A guy named Fred Lucher went ahead and went to Auschwitz and looked at the gas chambers, wooden doors that opened from the inside, no gas traces in the fucking gas chamber area.
Then he finds out that the Zyklon bead that they used was really to kill lice and vermin. Well, you're probably wondering, Meyer, why the fuck do they care about killing lice? Well, at the time, there was a disease running around called typhus. Very common during that era. Kills you when you don't have that much food, and it's very contagious.
Gets passed through the hair. So then it starts to make sense. Wait. Hold on. When I look at the pictures, no one has hair.
I thought they were, like, being abused or something. Oh, no. Wow. They're trying to spread this they're trying to stop the spread of typhus. Wait.
Hold on. I thought they were trying to kill them. This is kinda weird. Then you find out to gas just one person requires an enormous amount of resources. How do I know this?
Because Fred Lucher or Frank Lucher. I forget his first name. I think it's Fred or Frank. Whatever. The fact that matters is this, to gas someone and kill them, just one person, requires an enormous amount of resources and gas.
How does he know this? Because he designed the gas chambers to execute people in United States. Expert when it comes to killing people with gas. In his expert opinion, impossible to have enough gas to kill millions of Jews. Then when you look at the structure where the gassing was supposed to happen, not really conducive to gassing people, especially at a mass level.
And the amount of gas required, damn near impossible to get. And it was wildly expensive back then. Then on top of that, if they did gas them the way that they claim, the Nazis would have died too. Really expensive and cumbersome way to kill millions of Jews. Okay.
Alright, Myron. You might be onto something. Okay. Well, let's talk about the cremations. With the cremations, takes what?
Hours? Multiple hours to cremate just one body? Well, 6,000,000? Cremate all that. Damn.
They had what? A certain amount of ovens. Would they've been able to do that in that period of time? Three to five years? Cremate 6,000,000 people?
Damn, man. The math ain't mathing. Like, you're talking about World War two sophistication. We have high end technology that takes hours to cremate a body. You're telling me that they had worse technology back then, but somehow they were able to cremate all those bodies with fewer technology and less time?
Math ain't math, and is it? Okay. Alright. But what about all the Holocaust survivors? Myron, come on.
There were witnesses. The fuck are you talking about, man? Totally happened like they told us in the history books. Well, gets weird there too, guys. Some guy, Sundell, out in Canada, German guy, questions of the Holocaust.
Well, that was a big mistake. Welcome, baunch. Canada doesn't have free speech. He gets arrested. Nigga goes to jail.
Big mistake, though. Since he was facing a criminal case, that means that he had to put together a defense team. And boy, did he put together a defense team. He brought in experts from multiple realms, cremation experts, Fred Lucher, good lawyers. Now the prosecution brought in a couple of these Holocaust survivors.
Upon cross examination, these Holocaust survivors admitted that they sensationalize the stories for dramatic effect. Oh, and by the way, these people had memoirs and books that they sold. So the gas chambers, questionable. The cremations, nearly impossible in that time span. The witnesses, not really credible.
What about Anne Frank? What about her, Myron? Her memoirs. Oh, yeah. About that.
You find out ballpoint pens, uncle relative, writing the memoirs for her. Oh, man. It's getting sticky. But even on the Holocaust memorial, it says 6,000,000. Well, it's kinda changed quite a bit.
It's down to, like, 1.5 now. What? Yeah. They kinda edited the numbers without telling anybody. What?
Yeah. She was telling me the witnesses lied. The gas chambers were almost impossible to conduct to kill that many people with that much gas at that time. Well, hold on. There were death camps, though.
I don't know if they told you the truth about that one either. What are you talking about? Well, you know, when you're in a war, slave labor kinda helps. Wars are kinda expensive and tough. You need to manufacture shit.
So a lot of the times when you get prisoners of war, you just, like, make them work. What? What are you talking about, Myron? Yeah. You just kinda, make them work.
You know? It's like a labor camp. No way. I thought it was a death camp. Nah, man.
They kinda just had them working there. What? 6,000,000 Jews. That's the other part I forgot to tell you about. They weren't all Jews.
Some of them were, like, regular Polish people, Russians, you know, allied forces. Some of them were Jews, sure, but they weren't all Jews. Bro, there were death camps. Did they tell you the part that there were, like, hundreds of babies born during this time? What?
I thought they were trying
Speaker 1: to exterminate them. Gas chambers, death camps, extermination, final solution. What are you talking about? Hitler hated the Jews.
Speaker 0: Yeah. About that. Hilo was kinda responsible for, like, the creation of Israel. What? What are you talking about?
Yeah. Cool. Well, this thing is called like the Havar agreement. Like, 60,000 Jews went to Israel in the thirties. What?
Yeah. He actually let them leave all their resources. They they they went there. They started creating Israel. Woah.
They didn't take with us in the fucking history books. Yeah. I know. Why not? The reason why they don't tell you this is because it kinda takes away the victim narrative from the Jews.
Gets even better. What? Hillary had Jews in the military, Nazi party. Yeah. Tens of thousands.
And some of them actually had really high ranks like brigadier and shit. Yeah. I know. Another fun fact. They never found any real documentation saying we need to kill the Jews.
Matter of fact, fun fact, there was actually documentation saying the Jews
Speaker 1: are dying too quick. We gotta keep them alive.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh, I forgot this too. The Jews declared war on Hitler first. They don't talk about that part either, do they? Look.
I just threw a lot of red pills at you guys. That whole thing will probably get me put in jail in Germany, actually. Matter of fact actually, matter yeah. I I definitely yeah. That's what I just said is definitely legal in Germany.
This is the shit that's forbidden. And this is how you have to go deep sometimes when it comes to debating the Zionist. The guy that they hate so much, Adolf Hitler, that they always rally against to say he's the most evil person that hated Jews, he's actually partly responsible or wholly responsible for the creation and rise of Israel. And this is the forbidden history that they don't want you to know. Because if you actually knew the truth and you knew that the Holocaust really turned out to be a labor camp with a bunch of ridiculous tall tales about people being systematically exterminated for nothing more than their Jewish.
Well, if you get rid of that, then they can't kill innocent kids in Palestine. They can't say never again. They can't always have this victim mindset. They can't always say, oh my god. We're so persecuted.
The Holocaust. Like I said before, the reason why the Holocaust is illegal to question is because that, my friends, is the foundation from which the house of cards is built. If you get rid of the foundation, the house of cards falls. If the house of cards falls, they have no power. The narrative is destroyed.
reSee.it AI Summary
Since Auschwitz is trending, I want to share perspectives often overlooked in mainstream discussions about the Holocaust. I highlight claims from Holocaust Revisionists, including David Cole's observations on gas chamber inconsistencies and the lack of documented orders for mass extermination. I also discuss the conditions in camps, the inaccuracies in survivor stories, and the propaganda surrounding the Holocaust narrative. Ultimately, I believe in the necessity of open dialogue about historical events, emphasizing that the truth can withstand scrutiny.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
🧵Since Auschwitz is trending let's talk about something you won't hear about on the official Auschwitz tour: The perspective of the Holocaust Revisionists (aka Holocaust "Deniers") These are all facts they didn't teach you in grade school about the Holocaust...
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
First, here’s a jewish man named David Cole on the inconsistencies of the gas chambers (ie. wooden doors and other illogical constructions) David is surprised “how little evidence there is" for many of the events https://t.co/oyRbuPVxPs
Video Transcript AI Summary
Claims are made that proofs of the Holocaust are few, consisting mainly of eyewitness testimonies and postwar confessions, but no wartime documents detailing homicidal gas chambers. Evidence like piles of human hair, shoes, and clothing are explained as normal byproducts of camp conditions. Zyklon B was used for disinfection against typhus. Aerial photos of Auschwitz taken during the alleged period of nonstop killings do not show gassings or bodies being burned.
Auschwitz's gas chamber appears to have been reconstructed after the war. Allied aerial photos contradict claims that Nazis camouflaged the gas chambers. Forensic examinations of gas chambers at Auschwitz showed almost no Zyklon B residue, unlike disinfestation chambers.
An expert examined the facilities and determined they were incapable of supporting hydrogen cyanide gas executions due to design flaws: no gasketed doors, windows, or explosion-proof features. The design of the facilities made gassing impossible without killing the operators. Alleged eyewitness reports lack valid descriptions of gassings, suggesting there were no gassings.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I know from years of my own research and the research of others that proofs of the holocaust are few. Literally, all there is are the eyewitness testimonies and postwar confessions. There's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews. And we can't use the excuse that the Nazis destroyed all the evidence because after we had broken the German code, we were able to intercept their secret transmissions, including those that came from Auschwitz. The key to understanding the Holocaust story is understanding the true nature of the things passed off as proofs.
Everything that is used as evidence of the Holocaust also can be said to have a perfectly normal explanation. For example, these exhibits are said to be the material proofs of exterminations. There's the piles of human hair. But what does that prove? It's acknowledged that each inmate had his or her head shaved because of the lice problem.
That's not denied. So why wouldn't there be piles of human hair? What about the piles of shoes and clothing? Is that a proof? It's a fact that the prisoners were issued a uniform upon arrival, including shoes.
So why wouldn't there be piles of inmates' shoes and clothing? It doesn't prove anybody was killed. What about the canisters of gas? No one denies that Zyklon B was used to disinfect clothes and also buildings. Zyklon B was one of the premier pest control agents in Europe at that time.
It was present in most of the concentration camps, including those that are not said to have had homicidal gas chambers in them. The typhus epidemic that spread throughout Europe during the war and also spread through the camps called for stringent lice control procedures. So what other proofs are offered? Well, there's the usual pictures of sick inmates, which proves the groundbreaking thesis that people got sick in the camp. Once again, I'll add that nobody denies the typhus epidemic, which resulted in many deaths.
Then there's the artwork and the pictures of children. But at this point, it's looking pretty bad for somebody looking for objective proofs of the gas chamber. And some of the proofs they present actually work against the concept. For example, they have one of several aerial photographs taken of Auschwitz by the Allies during the war. They don't mention, however, that when blown up, these photos don't show people being gassed or bodies being burned even though they were taken during the time killings were said to be going on almost nonstop.
Once inside, we can see why revisionists have had such a field day with this building. Obvious marks on the walls and floors where apparently walls had been knocked down, equally obvious holes in the floor where bathroom facilities had been. We maintain that unlike the large hollow chamber we now see. This room had once been five rooms, including a bathroom. Yet the building does have what appears to be evidence of criminal usage, four holes in the ceiling, which lead to the roof where four little chimneys stand.
It is said that through these four holes, cyclone B crystals were dropped. And indeed, there seems to be no other explanation for them. Do these holes prove homicidal gassings? Revisionists have claimed in the past that these holes were added after the camp's liberation and that the inside walls were knocked down and the bathroom facilities removed to make the room look like a big gas chamber. Let's start again talking about this building here.
Speaker 1: Notorium gas chamber.
Speaker 0: But this is a reconstruction.
Speaker 1: It is in original state.
Speaker 0: Original?
Speaker 1: Original state. It is in original part. Original. It is original. Original in through this chimney was from cyclone beam.
Speaker 0: Are those the original holes in
Speaker 1: the ceiling?
Speaker 0: They've been rebuilt? Yes. Okay. After the war? After the war.
Yes. This is Auschwitz Birkenau in an allied aerial photo from September 1944. The train that would come up carrying the doomed inmates, you would have thousands of inmates being marched off the trains into one of these two gas chambers in full view of the entire camp. This was a spectacle that nobody at the camp could miss. They would see thousands of people marching into those buildings and nobody coming out.
These were gas chambers that were not isolated from anyone. And indeed, when these aerial photographs were released in the late seventies, they contradicted many supposed eyewitness claims about how the Nazis had tried to camouflage the gas chambers at Birkenau. Another question that should be asked, is there any Zyklon b residue in the gas chamber knowing that cyanide gas would, in fact, leave a residue? In 1988, execution equipment expert Fred Lucher conducted forensic examinations on the gas chambers at Auschwitz to answer that question. He took samples from the four gas chambers at Birkenau, the one at the main camp, and the control sample from one of the disinfestation chambers that we know did use Zyklon B.
Now the gas chamber samples showed almost no appreciable traces, whereas the disinfestation sample literally went right off the scale. In 1990, the Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow decided to conduct their own forensic tests to see if they could refute Fred Lucher's findings, and their own tests got back the same results.
Speaker 2: With the exception of the video photographer, I brought the same things that I would have normally brought to a prison in The United States if I was doing a survey of their equipment. The draftsman was there to take and verify measurements. The drawings were made on-site and then reproduced when we returned to The United States to document everything we saw. I personally made photographs and produced a great deal of photographic evidence of the hardware and facilities that we found in Poland. And the video photographer, which was not a normal thing for me, was brought to document the fact that the forensic samples that I removed from the facilities, the control sample from the Lausing facility Number 1 of Birkenau, and all of the other samples from the alleged gas execution rooms were properly taken, packaged for and packaged for submission to the laboratories.
I examined the facilities, and I made a determination that they were incapable of supporting the use of hydrogen cyanide gas for purposes of execution or otherwise. But additionally, it would be necessary to move remove samples, return them to The United States for testing at an independent laboratory to, in fact, confirm what my visual inspection indicated, that these facilities never, in fact, contained hydrogen cyanide gas.
Speaker 3: What aside from the samples convinced you that these facilities could not have been used then or now as execution facilities?
Speaker 2: The samples in my mind were mainly corroborative. The reasons that I determined that these facilities were not or never could have been gas execution facilities are stated in my report. And it does it mainly is concerned with the design fabrication of these facilities, the requirements necessary in the design of a facility that contains a highly explosive and highly poisonous gas. You must have gasketed doors, no windows, means of getting the gas in, means of getting the gas out, something for heating the gas and the air to constantly keep the right temperature, explosion proof switches, lighting facilities, etc. None of these ever existed.
We are talking about brick and mortar buildings without heat, with non explosion proof lighting, without gasketed doors, in some cases without doors at all, and with crematories that opened very close or adjacent to the facility. If these facilities were used for gas execution facilities, if those persons operating the facilities didn't gas themselves to death at the same time that the executees died, they certainly would have been blown to bits when the gas exploded from a spark arc in a switch, the heat of a light bulb, or the gas approaching and getting into the crematory furnace. I mean, it's just ludicrous to consider that these facilities could have been used as gas chambers.
Speaker 3: Well, we all know from reading the newspapers and watching TV that there's many holocaust survivors who say that they actually saw gassings. They describe them in minute detail, which relative it was they lost, down to the color of the corpses and the color of the smoke coming out of the chimney. How do you respond to these people? Well, one of the things
Speaker 2: that was necessary for me to do, Kirk, at the outset, so I'd have an understanding of what I was doing was read the literature and alleged eyewitness reports so I could make a determination of the protocol, which that's a fancy word that we use in terms of executions for determining, for what the actual procedure is for the execution. And I found through these investigations that there was no such a thing as an eyewitness. I have never seen a report that was written by anyone who had a valid description of what could have happened at a gassing. So the long and the short of it is there are no eyewitnesses because there were no gassings.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Next, let's take a look at how German confessions were obtained through torture, the infamous human lampshade and soap claims, and one of the more interesting Holocaust facts: No document has ever been found showing Hitler ordered any systematic mass exterminations https://t.co/bOLWqwZMXG
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cyclone B was dropped into the death chamber, killing people in 3-15 minutes. The screaming stopped when they were dead. Special commandos removed rings and extracted gold from teeth. Children were exterminated because they couldn't work.
Rudolf Herr's confession was obtained by the British through torture before he was turned over to the Soviets and Poles. This was confirmed in "Legions of Death" by Bernard Clark, who bragged about torturing Herr and threatening his family.
The speaker wishes the Fuhrer had taken responsibility for his commands, stating he was their sovereign. The speaker would rather die than see the sovereign subjected to humiliation in a foreign court, believing the Fuhrer would have taken responsibility.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Cyclone b dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from three to fifteen minutes. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped. After the bodies were removed, our special commandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth, they were unable to work.
Is that all true and correct, witness? Yes.
Speaker 1: It was the British who obtained by torture the confession of Rudolf Herr's commandant of Auschwitz before turning him over to the Soviets and Poles. This has been confirmed in a book published in 1983 titled Legions of Death, which contains the recollections of British Sergeant Bernard Clark, who brags about having tortured Hearst get a confession out of him and of threatening his family. It was here that Hearst was hanged.
Speaker 0: I rather wish the Fuhrer had stood by his followers and taken the responsibility for his command. Think of his position. Oh, sure. His position is chief war criminal. Right?
He was our sovereign. It would be intolerable for me to have him standing before a foreign court. You men knew the furor. He would be the first one to stand up and say, I gave the orders, and I shall take full responsibility. And I would rather die painless than have the sovereign subjected to such humiliation.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Now, let’s take a look at the evidence against the gas chambers and mass graves as well as some of the numeric anomalies of the Holocaust The first clip is Fred Leuchter who wrote an infamous report called The Leuchter Report that comprehensively examined Auschwitz
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to multiple experts, the facilities at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Lublin were not capable of supporting mass executions using any lethal gas. Germa Rudolf's chemical analysis allegedly concluded that Hydrocyonic Acid was not used in buildings claimed to be homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Walter Liftel's report stated that homicidal gassings were impossible for technical reasons. William B. Lindsay affirmed that no one was purposefully killed with cyclone B in that manner.
Reports from the Krakow Forensic Institute and others corroborate these findings. Ground-penetrating radar at Treblinka allegedly revealed no ash or disturbance, suggesting mass graves never existed there. Charles Larsen found no evidence of death by poison gas in autopsies performed in German camps. No Prussian blue cyanide staining was found on walls in the alleged death chambers, only in delousing chambers.
The Auschwitz Museum curator allegedly admitted that the Soviets altered a German bomb shelter after the war to create a homicidal gas chamber. The building presented as a gas chamber has features inconsistent with that purpose, such as a manhole escape hatch, a door that opens inward, and locks on the inside. Le Express acknowledged that everything about this gas chamber is false and that it is a deceitful postwar reconstruction. Olga Vorum Sarnikot stated Auschwitz had no gas chamber, and a fake chimney was built by the Soviets.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: None of the facilities examined at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Lublin could have supported or in fact did ever support multiple executions utilizing hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, or any other allegedly or factually lethal gas. Based upon very generous maximum usage rates for all the alleged gas chambers totaling some 1,693 persons per week and assuming these facilities could support gas executions, it would have required sixty eight years to execute the alleged number of 6,000,000 presses. Promoting these facilities as being capable of affecting mass, multiple, or even singular executions is both ludicrous and insulting to every individual on this planet.
Speaker 1: Germa Rudolf is a chemist who knew winter of nineteen ninety-ninety one while working towards a doctorate in chemistry at the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solid State Physics in Stuttgart, began a scientific investigation of the credibility of the Leuchter Report. His detailed chemical analysis concluded that Hydrocyonic Acid was not used in the buildings alleged to have been homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. His report strengthens the findings of Fred Leuchter. The prominent Austrian engineer, Walter Liftel, also made a report concluding that the homicidal gassings were impossible for technical reasons and because they are incompatible with observable laws on nature. Liftel's report is further authoritative confirmation of the findings of Fred Loister.
The American research chemist Doctor. William B. Lindsay also made careful examinations of the alleged gas chambers. After thirty three years of experience as a chemist, he declared and affirmed under oath, I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with cyclone B in this manner. I consider it impossible.
The Krakow Forensic Institute, Robert Farison, Fredrik Turban, Jan Ball, Carlo Matano, Jurgen Graf, Anne Sundal, David Macaldon, and many others who also have carried out similar technical inspections of the alleged gas chambers have come to the same conclusion. A brave Jewish revisionist named David Cole made a groundbreaking documentary called Cole in Auschwitz in 1992. Today, are many future length documentaries, analyses and commentary on the German labor camps. In 1999, Ricker Creek, a qualified electronics engineer, and his team of researchers carried out a high-tech exam of the soil in the alleged death camp Treblinka. Using ground penetrating radar for three weeks, the team found that the ground was never even disturbed, and core samples revealed no ash.
The results obtained show with 100% certainty that mass graves never even existed in Triplinka or Belzec. There are, in fact, many mass graves in the East. However, this was where the Soviets massacred people. Today, it is well known that, for example, the Katy massacre was committed by the Soviets, but was blamed on the Germans after the war. Doctor Charles Larsen, one of Americans leading pathologists as part of a US war crimes investigation team, performed more than 1,000 autopsies of the dead bodies in the German camps, and none showed any evidence of death by poison gas.
If there had been gassings with carbon monoxide or cyanide, the indications would have been extremely dramatic and readily visible. The courses would have been bright sherry red. No Prussian blue cyanide staining was found on walls in the alleged death chambers. Only in the delousing chambers are ample amounts of evidence of gassings, where cyclone B was used on clothes and bedding to stop the spread of typhus. The Auschwitz Museum curator admitted that the Soviets created the homicidal gas chamber after the war by altering a German bomb shelter.
In the bomb shelter presented to us as a homicidal gas chamber in Auschwitz, the communists removed the walls and made the infamous cyclone b holes in the roof to make it look like a real gas chamber.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now when you go into that Cream of One building, you're gonna see it. It just looks kinda weird. It has all these dirt mounds all around it. You know, really, it looks like a a bomb shelter, and that's exactly what it was at the end of the war.
It was a bomb shelter. They want you to think that 4,000,000 people went through Wash Woods, and they made it look like all the people went through that camp there. But that building there was not capable or made for gassing people, alright, at all. I mean, you know, you go inside it, they they they chop holes in the roof at the end, and it's just ridiculous. I mean, there's no way people were were killed in that building.
So they want you to believe that this is the building that people were gassed in. It just wasn't feasible that people were gassed in that building.
Speaker 3: The thing now, that building, where they end the tour, that was never a gas chamber. There was a chimney next to it and there were four holes in the ceiling where the Zyklon B granules would be dumped and people would see the holes and they could explore them and look around. What I did in 'ninety two, I interviewed the man who was the director, the curator, for lack of a better word, of of the camp. And he admitted to me on camera, not a hidden camera shoot. It was a open two camera shoot in his office.
It was me and my camera woman. And he admitted on camera that the building displayed as the gas chamber is not in its original state, that when the Soviets liberated the camp, that building was an air raid shelter, a very obvious, very clear air raid shelter. And then the Soviets remodeled it to look like what their conception of the gas chamber is. Now there's no backup evidence to prove that this building was ever a gas chamber. There's no Zyklon blue cyanide staining on the walls.
There were no four holes in the roof to dump in the Zyklon B. The Soviets added those. There there had been dividing walls. Inside the room, the Soviets knocked those down to make it look like one big open chamber. They ripped up the bathroom facilities.
You can still see the drains in the floor. You can still see the holes where the toilet and the sink had led into, but they took out all the facilities and they carved a doorway where there had not been a door to make it look like there was a progression from the gas chamber to the oven room. But there was a lot of stuff that they didn't bother to cover up. There's a gigantic manhole right in the middle of the gas
Speaker 2: chamber. Yeah.
Speaker 3: A manhole that any adult, even a fairly heavy set adult can go down into. Now what that is, that was an escape hatch, was fairly standard design procedure that underground or partially underground bomb shelters would have an escape hatch in case rubble or anything else prevented the people inside from exiting the bomb shelter through the main door. So you have this manhole that no one had noticed for at that point, Auschwitz, when I went there in '91, Auschwitz had been open to the the West for over a decade. No one ever noticed the damn manhole, and it's right there clear as day. The door to the chamber opens in.
In other words, if you if it was a gas chamber and you stuck people in there and they they would all pile up against the door trying to bang their way out, they would die there. In order to open the door again, you'd have to push against a mound of 50, a 200, three hundred bodies. The, the door locks on the inside, not the outside. In other words, the the victims would be able to lock the Germans out, which which is just kind of a a silly thing to think of.
Speaker 1: In January 1995, the prestigious French weekly magazine, Le Express, acknowledged that everything about this gas chamber is false and that it is in fact a deceitful postwar reconstruction. French Jewish Olga Vorum Sarnikot wrote a book about the National Socialist concentration camps in which she stated Auschwitz, which was to remain the model camp and simultaneously the administrative center, had no gas chamber. A fake chimney was also built by the Soviets in 1947. It has no opening, and it is not even connected to the building. German prisoners were
Speaker 0: also
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Next, David Irving discusses the lack of sufficient combustibles for cremations, the Germans making no references to gas chambers in private or public documents, and the fact the gas chambers on the Auschwitz tour are “reconstructions” and not original https://t.co/v9a0A8b9PV
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to a reader's letter, calling a gas chamber a fake is wrong because it's a reconstruction. The speaker equates the reconstructed gas chamber to a fake $20 bill. The speaker claims authorities have been showing a reconstruction to schoolchildren for 50 years without disclosing it's not original, which he believes is deceptive. He was fined for pointing out this embarrassment.
The speaker questions why the fake building is shown when genuine ruins are nearby. He suggests people might question the crematorium's true purpose, possibly for typhus victims. While acknowledging crimes against Jews, he argues about the scale and intent. He questions how 1,000,000 people could be cremated in Auschwitz, citing the implausibility of the required coke supply being absent from aerial photos and records.
He claims archives haven't been properly researched and it would have been impossible to remove all gas chamber references from records at the end of the Third Reich. British intelligence read German secret messages, including those from the commandant of Auschwitz, which detailed prisoner statistics but contained no reference to gassings. He dismisses eyewitness evidence as insufficient without archival support, referencing the John Demianuk case.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By academics around the world. He then goes on in his readers letter to say, it is also totally wrong to call that gas chamber a fake. It's a reconstruction. If mister Irving doesn't know the difference between a reconstruction and a fake, then he shouldn't call himself a historian. So said this reader's letter in the New Zealand Herald three days ago.
To which my to which my response is to which my response is, a fake, like the bomb scare that's just been telephoned to this hotel. That is a fake. If this mister Rubin was to offer me a reconstructed, a reconstruction of a $20 bill, I don't think I'd accept that. That is what I would call a fake. If for fifty years, the authorities in Auschwitz have been showing a building to busloads of shuddering school children from all over Europe, telling them that is the gas chamber where the Nazis killed millions of Jews.
And if they haven't had the honesty to write in big letters above the door, what you are seeing is just a reconstruction on the basis of eyewitness testimony, then that is a fake. They have concealed the fact that it's a reconstruction which makes it a fake. And I'm fined $22,000 for pointing this fact out because it's an embarrassment. Of course, it's an embarrassment. The embarrassment is, of course, why do they show the schoolchildren the fake building here when allegedly there were genuine gas chamber ruins just down the road three or four miles away?
Well, that's because people start asking questions. They say this is odd, ruins of a gas chamber, but I think according to maps I've seen this was the crematorium, not a gas chamber at all. Four crematorium in Auschwitz because they had immense typhus problems. They had epidemics with tens of thousands of the inmates dying, which is a crime. And anybody who says to me, David Irving says it wasn't a crime, what happened to the Jews in Auschwitz or elsewhere, is also doing me an injustice because there was undoubtedly a crime.
But we're arguing about scale. We're arguing about intent. We're arguing about the how how and the why and the wherefore. And this is what we are not allowed to do. This is what questions like, how do you cremate 1,000,000 people in Auschwitz?
If cremating one person takes 40 to 60 kilograms of coke, that means that to cremate 1,000,000 people is gonna take 40 to 60,000 tons of coke. And where are those 40 or 60,000 tons of coke? They are not visible on any of the aerial photographs, nor are there truckloads of coke being driven up, nor are there railway lines bringing in the wagon loads of coke. So that is, pre opacity by itself, improbable. And anyway, these four crematory, we know exactly what their handling capacity was, how many cadavers could be cremated at a time.
We know they couldn't have cremated more than tops seventy, eighty, 90 thousand people in the four or five years that the camp was in existence. These are the technical questions that people ask. And not only that, you have the problem that people say, no doubt the Nazis destroyed all the records. At the end of World War two, everything was destroyed, of course. That's what the Nazis were like.
They covered their tracks. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm obnoxious historian who's worked for fifty years in the archives, and those archives have still not been properly researched. They're still in total disarray. And believe me, it would not have been possible in the last one or two weeks of the collapsing Third Reich for somebody to go around all the archives taking out all the references to gas chambers if they were in it, or all the references to the final solution if there were any, and destroying. They couldn't defend it.
And even if they could have destroyed all the German records relating to the final solution and all the German records which contained the fatal word gas chamber, so that there aren't any left in the archives now in Germany, they couldn't. The Nazis have destroyed what is in the British files. Because you see, we British were reading the German files. We were reading the German secret messages. When the commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp sent a message to Berlin reporting what he was doing, giving the actual daily statistics of how many prisoners were arriving, how many were leaving, how many were in the camp at midnight, how many had died.
We have those code messages in Britain. Those actual code messages from the commandant of Auschwitz, we know what he reported. And the chief historian of the British Secret Service who printed this in volume two of the official British history of the Secret Service as an appendix. He states, it's quite evident that huge numbers of people died in Auschwitz Concentration Camp from typhus epidemics, from illness and disease. A small number died from execution being executed by hanging or shooting.
And then he goes on to say, there is no reference in the intercepted telegrams to anybody being gassed. No reference at all. Hundreds and hundreds of code telegrams and the top secret SS code, and there's no reference to anybody being gassed in Auschwitz. These are the kind of documents which mean something to me as a historian. And that is why when people say, but what about all the eyewitness evidence?
I say eyewitness evidence baloney. Tell that to John Demianuk about eyewitness evidence, the man, the Cleveland Auto Worker, who was nearly hanged in Israel on the basis of eyewitness evidence until the Jewish judges in Israel, this Israeli Supreme Court said this evidence was not good enough. They themselves had to acquit John Denyano, admitting that eyewitness evidence alone was not good enough, and that the eyewitnesses had erred and that they had identified the wrong man. Eyewitness evidence is not good enough if there is a total lack of collateral evidence in the archives. And here we have to say there is no such evidence.
The Auschwitz record
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
With so many Holocaust survivors telling stories of the camps many have turned out to be inaccurate From the infamous Elie Wiesel to the lady who claimed to be raised by wolves, here’s just a few of the Holocaust claims that have turned out to be flawed https://t.co/CYo2SSoypX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Captured Nazi officials and Jewish survivors gave Holocaust testaments, including claims of gassings, Jew-eating animals, vaporizing Jews with atomic energy, torture to the "Tango of Death," steaming Jews, electrocution, musical camp dogs, tickling homosexuals to death, blood gazers, Jews made into lampshades and soap, and Nazi masturbation machines.
Herman Rosenblatt gained fame for his story about a girl throwing him apples in a concentration camp, which led to a book and movie deal, but the story was false. Rosenblatt maintained it was his "imagination" and remained unrepentant.
Other false Holocaust narratives include Mitig Grocer plagiarizing from fiction, Josef Hurt fabricating an escape from Auschwitz, Otto Utkinant lying about his experiences, and Misha DeFunsheca's fabricated memoir about being raised by wolves. Misha had to repay $22.5 million. Miklos Gruner claims Elie Wiesel stole the identity of Lazar Wiesel and that Wiesel's claims about burning babies are scientifically impossible.
Paul Rasinier and other camp survivors denied knowledge of gas chambers or mass murder. Benedict Kochsky stated he never saw gas chambers in any camp, including Auschwitz. Marika Frank, an Auschwitz internee, testified she saw nothing of gas chambers. Jewish writer Gerrard Menounin called the Holocaust "the biggest lie in history." Jewish professor Norman Fiegelsang said the Holocaust deflects criticism of Israel. Jewish chief rabbi Aria Friedman called the Holocaust a "successful historical fiction." Jewish professor Roger de Margo claims gassing with cyanide acid is impossible and that the numbers of Jews killed are inaccurate.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The actual Holocaust stories comes from two sources: the captured high officials of the National Socialist Party that were coerced and tortured during the Nuremberg trials and the actual Jewish survivors that came out of those concentration camps. These Jewish testaments ranged from gassings, Jew eating bears and eagles in cages, vaporizing 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz with atomic energy, torturing and killing Jewish prisoners to the tempo of a specially composed Tango of Death. Steaming Jews to death like lobsters at Treblinka, electrocuting them to death, musical camp dogs ripping Jews who played false in the orchestras to death, homosexuals being tickled to death, gazers of Jewish blood, Jews being made into lampshades and soap, carts on rails that threw Jews into the ovens directly, Nazi masturbation machines and yeah, additional testaments that were given are just as ludicrous.
Speaker 1: The one thing
Speaker 2: that I'll never forget that I heard, and he said, the Nazis are taking our our young Jewish infants, and they're tearing them in half by their legs, and they're throwing them in the nester. The nester is a river. So they said, for every person that's gonna take their lives, they're gonna torture to death five of us. Then they punished us. For every man that ran to the wire.
They they took a hundred inmates, and they killed them in front of everybody. The greatest love story we've ever told on
Speaker 0: this show. Oh my goodness.
Speaker 3: Herman Rosenblatt received international attention for his story about being a hungry little boy in a Nazi concentration camp who was thrown apples every day by a little girl on the other side of the fence. Years later, according to the story, Rosenblatt met that same girl on a blind date in New York City, and he proposed on the spot.
Speaker 2: I used to come by every day, bring the apple, have in my jacket and a piece of bread, and he used to say, I'll see you tomorrow.
Speaker 3: The story landed Herman and Roma Rosenblatt on Oprah twice and in newspapers all over the world. They also got a book and movie deal, but the story wasn't true. Why did you do it? Why did you tell such a big lie to so many people for so long?
Speaker 4: It wasn't a lie. It was I it was my imagination. And in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it. Even now, I believe it. That she was there, and she threw the apple to me.
Speaker 3: How how can you say it wasn't a lie? It it wasn't true, and and you know it's not true.
Speaker 4: Yes. It's not true. But in my imagination, it was true.
Speaker 3: Members of his own family say his real motivation was money. Herman and Roma Rosenblatt told their false story publicly for more than a decade, but it all fell apart about six weeks ago after Holocaust scholars proved that it was physically impossible for prisoners to approach the fence at the concentration camp where Herman was kept and that Roma's family was actually more than 200 miles away at the time. Rosenblatt is remarkably unrepentant about his years of lying.
Speaker 4: I pronounce my love for you forever.
Speaker 3: When you look at that, does it make you uncomfortable at all? No. You think that was the right thing to do?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And and and while you were up on the stage there with all these people, in the back of your mind, you not thinking I'm not telling the truth here. No. So if you had to do it over again, would you tell the same story? Yeah. You would?
Yes.
Speaker 2: I simply don't know what to say. I mean, it's his imagination, but he knows it's not true.
Speaker 3: He said he made up he made up a fantasy world, and he was living in that fantasy world.
Speaker 2: And his son says, tried to stop him? Yes. Good heavens. Okay. Thank you, Dan.
Pleasure.
Speaker 0: Mitig Grocer towards Sweden talking to children, telling them of the horrors of the German concentration camps. It turned out that his story was directly plagiarized from a fictional book called Mila 18 from 1961. Josef Hurt from Pennsylvania gave public speeches for years where he claimed to have escaped from Auschwitz and even met evil Nazi doctor, Josef Mengele. He had now confessed that he had fabricated the entire story. He admitted that everything was a lie.
Hurt had even tattooed a fake prison number on his arm to make people believe in his lies. Otto Utkinant had for years been paid shekels to lecture in German schools about his experiences of the Holocaust. He has talked about the Crystal Knight, how he lost 72 relatives including mother, father and sister and how he himself was interned at Buchenwald. However, Otto now admits that the whole story was a lie. Misha DeFunsheca wrote a best selling memoir about her experience of the Holocaust.
Her story was published almost twenty years ago as Misha, a Memoir of the Holocaust Years. The book describes how when she was six, her Jewish parents were taken from their home by the Nazis and how she set off across Belgium and Germany and Poland to find them on foot, leaving out stolen scraps of food until she was adopted by a pack of wolves. She also claimed to have shot a Nazi soldier in self defense. The story became a huge bestseller and was even made into a film in France. But in 02/2008 it was found to be fabricated and everything was a lie.
The author whose real name was found to be Monica de Valle said that it is not the true reality but it's my reality. There are times when I find it difficult to differentiate between reality and my inner world. Misha will now have to pay back the money she was awarded, which amounts to $22,500,000 Elie Wiesel has told us for fifty years that while at Auschwitz he was tattooed on his left arm the number A7713. He also adds that his father was given the number A7712, but a real Auschwitz survivor, Miklos Gruner claims that Elie Wiesel is an impostor. Miklos who actually was at the camp claims that Elie Wiesel stole the identity of a real man named Lazar Wiesel who the number eighty seven thousand seven hundred thirteen actually belonged to.
First of all, if you look at his arms, Elie Wiesel does not have a tattoo. The number 8700712 actually were given to a man named Abraham Wiesel, Lazar's older brother. Eli Wiesel never claimed that he saw any homicidal gas chambers, instead he claims that he witnessed evil Germans throwing Jewish babies in gigantic flames sleeping up from a ditch. But this has also been debunked by scientists, historians and engineers. Auschwitz was built on a swamp with a high water table which made it impossible for bodies to have been burned in ditches.
Not to mention that it was impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by flames in this manner because of lack of oxygen. Miklos however says that he never saw any ditches where children were burning. Eli Wiesel explains that some events do take place but are not true. Others are, although they never occurred. In 1986, Miklos Gruner met Eli Wiesel in Stockholm.
Miklos thought that he was going to meet Lazar Wiesel. But after the meeting Miklos said, I was stunned to see a man I did not recognize at all. He was not my fellow prisoner. Miklus also was surprised that Eli couldn't speak Hungarian, but spoke English with a strong French accent, even though Huizel claims that he was born in Hungary. Neither Elie Wiesel nor his father, Shlomo Wiesel, are named in any records from Auschwitz or Buchenwald.
After the war, Elie Wiesel joined the Jewish terrorist group Irgun. Anyway, Elie Wiesel is today laughing all the way to the bank as his best selling book Night brought him international recognition at millions of dollars. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. Out of thousands of real Jewish survivors from the German camps, the international Jewish community handpicked Zionist and hate filled liars to spread anti German propaganda. But of course, not all Jews are lying.
Many Jews don't agree with the Holocaust narrative, and many of them testified that they never saw any mass murders or gassings. But these Jews have effectively been silenced by anti free speech, signist organizations to cover up the truth. Paul Rasinier was arrested by the Gestapo in October 1943 and deported to Germany, where he was held prisoner until the end of the war in Buchenwald and Dora Concentration Camps. Rasinier was upset by the many lies and myths about the concentration camps that were being circulated. French resistance members who also were interned in various German concentration camps during the war including Auschwitz and other alleged death camps, they all gave accounts of their treatment by the Germans and they all denied any knowledge of gas chambers and a mass murder program in the camps.
Rysigner said that never at any moment did the responsible authorities of the Third Reich intend to order or in fact order the extermination of the Jews in this or any other manner. Maria van Herwarden testified about her camp experience in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She testified that she witnessed the deaths of many fellow inmates by deceased and particularly typhus, and she saw some take their own lives, but she saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings or of any extermination program. The Jew Benedict Kochsky, who spent the years from 1938 to 1945 in concentration camps, three of these in Auschwitz, said: I was in the big concentration camps in Germany. I must truthfully state that in no camp have I ever seen anything that might have resembled gas chambers.
A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily according to the official story. She testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of gas chambers during the time she was interned there. Jewish writer Gerrard Menounin says, the Holocaust is the biggest lie in history. Germany has no blame for the second world war. That Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions and incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same advertently inconsistable Holocaust proves it must be a lie.
Why else would no one be allowed to question it? Jewish professor Norman Fiegelsang says, the Holocaust proved to be the perfect weapon for deflecting criticism of Israel. The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the greatest robbery in the history of mankind. Jewish chief rabbi Aria Friedman says, the Holocaust is a successful historical fiction. Jewish professor Roger de Margo said
Speaker 1: I know that the problem, for instance, of the Holocaust is a complete fake because it's very easy to know because it's it's a simple technical arithmetic problem which could be solved by a child in high school. Any chemist know that you can't gas people with cyanide acid. Let's call it that in English. Hydrocynic Hydrocynic acid. 1,000 or 2,000 people at the time, it's well known, and, even the most important American Jewish newspapers, like the American Jewish Yearbook, said that there was 3,003,000 Jews in occupied Europe in 1942.
So I don't see how they could have killed 6,000,000 Jews when there was only three millions. You know, they So I think anybody can see that. I I listed in 1944. I see. I listed for three years, nineteen forty four.
It was in the world. The world finished in 1945. But I was in the army 1944 because, of course, as everybody did, I believe that Hitler was the real monster that everybody said he was. But since I have studied what happened in Nazism, under Nazism, what Hitler did want to do and say when you read these books, what maybe anybody can read Mein Kampfel can read myth of the twentieth century by Rosenberg. And anybody can know also what happened these last fifty years when declared I absolutely had nothing to do and not the slightest influence because Nazi has been there now for fifty years.
So you can do what happened. And what happens, I told you in my my lecture, it's absolutely incredible. And at the top of everything, you can see the Jews. I told you, I studied the books which really expresses Nazism, that is to say, Meigumpf and the myth of the twentieth century by Rosenberg. As to what's happened during the war, and especially what Hitler actually did, which is hidden, which is concealed to us.
What what he did in Germany. And the only know thing we know about Hitler is that he killed 6,000,000 Jews who never existed in gas chambers, which nobody ever saw. That's all that's the only thing which people know about Hitler. But when you really know that this what he did, what he actually did in Germany, well, when you have studied all that, you see that you have been completely completely misled to use a
Speaker 0: mild
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Next, what was life was like inside the “death” camps? Well, surprisingly, the camps had theaters, swimming pools, soccer leagues, orchestras, and even plays But don’t take my word for it, let some Holocaust survivors tell you themselves: https://t.co/Samxwpo3Au
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cultural activities occurred in Auschwitz, including theater performances in Block 1. A grand piano was brought in, and a stage curtain was sewn with inmate assistance. One inmate helped transcribe music for the orchestra, finding the work peaceful. There was a library, newspapers, and violin quartets. Movies, mostly German, were shown in the evenings for a fee.
Inmates could receive money from outside and buy items like cigarettes and weak beer at a canteen. Soccer teams were formed, with games organized even in Gross Rosen as the war progressed. Civilians sometimes helped, even playing soccer with inmates.
Weddings and maternity wards existed, with over 3,000 live births in Auschwitz and no infant deaths during German rule. A nursery was established, and an inmate painted a mural in the children's barracks, depicting a Swiss chalet scene and, at the children's request, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The children then created a play based on Snow White. A brothel, hospitals, and dental facilities also existed in the camp. Camp authorities tried to keep inmates alive and healthy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We also had an orchestra where some of the musicians stood together and one musician was so good that he had the instruments playing and he wrote the notes. So later on we had a band who played over the weekend. And, that was, of course, helping us. You know, we also did plays and stuff.
Speaker 1: Were there any cultural activities happening in Auschwitz? Yes. I told you we had a piano put into a not just a piano, a grand piano was brought into Block 1. Once that was built, that new block, the downstairs room was assigned for theatre. When he wanted to build a stage curtain in that new Block 1, which was one big dining room was going to be also with the stage, so performances could be done for women there, culture.
He said, for heaven's sake, isn't there anybody here who can help me sew on these curtain rings for the stage. I do it for you, he says. And I came forward and I helped him with the curtain stage. And that was wonderful because I had a man sitting across me for a change. And my room mate is in charge of work assignments.
And if you happen to know music, what instruments do you play? I said, I learned piano, but not good enough for an orchestra. I can tell you that right now. He said, well then maybe you know the notes. I said, yes.
He said, well then I can use you because we have to write it from the original music piece what the director gets to the instruments. And so for each instrument has only short line on the whole paper. So I had to take it apart and write for each instrument. From that what I had to do. I had to even make the lines.
We didn't have paper that was pre printed for notes, nothing. So I spent the whole day there for a while until we were taken away from Auschwitz. But then she saw me work there, I had a big table where I could work and lay out all the paper and it was very peaceful and relaxing. And wanted to talk more to me. That is when I met that SS man at one time.
That was the last job I did while I was in Auschwitz. And when I the other job that when I was in Block 10, we went out to pick the leaves. And from these leaves, they would make tea for the whole camp, for the whole Auschwitz.
Speaker 2: How did you entertain yourselves?
Speaker 3: Well, there were at that at at the beginning of those days, there was a library where you people could get books to read. There were newspapers that we could get. And that and also among ourselves sometimes we had a violin quartet used to come and play in barracks. And they even later on, they said they're gonna build a movie in the camp. And the prisoners said said, only you must be crazy.
They're make a movie for us in in in the camp. And then it happened. They made a movie in the camp. Yeah. And we we went in barracks after barrack.
We we could go to see a movie sometimes in the evening. They brought movies in to the in the evening. And
Speaker 2: What kind of movies would they show?
Speaker 3: German movies. Once I came to the main camp, they were allowed twice a month to ride home. Once a postcard and once a letter.
Speaker 2: They gave you the materials?
Speaker 3: Yeah. They gave us the letter, the materials, and we could
Speaker 2: How did
Speaker 1: you get the stamps?
Speaker 3: Stamps. We could buy stamps.
Speaker 2: Could You had money?
Speaker 3: Yeah. We got my we still got my with the money we got through the Jewish community from Vienna who sent us. Everybody, you some money.
Speaker 2: And and in the camp you could have currency?
Speaker 3: Yeah. They could have money because there was in camp also what they call a cantina and not many times, but once in a while they sold a few cigarettes or they sold something, whatever they had. So if you had money, you could buy in that cantina there. Food, there wasn't really any food really. They usually sold and sometimes they sold they sold some weak beer that sold also in the in the yeah.
But not really anything else, not much. Mostly cigarettes.
Speaker 2: And when you went to the movies, did you have to pay?
Speaker 3: Yes. We had to pay. After the the money stopped, the regular money stopped, we got paid in coupons then.
Speaker 2: Paid for your work?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know if it was for whatever. We got paid for in coupons for which were redeemable in the in that canteen if they had something. So that was their their way of distributing money then to everybody, everybody got this money then.
Speaker 0: Of course what we did is for the weekends we got together, we got a group of us together and we made a soccer team which was about a little later where we
Speaker 4: played soccer. It's amazing that there would be a soccer team, that there'd be
Speaker 3: enough energy left to do something like that.
Speaker 0: Well, I don't think we were quite as energetic as we were with the other regular team, but we did something to, you know, it kept our mind off these, of the problems we had.
Speaker 5: Especially the Germans started losing the war, 1943, '19 '40 '4. So 1944 we had soccer games in Rosrose. Soccer teams, we organized very well, soccer teams, each nationality organized a soccer team and we organized our equipment and everything to play soccer in the assembly line and assembly place. In Rosen. In Gross Rosen.
So, you know, that much free it was in there, but it was like the 44. Russians already pushed away, Americans already invaded on the other side, so there they have to give more freedom. But that was much more freedom and food didn't improve very much because simple reason, they didn't have it very much themselves.
Speaker 6: Did the civilians try to help you at all? Did they trade goods for things?
Speaker 5: It's as I say, we have almost everything, what we wanted, whether it's soccer teams, from the civilians, from Markside civilians. But that
Speaker 3: was
Speaker 5: strictly under the cover. They knew it but they didn't do much about it because they knew the war was almost all of us. They didn't, they even played soccer with us. Just to make the store funny, the toy incident funny that one time the Polish team played against German teams and one of the top enlisted assessment decided he wants to play for the Polish team. So we say okay, you can play for us.
And then the commandant, SS commandant, he was like a captain. He decided to want to play for the German team. So, he went in the field. I think they were a little bit tipsy.
Speaker 6: How did you feel about that?
Speaker 5: And the funny part of it, we said, you just let them play, they play almost by themselves. We just run around them. But that was one of the incidents which stuck so funny in it. But that's happened, it was 1944, it almost things came to close.
Speaker 6: So, what you're saying then that the closer the end of the war came, pressure was let up rather than becoming more cool?
Speaker 5: In our camp, you did feel the pressure made up.
Speaker 7: There were weddings and even maternity wards for pregnant women. Inmates were falling in love and getting married in the camps. Over three thousand live births were registered in Auschwitz alone, with not a single infant death while it was in operation under German rule. The evil Nazis even set up a nursery for the children.
Speaker 8: Freddie Hirsch called me to the children's barracks he was heading then, and he asked me if I could paint something on the wall for the children. And I said, well, if you can get the materials, he said, I'll get the materials. I said, okay. And then a very handsome young blonde man from the men's camp came over one day. And Freddie Hirsch called me to come and meet him.
And he asked me what I need. So I said, well, if I can get any wall paints, so any tempera paints, I would like those. If you can get me some, and he said, yes. Anything you want. And so before I knew it, Freddie had the stuff ready for me, and I started painting.
At first, not knowing what, I looked at that huge drab. It was kind of olive colored like all the barracks were wall. And I thought, well, the thing to do is to make it look like we are in a Swiss chalet on the deck, and there is a balustrade with flowers and flower pots on it. And we are looking out at the beautiful meadows and maybe see some cows and sheep and stuff, and I started painting. And then afterwards, far in the distance, I was putting some sheep and some cows, and then I noticed that all the kids were standing around me, behind me.
So I turned around and I asked them if they would do they have any special wish what to put in that meadow? And they said, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. And that was a very surprising answer. So I made a painting of Dopey standing on another dwarf's head with a cloak around him so he looked like a tall guy, so he would be as tall as Snow White. And they were dancing together, and the shoes, those soft shoes and everything.
And the kids loved it. And I made some other dwarves around, one who was playing the accordion. I think there was Grumpy, the mean one. And the professor with the glasses. I made almost all the dwarfs standing around.
Some of them were clapping, and that's what the kids like. I now understand that there was another painter who continued something painting on the walls after I've left. I don't know about that.
Speaker 9: When you were in the process of doing that
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 9: What did it do not only for for you, but for the for the children
Speaker 8: on on an emotional level. Well, it did several things, not just emotional, but the children then wrote a play which was a satire of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. So I figured out a way of making a crown out of paper, and the kids were painting it gold and putting, like, jewels on it. And then I took some paper strips and I painted them with a black paint. And I don't know about the costumes, what what they made costumes out of, but the play was very successful because the little girl who was, playing Snow White had an incredible voice, a gorgeous soprano, just like the one that you hear in the movie.
Speaker 9: How were they allowed to put on a play in Auschwitz?
Speaker 8: I don't know, but it was done kind of quite hush-hush, all of it, except that when it was put on, suddenly some SS men appeared and they watched. And then when Arnold Behm put on that play, he he wanted something like a Wardville Wardville play, which I was into. That was when I couldn't stand the breath of the guy who was playing with me.
Speaker 7: The building just left entering Auschwitz was actually a brothel used by the internees of the camp. Hospitals and camp dental facilities attended by camp inmates, dentists and nurses to deal with the inmates dental problems. The Auschwitz Camp had sick bays and hospitals where thousands of inmates were cured. The camp authorities foremost the garrison physician doctor Wirths tried all imaginable ways to keep the Auschwitz inmates alive, strong and healthy. The Holocaust
Speaker 0: is
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Here's David Irving again, this time he discusses Hitler’s apprehension against using nerve gas on Allied soldiers This is unique because it apparently shows Hitler had a double standard for using nerve gas in the camps... https://t.co/uS94qkuQSv
Video Transcript AI Summary
Hitler embargoed the use of poison gas, as evidenced by a document signed by him, references in the German high command vows, verbatim references by him, and shorthand records of meetings.
If Churchill had used poison gas on German cities, the Germans would have won the war because they possessed nerve gases like sarin and tabun. In 1944, Germany had stockpiles of 30,000 tons of these nerve gases. Had Hitler used them in Normandy, it would have ended the Allied bridgehead because Allied gas masks were ineffective against German nerve gases.
Hitler, despite being able to gain a strategic advantage by using nerve gas, did not because he signed the Geneva Gas Protocol, which forbade him from using gas first.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And embargoed anywhere the use of poison gas. It's it's there. The actual document signed by Hitler, the references in the vows of the German high command, the verbatim references by him and the shorthand records of his meetings, the shorthand records of meetings in the German air ministry. The Fuhrer has absolutely forbidden the use of poison gas. The enemy is to use it first, and then we will retaliate with ours.
The reason being, the reason that makes this yardstick so extraordinary is that if Churchill had done what he was threatening and dropped the poison gas on German cities, the Germans would have won the war because the Germans had not just poison gases like mustard, the Germans had nerve gases. At this time, in 1944, they already had stockpiles of 30,000 tons of nerve gases, sarin and tabun, the famous nerve is being used even now by the Russians in Afghanistan and in Iraq and in Angola and elsewhere where the Russian troops are fighting. The nerve gases sarin and tabun, Hitler already had stockpiles of 30,000 tons, and nobody found out till the war was over, which is just as well because if Hitler had ever used it in Normandy, fighting the Allied, the American, the French, the British troops in Normandy, the Canadians as well, it would have been the end of the bridgehead because we didn't have a gas mask. We had no gas mask which would have stopped the German nerve gases. It would have been the end of the bridgehead.
And isn't it strange that Adolf Hitler, the devil incarnate, had the means whereby he could have secured an immediate strategic advantage, which would have turned the war because he would have pulled the nine or 10 panzer divisions out of Normandy and sent them to the Russian front. And with those high grade divisions, he would have wiped the floor with the Russians and ended the war by Christmas nineteen forty four. But he had put his name on a piece of paper, the Geneva Gas Protocol, saying that he would never use gas first because it would be a war crime.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Ok, we're almost done... This next clip discusses the propaganda after WWII, the rising and falling Auschwitz death tolls, and the history of the 6 million number But most importantly: It shows the tactics of violence and intimidation used against Holocaust "Deniers" https://t.co/UYbRl3kmQZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
During World War II, the Soviet Union was a military ally whose anti-Nazi propaganda was accepted and later integrated into historical accounts.
One speaker states their belief that 6,000,000 Jews were killed in the war by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. They then ask another speaker, the president of Iran and a scholar, if he believes that 6,000,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis, or if he thinks that is not true.
The other speaker says he doesn't think 6,000,000 Jews were gassed, and cautions that this statement is against the law in Germany, and could result in imprisonment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think it's necessary to put this matter in its proper historical perspective. You see, we live in a time now when the old Soviet Union has fallen apart, and it's now okay for both liberals and conservatives as well as everybody else to speak ill of the departed communist state. But it was not always that way. During World War two, the Soviets were more than just a military ally. Their anti Nazi propaganda was readily accepted by the other allies because it served all of their purposes.
The point is that as the victors, the Soviets got to commit their propaganda to the history books as fact. With the 2020 hindsight we now have, the knowledge of Stalin's despotism, and the KGB's history of misinformation and deception, as well as the other camps in Poland, Majdanek, Belzec, Kelno, Treblinka, and Sobibor, we've had to rely on the Soviets for most of our information.
Speaker 1: I believe in the inarguable fact that 6,000,000 Jews were killed in the war by Adolf Hitler and Nazis. I'm merely asking you, as a president of Iran and as a scholar, do you believe that 6,000,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis, or do you think that is not true?
Speaker 2: But I don't think 6,000,000 Jews were gassed. Now be careful. I I beg of you. This is against the law in Germany. If there was a German somebody that's in German state, you could have me thrown into prison before I leave Germany.
I hope that's not your intention.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
And last but not least, let's take look at how the Holocaust narrative is still used to this day and why it's so important that it not be questioned: https://t.co/zDl7ZXvIQu
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript claims there was no gas chamber in Dachau or other German concentration camps. It alleges that Holocaust revisionists are punished for challenging the "official" Holocaust narrative, citing examples like Robert Farison, Jurgen Groff, and Horst Mahler.
The speaker states that the Holocaust narrative is used to manipulate white Europeans with guilt, strengthen Jewish identity, promote globalism and multiculturalism, and delegitimize white European identity. They claim critics of Jewish people or Israel are outlawed.
The transcript asserts that Jewish and Zionist organizations censor the internet and suppress information that contradicts the accepted Holocaust narrative, alleging that Wikipedia and Google are monitored to fit a "politically correct" narrative. It also claims that "third world invaders" receive lenient sentences for crimes against Europeans, while Holocaust deniers face severe penalties. The speaker concludes that Holocaust denial laws are a gross infringement on freedom of expression and that such laws exist to protect a lie.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Stephen F. Pinter, who served as a lawyer for the United States War Department in the occupation forces in Germany and Austria for six years after the war, made the following statement: I was in DACA for seventeen months after the war as a US department attorney and can state that there was no gas chamber in Dachau, nor was there a gas chamber at any of the other concentration camps in Germany.
Speaker 1: I challenge your history again. There is absolutely no record that 6,000,000 people were put in concentration camps. They only have 16,000,000 to begin with.
Speaker 2: But in spite of Jewish opposition to historical integrity, Holocaust revisionists are breaking the bars erected around their imprisonment of conscience and speaking out. Robert Farison, for instance, a recognized French specialist in document analysis, has stated that no document has been found that proves that a plan for Jewish extermination by the third Reich was ever contemplated. Expulsion, yes, but extermination, no. As punishment for challenging the official holocaust line, Forrestin has been repeatedly the victim of physical assault, countless legal actions, freezings of his bank account, and heavy fines. In the year February, Swiss scholar Jurgen Groff, author of the book The Holocaust Swindle, after receiving a two year jail sentence for allegedly questioning the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz, fled to Saint Petersburg where he's been living ever since as an exile.
There in Saint Petersburg, Groff is engaged in examining Soviet archives which Groff claims when allowed for release will bring Jewry's official version of the holocaust to its knees. Particularly scandalous and a blow to free speech and historical inquiry is the arrest of German lawyer Horst Mahler. In 02/2009, Mahler was sentenced by two German courts to eleven years in prison total for opinion crimes. One of them being Mueller's assertion that the official version of the Holocaust is the greatest lie ever perpetrated in human history.
Speaker 0: The benefits of exegregating the Holocaust have been enormous to sinus Jews both financially and politically. The Holocaust is today used as a guilt weapon as many racial groups exploit the empathy that white Europeans are known to have in order to guilt trip them into a collective guilt by making whites feel shameful and guilty about their past.
Speaker 3: Give them the guilt, man.
Speaker 4: That's yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 5: We need to
Speaker 4: play on that guilt.
Speaker 6: You always
Speaker 4: I bring up everything from the past. Fifty years.
Speaker 3: The
Speaker 0: left, communists, or Jews hear a person discussing anything related to immigration, demographics, or race realism, they immediately label that person as a neo Nazi, the next Hitler, or antisemitic. This is done to shut down the conversation and to make the person look like a hateful bigot.
Speaker 7: Really quite dangerous, racist, fascist rhetoric. People don't think that it's okay to be a fucking Nazi anymore. It's basically the same as quoting Hitler.
Speaker 3: There's a bunch of
Speaker 8: opportunistic hate mongering fascists trying to garner sympathy with garbage propaganda videos. I directly compared everyone who talked about cultural Marxists to the fascist literal Nazis who invented the term.
Speaker 5: Racism is especially sensitive against individuals who are murdered in the millions.
Speaker 9: Very racist and antisemitic things. This is kind of embarrassing, but this hits somewhat close to home since some of my family aligns with that way of thinking. They don't think that it happened. Just gonna erase all that history. Sounds like my grandpa or any other racist person.
Bliten the Jews. This is literally my grandpa.
Speaker 5: Of course, she doesn't even believe that the holocaust even fucking happened. Well, mean, he did kill, like, 6,000,000 fucking Jews. I mean, believe it or not, he also killed 6,000,000 fucking Jews. Listen, you fucking cow. Okay?
When you kill 6,000,000 Jews, it doesn't matter what you did in the past.
Speaker 6: Holocaust. Yeah. Yeah. We're gonna talk to Mercedes Carrera.
Speaker 3: The 6,000,000. Six million.
Speaker 6: When I was a punk rocker when I was a punk rocker, brother
Speaker 3: 6,000,000. You're never sick, but I don't know. It was it was 6,000,000.
Speaker 0: The Holocaust narrative is used to strengthen Jewish identity simultaneously as undermining, demonizing, and delegitimizing white European identity. It is used as a manipulative weapon weapon against all white Europeans. I have done my research. Shane. I have done my research.
Speaker 3: Shane. Shane. Shane. Shane.
Speaker 5: Shane.
Speaker 10: Now, you owe me some money. Okay? You owe me reparations. Why is that?
Speaker 8: Because every freedom that I have and have taken for granted for my entire life has been made possible by wealth that my ancestors stole.
Speaker 0: The Holocaust narrative is primarily used to discourage policies such as nationalism and instead promote globalism and multiculturalism in the Western world. Europeans are constantly reminded of never forget, never again and that the horrors will never be repeated. This is done to brainwash the Europeans to not stand up for their own nation and race. Through this narrative, the Europeans support the politics that protect the rights of minority groups instead of their own people. Any criticism against the Jews or the Jewish State of Israel had practically been outlawed.
The Jewish Holocaust turning to a religion in which no deviation from the orthodoxy is acceptable. Even if there have been many holocausts and greater genocides throughout history, the Jewish holocaust is the only one that counts and it is of course the only one of whose orthodoxy is criminalized to even question. In fact, it is the only historical event that is prohibited by law to even question in many countries. The reason why you probably never even have heard about this research that have proven the official story to be false, is because researchers who have dared to explore the many inconsistencies and contradictions of the holocaust story have been subjected to physical attacks including harassment, vandalism, career destruction, drive by shootings, physical assaults and even firebombings of the warehouse that holds their work. Jewish and signist anti free speech organizations are doing everything they can to suppress the truth through censoring the Internet and burning the books that expose their lies.
Thanks to the pressure from anti free speech organizations, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are doing their best to repress and silence the truth and we cannot even rely on these platforms to be used in the future. Wikipedia and Google is both monitored to fit the politically correct narrative to mislead the population.
Speaker 6: Moet Zetiash in conjunction with My Israel has arranged instruction day for wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world. As a way of example, if someone searches the Gaza flotilla, we wanna be there. We wanna be the the guys who influence what is written there, how it's written, and to ensure that it's balanced and Zionist in nature.
Speaker 10: I came here to learn more about how we, as Israelis and as Jews, can defend Israel online on the Internet, and particularly in Wikipedia in this case. Wikipedia is a bit of a complex system, it's sometimes hard to figure out the rules. I personally tried to edit things in Wikipedia that were against Israel. Knowledge is important for anyone who wants to be active in defending Israel on the Internet so that we can go and we can see the information and we can say this isn't quite right. It's showing one side of the story, and I can I have the the power and the right to change that?
And in general, it's so important for us to be online working to defend our ourselves and to prove to to the world and to ourselves that we are just and we are right. And because right now, if you look online, if you do searches for certain terms related to Israel, you just it's just filled with antisemitism, anti Zionism, and garbage. And there's not enough of us out there working to counteract that and make sure that the other side of the story, our side of the story, and our right side of the story is getting the right coverage and the coverage that it needs, so
Speaker 0: In our supposedly free and democratic countries that frequently pride themselves of being tolerant, third world invaders are now raping European women and receive the most lenient sentence. Meanwhile, Holocaust deniers or anti Semites can get many years in prison for merely questioning a historical event. It is clear that our governments are not working for our people anymore. According to Gerhard Menonin, there were 117,344 accusations of thought crimes in the German courts in the year nineteen ninety four-two thousand and four. Around 2,000 people are put on trial every year for holocaust denial, which can give up to five years in prison and a fine.
Speaker 3: Most of the people in England, America, Australia have no idea what a tyranny this country is.
Speaker 4: Hundreds, we have more than 2,000 process, more than 2,000 trials a year and that over more than ten years. So you can imagine how many people have suffered from it and families have been destroyed and they lost their job and so on and so on. That says the truth. And simply for inquiring, simply for inquiring into the sources for They are not promoting any ideas, they are simply asking questions like you do. Yes, and now what happened in Paris is just for us because all the heads of the nation said press free and meaning freedom is the greatest thing for democracy.
And therefore I say I use this freedom.
Speaker 0: The Holocaust is a story that the globalists don't allow to even be debated or questioned. Anyone who questions the story immediately is branded as a racist, a Nazi who wants to kill 6,000,000 Jews and a Holocaust denier, hater or anti Semite. This labeling technique is used to discourage discourse in discussions related to Holocaust and World War two. Holocaust revisionism is today considered a taboo matter, with laws and prison sentences applied to Europeans who questions the politically correct Holocaust narrative. This is a gross infringement on Article 19 in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The mere fact that Holocaust denial laws in Europe exist should raise an eyebrow. Truth does not fear investigation. You certainly do not need to make up laws to protect history unless you are trying to protect a lie.
The truth stands on its own legs.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
A final note: As you can see, Holocaust Revisionism doesn't "deny" the Holocaust It believes many of the events that constitute what we collectively know as "The Holocaust" did take place But it also understands, we need to be able to have an honest discussion about historical events, especially when those events are used to this day to exemplify the evils of White collectivism and to solicit reparations for those evils Holocaust Revisionism merely seeks to have an honest and open discussion about the events of the Holocaust and firmly believes this statement to be true: The truth fears no investigation
@badazn - 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐫 𝐊𝐰𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐞
⚠️🚨𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐎𝐋𝐎𝐇𝐎𝐀𝐗‼️📺😵💫 https://t.co/db1YGEvCzD
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Holocaust is a hoax used for control by Luciferian owners and to promote usury via Babylonian banking. The global elite know the Holocaust was fake, like COVID-19. Zyklon B gas chambers are a fabricated myth; there were no lampshades or final solution, and the 6,000,000 number was created out of thin air.
In 1989, the Auschwitz Museum revised its death claim from four million to seven hundred thousand. The 6,000,000 number originates from a dubious affidavit during the Nuremberg trial. The speaker questions trusting those who benefit from these narratives, like those who mandate reading Elie Wiesel's Night and watching Schindler's List in schools.
Footage of bodies from Bergen Belsen is from the war's end when starvation and disease were rampant. Claims that these deaths were caused by gas chambers, electrocution, and then again gassing in Poland are manipulation to lie that it is a product of systematic extermination. This is not a matter of fringe revisionists or tribal hatred but of physical evidence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Holocaust is a hoax designed to keep us under the thumb of Talmudic guilt and control from our country's Luciferian owners to keep us plunged further into usury via Babylonian banking. The global elite know themselves that the Holocaust was fake just like COVID nineteen. The Zyklon b gas chambers are a total fabricated myth. There were no lampshades. There was never a final solution.
And the 6,000,000 number was created out of absolute thin air. In 1989, the Auschwitz Museum officially revised their claim that four million died in Auschwitz to seven hundred thousand at the drop of a hat overnight. The source of the famous 6,000,000 number repeated originates from a crudely calculated and dubious affidavit during the Nuremberg trial. So who are we trusting to keep track and claim such absolute authority on these matters? Well, it turns out to be the same people who benefit the most from these malicious political narratives, which is why every middle schooler is forced to read Elie Wiesel's Night and every high schooler is forced to watch Schindler's List.
When you see this gruesome footage of bodies being thrown and dumped from the Bergen Belsen Concentration Camps, these are the last weeks of the war when starvation and disease were ramping all across Europe. In 1946, it was claimed these deaths were caused by gas chambers in the Kow and Buchenwald, and then they changed it to electrocution, and then again they changed it saying that it was actually once again gassing in Poland. But nobody denies the grim imagery, but it's blatant manipulation to lie that it is a product of systematic extermination to endlessly bludgeon us Gentiles into moral submission. And this is not a matter of a couple fringe revisionists who've been imprisoned or random tribal hatred. It is entirely a matter of physical evidence.
No matter which intellectual prostitute they use to brainwash our young impressionable minds, show me the evidence.
@WarsawErik - Erik Warsaw
🌐 WW2 Concentration Camps Truth does not fear investigation Listen to both sides of evidence and you decide Gas Chambers 6 million Swimming pools Soccer teams https://t.co/6eMln1b9Xq
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the claim that six million Jews perished in German concentration camps during World War II. They cite gas chamber doors that allegedly didn't lock, some made of wood with glass windows, arguing they weren't airtight and would have harmed the guards.
They mention Fred Lukter's analysis of Auschwitz gas chamber walls, which supposedly found no cyanide residue. The speaker highlights the existence of soccer teams, a theater, sewing rooms, and swimming pools in the camps, questioning why these would exist if extermination was the goal.
A 1944 International Red Cross report allegedly found no evidence of extermination installations at Auschwitz. The speaker claims Jewish population records before and after the war show no significant change. They state that autopsies on 270,000 bodies found the cause of death was typhus and starvation, not poison gas.
They allege some cremation smokestacks had no soot and one chimney wasn't connected to the building. The speaker concludes that evidence was manipulated for propaganda and that questioning the Holocaust is taboo because the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did six million j really perished in World War two German concentration camps, or is that number just a little bit exaggerated? Let's look at the evidence. And let's start with gas chamber doors that did not lock.
Speaker 1: Here we see the door to the Mauthausen gas chamber. It does not lock. It doesn't lock. The latches can be opened from the inside or the outside as I am showing right here. You cannot lock somebody into this room.
You cannot lock somebody out.
Speaker 0: They couldn't lock them in, and some gas chamber doors were made with wooden doors. Wooden doors to gas chambers? Come on. And look at those gas chamber windows. Cheap thin glass windows on wooden frames to a gas chamber?
Really? Come on. No one pushed that out to save their own lives? Look closely at all the gas chambers with wooden walls and glass windows too. It's not airtight.
If they poured lots of poison gas inside it, it would also wipe out anyone standing outside, including all the German guards. Also, chemical analysis on all the walls of the gas chambers showed that no poison ever existed in them.
Speaker 2: In the nineteen eighties, American expert Fred Lukter, who builds gas chambers for American penal systems, took scrapings from the walls of the Auschwitz gas chamber for chemical analysis. He found no cyanide residue at all. The Auschwitz exhibit is a fake, pure and simple.
Speaker 0: Now let's go into the soccer teams, the theater, and the sewing rooms that existed in the camps. All this is real footage during the war, not to mention the swimming pools. Why would they have soccer and swimming pools to people they're about to exterminate? And those swimming pools still exist to this day. Here they are.
Speaker 3: Finally, we have the Auschwitz Swimming Pool. Yes. That's right. Swimming pool. A beautiful pool with a diving board and starters blocks for races.
To their credit, the Auschwitz camp officials have not tried to remove this distraction. But if you wanna see the pool, you need to know already that it exists because you won't find it on the tour.
Speaker 0: The impartial international Red Cross was allowed to inspect the camps during wartime to make sure that all prisoners were being treated well. Here's a report by the November 1944, only months before liberation at Camp Auschwitz. The report states no traces of installations of exterminating civilians, period. Also, old records of the Jewish population, before World War two, about 15,700,000. After World War two, about 15,700,000 again.
So where is the 6,000,000 missing number? Real numbers of the 270,000 bodies that were found. All were documented and they did autopsy reports on every single one of them. Conclusion, not a single person died of poison gas. Most common cause of death, typhus and starvation.
When the Germans were losing, they ran away and abandoned the camps, had them locked without any food. It's sad. Many people passed away, but it was not six million. And of the 270,000, half of them weren't even jays. They said they hid the bodies by cremating them, but some of the cremation smokestacks didn't even have any soot in them.
How was that even possible? And one chimney is not even connected to the building. A lot of these things on display were created and built after World War two, manipulated evidence for propaganda and creating a false sense of sympathy. There is a reason why it is illegal to question the h cost or make it extremely taboo. Because as soon as you start scratching the surface and asking questions, the whole thing falls apart way too easily.
Truth does not fear investigation. So go ahead and listen to evidence on both sides, and you make your own decision.
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
“Final Solution” document from Hitler to exterminate all the Jews?…. doesn’t exist. Documents of SS discussions on how to reduce the death rate in the camps…. Readily available. 🤔 https://t.co/w7I6c1t3dz
@Uncommonsince76 - Uncommon Sense
Here is Fred Leucther, the American execution expert who proved the gas chambers in Auschwitz we’re frauds describing how his career was later destroyed and how he was followed by Israeli agents… https://t.co/BhVRp0Q3rf
Video Transcript AI Summary
After I testified in court, life turned upside down. I faced a spurious charge of practicing as an engineer without a license; 'One doesn't need a license. I don't believe in any single state to be an engineer.' I was persecuted; friends threatened; I lost my job; my execution equipment was put out of business because the Department of Corrections were afraid to deal with me. A Missouri convention warden faced pressure; his secretary apologized. My house was firebombed; friends threatened. I was followed by two Mossad agents from Israel during the trial. My cousin, told by the head of the Massachusetts State Police, said two Mossad agents were in Malden and watched by the State Department, CIA, and FBI. I blocked a road, confronted them, pulled out a 45 caliber pistol and touched his nose with it; they fled. This was around 1993-1994, before I went to California.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Anyway, after after I testified in court, my life essentially was turned upside down. I was put through hell. I was prosecuted in court on a spurious charge of practicing as an engineer without a license. And one doesn't need a license. I I don't believe in any single state to be an engineer.
You only have to have a license if you certify blueprints and I didn't do that. I I was persecuted. I had my friends threatened. I had I lost job office. I was effectively put out of business in my execution equipment business because the Department of Corrections were afraid to deal with me.
People that work for the state and particularly Department of Corrections are political animals and they were afraid. I had one warden on was at a convention in in in the Midwest. It was actually Missouri and I walked into the coffee shop at the hotel and there was a big curved coffee bar in the center and I sat down opposite him and I looked at him and I waved. He looked at me, he got up and he walked out of the room. And when I got back to my room I had a phone call and his secretary had called me so I called him back and she said, Well, then so and so wanted me to apologize.
She says, but there's been so much political pressure that she said he was afraid to be in the same room with you. Oh, well. So I mean it was terrible. I had my house fire bombed. I had my friends threatened.
I I was even followed by two Mossad agents who came over from Israel specifically to follow me around during the time of my trial. I was informed by by my cousin who had been informed by a gentleman who was ahead of the Massachusetts State Police. And when we were younger, we grew up and we played with that gentleman who was the head of the State Police. At any rate, he called my cousin. He says because of the fact that Freddy is facing the court now, I can't communicate with him.
He says, but I'd like you to get a message to him. We've been advised by the by the State Department and by the CIA and by the FBI that there were two Mossad agents in Malden. We don't know what they're doing, but they're being watched. Well, I was unaware of this until she told me and for about three or four days I was being followed and I didn't know why I was being followed. Well, at any rate, after I found out the day following that, I was being followed again by a vehicle with tinted windows.
It was I think it was a Cadillac or some such thing. And I got into a semi rural part of Malden and they followed me up the hill and I spun my car out and blocked the road. At that point I got out of the car and I down to the window and I pounded on the window of the driver's side. The gentleman rolled the window down. There were two very dark complected.
I guess they were were were Jews from Israel. They could have been Arabs. Right. You know, they were Middle Eastern types. At that point I reached inside my jacket and I pulled out a 45 caliber pistol and I touched his nose with it and I asked him what he wanted.
Well, the two gentlemen in the car, as dark complected as they were turned white. And the next thing I know, they put the car in the reverse, floored it, went up over the curb, hit somebody's fence, spun around, and took off down the street from whence they came. And I guess they didn't want some kind of an incident Right. Because I was legally carrying a firearm. I was legally protecting myself.
They wouldn't have looked too good if in the news media. Oh, absolutely. And with the police, if they're foreign agents of a foreign government Sure. Following somebody around. Yeah.
Yeah. So that was the last I saw them. I think they finally figured that I was a little too crazy to deal with. Now wait. What year was that about?
That must have been about '60 that must have been about '93. Okay. '94. Right. It was before I went to California.
Okay.
@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.
@Whatswithdazoo - Metzitzah b'peh
Holohoax!! 👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻 https://archive.org/details/1210272314779891798
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers share a mosaic of daily life and cultural activities amid the horrors of Auschwitz and nearby camps, highlighting how people sought meaning, small freedoms, and human connection even as starvation, fear, and cruelty persisted.
- Food and water deprivation are described as extreme: “The worst, they never gave us any water. They never gave us any food. The children were screaming.” (Speaker 0)
- Cultural and artistic life persisted despite conditions:
- Music and performance: An orchestra formed by prisoners, with some musicians writing notes for the ensemble; a piano was brought into Block 1 and a downstairs room was converted into a theatre space so women could perform. A pianist who could read notes helped arrange music for each instrument, even composing parts when paper and supplies were scarce. (Speakers 2 and 3)
- Theater and sewing: A curtain and stage were built, and sewing help was provided for curtain rings. (Speaker 3)
- Films and reading: A library and newspapers existed, and later plans for a camp cinema were realized, with films shown in barracks on some evenings. (Speakers 4 and 5)
- Music in daily life: Barracks housed a violin quartet that performed for inmates. (Speaker 5)
- Social life and informal economies:
- On weekends, prisoners formed a soccer group, turning to sport as a mental respite. (Speaker 2)
- A “cantina” and limited shop goods existed; money in the camp was earned as coupons redeemable for items in the canteen. Regular money stopped, replaced by coupon-based payment. Cigarettes and weak beer were among the few items available; food was scarce. (Speakers 4 and 5)
- Education and organized resistance:
- In some camps, like Monowitz and Gross Rosen, prisoners organized soccer teams and even assembled equipment with outside civilian help, sometimes under cover from the SS, reflecting a paradoxical sense of normalcy amid brutality. (Speakers 6 and 7)
- War’s shifting pressure and relative freedoms as the front approached:
- By 1944, as the Germans lost ground, there was a slight relaxation in pressure, with some instances of camaraderie between SS personnel and prisoners during matches, though overall conditions remained dire. The Auschwitz soccer field sat next to the genocidal gas chambers, visible to players, underscoring the proximity of daily life to the Final Solution. (Speakers 1 and 7)
- Personal acts of humanity and resistance:
- Freddie Hirsch coordinated painting for the children; a volunteer artist painted a meadow, cows, sheep, and a backdrop inspired by Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs after children requested it. The painter and children collaborated on a Satirical play inspired by Snow White, with a crown made from paper and costumes fashioned from available materials; the child playing Snow White had a remarkable soprano voice. The process occurred hush-hush, with occasional SS oversight when the performance began. (Speakers 9 and 10)
- The children wrote a play satirizing Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, following the painting; a parenthetical note mentions a ward ville play and a disliked dynamic with one performer. (Speakers 9 and 10)
- Closing personal note:
- A photograph is described as being taken at a bat mitzvah, showing survivors; the speaker identifies the people in the image as survivors from a family connection. (Speaker 0)
Overall, the transcript intertwines accounts of deprivation with bursts of artistic, athletic, and communal activity, illustrating how inmates created culture, camaraderie, and brief pockets of normalcy within the Auschwitz system and related camps.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The worst, they never gave us any water. They never gave us any food. The children were screaming.
Speaker 1: Spielberg's USC, survivors of the Showa Visual History Foundation, contains over 50,000 video testimonies. Out of 50,000 testimonies, the Showa Foundation handpicked a bunch of hate filled liars and Zionists for their documentary. Surely, out of 50,000 video interviews, there must be some Jews telling some semblance of truth about life in the concentration camps.
Speaker 2: We also had a, an orchestra where some of the musicians stood together, and one musician was so good that he had the instruments playing and he wrote the notes, so later on we had a band who played over the weekend. And, that was of course helping us, know, we also did plays and stuff.
Speaker 3: Were there any cultural activities happening in Auschwitz? Yes. I told you we had put into not just a piano, a grand piano was brought into Block 1. Once that was built, that new block, the downstairs room was assigned for theatre. When he wanted to build a stage curtain in that new Block which was one big dining room was going to be also with a stage so performances could be done for women there, cultural.
He said, for heaven's sake, isn't there anybody here who can help me sew on these curtain rings for the stage? I do it for you he says. And I came forward and I helped him with the curtain stage and that was wonderful because I had a man sitting across me for a change. And my roommate is in charge of work assignments and if you happen to know music what instruments do you play? Said I learned piano but not good enough for an orchestra.
I can tell you that right now. And he said well then maybe you know the notes. I said yes. He said well then I can use you because we have to write it from the original music piece what the director gets to the instruments. And so each instrument has only a short line on the whole paper so I had to take it apart and write for each instrument.
From that what I had to do. I had to even make the lines. We didn't have paper that was pre printed for notes, nothing. So I spent the whole day there for a while until we were taken away from Auschwitz. Then she saw me work there I had a big table where I could work and lay out all the paper and it was very peaceful and relaxing and Otto wanted to talk more to me.
That is when I met that SS man at one time. That was the last job I did while I was in Auschwitz. The other job when I was in Block 10 we went out to pick the leaves and from these leaves they would make tea for the whole camp for the whole Auschwitz
Speaker 4: How did you entertain yourselves?
Speaker 5: Well, there were at that at the beginning of those days, there was a library where you people could get books to read. There were newspapers which we could get. And that and also among ourselves, sometimes we had, what do call, a violin quartet. Used to come and play in barracks. And they even that was and later on, they said, they're gonna build a movie in the camp.
And the president the president said only you must be crazy. They gotta make a movie for us in the in the camp. And the real thing happened. They made a movie in the camp. Yeah.
And we we went in barracks after barrack. We we could go to see a movie sometimes in the evening. They brought movies in to the in the evening. And
Speaker 4: What kind of movies would they show?
Speaker 5: Well, German movies. Once I came to the main camp they were allowed twice a month to ride home. Once a postcard and once a letter.
Speaker 4: They gave you the materials?
Speaker 5: Yeah. They gave us the letter, the materials, so we could
Speaker 4: How did you get the stamps?
Speaker 5: Stamps. We could buy stamps.
Speaker 4: Could You had money?
Speaker 5: Yeah. We got we still got money with the money we got through the Jewish community from Vienna who sent us everybody some money.
Speaker 4: And and in the camp, you could have currency?
Speaker 5: Yeah. They could have money because there was in camp also what they call a cantina. And not many times, but once in a while, they sold a few cigarettes or they sold something, whatever they had. So if you had money, you could buy in that canteen there. Food, there wasn't really any food, really.
They usually sold and sometimes they sold some weak beer that sold also in in container. But not really anything else, not much. Mostly cigarettes.
Speaker 4: And when you went to the movies, did you have to pay?
Speaker 5: Yes. We had to pay After the the money stopped, the regular money stopped, we got paid in coupons then.
Speaker 4: Paid for your work?
Speaker 5: Well, I don't know if it was for whatever. We got paid for in coupons for which were redeemable in the in that canteen if they had something. So that was their their way of distributing money then to everybody, everybody got this money then.
Speaker 2: Of course what we did is for the weekends we got together, we got a group of us together and we made a soccer team which was over a little later where we played soccer.
Speaker 6: Well it's amazing that there would be a soccer team, that there'd be enough energy left to do something like that.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't think we were quite as energetic as we were with the other, regular team, but we did something to, you know, it kept our mind off problems of we had.
Speaker 6: You mentioned to me the other day that Monowitz was like a college library.
Speaker 7: Well, that was
Speaker 6: in what way?
Speaker 7: Especially the Germans start losing the war, nineteen forty three, forty four. So 1944 we had soccer games in Rorschachen, soccer teams, organized very well, soccer teams, nationality organized a soccer team and we organized our equipment, everything and played soccer on the assembly line, on the assembly place.
Speaker 4: In Rosen?
Speaker 7: In Gross Rosen. So you know that much free I was in there but it was 1944. Russians already pushed away, Americans already invaded from the other side so they have to give more freedom. But that was much more freedom and food didn't improve very much because simple reason, they didn't have it very much themselves.
Speaker 4: Did the civilians try to help you at all? Did they trade goods for things?
Speaker 7: It's as I say, we have almost everything what we wanted for the soccer teams from the civilians, from outside civilians. But that was strictly under cover. SS didn't know that. They knew it but they didn't do much about it because they knew the war was almost over so they didn't, they even played soccer with us. That just to make the store funny that the incident funny that one time the Polish team played against German teams and one of the top enlisted SS men decided he wants to play for the Polish team.
So we say, Okay, we can play for us. And then the commandant, SS commandant, he was like a captain, you know, he decided to want to play for the German team. So he went in the field. I think they were a little bit tipsy.
Speaker 8: How did you feel about that?
Speaker 7: And the funny part of it, we said, just let them play, they play all by themselves. We just run around. But that was one of the incident which stuck with some fun in it. But that's happened, but it was 1944 so it almost things came to close.
Speaker 4: So is what you're saying then that the closer the end
Speaker 8: of the war came, pressure was let up rather than In becoming more cruel or
Speaker 7: our camp, pressure you you did feel the pressure later.
Speaker 1: The big problem is that the Auschwitz Soccer Field was right next to the so called genocidal gas chambers and would be in full view of the so called final solution.
Speaker 9: Freddie Hirsch called me to the children's barracks. He was heading then. And he asked me if I could paint something on the wall for the children. And I said, well, if you can get the materials he said, I'll get the materials. I said, okay.
And then a very handsome young blonde man from the men's camp came over one day, and Freddie Hirsch called me to come and meet him. And he asked me what I need. So I said, well, if I can get any wall paints, so any tempera paints, I would like those. If you can get me some, and he said, yes. Anything you want.
And so before I knew it, Freddie had the stuff ready for me, and I started painting. At first, not knowing what, I looked at that huge drab. It was kind of olive colored, like all the barracks were. And I thought, well, the thing to do is to make it look like we are in a Swiss chalet on the deck, and there is a balustrade with flowers and flower pots on it. And we are looking out at the beautiful meadows and maybe see some cows and sheep and stuff, and I started painting.
And then afterwards, far in the distance, I was putting some sheep and some cows, and then I noticed that all the kids were standing around me, behind me. So I turned around and I asked them if they would do they have any special wish what to put in that meadow? And they said Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. And that was a very surprising answer. So I made a painting of Dopey standing on another dwarf's head with a cloak around him, so he looked like a tall guy.
So he would be as tall as Snow White. And they were dancing together. And the shoes, those soft shoes and everything. And the kids loved it. And I made some other dwarves around, one who was playing the accordion.
I think that was Grumpy, the mean one. And the professor with the glasses. I made almost all the dwarfs standing around. Some of them were clapping, and that's what the kids like. I now understand that there was another painter who continued something painting on the walls after I've left.
I don't know about that.
Speaker 10: When you were in the process of doing that
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 10: What did it do not only for for you, but for the for the children on on an emotional level?
Speaker 9: Well, it did several things, not just emotional, but the children then wrote play which was a satire of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. So I figured out a way of making a crown out of paper, and the kids were painting it gold and putting jewels on it. And then I took some paper strips and I painted them with a black paint. And I don't know about the costumes, what they made costumes out of, but the play was very successful because the little girl who was playing Snow White had an incredible voice, a gorgeous soprano, just like the one that you hear in the movie.
Speaker 10: How were they allowed to put on a play in Auschwitz?
Speaker 9: I don't know, but it was done kind of quite hush-hush, all of it, except that when he was put on, suddenly some SS men appeared, and they watched. And then when Arnold Behm put on that play, he he wanted something like a ward ville ward ville play, which I was into. That was when I couldn't stand the breath of the guy who was playing with me.
Speaker 10: What was the So the process for the casting? I mean, how were people selected to be in this play or that play?
Speaker 0: Ahead. This is a picture, that was taken at my father's cousin's grand child's bat mitzvah three years ago and these people in this picture are all survivors.
Holohoax - Holocaust Survivors : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Holohoax - Holocaust Survivors
archive.org
reSee.it AI Summary
I explore the topic of Holocaust Revisionism, questioning commonly accepted narratives and highlighting claims made by revisionists. I present perspectives from individuals like David Cole and David Irving, who raise doubts about the evidence for gas chambers and the methods of obtaining confessions. I discuss inconsistencies in survivor stories and the portrayal of camp life, which included amenities like theaters and sports. Ultimately, I argue for the importance of open dialogue about historical events, asserting that the truth can withstand scrutiny.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
🧵People claim October 7th was worse than the Holocaust So just how bad was the Holocaust? Let's find out from the perspective of the Holocaust Revisionists (aka Holocaust "Deniers") These are all facts they didn't teach you about the Holocaust in grade school...
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
First, here’s a jewish man named David Cole on the inconsistencies of the gas chambers (ie. wooden doors and other illogical constructions) David is surprised “how little evidence there is" for many of the events https://t.co/VCoEXDOd2L
Video Transcript AI Summary
Proofs of the Holocaust are few: 'Literally, all there is are the eyewitness testimonies and postwar confessions. There's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews.' After intercepting transmissions from Auschwitz, the speaker argues that the evidence has normal explanations: hair, shoes, and clothing reflect lice control and issued uniforms; Zyklon B was used to disinfect clothes and buildings; the typhus epidemic demanded strict lice control. Allied aerial photos of Auschwitz 'do not show people being gassed or bodies being burned.' He describes a building with four holes in the ceiling; revisionists say they were added later. 1988 Fred Lucher tests showed gas-chamber samples with 'almost no appreciable traces,' Krakow 1990 tests 'got back the same results.' The conclusion: 'there are no eyewitnesses because there were no gassings.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I know from years of my own research and the research of others that proofs of the holocaust are few. Literally, all there is are the eyewitness testimonies and postwar confessions. There's no picture, plan, or wartime document dealing with homicidal gas chambers or a plan to exterminate the Jews. And we can't use the excuse that the Nazis destroyed all the evidence because after we had broken the German code, we were able to intercept their secret transmissions, including those that came from Auschwitz. The key to understanding the Holocaust story is understanding the true nature of the things passed off as proofs.
Everything that is used as evidence of the Holocaust also can be said to have a perfectly normal explanation. For example, these exhibits are said to be the material proofs of exterminations. There's the piles of human hair. But what does that prove? It's acknowledged that each inmate had his or her head shaved because of the lice problem.
That's not denied. So why wouldn't there be piles of human hair? What about the piles of shoes and clothing? Is that a proof? It's a fact that the prisoners were issued a uniform upon arrival, including shoes.
So why wouldn't there be piles of inmates' shoes and clothing? It doesn't prove anybody was killed. What about the canisters of gas? No one denies that Zyklon B was used to disinfect clothes and also buildings. Buildings.
Zyklon B was one of the premier pest control agents in Europe at that time. It was present in most of the concentration camps, including those that are not said to have had homicidal gas chambers in them. The typhus epidemic that spread throughout Europe during the war and also spread through the camps called for stringent lice control procedures. So what other proofs are offered? Well, there's the usual pictures of sick inmates, which proves the groundbreaking thesis that people got sick in the camp.
Once again, I'll add that nobody denies the typhus epidemic, which resulted in many deaths. Then there's the artwork and the pictures of children. But at this point, it's looking pretty bad for somebody looking for objective proofs of the gas chamber. And some of the proofs they present actually work against the concept. For example, they have one of several aerial photographs taken of Auschwitz by the Allies during the war.
They don't mention, however, that when blown up, these photos don't show people being gassed or bodies being burned even though they were taken during the time killings were said to be going on almost nonstop. Once inside, we can see why revisionists have had such a field day with this building. Obvious marks on the walls and floors where apparently walls had been knocked down, equally obvious holes in the floor where bathroom facilities had been. We maintain that unlike the large hollow chamber we now see. This room had once been five rooms, including a bathroom.
Yet the building does have what appears to be evidence of criminal usage, four holes in the ceiling, which lead to the roof where four little chimneys stand. It is said that through these four holes, cyclone B crystals were dropped. And indeed, there seems to be no other explanation for them. Do these holes prove homicidal gassings? Revisionists have claimed in the past that these holes were added after the camp's liberation and that the inside walls were knocked down and the bathroom facilities removed to make the room look like a big gas chamber.
Let's start again talking about this building here.
Speaker 1: Notorium gas chamber.
Speaker 0: But this is a reconstruction.
Speaker 1: It is in original state.
Speaker 0: Original?
Speaker 1: Original state. It is in original part. Original. It is original. Original in through this chimney was from cyclone beam.
Speaker 0: Are those the original holes in
Speaker 1: the ceiling?
Speaker 0: They've been rebuilt? Yes. Okay. After the war? After the war.
Yes. This is Auschwitz Birkenau in an allied aerial photo from September 1944. The train that would come up carrying the doomed inmates, you would have thousands of inmates being marched off the trains into one of these two gas chambers in full view of the entire camp. This was a spectacle that nobody at the camp could miss. They would see thousands of people marching into those buildings and nobody coming out.
These were gas chambers that were not isolated from anyone. And indeed, when these aerial photographs were released in the late seventies, they contradicted many supposed eyewitness claims about how the Nazis had tried to camouflage the gas chambers at Birkenau. Another question that should be asked, is there any Zyklon b residue in the gas chamber knowing that cyanide gas would, in fact, leave a residue? In 1988, execution equipment expert Fred Lucher conducted forensic examinations on the gas chambers at Auschwitz to answer that question. He took samples from the four gas chambers at Birkenau, the one at the main camp, and the control sample from one of the disinfestation chambers that we know did use Zyklon B.
Now the gas chamber samples showed almost no appreciable traces, whereas the disinfestation sample literally went right off the scale. In 1990, the Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow decided to conduct their own forensic tests to see if they could refute Fred Lucher's findings, and their own tests got back the same results.
Speaker 2: With the exception of the video photographer, I brought the same things that I would have normally brought to a prison in The United States if I was doing a survey of their equipment. The draftsman was there to take and verify measurements. The drawings were made on-site and then reproduced when we returned to The United States to document everything we saw. I personally made photographs and produced a great deal of photographic evidence of the hardware and facilities that we found in Poland. And the video photographer, which was not a normal thing for me, was brought to document the fact that the forensic samples that I removed from the facilities, the control sample from the Lausing facility Number 1 of Birkenau, and all of the other samples from the alleged gas execution rooms were properly taken, packaged for and packaged for submission to the laboratories.
I examined the facilities, and I made a determination that they were incapable of supporting the use of hydrogen cyanide gas for purposes of execution or otherwise. But additionally, it would be necessary to move remove samples, return them to The United States for testing at an independent laboratory to, in fact, confirm what my visual inspection indicated, that these facilities never, in fact, contained hydrogen cyanide gas.
Speaker 3: What aside from the samples convinced you that these facilities could not have been used then or now as execution facilities?
Speaker 2: The samples in my mind were mainly corroborative. The reasons that I determined that these facilities were not or never could have been gas execution facilities are stated in my report. And it does it mainly is concerned with the design fabrication of these facilities, the requirements necessary in the design of a facility that contains a highly explosive and highly poisonous gas. You must have gasketed doors, no windows, means of getting the gas in, means of getting the gas out, something for heating the gas and the air to constantly keep the right temperature, explosion proof switches, lighting facilities, etc. None of these ever existed.
We are talking about brick and mortar buildings without heat, with non explosion proof lighting, without gasketed doors, in some cases without doors at all, and with crematories that opened very close or adjacent to the facility. If these facilities were used for gas execution facilities, if those persons operating the facilities didn't gas themselves to death at the same time that the executees died, they certainly would have been blown to bits when the gas exploded from a spark arc in a switch, the heat of a light bulb, or the gas approaching and getting into the crematory furnace. I mean, it's just ludicrous to consider that these facilities could have been used as gas chambers.
Speaker 3: Well, we all know from reading the newspapers and watching TV that there's many holocaust survivors who say that they actually saw gassings. They describe them in minute detail, which relative it was they lost, down to the color of the corpses and the color of the smoke coming out of the chimney. How do you respond to these people? Well, one of the things
Speaker 2: that was necessary for me to do, Kirk, at the outset, so I'd have an understanding of what I was doing was read the literature and alleged eyewitness reports so I could make a determination of the protocol, which that's a fancy word that we use in terms of executions for determining, for what the actual procedure is for the execution. And I found through these investigations that there was no such a thing as an eyewitness. I have never seen a report that was written by anyone who had a valid description of what could have happened at a gassing. So the long and the short of it is there are no eyewitnesses because there were no gassings.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Next, let's take a look at how German confessions were obtained through torture, the infamous human lampshade and soap claims, and one of the more interesting Holocaust facts: No document has ever been found showing Hitler ordered any systematic mass exterminations
Video Transcript AI Summary
Cyclone b dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from three to fifteen minutes. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped. After the bodies were removed, our special commandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth, they were unable to work.
It was the British who obtained by torture the confession of Rudolf Herr's commandant of Auschwitz before turning him over to the Soviets and Poles.
This has been confirmed in a book published in 1983 titled Legions of Death, which contains the recollections of British Sergeant Bernard Clark, who brags about having tortured Hearst get a confession out of him and of threatening his family.
I would rather die painless than have the sovereign subjected to such humiliation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Cyclone b dropped into the death chamber from a small opening. It took from three to fifteen minutes. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped. After the bodies were removed, our special commandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth, they were unable to work.
Is that all true and correct, witness? Yes.
Speaker 1: It was the British who obtained by torture the confession of Rudolf Herr's commandant of Auschwitz before turning him over to the Soviets and Poles. This has been confirmed in a book published in 1983 titled Legions of Death, which contains the recollections of British Sergeant Bernard Clark, who brags about having tortured Hearst get a confession out of him and of threatening his family. It was here that Hearst was hanged.
Speaker 0: I rather wish the Fuhrer had stood by his followers and taken the responsibility for his command. Think of his position. Oh, sure. His position is chief war criminal. Right?
He was our sovereign. It would be intolerable for me to have him standing before a foreign court. You men knew the furor. He would be the first one to stand up and say, I gave the orders, and I shall take full responsibility. And I would rather die painless than have the sovereign subjected to such humiliation.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Now, let’s take a look at the evidence against the gas chambers and mass graves as well as some of the numeric anomalies of the Holocaust The first clip is Fred Leuchter who wrote an infamous report called The Leuchter Report that comprehensively examined Auschwitz https://t.co/DUcjnX6cts
Video Transcript AI Summary
- None of the facilities examined at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Lublin could have supported or in fact did ever support multiple executions utilizing hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, or any other allegedly or factually lethal gas.
- Based upon very generous maximum usage rates for all the alleged gas chambers totaling some 1,693 persons per week and assuming these facilities could support gas executions, it would have required sixty eight years to execute the alleged number of 6,000,000 presses.
- Promoting these facilities as being capable of affecting mass, multiple, or even singular executions is both ludicrous and insulting to every individual on this planet.
- Hydrocyonic Acid was not used in the buildings alleged to have been homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz.
- I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with cyclone B in this manner. I consider it impossible.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: None of the facilities examined at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Lublin could have supported or in fact did ever support multiple executions utilizing hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, or any other allegedly or factually lethal gas. Based upon very generous maximum usage rates for all the alleged gas chambers totaling some 1,693 persons per week and assuming these facilities could support gas executions, it would have required sixty eight years to execute the alleged number of 6,000,000 presses. Promoting these facilities as being capable of affecting mass, multiple, or even singular executions is both ludicrous and insulting to every individual on this planet.
Speaker 1: Germa Rudolf is a chemist who knew '1 while working towards a doctorate in chemistry at the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solid State Physics in Stuttgart, began a scientific investigation of the credibility of the Leuchter Report. His detailed chemical analysis concluded that Hydrocyonic Acid was not used in the buildings alleged to have been homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. His report strengthens the findings of Fred Leuchter. The prominent Austrian engineer, Walter Liftel, also made a report concluding that the homicidal gassings were impossible for technical reasons and because they are incompatible with observable laws on nature. Liftel's report is further authoritative confirmation of the findings of Fred Loister.
The American research chemist Doctor. William B. Lindsay also made careful examinations of the alleged gas chambers. After thirty three years of experience as a chemist, he declared and affirmed under oath, I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with cyclone B in this manner. I consider it impossible.
The Krakow Forensic Institute, Robert Farison, Fredrik Turban, Jan Ball, Carlo Matano, Jurgen Graf, Anne Sundal, David Macaldon, and many others who also have carried out similar technical inspections of the alleged gas chambers have come to the same conclusion. A brave Jewish revisionist named David Cole made a groundbreaking documentary called Cole in Auschwitz in 1992. Today, are many future length documentaries, analyses and commentary on the German labor camps. In 1999, Ricker Creek, a qualified electronics engineer, and his team of researchers carried out a high-tech exam of the soil in the alleged death camp Treblinka. Using ground penetrating radar for three weeks, the team found that the ground was never even disturbed, and core samples revealed no ash.
The results obtained show with 100% certainty that mass graves never even existed in Triplinka or Belzec. There are, in fact, many mass graves in the East. However, this was where the Soviets massacred people. Today, it is well known that, for example, the Katy massacre was committed by the Soviets, but was blamed on the Germans after the war. Doctor Charles Larsen, one of Americans leading pathologists as part of a US war crimes investigation team, performed more than 1,000 autopsies of the dead bodies in the German camps, and none showed any evidence of death by poison gas.
If there had been gassings with carbon monoxide or cyanide, the indications would have been extremely dramatic and readily visible. The courses would have been bright sherry red. No Prussian blue cyanide staining was found on walls in the alleged death chambers. Only in the delousing chambers are ample amounts of evidence of gassings, where cyclone B was used on clothes and bedding to stop the spread of typhus. The Auschwitz Museum curator admitted that the Soviets created the homicidal gas chamber after the war by altering a German bomb shelter.
In the bomb shelter presented to us as a homicidal gas chamber in Auschwitz, the communists removed the walls and made the infamous cyclone b holes in the roof to make it look like a real gas chamber.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now when you go into that Cream of One building, you're gonna see it. It just looks kinda weird. It has all these dirt mounds all around it. You know, really, it looks like a a bomb shelter, and that's exactly what it was at the end of the war.
It was a bomb shelter. They want you to think that 4,000,000 people went through Wash Woods, and they made it look like all the people went through that camp there. But that building there was not capable or made for gassing people, alright, at all. I mean, you know, you go inside it, they they they chop holes in the roof at the end, and it's just ridiculous. I mean, there's no way people were were killed in that building.
So they want you to believe that this is the building that people were gassed in. It just wasn't feasible that people were gassed in that building.
Speaker 3: The thing now, that building, where they end the tour, that was never a gas chamber. There was a chimney next to it and there were four holes in the ceiling where the Zyklon B granules would be dumped and people would see the holes and they could explore them and look around. What I did in 'ninety two, I interviewed the man who was the director, the curator, for lack of a better word, of of the camp. And he admitted to me on camera, not a hidden camera shoot. It was a open two camera shoot in his office.
It was me and my camera woman. And he admitted on camera that the building displayed as the gas chamber is not in its original state, that when the Soviets liberated the camp, that building was an air raid shelter, a very obvious, very clear air raid shelter. And then the Soviets remodeled it to look like what their conception of the gas chamber is. Now there's no backup evidence to prove that this building was ever a gas chamber. There's no Zyklon blue cyanide staining on the walls.
There were no four holes in the roof to dump in the Zyklon B. The Soviets added those. There there had been dividing walls. Inside the room, the Soviets knocked those down to make it look like one big open chamber. They ripped up the bathroom facilities.
You can still see the drains in the floor. You can still see the holes where the toilet and the sink had led into, but they took out all the facilities and they carved a doorway where there had not been a door to make it look like there was a progression from the gas chamber to the oven room. But there was a lot of stuff that they didn't bother to cover up. There's a gigantic manhole right in the middle of the gas
Speaker 2: chamber. Yeah.
Speaker 3: A manhole that any adult, even a fairly heavy set adult can go down into. Now what that is, that was an escape hatch, was fairly standard design procedure that underground or partially underground bomb shelters would have an escape hatch in case rubble or anything else prevented the people inside from exiting the bomb shelter through the main door. So you have this manhole that no one had noticed for at that point, Auschwitz, when I went there in '91, Auschwitz had been open to the the West for over a decade. No one ever noticed the damn manhole, and it's right there clear as day. The door to the chamber opens in.
In other words, if you if it was a gas chamber and you stuck people in there and they they would all pile up against the door trying to bang their way out, they would die there. In order to open the door again, you'd have to push against a mound of 50, a hundred, two hundred, 300 bodies. The, the door locks on the inside, not the outside. In other words, the the victims would be able to lock the Germans out, which which is just kind of a a silly thing to think of.
Speaker 1: In January 1995, the prestigious French weekly magazine, Le Express, acknowledged that everything about this gas chamber is false and that it is in fact a deceitful postwar reconstruction. French Jewish Olga Vorum Sarnikot wrote a book about the National Socialist concentration camps in which she stated Auschwitz, which was to remain the model camp and simultaneously the administrative center, had no gas chamber. A fake chimney was also built by the Soviets in 1947. It has no opening, and it is not even connected to the building. German prisoners were
Speaker 0: also
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Next, David Irving discusses if there were sufficient amounts of combustibles for cremations, the Germans making no references to gas chambers in private or public documents, and the fact the gas chambers on the Auschwitz tour are “reconstructions” and not originals https://t.co/OLfFMIhZxm
Video Transcript AI Summary
He argues that calling the Auschwitz gas chamber a fake is wrong; "It is a reconstruction." If mister Irving doesn't know the difference between a reconstruction and a fake, then he shouldn't call himself a historian. "'A fake, like the bomb scare that's just been telephoned to this hotel,'" he says. He notes that for fifty years Auschwitz authorities have been showing a building to schoolchildren "telling them that is the gas chamber where the Nazis killed millions of Jews" and that, unless they label it, "what you are seeing is just a reconstruction on the basis of eyewitness testimony, then that is a fake." He questions cremation capacity: "how do you cremate 1,000,000 people in Auschwitz?" and cites "40 to 60 kilograms of coke" per person, totaling "40 to 60,000 tons of coke" unseen in photos. He argues archives were not destroyed; "no reference in the intercepted telegrams to anybody being gassed." The Auschwitz record
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: By academics around the world. He then goes on in his readers letter to say, it is also totally wrong to call that gas chamber a fake. It's a reconstruction. If mister Irving doesn't know the difference between a reconstruction and a fake, then he shouldn't call himself a historian. So said this reader's letter in the New Zealand Herald three days ago.
To which my to which my response is to which my response is, a fake, like the bomb scare that's just been telephoned to this hotel. That is a fake. If this mister Rubin was to offer me a reconstructed, a reconstruction of a $20 bill, I don't think I'd accept that. That is what I would call a fake. If for fifty years, the authorities in Auschwitz have been showing a building to busloads of shuddering school children from all over Europe, telling them that is the gas chamber where the Nazis killed millions of Jews.
And if they haven't had the honesty to write in big letters above the door, what you are seeing is just a reconstruction on the basis of eyewitness testimony, then that is a fake. They have concealed the fact that it's a reconstruction which makes it a fake. And I'm fined $22,000 for pointing this fact out because it's an embarrassment. Of course, it's an embarrassment. The embarrassment is, of course, why do they show the schoolchildren the fake building here when allegedly there were genuine gas chamber ruins just down the road three or four miles away?
Well, that's because people start asking questions. They say this is odd, ruins of a gas chamber, but I think according to maps I've seen this was the crematorium, not a gas chamber at all. Four crematorium in Auschwitz because they had immense typhus problems. They had epidemics with tens of thousands of the inmates dying, which is a crime. And anybody who says to me, David Irving says it wasn't a crime, what happened to the Jews in Auschwitz or elsewhere, is also doing me an injustice because there was undoubtedly a crime.
But we're arguing about scale. We're arguing about intent. We're arguing about the how how and the why and the wherefore. And this is what we are not allowed to do. This is what questions like, how do you cremate 1,000,000 people in Auschwitz?
If cremating one person takes 40 to 60 kilograms of coke, that means that to cremate 1,000,000 people is gonna take 40 to 60,000 tons of coke. And where are those 40 or 60,000 tons of coke? They are not visible on any of the aerial photographs, nor are there truckloads of coke being driven up, nor are there railway lines bringing in the wagon loads of coke. So that is, pre opacity by itself, improbable. And anyway, these four crematory, we know exactly what their handling capacity was, how many cadavers could be cremated at a time.
We know they couldn't have cremated more than tops seventy, eighty, 90,000 people in the four or five years that the camp was in existence. These are the technical questions that people ask. And not only that, you have the problem that people say, no doubt the Nazis destroyed all the records. At the end of World War two, everything was destroyed, of course. That's what the Nazis were like.
They covered their tracks. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm obnoxious historian who's worked for fifty years in the archives, and those archives have still not been properly researched. They're still in total disarray. And believe me, it would not have been possible in the last one or two weeks of the collapsing Third Reich for somebody to go around all the archives taking out all the references to gas chambers if they were in it, or all the references to the final solution if there were any, and destroying. They couldn't defend it.
And even if they could have destroyed all the German records relating to the final solution and all the German records which contained the fatal word gas chamber, so that there aren't any left in the archives now in Germany, they couldn't. The Nazis have destroyed what is in the British files. Because you see, we British were reading the German files. We were reading the German secret messages. When the commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp sent a message to Berlin reporting what he was doing, giving the actual daily statistics of how many prisoners were arriving, how many were leaving, how many were in the camp at midnight, how many had died.
We have those code messages in Britain. Those actual code messages from the commandant of Auschwitz, we know what he reported. And the chief historian of the British Secret Service who printed this in volume two of the official British history of the Secret Service as an appendix. He states, it's quite evident that huge numbers of people died in Auschwitz Concentration Camp from typhus epidemics, from illness and disease. A small number died from execution being executed by hanging or shooting.
And then he goes on to say, there is no reference in the intercepted telegrams to anybody being gassed. No reference at all. Hundreds and hundreds of code telegrams and the top secret SS code, and there's no reference to anybody being gassed in Auschwitz. These are the kind of documents which mean something to me as a historian. And that is why when people say, but what about all the eyewitness evidence?
I say eyewitness evidence baloney. Tell that to John Demianuk about eyewitness evidence, the man, the Cleveland auto worker, who was nearly hanged in Israel on the basis of eyewitness evidence until the Jewish judges in Israel, this Israeli Supreme Court said this evidence was not good enough. They themselves had to acquit John Denyano, admitting that eyewitness evidence alone was not good enough, and that the eyewitnesses had erred and that they had identified the wrong man. Eyewitness evidence is not good enough if there is a total lack of collateral evidence in the archives. And here we have to say there is no such evidence.
The Auschwitz record
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
With so many Holocaust survivors telling stories of the camps some claims have turned out to be inconsistent From the lady who claimed to have been raised by wolves to fluctuating death tolls Here's just a few of the inconsistencies of certain Holocaust claims: https://t.co/dEp0QULNCn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two sources for Holocaust stories are claimed: coerced Nazi officials and Jewish survivors. The transcript enumerates sensational testimonies including gassings, torture, and bizarre acts—describing a “Tango of Death” and other gruesome scenes. It highlights Herman Rosenblatt’s apple-story, a widely publicized tale later shown to be false; he insists, “It wasn’t a lie… it was my imagination.” Other fabrications are cited: Mitig Grocer’s Sweden talks plagiarized from Mila 18; Josef Hurt fabricating Auschwitz escape; Misha DeFunsheca’s memoir found fabricated; Elie Wiesel accused by Miklos Gruner of being an impostor; Gruner disputes Wiesel’s tattoo claim and his Auschwitz identity. The text also references scientists disputing gas chambers, Auschwitz’s physical conditions, and critics arguing the Holocaust narrative is exaggerated or false, including Gerrard Menounin and Norman Fiegelsang.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The actual Holocaust stories comes from two sources: the captured high officials of the National Socialist Party that were coerced and tortured during the Nuremberg trials and the actual Jewish survivors that came out of those concentration camps. These Jewish testaments ranged from gassings, Jew eating bears and eagles in cages, vaporizing 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz with atomic energy, torturing and killing Jewish prisoners to the tempo of a specially composed Tango of Death. Steaming Jews to death like lobsters at Treblinka, electrocuting them to death, musical camp dogs ripping Jews who played false in the orchestras to death, homosexuals being tickled to death, gazers of Jewish blood, Jews being made into lampshades and soap, carts on rails that threw Jews into the ovens directly, Nazi masturbation machines and yeah, additional testaments that were given are just as ludicrous.
Speaker 1: The one thing
Speaker 2: that I'll never forget that I heard, and he said, the Nazis are taking our our young Jewish infants, and they're tearing them in half by their legs, and they're throwing them in the nester. The nester is a river. So they said, for every person that's gonna take their lives, they're gonna torture to death five of us. Then they punished us. For every man that ran to the wire.
They they took a 100 inmates, and they killed them in front of everybody. The greatest love story we've ever told on
Speaker 0: this show. Oh my goodness.
Speaker 3: Herman Rosenblatt received international attention for his story about being a hungry little boy in a Nazi concentration camp who was thrown apples every day by a little girl on the other side of the fence. Years later, according to the story, Rosenblatt met that same girl on a blind date in New York City, and he proposed on the spot.
Speaker 2: I used to come by every day, bring the apple, have in my jacket and a piece of bread, and he used to say, I'll see you tomorrow.
Speaker 3: The story landed Herman and Roma Rosenblatt on Oprah twice and in newspapers all over the world. They also got a book and movie deal, but the story wasn't true. Why did you do it? Why did you tell such a big lie to so many people for so long?
Speaker 4: It wasn't a lie. It was I it was my imagination. And in my imagination, in my mind, I believed it. Even now, I believe it. That she was there, and she threw the apple to me.
Speaker 3: How how can you say it wasn't a lie? It it wasn't true, and and you know it's not true.
Speaker 4: Yes. It's not true. But in my imagination, it was true.
Speaker 3: Members of his own family say his real motivation was money. Herman and Roma Rosenblatt told their false story publicly for more than a decade, but it all fell apart about six weeks ago after Holocaust scholars proved that it was physically impossible for prisoners to approach the fence at the concentration camp where Herman was kept and that Roma's family was actually more than 200 miles away at the time. Rosenblatt is remarkably unrepentant about his years of lying.
Speaker 4: I pronounce my love for you forever.
Speaker 3: When you look at that, does it make you uncomfortable at all? No. You think that was the right thing to do?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And and and while you were up on the stage there with all these people, in the back of your mind, you not thinking I'm not telling the truth here. No. So if you had to do it over again, would you tell the same story? Yeah. You would?
Yes.
Speaker 2: I simply don't know what to say. I mean, it's his imagination, but he knows it's not true.
Speaker 3: He said he made up he made up a fantasy world, and he was living in that fantasy world.
Speaker 2: And his son says, tried to stop him? Yes. Good heavens. Okay. Thank you, Dan.
Pleasure.
Speaker 0: Mitig Grocer towards Sweden talking to children, telling them of the horrors of the German concentration camps. It turned out that his story was directly plagiarized from a fictional book called Mila 18 from 1961. Josef Hurt from Pennsylvania gave public speeches for years where he claimed to have escaped from Auschwitz and even met evil Nazi doctor, Josef Mengele. He had now confessed that he had fabricated the entire story. He admitted that everything was a lie.
Hurt had even tattooed a fake prison number on his arm to make people believe in his lies. Otto Utkinant had for years been paid shekels to lecture in German schools about his experiences of the Holocaust. He has talked about the Crystal Knight, how he lost 72 relatives including mother, father and sister and how he himself was interned at Buchenwald. However, Otto now admits that the whole story was a lie. Misha DeFunsheca wrote a best selling memoir about her experience of the Holocaust.
Her story was published almost twenty years ago as Misha, a Memoir of the Holocaust Years. The book describes how when she was six, her Jewish parents were taken from their home by the Nazis and how she set off across Belgium and Germany and Poland to find them on foot, leaving out stolen scraps of food until she was adopted by a pack of wolves. She also claimed to have shot a Nazi soldier in self defense. The story became a huge bestseller and was even made into a film in France. But in 2008 it was found to be fabricated and everything was a lie.
The author whose real name was found to be Monica de Valle said that it is not the true reality but it's my reality. There are times when I find it difficult to differentiate between reality and my inner world. Misha will now have to pay back the money she was awarded, which amounts to $22,500,000 Elie Wiesel has told us for fifty years that while at Auschwitz he was tattooed on his left arm the number A7713. He also adds that his father was given the number A7712, but a real Auschwitz survivor, Miklos Gruner claims that Elie Wiesel is an impostor. Miklos who actually was at the camp claims that Elie Wiesel stole the identity of a real man named Lazar Wiesel who the number eighty seven thousand seven hundred thirteen actually belonged to.
First of all, if you look at his arms, Elie Wiesel does not have a tattoo. The number 8700712 actually were given to a man named Abraham Wiesel, Lazar's older brother. Eli Wiesel never claimed that he saw any homicidal gas chambers, instead he claims that he witnessed evil Germans throwing Jewish babies in gigantic flames sleeping up from a ditch. But this has also been debunked by scientists, historians and engineers. Auschwitz was built on a swamp with a high water table which made it impossible for bodies to have been burned in ditches.
Not to mention that it was impossible for human bodies to be totally consumed by flames in this manner because of lack of oxygen. Miklos however says that he never saw any ditches where children were burning. Eli Wiesel explains that some events do take place but are not true. Others are, although they never occurred. In 1986, Miklos Gruner met Eli Wiesel in Stockholm.
Miklos thought that he was going to meet Lazar Wiesel. But after the meeting Miklos said, I was stunned to see a man I did not recognize at all. He was not my fellow prisoner. Miklus also was surprised that Eli couldn't speak Hungarian, but spoke English with a strong French accent, even though Huizel claims that he was born in Hungary. Neither Elie Wiesel nor his father, Shlomo Wiesel, are named in any records from Auschwitz or Buchenwald.
After the war, Elie Wiesel joined the Jewish terrorist group Irgun. Anyway, Elie Wiesel is today laughing all the way to the bank as his best selling book Night brought him international recognition at millions of dollars. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. Out of thousands of real Jewish survivors from the German camps, the international Jewish community handpicked Zionist and hate filled liars to spread anti German propaganda. But of course, not all Jews are lying.
Many Jews don't agree with the Holocaust narrative, and many of them testified that they never saw any mass murders or gassings. But these Jews have effectively been silenced by anti free speech, signist organizations to cover up the truth. Paul Rasinier was arrested by the Gestapo in October 1943 and deported to Germany, where he was held prisoner until the end of the war in Buchenwald and Dora Concentration Camps. Rasinier was upset by the many lies and myths about the concentration camps that were being circulated. French resistance members who also were interned in various German concentration camps during the war including Auschwitz and other alleged death camps, they all gave accounts of their treatment by the Germans and they all denied any knowledge of gas chambers and a mass murder program in the camps.
Rysigner said that never at any moment did the responsible authorities of the Third Reich intend to order or in fact order the extermination of the Jews in this or any other manner. Maria van Herwarden testified about her camp experience in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She testified that she witnessed the deaths of many fellow inmates by deceased and particularly typhus, and she saw some take their own lives, but she saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings or of any extermination program. The Jew Benedict Kochsky, who spent the years from 1938 to 1945 in concentration camps, three of these in Auschwitz, said: I was in the big concentration camps in Germany. I must truthfully state that in no camp have I ever seen anything that might have resembled gas chambers.
A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily according to the official story. She testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of gas chambers during the time she was interned there. Jewish writer Gerrard Menounin says, the Holocaust is the biggest lie in history. Germany has no blame for the second world war. That Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions and incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same advertently inconsistable Holocaust proves it must be a lie.
Why else would no one be allowed to question it? Jewish professor Norman Fiegelsang says, the Holocaust proved to be the perfect weapon for deflecting criticism of Israel. The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the greatest robbery in the history of mankind. Jewish chief rabbi Aria Friedman says, the Holocaust is a successful historical fiction. Jewish professor Roger de Margo said
Speaker 1: I know that the problem, for instance, of the Holocaust is a complete fake because it's very easy to know because it's it's a simple technical arithmetic problem which could be solved by a child in high school. Any chemist know that you can't gas people with cyanide acid. Let's call it that in English. Hydrocynic Hydrocynic acid. 1,000 or 2,000 people at the time, it's well known, and, even the most important American Jewish newspapers, like the American Jewish Yearbook, said that there was 3,003,000 Jews in occupied Europe in 1942.
So I don't see how they could have killed 6,000,000 Jews when there was only three millions. You know, they So I think anybody can see that. I I listed in 1944. I see. I listed for three years, 1944.
It was in the world. The world finished in 1945. But I was in the army 1944 because, of course, as everybody did, I believe that Hitler was the real monster that everybody said he was. But since I have studied what happened in Nazism, under Nazism, what Hitler did want to do and say when you read these books, what maybe anybody can read Mein Kampfel can read myth of the twentieth century by Rosenberg. And anybody can know also what happened these last fifty years when declared I absolutely had nothing to do and not the slightest influence because Nazi has been there now for fifty years.
So you can do what happened. And what happens, I told you in my my lecture, it's absolutely incredible. And at the top of everything, you can see the Jews. I told you, I studied the books which really expresses Nazism, that is to say, Meigumpf and the myth of the twentieth century by Rosenberg. As to what's happened during the war, and especially what Hitler actually did, which is hidden, which is concealed to us.
What what he did in Germany. And the only know thing we know about Hitler is that he killed 6,000,000 Jews who never existed in gas chambers, which nobody ever saw. That's all that's the only thing which people know about Hitler. But when you really know that this what he did, what he actually did in Germany, well, when you have studied all that, you see that you have been completely completely misled to use a
Speaker 0: mild
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Next, what was life was like inside the camps? Well, surprisingly, the camps had theaters, swimming pools, soccer leagues, orchestras, and even plays But don’t take my word for it, let the Holocaust survivors tell you themselves: https://t.co/eJD14ivPJ4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Culture persisted at Auschwitz: a grand piano in Block 1, a downstairs theatre, and curtain rings sewn. I helped arrange music for each instrument from the director’s score on scarce paper. The camp library and newspapers, a violin quartet, and a camp movie in barracks offered entertainment; later, Germans allowed cinema and letters by postcard. Stamps and money from Vienna’s Jewish community, plus coupons redeemable in a cantina, funded small purchases, mostly cigarettes. On weekends we formed soccer teams; by 1944 in Rosen, organized matches continued as food waned. Weddings and maternity wards existed; over three thousand live births were registered in Auschwitz, with not a single infant death, and a nursery operated. Freddie Hirsch had me paint walls for the children; Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs inspired a playful mural and a hush-hush performance watched by SS.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We also had an orchestra where some of the musicians stood together and one musician was so good that he had the instruments playing and he wrote the notes. So later on we had a band who played over the weekend. And, that was, of course, helping us. You know, we also did plays and stuff.
Speaker 1: Were there any cultural activities happening in Auschwitz? Yes. I told you we had a piano put into a not just a piano, a grand piano was brought into Block 1. Once that was built, that new block, the downstairs room was assigned for theatre. When he wanted to build a stage curtain in that new Block 1, which was one big dining room was going to be also with the stage, so performances could be done for women there, culture.
He said, for heaven's sake, isn't there anybody here who can help me sew on these curtain rings for the stage. I do it for you, he says. And I came forward and I helped him with the curtain stage. And that was wonderful because I had a man sitting across me for a change. And my room mate is in charge of work assignments.
And if you happen to know music, what instruments do you play? I said, I learned piano, but not good enough for an orchestra. I can tell you that right now. He said, well then maybe you know the notes. I said, yes.
He said, well then I can use you because we have to write it from the original music piece what the director gets to the instruments. And so for each instrument has only short line on the whole paper. So I had to take it apart and write for each instrument. From that what I had to do. I had to even make the lines.
We didn't have paper that was pre printed for notes, nothing. So I spent the whole day there for a while until we were taken away from Auschwitz. But then she saw me work there, I had a big table where I could work and lay out all the paper and it was very peaceful and relaxing. And wanted to talk more to me. That is when I met that SS man at one time.
That was the last job I did while I was in Auschwitz. And when I the other job that when I was in Block 10, we went out to pick the leaves. And from these leaves, they would make tea for the whole camp, for the whole Auschwitz.
Speaker 2: How did you entertain yourselves?
Speaker 3: Well, there were at that at at the beginning of those days, there was a library where you people could get books to read. There were newspapers that we could get. And that and also among ourselves sometimes we had a violin quartet used to come and play in barracks. And they even later on, they said they're gonna build a movie in the camp. And the prisoners said said, only you must be crazy.
They're make a movie for us in in in the camp. And then it happened. They made a movie in the camp. Yeah. And we we went in barracks after barrack.
We we could go to see a movie sometimes in the evening. They brought movies in to the in the evening. And
Speaker 2: What kind of movies would they show?
Speaker 3: German movies. Once I came to the main camp, they were allowed twice a month to ride home. Once a postcard and once a letter.
Speaker 2: They gave you the materials?
Speaker 3: Yeah. They gave us the letter, the materials, and we could
Speaker 2: How did
Speaker 1: you get the stamps?
Speaker 3: Stamps. We could buy stamps.
Speaker 2: Could You had money?
Speaker 3: Yeah. We got my we still got my with the money we got through the Jewish community from Vienna who sent us. Everybody, you some money.
Speaker 2: And and in the camp you could have currency?
Speaker 3: Yeah. They could have money because there was in camp also what they call a cantina and not many times, but once in a while they sold a few cigarettes or they sold something, whatever they had. So if you had money, you could buy in that cantina there. Food, there wasn't really any food really. They usually sold and sometimes they sold they sold some weak beer that sold also in the in the yeah.
But not really anything else, not much. Mostly cigarettes.
Speaker 2: And when you went to the movies, did you have to pay?
Speaker 3: Yes. We had to pay. After the the money stopped, the regular money stopped, we got paid in coupons then.
Speaker 2: Paid for your work?
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know if it was for whatever. We got paid for in coupons for which were redeemable in the in that canteen if they had something. So that was their their way of distributing money then to everybody, everybody got this money then.
Speaker 0: Of course what we did is for the weekends we got together, we got a group of us together and we made a soccer team which was about a little later where we
Speaker 4: played soccer. It's amazing that there would be a soccer team, that there'd be
Speaker 3: enough energy left to do something like that.
Speaker 0: Well, I don't think we were quite as energetic as we were with the other regular team, but we did something to, you know, it kept our mind off these, of the problems we had.
Speaker 5: Especially the Germans started losing the war, 1943, 1944. So 1944 we had soccer games in Rosrose. Soccer teams, we organized very well, soccer teams, each nationality organized a soccer team and we organized our equipment and everything to play soccer in the assembly line and assembly place. In Rosen. In Gross Rosen.
So, you know, that much free it was in there, but it was like the 44. Russians already pushed away, Americans already invaded on the other side, so there they have to give more freedom. But that was much more freedom and food didn't improve very much because simple reason, they didn't have it very much themselves.
Speaker 6: Did the civilians try to help you at all? Did they trade goods for things?
Speaker 5: It's as I say, we have almost everything, what we wanted, whether it's soccer teams, from the civilians, from Markside civilians. But that
Speaker 3: was
Speaker 5: strictly under the cover. They knew it but they didn't do much about it because they knew the war was almost all of us. They didn't, they even played soccer with us. Just to make the store funny, the toy incident funny that one time the Polish team played against German teams and one of the top enlisted assessment decided he wants to play for the Polish team. So we say okay, you can play for us.
And then the commandant, SS commandant, he was like a captain. He decided to want to play for the German team. So, he went in the field. I think they were a little bit tipsy.
Speaker 6: How did you feel about that?
Speaker 5: And the funny part of it, we said, you just let them play, they play almost by themselves. We just run around them. But that was one of the incidents which stuck so funny in it. But that's happened, it was 1944, it almost things came to close.
Speaker 6: So, what you're saying then that the closer the end of the war came, pressure was let up rather than becoming more cool?
Speaker 5: In our camp, you did feel the pressure made up.
Speaker 7: There were weddings and even maternity wards for pregnant women. Inmates were falling in love and getting married in the camps. Over three thousand live births were registered in Auschwitz alone, with not a single infant death while it was in operation under German rule. The evil Nazis even set up a nursery for the children.
Speaker 8: Freddie Hirsch called me to the children's barracks he was heading then, and he asked me if I could paint something on the wall for the children. And I said, well, if you can get the materials, he said, I'll get the materials. I said, okay. And then a very handsome young blonde man from the men's camp came over one day. And Freddie Hirsch called me to come and meet him.
And he asked me what I need. So I said, well, if I can get any wall paints, so any tempera paints, I would like those. If you can get me some, and he said, yes. Anything you want. And so before I knew it, Freddie had the stuff ready for me, and I started painting.
At first, not knowing what, I looked at that huge drab. It was kind of olive colored like all the barracks were wall. And I thought, well, the thing to do is to make it look like we are in a Swiss chalet on the deck, and there is a balustrade with flowers and flower pots on it. And we are looking out at the beautiful meadows and maybe see some cows and sheep and stuff, and I started painting. And then afterwards, far in the distance, I was putting some sheep and some cows, and then I noticed that all the kids were standing around me, behind me.
So I turned around and I asked them if they would do they have any special wish what to put in that meadow? And they said, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. And that was a very surprising answer. So I made a painting of Dopey standing on another dwarf's head with a cloak around him so he looked like a tall guy, so he would be as tall as Snow White. And they were dancing together, and the shoes, those soft shoes and everything.
And the kids loved it. And I made some other dwarves around, one who was playing the accordion. I think there was Grumpy, the mean one. And the professor with the glasses. I made almost all the dwarfs standing around.
Some of them were clapping, and that's what the kids like. I now understand that there was another painter who continued something painting on the walls after I've left. I don't know about that.
Speaker 9: When you were in the process of doing that
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 9: What did it do not only for for you, but for the for the children
Speaker 8: on on an emotional level. Well, it did several things, not just emotional, but the children then wrote a play which was a satire of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. So I figured out a way of making a crown out of paper, and the kids were painting it gold and putting, like, jewels on it. And then I took some paper strips and I painted them with a black paint. And I don't know about the costumes, what what they made costumes out of, but the play was very successful because the little girl who was, playing Snow White had an incredible voice, a gorgeous soprano, just like the one that you hear in the movie.
Speaker 9: How were they allowed to put on a play in Auschwitz?
Speaker 8: I don't know, but it was done kind of quite hush-hush, all of it, except that when it was put on, suddenly some SS men appeared and they watched. And then when Arnold Behm put on that play, he he wanted something like a Wardville Wardville play, which I was into. That was when I couldn't stand the breath of the guy who was playing with me.
Speaker 7: The building just left entering Auschwitz was actually a brothel used by the internees of the camp. Hospitals and camp dental facilities attended by camp inmates, dentists and nurses to deal with the inmates dental problems. The Auschwitz Camp had sick bays and hospitals where thousands of inmates were cured. The camp authorities foremost the garrison physician doctor Wirths tried all imaginable ways to keep the Auschwitz inmates alive, strong and healthy. The Holocaust
Speaker 0: is
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Here's David Irving again, this time he discusses Hitler’s apprehension to using nerve gas on Allied soldiers This is fascinating because it shows Hitler had a double standard for using nerve gas in the camps vs on troops... https://t.co/0DQG10MRP3
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Fuhrer has absolutely forbidden the use of poison gas. The enemy is to use it first, and then we will retaliate with ours.
the Germans would have won the war because the Germans had not just poison gases like mustard, the Germans had nerve gases.
At this time, in 1944, they already had stockpiles of 30,000 tons of nerve gases, sarin and tabun.
But he had put his name on a piece of paper, the Geneva Gas Protocol, saying that he would never use gas first because it would be a war crime.
the nine or 10 panzer divisions out of Normandy and sent them to the Russian front.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And embargoed anywhere the use of poison gas. It's it's there. The actual document signed by Hitler, the references in the vows of the German high command, the verbatim references by him and the shorthand records of his meetings, the shorthand records of meetings in the German air ministry. The Fuhrer has absolutely forbidden the use of poison gas. The enemy is to use it first, and then we will retaliate with ours.
The reason being, the reason that makes this yardstick so extraordinary is that if Churchill had done what he was threatening and dropped the poison gas on German cities, the Germans would have won the war because the Germans had not just poison gases like mustard, the Germans had nerve gases. At this time, in 1944, they already had stockpiles of 30,000 tons of nerve gases, sarin and tabun, the famous nerve is being used even now by the Russians in Afghanistan and in Iraq and in Angola and elsewhere where the Russian troops are fighting. The nerve gases sarin and tabun, Hitler already had stockpiles of 30,000 tons, and nobody found out till the war was over, which is just as well because if Hitler had ever used it in Normandy, fighting the Allied, the American, the French, the British troops in Normandy, the Canadians as well, it would have been the end of the bridgehead because we didn't have a gas mask. We had no gas mask which would have stopped the German nerve gases. It would have been the end of the bridgehead.
And isn't it strange that Adolf Hitler, the devil incarnate, had the means whereby he could have secured an immediate strategic advantage, which would have turned the war because he would have pulled the nine or 10 panzer divisions out of Normandy and sent them to the Russian front. And with those high grade divisions, he would have wiped the floor with the Russians and ended the war by Christmas nineteen forty four. But he had put his name on a piece of paper, the Geneva Gas Protocol, saying that he would never use gas first because it would be a war crime.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
Ok, we're almost done... This next clip discusses the marketing of the Holocaust after WWII, the rising and falling Auschwitz death tolls, and the history of the 6 million number But most importantly: It shows the tactics used against Holocaust "Deniers"
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 urges historical perspective, noting the wartime Soviet alliance and that their anti-Nazi propaganda was accepted by the Allies; as victors, the Soviets "got to commit their propaganda to the history books as fact." He says current knowledge of Stalin's despotism and the KGB's deception, and the camps Majdanek, Belzec, Kelno, Treblinka, and Sobibor, have required relying on Soviet sources. "I believe in the inarguable fact that 6,000,000 Jews were killed in the war by Adolf Hitler and Nazis." He asks Speaker 2 if he believes that figure. Speaker 2 replies, "But I don't think 6,000,000 Jews were gassed. Now be careful. I I beg of you. This is against the law in Germany. If there was a German somebody that's in German state, you could have me thrown into prison before I leave Germany."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think it's necessary to put this matter in its proper historical perspective. You see, we live in a time now when the old Soviet Union has fallen apart, and it's now okay for both liberals and conservatives as well as everybody else to speak ill of the departed communist state. But it was not always that way. During World War two, the Soviets were more than just a military ally. Their anti Nazi propaganda was readily accepted by the other allies because it served all of their purposes.
The point is that as the victors, the Soviets got to commit their propaganda to the history books as fact. With the 2020 hindsight we now have, the knowledge of Stalin's despotism, and the KGB's history of misinformation and deception, as well as the other camps in Poland, Majdanek, Belzec, Kelno, Treblinka, and Sobibor, we've had to rely on the Soviets for most of our information.
Speaker 1: I believe in the inarguable fact that 6,000,000 Jews were killed in the war by Adolf Hitler and Nazis. I'm merely asking you, as a president of Iran and as a scholar, do you believe that 6,000,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis, or do you think that is not true?
Speaker 2: But I don't think 6,000,000 Jews were gassed. Now be careful. I I beg of you. This is against the law in Germany. If there was a German somebody that's in German state, you could have me thrown into prison before I leave Germany.
I hope that's not your intention.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
And last but not least, let's take look at how the Holocaust narrative is still used to this very day: https://t.co/fwVdCeUaus
Video Transcript AI Summary
"I was in DACA for seventeen months after the war as a US department attorney and can state that there was no gas chamber in Dachau, nor was there a gas chamber at any of the other concentration camps in Germany."
"no document has been found that proves that a plan for Jewish extermination by the third Reich was ever contemplated. Expulsion, yes, but extermination, no."
"The Holocaust narrative is used to strengthen Jewish identity simultaneously as undermining, demonizing, and delegitimizing white European identity."
"The Holocaust narrative is primarily used to discourage policies such as nationalism and instead promote globalism and multiculturalism in the Western world."
"Any criticism against the Jews or the Jewish State of Israel had practically been outlawed."
"The mere fact that Holocaust denial laws in Europe exist should raise an eyebrow."
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Stephen F. Pinter, who served as a lawyer for the United States War Department in the occupation forces in Germany and Austria for six years after the war, made the following statement: I was in DACA for seventeen months after the war as a US department attorney and can state that there was no gas chamber in Dachau, nor was there a gas chamber at any of the other concentration camps in Germany.
Speaker 1: I challenge your history again. There is absolutely no record that 6,000,000 people were put in concentration camps. They only have 16,000,000 to begin with.
Speaker 2: But in spite of Jewish opposition to historical integrity, Holocaust revisionists are breaking the bars erected around their imprisonment of conscience and speaking out. Robert Farison, for instance, a recognized French specialist in document analysis, has stated that no document has been found that proves that a plan for Jewish extermination by the third Reich was ever contemplated. Expulsion, yes, but extermination, no. As punishment for challenging the official holocaust line, Forrestin has been repeatedly the victim of physical assault, countless legal actions, freezings of his bank account, and heavy fines. In the year February, Swiss scholar Jurgen Groff, author of the book The Holocaust Swindle, after receiving a two year jail sentence for allegedly questioning the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz, fled to Saint Petersburg where he's been living ever since as an exile.
There in Saint Petersburg, Groff is engaged in examining Soviet archives which Groff claims when allowed for release will bring Jewry's official version of the holocaust to its knees. Particularly scandalous and a blow to free speech and historical inquiry is the arrest of German lawyer Horst Mahler. In 02/2009, Mahler was sentenced by two German courts to eleven years in prison total for opinion crimes. One of them being Mueller's assertion that the official version of the Holocaust is the greatest lie ever perpetrated in human history.
Speaker 0: The benefits of exegregating the Holocaust have been enormous to sinus Jews both financially and politically. The Holocaust is today used as a guilt weapon as many racial groups exploit the empathy that white Europeans are known to have in order to guilt trip them into a collective guilt by making whites feel shameful and guilty about their past.
Speaker 3: Give them the guilt, man.
Speaker 4: That's yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 5: We need to
Speaker 4: play on that guilt.
Speaker 6: You always
Speaker 4: I bring up everything from the past. Fifty years.
Speaker 3: The
Speaker 0: left, communists, or Jews hear a person discussing anything related to immigration, demographics, or race realism, they immediately label that person as a neo Nazi, the next Hitler, or antisemitic. This is done to shut down the conversation and to make the person look like a hateful bigot.
Speaker 7: Really quite dangerous, racist, fascist rhetoric. People don't think that it's okay to be a fucking Nazi anymore. It's basically the same as quoting Hitler.
Speaker 3: There's a bunch of
Speaker 8: opportunistic hate mongering fascists trying to garner sympathy with garbage propaganda videos. I directly compared everyone who talked about cultural Marxists to the fascist literal Nazis who invented the term.
Speaker 5: Racism is especially sensitive against individuals who are murdered in the millions.
Speaker 9: Very racist and antisemitic things. This is kind of embarrassing, but this hits somewhat close to home since some of my family aligns with that way of thinking. They don't think that it happened. Just gonna erase all that history. Sounds like my grandpa or any other racist person.
Bliten the Jews. This is literally my grandpa.
Speaker 5: Of course, she doesn't even believe that the holocaust even fucking happened. Well, mean, he did kill, like, 6,000,000 fucking Jews. I mean, believe it or not, he also killed 6,000,000 fucking Jews. Listen, you fucking cow. Okay?
When you kill 6,000,000 Jews, it doesn't matter what you did in the past.
Speaker 6: Holocaust. Yeah. Yeah. We're gonna talk to Mercedes Carrera.
Speaker 3: The 6,000,000. 6,000,000.
Speaker 6: When I was a punk rocker when I was a punk rocker, brother
Speaker 3: 6,000,000. You're never sick, but I don't know. It was it was 6,000,000.
Speaker 0: The Holocaust narrative is used to strengthen Jewish identity simultaneously as undermining, demonizing, and delegitimizing white European identity. It is used as a manipulative weapon weapon against all white Europeans. I have done my research. Shane. I have done my research.
Speaker 3: Shane. Shane. Shane. Shane.
Speaker 5: Shane.
Speaker 10: Now, you owe me some money. Okay? You owe me reparations. Why is that?
Speaker 8: Because every freedom that I have and have taken for granted for my entire life has been made possible by wealth that my ancestors stole.
Speaker 0: The Holocaust narrative is primarily used to discourage policies such as nationalism and instead promote globalism and multiculturalism in the Western world. Europeans are constantly reminded of never forget, never again and that the horrors will never be repeated. This is done to brainwash the Europeans to not stand up for their own nation and race. Through this narrative, the Europeans support the politics that protect the rights of minority groups instead of their own people. Any criticism against the Jews or the Jewish State of Israel had practically been outlawed.
The Jewish Holocaust turning to a religion in which no deviation from the orthodoxy is acceptable. Even if there have been many holocausts and greater genocides throughout history, the Jewish holocaust is the only one that counts and it is of course the only one of whose orthodoxy is criminalized to even question. In fact, it is the only historical event that is prohibited by law to even question in many countries. The reason why you probably never even have heard about this research that have proven the official story to be false, is because researchers who have dared to explore the many inconsistencies and contradictions of the holocaust story have been subjected to physical attacks including harassment, vandalism, career destruction, drive by shootings, physical assaults and even firebombings of the warehouse that holds their work. Jewish and signist anti free speech organizations are doing everything they can to suppress the truth through censoring the Internet and burning the books that expose their lies.
Thanks to the pressure from anti free speech organizations, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are doing their best to repress and silence the truth and we cannot even rely on these platforms to be used in the future. Wikipedia and Google is both monitored to fit the politically correct narrative to mislead the population.
Speaker 6: Moet Zetiash in conjunction with My Israel has arranged instruction day for wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world. As a way of example, if someone searches the Gaza flotilla, we wanna be there. We wanna be the the guys who influence what is written there, how it's written, and to ensure that it's balanced and Zionist in nature.
Speaker 10: I came here to learn more about how we, as Israelis and as Jews, can defend Israel online on the Internet, and particularly in Wikipedia in this case. Wikipedia is a bit of a complex system, it's sometimes hard to figure out the rules. I personally tried to edit things in Wikipedia that were against Israel. Knowledge is important for anyone who wants to be active in defending Israel on the Internet so that we can go and we can see the information and we can say this isn't quite right. It's showing one side of the story, and I can I have the the power and the right to change that?
And in general, it's so important for us to be online working to defend our ourselves and to prove to to the world and to ourselves that we are just and we are right. And because right now, if you look online, if you do searches for certain terms related to Israel, you just it's just filled with antisemitism, anti Zionism, and garbage. And there's not enough of us out there working to counteract that and make sure that the other side of the story, our side of the story, and our right side of the story is getting the right coverage and the coverage that it needs, so
Speaker 0: In our supposedly free and democratic countries that frequently pride themselves of being tolerant, third world invaders are now raping European women and receive the most lenient sentence. Meanwhile, Holocaust deniers or anti Semites can get many years in prison for merely questioning a historical event. It is clear that our governments are not working for our people anymore. According to Gerhard Menonin, there were 117,344 accusations of thought crimes in the German courts in the year nineteen ninety four-two thousand and four. Around 2,000 people are put on trial every year for holocaust denial, which can give up to five years in prison and a fine.
Speaker 3: Most of the people in England, America, Australia have no idea what a tyranny this country is.
Speaker 4: Hundreds, we have more than 2,000 process, more than 2,000 trials a year and that over more than ten years. So you can imagine how many people have suffered from it and families have been destroyed and they lost their job and so on and so on. That says the truth. And simply for inquiring, simply for inquiring into They the sources for are not promoting any ideas, they are simply asking questions like you do. Yes, and now what happened in Paris is just for us because all the heads of the nation said press free and meaning freedom is the greatest thing for democracy.
And therefore I say I use this freedom.
Speaker 0: The Holocaust is a story that the globalists don't allow to even be debated or questioned. Anyone who questions the story immediately is branded as a racist, a Nazi who wants to kill 6,000,000 Jews and a Holocaust denier, hater or anti Semite. This labeling technique is used to discourage discourse in discussions related to Holocaust and World War two. Holocaust revisionism is today considered a taboo matter, with laws and prison sentences applied to Europeans who questions the politically correct Holocaust narrative. This is a gross infringement on Article 19 in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The mere fact that Holocaust denial laws in Europe exist should raise an eyebrow. Truth does not fear investigation. You certainly do not need to make up laws to protect history unless you are trying to protect a lie.
The truth stands on its own legs.
@Bobby1_x - Bobby Thorne
A final note: As you can see, Holocaust Revisionism doesn't "deny" the Holocaust It believes many of the events that constitute what we collectively know as "The Holocaust" did take place But it also understands that we need to be able to have an honest discussion about historical events, especially when those events are used to this day to exemplify the evils of White collectivism and to solicit reparations for those evils Holocaust Revisionism merely seeks to have an honest and open discussion about the events of the Holocaust and firmly believes this statement to be true: The truth fears no investigation
@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 (* 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.
@CultivateElevat - Matt From Cultivate Elevate
Myth of the holocaust? By eustace Mullins https://bravewhitebooks.com https://t.co/AbSyncpHtg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that the Holocaust is misinterpreted in a way that allegedly grants great power to a group he refers to as “tiny hats,” enabling them to maintain international murder squads and assassins across the world, including against their enemies. He asserts that this group utilizes the myth of the Holocaust to justify and empower these covert operations. He also claims that this same group relies on intelligence and three-letter agencies to operate against the general populace.
Additionally, Speaker 0 contends that this group treats the American goyim as cattle, portraying this treatment as systematic and intentional. He references a concrete historical moment in Lebanon, suggesting that Marines discovered or experienced first-hand the behavior of “tiny hat” soldiers who routinely threatened them and deliberately cut them off in an offensive manner. He implies that such actions were indicative of a broader pattern of conduct by the group in question.
Toward the end of his remarks, Speaker 0 hints at the value of researching these assertions, suggesting that they warrant further exploration in books or other sources. His remarks imply that there are documented or perceivable examples that he believes substantiate these claims, and he frames the discussion as something that should be investigated for a deeper understanding or corroboration.
In summary, Speaker 0 presents a narrative in which a group he labels with a pejorative term is alleged to exploit the Holocaust myth to justify global covert activity, leveraging intelligence agencies to oppress or control people, and treating a portion of the population in a dehumanizing way. He cites the Lebanon encounter involving Marines as evidence of this behavior, and he encourages continued study or literature to illuminate these alleged phenomena.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The myth of the holocaust is interpreted by the tiny hats giving them permission to maintain international murder squads, assassins all across the world, even against the enemies of the tiny hats. Right? Who else do they use? They use this. They use the intelligence and then they use these three letter agencies against the people.
That's something interesting. Right? The tiny hats treat the American goyim like they're cattle. And then marines soon found this out in Lebanon when the tiny hat soldiers routinely threatened them and offensively cut them off. Something to kinda look into for books, you know.
@CultivateElevat - Matt From Cultivate Elevate
Myth of holocaust? By eustace Mullins https://t.co/rYJmq2jJaI
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript discusses what the speaker describes as “the myth of the holocaust,” which they say is interpreted by “the tiny hats” as giving them permission to maintain “international murder squads” and “assassins” worldwide, including against the enemies of “the tiny hats.” The speaker claims that “intelligence” is used to enable this, and that “these three letter agencies” are used against people.
The speaker also states that the “tiny hats” treat “the American goyim” like “cattle.” They add that U.S. Marines discovered this while in Lebanon, saying that “tiny hat soldiers” routinely threatened Marines and “offensively cut them off.”
The speaker concludes by suggesting that the mentioned topics are “something to kinda look into for books.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The myth of the holocaust is interpreted by the tiny hats giving them permission to maintain international murder squads, assassins all across the world, even against the enemies of the tiny hats. Right? Who else do they use? They use this. They use the intelligence and then they use these three letter agencies against the people.
That's something interesting. Right? The tiny hats treat the American goyim like they're cattle. And then marines soon found this out in Lebanon when the tiny hat soldiers routinely threatened them and offensively cut them off. Something to kinda look into for books, you know.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss the history behind “thought criminals” being persecuted in the West—how it began, which countries and ideologies drive it, and which groups push it. On America’s 250th independence anniversary, I renew the pledge of freedom. I share referenced talks, books, reports, and surveys (including Durov, Verfassungsschutzberichte, and “History at Gunpoint”) and urge viewers to like, share, and repost.
@GermarRudolf - Germar Rudolf (* 1964)
This is a documentation on the history and background of the cancerous growth of censorship and persecution of “thought criminals” in the West. It answers vexing questions, such as: How did it all begin? Which countries are spearheading it? Which ideologies are at the root of it? And which population groups are the main drivers? Buckle up, because it ain’t pretty. At the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence of the United States of America, it is time to renew this pledge of independence and commitment to freedom! Please like, share and repost this video! Links of items mentioned in the video: Pavel Durov, Oslo speech: https://youtu.be/1Yq_5aDdJ24 Telegram Contest: https://t.me/contest Video on IMT: https://rumble.com/v72ildm Swastika Epidemic: https://youtu.be/wlzq4wHNt2M Swastika Epidemic as KGB false-flag op: https://www.jstor.org/content/oa_book_edited/10.7829/jj.4032515, pp. 126-129 “Lectures on the Holocaust,” book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/lectures-on-the-holocaust/ Video on History of Skepticism: https://rumble.com/v75kk0i German Government reports on thought crimes: https://verfassungsschutzberichte.de/ “History at Gunpoint,” book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/history-at-gunpoint/ “History at Gunpoint,” video: https://rumble.com/v7ay6qm Stutthof, book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/concentration-camp-stutthof/ Amazon video: https://rumble.com/v72d4re Amazon book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-day-amazon-murdered-free-speech/ Katie Halper on Israel’s genocide: https://youtu.be/KJnjmH4_KaE Pew Survey: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet/ Telegram cooperation with law enforcement: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvglp0xny3eo “The Chemistry of Auschwitz,” book: https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz/ “The Chemistry of Auschwitz,” video: https://rumble.com/v72d1p4 Shlomo Kramer: https://youtu.be/7FS06hKUlEo
Video Transcript AI Summary
Gamma Rudolph, manager of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, introduces work-in-progress writing on “History at Gunpoint, How Oppressive Political Correctness Has Corrupted Holocaust Studies,” focusing on a chapter titled “Political Correctness and Censorship.” She connects the theme to a presentation by Pavel Durov, founder and CEO of Telegram, who on June 1, 2026 spoke at the Oslo Freedom Forum about the deterioration of free speech online. Durov’s speech is described as arguing that personal freedoms have been eroded globally through recurring justifications: combating crime, terrorism, and drug trafficking, leading to spying on users and surrendering privacy for “temporary safety,” which the speaker characterizes as a historical scam. Durov is also said to have retold an interrogation experience in France: after three days translating, his French-English interpreter expressed that she left the Soviet Union to escape limited freedoms and disrespected human rights, but now felt “the Soviet Union is catching up with me,” framing it as a return of an oppressive attitude rather than the Soviet state itself.
Rudolph then discusses Telegram-related developments and broadens the argument beyond “digital freedom.” She says that two weeks after Durov’s speech, he announced a “Digital Freedom Contest” on Telegram with $200,000 for a viral video, and that the presented video aims to compete while also acknowledging that some platforms may delete it or the account. Rudolph claims that the source of this “new censorship” is older than the Internet and should be understood socially, politically, and historically, tying it to how World War II ended in Europe and the postwar framing of the conflict. She argues that Germany’s defeat and Soviet expansion produced an outcome worse than before for Poland, but that the victorious powers sold the disaster as a war against “absolute evil” culminating in the Holocaust. She states that she describes how this narrative was legally “cast in stone” during the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal and that, in her account, antifascism became synonymous with ultimate good, creating psychological acceptance of oppressive measures done to fight fascism.
Rudolph further claims that the Holocaust narrative—developed at Nuremberg—becomes a cornerstone of an anti-fascist postwar order, and that critiques face resistance from those invested in it. She describes two “backdoors” to censorship and oppression: granting good intentions to those labeling themselves anti-fascist, and broad consensus tied to the Holocaust narrative. She asserts that France and especially Germany drove tightening censorship across Europe, citing Germany’s post-1933–1945 portrayal as the “ultimate evil” and modern German concepts like “Wehrhafted Demokratie” (which she says allows restricting civil rights in a democracy under conditions framed as protecting privileged minorities and the political system itself). She claims Germany’s censorship escalated from postwar occupation controls through licensing requirements for media (until 1955) and continued left-leaning media dominance, while describing right-wing media as limited.
The transcript then recounts a detailed Germany-centered timeline: it describes Cold War propaganda pressures and denazification debates, then a shift in 1958 when West Germany is said to have created a Nazi hunting office and issued orders to prosecute claims submitted by Eastern bloc countries, particularly Poland. It describes 1959–1960 swastika “epidemic” events on synagogues and cemeteries internationally, later attributed (in the speaker’s account) to a KGB false flag via Soviet defectors, and says this helped kick-start censorship laws. Rudolph discusses later legal changes including replacing “class hatred” with “racial hatred” in 1960 and removing that law decades later. She adds that 1961 and 1964/1965-era Holocaust-related trials increased international attention and public awareness in Germany, contributing (in her framing) to left-leaning radicalization among students and the spread of Frankfurt School ideas.
She claims that German student politics became dominated by socialist/Marxist/communist/Maoist/anarchist groups, leading to what she calls “lynch mob censorship,” including university sit-ins preventing professors from teaching without endorsement and attacks on right-wing groups. She recounts personal examples from Bonn University in the 1980s involving a fraternity member (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) and an event where a flyer was destroyed with swastika knife cuts and a later violent attack on a friend. She then describes changes to Germany’s central censorship authority, arguing it moved from protecting children from pornography and glorification of violence to censoring political and historical writings. She claims the RAF (Red Army Faction) assassination campaign in the 1970s and Cold War intelligence links are associated with lasting civil-rights restrictions. She also states that attorney Horst Mahler read her Holocaust lectures and later changed his ideology.
Turning to France, Rudolph claims France adopted a first censorship law in 1972 banning racial defamation, discrimination, and incitement to hatred, driven by Jewish and anti-racism/anti-antisemitism groups, including a successor to communist-dominated resistance. She then frames the next escalation as targeting Holocaust skepticism. She distinguishes “Holocaust denial” from broader “Holocaust skepticism” and describes a sequence of legal moves: Germany and other European countries are said to have moved toward explicitly illegal skepticism, with Israel in 1986 introducing what she calls the first law dictating research outcomes. She says France followed with a 1990 law, Austria and Germany followed later, and that the European Union passed a 2007 framework decision making bans on Holocaust skepticism mandatory for EU members and aspirants. She provides an account of how “hate speech” laws are used broadly, including not only violent advocacy but also academic and non-violent dissent on topics she lists: Jews and Jewish religion, Zionism and Israel’s actions, dissent on WWII tropes, opposition to mass immigration, non-Christian religious laws, non-heterosexual behaviors, and government-mandated vaccinations.
Rudolph offers a speech-limit principle she calls “peaceful speech,” defining it as freedom of speech that does not advocate, promote, justify, or condone violation of anyone’s civil rights and right to self-determination. She provides examples in which contesting factual claims about gas chambers is presented as permissible, while justifying or advocating civil-rights violations is not. She then returns to enforcement mechanisms: she claims Germany tracks “thought crimes” as “opinion offenses” in Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution reports and says investigations for opinion offenses expanded from about 5,000 in 1994 to about 35,000 in 2024, with an escalation since 2023 that she labels the “Gaza effect.” She gives examples of punishments for individuals and confiscations/burning of a book due to a Latin footnote; she also includes the case of an Austrian professor who allegedly committed suicide after facing prison.
Rudolph shifts to the Internet, describing ISPs blocking domains deemed to spread “thought crimes,” payment processors enforcing bans more powerfully, and banks closing accounts used for transactions. She asserts that platforms and payments can be coerced based on subsidiaries and jurisdiction. She describes the CompuServe CEO case in 1998 as involving illegal content transmission and being dismissed by the speaker’s account. She then describes, as an example, her own experiences with Amazon: she claims Amazon removed an archival study of the Auschwitz camp Stutthof after German demands, later used country-specific “kill switches” for ISBNs, and in her account deleted over 80 Holocaust-skeptical research books overnight after anonymous bomb threats and cemetery vandalism involving Jewish targets. She says she later learned (in her account) that storms caused gravestone damage and that bomb threats were a false-flag operation by a young Jew in Israel acting under money and orders from anonymous channels, which she suspects involved Mossad. She adds that National Socialist materials allegedly remained unaffected at first, but that Amazon later expanded deletions to politically incorrect content. She says Ingram Content Group holds a monopoly in US distribution and later took a print version of a related book out of circulation in 2026.
She further argues that search engines and AI systems are used to suppress content, describing how Google allegedly demotes pages skeptical about the prevailing Holocaust narrative after pressures from groups she names, and that AI systems are barred from consuming certain non-aligned materials into their knowledge bases. She states that censorship expansion forces societies to give up free speech and information in the name of Jewish safety, and she ends by citing social media and major-platform rule adoption timelines (YouTube/Google, TikTok, Reddit, Meta, Twitter/X) as beginning mid-2019 through 2020, with Telegram’s changes after Durov’s 2024 arrest in France.
The transcript includes a quoted clip in which an unnamed speaker compares Israeli actions to Nazi actions, referencing ghettos, starvation, concentration camps, and “systematic extermination,” and claims that Israeli soldiers documented and compared their actions to Nazi conduct, along with a point about public opinion in Israel. Rudolph then wraps up by asserting that those trading liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and by discussing Pew Research on US news sources and the prominence of digital platforms, describing that Telegram is absent from news platform lists as a messaging app.
Rudolph also includes a US-focused warning about attempts to limit the First Amendment, referencing Shlomo Kramer (CEO of Cato Networks) stating it is time to limit the First Amendment “to protect it,” and concludes by arguing that democracy must be guardrailed by inalienable human rights and that without them democratic majorities can suppress minorities’ civil rights. She states that she sees the same historical junction happening globally and argues for resisting book burning, persecution of minorities, and jailing dissidents. She ends with “Give me liberty or give me death” and a call to spread the information by sharing and reposting the documentary.
Full Transcript
Speaker 3: Welcome, everyone. I'm Gamma Rudolph, manager of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, where we defend freedom of speech where it is most threatened. I'm currently in the process of writing a book titled History at Gunpoint, How Oppressive Political Correctness Has Corrupted Holocaust Studies. It's not quite ready yet, but will be in a week or two. Its third and last chapter, titled Political Correctness and Censorship, ties into a presentation that was given by Pavel Durov, the founder and CEO of Telegram. On June 1st, 2026, Durov gave a speech at the Oslo Freedom Forum. It focused on the deterioration of free speech online. In 2024, Durov got arrested in France because he wouldn't let Western governments spy on us users. Here is a brief clip of a few essential statements he made during this presentation.
Speaker 4: Personal freedoms have been eroded everywhere in the world, almost without exception. They said, we need to combat crime. We need to do something about terrorism. We need to do something about drug trafficking. And that's why we need to spy on you. For your own protection, you have to give up your essential right to privacy. And this again has been tried countless times in the history of humanity, where we or different nations throughout history have been offered an exchange. Give up some of your essential liberty in exchange for some temporary safety. And this deal, this offer is always a scam and it always turned out to be a scam. It was Benjamin Franklin who said, those who are willing to give up their essential liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Speaker 3: Toward the end of his presentation, Durov retells a story he experienced while being interrogated by French investigators. Here is what Durov reported about the reaction of his French-English interpreter.
Speaker 4: After three days of translating, during one of these pauses between sessions, the translator was sitting there, seemingly shocked. Perhaps she was shocked by the selective and political nature of the charges brought against me. But she looked at me, she looked at the police officers present, and she said, I left the Soviet Union in the 80s because I wanted to escape an environment where my freedoms are limited. I wanted to escape an environment where human rights are disrespected. But now, after witnessing what I've witnessed, I feel like the Soviet Union is catching up with me.
Speaker 3: I feel like I'm back in the Soviet Union. It's not so much about the return of the Soviet Union, but the return of the Soviets, since this is not about the recreation of an oppressive state of the past, but about an oppressive attitude. Two weeks after Durov gave that speech, he announced a contest on Telegram titled Digital Freedom Contest, with a prize money of $200,000 for the best viral video of at least 10,000 views. This video has the ambition to be part of this contest. However, I will not focus exclusively on digital freedom, because that would be short-sighted. First, because censorship in the West is not limited to the virtual realm. Second, if we want to successfully combat censorship, we need to understand where this oppressive attitude comes from, socially, politically, and historically speaking. This quote-unquote new censorship is much older than the Internet, so we must broaden our perspective, both in scope and timescale. And finally, the things I will lay out here will hit the nerve of many censoring authorities and pressure groups. If it didn't, I would be doing something wrong. But as a result, I will not be able to post this video on platforms that will not only delete it, but also potentially delete my account with it, such as YouTube. Other platforms may prevent my video from getting shared or reposted. So, getting to 10,000 views is already a challenge in today's censorship environment online. But I'll do my best. Now, how did the West arrive at this point where it is in the process of giving up some of its liberties? The answer to this question lies in the way the Second World War ended in Europe. This is a map of Europe just before the outbreak of the war. Brown is Germany, red is the Soviet Union. Both decided in late August 1939 to carve up Poland. As a result, France and Great Britain declared war on Germany, but not on the Soviet Union, with the declared goal to defend the independence of Poland. At the end of the war, Germany was no more, so to say, but the Soviet Union had gobbled up several countries entirely, plenty of territories from several neighbors, and had subjugated and enslaved most of Central and Eastern Europe for decades to come. Therefore, if the goal was to regain independence for Poland, the Second World War was a huge disaster. 50 million people died, and at the end, the situation was much worse than before. How could the victorious powers sell this disaster to the world as a glorious victory anyhow? Well, by rebranding it as a war of the world against absolute evil that had culminated in the Holocaust. World War II was not about liberation from despotism in general, but only about liberation from one flavor of it, the one that caused the Holocaust. Fascism, the most extreme embodiment of right-wing ideologies. Atrocities committed by the Allied powers were simply swept under the carpet. That narrative turned even the 10 million-fold mass murderer Stalin into a savior of mankind. That lopsided version of the conflict was cast in legal stone during the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal. I have described how that was done in another documentary. You can find a link to it in the description. What matters here is only that, to this day, antifascism is synonymous with being the ultimate good cause. The term triggers a reflex in us. Yes, antifascism is good, legitimate, necessary. I will not try to convince you otherwise, because opposition to any despotic system is good. However, the term antifascism does more in our brains than trigger automatic agreement. We grant good intentions to anyone who claims that label. And most of us tend to accept oppressive and sometimes even violent measures if they claim to be done to fight fascism. That creates a psychological backdoor to censorship and despotism. Left-wing ideologies are best at exploiting that backdoor because anti-fascism is a mainstay of their worldview and the rest of us grant them noble motives. Moreover, Jews also have a stake in this game because the Holocaust is not only important to justify the disastrous outcome of World War II and to make even Stalin look good. It is also the mainstay of Israel's existence and of modern Jewish self-perception. Therefore, the Holocaust narrative, as developed at the Nuremberg IMT, is the cornerstone of the anti-fascist post-World War order we live in. Any critique of that narrative will be met with the utmost resistance of all those invested in that order. This creates the second backdoor for censorship and despotism, which finds almost unanimous consent everywhere in the world. The current censorship epidemic in the West, as described by Durov, has its origin in Europe, and specifically in two European countries, which have been leading the charge in tightening the censorship screws for all of Europe and the collective West, France and, most of all, Germany. Because Germany between 1933 and 1945 has been portrayed as the ultimate evil, modern Germany uses any measure necessary to prevent the impression that anything like it can happen again. That pries wide open both vectors to censorship and oppression. Germans call this Wehrhafted Demokratie, which translates either to militant democracy, which is too harsh, or defensive democracy, which is too soft. it basically means that civil rights can be restricted in a democracy if exercising those rights could create insecurities for privileged minorities members of the ruling class or for the political system itself so it's the scam mentioned by durov of trading liberties in general for an alleged increased security for some first i want to sketch germany's slippery slide into the censorship trap starting right after the war in fact Germany started with censorship built into the system because the Allies in East and West allowed only the kind of media in their zones of occupation that they found agreeable. In West Germany, until 1955, media had to get a license from the occupational powers to operate. All had to be anti-fascist in attitude, of course. Consequently, most media in Germany, to this day, are left-leaning. The only significant right-wing outlet to ever exist the Deutsche National- und Soldatenseite, the German national and soldiers newspaper, was a CIA operation to control Germany's war veterans after World War II. The conservative Axel Springer publishing house could embrace some right-wing views only because to this day, every staff member has to be absolutely pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, and pro-NATO. Since Germany was at the center of the East-West conflict, its society in general, and media in particular, were the main target of propaganda and subversion by both the US and the Soviet Union. The hot phase of the Cold War started in 1948 with Stalin's brilliant blockade, which ended only in May 1949. It turned into a hot war in Korea a year later. At that point, the US government decided that they need German officers experienced in fighting communist armies that use cruel guerrilla tactics. hence many former high-ranking officers incarcerated by the allies were pardoned or amnestied of course that did not find the approval of antifascists further stirred up by stalin's propaganda they did not want less but rather more denazification among them were not just antifascist meaning left-wing groups both in germany and abroad but also those representing former resistance fighters victims and survivors of the camp system and others who had suffered under the third reich then add to this diplomatic pressure from countries with large victim groups they all lobbied incessantly to increase and accelerate the prosecution of suspected war criminals Until 1958, however, West Germany's government was reluctant to succumb to this pressure, seeing that it came to a large degree from organizations heavily funded or influenced by communist countries. But in 1958, this attitude changed 180 degrees. During that year, West Germany created a Nazi hunting office and invited everyone to submit evidence for the chase. order was issued by the west german government to the prosecution branch to take more or less at face value the claims and evidence submitted in particular by eastern bloc countries among them was foremost poland because that's where the main crime scenes are located all the so-called extermination camps were located there and poland was also home to many witnesses add to this the results of polish court proceedings from the stalinist short trial era right after the war in subsequent decades close to a thousand Holocaust-related trials were launched. As a matter of fact, this office still exists today, and they are still prosecuting people who are in their 90s or even 100 years old and older. A year after the formation of this official Nazi hunting unit, in 1959 and 1960, a series of swastika paintings appeared on Jewish synagogues, cemeteries, community centers, etc., in Germany and many other countries all around the globe. This led to outrage everywhere in the Western world. Only 20 years later did we learn from Soviet defectors of the KGB that this swastika epidemic, as it is called today, had been a false flag operation orchestrated by the KGB. It was very successful in terms of kick-starting in West Germany the introduction of censorship laws. The West German government rewrote the law that was in the books from the Kaiserreich, geared towards suppressing left-wing dissidents. As we know, socialist and communist ideas evolved in Germany, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were Germans. The whole movement originated in Germany. The Prussian monarchy, and then the German Kaiserreich, had a problem keeping this under control. Hence, a law was introduced banning incitement to class hatred, something left-wing radicals are accused of doing. In 1960, the West German Parliament rewrote this law, substituting the term class hatred with racial hatred, assuming that Jews are a race. Some 35 years later, Germany actually eliminated that law altogether, since human races don't exist in the politically correct mindset. Now, you get prosecuted in Germany if you incite the masses in a way capable of disturbing public peace. But I digress. Coincidentally, after the swastika epidemic of 1959-1960 had subsided, the 1961 Eichmann Show trial in Jerusalem captured the attention of world media for many months. This led, for the first time since the Nuremberg trials, to a renewed massive international presence of the Holocaust in public awareness. Just three years later, the large-scale Frankfurt Auschwitz trial started in West Germany, which hammered the topic deep into the German public mind. The growing public awareness of Nazi crimes had a particularly inciting influence on left-leaning students in West Germany. That effect was exacerbated by a group of philosophy professors called the Frankfurt School, who became very popular among these students. All iconic representatives of this school were both neo-Marxists and Jews. They instilled in students not only a rejection of Germany's fascist past, but also of West Germany's capitalist present, and especially its lack of coming to terms with Germany's Nazi past. Many West German students saw their parents' generation, which still ran the country, as responsible for what had happened during the war. They blamed capitalism for having created Hitler and all that's connected to him. These students therefore rejected imperialism, capitalism, German traditions, the current elites, you name it. While the student counterculture movement in the US was rather harmless in hindsight, the so-called extra-parliamentary opposition in West Germany turned violent and revolutionary in 1968. This movement created the first wave of what I call lynch mob censorship. Students organized sit-ins at universities, preventing social science professors from teaching who didn't endorse their radical views. These left-wing radical students also attacked right-wing groups. The student protest movement of the late 1960s permanently turned West Germany's universities into a hotbed of left-wing radicalism and extremism. Ever since the late 1960s, the students' self-governing organizations have been dominated by socialist, Marxist, communist, Maoist, and anarchist groups. Together, they commonly obtain supermajorities of around 70%. There are no right-wing student groups worth mentioning. If they try to run, they get violently attacked. That is the political climate in which, for several generations now, Germany's elites have been educated. Let me give you a personal example of what that climate looked like back then and still looks like today. I studied chemistry at Bonn University from 1983 to 1989. During that time, I joined a Catholic student fraternity. One of our fraternity members was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who in 2005 became Pope Benedict XVI. Hence, my fraternity was certainly not a Nazi organization. In 1987, Our fraternity screened the 1984 anti-abortion documentary The Silent Scream with a subsequent discussion among the audience. I announced that event with a flyer I taped inside the elevator of the dormitory where I lived at that time. Within a few hours, the flyer was shredded by knife cuts and disfigured by a swastika. A short while later, a female student at the dormitory was violently attacked by a left-wing extremist student because she was a friend of mine. This attitude was common among Germans' new elite in formation. It was a foreboding of bad things to come. But back to my timeline. In 1969, West Germany had its first post-war socialist government. Under this administration, the nature of West Germany's central censorship authority changed. Created after the war, it was originally meant only to make pornography and the glorification of violence inaccessible to children. Since the 1970s, however, it is being misused to censor political and historical writings considered to be right-wing in nature. Opposition to mass immigration, dissent on the causes and events of World War II, assessments of the Third Reich that are not all condemning, critical attitudes toward Jews, the Jewish religion, Zionism, and Israel, as well as deviation from the prevailing Holocaust narrative are the primary targets. In 1970, one branch of West Germany's extra-parliamentary opposition moved into a terrorist organization called Red Army Faction, or RAF for short. They assassinated several high-profile personalities in West Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. When the Eastern Bloc collapsed, it turned out that communist East Germany's secret police had trained, funded, and given logistical assistance to the RAF for decades. The RAF's bloody trail led to several measures restricting civil rights in West Germany for the sake of security. While the RAF eventually faded away, the restrictions on civil rights were never reversed. They never are. I bring up the RAF here also because of one of the group's founding members, attorney Horst Mahler, who was the RAF's chief theoretician. He was arrested already in 1970 and watched the RAF's bloody trail only from prison. Alienated by their brutal tactics, he parted ways with them in 1975. In late 1998, or early 1999, he somehow ended up reading my book Lectures on the Holocaust, or rather the first German edition of it. That book critically examines the mainstream Holocaust narrative in a dialogue format of arguments and counter-arguments. You can download a free e-book version of the current English edition at the web address given in the description below. This book, Redbild Mahler. He subsequently contacted me by email, and we had a lengthy exchange of emails on various issues. What is relevant here is his statement that foremost the Holocaust was what drove the students and the counterculture movement in Germany into radical opposition to the current system. After reading my book, he realized that he had been duped. He subsequently threw out the baby with a bath and made a 180-degree turn, ideologically speaking. That's not what can be derived from my book, quite to the contrary. But I digress again. This just highlights the emotional and moral import the Holocaust has in leftist, antifascist circles. They derive moral outrage and justification for oppressive, violent, and even terrorist acts from it. Let's switch over to France for a short while. In that country, the first official censorship law was adopted in 1972, 12 years later than Germany. It was accepted by France's parliament unanimously and bans racial defamation, discrimination, and incitement to hatred. Two lobby groups in particular had been pushing for such a law for many years, the Jewish League Against Antisemitism and the Movement Against Racism, Antisemitism, and for Peace. The latter had evolved from the communist-dominated French resistance movement. Here we see again that members of the main victim groups of National Socialist Germany, Jews and left-wing radicals, managed to get laws implemented that target ideas which are found primarily on the right-wing spectrum. France, with its rich and glorified history of anti-fascist resistance, and Germany, with its permanent need to prove itself beyond suspicion of any Nazi resurgence, are the main driving forces in Europe for censorship. If you grant the government the right to do a little censorship, you soon will find out that they steadily increase that censorship. I have yet to see a government that voluntarily relinquishes control it has obtained over its constituency. The next censorship steps occurred in a field where such measures encounter the least resistance and the most enthusiastic support, limiting or outright outlawing dissent on the prevailing Holocaust narrative. That became a topic because in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Holocaust skepticism gained traction worldwide. Now, a quick explanation on the term I just used. People who don't buy the prevailing Holocaust narrative, hook, line, and sinker, come in many flavors. Some descend only on minor aspects, while others reject the entire story as fake from beginning to end, and then there is any intermediate position you can think of. In my opinion, only the extreme position of total rejection deserves the label Holocaust denial. Since the censorship laws I will explain next potentially target all of these positions, I use a term that catches them all. Holocaust skepticism. Now, this is not the place to discuss the development of Holocaust skepticism. If you are interested in a brief history of that school of thought, I have laid it out in this presentation. You can find a link to it in the description. Early Holocaust skepticism that made some inroads into the public sphere was voiced mainly by individuals in the US and in France, but not so much in West Germany as you might perhaps expect. but the French wave quickly swept over France's eastern border into West Germany. Hence, in 1985, West Germany's Socialists and the Crypto-Marxist Green Party pushed to make Holocaust skepticism explicitly illegal. However, at that point, West Germany had a semi-conservative administration, and they merely tightened existing laws, making prosecutions of dissidents easier. Not pleased by this half-hearted measure, Israel made a diplomatic statement in 1986 by introducing the very first law on the planet that dictates at gunpoint the results of research here in the field of Holocaust studies. Several scandals, dragging on for an entire decade, of French scholars doing iconoclastic criticism of Holocaust sources finally led to a communist deputy in France's National Assembly to introduce a law in 1990 that followed Israel's example. The law was passed with the votes of all socialists and communists, but opposed by all non-left-wing members. The latter did not want to dictate research results at gunpoint. Austria and Germany followed a few years later. While Germany's parliament passed their law in 1994 unanimously, Austria's Libertarian Party FPO, a small minority in their parliament at that time, opposed the law, taking the same stance as France's non-leftist groups. Ever since, the list of countries in the West has grown steadily, which have outlawed Holocaust skepticism to one degree or another. Here is a list of them, sorted by the year each law was enacted, and with a possible maximum prison term in the right-hand column. Austria is the harshest case, where repeat offenders who reach large audiences with their dissent can face up to 20 years in prison. I guess that applies to me, so I better stay away from that country. Here is a map of Europe showing in red the countries that dictate the writing of history at gunpoint with regard to the Holocaust. Gray are countries which make prosecutions dependent on other factors, such as disparaging remarks about the victims, witnesses or survivors, or a rhetoric likely to cause violence or hatred. So, in those countries, strictly academic statements challenging the prevailing Holocaust narrative are not prosecuted. As you can see, There are very few white spots left on the map. One reason for this is that the European Union passed a framework decision in 2007, making it mandatory for all EU members and countries aspiring to become a member to enact laws banning Holocaust skepticism. That same framework decision also makes laws banning hate speech mandatory, meaning laws such as enacted by Germany in 1960 or France in 1972. So what you see here is basically a map showing where in Europe you can still speak your mind without worrying about getting arrested and thrown into prison. But what does hate speech actually mean? I could answer this by saying that for government authorities and their obsequious sycophants in traditional and social media, hate speech is speech they hate. Or I could quote my dear late friend Dr. Robert Countess, who coined the phrase Truth is hate in the eyes of those who hate the truth. And that's the truth. But seriously, in Europe today, depending on each country's specific laws, any criticism of Jews, Jewish religion, Zionist ideology, Israel's behavior in Gaza and Lebanon, any dissent on the standard tropes of World War II, even if solidly backed up by evidence, any opposition to mass immigration, to non-Christian religious laws, rules, and practices, to non-heterosexual behaviors, to government-mandated vaccinations, etc., etc., you name it. Any and all of it can get you thrown into prison. You need not say anything violent or endorse any violence to get in trouble. Even if you argue strictly academically, it won't save you. This is probably a good point to discuss whether there should be any limits to free speech, and if so, where we should draw the line. Here is a line of reasoning that everyone should be able to understand and agree to. We should never use our right to free speech in order to work toward restricting or denying someone else's right to free speech. Because if we do that, then we have no right to complain that someone else is working toward restricting or removing our freedom of speech. Starting from that logic, I expand this to a wider principle, which draws the moral red line of where freedom of speech should end. Freedom of speech is unlimited as long as it does not advocate, promote, justify, or condone the violation of anyone's civil rights and right to self-determination in the past, present, or future, because those who work to deny others their civil rights or right to self-determination cannot expect to have their own civil rights or right to self-determination protected. This is meant only as a moral guideline we should impose on ourselves, not as an instruction for lawmakers. If a speech follows that principle, then I call it succinctly peaceful speech. If any dissent we voice is peaceful in this sense, it ought to be unimpeded. From my own experience, and from what i have learned about many other cases over the decades it is clear to me that some of the thought crimes prosecuted in germany comply with this principle hence should be perfectly legal while others do not most of them that do not would still be legal under the generous free speech umbrella of the u s first amendment but that doesn't mean they are morally defensible to give a drastic practical example You can contest the existence of homicidal gas chambers during the Third Reich until you are blue in the face, but you cannot justify their use, or any other violation of civil rights, or the right to self-determination committed by the Third Reich, or any other regime for that matter. The facts about any crime, real or only alleged, and no matter the crime's size and nature, always need to be open to discussion, just like the facts of any other event. is justify old crimes or advocate for new crimes to be perpetrated. Let's now turn to what is actually happening in those censoring countries in the West. Durov mentioned that thousands of people get arrested in the UK and in Germany for making unpopular or unwelcome statements. I don't know what data he relies on to make such a statement. What I do know is that Germany collects and proudly publishes the number of criminal investigations they launch every year for thought crimes. Of course, they don't call them thought crimes. That would enable people to connect the dots to George Orwell's novel 1984. Instead, they call them opinion offenses. These numbers are published in the yearly reports of Germany's Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. The numbers are based on figures provided by Germany's Bundeskriminalamt, the German equivalent to the US's FBI. The reports have three main parts, left-wing, right-wing, and foreign or religious extremism. Interestingly, opinion offenses is a category that used to exist only in the section on right-wing extremism. I have seen this category listed for left-wing extremism for the first time in the just released report for 2025, whose data I couldn't include in this chart yet. According to this, left-wing propaganda offenses amount only to a few hundred cases per year. That shows an ideological bias of roughly a factor of 100. The numbers making up beige and green areas of that chart for left-wing and foreign slash religious extremism listed in the reports of earlier years only as quote-unquote other offenses. That sets them apart from violent crimes. If this is specified in the reports at all, it means things like illegal trespassing, damage to property, disorderly conduct, disturbing the public peace, meaning rioting, etc. Since these aren't opinion offenses, I shouldn't even have included them here, but as mentioned, A few cases of propaganda offenses hide in them, apparently too few for the German authorities to mention them separately. You see how over the years in Germany, such investigations have grown steadily from some 5,000 in 1994 to some 35,000 in 2024. Since 2023, the numbers have escalated dramatically. I call this the Gaza effect because Germany has now also made it a crime to criticize Israel, the Jews or Zionists too harshly for what they do in Gaza. But what about the steady growth of investigations before that? Does it prove that the Nazi menace grows steadily in Germany? Not at all. Here is another graph showing the length of the German law most frequently used to suppress certain types of speech. It shows how more and more text has been added over the years because more and more things have become illegal to say in Germany. Germany's laws banning the defamation of the state at symbols, institutions, and representatives, enacted at the start of the Cold War in 1951 and briefly hinted at by Durov in his speech, have been expanded over the years as well, also leading to more quote-unquote thought crime investigations. This shows again that censorship always only increases over time. It's time to put some faces to these numbers, but only very briefly. First, there is engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich, who was put in an Austrian prison for a total of 16 years for peaceful engineering arguments on gas chambers, which didn't line up with the prevailing Holocaust narrative. Or take a book honoring a German history professor after he had passed away. The German authorities confiscated the book and burned it in waste incinerators under police supervision. Why? Because it contained a footnote in Latin language in which another professor expressed his disbelief in the prevailing Holocaust narrative. And last but not least, there is Austrian professor Werner Pfeifenberger, who was harassed, demoted, fired, and eventually prosecuted for an academic paper he wrote praising nationalism over internationalism. When he found out he might have to go to prison for his paper, he committed suicide. If you want to learn more about these and similar cases, grab the free e-book version of my book, History at Gunpoint, that will be out in a week or two. Its first chapter is dedicated to such cases. You can find a link to it in this video's description below. Let's now turn to Pavel Durov's playground, the Internet. Or rather, I will focus on businesses active online, so not just social media platforms. Germany was leading the charge when it comes to censoring the Internet, too, because the CEO of the German section of CompuServe was arrested in 1998 for allowing the transmission of content that is illegal. That, by the way, also included Holocaust skepticism. Ultimately, the case got thrown out because CompuServe is just an Internet service provider, or ISP for short, comparable to a company that builds and maintains roads. Such a company cannot be held accountable for criminals using the road. By now, however, censoring countries like Germany force ISPs and even domain name registrars to block domain names spreading thought crimes. ISP blocks can easily be circumvented with VPNs, though, and censoring registrars simply lose business when they ban certain names. The situation is different when it comes to platforms, as Durov is experiencing right now. If they have any subsidiaries in censoring countries, these platforms can be forced to comply with censoring laws. The most impactful censorship online is done not by social media platforms, however, but by payment processors. 95% of all online payments are done using debit and credit cards. Since the Internet is international, so are the companies involved in processing online payments or accepting and transferring funds. Many of them are forced at gunpoint to comply with the laws of censoring countries. Some limit this to transactions with those countries, while others go above and beyond enforcing these censorship laws on the entire planet, even in the U.S., Brand labels such as Master and Visa have so far refused to censor, but American Express has a history of cutting out companies or individuals who voice opinions banned in the European Union. All banks doing business in countries with censorship laws must also enforce them. They will close bank accounts when they are used to finance thought crimes. HSBC, for instance, the Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation, has a major presence in the UK. In 2020, they closed all three of my bank accounts because one of them accepted payments for books containing thought crimes sent to customers in Germany. In 2007, PayPal added terms to its acceptable use policy, closely following the European framework decision of the same year regarding thought crimes. PayPal, including Venmo, enforces those laws on the entire globe. Other payment platforms, such as Wise and Square, including Cash App, do the same. smaller online payment processing companies limited to doing business in the U.S. would not be constrained by European or Canadian thought crime legislation, but they depend on gateway providers linking their back end to all the banks in the world. These are again companies which have to comply with the censorship laws of all countries on the planet to be able to do business everywhere. Hence, gateway providers such as AuthorizeNet, PaySafe, PaySimple, Cardpoint, and NMI have terminated their services when detecting transactions involving thought crimes. You can imagine what it means for dissidents on any topic when they lose 95% of their income because they cannot accept payments or donations by credit cards. A good indicator for who presses most for censorship and what they want to suppress most urgently can be gleaned from Amazon's history of book censorship. Unfortunately, I have been on the forefront of causing and suffering this censorship. Since 2014, I have been publishing books on Amazon through their CreateSpace print-on-demand platform. In 2015, Amazon removed an archival study of ours on the German wartime concentration camp Stutthof. When I complained about this, insisting that the book was perfectly legal in the UK, where my company was headquartered, Amazon said Germany had demanded they ban it. Since at that point Amazon could not block books only for certain markets, they took it down entirely. A little later, they reworked their database, allowing to switch off books in certain country-specific domains such as Amazon.de. Mind you, this was done not because of some Nazi propaganda or anti-Jewish rant, but because of an academic-style archival study that's actually rather boring to read. Two years later, In early 2017, a massive wave of more than 100 anonymous bomb threats against Jewish community centers hit the United States. Concurrently, several tombstones on two Jewish cemeteries in the U.S. got toppled over. In reaction to this, the Israeli Yad Vashem Holocaust Center and the Board of Deputies of British Jews pressured Amazon to take down my entire research series on the Holocaust. A few days later, Amazon caved in. They reprogrammed their database again, adding a kill switch for ISBN numbers, which takes down that book everywhere across Amazon's various platforms. More than 80 books of mine with skeptical research results on the Holocaust were deleted overnight. Almost nothing else was affected. My publishing company's academic output was the target. It later turned out that severe storms had toppled the gravestones, and that the bomb threats were part of some covert false flag operation committed by a young Jew in Israel who had received orders and lots of money for this through some anonymous channels. I suspect it was a Mossad operation, but cannot prove it. Note that National Socialist propaganda material, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf and drastic anti-Jewish books, were not affected by this takedown. That changed only slowly in subsequent years when Amazon, now empowered by their kill switch, added a steadily growing number of books to the list. Some of them aren't even illegal anywhere. They are simply politically incorrect, such as books critical about transgenderism or COVID shutdowns and vaccine policies. I have documented Amazon's transition from a platform offering a free marketplace of ideas to the world's most dangerous censorship enforcer in this documentary. I put the link to it in the description below. There is also a book on this. A free ebook version of it can be downloaded at the link given in the description. The print version of this book was taken out of circulation in 2026 by Ingram Content Group, claiming that my Amazon book doesn't meet their customers' expectations, which is ridiculous. Now, who or what is the Ingram Content Group? This company actually has a total monopoly on book distribution in the United States. Every book retailer, Amazon included, gets all the information about all books in print in real time from Ingram. Online, as well as brick and mortar bookstores, buy most books they sell from Ingram at a wholesale discount. If Ingram doesn't list a book, it virtually doesn't exist at all. In early 2022, Amazon pressured Ingram to close our account with them making sure our books do not exist anymore for the entire retail book market. We have since recovered from this, but when getting reinstated with Ingram, they refused to distribute the just-mentioned book on how Amazon has become the biggest threat to free speech, and how Ingram enforces Amazon's plot at the back end. I'm sure the book exceeds the end customers, meaning the readers' expectations, but it sure does not please Ingram's biggest customer, which happens to be Amazon. Again, Watch my documentary on this to find out more. Search engine manipulation is another form of censorship. All Internet search engines, by law, have to exclude certain search results in certain countries. If you search for something that touches upon a topic that's regulated by censorship laws in your country, results from Internet domains will be excluded from the search results if they contain material deemed illegal by your government. You can circumvent this by using a VPN, giving you a US IP address, and then using Google.com, for instance. What you cannot circumvent, however, are fake search results. In 2016, web pages with content skeptical about the prevailing Holocaust narrative were listed near the top of Google's search results. That prominence created a positive feedback loop of more people visiting that site and making similar material also more visible. Pressure was exerted on Google by the usual never-forget, never-forgive groups demanding that material skeptical about the prevailing Holocaust narrative be removed. Google subsequently tweaked their algorithms to forcefully demote to a lower rank any material that does not line up with what the mainstream tells you about this wartime event. In extension of this, AI engines such as Google AI or ChatGPT are explicitly forbidden to consume and include any material in their vast knowledge database that does not line up with the prevailing narrative. You see a pattern here. Censorship over and over again forces its way into a free sector of society by using the fight against quote-unquote Holocaust denial as an excuse, and it expands from there. We all have to give up our right to free speech and freedom of information so that the lives of some Jews are allegedly a little more secure. The majority of Jews in Israel and many Zionists around the globe then use that exemption from criticism as a shield to commit war crimes and a genocide. Here, watch this clip, the link to which is in the description.
Speaker 0: It brings me no pleasure to compare what Israel is doing to what the Nazis did. But how can we not? Because you have things like ghettos, you have things like starvation, you have things like concentration camps. You have things like the planned, systematic extermination of people. Now, a lot of people talk about the banality of evil. There was a real cold detachment, industrialized murder of Jews and others during the Holocaust. What's so disturbing about what Israel is doing and the IDF is doing is that they are doing it with glee. And unlike the Nazis, they're not hiding it. And we know this because they document this. They document not just the war crimes, but they document their glee. You even have Israeli soldiers themselves comparing themselves to Nazis. One of them said, I felt like a Nazi. It looked exactly like we were the Nazis and they were the Jews. They, of course, being Palestinians. Another soldier said it is justified and, in fact, essential to learn from every possible source, even, however shocking it may sound, how the German army fought in the Warsaw Ghetto. So there we have Israeli soldiers literally learning from Nazi tactics and comparing themselves explicitly to the Nazis and the Palestinians to the Jews. Ironically, according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism, it is antisemitic to, quote, draw comparisons between contemporary Israeli policies to that of the Nazis. So I guess those soldiers are themselves antisemitic, according to this definition. Another point of comparison, although it's actually a point of departure, is the relationship between the genocide... and public opinion. In Israel, however, everyone knows what's happening. It's documented by legacy media, it's documented by social media, and yet the vast majority of Israelis think that the government is using either an appropriate amount of force or not enough force against the Palestinians.
Speaker 3: And then Jews and Zionists wonder why, in reaction to this, their lives have suddenly become much more unsafe. It's because those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. I will now wrap up this presentation with a brief look at social media platforms. In September of 2025, the Pew Research Center published the results of a survey among a little over 5,000 randomly chosen adults in the U.S., asking them where they get their news from. For several years now, digital devices are the most frequently used sources of news. TV, radio, and printed periodicals have lost out to the Internet for quite some time now. Among those digital platforms, social media and podcasts have a share of some 30%. And here is the breakdown of popularity of various social media platforms regarding news consumption. Note that Telegram isn't on that list because it is mainly a messaging app, not a news platform. Today, all major social media platforms enforce European-style censorship rules. YouTube and Google implemented it on June 5th, 2019. TikTok followed this example on January 8th, 2020. Reddit implemented similar rules on June 29th, 2020. Meta, owning Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, introduced theirs on October 12th, 2020, followed two days later by Twitter, which is now X, under Elon Musk. X has become a little more tolerant, but prevents material skeptical about the prevailing Holocaust narrative from getting shared, forwarded, or listed in search results, hence pretty much quarantines such content. The Internet used to be the ultimate democratic level playing field for everyone, a weapon of mass instruction where widely ostracized views, or those inconvenient to the powers that be, could be shared and spread equally. But then, starting in mid-2019, and within just 16 months, that dream evaporated. Now, free speech does not exist anymore in a meaningful way on any of the major platforms. The video sharing platform Rumble is the only exception here, but it has a minute reach compared to YouTube, for example. The other exception used to be Telegram, albeit only as a messenger app. Until Pavel Durov's arrest in 2024, Telegram never shared IP addresses or phone numbers of its users with any government authority and would not install a backdoor into its app either. Until 2024, Telegram took action against content only if it explicitly promoted glorified or encouraged violence, which is not the case for 99% of all speech, which the other platforms and most European countries categorize as hate speech. But then, exactly a month after Durov's arrest in France on August 24th, 2024, evidently after being coerced at gunpoint by the French authorities, Telegram caved in and started sharing user IPs and phone numbers if authorities present a search warrant. Telegram also blocks access to certain public channels for users with phone numbers registered in countries where the contents of these channels have been tagged as illegal. I'm producing this video in the United States. I could not do this anywhere in Europe because Germany has issued a European white arrest warrant for me in 2023. This happened because a person in the UK had mailed copies of one of my books to members of the German right-wing party Alternative for Germany. This book, titled The Chemistry of Auschwitz, is a highly scientific forensic study of the Auschwitz gas chambers. But that didn't prevent many of those party members from filing criminal complaints against me anyhow. If you want to be baffled by what leads to persecution, censorship, book burning and incarceration of dissidents in Europe, read the free e-book version of this book or watch the video documentary based on it at the links given in the description. For now, I am safe here in the United States, which does not extradite thought criminals thanks to this country's glorious First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thanks to America's wise founding fathers, the United States is the last major nation where its citizens are still free to speak their minds. But there are some who want this to change. Watch this clip showing the Israeli Shlomo Kramer, CEO of Cato Networks, which is a cybersecurity company.
Speaker 1: And I know it's difficult to hear, but it's time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it.
Speaker 3: Fathom that, in order to save the First Amendment, We need to restrict the First Amendment, or put more clearly, in order to save free speech, we need to get rid of free speech. Kramer, too, wants us to trade in our liberty for the illusion of a little more security. I hope that won't fly with the American people. 250 years of independence from Europe are a reason to celebrate and to keep going. Don't succumb to European censorship attitudes. There's one area where I disagree with Pavel Durov. sees cancerous growth of censorship worldwide as a threat to democracy. It is not. I think he confuses a few concepts here. Succinctly put, democracy means the rule of the majority. The terms dictatorship and democracy are not mutually exclusive. If a majority in a democracy decides to dictate to a minority what they can and cannot say, then this is a democratic dictatorship. Therefore, Any democracy must be guardrailed by inalienable human rights, or else it can quickly deteriorate into a mere lynch mob where two wolves and a lamb decide what's for dinner. Hitler was elected democratically, but there was nothing in the German constitution of that time stopping him from restricting and removing civil rights. We are at that junction of history again, this time on a global scale, and this time it's pushed by anti-fascists and by Jews. They argue that, in order to prevent that books get burned, minorities get persecuted, and dissidents get jailed again, as happened in the dark Nazi past, we need to burn books, persecute minorities, and jail dissidents, because that is exactly what they are doing. We need to stop them. Give me liberty or give me death. Thank you for your attention. Please help me spread this information by liking, sharing, forwarding and reposting this documentary.
@CultivateElevat - Matt From Cultivate Elevate
Myth of the holocaust? 🤔 https://t.co/DQig5FyQ6F
Video Transcript AI Summary
The “myth of the Holocaust” is described as being interpreted in a way that gives “the tiny hats” permission to maintain “international murder squads” and “assassins all across the world,” including against “the enemies of the tiny hats.” The transcript frames this as a claim about how this interpretation is used to justify actions taken globally, not limited by any particular set of targets, and it includes the idea of striking beyond the immediate group’s opponents.
The speaker also states that “Who else do they use?” and answers that “they use this,” followed by the claim that they “use the intelligence,” and then “use these three-letter agencies against the people.” The “three-letter agencies” are presented as tools used to carry out this overall pattern, and the transcript emphasizes that the intelligence apparatus and those agencies are used “against the people.”
Another central point in the transcript is that “the tiny hats treat the American goyim like their cattle.” This is presented as a specific example of how the speaker characterizes the treatment of Americans (“American goyim”) by the “tiny hats,” portraying it as dehumanizing and exploitative, and using the “cattle” comparison to describe the relationship.
The speaker then adds a reported instance from military experience: “Marines soon found this out in Lebanon.” In that Lebanon scenario, the transcript claims that “the tiny hat soldiers routinely threaten them” and “offensively cut them off.” This is used as concrete supporting detail within the narrative, indicating that the behavior described earlier is said to have been observed in that location by Marines.
Finally, the speaker suggests a direction for further work: “Something to kind of look into for books, you know?” This is presented as an encouragement to investigate these themes and events in written form, tying the earlier claims—about the Holocaust myth interpretation, international murder squads and assassins, use of intelligence and three-letter agencies, treatment of American goyim, and the reported Lebanon experience involving Marines—into a subject matter that the speaker suggests could be explored in books.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The myth of the Holocaust is interpreted by the tiny hats giving them permission to maintain international murder squads, assassins all across the world, even against the enemies of the tiny hats, right? Who else do they use? They use this, they use the intelligence, and then they use these three-letter agencies against the people. That's something interesting, right? The tiny hats treat the American goyim like their cattle. And then Marines soon found this out in Lebanon when the tiny hat soldiers routinely threaten them and offensively cut them off. Something to kind of look into for books, you know?