reSee.it - Related Video Feed

There are many pictures about the Russian liberating Auschwitz, and there's never any snow. And the snow was honestly that high. I have some connection with the Russian embassy, and I was there once, and I said, something puzzles me. Those photos are fakes because there's no snow. They said, well, yes. They are not fakes, but when the army came, they didn't have cameras. They didn't photograph. So only much later, when they realized they should have pictures of it, they took pictures like you see now, but this is definitely not in Auschwitz and not the liberation of ours. There were not that many people with clothes and children and no snow. Right. Fascinating. So I think historically we should point this out And get it right. To get it right. There are obviously many concerns today, not least back in Germany, but also here, Jewish people feeling under threat again.

The top leaders were convicted despite not directly committing the crimes. There was no international court, body of law, judges, or courthouse at the time. They had to start from scratch. A lawyer named Marie Bernays devised a philosophy for the trial, the conspiracy theory. It claimed that the Nazi movement was not just a political movement, but a criminal conspiracy to seize territory, steal wealth, exterminate Jews, etc. Being part of the Nazi leadership meant being part of this criminal conspiracy.

Rudolf Verba, an Auschwitz escapee, testified about the camp's operations. His memoir was challenged in court by Ernst Zundel's lawyer, Doug Christie, who questioned the accuracy of Verba's claims. Verba admitted to dramatizing events in his book, "I cannot forgive," calling it a work of literature. The jury heard varying death estimates for Auschwitz, with Verba estimating 2.5 million deaths. Christie accused Verba of using memory techniques to maintain consistency in his lies. The cross-examination was intense, with Christie questioning Verba's memory and motives. Verba acknowledged that his book was based on multiple eyewitness accounts. Translation: Rudolf Verba, un fugitivo de Auschwitz, testificó sobre las operaciones del campo. Su memoria fue desafiada en la corte por el abogado de Ernst Zundel, Doug Christie, quien cuestionó la precisión de las afirmaciones de Verba. Verba admitió haber dramatizado eventos en su libro "No puedo perdonar", llamándolo una obra de literatura. El jurado escuchó estimaciones de muertes variadas para Auschwitz, con Verba estimando 2.5 millones de muertes. Christie acusó a Verba de usar técnicas de memoria para mantener la consistencia en sus mentiras. El contrainterrogatorio fue intenso, con Christie cuestionando la memoria y los motivos de Verba. Verba reconoció que su libro se basaba en múltiples testimonios de testigos presenciales.

Международный военный трибунал рассматривал зверства немецких преступлений: вспоминались руины, призывы «Убивайте!», докладывал Советский обвинитель Покровский о зверствах гитлеровцев. Перед залом пойдут десятки тысяч свидетелей: «Их кровь на руках подсудимых». Описаны массовые убийства: жертвы Ростова и Харькова, Освенцим и другие лагеря. Подсудимый Кейтель подтвердил: «Да, это моя подпись, вынужден признать Кэйтегга» на «кровавой резолюции» 1941 года. Американский обвинитель: «Если бы вы признали этих людей невиновными, это означало бы, что не было войны, не было убийств, не было преступлений.» Английский: «Они убили 12 миллионов человек.» Французский обвинитель — призвал молчаливо внять призывам крови; советский — потребовал смертной казни. Суд удалился; приговор: «Повесить Геринга, Риббентропа, Кейтеля, Розенберга, Кальтенбруннера, Йордля, Франко, Фрика, и судимого заочно Бормана.» К пожизненному — Гесс, Фунт, Редер; к 20 годам — Ширах Шпеер; к 15 — Шахт, Фон Папен, Фриче; к 10 — Нейрот, Дениц. Оправданы Шахт, Папен, Фриче; СС, СД и гестапо — преступные организации. Диссидент Никитченко: не согласен с оправданием Шахта, Фон Папена и Фриче; не согласен с приговором Гесса — смерть. Приговор подписали Рикард, Паттон-Волш, Мальков, Морель. Свершилось! The International Military Tribunal heard evidence of Nazi crimes: echoes of “Kill! Kill!”, with Soviet prosecutor Pokrovsky detailing atrocities. Tens of thousands of witnesses testified: “Their blood on the hands of the defendants.” Mass murders were described: Rostov, Kharkov, Auschwitz, and other camps. Defendant Keitel admitted: “Yes, this is my signature, I am compelled to admit Keitel’s signature” on the “bloody resolution” of 1941. American prosecutor: “If you had found these people innocent, there would have been no war, no killings, no crimes.” English: “They killed 12 million people.” French urged silent deliberation to heed cries of the innocent; Soviet demanded death as punishment. The court retired and verdicts followed: “Hang Göring, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Rosenberg, Kaltenbunner, Jodl, Franco, Frick, and the defendant in absentia Bormann.” Life terms for Hess, Funk, Reeder; 20 years for Schirach and Speer; 15 years for Schacht, von Papen, Frick; 10 years for Neurath, Dönitz. Acquittals: Schacht, von Papen, Frick. The S.S., SD, and Gestapo were declared criminal organizations. Dissenter Nikitchenko argued against the acquittals of Schacht, von Papen, Frick; against Hess’s sentence, insisting death. The four-power signatories: Ricard, Patton-Wohlsh, Mal’kov, Morrel. It is done.

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.

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.

In the Nuremberg courtroom, the trial of 23 Nazi doctors accused of various crimes begins. Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician and a high-ranking SS officer, is the main defendant. Another important figure is Siegfried, a former medical chief in the German army. The only female defendant was a physician at Ravensbruck concentration camp. Despite their pleas of not guilty, the future of these accused individuals will be determined by time and evidence.

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.

In this video, the speaker discusses various claims and conspiracy theories related to the Holocaust. They suggest that there was a deliberate campaign to brainwash the German people after World War II, and that the media, particularly Hollywood, is controlled by Jews. They also question the authenticity of certain Holocaust-related books and documents, and claim that the number of Jewish deaths in concentration camps has been exaggerated. The speaker argues that the Nuremberg trials were biased and that torture was used to extract false confessions. They conclude by stating that the Holocaust narrative is used to divert attention from other war crimes committed by the Allies.

When the Germans discovered mass graves in early 1943, they brought in a European Red Cross committee called the Kading Commission, comprising 12 forensic experts and their staff. At the Nuremberg trials, the Soviets blamed the Germans for perpetrating the Kading massacre, while the British, French, and Americans let them do it. Numerous German officers were wrongly hanged for the murder of thousands of innocent Polish nationalists, murders that, the speaker asserts, were actually committed by Stalin's NKVD. President Roosevelt allegedly deliberately covered up evidence of who really committed these crimes. The Soviet report blaming the Germans for the Kading massacre was listed at Nuremberg as 54 USSR, with Academic N. N. Burdenko and Mitropoulos Nikolay listed as members of the Special State Commission, described as two obvious liars with an agenda who signed this report. These were the same known liars who also signed the official Soviet report on Auschwitz, listed at Nuremberg as eight USSR. The speaker asserts that this alone should be cause for concern to anyone seeking objective truth, noting that the Soviet report on Auschwitz was signed by two proven liars.

Speaker plans to film Auschwitz with the BBC, saying "this isn't just somebody with an eight millimeter camera" and "they're gonna be marketing their film to television corporations." He will stand in the "gas chamber at Auschwitz 1" and point out "oh, no holes in the roof," explaining why he's "banned from the Auschwitz site" for asking about "the heaps of coke which don't exist." He cites Tom Bauer: "450,000 Hungarian Jews were shipped off to Auschwitz. Within the space of three weeks, they've been cremated and gassed." He asks where the bodies went: "a mountain of meat"—"45,000 cubic meters"—"no sign" on aerial photographs, though "the actual operating instructions" exist. He argues "nobody was gassed" because "that building was built by the Poles as they now admit in 1948," notes "the gas chamber door's got a handle on the inside," and recalls "millions of schoolchildren" were shown the site.

The German army and nation suffered greatly during World War I and the aftermath, with crippling sanctions leading to chaos, anarchy, and poverty. However, after the National Socialists were elected, the German economy improved, unemployment decreased, and confidence was restored. The transformation seemed like a cultural, economic, and political renaissance. But envy and fear from other countries led to World War II, the deadliest and most destructive war in history. Germany was subjected to terror bombing, with cities like Hamburg and Dresden being devastated. The bombings resulted in massive destruction, loss of life, and unimaginable horror. The crimes committed against Germany during and after the war have been buried under propaganda and laws for over 70 years. This film aims to shed light on these atrocities and hopes to prevent such events from happening again.

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.

An international group, including Mark and me, delivered a letter to the UN rapporteur on torture, calling for an investigation into the unlawful imprisonment and torture of Dr. Reiner Fumich in Germany. He has been held for over a year, mostly in solitary confinement, which is effectively torture. This situation must end, and Fumich's imprisonment needs to be investigated. He played a crucial role in exposing COVID-related crimes, and his work has made some powerful entities fearful. If the courts want to maintain credibility, they must adhere to the law. Fumich is a leading figure in class action lawsuits and has gathered significant expert testimony, concluding that a false PCR pandemic was used to justify abuses against citizens. His findings have been validated by recent reports.

Speaker 0: In, say, Britain, they've banned CGTN, the Chinese channel, from broadcasting RT, famously. Why is it that, do you think Russia thinks it's fine? I think Sergei Lavrov this week giving a press conference allowing Western reporters, accreditation, whereas in The United States, they obviously don't ban media in The US because of the First Amendment. Certainly in Europe, obviously, there's mass banning of, journalists and journalism. What what's behind, that? And that surely does depart somewhat from manufacturing consent where they didn't wanna ban anything. They just knew that lower selling outlets would fail to engage the populace in dissident opinion? Speaker 1: Well, I think first of all that's quite normal. You look through the, say the take a more recent event, the Iraq war, not that far back. Anyone who dares to say that the Iraq War was the major crime of this century, which it certainly was, is bitterly denounced and condemned. If you look at discussion in the mainstream, you'll be hard put to find anyone who can reach the mainstream who will say the elementary truth, indisputable truth, that the Iraq war was an example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal called the supreme international crime, crime of aggression, differs from other war crimes only in that it includes all of the evil that follows. So find somebody who says President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney were guilty of the crimes for which people were hanged at Nuremberg. Instead what you have is celebration of George Bush, the great criminal who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and destroyed them, Celebration of him as a lovely person, it's called a goofy grandpa who plays with his grandchildren, paints pictures. Just a delightful person. Well, that's the Iraq War. It's quite striking that anyone who dares to compare the Iraq War with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is viciously denounced.

The speaker claims that lie is the Jewish method and that people are fooled because they cannot believe Jews could tell a big lie. He asserts this is one of the biggest lies and presents a document as proof. He says that before starting his movement, he did not want any part of a movement that would involve killing innocent women and children, and that he dislikes bullying by Nazis or anyone else. He describes a test he conducted about the 6,000,000 Jews figure often cited, alongside the claim of violin music and tears over the Jews, and notes that we never hear about 20,000,000 Christians. He recounts that before beginning the movement, he wrote an article for magazines that he believes contained the vilest lies about Nazis using women in human medical experiments, and he sent it to SIR magazine. He even provides the magazine and a check for $75, along with the article titled “When the Nazis Tried Human Vivisection” by Master Sergeant Lew Core, U.S. Marine Corps. He states that Lew Core is Rockwell spelled backwards. According to him, he wrote the most atrocious lies he could think of about how these women were tortured by Nazi criminals, and he claims that Jewish “great truth tellers” published photographs of tortured women and ovens as documentary photographs of his fabricated claims, though he says they did not know at the time. He asserts this is evidence that atrocity and lying propaganda are repeated. He asks the audience to consider Meyer Levin, who sued the family of Anne Frank in the state courts of New York, asserting that Levin collected a substantial sum (he mentions “I don’t know, was a 100,000 of dollars or something”) for writing the diary of Anne Frank. He says this is what he found out, time after time, and that he could continue with example after example of lies told to the public, if he had the rest of the night. He concludes by saying the audience believes these things because they have no reason to know that there is another side.

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."

The discussion centers on the contested visual record of Auschwitz’s liberation. One speaker notes there are many photos of the Russian liberation showing no snow, but states that “the snow was honestly that high,” and challenges the authenticity of those images. He recalls a conversation with the Russian embassy: camera crews did not photograph at the moment of liberation due to lack of cameras; only much later, when they realized they should have pictures, did they take photographs. Speaker 1 describes the filming sequence from the Soviet side. Initially, they did not film the misery inside the barracks. After evacuating the camp on January 19, the SS cut off the electricity, and the camera crews had no lights to shoot indoors. Prisoners had to be transported quickly because they were starving and almost frozen. Only some time later, after the snow had melted, were they able to ask women to reenter the barracks to show the living conditions. The women, Poles who had been in Auschwitz since September 1944 after the Warsaw Uprising, were tasked with this; Helena Jaboinska, Stanislawa Kzecchowvska, and Olimpia Prushinovska describe how each barracks, originally designed as horse stables for the Wehrmacht, housed nearly a thousand people, six to a month. Speaker 1 also states that Soviet cameraman Alexander Voronsov admitted in 1985 that the footage from this film was staged and filmed after the snow had melted. Despite this admission, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, as of 2024, portrays it as a genuine depiction of the liberation of Auschwitz. The final line asserts, “These are the men responsible for the death of of four all million million people. People.”

Jewish avengers, called Nakam, are planning a large-scale act of vengeance in Nuremberg. Their goal is to kill German civilians, not just war criminals. They believe everyone in Germany is guilty and that this act will change history, ensuring "never again" will Jews be led "like sheep to the slaughter." One member questions if they can kill millions and survive. Another insists the "poison needs to be released." The group seeks "an eye for an eye," aiming for 6,000,000 in return for 6,000,000. Some consider the plan madness, but for Nakam, it's justice.

Rudolf Verba, an Auschwitz escapee, testified about the death camp in the Ernst Zundel trial. Zundel's lawyer, Doug Christie, challenged Verba's 1964 memoir, "I Cannot Forgive," which claimed Auschwitz had a killing capacity of 12,000 per day, double his 1944 report. Verba admitted to dramatizing incidents in the book, calling it an artistic representation. Christie questioned Verba about a human gassing demonstration for Heinrich Himmler described in the book. Verba stated the book was literature, not history. Death estimates for Auschwitz varied, with Verba estimating 2.5 million, a document expert claiming 1 million, and the Polish government alleging 4 million. Christie accused Verba of using memory techniques to maintain consistent lies regarding his mental record of daily deaths. Christie challenged Verba's memory and motives, questioning why his estimate of deaths at the camp doubled in his book compared to initial statements. Verba admitted his book was a compilation of eyewitness reports.

The transcript presents an extensive compilation of claims from a group of speakers arguing that the established Holocaust narrative is false or exaggerated and that many historical incidents have been misrepresented or fabricated by Allied propaganda, Soviet influence, and Jewish-led organizations. The speakers frame Holocaust revisionism as a legitimate scholarly effort rather than denial, asserting that revisionists do not dispute that Jews and others suffered and died in the war, but dispute the scale, methods, and specifics of extermination. Key asserted points and claims - Holocaust definition and revisionism - The Holocaust is described as a belief that 6,000,000 Jews were murdered primarily by gassing in “shower rooms,” a narrative the speakers say is amplified by Hollywood, media, and schools. A growing movement of scientists, historians, engineers, journalists, and free-speech activists is portrayed as revisionist, though often branded as “Holocaust deniers” to discourage discourse. Revisionists are said not to deny persecution, deprivation of civil rights, deportation, internment, forced labor, or deaths in camps and ghettos, including deaths from disease; they also say that many victims died in ways other than genocide and that many victims’ dignity is not denied. - Internment and civilian camps in the United States - After Pearl Harbor, over 100,000 people of Japanese descent on the Pacific Coast were interned by Executive Order 9066; the text claims this restricted freedoms, required identity cards, and denied compensation or war reparations. The narrative includes accounts of interned individuals describing camp life, guard presence, and harsh conditions. - General wartime devastation and context - The war is described as a conflict that would not have occurred if “international jury” had not declared war on Germany in 1933, with emphasis on typhus, subversion, and crowded camps as drivers of disease and death. The speakers stress that millions died across battlefields, ships, and cities, and that propaganda surrounding German crimes obscures Allied or Soviet misdeeds. - Claims about typhus, gas chambers, and cremation - Typhus epidemics are said to explain many deaths in camps; Cyclone B (hydrogen cyanide) is claimed to have been used for delousing and pest control rather than execution, with several speakers arguing that gas chambers as homicidal devices did not exist or were technically infeasible. They assert there is no scientific proof of gassing, no German documents proving extermination plans, and that cremation and delousing procedures served health purposes rather than execution purposes. - Expert testimonies and forensics are cited (e.g., Leuchter, Rudolf, Lift, Lindsay) to support the claim that the gas chambers could not have functioned as execution facilities, noting technical impossibilities such as lack of explosion-proof features, gasketed doors, or proper gas delivery systems. - Specific camp narratives and testimonies - The camps are described as having been centers of labor, medical care, and even cultural activity, with accounts of weddings, births, nurseries, orchestras, libraries, theater performances, and recreational activities. Some testimonies describe attempts to maintain humanity and morale under harsh conditions, including a piano in Block 1, children’s art, and soccer games. - Several testimonies challenge the image of mass exterminations, claiming instead that most deaths resulted from disease, starvation, and Allied bombing, and that Red Cross and Vatican inquiries found no evidence of homicidal gas chambers. - A number of survivor testimonials are presented as quotations or paraphrases challenging the notion of mass murder in gas chambers, with some individuals denying personal knowledge of gas chambers or mass killings. - Documentary, legal, and scholarly disputes - The Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and other revisionist scholars are described as measuring and challenging the established narrative, sometimes facing legal or financial pressure. The transcript cites various researchers and forensics teams (e.g., Leuchter, Krakov, Farison, Groff, Farison, Larsson) as having concluded that homicidal gassings were not technically feasible in the cited facilities. - It is claimed that many postwar figures and witnesses provided testimonies or stories later recognized as unreliable or fabricated, including famous Holocaust survivors whose accounts are presented as inconsistent or false. Names and cases (e.g., Herman Rosenblatt, Anne Frank, Elie Wiesel) are invoked to illustrate alleged fraud or manipulation, though these claims contradict well-established historical records. - Propaganda, media, and the so-called “Holocaust industry” - The text asserts that the Holocaust narrative is used as a tool to enforce globalist policy, promote multiculturalism, and suppress nationalist sentiments among white Europeans. It claims that ongoing denazification efforts, legal penalties for questioning the Holocaust, and control over media and online platforms are designed to suppress dissent and promote a one-sided portrayal. - There is a claim that “atrocity propaganda” and black propaganda have been used to shape public perception, with references to Sefton Delmer and Allied psychological warfare, and accusations that postwar trials and media representations were heavily biased or manipulated. - Population counts, mortality figures, and documentary evidence - Several sections contest the veracity of the commonly cited death tolls, the reliability of Red Cross and other international communications, and the authenticity of diaries and eyewitness testimonies. The transcript asserts that the Nuremberg trials did not use physical or technical evidence to establish gas chamber existence and that some documents used as proof were mistranslated or contextualized wrongly. - The piece repeatedly emphasizes that millions of Jews did not die in the camps, that the “6,000,000” figure is a symbolic or religious number, and that high-profile Holocaust narratives are part of a constructed orthodoxy. - Final framing - The speakers position Holocaust revisionism as a defense of free speech and historical inquiry, arguing that questioning the official narrative is essential to truth. They claim laws against denial suppress inquiry and that truth should stand on its own merits without legal protection. They also suggest that conflicting accounts, forged documents, and political agendas have shaped the popular memory of World War II. Note on structure and tone - The transcript interweaves personal testimonials, expert opinions, documentary references, and polemical assertions. It repeatedly contrasts “revisionists” with conventional accounts, often asserting that mainstream portrayals are driven by propaganda, financial interests, or political goals. The overall thrust is to challenge the conventional understanding of the Holocaust, question the evidentiary basis for extermination claims, and highlight alleged inconsistencies in survivor narratives and official records.

Two days after the end of the second World War, 42 defenseless men, women, and children are lined up to be shot. Their moment of execution is captured in this rare home movie. Their only crime is that they happen to speak German. Their murder is part of a little known story about the fate of millions of ethnic Germans after the war. They are the casualties of a peace that will prove anarchic, vengeful, and bloody. Victory celebrations and dancing in the streets, the traditional images we associate with the end of the second World War. In reality, peace was a violent and chaotic process. For the defeated Germans, peace meant dislocation. It meant revenge You got to spread and rape. To the maximum. Bring gloom down to the minimum. Have faith. It meant the ethnic cleansing of over 12,000,000 Germans living in Eastern Europe.

"There is considerable evidence to that effect that it was a a World War two propaganda device." "Once Germany lost the war, the lie or the propaganda lie or the atrocity propaganda persisted, and nobody was there to challenge it with facts." "I happened to have the onerous duty of going into Buchenwald right after the surrender of Germany. I saw the camp. I saw some of the survivors. I saw the ovens." "Under what is under dispute is whether there was a policy of planned genocide by by a government body." "I am not permitted to talk to you about the Holocaust per se under judge's orders." "Justice Jackson had, for instance, one reference to torture by one of the most famous of the Nuremberg accused expunged from the record."