reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 expresses a view that the government is full of liars, accusing both sides of the political spectrum of dishonesty. The conversation then shifts to a provocative claim: "They insisted Hitler was bad and he was not. You don't think Hitler was bad? No. Not at all. There was no holocaust." This remark represents a stark reversal of widely accepted historical consensus, asserting that there was no Holocaust. The speaker describes a surprising personal justification for this belief, saying, "I've I've seen evidence. I my aunt Georgie was in a prison camp and she told me about it and there was no torture, there was no killing." The claim places emphasis on the anecdote of the speaker’s aunt, Georgie, who allegedly was "in a prison camp" and told the speaker about it, specifically asserting that "there was no torture" and "there was no murder." The speaker then elaborates that the aunt was "a Jew in in Germany," which adds a personal and ethnic dimension to the claim, suggesting that a Jewish person in Germany would have firsthand experience of the camp. In continuing, the speaker reiterates the assertion: "There was no torture. There was no murder." The description of the alleged camp life offered by the aunt includes contrasting details such as "films," "an orchestra," "movies," and "a soccer team," painting a picture of a benign environment within the context of a Nazi-prison setting. A further provocative assertion is included: "A Jew started the SS." This statement is presented as part of the aunt’s account or the speaker’s interpretation of the camp’s history, introducing a controversial claim about the origins of the Schutzstaffel. Overall, the speaker challenges the widely accepted historical record by claiming that Hitler was not bad, that there was no Holocaust, and that the aunt’s testimony describes a benign camp life with cultural and recreational elements, culminating in the assertion that a Jew started the SS. The dialogue thus presents a sequence of controversial statements grounded in the speaker’s belief based on an account from their aunt Georgie.

The speaker discusses claims about the Nazi regime’s treatment of Jewish bodies in death. They recount that Himmler, outraged by propaganda about soap, issued an order that under no circumstances could a Jewish body be used for anything other than burial or cremation. The point is made that this instruction was a top-down directive, and that the dead were to be treated with strict reverence, with no body parts to be repurposed. The speaker notes that these statements run counter to the well-known rumors about using Jewish bodies to manufacture soap, lampshades, or other products. The implication is that such sensational claims were not permitted to occur, as an official prohibition was in place. The claim is that there was an SS investigation into a Buchenwald commander for alleged misdeeds related to the treatment of inmates, including extreme abuses that would implicate illegal activities with bodies or embezzlement and murder. It is stated that the Buchenwald commander was executed, but not for the alleged attempts to turn inmates’ bodies into soap or other items. Instead, the commander was executed for killing inmates who were whistleblowers and for embezzlement, while the speakers maintain that this was supposed to be in line with mainstream Nazi policy to turn Jews into soap and similar acts. The speaker emphasizes that the order was from the top down, forbidding such activities, and that those who violated it would be prosecuted mercilessly and executed. The narrative then asserts that the policy or order to stop such practices was halted by the end of the war, as many cases could not be prosecuted any longer. In sum, the speaker presents a picture of an official prohibition against the desecration or exploitation of dead bodies, contrasted with sensational rumors, and notes that prosecutions could not be pursued to completion as the war ended.

Speaker 0 describes the mechanism and aftermath of the Nazi gas chambers: after about fifteen minutes of hell, all the people inside would be dead, suffocated. The Nazis then forced other Jews to extract the bodies from the gas chambers and, as a final indignity, examine the dead Jews' mouths to pull out gold teeth. They would examine hands as well. When rings were too tight, they would simply cut off fingers. The account states that they would also cut off the victim's hair, which German businesses use for mattress stuffing. The text emphasizes that nothing was wasted. The speaker then asks what explains the Nazis' murderous obsession with the Jews. The passage centers on three linked practices: the method of killing via gas, the coercive task of post-mortem body handling by other Jews, and the extraction of valuables and body parts. It specifies the sequence: gas chamber suffocation, body removal by others, extraction of gold teeth from mouths, examination of hands, removal of rings by cutting off fingers if necessary, and cutting of hair for use in mattress stuffing. The diction highlights the perceived systematic nature and dehumanization involved, noting that “after about fifteen minutes of hell” the victims were dead and that “nothing was wasted,” referring to the use of gold teeth, fingers for rings, and hair in manufacturing. The questions at the end draw attention to the broader concern about motive, asking, “What explains the Nazis' murderous obsession with the Jews?” This framing underscores the speaker’s intent to probe the underlying drivers behind these acts, while the descriptive details focus on the specific methods and consequences of the extermination process. In summary, the speaker details the sequence of killing and post-mortem exploitation: gas chamber death after about fifteen minutes, forced Jews removing the bodies, extraction of gold teeth from mouths, examination of hands, removal of rings by finger amputation if needed, and cutting of hair for mattress stuffing, with the overarching claim that nothing was wasted. The passage concludes by posing a question about the underlying explanation for the Nazis’ obsession with the Jews.

Speaker 0 describes repeatedly witnessing what they say is deliberate killing and gross medical mismanagement of hospitalized COVID patients, saying “nobody will listen.” They compare the situation to Nazi Germany putting Jews into gas chambers, and say they are told “you can't save everybody” even though they insist the patients are “not dying from COVID.” Speaker 0 gives multiple examples: an anesthesiologist intubated a patient incorrectly, with only one side of the chest inflating; after about five hours waiting for a chest X-ray, the patient died. A patient with a heart rate of 40 in a stable bradycardic rhythm received chest compressions by a resident, which Speaker 0 says was not appropriate; Speaker 0 ran in to stop him, but the resident then “pushed epi,” placed defibrillation pads, and defibrillated, and the patient died. Speaker 0 says they repeatedly tried to get the director of nursing to stop the actions, but the patient was still killed. They also describe nurses placing an NG tube into the lungs and filling lungs with tube feeding, and confusing long-acting insulin with short-acting insulin and giving 30 units of fast-acting insulin, which they say killed the patient. They claim patients are “just going to let them rot on the vent” and that blood transfusions are not provided even though, they say, COVID patients “all eventually need a blood transfusion,” because vent settings do not work without adequate oxygen-carrying capacity. Speaker 0 describes staffing and procedural failures: a nurse reportedly fell asleep and norepinephrine ran out while a patient had no blood pressure and was not perfusing the brain; Speaker 0 says the same nurse is now running a CRRT machine “that she has never done before.” They say nurses were not swapped even though a nurse who knows the machine could handle it, and they predict the patient will die soon. They also say some patients are on only sedation or not truly treated for COVID, including a woman on a trank (tracheal vent-related mention) who is not “even cognizant,” and who only receives breathing treatments (albuterol) and insulin. They describe a cycle of vent and sedation management: day shift weans sedation to minimum, but at night the same residents increase sedation again, undoing day shift work; day shift attending rounds and says synchronization problems required turning sedation up, while Speaker 0 says the issue is the event mode being wrong. Speaker 0 says attempts to contact advocacy groups were unsuccessful, and they feel out of ideas. Speaker 0 further claims patients are not properly assessed: they say nobody listens to lungs, even with disposable stethoscopes, and that they have seen patients already in body bags with no knowledge of how long they had been dead. They say they were told a patient was acidotic and should be treated, but instead the patient’s condition was allowed to worsen, kidneys shut down, and then bicarb was run late; Speaker 0 says the patient became overloaded with fluid, developed heart failure, and died. They also describe witnessing procedures resulting in death, including an ET tube placed incorrectly causing choking on blood, and a central line complication where a doctor allegedly ruptured a subclavian vein and the patient bled to death. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss that Speaker 1 is also “not a doctor,” while Speaker 0 maintains that actions like defibrillating a patient with a heart rate of 40 in a stable rhythm constitute “murder.” Speaker 1 adds that “nobody cares” and makes comments about “minorities” and “the hood.” Speaker 0 says a prior lead who advocated for patients was moved to a different hospital and had warned Speaker 0 there would be problems. Speaker 0 ends by saying they will go back to the unit and “see how they kill him there,” urging people to stay safe and “stay out of NYC for your health care.”

The speaker discusses why Youssef Mullins was attacked by the media, which is described as being owned by “the tiny hats.” They refer to a “secret holocaust by Youssef Mullins” and say Mullins explained something interesting. The claim is that at the beginning of World War II, the Poles were attacked, and the attackers were said to be the Germans, but the speaker asserts that it was the Tiny Hats who did the attacking. They allege that 10,000 Poles were shot and that the Germans were blamed, but the Tiny Hats were responsible. The speaker says diaries and notes were found showing this to be true, and that the trials revealed the Germans had to admit fault even though they didn’t do it. They also claim that the Soviets admitted that they did it in front of the US government. The speaker contends this context explains why Eustace Mullins (mentioned as Youssef Mullins) was attacked when considering all the work he did. They add that the gas chambers were “make believe,” and that Mullins presented all of this in front of Congress and won.

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.”

The speaker mentions that there are pictures of the Russian liberating Auschwitz without any snow, suggesting that the photos may be fake. They explain that the photos were taken much later because the army didn't have cameras when they arrived. The speaker clarifies that the pictures do not depict Auschwitz and are not of their liberation, as there were not many people with clothes and children, and no snow. They find this information fascinating and believe it is important to highlight this historical fact.

The speaker asserts that a significant amount of Holocaust evidence comes directly from the perpetrators admitting it, highlighting that much of the documentation and admissions come from those who carried out or facilitated the crimes. The point is framed as a rebuttal to Holocaust deniers, implying that denial ignores the primary sources and admissions from the perpetrators themselves. The speaker then critiques common perceptions of World War II education, arguing that there is a simplified or superficial understanding among many students. They describe a “cliff note version” of World War II that often circulates in general discourse, where the subject is reduced to a brief portion of a history class. In their view, World War II is “relegated to, like, a chapter and, like, sixth grade history,” representing a narrow and incomplete portrayal of the conflict. According to the speaker, this truncated education makes it easy for people to feel they have mastered the topic after just a brief exposure. They illustrate this frustration by noting that students may complete “two and a half days in history class,” and then feel they are an expert on World War II when, in reality, their understanding is minimal. The speaker contends that the superficial treatment of the war contributes to a broader misrepresentation of what actually happened. The implication is that a fuller, more nuanced understanding is needed rather than a cursory overview that reduces complex events to a few iconic moments. A specific example given is the tendency to emphasize well-known events or symbols, such as Normandy, Holocaust, and Hiroshima, with the effect that those topics become the focal points of the narrative. The speaker argues that this familiar triad is often treated as the entirety of the World War II story, limiting the audience’s awareness of the broader context and detail. In this context, the speaker mentions Nick Fuentes as someone who “will just relegate it down to cookies, you know, and ovens,” suggesting that such reductions oversimplify and distort the history. The phrase “the math doesn't add up” is used to imply that these oversimplifications fail to account for the complexity and scale of the events being discussed. Overall, the speaker emphasizes that a more comprehensive engagement with sources and events is necessary to understand the full scope of World War II and the Holocaust, rather than accepting a shallow, reductive narrative.

An investigator examined facilities expecting to find gas execution chambers, but determined they were incapable of using hydrogen cyanide gas for executions. A supervisor confirmed that ceiling holes were rebuilt after the war. Some people deny the Holocaust and perpetuate intolerance, racism, antisemitism, homophobia, xenophobia, and sexism. Holocaust denial is comparable to believing the federal government was involved in 9/11. Denying the Holocaust is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. The speaker believes that Jews were slaughtered in gas chambers, and these are facts, not opinions to be debated.

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.

Speaker 0 discusses a hostage situation involving 50 people, specifying that among the hostages are Holocaust survivors as well as grandmothers and their grandchildren. The speaker then asks, “Who takes hostage grandmothers?” highlighting the unusual image of grandmothers being taken hostage and incidentally noting that, “they always for some odd reason, like, no matter what year it is, there's always Holocaust survivors.” The speaker comments on the longevity of these individuals, remarking, “You guys notice that, bro? Like, every Jewish grandma is a fucking Holocaust survivor, bro. I'm still trying to figure out how these niggas live so long.” The statement continues with the assertion, “Like, goddamn. Niggas knew Hitler personally.”

The speaker describes a family history of alleged ritualistic abuse and satanic practices, stating: “Also in worshiping the devil, participated in human sacrifice rituals rituals and cannibalism.” They assert an extensive family tree, claiming it “has gone back to, like, 1,700.” They contrast the outward appearance of their family with the reality inside, saying: “Does everyone else think it's a nice Jewish family? From the outside, appear to be a nice Jewish girl? Definitely. And you all are worshiping the devil inside the home? Right.” The speaker references broader involvement beyond their own family, noting: “There's other Jewish families across the country, not just my own family.” They describe rituals in which babies would be sacrificed and claim, “Who’s babies? There were people who bred babies in our family. No one would know about it. A lot of people were overweight, so you couldn't tell if they were pregnant or not.” They recount a childhood experience in which they were forced to participate: “When I was very young, I was forced to participate in that in which I had to sacrifice an infant. And the the purpose of sacrifice is to what? Is to bring you what? What are you sacrificing for? For power.” The response given to the question about the purpose of sacrifice is: “Power.” The speaker also discloses personal abuse within the narrative, stating: “Mhmm. I was molested. I was raped several times.” They then describe their mother’s current life and public image, asserting: “And what's your mother doing? She lives in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. She's on the Human Relations Commission of the town that she lives in, and she's an upstanding citizen. Nobody would suspect her.”

The speaker challenges the historical narrative around Nazi extermination methods by asserting several counterclaims about the evidence and the revisions of the story over time. They claim that the carbon monoxide used at Treblinka allegedly came from a diesel engine, but argue that diesel engines do not produce enough carbon monoxide to kill people, implying that the story had to be changed. They note that Yad Vashem discussed this in 2019, but contend that the debunking of the diesel-engine theory occurred in the 1980s, and that the Nitzkor project responded by stating it was “just a 500 BHP engine from a captured Soviet tank,” accusing others of moving the goalposts whenever caught. The speaker then shifts to Zyklon B, asserting that it “was not meant to kill people, it was meant to kill bugs and keep the prisoners healthy and alive because they needed them,” portraying the chemical as primarily a pest-control agent rather than a genocide tool. Turning to Auschwitz, the speaker references a sympathetic photograph, then discusses propaganda about the number of victims. They state, “originally, the propaganda about Auschwitz was that five point five million were killed at Auschwitz,” and clarify that when they refer to Auschwitz, they are not talking about Birkenau but the initial Auschwitz gas chamber. Overall, the speaker presents a pattern of alleged revision and reinterpretation of Nazi-era facts, arguing that the narrative shifts whenever it is challenged, and contrasting widely cited figures and purposes with claimed alternative explanations. The emphasis throughout is on questioning the established account of how mass murder was carried out at Treblinka and Auschwitz and on attributing changes in the historical narrative to deliberate adjustments rather than new evidence.

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.

"Bankers control everything." They discuss World War II stats: "They broadcasted the number 6,000,000 for about the first twenty years from '19 I think it's, like, 1915 to 1939." They contrast with Red Cross stats: "271,000" and claim "Red Cross is owned by the Rothschilds." "That number has been revised many times." They state "the Christians which were taken out in World War two. That is 90,000,000. 90,000,000. Think about that." They observe "the Jewish population actually increased, which makes no sense." They mention "Eisenhower death camps, so most people don't know about that one. Those were American camps in Germany." They cite "World Book of Facts and Almanac," "revised in the nineteen sixties and seventies," noting "it wasn't revised while the truth was coming out. It was revised after. And that's kinda how they always do it."

The speaker argues that the claim of six million Jews is unfounded and inconsistent with historical numbers. He notes that the “6,000,000 Jews” claim would require crediting Jews for having nine lives, since “these Jewish gas Jews show up again and again and again all over the world,” not only in the speaker’s country. He states that the Jewish Encyclopedia lists, in 1932 and ’33, only two and a half million Jews in the entire area where Hitler could have been, including Russia, and he asks how Hitler could be accused of gassing six million Jews in a region with only about two and a half million Jews. He contends he would be grateful if the Jews would explain this discrepancy, and he asserts they have never done so. The speaker declares that the “6,000,000 Jews” claim is “the biggest of all the big lies that has ever been told.” Turning to Mein Kampf, he notes that the book describes Jews as “the great masters of the lie” and says that their “big lie technique” is their biggest technique, describing it as “a selfie technique by which the Jews tell an enormous lie,” and stating that Hitler does not embed or advocate this, but condemns it as vile. He asserts that this big lie technique is exactly what is happening in “our country today.”

I defend my ethnic group and country against the propaganda from World War II, which I see as an extortion racket against the German people, benefiting Zionists financially. This ties into the discussion about the Anne Frank diary. A German forensic examination in 1980 revealed that parts of the diary were written in ballpoint pen ink, which was only available after 1951, suggesting either Anne Frank was alive then or she didn’t write the diary. Regarding the claim of six million Jewish deaths, it's easy to disprove since there weren't that many Jews in Nazi-occupied areas. The West German government pays reparations, but it was established by the Allied forces and lacks legitimacy, as it was handpicked and suppressed opposition parties.

Speaker 0 explains that the Germans recorded everything at Auschwitz: for a natural death there were more than 20 signatures from doctors and officials, and for a non-natural death (suicide, execution, etc.) there were more than 30 signatures. He mentions the "Totten Grusher" death registers of Auschwitz. He asks, do you know where they are? In Moscow. Since 1945, those registers have not been published. He argues that if the real figures of the dead were added, it would be impossible to believe that 4,000,000 died in Auschwitz as inscribed on the monument, or 1,000,000 as some say, or 700,000 as others claim. He emphasizes that proof is needed for everything and expresses bewilderment that more than forty years after the event, people are “swallowing everything.”

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a range of alleged Nazi atrocities and their subsequent debunking. The conversation opens with the claim that Treblinka never had gas chambers, only steam chambers, used to steam lousing facilities, with the implication that steam chambers could be repurposed for a homicidal use. They describe shock chambers as allegedly present at Treblinka, where the floor was electrified and people were killed by being walked into the room. The speakers then recount a “death by falling trees” method, in which several Soviet prisoners would be forced to climb a tree, and others would have to saw it down, causing the prisoners to fall and be killed. They move to “murder by atomic weapons,” with a claim that research into atomic energy produced an experiment where a small village, with temporary structures, housed 20,000 Jews who were eradicated almost instantaneously by a newly invented weapon, leaving no trace. They emphasize there was “no evidence again.” An “orchestra of death” is mentioned, including a description of executions in the Yanov camp carried out to the strains of the death tango, conducted by professor Strix with bandmaster Munt, and with a dog named Rex trained to harass and tear apart living persons. The discussion then touches on “gas chambers disguised as showers,” aligning this with wartime propaganda, and moves to “historical forgeries” claimed to have been displayed at Buchenwald, described as the creation of the OSS psych warfare team. The timing is noted as right after the war, suggesting these displays were created to illustrate Nazi horrors. The claim is that most of this material has since been debunked, with some pieces ending up at the Buchenwald Museum, which allegedly clings to the legend that the materials are real. The speakers note that the shrunken heads were fake, made from goat skin and horse hair, but claim that the lampshades are still insisted upon as real by some sources, despite being debunked. They conclude with a rhetorical question about why such things would be faked, implying a critical stance toward the authenticity of these legends. Overall, the transcript catalogs a set of sensational Holocaust-related claims (steam chambers, shock chambers, death by trees, atomic weapon extermination, orchestras, gas chambers disguised as showers, and shrunken heads) and juxtaposes them with statements that many of these claims have been debunked or identified as forgeries, while noting that some depictions persist in certain museum displays.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about his Jewish identity and references a "virulent anti-Semite" acquaintance who is supposedly friends with Holocaust denier David Irving. Speaker 0 brings up the Holocaust, referencing "smokestacks of Birkenau" and questioning the validity of the Holocaust. Speaker 0 claims this acquaintance denies the Holocaust by pointing to shadows in aerial photos of Dachau. Speaker 0 says this person questions how 6 million people could disappear. Speaker 1 denies being a Holocaust denier, stating he had a Bar Mitzvah. Speaker 0 says the acquaintance seemingly admitted people died, but questioned the number. Speaker 0 says everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that the number of deaths is somewhere between 600 and 6 million.

The speaker believes Jewish people did something to the Germans, causing them to act a certain way, and that Jewish people don't want to take accountability. They claim Jewish people were "up to something," so the Germans wanted to "take them out" because they are selfish and started something. The speaker states the Holocaust was the only way to eliminate a large Jewish population at once. They believe Jewish people are trying to take back and get repercussions, especially from Americans, and are taking over the government. The speaker asks how to take them down, suggesting violence. They claim Hitler had a plan to save the world that was too gruesome, but he had to do what he had to do. The speaker concludes that Jewish people are the reason the healthcare system and government are collapsing because they are stealing from Americans.

"they rained from the showerheads." "They rained soap and water on us." "we had to be deloused." "we were so full of lice through that." "we had to be clean to be to be naturalized." "And I remember how embarrassed these people were to sit there stark naked." "That was soap and water raining down on us to be lousy." "We were shorn bald in order to stop the lice." "Jews cannot claim unique victim status." "None of us had hair." "We were Mennonites, all Lutherans." "What most people of course don't know is that the Germans had drawn a line from the Baltic or actually from the North Cape, virtually all the way down to the Bosporus, and anybody that came across that line, whether he was German or Mennonite, choose for that matter, anybody in Europe could not go across that line without being dulys, because wanted to keep lice out of Europe, because lice were so dangerous."

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss Nazi chemical capabilities and the use of Zyklon B. Speaker 0 states that Nazis had developed sarin gas and tabun, "nasty deadly nerve gases," and argues that the idea they would actually use Zyklon B, which was essential for maintaining health in the camps, is ridiculous. Speaker 1 agrees, saying it seems ridiculous and that “the whole story” appears ridiculous once examined. Speaker 1 adds that years ago they investigated because it was illegal, noting changes over time, and that they felt compelled to keep quiet. Speaker 0 then shifts to logistics, noting that there are documents on trains that came in, the amounts of coke used in the crematoria, and that everything is well documented, including the number of people who actually made it to Auschwitz. He mentions Red Cross–related deaths as part of the documentation but the sentence trails off: “The deaths by the Red Cross I think were put.”

Nazis were enemies of communism, which killed hundreds of millions. The claim that Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews is untrue and a fabrication. According to the speaker, spending time researching revisionist sources online will show that evidence contradicts the emotional backing for the claim that 6,000,000 Jews were wickedly killed in gas chambers by the Nazis. The speaker asserts that all the emotion is on one side, while all the evidence is on the other.

The speaker discusses Adolf Hitler and poison gases, noting that Hitler possessed two nerve gases, Tabun and Sarin, against which none of the Allies had any defense. Despite this, Hitler ordered that these poison gases not be used because Germany had signed the Geneva Convention. The speaker asserts there are contradictions here that historians should have investigated, claiming to have spent thirty years in archives and even offering rewards for any evidence, yet suggesting that if such evidence exists, others would have found it. The argument pivots to the expectation of traceable chain-of-command documentation. The speaker points out the many people involved in the process—from the individual writing the teletype message on one end to the recipient at the other end, with twenty copies at each end—and argues that even if official files were destroyed, someone would have written home or kept a diary. The speaker asserts that such evidence should be in the records because Hitler’s other crimes are documented in various forms. Specific documented crimes and orders attributed to Hitler are listed: - Euthanasia: an actual order with Hitler’s signature, issued sometime in 1940 but backdated to the first day of the war, with Hitler’s euthanasia order in the files with the Signicharlotter. - The order to kill the Russian commissars after the campaign in Russia began, with those commissars described as political officers attached to the Russian armed forces; the order is documented in the military files of the day. - The order to kill British commandos, noted as a particularly sore point for Canadians, with Hitler’s order from October 1942 in the files, described as a criminal order and adequately documented. - The order to kill the male population of Stalingrad after capturing the city, recorded in the private diary of General Helder (Haldbr). - The order to Linzalla Airmen in May 1944, also attributed to Hitler, and documented. The speaker then raises an interesting question about Hitler’s character: how could he unhesitatingly issue orders that are crimes under international law, such as the order to kill prisoners, while at the same time ordering that poison gas not be used to avoid violating the Geneva Convention? The speaker notes that poison gas could have potentially changed the course of the war—specifically, around the Normandy Beachhead in July 1944, when it was established and near breakout—arguing that use of nerve gases against which Allied troops had no gas masks could have wiped out the entire Normandy Beachhead. The speaker contends that Hitler could have won the war by pulling out the Panzer divisions and redeploying them to the Eastern Front, potentially mopping up the Eastern Front in two to three months, but He did not.