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.

In this video, Mr. Zundel, the speaker, presents a controversial perspective on World War II and the Holocaust. He questions the number of Jews killed in concentration camps and argues that Hitler did not have a plan to exterminate Jews. Zundel expresses admiration for Hitler and other Nazi figures, but denies being a Nazi himself. He criticizes immigration in Germany and holds negative views towards Jews. Zundel discusses his activities in spreading what he calls "truth material" about the Holocaust, acknowledging that his views are not accepted in Germany due to hate speech legislation. He also talks about the diversity within the Jewish community and refutes stereotypes. The speaker denies being a white supremacist and discusses his concerns about personal safety. He criticizes the justice system's handling of war criminals and expresses his belief that the Jewish community will face consequences for their actions. Overall, Zundel presents his views on German history, the Holocaust, and his own experiences.

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question it in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer yes. The speaker then asks why the others are there, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to someone's belief and a crude remark.

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.

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer affirmatively. The speaker then asks why the others are present, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to someone's belief and expressing admiration.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer affirmatively. The speaker then asks why the others are present, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to someone's belief and expressing admiration.

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question it in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer yes. The speaker then asks why the others are there and tells them to leave. They mention subscribing to someone's belief and express admiration.

Speaker 0 argues that free speech is not a free fall in Europe, contending that two anti free speech movements have coalesced. One movement is in Europe, which has “laid waste to free speech” in countries such as Germany, France, and England, and also in places like Canada. The other movement is described as the US anti-free-speech movement, which began in higher education and then metastasized throughout the government, but which has “all reached our shores now.” The speaker notes that the Berlin World Forum followed remarks on free speech by Vice President Vance, and that the EU was “red hot.” They describe the forum as “the most anti free speech gathering I’ve ever been part of,” with only two attendees from the free speech community, but those present are “committed.” Hillary Clinton is identified as being there and said to have fueled the anger. A key claim is that when Twitter was purchased by Elon Musk, Clinton called on the EU to use the Digital Services Act, described as “one of the most anti free speech pieces of decades,” to force censorship of American citizens and to compel people like Musk to censor. The speaker characterizes this as “an extraordinary act by someone who was once a presidential candidate in The United States,” and asserts that Clinton’s position reflects a commitment to censorship. The speaker further claims that after the World Forum, this effort was globalized, and that they are “threatening companies like ACTS with ruinous fines unless they resume censoring American citizens.” The overall message emphasizes a belief that anti free speech forces are expanding globally, using regulatory tools such as the Digital Services Act to compel censorship and penalize platforms that do not comply, with the World Forum acting as a catalyst for broader international pressure.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker then asks why they are there and tells them to leave. The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and a crude remark.

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.

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 location of the mass murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust and highlights the decreasing credibility of the claim that six million Jews were gassed in Auschwitz. They mention the reduction of the victim count in Auschwitz, the publication of new findings suggesting that no one was gassed in Auschwitz, and the release of documents by the Institute of Contemporary History confirming Auschwitz as a labor camp. The speaker criticizes the lack of public acknowledgment and the imprisonment of those who doubted Auschwitz as an extermination camp. They argue that the Holocaust is the biggest lie in history, serving the interests of those seeking global domination. The speaker calls for a public explanation of what truly happened in German concentration camps.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer yes. The speaker then asks why the others are there, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and a crude remark.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer affirmatively. The speaker then asks why the others are present, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and a crude remark.

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer affirmatively. The speaker then asks why the others are present, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's "Believe in Freak Chung" and a crude remark.

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 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer affirmatively. The speaker mentions being in a position of power and tells two people to leave. They also mention subscribing to someone's belief and express admiration.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer affirmatively. The speaker mentions being in a position of power and tells two individuals to leave. They also mention subscribing to someone's belief and express admiration.

Speaker 0 asks what group the others are with and expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal, they answer affirmatively. The speaker then asks why the others are present, to which they respond with "power." The conversation ends with a comment about subscribing to Sandy's Believe in Freak Chung and a crude remark.

Speaker 0 describes a judge threatening a witness with prosecution for testifying to their best knowledge and skills, saying that would make the witness criminally liable; asserts that such a threat by a judge constitutes a felony. Speaker 1 adds that many countries (27) have strict limits on defenses, often labeling real defenses as holocaust denial, preventing witnesses that counter official narratives and effectively blocking a proper defense; calls the situation insane. Speaker 0 reflects on lessons as an expert witness: he was never allowed to take a stand and was always moved off the stand. He states that German judges are obligated by case law to systematically deny any motion to introduce that kind of evidence, and that threats accompany this denial. Speaker 1 responds, though the exact wording is unclear. Speaker 0 recounts events from the early 1990s, noting that repeated appearances as a witness prompted panic and the introduction of new case law. He describes an incident where, in 1996, a defense lawyer wanted him to testify again, and the defense lawyer was prosecuted for merely filing a motion to introduce the evidence. He explains that in Germany, the defense cannot introduce evidence; only the prosecution and the judges can introduce evidence. The defense is defenseless because a defendant must file a motion for the judge to introduce evidence, and the judge not only systematically denies it but the prosecution prosecutes the defense lawyer for filing the motion. This pattern is described as serious and as something upheld by the German Supreme Court. Since then, filing motions to defend oneself in historical matters is described as a crime, with the act of defending oneself seemingly criminalized.

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 claims that no one in Germany knows where the alleged 6 million Jews were killed. After five years of questioning various German institutions, including Jewish centers and judges, about the location of the Holocaust and receiving no answers, the speaker wrote to the Minister of Justice requesting an open discussion. Receiving no response, the speaker concluded the Holocaust did not exist and published this conclusion online. The speaker believes that those imprisoned for Holocaust denial in Germany should be exonerated, as they were speaking the truth. The speaker highlights the large number of trials related to Holocaust denial in Germany, alleging that judges avoid engaging with evidence due to fear of Jewish reprisal, instead relying on the claim that the Holocaust is "obvious." The speaker equates their inquiries with the principle of press freedom.

Speaker 0 asks what group they are with and then expresses belief in the Holocaust. They question why it is illegal to question the Holocaust in 18 countries. When asked if they think it should be illegal to question the Holocaust, they answer yes. The speaker mentions being in 3 seats and wanting power. They tell someone to leave and make a crude comment about subscribing to someone's beliefs.

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.

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.