reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler had met when she was just 17 and she worked as an assistant to the photographer Heinrich Hoffmann, who went on to become Hitler's personal cameraman. Hitler and Braun became lovers in 1932. Now, thirteen years later, as the remaining German forces were overwhelmed, Eva wrote in a letter to her friend, Hertha Schneider, we are fighting here until the last, but I'm afraid the end is threatening closer and closer. On April 29, Hitler decided to marry his longtime mistress Eva Braun. The ceremony was concluded with Goebbels and Bormann as witnesses. Hitler signed the wedding certificate but when it was Eva's turn, she began to write her surname as Braun before crossing out the letter B and instead writing Eva Hitler. Arm in arm, Hitler led his bride to the study for the wedding reception. Hitler now admitted for the first time that all was lost. Hitler said, everything is lost. Pack your things and go. You to have leave and within an hour, the last plane would bring you out. After that moment of silence, Eva Braun stepped forward, went to him and took his hand and said, but you know I will stay with you. Less than two days after the wedding on April 30, Hitler and his bride ended their lives together. They had been married just a few hours. Eva took a cyanide capsule, popped it into her mouth, she died instantly. Hitler picked up his gun, put it to his right temple and fired. Hitler's dog Blondie was also poisoned. Members of the staff carried the bodies in blankets and soaked them with what petrol they could find and set them alight. Hitler did not want to be handed over to the barbaric Bolsheviks because he knew what they had done to Mussolini. Thus, taking his life and setting his body on fire was his own wish. One day before committing suicide, Hitler dictated his political testament, a suicide note, in which he denied any responsibility for starting the war. Right up until the very end, when Hitler had nothing to gain, he wanted the world to know that he had never wanted war.

If you're intentionally killing civilians, you shouldn't boast about it; it's evil, and it should be acknowledged as such. Killing women and children in war raises serious moral questions. It's hard to justify such actions, even in extreme circumstances like a world war. While some might argue there are moral justifications for actions taken during war, intentionally targeting noncombatants is fundamentally wrong. This contradicts the principles we claim to uphold in conflict.

The speaker decries tweeting the f word on Easter morning and demands respect for the holiday. They argue that sending out a tweet promising the murder of civilians while declaring “praise be to Allah” is a mockery of both Islam and Christianity, and that the author cannot be supported by Christians who oppose such mockery. The speaker asserts that the tweet implies using the US military to destroy civilian infrastructure in another country, which they describe as a war crime and a moral crime against the people of that country. They specify targets such as bridges that people cross daily to go to school, work, and worship, including church, noting that there are over a million Christians in Iran and that this is “their Easter too.” They reference civilian power plants in Iran, a country with almost 100,000,000 people, and question the consequences of power loss. The speaker warns that without power, babies connected to incubators die and people in hospitals die, highlighting the human impact of such actions. The speaker rejects any justification rooted in international law, emphasizing moral law and God’s law instead, stating that killing noncombatants—people who did nothing wrong and did not choose the war—is immoral and unacceptable. They declare that it can never be moral or justified and that such actions are always wrong.

Since 1914, I have dedicated myself to my people with love and loyalty. I did not desire war in 1939, it was instigated by international statesmen of Jewish origin. Despite efforts for peace, war was wanted for business and by propaganda of international Jewry. I choose to remain in Berlin, refusing surrender to enemies. I urge soldiers to resist in the spirit of National Socialism. I ask my comrades to prioritize the nation's interests over personal feelings. Let us build a National Socialist state for future generations, serving the common good above all else. All Germans, National Socialists, and soldiers must remain faithful to the new government and resist international Jewry.

I believe that without the Jewish international press and propaganda incitement, peace among nations would be quickly achieved. Attempts to provoke war and tarnish our relationship with the United States are fueled by political and financial interests. If another world war were to occur, it would result in the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe. This is not just a struggle for German freedom and security, but a battle for the future of Europe and the entire civilized Western world. Translation: The speaker discusses the impact of Jewish international press and propaganda on peace efforts, as well as the potential consequences of another world war on the Jewish race in Europe. The conflict is portrayed as not just a German struggle, but a battle for the future of Europe and the civilized Western world.

Wir sind eine stark verschworene Gemeinschaft und wollen in Ruhe gelassen werden. Unser Vorteil ist unsere Friedensliebe, niemandem Leid zuzufügen. 1939 haben die Westmächte die Maske fallen lassen und Deutschland den Krieg erklärt. Trotz Versuchen und Entgegenkommen geben sie zu, dass Polen wahrscheinlich eingewilligt hätte, aber sie wollten den Krieg. Innere Gegner bestätigten dies. England wird den Kampf bekommen. Nachdem Bomben auf die Bevölkerung in Westfalen geworfen wurden, wartete ich 14 Tage, weil ich dachte, der Mann ist wahnsinnig. Er führt einen Kampf, bei dem nur ein Volk gewinnen wird. **Translation:** We are a strongly united community and want to be left alone. Our advantage is our love of peace, not to cause suffering to anyone. In 1939, the Western powers dropped the mask and declared war on Germany. Despite attempts and concessions, they admit that Poland would probably have agreed, but they wanted the war. Internal opponents confirmed this. England will get the fight. After bombs were dropped on the population in Westphalia, I waited 14 days because I thought the man was crazy. He is waging a battle in which only one nation will win.

We're not here to kill Russians, but to defeat them. If persuasion fails, we will eliminate as many as necessary, even millions if needed. Those who resist will face consequences. We need to eradicate local dissent. They indoctrinate our soldiers to hate Ukrainians. They claim that Ukrainians would live like the French if it weren't for the Muscovites. We need massacres. We must drown these children where the duck swims. This is our honey, not yours. If someone says the Muscovites have occupied them, throw them in the river. Drive these people into the old wooden house.

Our policy is to wage war by sea and air with all our might, aiming for victory at all costs. Germany suffered nearly 5 million military deaths and half a million civilian deaths in allied bombing raids during World War II.

The speaker states it is a miracle they have found each other, and that this is Germany's good fortune. They contrast this with other countries where masses are stirred up to attend protest rallies against fascism and national socialism, for Bolshevism, arms shipments, donations, and even people shipments. The speaker claims they have never called for people to attend a rally. They assert that if they ever do, all of Germany will be a single rally, with millions inflamed against the old adversary and hereditary enemy of humanity.

Adolf Hitler opens with a May Day address, declaring the day sacred for the Deutsche Volksgenossen and calling on the German people to recognize that all who contribute to national work must stand together, pledging to defend German honor, equal rights, and European peace. He proclaims that the Führer has spoken and that the German people should stand behind him in steadfast loyalty. Speaker 1 emphasizes that he speaks with the authority of someone who has grown from among the people, having stood beside them in wartime and through hardship, and who rose through diligence, learning, and hunger. He asserts personal continuity with his earlier self and recalls his experiences during the war, noting a rise from within the common ranks. Hitler or the extemporaneous speakers describe the labor force and the masses, noting perceived achievements within three months of focused effort and claiming that the German people have engaged in national tasks only tied to their own volk (people). The text asserts that the nation’s struggle was borne by the German farmer and worker, and that the people should not be meddled with by outsiders who “live everywhere and nowhere,” a critique of rootless international interest groups. Speaker 3 laments that Volkerstrife is fomented by a small, rootless international clique seeking to prevent peace, and emphasizes that the volk is bound to its soil, homeland, and living conditions. The speaker envisions a future where the German Volk can finally be treated with respect in international affairs and where peace is attainable if the nation remains united. Speaker 4 articulates a request for the German people to judge him for his work, urging them to vote in his favor if he has served them well. He addresses the common German, criticizing those who resist sacrifices and who fail to understand the benefits of shared burdens, such as the “Eintopfsonntag” (one-pot Sunday) and broader wartime austerity, arguing that these measures supported millions of people, including children. Speaker 1 reflects on the denial of Marxism as a political objective and frames the split in the nation as a betrayal of workers, contrasting it with a supposed commitment to a peaceful, unified Germany that does not threaten other nations. He praises a disciplined, orderly implementation of National Socialism and recounts how the movement, once small, has grown through sacrifice and loyalty to the Führer. Speaker 5 and Speaker 2 discuss the Party’s long-term goals: the movement started with two principles—be a true world-views party and seize power in Germany. They claim the nation’s future rests on a unified, disciplined people with a strong political leadership alongside the army. The youth are envisioned to be educated to reject class distinctions, to endure hardship, and to perpetuate German unity even after the older generation passes. The movement promises a peaceful future and asserts that Germany will now pursue collaboration with other nations, while insisting that no German must reject the communal labor that binds the Reich together. In closing, Hitler/Hitler-adjacent speakers celebrate the creation of a “new Germany” symbolized by the spade as a sign of a new community, a revolution accomplished by the people’s will, with a warning to enemies that the nation will stand firm and endure, and that unemployment has fallen as the nation builds a shared future. The address asserts that the next collective appeal will once again demonstrate the unity and resilience of the German Volk.

In 1957, Paula Hitler published a statement aimed at the “Jewish controlled press” for its alleged lies about her brother, Adolf Hitler. Speaker 1 then delivers a forceful address: “Gentlemen, never forget this. Your names will long be forgotten even before your bodies have rotted away in the earth. But the name Adolf Hitler will still be a light in the darkness. You cannot murder him by drowning his memory in your sick buckets, and you cannot strangle him with your filthy ink stained fingers. His name exists forever in hundreds of thousands of souls.” He asserts the decline of those opposing Hitler and declares that they are too insignificant to touch him. He states that Hitler “loved Germany,” “fought for German honor,” and “gave his life for Germany.” He asks, “What have you given so far? Which one of you would give his life for Germany?” He accuses opponents of caring only about riches, power, and “never ending luxurious living,” suggesting they prefer indulging their senses without responsibility. He contends that when they think of Germany, they think of indulgence without responsibility, not the nation’s welfare. He asserts that the Fuhrer’s “unselfishness in word and deed” guarantees his immortality, and argues that the struggle for Germany’s greatness wasn’t crowned with success, noting a contrast with Cromwell’s success in Britain. The speaker then offers a comparative critique: the Englishman’s character is “unfair, ruled by jealousy, self importance, and a lack of consideration,” yet he remains loyal to his country and crown; by contrast, the German, with a “need for recognition,” is “never first and foremost a German.” He concludes that it does not matter to the critics, as they are “insignificant,” because if they destroy the entire nation, their guiding thought will still be “me first, me second, me third,” and with that pitiful philosophy, they cannot prevent the immortality of a giant.

Speaker 1 argues there is a political revolution underway, stating: "The Germans have been on the national apology tour for eighty years, apologizing to everyone in sight for all the terrible evil things they did and for, quote, unquote, starting the second World War." He adds: "The truth is the Germans did not start the second World War." He claims: "Everything that happened in Germany was a reaction to communism, Bolshevism in Russia, the emergence of Stalin's Russia, and the fear of communism, and the mass murder programs in the Soviet Union and the interwar years." He notes: "The Germans and they're not the only ones. Virtually all the Europeans were horrified by it." He contends this is the phony narrative that was created, that this happened exclusively in a vacuum, that Hitler woke up and decided to start a world war, and calls it "phony" and "misleading" and "fundamentally wrong." He concludes: "The Germans need to put an end to the apology tour." He adds: "Perhaps they will because it's gotten them into this position they are now." "They are now a nation living on on the precipice of poverty and destruction."

Herr Chatschil claimed to have destroyed 50% of U-boats, but later reduced the number to 30% and then 10%. He criticized attacks on civilians in England and vowed to continue fighting until a clear decision is made. He emphasized the need for peace and expressed a desire to work for the benefit of the German people. The sacrifices of those who died for the movement were praised, and a commitment to rectify past shame in German history was highlighted. Translation: Herr Chatschil claimed to have destroyed 50% of U-boats, but later reduced the number to 30% and then 10%. He criticized attacks on civilians in England and vowed to continue fighting until a clear decision is made. He emphasized the need for peace and expressed a desire to work for the benefit of the German people. The sacrifices of those who died for the movement were praised, and a commitment to rectify past shame in German history was highlighted.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss the implications of AI in military use. They consider whether consumer AI is being bypassed with a secure, military-specific platform that would be sealed—essentially one-way in and no information out—for the Pentagon and military services. The key questions raised are: who controls the AI, who informs its algorithms, and who gives it its orders on how to answer questions, highlighting concerns about privatization and outsourcing of war. Speaker 1 argues that the future of war with AI hinges on two issues: ownership of AI platforms and the sources of their programming. They note that AI can deflect or defer to institutional structures rather than empirical accuracy, raising concerns about the reliability of information provided to military personnel. They also reference the myth that advancing technology automatically reduces civilian harm, citing that precision-guided munitions were designed for efficiency, not necessarily to prevent civilian casualties, noting that the intent was to reduce the number of bombs needed to achieve targets. The conversation shifts to the concept of precision in weapons. Speaker 1 points out that laser- and GPS-guided bombs were not primarily invented to minimize civilian casualties but to increase efficiency. They mention the small diameter bomb as an example, explaining that its use increases the number of bombs that can be deployed rather than primarily limiting collateral damage. The discussion then moves to real-world AI systems used in conflict zones. Speaker 1 cites Israeli programs—Lavender, Gospel, and Where’s Daddy?—as examples of nefarious and insidious AI in war. Lavender supposedly scans the Internet and other databases to identify targets, for example flagging someone as a Hamas supporter based on years of activity. Where’s Daddy? allegedly guides Israeli drones to strike fighters when they are with their families, not away from them. This reporting is linked to coverage from Israeli media and Nine Seven Two magazine, and Speaker 2 references Tucker Carlson’s coverage of these issues. Speaker 2 amplifies the point by noting the emotional impact of such capabilities, arguing that targeting men when they are with their children is particularly disturbing. They also discuss broader political reactions, including a remark attributed to Ambassador Huckabee about Israel not attacking Qatar but “sending a missile there” that injured nearby people. Speaker 1 concludes by invoking Orwell’s reflection on the Spanish Civil War, suggesting that those who cheer for war may be confronted by the consequences when modern aircraft enable distant bombing. They emphasize the need to make the costs of war felt by the ruling classes who benefit from it, not just the people on the ground.

Said to Kennedy, you watch when Adolf Hitler begins bombing London and towns in Britain like Boston and Lincoln, towns with their counterparts in The United States. You Americans will have to come in, won't you? You can't just stand aside and watch us suffering. But he knew from code breaking. He knew from reading the German Air Force signals, which we had broken on March or 05/26/1940, that Hitler had given orders that no British town was to be bombed. London was completely embargoed. German air force was allowed to bomb ports and harbors and dockyards, but not towns as such. And Churchill was greatly aggrieved by this, and he wondered how much longer Hitler could avoid carrying on war like this. But Hitler, as we know, carried on until September 1940 without bombing any English towns. The embargo stayed in force. You can see it in the German archives now, and we know from the code breaking of the German signals that Churchill was reading Hitler's orders to the German Air Force, not on any account to bomb these towns. So there was no way that we could drag in the Americans that way unless we could provoke Hitler to do it, which is why on 08/25/1940, Churchill gave the order to the British Air Force to go and bomb Berlin. Although the chief of the bomber command and chief of staff of the British Air Force warned him that if we bomb Berlin, Hitler may very well lift the embargo on British towns. And Churchill just twinkled because it was what he wanted, of course. At 09:15 that morning, he telephoned personal bomber command himself to order the bombing of Berlin, a 100 bombers to go and bomb Berlin. They went out to bomb Berlin that night, and Hitler still didn't move. Hitler ordered another aid on Berlin, and so it went on for the next seven or ten days until finally on September 4, Hitler lost his patience and made that famous speech in the Sport Palace in Berlin in which he said, this madman has bombed Berlin now seven times. He bombs Berlin once more than I shall not only just attack their towns, I shall wipe them out. A very famous speech. Of course, German school children are now told about the Hitler speech. They're not told about what went first. They're not told how Churchill sent out deliberately to provoke the bombing of his own capital. And on the following day, Churchill ordered Berlin bombed again. And the result was the German air force started bombing the docks in London, the East End Of London, finally, city Of London and the West End on the September 1940. In September 1940, 7,000 Londoners were killed in the bombing as a result of Churchill's deliberate provocation. The files are there. The archives are there. No wonder Harold Macmillan didn't want my book published.

Herr Chatschil claimed U-boats were destroyed, but now admits they are increasing. He discusses fighting against civilians in England, expressing determination to continue the battle until a clear decision is made. He emphasizes the need for peace and denounces war for material interests. He praises those who sacrificed for Germany and vows to rectify past shame in the nation's history. Translation: Mr. Chatschil initially claimed U-boats were destroyed, but now acknowledges their increase. He discusses fighting against civilians in England and expresses determination to continue the battle until a clear decision is made. He emphasizes the need for peace and denounces war for material interests. He praises those who sacrificed for Germany and vows to rectify past shame in the nation's history.

Speaker 0 argues that it’s logistically absurd to claim the Holocaust involved gassing millions and hauling bodies from so-called gas chambers, noting the inefficiency of that method. He points out the irony that the person most famous for gassing people refused to use gas that could have won the war, because he would not be the first to use gas, despite having 20,000 kilograms of tabun and sarin. He asserts there were no counters to that chemical weapon, yet the decision not to use gas led to the downfall of his country. Speaker 1 adds that Hitler was gassed himself at the end of World War I, which blinded him. During the fall of the Kaiser’s empire, the Reich’s collapse and the emergence of Bolshevik and Weimar structures occurred as some German states did not join the Weimar Republic and became sub-states or Soviet-like entities. Speaker 0 emphasizes that anyone uncertain about Hitler’s legacy should read Mein Kampf and hear from Hitler’s own words to understand why he held his beliefs. He claims Hitler did not begin as an anti-Semite intent on killing Jews, and describes Hitler as someone who admired and observed the universe, was a truth-seeker from day one, engaged in political discussions, and was fascinated by philosophy, German history, the British Empire, and America. He notes Hitler was well-read and well-spoken, but deprived economically, working as a day laborer with little work available to feed himself. He claims Hitler went days without food to afford a book, showing a love of knowledge, and that he wasn’t a failed artist; he was a talented artist whose path could have been architecture rather than drawing. Speaker 0 contends that smear campaigns against Hitler fail and are “nonsense.” He dismisses more extreme claims as false, such as insults about Hitler’s sexuality or anatomy, and mentions that such accusations are common against many figures. Speaker 1 comments that a lot of the negative rumors about Hitler (e.g., perverse claims) are typical allegations made against many people, implying they are not unique to Hitler.

The Fuhrer has absolutely forbidden the use of poison gas. The enemy is to use it first, and then we will retaliate with ours. the Germans would have won the war because the Germans had not just poison gases like mustard, the Germans had nerve gases. At this time, in 1944, they already had stockpiles of 30,000 tons of nerve gases, sarin and tabun. But he had put his name on a piece of paper, the Geneva Gas Protocol, saying that he would never use gas first because it would be a war crime. the nine or 10 panzer divisions out of Normandy and sent them to the Russian front.

Speaker 0 says it’s a little unfair that you win a war, yet the other side has no right to be doing what they’re doing. He adds that they’re hitting them very hard, and today is a big day where they’re pounding a certain area that has very much to do with the straight. He believes they’ll get it going very.

Speaker 1 asserts that Hitler was the aggressor of World War II, beginning the war by driving east with the intention of destroying communist Russia. He states that Britain intervened and declared war to prevent Hitler from achieving that objective, and as a result, Britain “today” has to maneuver back and forth between America and Russia. He claims that Britain has “lost the empire,” that 25,000,000 Europeans were killed, and that he is proud to have done his utmost to stop what he describes as a suicidal war that “has destroyed Great Britain.” Speaker 0 acknowledges this sequence and asks for the precise words spoken in 1939, requesting to know what Speaker 1 claimed at that time, specifically referencing the assertion that the conflict was “simply a Jewish financier's quarrel.”

"In 1943, the communists will use the word Nazis, fascist, and antisemitic in order to push the public mind to make them believe something by using repetition." "Germany was arresting all the bankers because they were charging so much interest that they were destroying the country." "60,000,000 Germans died." "after World War two, all these generals in America actually realized they fought the wrong enemy. The enemy is within." "Even general Patton said we should have fought with the fascist against the communist, otherwise, our country will degrade." "There's also another part that was left out of the story." "Yes."

Fueling the flames of hate was the Jewish propagandist Ilya Ehrenberg, a figure described as one of the most influential men in the Soviet Union. The transcript states that Ehrenberg ensured his message of evil reached every soldier in the Red Army by ordering that leaflets be dropped from airplanes onto the front lines. This depiction presents Ehrenberg as an organizer of anti-German propaganda intended to provoke and unleash brutal violence among Soviet troops. Within the presented quotes, a direct directive attributed to the propaganda is given: "Kill them all, men, old men, children, and the women after you have amused yourself with them. Kill. Nothing in German is guiltless, neither the living nor the yet unborn. Break the racial pride of the German woman. Take her as your legitimate booty." These lines are presented as part of the propaganda material that Ehrenberg is said to have disseminated to Soviet soldiers, emphasizing indiscriminate killing and the subjugation of German women as a tactic to break morale and racial pride. The transcript then notes the broader consequence of the Red Army’s advances: "Soon as the Red Army forced the Wehrmacht back in the East, millions of German civilians suffered the same ghastly fate as the victims of Nimmersdorf." This sentence connects the propaganda and wartime actions to mass suffering among German civilians, suggesting that the reprisals or violence against civilians paralleled the earlier atrocities described, drawing a comparison to the fate of victims associated with Nimmersdorf. Overall, the sequence in the transcript presents a narrative where Ilya Ehrenberg’s propagandistic efforts—delivered through leaflets dropped onto front lines—are linked to extreme calls for killing and sexual violence against German civilians, with the consequence described as millions of German civilians facing ghastly outcomes as the Red Army pushed back the Wehrmacht. The material emphasizes the reach of the propaganda, the explicit violent commands attributed to it, and the alleged retaliatory violence experienced by German civilians in the wake of Soviet advances.

I attacked an unarmed village with rocket bombs and murdered 4,000,000 peaceful citizens of Oceania. This is cold blooded murder, not war. Until now, the war has been conducted with honor, bravery, truth, and justice. The endless catalog of bestial atrocities must be terminated. Forces of darkness and the treasonable minds who collaborate with them must be wiped from the face of the earth. We must crush them. We must smash them.

The transcript asserts that Stalin’s plan to dominate Eastern Europe was aided by Eisenhower and Marshall due to their focus on invading Europe from England rather than advancing from the European “soft underbelly.” It claims that by July 1944, communists had advanced into Poland and Germany. It attributes the instigation of Soviet Red Army violence against German civilians to Ilya Ehrenberg, described as Stalin’s Jewish chief propagandist and a prominent member of the Soviet-sponsored Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. According to the speaker, Ehrenberg urged mass rape and murder of German civilians as the Red Army approached German territory. The transcript cites Ehrenberg’s involvement with propaganda against Germans, including gloating statements about German women and references to Jews “around Roosevelt,” asserting that Ehrenberg sought extermination and genocide of the entire German people. It notes that Ehrenberg encouraged mass rape and killing, with leaflets declaring Germans “are not human beings” and containing messages such as “Nothing gives us so much joy as German corpses.” It mentions leaflets air dropped on troops near Danzig, allegedly composed by Ehrenberg and signed by Stalin, with the directive: “Kill them all.” The text quotes orders and exhortations to Soviet troops: “Men, old men, children and women, after you have amused yourself with them. Kill,” “Nothing in Germany is guiltless, neither the living nor the yet unborn,” and “Break the racial pride of the German woman. Take her as your legitimate booty.” It further claims that a massive violence followed, described as “an unimaginable orgy of violence and rape” that would become one of the ghastliest episodes in human history. Finally, the transcript asserts a quantitative outcome: “At least 2,000,000 German women young and old were gang raped, sodomized and beaten often in view of their children or family members.”

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.