reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

The defense lawyer for Ernst Zundel challenged Holocaust expert Dr. Raul Hilberg's testimony, questioning his belief that Adolf Hitler personally ordered the extermination of Jews. Hilberg stated Hitler's order was verbal, with the wording unknown, calling it a gap in history. The defense lawyer questioned Hilberg's reliance on a former SS officer's claims, some of which the lawyer deemed incredible, such as Hitler witnessing gassings and 25,000,000 Jews being killed. Hilberg admitted omitting these points from his book. Hilberg also stated that there is no single report about gas chambers. He said he couldn't swear there's correspondence to prove it.

A former German army officer testified for the defense, stating he arrived at Auschwitz in 1944 and only learned of mass Jewish deaths after the war. He claimed the camp was clean and described it as a happy work environment where he studied synthetic rubber production. According to him, there was no smell of burning flesh or evidence of gas chambers.

Zundel's defense team was informed that facilities in Poland could not support gas executions. Samples were taken and facilities were examined, concluding they were not suitable due to design flaws. Survivors' testimonies were questioned as lacking validity. No eyewitness reports were found to support gas chamber claims.

Ernst Zundel, President of Sammis Lab Publishers, discusses his involvement in the reprinting of the booklet "Did 6,000,000 Really Die?" and his subsequent trial for Holocaust denial. He presents the testimony of Ivan Lagasse, a crematory expert, who challenges the claims of the Holocaust by explaining the process of cremation and the limitations of the crematory units. Lagasse states that the high numbers of cremations alleged at Auschwitz-Birkenau are physically unrealistic and scientifically unsupported. He also refutes claims of a stench from burning bodies and the ability to determine the ethnicity of the victims based on the color of the smoke. Zundel concludes that the standard version of the Holocaust is a hoax and encourages further research on the topic.

Defense lawyer challenges Holocaust expert's testimony on Hitler's involvement in extermination orders. Expert admits lack of concrete evidence for gas chambers in concentration camps. Questions raised about credibility of sources in expert's book on Jewish deaths during WWII. No definitive proof of gas chamber existence found in reports.

Speaker 0 argues that in Germany no one knows where the 6,000,000 Jews were killed, claiming that although people acknowledge it as “the most terrible crime that ever had happened in history,” the exact place of the killings is unknown and cannot be a real fact. He says he asked every possible source—institutes, the center of the Jews in Germany, judges and others—but received no answer within five years. After questioning all groups in the Bundesrepublik, he told the Minister for Justice that open discussion about where it happened should be arranged, but he received no response from the minister or from anyone else. Because there was no answer, he concludes that the Holocaust did not exist, and he states his intention to publish this on the Internet. He waited for about three or four weeks, then he wrote on the Internet that the Holocaust didn’t exist, providing all the examples of what he had done to find it out, but nothing happened. Two and a half months later, he says he is “quite convinced now” and tells everyone that “this biggest crime didn’t happen because there was no place where it took place.” He argues that “now everybody who has been charged or even put into prison because he had denied the Holocaust”—there are hundreds in Germany who suffered such punishment—“that now they all must be how is it?”

During the trial of Ernst Zundel, the defense lawyer challenged Holocaust expert Dr. Raul Hilberg's testimony, questioning his belief that Adolf Hitler personally ordered the extermination of Jews. Hilberg stated Hitler's order was verbal, with the exact wording unknown, calling it a gap in history. The defense lawyer questioned Hilberg's reliance on a former SS officer's claims, some of which were omitted from Hilberg's book due to their incredibility, such as Hitler witnessing gassings and the claim that 25,000,000 Jews were killed. Hilberg admitted there is no single report proving the existence of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps, nor correspondence to prove it.

Ernst Zundel, a Toronto publisher, was charged with publishing false information about the Holocaust. The trial sparked a debate about freedom of speech and the validity of Holocaust denial. Zundel argued that the Germans did not kill 6 million Jews and that the Holocaust was a hoax. He faced protests and threats from Jewish organizations and was eventually found guilty of publishing anti-Jewish literature. Zundel was sentenced to 15 months in jail and there were calls for his deportation. The trial highlighted the sensitive nature of the Holocaust and the importance of historical accuracy.

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.

Mister Zundel's defense team examined facilities in Poland to determine if they could have supported gas executions. They found the facilities lacked necessary features for gas chambers, such as gasketed doors and proper ventilation. The design flaws made it impossible for the facilities to have been used for gas executions. Eyewitness reports of gassings were deemed unreliable, as there was no concrete evidence to support their claims.

American industrial chemist Dr. William Lindsey testified about Zyklon B, stating its dangerous properties necessitate careful handling. Regarding a previous witness's claim of handling corpses shortly after gassing, Dr. Lindsey stated this was highly unlikely. He claimed mass gassings, as described, were impossible and that no one was willfully killed with Zyklon B in this manner. Dr. Lindsey also disputed earlier testimony about flames constantly emanating from crematoria chimneys, asserting such intense heat would cause the chimneys to collapse.

Speaker 0 explains that before going he told “mister Zundle and his defense team” that if he found facilities that could have supported executions, he would testify whether or not they could have sustained gas executions. He says photographs were produced and “the video photographer” documented that “the forensic samples … were properly taken, packaged for submission to the laboratories.” He states he examined the facilities and “made a determination that they were incapable of supporting the use of hydrogen cyanide gas for purposes of execution or otherwise.” He adds that “the reasons that I determined that these facilities were not or never could have been gas execution facilities are stated in my report.” He argues that “None of these ever existed” and that if used, “they would have been blown to bits.” He concludes with “there are no eyewitnesses because there were no gassings.”

Christie cross-examined witness Arnold Friedman about his nine-month stay at Auschwitz. Friedman testified he watched prisoners march toward the crematorium and saw smoke and flames from the smokestack. Under cross-examination, Friedman admitted he never witnessed mass executions and only guessed at what happened. He agreed the prisoners could have been marching out of the camp. Christie suggested many bodies burned at Auschwitz were Jews who died of disease and starvation. He questioned Friedman about what he saw and knew about crematoriums, suggesting cremation creates no such smoke or flames as Friedman described. Christie is trying to prove Zundel has reason to question accepted beliefs about the holocaust.

I went to Poland to inspect the gas chambers, expecting to find evidence of gas executions. To my surprise, I found nothing at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek. I had believed in their existence for over 40 years, but now I can't accept what isn't there. Despite numerous eyewitness accounts, I was disheartened to discover that the facilities I expected to see do not exist. There are no films or documentation supporting the claims of gas execution chambers. It's hard to reconcile this with what I've been taught.

Doctor William Lindsey, an American industrial chemist, testified about Zyklon B, the gas allegedly used to kill Jews at Auschwitz and other camps. He emphasized the dangers of Zyklon B and the need for careful handling. When questioned about a previous witness who claimed to have handled corpses shortly after gassings, he deemed it highly unlikely. Regarding mass gassings, he stated it was impossible for them to have occurred as described, asserting that no one was intentionally killed with Zyklon B in that manner. Additionally, he challenged earlier claims about flames shooting from crematoria chimneys, explaining that such conditions would damage the brick and mortar structure.

Professor Robert Faurisson testified in defense of Ernst Zundel, stating his research led him to believe the Holocaust and gas chambers are historical lies. He recalled finding no soot on a crematorium smokestack at Auschwitz, which he claimed was a reconstruction. Another scholar testified that the number of Jewish deaths in World War II is far less than commonly believed. Faurisson disputed the figure of 6,000,000 Jewish deaths, claiming there's no proof of even one gas chamber and estimating casualties between 200,000 and 350,000, citing the International Tracing Service as his source. Faurisson testified that the "final solution" was a territorial solution, not extermination, and the existence of camp survivors disproves a policy of working Jews to death. He stated there's no document with Hitler's signature ordering mass murder, attributing the belief that 6,000,000 Jews died to rumors and anti-German propaganda. He accused the state of Israel and international Zionists of perpetrating this "historical lie" for financial gain from German reparations.

Doctor Raul Hilberg was back on the stand today to defend his forty years of Holocaust research. The questions ranged from the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto uprising to German policy as the 1941 invasion of Russia began. Defense lawyer Doug Christie pressed how Hilberg concluded that Adolf Hitler personally issued the annihilation order. Hilberg replied, "Hitler's order was verbal and thus no one knows the correct wording. It's one of the gaps in history." He added, "To get the evidence of Hilberg overnight might cost $400. That's how much it costs." Christie challenged Hilberg's use of a former SS officer as a source; the officer claimed, for example, that "Hitler witnessed some gassings" and that "25,000,000 Jews were killed." Hilberg admitted he left out the officers' incredible points in his book.

Bishop Williamson, are these your words? You claim that no Jews were killed in gas chambers and that the Holocaust is a lie. Yes, I believe the evidence strongly contradicts the claim that six million Jews were deliberately gassed. I think there were no gas chambers. Historical revisionists suggest that around 200,000 to 300,000 Jews died in concentration camps, but not from gassing. Fred Leuchter, an expert on gas chambers, concluded that the supposed gas chambers could not have functioned as claimed. He pointed out the lack of necessary safety features, like high chimneys, and the doors were not airtight. This is not antisemitism; it’s about historical truth based on evidence. Germany has paid significant reparations due to guilt over the Holocaust, but I don’t believe six million were gassed. I must caution you, discussing this could lead to legal issues in Germany.

During cross-examination, Christie questioned a key witness about his time at Auschwitz. The witness, Arnold Friedman, admitted he never saw mass executions, only guessing at what happened. Christie suggested bodies burned were from disease, not genocide. He challenged Friedman's claims of seeing smoke and flames from the crematorium, stating cremation doesn't produce such effects. Christie aims to challenge beliefs about the Holocaust.

Defense witness Ditleid Felderrer compared himself to Voltaire, defending free speech. He visited Auschwitz 27 times, claiming to find amenities like a swimming pool, banquet room, sauna, and dance hall. He called a crematorium a Hollywood set. Ernst Zindel used Felderer's research in his work. During cross-examination, Felderer read from leaflets mocking the Holocaust and gas chambers, for which he faced prosecution in Sweden. Translation: Defense witness Ditleid Felderrer compared himself to Voltaire, defending free speech. He visited Auschwitz 27 times, claiming to find amenities like a swimming pool, banquet room, sauna, and dance hall. He called a crematorium a Hollywood set. Ernst Zindel used Felderer's research in his work. During cross-examination, Felderer read from leaflets mocking the Holocaust and gas chambers, for which he faced prosecution in Sweden.

An American chemist, Dr. Lindsay, testified about the dangers of Zyklon B gas allegedly used in Auschwitz. He disputed claims of mass gassings and bodies being handled after gassing. Dr. Lindsay stated it was impossible for people to be killed with Zyklon B as described. He also refuted testimony about flames shooting out of crematoria chimneys, saying it would cause them to collapse.

I informed Mr. Zundel and his defense team that I would clearly state in my report if I found facilities capable of supporting gas executions. I brought the necessary equipment to document and measure the facilities in Poland. I took photographs and collected forensic samples, which were properly packaged for testing in the US. Based on my visual inspection, I concluded that these facilities were not suitable for hydrogen cyanide gas executions. The samples were corroborative evidence. The design and construction of the facilities did not meet the requirements for gas chambers, lacking features like gasketed doors, windows, and explosion-proof switches. Holocaust survivor accounts were not credible eyewitness reports as they did not provide accurate descriptions of gas chambers.

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.

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