reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The video discusses brutal massacres carried out by the communists in various countries, including Poland and Russia. It highlights the role of Jewish secret police chief Lavrentia Beria in committing crimes and blaming them on the National Socialists. The Kydin Forest Massacre, where thousands of Polish officers were executed, is mentioned. The video also criticizes Albert Einstein, accusing him of plagiarism and being a communist. It describes the mistreatment and starvation of German prisoners of war by the Allies, as well as the genocidal policies imposed on Germany after the war. The video concludes with the mention of Jewish terrorist groups and their actions.

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

The 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.

During World War II, brutal massacres were carried out by the communists in various countries, including Poland and Russia. Stalin ordered the execution of thousands of Polish officers, while the Jewish secret police chief, Lavrentia Beria, sent millions of people to slave labor camps. The Kading Forest Massacre resulted in the execution of over 10,000 Polish officers. The Soviet report blamed the Germans for this massacre, but evidence suggests that it was actually committed by Stalin's NKVD. The German bombings of German cities, the rape and murder of German civilians, and the mistreatment of German prisoners of war are also discussed.

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

In 2025, Sony Pictures Classics announced a docudrama, Nuremberg, the world will bear witness, slated for November 7 in the U.S. It’s predominantly produced by members of the Seberstein family and loosely based on The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack Elhai, which examines Hermann Goring’s fitness for trial at the Nuremberg IMT. The film and book assume the IMT’s legality and proper conduct, focusing on how evidence was created, gathered, and presented, including material from Nazi atrocities. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 discuss a debate with Holocaust skeptic Gamarudov, where historian Michael Van says the Nuremberg trials provide useful evidence for the Holocaust but the film aims to scrutinize the trial’s background rather than its results. The overview outlines how the IMT came about and was organized. Before the war’s end, Stalin proposed rounding up German leaders for execution; Churchill and Roosevelt fluctuated between harsher and milder postwar justice. The German surrender led Admiral Donitz to ask Germany’s Supreme Court in Leipzig to conduct its own trial, but the Allies arrested and disbanded the German government on 05/23/1945. Americans took charge of organizing the postwar trial. London lawyers drafted procedures, assigned judges and prosecutors from victorious powers, and compiled a list of 24 German defendants. The first volume of the 42-volume IMT documentation is freely downloadable from the Library of Congress. The video asserts that the IMT was illegal for several reasons, notably jurisdictional issues: an international court requires jurisdiction by participating states, which did not necessarily apply to all states involved. The charges—crimes against peace and crimes against humanity—used new laws and backward application in places. Critics argue that the Allies, as prosecutors and judges, compromised neutrality, and that the Allies themselves had committed crimes during the war, including waging aggressive wars, incarcerating thousands without due process, slave labor, killing civilians through mass bombing, ethnic cleansing of Germans, and mass murder of civilians. The video contends the Allies were not neutral judges of their own actions. Vyshinsky’s Soviet prosecution is highlighted as controlling the defense’s ability to challenge evidence, with the defense barred from presenting certain issues, including the Katyn affair and a range of Soviet assets and reports. The defense faced limited access to German archives and to allied materials; article 21 allowed judicial notice of official documents, effectively green-lighting Soviet re-investigations and mass grave reports as incontrovertible evidence. The defense’s ability to challenge such “official reports” was constrained. The video reviews evidence procurement: three Allied trials (U.S., Britain, Soviet) preceded the IMT. The Dachau and other trials supplied evidence later used at Nuremberg but were criticized for coercive practices. Benjamin Ferenc, responsible for evidence collection in the U.S. zone, described harsh methods: short trials, batches of defendants, threats to elicit confessions, and brutal interrogation in Dachau. Ferenc’s testimony and recollections of torture are cited as reflecting broader coercive practices. A former commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höss, testified for Kaltenbrunner after intense pressure and torture; later historians note his testimony’s reliability is contested. The British trials, including Auschwitz-related proceedings, faced internal investigations revealing torture of German captives. Ian Cobain later published these files in Cruel Britannia. The Soviet approach to evidence is characterized as propagandistic and unreliable, including the Katyn-related mass grave reports and forged or misrepresented forensic outputs. The video emphasizes that many testimonies used at Nuremberg originated from coerced confessions or dubious affidavits, and that several key witnesses offered or repeated implausible or false narratives. Key documentary examples include: Gerstein’s disputed Zyklon B tale, which the French prosecutor used; the War Refugee Board report (document L22) citing Rudolf Ruber, whose death toll claims and facility descriptions are now viewed as erroneous; gas vans and related documents (Becker document, which the prosecution presented, but is described as forged or misinterpreted). The film argues that the IMT sealed false narratives through dubious documentation and incompatible evidence. The video concludes by acknowledging the documentary’s scope and pointing to Gemma Rudolph’s The Holocaust, Proven at Nuremberg as the source for a deeper study, alongside David Irving’s Nuremberg, the Last Battle. It asserts that the video does not claim Nazism’s innocence but contends that victors’ trials cannot be entirely fair. The sponsors and producers promote further accessible materials and call for support.

During World War II, the Germans ran prison and labor camps, including Auschwitz in Poland. The Holocaust, the genocide of 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews, is said to have taken place there. However, some people question the evidence and claim it has never been proven. The Auschwitz main camp, now a tourist attraction, is presented as a gas chamber and crematorium, but there are doubts about its authenticity. The gas chamber is a reconstruction, and there are discrepancies in the information provided by tour guides and experts. The Soviet Union, which provided much of the evidence, has a history of propaganda and deception. The debate about the Holocaust continues.

During World War II, the Soviet Union was a military ally whose anti-Nazi propaganda was accepted and later integrated into historical accounts. One speaker states their belief that 6,000,000 Jews were killed in the war by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. They then ask another speaker, the president of Iran and a scholar, if he believes that 6,000,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis, or if he thinks that is not true. The other speaker says he doesn't think 6,000,000 Jews were gassed, and cautions that this statement is against the law in Germany, and could result in imprisonment.

Speaker 0 explains that the narrative about these camps was submitted by the Soviets in conjunction with the newly established Stalinist, communist Polish authorities. He highlights Majdanek as the most extreme case of the Soviets rigging their record, noting that it was the first of the major camps conquered by the Red Army. After the Red Army captured Majdanek, Soviet authorities claimed that two million people were killed there and in seven homicidal gas chambers. He emphasizes that in the documentation, each of these facilities is described as either a drying facility, a fumigation chamber, or something similar, with no trace of homicidal gas chambers. He then cites a 2005 assessment by a new historian at the Auschwitz Museum, who made what he calls the ultimate drop down to seventy-eight thousand victims and reduced five of the seven homicidal gas chambers. From the initial figure of two million, the estimated victims are now down to seventy-eight thousand, which he notes is less than 4% of the original number.

This man claims to be a survivor of the Treblinka extermination camp, and he made the drawings in this film clip. You will see from the drawings that the Nazis had allegedly built a huge killing factory. Treblinka is sixty sixty kilometers Northeast of Warsaw, and it is alleged that in 1942, 870,000 Jews from the ghettos in Loblin on Warsaw were bought by train to the camp. And then these people were herded into massive diesel gas chambers. Despite the fact it is almost impossible to kill people with diesel gas, it is alleged the people died within minutes. In October 1999, Australian researchers traveled to the area in Poland where the Treblinka camp was supposedly situated, looking for signs or proof of the mass graves. The results obtained by the Australian researchers show with 100% certainty that a Nazi extermination camp never existed in the area called Treblinka.

Many bodies at Nordhausen were actually killed by Allied bombing, not by Germans as claimed. The media often shows images of Nordhausen, but evidence shows prisoners were bombed and strafed by British warplanes.

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.

The Soviets kept their own crimes secret; communist documents were released in 1989 documenting that the Soviet NKVD carried out the Kading Massacre. In 2012, World Press reported their findings on the Kading Massacre. It was long suspected that Churchill and Roosevelt knew that Stalin ordered the massacre but kept their mouths shut about it. The US covered it up.

Bucha massacre. I've been to Bucha, so I want to play this clip. So I don't believe that Bucha was a war crime. I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war False flag? Absolutely. It was a massacre carried out. Have you been there? No. It was a Have you spoken to the people? There. I'd be killed if I went be killed by been to Besiktivas Russia. It's because you're chilling for him. Zelenskyy would have me killed if I went there. I am absolutely certain that the people who were massacred at Bucha were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing Ukrainian state.

Speaker 0 urges historical perspective, noting the wartime Soviet alliance and that their anti-Nazi propaganda was accepted by the Allies; as victors, the Soviets "got to commit their propaganda to the history books as fact." He says current knowledge of Stalin's despotism and the KGB's deception, and the camps Majdanek, Belzec, Kelno, Treblinka, and Sobibor, have required relying on Soviet sources. "I believe in the inarguable fact that 6,000,000 Jews were killed in the war by Adolf Hitler and Nazis." He asks Speaker 2 if he believes that figure. Speaker 2 replies, "But I don't think 6,000,000 Jews were gassed. Now be careful. I I beg of you. This is against the law in Germany. If there was a German somebody that's in German state, you could have me thrown into prison before I leave Germany."

The 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.

They cite General Petrushko as the Russian general who captured Auschwitz and who 'has testified testified that the Holocaust did take place because he he moved he and his troops moved in there.' They ask how to account for 'the United Eisenhower and general Patrenko, both say the same thing' despite US–Soviet tensions. They point out that 'the German government, the West German government, and the East German government both say the same thing' and question, 'isn't that a coincidence?' The speaker argues that West German leaders were 'hurt that they were not allowed by the Americans ... to help celebrate the ... invasion of Europe by the American Armed Forces.' They reference Katyn: 'the Soviet General Petrenko... tried to blame the murder of the Polish elite' on the Germans, adding that 'the charge was dropped.' The other concludes, 'So you can't believe a word he says.'

The transcript presents a compilation of eyewitness testimonies and reported documents asserting that German prisoners of war (POWs) in American and French camps after World War II suffered lethal conditions, starvation, exposure, disease, and violent treatment. The speakers consistently describe systemic neglect, punitive policies, and instances of murder or near-murder, arguing that the death toll was high and that authorities at various levels were complicit or negligent. Key witness: Martin Breck - Breck, drafted in 1944, guard and interpreter at a POW camp near Andernach on the Rhine in 1945. - About 50,000 prisoners (men and women in separate enclosure) with no shelter, little clothing, and inadequate latrines; many slept in mud, suffered from exposure, dysentery, and starvation. - He observed prisoners eating grass and weeds in a tin can of soup; medical care was withheld despite protests to officers who claimed higher-up strict orders to ration severely. - He witnessed a captain firing a pistol for target practice at civilian women in the distance, implying cold-blooded brutality and moral contempt. - He notes propaganda from Stars and Stripes that glamorized German camps, allegedly facilitating cruelty by likeness to enemy propaganda. - Breck describes prisoners’ zombie-like states, attempts to escape toward the Rhine, and postwar brutality when transferring prisoners to French labor camps, including beating and killing of staggered prisoners. - He recounts a moment of human connection: a German woman feeding prisoners in a graveyard area, which Breck witnessed before the end of the war, influencing his later philosophical/rel religious interests. - After VE Day, Breck depicts continued brutality, famine, and rapes among German civilians, and the lack of Red Cross aid at camps. - He argues that Allied retaliation and punitive measures mirrored enemy atrocities and advocated speaking out to influence policy and oppose dehumanizing propaganda. Other American eyewitnesses and accounts - Corporal Daniel McConnell: Suffered PTSD from serving at Heilbronn; describes Baker Number 4 as a hospital tent with no equipment, where dying prisoners were gathered for transport, and mass burials by bulldozer were common. - Major General Richard Steinbach (then colonel): Administered camps near Heilbronn; testified that conditions were terrible, with prisoners underweight, ill, and starving; argued Morgenthau Plan policies and Roosevelt’s approval caused starvation and idleness; he ordered remedial action by securing rations and tents, though he was reassigned before conditions improved. - General Withers Alexander Burris (a sixth army commander): Found Heilbronn conditions similarly dire; corroborated Steinbach. - Lieutenant Colonel Henry W. Allard: Describes Austrian camps as having only rations provided, with lacking supplies; remarks that POW camps’ living standards compared poorly to other camps. - Colonel James B. Mason and Colonel Charles H. Beasley: Observed late-April 1945 conditions along the Rhine — freezing weather, 100,000 men underfed and exhausted, many dying from hunger, dysentery, and exposure; noted near collapse of the prisoners’ condition. - Captain Ben H. Jackson: Noted the stench and encampment conditions, with severe hunger and disease. - Medical and auxiliary observations by German and French observers: Doctors and French aid workers described moribund POWs, with hospital tents crowded and lacking supplies. A Jewish intelligence lieutenant at Bad Kreuznach questioned why German prisoners were half-starved in Allied cages. - Dr. Joseph Kirsch (French volunteer): Observed moribund German prisoners moved by American ambulances to hospitals with minimal care; hospital roles appeared as morgues rather than care centers. - Charles Pradervan (ICRC delegate) and the ICRC reports (1945–1947): Documented severe undernourishment, illness, and malnutrition in French and Austrian camps; called for increased rations, clothing, and medical supplies; described the situation as “more than alarming.” - Le Monde and Le Figaro correspondents: Noted horrific conditions in French camps, including skeleton-like prisoners, typhus, tuberculosis, and mass deaths; reported incidents of random shootings and beatings, sometimes linked to attempts to escape or as punitive measures. - Ernest Kramer and other German POWs: Confirmed the existence of inhumane holding pens in American camps; described guards’ brutality, lack of food, and poor treatment even after the war’s end. French camps and American–French transition - Reports describe French camps where 900–1,000 calories per day were provided, with tens of thousands of prisoners malnourished; as camps were transferred to French authorities, conditions sometimes improved when humanitarian approaches were implemented (as in Dietersheim under Captain Julian, who increased rations and provided shelter and clothing with external aid from German authorities and the ICRC). - Captain Julian’s improvements reportedly reduced the death rate by more than half by August 1945; his humanitarian approach contrasted with the lethal policies observed elsewhere. - The testimony includes allegations that American policies explicitly aimed to exterminate or starve prisoners in some camps, and that food was sometimes burned or blocked from local civilians as part of punitive measures. Counterpoint and framing - Some witnesses argued that German camps were not treated this way by the Nazis, pointing to the Red Cross inspections and harsher consequences for abuse in German camps, contrasting with Allied practices postwar. - The compilation also references postwar debates among historians, including criticisms of James Back’s Other Losses; yet the testimonies emphasize a pattern of lethal conditions in Western Allied POW camps after the war. Overall, the transcript assembles a broad spectrum of testimonies and contemporaneous reports alleging systemic starvation, exposure, disease, and violent treatment of German POWs by American and French forces after World War II, including specific camp-by-camp observations, individual incidents of murder or brutal treatment, and calls for accountability and humanitarian reform.

The speaker mentions the liberation of all camps in Poland, not just Auschwitz. They point out that photos of the Russian liberation of Auschwitz lack snow, which was actually present. The Russian embassy confirmed that the photos were taken after the fact when cameras were available. The speaker emphasizes that the photos do not accurately depict Auschwitz's liberation due to the lack of snow and the presence of well-dressed individuals and children.

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.”

According to State Department documents, a group of Jews planned the overthrow of the Russian Tsar in 1916 to implement a communist regime. Communism was a Jewish totalitarian ideology invented and funded by Jewish figures like Jacob Schiff and manifested by Bolsheviks like Lenin and Trotsky. Tsar Nicholas II, a devout Christian, had witnessed Jewish terrorism and failed to execute communists after a 1905 revolution. Schiff financed Alexander Kerensky to release political prisoners, and Trotsky led Jewish communists to Russia with $20 million to lead a revolution. Jacob Schwarlov ordered Jacob Jirovsky to eliminate the Tsar and his family, which he did in 1918. Some Jews allegedly saw the slaughter as a ritual murder. US Ambassador David R. Francis stated that most Bolshevik leaders were Jews aiming for a worldwide revolution. Jewish publications boasted about the Jewish role in the revolution; seventeen of the first Soviet government's 22 ministers were Jews. The first legislation approved was the Anti-Semitism Act in 1917, and "racist" became a term to silence dissent. Leading Bolsheviks hated Russians and Christians, and Bolshevism caused mass slaughter. Collectivization, confiscation of goods, and deliberate famines led to millions of deaths in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia, known as the Holodomor. Lenin sought to destroy the peasant economy and regarded Europeans as animals. Trotsky aimed to turn Russia into a desert populated by white Negroes. Gendry Shagoda, a Jewish sacred police official, was responsible for millions of deaths. The Jewish Cheka, led by Felix Jarsynski, tortured and murdered Christians. Lazar Kaganovich ordered deaths and destruction of Christian monuments. Lenin said hatred is the basis of communism. Zionism, driven by Jewish brains, aimed to create a new world order. Stalin ordered killings by quotas. Jewish butchers committed atrocities. Trotsky executed people and ordered children murdered. The Gulag, a system of forced labor camps, was founded by Jews and run by Jewish commissars. Communism was created by bankers to enslave the masses.

Bucha massacre. I've been to Bucha, so I want to play this clip. So I don't believe that Bucha was a war crime. I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war False flag? Absolutely. It was a massacre carried out. Have you been there? No. It was a Have you spoken to the people? There. I'd be killed if I went be killed by been to Besiktivas Russia. It's because you're chilling for him. Zelenskyy would have me killed if I went there. I am absolutely certain that the people who were massacred at Bucha were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing Ukrainian state.

Bucha massacre. I've been to Bucha, so I want to play this clip. So I don't believe that Bucha was a war crime. I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war False flag? Absolutely. It was a massacre carried out. Have you been there? No. It was a Have you spoken to the people? There. I'd be killed if I went be killed by been to Besiktivas Russia. It's because you're chilling for him. Zelenskyy would have me killed if I went there. I am absolutely certain that the people who were massacred at Bucha were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing Ukrainian state.

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.

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.