TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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

Speaker 0: How How would you look at Hitler in this light? Would you see him as a personification, a symbol of the father? Speaker 1: Oh, well, no. No. Not at all. I know. No. You see, I I couldn't possibly explain that very complicated fact Hitler represents. It is just too too complicated. You know? He's a hero figure. Yes. And the hero figure is far more important than any fathers that have ever existed. I see. Speaker 0: Much broader than Speaker 1: right No. He was a medium father, but all not at all. He was a hero Yeah. To in in in the German myth. Yeah. And mind you, a religious hero. He was a savior. Yes. Yes. He was meant to be a savior. That is why they put his photo on upon the others. Yes. Yes. Or somebody declares on his tombstone that he is happy to that his eyes have beheld Hitler. And now he kept lying peace. Oh, yes. It's the human race, you know.

Speaker 0 asserts that Nick Fuentes thinks Hitler was cool, but reminds him that Hitler ultimately lost and had to shoot himself. This implies that Fuentes should understand he isn’t on a winner, even if he believes otherwise. The speaker adds, “Oh, you’re nicer than me. I’d say follow your leader,” and then clarifies, “That’s not our advice.”

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

Speaker 1 argues that the conversation about the Holocaust has been framed improperly and that there is an organized psychological warfare campaign that began in 1941 with the first rumors of gassings at the basement of Block 11 in Auschwitz. He claims those stories are infused with OSS propaganda points, noting that the OSS doctrine on rumors is essentially a guidebook on how to create and spread rumors, and that the job of the OSS was to spread rumors. He says they created and that they will get to that next, providing slides to put gas chamber stories in context. He notes that the other allegations will make the gas chambers clearer. Speaker 0 acknowledges technical issues with the live stream. Speaker 1 proceeds with a series of claimed devices and methods, all of which he says were testified to under oath at Nuremberg. - The brain-bashing machine: the prisoner was placed against a wall with an iron plate that was slowly lowered onto his head; the plate contained a ramrod that shot out and delivered a blow to the back of the head, knocking him dead; the iron plate was operated by a foot lever in a corner of the room. - Bone grinders: allegedly a bone grinder could grind bones of 200 persons at a time, producing 200 cubic meters of bone flour; the claim emphasizes explicit concrete detail to enhance believability. - Mobile gas chambers: arose from mobile delousing stations; these mobile gas chambers do not exist; the claim suggests the mobile chambers were created to account for the numbers claimed and to enable driving around and stuffing people into a mobile gas chamber. - World’s largest ovens: testified ovens could fit 2,500 to 3,000 bodies; bones were smashed into small particles by bulldozers and the ashes strewn over the yard so that no traces should be left; the claim is used to counter assertions that the Nazis destroyed all evidence. - Nazi spanking machine: a punishment of 50 blows with a stick on the loins; administered with a swinging apparatus manipulated by an SS; a machine that knocked you in the balls controlled by a lever. - Gloves and pocketbooks of human skin: claimed to exist but said to be long since debunked. - Plucking of the pubic hairs: August 1942 order for prisoners to have all hair removed from armpits and around genitals; prisoners supposedly spent the night plucking hair by hand; guards killed four prisoners and wounded three by rifle fire the next morning; the claim is that no prisoner received a razor, though the Germans supposedly knew they had none. - Torture cabinets: alleged that a group of prisoners were locked up on New Year’s Eve 1945 due to cold conditions; described as a psychological device. - Bars of Jewish soap: rumors first emerged in World War I; this is presented as another example of the types of propaganda. Speaker 1 closes by noting that the aim of including a humorous twist was part of how rumors were crafted, and that the OSS embedded such elements in their propaganda.

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

The Republicans chose Candace Owens, and the speaker plays a clip of her discussing Adolf Hitler. Owens says she doesn't have a problem with nationalism, but it gets associated with Hitler. She clarifies that if Hitler had only focused on Germany, it would have been fine, but he wanted to globalize and make everyone German. The speaker then asks if Owens legitimizing Hitler feeds into white nationalist ideology. Another speaker expresses concern over Owens' comments, and Owens accuses the speaker of assuming black people won't watch the full clip. She clarifies that she was not defending Hitler, but rather stating that he was not a true nationalist. Owens criticizes the speaker for presenting a dishonest narrative and defends her work for Prager University. The video ends with the speaker yielding their remaining time.

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."

The speaker questions the claim that six million Jews perished in German concentration camps during World War II. They cite gas chamber doors that allegedly didn't lock, some made of wood with glass windows, arguing they weren't airtight and would have harmed the guards. They mention Fred Lukter's analysis of Auschwitz gas chamber walls, which supposedly found no cyanide residue. The speaker highlights the existence of soccer teams, a theater, sewing rooms, and swimming pools in the camps, questioning why these would exist if extermination was the goal. A 1944 International Red Cross report allegedly found no evidence of extermination installations at Auschwitz. The speaker claims Jewish population records before and after the war show no significant change. They state that autopsies on 270,000 bodies found the cause of death was typhus and starvation, not poison gas. They allege some cremation smokestacks had no soot and one chimney wasn't connected to the building. The speaker concludes that evidence was manipulated for propaganda and that questioning the Holocaust is taboo because the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.

Speaker 0 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.

The speaker discusses the narrative surrounding Hitler and World War 2, suggesting that it has been used to deconstruct important aspects of society. They mention Karl Popper and the Open Society Foundation started by George Soros. The speaker admits to not knowing much about Hitler but believes he is used as a mythological figure to enforce a liberal consensus. They argue that there are no purely good or bad individuals, including Hitler, and express neutrality on the matter. They suggest that if Hitler is labeled as bad, then other historical figures like Churchill and Roosevelt should also be considered bad. The speaker emphasizes the importance of considering the context of the time when judging Hitler.

The speaker dismisses the claim that Hitler was trying to get rid of the Rothschilds, stating that Hitler himself was a Rothschild. They argue that Hitler and the Nazis were set up and supported by the international banking community and crony capitalists, including those in America. They mention connections such as the Young Plan, funded by General Electric and JPMorgan, which led to the downfall of the German banking system and the rise of Hitler. They also discuss the Bank for International Settlements and the Milner Group's involvement. The speaker concludes that Hitler was not against the banking oligarchy and that the idea is Neo-Nazi propaganda.

Speaker 0 states that there is not the slightest evidence Adolf Hitler knew what was happening to the Jews, to the Holocaust, or to Auschwitz. He says he has offered £1,000 English money, 2,000 Canadian dollars, since 1977 and over the last nine years in television programs and worldwide media, to anyone who can find one wartime document showing that Hitler even knew about Auschwitz or about what was going on in the Eastern Front. He asserts that nobody can find such a document, and that historians hesitate, look at each other, and ask if someone else has the proof. He recounts that Jekyll says no, Hilgeruber says no, Jakobson says perhaps Bouchard has it, and Bouchard says he thought Jekyll had it, so they go around in circles. Because they cannot prove they have the evidence, they turn on he (Irving), accusing him of fascism and discrediting him, claiming nobody should believe him. He then says he has come up in the archives with a whole string of documents that meet his criteria—genuine documents written by people in positions to know, created not for any exterior or ulterior motive. He describes these as a narrow file of documents showing Hitler deliberately, explicitly linked to the Holocaust as we can say, or linked to the fate of the Jews, that great tragedy. He asserts that all these documents show Hitler intervening to stop anything nasty happening to the Jews. The core claims are: (1) there is no wartime document proving Hitler knew about Auschwitz or the Holocaust; (2) his ongoing public challenge and financial offer to discover such a document; (3) the existence of a verified set of documents written by insiders, allegedly showing Hitler intervening to prevent harm to the Jews, and explicitly linking Hitler to the Holocaust in his actions.

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

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

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.”

Speaker 0 states that Donald Trump's language about "poisoning the blood" echoes Hitler and suggests an affinity for eugenics. Speaker 0 claims Trump believes in genetic superiority and wants to "purge" immigrants, potentially harming them due to perceived "bad genes." Speaker 0 believes this isn't mere rhetoric and should be taken seriously. Speaker 2 objects to comparing Trump to Hitler, arguing Trump was referring to violent criminals who murdered Americans, citing studies on genetic predispositions to murder. Speaker 2 defends Trump's desire to deport violent, illegal immigrants to protect Americans and finds the Hitler comparison offensive. Speaker 0 insists Trump's words and past statements reveal a pattern, not short-term memory. Speaker 0 suggests Trump doesn't believe Kamala Harris has genes as good as his and asks if he will attempt to exterminate people.

The speaker discusses the persistence of claims that Adolf Hitler was Jewish, Zionist, or connected to Jewish heritage, and argues that these claims are unfounded and perpetuated by rumor rather than solid evidence. He notes how the Internet has changed information dissemination, making it easy for unvetted claims to spread globally. Key points: - Two prevalent themes in the Patriot movement are (1) that the Nazis took over America, with claims like Jim Mars promoting this fraud, and (2) the claim that Adolf Hitler was Jewish, used by some to distance themselves from antisemitism. - Adolf Hitler was not Jewish. The speaker cites Martin Kerr’s 1982 essay, The Myth of Hitler’s Jewish Grandfather, to outline why the Jewish-grandfather claim is unsubstantiated. - Kerr explains several versions of the myth: - The notion that Alois Hitler’s fatherhood came from a Jewish grandfather named Frankenberger or a Rothschild figure, which Kerr states are unsupported by evidence. The speaker notes that Alois Hitler’s paternity can’t be linked to such figures, and a photo does not support those genealogies. - The claim that a Polish Jew named Hitler (a name shared by a Jewish newspaper figure) was Hitler’s grandfather is invalid because that Jew was born in 1832, only five years older than Hitler’s father, making him impossible as the sire. - Claims from an anti-Hitler German who was part Jewish are dismissed as unfounded. - Hans Frank’s memoirs (In the Face of the Gallows) are discussed, where Frank claimed he investigated threats to expose Hitler’s alleged Jewish ancestor, but the speaker notes it’s impossible to document a Jewish grandfather for Hitler. Werner Maeser, a German historian, is cited: no Frankenberger family lived in Graz in the 1830s, a Jewish presence there was absent, and Maria Schickelgruber (Hitler’s mother) could not have been impregnated by a Jew in Graz prior to Alois’s birth. - Ian Kershaw is cited as noting there was no evidence of a Jewish Frankenberger in Graz; Frankenreiter existed but was not Jewish. - The speaker emphasizes that Hitler’s alleged Jewish ancestry is unsupported by credible scholarship. He mentions that some narratives arise from a book sometimes titled Hitler, Founder of Germany or Hitler, founder of Israel, which he criticizes as poorly translated and unconvincing evidence. He mentions Colonel Don DeGrand Prix referenced this questionable book, but the speaker asserts the book’s content is weak. - He distinguishes that while there were Jews in Hitler’s military due to Nuremberg Laws’ definitions, and some individuals of Jewish descent fought in German forces, this does not prove Hitler was Jewish or Zionist. - He asserts: Hitler was not Jewish, not Zionist, and not Rothschild-connected. He warns against repeating rumors and urges reliance on solid research. - He reiterates that the idea of Hitler being Jewish, a Zionist, or connected to the Rothschilds is a myth, and insists listeners should abandon it and seek verifiable evidence. He ends by stating there were elements in Hitler’s government that supported Jewish immigration to Palestine for strategic reasons, but that does not equate to Hitler being Zionist or Jewish.

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

Speaker 0 argues that conspiracy theories have been made to look like lunacy, noting that the Kennedy assassination popularized the term “conspiracy theorist.” He says it wasn’t widely used before Kennedy, but afterward it became a label for “kooks,” and he’s repeatedly been called that. Speaker 1 acknowledges this dynamic. He and Speaker 0 discuss what a conspiracy is—“more people working together to do something nefarious?”—and Speaker 0 asserts that conspiracies have always happened. He disputes the view that most conspiracies are due to ineptitude, insisting that when there is profit, power, control, and resources involved, most conspiracies, in fact, turn out to be true. He adds that the deeper you dig, the more you realize there’s a concerted effort to make conspiracies seem ridiculous so people won’t be seen as fools. Speaker 1 remarks on the ridicule as well, and Speaker 0 reiterates his own self-description: “I am a conspiracy theorist,” a “foolish person,” and “a professional clown.” He mocks the idea that being labeled foolish is a barrier, and reflects on how others perceive him. Speaker 0 then provides specific, provocative examples of conspiracies he believes are real: Gulf of Tonkin was faked to justify U.S. entry into Vietnam; production of heroin ramped up to 94% of the world’s supply once the U.S. occupied Afghanistan; and the CIA, in the United States, allegedly sold heroin or cocaine in Los Angeles ghettos to fund the Contras versus the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. He states clearly that these claims are real and asserts that there are conspiracy theorists who are “fucking real.” Speaker 1 pushes back on reputation and judgment, and Speaker 0 reaffirms his self-identification as a conspiracy theorist who faces mockery. Speaker 1 suggests that this stance might give him a “superpower.”

Speaker 0 discusses Mydonic and presents a debunking claim in one photograph, specifically referencing "the windows" and the claim that Zyklon Bee was thrown in through the windows from outside to gas people. The speaker asserts this is a false narrative and characterizes it as a supposed wartime propaganda story that has grown into history over time. The speaker says: "the story with Mydonic is that they act... opened the windows and they threw the Zyklon Bee in the windows from outside" to gas people, and comments that the idea is absurd and that no one would knock the window out while being gassed. The speaker notes that this is the supposed explanation and that, in context, it becomes obvious it was wartime propaganda that has over time grown into history. The speaker then shifts to the broader implications, noting that people all over Europe can go to jail just for having this conversation today, potentially facing years in prison. They anticipate backlash against doing the show. The speaker asserts that history needs to be rewritten, stating that the people who perpetuate this story are "enemies of humanity." They argue that when you lie about history, you "steal people's essence from them," and claim that "there should be there's no punishment too great for that." In sum, the speaker contends that the Mydonic anecdote about Zyklon B being thrown through windows is a wartime propaganda narrative, not credible history, and emphasizes the consequences and penalties of challenging or discussing such histories in Europe. They express a conviction that history should be rewritten to correct what they view as deceptive or harmful representations, while acknowledging potential social or legal repercussions for discussing these topics publicly.

The speaker questions the conventional narrative of the Holocaust, suggesting that key aspects may be misrepresented. They claim that the gas chambers at Auschwitz lacked gas traces and had doors that opened from the inside. They allege Zyklon B was primarily used to combat typhus, a disease spread by lice, and that the victims' lack of hair in photos supports this. The speaker cites an expert who designed gas chambers in the US, claiming it would have been impossible to gas millions of Jews with the resources available. They also question the feasibility of cremating so many bodies in the given timeframe with the available technology. The speaker references a case in Canada where Holocaust survivors allegedly admitted to sensationalizing their stories. They claim Anne Frank's memoirs were partially written with ballpoint pens and that the number of deaths on Holocaust memorials has been reduced. They state that death camps were actually labor camps and that not all victims were Jewish. The speaker claims Hitler was partly responsible for the creation of Israel through the Havar agreement, which allowed 60,000 Jews to emigrate there in the 1930s. They allege that Jews served in the Nazi military and that there's no documentation proving the extermination of Jews. They conclude that questioning the Holocaust is forbidden because it is the foundation of a narrative that gives power to certain groups.

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

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