TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

Socialists met in Wannsee in 1942 to discuss the Jewish problem, but the meeting did not mention killing Jews or extermination methods. There was no finalized plan for the "final solution," as the term was used without a concrete strategy. Meeting minutes even suggested Jews would eventually be released.

Various genocides and atrocities throughout history were not mistakes, but rather deliberate actions. The planning and execution of these acts were not due to incompetence or lack of knowledge, but rather occurred in plain sight. Governments, organizations, and individuals played their roles in perpetuating these crimes. The control grid was established by bankers, laws shielded contractors, and dissenters were silenced. The population was terrorized, isolated, and dehumanized. It is important to hold those responsible accountable and not let them escape justice.

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.

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 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.

In the Nuremberg courtroom, the trial of 23 Nazi doctors accused of various crimes begins. Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician and a high-ranking SS officer, is the main defendant. Another important figure is Siegfried, a former medical chief in the German army. The only female defendant was a physician at Ravensbruck concentration camp. Despite their pleas of not guilty, the future of these accused individuals will be determined by time and evidence.

When the Germans discovered mass graves in early 1943, they brought in a European Red Cross committee called the Kading Commission, comprising 12 forensic experts and their staff. At the Nuremberg trials, the Soviets blamed the Germans for perpetrating the Kading massacre, while the British, French, and Americans let them do it. Numerous German officers were wrongly hanged for the murder of thousands of innocent Polish nationalists, murders that, the speaker asserts, were actually committed by Stalin's NKVD. President Roosevelt allegedly deliberately covered up evidence of who really committed these crimes. The Soviet report blaming the Germans for the Kading massacre was listed at Nuremberg as 54 USSR, with Academic N. N. Burdenko and Mitropoulos Nikolay listed as members of the Special State Commission, described as two obvious liars with an agenda who signed this report. These were the same known liars who also signed the official Soviet report on Auschwitz, listed at Nuremberg as eight USSR. The speaker asserts that this alone should be cause for concern to anyone seeking objective truth, noting that the Soviet report on Auschwitz was signed by two proven liars.

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.

Hitler and the National Socialists did not view other races as subhuman, contrary to post-war propaganda. The term "master race" was a mistranslation, referring to Germans being masters of themselves and their country. "Lebensraum" means living space, not brutality against other races. Jewish supremacists use race to describe their own, projecting the idea of an Aryan master race onto Germans to deflect from their own racism.

Lord Justice Lawrence delivers the verdict, finding several individuals guilty of various crimes. Wilhelm Hermann Goering is guilty of conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and is sentenced to death by hanging. Rudolf Hess is guilty of conspiracy and crimes against peace, receiving a life imprisonment sentence. Joachim von Reventrop is guilty of conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and is sentenced to death by hanging. Other individuals, including Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Fritz Sauckel, Julius Streicher, and Alfred Yodle, are also found guilty of different crimes and receive death by hanging sentences.

Hitler was labeled a fascist, but he was actually a socialist. Fascism is a left-wing ideology where the government controls what you can do with your property. The Nazis were put on trial by the communists, who came out looking better despite having killed more people. Ayn Rand believes that all these "isms" are nonsense and that it's really about individualism versus collectivism. Collectivists are communist fascists who lie and steal from you.

Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time. He wanted to expel the Jews.

Speaker 0: In, say, Britain, they've banned CGTN, the Chinese channel, from broadcasting RT, famously. Why is it that, do you think Russia thinks it's fine? I think Sergei Lavrov this week giving a press conference allowing Western reporters, accreditation, whereas in The United States, they obviously don't ban media in The US because of the First Amendment. Certainly in Europe, obviously, there's mass banning of, journalists and journalism. What what's behind, that? And that surely does depart somewhat from manufacturing consent where they didn't wanna ban anything. They just knew that lower selling outlets would fail to engage the populace in dissident opinion? Speaker 1: Well, I think first of all that's quite normal. You look through the, say the take a more recent event, the Iraq war, not that far back. Anyone who dares to say that the Iraq War was the major crime of this century, which it certainly was, is bitterly denounced and condemned. If you look at discussion in the mainstream, you'll be hard put to find anyone who can reach the mainstream who will say the elementary truth, indisputable truth, that the Iraq war was an example of what the Nuremberg Tribunal called the supreme international crime, crime of aggression, differs from other war crimes only in that it includes all of the evil that follows. So find somebody who says President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney were guilty of the crimes for which people were hanged at Nuremberg. Instead what you have is celebration of George Bush, the great criminal who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and destroyed them, Celebration of him as a lovely person, it's called a goofy grandpa who plays with his grandchildren, paints pictures. Just a delightful person. Well, that's the Iraq War. It's quite striking that anyone who dares to compare the Iraq War with the Russian invasion of Ukraine is viciously denounced.

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."

Dr. Raul Hilberg, a renowned Holocaust expert, testified in the trial of Ernst Zendel and admitted that there is no scientific report proving the existence of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps. He also stated that he couldn't confirm if any reports corresponded to the use of gas chambers. During cross-examination, Zendel's lawyer, Douglas Christie, questioned Hilberg about the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the difficulty of assessing them after 40 years. The trial attracted a large audience, with people lining up outside the district court building to attend.

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

Speaker 0 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.

Hitler initially wanted to expel the Jews, not exterminate them. Khadz Amin al Husseini told Hitler that if he expelled the Jews, they would all come to his location. When Hitler asked what he should do with them, al-Husseini allegedly told him to burn them.

This video explores the support and collaboration that Adolf Hitler and the Nazis received from various powerful individuals and organizations during World War II. It highlights the involvement of politicians, industrialists, and bankers, including Henry Ford, in supporting Hitler's regime. The Nazis looted and confiscated the possessions of Jews and other victims, with companies like IBM, Standard Oil, and Ford collaborating and profiting from the war. After the war, many Nazis escaped to South America with their stolen wealth. The Vatican and Bishop Luigi Hudal played a role in helping Nazis escape by providing false documents. The Nuremberg trials were limited, and former Nazis were allowed to rebuild their businesses. Swiss banks facilitated the Nazi art looting and refused to return stolen assets. The video concludes by emphasizing that many who aided Hitler never faced justice for their involvement in the atrocities.

"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."

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.