In late July of 2025,
Sony Picture Classics announced a new docu-drama,
titled "Nuremberg: The World Will Bear Witness."
The movie is slated to be released
on November 7 in the United States
It is predominantly produced
by members of the Jewish Saperstein family,
and is loosely based
on the 2013 book titled
"The Nazi and the Psychiatrist" by Jack El-Hai.
That book focuses on whether or not
Hermann Göring,
the highest-ranking German leader
still alive after the war,
was fit to stand trial
at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal,
or IMT for short.
The book and the upcoming docu-drama
take for granted the legality
and legitimacy of the IMT,
and assume that the trial
was conducted properly and fairly.
This attitude is understandable,
because the IMT is usually regarded
as the famous beginning
of international justice.
The results of this trial
are consistently cited by mainstream scholars
as proof of Nazi war mongering,
aggression and atrocities.
In this documentary,
we will take a closer look,
not into the results,
but into the background of that trial:
how it came about,
how it was set up,
how evidence was created and gathered,
and how this evidence was presented
during that trial.
In particular, we will shed some light
on evidence presented for Nazi atrocities,
because that’s what has shocked
the world the most.
Wars have always been fought
throughout the history of mankind.
But a Holocaust, gas chambers
and high-tech mass extermination,
that was unique.
And the Nuremberg IMT
was the first prestigious event
where that topic was presented
to a world audience.
During a debate with Holocaust skeptic
Germar Rudolf,
on Jake Shields’s “Fight-Back” podcast,
mainstream historian Dr. Michael Vann
expressed it succinctly as follows:
“I think that the Nuremberg trials
provide all sorts of useful evidence
for the Holocaust.
I mean, I got a pretty conventional
viewpoint on this, I mean.”
You can watch this debate
at the link given in the description.
First, I will give an overview
of how the IMT came about,
and how it was organized.
Already before World War Two ended,
Stalin suggested repeating
what he had done with the Polish elite
at the beginning of the war:
round up the top 50,000
or 100,000 German leaders,
and execute them without further ado.
Churchill and Roosevelt initially agreed,
but then the British had second thoughts,
and suggested executing only the Axis’s
top 50 or 100 war leaders,
and handing the small fry over
to other countries to do their lynching.
Stalin next suggested having a big show trial,
the Soviet mock style,
before executing the German leaders,
but that didn’t find approval
among the British and Americans.
They eventually lobbied for a trial
closer to their own traditions.
In the meantime,
the German armed forces surrendered.
A week later,
the new German government under Admiral Dönitz
asked the occupying powers for permission
to authorize Germany’s Supreme Court in Leipzig
to conduct a proper German trial
against suspected German war criminals.
That attempt at self-cleansing
did not go down well with the Allies, though.
They simply arrested and disbanded
the entire German government on May 23, 1945.
That was a violation of international law,
but there was no one to complain or intervene.
Ultimately, the Americans took charge
of organizing the envisioned postwar trial:
“The laws of God and of man have been violated,
and the guilty must not go unpunished.
Nothing shall shake our determination
to punish the war criminals,
even though we must persue them
to the end of the earth.”
“But the president insists on fair trials,
and appoints Supreme Court Justice
Robert H. Jackson to persuade the Allies
to the American view.”
To this end, legal experts of the Allied nations
met in London in the summer of 1945,
with an agreement signed on August 8.
Each victorious power assigned
their respective set of judges and prosecutors,
they devised laws and rules of procedures
to be applied,
and compiled a list of 24 German defendants.
All these details can be gleaned
from the first volume of the 42-volume series,
in which the IMT was documented by the Allies.
You can download them as PDF files free of charge
from the Library of Congress’s website
at www.loc.gov.
That’s the superficial view of things.
The truth behind the scenes was much uglier.
To bring that in full view,
let’s step back a little.
First of all, the IMT was illegal
for a number of reasons,
the most important of which is
that any international court
can have jurisdiction only in such countries
which have agreed to this jurisdiction.
For example, today’s International Criminal Court
has no jurisdiction in the United States,
in Russia, India or China,
because neither of them
ever recognized that court.
Of course, we could just say, screw it!
Criminals frequently don’t recognize
the jurisdiction of any court,
yet they get prosecuted all the same
when we catch them,
so why not the Nazis?
Alright then, what about inventing new laws,
then applying them backward?
That is true for two of the four charges
brought against the defendants:
Conspiring to commit crimes against peace,
and committing crimes against humanity.
Well, you might say that unusual crimes
require unusual laws,
so let’s do away with the principle
of not applying laws backward.
Fine, but how about this one:
In no court in the world would it be legal
to put those who claim to have been wronged
– the Americans, the Soviets, and other Allies –
in the position of being both the prosecutor
and the judge!
Even if you don’t care about legality,
this just isn’t right.
At a minimum, the judges should have been chosen
from neutral countries,
such as Switzerland or Sweden.
Furthermore, any really international court
would have put
all suspected war criminals on trial,
not just those of the losers.
Because if you look at it closely,
the Allies have committed
all the crimes themselves,
which they accused the German leaders of,
and some of them they were perpetrating
right at the time when they conducted the trial.
Here are a few examples:
1. Waging wars of aggression
– that’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,
when invading Poland together with Germany
in September of 1939.
And then Finland later in 1939,
as well as the Baltics and Romania in 1940.
Britain planned and was on the way
to invade neutral Norway and Sweden,
but when the Germans found out about it,
they beat the British to the punch,
but occupied only Norway,
thus shielding Sweden from British aggression.
As a reaction to this,
Britain invaded and occupied neutral Iceland
in May 1940,
with the U.S. taking over the occupation
in July 1941.
Together with the Soviet Union,
the British moreover invaded and occupied
neutral Iran in August 1941,
with the U.S. joining in later.
2. Incarcerating thousands without due process
– that’s exactly what the Americans had done
to their citizens of Japanese descent,
and to all non-naturalized German
and Italian immigrants.
They all ended up
in American concentration camps;
and we won’t even discuss in detail
the millions who had vanished
into the Soviet Gulag.
3. Slave labor – that accusation was levied
against the German leaders when,
at the same time,
the Soviets were deporting
hundreds of thousands of Germans,
and anyone who had collaborated with them
during the war, to slave-labor camps.
The French were exploiting tens of thousands
of German POWs until 1947.
4. Letting hundreds of thousands die of neglect
in ghettos and camps.
At the same time that charge was brought up,
German quote unquote “disarmed enemy forces”
as well as civilians
were dying by the hundreds of thousands
in American, Canadian, Polish,
French and Russian camps,
not to mention the millions who had disappeared,
and were still disappearing,
in the Soviet Union’s Gulag.
5. Ethnic cleansing in occupied Poland.
That charge got dwarfed
by the biggest ethnic cleansing
of recorded human history,
decided upon by the Allies at war’s end,
and implemented mainly by Poland,
Czechoslovakia and Serbia,
that is to say Yugoslavia.
Some ten million German civilians
got expelled from their homes
in East Germany and all over eastern Europe.
6. Mass-murder of mainly Jewish civilians
– when more than a million innocent German
and Japanese civilians had been gassed,
burned alive and blown to pieces
during Allied carpet-bombing campaigns,
and millions of Germans died
in East Germany and eastern Europe
in the biggest ethnic-cleansing campaign
the world has ever seen.
After all, the biggest butcher usually wins a war,
and it wasn’t the Germans
or Japanese in that case.
None of this could be brought up
by the defense during the trial, though.
Stalin’s attorney general,
who organized the Soviet prosecution team
at Nuremberg, Andrei Vyshinsky,
spearheaded the compilation of a list of issues
that the defense was not allowed to bring up,
among them the infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact
on the division of Poland between Germany
and the Soviet Union in 1939.
The other Allies also happily contributed topics
to that list they wanted excluded.
Vyshinsky, by the way, was the man
who had organized and supervised
the infamous Moscow show trials during the 1930s.
That did not bode well
for what was to come from the Soviets.
The worst hypocrisy of all was reserved
for U.S. chief prosecutor Robert Jackson.
He was the representative of a country
that mass-murdered hundreds of thousands
of civilians by dropping nuclear bombs
on undefended cities: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Just a few months after these war crimes,
he seriously – and falsely –
accused German leaders
of having mass-murdered 20,000 Jews
with a nuclear blast!
Here is the United States’ chief prosecutor
Jackson speaking during the IMT:
“And certain experiments were also conducted
and certain researches conducted
in atomic energy, were they not? […]
Now, I have certain information,
which was placed in my hands,
of an experiment
that was carried out near Auschwitz
and I would like to ask you
if you heard about it or knew about it.
The purpose of the experiment was
to find a quick and complete way
of destroying people
without the delay and trouble
of shooting and gassing and burning,
as it had been carried out.
And this is the experiment as I am advised.
A village, a small village
was provisionally erected,
temporary structures,
and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put.
By means of this newly invented
weapon of destruction [= nuclear bomb],
these 20,000 people were eradicated
almost instantaneously,
and in such a way
that there was no trace left of them;
that it developed, the explosive developed,
temperatures of from 400° to 500° centigrade
and destroyed them without
leaving any trace at all.”
The Americans weren’t the only ones
who reframed Allied atrocities,
and then blamed them on the Germans.
The Soviets were even more blatant
by blaming the Katyn Massacre of Polish officers
on the Germans,
although everyone in court knew
that this crime had been committed
by the Soviets on Stalin’s order.
Katyn wasn’t on the Soviet “don’t mention” list.
Quite to the contrary.
The Soviets introduced a fake forensic report,
created in early 1944
under the directives of the Red Army’s
surgeon-general, Nikolay Burdenko.
So why couldn’t the Germans challenge that report
by presenting their own Katyn report
they had prepared in 1943?
Well, this brings us to the way
the Allies rigged the rules,
making sure no effective defense
could be mounted.
Here's a quick rundown
of the most-important issues
that hampered the defense:
1. The Allies confiscated every piece of evidence
they could find in Germany.
In fact, they hauled train cars
full of material out of Germany.
The defendants or their lawyers
never saw any of it.
Access to that material was simply denied.
Only such pieces of evidence were produced
that the prosecution deemed important
for their case.
Exonerating evidence
certainly was not part of it.
The Allies moreover would not grant the defense
any access to their own archives.
In other words:
The defense couldn’t prepare a defense.
It’s as simple as that.
2. The IMT’s rules of procedure
had one particularly nasty provision
that allowed the Allies
to declare any kind of evidence as uncontestable,
just by giving it a certain formal appearance.
Here’s the wording of Article 21:
“The Tribunal shall not require proof
of facts of common knowledge,
but shall take judicial notice thereof.
It shall also take judicial notice of
official governmental documents and reports
of the United Nations,
including the acts and documents
of the committees set up
in the various Allied countries
for the investigation of war crimes,
and the records and findings
of military or other Tribunals
of any of the United Nations.”
There you have it.
The Soviets declared
their fraudulent re-investigation
of their own mass graves at Katyn
an “official governmental report”
of one of their “committees
set up for the investigation of war crimes,”
and bingo, the defense could not challenge it.
Many more official government reports
of this type were prepared
under Burdenko’s supervision,
all of them claiming to prove German massacres
perpetrated against peaceful Soviet citizens,
as the Soviets expressed it.
In one case, they even drew a parallel
between the Katyn Massacre and another massacre,
alleged to have occurred
near the western Ukrainian city of Lviv.
Here is what Soviet prosecutor Lev Smirnov
quoted from the conclusions
of the Soviet forensic report
prepared for this case:
“Thus the Hitlerite murderers
adopted in the territory of the Lvov region
the same methods for concealing their crimes
which they employed earlier
in connection with the murder
of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest.
‘The expert commission ascertained
full similarity of method
in camouflaging the graves in Lissenitzach Forest
with those used to camouflage the graves
of the Polish officers
killed by the Germans at Katyn.”
But because those camouflage methods
applied at Katyn were Soviet in origin,
this conclusion necessarily backfires
on the Soviets.
This gives rise to the suspicion
that at least some of the mass graves
the Soviets claim to have investigated
were either completely invented
or in fact Soviet in origin,
containing victims of Lenin’s
and Stalin’s terror regimes
rather than those of the German occupation.
Blaming an enemy for their own crimes
has always been a preferred Soviet method
of cleaning up their closets
full of skeletons.
A detailed analysis of the various
quote unquote “expert reports”
compiled by Burdenko and his ilk
has been undertaken
by Italian historian Carlo Mattogno
in Part Two of his two-volume work
on the Einsatzgruppen.
An eBook version of it
can be downloaded free of charge
at HolocaustHandbooks.com, volume number 39.
During the IMT, however, the German defense
could not challenge any of the claims
made by the Soviet prosecution in this regard,
as submitted in their government reports.
The same happened with findings
of the various tribunals
which the Allies staged prior to the IMT.
All kinds of things
were quote unquote “established” there,
none of which could be challenged by the defense.
I’ll deal with the circumstances
of some of these trials in a short while.
Another rule the Allies invented
to control what evidence could be submitted
stated that the tribunal was not bound by,
quote, “technical rules of evidence,” unquote.
It was to allow any evidence
which it deemed to have probative value.
The flip side of it means, of course,
that it could disallow any evidence
which it considered having no probative value.
That’s what happened to a lot of evidence
the defense wanted to submit,
which was simply ignored.
For example, the defense submitted
312,022 notarized affidavits on various topics,
most of them inevitably in the German language.
The vast majority of this material
was ignored by the court.
This evidence has largely disappeared
from the radar of historians,
as it was never published anywhere.
It stands to reason that other evidence
submitted by the defense
did not fare better either.
There were several more obstacles
of lesser importance,
erected by the Allies
in order to make any defense
practically impossible.
Pause the video to read this list in peace,
and pick up the book on which this video is based
to learn more details about this.
Just looking at the way the IMT was rigged,
it is obvious that this
was a highly problematic trial
against almost helpless defendants.
It is hardly surprising
that it found prominent critics
even among American experts.
Here are a number of quotes from some of them.
Pause the video to read them.
Ultimately, the proof lies in the pudding,
and not in some person’s opinion,
no matter how lofty his reputation.
Therefore, let’s look into the methods
used to procure or create evidence.
Three of the four Allied powers
sitting in judgment over German wartime leaders,
conducted trials prior to the IMT:
The U.S., Britain and the Soviet Union.
As just mentioned, the findings of these trials
were considered unassailable truth
during the IMT,
hence couldn’t be contested by the defense.
The trials conducted by the U.S. at Dachau
and elsewhere in southern Germany
concerned events at
former south-German concentration camps,
such as Dachau and Mauthausen,
and some other minor issues.
In the larger picture
of World War Two in general
and the Holocaust in particular,
these trials did not have much of an impact.
After these trials were over,
several defense lawyers voiced accusations
of horrible tortures and abuses
of defense witnesses and defendants,
inflicted on them during the preparatory phase
of some of these trials
and during the trials themselves.
This led to investigations
conducted by commissions
created by U.S. Congress.
Their findings were controversial.
Rather than quoting the statements
of prominent people on this,
I’ll focus on the one person who was in charge
of collecting incriminating evidence
for the U.S.’s war-crimes branch
in the U.S. zone of occupation in Germany.
This was the Hungarian-born U.S. Jew
Benjamin Ferencz,
back then merely 25 years of age.
In later years,
Ferencz made several revealing statements
about the conditions he had set
during his efforts to collect
quote unquote “evidence”
for the trials he prepared:
“State your full name – Ihr Name?
– [inaudible] – How old are you?
– Wie alt sind Sie? – 23 Jahre – 23
– What is your residence? – Wo wohnen Sie?
– [inaudible]”
“There were at the beginning
of the war-crime trials,
must have been by that time,
were the military commissions
still placed in Dachau.
The trials were conducted by three officers.
None of them usually had any legal training.
Trials lasted a couple of minutes.
The defendants were tried in batches,
20, 30, 40 at a time.
The guards were picked up in Buchenwald,
Mauthausen, Flossenbürg, Ebensee…;
all the camps that I’ve been in.
The defendants were lined up on benches,
and a number on their chest.
Presiding justice would call number seven,
‘Hans Schmidt, stand up!
You’re accused of crimes against humanity,
war crimes’;
didn’t talk about crimes against humanity;
war crimes, and that prisoners were beaten,
starved, I don’t know what.
‘How do you plead? Guilty or not guilty?’
– ‘Not guilty.’
– ‘What have you got to say for yourself?’
– ‘I wasn’t there’, ‘I was a cook’,
‘I didn’t see anything’, ‘I got ordered’,
‘I wasn’t being [inaudible]’, whatever.
‘Next’, go down the list.
Go through 20 cases.
Maybe an hour.
Then they adjourned themselves,
go to the next room, come back ten minutes later.
All the defendants are found guilty
and sentenced to death.
And when I checked in the Landsberg prison,
some years later,
how many people we actually executed here
based on those trials,
it said about a thousand.
Nothing to be proud of.”
Ferencz admitted in an interview
that he used threats and intimidation
to obtain confessions:
“He’d bring them in, to some big room.
I’d say, ‘Alright now, line up against the wall.
You’re gonna have to sit down and write
and describe exactly what happened.
Anybody who lies will be shot.
That was standard procedure.
Not the way of the Hague Conventions.
And I know that that might not be
the most appropriate approach,
especially today.”
On another occasion, Ferencz casually explained
how he obtained confessions
from SS men in captivity.
He stripped them naked,
and after a while explained to them:
“Now listen, you and I
are gonna have an understanding right now.
I am a Jew – I would love to kill you
and mark you down as shot while trying to escape,
but I’m gonna do what you would never do.
You are gonna sit down
and write out exactly what happened
– when you entered the camp,
who was there, how many died,
why they died, everything else about it.
Or, you don’t have to do that
– you are under no obligation –
you can write a note of five lines to your wife,
and I will try to deliver it.”
Needless to say,
this way Ferencz got any confession he wanted.
Interviewed at age 85,
he related the following anecdote,
exposing his attitude
toward the defendants he was prosecuting
after the war:
“I was standing there with my M1 rifle.
They were beating him up.
And they then burned him alive.
They took him to the crematorium,
which was not far away,
about from here to that wall,
had him on one of those metal trays
which they used to dump the bodies
into the crematoria.
They put him in, warm him up,
take him out, beat him up again,
tie him up again, put him in again.
Now, I was watching that.
I had no desire to join them, certainly not.
And I asked myself, should I try to stop it?
I don’t think I could have.
But I, I let it run.
I let it run,
and I went about my other business.”
Ferencz was the person
who defined and controlled the conditions
under which quote unquote “evidence”
was gathered for the Dachau trials.
The medieval witch trials
were in many regards more humane
than what Ferencz staged at Dachau.
This scratches only the surface,
but it’s bad enough.
Read the book accompanying this video
to learn more about the utterly appalling
circumstances of these Dachau trials.
The British conducted several trials,
one of which involved several defendants
who had been involved
in running the Auschwitz Camp.
Hence, events that allegedly transpired
at this camp
played an important role during this trial.
Auschwitz is today seen
as the epicenter of the Holocaust.
Therefore, the way the British prepared
and conducted this trial
had more impact
on the current Holocaust narrative
than anything the Americans did
in South Germany.
Reports on severe abuses of defendants
and other individuals in British captivity
led to an internal investigation by the British.
Since it was conducted in secrecy
rather than under public scrutiny,
and because its results
were never meant to be published,
the British investigators
could be brutally honest about what they found.
This stands in contrast
to their American counterparts,
who had to consider the power and influence
of the U.S. military and secret-services
running the show in Germany.
The results of this British investigation
were released only 60 years after the war.
British investigative journalist Ian Cobain
managed to get copies of these files.
He published what he found
in several newspaper articles,
and in a book titled
"Cruel Britannia: A Secret History of Torture."
The gist of it is
that the British systematically tortured
almost all of their German captives
with the utmost brutality.
One of the victims of such abuse
was the former commandant of the Auschwitz Camp
Rudolf Höss,
who later played a major role
as a witness during the IMT.
Nowadays, historians know
that many testimonies used during postwar trials
in Germany were extracted with coercion.
This is especially true for Rudolf Höss.
Yet still, many mainstream scholars
insist that these witnesses’ claims
are credible evidence.
Morally speaking, this turns these scholars
into accomplices of the torturers,
and they should be treated as such.
If you think it can’t get worse
than what the British did, think again,
because Stalin’s Soviet Union
tortured its prisoners best.
I mean, they knew best
how to get out of a prisoner what they wanted,
because over the decades,
they had refined torture to a fine art.
There is no need for grueling beatings
that can harm and exhaust the torturer himself,
both physically and emotionally.
Just put a person into an unheated, moist
stand-up cell of such a small floor area
that it is impossible to sit down,
let alone lay down in it.
After just a few days of this exhausting,
painful treatment of sleeplessness,
every person breaks down.
It requires no one to do anything,
and leaves no traces on the victim.
Alexandre Solzhenitsyn has described this method
expertly in his trilogy "Gulag Archipelago."
Of course, it would be absurd to think
that Soviet authorities under Stalin
ever conducted an investigation into torture.
There is therefore mostly anecdotal evidence
in this regard, such as Solzhenitsyn’s work.
For those interested
in Stalin’s history of judicial terror,
torture and mass murder,
I recommend the 1991 documentary
"Monster: A Portrait of Stalin in Blood,"
produced by Russian researchers.
The Soviets staged several trials
about alleged German war crimes before the IMT,
among them the Leningrad Show Trial
(from December 27, 1945, until January 6, 1946).
During this trial,
the Soviets blamed their own Katyn massacre
on the Germans.
While the findings of that trial
were not introduced during the IMT,
the expert report produced during that trial,
which quote unquote “proved” the Germans’ guilt,
was accepted by the IMT
as incontrovertible evidence,
as mentioned earlier.
Two further show trials conducted in 1943,
at Krasnodar and Kharkov,
dealt with alleged mass killings of civilians
by the German occupational forces,
quote “by hanging, mass shootings,
and use of poison gases,” unquote.
The latter was said to have been committed
by the use of so-called gas vans.
Powered by Diesel engines,
their exhaust gases were presumably used
to murder victims locked up
inside the van’s cargo boxes.
The nature of these Soviet trials
as propagandistic show trials
was even confirmed and documented
by a paper published in the journal
"Holocaust and Genocide Studies,"
which is published by
the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum,
the Jewish-run entity
defined by its fierce opposition
toward any Holocaust skepticism.
The same claims about gas vans
were again made during the IMT.
As evidence, Soviet prosecutor Smirnov
later introduced the minutes
of a Soviet court-martial
held on the 29th of October 1944,
which claims the, quote,
“annihilation of Soviet citizens in Smolensk
in May 1943, by means of asphyxiation
through carbon monoxide in gas vans,” unquote.
When the defense tried to challenge
that type of evidence,
they were reminded
by the IMT’s presiding judge
with the quote shown here
that such a challenge was not permitted.
Hence, the results of any Allied show trial
was declared sacrosanct truth, period.
As already mentioned earlier
in the context of Katyn,
findings of official commissions
were another set of evidence
the defense could not challenge,
not even with a counter expert report.
This is particularly relevant
regarding the nastiest aspect of the IMT,
that is:
the systematic high-tech wholesale slaughter
of the Jews.
In this regard, the Soviets,
in cooperation with newly established
Polish-communist authorities,
prepared several so-called “expert reports”
on most of the major camps,
where this genocide
is said to have been carried out.
Here is a list of all these camps,
with the document number
that each quote unquote “expert report”
received by the IMT,
and where it was either mentioned
during the trial,
or where it is reproduced
in the documentation volumes.
In other words,
all of the German wartime camps
characterized to this day as extermination camps
were covered by Soviet expert reports.
Hence, the Soviet claims
about the industrial extermination of Jews
in these camps
by way of high-tech murder methods
was declared incontrovertible truth by the IMT,
without anyone being able to challenge it.
So, how accurate were the claims
the Soviets made in those documents?
Let’s take a look:
The death toll claimed for Auschwitz
was dead wrong.
The mainstream now claims one million,
but the actual death toll shown by documents
is around 135,000.
For Bełżec,
they got the murder method completely wrong.
Today, no mainstream scholar
ever hints at electrocution
as the method once dominating witness tales.
That method was replaced by Diesel exhaust gas.
However, this claim was put to doubt
by a mainstream toxicologist in 2011,
Dr. Achim Trunk.
He confirmed the fact
which skeptics have asserted since 1984:
Diesel exhaust gas
does not have enough toxic carbon monoxide
for the claimed mass murder.
Now gasoline engine exhaust is all the rage.
For Chełmno, the death toll was also reduced,
down to not even half of what was claimed
by the Soviets in their IMT report,
while the case of Majdanek
shows the most drastic revision ever,
for any of the camps.
Today, just some 5% of the victim count
claimed by the Soviets at the IMT is maintained,
while five of the originally claimed
homicidal gas chambers
have been silently dropped.
The Soviets wisely
made no specific claims about Sobibór.
The witness accounts for that camp were so crazy
that they simply decided not to mention anything.
For Treblinka, however,
they regurgitated the claims
made in a propaganda paper
spread by the Polish underground in late 1942:
The Treblinka murder presumably happened
with hot steam.
That’s in contrast to the Diesel gas chambers
claimed later,
until the newfangled tendency
to abandon those as well, as just mentioned.
Considering that the expert report on Katyn
was completely made up
and turned the truth on its head,
it shouldn’t surprise anyone
that the other Soviet reports
weren’t more reliable either.
Even if the defense had been allowed
and could have afforded
to challenge these reports,
they could not have done this,
because the Soviets never would have allowed
German defense teams
– or anyone else for that matter –
to go to Poland, forensically investigate
the claimed crime scenes,
cross-examine witnesses,
and scour through secret Moscow archives
with German camp documents.
The existence of these archives
was only revealed in the 1990s.
By the time this became possible
– after the collapse
of the Soviet Union in 1991 –
Western countries had introduced
– or were in the process of introducing –
laws that declare it a crime
to challenge the downgraded Soviet narrative
with the threat of prison terms.
Here is a list of countries
which have made Soviet postwar propaganda
a compulsory state religion.
The left column shows the year when
each country introduced their dictatorial law,
while the last column
gives the maximum prison term imposed
when publicly expressing disbelief,
like I do in this video.
While watching this video isn’t a crime yet,
posting, reposting and linking to it
may be a crime in many of these countries.
If you want to learn more
about the crucial quote unquote “expert reports,”
submitted as evidence by the Soviets,
please turn to the book accompanying this video.
Let’s now scrutinize some other types of evidence
presented at the IMT.
Psychologically very important
was a documentary film
the Americans screened on 29 November 1945,
just a fortnight after the IMT had begun.
The film is titled
"Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps."
It starts out by showing scenes
from various German wartime camps
that are unknown to most.
What matters most is
that the film shows dead inmates
found in those locations,
giving the impression that,
no matter where the Allies looked,
people had been murdered in masses everywhere.
The fact is, however,
that a mass of dead people
at the end of the most atrocious
and murderous conflict in human history
cannot in and of itself be evidence
for any kind of murder.
It is estimated that some 50 million people
died in this conflict.
Many of those victims died in Germany
toward the end of the war,
as a result of Germany’s total collapse.
Hundreds of thousands died
in Germany’s firebombed cities.
Millions of Germans died
during the greatest ethnic cleansing
in the history of mankind.
Many more civilians died due to starvation.
At war’s end,
Germany was a giant heap of corpses,
figuratively speaking.
People were dying like flies everywhere.
Particularly bad was the fate of those persons
present in any kind of closed facility,
such as prisons and camps,
which could no longer
be supplied with anything
– fuel, water, food, medicine, etc.
Death rates skyrocketed
not because of an intentional German policy,
but because of the effects of total war.
In fact, there was no German policy anymore
toward the end.
It was all chaos and mayhem.
The Allied invading forces
took pictures everywhere,
including of dead German civilians
in bombed-out cities.
But in their documentary at Nuremberg,
they included only those photos
they took inside camps and prisons,
and then misrepresented them
as the result of a deliberate German policy.
In contrast to these rather unknown places,
this U.S. documentary also includes footage
from three locations
that are known to most people:
Bergen-Belsen, Dachau and Nordhausen.
While the latter name is not that well known,
images such as these,
taken by the Americans
of the campgrounds littered with corpses,
have been reproduced a zillion times
all over the planet.
The footage is no doubt genuine.
It’s the narrative that came with it
which makes this documentary
a heinous misrepresentation of facts.
What the Americans and British were recording,
was not the result of a German policy
of mass extermination against their camp inmates.
Quite to the contrary,
this was the result
of the American and British policy
of mass extermination against Germans,
carried out with a ruthless campaign
of carpet bombing.
Like the Soviets,
the British and Americans blamed the Germans
for the results of their own war crimes.
If you are interested in a detailed analysis
of this propaganda documentary,
please watch the documentary
"Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained,"
which can be accessed at the video section
of the website HolocaustHandbooks.com.
The Soviets also screened a documentary
at the IMT,
showing plenty of dead bodies,
of which there certainly was no shortage
at the end of the war.
However, since they showed it
after the presentation of their case,
at the end of the trial day
of February 19, 1946,
the audience wasn’t exactly willing
to listen anymore.
The primary reason for this was
that not even the other Allied prosecutors
took the Soviets seriously
after they had presented their case,
let alone the defendants.
This Soviet presentation included the claim,
made five days earlier,
that the Germans
had committed the Katyn Massacre.
Everyone in the court room knew
that the entire Soviet prosecution team
were lying through their teeth.
Other claims during those days
running up to the Soviet propaganda movie
were filled with alleged “expert reports,”
as mentioned earlier,
or were based on
quote unquote “witness testimonies,”
extracted by Soviet investigators
using their well-known methods.
Few in the courtroom had any illusions
about the value of what the Soviets presented.
Without going into details,
I list here a number of claims
made by the Soviets
that stick out as particularly absurd.
Pause the video,
if you want to take your time
to read this nonsense.
The Soviet documentary also shows
large quantities of various items,
said to have been found
in the German wartime camps.
These items are presented to this day
as proof for mass-murder claims.
The scenes show mountains of shoes
found at the Majdanek Camp,
and large quantities of clothes, spectacles,
toothbrushes, suitcases,
large bags full of hair
and other items found in storage huts
at the Majdanek and Auschwitz camps.
These items are said to have once belonged
to inmates who had been murdered,
or so the Soviets insisted.
However, the shoe storage hut at Majdanek
belonged to the camp’s cobbler’s workshop,
which refurbished old shoes
from all kinds of sources
as a recycling industry.
Many of the other items found
at Majdanek and Auschwitz
will have belonged to former inmates indeed,
but their mere existence does not prove
that their former owners were murdered.
It merely proves
that someone left these items behind.
At worst, the items prove
that the National Socialists
systematically plundered their inmates’ property.
If a collection of items left behind
were to prove murder,
then any assembly of used clothes and shoes,
or any other second-hand item for that matter,
in fact, every thrift store around the globe,
would prove that the original owners
have been murdered.
If you visit the Majdanek
and Auschwitz Museums in Poland today,
you will still see large show cases
displaying collections of such items,
with the claim that their former owners
were viciously murdered by the Nazis.
Sure.
If you don’t buy it, and say so loudly,
Poland has free room and board for you
for up to three years.
Regarding the mass extermination
of peaceful civilians,
high- and mid-ranking former SS officials
played a major role as witnesses
by either taking the stand
or merely signing a written affidavit.
Most prominent among them was Rudolf Höss,
the former Auschwitz commandant.
He took the stand
after the mass murder at Auschwitz
had already been quote unquote “incontrovertibly”
proven by the Soviets
with their fake expert report.
Ironically, Höss was called
to testify for Kaltenbrunner’s defense.
In his written testimony,
which was not submitted to the IMT,
Höss claimed that Himmler had ordered him
to keep the extermination of the Jews
a secret even from his superiors,
hence also from his boss
at the Reich Security Main Office,
Ernst Kaltenbrunner.
Kaltenbrunner hoped in vain
that this would relieve him
of any responsibility.
After Höss had been put
through the British meat grinder,
he meekly confirmed
during his testimony at Nuremberg
the outrageous claims
the British had tortured out of him.
The value of his testimony
can be gleaned from a detailed study
of all the statements he made after the war
– more than 80.
Italian historian Carlo Mattogno
has written a thick book about all this,
in which he exposes 53 falsehoods,
inconsistencies and contradictions.
Höss’s harebrained nonsense
deserves its own documentary.
In this one, I mention only a few highlights.
Höss insisted repeatedly
that he received the order
to turn Auschwitz into an extermination center
from Heinrich Himmler during a meeting
in May or June 1941,
anyway before the war against the Soviet Union.
Höss’s entire timeline
of subsequent extermination events
depends on that date:
the first gassing of September 1941,
the use of the Main Camp’s crematorium morgue
for gassings in late 1941 or early 1942,
and the rigging of two former farmhouses
as makeshift gassing facilities
in early and mid-1942.
To this day,
the entire orthodox Auschwitz narrative
follows this timeline,
so it can’t be changed
without that entire house of cards collapsing.
The problem is
that this chronology is impossible.
Höss insisted that the order came
after other extermination camps
had already been active for some time.
He named Belzec and Treblinka several times,
and even claimed to have visited Treblinka
to see how extermination was done there,
in order to learn
how to implement Himmler’s order at Auschwitz.
However, both Bełżec and Treblinka
became operational only roughly a year later.
Höss mentioned several times
a third already operating camp named “Wolzek.”
Such a camp never existed.
Since Höss became deputy inspector
of the entire concentration camp system,
after leaving Auschwitz in late 1943,
he certainly knew the names of all the camps.
I think it was no accident
that he invented a camp from scratch.
That may have been his
message in a bottle
to the world, saying:
“What I am saying here is nonsense.”
Höss quote unquote confessed to victim numbers
that amount to a total death toll for Auschwitz
of about four million.
In other words,
he was made to repeat the invented
and utterly false death-toll number
which the Soviets had been spreading
since they occupied that camp in January 1945.
Höss made claims
about how gassings were carried out,
and how the bodies of murdered inmates
were made to disappear
that are either technically impossible
and or completely ludicrous.
I’ll leave it at that here.
Read Mattogno’s book,
accessible free of charge
at HolocaustHandbooks.com, book number 35,
if you want to get the full scoop.
Here is a list of other high-profile SS officers
who signed an affidavit
and/or testified during the IMT,
with which they confirmed in one way or another
the Allies’ narrative
on the extermination of the Jews.
The first four of them, however,
were talking merely from hearsay,
hence should never have been admitted
as witnesses in this regard.
Becher signed an affidavit claiming
that he saw a Himmler order
in late 1944 to stop the extermination.
No such order was ever found.
Höttl and Wisliceny stated
that they heard Eichman brag
about six million murdered Jews.
Eichmann denied this
during his own trial in 1961,
and wouldn’t have been in any position
to know any numbers anyhow.
Former SS judge Morgen babbled nonsense
about an extermination camp Monowitz,
which was merely a labor camp,
about dead people burning all by themselves
without the need of any fuel,
and about trains disappearing
into an underground extermination factory
at Auschwitz,
to mention just the most preposterous idiocies.
Decades later, he told historian John Toland
that he had been threatened
and physically abused before his testimony.
Surprise, surprise.
So let’s ignore these red-herring witnesses,
and turn to the two remaining ones:
Ohlendorf and von dem Bach Zelewski.
Like Höss,
they both should have had first-hand knowledge
of the actions on the ground.
Otto Ohlendorf was head of Einsatzgruppe D
for a year.
This unit operated in the southern region
of the temporarily occupied Soviet Union.
At war’s end,
Ohlendorf surrendered to British forces.
He was brought to London,
where he was repeatedly interrogated
in the infamous London Cage torture center.
After seven weeks of unknown treatment,
he admitted responsibility
for the mass execution of 80,000 Jews,
mainly in Ukraine.
At Nuremberg,
the mass-murders of hundreds of thousands of
quote unquote “peaceful Soviet citizens”
by German military and paramilitary units
like the Einsatzgruppen,
was unassailably quote unquote “proven”
by numerous Soviet commission reports
of the Burdenko-Katyn style,
as mentioned before.
Knowing that challenging
his own extorted confession
was as futile as challenging
the Soviet commission reports,
he talked many of his co-defendants
into a defense strategy based on a lie:
They claimed at Nuremberg
that they had no choice
but to follow a Führer order to murder all Jews.
Years after the war, however,
a West-German prosecutor
uncovered that conspiracy.
In fact, there was no such order.
Not only that,
the existing German orders
on how to act in the East
diametrically contradict Ohlendorf’s claim.
So, what did the Einsatzgruppen do?
Well, turning to the IMT
or the later U.S.-conducted Nuremberg trials
in search for answers is bad advice.
Ultimately,
only independent forensic examinations
of mass graves or their traces
could have helped,
as the Germans did at Katyn.
But that never happened.
So, we might never know.
What we can say with some level of certainty is
that Ohlendorf had no clue
about the alleged murder gas vans,
which his unit is said to have used
to kill thousands of
quote unquote “peaceful Soviet citizens.”
The statements he made about them
are preposterous nonsense.
The only concrete story
he managed to convey in this regard
was his claim that he once
went on a gas-van test ride with a physician.
The task was supposedly to determine
that the victims were killed
without becoming aware of what was happening.
Sure.
First of all, we need to keep in mind
that Ohlendorf had the rank
of a lieutenant general.
Generals don’t go on test rides
with some physicians to verify
whether some device works as expected.
Next, imagine hot, smoking,
stinking, choking exhaust gases
spewing into the enclosed space
you are in,
and you don’t notice what happens?
It simply cannot have happened.
The nonsense of gas-van victims
falling asleep peacefully
stems from a forged document on gas vans,
which I’ll discuss
at the end of this documentary.
Ohlendorf was asked twice
to authenticate this document.
He did as he was asked,
probably with the alternative being
some more torture.
However, when made to talk
about the alleged author of this document,
he babbled some more preposterous nonsense,
clearly making stuff up
to assuage his captors and tormentors.
Just as Rudolf Höss’s quote unquote “confessions”
during the IMT
about mass-gassings at Auschwitz
had a devastating effect
on the thus-far incredulous defendants,
Ohlendorf’s quote unquote “confirmation”
of mass shootings in the East
were similarly demoralizing.
Psychologically speaking,
these two liars virtually sealed the case
for the prosecution.
Whereas Ohlendorf was ultimately hanged
for his wartime role,
another high-ranking SS man
by the name of Erich von dem Bach Zelewski
got away Scott free.
He was a full general,
in charge of SS and police forces
in the central part
of the German-occupied western Soviet Union,
basically today’s Belorussia.
This included the activities of another unit
like the one Ohlendorf headed:
Einsatzgruppe B.
Therefore, Bach Zelewski should have been
a dead man walking.
Instead, in return for exemption
from all prosecution
and from extradition to Stalin’s henchmen,
he agreed to become a witness
for the prosecution.
He moreover wrote a detailed report
about Himmler’s heinous crimes.
In it, Bach Zelewski claimed
that the extermination of the Jews,
quote, “was deliberately planned
by Heinrich Himmler already before the war,”
unquote; and that, quote,
“Himmler consistently worked towards the war
in order to carry out his plans,” unquote;
furthermore, that a homicidal gassing facility
was planned at the POW camp near Mogilev;
and that Himmler had announced
already before the war against the Soviet Union
that he planned, quote,
“to decimate the Slav population by 30 million,”
unquote.
None of it has any basis in facts,
and is categorically rejected
even by mainstream historians as utter B.S.
But still, they quote Bach Zelewski to this day
as confirmation that “it” happened
– whatever that means.
With their case solidly undergirded
with SS men’s confessions,
there was little need
to call former camp inmates to testify.
Two of them are worth mentioning.
First, there is Samuel Rajzman,
who claimed to have been incarcerated
at the Treblinka Camp for ten months.
Having been in the camp for so long
– it actually existed only for one year –
he must have known.
And yet, in his various testimonies prior,
during and after the IMT,
he asserted that mass murder at Treblinka
initially occurred with vacuum,
which is technical humbug,
and later with chlorine gas and Zyklon B.
Engine-exhaust gases, which are claimed today,
were never mentioned by Rajzman,
nor the steam chambers
alleged in the quote unquote “expert report”
which the Soviets introduced during the IMT.
Which goes to say that no one during the IMT
really had any clue
about what had happened at Treblinka.
Yet still,
a many-hundred-thousand-fold mass murder
was declared the immutable truth.
Another victim witness worth mentioning
is communist resistance fighter
Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier.
She testified about what she claimed
to have experienced at Auschwitz,
three weeks before the Soviets presented
their quote unquote “expert report” on that camp.
In the camp,
she worked at the inmate hospital as a clerk.
From that office position
in a completely different sector of the camp,
she claimed to have gotten to know
that the killings in the gas chambers
took five minutes for women and three for men.
That can have been hearsay
quote unquote “knowledge” at best.
She moreover personally saw pigs fly.
No, actually,
she claimed to have seen immense flames
shoot out of the crematorium chimneys.
But that’s just as technically impossible
as flying pigs.
She furthermore quote unquote “knew”
– again at best from hearsay –
the impossible feat
that inmate corpses were turned into ashes
within only quote unquote “a few minutes”.
However, the Auschwitz cremation furnaces
took roughly an hour
to turn a human body into ashes.
Oh, and she also insisted
that the SS had invented a spanking machine
– I kid you not –
so they didn’t have to spank
naughty inmates manually.
Here is the text from the court transcript:
“One of the most usual punishments
was 50 blows with a stick on the loins.
They were administered with a machine
which I saw,
a swinging apparatus manipulated by an SS.”
The only thing that Vaillant-Couturier
proved beyond the shadow of a doubt
is the self-evident fact
that it is a bad idea to let mortal enemies
– here Communists versus National Socialists –
testify against each other,
because we are unlikely to hear the truth.
If you are interested in more details
on that lady’s testimony
and similar effusions
from other witnesses of her kind,
grab Carlo Mattogno’s
various source-critical studies
on Auschwitz witnesses:
Volumes 37, 41, 44, 45 and 46
of the Holocaust Handbooks,
all freely accessible online.
The Allies also introduced
numerous other affidavits from witnesses
who never took the stand,
hence never could be cross-examined.
Under normal circumstances, such texts
should not have been allowed as evidence.
But that’s not what happened.
Among the affidavits
was that of Abraham Goldfarb,
a former Treblinka inmate.
Goldfarb had plagiarized his story
from another Treblinka witness,
Jankiel Wiernik,
who in turn had plagiarized
the 1942 Polish underground report
on steam chambers.
That steam-chamber narrative
is rejected today as untrue.
But listen to this clip of a documentary,
and you get an idea where that steam-chamber lie
might have originated.
“Welcome to the darkest corner
of the USSR’s hidden torture methods:
The steam chambers of silence.
Deep beneath secret prisons,
like the infamous Lubyanka,
there were rooms sealed shut.
No windows,
no sound,
only heat.
Prisoners were locked in metal chambers,
where steam would be slowly released.
Not enough to kill,
just enough to break them.
Skin would blister,
lungs would tighten,
and hope would melt into madness.”
Wiernick replaced the steam with engine exhaust,
while Goldfarb had the victims initially killed
with moistened chlorinated lime.
Again, all this proves is merely
that no one had any clue
what had transpired at Treblinka,
or if they did,
they didn’t tell what they knew,
but blurted out
whatever brainfart came their way.
Goldfarb, Wiernik and many more brainfarters
are covered in Mattogno’s book
on the three Big Bad Camps,
Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka,
which is volume 28 of the Holocaust Handbooks.
Another affidavit was signed by David Manusevich,
a former Bełżec inmate,
who seriously claimed
that a human soap factory operated at that camp.
There’s no single scholar on the planet
who takes that seriously.
Although Manusevich certainly
was never in a position to know
how many deportees were murdered at that camp,
if any,
he didn’t hesitate
to claim a death toll of 2 million,
which is almost five times the amount
assumed by today’s orthodoxy.
Later, he presumably assisted
in the excavation of mass graves,
and burning of human remains
on gigantic pyres near Lviv.
His technically impossible claims
in this connection are utterly delusional.
Manusevich’s affidavit is analyzed in detail
on pages 518 to 522 of Mattogno’s book
on the Einsatzgruppen.
Manusevich also insisted
that he saw an SS father skeet shooting babies,
with his daughter cheering him on, quote,
“Papa, do it again; do it again, Papa!” Unquote.
All this underlines
that Manusevich was evidently willing
to babble any nonsense
that pleased his Soviet interrogators.
Then there is the affidavit
by former Mauthausen inmate Hans Maršálek
about an interview he claims to have made
with the former Commandant
of the Mauthausen Camp, Franz Ziereis,
while the latter was bleeding to death
from bullet wounds.
The value of this affidavit
results from the fact that,
some 35 years later,
Maršálek retracted the claims made in it.
And last but not least,
we have the affidavit
by a non-existing German soldier,
allegedly named Gerhard Adametz,
on mass graves near Kiev.
It is written in German
but riddled with anglicisms,
meaning it was not written by a German,
but fabricated, probably by the Americans.
They pushed a narrative about these mass graves
that flies in the face
of what the orthodoxy claims about it today.
During the IMT,
the Soviets introduced a Russian translation
of it as USSR-80,
possibly to hide the messed-up German
of the quote unquote “original.”
The Adametz affidavit is also covered
in Mattogno’s book on the Einsatzgruppen.
As the last section of this documentary,
we’ll discuss several documents
introduced during the IMT,
which were meant
to undergird claims of mass extermination.
First, we have the attempt
of the French prosecutor
to introduce a statement
written by former SS officer Kurt Gerstein.
During the war,
disinfestation expert Gerstein was responsible
for allocating Zyklon B deliveries
to the SS camps.
He was also corrupt and an art thief.
He embezzled over $100,000 of Zyklon B funds
in today’s value,
and stole from a Jewish estate
a valuable painting
of French expressionist painter Henri Matisse.
With Soviet propaganda filling the news
about Zyklon-B mass murder at Majdanek
since mid-1944,
and at Auschwitz since early 1945,
Gerstein knew he was a dead man walking.
In a desperate attempt to get on the good side
of the French occupiers of his hometown,
he wrote a text
shortly before the end of the war.
In this text,
he depicted himself
as a secret resistance fighter,
sabotaging the use of Zyklon B for murder.
He moreover described in gory details
how he saw deportees at Bełżec and Treblinka
getting killed with Diesel exhaust gasses.
Gerstein’s utterly bogus tales
are the origin of the Diesel-murder nonsense
that later caught on.
In fact, the French conveyed Gerstein’s fairytale
to the Polish authorities
in the second half of 1945,
which is when the Poles
shifted their narrative
from steam chambers at Treblinka,
and electrocution at Bełżec,
to engine exhaust.
Today, Gerstein has been discredited
as utterly unreliable for a landslide of reasons,
and even mainstream scholars
won’t touch him anymore.
But his lies have metastasized like cancer
throughout the entire Holocaust body,
killing the story in the process.
Explaining all this
would require a separate documentary.
If you want to get the full scoop on Gerstein,
here are two books
that cover the entire territory,
volumes 43 and 54
of the Holocaust Handbooks,
downloadable free of charge.
Back to the IMT.
The French prosecutor’s attempt
failed to bamboozle the IMT judges
into accepting Gerstein’s statement as evidence.
It is not quite clear why,
but it looks like French prosecutor Dubost
hadn’t done his homework
to give sufficient proof
as to the document’s origin.
The court only accepted
several unpaid Zyklon-B invoices
made out in Gerstein’s name
for Zyklon-B deliveries
to several SS-operated camps,
which Gerstein had attached to his tale.
But the entire set received a document number,
PS-1553,
which many regard as a seal of approval.
This turned Gerstein’s tale
for mainstream historians
into a reputable IMT-related source.
To this day,
Gerstein’s Zyklon-B invoices
are cited as proof of mass murder
committed with Zyklon B, mainly at Auschwitz.
In fact, the opposite is true:
Zyklon B was a pesticide
used to kill vermin
that transmit serious diseases.
Hence, Zyklon B was saving the lives
of hundreds of thousands of camp inmates,
not killing them.
Talking of Auschwitz,
this brings me to another document that,
although introduced only in part,
received a seal of approval by the IMT:
the so-called War Refugee Board Report.
This is a compilation of witness accounts
of former Auschwitz inmates.
It was put together in November 1944
by the U.S. government’s War Refugee Board.
As an official U.S. report,
it was considered self-evidently true at the IMT,
and thus unassailable by the defense.
Only one table from that report,
listing 1,765,000 Jews as gassed
at Auschwitz-Birkenau
between April ’42 and April ’44,
was introduced during the IMT as Document L-22.
The core of the War Refugee Board Report
is a text written by former Auschwitz inmate
Walter Rosenberg, aka Rudolf Vrba.
His detailed description of the murder facility
and the killing procedure
has become one of the most influential
testimonies on Auschwitz,
not the least
because of the U.S. government’s endorsement
and the IMT’s seal of approval.
The problem is that it’s all wrong,
even from an orthodox point of view.
As an inmate,
Vrba was in no position to know
how many deportees arrived at Auschwitz,
let alone were presumably murdered
in the alleged gas chambers.
His figure of over 1.7 million victims
until April 1944
stands in stark contrast
to what the Auschwitz orthodoxy claims today:
500,000 victims up to that point in time.
Furthermore,
his description of the alleged murder facility,
including a sketch he attached to his text,
has not even a remote resemblance
to any facility at Auschwitz.
It took 40 years
for the false varnish to come off:
During the so-called first Zündel Trial
in Toronto in 1985,
Vrba was cross-examined for the first time.
Caught with his pants on fire,
he ultimately had to admit
that he used quote unquote “poetic license”
when making his various statements
about Auschwitz.
Vrba’s assortment of lies
is worth their own documentary.
If you want to learn some details about it,
turn to Volume 41 of the Holocaust Handbooks,
which deal with Vrba and his ilk
on pages 217 to 243.
Gerstein and Vrba are two cases
where the lies of individuals
who never testified at Nuremberg
received quote unquote “document status,”
because some government declared them as such,
and the IMT gave its seal of approval.
Other documents introduced during the IMT
were complete forgeries.
I already mentioned
the affidavit by Gerhard Adametz.
Another case is the so-called Becker document
on gas vans, which I mentioned earlier.
It was introduced
by U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson
already on the second day of the IMT,
and mentioned several times
throughout the proceedings.
It is a letter presumably written
by a certain August Becker.
At the time this letter is dated
– 16 May 1942 –
Becker worked at the motor pool
of Germany’s Security Police.
The letter is addressed to his supervisor,
Walter Rauff.
The docket attached by the Americans
to this document states
that they got it from the British,
but that its origins are unknown.
That made the document inadmissible
under normal circumstances.
To quote unquote confirm its authenticity,
U.S. officials coerced Walter Rauff,
back then held captive by the Americans,
to endorse a copy of this letter
as quote unquote “authentic.”
And as mentioned earlier,
they doubled that up
by having Otto Ohlendorf do the same.
The letter pretends
to be an inspection and maintenance report
of gas vans for executing Jews,
reportedly used by Ohlendorf’s Einsatzgruppe D,
and Einsatzgruppe C,
both active in Ukraine.
It is riddled with absurdities,
which prove conclusively
that this is a fake report,
unrelated to any possible real-world events.
For example:
The Saurer vehicles mentioned in this letter
were all equipped with Diesel engines.
But Diesel-engine exhaust
is unsuitable for homicidal gassings.
The letter mentioned
a combined hydraulic-air-pressure brake,
although no such thing ever existed
in those Saurer trucks.
The letter insists
that every crack in the cargo box
needed to be soldered airtight
to prevent gas leaks.
However, no gas van
could ever be sealed airtight,
because the same volume of gas
that was allegedly pumped
into the cargo box as exhaust gas,
needed to escape from the box
to prevent pressure from building up.
The writer warns that exhaust gas
escaping from cracks might harm the executioners,
which is BS.
Spread out over many cracks,
it would have been far less dangerous
than the same gas escaping from the tail pipe.
Imagine a German technician
warning his superior in a war
that cars, trucks or tanks
are too dangerous for soldiers
because of their exhaust gas.
As his superior,
I would declare him either fit for frontline duty
or for the insane asylum.
And here is the kicker,
which I already mentioned
when discussing Ohlendorf’s testimony:
The letter claims
that the German executioners did it all wrong
by flooring the gas pedal during gassings.
This presumably resulted
in the victims suffocating
rather than falling peacefully asleep.
As mentioned before,
hot, stinking, smoking engine-exhaust gases
– whether from a Diesel
or gasoline engine makes no difference –
cannot, under any circumstances,
lead to gassing victims
falling asleep peacefully.
As mentioned earlier,
the Americans got this document
from the British,
who did not give any proof of its origin.
The British were also the first
to spread gas-van propaganda during the war.
Roughly three weeks
prior to the Krasnodar show trial
that started on July 14, 1943,
during which the Soviets
made their first gas-van accusations,
the British newspaper "Daily Telegraph"
published this article on June 25, 1943,
headlined,
“Germans Murder 700,000 Jews in Poland.
Travelling Gas Chambers.”
That’s the same newspaper
which spread gas-chamber lies
already during the First World War
with this article, published on March 22, 1916.
Pause the video to read it.
The idea to gas people
in quote unquote “travelling gas chambers”,
as the "Telegraph" put it,
is older than the Second World War, however.
Listen to this clip from the documentary
"Monster: A Portrait of Stalin in Blood":
“We’ve come across evidence that,
long before Hitler’s gas vans came into being,
Issai Davidovich Berg
invented secret gas vans in Moscow.
It was a simple airtight van
in which prisoners were delivered,
and when necessary,
carbon-monoxide exhaust fumes
were piped into the van.”
Therefore, it looks like
it wasn’t just their Katyn mass murder
which the Soviets blamed on the Germans.
The entire gas-van story appears to be
just another Soviet atrocity
rebranded as a German misdeed,
with some British help.
This brings us to the end
of this critical overview.
Of course,
in a documentary lasting roughly an hour,
we can scratch only the surface
of a trial that lasted 118 days.
If you want to delve deeper into this topic,
we recommend this book by Germar Rudolf
upon which this video is based:
"The Holocaust – Proven at Nuremberg?"
"Reviewing the Evidence Presented"
"at the International Military Tribunal."
Its audio version is not quite four hours long.
Both the audio and the PDF version
can be downloaded free of charge
at HolocaustHandbooks.com,
book section Holocaust Pocketbooks.
In this book of some 150 pages of text,
you can find references to studies,
some of which have been mentioned here,
which go into the nitty-gritty details
of many topics mentioned,
all of which were dealt with
during the IMT only rather superficially.
Another highly recommended book
is David Irving’s,
"Nuremberg: The Last Battle,"
which covers with primary sources
how the IMT was set up and rigged.
Oh, and one last word.
This video does not mean to give the impression
that the National Socialists on trial at Nuremberg
were innocent of any wrongdoing.
The point I wanted to get across is
that no trial of the victors over the vanquished
can ever be fair,
and in case of the IMT,
it most certainly wasn’t.