Original subtitles

Although it has innumerable advantages, one of the great disadvantages of being

able to communicate using a spoken and written language is that it allows us to

tell lies.

Normally, when one thinks about telling lies, one immediately thinks of doing

something that is wrong.

But what if telling a lie could save your wife and children from certain

Would you be doing wrong to tell that lie?

It is now thought by many historians that Rudolf Hirst who was the commander

Auschwitz from 1940 to 1943 did just that.

Having also been tortured, he signed a confession about his part in the alleged

murder by gassing of millions of Jews and others in the so -called death camp,

whose name became inextricably linked to what is known as the Jewish Holocaust.

Even if torture and duress cannot be proven, The overwhelming reason for

recognizing the utter falsity of the Hearst confession is that the gassing

method he described is not scientifically plausible.

Yet it has stood by inference as a testament to the cruelty of Germans in

general since Rudolf Hearst was tried at Nuremberg and subsequently hanged on

April 16, 1947.

Although specific evidence of Hearst's torture did not surface until long after

he was executed, In February 1948, shortly after the Nuremberg trials were

the thoughts of one of the American judges, Charles F. Wennerstrom, were

published in the Chicago Daily Tribune.

The initial war crimes trial was judged and prosecuted by Americans, Russians,

British and French, with much of the time, effort and expenses devoted to

whitewashing the Allies and placing the sole blame for World War II upon

Germany. What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals

to the prosecution.

The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not

been evident.

The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness,

aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has failed to strive to

down precedents which might help the world to avoid future wars.

The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome.

Linguists were needed. The Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers,

clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only

recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe's hatreds and

prejudices. Of course, any number of refutations can be found for this and

statements which are highly critical of the way in which the Nuremberg trials

were conducted, but Willestrom's words stand as testament that dissenting

were already being heard less than a year after the war crimes tribunals were

over. But many individuals and groups, particularly Jewish and Zionist

organizations, would prefer that the world remains ignorant of these

voices, and have coined the terms Holocaust denial and revisionism in an

to silence them. They have managed to persuade the governments of many

civilized countries to criminalize any adverse discussions of the details of

Holocaust on pain of imprisonment or a heavy fine, on the basis that to

any facet of the official Holocaust story somehow constitutes an incitement

racial hatred or something equally nonsensical.

I find it offensive beyond belief that a combination of Jews and Zionists has

been able to persuade so many governments that the Holocaust is the

in history on which open discussion will not be permitted, which is a gross

infringement of Article 19 in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to

receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of

frontiers. But there are those who claim that Article 20 of the United Nations

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be used to take

basic right of freedom of expression away from us.

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes

to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

This is not unreasonable as long as the wording is correctly interpreted.

The key word is advocacy, which according to the Shorter Oxford English

Dictionary means the function of an advocate, pleading for or supporting.

So as to make this absolutely clear, one may substitute the appropriate expanded

meaning of the word advocacy into Article 20 as follows.

Any pleading for or supporting of national, racial or religious hatred

constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence

prohibited by law.

We should also look at the definition of incitement. The root word is the verb

incite. To urge or spur on, to stir up.

instigate, stimulate.

Thus incitement clearly means an intention to cause others to take some

action. It does not mean providing information which may cause someone to

something illegal.

If I told a friend that I'd seen pornographic material on display in a

where his daughter buys her teen magazines and he smashed the shop's

rubbished the offensive material, I could not be held responsible for his

actions because merely imparting information is not inciting another

take action.

Revealing and disseminating material contained in historical documents with a

conviction that the information is plausible is not urging or spurring on

to take adverse action against any national, racial or religious group. To

suggest that it is incitement is a gross distortion of language known as

doublespeak. The word incitement has been deliberately misinterpreted in the

past and this must not be allowed to continue, because such doublespeak

demonstrates a level of dishonesty that should never have been allowed to

insinuate itself into the legislation of any nation which claims to uphold the

accurate meaning and spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights.

It cannot possibly be incitement to racial or religious hatred to point out

something that is said to have happened over 60 years ago may not have happened

in exactly the way it was reported to have happened at that time.

The world had not even begun to recover from the unbelievable suffering of

hundreds of millions of people, not only Jews, and the deaths of about 60

million human beings for reasons and causes which may never be fully

Just as there is no disputing that atomic bombs were dropped on Japanese

civilians, the Jewish concept of a Holocaust cannot be denied.

But why should it be the only episode in history that is off -limits to fair

comment and freedom of expression?

Whatever the reason, such a ban is certainly not in line with the

Human Rights, conferring, as it does, a special privilege on one particular

group of people over all others.

Making certain details of the Holocaust sacrosanct stirs deep suspicions in my

mind because it could mean that there are those who wish to conceal certain

facts which may not reflect well on themselves or on those who played an

part in the deaths and suffering of Jews and Gentiles alike before, during and

immediately after that terrible war.

I cannot think of any other reason why genuine historical research should be

characterized as being offensive to the memories of those who died or as an

incitement to racial or religious hatred.

And I often wonder why so many of the people who seem to claim a special

privilege of remembrance for their own suffering or for that of their forebears

and co -religionists are now persecuting and killing others in a land that

Zionism has been insisting that they were predestined to settle in since

the beginning of the 20th century.

A land already occupied by Palestinians, none of whose forebears were

responsible for the death of a single Jew in Europe.

during the period when the Holocaust took place.

It is the utter single -mindedness of those who hunt down and persecute so

-called Holocaust deniers and revisionists that I object to millions

Not only Jews suffered and died horrible deaths on battlefields, on the high

seas and in fire -bombed cities during a conflict that may never have happened

had international jury not declared economic war on Germany.

The front page of the London Daily Express of March 24, 1933 says it all.

Judea declares war on Germany.

Jews of all the world unite.

Boycott of German goods.

Mass demonstrations.

One of the leaders of the movement, Samuel Untermyer, ignored pleas from

who lived in Germany not to go ahead with the boycott, for obvious reasons,

on August 6, 1933, he said this.

on WABC New York.

Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred

war, should do so now and here.

It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must

refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German -made

or who patronizes German ships or shipping.

We will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses

by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.

Bernard Barrack joined Samuel Untermyer in calling for an economic boycott and

at the same time was promoting preparations for a shooting war.

I emphasise that the defeat of Germany and Japan in their elimination from

trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign

in both volume and profit.

And Bernard Barrack was no stranger to the profits of war.

After Woodrow Wilson brought the United States into what became known as the

Great War, he appointed Barrack chairman of the War Industries Board, where he

had control of all domestic contracts for Allied war materials.

A service to his country, of course, which it is estimated benefited him

personally to the tune of $200 million, over $35 billion in today's terms.

Oh yes, wars mean profits, but only for those who don't have to risk their own

lives fighting them.

Bernard Barak died in New York City in 1965,

20 years and almost 60 million deaths after the end of the war he'd advocated.

When looking at historical events and their far -reaching consequences, it is

essential to try and understand the context in which they took place.

At the time of the Jewish declaration of economic war, the political picture in

Germany was extremely volatile.

In certain circles, it has been largely forgotten, perhaps conveniently, that

Jews formed a substantial proportion of the Bolshevik elite at the birth of the

Soviet Union, little more than a decade earlier, and that many German Jews

supported communism during Hitler's rise to power.

Those who remember or who have learned about the McCarthy era in the United

States should be able to understand the fears of Germans in the early 1930s to

what many of them saw as the real threat of a Jewish -led communist takeover.

Add to that international Jewry's openly promoted aim to destroy its economy,

how can it not be understood that a rise of anti -Jewish sentiment in Germany

was inevitable and far more rational than it is characterized today?

In that speech, Rabbi Stephen Wise, claiming to speak for all Americans,

the Jews of Germany into the enemy inside the gates.

Make no mistake, this declaration of war was the Jewish initiative and the

reason why the Jews of Europe were later herded into concentration camps.

Today, with no mention of the context, the not unreasonable fears of the

are denigrated as being anti -Semitic, pure and simple.

A later circumstance with similar overtones was the fear generated in the

States by the attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to the rounding up and

internment of all people of Japanese descent.

As a result of their confinement for the duration, many of them lost their

homes, jobs, businesses, friends and savings, and many of them died in those

prison camps.

But for the imprisoned Japanese, there was nothing similar to the Zionist pact

with Hitler known as the Transfer Agreement, which allowed German Jews to

for the safe haven of Palestine.

This was only made possible because of the infamous Balfour Declaration of

converted to the Palestine Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations on

July 24,

1922, a section of which reads as follows.

Adopted by the said powers in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a

national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing

should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing

non -Jewish communities in Palestine.

And as we all know, the nations involved have done next to nothing over the

years. to pay even lip service to the rights of the non -Jewish communities

had been well established on that land for hundreds of years.

It was nothing less than blatant land theft, arranged between the British and

the second Baron Rothschild, who agreed to bring his influence to bear to bring

America into what became known as the Great War, to help defeat Germany.

To explain the full implications of the transfer agreement would need a feature

-length video, so I will just recommend that those who are interested in finding

out more follow the links in the notes to this video.

However, what can be fairly stated is that this agreement was without doubt

essential to Theodor Herzl's stated objective as recorded in his diary

the first Zionist Congress in 1897.

At Baal, I founded the Jewish state. If I said this out loud today, I would be

greeted by universal laughter.

In five years, perhaps, and certainly in 50 years, everyone will perceive it.

51 years later, the State of Israel was established.

So it is quite clear that the Holocaust was not the reason why the State of

Israel came into being, but it can be truthfully said that without the

Holocaust, making Israel happen would have been a much more difficult

undertaking.

There are many articles on the internet which refer to offers made by the Nazis

to the Zionists which indicate that many Jews who died in the concentration

camps could have been saved.

In his book, From the Depths, published after his death in 1960, Rabbi Michael

Dov Be 'er Weissmandl, a Jewish rescue negotiator, described how he was told by

the Nazis in 1943 that he could have all the Jews in Western Europe and the

Balkans for 2 million American dollars.

The offer was referred to the Zionists in Switzerland, who turned it down.

But with the refusal came another letter, written in Hebrew, which

following. About the cries coming from your country, we should know that all

allied nations are spilling much of their blood, and if we do not sacrifice

blood, By what right shall we merit coming before the bargaining table when

divide nations and lands at the war's end?

Among the thousands of Holocaust books which cast the Germans as the sole and

ultimate villains in this tragic story of human suffering, there appears to be

no English translation of Weissmantel's book.

What a surprise!

But then the pages of history are punctuated by the portraits of people

thought nothing of sacrificing thousands, even millions of lives, the

their enemies and of their own citizens, to follow their dreams of world

domination or a better social structure.

The well -protected elite of powerful nations, whether inclined toward

imperialistic or socialistic ideologies, show little concern for the lesser

people they are prepared to sacrifice for some twisted concept of the greater

good. Selling the idea of fighting and dying for one's country or for some

esoteric concept of world unity is as natural to them as the act of filling

their own pockets with the profits from armaments contracts is for their

advisors. So would it be such a great surprise to learn that some lesser

had been sacrificed for the greater good of establishing a new nation based on

the ideology of Zionism?

For anyone with an interest in these matters, not to even consider such a

possibility would suggest a stunning degree of naivety.

Or is it that so many otherwise intelligent people have been cowed into

by the ADL and other anti -free speech organizations?

The transfer agreement caused much consternation in 1984, the author's

saying, I told him he's not my son anymore.

And his father, I tell him I don't like it.

Because as being a Jew, I didn't want something to uncover on my own people.

So what is it about the Holocaust story that needs so much protection?

Germans planned and perpetrated the Holocaust.

We must confront this fact and accept our own guilt and the responsibility

we felt from it.

Hang on. Some Germans may have done what you say.

But not the wonderful German girl that I met in London in 1958.

She would have been eight years old when the war ended.

This apparently self -hating German justice minister is claiming that

must bear the guilt for the sins of their fathers.

That is a monstrous concept from the book of Exodus.

And in my book, far closer to hate speech than many of the criticisms one

about Zionist excesses in Gaza, for example.

Her contribution to a podcast series called Voices of Antisemitism ended with

this incitement to disregard Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of

Human Rights.

It remains important that we do not leave any room for Holocaust deniers.

How many times does it need to be said?

Questioning certain details about the Holocaust is not denying it happened.

But in the interest of balance... it is just as important that we do not leave

room for Holocaust liars. The grotesque power without responsibility of the Anti

-Defamation League under Abe Foxman, whose accusations of Holocaust denial,

antisemitism, hatred, prejudice, bigotry and discrimination echo around the so

-called free world, resulting in loss of jobs, fines and prison sentences,

allows the lies told about certain details of the Holocaust to remain on

countless Internet websites with impunity.

Here is a blatant yet often repeated example.

Scroll down and you will find this sentence.

In Auschwitz II, Birkenau, more than 20 ,000 people could be gassed and cremated

each day.

Yet 23 years ago the manager of a large crematory testified under oath at a

trial in Canada that this allegation was simply preposterous and beyond the

realm of reality.

On this website there is a teacher's guide to the Holocaust which includes

chilling statements.

1. An entire state bureaucracy was mobilized solely for the purpose of

annihilating Jews.

2. German technological expertise was harnessed to make the mass murder as

efficient and low -cost as possible.

I have been unable to unearth any specifics about the alleged entire state

bureaucracy, official documents, directives, blueprints and other records

the Germans were known to be meticulous about, and the second statement appears

to be at odds with what actually happened.

Now there is no denying that German science and engineering was second to

at the beginning of World War II.

Planes, tanks, the V -1 and V -2 and other weaponry were quickly developed

their rocket scientists were snatched up by the US and the Soviets for their

space programs at the end of the war.

So the question is, given the technological expertise that was

the Germans so stupid that they would leave it to prison camp commanders to

devise their own methods for carrying out the greatest mass murder in history?

Here are some excerpts from Hertha's Nuremberg testimony.

I had the order to produce extermination facilities in Auschwitz in June 1942.

The camp commander of Treblinka used monoxide gas and according to his

his methods were not very effective.

When I built the annihilation building in Auschwitz, I therefore used Zyklon B,

a crystallized hydrocyanic acid.

which we threw into the death chamber through a small opening.

It took 3 to 15 minutes, depending on the climatic conditions, in order to

the people in the death chamber.

Zyklon B is in pellet form.

The absorbed hydrocyanic acid vaporizes at 25 .7 degrees C, although some

vapor is given off when the pellets are exposed to air.

Despite the mention of climatic conditions, unless the air and the

floor of the gas chamber were approaching a temperature of 25 .7

killing period far in excess of 3 to 15 minutes would have been required.

The average yearly temperature at Auschwitz is 8 degrees C.

So was Hurst so stupid that he devised a system of mass murder that would only

have worked, with any degree of efficiency, during the summer months?

It is of no consequence that claims have been made that in the cold months hot

air was blown into the alleged gas chamber because it would have been an

absurdly inefficient method of liberating gas from pellets that were

lying on a cold concrete floor.

And Hertha's confession continued.

We waited, usually a half hour, before we opened the doors and removed the

bodies. Please note that Hearst does not mention any ventilation procedure which

would have been essential for removing the remains of a deadly gas that had

killed upwards of 2000 people, nor has any evidence of a chimney or the

necessary machinery ever come to light.

Earlier, in a confession which was obtained under extreme mental and

duress, this paragraph appears.

I commanded Auschwitz up to December 1st, 1943, and estimate that at least 2

,500 ,000 victims were put to death and exterminated there through gassing and

burning. At least a further half million died through hunger and sickness, which

amounts to a total number of approximately 3 million dead.

However, it has since been discovered that this number was wildly inflated.

and was officially reduced to just over 1 million in July 1990 by the Auschwitz

State Museum.

And there are those who are convinced that this estimate is still too high.

Each and every one of these deaths was a tragedy, as were the deaths of millions

of others during this terrible conflict.

But this does not mean that we should be prevented from finding out how and why

they died.

So along with the revised death toll and Hirth's scientifically impossible

gassing method, the following should be taken into account.

Steven F. Pinter, who served as a lawyer for the United States War Department in

the occupation forces in Germany and Austria for six years after the war,

the following statement.

I was in Dachau for 17 months after the war as a U .S. Department Attorney and

can state that there was no gas chamber at Dachau.

What was shown to visitors and sightseers there and erroneously

gas chamber was a crematory.

Nor was there a gas chamber at any of the other concentration camps in

Dr. Charles Larson, a highly regarded American pathologist, was appointed by

Judge Advocate General's Department to investigate the conditions and the cause

of so many deaths in the camps.

After overseeing thousands of autopsies, he concluded, not one case of death by

poison gas was found.

As Dr. Larson and other Allied medical men discovered, the chief cause of death

was disease, above all, typhus.

It is well known that hydrogen cyanide was used at the camps for the delousing

of prisoners' clothes and other materials, for the very purpose of

alive, and in the labor camps, Productive. As would be expected, the

Germans installed purpose -built machinery to heat the Zyklon B pellets,

retain them for recycling, and to ventilate the rooms following each

cycle. And again, it must be asked, were the Germans so stupid that they would

have left it to the various camp commanders to deal with the far more

task of murdering millions of human beings?

Historian Robert Forisson, who has been persecuted, prosecuted, beaten up, fined

and fired from his job for daring to exercise his right to free speech,

a clue.

For more than half a century, Germany's accusers have, in the end, revealed

their inability to let us see a single specimen of the alleged weapons of mass

destruction that the Nazis are said to have designed, built, or used for the

destruction of the European Jews.

If you recall the concerns that Charles F. Wennerstrom had during the Nuremberg

trials, this should be of equal concern.

A former U .S. Senator, Thomas Dodd, who became second in command of the

American prosecution team, wrote the following on September 25, 1945, two

before the trials had even begun.

You know I have despised anti -Semitism.

You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any

With that knowledge, you will understand when I tell you that this staff is

about 75 % Jewish.

Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial for their own

sake. For mark this well, the charge of a war for the Jews is still being made,

and in the post -war years it will be made again and again.

The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of

this charge.

Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things.

They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads.

I do not like to write about this matter. It is distasteful to me, but I

disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other

and with everyone else.

The undeniable fact that at least two of the judges expressed grave concerns

about the conduct of the trials cannot be lightly dismissed.

So the following questions have great relevance.

Was the evidence given by Stephen F. Pinter that there were no human gas

chambers in any of the German camps overlooked or deliberately suppressed?

Was the evidence given by pathologist Dr. Charles Larson?

that not one case of death by poison gas was found overlooked or deliberately

suppressed.

How could the obviously absurd figure of 20 ,000 people being gassed and

cremated at one camp in a single day have been accepted by the prosecution

defense lawyers as well as the judges without question?

How could it be that no scientists were questioned about the plausibility of

Rudolf Hoesse's confession as to the method he stated was used to gas

of people at one time in one unheated, unventilated room at Auschwitz using

unheated Zyklon B?

No nation, organization, association, no religious sect, no open, closed or

secret society, nor any individual has the right to prevent me from seeking the

answers to these and other questions, should I choose to ask them privately or

publicly. It is my right, under the protection of Article 19 of the United

Nations Declaration of Human Rights,

It is also yours.