All language subtitles for Were_the_Germans_Really_That_Stupid-1n_sp5djmwA

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.