Thank you.
I need to get
my instruments ready here.
Now they fall apart.
There was a cap to it,
and somehow that fell off.
I apologize for this.
All right.
I have something positive to say
about this country
to just attach right to the speech
you just heard,
and that’s the fact
that we can do what we do right now
in this country,
because in many countries
where our ancestors came from,
we would not be able to do this.
So, there’s freedom of speech
and freedom of assembly
in this country,
so, there’s something good to say.
Also, what I wanted to mention is
when it comes to the war against Iran,
the Iranians are an Indo-European people.
Their language is closer to English and German
than it is to Arabic,
and when we should talk about the victims
that this war causes,
we should talk about the thousands
and thousands of Indo-Europeans
of Iranian ancestry
that are being murdered.
Now, my topic today,
as you would probably guess,
is on the Holocaust,
because that’s what I’m known for
and that’s what I’m good at.
Before I do it,
I give a little bit of an introduction
of who I am.
I would assume most of you know,
but probably not all.
I am a German citizen.
I grew up, born in the mid-1960s,
grew up in West Germany;
had a normal lower-middle-class upbringing;
went to a normal public school,
eventually studied chemistry,
graduated,
and in the process of graduating,
I stumbled over that topic.
A research that had been done
here in the United States
by an expert in execution technologies
who was looking into the gas chamber question
and had some chemical arguments
which caught my attention,
and as a chemist, I couldn’t look away,
and down the rabbit hole I went
and never came back.
Now, the persecution
that has resulted from my activity,
because Germany is not a country
where free speech
and freedom of science,
freedom of assembly [exists],
has led me ultimately to this country,
and there’s another good thing.
The government has tried hard
to keep me out.
They actually arrested me.
I was married to a U.S. citizen.
I had a granted immigrant visa.
They arrested and deported me anyhow,
with the reason given,
no criminal case.
So, in violation of that,
I ended up in Germany,
and in Germany I was put on trial
for the research that I had published
over the past five years
while in exile,
and they sentenced me to 44 months in total,
and I had to spend that time.
Now, I’m not a singular case,
and I’m not the worst case
of what’s going on in Europe.
Anyway, I fought my way back.
I won in court.
What they’d done to me was wrong.
It was remedied,
as much as you can remedy
losing five years of your life in prison.
I was reunited with my family,
and I got the status
of a permanent legal resident now
in this country.
So, 35 years of research on that topic
have, a number of years ago,
raised the question to me,
how do I get the message out to the masses?
The first 30 years, I would say,
I was looking for answers myself.
I wasn’t sure
whether I understood everything
and whether I really got this story straight.
And then, at the end of the 30-year mark,
I was pretty sure,
and then the idea came up
of how do I get the message out.
Now, one way is, of course,
writing something
that makes the information accessible.
A lot of you actually bought it today from me,
so I wrote an encyclopedia,
because that’s what scholars do all the time.
Actually, no, they don’t.
But I was in the unique situation
that I had this knowledge,
35 years of sitting at the helm,
at the core of this skeptical,
scrutinizing research,
and I decided it needs to be done.
And in lack of support from others,
and due to a cataclysmic development
in my private life,
I had the time to do it,
and I pulled it off.
So, we have the knowledge published.
We have it concisely presented
and made accessible.
There is still a step of
how do I get people to listen?
Because we’re talking about a taboo topic,
and people don’t want to hear it.
Most of you probably are open-minded.
Some of you are, or most, many,
I don’t know,
are convinced already
that the mainstream narrative is phony,
but we want to reach those
who sit on the fence,
or even on the other side of it.
How do we do that?
And I want to give you
a little bit of an instruction,
by example, of the best approach.
And the best approach,
you already have seen,
some of you coming by our book stand there,
seen those signs here,
and marveling over these graphics
and the information that’s on there.
The best approach for the normies
into this topic
is not talking about
lies that they’ve made up,
like Jewish soap,
they all have admitted it didn’t happen,
or lampshades, or what, no.
What you want to talk to them about
is massive violation of civil rights,
is free speech,
is freedom of assembly
that doesn’t exist over there,
and make them see,
in concrete examples,
what that means.
When we’re talking about this topic here,
people need to realize,
every person needs to realize
that every historian on this planet,
to one degree or another,
if he wants to write Holocaust historiography,
or talk about it,
or write about it,
he is doing history at gunpoint.
That’s the only topic in the world right now,
more or less on a global scale,
where historians are threatened
with at least destruction of their career,
if not outright prosecution
and imprisonment.
Scholars, not just historians,
scholars, you know,
you can do physics,
you can do psychology,
you can do any science,
and you will not get in trouble
if you say something that’s controversial.
It’s only this one,
this particular part in history,
that gets people in trouble.
Even in this country,
we have free speech,
but any historian who touches that,
it’s a third rail topic,
he will find his career ended.
This is the map of Europe.
You see in red the countries
that have outlawed Holocaust skepticism,
that have outlawed doubt.
Doubt is the core feature
of us human beings
that sets us apart from animals
who cannot doubt their sensual input.
We can doubt what we see,
we can systematically look for the truth
and communicate with our fellow humans
what the truth is,
or what we think the truth is,
and can even make it independent of ourselves
by putting it down encoded
so that everyone can see it.
That is what sets us apart.
And a government that outlaws doubt,
outlaws search for truth,
outlaws communicating the truth with others,
is outlawing humanity.
These countries have outlawed humanity.
Stalinist Russia, as bad as it was,
had no laws that would prescribe
the result of any scholarly research
in any field by penal law.
This is the first in mankind history
that we have that.
The European Union forces members
who have not yet passed laws
in the European Union to do it,
or they are threatened with sanctions.
Finland just passed earlier this year,
the last one,
because they said
we’re threatened by the EU,
by some kind of sanctions or measures,
and that’s why we introduced that law.
Now, what does that mean?
I’ve told you about my 44 months
for the research;
you can see that there are two books,
Chemistry for Auschwitz,
if you want to look at it,
it’s my original forensic research,
and Lectures on the Holocaust.
Having done what I’m doing right now here
to academic audiences in Germany
talking about my research
in the calm and academic style
led to being sentenced.
There were worse cases.
I’m going to focus here on Austria.
Some of you have looked through
the list of all the countries,
and some are not on this map actually.
Of course, Canada has introduced a law
north of us,
and Australia uses a backdoor way
of doing it,
and Israel, of course,
is the first country
that has outlawed skepticism,
and there are other countries
who use other laws
they twist and tweak
in order to send people to prison.
And in the Arabic world, unfortunately,
where you should think
there should be an open mind there.
A lot of governments in the Arabic world
are bought by Europe and America,
and they prosecute dissidents on that topic
with extra-legal means.
They are not democracies
under the rule of law.
Whatever that means,
because in some aspects,
we are not anymore either,
but for them,
it’s pure arbitrariness.
So, this is a global thing,
a global problem.
We just had a censorship hit us,
a company in China.
We wanted to have merchandise produced
with certain slogans on it
on Holocaust skepticism,
and they pulled the plug.
Not even in China,
they want to do it anymore.
Austria, the worst case, 20 years.
You can go up to 20 years in prison.
If you combine it, the skepticism,
quote-unquote denial,
with statements that they interpret as
re-engaging in national socialist activities.
If you were, for instance, to argue
that the Austrians are just one tribe
of the Germans
and they should live together
with other Germans in Germany,
which was a normal thought up to 1945.
In the 17th century, 18th century,
19th century, and the 20th century,
the people of Austria always felt,
and they were for the longest time,
the core and the center of Germany.
And they got kind of pushed out
with Prussia taking over
in the late 19th century.
And then after the collapse
of Prussian Germany and Austria,
the Austrian Empire
after the First World War,
they said, okay, we had it now.
Let’s get reunified.
That was the idea
of the Wilson 14 points for the truce,
to have everyone self-determination,
and the Austrians got it denied.
And after the Second World War,
they had special laws enacted:
If you violate them, up to 20 years,
denial combined
with demands for self-determination.
To put a face to it,
Austrian engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich
was arrested in the early 2000s
for a paper he had written.
He’s an expert for disinfestation technology
and disinfestation gas chambers.
So, he knows the technique
and compared it to what was said
to have been going on
in German extermination camps
during the war,
and said, that’s technical nonsense.
It can’t be.
And he got eventually indicted
and put in prison.
And he was upset
about what they did to him,
and he kept writing letters
and arguments from within prison;
got more and more indictments
and got sentenced over and over again.
At the end of the day,
he spent 16 years in prison
for his engineering arguments.
And he came out just around COVID,
caught COVID and died shortly afterwards.
Western politicians complain
about Iran or China
putting dissidents for four, five,
seven years in prison.
At the same time,
they put them for 16 years in prison.
That’s the worst case.
This graph here shows you
the initiation of criminal investigation
for thought crimes in Germany.
Since 1994, some 4,000, 5,000
up to the most recent data
for the year 2025 comes out
maybe next month.
I get a little bit of feedback here.
The blue one is right-wing thought crimes.
That’s what we are committing here right now.
Then you have the left-wing ones.
These are usually Antifa communists
who make some radical statements
about blowing up parliament
or having a communist revolution.
And then you have the green ones,
foreign, religious.
That usually means Muslim radicals
who want to introduce Sharia law
or something like that.
For these two cases,
you really have to make aggressive statements
that are not peaceful anymore,
whereas in these cases,
if you’re just against mass immigration,
you say anything critical about the Jews,
any dissent on the Holocaust,
or more recently, anything critical
about Israel’s policy in Gaza.
This here is the Gaza escalation
that you see.
Germany has extended their law,
they outlaw more and more,
both by case law
and by the actual written code.
And now with this past data,
we were up to 40,000,
35,000 of them, stuff that the like of people,
like we do,
like what we argue and talk about.
35,000 initiated criminal investigations
do not result in 35,000 people
sitting in prison.
I want to make that clear.
Most people never get caught
for the slogan they have sprayed
on some wall or a sticker
they left somewhere.
And if, for first time offenders,
usually it ends up with a slab on the wrist,
it may just be a summary offense
with a fine that has to be paid.
And for first time offenders,
it rarely ends with prison.
But then you have the 1 or 2% of these cases
that end up actually with prison cases.
Only a minority of that is Holocaust skepticism.
And I have no numbers.
They don’t, in their paperwork.
This is a data based, actually,
on what the German government releases,
and they are proud of it
because they call themselves
a combative defense democracy.
Okay?
So they defend themselves
in combating anyone they consider to be an enemy.
That they are actually
the biggest enemy of democracy –
now I wouldn’t even call it democracy,
but a state under the rule of law
that respects human rights.
They never get a mirror held
against them to look into it,
because that’s the enemy that causes
this kind of persecution.
Back to history.
This kind of an atmosphere
that you have in Europe,
in most countries,
and even in this country,
where historians don’t go to prison,
but immigrants like me,
I’m currently constantly
on an ejector seat,
and I can get thrown out any minute
if the Trump government so decides,
because they don’t respect the law either.
What effect does it have, actually,
concretely, on historians?
Here you see the lovely face
of Wácław Długoborski,
Auschwitz survivor,
who was put in charge,
as I say, the billy goat
that was put in charge of the garden.
He was put in charge
of the Auschwitz Museum’s
historical research center.
And for many decades,
he has been the boss,
and under his auspices,
the lie that 4 million people
died at Auschwitz was maintained
until the Soviet Union collapsed.
Then it did collapse,
and they suddenly reduced the number
from 4 million to 1 million,
and said, well,
we have known it all along.
And then in an interview in 1998,
this historian was asked,
well, why did you lie?
Why did you make that up?
If you knew all along
that it was wrong,
why didn’t you correct the number earlier,
when you knew that it was wrong?
And he basically said,
well, there was a prohibition in place
in the Eastern Bloc,
in the communist countries,
that historians
who would not toe the party line
could be facing, how he expressed it,
disciplinary measures.
What does that mean?
You lose your job.
You’re getting demoted.
You have to become a street sweeper
or a janitor.
That’s what that means
in these communist planned economies.
Ironically, 1998,
that’s when he gave the interview,
that was the same year Poland,
pressured by the European Union,
in particular Germany,
introduced a law, 1998,
that made Holocaust skepticism a crime
punishable with up to three years in prison.
So, from communist “disciplinary measures”
to democratic “three years in prison,”
what’s worse?
I take disciplinary measures any time
over a prison term.
So, he said that now we can tell the truth.
Back then we couldn’t,
because we had disciplinary measures.
We have corrected. Now it’s one million,
because you need to believe us,
because now we are only threatened
with three years!
Any mainstream person
who thinks everything is kosher
with the Holocaust narrative
that we are fed now
must realize,
yeah, kosher it may be,
if it means the Jews like it.
But it most certainly doesn’t mean
authentic and reliable,
because historians
who are threatened at gunpoint
to write history
cannot be trusted.
He admits: “we couldn’t be trusted.
We have been lying.
We knew we were lying.
Intentionally, but we did so
because we were threatened
with getting demoted or losing our job.”
And now we should believe you
when you are threatened with three years?
With five years?
With six years?
With 20 years?
How much more do you need to teach people,
to tell people to realize:
you can’t trust these people!
History at gunpoint
does not give you the truth,
in no section of society.
So, once you have opened up people’s mind
and that they realize the dimension
of persecution, of suppression,
of oppression and the unique nature,
the Holocaust is unique
in terms of the length
governments go to and societies go to,
to suppress dissent,
to keep complete control over the narrative.
Nowhere else in society will you find it.
That shows you:
who is the main beneficiary
usually is also the one who pushes most,
and it shows you that this is for them
the most important topic
to keep total control over.
Once you have opened people’s mind,
something is fishy here.
You can’t trust those historians
because they have admitted to have lied
when they were threatened even less
than they are threatened today.
Then we go to the pith,
the center of the story.
Now, I handed out to you guys,
free of charge,
a little brochure,
and I want to go through a few things here
that you find actually in the brochure.
If this thing is too far away from you,
I apologize,
but you’ll find some of this
in this brochure.
And the first one I’m going to
is actually on the last page,
the back cover if you wish,
even hough that thing, technically speaking,
has no back cover.
You see a graph there,
a bar chart that shows claims
of death tolls for the Majdanek camp.
Now, I would assume that most of you,
at least most of the normal populace,
have not heard about the Majdanek camp.
It’s not any more major player
in the bigger picture of the Holocaust
in terms of mass extermination.
It used to be completely different.
The Majdanek camp actually
was officially called the Lublin camp
in central Poland,
was overrun by the Red Army
in July of 1944.
So, it was the first major camp
that the Soviets overran.
And in a press conference
right after the conquest of the camp
– and I say conquest.
The Red Army never liberated anyone,
so you will not hear
the word liberation
when it even comes to camps,
when it comes to the Red Army.
So, they conquered the camp,
and the press conference they claimed
two million people were murdered there.
That was the first big,
still during the war,
propaganda campaign on extermination claims
that started in August 1944.
Big show.
With all the world media invited,
journalists from everywhere,
and cameras rolling.
Now, in subsequent events,
the Poles later that year,
still during the war by the way,
December 1944, had a show trial.
They claimed 1.7 million.
That’s a little bit of a reduction,
but we want to be generous.
It’s kind of the same order of magnitude.
The Soviets then,
during the International Military Tribunal,
introduced an expert report
that claimed 1.5 million.
Still, again,
500,000 difference is not immaterial,
but in the bigger picture,
looking at it scientifically,
it’s kind of the same order of magnitude.
We don’t want to be nitpicking here.
However, the frenzy of
immediate end of the war
or post-war propaganda comes to an end,
and things cool down a little bit,
and a Polish investigative judge
reduces the number down to 360,000.
This is a considerable drop down to 80%.
Now, as I just showed you,
there is a rule in communist countries,
you have to toe the party line,
and the new party line was 360,000.
They couldn’t really go underneath that,
even though they knew, again,
they knew in that case, too,
it is wrong.
I think the order of number
of prisoners sent to the camp
was around that order of magnitude,
and that assumes
that every single one of them was murdered,
and there’s plenty of documentation
showing that was absolutely not the case.
The Soviet Union collapses,
and the number gets reduced again
by a new historian in charge of the museum,
235,000.
Not all that extreme a drop,
if you compare it with Auschwitz,
compared to these two,
but here we have already
almost down only 10%.
But that wasn’t the end of it.
We, Holocaust skeptics,
went into the archives
after the Soviet Union collapsed,
in 1994, 95, 96,
and researched the whole material,
published an investigation on it,
and it was so devastatingly demasking
the propaganda of the homicidal-gas-chamber story
that pressure on the Majdanek Museum
became so big that eventually in 2005,
a new generation, a new historian
dropped the death toll to 76,000.
And that is only, not even 4%
of the initial 2 million claim.
And actually from the beginning,
they had claimed seven homicidal gas chambers.
They maintained that number until the end,
but five of them were so ridiculously
obviously technically impossible
to have ever been used
for what they claimed to have been used
that, to throw propaganda blasts overboard,
Tomasz Kranz, the new Polish historian,
threw five of them overboard.
So, what we have is here admission that,
okay, we exaggerated,
we lied, we lied, we fixed, we fixed,
we keep fixing,
we drop more and more of these lies,
and then that’s what the situation is here today.
They keep shifting the goalposts,
they keep reducing the claim.
You see something is fishy
with their attitude in general.
But now they got it right!
Really?
When you’re threatened
with three years in prison,
why would I believe you?
Now, we could say, okay, one camp,
what does one camp prove?
That’s the most extreme
downward revision by the mainstream.
I haven’t shown our own number that would,
here in 98 we published the book,
we find in the historical record
42,200 death cases
and no homicidal gas chambers at all.
They were all fumigation chambers.
So, I’m just showing you
what the mainstream itself has admitted
to have been wrong over and over again.
Is it a singular case?
People make mistakes.
Corrections for other camps.
If you go in the brochure,
if you want to go on page six,
you see the table there,
and I have the same table here.
The major camps that played a role
in Allied war
as well as immediate post-war propaganda
as claimed extermination camps.
You see the initial death toll here
on the left numbers column,
and the death toll
that is claimed by the mainstream.
Again, I’m saying the mainstream.
Holocaust skeptical numbers,
what really can be documented
and what is forensically possible,
is an entirely different story.
So, I want to show you that
if you just use their own arguments
and their shifty way of moving goalposts,
you should make every believer see
something isn't right.
And you see it here.
Mistakes stray statistically
from the true value.
If I make a mistake,
I may under- or overestimate,
but they should stray to both sides.
Here you see only one tendency,
extreme exaggeration.
That’s not called a mistake,
that’s called a lie.
Truth is always the first victim of every war,
and why should it be any different
with the Second World War?
The victors write the history,
and they never write it objectively,
and why should it be any different
for the worst war ever fought
that ended for the losing side
in a major disaster
that mankind has not seen
all that often in history.
Carthage in the Punic Wars
probably had a worse fate than Germany
because they were completely wiped,
but other than that,
Germany was in pretty bad shape
after the Second World War.
So, you see here, these are lies.
They have been lying systematically.
They have been correcting and admitting,
in Auschwitz I showed you,
here in Majdanek again and again.
They lied,
they knew they were lying
and now they are threatened even worse
than they were before
The question…
So, for Majdanek,
96% of the victims were invented,
70% of the homicidal gas chambers were invented.
They got it wrong repeatedly,
acting under coercion,
still under coercion,
even worse so today:
why believe them uncritically now?
You wouldn’t.
And it doesn’t stop with numbers.
If you go on the second table
of page six here,
we’re talking about
invented murder methods.
What the mainstream, again,
what the mainstream has admitted.
We’re looking in the second column here
of all the stuff that is actually
has been invented,
and I actually added a few more here
on this on here.
You see for Auschwitz, war gases,
high voltage, meaning electrocution,
gas showers, gas bombs,
pneumatic hammer, conveyor belt.
Treblinka, you have machine guns,
mobile gas chambers, stunning gas,
unslaked lime, hot steam, high voltage,
chlorine, ether, a death bridge,
burning alive.
So it goes on and on
for the other camps.
Suffocation with human excrements
as a mass-murder method
is claimed for Belzec by one witness.
It gets absurd at times,
but of course all this stuff,
sometimes based on only one witness,
sometimes based on tens of witnesses,
on all kinds of wartime reports,
got dumped.
Interestingly, the stories
that prevailed during the war,
hot steam for Treblinka,
high voltage for Belzec,
chlorine gas for Sobibor,
all got dumped.
You won’t find a word of it today anymore,
even though they were the ones
that were most commonly claimed
during the war, and even during
the International Military Tribunal,
by the way.
It’s all gone.
What we have left now is this:
Zyklon B and engine exhaust gases.
For a long time
they even claimed
there were diesel exhaust gases,
which are technically impossible,
because they’re not toxic enough.
Just recently, well not too recently,
15 years ago,
a mainstream toxicologist
tried to move the goalpost there again.
“Okay, diesel doesn’t work,
why don’t we say it was engine exhaust?”
So, murder methods claimed
during and right after the war
were highly contradictory.
Even once-claimed main murder methods
were all abandoned.
Polish Stalinist officials
streamlined the narrative
against facts,
and mainstream historians
hide these extreme revisions
and manipulations from you,
because they’re writing
history on gunpoint.
How was it done?
To give you one example,
and unfortunately I don’t think
I have that in this brochure.
You would actually have to go,
because that goes a little bit
more into detail for which
this brochure doesn’t have room.
I have that detailed example
in this book here, Nazi Gas Chambers,
which you can either buy there
as a hard copy
or you can find it on
holocausthandbooks.com
free of charge as an e-book.
The one case that shows everyone,
and should show every normie,
that the story was faked,
is the case of Sobibor.
Now again, Auschwitz everyone knows,
Treblinka some of you may have heard,
Belzec maybe, Majdanek unlikely,
Sobibor also not very often.
Sobibor is one of the three
so-called pure extermination camps,
actually four.
Chełmno is a special camp,
it’s a separate issue.
Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor
are the three big ones
where Jews were shipped to be murdered
and nothing else,
that’s the claim of the mainstream.
Sobibor is the smallest of them.
Treblinka, we have that here,
started out with three million,
Belzec with three million claim,
and Sobibor with two million.
It’s down to 200,000 now, plus minus,
there’s always… this is kind of
an average of the mainstream claims,
because they can’t really agree
exactly on how much,
but the other ones are way higher.
Sobibor is an interesting case.
The same judge who, after the war,
downgraded massively the death toll
for Majdanek to 360,000,
also investigated the Sobibor camp
and the Treblinka camp,
and wrote the story for it,
for the Polish Commission
for German War Crimes.
He interrogated a number of witnesses,
they are listed here by name.
Right after the war.
The inmates that were alive
in the summer of 1943
had a revolt in the Sobibor camp.
There’s actually a movie about that,
not very historically accurate,
but the revolt did take place,
and many witnesses, survivors
or inmates ran away,
and they ended up testifying
in front of that investigative judge,
Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz.
Now, the interesting thing is
of what they told him.
Right now, for Sobibor,
they claim engine exhaust gas as murder method,
and they are supposed to have been murdered
in just a normal chamber,
one door, they walk in,
they get killed with gas,
the other door on the other end
opens out, and they get carried out
to mass graves or pyres to be burned.
That’s the mainstream narrative right now.
However, if you look
at what these witnesses testified,
if they described
the alleged murder method at all,
many of them said chlorine.
Nobody said engine exhaust gas.
Not a single witness.
What they claimed of the mechanics
of the gas chamber is very interesting,
because they kind of agreed,
with a few exceptions of witnesses
who didn’t say anything about that,
that the floors in those chambers
were hydraulically opened up,
they collapsed downward,
discharged the dead victims
into carts running on tracks below,
in some kind of basement area,
and would then be driven out
to mass graves or to cremation pyres.
And they agreed on that.
You will not hear a single thing
about that in the mainstream narrative.
What Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz did
when he wrote,
based on his interrogations,
that’s the only evidence he had.
He said, well, they were killed
with engine exhaust
and with just a normal gas chamber with doors.
Invented, out of the blue,
with no basis in fact
of any of the evidence he had.
He threw out all the witnesses.
Now, where did he get that narrative from?
He actually copied it over.
I just mentioned
he had also investigated
the Treblinka camp.
He had copied it over
from the narrative he had developed
for the Treblinka camp.
And if you were to go there,
I don’t want to go do that now, again,
you can find the list of witnesses
and what they said on Treblinka
in here.
You find in Treblinka this chaos here:
electrocution, engine exhaust gas,
vacuum, steam, all kinds of claims.
He cleaned that up,
threw everything out,
kept the engine exhaust,
and wrote the narrative according to that,
and then he copied it over to Sobibor.
That is invented history
with no basis in fact,
none whatsoever in the case of Sobibor.
The clearest case
where you can absolutely pinpoint
what happened.
So, that is what you find
if you go into the historical record,
which became accessible to us only
after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
and the archives in the East became accessible,
and we could actually go
to these interrogation protocols
and then see
what narrative they made of it.
There is an interesting question
that arises: Why was that done?
I mean, it’s an obvious question.
You want to make your enemy
look as bad as possible,
so whatever comes after the war
you can manipulate and destroy them
as much as possible.
Psychological warfare
is just a continuation of warfare
with other means.
And, ethnically speaking,
the whole Second World War broke out
because the actual tinderbox that blew it up,
and there were many more conflicts around the globe,
was the ethnic conflicts
between Poles and Germans,
mainly over the city of Danzig.
And after the war, as you may know,
Poland gained huge territories
from Germany
and expelled the population.
My paternal ancestry was expelled from Silesia,
so they were part of the victims of that.
And Germany was not willing
after the First World War
to accept the loss of Danzig,
which was a 95% German city.
How would you make them expect
to accept the loss of
a quarter of its entire territory
and the expulsion
of 7 million civilians
from their homeland
where they had lived for centuries,
and were not just a majority,
in large parts there were just
only Germans.
All gone!
How do you expect Germany
to this time accept it?
If you break the Germans’ spine
with a guilt complex,
you can make them accept anything
as justified punishment.
And that’s what the
homicidal gas chambers are good for.
Now, I’ve looked into all of the people
who have done the investigations
on those camps
and who have written the history.
We’re actually talking
about only four individuals
that were doing the investigations.
I mentioned Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz for Treblinka,
for Majdanek and for Sobibor.
Jan Sehn was the investigative judge for Auschwitz,
for Belzec we have a historian.
There was no trial on Bełżec.
It was Eugeniusz Szrojt,
and for Chełmno, which isn’t even on here,
it’s a special case.
There it is actually.
It was Władysław Bednarz.
So we have four Polish individuals
all working for the Polish Commission
for the investigation of war crimes,
a Stalinist organization
set up by Stalin
to stick it to the Germans,
and to use all kinds of fishy methods,
as I just said,
and with the aim
of destroying Germany psychologically
and make them accept
all that was coming their way.
And it worked beautifully,
quote-unquote.
This is,
if you present these things that way,
I have found
you can get people to understand,
first of all,
that it’s not some lunatic idea,
but that there’s something
profoundly wrong in a society
that prescribes the writing
of any scholarly field
under the threat of punishment,
and what that must lead to,
to untruthfulness of scholars.
And then showing them,
yeah, they have admitted
over and over again to have lied,
to have shifted the goalposts,
to hide facts from us,
to completely change their story.
And then, psychologically,
very important,
it’s not the Jews
who did it in a great conspiracy theory.
That’s what I’m getting at here.
I’m not saying
I want to win the Jews over
seeing how they were duped,
they were.
But, you know, all those witnesses,
at the end of it,
most of them were Jews.
They had an axe to grind.
I can’t blame them.
They were treated horribly.
And in the frenzy of post-war propaganda,
they were making stuff up.
And this is completely made-up stuff here.
And they even coordinated,
these witnesses coordinated,
as they couldn’t have come up
all with the same story.
But the investigative judge
couldn’t do anything with it.
In other cases,
they were so contradictory,
they weren’t coordinating anything,
these witnesses,
they were just inventing
whatever came [to mind].
And in the complete frenzy
of post-war anti-German hysteria,
you can understand where they’re coming from.
It would have been the judge’s job to say,
this is all nonsense,
we can’t make head or tail out of it,
and therefore we need to say that.
They didn’t do that.
These judges were put in
by the new Stalinist government.
It was a Stalinist agenda.
I couldn’t find any Jewish backgrounds
in any of those four individuals.
I don’t know the chain of command.
They did what they did on orders.
Nothing of that kind of propagandistic
political nature was left to chance,
so you can bet that there were orders
coming from Warsaw and from Moscow.
What type they were,
this is the kind of investigation
we have yet to do.
Whether in that chain of command
Jews were sitting, I don’t know,
but they are not needed.
You can see here the Stalinist will
to completely destroy psychological Germany
and to pit Poland against Germany.
That is an important point.
Hitler had tried until 1939,
until the very last moment,
to win the Poles over
for an anti-communist pact
against Stalinist Russia.
And Stalinist Russia tried to conquer
all of Europe.
That was the declared concept
of world revolution from 1918 onward.
It wasn’t a secret.
And Hitler tried to make a bulwark,
a European fortress
against Stalin’s plan to conquer all of Europe.
Poland refused and went their way
of poking the German eagle
to the point where they lashed out,
and the rest is history.
Pitting Poland against Germany.
Any other normal nation…
If you imagine Mexico in a world war
that breaks out between Russia, China,
and the United States.
The United States loses,
and then Mexico gets everything
that they used to own and more.
You name the states of Texas, New Mexico,
Nevada, Arizona, California,
give everything to the Mexicans
and drive out every white Americans.
Would America put up with it
if they gained strength again?
How do you get the Germans to accept
that kind of calamity?
It worked.
What did not work,
and I want to make that sure,
even though my parents were expelled,
my parental ancestors were expelled from that region –
that today Germany and Poland
are not pitted against each other anymore.
I’ve gone with my father to our Poles
who had expelled him and his family.
In the 1980s and 90s,
German expellees went back to Poland
to party with our Poles
in the house that used to belong
to my grandfather.
There’s no frontier, no border
between Germany and Poland anymore.
If I wanted,
the German government not sticking me
in prison for other reasons,
I could go back and settle
where my parental ancestors came from.
That story’s over.
In Europe, we don’t kill each other,
we don’t kill white people over territory.
That should be the case.
Unfortunately, the Russians and the Ukrainians
have yet to learn that lesson.
That is over.
Stalin did not succeed
in pitting us against each other.
We work together now.
I am saying these things
in order to make you understand
where this came from,
how it was done, who did it,
why they did it.
Not in order to say,
give Germany its territories back.
They can’t even populate their current territory,
neither can the Poles.
The real biggest challenge
for all of us in Europe
is population collapse,
which is something I will talk about tonight,
by the way,
and how this ties in to all these issues
that I’ve been talking about historically.
So, now we are not talking territories here.
We’re talking about historical understanding.
And to make the Jews understand,
and the Zionists,
we’re not coming after you.
We’re not blaming you
for having constructed this narrative
in order to whatever.
Sure, they took advantage of it,
particularly since 1961
when the gravy train was already running
with the Eichmann trial.
They, big-time and ever since,
have been profited from that.
But if you look in the first decades
of the State of Israel
and of the Jewish community, particularly in this country,
they were not riding the Holocaust train.
It wasn’t even called that way back then.
The partial identity between
Soviet spies in the United States
and a religious Jewish background
was a troublesome truth for the Jewish community.
They kept their heads low
in the early years of the Cold War
and were not rocking the boat.
So, this way you can make even the Jews see
we’re not out for revenge
for what you did to us psychologically.
The story came from a different angle.
And I think that is because, you know,
people assume we are spreading
these Holocaust denial theories,
as they call them,
in order to get at the Jews,
in order to say the Jews have made
this big conspiracy
in order to get us and destroy us.
Yeah, it’s being used now as such.
What happens now
with them manipulating us with this
and saying in order to prevent
anything like that happening again,
we must allow and support them
to preemptively kill everyone
that even looks askance at them,
which is what’s happening in Gaza,
and what the conflict with many of these nations
in the Middle East with Israel is about.
That’s a separate story where we are today.
Historically seen as it started differently,
and it has taken on its own life.
And we need to break that vicious circle
we are in using this presumed genocide.
And I say, what happened to the Jews
as we define genocide
by the United Nations and in law,
actually it was a genocide.
You don’t need gas chambers to commit genocide.
If you separate people
so that they can’t reproduce,
it’s already called genocide.
And that’s what the National Socialists did
in the camps, separating genders
and putting them under living conditions
that inevitably had to lead
to many of them dying of disease and so forth.
So, technically speaking, legally speaking,
how it is defined today, it was genocide.
Now, that law didn’t exist back then, that’s a legal fine print.
So this genocide,
in its downgraded fashion
without homicidal gas chambers,
which didn’t exist,
but the homicidal gas chambers
being the foremost psychological weapon
to traumatize the Jews,
young Jews of a new generation today,
and every one of us.
We have gone through this education
and know how shocking it is
to see these bulldozers shoving corpses
into mass graves at Bergen-Belsen
and being told that’s
what the Germans did to the Jews.
That was force majeure of epidemics
breaking out in camps
that the Germans had no control over,
they didn’t plan that,
but you’re not being told that.
And the effect of it is that America,
for the most part, is willing to go along,
and Europe, to go along with what the Jews
and Zionists do in the Middle East.
To break that vicious circle,
get a correct understanding.
We can learn the correct lessons of history
only if we get first to the facts straight.
And no matter what the facts are,
morally speaking,
you are never allowed to use past catastrophes
of whatever nature
to justify or foment
current and future catastrophes.
And that’s what’s happening.
In order to prevent a new holocaust,
Israel is committing genocide.
So in order to prevent genocide,
they commit genocide.
There’s something wrong with this.
And to see how we are manipulated
with historical accounts
being exaggerated and invented,
to see it in this old example,
the most extreme example,
makes us see: that happens all the time.
What was it?
October 7th, 2023, what happened there?
Israel has a law outlawing,
as I just mentioned,
it was the first one
outlawing holocaust skepticism,
and they have now introduced a law
outlawing Gaza skepticism,
in terms of just what happened
on the 7th of October.
And they are probably in the process of
making it a crime to accuse Israel of genocide.
All right.
I’m having, as I mentioned,
a second presentation tonight.
We’re talking about demographic collapse
and where that leaves us, which options we have,
and what the various drivers are,
which Holocaust propaganda actually
is one of them,
and I’ll explain that tonight.
I hope I’ll get a chance to talk to you
and maybe even discuss that with you guys.
If you want to look into this book,
if you don’t have it yet,
about how this core of the Holocaust,
the homicidal gas chamber story was created,
as I mentioned there, you can have it,
the encyclopedia also.
I still have six copies floating around.
Please keep the brochure.
It is a short description and summary
of Holocaust revisionist arguments
with reference of all the books.
You can find them all free of charge
at holocausthandbooks.com,
but you can also buy them from us
on these websites,
and you’ll find links to purchase them.
If you don’t want to keep it,
leave it on the table,
and we’ll collect it later,
because this is advertisement for our products,
for our knowledge, for our insight,
and we’d like it to get it spread.
So, thank you for your attention.
* * *
If you want to learn more,
here are a few suggested websites.
At our Holocaust Encyclopedia,
you can find concise information
on almost 600 related topics,
with references to further reading.
The results of 35 years
of archival and forensic research
into the Holocaust can be accessed free of charge
at our Holocaust Handbooks website,
where you can also access several documentaries
as well as our mini-series Holocaust Pocketbooks,
which give easy-to-read introductions
into various topics.
Printed copies of these and many other books
can be purchased on our websites armreg.us
and armreg.co.uk.
At our Holocaust Academy,
we teach the ropes
of skeptical Holocaust research.
It also features our growing podcast series
named HoloCast.
At the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust,
we lobby for free speech
where it is threatened the most,
most prominently with our periodical
Inconvenient History.
And last but not least,
Germar Rudolf’s personal website,
where you can learn more about him.