TRANSCRIPT TO SPOKEN YOUTUBE VIDEO OF "MADE IN RUSSIA -- THE HOLOCAUST",
LUXEMBOURG, 1988

For references, click here

Bold = corrections or guesses


0:27
Hello, Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Carlos Whitlock Porter, and I am a so-called Holocaust Revisionist, usually referred to by the generic term bigot, fascist, hater, Nazi, liar and falsifier of history.

0:39 In order to protect myself from the last of these accusations, if not from the previous ones, I have prepared a book which consists almost entirely of prosecution documents from the first Nuremberg Trial. This is to say that the book contains almost nothing that I have written; simply the prosecution documents, or various extracts therefrom, strung together with a caption at the top of the page, and about five pages of text .

1:19 There is an introduction, there are a few comments here and there, and many cartoons and photographs.

1:27 This is the evidence which is supposed to have proven that the Germans killed millions of Jews, and millions of Russians, and millions of all sorts of other people, indeed, a veritable Noah's Ark of Holocaust victims.

1:46 I will read a few extracts from this book. I will begin with the incredible pedal-driven brain-bashing machine, or how I helped kill 840,000 Russians with "feet power", and burned the bodies in 4 portable ovens.

2:09 This is part of a confession, of SS man Paul Waldmann, quoted in a Soviet War Crimes Report, USSR-52. Other parts of the same document may be found quoted in various works of Holocaust literature.

2:28 The Incredible Pedal-Driven Brain-Bashing Machine, or how I helped kill 840,000 Russians by "feet power", and burned the bodies in 4 portable ovens.

2:39 Now you've got to understand, the title is mine, of course, this doesn't appear in the text.

Now the text begins here, this is only an extract.

At the end of 1941, the Sonderkommando of the Security Police, which was directly subordinate to the State Office of the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler, killed 840,000 Russian prisoners of war, in the Sachsenhausen Camp. I have the following to report on this special action.

3:04 The Russian prisoner of war trains arrived at Sachsenhausen station every day. Every day, 8 to 10 trains arrived, each of them carrying 1800. So, every day, 28,000 Russian [sic] prisoners of war arrived. [8 or 10 x 1,800 = 28,000, I kid you not]
Execution continued for 30 days.

3:24 It was interrupted because of an outbreak of typhus.

3:37 and the camp was closed. The execution detachment with their apparatus, left Sachsenhausen camp. I did not hear whether the execution was continued in some other place, because I was held in quarantine with suspected typhus.

3:46 From the station to the camp, the line of Russian prisoners of war stretched for about a kilometre. They stayed in the camp for one night without food. The following evening they were taken out for execution. All the time, the prisoners were being taken on three trucks, one of which I was driving. The inner camp was about three quarters of a kilometre away from the execution yard. The execution itself took place in a barracks, which had been equipped for this purpose not long before. One room was for undressing, and another was the waiting room. In the rooms, a radio was playing quite loud music, to prevent the prisoners from guessing that death awaited them. From the second room, they went one by one through a passage into a small screened-off room, on the floor of which was an iron grating. Under the grating, a drainage canal had been made.

As soon as a prisoner had been killed, the corpse was carried away by two German prisoners, and the blood was cleaned off the grating. In this small room, there was a slit measuring about 50 centimetres. The prisoner stood with the back of his head to the slit, and a gunman who was behind the slit shot him. In fact, this arrangement was unsatisfactory, because the gunman often failed to hit the prisoner. After eight days, a new system was introduced. They stood the prisoner against the wall, as before, and then slowly lowered an iron plate onto his head. The iron plate contained a hammer, which came down and hit the prisoner on the back of the head, so that he fell down dead.

The iron plate was controlled by means of a foot-operated lever which was in the corner of this room. The attendants were from the above mentioned Sonderkommando. At the request of the officials of the execution detachment, I, too, operated this apparatus. I will speak about this below.

6:04 The prisoners of war who were killed in this way were burnt in four mobile crematoria, which were transported on a truck trailer.

All the time, I had to drive from the inner camp to the execution yard. At night, I had to make 10 trips at intervals of about 10 minutes. During these intervals, I witnessed the execution. One of the members of the execution detachment, whose surname I never knew, suggested that I should operate the apparatus.

6: 30 I agreed. In each interval I killed 8-10 people. So in one night I killed 80-100 people.

6:40 During the period of execution I personally killed 2,400-3,000 Russian prisoners of war, some of whom I shot with a pistol, and others I killed with the apparatus described above.

6:52 Once more I repeat that out of a total of 840,000 Russian prisoners of war I personally killed 2,400-3,000 people.

7:04 I myself expressed a wish to operate this apparatus. The official of the execution commission could not compel me to do so, because he was not my superior.

7:15 There were no other methods of execution apart from these...

I can now make no further statements. I have described everything. If I remember anything later, I shall voluntarily report it.

7:27 I have compiled and written the present supplement myself, and I confirm this with my signature.

7:34 The statement is printed and the name “Paul Waldmann” is printed in Russian. This is a notarized translation.

Paul Waldmann, Poznan the 10th of June 1945.

Then there's a handwritten addition, in Russian, which says:

7:50 I hereby confirm that these documents are true copies of the originals which are kept among the proceedings of the Special State Commission in Moscow.

8:03 Authorized representative of the Special State Commission, D. Kuzmin, 7/1/1946.

8:09 Stamp: Special State Commission

8:11 I am often asked why I do this research and what motivates me, and I can say honestly,

8:18 that what motivates me more than anything else,

8:21 is a love of the ridiculous,

8:25 it appeals to my love of the bizarre, and, uh... I grew up with a great love of comic strips

8:30 and my favourite used to be L'il Abner, as I recall,

8:33 there were all sorts of absurd adventures which were usually based upon puns.

8:39 For example, there was the Lizard of Ooze, the Bald Iggle, and many other animals and creatures which were, uh, simply a pun drawn out into some sort of absurd story

8:52 and, since that time, which would have been about the mid-1950s,

9:00 when I had nothing better to do than read comic strips, I have never read anything so absurd

9:02 as the testimony and evidence in war crimes trials.

9:07 and in Holocaust literature.

9:13 These photographs are from page 236 of my book, Made in Russia: The Holocaust,

9:18 and they have been reproduced, both of them,

9:20 from the book Buchenwald, published by the Club Amical Buchenwald

9:27 of Luxembourg. The title of their book is Buchenwald. And it is quite easy to see
that the man with the glasses in the centre of the above photo lost weight after his release from Buchenwald. He evidently went on a crash diet and lost about 20 pounds in weight.

In the second photograph he is appearing evidently as the guest of honour at a banquet. All of the people in the above photograph are mentioned by name in the book, Buchenwald, published by the Club Amical Buchenwald. One of them for example, lived in Echternach. Dr. Kongs claims to have escaped annihilation

10:18 by switching name tags on a corpse. The Nazis were exterminating all the doctors on the last day before surrendering the camp, and Dr. Kongs allegedly switched name tags on a corpse, and the Nazis were stupid enough to burn somebody else thinking that it was the overweight Dr. Kongs. Now it may be that Dr. Kongs actually believes this.

10:46 It is quite possible that someone told him that the Nazis were exterminating all of the doctors; it is quite possible that he switched name tags on a corpse, and of course it is certain that the corpse was cremated later, so he may be entirely sincere in repeating this story which would be, together, nothing more than surmise plus hearsay.

11:13 He did not, as far as I know appear as a witness in any trial, so he cannot be cross-examined as to the basis of his beliefs.

Obviously, his belief in the truth of his story does not in itself prove that his story is true.

11:13 It may be that he is telling the truth as far as he knows and remembers it. But I am inclined to be suspicious by the fact of the crash diet and the loss of about 20 pounds in weight . Nor is this the only overweight Luxembourger to have returned from resettlement or terms in concentration camps.

12:02 This photograph shows Luxembourgish concentration camp inmates on the 6th of May 1945 at Ebensee Mauthausen. This photograph is from the Archives Jean Majerus

12:12 of the Club Amical Mauthausen, Luxembourg. I hope I will not be accused of hatred of Luxembourgers when I say that these people are quite healthy looking. They're not exactly overweight, all of them, except, for that one there, possibly, just a few pounds, but they show no signs of ill-treatment, to say the very least. This is the newspaper article from which the previous photograph was taken. The article appeared in Luxembourg's largest newspaper, the Luxembourger Wort, on May 4, 1985. These two photographs are from the Archives Jean Majerus of the Club Amical Mauthausen of Luxembourg. I have reproduced both of these photographs in my book. These show Luxembourgish concentration camp inmates in good health. In this photograph, the same people are posing in the background with some "living skeletons". The living skeletons are apparently not Luxembourgish.

13:34 I should point out that these men were photographed, not because they were healthy, but because they were Luxembourgers. I must assume that if there had been sick Luxembourgers, they would have been included in the photograph. Jean Majerus was concentration camp inmate no. 141,435.

13:58 According to this article, in which he speaks of the "concentration camp hell", and mistreatment and torture, and the rest of the accusations with which we are so familiar, 14:17 it seems astonishing that it would not occur to people that the photograph contradicts the text, and the text contradicts the photographs. This occurs quite frequently.

14:37 This is an enlargement of the smaller photograph on the bottom right hand corner of the previous newspaper page. These are the same men in the background who were previously seen posing on the locomotive. The men in the foreground are evidently not Luxembourgers, and are evidently suffering from some sort of disease, either that or they had an entirely different diet. I hope no one will accuse me of thinking that the ones in the foreground are suffering from starvation and that the ones in the background ate all of their food. You will see that the third man from the right is somewhat overweight. He could stand to lose about 10 or 15 pounds.

15:43 This is a photograph of Luxembourgers returning from an Umsiedlungslager, which was not a concentration camp, it was a minimum security work camp for people who were considered to be politically unreliable. And this might be irrelevant to our considerations except that the word Umsiedlung or resettlement is constantly spoken of as a fiendishly clever camouflage term for extermination.

16:15 Thus, if everyone who was umgesiedelt was exterminated, then we are looking at a whole crowd of exterminated people.

16:24 At least 3 or 4 of these people are also somewhat overweight. They are returning from the Unterwellenborn-Saalfeld Umsiedlungslager in Thüringen.

This photograph also appears in an enlargement in my book on page 223. These people are in an Umsiedlungslager in the German section of Poland, the Generalgouvernement, and they are smiling and appear to be in good health. This is a discussion of a tour group which is going to visit all of the Umsiedlungslager in what is today Poland. I show you this so that I will not be accused of having made these photos up, or posed them someplace else or taken them from some sort of other source. These are all Luxembourgers who were deported from Luxembourg on the grounds of political unreliability and spent most of the war in a whole variety of camps, there were several hundred of them, some of them were quite small, in Germany and the Generalgouvernement.

What astonishes me is the good health and obvious cheerfulness of all these people. It may be that somewhere there exist pictures of Luxembourgers who are miserable looking, unhealthy, starved, but I haven't seen them. All of the photographs that I have seen of Luxembourgers in Luxembourgish books and newspapers show perfectly healthy people.

18:36 This is another photograph from the Archives Jean Majerus of the Club Amical Mauthausen, Luxembourg. I do not at the moment have the larger photograph from which this detail was taken. I have however reproduced both this enlargement and the other photograph in my book. This shows what is apparently the high dive of a swimming pool in the background, for these two concentration camp inmates, both of them Luxembourgish, again, the same men who were seen posing on the locomotive in their concentration camp uniforms, this one is apparently wearing a wrist watch, and possibly holding a small towel.

19:35 I don't whether he just went for a dip, perhaps some of the others, if they'd gone swimming more often, they might have lost some weight. I can't state as fact that this was the high dive of a swimming pool, perhaps it was a torture rack, perhaps the Nazis forced everyone to walk the plank into the pool, I don't know. I am saying that this appears in plain sight, in the background of a photograph showing Luxembourgish concentration camp inmates at Ebensee Mauthausen, on the 6th of May 1945, perfectly healthy people. There are four wrist watches in the photograph, or three, if you think one of them might not be very clear, and this strange-looking object in the background. Of course, if this is a swimming pool, I cannot guarantee that they were allowed to swim. I don't know, I have no idea. But these are obviously healthy people.

20:45 This is a reproduction of a newspaper article which appeared in the Manchester Guardian on April 10th, 1988, entitled, The Truth About the Gas Chambers, Eye Witness Evidence From the Men who Ran Them.   

21:03 Now ,a cursory examination of this article will reveal that the following phrases occur repeatedly, and I have counted them. "Nothing to do with it", occurs 4 times; "did not take part, occurs twice"; "didn't see them", one time; "totally innocent", one time; "admitted nothing", one time. "Didn't gas them", two times; "never in trouble", one time; "allowed to live in peace 14 years", one time.

21:46 that is, after he said what was expected of him, he was allowed to live in peace for 14 years .

21:57 "Hopes to be pardoned", occurs once. This article obviously consists of third or fourth hand hearsay expressing surmise and conjecture, and conclusions without any underlying facts. It consists simply of the repeated assertion that gas chambers existed. This article is not evidence and does not contain statements of men who ran them,

22:30 but it is an example of the so-called "proofs" and so-called "evidence" which the mass media seem to consider as such.

22:48 This is the cover page of Document USSR-8, otherwise known as Document 008-USSR, the report on Auschwitz camp, probably the most well-known war crimes report in existence. This is the source of most of the stories we are told concerning Auschwitz, and in all war crimes trials, judicial notice is taken of such documents. They are however simply uh, reports containing conclusions without any underlying evidence or documents. There are several dozen of these Soviet war crimes reports, many, many dozens, I haven't counted them, and they are simply believed, and the information contained therein is homogenized and cleaned up a bit and the references are deleted, and they are quoted without any sources given in all sorts of books published in Poland after the war, and then copied by other writers, in the West, and in West Germany and in the United States, and these documents are the source of all sorts of atrocity stories which are taken as fact.

24:28 This is the cover page of another Soviet War Crimes Report, USSR-52, also concerning Auschwitz camp. However, where Document USSR-8 is exceedingly well known, Document USSR-52 is almost entirely unknown. Parts of it are very commonly quoted ,and at great length, for example, by Raoul Hilberg, but other parts are entirely forgotten, for example, the incredible pedal-driven brain-bashing machine,

25:12 which occurs on page 9 through page 12 of this same report. This is an enlargement of a page from Document USSR-52.
This is an excerpt from the confessions of Paul Waldmann of the incredible pedal-driven brain-bashing machine operation, in which he recounts how he helped kill 28,000 Russians per day, with his feet, one foot, there was only one pedal. And I would like you to notice that the figures 840,000 or 28,000, are not a misprint, it appears, 840,000, no less than 3 or 4 times.

26:11 840,000 prisoners were killed, according to this excerpt, 28,000 prisoners in each train -- 28 hundred prisoners in each train,
28,000 prisoners per day. it does not say whether the Nazis worked an 8-hour day, or a 16-hour day, or whether they were paid time and a half for over-time, but if we figure the number of minutes in a day, and whether they worked 8 hours a day or 16, 28,000 prisoners a day indicates very rapid work. Particularly when you consider that the source of power involved was simply one foot, not even two feet, but one.

27:03 Paul Waldmann, it must be remembered, was a member of the SS, and had to prove his ancestry going back to 1750, so that with that kind of energy he must have been a kind of Superman -- the kind we're always hearing about when they talk about the SS.  
27:23 Here, the figure 840,000 appears twice: one can also check all of the other figures if one wishes, that is, if one does not trust the notarized translation which I printed in my book. This is the printed signature of Paul Waldmann. That is how you write "Paul Waldmann" in Russian. At the bottom, we see the very common and rather attractive looking stamp of the Soviet War Crimes Commission in Moscow, with the hand-written certification by D. Kuzmin of the Soviet War Crimes Commission, that this is a "true copy" of the original documents which are in the files of the Soviet War Crimes Commission in Moscow.

28:32 I should point out, perhaps, that, in war crimes trials, there is no requirement that original documents be presented: copies of copies, certified photocopies, and retyped "certified true copies", retyped "certified true copies" of mimeographs, with type-written signatures, type-written headings, and all sorts of other documentary garbage, are simply the order of the day. At the Tokyo Trial, it was expressly stated in their rules of evidence that proof of issuance or signature was not required. In the Nuremberg Trial and all other trials, this is simply a fact of their procedure, that proof of signature or issuance is not required, original documents are not required, a rubber stamp is perfectly good enough, you can re-type all of the documents, just as long as you put a rubber stamp at the end saying that you have done so correctly.

These documents are then quoted ad infinitum in thousands of books, even though there is no proof that the original document, with the signature, the stamps, the heading, and the rest of it, has ever existed.

29:55 In this case, I will show you two documents. I want you to tell me which is the so-called original document, which is a falsification of the same document. Is it document A, or is it document B? I have made this a little bit easier for you by inserting a paragraph which is obviously ridiculous, namely, "Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle Dee agreed to have a battle, for Tweedle Dee" -- no, "Tweedle Dum", excuse me -- "said Tweedle Dee had spoiled his nice new rattle". 30:44 This is of course a certified true copy, I'll certify it myself, and you can believe it if you want.

30:47 Of course in real life, not everything is proven by means of dubious "documents" regardless of any other consideration. But a "certified true copy" of a document made Coca Cola on the moon, would be accepted as proof that the Nazis made lunar coke. This belief would be held with the suicidal insistence of a medieval flagellant.

31:24 I should also point out that documents of this kind that is, forgeries with real live signatures and stamps and headings, are quite unusual. Usually the whole thing is type-written from the beginning to the end, which of course any idiot can do with a German typewriter; sometimes there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person, certifying it as a "true copy" -- sometimes it has been retyped by an American or a Yugoslavian or a Czech or a Pole -- with a nice rubber stamp, and I'll show you some of these later.

32:17 This is a sort of master copy for the previous one, which was a forgery. You can see that I have simply taken a pair of scissors and have clipped off all of the stamps, headings, signatures, initials, and of the rest of it, and have prepared a sort of jigsaw puzzle, which looks like this. From there, I can simply type in whatever text is required, using an old typewriter, I have a Martin from the Adler-Triumph-Werke in Nuremberg, made in 1940, and, of course, since there are no seams visible on the master, there will be no seams visible on the forged copy. But of course, it's far easier to simply type the entire document from beginning to end, and just put the word "Abschrift" -- or "copy" -- at the top of the page. This means there are no headings, no signatures, nothing. That is, the original document is itself a copy!

33:35 This is a very nice example of what is called a "certified true copy". This usually means that the document has been retyped, usually by a Communist, sometimes by an American, and that the signature is type-written, of course the original is never attached to the so-called "copy", but there is a very nice rubber stamp. In this case, from a Communist judge in Poland, Jan Sehn. Thus, one can never be sure from the quotation of documents whether or not the document has ever existed. This, for example, would be called an "original document" -- if, the National Archives, for example, happened to have the original, re-typed, certified "true copy".

This is another example of the same sort of principle at work: a document has been re-typed, in this case, by an English-speaking person, who has forgotten to type everything in German, with a type-written signature -- two of them as a matter of fact -- one of them from the famous Frick and the other from Dr. Gurtman. This is an extract from an appendix to Document USSR-93, which is a war crimes report relating to the plundering of art objects in Poland, specifically, libraries. The main body of the document also contains the original statements of somebody named [Yankiel] Wiernik, who later became prominent in the [John] Demjanjuk trial [in Israel, 1988]. This Wiernik character has resurfaced from time to time in all sorts of places, and the reference to the main body of this document is the source -- over, of course, his type-written signature -- of his statements. This is the appendix of laws which were allegedly passed by the Germans. According to the defence at the Nuremberg Trial, no such laws or directives were ever passed: they could not be found in the Reichsgazette. You can see that it has been re-typed by an American or Englishman, since paragraph 17 says: "Contains details of the putting into force of the said decrees".

36:18 Here we have a very nice example of what is called a "negative photostat" of a "true copy". Note that the document is completely black, and that the writing is white, and this little word "Abschrift". "Abschrift" means that there is no heading, no signature, sometimes there is a stamp, or an initial, of someone who is not available for questioning or cross-examination, and of course, if there were only a few documents of this kind there wouldn't really be any problem, the problem is that this is that they are almost all like this. I assure you that this is what the documents -- just about all of them -- this is what the documents look like.

They are illegible, they are Abschrifts, or copies, if you prefer, without any headings, without any signatures, no one can find the "original" Abschrift, they are negative photocopies, sometimes positive photostats, and I can give you a personal experience, I went to the Hague, where the original documents are supposed to be, and I obtained a photocopy of every document concerning atrocities in the chapter on concentration camps in William L Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Every single one of the documents quoted by William L Shirer in the chapter on the extermination and concentration camps, every single one of them looks like this. The Hague is supposed to have the original documents, but that's not so: they don't have them, they have this kind of garbage.

38:32 This is the last page, what would normally be the signature page of the previous document. You can see that it is garbage at the beginning and garbage at the end. Unfortunately, this is only typical.

38:50 This is an extremely well-known document where the S.A. is concerned. This is Document 1721-PS. This is a forgery, or, I should say, that pages 2 and 3 are forged. Page 1 is a famous document. signed by a person named Jüttner, who appeared as a witness in volume 20 of the Nuremberg Trial transcript.

These are the reception numbers or bureaucratic markings on documents which were received -- and these letters are the letters "z.d.A."., "zu den Akten", "Put it in the file".

On page 2, the same letters, z.d.A., are found here. They are a rather obvious imitation of the z.d.A. on page 1. And I should point out that in war crimes trials there is no such thing as expert testimony. There is no prohibition against unsworn hearsay testimony on the part of the prosecution.

40:23 Instead of proving that these letters "z.d.A." on pages 2 -- on page 2 -- came from the same hand, or were in the same handwriting, as the "z.d.A." on page 1, they simply asserted it. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe simply asserted that it was the same handwriting. You can look for yourself and decide whether you think it is the same handwriting. These are the entry initials, the reception initials, in this little box, which are a rather obvious forgery of the initials in the little box on page 1. I should say that this is the only document known to me at the present time in which actual handwritten markings were falsified. Usually it is more fun, and of course, far easier, to prepare the entire document with a typewriter, and write "Abschrift" at the top. You don't have to steal any stationery, you don't need a stamp, you need zero. Just paper and typewriter. The National Archives have a positive photocopy of this document, if I understand correctly, and this is a negative photocopy or "photostat" from the Hague. That is, it is not possible to obtain the original and look at the handwritten markings. The document is significant for a number of reasons, besides the fact that it is a forgery of an actual document with handwritten markings instead of the manipulation of a typewriter or a camera. Here you see the markings which are falsified on pages 2 and 3.

42:28 The document is significant also because the original cannot be found, although it is not alleged to be a "copy". And also because it contains a phrase in questionable German, several phrases in questionable German, and, it is basically absurd for the very reason that the person writing the document reproduced on pages 2 and 3 is in fact writing a report to himself -- he is the group leader writing a letter to the group -- about how he is carrying out an order which is quoted verbatim in the letter itself.

43:13 This is occasionally to be found in other documents when it is considered desirable to falsify texts to be quoted, for example, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer quotes two "concentration camp crematory oven letters". The second is a "certified true copy", and the first is in fact nothing more than a "quotation" from a Soviet War Crimes Report, USSR-8. And Mr. Shirer has falsified his text by deleting half of it, which would have revealed that the "letter" is in fact nothing more than a "quotation" from the inside of another "letter", in which someone writes a letter to himself, about how he has received a letter, which he then proceeds to quote! Now, if you wish to believe it, you are free to do so; I will not gas you.

44:45 This document was the subject of extensive testimony at Nuremberg and not all of the testimony appears in the Nuremberg Trial transcript. Persons wishing to pursue the matter may consult pages 137-141 of volume XXI of the Nuremberg Trial transcript, pages 195-198 of volume XXI, page 425 of volume XXI, and volume XXII, pages 148-150. See also the testimony of Fuß on the 25th of April 146 before the Nuremberg Commission, and the testimony of Lücke on the 7th of May 1946. The Commission deserves a comment or two,  45:15, the Commission trial, uh, the Commission transcript, excuse me, contains the testimony of 102 witnesses, for the so-called Criminal Organisations. The transcript is many, many thousands of pages long, it is not contained in the Nuremberg Trial transcript, and the National Archives do not have a copy of it, never heard of it and do not know what it is. But these 2 SA officers appeared before the Commission and testified extensively that the order quoted on pages 2 and 3 of this document was never given, the witness Jüttner also testified to the same effect. The defence demolished the German, the entire procedure of quoting orders given. There are least 5 different technical mistakes on pages 2 and 3 of this document, which is taken seriously by all kinds of people.

46:21 The location of the full text of the Tribunal Commission transcript is not known to me at the present time in any sort of accessible form. The Hague have it. Unfortunately, at the Hague the pages have been stapled together with about 40 pages rough copy, 40 pages clean copy, in folders, with the name of the witness on the folder, and all of this fills about one half of one floor-to-ceiling fire-proof vault. Whether there exists a full mimeographed copy in volumes which is available for study is not known to me at the present time. Of the 102 witnesses, 29 of them were allowed to appear before the Tribunal itself, but of course their testimony was not to be "cumulative", that is, "repetitive" of their testimony before the Commission. They also submitted 312, 022 affidavits which have gotten lost somewhere, I don't know where they are, and the Commission prepared summaries, x-thousand affidavits alleging humane treatment of prisoners, the summaries were presented to the Tribunal itself, but the summaries were not in evidence, they claimed that they would read the 312,022 affidavits and the Commission transcript before arriving at their verdict, two weeks later they announced that none of it was true.

They produced 8 or 9 affidavits for the prosecution, to rebut the 312,022 affidavits for the defence, then they produced 6 affidavits to rebut the testimony of the 29 witnesses. One of these affidavits was in Polish, so nobody could read it, and of course the prosecution had already closed its case when this occurred. The point is that there is relatively little prosecution evidence of any kind, and most of it is entirely worthless. But there are enormous amounts of defence evidence which remains unstudied, unknown, absolutely unknown to the general public. As far as I know no one has ever read the Commission transcript.

49:03 This is a very nice document which was the subject of quite extensive testimony and quite amusing testimony at times. This is a forgery which was withdrawn by the prosecution at Nuremberg, allegedly because they wished to base their case only on unimpeachably genuine sources. And the astonishing thing about the document is that anything like this could be considered in the first place. if you look at the two pages, this is the first page, of course it is a copy, on plain paper, with a typewritten signature, the whole thing is typewritten,

49:58 This is page 2.This is Document D-728, if I recall correctly, there are several little mistakes that someone made in preparing this little falsification,

50:16 for example, "Gerichtlichkeiten", Germans can tell me whether this is good German or not. It also contains the phrase "an die Herren Kreisleitern". This, of course, was really not quite correct, and in fact many, many documents used in evidence at Nuremberg contain all sorts of bureaucratic little mistakes, references that are wrong, bureaucratic markings and entry numbers that are wrong, all sorts of things that are not immediately obvious, especially, the "an Die Herren Kreisleitern" and the "Gerichtlichkeiten", the "Abschrift" and type-written signature from Sprenger, who was supposedly German and knew enough German to speak correctly.

This is so common that we cannot state absolutely that the documents are forgeries on the basis of the "Abschrift" and the "Sprenger" and so on, the problem is that they are simply worthless for purposes of proving anything, whether they are forgeries or not.

"Trial by document" in war crimes trials functions approximately in the following manner: A is an unknown person. A listens to alleged "oral statements" by B, and takes notes or prepares a document based on the alleged oral statements. The document is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who prepared the copy, but against B, C, D, E, and a whole host of other people, although there is nothing to connect them with the document or the alleged statement. It is simply stated as fact that "B said", or "C and D did", or "E knew". This is contrary to the rules of evidence of all civilized countries.

52:35 This is a very, very nice document, which was not withdrawn by the prosecution. In fact, I only know of 2 documents that were. I have reproduced another one on page 407 of my book, with the caption reading, "This document is a forgery which was withdrawn by the prosecution, who forged it and why?" Now, that is my little secret. When people begin to cuss at me and call me all sorts of names, such as bigot, fascist, hater, Nazi, liar, falsifier of history, etc., and you may insert your personal favourite insult, then I shall simply assume that these people know the subject better than I do and can answer my question. In the meantime that is for me to know and for them to guess.

52:23 This document is document USSR-470, which was used in evidence against Keitel. Of course they didn't show it to Keitel, they showed it to Jodl, and they asked him what he thought of it. Jodl told them it was entirely absurd, and asked them why didn't they show it to Keitel. Then Keitel came along and they didn't use it. Now you will see that it's entirely in Serbo-Croat, with a "type-written signature" by Keitel. However it was not alleged that Keitel could read or write Serbo-Croat! It was alleged, and I will show you in a moment, it was alleged that this was a "translation" into Serbo-Croat of a German document which the Serbo-Croats did not find!

54:40 Of course, it is not an original document, or even a copy in the sense of being an "original copy" or an "Abschrift", which is entirely type-written; this is a different kind of copy, see, it's different.

This is a copy that's been retyped: again, this is a very nice little rubber stamp, in Serbo-Croat, and this is a message from some professor telling us that the original document, in Serbo-Croat, which the Serbo-Croats found, is in Yugoslavia. But they didn't bring it to court at Nuremberg, they brought the re-typed "certified true copy", with the stamp on it, and, in a moment, I will show you the document which they showed to Jodl, since Jodl couldn't read Serbo-Croat either.

55:32 This is the German text of the same document, again, with a type-written signature by Keitel, or so-called signature, it was, unfortunately for the prosecution, pointed out that it was rather absurd, again, in a number of ways, this is not quite correct, this is all wrong, it is virtually false from beginning to end, but then it was discovered that it wasn't supposed to be an original document, it wasn't supposed to be in correct German, because it was a translation which the Serbo-Croats had done of the document in Serbo-Croat which they found and then retyped, and then left in their archives someplace, so that we may assume or surmise, if we are prosecutors in this trial, that the original German document existed at one time, that the Germans then made a translation of it, into Serbo-Croat, lost the German original, then, when the Serbo-Croats came along, the Communists, they found it, found the translation, which they were fortunate enough to be able to read, then they translated it into extremely bad German, there are all sorts of mistakes, all of this is wrong, these Roman numerals and numbers and everything, then it was submitted at Nuremberg against Jodl, who of course had nothing to do with the document, he had never seen it, and had no connection with it in any way, it was not presented against Keitel. Most of the documents that were presented against Keitel are quoted in Soviet war crimes reports, judgements of Soviet proceedings, court martials, certified true copies typed by the Russians, and so on.

This document illustrates a subtle problem in war crimes trials evidence, and the question which it suggests is: when is a translation not a translation? The answer is, that a translation is not a translation when the "translation" is the "original", and the "original" is a "translation". That's one answer. Whether they typed it correctly or added all kinds of material not contained in the original is a different problem, and I can give you examples of that as well.

58:06 In this case, a document was written in English, with extensive interpolations and additions, there are all sorts of hand-written notes in the margins, there are crossings-out, and handwritten paragraphs, there are 2 different first drafts of page 4, 2 different first drafts of page 5, then the entire document was re-typed, in German, with all of the interpolations and additions and corrections all included in the text,

58:51 and the German was supposedly the "original", while the English was supposedly the "translation", but it is obvious from examining the document that the English was written first. The document is very long, it's about 25 pages long, and I won't show you all of it, but it's a very important document and a very interesting document. This is document NO-1210, which was one of the many confessions of Rudolf Höss, whose confessions supposedly "prove" that the Germans gassed millions of Jews. There's another confession, which has disappeared someplace, and which was quoted on April Fools' Day, in court, by Sir David-Maxwell Fyfe, which has apparently never existed, it's on page 389 of volume 10, of the Nuremberg Trial transcript, and I'll show you just a few pages of this document, which is Document NO-1210.

59:53 This is one page from the same document, which is a confession or affidavit by Rudolf Höss, the mass gasser of millions of Jews, supposedly, and we will see that it was written first in English and translated later into German. This is a phrase which in the German text has been interpolated at that spot there. Notice that there are 2 different first drafts of this page, there's a 4, and there's also a 5. This is another version of page 5 of the same document, you can see that here it's been cut off and it's starting another page.

1:00:38 This is yet another page 5.

100:53 This is another page, I don't know whether it's page 5 or not, because it has no page number. So it's just an example of the incredibly sloppy way in which they do everything. This is yet another page 5, so it may have been that the previous page was also page 5. Here it's been cut off and another page has been pasted on top.

1:01:01 This is the same sort of problem, leaving the question open, in this case a German document is accompanied by a translation, accompanied by a handwritten Russian translation, and a type-written Russian translation, and the question occurs to me whether the translation is once again the original, and the original is, once again, the translation. This is the famous "recipe" for the manufacture of human soap. And if I may say so, this is the only original document, so-called original document which I have ever seen at the Hague, there is even a hole in the paper made by the typewriter after the date. So the smudges and everything are real and genuine, unfortunately it appears that it's not possible to make soap in the manner described in this so-called recipe, so that my personal belief is that this is another forgery.

1:02:38 This is another statement, this is the confession of, uh, the human soap maker, Sigmund Mazur. This document is in Russian, of course, they are all "certified true copies" in which the signatures are typewritten, with a Russian stamp, that is, the document has been retyped to make the copy, in many, many cases, in all war crimes trials, the documents are retyped to make the copy with a very nice little rubber stamp, stating that the typist did a good job and we should read it.

Now, Sigmund Masur apparently existed, but whether or not his soap, and his signature and the document existed, may be left to the imagination. These have gone to a better world, but their memory survives in this document.

1:03:38 "Mazur declared that he would make his depositions in Polish". This is all typewritten in Russian. "The witness and interpreter were warned of their liability under Articles 92 and 95 of the Criminal Law Code of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic.

Typewritten: signature.

When the word "signature" appears in these documents, there is no signature on the document, it simply means that the word "signature" has been typewritten, and at the end there's a rubber stamp.

1:04:06 "QUESTION: In previous examinations, you testified that you boiled human fat into soap according to a recipegiven by Professor Spanner. Could you tell us whether you received the recipe in oral or written form?

ANSWER: After I received Professor Spanner’s instructions to start boiling human fat into soap, Professor Spanner at once, on that same day, personally handed me the recipe for preparing this soap, in written form; that is to say, the recipe had been typed on the letterhead of the Anatomical Institute. As soon as I had read the recipe, Spanner took it from me, and there and then he told the senior laboratory assistant, von Bargen, to stick it to a plywood board, and nail the board with the recipe in the same building where this soap was prepared, that is to say, in the second room of this building – the middle room, and von Barger immediately carried out this task. This happened on 15 February 1944 in the presence of Secretary Horn and four students. On that same day, we prepared soap from human fat."

Now I might mention that most Holocaust literature has long since forgotten about the human soap, and Raoul Hilberg even goes so far as to state that to this date "the origins of the human soap rumour have not been traced". The human soap itself can be found, and smelled, at the Library of the Peace Palace at the Hague. however it's never been forensically tested, and of course the real problem would be proving that the Germans made it and not the Russians.

"QUESTION: You have been shown a recipe typed in the letterhead of the Anatomical Institute. What do you have to say in respect of this recipe?

ANSWER: The recipe shown to me, dated 15 February 1944, is the same recipe about which I have just testified. This recipe was stuck to a plywood board which hung in the building where soap was prepared.

Faithfully taken down from my words, read to me and translated into my native language, Polish.

[typewritten] Signature /Mazur/

[typewritten] Interpreter /Kotlyarevskaya/

Examiner: Judge-Advocate of the Garrison of Gdansk, Major of the Legal Service.

[typewritten] /Vodopyanov"

and I don't need to read any more of that, all those Russian stamps and typewritten signatures, anyway, let's find out how Sigmund washed his hands with human soap in front of his mother, this always a good laugh.

"...were warned of their liability" and so on and so forth, typewritten signature,

"QUESTION: Could you tell us whether you took home with you from the factory any soap from human fat; how many times, when exactly, and in what quantities; and what you did with it at home, and also, to which members of your family you disclosed what kind of soap it was?

ANSWER: Yes, I took soap made from human fat home with me two or three times, in February and March 1945. Altogether the total weight of the soap I took home on all those occasions did not exceed 4 kilograms. Each time, I handed the soap over to my mother. My mother knew what kind of soap it was, because I had already told her and my sisters everything in 1944, when we first started making this soap, I mean soap made of human fat, as a novelty unheard of at that time. At first my mother did not want to take the soap from me and use it, but I convinced her that it was absolutely harmless for washing laundry and even for washing oneself, since the caustic soda added to it during its preparation rendered it completely harmless. To convince them further, I also did what Professor Spanner had done for me and my other colleagues in the factory: I took the soap and washed my hands with it in front of them, that is, in front of my mothers and sisters -- my mother and sisters. In spite of this, my mother was contemptuous about the soap, but all the same I think my family used it for washing laundry. True, none of my family ever asked me to bring this soap. The soap I brought home, made of human fat, was in the form of a hard lump of white stuff, with an unpleasant smell.
Testimony faithfully taken down from my words, and translated for me into my native Polish when read out."

108:07 It doesn't say how he knew what the document said when he signed it, but the signature is typewritten, so we'll take their word for it that the original exists in Moscow someplace. No address is given so that we might write to the authorities in Moscow and get a copy of the original document.

Anyway, we will continue. Here it states that Mazur was a Pole who had been given German nationality in January 1944, his mother lives at Danzig at no. 10, Neuschottland Street, he has a knowledge of the Polish and German languages. The document is in Russian. Then he signed a statement saying that the document was a correct translation into Russian of his statements in Polish, so that it was translated from Polish into Russian, by the interpreter, of the Danzig commandant's office.

1:09:37 This is the translation into Russian, supposedly, of the previous written in German. This translation was written in pencil. I might mention that the human soap recipe, besides being supposedly an impossible way of making soap, does not contain the word "human", it speaks of "fat remainders", and the word "human" has been inserted in the translation into English. This is one of many, many examples of falsified translations of documents.

1:10:20 This is the typewritten translation, supposedly, of the original document, the original human soap recipe, or, to be exact, the "soap recipe" into which the word "human" has been inserted in most translations in English.

William L. Shirer refers to the human soap recipe, in his book the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, in a footnote, however, with his usual sloppiness, he has gotten the references all mixed up, and gives his source, for the quotation of the recipe, as Document USSR-8, p. 196 -- no -- 197.

1:11:11 This is a document which William L Shirer has never seen, or he would know that Document USSR-8 does not have 196 pages. He is, like most people, simply a copier of references and page numbers, and as long as there are enough of them, everybody seems to take the resulting material as having some sort of probative value. However, the correct document number for the "human soap recipe" is Document USSR-196, and the statement of the man who supposedly made the human soap, Sigmund Mazur, is Document USSR-197.

1:12:01 This is the statement of Sigmund Mazur itself. It seems that Mazur was something of an elusive character, he is shrouded in mystery in many ways, anyway, that peculiar little yellow marking down there, in Russian, that is his signature. You can see the Russian stamp, certifying that it is a "true copy".

1:12:24 This is page 2 of the same document, there's no signature at all, just a very nice looking stamp. This is page 3, again, the same thing, no signature, just a stamp. There are 2 versions of this document, one is in the National Archives, and that is a "negative photostat", which is almost absolutely illegible. This is a "positive photostat" from the Peace Palace at the Hague. The negative photostat was made from the positive photostat and the positive photostat -- no, excuse me, the positive is an "original", in the sense that it is a retyped "certified true copy" in Russian, of a document which is alleged to exist in the files of the War Crimes Commission in Moscow.

Unfortunately no address is given so we can write to them and ask for a photocopy of the one with the signatures on it, but I'm not certain that the signatures would prove very much anyway. This is page 4, bearing the type-written signature of Sigmund Mazur, the human soap maker, marked in yellow, and the typewritten signatures of all the various translators into Polish from Russian, as well as all the legal officers who informed him of his liability to tell the truth according to articles 95 and 96, if I recall correctly, of the Soviet Criminal Code, and then at the bottom there is, of course, the handwritten authentification of D. Kuzmin of the Soviet War Crimes Commission.

This is page 5, or perhaps it would be more correct to say that this is page 1 of another interrogation, there are 2 interrogations together in the same document. There's another very nice looking typewritten signature of human soap maker Sigmund Mazur and as usual he has signed a statement in a language he could not read certifying the correctness of his statements in that language.

1:15:28 These are 2 further human soap statements, Document USSR-264 and Document USSR-272. A close examination of these documents will reveal that they have virtually nothing in common with the statement of Sigmund Mazur, who allegedly made the soap himself, and they also contradict each other on almost every conceivable point, from the length of the boiling time, to the colour of the soap, to when the soap-boiling apparatuses were installed, when they were installed, how the soap was made, who made it, every conceivable point is contradicted in one document to another. There are however a couple of agreements, there are several phrases which are almost identical in both documents.

I should perhaps state that the standard procedure in war crimes trials is that the witness, the "so-called" witness, is interrogated in question and answer form by an interrogating officer, then later, the questions are deleted and the answers are run together by some different person entirely, and then written up as an affidavit, that is, the person who writes the affidavit is not the person making the statement, and is not the person who has conducted the interrogation.

For this reason, it is common to find common phrases in different documents, nearly identical sentences or even entire paragraphs, in one document and another, examples would be documents USSR-471, USSR-472 and 473, which contain paragraphs, absolutely identical, word for word, and affidavits 4 and 5 of Blaskovitz and Halder, also 2 identical paragraphs. On this page, one of the human soap witnesses states, "Corpses arrived at an average of 7 to 8 per day. All of them had been beheaded and were naked... I did not see any corpses bearing signs of mutilation or ill-treatment with the exception of one Russian who had not been beheaded".
In the second document, Document USSR-272, we read: "They arrived at an average rate of 2 to 3 per day. All of them were naked and most of them had been beheaded. I cannot remember seeing any signed of ill-treatment on the bodies with the exception of one man who was said to have been a Russian." Now. Let me do this again.

"Corpses arrived at an average of 7 to 8 per day." "They arrived at an average of 2 to 3 per day." "All of them had been beheaded and were naked." "All of them were naked and most of them had been beheaded." "I did not see any corpses bearing signs of mutilation or ill-treatment with the exception of one Russian who had not been beheaded." "I cannot remember seeing any signs of ill-treatment on the bodies with the exception of one man who was said to have been a Russian."

Now, the rest of the same document consists almost entirely of contradictions where important points are concerned, this document says that the bodies were placed into large metal containers where they were left for approximately 4 months. This document says 3 to 4 weeks. This document says that the soap-boiling machine appeared around Christmas of 1943. The second document says March or April of 1944. At any rate, there are a great many other contradictions concerning trays, the colour of the soap, whether it smelled, whether they put acid in it, whether acid is caustic soda, and so on and so forth, uh, here, the electrically-heated tank required 24 hours to boil the bodies down, and so on and so forth.

Now, get this. "After that, the content of the trays was taken away and I do not know what happened to it." "The students told me that it was being used for soap." In the other document, "They all told me that it was excellent soap for the purpose." So it may be that both of these people are entirely sincere, both documents are apparently based upon a distortion of reality compounded by hearsay. Both of these men, John Henry Witton and William Anderson Neely, were prisoners of war who spent 5 years in Danzig and in the surrounding area doing various odd jobs for the Germans. And they spent some time in an anatomical institute.

It is of course entirely logical that in an anatomical institute there would be bodies, perhaps bodies of men executed for various crimes in nearby prisons, and that these bodies would be dissected, or that the bodies would be treated chemically to prepare skeletons for teaching purposes. So far, there is nothing sinister in this. Then, it states that these men were told by other people that the material removed from the bones was being used to make soap. Neither one of them mentions Sigmund Mazur as the person having made the soap. Witton mentions white trays, for example, William Anderson Neely doesn't mention the trays, and I will allow the reader to peruse these at his leisure as he wishes, or the viewer, perhaps I should say, because it's too complicated to go through all of the contradictions in these two documents. The best thing to do is to program them into a computer use search  to find the contradictions, because there are too many of them.

1:22:32 And in this document I will show you a very interesting example of an "original document" which becomes a "certified true copy". This document, Document USSR-264, the statement of John Henry Witton, is 2 pages long. On page 2, there is a signature, the signature of John Henry Witton. There is this phrase, which has been added later, using a different typewriter, and the paper has been inserted crookedly. It reads, "This man's Christian name, as far as I can remember, was Caesar". This phrase, "This man's Christian name, as far as I can remember, was Caesar", has been borrowed and inserted later, from the second document, which was written 4 days later, "A Pole whose surname I cannot remember, Christian name Caesar". Again, another almost identical phrase, "This man's Christian name, as far as I can remember, was Caesar", "A Pole whose surname I cannot remember, Christian name Caesar". The first document was dated on the 3rd of January 1946, the second was prepared on the 7th of January 1946.

[There are so many repetitions here that I can't believe it's not a mistake in the splicing. Or maybe I just got lost -C.P., 2017.]

Also of interest here are various other remarks indicating that they were prepared with the aid of other persons after reading statements prepared by other people, for example, "I have read Sergeant Neil's description and have nothing to add to it"; "I have read Sergeant Neil's description and have nothing to add to it." There are several other similar phrases. The same sort of phrase on page 3 of the first statement, "I have read the description contained in Bombardier Sheriff's affidavit and have nothing to add to it." The same phrase, inserted again at the bottom, "As far as I can remember, this man's Christian name was Caesar", taken from this document, the second document, "a Pole whose surname I cannot remember, Christian name Caesar". In the first document the same typewriter has been used to insert this phrase, apparently 4 days later.

1:25:07 The signature has disappeared and has been replaced with a typewritten signature. In the Mazur statement, it was Mazur who made the soap and there is no mention of trays at all, there was a boiling process lasted 3 to 7 days. In this statement, the boiling process lasted, I forget how long, but in this statement 24 hours. Here they were soaked in a chemical bath, for 3 to 7 months, here, 3 to 4 weeks, or 2 or 3 weeks, here there are trays, here there are no trays. In the Mazur statement, they smell, but benzene or benzaldehyde is added to get rid of the smell, but the smell is still there, because the soap at the Peace Palace at the Hague still smells, you can go and look at it: it's the only thing that people go there to see.

They don't go there to see the documents, they go there to smell the soap. And I was there, and spoke to the librarian, at that time Mr. Viljean [?] [unintelligible], this is Exhibit USSR-392, if I recall correctly, and he was very enthusiastic, and there was a huge brown bag, and he said, "Oh, you want to look at the soap", and he says "Oh, I got the skin, too, there's another bag with the skin in it", I said "Has it been forensically tested?" He said "Oh yes, oh yes", and I said, "Do you have a copy of the report?" And he immediately realized that no such thing exists. None of this evidence has ever been tested forensically at all. What happened was that in the Nuremberg Trial transcript, in volume VII, 597-600 [correction of "497-600" in video. -C.P., 2017], the Soviet prosecutor Colonel Pokrovsky, appeared with some white stuff, and a couple of enamel trays, and said, "These are the trays that were made to hold human soap, see?", and he produced the trays. And then he produced the white stuff, and said, "This is the human soap", then he produced a couple of things that looked like goatskin or pigskin or something, and he said "This is human skin. Notice how much it looks like regular skin", and that was it.

1:27:32 This is a letter which I received from human soap maker, or human soap maker witness, William Anderson Neely, who the last I heard was still alive, he is Scottish and lives in Scotland, I have his address, I don't know whether he's still alive, because he won't reply to any letters I've sent to him. I located him through the Dept. of Health, and I was extremely polite to him, in fact I flattered him a great deal. I have no animosity towards this person, and I inquired whether he would like to write an article concerning his experiences, whether he would like to supply any information about Sigmund Mazur and the technical details of the human soap making procedure. And I offered to pay him 10 cents per word plus royalties.

And as I say I was very polite, never received an answer, I contacted a British major, a very old-fashioned type, with a moustache, and the sort of person you see in the movies all the time, and this British major contacted William Anderson Neely several times, and never got an answer. So I would be somewhat inclined to suspect that Mr Neely has his own reasons for not wishing to discuss his experiences. It may be that he does not wish to be reminded; it may be that at the Nuremberg Trial, the British went into a panic when the Soviets appeared with the Mazur statement and the soap, and decided that since accomplice testimony must be corroborated, that they would supply corroboration in the form of these two statements. I rather suspect that Neely was approached by an officer who said, "Hey Bill, you want to help hang a couple of Germans?" And as I say, I think that his statement is probably correct to some extent, in that he was working in an anatomical institute in which bodies were boiled and cadavers and prepared for examination for teaching purposes and so on.

1:30:04 The letter from William Anderson Neely reads, "Dear Sir, Having received your letter via the Dept of Health, I find myself at a loss to understand why you are so interested in my experiences as a POW in Danzig. I should like to remind you, I am now 70 years old and my memory for names and places is not so good. Yours sincerely, William Anderson Neely."

As I say, I have no animosity towards this person whatever, and it would not be my intention to bring him into ridicule, but the simple fact that he is a real person is nothing less than sensational. And if Mr. William Anderson Neely were to write an article consisting of nothing more than "Mary Had a Little Lamb", this in itself would be nothing less than sensational.

1:30:55 I forgot to mention that the importance of the human soap is not in its intrinsically, uh, ridiculous quality, but rather, that it was once considered to have been "proven fact", which has since disappeared, it's gone into a memory hole, and all the experts on the Holocaust pretend that the human soap was a "rumour", the origins of which cannot be traced, today, yet it was "proven" in the judgement of the Nuremberg Trial. I should perhaps state that it was upheld in the judgement on the same page as gassing millions of Jews and making mattresses out of their hair, and that the source for the human mattress accusation is a single sentence of hearsay in volume VIII, page 326 if I recall correctly [it is correct. -C.P, 2017], so that for the human mattresses we have one sentence of hearsay, for the mattresses themselves, of course, there is nothing, there are no mattresses in the archives or a museum that we can go and look at.

There are no human mattresses, no documents concerning human mattresses. There is a document about human hair socks, but it is completely illegible, it's absolutely black, a negative photostat, with a typewritten heading, typewritten signature, an illegible initial of an unknown person certifying it as a "true copy" . It is an "original document", except that it's a "copy", and the Russians took it back to Russia with them.   

1:32:47 Now, when I say "hearsay", I don't simply mean a sentence beginning with the words "he said". If we want to be very technical about it, hearsay is an oral or written statement made outside court, which is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated.

If I say, for example, my mother says that God talks to her, this is not hearsay, unless I offer it to prove that God talks to my mother. Now, in a real trial, hearsay achieves no dignity by being written down, but affidavits of the kind produced in war crimes trials, in most proceedings, certainly criminal proceedings, as prosecution evidence, would be considered hearsay. They violate a number of standard rules of procedure, the rule against asking leading questions, the rule against prior consistent statements, the right to confront and cross-examine one's accuser, and of course the hearsay rule itself.

I should say that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, for example, properly prepared business records. Business records prepared in the ordinary course of business by a person whose duty it is to prepare such records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. They cannot go into your office and find any kind of carbon copy prepared by an unknown person, and introduce it into evidence against you. Properly authenticated hospital records are another exception to the hearsay rule. Records which contain hearsay, such as "The patient stated that she had been raped", must have the hearsay cut out of the document before the document is introduced.

1:34:50 This is a page from a document which has been staring everyone in the face for 40 years. And it is page 3 of the directions for the use of Zyklon. With Zyklon, the Germans are alleged to have killed millions of Jews, however, in perusing the directions for the use of this product, we discover that it requires 16 hours to kill insects, using 8 to 10 grams per cubic metre, I might say that under certain conditions, such as an enclosed space, in which case 6 hours would suffice. To kill moths would require 16 grams per cubic metre for 24 hours.

1:35:39 This is simply one page from another confession, actually, an interrogation, of Rudolf Höss, the supposed mass gasser of millions of Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau. This is an interrogation which was never turned into an affidavit. You will notice that in answer to question 25 he states, "Nobody was allowed to approach, and for 2 days nobody was allowed to enter the building. In the same way, everything was ventilated to prevent casualties". He was discussing the use of Zyklon against vermin in buildings and barracks.

1:36:19 This is quite a well-known affidavit. Obviously, the person who signed it appears as a signature on a piece of paper, but we are unusually lucky in this case, there is actually a signature. Where the document is, is a mystery to me. The National Archives claim to have the original document, but this is what they sent me: a photocopy of a negative photostat.

As far as I can determine, there is no proof whatsoever that this person ever existed. I think it is very probable that he did exist, but there is no proof of it. Absolutely no data are given which would enable you to trace this person, in the manner in which I traced William Anderson Neely, for example. We have simply a name on a piece of paper. This person as supposed to be working for the American army in Frankfurt but he was not produced as a witness to testify in person, they produced this piece of paper. There are 3 signatures on it, there is the signature of Fried Gräbe, who was supposedly a witness to a mass murder in Poland, there is a signature of Elizabeth Radzijewska, who translated it from German into English in front of a commanding officer, Homer B Crawford, who, we may safely say, understood no German, and this is taken as proof of the truth of the matter stated. Without any cross-examination, without any verification that the witness ever even existed, and, with it, there's another very nice looking little document.

1:38:19 This is the document which accompanies Gräbe's affidavit. This is supposedly a document given to Gräbe permitting him to move his Jews, the Jews working for his company, somewhere else, so they wouldn't be killed. And this is supposed to prove that the underlying massacre actually occurred. It is supposed to be an "original document" but of course, it is a negative photostat. Now. What does this document say? It says that the Jews working for your firm do not fall under the "Aktion", and that they are supposed to leave the area at a certain time. Now, the question is: what does "Aktion" mean? It could mean, for example, moving them to some other workplace: they don't have to move to that workplace, they can move to the workplace that you choose for them. "Aktion" can mean anything. This is, inevitably, always, translated as "pogrom". It is always assumed to prove that a massacre took place.

And the curious thing about this is that according to the story told in the affidavit, there was a massacre of thousands and thousands of Jews, and Gräbe's officer tells him that it's very secret, but, gave him a document which supposedly proves that a mass murder had taken place; Gräbe then saved it for 3 years and gave it to the Americans. This is something which happens very frequently in Holocaust stories: there is something that is so secret that everyone has to be ordered in writing to keep quiet about it. The question arises, without this document, does the affidavit prove anything, without the affidavit, does the document prove anything, without the document -- well, where is the document? Where's the witness?

It is a universal presumption of law that if a witness with knowledge of a matter is not called by the party in whose interests it would be to call him, that his testimony if he had been called, would have been unfavourable to the person calling him. Which is to say, that if Gräbe appeared in court, he would have probably made a fool of himself, which frequently happens, and there are many cases which I could detail of people who had signed affidavits which may or may not sound plausible in themselves and who then appeared and contradicted one sentence after another, or repudiated them partially or entirely, or absolutely could not halfway remember what was supposed to be in them.

1:41:22 This is the title page of one of the 102 witnesses who appeared before the Nuremberg Commission, or the Tribunal Commission, as it is called, and the transcript runs to many thousands of pages, along with the 312,022 defence affidavits. This does not appear in the Nuremberg Trial transcript, and, as I said before, I do not presently know where one could obtain the entire text of it. There must be a mimeographed bound transcript of it somewhere, but I believe if one wanted to begin to attempt to determine what really happened, that this would be one of the places to start. It seems virtually certain that no one has read this transcript. This concerns extensive testimony about every question, resettlement, Gestapo, concentration camps, everything, all of the criminal organisations, S.A., S.S., Gestapo, Cabinet, Political Leaders, everything, all of these leaders appeared before the Commission, and the Commission transcript looks like this, but does not appear in the Nuremberg Trial transcript, and the National Archives in Washington do not have it. And the Peace Palace at the Hague are not in a position to provide photocopies of this material.

This is simply another page from the same transcript. The rough copies and retyped clean copies are stapled on brittle paper, the staples are very rusty, they are in manila folders, covered with dust, there is a rather crude little card catalogue by means of which one can locate the testimony of certain witnesses, some of the witnesses are missing, and the Hague do not have the facilities to photocopy the entire transcript, which runs to many, many thousands of pages. They can provide a few photocopies, half a dozen or a dozen, but every time they photocopy them, of course, the paper begins to fall apart. 

1:43:58 The Tokyo Judgement from the University Press of Amsterdam. This is part of the Dissentient Judgement of Justice Pal of India. It was Pal's contention that each and every one of the defendants should have been acquitted of each and every accusation against him. He based his opinion on questions of fact and questions of law, international law and criminal law. The opinion is 700 pages long, and he criticises the reliance upon oral and written hearsay, and at one point calls the prosecution evidence "mostly worthless". He discusses the role of propaganda in the American Civil War and in World War I, and states that "some suspicion of distortion and exaggeration cannot be avoided". Here, for example:

"In appraising the value of any contemporary press report or the like, we must not forget the part propaganda is designed to play in wartime. As I have noticed already, a sort of vile competition is carried on in exerting the imagination as a means of infuriating the enemy, heating the blood of the stay-at-homes on one’s own side and filling the neutrals with loathing and horror. I have given above some war atrocity stories. I might also mention the story given out during the First World War about the use of dead bodies by the Germans. The story will remain recorded in history as the classic lie of war propaganda."

1:45:33
(The story was that the Germans were using bodies to manufacture pig-food, somewhat  foreshadowing the human soap lie.)

"
The story will remain recorded in history as the classic lie of war propaganda.

"Mr. A. J. Cuming, the then political editor of the News Chronicle, an influential and widely circulated daily newspaper of England, in his book entitled The Press published in 1936, exposed the lie of this piece of propaganda and narrated how it was utilized. He said; 'In Parliament, on April 30th, the late Mr. Ronald McNeil asked whether the Prime Minister would take steps to make known as widely as possible in Egypt, India and the East generally the fact that Germans were boiling down their dead soldiers into food for swine''.

"When Mr. John Dillon intervened to ask whether the Government had any solid ground for believing it, Lord Robert Cecil, Minister of the Press, no, Minister of Blockade, replied that he had no information beyond the extracts that had appeared in the Press, but 'in view of other actions taken by the German military authorities there is nothing incredible in the present charge against them'.                                                    

"He added: 'His Majesty’s Government has allowed the circulation of the facts as they appeared through the usual channels.'
“The incident has now nearly slipped out of the public memory. The British authorities tried to forget it as soon as it had done its dirty work. But it is still dimly believed in as a fact by many persons who read no denials in the British Press and, like Lord Robert Cecil, saw ‘nothing incredible’ in the charge made in responsible papers whose bona fides they so artlessly trusted.'

"Mr. John Basset Moore, formerly a Judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice, writing in 1933 says: 'There are, I believe, a few persons who realize the extent to which propaganda has been used in connection with international relations. Only this year a leading English periodical has said: 'During the war the astonishingly efficient British propaganda service convinced the Americans of some of the most bizarre fairy tales that have ever been devised. To this day, most of the population has not recovered from the alleged information which it then swallowed whole.'

"We cannot ignore the fact that the nations of the present-day civilized world do not always show much scruple in adopting a different standard of conduct in their behaviour in connection with what they consider to be their national cause from what they follow in their private life. They feel no scruples in devising 'bizarre fairy tales', and spare no pains in making people 'swallow the same whole'. 

"To add to this, since the First World War, there has been such a demand for the trial and conviction of defeated warlords, that a sort of unconscious process, uh, processes, were going on in the mind of everyone who devoted his interest and energies to get these persons convicted. These processes in most cases remain unobserved by the conscious part of the personality and are influenced only indirectly and remotely by it. The result might be a partial distortion of reality. There would always be some eagerness to accept as real anything that lies in the direction of the unconscious wishes."

--

The documents you have just seen are not the same documents which may be found in my book, Made in Russia: The Holocaust. Made in Russia: The Holocaust duplicates almost none of the documents I've just shown you, so there are over 400 pages of even more absurd and ridiculous nonsense for your to discover. The conclusion I have reached, the main point of this book, may be found on the top line of page 78. My conclusion is the following: that what is astonishing about the Holocaust is not that it is false -- we might even expect that -- but that it is ridiculous. It is endlessly, impossibly ridiculous. I have never read anything so absurd. Ten years ago, I believed it was a lie, but I believed it was an intelligent lie. Today I know better. Live and learn. I have never read anything so absurd.