New Denierbud video. "The CIA During World War II"

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Hi everybody, I made a new video. It's only 10 minutes long. Would like to hear what you think.

https://odysee.com/@Denierbud:0/ciaduringworldwar2:1

[borjastick]

First of all well done for a very well made film. It is on the money in terms of clarity and detail. You explain exactly what you think is going on and back it up with concise evidence etc.

I was surprised by the amount of manipulation of the holocaust story from the US but would then ask were the Russians in on this pre determined outcome too because a lot of the holocaust myth emanates from the east. I would guess they were in on it with the US and thus if we could find some link in this co-operation, some agreement or arrangement that would be the final nail in the coffin of the holocaust claims and lies.

As you say very odd that Navy men were landing all over Europe acting as spies and infiltrators to develop the story. Then of course the Nuremberg farce.

[Hektor]

Important subject that still needs good covering. The actors in the creation of the Holocaust Myth. Who did they work for beforehand? What was their link to intelligence services? What were their motives? Difficult to assess this full hands, but I'd expect there to be fragments and clues that can be discovered. As for the Americans involved. One can expect the OSS to have played a role. But I'd expect them to be mostly involved in intelligence gathering. One needs to be careful though. They may have had internal documents that gave them a good picture on what actually happened in and around concentration camps on the one hand. But they also may release press statements or internal documents on what they wanted their own army and media to believe about this. So a survey on OSS (or other intelligence service records) on concentration camps could be useful. And of higher interest would be those documents they kept internal as to let the key players know what was going on... Which again can be used in creating a narrative that looks more credible afterwards.

Linked with the espionage on concentration camps or in occupied territories are also activities of sabotage. E.g. to get epidemics going there. And there are some indications that Allied agents tried to infect people with typhus/typhoid fever, which counts as biological warfare:
https://archive.org/details/ReportFromP ... WarTwo1943

I recall there is more in spy reports on Auschwitz. And it is a give away.


There is of course also the story of "Nazis infiltrating the CIA":

[Merlin300]

Very interesting film that everyone should watch, all underscoring the wisdom of Bradley Smith when he wrote:

Although it is standard practice to defame Revisionists as 'anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda,' that is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of that history that we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. It can be argued that there is considerable research that supports this point of view."

Thank you DenierBud for this valuable video

[Otium]

Fantastic video. What's frustrating is how basically, in our lifetimes, there won't be any closure on these matters at all.

There are plenty of documents and books available now which would make an effort to probe into these questions further incredibly successful, but there simply isn't the manpower to do so.

It would be immensly interesting to read through the voluminous Robert H. Jackson papers, and other related papers concerning the Nuremberg trials because there are admissions of forgery and manipulation. For one, the manipulation of German newsreels to remove cheering crowds etc. Irving mentioned this in the first volume of his Himmler biography, citing Jackson's papers, copies of which are in his file in the IfZ archives.

There are so many factors which go into all of this. It's not that the files aren't available (even though many obviously aren't), it's that the advanced nations of the world have been psychologically abused by hypocrites who claim to represent them and tell them the truth. More than that, there aren't institutions and people tasked with investigating these things; and the individuals that do are ignored or slandered. They win in their game of manipulation, even with all their cards on the table.

[Revision]

Good video overall, but I think there is a clear mistake in 2:47. Jodl, von Papen, Seyss-Inquart, Speer, von Neurath and Fritzsche weren't lawyers of von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick and Streicher.

[EtienneSC]

Great film, hopefully this is just the start of something longer:
1. There were two rows of Nazi defendants at Nuremberg.
2. Christianity was not a state ideology until post-300 AD, so the analogy with the Holocaust is flawed in that respect.
3. The term "Holocaust" grew exponentially from the mid-1970s (as you can see from google NGram), which needs explained independently.
4. Your argument is similar to that of Vincent Reynouard in France, if you have access to it.

[Hektor]

Very interesting film that everyone should watch, all underscoring the wisdom of Bradley Smith when he wrote:

Although it is standard practice to defame Revisionists as 'anti-Semites who claim the Holocaust is just Jewish propaganda,' that is not what we at CODOH argue. Briefly, we believe that much of that history that we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. It can be argued that there is considerable research that supports this point of view."....

Yes, emergence of the Holocaust Narrative got a number of role players involved in it. There is some explicitly Jewish organizations and figures involved in this, but limiting it to those would be falling far too short on the matter. There is of course a prehistory involved into this as well. E.g. the development of bad mouthing and propaganda during the earlier decades of the 20th century. That's still very general of course and the party-political equivalent emerged then during the Weimar period in Germany, where the parties tended to accuse each other of more than was warranted by actual actions or statements. Given that news-papers copy each others all kinds of rumors can spread quickly and than be accepted as "common knowledge". This would be an investigation on its own to see how this has developed. The more relevant events are of course within the 1933-1945 era. The first charges of 'mistreatment' were launched against the NSDAP by Jewish organizations right from the beginning and there responses were also out of proportion ("Judea declares war"). It should be noted that various Jewish organizations also dismissed those allegations as false or exaggerated. But it was picked upon in the press in various countries. Newspapers try to entertain their readers with juicy, sensationalist stories. So that they would copy stories about mistreatment of Jews won't be strange. That politicians in other countries picked up on this would be more of an oddity. It seems as if Winston Churchill had for instance build a career from it. There are quite some germanophobe articles and speeches by him from the 1930s. An interesting take would be on NS-Germany in the international press during the 1930s and what the resonance thereof. Focus should be on articles making atrocity allegations. In all this the background of those producing the articles are important and how they did get their information.

Also, when did the first 'extermination' stories arise. I recall there were broadcasts with Paul Tillich and Thomas Mann. One would have to take a look into those people's backgrounds as well. Again, who supplied information to them?

What did Allied intelligence services know is another question. Also I think the Polish Exile government started to distribute extermination propaganda in 1942 or so. This then circulated in the press.

On the Soviet side there were similar allegations being made by the "Antifascist" Committee.

There is also the thing with 'the Confessing Church'. Barth, Bonhoeffer, Niemoeller to name a few names. Niemoeller was imprisoned in Dachau and later spread the 238.000 gassed figure, which was demonstrably fall. But I subscribe it to his naivety . With Karl Barth I actually don't know, when he started to spread atrocity allegations. I just recall that he encouraged others to fight against Germany BEFORE World War Two. The figure is worthwhile investigating given his influence as a Reformed Theologian at the time.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer loathed NS-Antisemitism, but he never said/wrote that there was an extermination program against Jews. This is remarkable given his work for the Abwehr and contacts with Allied intelligence services. And that was at a time, when the Allies were already spreading atrocity propaganda. It seems he took it for what it was: atrocity propaganda and his other contacts may have affirmed it.

Ultimately Niemoeller and Barth played a major role in the German Protestants 'declaration of Guilt'. Essentially the primer to German 'Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung' ensuring that 'the Holocaust' would be accepted as 'accurate historiography' later. The 'Stuttgarter Schulderklaerung' is however rather vague, which makes it suitable as a bait and switch. It's true that Germany occupied other countries and also suppressed 'resistance' there, which went with hardship for some of the locals (Which shouldn't be surprising given that they fought a war). But this can be shifted to more nefarious narratives as well.

The 'Schulderklaerung' was also primed by Willem Visser't Hooft who is linked with the ecumenic movement, but was also working with Allied intelligence services. It's quite 'unbelievable' how many members of the clergy were in with intelligence services or the war effort. Funny enough the same folks were taking a stand against "Militarism", when it was about armaments against the Soviet Union. A brood of vipers indeed.

Great film, hopefully this is just the start of something longer:
1. There were two rows of Nazi defendants at Nuremberg.
2. Christianity was not a state ideology until post-300 AD, so the analogy with the Holocaust is flawed in that respect.
3. The term "Holocaust" grew exponentially from the mid-1970s (as you can see from google NGram), which needs explained independently.
4. Your argument is similar to that of Vincent Reynouard in France, if you have access to it.

Indeed some improvements. I do however wonder how much information one should be giving. While I like details to many people this gets to difficult to process:
1. Background on those would be interesting. Also who did get what penalty.
2. Indeed it wasn't. Christians were persecuted in the era before. Catholicism was essentially a merger between Christianity and Paganism, though. That's how it got some sort of 'civic religion' as well. The Holocaust got quite a Catholic ring to it. It's a replacement theology.
3. The term Holocaust is already older, but not in common usage. It's a theological term of note. Meaning fully burned offering. It gives 'the Nazis' the status of priests performing a sacrifice. It's essentially an inversion of the crucifixion. This affirms it to be a replacement theology. The term Holocaust became a brand for 'gassing six million Jews in the 1970s'.

[DissentingOpinions]

Hi Bud. Your video was a treat to watch this morning - a nice little supplementary work on how the Holocaust myth was constructed, and it gave off similar vibes to your Buchenwald documentary. Glad to see new content from you.

[Waldgänger]

Had no idea Carlos was Dean Irebodd, wow. Nice to have a hardworking celebrity here.

I think ultimately it's not that important that the OSS "muddied the waters", since Nuremberg was already a show trial by nature. I suspect the Western Allies had many more questions about the evidence presented to them, but the Soviets had far too much clout as the ones who "won the war" by their sacrifices, so they were allowed to push narratives, evidences, and sentencing far in excess of a fair, forensic trial. They wanted revenge, and they'd have gotten it from the weak, pathetic West (who wanted revenge too, in their own way) regardless of OSS involvement.

It's still a great little clip showing how almost nobody was what they seemed in WW2. Investigators, spies, partisans, heroes, victims... it's all a muddle.

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Thank you everyone for your comments.

Hi Revision, thanks for pointing out the two rows of Nuremberg defendants. That’s quite a gaffe on my part. And I will correct that on future versions. So where were their lawyers sitting? If you can find any other errors, that would be helpful.

I think myths need to be closely managed, so when Eisenhower and his covert operations cabal moved on to other things, there was a lull in the myth even being talked about that much, (1950’s, early 60’s) as pointed out in Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry. Coming with this, came a power vacuum in ‘myth management’. Then the myth came back strong in the 1970’s with the television show series World At War and The Holocaust miniseries, and by this time the myth management was hijacked by Jewish groups to become very Jew-oriented as it’s seen today. The Nuremberg film “Nazi Concentration Camps” —I’m not even sure if it mentions Jews. (I knew at one time. Maybe it does twice or something like that.) And that’s why Eisenhower’s autobiography Crusade in Europe, doesn’t even mention Jews in relation to the camps. Eisenhower took a deceptively naive public attitude, a demeanor that “the camps go beyond the pale of human decency.” But that’s just his con demeanor. He knew the lies that were being put on the American people by organizations under him, with his help.

And it explains why Eisenhower went against Israel and England in the 1956 Suez Canal crisis. He knew that part of this war was a foundation of lies (the holocaust) which he helped create and the Egyptian people were now bearing the brunt of this lie, which I'd speculate he felt was wrong. It is akin to Raul Hilberg taking a pro-Palestinian view at the end of his life. For Eisenshower and Hilberg, the holocaust myth was supposed to hurt the Germans, to justify the war, to make it "The Good War" but wasn't meant to be used on the Palestinians or Egyptians. Somehow they had their scruples.

[Hektor]

Thank you everyone for your comments.

Hi Revision, thanks for pointing out the two rows of Nuremberg defendants. That’s quite a gaffe on my part. And I will correct that on future versions. So where were their lawyers sitting? If you can find any other errors, that would be helpful.

Those little mistake happen easily. And it's good we can detect them here so they can be sorted out. In debates I noticed how 'the other side' likes to make a big fuss about 'little problems'... Meanwhile you actually called them out on fundamental or big issues, which they prefer to uphold.

I think myths need to be closely managed, so when Eisenhower and his covert operations cabal moved on to other things, there was a lull in the myth even being talked about that much, (1950’s, early 60’s) as pointed out in Norman Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry. Coming with this, came a power vacuum in ‘myth management’. Then the myth came back strong in the 1970’s with the television show series World At War and The Holocaust miniseries, and by this time the myth management was hijacked by Jewish groups to become very Jew-oriented as it’s seen today. The Nuremberg film “Nazi Concentration Camps” —I’m not even sure if it mentions Jews. (I knew at one time. Maybe it does twice or something like that.) And that’s why Eisenhower’s autobiography Crusade in Europe, doesn’t even mention Jews in relation to the camps. Eisenhower took a deceptively naive public attitude, a demeanor that “the camps go beyond the pale of human decency.” But that’s just his con demeanor. He knew the lies that were being put on the American people by organizations under him, with his help.

I'm wondering what Eisenhower told people in private conversations on the matter. Or whether he did wrote something on this in a diary.

The 1960s both had big Holocaust Trials.. The Eichmann Trial of course and the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. The charade is more visible with the Eichmann trial, since witness went more over the top there. It's a bit different with the Frankfurt Trial. Much more effort 'to be serious' there. But if one goes into it one can detect that the evidence isn't really that overwhelming. Most of the testimony is about circumstantial stuff.
What gets people are the 'perpetrator confessions'... Funny enough, they realize that the inmates with detailed gas chamber tales may actually be malicious, but the 'perpetrators' are somehow all honest and reliable. That there can be all kinds of reasons and that testimony needs to stand on merits and keep up to scrutiny even if it is a confession, is ignored. A give away with the Auschwitz trial were the Eastern Block witnesses, which were mostly high ranking Communists. They even had a minister of the GDR as a witness. And indeed, his testimony is highly interesting... some unintentional give aways in it. I don't know if there are English translations of it. But the German audio and transcripts are all available.

One of the defense councils at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial was Hans Laternser who already was defense council at the Nuremberg trial. I listened to him grilling the GDR-Communist and that dealt more with the East-West conflict issues. The obvious oddities and contradictions in the testimony of the Communists he didn't deal with. So I wondered who he was actually working for. Laternser died "suddenly" a few years later, while defending Horst Wagner. He was 61.

Not sure what version they showed in Nuremberg 'as evidence'... But there was a shockumentary named 'Death Mills', and this seems to be the 'public' version of what is shown in Nuremberg. Indeed no explicit mentioning of Jews in the civilian version. Wiki states:

Most of the film includes footage of the newly liberated camps over a score of stark classical music. The narrator notes that people of all nationalities were found in the camps, including people of all religious or political creeds. There is no mention of the particular fate of Jewish people. The film states that 20 million people were killed and describes many of the now familiar aspects of the Holocaust, including the medical experiments and the gas chambers.

That this is about Jews was however implied during the IMT... I recall several of the accused responding to this in that way. The movie and trial proceedings, plus controlled media Germans had access to was working so well... It had the IMT-accused all persuaded that this was somehow real and that 'the other Nazis' had just managed to keep'm in the dark. The standard response was 'we did not know'. And actually this is what virtually ALL older Germans had told me. that they only found out about the Holocaust AFTER the war.

And it explains why Eisenhower went against Israel and England in the 1956 Suez Canal crisis. He knew that part of this war was a foundation of lies (the holocaust) which he helped create and the Egyptian people were now bearing the brunt of this lie, which I'd speculate he felt was wrong. It is akin to Raul Hilberg taking a pro-Palestinian view at the end of his life. For Eisenshower and Hilberg, the holocaust myth was supposed to hurt the Germans, to justify the war, to make it "The Good War" but wasn't meant to be used on the Palestinians or Egyptians. Somehow they had their scruples.

Indeed it seems to be about 'usefulness'. But that may be differently defined for different people. For the Allied powers and their representatives it was indeed a justification for war and styling themselves as the 'good guys' who 'liberated all those extermination victims'... That also was a necessary sell, because the behavior in the 'liberated countries' wasn't exactly the best... And people started to compare this with the German occupation.

For Communists it was the additional motive to have a weaponized narrative against militant Anti-Communist and also to style themselves as victims and heroes. Jewish organizations had obviously similar motives, while it may have been about Israel, compensation benefits and being able to play the victim card. It is also used to indoctrinate Jewish/Israeli children. So I don't think it is that much of an advantage for lower ranking Jews.

I also noticed that people who are under scrutiny and accused also tend to embrace the Holocaust narrative as a means to say "There are worse people than us". It reminds of projection. The present German elites used the narrative as instrument of social control... It's to shame the lower ranking German so they don't complain, while they are fleeced and treated badly in other ways.

In total, the Holocaust Myth with all the features like Hitler, Nazis, evil empire, etc. is a religion replacement. Since it isn't explicitly a religion anyone can accept it and believe in it without the feeling of conflict of interest. And it got elements of Horror, Fear, Drama in it that are much more interesting than some dry bible study or serious historiography.

[Waldgänger]

Those little mistake happen easily. And it's good we can detect them here so they can be sorted out. In debates I noticed how 'the other side' likes to make a big fuss about 'little problems'... Meanwhile you actually called them out on fundamental or big issues, which they prefer to uphold.

That's what I love about this community, and revisionists in general. Maybe we are just a bunch of high functioning autists who are more oriented towards truth than social acceptance, but as someone who has never been satisfied with brushing off even small errors in research & scholarship, it is a breath of fresh air here.

[Archie]

This is in a similar vein as the Buchenwald video, and I think it would be best viewed as a follow-up to that. Of all your videos, Buchenwald is probably my personal favorite. It's very suitable as an introduction to revisionism (the Western camps are an excellent entry point, imo), yet at the same time it had details that many seasoned revisionists were probably not aware of. So it worked on those two levels at the same time. I watched it early on when I was barely familiar with revisionism and I found it to be very accessible.

Taylor wrote a lengthy report on Mauthausen where he was held for a few months, but I don't believe it was publicly disseminated at the time. The text of it is available here:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/th ... 4-may-1945

The Army report on Mauthausen that was used at Nuremberg was PS-2176, which was put together by Eugene S. Cohen. As far as I know Cohen was not OSS, but his report relied on Taylor and both were based largely on common material.
https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/dk102c ... ct0565.pdf

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Hektor wrote:

Not sure what version they showed in Nuremberg 'as evidence'... But there was a shockumentary named 'Death Mills', and this seems to be the 'public' version of what is shown in Nuremberg.

The Nuremberg film "Nazi Concentration Camps" has part of it lifted from the Psych Warfare (name changed to 'Information Control' after the war) film Death Mills. Eventhough those affidavits attest they they personally were involved in all the footage. Yet, it's from a different department so they weren't personally involved.

Hi Archie, thanks for the Jack Taylor info. I was trying to figure out from it if he had a uniform on.

As I mentioned, after shaving I did not have time to put on my field jacket before being captured and was unfortunately caught in the old coat and trousers although my OD's were underneath. It was with great difficulty that I was permitted to bring along my jacket.

What's an OD?

Jack H. Taylor is considered the first Navy Seal!