Siegfried Verbeke, Unsung Hero of Revisionism

Siegfried Verbeke was there when he was needed, and when it mattered. Every time.

First, some background: In 1994, the German authorities were hell-bent at choking all efforts to publish new, trail-blazing revisionist research. The 1993 German original of my expert report on the chemistry of Auschwitz (Holocaust Handbooks, Vol. 2) induced the German thought police to put me on trial, the main proceedings of which started in November of 1994. The publication of the German original of my anthology titled Dissecting the Holocaust (Holocaust Handbooks, Vol. 1) appeared that same month, resulting in house searches and confiscations all over Germany in an attempt to annihilate that book. A detailed article of mine on fraudulent forensic research about Auschwitz, conducted by a Polish team of pseudo-scholars, led to another criminal investigation against me. Wherever an article of mine appeared during 1995, it resulted in the offices of the respective periodical being raided, office equipment getting seized, the affected magazine issue being confiscated and destroyed, and everyone involved investigated for saying things Jews hate.

In the summer of 1993, I had launched another anthology project, a response of several leading revisionists to a book by French pharmacist-turned-historian Jean-Claude Pressac. The resulting anthology now carries the title Auschwitz: Plain Facts (Holocaust Handbooks, Vol. 14). It reached maturity in 1995, but at that point in time, no German publishing outlet was willing to touch anything I had written with a ten-foot pole. It was a safe recipe to get a visit from the Dezernat Staatsschutz, the branch of Germany’s police proudly carrying on the Gestapo’s tradition. So where would this book see the day of light? Who would dare put his name and address on it?

Riding to the rescue came a knight in shining armor: Siegfried Verbeke, a Dutchman from Antwerp, Flanders, and owner of a copy shop with the ability to produce paperback books. Already in 1993, he had published a Dutch and French translation of my expert report on Auschwitz, although without asking me first (hence, he translated an outdated text…). Learning about the rising tide of persecution against me, Siegfried got in touch in 1995, offering his help. I asked him whether he would take on the risky project of publishing the new book. He eagerly agreed, and so it was issued under the imprint of the not-for-profit organization he had established ten years earlier: Stichting Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, or V.H.O. for short, meaning Foundation for Free Historical Research. Siegfried’s brother agreed to have his name put on the book as the responsible editor. And so it was done.

The operation turned into somewhat of a mess when I left Germany in early 1996, impeding communications between Siegfried and me for a while, until I had finally settled in England for good in the summer of that year – or so I hoped. What used to be an obscure Flemish outlet was subsequently lifted to worldwide prominence. In 1997, I launched a German quarterly periodical officially published by V.H.O. and bearing that foundation’s name in its title: Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung: Quarterly for Free Historical Research (VffG). Siegfried and I managed to acquire the contact lists from several aging German revisionists, such as Thies Christophersen and Udo Walendy. With this potentially solid customer base, we then launched a magazine- and book-publishing enterprise that took off nicely. VffG soon had some 1,000 subscribers, advertising V.H.O.’s range of books and brochures at the end of each edition.

Later in 1997, after dabbling with html and the internet for a few months using AOL’s service of permitting subdomains, I bought the rights to the three-letter domain name vho.org. This put V.H.O. on the map as a multi-language revisionist outlet online, for everyone to see, and most importantly out of reach of the Gestapo. While Siegfried had no skills in the computer and internet departments, he was enthusiastic about what I was doing, making sure VHO.org got all the attention it deserved. When the Flemish media reported about this evil denier in their midst in May of 2001, initiated by a police raid triggered by a French search warrant, Siegfried proudly wore a t-shirt with the simple message “WWW.VHO.ORG” on it (see the image to the right). Journalists photographed him that way, and this image made the rounds in mainstream media, leading to traffic spiking on our site. He printed simple stickers with the same message, which people in Europe bought in bulk and stuck to utility poles all over the continent. Mimicking this, others started simply spray-painting this domain name on random billboards. Just mentioning the domain name led to criminal investigation in Germany for stirring up the people. It also led to media publishing photographs of these disfigured billboards, again helping us out greatly.

We had fun!

Since I was hiding in England under an assumed identity, and Siegfried was fronting for me in Flanders, communication with my customers was cumbersome and often heavily delayed. Siegfried collected incoming mail and forwarded it to me, and I sent outgoing letters to him, to be put in the mail in Antwerp. In the long run, this was not a good business model, and so in early 1998, we parted ways. I established my own publishing outlet, Castle Hill Publishers, yet operated the vho.org site as before, whose online store then featured both Castle Hill’s offerings and those of VHO.

A disagreement between Siegfried and me on how to run the web site and what products to sell through Castle Hill Publishers’ online shop led me to take legal control of the domain name in the summer of 2000, which up to that point had been registered by me in Siegfried’s name. Siegfried remained oblivious of my domain-name heist, which at that point in time was still rather easy to pull off. In fact, I suspect he never even knew that he had been the formal owner at any point in time.

This change of ownership in 2000 turned out to be a blessing for him in 2005. During that year, Germany initiated a major crack-down on international revisionism. Ernst Zündel was deported from Canada, I was deported from the U.S., and Siegfried got arrested in Belgium due to a German arrest warrant. The German authorities wanted to blame him for everything connected to www.vho.org. From a German prison, I managed to collect evidence proving that Siegfried had not owned the site since summer 2000, and I signed an affidavit stating that he has never been involved in anything concerning the site anyhow. He merely advertised it. Since “propaganda offenses” expire in Germany after five years, and Siegfried got arrested five years and a few months after the change of ownership, the German authorities had to let him go – and focus their zeal on me instead.

Between 2005 and 2009, www.vho.org went partially dormant during my time in prison, being run by a volunteer who had assisted me in running the server and any software installed. After my release, he quit, but I was not in a position to do much with it either while living in Europe, within the Gestapo’s reach. After immigrating permanently to the U.S., my focus turned entirely to a close cooperation with CODOH, and vho.org became a mere static repository of revisionist items posted since its inception.

During my prison time and the forced dormancy of vho.org, Siegfried’s focus gradually shifted to a close cooperation with French revisionist Vincent Reynouard, with whom he had been working since 1997. For example, they pursued several video projects together, most notably on the Einsatzgruppen executions behind the Eastern front (all in French: La “Shoah par balles” (ep. 1); La “Shoah par balles” (ep. 2); Le mythe de la “Shoah par balles”).

When Vincent needed help in 2015 to dodge a one-year prison term imposed by the French authorities, and a sheer endless string of further prosecutions, Siegfried was again there to help. His wife allowed Vincent to live in a small house she owned in the suburbs of London. That was the beginning of Vincent’s years in British exile, which ended only in early 2024 with his extradition to France.

Even many seasoned revisionists or afficionados of revisionism may never have heard of Siegfried Verbeke. He usually avoided the limelight but was a decisive mover and organizer in the background during the 1990s and into the late 2010s. Health issues finally forced him to slow down in the 2020s.

He passed away on June 28, 2026, at the age of 85. Another dear friend and comrade in our struggle for freedom and truth entered the eternal hunting grounds.

See also the birthday presentation below created on occasion of Siegfried’s 80th birthday.

By Germar Rudolf

https://codoh.com/

Germar Rudolf - History at Gunpoint

[Germar Rudolf, German trained chemist well known for Holocaust revisionism shows how European laws and professional sanctions make honest scholarship on the Holocaust impossible, calling it “history at gunpoint.” He recounts his own prosecutions in Germany and how Austria and other countries impose severe penalties for “Holocaust skepticism.”

Germar sees the issue of free speech as the most effective entry point for “normies” on the Holocaust rather than the details of revisionism.

He moves on to the reductions in Holocaust official death tolls—especially at Majdanek—as evidence of systematic exaggeration, (where the official death toll went from 2 million to the current 78,000) and lists early, later‑abandoned absurd murder‑method claims (e.g., electrocution, steam, etc).

He presents Sobibór as a case where witness accounts conflicted with the imposed “engine exhaust” narrative, which he calls “invented history.”

Framing early postwar investigations as a Polish Stalinist project aimed at psychologically breaking Germany and justifying territorial outcomes, he emphasizes this was not a “Jewish conspiracy,” though he says Zionists later benefited, especially after the Eichmann trial.

He says that camp conditions fit today’s legal definition of “genocide” despite no homicidal gas chambers, and argues Holocaust memory is used to justify current Israeli genocidal policy in Gaza.

He calls for open debate, opposes censorship (including around Oct. 7), and promotes his books, his encyclopedia, and a later talk on demographic decline.
– KATANA]

Germar Rudolf: Thank you. I need to get my instruments ready here. Now they fall apart. There was a cap to it and somehow that fell off. I apologize for this. All right.

I have something positive to say about this country to just attach right to the speech you just heard. And that is the fact that we can do what we do right now in this country. Because in many countries where our ancestors came from, we would not be able to do this! So there’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in this country. So there’s something good to say.

Also, what I wanted to mention is when it comes to the war against Iran, the Iranians are an Indo-European people. The language is closer to English and German than it is to Arabic. And when we should talk about the victims that this war causes, we should talk about the thousands and thousands of people of Indo-Europeans of Iranian ancestry that are being murdered.

Now, my topic today, as you would probably guess, is on Holocaust, because that’s what I’m known for and that’s what I’m good at. Before I do it, I give a little bit of an introduction of who I am. I would assume most of you know, but probably not all.

I am a German citizen. I grew up, born in the mid-1960s, grew up in West Germany, had a normal lower middle class upbringing, went to a normal public school, eventually studied chemistry, graduated. And in the process of graduating, I stumbled over that topic, research that had been done here in the United States by an expert in execution technologies who was looking into the gas chamber question and had some chemical arguments which caught my attention. And as a chemist, I couldn’t look away down the rabbit hole I went and never came back.

Now, the persecution that has resulted from my activity, because Germany is not a country where free speech and freedom of science, freedom of assembly has led me ultimately to this country. And there’s another good thing. The government has tried hard to keep me out. They actually arrested me. I was married to a US citizen. I had a granted immigrant visa. They arrested and deported me anyhow, with the reason given “no criminal case”. So in violation of that, I ended up in Germany. And Germany, I was put on trial for the research that I had published over the past five years while in exile. And they sentenced me to 44 months in total. And I had to spend that time.

Now, I’m not a singular case and I’m not the worst case of what’s going on in Europe.

Anyway. I fought my way back. I won in court. What they’d done to me was wrong. It was remedied as much as you can remedy losing five years of your life in prison. Was reunited with my family and I got the status of a permanent legal resident now in this country.

So 35 years of research on that topic have a number of years ago raised the question to me, how do I get the message out to the masses? The first 30 years, I would say I was looking for answers myself. I wasn’t sure whether I understood everything and whether I really got this story straight.

And then at the end of the 30 year mark, I was pretty sure. And then the idea came up of how do I get the message out now? One way is of course writing something that makes the information accessible. A lot of you actually bought it today from me. So I wrote an encyclopedia because that’s what scholars do all the time.

Actually, no, they don’t!

But I was in the unique situation that I had this knowledge. 35 years of sitting at the helm at the core of this skeptical, scrutinizing research. And I decided it needs to be done. And in lack of support from others and due to a cataclysmic development in my private life, I had the time to do it and I pulled it off.

So we have the knowledge published, we have it concisely presented and made accessible. There is still a step of how do I get people to listen? Because we’re talking about a taboo topic and people don’t want to hear it.

You, most of you probably are open minded. Some of you are, almost many I don’t know are convinced already that the mainstream narrative is phony. But we want to reach those who sit on the fence or even on the other side of it. How do we do that? And I want to give you a little bit of a instruction by example of the best approach.

And the best approach you already have seen. Some of you coming by our book stand there seeing those signs here and marveling over these graphics and the information that’s on there.

The best approach for the normies into this topic is not talking about lies that they’ve made up like jewish soap. They all have admitted it didn’t happen or lampshades or what. No! What you want to talk to them about is massive violation of civil rights! It’s free speech, is freedom of assembly that doesn’t exist over there. And make them see in concrete examples what that means!

When we’re talking about this topic here, people need to realize, every person needs to realize that every historian on this planet to one degree or another, if he wants to write Holocaust historiography or talk about it or write about it, he is doing history at gunpoint.!

That’s the only topic in the world right now, more or less on a global scale, where historians are threatened with at least destruction of their career, if not outright prosecution and imprisonment.

Scholars, not just historians, scholars you can do physics, you can do psychology, you can do any science and you will not get in trouble if you say something that’s controversial. It’s only this one! This particular part in history that gets people in trouble! Even in this country we have free speech. But any historian who touches that is a third rail topic, he will find his career ended.

This is the map of Europe. You see in red the countries that have outlawed Holocaust skepticism, that have outlawed doubt! Doubt is the core feature of us human beings, that sets us apart from animals who cannot doubt their central input. We can doubt what we see. We can systematically look for the truth and communicate with our fellow humans what the truth is or what we think the truth is, and can even make it independent of ourselves by putting it down encoded so that everyone can see it. That is what sets us apart!

And a government that outlaws doubt, outlaws search for truth, outlaws communicating the truth with others, is outlawing humanity! These countries have outlawed humanity! Stalinist Russia, as bad as it was, had no laws that would proscribe the result of any scholarly research in any field by penal law. This is the first in mankind history that we have that the European Union forces members who have not yet passed laws in the European Union to do it or they are threatened with sanctions. Finland just passed earlier this year, the last one, because they said we’re threatened by the EU by some kind of sanctions or measures. And that’s why we introduced that law.

Now what does that mean? I’ve told you about my 44 months for the research. You can see that there are two books, Chemistry for Auschwitz, if you want to look at it. It’s my original forensic research and lectures on the Holocaust.

Having done what I’m doing right now here to academic audiences in Germany, talking about my research in the calm and academic style led to being sentenced. There were worse cases.

I want to focus here on Austria. Some of you have looked through a list of all the countries and some are not on this map. Actually, of course, Canada has introduced a law north of us and Australia uses a backdoor way of doing it. And Israel, of course, is the first country that has outlawed skepticism. And there are other countries who use other laws. They twist and tweak in order to send people to prison.

And in the Arabic world, unfortunately, we should think there should be an open mind there. A lot of governments in the Arabic world are bought by Europe and America and they prosecute dissidents on that topic with extra legal means. They are not democracies under the rule of law, whatever that means. Because in some aspects we are not anymore either. But for them it’s pure arbitrariness.

So this is a global thing, a global problem. We just had a censorship hit us, a company in China. We wanted to have merchandise produced with certain slogans on it on Holocaust skepticism. And they pulled a plug. Not even in China they want to do it anymore!

Austria, the worst case, 20 years! You can go up to 20 years in prison. If you combine it, the skepticism, quote, unquote, “denial” with statements that they interpret as re-engaging in National Socialist activities. If you were, for instance, to argue that the Austrians are just one tribe of the Germans and they should live together with other Germans in Germany, which was a normal thought up to 1945. In the 17th century, 18th century, 19th century, in the 20th century, as the people of Austria always felt. And they were for the longest time the core in the center of Germany. And they got kind of pushed out with Prussia taken over in the late 19th century. And then after the collapse of Prussian Germany and Austria, the Austrian Empire after the First World War, they said:

“Okay, we had it, now let’s get reunified.”
 
That was the idea of the Wilson 14 points for the truce to have everyone self-determination. And the Austrians got it denied. And after the war, Second World War, they had special laws enacted if you violate them, up to 20 years. Denial combined with demands for self-determination.

To put a face to it, Austrian engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich was arrested in the early 2000s for a paper he had written. He’s an expert for disinfestation technology and disinfestation gas chambers. So he knows the technique and compared it to what was said to have been going on in German extermination camp during the war. And said:

“That’s technical nonsense, it can’t be!”

And he got eventually indicted and put in prison. And he was upset about what they did to him. And he kept writing letters and arguments from within prison, got more and more indictments and got sentenced over and over again! At the end of the day, he spent 16 years in prison for his engineering arguments. And he came out just around Covid, caught Covid and died shortly afterwards.

Western politicians complain about Iran or China putting dissidents for four, five, seven years in prison. At the same time they put them for 16 years in prison! That’s the worst case.

This graph here shows you the initiation of criminal investigation for thought crimes in Germany. Since 1994 some 4, 500, up to the most recent data for, … The year 2025 comes out maybe next month. Getting a little bit of a feedback here. [humming sound] The blue one is Right-wing thought crimes. That’s what we are committing here right now! Okay? Then you have the Left-wing ones. These are usually Antifa communists who make some radical statements about blowing up Parliament or having a communist revolution. And then you have the green ones, foreign religious, that usually means Muslim, Muslim radicals who want to introduce Sharia law or something like that. So for these two cases you really have to make aggressive statements that are not peaceful anymore.

Whereas in these cases if you’re just against mass immigration, you say anything critical about the jews, any dissent on the Holocaust, or more recently anything critical about Israel’s policy in Gaza. This is the Gaza escalation that you see.

Germany has extended their law that they outlaw more and more both by case law and by actually written code. And now this past data we were up to 40,000, 35,000 of them. Stuff that people like we do, like what we argue and talk about. 35,000 initiated criminal investigations does not result in 35,000 people sitting in prison. I want to make that clear. Most people never get caught for the slogan they have sprayed on some wall or sticker they left somewhere. And if for first time offenders, usually it ends up with slap on the wrist. It may just be a summary offense with a fine that has to be paid. And for first time offenders it rarely ends with prison. But then you have the 1 or 2% of these cases that end up actually with prison cases.

Only minority of that is Holocaust skepticism. And I have no numbers, they don’t in their paperwork. This is data based actually on what the German government releases. And they are put proud of it! Because they call themselves a combative, defensive democracy! Okay?

So they defend themselves in combating anyone they consider to be an enemy. But they are actually the biggest enemy of democracy. I wouldn’t even call it democracy, but a state under the rule of law that respects human rights that they never get a mirror held against them to look into it because that’s the enemy that caused this kind of persecution.

Back to history. This kind of an atmosphere that you have in Europe, in most countries and even in this country where historians don’t go to prison, but immigrants like me, I’m currently constantly on an ejector seat and I can get thrown out any minute if the Trump government so decides, because they don’t respect the law either.

What effect does it have, actually concrete, on historians? Here you see the lovely face of Wacław Długoborski, Auschwitz survivor who was put in charge, as I say, the Billy goat that was put in charge of the garden. He was put in charge of the Auschwitz Museum’s historical research center. And for many decades he has been that boss. And under his auspices, the lie that 4 million people died at Auschwitz was maintained until the Soviet Union collapsed.

Then it did collapse, and they suddenly reduced the number from 4 million to 1 million and said:

“Well, we have known it all along.”

And then in an interview in 1998, this historian was asked:

“Well, why did you lie? Why did you make that up if you knew all along that it was wrong? Why didn’t you correct the number earlier when you knew that it was wrong?”

And he basically said:

“Well, there was a prohibition in place in the Eastern Bloc in the communist countries that historians who would not toe the party line could be facing.”

How he expressed it, “disciplinary measures”.

What does that mean? You lose your job, you’re getting demoted, you have to become a street sweeper, or a janitor. That’s what that means in these communist planned economies.

Ironically, 1998, that’s when he gave the interview. That was the same year Poland, pressured by the European Union, in particular Germany, introduced a law, 1998, that made Holocaust skepticism a crime punishable with up to three years in prison.

So from communist “disciplinary measures” to Democratic “three years in prison”. What’s worse? I’d take disciplinary measures anytime over prison term. So he said that:

“Now we can tell the truth! Back then we couldn’t because we had disciplinary measures. We’ve corrected. Now it’s 1 million. Because you need to believe us, because now we are only threatened with three years!”

Any mainstream person who thinks everything is kosher with the Holocaust narrative that we fed now must realize:

“Yeah, kosher it may be, it means the jews like it!”
 
But it most certainly doesn’t mean authentic and reliable, because historians who are threatened at gunpoint to write history cannot be trusted! He admits:

“We couldn’t be trusted! We have been lying. We knew we were lying. We did it intentionally, but we did so because we were threatened with getting demoted or losing our job!”
 
And now we should believe you when you are threatened with three years, with five years, with six years, with, 20 years! How much more do you need to teach people, to tell people, to realize you can’t trust these people! History at gunpoint does not give you the truth in no section of society!

So once you have opened up people’s mind and that they realize the dimension of persecution, of suppression, of oppression and the unique nature the Holocaust is unique in terms of the length governments go to and societies go to suppress dissent, to keep complete control over the narrative! Nowhere else in society will you find it. That shows you who is the main beneficiary usually is also the one who pushes most. And it shows you that this is for them the most important topic to keep total control over!

Once you have opened people mind:

“Something is fishy here! You can’t trust those historians because they have admitted they have lied when they were threatened even less than they are threatened today!”

Then we go to the pith, the center of the story. Now I handed it out to you guys, free of charge, a little brochure and I want to go through a few things here that you find actually in the brochure. If this thing is too far away from you, I apologize. But you’ll find some of this in this brochure.

And the first one I’m going to is actually on the last page, the back cover if you wish. You know that thing technically speaking has no back cover. You see a graph there, a bar chart that shows claims of death tolls for the Majdanek camp. Now I would assume that most of you, at least most of normal populace have not heard about the Majdanek! Camp. It’s not anymore a major player in the bigger picture of the Holocaust in terms of mass extermination. It used to be completely different. The Majdanek camp actually was officially called the Lublin camp in central Poland was overrun by the Red Army in July of 1944.

So it was first major camp that the Soviets overran. And in a press conference right after the conquest of the camp, and I say “conquest”, the Red Army never liberated anyone! So you will not hear the word “liberation” when it even comes to camps, when it comes to the Red Army.

So they conquered the camp. In the press conference they claimed 2 million people were murdered there. It was the first big, still doing the war propaganda campaign on extermination, claim that started in August 1944. Big show! With all the world media, invited journalists from everywhere and cameras rolling.

Now in subsequent events, the Poles later that year still during the war, by the way, December ’44 had a show trial. They claimed 1.7 million. That’s a little bit of a reduction, but they weren’t generous. It’s kind of the same order of magnitude.

The Soviets then during the International Military Tribunal introduced an expert report. They claimed 1.5 million. Still again, 500,000 difference is not immaterial. But in the bigger picture, looking at it scientifically, it’s kind of the same order of magnitude. We don’t want to be nitpicking here.

However, the frenzy of immediate end of the war or post-war propaganda comes to an end and things cool down a little bit. And a Polish investigative judge reduces the number down to 360,000. And this is a considerable drop!

We’re down to 80%! Now, as I just showed you, there is a rule in communist countries you have to toe the party line and the new party line was 360,000. Couldn’t really go underneath that, even though they knew again, they knew in this case too, it is wrong! I think the number of prisoners sent to the camp was around that order of magnitude. And that assumes that every single one of them was murdered. And there’s plenty of documentation shown that was absolutely not the case!

The Soviet Union collapses and the number gets reduced again by a new historian in charge of the museum. 235,000. Not all that extreme a drop if you compare it with Auschwitz, compared to these two. But here we have already almost only 10%.

But that wasn’t the end of it. We Holocaust skeptics went into the archives after the Soviet Union collapsed, 1994, 95, 96. And researched the whole material, published a investigation on it. And it was so devastatingly demasking the propaganda of the homicidal gas chamber story, that pressure on the Majdaneck museum became so big that eventually in 2005, a new generation, a new historian dropped the death toll to 76,000. And that is only not even 4% of the initial 2 million claim.

And actually from the beginning they had claimed seven homicidal gas chambers. They maintained that number until the end. But five of them were so ridiculously, obviously, technically impossible to have ever been used for what they claim to have been used that to throw propaganda ballast overboard.

Thomas Kranz, the new Polish historian, threw five of them overboard. So what we have is an admission:

“That okay, we exaggerated, we lied, we lied, we fix, we fix, we keep fixing, we drop more and more of these lies!”

And then that’s what the situation is here today. They keep shifting the goalposts, they keep reducing the claim. You see, something is fishy with their attitude in general. But now:

“They got it right!”
 
Really, when you’re threatened with three years in prison? Why would I believe you?

Now we could say:

“Okay, one camp. What does one camp prove? That’s the most extreme downward revision by the mainstream.”
 
I haven’t shown our number that would here in 98, we published the book.

We find in the historical record 42, 200 death cases and no homicidal death chambers at all! They were all fumigation chambers!

So I’m just showing you what the mainstream itself has admitted to have been wrong over and over again! Is it a singular case? People make mistakes. Corrections for other camps? If you go in the brochure, if you want to go on page six, you see the table there now the same table here, the major camps that played a role in Allied war as well as immediate post-war propaganda as claimed extermination camps.

You see the initial death toll here on the left numbers column. And the death toll that is claimed by the mainstream.

Again, I say in the mainstream, Holocaust skeptical numbers? What really can be documented and what is forensically possible is an entirely different story.

So I want to show you that if you just use their own arguments and their shifty way of moving goalposts, you should make every believer see something isn’t right. And you see it here, mistakes stray statistically from the true value. If I make a mistake, I may under or overestimate, but they should stray to both sides. Here you see only one tendency, extreme exaggeration!

That’s not called a mistake, that’s called a lie! Truth is always the first victim of every war. And why should it be any different with the Second World War? The victors write the history and they never write it objectively. And why should it be any different for the worst war ever fought that ended for the losing side in a major disaster that mankind has not seen all that often in history? Cathage and the Punic wars probably had a worse fate than Germany because they got completely wiped. But other than that, Germany was in pretty bad shape after the Second World War.

So you see here, these are lies! They have been lying systematically! They have been correcting and admitting in Auschwitz, I showed you here in Majdanek again and again they lied. They knew they’re lying. And now they are threatened even worse than they were before. The question.

So for my Majdanek, 96% of the victims were invented. 70% of the homicidal gas chambers were invented. They got it wrong repeatedly acting under coercion, still under coercion even worse so today! Why believe them uncritically now? You wouldn’t!

And it doesn’t stop with numbers. If you go on the second table of the page six here, we’re talking about invented methods. What the mainstream, again, what the mainstream has admitted, we’re looking in the second column here, of all the stuff that is actually has been invented.

And I actually added a few more here on this one. And here you see for Auschwitz, war gases, high voltage electrocution, gas showers, gas bombs, pneumatic hammer, conveyor belt.

Treblinka, you have machine guns, mobile gas chambers, stunning gas, unslaked lime, hot steam, high voltage, chlorine, ether, a death bridge, burning alive.

So it goes on and on for the other camps. Suffocation with human excrements as a mass murder method is claimed for Bełzec by one witness. It gets absurd at times. But of course, all this stuff, sometimes based on only one witness, sometimes based on tens of witnesses on all kinds of wartime reports, got dumped! Interestingly, the stories that prevailed during the war, hot steam for Treblinkaa, high voltage for Belzec, chlorine gas for Sobibor, all got dumped! You won’t find a word of it today anymore, even though they were the ones that were most commonly claimed during the war, and even during the International Military Tribunal, by the way. It’s all gone!

What we have left now is this. Zyklon B, and engine exhaust gases. For a long time they even claimed they were diesel exhaust gases, which are technically impossible because they’re not toxic enough.

Just recently, well, not too recently, 15 years ago, a mainstream toxicologist tried to move the goalpost there again:

“Okay, diesel doesn’t work. Why don’t we say it was engine exhaust?”

So murder methods claimed during and right after the war were highly contradictory. Even once claimed main murder methods were all abandoned! Polish Stalinist officials streamline the narrative against facts! And mainstream historians hide these extreme revisions and manipulations from you! Because they are writing history on gunpoint!

How was it done? To give you one example, and unfortunately I don’t think I have that in this brochure. You would actually have to go, because that goes a little bit more into detail for which this brochure doesn’t have room. I have that detailed example in this book here. Nazi Gas Chambers, which you can either buy there as a hard copy or you can find it on holocausthandbooks.com free of charge as an ebook.

The one case that shows everyone, and should show every normie that the story was faked, is the case of Sobibor! Now again, Auschwitz, everyone knows, Treblinka, some of you may have heard. Bełzec, maybe. Majdanek, unlikely. Sobibor also, not very often. Sobibor is one of the three so-called “pure extermination camps”. Actually four. Chelmno is a special camp. It’s a separate issue.

Treblinkaa, Belzec and Sobibor are the three big ones that were jews were shipped to be murdered and nothing else. That’s the claim of the mainstream. Sobibor was the smallest of them. Treblinka. The other here started out with 3 million. Belzec, 3 million claim and Sobibor with, 20 million. It’s down to 200,000 now, plus, minus. There’s always this kind of an average of the mainstream claim because they can’t really agree exactly on how much. But the other ones are way higher.

Sobibor is an interesting case. The same judge who after the war downgraded massively the death toll from Majdanek to 360,000 also investigated the Sobibor camp and the Treblinkaa camp and wrote the story for it for the Polish Commission for German War Crimes. He investigated a number of witnesses. They are listed here by name.

Right after the war, the inmates that were alive in summer of 1943 had a revolt in the Sobibor camp. There’s actually a movie about that. Not very historically accurate, but the revolt did take place and many witnesses, survivors or inmates, ran away and they ended up testifying in front of that investigative judge. This is Zdzislaw Tukaszkiewicz. Now the interesting thing is of what they told him. Right now for Sobibor, they claim engine exhaust gas as the murder method.

And they are supposed to have been murdered in just a normal chamber. One door. They walk in, they get killed with gas, the other door at the other end opens out and they get carried out to mass graves or pyres to be burned. That’s the mainstream narrative right now! However, if you look at what these witnesses testified, if they describe the alleged murder method, many of them said chlorine. Nobody said engine exhaust. Not a single witness!

What they claimed of the mechanics of the gas chamber is very interesting because they kind of agreed, with a few exceptions of witnesses who didn’t say anything about that.

That the floors in those chambers were hydraulically opened up, they collapsed downward, discharge the dead victims into two carts running on tracks below in some kind of basement area, and would then be driven out to mass graves or to cremation pyres. And they agreed on that you will not hear a single thing about that in the mainstream narrative! What Zdzislaw Tukaszkiewicz did when he wrote, based on his interrogations, that’s the only evidence he had, he said:

“Well, they were killed with engine exhaust and with just a normal gas chamber with doors.”

Invented out of the blue! With no basis in fact of any of the evidence! He threw out all the witnesses!

Now where did he get that narrative from? He actually copied it over. I just mentioned he had also investigated the Treblinka camp. He had copied it over from the narrative he had developed from the Treblinka camp!

And if you were to go there. I don’t want to go do that now again, you can find the list of witnesses and what they said on Treblinka in here. You find in Treblinka this chaos here! Electrocution, engine exhaust, gas, vacuum, steam, all kinds of claims. He cleaned that up, threw everything out, kept the engine exhaust and wrote the narrative according to that.

And then he copied it over to Sobibor. That is invented history with no basis in fact, none whatsoever in the case of Sobibor! The clearest case where you can absolutely pinpoint what happened.

So that is what you find if you go into the historical record, which became accessible to us only after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the archives in the east became accessible. And we could actually go to these interrogation protocols and then see what narrative they made of it.

There is an interesting question that arises. Why was that done? I mean, it’s an obvious question. You want to look, make your enemy look as bad as possible. So whatever comes after the war, you can manipulate and destroy them as much as possible. Psychological warfare is just a continuation of warfare with other means. And ethnically speaking, the whole Second World War broke out because the actual tinderbox that blew it up, there were many more conflicts around the globe was the ethnic conflicts between Poles and Germans, mainly over the city of Danzig.

And after the war, as you may know, Poland gained huge territories from Germany and expelled the population. My paternal ancestry was expelled from Silesia, so they were part of the victims of that. And Germany was not willing after the First World War to accept the loss of Danzig, which was a 95% German city. How would you make them expect to accept the loss of a quarter of its entire territory and the expulsion of 7 million civilians from their homeland, where they had lived for centuries. And were not just a majority in large parts of the world, just only Germans, all gone! How do you accept Germany to this time accept it?

If you break the German spine with a guilt complex, you can make them accept anything as justified punishment. And that’s what the homicidal gas chambers are good for!

Now I’ve looked into all of the people who have done the investigation on those camps and who have written the history. We’re actually talking about only four individuals that were doing the investigation. I’ve mentioned Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz for Treblinka, for Majdanek and for Sobibor. Jan Sehn was investigative judge for Auschwitz. For Belzec we have an historian. There was no trial on Belzec. That was Eugeniusz Szrojt. And for Chelmno, which isn’t even on here, it’s a special case. There it is actually. It was Wladyslaw Bednarz.

So we have four Polish individuals all working for the Polish commission for the investigation of war crimes and Stalinist organization set up by Stalin to stick it to the Germans and to use all kinds of fishy methods, as I just said, and with the aim of destroying Germany psychologically and make them accept all that was coming their way. And it worked “beautifully”, quote, unquote.

This is if you present these things that way, I have found you can get people to understand first of all that it’s not some lunatic idea, but that there’s something profoundly wrong in a society that prescribes the writing of any scholarly field under the threat of punishment. And what that must lead to is untruthfulness of scholars. And then showing them, yeah, they have admitted over and over again to have lied, to have shifted the goalpost to hide facts from us, to completely change their story.

And then psychologically, very important, it’s not the jews who did it. In a great conspiracy theory! That’s what I’m getting here. I’m not saying I want to win the jews over seeing how they were duped, they were. But you know, all those witnesses at the end of it, most of them are jews. They had an axe to grind. I can’t blame them. They were treated horribly. And in the frenzy of post-war propaganda, they were making stuff up!

And this is completely made up stuff here! And they even co-ordinated these witnesses. Coordinated, as they couldn’t have come up all with the same story. But the investigative judge couldn’t do anything with it. In other cases, they were so contradictory, they weren’t coordinating any of these witnesses. They were just inventing whatever came.

And in the complete frenzy of post-war anti-German hysteria, you can understand where they are coming from. It would have been the judge’s job to say:

“This is all nonsense! We can’t make head or tail out of it. And therefore, we need to say that!”
 
They didn’t do that. These judges were put in by the new Stalinist government. It was a Stalinist agenda. I couldn’t find any jewish backgrounds in any of those four individuals. I don’t know the chain of command. They did what they did on orders. Nothing of that kind of propagandistic political nature was left to chance.

So you can bet that there were orders coming from Warsaw and from Moscow. What type they were, this is the kind of investigation we have yet to do. Whether in that chain of command jews were sitting, I don’t know. But they are not needed. You can see here the Stalinist will to completely destroy psychologically Germany and to pit Poland against Germany. That is an important point. Hitler had tried until 39, until the very last moment, to win the Poles over for an anti-communist pact against Stalinist Russia. And Stalinist Russia tried to conquer all of Europe. That was the declared concept of world revolution from 1918 onward. It wasn’t a secret. And Hitler tried to make a bulwark, a European fortress against Stalin’s plan to conquer all of Europe. Poland refused and went their way of poking the German eagle to the point where they lashed out. And the rest is history.

Pitting Poland against Germany. Any other normal nation. If you imagine Mexico in a World War that breaks out between Russia, China and the United States, United States loses and then Mexico gets everything that they used to own and more. You name the States of Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, California. Give everything to the Mexicans and drive out every White American. Would America put up with it if they gain strength again? How do you get the Germans to accept that kind of calamity? It worked. What did not work. And I want to make that sure. Even though my parents were expelled, my parental ancestors were expelled from that region. Is that today Germany and Poland are not pitted against each other anymore.

I’ve gone with my father to the our Poles who had expelled him and his family in the 1980s and 90s. German expellees went back to Poland to party with our Poles in the house it used to belong to my grandfather! There’s no frontier, no border between Germany and Poland anymore. If I wanted, the German government not sticking me in prison for other reasons, I could go back and settle where my parental ancestors came from. That story is over. In Europe we don’t kill each other. We don’t kill White people over territorial. That should be the case. Unfortunately, the Russians and the Ukrainians have yet to learn that lesson. That is over. Stalin did not succeed in pitting us against each other we work together.

Now, I am saying these things in order to make you understand where this come from, how it was done, who did it, why they did it! Not in order to, say, give Germany its territories, they can’t even populate their current territory, nor can the Poles. The real biggest challenge for all of us in Europe is population collapse, which is something I will talk about tonight, by the way, and how this ties in to all these issues that I’ve been talking about historically.

So now we are not talking territories here. We’re talking about historical understanding and to make the jews understand and the Zionists, we’re not coming after you. We’re not blaming you for having constructed this narrative in order to whatever. Sure, they took advantage of it, particularly since 1961 when the gravy train was already running with the Eichmann trial big time, and ever since have been profited from that.

But if you look in the first decades of the state of Israel and of the jewish community, particularly in this country, they were not riding the Holocaust train! It wasn’t even called that way back then. The partial identity between Soviet spies in the United States and a religious jewish background was troublesome truth for the jewish community. They kept their head low in the early years of the Cold War and were not rocking the boat.

So this way you can make even the jews see we’re not out for revenge for what you did to us, psychologically. The story came from a different angle. And I think that is because people assume we are spreading these Holocaust “denial theories”, as they call them, in order to get at the jews, in order to say the jews have made this big conspiracy in order to get us and destroy us. Yeah, it’s being used now as such. What happens now with them manipulating us with this and saying in order to prevent anything like that happening again, we must allow and support them to pre-emptively kill everyone that even looks askance at them, which is what’s happening in Gaza and what the conflict with many of these nations in the Middle East with Israel is about. That’s a separate story where we are today.

Historically seen as it started differently and it has taken on its own life. And we need to break that vicious circle we are in, using this presumed genocide, say what happens to the jews as we define genocide by the United Nations and in law, actually it was a genocide. You don’t need gas chambers to commit genocide. If you separate people so that they can’t reproduce, it’s already called genocide. And that’s what the National Socialists did in the camps, separating genders and putting them under living conditions that inevitably had to lead to many of them dying of disease and so forth. So technically speaking, legally speaking, how it is defined today, it was genocide. Now, that law didn’t exist back then. That’s a legal fine print.

So this genocide in its downgraded fashion without homicidal gas chambers, which didn’t exist, but the homicidal gas chambers being the foremost psychological weapon to traumatize the jews, young jews of new generation today and every one of us, we have gone through this education and know how shocking it is to see these bulldozers shoving corpses into mass graves at Bergen-Belsen and being told that’s what the Germans did to the jews. That was Fforce majeure of epidemics breaking out in camps that the Germans had no control over. They didn’t plan that. But you’re not being told that.

And the effect of it is that America for the most part is willing to go along, and Europe, to go along with what the jews and Zionists do in the Middle East. To break that vicious circle, to get a correct understanding, we can learn the correct lessons of history only if we get first the facts straight. And no matter what the facts are, morally speaking, you are never allowed to use past catastrophes of whatever nature to justify or foment current and future catastrophes! And that’s what’s happening. In order to prevent a new “Holocaust”, Israel is committing genocide.

So in order to prevent genocide, they commit genocide! There’s something wrong with this! And to see how we are manipulated with historical accounts being exaggerated and invented, to see it in this old example, the most extreme example, makes us see that happens all the time. What was it October 7, 2023, what happened there. Israel has a law outlawing, as I just mentioned, it was the first one outlawing Holocaust skepticism. And they have now introduced a law outlawing Gaza skepticism in terms of just what happened on the 7th of October. And they are probably in the process of making it a crime to accuse Israel of genocide.

All right, I’m having, as I mentioned, a second presentation tonight. We are talking about demographic collapse and where that leaves us, which options we have and what the various drivers are, which Holocaust propaganda actually is one of them. And I’ll explain that tonight. I hope I’ll get a chance to talk to you and maybe even discuss that with you guys.

If you want to look into this book, if you don’t have it yet, about how this core of the Holocaust, the homicide, gas chamber story, was created. As I mentioned there you can have it.

The encyclopedia also. I still have six copies floating around. Please keep the brochure. It is a short description and summary of Holocaust revisionist arguments with reference of all the books. You can find them all free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com. But you can also buy them from us on these websites and you’ll find links to purchase them.

And if you don’t want to keep it, leave it on the table and we’ll collect it later because this is advertising for our products, for our knowledge, for our insight, and we liked it to get spread.

So thank you for your attention.

[loud applause]
https://katana17.com/

Censorship Map of Europe

Censorship map of Europe, 2026: red: the writing of history is prescribed by penal law; light grey: historical dissent is an offense only if committed concurrently with disparaging victims, witnesses and/or survivors, or statements likely to cause violence and/or hatred. Since all EU member states must enact such laws, the white spots on this map will steadily decrease in years to come.

An Update

By Germar Rudolf ∙ June 20, 2026

On page 33 of the first, 2014 edition of his book Breaking the Spell, Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom included a map showing the countries in Europe that had enacted laws dictating Holocaust historiography at gunpoint. (The map is on p. 34 of the 7th, 2024 edition.) I remember spending quote some time creating this map, using various online resources to figure out which country has which laws. Over the years, I have updated this map, and included a simple list in my Holocaust Encyclopedia in its entry on censorship.

When the latest case of a law banning Holocaust skepticism was enacted in Finland in early 2026, I wrote an article about this. I mention in this article that one motivation for Finland to introduce such a law was pressure from the European Union. I wondered back then how Finland could succumb to that pressure while other European nations which are already in the EU or strive to be accepted managed to resists, especially in the Balkans.

While writing my most-recent book in History at Gunpoint, I revisited the issue with the aim of getting things updated. During my research, I stumbled across an excellent resource in this regard on the Bosnian website trial.ba of the organization Trial International, which grew out of a dedication to document the massacres committed by all sides during the war fought mainly on that country’s territory between 1992 and 1995, to help victims and hold perpetrators accountable. This organization compiled a list containing information for all European countries regarding any laws they have enacted banning denial of the Holocaust and/or of other genocides or mass atrocities.[1] This table was uploaded in February of 2020, hence cannot contain legislative changes made after that date.

Going through that table, I realized that my map and related table had been incomplete all along: Northern Macedonia had introduced a general anti-genocide denial law already in 2004, hence three years before the European Union 2007 issued its decision to make such a law mandatory for all member states. While pure denial can get you between one to five years in that country, if it is combined with the “intent to instigate hate, discrimination or violence,” a prison term of at least four years is imposed, with no upper limit given, probably meaning that even a life sentence is theoretically possible.

Albania followed a year after Europe’s mandate, but its general ban on genocide denial is embedded in a law regulating online offenses, so denial is punishable only if it is “deliberately disseminating to the public through computer systems.” The punishment threatened is between 3 and six years.

Malta followed a year later, in 2009, albeit only if general “genocide denial” is done in a way likely to incite to violence or hatred, or likely to disturb public order. Therefore, I changed the color of Malta on the new map from red (unconditional ban) to grey (conditional). Also, I added Malta to the list of countries in the encyclopedia, where it had been omitted for some inscrutable reason. The threatened punishment is 8 months to two years imprisonment.

Montenegro enacted a general ban on genocide denial in 2010 for cases conducted “in a manner which can lead to violence or cause hatred against a group,” and if that genocide has been declared a fact by “a final and enforceable judgment of a court in Montenegro or of the International Criminal Tribunal.” The threatened punishment is between six months and five years. The expression “a manner that can lead to violence or cause hatred” is too diffuse to qualify as a conditional ban. Even the most rational and unemotional scrutiny of a genocide can lead someone to develop feelings of hate, and push some deranged mind to resort to violence. At least words like “is likely to cause” are needed to qualify a law to be a conditional ban only. Hence, I have given Montenegro the red card on the map.

2011 saw three European countries introduce laws banning genocide denial in general, Croatia made it conditional by mandating that the offense needs to be perpetrated “in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred,” while Cyprus did not include such a qualifier. Bulgaria made it conditional on the offense posing “a risk of violence or hatred”, but there is no qualifier on how high the risk must be, so it doesn’t count as a conditional ban. Croatia imposed prison terms of up to 3 years, Cyprus of up to 5 years, and Bulgaria from a minimum of one year up to five years. Cyprus defines genocides as something that has been determined by an “irrevocable decision of an international court,” meaning that the findings of the IMT show trial probably also count as incontestable.

After Spain’s High Court had thrown out that country’s first, 1995 attempt at banning Holocaust denial as unconstitutional, Spain introduced a general ban on genocide denial in 2015, making that act an offense, if it “promotes or favors a climate of violence, hostility, hatred or discrimination.” That law has led to the conviction of Holocaust skeptic and National-Socialist activist Pedro Varela in 2024, whose considerable activities of promoting National-Socialist ideas was moreover judged to be an indirect justification of that past regime’s genocidal acts. Denial plus NS ideology pushed the judiciary over the edge, sending Varela to prison for 18 months. Spain’s new anti-denial law was criticized by Spanish legal scholars as unconstitutional, especially since its “qualifier” requires a mere hypothetical risk of “violence, hostility, hatred or discrimination” by merely favoring a climate.[2] It can’t be more wishy-washy. Varela’s case is currently moving through the various appellate stages, and may be heard by the Constitutional High Court within five years or so. Until then, I have given Spain a conditional status, as denial itself isn’t able to trigger the law, but very much its convolution with NS propaganda.

Next on the list of countries I missed is Serbia, which introduced its law in 2016, with a thin conditional veneer of acts that “could lead to violence or incitement to hate.” Defining genocide like Montenegro via decisions of national courts or the ICC, Serbia imposes of six months to five years on convicted offenders. That’s a red card for Serbia.

Before we move on the rest of the Balkan countries and some special cases, an explanation is due regarding the UK, which does not have a formal law banning Holocaust skepticism at all, as many have rightly observed. I have included it on the map and in my list anyway, with the year given 2017. This is not based on the adoption of any law, but on case law created by the case of musical artist Alison Chabloz. She was indicted under Section 127(1) of the Communications Act of 2003 for communicating via “a public electronic communications network” (internet) messages that the judges considered “grossly offensive.” The offenses are said to have been committed by satirical songs on Holocaust survivors and their tales which Chabloz wrote and performed. I loved the songs when I listened to them back in 1916 and 1917. I thought the melodies were pleasing, voice and instrumentals were excellent, and the lyrics were written with wit and intelligence. But turning Holocaust skepticism from dry scholarship into living art evidently is a crime.[3] Therefore, the UK definitely meets the criterion of conditionally banning Holocaust skepticism, if combined with disrespectful statements about victims and/or survivors. This was highlighted with the case of Ian R. Millard, who mixed general expressions of disbelieve in the mainstream Holocaust narrative with anti-Jewish statements.[4] Castle Hill Publishers and their successor Armreg Ltd, the two most-productive media outlets of Holocaust skepticism in this century, have operated from the UK since 1998, and have never been impeded or harassed. It is therefore safe to say that, as long as it is boringly scholarly, Holocaust skepticism is legal in the UK. But I changed the year to 2018, the year of Chabloz’s first conviction.

Bosnia had the new Article 145a of its penal law banning general genocide denial imposed by that country’s High Representative in 2021.[5] It was not well received by many among the country’s Serbs, hence caused quite some tensions. It requires that denial be done in a “manner likely to incite to violence or hatred,” and comes with prison terms between six months and five years. It defines genocide by a final court verdict, hence the IMT probably qualifies. Bosnia’s law is primarily designed to ban denials of genocidal killings committed during that country’s civil during the 1990s war rather than directed against Holocaust skeptics.[6] The expression “likely to incite to violence or hatred” was taken straight from a EU Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia.[7] While this expression is suppose to prevent the stifling of academic freedom, member states are free to include or omit such a requirement. Bosnia has included it, making this a case of conditional banning of genocide denial. This turns the country grey on my map (it has been red so far).

Moldova has two laws, one banning general genocide denial (Art. 135² of its Criminal Code, one to three years imprisonment) and one introduced also in 2021 specifically banning Holocaust denial (Article 1761), likewise with prison terms between six months and five years. It defines the Holocaust as “the systematic persecution,” “annihilation and extermination of a large number of members of the Jewish community by Nazi Germany, as well as by its allies and collaborators, during the period 1933-1945” (Art. 13419).[8] Denial is not a crime, however, if done “in the interest of art or science, research or education.” I am reluctant to grant Moldova the grey conditional status for this, because any popular but non-polemical statement could be denied that privilege, and judiciaries have the tendency to define the “interest” of science and research by that community’s consensus, which tends to exclude skeptic voice. So that’s a red card for Moldova.

Armenia’s Article 136 of its penal code, completely overhauled in 2022, threatens with up to four years imprisonment those who deny genocides in general “for the purpose of provoking hatred, discrimination or violence.”[9] It’s neighbors Turkey and Azerbaijan have so far refused to adopt similar laws, as those nations’ citizens at times engage in that kind of activity regarding the genocide Armenians suffered during the First World War. I grant Armenia a conditional status, which more radical faction in its society don’t like, who want to tighten that law even more.[10]

Also in 2022, Belarus implemented a law against genocide denial. However, their law merely bans the denial, minimization or justification of the genocide committed against the Belarusian people by German forces during World War II, even though no such thing occurred. The massacres presumably committed by the German wartime Einsatzgruppen against both local Jews and Jews deported to Belarus from central and western Europe were rebranded by Alexander Lukashenko’s regime as victims of the general populace.[11] While the law effectively denies Jews their main-victim role, its primary function is to suppress modern political dissent, in particular by stigmatizing pro-democracy opposition groups as ideological “descendants of Nazi collaborators.”[12] Of course, strictly speaking, all countries with such laws use it to oppress what they stigmatize as “Nazis” or “Nazi” sympathi­zers, whether that label is accurate or not. Since Belarus’s law does not ban Holocaust skepticism as such, but only events that are said to have happened on Belarussian soil, I have not shaded that country on my map.

The last country to add to the new list is Kosovo. Mimicking its big sister Albania, Kosovo followed suit a year later, in 2023, by adopting a similar law unconditionally banning general genocide denial if disseminated to the public through computer systems, also with prison terms between 3 and 6 years.[13]

Therefore, if we ignore the European Union as an umbrella organization with its framework decision, 41 countries currently enforce the writing of history to one degree or another at gunpoint.

Hence, leaving aside Belarus, only six European countries have not (yet) formally banned Holocaust skepticism in one form or another: Iceland, Ireland, Denmark, Estonia, Azerbaijan and Georgia:

# Year Country Max. Term

1. 1986 Israel 5 years

2. 1990 France 1 year

3. 1992 Austria 20 years

4. 1994 Germany 5 years

5. 1995 Belgium 1 year

6. 1995 Netherlands (conditional) 1 year

7. 1995 Liechtenstein 2 years

8. 1995 Switzerland 3 years

9. 1997 Luxembourg 2 years

10. 1997 Slovenia 2 years

11. 1998 Poland 3 years

12. 2001 Slovakia 3 years

13. 2001 Czechia 3 years

14. 2002 Romania 3 years

15. 2002 Australia (HRC)* –

16. 2004 Macedonia 5 years

17. 2007 European Union (framework law) 3 years

18. 2007 Portugal (conditional) 5 years

19. 2008 Albania (computer distribution only) 6 years

20. 2009 Latvia 5 years

21. 2009 Malta (conditional) 2 years

22. 2010 Hungary 3 years

23. 2010 Montenegro 5 years

24. 2011 Croatia (conditional) 3 years

25. 2011 Bulgaria 5 years

26. 2011 Cyprus 5 years

27. 2012 Lithuania 2 years

28. 2014 Russia 3 years

29. 2014 Greece (conditional) 3 years

30. 2015 Spain (conditional) 4 years

31. 2016 Serbia 5 years

32. 2016 Italy 6 years

33. 2018 UK (conditional) 2 years

34. 2021 Ukraine 5 years

35. 2021 Bosnia (conditional) 5 years

36. 2021 Moldova 2 years

37. 2022 Armenia (conditional) 4 years

38. 2022 Belarus (very limited, see text) 5 years

39. 2022 Canada 2 years

40. 2023 Kosovo (computer distribution only) 6 years

41. 2024 Sweden 2 years

42. 2026 Finland 2 years

conditional: only in conjunction with verbal abuses and/or threats, likely to cause violence or hatred.

* a human-rights commission can issue a cease-and-desist order. If ignored, it can lead to prosecution for ignoring a government order.

Endnotes

[1] trial.ba/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Table-overview-of-denial-laws-in-other-countries.pdf

[2] Carmen Alastuey Dobón, “El derecho penal ante el negacionismo. Comentario a la sap de Barcelona de 9 de septiembre de 2024 (Caso de la Librería Europa III),” Revista de Derecho Penal y Criminología, Vol. 32, no. 3, July 2024, pp. 483-520; https://revistas.uned.es/index.php/RDPC/article/download/44193/31985/133342

.

[3] See Alison’s blog at https://alisonchabloz.com/

; see Laura Bliss, “Magistrates Court: Social Media: ‘A Theme Park just for Fools’ – R v Alison Chabloz,” The Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 82, No. 4, 2018, pp. 301-304; https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018318792937

; Frank Cranmer, “Is Holocaust denial a crime in England and Wales? No – but see R v Chabloz,” Law & Religion UK, 15 Feb. 2019; https://lawandreligionuk.com/2019/02/15/is-holocaust-denial-a-crime-in-england-and-wales-no-but-see-r-v-chabloz/

.

[4] Timothy Edgley, “Disgraced New Forest barrister posted antisemitic hate online,” Salisbury Journal, 15 March 2024; https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/24187095.disgraced-new-forest-barrister-posted-antisemitic-hate-online/

.

[5] https://www.ohr.int/high-representative-valentin-inzko-introduced-today-amendment-to-the-bh-criminal-code/

[6] https://trialinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Legal-prohibition-of-denial-of-adjudicated-war-crimes-concerns-all-victims-of-war-Analysis.pdf

[7] European Council, Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, 28 November 2008, on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32008F0913

.

[8] https://bwcimplementation.org/sites/default/files/resource/MD_Code%20No.%20985%20of%202002_EN.pdf

[9] Harut Sassounian, “Pashinyan rejects committing crime of Armenian Genocide denial,” Armenian Weekly, Feb. 5, 2025; https://armenianweekly.com/2025/02/05/pashinyan-rejects-committing-crime-of-armenian-genocide-denial/

[10] Gayane Saribekian, “Opposition Again Seeks Tougher Punishment for Armenian Genocide Denial,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Sept. 03, 2025; https://www.azatutyun.am/a/33520882.html

.

[11] Kamil Kłysiński, “The anti-Western narrative in Belarus’s historical policy becomes harsher,” Ośrodek Studiów Wschodnich, 14. Jan. 2022; www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2022-01-14/anti-western-narrative-belaruss-historical-policy-becomes-harsher.

[12] Oxford Belarus Observatory et al. (eds.), “WWII Collective Memory and its Politics in a Real War Context, in Belarus,” August 22, 2022; obo.web.ox.ac.uk/files/wwiicollectivememorypdf.

[13] Article 277A; see https://gzk.rks-gov.net/ActDocumentDetail.aspx?ActID=84232

, p. 4.

 

What kind of mental conditioning must these people have gone through to get to the point to have no empathy whatsoever?

 

(...)

Germar Rudolf: Yeah, that is the stage I’m in right now, actually. I was getting to that. Fifty-four volumes of hard-hitting archival and forensic research—too much to wrap your head around. If you want to read it all, it takes you years and by the time you get to the end, you have already forgotten the beginning. And the same was for me.

I mean, I’ve published all this stuff in German, in English, I’ve republished it in many, many editions. So I’m the one who actually has that stuff on his fingertips and should have the best knowledge of where to find what. But I couldn’t! I was forgetting stuff. And I had a hard time finding arguments, finding evidence, finding sources. So I decided eventually we need to write an encyclopedia.

And that’s what I’ve done. After my marriage fell apart—the depression, it put me into separation from my kids, from my home—I used that time, work therapy, to sit down. Within five months, I wrote an entire encyclopedia. Normally that’s a collective work of many scholars. Now I’ve been in the unique situation of having assembled this research for 35 years, having published it in several languages and republished it over and over again! I also was in charge for many years of the periodicals that were publishing papers on it.

So I have it all on my hard drive, kind of in my head. If not I, who else could do it? And I’ve worked with one additional scholar, a Professor of the humanities who helped me. I had some experience in contributing to scholarly works like that, encyclopedias. It’s not something you do every day. I’m most certainly not writing one cover to cover.

But I know that having, say, 200 scholars contributing—each several, or one contribution, one entry—to an encyclopedia is actually a much bigger challenge to get because it’s not economically viable. You don’t make money with this. It’s an honor for a scholar to be listed as a contributor to an encyclopedia because then he’s the top of the field in this particular entry that he is writing about, and to get people actually to do it.

And then you have a problem of synchronizing things because there’s overlap between entries and cross-referencing. And if you have everyone writing their own style, writing their own opinion, they sometimes don’t even agree on things. It’s a nightmare to co-ordinate that and to get that actually to go together—to have, first of all, everyone submitting their stuff, and then coordinating, synchronizing, streamlining it. And then the ego gets in the way where nobody wants to budge and they have different points of view. It can be a nightmare!

 Now if you have just one guy writing it with one supporting it was actually a much faster job. But I required these 35 years of background in the entire field. And having published—covered—the entire field. HolocaustEncyclopedia.com is freely accessible for everyone. We update it, we expand it as it is needed. You can also get hard copies there in various languages. By now we have it in German, French and Spanish on top of it. And I’m currently working—and that’s what you interrupted me with, …
 
Kenny Ko: Sorry about that!
 
Germar Rudolf: Arabic translation. No, I appreciate that because I want to get the message out. The work is there. It is completely silenced and swept under the carpet by the mainstream. Any work on the Holocaust over the past, 20 years that does not at least consider the work we have done cannot be called scholarly! Scholarly means even if you disagree with a scholar, if it’s a considerable work—and 54 volumes is a considerable amount of work—then you have to at least say:
 
“Well, this work is there and I disagree with this for this and this reason.”
 
And that’s it! If you completely ignore it and you pretend it doesn’t even exist, that means you’re a dogmatist, you’re not a scholar anymore. And that’s the situation we have in the field of Holocaust studies—have had now for the past, 20 years plus. But this is only the scholarly issue; we’re talking about suppression. I frame it in a certain way to make clear what’s going on. History at gunpoint! Writing of history at gunpoint! That’s what we have in the Western world—have had ever since. The first country to introduce a law that basically puts historians under the threat of imprisonment was Israel. Surprise! In ’85 or ’86.
 
Kenny Ko: I wonder why that is!
 
Germar Rudolf: Yeah, so that was coming up with the John Demjanjuk show trial that started shortly after, to make sure that nobody gets any funny ideas of challenging the show trial they were about to pull off. So in that context that has to be seen.
 
And then the next one was France. And by now we are up to 28 countries who formally have declared it illegal. But there are many more if you look at those who informally prosecute it. Most of the Arab countries actually throw people in prison if they dissent publicly, not because they want to, but because they are basically in the pockets of the United States and the Europeans. They are all bankrupt states, most of them, except for the really oil-rich countries. When we’re talking about Jordan and Egypt, the two examples that come to my mind, or even Lebanon—they’re in debt and they get bailed out financially by Europe and by the United States over and over again! So they are basically corrupted. They should have an interest in free discussion of the topic because it impacts their region massively these days. But they suppress it too. In South America, there are a number of countries which suppress it.
 
So it has come to the point that over the years many mainstream historians have gotten in touch with me—privately, of course, and some of them anonymously. They just create a Gmail account and get in touch and don’t tell who they are, but by the amount of assistance they have provided—giving us archival material that we don’t have access to because many archives now are closed to us. You have to identify yourself before you can get in. And we can’t do that; we’d get arrested. More and more archival material is being put online. So that will hopefully— we’ll see it.
 
Anyway, these historians give us massive amounts of information from archives that we can’t access, and therefore we know they know what they’re doing. They are professionals.
 
Kenny Ko: Right.

Germar Rudolf: And I hear from them the fact that they work from behind this kind of a firewall to prevent any leak who they are and that they’re helping.
 
But also of those who actually have contacted me, I had one of Germany’s most prolific historians, Professor Werner Maser—may not mean much to you, but he has written on modern German history and the World War II era. Many books, many of them were translated in many languages. So he was one of the leading scholars in the field from a German point of view. One of these days he called me! When I was in the United States shortly before my deportation, complaining to me about the dictator-style conditions in Germany and that historians are constantly afraid and can’t write anymore what they want to do.
 
And I had a number of these encounters with half a dozen mainstream historians. These are the ones who stick their neck out and risk getting in touch with me. You can figure out how many more there are who will not say anything and just toe the party line quietly or stay out of this area entirely. One of the leading Polish historians on the Auschwitz matter, Wacław Długoborski [sp], who was an Auschwitz inmate himself—he became the curator of the history department of the Auschwitz Museum after the war for many decades—said in 1998 in an interview why Polish historians from the Auschwitz Museum for decades until the collapse of the Soviet Union had spread false, exaggerated victim numbers even though they admit that they knew better:
 
“Why did you lie?”
 
He said:
 
“Well, we were put under pressure in the Eastern Bloc. We would have faced disciplinary measures had we not toed the party line.”
 
That was 1998, that he had this interview. And that was the same year Poland introduced a law making it up to three years imprisonment to challenge the current narrative. So back in the communist days they were facing disciplinary measures—which is on a professional level, administrative stuff, like you get demoted, you get removed from that position and then have to go somewhere else or whatever. But not criminal proceedings! Now we have criminal proceedings. Poland is finally Democratic—and democracy, as you know, is when two wolves and a lamb decide what’s for dinner!
 
So that’s the situation when it comes to this topic—democracy and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive concepts. If you’re a democracy, the majority decides to dictate to the minority what they can think and say. That’s a Democratic dictatorship! And that’s what we have in these 28 countries.
 
Kenny Ko: Thank you—Canada included! [clapping] By the way, a lot of people don’t understand democracy or how it operates.
 
Germar Rudolf: Yeah, if it’s not guardrailed strictly by inalienable civil rights and the right of self-determination—I throw in there for the sake of being complete—then democracy is a lynch mob! That’s just a nice way of saying lynch mob. So in a democracy, a majority should never be allowed to take away essential civil rights—human rights—from minorities, no matter what. But that’s what you see here. So be that as it may—got a little bit sidetracked with this here! Yeah, so Długoborski says:
 
“We acted under coercion. That’s why we lied!”
 
At a time when the Polish government jacked up the coercion that they are threatening.
 
So if they lied before, and they agreed and admitted that they have lied because of coercion, and the coercion has increased—now it’s even worse! Why would you believe them now, the story they tell now? Historians the world over when it comes to this topic all act under coercion! Usually only those people get into the field on the mainstream who are ideologically charged. You see a hyper over-representation of jews in that field—no surprise. And you see people with left-leaning ideologies. So Antifa kind of attitudes—no surprise there too. A lot of the quote, unquote, “evidence” that we have for the mainstream Holocaust narrative was produced, skewed and faked and forged and fabricated by communist Eastern Europe.

When you look at the six camps where mass extermination is said to have happened—that’s Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor and Treblinka—and the Einsatzgruppen mass murders, gas vans, mass murders etc., that are said to have happened behind the Soviet front. All this is on former Soviet territories. So for 40 years it was behind the Iron Curtain. And the evidence that was presented in the Nuremberg trials and in many trials thereafter was produced in those countries in those years.
 
Can you believe them? I wouldn’t take anything at face value that comes from these countries! Does everything have to be a lie? No, of course not. We have to discern critically, with tools of source criticizm, to figure out what is true and what is not. Forensics. There are a lot of tools that historians have— forensic historians in particular. And in the encyclopedia, with all these crime locations, claimed crime locations, they have entries in there and they go through what the documents say, what the forensic research—if any was done—says, and what forensic research should be done to clarify any issues that we still have a lot of the fields have never been researched in a way that they should have.
 
You probably have heard of the mass murders at Katyn and Vinnytsa. So the Soviets and the Germans divided up Poland in 1939. And the Soviets arrested some 20,000 people of the upper society of Poland that came under their control. And after a year of detention they executed them—or not even a year—in various mass graves. The Germans in ’43 found two of them and made a big fuss about it. But they did not do the forensic examination of these graves all by themselves. They actually invited experts from all over the world, from neutral countries and even from countries they had occupied, and let them do the research or at least partake in that research.
 
And that is the way you should do it. The Soviets after the war—already during the war—did nothing like that! They had a commission that was actually re-examining the Katyn mass graves and blamed it on the Germans with an expert report—complete fake! And the same commission, with the same people, discovered more and more mass graves of German atrocities all over Soviet Russia and claimed outrageous numbers of people killed. On the face of it, obvious exaggerations.
 
What should have been done is somebody go in there and do the actual Katyn, German-style, independent, international forensic examinations. For instance, it happened in Cambodia—massive atrocities, auto-genocide if you wish. They called it a politicide. The intention was not to wipe off an ethnic group—that was not the intention of the Khmer Rouge. The intention was political ideology of an extreme degree. Mass graves of up to 2 million people. So up to one third of the Cambodian population was murdered there. And they had intensive forensic efforts to exhume those mass graves and to count the victims—an absolutely atrocious job when we’re talking about well north of 1 million human beings that were eventually found. Similar thing you had with the Kosovo mass murders that are said to have happened in the Kosovo War, 1999 and thereafter.
 
So this is the way it should be done. It’s never been done in the context of what we are looking at here. And the longer it takes to do it, the less likely it is that things can be clarified. Who are these victims? Who has killed them? It gets more and more problematic because Soviet territory is drenched in blood. We’re talking about 1 to 2 million jews presumably killed by German execution squads in this area. We’re talking an area that has seen the Holodomor, that has seen wars with millions of victims and mass graves of war casualties and prisoners of war, the mass executions that the NKVD, the Cheka, has done in the early years—particularly of the Bolshevik Revolution and the reign of Lenin and Stalin. It’s all in those soils there.
 
So wherever you dig, you’ll find bones. We’re talking north of 10 million, potentially, that are not jews murdered by Germans. Who talks about them? There’s a single focus only on that! But the Soviet Union never had an interest in clarifying any of it. They didn’t want anyone to dig in their soil because what you would find most likely is victims of Lenin and Stalin and so forth, rather than jewish victims of German units. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, nothing changed really. There were a few attempts of Western scholars to excavate mass graves in Ukraine, which has a more neutral stance now since it’s independent. They have an interest in documenting Soviet atrocities—any kind of atrocities.
 
However, those research efforts into claimed German massacres of jewish civilians were again not done forensically. They were done with the background of public attention and commemoration culture. Locate a mass grave—don’t disturb it. It’s kind of the pressure from jewish groups. A jewish grave is not supposed to be disturbed. That’s against certain interpretations of jewish law. That doesn’t hold up in other crime cases.
 
But in that case they are adamant. Don’t rock the boat—meaning don’t investigate who these people are and how many there are and how they died. Just find the mass grave and put a memorial on top of it, and that’s the end of it. And so that’s kind of what happened, which is unfortunate.
 
So you need to understand that we need to find a way out of the circle of violence, to learn the correct lesson here. And it is sure not the correct lesson to learn from the Holocaust to teach jews now, already from the cradle—I’m exaggerating, but I think in 2014 they introduced a law in Israel that Holocaust education is now ready to start in elementary school. Elementary school kids in every country in the world— to any, not just elementary—but it is illegal to expose any children to chainsaw massacres and other fiction horror movies for good reason. It should be just as illegal to expose them to gas chamber massacre movies like Schindler’s List or whatever, which is shown to them at an age when they’re heavily impressionable.
 
Kenny Ko: Right.
 
Germar Rudolf: Because it is even more traumatizing if you show them a chainsaw massacre:
 
“Oh, that’s just fiction, it’s just made up!”
 
But it’s bad enough. And I have an adopted son who has been exposed to that prior to his placement—his biological parents had shown him these things. And I know what effect it can have. It should be illegal.
 
And if you tell them:
 
“Oh, this really happened—something like that—and it can happen again and it can happen to you, and the same people who did that are still around and they’re in your back. Yesteryear there were the Germans. Yesteryear there were the Ukrainians; right now they are the Palestinians in Gaza or the Persians in Iran!”
 
And that justifies then the next massacre. So if teaching about historical massacres is used to justify or gloss over the next massacre, we learn the completely wrong lesson! And that’s what this country, with its support of whatever Israel does! And in particular, jews and Israel, Zionists in the vast majority have been learning because of what we experienced, presumably because it was so unprecedented:
 
“It was without logic, without rhyme and reason, without any historical nexus whatsoever! We have to be aware it can happen anytime and therefore pre-emptively we need to lash out at someone as soon as someone looks askance—under every rock a goy can hide who may want to stuff you into the gas chamber—be aware of it jew! So if anyone ever makes the wrong move, kill them pre-emptively!”
 
“Rise and Kill” is actually a book that was written in this context. And that’s what we see in Gaza. And that’s what we hopefully will not see now in South Lebanon. Detraumatizing jews, but also detraumatizing Germans. They have had a similar lesson to learn that leads them to genocide-suicidal tendencies of wanting to give up because they are so evil, historically speaking, that the best they can do is just disappear. So with broken self-confidence they need detraumatizing, but jews need detraumatizing. If you have a heavy trauma as an individual—and the same applies for ethnic or religious communities, whichever way you want to frame it—you need to understand where the trauma is coming from. But then you need to prevent yourself from being constantly exposed to the same triggers. Overcoming trauma—and I had my own trauma: If you’re torn from your family twice and your family’s been destroyed twice and you’re thrown into prison for scientific research you have done—it is traumatizing.
 
And sometimes when people ask me, tell me a little bit more about the story, sometimes I say no. The jewish attitude of “always remember”, and I translate that as “wallowing in your own suffering of the past as an ethnic group” is exactly the wrong way. You can’t overcome trauma if you wallow in it all the time. You need to move forward. The rock climbers say, don’t look backward.
 
And I couldn’t lead a normal life. You know, I know the US authorities—there are strong groups in this country who want to have me deported again, frame me again, or even in this administration, they just arrest anyone they don’t like and deport them even if they have green cards. They have tried that—they could come after me. So I’m constantly in an ejector seat and I have lived that way over the past 35 years and I can’t be constantly reminded of that. I’m trying to have some normalcy. If you’re in this situation, normalcy is what keeps you sane.
 
And if you constantly wallow in it just destroys you! And turns you into a psychopath or at least a sociopath. And that’s what we see with the approval ratings among average Israelis about what’s going on in Gaza.

In fact, fully aware that massacres happen on the magnitude that they are happening, that genocide is being committed on the scale as it is described in the Book of Joshua, of the conquest of the Holy Land, where God has ordered the jews to kill everyone in the Holy Land and take the land. That’s kind of what they are reenacting and get the consent of the majority!
 
What kind of mental conditioning must these people have gone through to get to the point to have no empathy whatsoever and to have these attitudes? And the answer to this is Holocaust indoctrination from childhood!
 
Kenny Ko: That’s a great point!

Germar Rudolf: So it needs to stop. And it is, I think, good news for jews to realize the nightmare they’re living under that turns them into these sociopath/psychopaths almost as a nation or as an ethnic or religious group—whichever way you want to frame it. The nightmare of this uniqueness, the icon of which is the gas chamber, is a nightmare! You need to wake up! Yeah, jews were targeted during the Second World War. And it has a historical reason—it was not justified, but there is reason behind it, but not to the extent and with the means that you think there’s one picture that I show sometimes to people of a group of jews from Israel that have been taken on a tour to Poland—because tours, traumatizing tours of jews into former German concentration camps or the former so-called “extermination camps” on Polish territory are organized regularly. They go there to, … It fulfills the same role as in the past the rabbis had with ghetto jews in shtetel * in Eastern Europe—to make them afraid of the Gentiles outside the ghetto, so that they would stay in the ghetto and would stay together as a herd. And these kinds of traumatization serve the same purpose.
 
[* Shtetl or shtetel is a Yiddish term for small towns with predominantly Ashkenazi Jewish populations which existed in Eastern Europe before the Holocaust. The term is used in the context of pre-Second World War European Jewish societies as communities within the surrounding non-Jewish populace, and thus bears certain connotations of discrimination. Shtetls were mainly found in the areas that constituted the 19th-century Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire, as well as in Congress Poland, Austrian Galicia and Bukovina, the Kingdom of Romania and the Kingdom of Hungary-Source: Wikipedia]
 
And beyond that, leads to these sociopathic tendencies. They go into a gas chamber at the Majdanek camp, or what is depicted to them as a gas chamber—was until several years ago. And they reenact a gassing scene. How traumatizing that must be for young people after all the indoctrination they had already! Now it turns out the Majdanek Museum later says:
 
“Oh, okay, we lied. That wasn’t a gas chamber. That was one of these things that we had to drop.”
 
In 2005 they made that major revision. Over the years dropped the claimed death toll from 2 million down to only 78,000—not even 4%—and scrapped seven of the originally claimed homicidal gas chambers.
 
So a lot of the enactment that jews had done was completely done in places that were fumigation chambers—closed disinfestation chambers—no homicidal gas chambers at all!

(...)

https://rumble.com/v79ggew-kenny-ko-interviews-germar-rudolf-may-2026-dissecting-the-holocaust.html?e9s=src_v1_upp_a

Transcript from
https://katana17.com/