The concept of 'Nazi' crimes

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#46

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Oct 2003, 19:26

chalutzim wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:I've denied homicidal gas-vans and diesel gas-chambers, and I'm skeptical of other homicidal gas-chambers and a general Nazi extermination policy (...)
So at last Scott Smith is confessing he is a Holocaust denier. In your case I know it will be useless, but below I'm posting quotes from TRF's guidelines and Mr. Wendel's observations regarding the matter, lest some other people would feel with the same right to behave like you:
* No revisionism (ie. denying the Holocaust) or racism is tolerated
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=5#5
This is just a reminder that holocaust denial is not tolerated here, as you all should know by now.

Three main reasons for the decision not to allow holocaust denial here are:
1. Holocaust denial is an insult to those that suffered and died
2. Allowing holocaust denial will scare away many of the regular posters, both those that find it generally offensive and those that do not in any way wish to be connected with such crap. I've seen it happen in many forums, more deniers & neonazis begin frequenting the forum and less of those that are non-deniers or not interested in that discussion at all will frequent the forum, eventually bringing down the forum. We've even seen it begin to happen in this very forum at a time when I was too relaxed in enforcing the rules.
3. Allowing holocaust denial would make it (even) harder to make people understand that this is an apolitical forum, not a pro-nazi or denier forum.

And as I've stated many times before, this decision is not open for discussion.

/Marcus
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... 3352#93352

Thank you for all your candor and honesty, Scott.
Scott's position has really never changed throughout his years of posting on the forum. Although Scott, who has a degree in History, has been familiar with Revisionists since about 1980 and was troubled by the Holocaust Faith since before the TV miniseries popularly coined the term in 1978, he really only got interested in the Denial catechism (or anti-Denial catechism) when Mr. Irving lost his case to Dr. Lipstadt in 2000. He had read her book and considered it anti-intellectual but not libelous.

Hope that helps.
:)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#47

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Oct 2003, 19:28

Sulla the Dictator wrote:Heinrich Himmler
Posen

Propoganda?
Himmler or the propaganda of the IMT? We have had a discussion on the authenticity of the Posen speech many times before on the forum. I don't know.
:)


Sulla the Dictator
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Nov 2002, 03:24
Location: Las Vegas/Rome

#48

Post by Sulla the Dictator » 05 Oct 2003, 19:31

Scott Smith wrote:
Sulla the Dictator wrote:Heinrich Himmler
Posen

Propoganda?
Himmler or the propaganda of the IMT? We have had a discussion on the authenticity of the Posen speech many times before on the forum. I don't know.
:)
Since there are, I believe, audio recordings of the Posen speech, how can you debate the authenticity of it?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#49

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Oct 2003, 19:35

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:I've denied homicidal gas-vans and diesel gas-chambers, and I'm skeptical of other homicidal gas-chambers and a general Nazi extermination policy, but I have not "consistently denied that there were any Nazi atrocities during WWII." In wartime there are always atrocities and brutality, even--surprise!--from the Allied camp.
Scott, you must forgive me for being imprecise in my phrasing but I think that my general meaning was clear. Saying that the war record of the Allies can even begin to compare with the Nazi genocide is the moral equivalent of saying that there were no atrocities at all. Anyone who would say such a thing is either wilfully dissembling, or has no moral judgement whatsoever.
I don't think that I have "equated" anything. One person's misfortune is often another's hurray. And in any case, who but the proverbial Supreme Being can weigh pounds of flesh, something that I certainly try not to do since I am not omniscient. It is Genocide (or whatever label you care to use) when it happens to you. I merely have spoken up for German interests and I value immensely the few times when German veterans and patriots have thanked me, a cornfed American, for my humble efforts.
R.M. Schultz wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
R.M. Schultz wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Occupation and economic exploitation is considered an atrocity in-and-of itself by the German Left.
Since when are you a leftist?
I tend to be pretty liberal but I'm not really a Leftist and I certainly don't agree with the German Left …
So then what exactly is the point of your citing an argument of German Leftists as if it were your own? Could it be than you are incapable of making moral arguments on your own?
I don't see how one can have any kind of moral grounding without comparative perspective. This is much more than viewpoint.
:)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#50

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Oct 2003, 19:43

Sulla the Dictator wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Sulla the Dictator wrote:Heinrich Himmler
Posen

Propoganda?
Himmler or the propaganda of the IMT? We have had a discussion on the authenticity of the Posen speech many times before on the forum. I don't know.
:)
Since there are, I believe, audio recordings of the Posen speech, how can you debate the authenticity of it?
That is the point. We have only snippets and no way to authenticate that Himmler spoke the words and not some Hollywood actor for the IMT. In a real trial this "evidence" would not have been admitted on account of authenticity. It was a three-hour speech recorded on tape. What we have was an analog disk which was allegedly found in Rosenberg's office after his execution. SS-Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger, who was present for the speech, said it didn't sound like Himmler and denied that the speech had anything to do with extermination.

So what historians need to do is find the phonograph disk (not to mention the other phonograph disks with the rest of the speech) and compare the voice electronically with any other samples of Himmler's voice on newsreels, and see whether this can be confirmed as being his. Most of the speech is not available electronically, contrary to popular belief, just the smoking-gun part, which I have linked to many times on the forum. This is suspicious, especially given the motives of the IMT to lie outright and generate propaganda.

The bottom line is that even if genuine I wouldn't give the Posen speech too much credence. It is easy to take politicians' words out of context. And the Nazis were known for bellicose rhetoric as much as Democracy-Capitalist politicians are known for dissemblement.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 06 Oct 2003, 19:07, edited 1 time in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#51

Post by David Thompson » 05 Oct 2003, 21:09

For interested readers who would like to know more about Himmler's remarks at Posen, "Revisionist" historian Carlos Whitlock Porter has provided a contested translation of the full speech, at:

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

and

http://www.cwporter.com/posen.htm

For the Nizkor Project's translation of the same speech and related materials, see:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/him ... oct-04-43/

on the allegations that the voice is not Himmler's, see:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/edeiken-yale/

Sulla the Dictator
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 16 Nov 2002, 03:24
Location: Las Vegas/Rome

#52

Post by Sulla the Dictator » 05 Oct 2003, 21:09

Scott Smith wrote:
That is the point. We have only snippets and no way to authenticate that Himmler spoke the words and not some Hollywood actor for the IMT.
Well, since Himmler has made quite a few speeches and everyone accepts that it is his voice on the recording, I simply think that you are passing 'skepticism' into the realm of 'blind faith' if you don't accept the recording. Even David Irving, who is perhaps one of the most accomplished Holocaust Deniers out there, accepts the Posen speech as real.
In a real trial this "evidence" would not have been admitted on account of authenticity. It was a three-hour speech recorded on tape.
So now audio recordings arn't 'real evidence'?

Were the Nixon tapes also made in a Hollywood studios?
What we have was an analog disk which was allegedly found in Rosenberg's office after his execution. SS-Obergruppenführer Gottlob Berger, who was present for the speech, said it didn't sound like Himmler and denied that the speech had anything to do with extermination.
Really? I'd like to see that testimony. I've never heard anyone deny the authenticity of the Posen speech....especially without any evidence. To quote David Irving in a discussion with Michael Shermer:

I have a later speech he made on January 26, 1944, in which he is speaking to the same audience rather more bluntly about the ausrotten of Germany's Jews, when he announced that they had totally solved the Jewish problem. Most of the listeners sprang to their feet and applauded. "We were all there in Poznan," recalled a Rear Admiral, when that man [Himmler] told us how he'd killed off the Jews. I can still recall precisely how he told us. "If people ask me," said Himmler, "why did you have to kill the children too, then I can only say I am not such a coward that I leave for my children something I can do myself." Quite interesting--this is an Admiral afterwards recording this in British captivity without realizing he was being tape recorded, which is a very good summary of what Himmler actually said.

So what historians need to do is find the phonograph disk and compare the voice electronically with any other samples of Himmler's voice on newsreels or whether that can be confirmed as being his.
Well, why don't you ask the IHR to do that? It seems strange to me that Carlos Porter, et al accept that the speech is authentic but you do not.
Most of the speech is not available electronically, contrary to popular belief, just the smoking-gun part, which I have linked to many times on the forum. This is suspicious, especially given the motives of the IMT to lie outright and generate propaganda.
Why is it suspicious? The audio recordings are put online to debunk Holocaust Deniers. The relevant portions to that issue are what are of interest and what are posted. Who is interested in Himmler listing the virtues of the SS ranker?
The bottom line is that even if genuine I wouldn't give the Posen speech too much credence. It is easy to take politicians' words out of context.
Except that the context is right there:

In 1941 the Fuehrer attacked Russia. That was, as we can well see now, shortly,-perhaps 3 to 6 months-before Stalin prepared to embark on his great penetration into Central and Western Europe. I can give a picture of this first year in a few words. The attacking forces cut their way through. The Russian Army was herded together in great pockets, ground down, taken prisoner. At that time we did not value the mass of humanity as we value it today, as raw material, as labour. What after all, thinking in terms of generations, is not to be regretted, but is now deplorable by reason of the loss of labour, is that the prisoners died in tens and hundreds of thousands of exhaustion and hunger [p. 3]

It is basically wrong for us to infuse all our inoffensive soul and spirit, our good-nature, and our idealism into foreign peoples [p. 22]. This is true since the time of Herder who clearly wrote "Voices of the Nations" [Stimmen der Voelker], in a state of drunkenness, thereby bringing [p. 23] on us, who come after him, such immeasurable sorrow and misery. This is true for instance, of the Czechs and the Slovenes to whom we gave their consciousness of nationality. They were just not capable of it themselves; we had to discover it for them.

One basic principle must be the absolute rule for the SS man: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else. What happens to a Russian, to a Czech does not interest me in the slightest. What the nations can offer in the way of good blood of our type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping their children and raising them here with us. Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death [verrecken-to die-used of cattle] interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our Kultur; otherwise, it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who [p. 24] are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude towards animals, will also assume a decent attitude towards these human animals. But it is a crime against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and grandsons to have a more difficult time with them. When somebody comes to me and says, "I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill them," then I have to say, "You are a murderer of your own blood because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and they are sons of German mothers. They are our own blood." That is what I want to instil into the SS and what I believe have instilled into them as one of the most sacred laws of the future, Our concern, our duty is our people and our blood. It is for them that we must provide and plan, work and fight, nothing else.


http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/SS2.htm
and the Nazis were know for bellicose rhetoric as much as Democracy-Capitalist politicians are known for dissemblement.
:)
I prefer rambling to the foaming-at-the-mouth threats of the Reich leadership.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#53

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Oct 2003, 23:56

Sulla the Dictator wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: That is the point. We have only snippets and no way to authenticate that Himmler spoke the words and not some Hollywood actor for the IMT.
Well, since Himmler has made quite a few speeches and everyone accepts that it is his voice on the recording, I simply think that you are passing 'skepticism' into the realm of 'blind faith' if you don't accept the recording. Even David Irving, who is perhaps one of the most accomplished Holocaust Deniers out there, accepts the Posen speech as real.
I could care less. When I have seen electronic evidence from professional sources comparing Himmler's voice on the Posen phonograph record with samples of his voice from newsreels, for instance, then I'll believe it.

Until then, this smoking-gun is too good for the Holocaust Industry to be true. However, I never said it wasn't genuine; and besides, I am not too impressed by the rhetoric anyway. Change the context a little and "Himmler" might have been some doltish Allied official blandly talking about swatting Japs like locust.
In a real trial this "evidence" would not have been admitted on account of authenticity. It was a three-hour speech recorded on tape.
So now audio recordings arn't 'real evidence'?
All evidence accepted by a real court is subject to certain procedures to determine authenticity. One cannot simply show-up with some goods and call it "evidence" for any real court.
Were the Nixon tapes also made in a Hollywood studios?
Nixon never contested their authenticity (and he is the primary source) and some of the individuals on the tape were available to confirm this. Like I said, Rosenberg had already been executed so he was not available to tell the court (if you can legitimately call the IMT a court) to confirm where the evidence came from. Actually, I think this was the AMT in the Pohl case but you get the idea. And nothing was presented to determine the chain-of-evidence so far as I know other than perhaps some military signatures which are typically unreadable.

For example, I recently obtained the documents from the National Archives on the Human Soap claims from the IMT that were submitted by Colonel Smirnov as USSR exhibits--what you would call evidence, and what I would call hearsay. For the first time even the Neely and Witton affidavits are now online at this site--which Nizkor says corroborate the Mazur affidavit, the smoking-gun of Human Soap--so now anyone can judge this for themselves. Anyway, Smirnov gave the court a recipe and three affidavits and said the Nazis were making Human Soap and presented something (USSR-393) looking like homemade soap, which nobody tested and nobody can seem to find to test today. The newsmedia to this day has interpreted this to mean that the Nazis were making Human Soap out of Jews. When questioned on evidence it always goes back to the IMT "evidence," just postwar Greuelpropaganda for wide broadcast. None of this crap would have even been submitted to a real court without sufficient foundation, and nobody was ever charged for this "crime." A notarized affidiavit will not even be admitted in a small claims court over a used-car dispute because the person is not available for cross-examination.
So what historians need to do is find the phonograph disk and compare the voice electronically with any other samples of Himmler's voice on newsreels or whether that can be confirmed as being his.
Well, why don't you ask the IHR to do that? It seems strange to me that Carlos Porter, et al accept that the speech is authentic but you do not.
Why is the IHR and CWP the authority? If the Holocaust Industry can prove electronically that their snippet is Himmler's voice I will believe it. I still find it no more a smoking-gun than newsreels now mostly in the Memory Hole talking about smoking the Japs out like vermin.
Ernie Pyle wrote: In Europe, we felt that our enemies, horrible and deadly as they were, were still people. But out here I soon gathered that the Japanese were looked upon as something subhuman or repulsive; the way some people feel about cockroaches or mice.
Most of the speech is not available electronically, contrary to popular belief, just the smoking-gun part, which I have linked to many times on the forum. This is suspicious, especially given the motives of the IMT to lie outright and generate propaganda.
Why is it suspicious? The audio recordings are put online to debunk Holocaust Deniers. The relevant portions to that issue are what are of interest and what are posted. Who is interested in Himmler listing the virtues of the SS ranker?
It is not suspicious because it is partially online but because it purports to be a smoking-gun. It debunks nothing. Yes, the Nazis hated Jews. I see the light. Big deal. The working class WWII generation that I grew up with and remember quite well hated Japs worse than lice over Pearl Harbor. When I was growing up, WWII was only as far removed as the TV miniseries Holocaust is today, and I remember the personalities that lived WWII and their attitudes very well.
The bottom line is that even if genuine I wouldn't give the Posen speech too much credence. It is easy to take politicians' words out of context.
Except that the context is right there:

In 1941 the Fuehrer attacked Russia. That was, as we can well see now, shortly,-perhaps 3 to 6 months-before Stalin prepared to embark on his great penetration into Central and Western Europe. I can give a picture of this first year in a few words. The attacking forces cut their way through. The Russian Army was herded together in great pockets, ground down, taken prisoner. At that time we did not value the mass of humanity as we value it today, as raw material, as labour. What after all, thinking in terms of generations, is not to be regretted, but is now deplorable by reason of the loss of labour, is that the prisoners died in tens and hundreds of thousands of exhaustion and hunger [p. 3]

It is basically wrong for us to infuse all our inoffensive soul and spirit, our good-nature, and our idealism into foreign peoples [p. 22]. This is true since the time of Herder who clearly wrote "Voices of the Nations" [Stimmen der Voelker], in a state of drunkenness, thereby bringing [p. 23] on us, who come after him, such immeasurable sorrow and misery. This is true for instance, of the Czechs and the Slovenes to whom we gave their consciousness of nationality. They were just not capable of it themselves; we had to discover it for them.

One basic principle must be the absolute rule for the SS man: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else. What happens to a Russian, to a Czech does not interest me in the slightest. What the nations can offer in the way of good blood of our type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping their children and raising them here with us. Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death [verrecken-to die-used of cattle] interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our Kultur; otherwise, it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who [p. 24] are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude towards animals, will also assume a decent attitude towards these human animals. But it is a crime against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and grandsons to have a more difficult time with them. When somebody comes to me and says, "I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill them," then I have to say, "You are a murderer of your own blood because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and they are sons of German mothers. They are our own blood." That is what I want to instil into the SS and what I believe have instilled into them as one of the most sacred laws of the future, Our concern, our duty is our people and our blood. It is for them that we must provide and plan, work and fight, nothing else.


http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/SS2.htm
So what? I have read the text of Himmler's Posen speech from the IMT colored "Seuss" books. I'm not sure why it would take Himmler three-hours to read what the IMT preserved; it looked like one phonograph disk's worth to me, most of which was boring. Nevertheless, I was not particularly shocked by the laughably short snippet of rhetoric. Big deal. War is brutal. Why is this a surprise?
and the Nazis were know for bellicose rhetoric as much as Democracy-Capitalist politicians are known for dissemblement.
I prefer rambling to the foaming-at-the-mouth threats of the Reich leadership.
Increasingly, modern politicians are finding they get more stock out of threats and self-righteous piety than mealy deceit. I'm not sure this is a good trend though because at least intellectuals could read between the lines and this counted for something. But how do you argue with "I'm Proud to be an American" or any other flag-waving that conditions people for going on Crusade? Nowadays we don't even have to declare war to have our war, and they are over with before the people even have time to get bored as they did with Vietnam.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 06 Oct 2003, 19:17, edited 4 times in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#54

Post by David Thompson » 06 Oct 2003, 09:38

The posts on the US role in the defeat of Germany in 1918 have been moved to the WWI section of the forum, at:

US and the German defeat in 1918
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=33190

User avatar
von Klinkenhoffen
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: 02 Nov 2002, 14:38
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria
Contact:

...

#55

Post by von Klinkenhoffen » 07 Oct 2003, 13:31

So what is the idea for starting the whole Thread? "Not the Nazis did the crimes, the Germans did, all of them..."

So, what - shoot all the Germans???? :lol:

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#56

Post by David Thompson » 07 Oct 2003, 17:45

von Klinkenhoffen -- As far as I can see, the purpose in starting the thread was to redefine the term "Nazi crimes" in such a way as to diffuse or eliminate Nazi responsibility.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#57

Post by Scott Smith » 07 Oct 2003, 17:53

And whether German or Nazi, there is never any Allied responsibility for the situation or the conflict.
:)

User avatar
R.M. Schultz
Member
Posts: 3062
Joined: 05 Feb 2003, 04:44
Location: Chicago
Contact:

#58

Post by R.M. Schultz » 07 Oct 2003, 19:00

Scott Smith wrote:And whether German or Nazi, there is never any Allied responsibility for the situation or the conflict.
No one is trying to deny that war is a messy business, or that there were not excesses on both sides, or that strategic bombing is morally questionable, yet we must recognize that Nazi guilt far out-strips any Allied short-comings for several reasons:

1] The Nazis embarked upon a war of aggression.

2] The Nazi occupation policies were barbaric.

3] The Nazi program was one of genocide.

None of this can be said of the Allies.

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

Himmler Poet

#59

Post by chalutzim » 07 Oct 2003, 19:52

Scott Smith wrote:(...) When I have seen electronic evidence from professional sources comparing Himmler's voice on the Posen phonograph record with samples of his voice from newsreels, for instance, then I'll believe it.
In short: he will never believe it.
Scott Smith wrote:Until then, this smoking-gun is too good for the Holocaust Industry to be true.
Holocaust Industry? Image

Scott Smith wrote:However, I never said it wasn't genuine.
What? After all you just have said, what difference does it make if you believe it or not? More important: who cares?
Scott Smith wrote:and besides, I am not too impressed by the rhetoric anyway.
He deems Hitler's and Goebbels' poetry far better. Himmler sometimes was very sentimental. One time, during one of his recitals, he had to be carried after he almost fainted.
In August 1941, during his visit to Minsk in German-occupied Russia, Heinrich Himmler told Artur Nebe, the commander of Einsatzgruppe B, that he wanted to watch a liquidation up close to see what it was like. So Nebe ordered his men to round up about 100 Jews. As the shooting proceeded, Himmler became uneasy, dropping his eyes after each volley. After the liquidation was over, SS Obergruppenfuhrer von dem Bach-Zelewski, who had also been present, said to Himmler, "Look at the eyes of the men in this Kommando, how deeply shaken they are! These men are finished for the rest of their lives. What kind of followers are we training here? Either neurotics or savages!"

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#60

Post by Scott Smith » 07 Oct 2003, 21:18

R.M. Schultz wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:And whether German or Nazi, there is never any Allied responsibility for the situation or the conflict.
No one is trying to deny that war is a messy business, or that there were not excesses on both sides, or that strategic bombing is morally questionable, yet we must recognize that Nazi guilt far out-strips any Allied short-comings for several reasons:

1] The Nazis embarked upon a war of aggression.
No, the Allies embarked on a world war to contain Germany and to keep her people in serfdom to the hostile international finance market they cornered, which they like to call free trade
2] The Nazi occupation policies were barbaric.
Not in countries that offerred no resistance and tried to be neutral in mind and not mere words, and not where the people and the occupation troops were not endangered by the war itself.
3] The Nazi program was one of genocide.
Kremasausage! Er, I mean "Horseshit."
None of this can be said of the Allies.
Anglo-Saxons make the best propagandists and the New World Order was not forged overnight.
:)

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”