Nuremburg Trials....Incomplete Justice?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#76

Post by Roberto » 08 Jul 2002, 18:06

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Right, it is always "collateral damage." The U.S. has never openly announced that it was bombing to kill civilians anyway; this is always dissembled somewhat. In WWII, we were doing "pinpoint daylight raids on military targets" (even if they happened to be in the middle of town) or "raids on cottage military industry" in Japan, and so on.
Any evidence that the actual purpose in those cases was to kill civilians, or is that just Smith’s irrelevant personal opinion?
Scott Smith wrote:The Cherwell Report, a WWII British state secret that was disclosed probably as an anti-American measure during the unpopular Vietnam War, determined that the psychological pressure on civilians or "workers" was greater if his own home, which represented a lifetime's investment, was destroyed than if his neighbor was even killed, so efforts were made to "dehouse" the enemy population. Psychological pressure could be applied despite the population evacuating into the bombshelter.

Is it too much to assume that Mr. Roberto is well-read enough on the "Peace Is Our Profession" subject to know this?
So they wanted to kill civilians in order to put pressure on their governments to end the war.

And I thought that Smith would show us that they wanted to kill civilians in order to get rid of those civilians for whatever reason, which alone would justify a comparison with genocide and mass murder such as perpetrated by the Nazis …

Angelo V
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 24 Apr 2002, 05:51
Location: Italy

#77

Post by Angelo V » 09 Jul 2002, 04:24

Caldric wrote:Actually it was from this thread and Robert Zellers post:
Well with the exception of Germany and Japan, all the other war criminals "Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, Truman, Nimitz, ect" some key examples, were ignored, so it was more just that Nazi's were'nt killed, imprisoned as long, ect, it's not like even if they had been, justice would've been done with those show trials.
So there is the one stating they are criminals. It is not surprising to see it though, defense of the Reich requires the defimation of the enemy correct. If you make the allies look bad enough, then the crimes of Germany look somewhat more justifyed.

"Well the Nazi's are not bad because look these are crimnal's to."


However, now I will get the "We seek the Truth speech".
Tha's an interesting point, Caldric and though your post was not specifically addressed to me, I thought it needed an answer as I stated that the incendiary bombings on Japan, as well as its final nuking are, in my opinion, war crimes as many others committed by the Axis, Soviets and the more the worse :(

Your worrying about people equating all crimes committed by one side with those which had been perpetrated by the other is out of place.
The moment it happens, it simply means the one who does it has no intention to honor the truth but just make a cauldron of everything and avoid any effort to study the matter and come to an objective conclusion.
If my posts have given such an impression that means I failed to convey my thoughts the way I wanted.

Let's see.
I'm convinced that the much too often and clearly boasted Nazi willingness to first earmark Jews so that they could be "legally" harrassed, deprived of the most elementary basic rights, spoiled of their properties and subsequently ghettoized in such miserable conditions to actually start their physical ever worsening weakening and finally destroy them through slave labor, beatings, medical experiments, gassings, hanging, shooting, and any other method that came in handy to reach the goal of getting Nazi-occupied territories free from any Jewish presence - Judenfrei - was a crime of the worst kind man has ever had to go through.
The same can be said of the genocidal policies they enforced against the Slavs (Poles, Russians etc.)

I'm convinced too that nuking 1, 2 or eventually a half or 3 or any other pleasant number or fraction thereof of towns, cities, villages, thus deliberately causing the sure death of a huge percentile number of civilians dwelling there is another crime among the worst man could ever devise to bring sufference to other men, in this case innocent (unless proved guilty after being reduced to corpses, permanently or temporarily disabled, etc.)

Now, can I say that the latter is not a crime if compared to the former ?
I guess even a child would say "no".

So, once accepted that both are crimes, and very grave too at that, let's see what kind of relation exist between the two.

1) The genocide of the Jews.
What were the motivations ? Very simply, that the Jews, as a race and society, were responsible of the progressive decay of all values belonging to a non-Jewish, Aryan community. They were perceived and considered as an abominable "monkey copy" of the real man, but actually the worst enemies of all that was and is effectively human. They were corruptors of souls and bodies, parasites of any society they nestled in, money-thirsty throatcutters always ready to plot any kind of bribery, blackmailing when not outright stealing somebody else's riches in order to get that supremacy
that through finances and economy, gave them free access to dominating ever increasing portions of the hosting community up to such community's death by the constant bleeding they caused to it. They also were depicted as incurable corruptors of the ethics of the hosting nation by inspiring a philosophy of immoral ways of life centered on a libertarian attitude in sex relations, a lazy and nonchalant attitude in working environments and what was worse, the proliferation of lying on almost all aspects of life as a way to alienate the hosting state's citizens from their own cultural and traditional ties.
Given such a picture, one can understand that even babies had to eliminated, if only for the fact that they would have been carrying their immoral seeds all their life and as such would have been a sort of walking mines ready to explode, sooner or later, and starting again to infect the society they had been living in.

Thus, we may and should emphasize that far from any stupid, grotesque and unacceptable explanation that all such motivations were just mere and innocuous propaganda which was not believed by even those who gave their minds to build it up, that was the disgusting design of a group of men who decided who had the right to chose who should have been called a man and who had to be considered nothing more than an animal that could be slaughtered after exploiting it to its last drop of blood.
Such a design is already a crime before its practical perpetration.
It is a crime in that it holds a given party authorized to degrade a portion of mankind to beast status, just in principle, basing on its own unquestionable right to rule over the consciences and lives of millions of people as the possessor of the truth. That's the THOUGHTCRIME par excellence and that's the active, living root to the consequential MATERIAL CRIME that was so carefully and almost perfectly (given the times, resources and perversion) perpetrated.

Methodology: we have just hinted to it and chances are a number of methods won't ever be known simply because they were not among those which graduated to the most frequently used category that is starving, shooting and gassing. But if we just think about the many witnessed and duly testified accounts of the various ways adopted to torture a man before its last and couple them with the cold-blooded shot in the head in front of a grave dug up by the victims, it doesn't take a psychiatric specialist to realize how masters they were in cruelty of all kinds. This is so true that many have wondered whether such people could be considered "normal" or "sick". My answer is simple: they knew what they were doing, many of them were there just because they knew and wanted it to happen and others would simply take a good chance knowing that "Lady Luck" doesn't usually show up twice on your path. Very normal, very criminal, very mannish, very useful and very immoral. They are even today the "heroes" of some degenerate kind of men who couldn't live if they hadn't the "ewige Jude" (eternal Jew) bias to hang to and thus justify their thirst of blood. It doesn't matter who takes the place of the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc., all that matter is to have someone to depict as inferior, as unworthy the qualification of man knowing that once you have deprived him of that dignity, you can just do whatever you want and you'll be even blessed for that.

So, can we say that the alleged and, after all, "reasonable" motivations for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just as perverted and unsustainable as those proposed by the Nazi perpetrators for their crimes ?
I feel no effort needed to answer in the negative. First, it was not arranged from the start, second, it did not intend to destroy an entire people, third, it had been anticipated by a number of warnings to the Japs so that they knew what was boiling, fourth, those who materially dropped the bombs did not know all that was known only to the scientists and a few other in the administration, fifth, it is reasonable to think that, apart from the very grave implications concerning the post-nuking effects of radiations even on future generations, the actual damage and casualties suffered were not disproportionately higher than those that could have been caused by a series of traditional bombings.
The methodology was definitely inhuman and as such horrific in its consequences and yet, on the actuation level, it did not involve the same degree of acquiescence to cruelty as that, or better those which the Nazis used in their killing spree. In other words the individuals were not only "safe" from having their uniforms splattered with brain substance or their coscience put at such a hard task (at least for some of them) when having to kill babies, grannies and women, but also in the sense that the operation, though perceived as something absolutely "new" and terrifically powerful, was actually lived by the crew members as a bombing mission apparently not requesting any more psychic stress than it had been for all the conventional bombings that had been carried out till then.

And yet, I conclude, in my opinion it was a crime.
Should I change this so that some fellows who feel like touching the heavens with a finger when spitting their hate against the US could not take advantage of this to get their kicks ?
No, it would only be hypocritical and they'd get their kicks twice as good by adding to that we are distorting history whenever we don't like it. This would be too much. If their degree of maturity is such to get to conclusions which are not justified, it only goes to show I couldn't care less of their probably pre-conceived hatred, but a crime doesn't change to a good deed only because it may be instrumental to any fool's windmill.

Regards.


Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#78

Post by Erik » 11 Jul 2002, 19:44

To Mr Angelo V.

You have written a long and passionate exposure of the worst history ever told – the genocide of the Jews of Europe during WW2 – and made a conceptual(?) or ideological(?) comparison with the worst weapon ever used, the Atom bomb.

Can crimes be compared? Or the criminal “minds”? Can the way to hell paved by good intentions be less “crooked” than a way of evil?

Or will this lead to the following horrors?
Embellishing their idols, letting their CRIMES pass as acts anybody would have taken given the circumstances (when those CRIMES cannot be denied, distorted, diminished, transformed into acceptable deeds), that's their philosophy and all methods are good as long as the goal is reached.

(from Angelo V, on the thread “Slave Labor”, Fri Jun 28, 2002 3:37 am).

Perhaps the following dearth will give us away?
One little thing is what apparently they lack: the ability to twist words so that their counterpart won't notice it, the knowledge of those basics of language and its use to prevent them from showing what they are out to: counterfeiting reality as it had been evidenced by pretty fair trials with tons of testimonies, to serve, just as only slaves would do, their shown agenda.
(op cit)

Let's see.
I'm convinced that the much too often and clearly boasted Nazi willingness to first earmark Jews so that they could be "legally" harrassed, deprived of the most elementary basic rights, spoiled of their properties and subsequently ghettoized in such miserable conditions to actually start their physical ever worsening weakening and finally destroy them through slave labor, beatings, medical experiments, gassings, hanging, shooting, and any other method that came in handy to reach the goal of getting Nazi-occupied territories free from any Jewish presence - Judenfrei - was a crime of the worst kind man has ever had to go through.
But, in the next sentence:
The same can be said of the genocidal policies they enforced against the Slavs (Poles, Russians etc.)
The same?
I'm convinced too that nuking 1, 2 or eventually a half or 3 or any other pleasant number or fraction thereof of towns, cities, villages, thus deliberately causing the sure death of a huge percentile number of civilians dwelling there is another crime among the worst man could ever devise to bring sufference to other men, in this case innocent (unless proved guilty after being reduced to corpses, permanently or temporarily disabled, etc.)
“…among the worst…!” “Along” with the Holocaust?

“… in this case innocent..” Are there other cases? Not so “innocent”?
Now, can I say that the latter is not a crime if compared to the former ?
I guess even a child would say "no".
Would a child say :”no, it’s not a crime compared to the former”?
So, once accepted that both are crimes, and very grave too at that, let's see what kind of relation exist between the two.
Would a child say “yes” then?
1) The genocide of the Jews.
What were the motivations ? Very simply, that the Jews, as a race and society, were responsible of the progressive decay of all values belonging to a non-Jewish, Aryan community. They were perceived and considered as an abominable "monkey copy" of the real man, but actually the worst enemies of all that was and is effectively human. They were corruptors of souls and bodies, parasites of any society they nestled in, money-thirsty throatcutters always ready to plot any kind of bribery, blackmailing when not outright stealing somebody else's riches in order to get that supremacy
that through finances and economy, gave them free access to dominating ever increasing portions of the hosting community up to such community's death by the constant bleeding they caused to it. They also were depicted as incurable corruptors of the ethics of the hosting nation by inspiring a philosophy of immoral ways of life centered on a libertarian attitude in sex relations, a lazy and nonchalant attitude in working environments and what was worse, the proliferation of lying on almost all aspects of life as a way to alienate the hosting state's citizens from their own cultural and traditional ties.
Given such a picture, one can understand that even babies had to eliminated, if only for the fact that they would have been carrying their immoral seeds all their life and as such would have been a sort of walking mines ready to explode, sooner or later, and starting again to infect the society they had been living in.
Has an enemy ever been described otherwise? Spartans vsv Athenians? Israelites vsv Canaanites? Romans vsv Greeks?

The fear of “modernization” of any society creates scape-goats. The Jews are as traditional as modernizers as they are as scape-goats. This also means that they have been a traditional target for Genocides.
Der Vernichtungsprozess der Nazis kam nicht aus heiterem Himmel; es war der Höhepunkt einer zyklischen Entwicklung. Wir können diese Entwicklung in den drei aufeinanderfolgenden Zielsetzungen antijüdischer Amtswalter nachvollziehen. Die Missionare des Christentums erklärten einst : Ihr habt kein Recht, als Juden unter uns zu leben. Die nachfolgenden weltlichen Herrscher verkündeten : Ihr habt kein Recht, unter uns zu leben. Die deutschen Nazis schliesslich verfügten : Ihr habt kein Recht, zu leben.
(Raul Hilberg: “Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden”, sid 15).

>>The extermination process of the Nazis came not out of the blue sky ; it was the zenith of a cyclical development. We can see this development fullfilled in the three subsequent goals of anti-jewish officials. The christian missionaires once declared : you have no right to live among us as Jews. The following worldly rulers proclaimed : you have no right to live among us. The German Nazis finally, ordained : you have no right to live.<< (my transl.)

A hundred years earlier Benjamin Disraeli wrote the following on this “development” :
“The attempt to extirpate them has been made under the most favourable auspices and on the largest scale; the most considerable means that man could command have been pertinaciously applied to this object for the longer period of recorded time.”
(Benjamin Disraeli, ”Lord George Bentinck : a Political Biography”(1852). Kap XXIV, ”The Jewish Question”.)

If Disraeli – and later Hilberg – are to be believed, the Nazi genocide of the European Jews was as much a part of a tradition as society itself.
Thus, we may and should emphasize that far from any stupid, grotesque and unacceptable explanation that all such motivations were just mere and innocuous propaganda which was not believed by even those who gave their minds to build it up, that was the disgusting design of a group of men who decided who had the right to chose who should have been called a man and who had to be considered nothing more than an animal that could be slaughtered after exploiting it to its last drop of blood.
Such a design is already a crime before its practical perpetration.
When was the crime designed?

The antisemites would probably have it designed when God chose His People.

Goldhagen dates it with Christianity.

The “practical perpetration” of this “right to chose who should have been called a man and who had to be considered nothing more than an animal that could be slaughtered after exploiting it to its last drop of blood” can rightly be called the traditional Crime of History. We are all the inheritors of “successful perpetrators”, whether we like it or not.
It is a crime in that it holds a given party authorized to degrade a portion of mankind to beast status, just in principle, basing on its own unquestionable right to rule over the consciences and lives of millions of people as the possessor of the truth. That's the THOUGHTCRIME par excellence and that's the active, living root to the consequential MATERIAL CRIME that was so carefully and almost perfectly (given the times, resources and perversion) perpetrated.
The remarkable thing about this traditional Crime of History is that it is a success and a failure at the same time! Society wouldn’t survive without it! If Americans hadn’t come to our rescue here in Europe and wiped out the Nazi monsterhood by declaring it inhuman and undignified to exist, and treated it accordingly, we would all be reduced to animals to be slaughtered.

If Americans hadn’t “upgraded” us by their “right to rule over the consciences and lives of millions of people as the possessor of truth”, we would all be “degraded” …”to beast status”, victims AND perpetrators.

This “THOUGHTCRIME par excellence” and its “consequential MATERIAL CRIME” must consequently be perpetrated perpetually lest we all fall victims to our own “designs” being perpetrated.

The success of this process makes sure that Goodness always prevail upon Evilness in the end, and that we truly can say that we live in the best of Worlds.

No matter how “carefully and almost perfectly(given the times, resources and perversion) perpetrated” the “thoughtcrime” and the “consequential material crime” were, History shows that it always counteracted by the victors, and thereby fails.

It could of course have been even better, if our criminal “designs” had been thwarted earlier in its development.

But that’s the way History goes.
Methodology: we have just hinted to it and chances are a number of methods won't ever be known simply because they were not among those which graduated to the most frequently used category that is starving, shooting and gassing. But if we just think about the many witnessed and duly testified accounts of the various ways adopted to torture a man before its last and couple them with the cold-blooded shot in the head in front of a grave dug up by the victims, it doesn't take a psychiatric specialist to realize how masters they were in cruelty of all kinds. This is so true that many have wondered whether such people could be considered "normal" or "sick". My answer is simple: they knew what they were doing, many of them were there just because they knew and wanted it to happen and others would simply take a good chance knowing that "Lady Luck" doesn't usually show up twice on your path. Very normal, very criminal, very mannish, very useful and very immoral. They are even today the "heroes" of some degenerate kind of men who couldn't live if they hadn't the "ewige Jude" (eternal Jew) bias to hang to and thus justify their thirst of blood. It doesn't matter who takes the place of the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc., all that matter is to have someone to depict as inferior, as unworthy the qualification of man knowing that once you have deprived him of that dignity, you can just do whatever you want and you'll be even blessed for that.
“We” and “they”…How have this enormous difference between “us” and those..”very normal, very criminal, very mannish, very useful and very immoral” perpetuaters come about?

How did “they” become such “masters”…” in cruelty of all kinds”, some “just hinted to it and chances are a number of methods won’t even be known simply because they were not among those which graduated to the most frequently used category that is starving, shooting and gassing.”

Who are “they”, those “very normal, very criminal, very mannish, very useful and very immoral”?

Perhaps “they” can be “perceived and considered as an abominable ‘monkey copy’ of the real man, but actually the worst enemies of all that was and is effectively human… corruptors of souls and bodies, parasites of any society they nestled in, money-thirsty throatcutters always ready to plot any kind of bribery, blackmailing when not outright stealing somebody else's riches in order to get that supremacy that through finances and economy, gave them free access to dominating ever increasing portions of the hosting community up to such community's death by the constant bleeding they caused to it.”

Presumably “they” can be nothing “less” than this!

And “they” can still be among us, “ only for the fact that they would have been carrying their immoral seeds all their life and as such would have been a sort of walking mines ready to explode, sooner or later, and starting again to infect the society they had been living in”.

“It doesn't matter who takes the place of the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc., all that matter is to have someone to depict as inferior, as unworthy the qualification of man knowing that once you have deprived him of that dignity, you can just do whatever you want and you'll be even blessed for that.”

“They” can’t be “Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc.”, since those people are the victims that are “depicted” as inhuman, inferior, as “unworthy the qualifications of man” at the moment by these monsters, who are ‘the "heroes" of some degenerate kind of men who couldn't live if they hadn't the "ewige Jude" (eternal Jew) bias to hang to and thus justify their thirst of blood’.

Maybe I am misconstructing and distorting the views and intentions of Mr Angelo V, or maybe I am suffering from the alleged revisionistic paranoia, but I detect a sort of argumentative circle in this description of the genocidal perpetrator – it seems like “the eternal Jew” is kinda slipping in thru the back door, so to speak.

How come that this “figure of thought” is so indispensable when you attempt to describe the personification of evil?

Is it an archetype that must be mobilized whenever we need to differentiate between “us” and “them”, emotionally?

We don’t expect cloven hoofs or a smell of sulphur anymore (“Very normal, very criminal, very mannish, very useful and very immoral”), but perhaps a refusal of an oath of allegiance to Received Opinion will serve as a substitute?

(“How come you ask?”)


So, can we say that the alleged and, after all, "reasonable" motivations for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just as perverted and unsustainable as those proposed by the Nazi perpetrators for their crimes ?
I feel no effort needed to answer in the negative. First, it was not arranged from the start, second, it did not intend to destroy an entire people, third, it had been anticipated by a number of warnings to the Japs so that they knew what was boiling, fourth, those who materially dropped the bombs did not know all that was known only to the scientists and a few other in the administration, fifth, it is reasonable to think that, apart from the very grave implications concerning the post-nuking effects of radiations even on future generations, the actual damage and casualties suffered were not disproportionately higher than those that could have been caused by a series of traditional bombings.
A genocide in the proper sense of the word must be

1)Arranged from the start

2)Be intended to destroy an entire people

3)Unanticipated by warnings

4)The perpertrators must be aware of their “mission”

5)The actual damage and causalties must be disproportionally higher than those of “normal” warfare

How many genocides have there been in recorded history, according to these criteria?


The methodology was definitely inhuman and as such horrific in its consequences and yet, on the actuation level, it did not involve the same degree of acquiescence to cruelty as that, or better those which the Nazis used in their killing spree. In other words the individuals were not only "safe" from having their uniforms splattered with brain substance or their coscience put at such a hard task (at least for some of them) when having to kill babies, grannies and women, but also in the sense that the operation, though perceived as something absolutely "new" and terrifically powerful, was actually lived by the crew members as a bombing mission apparently not requesting any more psychic stress than it had been for all the conventional bombings that had been carried out till then.
And yet, I conclude, in my opinion it was a crime.
Is it your humanity and compassion that dictates this “yet” crime? You look further than to the feelings and tribulations of the perpetrators? The clinical aspect of it looks different from the point of view of the victims?

Here is what Raul Hilberg has to say about the Nazi perpetrators :

[Quote from Täter, Opfer, Zuschauer (Fischer 1999).]
Jeder der Täter spielte für die Formulierungen und Durchführung der antijüdischen Massnahmen eine spezifische Rolle. Meist verstanden die Beteiligten ihre Aufgabe von selbst, schrieben sie ihrer jeweiligen Stellung und ihre Pflichten zu. Ihr Tun war unpersönlich. Sie waren “ermächtigt” oder “angewiesen”, ihre Mission auszuführen. Zudem war kein Einzelner, keine Behörde allein für die Vernichtung der Juden verantwortlich. Es gab keinen Sonderhaushalt für das Projekt. Die Arbeit verteilte sich auf eine weitverzweigte Bürokratie, und jeder konnte sich einreden, nur ein Rädchen im immensen Getriebe zu sein. Daher bezeichneten sich Beamte, Schreiber oder uniformierte Wachmänner im nachhinein nie als Täter. Allerdings wussten sie, dass die Teilnahme an der Vernichtung freiwillig war und dass jeder, der in den Mahlstom eintrat, unauslöschliche Taten beging – in diesem Sinne also immer bleiben würde, was er einmal war, sogar wenn er eisern über sein Tun schwieg.
Der Täter per excellence war Adolf Hitler selber.(
Vorwort s.9)

>>Every perpetrator had a special role in the formulation and execution of the anti-jewish measures. The participators understood their task on their own accord, ascribed it to their present position and duty. Their action was impersonal. They were “authorized” or “assigned”, to fulfill their mission. Moreover, no individual, no agency was alone responsible for the extermination of the Jews. There was no special budget for the project. The work was shared by a bureaucracy with many ramifications, and every branch could persuade itself that it was only a cog in the machinery. Therefore did the civil servant, clerk or guard never afterwards designate himself as a perpetrator. All the same they all knew, that the participation in the extermination was voluntary, and that everybody who entered the maelstrom committed indelible actions – thus in this sense always would be what he once was, even if he kept a resolute silence about his actions.

The perpetrator per excellence was Adolf Hitler himself.<<
(Foreword side 9)(my translation, and emphasis)

Are those bureaucratic writing desk exterminators of Nazi Germany to be differentiated from the atomic physicists of the Los Alamos project? The End justified the Means in the latter case?
Should I change this so that some fellows who feel like touching the heavens with a finger when spitting their hate against the US could not take advantage of this to get their kicks ?
No, it would only be hypocritical and they'd get their kicks twice as good by adding to that we are distorting history whenever we don't like it. This would be too much. If their degree of maturity is such to get to conclusions which are not justified, it only goes to show I couldn't care less of their probably pre-conceived hatred, but a crime doesn't change to a good deed only because it may be instrumental to any fool's windmill.


Is every loop-hole covered up by this last paragraph? Real History (à la Lipstadt) prevails? The excommunications rightly distributed, the Holy Water of its Theodicy sprinkled on the Preservers?

Perhaps “this would be too much”?

Perhaps we have witnessed the following?
Embellishing their idols, letting their CRIMES pass as acts anybody would have taken given the circumstances (when those CRIMES cannot be denied, distorted, diminished, transformed into acceptable deeds), that's their philosophy and all methods are good as long as the goal is reached.

(from Angelo V, on the thread “Slave Labor”, Fri Jun 28, 2002 3:37 am).

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”