Bismarck's use of "ausrotten"

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8792
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Bismarck's use of "ausrotten"

Post by michael mills » 19 Apr 2002 14:23

In the thread "What is the German for 'uprooting'", Mr Muehlenkamp asked me:

Interesting. What exactly did Bismarck say? It would seem that he spoke of "Ausrottung" of the problem related to there being Poles in the Posen Province rather than of the Ausrottung of the Posen Poles.
Am I right?


I have now found the passage in which Bismarck used the word "ausrotten" in relation to Poles. It occurs in a letter of 26 March 1861 to his sister Malwine, written from St Petersburg where Bismarck was Prussian Ambassador. The letter is found on page 568 of "Gesammelte Werke", XIV/I, and is quoted in Hans Rothfels, "Bismarck, der Osten und das Reich", p. 75. The passage reads:

<<Haut doch die Polen, dass sie am Leben verzagen. Ich habe alles Mitgefuehl fuer ihre Lage, aber wir koennen, wenn wir bestehn wollen, nichts andres thun, als sie AUSROTTEN; der Wolf kann nicht dafuer, dass er von Gott geschaffen ist, wie er ist, und man schiesst ihn doch dafuer todt, wenn man kann.>>

Here Bismarck definitely seems to be speaking about violent action ("hauen") directed against Poles rather than about elimination of the "Polish problem". The analogy with killing wolves is eerily similar to what Hitler said to Horthy at their Klessheim meeting in 1943.

An attempt at explaining Bismarck's words was made by William Hagen in his "Germans, Poles and Jews: The nationality Conflict in the Prussian East, 1772-1914", on page 125. Hagen writes:

In his political practice, he remained faithful to the sentiments he expressed in a letter to his sister written in 1861, while Prussian ambassador to Russia: "Flay the Poles until they despair of life! I have all sympathy for their position, but if we wish to endure, we can do nothing else but extirpate them". Bismarck meant that the Poles should be deprived of all national autonomy and forced to accept citizenship under the partitioning governments, not physically destroyed. Yet he concluded this passage with the sanguinary remark: "It is not the wolf's fault that God created him as he is, but nevertheless we kill him whenever we can".


Hagen has interpreted Bismarck's use of the word "ausrotten" in a non-homicidal way, in contrast to the usual interpretation of the use of that word by Hitler and Himmler. But that might be because there was no physical destruction of Poles when Bismarck was in power.

Davey Boy
Member
Posts: 1504
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:51
Location: Australia

Re: Bismarck's use of "ausrotten"

Post by Davey Boy » 19 Apr 2002 15:04

michael mills wrote:In the thread "What is the German for 'uprooting'", Mr Muehlenkamp asked me:

Interesting. What exactly did Bismarck say? It would seem that he spoke of "Ausrottung" of the problem related to there being Poles in the Posen Province rather than of the Ausrottung of the Posen Poles.
Am I right?


I have now found the passage in which Bismarck used the word "ausrotten" in relation to Poles. It occurs in a letter of 26 March 1861 to his sister Malwine, written from St Petersburg where Bismarck was Prussian Ambassador. The letter is found on page 568 of "Gesammelte Werke", XIV/I, and is quoted in Hans Rothfels, "Bismarck, der Osten und das Reich", p. 75. The passage reads:

<<Haut doch die Polen, dass sie am Leben verzagen. Ich habe alles Mitgefuehl fuer ihre Lage, aber wir koennen, wenn wir bestehn wollen, nichts andres thun, als sie AUSROTTEN; der Wolf kann nicht dafuer, dass er von Gott geschaffen ist, wie er ist, und man schiesst ihn doch dafuer todt, wenn man kann.>>

Here Bismarck definitely seems to be speaking about violent action ("hauen") directed against Poles rather than about elimination of the "Polish problem". The analogy with killing wolves is eerily similar to what Hitler said to Horthy at their Klessheim meeting in 1943.

An attempt at explaining Bismarck's words was made by William Hagen in his "Germans, Poles and Jews: The nationality Conflict in the Prussian East, 1772-1914", on page 125. Hagen writes:

In his political practice, he remained faithful to the sentiments he expressed in a letter to his sister written in 1861, while Prussian ambassador to Russia: "Flay the Poles until they despair of life! I have all sympathy for their position, but if we wish to endure, we can do nothing else but extirpate them". Bismarck meant that the Poles should be deprived of all national autonomy and forced to accept citizenship under the partitioning governments, not physically destroyed. Yet he concluded this passage with the sanguinary remark: "It is not the wolf's fault that God created him as he is, but nevertheless we kill him whenever we can".


Hagen has interpreted Bismarck's use of the word "ausrotten" in a non-homicidal way, in contrast to the usual interpretation of the use of that word by Hitler and Himmler. But that might be because there was no physical destruction of Poles when Bismarck was in power.



Wolf, huh? I don't mind being compared to a wolf.

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck's use of "ausrotten"

Post by Hans » 19 Apr 2002 15:22

michael mills wrote:The analogy with killing wolves is eerily similar to what Hitler said to Horthy at their Klessheim meeting in 1943.


I've heard that according to the protocol of Hitler's, Horthy's and Ribbentrops second meating on 17 April 1943 at Kleßheim, Hitler stated that either Jews have to be exterminated (vernichtet) or else sent into concentrations camps. Horthy wrote exactly the same in his memoirs, Hitler told him:

"Juden müssen entweder vernichtet oder ins KZ gesteckt werden"

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8792
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 19 Apr 2002 15:39

I've heard that according to the protocol of Hitler's, Horthy's and Ribbentrops second meating on 17 April 1943 at Kleßheim, Hitler stated that either Jews have to be exterminated (vernichtet) or else sent into concentrations camps. Horthy wrote exactly the same in his memoirs, Hitler told him:

"Juden müssen entweder vernichtet oder ins KZ gesteckt werden"


What I had in mind was Hitler's statement that sometimes even innocent animals such as deer have to be killed when they cause damage, so why should greater consideration be given to the beasts who bring Bolshevism.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 19 Apr 2002 16:31

Thanks for the quote:

Haut doch die Polen, dass sie am Leben verzagen. Ich habe alles Mitgefuehl fuer ihre Lage, aber wir koennen, wenn wir bestehn wollen, nichts andres thun, als sie AUSROTTEN; der Wolf kann nicht dafuer, dass er von Gott geschaffen ist, wie er ist, und man schiesst ihn doch dafuer todt, wenn man kann.


An English translation might help our readers who don't understand German:

Let's beat the Poles until they despair of life. I have all pity for their situation, but we can do nothing else, if we want to subsist, than to EXTERMINATE them; the wolf cannot help having been made by God, and yet one shoots him dead for it when one can.


The synonymous meaning of "ausrotten" = "to exterminate" and "totschiessen" = "to shoot dead" is as clear here, or almost as clear, as it is in e.g. Himmler's statement at his Posen speech on 6 October 1943:

Ich bitte Sie, das, was ich Ihnen in diesem Kreise sage, wirklich nur zu hören und nie darüber zu sprechen. Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? – Ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Lösung zu finden. Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen – und die Rächer in Gestalt der Kinder für unsere Söhne und Enkel groß werden zu lassen. Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.


Source of quote:

Märthesheimer/Frenzel, Im Kreuzfeuer: Der Fernsehfilm Holocaust. Eine Nation ist betroffen, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH Frankfurt am Main 1979, pages 112 to 114. Reference of quote: Heinrich Himmler, Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945, edited by Bradley F. Smith and Agnes F. Peterson, Berlin 1974, pages 169 and following.

My translation:

I ask you that what I tell you in this circle you will really only hear and never talk about it. The question came up to us: What do to with the women and children? – I decided to find a very clear solution also in this respect. This because I didn’t consider myself entitled to exterminate the men – that is, to kill them or to have them killed – and to let the children grow up as avengers against our sons and grandsons. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth.


The difference between Bismarck's stance and Himmler's is that the former seems to have been bellicose rhetoric, not the announcement of a specific extermination plan to be carried out let alone the communication that such a plan had been carried out, whereas the latter was a communication to an audience of insiders regarding an extermination process that was obviously considered to have been largely accomplished.

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 20 Apr 2002 03:56

Ausrotten

The word seems to be very important to exterminationists in general and anti-revisionist specifically. To them it means to exterminate, to kill, and didn’t Hitler, Himmler, Göbbels et al used it so frequently when it came to the final solution of the Jewish problem and questions concerning the Jewish people?

I have a whole file on this word ‘ausrotten’, with all kinds of interpretations, the whys and hows, how the meaning of the word changed over the last 1500 years. etc. Now I also know how Bismarck used it.


When I was in Germany last fall I went to the library to find out about the word ‘ausrotten’. My relatives there asked me what I want to know, so after I told them: “Save yourself a trip, ‘ausrotten’ means to kill all the Jews!”. And how could I ask such a dumb question, since everybody knows this!

So there you are!

In Germany before and during the war I heard this word many times, it still rings familiar in my ears: Ausrotten. It is not a word used commonly every day by common people. It is a bombastic word used in bombastic speeches by bombastic politicians. It means actually nothing. Ausrotten: poverty, stupidity, injustice, Jews, communists, the enemy. What else: unemployment. Well, you name it, all that is hollow bunk, stuff one would normally expect and get from politicians.

Hitler and his cronies used the word ‘ausrotten’ in connection with Jews alsready early on in their speeches, already in the 1920’s and in the 1930’s if I remember correctly. If they really meant killing, hanging, shooting, gassing etc. why not say so? Since the Germans are such evil and blood thirsty people, (ask Goldhagen and Wiesel, they will agree), Hitler may have alsready have gotten early on a huge majority in those political elections then, maybe 90%?

What puzzles me is that if Hitler meant with ‘ausrotten’ to exterminate, kill, murder, gass, hang, shoot, excecute etc. why did the Nazis not do this as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933? Instead the Jews were asked to leave Germany, go to America, Palestina, some other places. Or am I wrong? Maybe the word ‘ausrotten’ at that time did not mean to exterminate etc., maybe the meaning of the word evolved during the war years to its present meaning.

Davey Boy
Member
Posts: 1504
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:51
Location: Australia

Post by Davey Boy » 20 Apr 2002 05:44

I think Bismarck probably flirted with the notion of exterminating the Poles. I consider the Prussians almost as rotten as the Nazis.

Ahh, the Germans... :roll:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 20 Apr 2002 20:41

What puzzles me is that if Hitler meant with ‘ausrotten’ to exterminate, kill, murder, gass, hang, shoot, excecute etc. why did the Nazis not do this as soon as Hitler came to power in 1933? Instead the Jews were asked to leave Germany, go to America, Palestina, some other places. Or am I wrong? Maybe the word ‘ausrotten’ at that time did not mean to exterminate etc., maybe the meaning of the word evolved during the war years to its present meaning.


Wow, another True Believer from Codoh has graced us with a visit. Looks like it's getting too boring over there.

You should definitely do some reading, my friend. You might find out that the Nazis’ policies towards the Jews were not from the very start what they eventually became, that mass killing of Jews on a large scale did not start before the beginning of the Russian campaign and that the Führer’s decision to extend this killing to all European Jews is likely to have been taken only after the declaration of war against the United States in December 1941.

As to the term “ausrotten”, tell us what meaning you think it is likely to have had in the following passage of Himmler’s speech in Posen on 6 October 1943:

Ich bitte Sie, das, was ich Ihnen in diesem Kreise sage, wirklich nur zu hören und nie darüber zu sprechen. Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? – Ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Lösung zu finden. Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen – und die Rächer in Gestalt der Kinder für unsere Söhne und Enkel groß werden zu lassen. Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.


If you think there’s anything wrong with my translation:

I ask you that what I tell you in this circle you will really only hear and never talk about it. The question came up to us: What do to with the women and children? – I decided to find a very clear solution also in this respect. This because I didn’t consider myself entitled to exterminate the men – that is, to kill them or to have them killed – and to let the children grow up as avengers against our sons and grandsons. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth.


please let us know.

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 21 Apr 2002 01:35

Ah, Herr Mühlenkamp, but the True Believer, that is you, or not?

Quote:
Ich bitte Sie, das, was ich Ihnen in diesem Kreise sage, wirklich nur zu hören und nie darüber zu sprechen. Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? – Ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Lösung zu finden. Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen – und die Rächer in Gestalt der Kinder für unsere Söhne und Enkel groß werden zu lassen. Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.


If you think there’s anything wrong with my translation:

Quote:
I ask you that what I tell you in this circle you will really only hear and never talk about it. The question came up to us: What do to with the women and children? – I decided to find a very clear solution also in this respect. This because I didn’t consider myself entitled to exterminate the men – that is, to kill them or to have them killed – and to let the children grow up as avengers against our sons and grandsons. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth.



Where does this garbage come from I ask you? From McVay/Nizkor maybe? Is it part of IMT Doc. 1919-PS? And you seriously want me to arrive to a meaning of ‘ausrotten’ based on this rubbish? You must be kidding!

And you should know that I never look at the English translation from German if the German is available.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by walterkaschner » 21 Apr 2002 05:20

Sailor,

The quotation from Himmler's speech on October 6, 1943 to Reichs- and Gauleiter in Posen is also quoted in Ian Kershaw's "Hitler 1936-1945 Nemesis", W.W. Norton & Company 2000, at 605, citing Bradley F. Smith and Agnes F. Peterson (eds.) "Heinrich Himmler. Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945", Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Vienna 1974, at 169; typescript - Berlin Document Center, 0.238I-H. Himmler; handwritten notes - Berlin Document Center, 0.238III-H.Himmler; also Fleming, "Hitler und die Entlösung. 'Es ist das Führer's Wunsch...', Wiesbaden/Munich 1982 at 74-5. (Roberto has, if I remember correctly, other sources as well to support the authenticity of the quotation.)

Kershaw's 2 volume biography is the most recent, and IMHO the best, most carefully documented and therefor most reliable, work on the Third Reich in print in English today. If you have any reliable evidence suggesting the questionable nature of his sources I would be eager to learn of it. As I have no knowledge of your qualifications as a historian, I am sure that you will understand that your unsupported categorization of the Himmler quotation as "garbage"and "rubbish" is, at least to me, of little or no persuasive weight.

Regards, Kaschner

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:42
Location: USA

Post by Thorfinn » 21 Apr 2002 16:26

Hello "walterkaschner",

You asked for "reliable evidence suggesting the questionable nature of his sources". I have already show that his sources are all unreliable.


meinungen wrote:Yeah, buddy, better squeal “forgery” right away, ‘cause that’s your only chance – provided of course that you can show us any evidence against the authenticity of the pertinent documents.


meinungen wrote:Märthesheimer/Frenzel, Im Kreuzfeuer: Der Fernsehfilm Holocaust. Eine Nation ist betroffen, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH Frankfurt am Main 1979, pages 112 to 114. Reference of quote: Heinrich Himmler, Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945, edited by Bradley F. Smith and Agnes F. Peterson, Berlin 1974, pages 169 and following.


Thorfinn wrote:So I see that you use the FORGER, Eberhard Jäckel as a source. What else would I expect? I think that many of his essays can be used for toilet paper. Oh yes, and the Secret Speech. I hope you know that there are high doubts as to the authenticity of these "secrets", that are supposedly in the Bundesarchiv in Coblenz. In short, your sources may be interesting reading, but they are not evidence of proof, no matter how much you would like them to be.


Thorfinn wrote:I amn't "squeeling" anything. I am bringing up a very valid doubt. The evidence against the authenticity was addressed above. One of your sources is a know forger, and the other source has always been doubted since it came out, due to the way that the "secrets" came about.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by walterkaschner » 21 Apr 2002 20:29

Thorfinn, I regret that I am unable to accept your unsupported statements as reliable evidence of anything, other than of course your own prejudices and beliefs.

What is your source for the claim that Eberhard Jäckel is a forger? I am aware of David Irving's allegation to that effect, but if you read Irving's claims carefully you will find that he doesn't really accuse Jäckel of comitting any forgery at all. The most Irving could find to support his charge was (a) that Jäckel (like several other historians, including Hugh Trevor-Roper) was duped into believing in the authenticity of Konrad Kujau's Hitler's Diaries forgery, (b) that some other documents forged by Kujau were included in an extensive collection of Third Reich documents compiled by Jäckel and (c) that one altered and mis-identified photograph was included in a lengthy four-part television series of which Jäckel was technical advisor and co-producer. Prettty feeble stuff from a fellow who continued to reproduce and rely upon the infamous Tegesbefehl 47 in his Dresden book, long after it became painfully apparent even to Irving himself that it was in all probability a forgery, as it was subsequently proven to be. Jäckel was for decades Professor of Modern History and Dean of the Faculty of History and Economics at the University of Stuttgart; his publications are voluminous and are cited by a host of other highly respected historians. For Irving to label (libel?) a respected historian as a forger on so flimsy a basis is, in my view, beneath contempt. Where that leaves you in my esteem I will leave to your imagination.

And what does Eberhard Jäckel have to do with the authenticity of Himmler's Posen speeches anyway?

And who, other than yourself and others of your uninformed persuasion, has "high doubts" about the authenticity of Himmler's Geheimnisreden?

I am always prepared to consider any reliable evidence that you may wish to proffer to support your views, but in the meantime I believe I am entitled to award them no greater respect than they clearly deserve.

Regards, Kaschner

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 21 Apr 2002 22:01

Walterkaschner:

One does not have to have great historical knowledge to know what rubbish is.

I am not familiar with the books to which you referred to. Nor did I find on the CODOH site any reference made by Bradley F. Smith to this specific speech. (I will keep looking though.)

Be it as it may. It is important to me to know where this stuff comes from, is it authentic, has the document been verified. After all we are talking here of a crime of unheard of proportions, or not? The alleged murder of millions of innocent people. As far as I know Himmler usually talked off the cuff, only with a few notes to help him through. He normally did not read off a prepared speech (How careless of him!). So, who recorded the speech? And has this been verified?

Dr. phil. Brigitte Bailer-Galanda formulated the following definition for historiographic cerified documents in a 1995 published book:

In order to check and verify historiographic documents, either a certifiable or already certified original must be present, or the path from the office, person or institute, who originated the document, up to the transcription or copy can be traced complete without gap.

(The lady who came up with this is a staunch exterminationist and holocaust believer.)

Look at: »Schlüsseldokument« ist Fälschung
http://vho.org/VffG/1998/3/Gerner3.html
by: Dipl.-Ing. Manfred Gerner

That stuff is in German

Back to the German word ‘ausrotten’. A sentence like:

“Let us go to the Wells Fargo Bank and ‘ausrotten’ the clerk and take all his money”
sounds to my ears at least (excuse me) idiotic.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by walterkaschner » 22 Apr 2002 00:27

Sailor,

I think I have a tolerable understanding of the meaning of "rubbish".

What I don't have is any knowledge of your qualifications to use the term in the context that you did. I am very familiar with the work and reputation of Ian Kershaw as a historian; I know nothing of yours other than what can be gleaned from your posts on this site, which do not, I am sorry to say, tend to instill a great deal of confidence in your opinions. And whatever little confidence I might otherwise have is further eroded by your seemingly total reliance on CODOH as a source of your information.

I quite agree that the authenticity of any document upon which one wishes to rely must be carefully verified, but most of us amateurs who have limited time and resources are compelled to rely upon others - purportedly professional historians - to do this for them. In my case I try to be careful as to the historians upon which I place my trust, which I select primarily on the basis of the following criteria:

1) the historian has an established reputation in his field;

2) the historian has not be caught in numerous or egregious errors of fact or judgement;

3) the historian provides citations to verifiable primary sources, or to reputable secondary sources citing verifiable primary sources, for his factual statements;

4) the historian has no apparent personal agenda or axe to grind;

5) the historian does not ignore facts and arguments which might appear to conflict with his thesis, but to the contrary recognizes and attempts to deal with them in a rational and even handed way;

6) the historian demonstrates (and of course this is subjective on my part)
an understanding of human nature and motivation with which I can agree;

7) the historian's argumentation (again subjective on my part) seems logical, rational and hangs together;and

8) the historian's style of writing tends toward the objective rather than the dramatic or journalistic.

So on the basis of the above, I intend to trust Kershaw and the sources he cited until proffered reliable evidence to the contrary, of which your posts have so far been totally devoid.

Regards, Kaschner

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:42
Location: USA

Post by Thorfinn » 22 Apr 2002 04:08

"walterkaschner", I am amused every time that one of your kind is confronted by an opposing view. You liberals think that you are better than the "right", and you act superior when it is unfounded. "meinungen" does the same thing. I do not know if you are just acting like you are better than others, or if you really think that you are superior, but either way, you need to get real. Your last two posts in this thread are quite pathetic in the ways that you try to demean others unjustly.


walterkaschner wrote:Where that leaves you in my esteem I will leave to your imagination.

If I am very low in your esteem, that means that I have done somthing right.


walterkaschner wrote:And who, other than yourself and others of your uninformed persuasion, has "high doubts" about the authenticity of Himmler's Geheimnisreden?

Anybody with a critical brain that is capable of stringing together more than underhanded insults aimed at the opposition. I guess that leaves you out.


walterkaschner wrote:And who, other than yourself and others of your uninformed persuasion, has "high doubts" about the authenticity of Himmler's Geheimnisreden?

I am not uninformed, but you like to say I am, because you think that I must be ignorant or stupid for not sharing you views; views that you think can be the only correct ones.


You should know that the "secrets" came from the Americans. After the Americans stole these files, the "secrets" were all copied, and then they were returned. The Americans had all the possiblility to forge or edit these "secrets"; especially the jews that worked for the USA would want to forge such a thing. Would you trust files that the Third Reich stole from America, and then returned after going over all of them? Also, there is no way that the Third Reich would be openly talking about killing jews, in a speech, in the stated date of the documents.



I like how you asked how Eberhard Jäckel is a forger, and then you named the forgery. I guess it is OK, and his forgeries were just little forgeries, and little forgeries are acceptable if the forger shares your views. I think that you might be sick in the brain. I am sure it is nothing that a lobotomy could not fix. Good luck with your future insults and diminishments; they show you for what you are.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”