New to Holocaust revisionism

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
FascistLove
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:02 pm
Contact:

New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by FascistLove »

Hello comrades,

I am new to Holocaust revisionism. I’ve watched a few videos of Ernst Zundel and David Cole on YouTube. Some fascinating stuff, although I think that Cole was more rational than some of the claims Zundel made. I haven’t read any revisionist books, are there any hardcover/paperback books I can buy for a decent price?

There seems to be some people who consider themselves to be revisionists and ask some genuine questions and there seems to be a few people who consider themselves to be revisionists but they are in fact deniers. I think back in the day there were people who were not worried about declaring their claims and opinions publicly, but these days as far as I know Holocaust revisionism is for the most part only online so some people are just denying everything and making claims without evidence; I think with that sort of posting style Holocaust revisionists aren’t going to win many people over or even be willing to question some parts of the Holocaust. If anyone on here thinks that denying evidence and dismissing evidence as only rumours, hearsay, or anything similar - anything apart from accepting the evidence like any decent and honest person should do - then Holocaust revisionists aren’t going to gain much respect or people on their side.

One question I do want to ask everyone on this forum is:

How much of what was happening to the Jews did Hitler know?

The following is what I have come across and can contribute to the question:

Hitler threatened the extermination of the Jews of Europe if they caused a world war in his notorious Reichstag speech in January 1939. Hitler mentioned this again in the 1940s and said that the war would bring about the extermination of the Jews and not the extermination of the Aryans. Goebbels wrote in reports, brochures, pamphlets, etc, during the war that Hitler’s prophecy was coming true. Comments from Goebbels, Himmler and other Nazis clearly show that Hitler was aware of what was happening to the Jews.

“At the end of December 1942 Hitler received a document from Himmler entitled, "Report to the Führer on Combating Partisans", stating that 363,211 Jews had been killed by the Einsatzgruppen in August–November 1942. This document was specifically printed in large font that Hitler could read without glasses and was marked "Shown to the Führer".”

Thus, Hitler was kept informed about what was happening to the Jews in the East.

It’s worth noting that the Nazis labelled all Jews as “partisans” to justify their actions against them, but there is no evidence that even a substantial amount of partisans were Jews.

I think it’s implausible to suggest that Hitler, the man at the top, was unaware of what was happening to the Jews, especially considering his own words during the war and his knowledge about what was happening to them.

It’s a moot point to mention that there is no Hitler document ordering the extermination of the Jews because it doesn’t prove that he didn’t order the extermination of the Jews, the order would have been one of the first documents to have been destroyed (the Nazis tried to cover up their crimes at various times and failed), and most importantly he had learnt from the reaction of the German public when it became known that he had ordered the killing of disabled people that it would not be approved of by most people. He even had to put a stop to it, although it continued secretly.

How much do you think Hitler knew?

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29464
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by Nessie »

Welcome to the forum and thanks for asking something a bit different.

In summary, I am sure Hitler knew that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question included their killing, but after the bad publicity the Nazis had received over the Aktion T2 euthanasia project, senior Nazis wanted plausible deniability for any of those killings.

Where is this quote from?
FascistLove wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:25 pm
....

“At the end of December 1942 Hitler received a document from Himmler entitled, "Report to the Führer on Combating Partisans", stating that 363,211 Jews had been killed by the Einsatzgruppen in August–November 1942. This document was specifically printed in large font that Hitler could read without glasses and was marked "Shown to the Führer".”

.....
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

FascistLove
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:02 pm
Contact:

Re: New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by FascistLove »

Nessie wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:34 pm
Welcome to the forum and thanks for asking something a bit different.

In summary, I am sure Hitler knew that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question included their killing, but after the bad publicity the Nazis had received over the Aktion T2 euthanasia project, senior Nazis wanted plausible deniability for any of those killings.

Where is this quote from?
FascistLove wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:25 pm
....

“At the end of December 1942 Hitler received a document from Himmler entitled, "Report to the Führer on Combating Partisans", stating that 363,211 Jews had been killed by the Einsatzgruppen in August–November 1942. This document was specifically printed in large font that Hitler could read without glasses and was marked "Shown to the Führer".”

.....
Thank you. I signed up to this forum after coming across it after reading a few threads on the CODOH forum.

I quoted from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_ ... _Holocaust

Below is the full report:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... 1.html?m=1

I also remember reading about the report in Peter Longerich’s book “Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews“.

My problem with modern-day Holocaust revisionism is that it’s not even revisionism but denial. I’m busy reading threads on this forum and they are full of people just denying well historical facts because they simply don’t want to accept them for whatever reason. Genuine revisionism about the Holocaust I think has not existed since David Irving lost his libel trial. Since Irving I can’t think of any other well known historian who has publicly declared denying any aspect of the Holocaust. Can you?

If all I’m going to get on here is abuse and people just claiming well established facts are hearsay or rumours then I’ll not be posting on this forum for very long.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29464
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by Nessie »

You will find that the deniers here accept mass shootings of Jews by the EG in the east; Ukraine, Belorussia and the Baltic States. It is justified by the Jews being an enemy of the Nazis as they were part of and cooperated with the partisans and communists fighting the Nazis.

Yet, somehow, other Jews, from Poland, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Belgium, Hungary, Romania and in the Balkans, who were sent to the gas chambers, they were not the enemy and the deniers here claim that they were not gassed. Instead, they were resettled in the same places in the east that they accept other Jews were shot as the enemy.

But those Jews from Poland, Germany etc, were also regarded as the enemy. That is why they were forced to register as Jews and they were rounded up and sent to ghettos such as Warsaw or transit camps such as Westerbork.

Hitler certainly regarded the Jews of France as much of a problem as the Jews of Latvia. He did not differentiate Jews by their nationality in any of his speeches. They were the Jews.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9415
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by been-there »

FascistLove wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:25 pm
Hello comrades,
I am new to Holocaust revisionism. I’ve watched a few videos of Ernst Zundel and David Cole on YouTube. Some fascinating stuff... [snip]

I haven’t read any revisionist books, are there any hardcover/paperback books I can buy for a decent price?
If you are genuine... which so far I doubt ...then that's not a very impressive start. You call yourself fascist love ? Seriously?? :roll:

Then you start off slagging off revisionists as deniers?? Without knowing anything about the actual debate?! :lol:

AND claim you haven't done any reading!!? :o :?
Nor have done any research of the published material outlining the areas of debate. Wow!
If this introduction is genuine I can only say what a strange person you are! 8-)

Here's some advice: do some reading. Then you can come back and start giving out your opinion like you have something to contribute to the debate.

FascistLove wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:25 pm
One question I do want to ask everyone on this forum is:
How much of what was happening to the Jews did Hitler know?
Forgive me, but that is a 'begging the question' fallacy. How much of what exactly that you claim was happening to the Jews? Be specific.

So far you are coming across as a rather stupid troll pretending to be asking genuine questions.
FascistLove wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:25 pm
The following is what I have come across and can contribute to the question:
Hitler threatened the extermination of the Jews of Europe if they caused a world war in his notorious Reichstag speech in January 1939.
Wrong. He never said he would "exterminate" them. You appear to be approaching this topic from a position of arrogant ignorance.

FascistLove wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:25 pm
Hitler mentioned this again in the 1940s and said that the war would bring about the extermination of the Jews and not the extermination of the Aryans.
You come across as an illinformed person. I don't think you are genuine. You are so badly informed that I suspect you are one of the idiot trolls from 'skeptics'.

Whatever.
Allow me to educate you.
Due to the inordinate level of power and influence that ‘international jewry’ has over our lives, over our societies, over our judiciaries, over our education systems, and over our politicians, the 'holocaust' narrative has become increasingly presented to us as the defining occurrence in world war two history.
It has almost eclipsed the understanding that there were many different combatting forces involved.

Therefore to arrive at a more correct understanding it must therefore be re-evaluated in the proper context of that vast conflict.

Firstly, anyone who wants to properly understand WW2 history has to acknowledge that in war the first casualty is the truth.
All protagonists start a propaganda campaign to convince their people and their soldiers that they themselves have the right and that the 'enemy' are in the wrong and must be vanquished by force.
In other words, NO country goes to war telling its people that they themselves are the 'bad guys'.

The natural corollary of this acknowledgement is that anyone who genuinely wants to find the impartial truth must discern between what information relies on self-justifying propaganda and what relies on accurate, impartial relaying of historical fact.
This applies to everything concerning WW2 in general, but in particular to the occurrences now collectively referred to as 'THE Holocaust'.

Any fair investigator would need to compare and contrast ALL sources of information for factuality.
That most historians still deride ALL testimony that doesn't corroborate the 'Allies-good/holocaust-true' thesis, and STILL dismiss everything from the German perspective as false, demonstrates a blinkered and impartial perspective.

E.g. 1.) I myself understood previously that the existence of a group that could be classified as 'International Jewry' was an invention of Nazi propaganda. But, as anyone who looks into it will learn, that is NOT correct. There were many people at that time — inside and outside of Germany — who ascribed to the idea of International Jewry, including key and influential Jews themselves who even claimed to represent it.

2.) I myself understood previously that the idea that what is believed to be a ‘non-existing example of Nazi-paranoia’ could ever have had numerous public meetings around the world and could have declared a 'holy war' on behalf of all Jews against Germany in 1933, as a ludicrous suggestion. But, as anyone who investigates this will discover, that actually did happen, despite the comparatitive silence of it in mainstream popular histories, and despite the avoidance of it in current propaganda designed for and aimed at our schoolchildren.

3.) A Jew called Theodore Kaufaman really did exist. He really did publish a book called 'Germany must perish' in March 1941. It really did get a lot of positive publicity in USA and Canada. Hitler and Goebbels and others in Germany were aware of the book and the positive response to its suggestion!

Stating these points is NOT to repeat Nazi propaganda, but is merely to state undeniable fact available to be verified by all and anyone.
Undeniable, unless of course you yourself are suffering under some form of denial that can not admit to these facts. ;)

For example, Hitler and all the Third Reich leadership believed that our planet Earth is a spherical object which orbits a star in one solar-centric part of the universe.
By the standards currently enforced in society regarding 'the holocaust', I am repeating 'Nazi propaganda' by stating this, because the Nazis also ascribed to this belief!!!
Which is clearly a preposterous conclusion.

. . . . . . . . .

Now coming to your false understanding of Hitler's prophesies and statements concerning the fate of European Jews.
WW2 history as it is currently enforced, makes great issue of Adolf Hitler's reference to a previous 'prophecy' concerning the Jews in a widely-transmitted speech in the Reichstag on 30 January 1942.
Wir sind uns dabei im klaren darüber, daß der Krieg nur damit enden kann, daß entweder die germanische Völker ausgerottet werden, oder daß das Judentum aus Europa verschwindet. Ich habe am 3. September im Deutschen Reichstag es schon ausgesprochen -- und ich hüte mich vor voreiligen Prophezeiungen -, daß dieser Krieg nicht so ausgehen wird, wie es sich die Juden vorstellen, nämlich daß die europäisch-arischen Völker ausgerottet werden, sondern daß das Ergebnis dieses Krieges die Vernichtung des Judentums ist. Zum erstenmal werden nicht andere allein verbluten sondern zum ersten mal wird diesesmal das echt altjüdische Gesetz angewendet: „Aug' um Aug', Zahn um Zahn!"
Und je weiter sich dieser Kampf ausbreitet, um so mehr wird sich mit diesem Kampf--das mag sich das Weltjudentum gesagt sein lassen--der Antisemitismus verbreiten. Er wird eine Nahrung finden in jedem Gefangenenlager, er wird eine Nahrung finden in jeder Familie, die aufgeklärt wird, warum sie letzten Endes ihr Opfer zu bringen hat. Und es wird die Stunde kommen, da der böseste Weltfeind aller Zeiten wenigstens vielleicht auf ein Jahrtausend seine Rolle ausgespielt haben wird.
It is clear to us that the war can only end with the eradication of the Germanic peoples or the disappearance of Jewry from Europe. I had on September 3rd already announced in the German Reichstag (and I am careful not to make rash prophecies) that this this war will not develop as the Jews imagine it, namely that the European-Aryan peoples be eradicated, but that the outcome of this war will be the destruction of Judaism. For the first time others will not bleed alone, but for the first time the genuine, old Jewish law will be applied: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth!”
And the more this war spreads, the more anti-Semitism will spread. This may be said to world Jewry: anti-Semitism will be nourished in every prison camp, in every family which must be informed why they must sacrifice to the bitter end. And the hour will come when the most evil world enemy of all times will have played out its role for perhaps a thousand years at least.
Here is the oft repeated part of that speech in the actual German spoken:
"Ich habe am 1. September 1939 im Deutschen Reichstag es schon augesprochen (und ich hüte mich vor voreiligen Prophzeihungen) daß dieser Krieg nicht so ausgehen wird, wie es sich die Juden vorstellen, nämlich daß die europäisch-arischen Völker ausgerottet werden, sondern daß das Ergebnis dieses Krieges die Vernichtung des Judentums sein wird."
But when did "die Juden vorstellen... daß die europäisch-arischen Völker ausgerottet werden"?

Which idea exactly was Hitler referring to with: "the Jews imagine that the European-Aryan peoples will be rooted out (ausgerottet)"?

What in reality was the type of action that was actually being proposed of a people being rooted-out or eradicated (“Völker ausgerottet”) which Hitler said would be applied instead to the the ones who first proposed it?

An open and honest evaluation of the history would attempt to put this statement in its appropriate context.

Had there been a call by any Jew or Jewish collective for such an ausrottung?

This is where Kaufman's 1941 book comes in. It was an example of Jewish racist and genocidal attitudes that were seriously considered in American government and was widely publicised in media periodicals (e.g. New York Times, New York Post, Time magazine, The Canadian Jewish Chronicle, etc., etc.,).

Image

And crucially, the Jew Kaufman's proposal and appeal was not a call for mass-murder.
It was a call for the elimination by sterilisation and dispersion/exile of the German people!

Kaufman summarised Germany Must Perish! in the New York Times and New York Post advertisements as: "
A dynamic volume outlining a plan for the extinction of Germany and containing a map showing possible dissection and apportionment of its territory."
An interview with Kaufman in which he attempts to justify his plan for the elimination appears in The Canadian Jewish Chronicle in its September 26, 1941 issue, in which Kaufman stated:
"I believe, that the Jews have a mission in life. They must see to it that the nations of the world get together in one vast federation. 'Union Now' is the beginning of this. Slowly but surely the world will develop into a paradise. We will have perpetual peace. And the Jews will do the most to bring about this confederation, because they have the most to gain. But how can you get peace if Germany exists? The only way to win an eternal peace is to make the punishment of waging war more horrible than war itself. Human beings are penalised for murder, aren't they? Well, Germany starts all the wars of magnitude. Let us sterilize all Germans and wars of world domination will come to an end!"
Hitler had prophesised:
daß dieser Krieg nicht so ausgehen wird, wie es sich die Juden vorstellen, nämlich daß die europäisch-arischen Völker ausgerottet werden, sondern daß das Ergebnis dieses Krieges die Vernichtung des Judentums sein wird."
= "that this war will be not so, as the Jews imagine it, namely that the European-Aryan peoples be eradicated, but that the outcome of this war will be the destruction of Judaism."

See that? 'JUDAISM'. Not Jews. Not "the extermination of all individual Jews" as we are forcibly indoctrinated.

"...sondern daß das Ergebnis dieses Krieges die Vernichtung des Judentums sein wird."
= "...but that the outcome of this war will be the destruction of Judaism."

An honest investigator would regard as extremely relevant to a proper appraisal of Hitler's January 1942 speech the fact that there had been a call by a Jew — which had been widely publicised by Jewish owned newspapers/periodicals — calling for the elimination of Germany and Germans in March 1941. Yet this is never mentioned in current histories. Why is that?
The Hitler referral in 1942, to Jews wanting to eliminate his people is presented to us as anti-semitic paranoia. This is therefore a deceit by omission. A lie!

For me, this demonstrates the deceit of people such as Richard J. Evans in the Irving libel case (and this while under oath to be honest in a court of law).
And it also demonstrates in my opinion, the corruption of English courts at Irving's trial, that such obvious subjective and manipulative interpretation — taken out of their historical context — of speeches and statements spoken in German, were used to demolish the credibilty and livlihood of Irving, a British citizen accused of manipulative interpretation of German texts.
Oh, the Orwellian irony of it all.

.. .. .. .. .. ..

The message sent by Hitler on the anniversary of the foundation of the party:
"Botschaft zum Tage der Parteigründung 24. Februar 1942" states the following:
"nach der Beseitigung dieser Parasiten" = "the removal of these parasites"
REMOVAL! Moving. Not killing. This is exactly why any honest investigator needs to look at the vernacular version of these statements. Not rely on possibly biased translations.

This is confirmed in the transcripts of Hitler's table talks:
Wenn ich heute den juden herausnehme, dann wird unser Bürgertum unglücklich: was geschieht denn mit ihnen? Aber haben sich die Gleichen darum gekümmert, was aus den Deutschen werden würde, die auswandern mussten?... Der Jude muss aus Europa heraus. Wir kriegen sonst keine europäische Verständigung. Er hetzt am meisten überall. Letzten Endes: ich weiss nicht, ich bin kolossal human. ... Ich sage nur, er muss weg. Wenn er dabei kaputt geht, da kann ich nicht helfen. Ich sehe nur eines: die absolute Ausrottung, wenn sie nicht freiwillig gehen. Warum soll ich einen Juden mit anderen Augen ansehen als einen russischen Gefangenen? Im Gefangenenlager sterben Viele, weil wir durch die Juden in diese Lage hineingetrieben sind. Aber was kann denn ich dafür? Warum haben die Juden denn den Krieg angezettelt?'
-- Hitler table talk on 25.1.1942, recorded by H. Heim;
"If I take the Jews out today, then our bourgeoisie becomes unhappy: ‘what is happening then with them?’
But have the same people troubled themselves about what would become of the Germans who had to emigrate?
The Jew has to get out of Europe. Otherwise we get no European understanding. He incites people the most, everywhere.
...In the end: I don't know, I'm colossally humane.
...I am just saying, he has to go. If he collapses in the course of it, I can't help there. I only see one thing: absolute rooting-out, if they don't go of their own accord. Why should I look at a Jew with other eyes than at a Russian prisoner of war? Many are dying in the prison camps because we have been driven into this situation by the Jews. But what can I do about that? Why then did the Jews instigate the war?"
This makes it clear that the object is driving the Jews out of Europe.
He compares what he is doing to Jews with Germans forced to 'emigrate' (auswandern).
He said that if Jews die in the process as Russians also are dying in the camps, that is the outcome of war, NOT a deliberate policy.
He specifically states that he DOES NOT regard the Jew in a camp any differently than a Russian POW in a camp. That flatly contradicts the whole Holocaust paradigm.
"Im Gefangenenlager sterben Viele... Aber was kann denn ich dafür? Warum haben die Juden denn den Krieg angezettelt?"
"Many die in the prison camp... But what can I do about that? Why then did the Jews instigate the war?"
I.e. the deaths in camps is not something he is creating or ordering. Nor is it a policy directed against only Jews. People dying (not being 'killed') he said was a regrettable outcome of the war situation. A war he felt was forced upon him. A war he believed was instigated by certain 'international Jews'.

An open and honest enquiry would investigate why Hitler was convinced that Jews had "started" (angezettelt) the war.
An open and honest research would investigate if there is any basis in fact for such an understanding.
An open and honest history would include any reasons Hitler might have had for believing that.
An open and honest analysis would not delete any evidence that Jews had been involved in starting the war from our history.

An open and honest society would CERTAINLY not punish referring to such irrefutable evidence that Jews had been involved in starting the war, as an 'anti-semitic, Nazi hate trope'

CONCLUSION: we do not currently have an honest and open history, or society!!

Image
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

FascistLove
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:02 pm
Contact:

Re: New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by FascistLove »

Been-there, I don’t why you bothered to post such a long reply to me when throughout all of it you personally attacked me which is why I’m not going to bother replying to a single point you made.

Bye.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9415
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by been-there »

FascistLove wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:39 pm
Been-there, I don’t why you bothered to post such a long reply to me when throughout all of it you personally attacked me which is why I’m not going to bother replying to a single point you made.

Bye.
Ha ha! Yeah sure!! :roll:

I generously gave you a long explanation and analysis of the actual words of Hitler. Words that you had misrepresented.
Now you regard that detailed analysis as a "personal attack"???? :lol:

C'mon. Be honest. You aren't going to reply because you have no logical, intellectually-credible, defence of your position and misrepresentation of Hitler's words.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

FascistLove
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 12:02 pm
Contact:

Re: New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by FascistLove »

Nessie, do people who post on here pretend to be experts of the German language?

For example, been-there is trying to claim that “Judentum” only means “Judaism” when in fact it can also mean “Jews” collectively and the fact Hitler said “Judentums” (plural), he was quite clearly talking about Jews as a people, not Judaism the religion.

Also, I said I had never read any Holocaust revisionists books, not that I haven’t read any books. Been-there created a straw man argument and personally insulted me.

Those two types of dishonesty from been-there are two reasons why people don’t listen to “Holocaust revisionists” these days.

Anyway, good luck “debating” with such dishonest people, I’m out of here!

Turnagain
Posts: 8501
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by Turnagain »

So, if revisionists won't agree with the claims made by FacistLove for the holyhoax he's going to take his ball and go home. Well, bon voyage, CYA and don't let the door hit ya'...etc. LOL!

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7825
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: New to Holocaust revisionism

Post by Huntinger »

FascistLove wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 7:53 pm
I also remember reading about the report in Peter Longerich’s book “Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews“.
If all I’m going to get on here is abuse and people just claiming well established facts are hearsay or rumours then I’ll not be posting on this forum for very long.
This poster is not the only one who remembers this book. Who else :?:
ZionistLoverJew wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:19 pm
Christopher Browning and Peter Longerich are well established historians in the field of the Third Reich.
I noticed after logging that you have basically replied to every single one of my last posts and spammed me with nothing more than crap so I'm just going to ignore in the future.
Temper tantrums seem familiar.
Bunim Abend wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:14 pm
As noted by Peter Longerich
Goody67 wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:58 am
German historian Peter Longerich said:
Goody brings up the name of Peter Longerich a dozen or so times
Nessie wrote:
Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:11 pm
Peter Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews, p.289


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Amt IV

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Nessie and 20 guests