Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby Turpitz » 2 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 19, 2017 7:20 am)

I'm serious, the man's a toxic loon:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2620921/h ... my-corbyn/

He is pushing the Labour are 'ant-Semitic' crap.

Image

The diplomat Shai Masot, on the right of this picture taken at the Labour conference with Israeli ambassador Mark Regev, says he ‘takes care of political issues’. Mr Masot had intensive contact with pro-Israel Labour figures and discussed extra funding for LFI at the party’s conference in Liverpool in September.

Review
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby Review » 2 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:37 am)

Turpitz wrote:I'm serious, the man's a toxic loon:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2620921/h ... my-corbyn/

He is pushing the Labour are 'ant-Semitic' crap.

[img]ht---pg[/img]

.....


Umm, what ? It's The Sun (Murdoch-owned?) who is implying Corbyn is "antisemitic". Not Irving.

Judging him based on mainstream media narrative is kind of naive. Everything he says will be twisted to serve some agenda.

Myths2LiveBy
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:15 am

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby Myths2LiveBy » 2 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:20 pm)

atomMan wrote:
There is also an interview with Irving in today's Sunday Times which I don't have access to.


if you want, give me a link and i'll see if i can get it


http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spiel ... -0lm0dt3pt

It does not appear the quest for truth or Justice for Germans was advanced with this interview.
Notice how the author baits Irving; this interview is one more opportunity to display Jewish vengeance and venom.
The comments are deadly.

‘Spielberg would have cut me up with style’
As a new film about the libel case that ruined David Irving hits cinemas, the disgraced historian and Holocaust denier explains why he wishes the Jewish director had been at the helm
Bryan Appleyard January 15 2017, 12:01am, 
The Sunday Times



David Irving says the film Denial is ‘full of lies’

David Irving emails me: “I will be at the airport with my Rolls.” And there he is, in the small crowd at Inverness’s tiny airport: black-belted overcoat and cord trousers that seem a little short. The once-handsome face looks crumpled, angry and anguished. He leads me out to the Rolls — an old, nicely restored Silver Spur.
After a short drive through snow-covered fields, we arrive at a big, brown classical house with a grand, curved Doric portico. There are, he had told me, 40 rooms; these are split, seemingly at random, between Irving and another tenant. Inside, there are antlers everywhere and an organ. The two occupiers are feuding about many things. Irving says this will eventually drive him out of this little Highland paradise.
We struggle down a corridor that is lined with a hundred-plus cardboard boxes. “These,” says Irving grimly, “are from the trial.”
They are, in fact, why I am here. The trial in question happened in 2000 and there is a new movie about it. Called Denial, it stars Timothy Spall as Irving and Rachel Weisz as Deborah Lipstadt, the author he sued for libel because of her book, Denying the Holocaust, which accused him of distorting history.
Irving lost catastrophically. The judge concluded that “he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism”.
“He couldn’t do anything else,” says Irving of the judge. “If he had found for me, it would have been the end of his career. It was pressure of circumstance.”
Irving was ruined professionally and financially; costs of £2m were awarded against him and he was bankrupted. Yet he remains defiant and convinced that, when he self-publishes his memoir in, perhaps, three years, he will be vindicated.
“Straight away, before you get to it,” he says urgently: “Am I a Holocaust denier? The answer is: no, I am not a Holocaust denier . . . I’m a Holocaust sleuth and I’m looking outside the box.
“How can you call someone a Holocaust denier who every year takes 25 or 30 international tourists to the extermination sites — Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec and Majdanek — which I do? And if you have that background, they can’t go round saying these ridiculous things.”

In my next remark, he picks up something he thinks I got from Wikipedia (I didn’t). “Wikipedia is wrong,” he says. “Wikipedia is controlled by a gang. If you try to make a change to what they have written, within 10 or 20 seconds it is changed back to the original. I am hoping Wikipedia will eventually die out.”
He says he was never a denier, though there seems copious evidence that he was. Now he believes at least 4m and possibly 6m Jewish people died, many of disease, though unquestionably most were murdered. He does not believe many died at Auschwitz, however. The current official figure is about 1.1m.
“Auschwitz has been grossly inflated. They use it now because it has an airport nearby and it’s got hotels everywhere and there’s a McDonald’s and a hot dog stand actually in the parking lot, which makes it very agreeable for tourists and visitors. It’s highly commercialised in the sense that Disneyland is commercialised.”
This is an odd complaint since he arranges tourist trips to death camps.
He suggests the rarity of Heinrich Himmler’s visits to Auschwitz shows it was unimportant. This is contradictory because he also says the full extent of the Holocaust was kept from Himmler by Reinhard Heydrich, who everybody agrees was the prime architect of the programme.
This leads to his central and most improbable belief: that Hitler knew nothing of the Final Solution because Heydrich also kept it from him.
“Hitler’s actions were in favour of the Jews. He did what he could to protect the Jews against Heinrich Himmler. I don’t think Hitler was anti-semitic.”
So does Irving admire Hitler? He has certainly expressed admiration in the past.
“That’s neither here nor there. As a biographer you can’t admire somebody or hate them. You have to have a completely dispassionate view.”


Finding the Führer innocent on this charge leads to his next improbable belief: that there was moral equivalence between the allies and Nazi Germany. The bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, he suggests, were our versions of the Holocaust. He says 135,000 people died in the allied raid on Dresden in February 1945. The official estimate is about 25,000.
“I find it difficult to understand [the difference between] the evilness of killing people because of their religion or race and burning them alive when they happen to be German on the wrong side of the frontier.”
But, I point out, the Germans bombed civilian targets in Britain.
“Where? Coventry — 390 people? And Coventry was a military target: it had factories round it.”
But German expansionism started the war.
“That’s a political characteristic, a political event. There’s no question the Germans wanted to get back what they had lost, and they found a man who was capable of doing it.”
They hadn’t lost France, I say.
“They lost a large chunk of France — Alsace-Lorraine.”
That’s a very small chunk.
“But they wanted to give the rest back,” he says, a reference to his belief that the Nazis would eventually have returned France to the French.
The invasion of Poland, which brought Britain into the war, he dismisses as an aspect of Hitler’s desire for lands in the east, implying it was the fault of the Poles themselves. And the catastrophic invasion of Russia was launched because Russia was about to mount an assault on Germany. And so on.
Irving traces his sense of moral equivalence to his childhood in Essex. He was born in 1938 and remembers a German rocket hitting a nearby neighbourhood poorer than his own — “the oiks”, he calls the people who lived there. He began to wonder about all the anti-Nazi propaganda and whether it was right. “A little worm grows and grows inside of you,” he says.
The Jewish people are the primary source of his anger. He says: “They have spent the last 50 years trying to destroy me.” This will be a chillingly familiar idea to anybody who knows about the Nazis: I don’t like the Jews, but that’s their fault.
Sometimes he evokes “the Jews” directly, sometimes with a sort of absurd coyness. I ask him why he is always in the midst of a storm of controversy.
“Big money. I underestimated the effect of money. They decided I was a threat to their existence.”
Who?
“The people who put up big money.”
The Jews?
“I’m not going to say it.”
He says at one point his US agent told him his books wouldn’t sell in America, “because people who buy books in America are almost entirely Jews”. I point out this is absurd, statistically impossible, and he replies that he doesn’t have much time for statistics. At one point he speaks of the “traditional enemy”.
You mean the Jews?
“I am not saying.”
Of the film Denial, he says: “It hasn’t done well in America. It’s the kind of film they don’t care whether it makes money or not. The people behind it have money and it’s going to serve their cause and they don’t care who gets thrown out of the business in the process. Eventually, the people who made the film, even the actors and actresses involved, will be exposed for what they have done.”
The film, Irving says, is “full of lies” — though he also says he has only seen the trailer. He adds that he wishes Steven Spielberg, the Jewish director of Schindler’s List, had made it. Noting my amazement, he says: “Well, he would have cut me to pieces but at least it would have been a good film.”
Now he makes money by self-publishing and selling his books and concentration-camp tours via his website. He also has Christmas appeals to which sympathetic rich Americans seem to contribute.
He is finishing a book on Himmler and his multi-volume biography of Churchill; then he promises the memoirs. His struggles for restored respectability will continue, he says, until “there’s an amber light and then a red” — his euphemism for death.
It is one of the strangest interviews I have ever done, by turns creepy, absurd and pathetic. At moments I feel pity. Afterwards, however, I discover a tab on his website I had not noticed: “David Irving’s Daily Newswatch on Freedom of Speech and Human Rights”. This turns out to be a toxic cauldron of Jew-baiting, probably for his American revisionist audience and donors. Pity evaporates. My mother was a Jew. That makes me a Jew. So, Mr Irving, on behalf of my people, f*** you and the Rolls you rode in on.
@bryanappleyard


19 comments
Jon G 3 days ago
With some justification, David Irving has been compared to Trump. Not that their political views necessarily coincide, but because like Trump, Irving enjoys issuing offensive controversial statements of a kind that attract enthusiastic applause from bigots.  It isn't the behaviour of a proper historian.
Latvian Hall, Toronto – 8 November 1990
'..more people died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's motor car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chamber at Auschwitz [applause]'
Read the full judgment at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html


Londoner 4 days ago
Those who want a balanced account of his historiography etc., need only google Mr Justice Gray's long and detailed judgment, perhaps one of the most notable judgments handed down in our times.


Jon Woolery 5 days ago
Small point here.
"(Irving) also says the full extent of the Holocaust was kept from Himmler by Reinhard Heydrich, who everybody agrees was the prime architect of the programme."
Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated in June 1942. The holocaust afterwards went on for another three years or so to its "full extent." To suggest that Himmler was in the dark at any point during the war is eye-rolling.


Helen Graham 5 days ago
It's a dilemma faced by many journalists and editors. Do you write about such loathsome people, thereby giving them the oxygen of publicity but bringing them to the attention of the public (who may have forgotten about him until the new film), or do you refuse to write about him, interview him, and thus treat him with the contempt he clearly deserves?  And, by the way, get him out of Scotland! We are good people up here.

Louis Wald 5 days ago
Horrific that being a lifelong, full-time dedicated anti-semite seems to be a lucrative profession for so many.
Depressing that so many are receptive to this message. 


Mrs Barbara Stokes 5 days ago
Appleyard is such a superficial  and hypocritical researcher. 
I wait in vain for a balanced article on David Irving and his contribution to WW2 studies.
It can't be all bad. For example, Jonathan Dimbleby makes use of Irving's  research in his recent  well-reviewed Battle of the Atlantic.
Oh, and who by the way published an article by Jonathan Dimbleby on this same battle?
The Sunday Times in October 2015. 

Keith in Cambridge 5 days ago
@Mrs Barbara Stokes  Elsewhere in The Sunday Times today (under Rod Liddle's column) I commented that "The Times treats its readers as adults". Perhaps that should have read "The Times - apart from Bryan Appleyard ..."

John Burman 5 days ago
@Mrs Barbara Stokes

And yes Irving did produce a book on the Battle of the Atlantic, if you mean The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17, in which he blamed the British escort group commander, Commander Jack Broome for the catastrophic losses of the Convoy PQ-17. Amid much publicity, Broome sued Irving for libel in October 1968, and in February 1970, after 17 days of deliberation before London's High Court, Broome won. Irving was forced to pay £40,000 in damages, and the book was withdrawn from circulation.

from Wikipedia 

Alisdair Smith 5 days ago
Broome v Cassells [1972] AC 1027 for those who are interested

Mrs Barbara Stokes 4 days ago
@John Burman @Mrs Barbara Stokes Well pointed out. That would have been a great deal  of money back then! 
Seriously, I don't understand why Irving is called a holocaust denier. He seems to have veered away from others who hold this extreme position.
I attended his autobiographical talk in Cambridge a few months ago. He made many interesting points. For example, he claimed he was one of the first to refer to the breaking of the Enigma machines in his book on the tracking down of the German rocket bombs. The Defence Ministry brought him in and warned him that he couldn't publish this codebreaking material. He then complied and cut the parts out. 
Sometime later they returned the favour by giving him access to a stolen wartime file on Rommel. He was allowed to take notes but not remove this secret document.
Are these the ramblings of a befuddled old man? Or is there a kernel of truth to these reminiscences? I would like a less biased analysis of Irving and his contribution to WW2 studies.

Jon G 3 days ago
@Mrs Barbara Stokes @John Burman I think you're describing a man who relishes the opportunity to read original documents in secret files or rare archives. Especially letters and memos that were penned by Nazis.  He isn't a reputable historian because he has the mind of a teenage boy.

John Burman 5 days ago
Why waste newsprint on this little twerp? 

robert blunden 5 days ago
Read the book " Lying about Hitler" by Richard J Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University who was the principal expert witness for the defense (Penguin Books/Lipstadt) .He details his research and evidence he gave in the High Court and how Irving tried to distort history.
Irving is an odious racist creep who relishes all the publicity he can get.

Max Zorin 5 days ago
I was hoping for a more balanced and incisive article.
Same to you Appleyard.

Mr Hank 5 days ago
Bryan, I think it foolish to have given this vile character the opportunity to justify and further his distorted and dangerous mission by way of this publicity.

MR S LEWIS 5 days ago
Iain Sanders 5 days ago


@MR S LEWIS It's 'Hear-Hear' - relating to a liking of what you've just heard - hear it again..  Tho' come to think of it, you've seen  this article 'here'..

Michael Tolhurst 5 days ago
Articles such as this give oxygen to Irving. Ignore him, let he and his ideas wither on the vine.

doglover 5 days ago
Irving is pathetic.  Would you like to be him?  I thought not.


Given the tenor of the interview -- which was basically without substance, much less balance -- and of the comments, which suggest an audience committed to sustaining the status quo, I respectfully (and regretfully) suggest that insisting upon the distinction between "transferred from" and "transferred in" is not going to quake the foundations.

In my opinion -- worth only a hill of beans -- extensive explication of the technical details of the (non-existent) gas chambers does not change hearts and minds. Rudolf's "Lectures on the Holocaust" takes a more effective approach, but at 500 pages it is too long; chop it into pamphlets, 15 minute chunks, read into videos/audios.

Partnering with other activists and sharing- or contributing to their approach also might be effective. For example, forming a kind of coalition with Alison Weir and her work at If Americans Knew http://www.ifamericansknew.org and Council for the National Interest http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/ , in which Weir is partners with former CIA agent Phil Giraldi; and Giraldi writes on Unz.com and for The American Conservative http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... p-giraldi/ could be productive.

E Michael Jones and his Culture Wars website also offer a network that might be receptive to the CODOH goals -- http://www.culturewars.com/2012/German.htm#

With these two/three mini-networks it might be possible to concentrate on defining zionism from OUR perspective, rather than ceding that topic to the zionists, might offer a relatively non-controversial way to approach the larger topic on a scholarly basis. There is rather little academic treatment of zionism, and the role of zionists in the world wars is nearly invisible in most histories of the wars. The meme that "Hitler hated Jews and did THE Holocaust therefore Jews had to go to Palestine" is backward history; the timeline of zionism belies that narrative. A graphic or a compelling video of the Chronology of the development of zionism, the Jewish takeover of Palestine in parallel with the provocations of the wars, especially WWII, might correct that important misperception.

"We all doin' what we can."

Myths2LiveBy
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:15 am

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby Myths2LiveBy » 2 years 9 months ago (Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:05 pm)

PS re:
"his next improbable belief: that there was moral equivalence between the allies and Nazi Germany. The bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, he suggests, were our versions of the Holocaust." - Appleyard


Irving's rejoinder could have been much more powerful and informative: It was not just Dresden, and the British were not the only perpetrators of war crimes by firebombing; the USA was heavily involved in firebombing, and over 170 German cities were reduced to rubble. The story of Dugway, German Village, and the involvement of Jewish architecht Erich Mendelsohn and Hollywood studios (run exclusively by Jews at the time) in planning, rehearsing and perfecting the most efficient way to incinerate German civilians, including infants, is documented by no less an authority than the U S Department of the Interior.

As to "moral equivalence," British ethicist A. C. Grayling said in a debate with Christopher Hitchens that "the firebombing of German cities was immoral." He negated the import of that statement by declaring that "It would have been more immoral to have failed to defeat Nazism."
Which begs the question: How does ethicist Grayling define "Nazism?" Put it on a timeline; define it precisely; include the parallel activities of zionists; then explain why it was appropriate to commit war crimes to eliminate Nazism. https://www.c-span.org/video/?192374-1/ ... ead-cities

Similarly -- Appleyard wrote:
"So does Irving admire Hitler? He has certainly expressed admiration in the past."

We've seen this style of baiting before: a fair treatment, an objective presentation of information about Hitler that does not dismiss him as "the embodiment of evil" becomes "admiration" and, in turn, antisemitism.
Old and tired.

It's both rational and necessary to assess Hitler in full, in human dimensions, in historical context and with an historian's rigor, scrubbed of emotional overlay. Are Caesar or Napoleon, Mao or Stalin dismissed as "evil" and the "cause of it all," whatever "it" is?
R H S Stolfi broke some ground with his "Hitler : Beyond Evil and Tyranny."
And it's good news that Mein Kampf sold out in Germany, and that Italian teenagers ranked Mein Kampf as their favorite book. CODOH members might consider holding "Reading Mein Kampf in ____" (your town) events with their neighbors and community groups.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby hermod » 2 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:04 am)

Isn't Irving's present life of a squire the result of his collaboration in spreading the exterminationist word about the Reinhardt camps, Majdanek and the 'Holocaust by bullets' ? I doubt Irving is now able to have such a good life because some young people in America watched his old videos on YouTube and decided to flood him under piles of money for this reason. Jewish organizations know how to bankrupt people through various means. Hard to believe these organizations would have let Irving achieve such a standard of living without compensation from him. Reminds me Theodor Herzl's diaries and the passage where he explained that Zionists would not make their anti-Semitic helpers rich too quickly in order to ensure that the latter were not portrayed as Zionist stooges too easily. Have today's Zionists forgotten this specific advice from their leader ???
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

Review
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby Review » 2 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:46 am)

Myths2LiveBy wrote:
atomMan wrote:
There is also an interview with Irving in today's Sunday Times which I don't have access to.



http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/spiel ... -0lm0dt3pt

It does not appear the quest for truth or Justice for Germans was advanced with this interview.
Notice how the author baits Irving; this interview is one more opportunity to display Jewish vengeance and venom.
The comments are deadly.

Appleyard wrote:..... My mother was a Jew. That makes me a Jew. So, Mr Irving, on behalf of my people, f*** you and the Rolls you rode in on.
@bryanappleyard


Imagine an ethnocentric Christian jornalist in today's Europe, ending a newspaper article saying "f*ck you" on behalf of all Christians, because he disagrees with someone on a history narrative. I assume this journo is not even 1/10 the historian Irving is..?

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2514
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby borjastick » 2 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:36 am)

There are two current main stream famous figures - Cole and Irving - who used to clearly deny the holocaust but were pressured or compromised by the bully boys of the holocaust promotion industry to go light and say something to appease their attackers. Both chose to remain ardently against claims of Auschwitz being a death camp in favour of now supporting Treblinka as the focus of mass murder. Interesting as mentioned above that at Treblinka there is zero evidence to support their claims.

It's really just wallpaper, weasel words and bending the knee at the throne of holocaustianity.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby hermod » 2 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:40 am)

borjastick wrote:There are two current main stream famous figures - Cole and Irving - who used to clearly deny the holocaust but were pressured or compromised by the bully boys of the holocaust promotion industry to go light and say something to appease their attackers. Both chose to remain ardently against claims of Auschwitz being a death camp in favour of now supporting Treblinka as the focus of mass murder. Interesting as mentioned above that at Treblinka there is zero evidence to support their claims.


Exempts them from having to provide a plausible and persuasive explanation on why they are now turncoats living the good life. How convenient !! Very efficient and even wise, since their pathetic attempts to explain and justify their new views are always such a good laugh...
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby Turpitz » 2 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:05 pm)

Umm, what ? It's The Sun (Murdoch-owned?) who is implying Corbyn is "antisemitic". Not Irving.


Irving's site has pushing the Corbyn and Labour are ant-Semites nonsense for many a month, even though they have a huge 'Friends Of Israel' fan-club, like the Conservatives do.

The 'Labour are ant-Semites' bollocks is being pushed to court the immigrant Muslim vote, as Labour have abandoned the white-working-class of Britain. If they can keep the immigrant influx flowing and pander to them, the white vote becomes irrelevant. Krankie Sturgeon, the psychotic, neo-liberal Stalinist, charading as a nationalist, up in Scotland, is doing the same.

Being Murdoch owned it's quite peculiar that they have a huge picture of a smiling Irving holding aloft his wares, almost like an advertising platform. Do you think they will offer Rudolph, or Zundel some advertising space to promote their books? How about Niels Harrit? I think we all know the answer to that question without having to think too much about it. Irving must certainly be licking the right boots with a passion.

Judging him based on mainstream media narrative is kind of naive. Everything he says will be twisted to serve some agenda.


I have been aware of Irving's antics far too long to judge him on a whim, I can assure you. As he inclined to sue anyone who libels him, I await his reaction to this slander with bated breath.

Myths2LiveBy
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:15 am

Re: Antisemite, Holocaust denier … yet David Irving claims fresh support

Postby Myths2LiveBy » 2 years 9 months ago (Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:13 pm)

Irving has had the Rolls Royce for years. In one of his many videos he mentions that while he was still acceptable & books were selling well, he bought the car with royalties.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests