One Third of the Holocaust

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Lamprecht » 4 days 16 hours ago (Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:43 am)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:What David Hoggan manuscript is that?

I would turn the IHR toward "holocaust denial outreach and activism." I'd cultivate a friendship and support for CODOH. Secondary focus would be supporting research. Research leading to an impressive discovery (and I think they're out there) would then channel back to media content for outreach and activism.

HMS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's referring to this:

viewtopic.php?t=12847

and / or

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7265&start=15
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Clay
Member
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2020 8:57 pm

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Clay » 4 days 14 hours ago (Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:28 am)

Lamprecht wrote:I'm curious about the math here.

Claimed death tolls at the alleged "extermination camps"
– Treblinka II: 700 – 900 thousand
– Sobibor: 170 – 250 thousand
– Belzec: 435 – 600 thousand

TOTAL: 1.3 - 1.8 million
I usually use "1.5 million +"

Which is 1/4 not 1/3 of the 6m. But it has been revised down to 5.1m, which is 1.7m.

Haven't watched the video in years, so my memory isn't so great on the numbers



According to the thisisaboutscience website, the figures claimed by the USHMM are as follows:

Belzec: 600,000

Sobibor: 250,000

Treblinka: 925,000

Total: 1,725,000

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

User avatar
Archie
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:44 am

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Archie » 4 days 10 hours ago (Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:00 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:I was happy that video came out in the general time frame that Irving, Weber, and later Cole tried to say the Reinhard camps are where the holocaust took place. That brings a chuckle thinking about it. The most absurd part of the holocaust myth, and this is where these guys are going to say it took place.


I was just reading this 1992 JHR article by Mark Weber and a co-author on Treblinka.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p133_Allen.html
It's pretty clear that in 1992 Weber did not believe in the Reinhart camp stories. Sometimes these guys try to pretend like they haven't changed very much (Cole does this especially). Irving at least offers a little bit of explanation for his "conversion." Weber has never offered anything more than a very perfunctory comments (holocaust is no longer relevant, etc). It's just not believable that a guy would spend over a decade of his life committed to revisionism and then undergo a major conversion but also not want to write or talk about it!

I think the reason they have shifted to the Reinhardt camps is simply because there's nothing there and therefore it's harder to directly falsify their narratives. They don't have to worry about anyone sneaking in and taking samples, testing for cyanide, etc. like what happened at Auschwitz. There are no structures, no blueprints. Nothing. The equivalent to a Leuchter or Rudolph type report would be a major archaeological excavation and they can just make sure that never happens. It you're looking at it terms of evidence, it is weaker. There are fewer witnesses for Treblinka than Auschwitz, for example. But lack of evidence can been useful for myth makers because people are generally willing to go along with a myth unless they view it as totally impossible.

PrudentRegret
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:51 pm

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby PrudentRegret » 4 days 7 hours ago (Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:33 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:Germar Rudolf seems to be running out of steam. We've been waiting for "Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained (Part 2)" for a couple of years. Part 1 was published a couple of years ago. Save for Carlo Mattogno we do not have anybody doing serious research in the holocaust at the moment.


More "serious research" is not really what's needed.

Obviously it doesn't hurt, but there is more than enough research already done to convince a critical mass of critical thinkers if the content is effectively created and platformed where people can view it.

Turning IHR into outreach and activism is the right call. It seems like Revisionism has 0 outreach or activism right now.

There is so much low-hanging fruit... There should be PR campaigns for opposing anti-free speech laws in Europe and anti-free speech censorship in the US on the topic of the Holocaust. There should be PR pushes to expose the lies of institutions like the Auschwitz Museum. The Museum recently claimed that they acquired a "human skin photo album" made at Buchenwald by Ilse Koch and I haven't heard a single protest from the Revisionist community... why let them get away with lies when it's a perfect soft target that has the potential to introduce many to the controversy?

That is what is needed, and from DenierBud's content I think he would be great for the job.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Breker » 4 days 7 hours ago (Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:04 pm)

Clay wrote:According to the thisisaboutscience website, the figures claimed by the USHMM are as follows:

Belzec: 600,000

Sobibor: 250,000

Treblinka: 925,000

Total: 1,725,000

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

That is the claim about Jews at those sites, it does not includes the equally preposterous claim of many hundreds of thousands of Gypsies and "others".
And let's not forget the absurd claims about other AR sites like Majdanek & Trawniki, etc.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
Archie
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:44 am

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Archie » 4 days 7 hours ago (Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:10 pm)

Lamprecht wrote:Apparently "5.1m" is the new number.


That’s Hilberg’s number from 1961. Subsequent “scholars” seemed uncomfortable going that low. The trend seems to be to lower the camp death counts (since those claims are too specific?) and increase the numbers elsewhere to keep the total around six million. Just pad the eisatzgruppen/shooting numbers or the ghetto deaths as needed.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10085
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Hannover » 4 days 7 hours ago (Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:26 pm)

Archie wrote:
Lamprecht wrote:Apparently "5.1m" is the new number.


That’s Hilberg’s number from 1961. Subsequent “scholars” seemed uncomfortable going that low. The trend seems to be to lower the camp death counts (since those claims are too specific?) and increase the numbers elsewhere to keep the total around six million. Just pad the eisatzgruppen/shooting numbers or the ghetto deaths as needed.

Yes, they now try to deflect from their claim of ca. 4,000,000 supposedly gassed in favor of the alleged 2,000,000 supposedly killed via enormous mass shootings into giant pits'. In fact, they are now attempting to raise that 2,000,000 number.

Excuse my French, but they are fucked on either claim.
Why?

1. Because the alleged 'gas chambers' were scientifically impossible, ridiculously so, and could not have done what is claimed.
The claimed human remains from those gassings are said to exist in known locations at the various gassing sites, those alleged remains do not exist.

2. Because they claim the alleged human remains from the alleged enormous mass shootings exist in known locations.
As has been shown, no such remains exist, period.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Lamprecht » 4 days 6 hours ago (Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:38 pm)

Hannover wrote:Yes, they now try to deflect from their claim of ca. 4,000,000 supposedly gassed in favor of the alleged 2,000,000 supposedly killed via enormous mass shootings into giant pits'. In fact, they are now attempting to raise that 2,000,000 number.

Changing 6 million into 5.1 million, or shifting around the "cause of death" of a fifth or sixth of the total number is somewhat trivial, at least to the casual observer.

What we do have is an admission of deliberate, systematic, long-term lying to the public about millions of alleged deaths. The motive of this confirmed deception was to make non-Jews care more about the event.
It used to be "6m jews + 5m others" but that 5 million number is "Officially" inflated by a factor of 10 times.

5 million gentiles / 11 million total victims - "a number without any scholarly basis" invented by Simon Wiesenthal
viewtopic.php?t=12403

Image
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Clay
Member
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2020 8:57 pm

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Clay » 2 days 16 hours ago (Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:19 am)

Breker wrote:
Clay wrote:According to the thisisaboutscience website, the figures claimed by the USHMM are as follows:

Belzec: 600,000

Sobibor: 250,000

Treblinka: 925,000

Total: 1,725,000

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

That is the claim about Jews at those sites, it does not includes the equally preposterous claim of many hundreds of thousands of Gypsies and "others".
And let's not forget the absurd claims about other AR sites like Majdanek & Trawniki, etc.
B.


You are correct Breker. And I noticed that I made a mistake in my math; the total should have been stated as 1,775,000 for just the jews that were supposedly killed at just those three camps. As it clearly states on the thisisaboutscience website;


Remember - we are only figuring the number of fraudulently alleged buried jews here.

(There are tens of thousands of non-jews alleged to be buried in these “huge mass graves” as well.)

http://thisisaboutscience.com/


FYI: the remains of those 1,775,000 million jews are supposedly buried in 72 "scientifically proven" mass graves at those three sites. Taken as a whole, each of these 72 mass graves would contain an average of 24,653 jews.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10085
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Hannover » 1 day 6 hours ago (Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:51 pm)

On CCS's / DenierBud's 'One Third of the Holocaust', once again here:

multi episode: One Third of the Holocaust / Watch the Movie -- Calls for Rebuttals, By DenierBud
https://codoh.com/library/document/one- ... ocaust/en/
and:
Dean Irebodd One Third of the Holocaust full (4 hrs Version) (4:15:18 Hrs),, By DenierBud
https://codoh.com/library/document/dean ... full-4/en/

It can easily be said to be one of finest Revisionist works available.
A sterling work of rational science and propaganda busting scholarship.

- Hannover

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the laughable 'holocaust' storyline is the message.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Archie
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:44 am

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Archie » 1 day 5 hours ago (Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:15 pm)

Archie wrote:
Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:I was happy that video came out in the general time frame that Irving, Weber, and later Cole tried to say the Reinhard camps are where the holocaust took place. That brings a chuckle thinking about it. The most absurd part of the holocaust myth, and this is where these guys are going to say it took place.


I was just reading this 1992 JHR article by Mark Weber and a co-author on Treblinka.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p133_Allen.html
It's pretty clear that in 1992 Weber did not believe in the Reinhart camp stories. Sometimes these guys try to pretend like they haven't changed very much (Cole does this especially). Irving at least offers a little bit of explanation for his "conversion." Weber has never offered anything more than a very perfunctory comments (holocaust is no longer relevant, etc). It's just not believable that a guy would spend over a decade of his life committed to revisionism and then undergo a major conversion but also not want to write or talk about it!

I think the reason they have shifted to the Reinhardt camps is simply because there's nothing there and therefore it's harder to directly falsify their narratives. They don't have to worry about anyone sneaking in and taking samples, testing for cyanide, etc. like what happened at Auschwitz. There are no structures, no blueprints. Nothing. The equivalent to a Leuchter or Rudolph type report would be a major archaeological excavation and they can just make sure that never happens. It you're looking at it terms of evidence, it is weaker. There are fewer witnesses for Treblinka than Auschwitz, for example. But lack of evidence can been useful for myth makers because people are generally willing to go along with a myth unless they view it as totally impossible.


Arthur Butz had predicted back in 1982 that they would eventually pivot to the Reinhardt camps (transcribed in Supplement 2 of his book). Auschwitz had long been the center of the Holocaust story and it had accordingly received by far the most attention from the revisionists. But as Butz notes, a key problem with abandoning Auschwitz and holding onto Treblinka et al is that if we are willing to discard the numerous Auschwitz survivor accounts and confessions, they why should anybody take the corresponding material from Treblinka seriously?

In controversies to come, the partisans of the received legend will try mightily to confuse and complicate the subject with all the tricks that we can anticipate and perhaps then some. We have the precedent of the Donation controversy showing that simple observations that establish the wildly ahistorical nature of a reigning legend can get smothered. Thus, my most important advice to those who enter the controversy is that they not lose sight of the fact that the real bone of contention, the extermination allegation, has been laid to rest beyond peradventure by ordinary historical analysis.

It follows that the basic tactic of the defenders of the legend, in controversies to come, will be to attempt to make claims that cannot be tested by the normal method of placing them as hypotheses in appropriate historical context and seeing if they cohere. That this process is under way can be seen from the remarkable New Statesman article of Gitta Sereny that is discussed above. She makes it clear that she would rather discuss places such as Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka than Auschwitz.

There are good reasons for this. Sereny puts it this way:

“Auschwitz […] combined enormous labour installations and nearby facilities for extermination. Auschwitz, because so many people survived it, has added most to our knowledge, but also most of our confusion as between the two types of camps.”

There is a valid distinction here. Auschwitz was a huge, multi-faceted operation, while the other alleged extermination camps were obscure facilities that functioned only for short times for the virtually exclusive purpose of serving as transit camps for Jews. Thus, we have a great deal of information about Auschwitz but much less about the others. For example, there probably do not exist relevant aerial reconnaissance photographs of the others,[84] nor were there any western prisoners of war at the others, nor were hundreds of ordinary civilians employed at the others, nor did inmates at the others come into contact with diverse people over a large territory, nor was there apparently any IRC cognizance of the others, nor were there nearly as many transports of west European Jews to the others (there were transports of Dutch Jews to Sobibor).

The consequence is that it is much easier to disprove the legend as it applies to Auschwitz than as it applies to the others, when we for the sake of discussion forego the general historical arguments against “extermination.” That is really why the defenders of the legend would rather discuss Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. There is much less directly contradicting their supposed “evidence,” which consists mainly of postwar testimony. That postwar testimony was mostly given before German courts and under the present legal and political conditions in Germany, revisionists cannot examine it anyway.[85] That is neat.

However, the defenders of the legend are in an impossible position here. They cannot concede Auschwitz without conceding the whole issue, for the reason that there is no sort of evidence they offer for the others that is not also offered for Auschwitz. If the “confession” of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss is fanciful,[86] then who will believe the “confession” of Treblinka commandant Franz Stangl? If the Auschwitz accounts of Rudolf Vrba and Miklos Nyiszli are not credible and their books sick jokes, then who will believe the equally sick Treblinka accounts of Jankiel Wiernik and other obscure people?[87] If the Nuremberg and postwar German trials have not established the truth about Auschwitz, then who will believe that they have established the truth about Treblinka? If the large numbers of Jews admittedly sent to Auschwitz were not killed there, then who will believe that the large number of Jews sent to Treblinka were killed at that camp? Much advice, then, to those who would engage in controversy is to not permit the defenders of the legend to get away with ignoring Auschwitz. The fact is that it is very easy to bring down the legend as it applies to Auschwitz and Auschwitz in turn, on account of the nature of the evidence involved, brings down the rest of the legend with it.

PrudentRegret
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:51 pm

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby PrudentRegret » 1 day 4 hours ago (Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:11 pm)

Archie wrote:a key problem with abandoning Auschwitz and holding onto Treblinka et al is that if we are willing to discard the numerous Auschwitz survivor accounts and confessions, they why should anybody take the corresponding material from Treblinka seriously?


They are never going to abandon Auschwitz. But they've already abandoned Majdanek (aside from a few holdouts among the exterminationist ranks), so they've already conceded the whole issue.

The Soviet-Polish investigation at Majdanek was finished months before the liberation of Auschwitz. Given eyewitness testimony and Soviet-Polish investigation was abandoned at Majdanek, which it was, then it has to be called into question everywhere else.

Not-so-coincidentally, Majdanek was one of the most well-preserved concentration camps captured in the war (with the alleged gas chambers captured intact). There is an interesting pattern where the more evidence is available for a particular camp, the more difficult it has been for exterminationists to maintain allegations of homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10085
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby Hannover » 1 day 4 hours ago (Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:26 pm)

PrudentRegret said:
They are never going to abandon Auschwitz. But they've already abandoned Majdanek (aside from a few holdouts among the exterminationist ranks), so they've already conceded the whole issue.
The Soviet-Polish investigation at Majdanek was finished months before the liberation of Auschwitz. Given eyewitness testimony and Soviet-Polish investigation was abandoned at Majdanek, which it was, then it has to be called into question everywhere else.
Not-so-coincidentally, Majdanek was one of the most well-preserved concentration camps captured in the war (with the alleged gas chambers captured intact). There is an interesting pattern where the more evidence is available for a particular camp, the more difficult it has been for exterminationists to maintain allegations of homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms.
The discussed David Cole had this to say about Majdanek and it's ridiculously alleged 'gas chambers'.
from: Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers
By David Cole : https://codoh.com/library/document/987/?lang=en
Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Majdanek Concentration Camp (Poland)

(27) Gas chamber 1 has two doors, both of which open INTO the gas chamber room. How can a homicidal gas chamber have two doors which open IN? Wouldn't the bodies be pressed up against the doors, as described numerous times by eyewitnesses?

(28) The main door into the gas chamber 1 has no locks. It can be opened from either the inside or the outside. There are no holes or fittings where a lock might have been. What stopped the inmates from opening this door?

(29) Gas chamber 1 has a plate glass window in it. There are no holes or fittings around the window where bars or any other kind of cover might once have been. Since the plaster around the window is covered with blue stains, we know that it is the plaster that existed during the time Zyklon B gas was used in this room. If there WERE bars or any other type of cover attached to this window, why are there no traces? What would have stopped the inmates from trying to climb out the window, or breaking the window and causing a gas leak?

(30) There is a room INSIDE gas chamber 1. Why would there be a separate room INSIDE a gas chamber? Doesn't this room indicate that gas chamber 1 was used for something OTHER than killing people?

(31) Gas chambers 2 and 3 are designed backwards. Chamber 2 has a Zyklon B induction hole in the ceiling, but no Zyklon B traces or blue stains. Chamber 3 has heavy, floor-to-ceiling Zyklon B traces and blue stains, but no Zyklon B induction hole. And, like the roof of Krema 2 at Auschwitz, the ceiling shows no sign of a hole having ever been there. Why would chamber 2 have a Zyklon B induction hole and no traces, and chamber 3 plenty of traces but no hole?

(32) The ceilings in chambers 2 and 4 are low enough so that the Zyklon B induction holes could have been blocked by the victims. What would have stopped the inmates from blocking the holes?

(33) The doors to chambers 2,3 and 4 are built to latch from the outside AND the inside. The latches can be opened from either side. Does this suggest that the rooms were used for something other than killing people?

(34) Getting back to the issue of hemispherical grids covering the peepholes, it is said that the point of these grids was to prevent the inmates from breaking the glass of the peepholes and causing a gas leak. Yet the hemispherical grids attached to the peepholes on the doors of chambers 2, 3 and 4 are attached on the OUTSIDE of the doors. These grids wouldn't prevent someone INSIDE the room from breaking the glass...but they WOULD prevent someone OUTSIDE the room from doing so. Why are the grids not on the inside? Does this contradict with the statements by Pressac and the eyewitnesses regarding the need for grids in a homicidal gas chamber?

(35) The Majdanek camp is built on a hill. At the top of the hill is the camp crematorium. At the opposite end of the camp, at the bottom of the hill, is the "Bath and Disinfection" complex, which houses the gas chambers. From the Nazi's point of view, what was the wisdom in putting the gas chambers at the opposite end of the camp from the ovens, and at the bottom of the hill (after each gassing, the dead bodies would have to have been dragged up the hill, the length of the entire camp, to the ovens)?

(36) As the Nazis were preparing to abandon the Majdanek camp, they destroyed the crematorium building. Why were the gas chambers not similarly destroyed? Why would the Nazis leave their weapons of mass murder intact for the world to see? How hard would it have been for the Nazis to destroy the gas chambers, just like they did the crematorium building? At least, shouldn't the Nazis have filled in the Zyklon B induction holes, which serve as direct proofs of homicidal gassings? Either way, the destruction of the crematorium is clear proof that the Nazis had both the time and the ability to demolish buildings in the camp if they wanted to. Why were the gas chambers not demolished?

(37) In his book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Jean-Claude Pressac publishes a photo of the Majdanek gas chambers, with the caption "Photograph taken at the Majdanek concentration camp in June 1979, showing one of the disinfestation gas chambers thought to be a homicidal gas chamber." On page 555, he also has this to say about the Majdanek gas chambers: "I am sorry to say, and I am not the only one in the West, that the Majdanek homicidal and/or delousing gas chambers are still waiting for a true historian, which is mildly upsetting in view of the fact that the camp fell into the hands of the Russians intact in 1944." Do these comments suggest that the gas chambers at Majdanek may in fact have been disinfestation gas chambers? At least, don't these comments suggest that there has not yet been a thorough investigation into the purpose of these rooms?[2]

(38) To sum up the Majdanek gas chamber issue: If we take Pressac's comments and then factor in the doors that don't lock, the doors that open INTO the gas chamber, the doors with latches that can be manipulated from both the outside AND the inside, the window in gas chamber 1, the room inside gas chamber 1, the lack of any Zyklon B induction hole in gas chamber 3, the lack of any Zyklon B traces in gas chamber 2 (which DOES have a "Zyklon B induction hole"), the heavy blue stains on the OUTSIDE of the building, and the location of the building, at the bottom of a hill, at the opposite end of the camp from the crematorium, is it reasonable to suggest that these rooms were delousing chambers?
Be sure to read what he says about the other alleged 'gas chambers' sites:
Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers: https://codoh.com/library/document/fort ... stions/en/

- Hannover

Only lies require censorship.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: One Third of the Holocaust

Postby borjastick » 22 hours 2 minutes ago (Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:24 am)

This one does it for me...
(31) Gas chambers 2 and 3 are designed backwards. Chamber 2 has a Zyklon B induction hole in the ceiling, but no Zyklon B traces or blue stains. Chamber 3 has heavy, floor-to-ceiling Zyklon B traces and blue stains, but no Zyklon B induction hole. And, like the roof of Krema 2 at Auschwitz, the ceiling shows no sign of a hole having ever been there. Why would chamber 2 have a Zyklon B induction hole and no traces, and chamber 3 plenty of traces but no hole?


They are all good but number 31 sort of sums it all up.

I firmly believe Cole was a revisionist/opportunist at the time and could see a jolly jape was in the making with his razor sharp observations.
'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


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests