'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Hans » 7 years 1 month ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:41 am)

A particular unpleasant German war-time document on Auschwitz for Revisionists is a report by SS-Untersturmführer Heinrich Kinna of 15 December 1942. Kinna was deporting Polish people from Zamosc to Auschwitz, including those who were not considered fit for work. In his conversation with the camp leader Hans Aumeier (misspelled Haumeier) he was informed that they are killing Jews who are not considered usefull.

The report was submitted as evidence at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial on 2 July 1964. Previously, the examining judge demanded to verify the authenticity of the document and so Kinna himself was questioned on the report. He confirmed its authenticity.

What follows is a transcription and translation of the relevant paragraph (the full text can be found on the Auschwitz trial DVD):

"Beschränkte, Idioten, Krüppel und kranke Menschen müssen in kürzester Zeit durch Liquidation zur Entlastung des Lagers aus demselben entfernt werden. Diese Maßnahme findet aber insofern eine Erschwerung, da nach Anweisung des RSHA entgegen der bei den Juden angewendeten Maßnahme, Polen eines natürlichen Todes sterben müssen."

"Imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people have to be removed from the camp within a short time by liquidiation to unburden the camp. But this measure has insofar complications as, according to order from the RSHA, the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied on the Jews."


The classic Revisionist argument is that Jews unfit for work were NOT killed in Auschwitz because the camp records list so and so many unfit people. This argument is based on a misconception and simplification of the policy in Auschwitz.

1. The immediate killing of Jews unfit for work referred exclusively to Jews freshly deported to Auschwitz with RSHA transports and selected at the ramp in Auschwitz. It did not refer to Jews who were already registered in the camp and became unfit for work. Here a different policy applied. In this case, the Jews were transferred into a hospital camp and if they recovered had chance to get released into their block. However, from time to time (depending on factors such as how much labour was required, how full was the camp, also on the present camp regime) selections were also carried out in the hospital camps and inmates were liquidated.

2. Given the crowded situation at the ramp, the huge number of Jews subjected to it (several hundreds of thousands), the high speed the selection was carried out and the rough nature of the selection process, it is not unlikely that people unfit for work managed to slip through the selection process and were sent into the camp. Once they were registered, they were safe for the moment at least until an internal camp selection was carried out.

3. There was a gypsies family camp in Auschwitz. Prior its liquidation in 1944, it was (mostly) not subjected to killings and even children were born in the camp. In fact, most of the children in the records of Auschwitz are gypsis, which of course does not rebutt an extermination policy towards Jews.

4. There were Jewish family camps transferred from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz-Birkenau. These were kept alive for camouflage purposes and were also populated by children and Jewish people formally unfit for work. These camps were liquidated after some time but still left their traces in the records.

5. There were Jewish twin children kept in Auschwitz for medical experiments.

6. There were Jewish boys under 14 years kept as delivery boys in 1944.

7. Since 1943 the extermination policy towards Jews already registered in the camp was weaken due to a new regime in Auschwitz and lack of labour force for the war industry.

User avatar
Heimwehr
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:37 am
Location: jewish run democracy

Re: Killing of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Heimwehr » 7 years 1 month ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:50 am)

Hans, you have surely read Germar Rudolf's comments on the so-called Kinna report. You can find them here:

http://www.vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Rudolf33-50.html

In short: This report surfaced from communist Poland in the 60's. In this report Kinna says NOTHING about what exactly happend to the Jews in Auschwitz. Why was he not asked by the judge about it, as he seemed to be in the know, writing "reports" and so on?

And hey, why was Kinna not charged for his actions in Auschwitz? Strange, isn't it?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Killing of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Hans » 7 years 1 month ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:39 am)

Heimwehr,


Heimwehr wrote:This report surfaced from communist Poland in the 60's.


Kinna confirmed its authenticity in West-Germany, let aside that the fact it was found in Poland is neither evidence against its authenticity nor surprising since Kinna was stationed Poland.


In this report Kinna says NOTHING about what exactly happend to the Jews in Auschwitz.


The report is evidence that Jews were killed in Auschwitz (typically denied by Revisionists, hence the report is very significant) and there is no reason why Aumeier should have reported him they kill Jews when they were not. By what means exactly they were killed is another issue, which we have to gather from other sources.

But hey, why not ask Aumeier himself? If anybody knew, than certainly him. Hans Aumeier told the British on 8 October 1945 in Oslo:

"After the arrival, the prisoners were separated into fit for work and unfit for work. The people fit for work were sent into the camp and admitted by Political Department, they were registered there by number and name for the first time. The people unfit for work were sent to the gas chambers."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Aumeier/081045.html

Why was he not asked by the judge about it, as he seemed to be in the know, writing "reports" and so on? And hey, why was Kinna not charged for his actions in Auschwitz? Strange, isn't it?


Rudolf has not properly understood the report. Kinna had deported Poles to Auschwitz, but not Jews nor did he kill Jews in Auschwitz. He was not involved in the extermination of Jews. And having an official talk with the camp leader is no crime which could have been charged.

User avatar
Heimwehr
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:37 am
Location: jewish run democracy

Re: Killing of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Heimwehr » 7 years 1 month ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:44 pm)

Hans wrote:
But hey, why not ask Aumeier himself? If anybody knew, than certainly him. Hans Aumeier told the British on 8 October 1945 in Oslo:

"After the arrival, the prisoners were separated into fit for work and unfit for work. The people fit for work were sent into the camp and admitted by Political Department, they were registered there by number and name for the first time. The people unfit for work were sent to the gas chambers."


Has Aumeier confessed to the same British torturers who "worked on" Höß ?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: Killing of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Moderator » 7 years 1 month ago (Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:07 pm)

Hans:
Why do you always post claims that have already been addressed. Repetition doesn't change the fact that there is no substance to your claims.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Hannover » 7 years 1 month ago (Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:26 am)

The entirely bogus Kinna Report is necessarily impossible as is demonstrated by this must read thread:

'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

As I always say:
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

As for the Hans Aumeier tall tales, which are laughable, see him exposed for the fraud that he was here:
'Hans Aumeier'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... ht=aumeier

Just use our search function for Aumeier for more.

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

User avatar
Steven Willow
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:50 pm

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Steven Willow » 7 years 1 month ago (Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:56 pm)

"Imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people have to be removed from the camp within a short time by liquidiation to unburden the camp. But this measure has insofar complications as, according to order from the RSHA, the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied on the Jews."


When Kinna wrote, "the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied on the Jews," do we follow that "the measures" were gassing rather than transitting to other work camps? The only thing that we can logically deduce from this statement is that the Germans had different policies toward Poles and jews.

Of course, Hannover is absolutely correct that the scientific evidence not only trumps vague eyewitness statements, but makes so called eyewitnesses, like Kinna, completely irrelevent. There are countless eyewitness statements suggesting that the Nazis used gas chambers for mass murder, but if the physical evidence contradicts the witnesses, who do you believe? People who claim to have seen gas chambers and mass murders are like ancients who argued that the earth was flat. The earth may have appeared to be flat at a casual glance, and maybe a huge line of people being deloused appeared to be getting gassed. Revisionism is about scientific evidence and looking below the surface of things.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Hektor » 7 years 1 month ago (Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:57 pm)

Steven Willow wrote:...When Kinna wrote, "the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied on the Jews," do we follow that "the measures" were gassing rather than transitting to other work camps? The only thing that we can logically deduce from this statement is that the Germans had different policies toward Poles and jews.....

I actually can't see how anything more can be deduced from this document. But then the hole line of argument Holocaustians use is basically innuendo working with false premises to deceive the audience. The quoted statement sounds really odd, not even something Hollywood Nazis would do. Why not just write to kill/gas X number of each group, when you are already busy doing that to some anyway?

mincuo
Member
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 3:30 pm

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby mincuo » 7 years 1 month ago (Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:13 pm)

I don't comment that particular issue . But to me the piece of paper without stamps and signatures that emerges after 16 years, produced by a Polish slave regime, and presumably with intimidations, is very fine for Revisionists. Let's now imagine that Mayor Bloomberg and the council have decided to exterminate all the Jews of N.Y. in six "extermination camps" in the city. And now imagine that Mr. Hans after 67 years brings a piece of paper typewritten as the proof of that. And that's all. One can only laugh. Revisionists are a bit naive. They chase after every little thing, when a massacre of millions of people must have millions of proofs, big as a skyscraper. But there aren't. On the contrary there are proofs for the opposite, big as a skyscraper.
The poor piece of paper emerged timely, which is all that Hans can offer about 6 millions murdered, to say almost all the inhabitants of Switzerland, is just another nail in the HOLO coffin IMHO.
Beati monoculi in terra caecorum

SKcz
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:17 am

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby SKcz » 7 years 1 month ago (Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:27 pm)

Hans, i challenge you, can you show me alleged gas chamber used for alleged extermination as you suggested in your opening comment and show me how this device worked? Please, start your own thread and show me this device used for liquidation as you claimed.

Thank you.

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Hans » 7 years 1 month ago (Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:12 pm)

Heimwehr:
Has Aumeier confessed to the same British torturers who "worked on" Höß ?


I am not aware of any evidence that Aumeier was tortured or that the same people who mistreated Rudolf Höß were also in charge of Aumeier. Moreover, the hypothesis of torture fails to explain the consistency of main elements on the extermination of the Jews in Aumeier's testimony with other evidence unknown at the time (for instance the demonstrable reliable Broad report)

Hannover:
The entirely bogus Kinna Report is necessarily impossible as is demonstrated by this must read thread:

'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111


The Kinna report as such does not identify or necessarily imply homicidal gassing as killing method. Executions or injections or any other way of killing would be also possible in principle. Hence, the claim that the Kinna report has to be impossible because of astro's considerations on "cyanide chemistry at Auschwitz" cannot be correct. Furthermore, I have already reviewed and addressed exactly this thread here.

Hannover:
As for the Hans Aumeier tall tales, which are laughable, see him exposed for the fraud that he was here:
'Hans Aumeier'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... ht=aumeier


The testimony of Aumeier does contain inaccurate, confused and mistaken details, but this does not demonstrate a "fraud" (in the sense that Aumeier made up the extermination and gassing of Jews). These may have been the result of memory fading or Aumeier's distortions to unburden himself. The claim that the testimony is a fraud ignores that main elements in Aumeier's testimonies are consistent with other evidence. See also Van Pelt's take on Aumeier here.

Steven Willow:
When Kinna wrote, "the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied on the Jews," do we follow that "the measures" were gassing rather than transitting to other work camps? The only thing that we can logically deduce from this statement is that the Germans had different policies toward Poles and jews.

Hektor:
I actually can't see how anything more can be deduced from this document.


Willow's interpretation, seconded by Hektor, is not supported by the actual text. The sentence that "imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people have to be removed from the camp within a short time by liquidiation...but this measure has insofar complications as...the Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measure applied on the Jews" can only be logically understand that the Jews, which have to be removed, die an unnatural death, i.e. are killed.

mincuo:
But to me the piece of paper without stamps and signatures that emerges after 16 years, produced by a Polish slave regime, and presumably with intimidations, is very fine for Revisionists.


The report was actually signed by Kinna and its authenticity was confirmed by himself. There is no evidence that the report was faked by the Poles.

mincuo:
Let's now imagine that Mayor Bloomberg and the council have decided to exterminate all the Jews of N.Y. in six "extermination camps" in the city. And now imagine that Mr. Hans after 67 years brings a piece of paper typewritten as the proof of that. And that's all.



The thread is about the Kinna report, please stay focused. It is not about a murder of 6 Million Jews, but about the policy of the National Socialists towards Jewish "imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people" in Auschwitz. And the claim that 6 Million Jews were supposed to have killed in six extermination camps is a straw man anyway. According to historiography, only 2.5 - 3 Million Jews were killed in these camps.

User avatar
Heimwehr
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:37 am
Location: jewish run democracy

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Heimwehr » 7 years 1 month ago (Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:21 pm)

Hans wrote: (for instance the demonstrable reliable Broad report)


The Broad report is full of inconsistencies and proven falsehoods, see Rudolf's critique here:
http://www.vho.org/D/atuadh/II23.html

To make it short once more:
- Hair does not smell outside of a crematorium
- It is impossible to burn 4 to 6 bodies at once in one Topf muffle
- Crematorium chimneys do not produce darting flames
- Gassed corpses do not turn blue, as proved over and over again on this forum
- There have not been any burning pits in the swampy Auschwitz area
and so on and so on...

The Broad report is the complete opposite of reliability.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Hans » 7 years 1 month ago (Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:22 pm)

SKcz wrote:Hans, i challenge you, can you show me alleged gas chamber used for alleged extermination as you suggested in your opening comment and show me how this device worked? Please, start your own thread and show me this device used for liquidation as you claimed.

Thank you.


See here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7092

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby Hans » 7 years 1 month ago (Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:49 pm)

Heimwehr wrote:
Hans wrote: (for instance the demonstrable reliable Broad report)


The Broad report is full of inconsistencies and proven falsehoods, see Rudolf's critique here:
http://www.vho.org/D/atuadh/II23.html


Each of the Graf's (not Rudolf!) arguments is already addressed in my article in "Part IV – The Broad report in Revisionist and Anti-Revisionist literature", section on Jürgen Graf:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... broad.html

I make it short for you and provide you with the respective rebuttal.

Hair does not smell outside of a crematorium


According to Graf, the report's claim that the crematorium in the main camp did produce smell of the burned corpses is wrong. This is contradicted by his fellow researcher Carlo Mattogno who argues in Auschwitz: Case for Sanity (p. 310) that the crematoria did in fact emit smoke (and thus a certain smell).

It is impossible to burn 4 to 6 bodies at once in one Topf muffle


The practice of multiple cremations in Auschwitz is corroborated by numerous accounts (former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß[46], former head of crematoria 1 and 2 in Birkenau Erich Mussfeldt[47] and the former Sonderkommando prisoners Stanislaw Jankowski[48], Henryk Tauber[49], Dov Paisicovic[50], Shlomo Dragon[51], Henryk Mandelbaum[52], Joshua Rosenblum[53], Leon Cohen[54]), as well as by a letter of Topf engineer Fritz Sander of 14 September 1942[55]. These testimonies suggest a loading per muffle of up to three adults and that higher figures were achieved with corpses of children. In this particular context - the execution of prisoners in the crematorium in the main camp - the number of children was probably low, so that Broad’s figure seems to be slightly exaggerated...Another point Graf attacks is the loading of four to six corpses per oven (muffle). Multiple cremations are well documented and even if Broad’s absolute numbers are a bit too high, it is only a minor mistake, which hardly damages his credibility “irreparably” as Graf asserts."

Crematorium chimneys do not produce darting flames


Flames emitted by the crematorium chimney are also not possible according to Graf. But Mattogno contradicts him (again) that “under appropriate conditions the soot will ignite and flames will indeed emanate from the chimney”.[433]

Gassed corpses do not turn blue, as proved over and over again on this forum


While cyanide poisoning is sometimes attributed with cherry red discolouration, this is often not the case[154] or not prominent and not-detectable for inexperienced observers.

[154] International Programme on Chemical Safety/Commission of the European Communities Evaluation of Antidotes Series, Volume 2, Antidotes for poisoning by cyanide, quoted from http://www.inchem.org/documents/antidot ... /ant02.htm (accessed 17 September 2011):, “It should be emphasized that the bright-red coloration of the skin or absence of cyanosis mentioned in textbooks (Gosselin et al., 1984; Goldfrank et al., 1984) is seldom described in case reports of cyanide poisonings. Theoretically this sign could be explained by the high concentration of oxyhaemoglobin in the venous return, but, especially in massive poisoning, cardiovascular collapse will prevent this from occurring. Sometimes, cyanosis can be observed initially, while later the patient may become bright pink (Hilmann et al., 1974).”

There have not been any burning pits in the swampy Auschwitz area


Graf considers the description of the burning pits in the report as “utter nonsense”, but does not inform the reader where he has shown this. In his treatment of Mordowicz-Rosin he mentions something about “lack of oxygen” and “high groundwater table” but does not sustain any of these. Because of Graf’s failure to back up his assertion, it is enough to say that the use of burning pits in Auschwitz is corroborated by numerous testimonies.

The Broad report is the complete opposite of reliability.


The Broad report provides a large amount of factual claims which can be well corroborated by other sources. The author of the report clearly had wide and detailed knowledge on Auschwitz concentration camp, atrocities and issues which concerned the Political Department. The latter confirms the authorship can be attributed to a member of the political department.

The document is naturally not without mistakes and flaws. These mistakes are, however, quantitatively and qualitatively within what can be expected for a faithful testimony of this length. They do not justify dismissing the report as evidence.

The descriptions provided in the report are partly hearsay, which is, however, usually not made clear in the text but has to be established from other sources and from the context. The hearsay descriptions are more prone for mistakes, but are nevertheless often remarkable reliable. It appears that Broad was quite talented to gather information about what was going in the camp.

His hearsay information are in general much more reliable than those recalled for instance by former prisoners. This is explained by his superior access to sources. He could not only rely on conversations with SS men and prisoners but also official channels from the camp administration and investigations of the political department.

[...]

In conclusion, Graf points out a few minor (real) mistakes or inaccuracies in the report, but commits a much larger number of blunders himself. If we follow his own logic, Graf’s credibility is “irreparably” destroyed and we can safely dismiss his work.

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: 'Killing' of Jews in Auschwitz (Kinna report)

Postby The Warden » 7 years 1 month ago (Sat Jun 30, 2012 12:45 am)

Hans wrote:Flames emitted by the crematorium chimney are also not possible according to Graf. But Mattogno contradicts him (again) that “under appropriate conditions the soot will ignite and flames will indeed emanate from the chimney”.[433]


Hans wrote:According to Graf, the report's claim that the crematorium in the main camp did produce smell of the burned corpses is wrong. This is contradicted by his fellow researcher Carlo Mattogno who argues in Auschwitz: Case for Sanity (p. 310) that the crematoria did in fact emit smoke (and thus a certain smell).


It sounds more like the smell would be of soot, not burning bodies.
Especially considering that the flames would only reach the top of the chimneys if the soot caught fire near the base of the chimney (where the largest amount of heat would be), and continued lighting the upper regions of the soot in the chimney as it got farther from the heat.

And just how does the smell of burning bodies in an admitted, never-denied crematorium mean extermination again?

Hans wrote:While cyanide poisoning is sometimes attributed with cherry red discolouration, this is often not the case[154] or not prominent and not-detectable for inexperienced observers.

[154] International Programme on Chemical Safety/Commission of the European Communities Evaluation of Antidotes Series, Volume 2, Antidotes for poisoning by cyanide, quoted from http://www.inchem.org/documents/antidot ... /ant02.htm (accessed 17 September 2011):, “It should be emphasized that the bright-red coloration of the skin or absence of cyanosis mentioned in textbooks (Gosselin et al., 1984; Goldfrank et al., 1984) is seldom described in case reports of cyanide poisonings. Theoretically this sign could be explained by the high concentration of oxyhaemoglobin in the venous return, but, especially in massive poisoning, cardiovascular collapse will prevent this from occurring. Sometimes, cyanosis can be observed initially, while later the patient may become bright pink (Hilmann et al., 1974).”


No offense Hans, but you're basically claiming that any of the dead that weren't red in color simply didn't have enough time to turn red before the picture was taken.
Unfortunately, there were no red corpses anywhere. With the heavy use of outlying cases from both sides, you would think someone would've seen just one somewhere.

According to the claims of how much Zyklon was used and the time frames claimed, "massive poisoning" was the only possible method.
But we're to believe that the weak and "unfit" didn't die within the first few moments of gassings, thereby negating any "massive poisoning" from say your claimed "20 minutes" of exposure?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7092#p51980

Isn't is more believable to understand that no gassings took place which would account for the lack of red coloring?

Hans wrote:Graf considers the description of the burning pits in the report as “utter nonsense”, but does not inform the reader where he has shown this. In his treatment of Mordowicz-Rosin he mentions something about “lack of oxygen” and “high groundwater table” but does not sustain any of these. Because of Graf’s failure to back up his assertion, it is enough to say that the use of burning pits in Auschwitz is corroborated by numerous testimonies.


Hans, do you really need a source to tell you that a lack of oxygen, and water in the bottom of a fire pit will prevent a fire from burning? And not just burning wood or other material; We're talking about humans here. More heat (more oxygen) and fuel is needed. And of course... the drier, the better.

Do you deny that Auschwitz was located on lowlands between two rivers?
Now I can see making an argument for dry pits above the level of the two rivers, but below?
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Facebook [Bot], Lamprecht and 20 guests