Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 17th, 2013, 05:33 PM   #131
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 5,835

I see John Paul has resorted to posting fiction masquerading as history.

The video posted by him is not a documentary but a fictionalised reconstruction of the Wannsee Conference, not based on documentary evidence.

It has taken elements from a number of different sources and thrown them together as if they were discussed at the Wannsee Conference, which is historically false. It has also put the opinions of various historians into the mouths of the participants, which is again historically false.
michael mills is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 17th, 2013, 06:49 PM   #132

Davidius's Avatar
Varlet
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Pillium
Posts: 4,823

Quote:
Originally Posted by AfterTaut View Post

Hitler was talking about moving the Jews to Madagascar or Russia (anywhere but Germany), this was in 1942 when the supposed death camp policy was well under way.

These statements are in sharp contrast to the idea that the Germans wanted to commit genocide.
Hitler talked about a lot of things that had no basis in reality. He may have talked of relocations to Madagascar or Russia but those relocations only got as far as.... concentration and death camps.
There is nothing 'supposed' about the camps, they existed and they were evil.
Davidius is online now  
Old December 18th, 2013, 03:30 AM   #133
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Bleiburg
Posts: 167

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael mills View Post
I see John Paul has resorted to posting fiction masquerading as history.

The video posted by him is not a documentary but a fictionalised reconstruction of the Wannsee Conference, not based on documentary evidence.

It has taken elements from a number of different sources and thrown them together as if they were discussed at the Wannsee Conference, which is historically false. It has also put the opinions of various historians into the mouths of the participants, which is again historically false.
Good important point.
AfterTaut is offline  
Old December 18th, 2013, 03:36 AM   #134
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Bleiburg
Posts: 167

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
Hitler talked about a lot of things that had no basis in reality. He may have talked of relocations to Madagascar or Russia but those relocations only got as far as.... concentration and death camps.
There is nothing 'supposed' about the camps, they existed and they were evil.
As Michael Mills has said above we must stick to verifiable history rather than straying into 'reconstruction' and supposition.

What you have said here may be valid but you provide no quotes or reference to back it up and so it is merely your opinion.

Madagascar and Russia are both verifiable FACT, repeated by the Germans over and over in their documentation.
AfterTaut is offline  
Old December 18th, 2013, 08:34 AM   #135

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,715

Quote:
Originally Posted by AfterTaut View Post
What genocides, any info on that?
I'd suggest starting with Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands.
Underlankers is offline  
Old December 18th, 2013, 11:53 AM   #136
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Pax juxta probitatem
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by AfterTaut View Post
But the point of the letter is that Himmler wants to turn a 'transit camp' into a 'concentration camp', iow upgrading the camp; why would they even be discussing the camp in this way, if it were a death camp for the industrial extermination of people? ... Can you point to the evidence for this?
Quote:
As Michael Mills has said above we must stick to verifiable history rather than straying into 'reconstruction' and supposition.
What a pity neither of you has any verifiable history or authoritative documentation other than right-wing revisionist bluster. Both once again walk in to the trap, how very easy this is "Wannsee Conference", 'fiction' you called it. Various sources include Eichmann's own evidence at his trial in Israel 1961 and the film is taken directly from the minutes at that Meeting, discovered by Thomas Toivi Blatt, though not including the preambles and small talk, which must be at least close to realistic. Those minutes mark the key date , Jan. 20, 1942, and record plans for the extermination of 11 million Jews. Dr. Servatius: "How long did this conference go on and what happened after the conference was over?"
Eichmann: "The conference itself took only a very short period of time. I can't recall exactly how long it lasted, but it seems to me that I would not be mistaken in saying that it didn't take longer than an hour or an hour and a half. Of course, the gentlemen who participated in it would later on be standing in small groups to discuss the ins and outs of the agenda and also of certain work to be undertaken afterwards. After the conference had been adjourned, Heydrich and Mueller still remained and I was also permitted to remain and then in this restricted get-together, Heydrich gave expression to his great satisfaction I already referred to before...."
Presiding Judge: "... Now in connection with the Wannsee conference, you answered my colleague Dr. Raveh that this part of the meeting, which is not mentioned in the protocol, the discussion was about means of
extermination. Systems of killing."
Eichmann: "Yes." (http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_up...-testimony.pdf )

Delusions or blatant dishonesty again from you and Mills; which? Higher research on Holocaust histories are infinitely better and authoritative than disingenuous and poorly informed revisionist "sources" with little credibility here.

Arguing semantics with bagatelle Holocaust revisionists on a History website is of little value in comparison. Members are pointed towards Eichmann's evidence and his admissions about Wannsee plus this document from the House of the Wannsee Conference Educational and Memorial Site here: http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/engl/texts/w...conference.pdf

Quite what this pair arguing with no evident authority here have to offer, in argument or in addition to the wealth of German and international information available, is anyone's guess. I should just ignore them both.

And this: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_up...-testimony.pdf

Sobibor - The Forgotten Revolt, by Thomas Toivi Blatt

Institut für Zeitgeschichte: Publikation

Quote:
The Holocaust Sites Preservations Committee, founded by the Milken Foundation, the Dutch and German governments. The plaques state clearly and unequivocally in five languages that the victims of Sobibor were Jews.( Sobibor - The Forgotten Revolt, by Thomas Toivi Blatt)
Martin Rudner - THE HOLOCAUST IN BUCZACZ

Haus der Wannsee-Konferenz Berlin: Haus der Wannsee-Konferenz - Berlin.de

Mark Roseman, The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution (2002), pp. 1-8, pp.79-105

Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman, "How Deniers Distort History: Flaws, Fallacies and Failings in the Deniers' Arguments," in: Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley, 2000), chap. 5: pp. 99-119, pp. 189-199

All that remains for this pair to say is that Eichmann was lying (both, will of course, know better than Eichmann) and they'll continue to bluster without any authority against the wealth of German and international research available. Both presume to argue with the Wannsee Memorial House itself, maintained by the German people in Berlin.I would assume?

Last edited by John Paul; December 18th, 2013 at 11:55 AM.
John Paul is offline  
Old December 18th, 2013, 02:44 PM   #137
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 5,835

Eichmann's testimony at his Jerusalem trial has in fact been questioned by historians such as Peter Longerich.

The basis of that criticism is that Heydrich would have had no need at the Wannsee Conference to reveal any details of what was to be done to the deported Jews. The purpose of the conference was to present to the representatives of the German ministries that had their own Jewish policies the mission that had been assigned to Heydrich by Goering in the letter of July 1941, and to gain their acceptance that from now on he was in sole charge of all Jewish policy, and that they were to take direction from him.

To achieve that purpose, all that Heydrich needed to reveal to the assembled representatives of the ministries was that he had a plan approved by Hitler, namely to deport all the Jews of German-occupied Europe into conquered Soviet territory. He did not need to reveal the precise details of that plan.

The deportation plan Heydrich revealed was an old one, that had been worked on by Eichmann's office since early 1941. It is entirely possible that it was already redundant, due to the failure to defeat the Soviet Union before the end of 1941, and that Heydrich's men were already working on a new plan, to send non-working Jews to extermination camps in occupied Poland. But if that was indeed the case, Heydrich had no need to reveal it.

Accordingly, it is unlikely that the representatives of the German ministries stood around in small groups discussing methods of killing, as alleged by Eichmann at his trial. In fact, there is nothing in the notes and reports made by the conference participants on their return to their offices that in anyway indicates that killing was discussed at the conference, and after the war all of them strenuously denied that any such discussion had taken place.

For example, Goebbels, whose ministry was not represented at the Wannsee Conference, did not receive a copy of the minutes until about a month later. In his diary, in which he is usually quite explicit, he recorded the receipt of the minutes, and described the plan contained in them as one of deportation of Jews into Soviet territory, not of mass-killing. If mass-killing had been part of the revealed plan, Goebbels would surely have said so; in his diary entry of 27 March 1942, he had no qualms about describing the killing operation run by Globocnik, in which 60% of the Jews of the Lublin District were to be "liquidated", the word used by Goebbels.

Eichmann's claims made at his trial can therefore be explained as an attempt to minimise his own responsibility. That in fact is exactly how he framed his allegations; if a senior official of a German ministry such as Wilhelm Stuckart, whom Eichmann specifically named, was openly talking about mass-killing, how could a lowly subordinate bureaucrat like himself be blamed.
michael mills is offline  
Old December 18th, 2013, 03:00 PM   #138
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Bleiburg
Posts: 167

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Paul View Post
What a pity neither of you has any verifiable history or authoritative documentation other than right-wing revisionist bluster. Both once again walk in to the trap, how very easy this is "Wannsee Conference", 'fiction' you called it. Various sources include Eichmann's own evidence at his trial in Israel 1961 and the film is taken directly from the minutes at that Meeting, discovered by Thomas Toivi Blatt, though not including the preambles and small talk, which must be at least close to realistic. Those minutes mark the key date , Jan. 20, 1942, and record plans for the extermination of 11 million Jews.
Dr. Servatius: "How long did this conference go on and what happened after the conference was over?"
Eichmann: "The conference itself took only a very short period of time. I can't recall exactly how long it lasted, but it seems to me that I would not be mistaken in saying that it didn't take longer than an hour or an hour and a half. Of course, the gentlemen who participated in it would later on be standing in small groups to discuss the ins and outs of the agenda and also of certain work to be undertaken afterwards. After the conference had been adjourned, Heydrich and Mueller still remained and I was also permitted to remain and then in this restricted get-together, Heydrich gave expression to his great satisfaction I already referred to before...."
Presiding Judge: "... Now in connection with the Wannsee conference, you answered my colleague Dr. Raveh that this part of the meeting, which is not mentioned in the protocol, the discussion was about means of
extermination. Systems of killing."
Eichmann: "Yes." (http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_up...-testimony.pdf )

Delusions or blatant dishonesty again from you and Mills; which? Higher research on Holocaust histories are infinitely better and authoritative than disingenuous and poorly informed revisionist "sources" with little credibility here.

Arguing semantics with bagatelle Holocaust revisionists on a History website is of little value in comparison. Members are pointed towards Eichmann's evidence and his admissions about Wannsee plus this document from the House of the Wannsee Conference Educational and Memorial Site here: http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/engl/texts/w...conference.pdf

Quite what this pair arguing with no evident authority here have to offer, in argument or in addition to the wealth of German and international information available, is anyone's guess. I should just ignore them both.

And this: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_up...-testimony.pdf

Sobibor - The Forgotten Revolt, by Thomas Toivi Blatt

Institut für Zeitgeschichte: Publikation



Martin Rudner - THE HOLOCAUST IN BUCZACZ

Haus der Wannsee-Konferenz Berlin: Haus der Wannsee-Konferenz - Berlin.de

Mark Roseman, The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution (2002), pp. 1-8, pp.79-105

Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman, "How Deniers Distort History: Flaws, Fallacies and Failings in the Deniers' Arguments," in: Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley, 2000), chap. 5: pp. 99-119, pp. 189-199

All that remains for this pair to say is that Eichmann was lying (both, will of course, know better than Eichmann) and they'll continue to bluster without any authority against the wealth of German and international research available. Both presume to argue with the Wannsee Memorial House itself, maintained by the German people in Berlin.I would assume?
Eichmann knew he was in a desperate situation and was probably likely to be killed by the Israelis, so his motivation was to try and save himself. His words cant be trusted.

After being kidnapped from Argentina, drugged and flown to Israel. During his interrogation, the lights were never switched-off in his cell even at night, a guard was always present in his cell, day and night.

"When Eichmann sat facing me for the first time, he was a bundle of nerves. The left half of his face twitched. He hid his trembling hands under the table. I could feel his fear, and it would have been easy to make short work of him. He only knew his own methods of interrogation and those of his former colleagues in the Gestapo. It must have seemed less than likely to him that the Israeli police would treat him with extreme fairness.

As I watched Eichmann sitting there in this condition, I suddenly had the feeling I was holding a bird in my hand, a creature who felt completely at my mercy. But that impression soon passed. His statements and the documents we examined together revealed the cold sophistication and cunning with which he had planned and carried out the extermination of the Jews. Occasionally, this filled me with such loathing that I couldn’t bear to be near him and would cast about for excuses to postpone the next hearing to another day, just to avoid having to follow his horrible descriptions or listen to his brazen lies."

« Interrogating Eichmann Commentary Magazine

Professor Browning also admitted that even the memoirs of Adolf Eichmann contain “calculated lies for legal defense.”
Christopher R. Browning, Collected Memories: Holocaust History and Postwar Testimony (The University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), pp. 3-4, 8-9.

Hannah Arendt (1906 – 1975), German American Jewish political theorist admits that it was a show trial . Arendt published in 1963; Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, a book on the 1961 trial of SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Adolf Eichmann in Israel.

Quote:
Clearly, this courtroom is not a bad place for the show trial David Ben-Burion, Prime Minister of Israel, had in mind when he decided to have Eichmann kidnapped in Argentina and brought to the District Court of Jerusalem to stand trial for his role in the "final solution of the Jewish question.
The Wannsee conference is not seen as significant by many authors:

Quote:
It is notable that none of the researchers named by Browning held to the old fairy tale that the decision for the annihilation of the Jews was taken at the Wannsee Conference in Berlin on 20th January 1942. In 1992 the Israeli Holocaust expert Yehuda Bauer derided this tough old myth as a silly story.17
Quote:
"Silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at...According to Prof. Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew Uni-versity in Jerusalem, Wannsee was a meeting, "but hardly a conference", and "little of what was said there was executed in detail."

Bauer addressed the opening session of an international conference held here to mark the 50th anniversary of the decision to carry out the "Final Solution". "But it was not made at Wannsee", the Czech born scholar said...
16 Christopher Browning, op. cit. (note 13) p. 192.
17 Canadian Jewish News, 30th January 1992.
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres2/JGgiant.pdf

German government statement on the FALSE Wannsee-Conference story:

"An unbiased study of the minutes (of the Wannsee-Conference) establishes that those who met there had not concluded anything that could be evaluated as an intellectual or ordered initiation of the crime. Unfortunately historical science was not able to satisfy the need for a precise picture regarding the Wannsee matter, its representatives were unable to produce a logical alternative to the false Wannsee image. ... Eventually it seems that they have at least successfully shattered the popular erroneous picture [that the extermination of the Jews was mapped out at Wannsee]. However, altered versions, still quite remote from the truth, of this image could recently be found in the press again, stating that on January 20, 1942, the participants of the Wannsee-Conference had concluded 'coordinating measures for the murder of 11 million Jews from European countries'."

Politics and Contemporary History (supplement of "Das Parlament", the official German parliament magazine) B 1-2/92 - Jan. 3, 1992, page 18

Last edited by AfterTaut; December 18th, 2013 at 03:32 PM.
AfterTaut is offline  
Old December 18th, 2013, 03:07 PM   #139
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 5,835

Here is an excerpt from the paper by Peter Longerich, that was linked by John Paul:

Quote:

Most historians assume that the conference must have been preceded by a fundamental decision to murder every Jew in Europe, and that the meeting was a forum for discussion of the organization and implementation of the genocide that was already underway
(1). When such a fundamental decision is supposed to have been taken, however, is disputed. A series of historians have taken the view that this decision had already been made before the beginning of the Russian campaign. Others are of the opinion that the basic decision was taken in the summer of 1941 (2), in a feeling of euphoria at the predicted victory over the Soviet Union, or in the autumn of 1941, in light of the failure - which was already becoming clear - of the 'Blitzkrieg' in the east (3). Christian Gerlach has recently expressed the view that Hitler’s 'fundamental decision' to murder the European Jews was taken immediately after his declaration of war on the USA in December 1941. Gerlach's theory has caused a sensation and must be examined more closely(4). There are indications, however, that a final decision to murder all European Jews could only have been made during the spring or summer of 1942 (5). A radical counter-position adopted by Martin Broszat, for instance, holds that there was never any 'Führer’s decision', but that the destruction of the Jews was 'seen [by the Nazis] as "a way out" of a cul-de-sac into which they had manoeuvred themselves' (6).


If the decision to kill all European Jews was only made in the spring or summer of 1942, then logically such an action could not have been discussed at the Wannsee Conference, in January of that year.

Note also the opinion of the late Martin Broszat, a respected historian of the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte, that there never was a decision by Hitler to exterminate all Jews in his power.

One gains the impression that John Paul tries to impress us by dumping a large amount of material in his posts, but does not take the trouble to actually read it and see what it says.

Another excerpt:

Quote:

We do not know the precise wording of the statements made at the conference. Eichmann said in 1960 in Israel that he had to edit the minutes considerably at Heydrich’s insistence, and that the participants at the conference had used far more drastic language, and had spoken about deaths, elimination and annihilation
(53). Eichmann possibly wanted thereby to divert attention from himself and incriminate third parties. In my opinion, the minutes should not therefore be read as a basis for speculation about what was 'actually' said at the conference, but as the guidelines authorized by Heydrich for the RSHA's allotted task of the 'final solution'. The starting-point for any interpretation of 'Jewish policy' at the beginning of 1942 should not be the actual proceedings of the conference, but rather their quintessence, which Heydrich presented to other supreme Reich authorities as the binding resolution of that meeting (54).

The highlighted sentence is exactly the point I was making.

I again call the attention to all readers of this thread that the above quotes are from a document that John Paul himself linked, in the misguided assumption that it disputed the points that I had made in my preceding posts.

I had read that document a long time ago, in fact I read it at the Haus der Wannsee Konferenz when I visited it in 2010. Accordingly I knew what Longerich said in it, whereas john Paul obviously did not.

Last edited by michael mills; December 18th, 2013 at 03:10 PM.
michael mills is offline  
Old December 18th, 2013, 04:39 PM   #140
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Pax juxta probitatem
Posts: 1,621
Blog Entries: 14

Thanks for the ONE single excusatory offering in your one-dimensional right-wing arguments. Yes, that sentence you weakly present above has been read among a mass of material since 1990, not revisionist right wing opinions (having been stationed in Berlin I had plenty of time in 1988-1990). Voila, both have their answers ready with magazine quality material, your focus is on Eichmann but where are the arguments against the other testimonies and verdicts? Once again, revisionist arguments here are worthless against higher research and testimony already demonstrated to you in black and white. I'll take that over your arguments. Under the weight of research, German government material and memorials, not the single opinions and weak counterarguments you scrabble around for , clearly you have no credibility here.

What exactly are your qualifications compared to German authorities and the documents presented to you? Will you tell the Wannsee Conference Memorial and Educational Site House they are wrong, they're lying? We know the Wannsee Conference and Protocol were carefully conceived so as not to alarm the wider populace and to leave no incriminating evidence of Nazi genocide. They have the (recovered) minutes of the Conference. In fact, they have them on display, and photographed them. Must we embarrass you again with more primary sources against your magazine articles and people's "thoughts" you present as counterarguments?

Sure , allied propaganda was in over drive, however this was mass murder in Nazi camps wasn't it, and people indicted were found guilty of terrible crimes by nature of their positions. Film archives, gas chambers, the camps, liberations, all archived.

Still not arguing with the German government either- conveniently side-stepped ? Still arguing with the higher research ? Jews' testimony, international research, and historians. Granted, despite subsequent research and the availability of archival material from the former Soviet Union in the 1990's, the prosecution's evidence against him was in some cases flawed, and some witness testimony though of historically very important, was of little or no relevance to Eichmann's activities. But he still got hanged, and not only because of the evidence in Israel, 1961.

The extent of Eichmann's crimes and his guilt were never in doubt (Eichmann Interrogated. Jochen von Lang, Da Capo Press,1999). Eichmann was head of department IV B 4 of the Reich Security Main Office (Reichssicherheitshauptamt or RSHA). The desk of the Gestapo assigned to deal with Jewish matters. Eichmann came under Heinrich Müller head of the Gestapo, who came under Reinhard Heydrich the chief of the RSHA and after January 1943, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who came under Heinrich Himmler (the Reichsführer SS), who came under Hitler. Following this? Good. Eichmann's helpers; Alois Brunner , Theodor Dannecker, Dieter Wisliceny SS-Hauptsturmführer who was arrested in May 1945 near Altaussee (Salzkammergut / Austria). Wisliceny was a witness for the prosecution at Nürnberg. His testimony was also used by the prosecution at Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem in 1961. During the course of his pre-trial interrogation at Nürnberg, Wisliceny claimed that in late April or early May 1942, Eichman had shown him an order signed by Himmler which, on Hitler’s specific authority, designated Heydrich to immediately begin the “final disposition of the Jewish question”.

Wisliceny was extradited to Czechoslovakia and stood trial for complicity in mass murder. He was found guilty, condemned to death, and executed in Bratislava on 27 February 1948. His testimony reads: "[Eichmann said] I laugh when I jump into the grave because of the feeling that I have killed 5,000,000 Jews. That gives me great satisfaction and gratification" (testimony given by Wisliceny on direct examination before the International Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, 3 January 1946).
Affidavit of Dieter Wisliceny

As fans of Himmler, you'll know that Concentration Camps in the Reich were arranged by Himmler. International Military Tribunal In Nuremberg

Remember the alleged "Eichmann papers"?
Quote:
Albert Hoffmann, the deputy Gauleiter of Silesia (Auschitz) ...in 1941 (or 1942: I think, in fact, in both years), I visited Auschwitz concentration camp with my Gauleiter, Bracht, and with the Reichsführer SS, Heinrich Himmler. Auschwitz was totally different from Dachau. The scenes I saw there beggar description. Brutality on the worst possible scale. I saw prisoners being beaten, I saw cadavers being cremated in the crematorium..."
Quote:
Eichmann inspected Auschwitz. He went to Auschwitz several times, as he recounts in his memoirs. He describes being met by Rudolf Höss, the commandant, and he describes several grisly scenes. He describes going past an open pit where bodies were being burned, and he says it was an infernal sight, the likes of which he would never forget. He describes how the commandant, Höss, tells him that they are doing these things on Himmler's orders and that it is a sacred task that has been imposed on the SS.
This was systematic murder wasn't it. Eichmann doesn't mention gas chambers at Auschwitz for example, he just mentions the disposal of bodies in open pits by fire, and the comments to him by Commandant Höss. Arguments against Gas Chambers are credible, they are, however the conditions in which Nazi prisoners; Jews among them were kept inarguably caused their death under a regime that wanted to eradicate and subject the Jews in Europe to horrendous brutality. Is this what you want to argue against and defend?

The Journal of Historical Review, March-April 1993 (Vol. 13, No. 2), pages 14-25.
Public Records Office – Kew.
Bundesarchiv in Ludwigsburg, II-208 AR 643/71, The documents of the investigations against Karl Streibel and others, Vol. IV.

These are not " my arguments", they are credible sources, against two revisionist story tellers on a History web site. . Start Googling again...

Last edited by John Paul; December 18th, 2013 at 04:54 PM.
John Paul is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
commander, hitler, jewish, ordered, protected, report, war



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Master and Commander: The Far Side Of The World SilverWolf History in Films and on Television 34 June 7th, 2014 04:28 PM
Hitler jewish himself? SudaniMujahid European History 8 December 4th, 2010 05:23 PM
Russia admits Stalin ordered Katyn massacre of Poles diddyriddick War and Military History 6 December 1st, 2010 01:25 PM
Official: KGB chief ordered Hitler's remains destroyed Fluffybunny War and Military History 2 December 15th, 2009 06:52 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.