Oh come come Southstar, what else is one to assume when someone claims Hitler was not responsible for the death of the Jews and others in Nazi concentration camps, but that it was the actions of the Allied Forces that resulted in those deaths? Do you honestly think they all died of starvation because of a food embargo imposed by atheists and protestants?
I did not call him a Nazi. I asked him if he was a Nazi sympathiser. He was the person who brought Hitler and the Nazi's into the discussion with his claims about them in his opening thread. I asked him how he could defend Hitler and the Nazi's when their own actions in causing millions of deaths is documented by proof and the testimony of the survivors. The survivors did not say all who perished did so due to starvation. They saw people being led into gas chambers, they saw them being led into incinerators, they saw them having to dig ditches and then lined up and shot. There is documentary proof of the genocide committed by the Nazi's. So when someone comes forth and claims that they were not killed by Hitler and the Nazi's but were in fact killed by a food embargo, I think others should be allowed to question his beliefs and ask for proof, don't you?
So far, Leo has offered no proof to back up his own statements. His is based in rhetoric and an attempt to defend a murderous tyrant, who was, for all intents and purposes, a Catholic. Kind of striking, don't you think?
Leo claimed that all the Jews were rounded up and placed into "Food Rationing Centres", which later became concentration camps and the people who supposedly "starved" there were killed by the Allies with a food embargo. Should we not be able to question his beliefs or his motives in making such claims?