Allied soldiers 'raped hundreds of thousands of German women' after WW2

[KingKhanWC]

The Kosovo intervention happened and a genocide of Muslims was halted.

NI was solved by the Yanks? Please learn about this. A Senator who was trusted by the IRA assured the British government that the IRA weapons had been placed beyond used - presumably dumped in the Irish Sea. He certainly did not set up power sharing at Stormont, allow Catholics to join the RUC, repeal Ireland’s constitutional claim on the Six Counties and release prisoners. That was Major, Blair and the Taoiseach.

So because of colonialism, you think writing off post-colonial third world debt is the wrong thing to do? Doing the right thing now is wrong due to the destructive actions of men who are long in their graves? That’s what you just told us.

My family narrowly avoided getting bombed to bits in WW2. If a bomb had landed fifty yards to the left, no Robert. My Uncle died fighting the Germans. I don’t hate them.

100,000 people were killed. No genocide was halted.

Yanks funded the IRA. Its their decision which led to any deal with the IRA. Bliar is a poodle , wake up dude.

Your family avoided. What if they were all killed? Or the women in your family were giving birth to deformed children? WW2 was self defence(official story), Iraq was an unjust state crime of huge proporations.

Just answer this simple question with a yes and no so we can end this debate.

Does Tony Blair have the blood of Iraqis on his hands?

Yes or No. If you fail to answer , dont bother writing anything.

 

[James]

Blair is the stock example of how a long, high-profile and largely successful career can be completely overshadowed and ruined by making a single mistake.

It was a colossal mistake indeed and he absolutely does have the blood on his hands of Iraqi civilians.

Blair is a very intelligent man. He is also a devout Catholic. I wonder if he still really does think that he was right to forcibly unseat Saddam (which is what he says in public) - or if he privately reflects on what an unforgivable and bottomless series of dire consequences were triggered by his deeply sinful act of fashioning the web of lies that created a supposed case to invade Iraq.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Blair is the stock example of how a long, high-profile and largely successful career can be completely overshadowed and ruined by making a single mistake.

It was a colossal mistake indeed and he absolutely does have the blood on his hands of Iraqi civilians.

Blair is a very intelligent man. He is also a devout Catholic. I wonder if he still really does think that he was right to forcibly unseat Saddam (which is what he says in public) - or if he privately reflects on what an unforgivable and bottomless series of dire consequences were triggered by his deeply sinful act of fashioning the web of lies that created a supposed case to invade Iraq.

Blair has continued to justify his role. If he was fooled into believing Iraq was a threat to the UK, I could understand but he knew there was no threat and he knew millions would die/suffer.

He is an evil man, a terrorist and a war criminal. Anyone who has any sense of respect for this man, is no better than those who sympathise with ISIS, in fact worse imo as what Blair did ISIS couldn't do in 10 lifetimes.

 

[Tubs]

Disgusting.

Is very unfortunate that it is (most likely) too late for justice to be served.

 

[James]

Blair has continued to justify his role. If he was fooled into believing Iraq was a threat to the UK, I could understand but he knew there was no threat and he knew millions would die/suffer.

He is an evil man, a terrorist and a war criminal. Anyone who has any sense of respect for this man, is no better than those who sympathise with ISIS, in fact worse imo as what Blair did ISIS couldn't do in 10 lifetimes.

Along with Alistair Campbell, Blair fabricated and engineered a false basis for starting a war, and co-launched an invasion of another sovereign country which was illegal under international law. Given the horrific consequences of this action, The Hague should absolutely indict both Blair and Campbell on the charge of lying to justify lethal military action, and in Blair’s case there would probably be other charges as well.

 

[JaDed]

Evil man coz he behaved like conquerers of the past that some British Pakistanis are proud of .. some logic..

 

[KingKhanWC]

Along with Alistair Campbell, Blair fabricated and engineered a false basis for starting a war, and co-launched an invasion of another sovereign country which was illegal under international law. Given the horrific consequences of this action, The Hague should absolutely indict both Blair and Campbell on the charge of lying to justify lethal military action, and in Blair’s case there would probably be other charges as well.

Well said.

 

[Technics 1210]

Blair is the stock example of how a long, high-profile and largely successful career can be completely overshadowed and ruined by making a single mistake.

It was a colossal mistake indeed and he absolutely does have the blood on his hands of Iraqi civilians.

Blair is a very intelligent man. He is also a devout Catholic. I wonder if he still really does think that he was right to forcibly unseat Saddam (which is what he says in public) - or if he privately reflects on what an unforgivable and bottomless series of dire consequences were triggered by his deeply sinful act of fashioning the web of lies that created a supposed case to invade Iraq.

Devout Catholic? I guess that makes him a Christian terrorist - crusader to be specific - because let's face it if a Muslim leader did the same then he and his country will be branded as terrorists.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Devout Catholic? I guess that makes him a Christian terrorist - crusader to be specific - because let's face it if a Muslim leader did the same then he and his country will be branded as terrorists.

Bush and Blair both felt God told them to go into Iraq, they prayed together for this when Blair went to the US.

Osama Bin Laden and Baghdadi and 1000X worse, just different colour skin. But don't tell his fans.

 

[Technics 1210]

Blair is the stock example of how a long, high-profile and largely successful career can be completely overshadowed and ruined by making a single mistake.

It was a colossal mistake indeed and he absolutely does have the blood on his hands of Iraqi civilians.

Blair is a very intelligent man. He is also a devout Catholic. I wonder if he still really does think that he was right to forcibly unseat Saddam (which is what he says in public) - or if he privately reflects on what an unforgivable and bottomless series of dire consequences were triggered by his deeply sinful act of fashioning the web of lies that created a supposed case to invade Iraq.

To add : Blair was the perfect example of how the UK is the lapdog of USA.

 

[Technics 1210]

Bush and Blair both felt God told them to go into Iraq, they prayed together for this when Blair went to the US.

Osama Bin Laden and Baghdadi and 1000X worse, just different colour skin. But don't tell his fans.

Indeed but for some bizarre reason, white collar crime is legit. I mean I remember the number of US/UK soldiers who targeted innocent victims only to be let off under the excuse of - we were taking orders. This exact reason found the Nazis guilty.

Funny that ey!?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Indeed but for some bizarre reason, white collar crime is legit. I mean I remember the number of US/UK soldiers who targeted innocent victims only to be let off under the excuse of - we were taking orders. This exact reason found the Nazis guilty.

Funny that ey!?

This is controversial but the Nazis were mostly about defence even when invading, while this is about pure greed and religious extremism.

"Mr Blair told show host Michael Parkinson: "In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well." "

Nice God he has, telling him to shock and awe blow up children into a 100 pieces. I wonder if this is the same God as Israels God? Both seem to enjoy suffering of humans.

 

[James]

Devout Catholic? I guess that makes him a Christian terrorist - crusader to be specific - because let's face it if a Muslim leader did the same then he and his country will be branded as terrorists.

Well, yes, that is a proportionate way of looking at it.

Blair has always been very open about the prayer he shared with Bush and this being the moment when both men decided that it was the morally correct thing to invade Iraq. Why would Blair be so honest about his convictions if he did not believe in them so strongly?

It is safer to conclude that the Iraq War was driven by the usual assumed factors behind going to war in the Middle East - deposing an oppressive regime, changing the geopolitical landscape, controlling the flow and the price of oil - these reasons can be easily understood, although not justified or cordoned.

But the case of the Iraq conflict, the truth turns out to be far more frightening: it was a Holy War, fought in a Biblical context, by two devout Christian leaders, who were absolutely convinced throughout the campaign that everything they were doing was 100% right.

 

[Captain caveman]

Evil man coz he behaved like conquerers of the past that some British Pakistanis are proud of .. some logic..

ALL britains should be proud of their country!
Wars will continue to happen, people will be killed and females raped. It has happened from the stone age and it will continue to happen as long as man exists.
Every nation has committed these acts, no need to single out the greatest nation that has ever been - Great Britain, just because of your envy.

 

[Robert]

Along with Alistair Campbell, Blair fabricated and engineered a false basis for starting a war, and co-launched an invasion of another sovereign country which was illegal under international law. Given the horrific consequences of this action, The Hague should absolutely indict both Blair and Campbell on the charge of lying to justify lethal military action, and in Blair’s case there would probably be other charges as well.

There is no statute that either could be tried under. This has already been established legally.

 

[Robert]

Indeed but for some bizarre reason, white collar crime is legit. I mean I remember the number of US/UK soldiers who targeted innocent victims only to be let off under the excuse of - we were taking orders. This exact reason found the Nazis guilty.

Funny that ey!?

Um no, crime is crime.

I can’t think of a single British soldier who deliberately fired on civilians. Talk to the blokes who were there. The rules of engagement were really tight.

 

[Robert]

Devout Catholic? I guess that makes him a Christian terrorist - crusader to be specific - because let's face it if a Muslim leader did the same then he and his country will be branded as terrorists.

Specifically, the Crusades were to get Jerusalem back from the Caliphs.

Blair was influenced by an Oxford Don who told him that rich democracies have a responsibility to liberate poor countries from despots. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Blair wrote to his old teacher to ask if he felt Blair was doing the right thing for the Iraqis, but the Don had passed away a month earlier.

 

[Technics 1210]

Um no, crime is crime.

I can’t think of a single British soldier who deliberately fired on civilians. Talk to the blokes who were there. The rules of engagement were really tight.

We both agree a crime is a crime, but the courts do not. What happened to the soldiers who were exposed by Manning? Or the Israeli soldier who shot dead a helpless/injured soldier? Or the British soldiers caught torturing Iraqis?

The list goes on, but clearly there is 1 rule for the West, and another for the rest.

 

[Technics 1210]

Specifically, the Crusades were to get Jerusalem back from the Caliphs.

Blair was influenced by an Oxford Don who told him that rich democracies have a responsibility to liberate poor countries from despots. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Blair wrote to his old teacher to ask if he felt Blair was doing the right thing for the Iraqis, but the Don had passed away a month earlier.

The point is Blair and Bush believed they were doing God's work. How is this any different to ISIS et al?

 

[Robert]

We both agree a crime is a crime, but the courts do not. What happened to the soldiers who were exposed by Manning? Or the Israeli soldier who shot dead a helpless/injured soldier? Or the British soldiers caught torturing Iraqis?

The list goes on, but clearly there is 1 rule for the West, and another for the rest.

When you say “the West” you are talking about the militaries of three separate nations with three separate legal systems. Let’s stick to our own legal system.Do you refer to Abu Graib? Four British soldiers were investigated and charges were not pressed. Many civil prosecutions, however, are ongoing.

 

[Robert]

The point is Blair and Bush believed they were doing God's work. How is this any different to ISIS et al?

Bush sure. He was not very bright and a fundamentalist. Blair was primarily motivated by his old teacher.

 

[Robert]

This is controversial but the Nazis were mostly about defence even when invading, while this is about pure greed and religious extremism.

"Mr Blair told show host Michael Parkinson: "In the end, there is a judgement that, I think if you have faith about these things, you realise that judgement is made by other people... and if you believe in God, it's made by God as well." "

Nice God he has, telling him to shock and awe blow up children into a 100 pieces. I wonder if this is the same God as Israels God? Both seem to enjoy suffering of humans.

The Nazis were about exterminating people they thought were inferior and conquering as much territory as possible while continuing to exterminate.

Cheney and Rumsfeld certainly profited but after the collapse of the USSR wanted to spread freedom and democracy too. Unfortunately they only had one tool - regime change. A sledgehammer when what was needed was persuasion. Blair saw himself as a liberator, however.

 

[James]

There is no statute that either could be tried under. This has already been established legally.

I accept that. It’s an interesting reply though. I think we all know what Blair and Campbell did was wrong. That there is no specific law nuanced enough to convict them in these extraordinary circumstances does not mean that they were not morally wrong to lie and create a false case for a war.

 

[KingKhanWC]

The Nazis were about exterminating people they thought were inferior and conquering as much territory as possible while continuing to exterminate.

Cheney and Rumsfeld certainly profited but after the collapse of the USSR wanted to spread freedom and democracy too. Unfortunately they only had one tool - regime change. A sledgehammer when what was needed was persuasion. Blair saw himself as a liberator, however.

Sounds like you have been watching too many DR who shows lol. Extermination?

Germany was a growing superpower in the late 1800's, others were jelous which is why WW1 took place. The Germans then turned to fascism which they believed was the best way of defending their land. They were not Daliks because they made pacts with many other nations.

Blair didn't care to liberate people, his excuse was WMDs in 45 mins, this is not libetion. They changed their tune when the IAEA pretty much said their case is a pack of lies.

Not sure why you are giving benefit of the doubt to a proven liar, religious extremist and murderer.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

Brother, all in the speech. In fact there are transcripts available too :

https://samisdat.info/media/willard-hotel-speech-benjamin-freedman-1961/BenajaminFreedman1961.pdf

This is the story they did not want to tell you.

You had me going until I actually looked at the website - a thin veneer of supremacist/ anti-Jewish ramblings. This is no better than the self made internet historian who takes some facts, many allegations, and makes an entire account of "real history" and "what they're not telling you".

 

[msaaim89]

The admission of the criminals themselves, the tonnes of paper records and the vast number of witness statements?

I think he's referring to them being trialled against laws created post war. There was only one plan, to find them guilty, regardless.

 

[Technics 1210]

You had me going until I actually looked at the website - a thin veneer of supremacist/ anti-Jewish ramblings. This is no better than the self made internet historian who takes some facts, many allegations, and makes an entire account of "real history" and "what they're not telling you".

You can find the actual video on YouTube.

https://archive.org/details/youtube-rx1Rj6fHCNE

Enjoy.

 

[Technics 1210]

You had me going until I actually looked at the website - a thin veneer of supremacist/ anti-Jewish ramblings. This is no better than the self made internet historian who takes some facts, many allegations, and makes an entire account of "real history" and "what they're not telling you".

You are exactly the type of person who would deny the existence of the Barbour declaration, that is, until the British government released the document.

Listen to the speech, available on YouTube (not an anti Jewish website) listen to the documents the speech refers to, and you will find all references mentioned exist, and were released by respective authorities, including the British and American governments.

Then again, ignore the speech, because if it were not for the speech, then the people wouldn't have even known about the Balfour declaration.

 

[Robert]

I think he's referring to them being trialled against laws created post war. There was only one plan, to find them guilty, regardless.

The law works by precedent. The Hague Conventions codified crimes against humanity, while Nuremberg codified the Genocide Code, the latter Geneva Conventions and was predecessor to the ICC.

 

[Robert]

Sounds like you have been watching too many DR who shows lol. Extermination?

Germany was a growing superpower in the late 1800's, others were jelous which is why WW1 took place. The Germans then turned to fascism which they believed was the best way of defending their land. They were not Daliks because they made pacts with many other nations.

Blair didn't care to liberate people, his excuse was WMDs in 45 mins, this is not libetion. They changed their tune when the IAEA pretty much said their case is a pack of lies.

Not sure why you are giving benefit of the doubt to a proven liar, religious extremist and murderer.

I’m explaining that the man’s motivation was more complex than you think. Yes he lied to Parliament over the 45 minutes and should have resigned and let Brown take over. I like to think Brown would have stood up to Bush and said no, we are not helping with your adventure.

WW1 took place because a number of imperialist powers had filled up the world, couldn’t expand any more and butted heads.

I don’t know what “DR shows” are. Why are you giving benefit to the worst regime in history? The Nazis exterminated thirteen million civilians in twelve years. Quite apart from the death factories, “punishment battalions” followed in the wake of the Panzer advance into Poland and Russia and killed every human they could find.

 

[Robert]

Sounds like you have been watching too many DR who shows lol. Extermination?

Germany was a growing superpower in the late 1800's, others were jelous which is why WW1 took place. The Germans then turned to fascism which they believed was the best way of defending their land. They were not Daliks because they made pacts with many other nations.

Blair didn't care to liberate people, his excuse was WMDs in 45 mins, this is not libetion. They changed their tune when the IAEA pretty much said their case is a pack of lies.

Not sure why you are giving benefit of the doubt to a proven liar, religious extremist and murderer.

Oh, you mean Doctor Who. You have this the wrong way round. The Daleks are obviously Space Nazis, an attempt to turn the horror of that period into metaphor. This was implicit from the beginning but made explicit in a Tom Baker 1975 story which had a thousand-year-war, a bunker, a Hitler figure and forced eugenics.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

You are exactly the type of person who would deny the existence of the Barbour declaration, that is, until the British government released the document.

Listen to the speech, available on YouTube (not an anti Jewish website) listen to the documents the speech refers to, and you will find all references mentioned exist, and were released by respective authorities, including the British and American governments.

Then again, ignore the speech, because if it were not for the speech, then the people wouldn't have even known about the Balfour declaration.

If you can guess as to the kind of person I am, let me take a guess as to the kind of person you are. Someone who'd believe that the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the truth? If that's unfair then so is your characterization of me.

I'm puzzled about what you're stating about the Balfour declaration - AFAIK it was a public statement made in 1917, so why wouldn't I have known about it?

Look, I'm not credulous enough to believe everything in history. It'd written by the winners, ore or less. But there is a rigour and scholarship attached to research that the Nazi war machine was a rarely paralleled mechanism for genocide sanctioned by the state. And justifiable and abhorrent instances of Allied follies in war, such as the British firebombing of German cities (Dresden) or later My Lai in Vietnam are not equivalent to the murderous and coordinated efforts of a state that makes it a systematic policy to annihilate entire races.

And no single shot effort by a person or even scholar is going to prove otherwise. The current method of historical analyses may have its faults, but its the best one we have.

 

[Robert]

If you can guess as to the kind of person I am, let me take a guess as to the kind of person you are. Someone who'd believe that the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the truth? If that's unfair then so is your characterization of me.

I'm puzzled about what you're stating about the Balfour declaration - AFAIK it was a public statement made in 1917, so why wouldn't I have known about it?

Look, I'm not credulous enough to believe everything in history. It'd written by the winners, ore or less. But there is a rigour and scholarship attached to research that the Nazi war machine was a rarely paralleled mechanism for genocide sanctioned by the state. And justifiable and abhorrent instances of Allied follies in war, such as the British firebombing of German cities (Dresden) or later My Lai in Vietnam are not equivalent to the murderous and coordinated efforts of a state that makes it a systematic policy to annihilate entire races.

And no single shot effort by a person or even scholar is going to prove otherwise. The current method of historical analyses may have its faults, but its the best one we have.

Good post. A beacon of reason in a sea of whattaboutery and false equivalence. I look forward to debating with you.

 

[Robert]

You had me going until I actually looked at the website - a thin veneer of supremacist/ anti-Jewish ramblings. This is no better than the self made internet historian who takes some facts, many allegations, and makes an entire account of "real history" and "what they're not telling you".

Yeah, I found that site unconvincing too. There’s an grain of truth bound up in a ton of antisemitism.

 

[Technics 1210]

If you can guess as to the kind of person I am, let me take a guess as to the kind of person you are. Someone who'd believe that the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the truth? If that's unfair then so is your characterization of me.

I'm puzzled about what you're stating about the Balfour declaration - AFAIK it was a public statement made in 1917, so why wouldn't I have known about it?

Look, I'm not credulous enough to believe everything in history. It'd written by the winners, ore or less. But there is a rigour and scholarship attached to research that the Nazi war machine was a rarely paralleled mechanism for genocide sanctioned by the state. And justifiable and abhorrent instances of Allied follies in war, such as the British firebombing of German cities (Dresden) or later My Lai in Vietnam are not equivalent to the murderous and coordinated efforts of a state that makes it a systematic policy to annihilate entire races.

And no single shot effort by a person or even scholar is going to prove otherwise. The current method of historical analyses may have its faults, but its the best one we have.

Yawn.

The BF 61 speech was the first time the public was informed about the Barbour declaration.

If you think the speech is nonsense, then find me an instance BEFORE BF61 speech where Balfour declaration was revealed to the public and I will eat my tin foil hat. If you think the speech is nonsense explain why denial of holocaust was made illegal in various countries after the speech and I will regurgitate my tin foil hat and eat it again.

Of course you will not even make the attempt to falsify the BF61 speech because you are programmed to accept what the masses will feed you.

Until then, people like you are afraid to challenge the status quo.

 

[Technics 1210]

Yeah, I found that site unconvincing too. There’s an grain of truth bound up in a ton of antisemitism.

Questioning historical events in reference to the Jews is not anti-semetic. But let's stick with your logic. Questioning Islamic history is Islamophobic, yes?

 

[KingKhanWC]

I’m explaining that the man’s motivation was more complex than you think. Yes he lied to Parliament over the 45 minutes and should have resigned and let Brown take over. I like to think Brown would have stood up to Bush and said no, we are not helping with your adventure.

WW1 took place because a number of imperialist powers had filled up the world, couldn’t expand any more and butted heads.

I don’t know what “DR shows” are. Why are you giving benefit to the worst regime in history? The Nazis exterminated thirteen million civilians in twelve years. Quite apart from the death factories, “punishment battalions” followed in the wake of the Panzer advance into Poland and Russia and killed every human they could find.

You believe it's more complex. He lied because he was on a mission from God to take over Iraq not to liberate it. Saddam was an Iraq, Blair is a white man from a land thousands of miles away. Most Iraqis would prefer Saddam over being bombed to death and their nation in tatters but to you and Blair this is liberation lol.

Simple question, Is Tony Blair a mass murderer. Yes or No?

I was being sarcastic, I dont watch Dr Who but did as a child and remembered the extremination quotes. Nazis had allies, so their goal was not extermination of humanity.

 

[Cryin Out Loud]

Yawn.

The BF 61 speech was the first time the public was informed about the Barbour declaration.

If you think the speech is nonsense, then find me an instance BEFORE BF61 speech where Balfour declaration was revealed to the public and I will eat my tin foil hat. If you think the speech is nonsense explain why denial of holocaust was made illegal in various countries after the speech and I will regurgitate my tin foil hat and eat it again.

Of course you will not even make the attempt to falsify the BF61 speech because you are programmed to accept what the masses will feed you.

Until then, people like you are afraid to challenge the status quo.

Yawn? I try and debate your points and that's how you start your response?

I'll leave you to your tinfoil hat, internet scholarship and 'unique' historical interpretations that you totally, absolutely have unearthed to bring light to us sheeple. Carry on.

 

[Technics 1210]

Yawn? I try and debate your points and that's how you start your response?

I'll leave you to your tinfoil hat, internet scholarship and 'unique' historical interpretations that you totally, absolutely have unearthed to bring light to us sheeple. Carry on.

You are not debating. You have dismissed the actual live recording of the speech.

FEAR.

So yes as you say, carry on.

 

[Robert]

You believe it's more complex. He lied because he was on a mission from God to take over Iraq not to liberate it. Saddam was an Iraq, Blair is a white man from a land thousands of miles away. Most Iraqis would prefer Saddam over being bombed to death and their nation in tatters but to you and Blair this is liberation lol.

Simple question, Is Tony Blair a mass murderer. Yes or No?

I was being sarcastic, I dont watch Dr Who but did as a child and remembered the extremination quotes. Nazis had allies, so their goal was not extermination of humanity.

I don’t believe he thought he was on a mission from God. If so, he wouldn’t have misled the House with the dodgy dossier. Though Shalt Not Bear False Witness. I believe he thought he was a liberator, especially after his humanitarian successes in Sierra Leone, NI and Kosovo. Do I think he was a liberator? In those nations yes. In Iraq, no. I agreed with it at the time because I thought it was the right think to do. I was wrong.

There is no yes or no answer. He isn’t a mass murderer in law as evidenced by the fact that he has not been indicted for murder and/or war crimes, and won’t be. UNSCR 1441 provided enough legal ambiguity to allow the war to be unchallenged at the ICC.

The neocon plan was to defeat the Iraqi army and sweep into Baghdad to be welcomed by the Iraqi people. Ahmed Chalabi would be elected leader. Assad would respond by becoming a liberal pro-West leader. The students of Tehran would overthrow the Ayatollahs. The wave of democracy would continue to roll through the Gulf states.

That was the plan. Of course it has been shown to be terrifyingly simplistic and naive. The mistake was to believe that Iraq would default to democracy when the people had no experience of it and didn’t want it. That mistake was colossal with very widespread effects as we see today.

Not many civilians were killed by the initial fighting. The collapse of infrastructure due to shock and awe and the insurgency brought disease and starvation which contributed to enhanced morbidity of some 700,000 human souls. Blair has to answer to his conscience for that if not the courts. And perhaps to his God if such a being exists.

Sidebar - The Nazis allied with totalitarian regimes in Italy and Japan then they moved into and dominated Czechoslovakia, Sudetenland and Austria. Then they invaded the whole of Europe and a large part of Russia and deliberately murdered thirteen million civilians because they thought they were different or were just in the way.