Jump to content


We Need Your Help - Become a Site Supporter

For 16 years we've been delivering WWII discussion and research, help support our efforts for the next 16 years. Become a WW2 Forums Patron!


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Were the Poles the Greatest Profiteers of the World War 2?


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#51 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,249 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 27 April 2016 - 02:43 PM

....

Versailles was a "crime" because it proclaimed to respect self determination but actually applied it in a very selective way, and thus created the base for the oppression of the German minorities. That oppression was a fact, not Hitler's invention.  It was also badly flawed as a blueprint for stability as it created some pretty strange political entities such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in an attempt to make them strong enough to last. And of course not inviting the Soviets was morally unacceptable.

....

 

The treaty of Versailles was definitely a mistake I just don't see it qualifying as a "crime against humanity" or even a "crime" except in a very loose definition of the term.  A terrible mistake yes, poorly written or intentionally written so as to negate the principles it espoused, perhaps.  Certainly looking back on it how it was expected to produce stability is a huge question or course the same question can be applied to the break up of the Ottoman Empire and the post colonial states elsewhere in the world.  Personally though I don't like to push the expansion of definitions in general and when dealing with important concepts like "crimes against humanity" doing so dilutes and obscures the nature and import of them.



#52 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,249 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 27 April 2016 - 02:45 PM

How did WW2 dispel white supremacy? Started by "whites" won by "whites"...or am I missing something?

 

That's the Eurocentric version.  Parts of it anyway were started by Japan and the Allies while led by "whites" included pretty significant populations of non "whites" as well.



#53 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,249 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 27 April 2016 - 02:50 PM

...

The USSR was devastated by the occupation, no way I would say a country that suffered  millions of  deaths a "winner" but could count on a huge army, an ideology that appealed to the ex colonies, or at least enough to the leaders of the local revolutionaries to be their choice,  and a big power void,

....

 

In 1945 that would have been at least an arguably sound position.  By the 1950's not so much.  Certainly the USSR suffered massive damage during the war but in the decades that followed they were one of the two most powerful countries in the world and WWII arguably propelled them to that state.  Another way to look at it is that the US had wealth to spare and they used it to help win the war.  Stalin seemed to think that he has population to spare and he used it. 



#54 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 28 April 2016 - 04:50 AM

The problem of Versailles peace was that it created oppressive states where minorities turned into second class citizens by law and by the practices of new countries. It may seem an absurd, but pre-Versailles empires were treating minorities much better because empires weren’t national countries. Once division of citizens according to their ethnicity began, it was the beginning of the end of large number of peoples who have remained in harsh custody of brutal ruling majority.

 

Life of minorities in the inter-war Poland turned into a nightmare: more than a million of Germans have been forced to emigrate, German minority was exposed to harsh ethnic discrimination, Poland has introduced anti-Jewish laws similar to these implemented by the Nazis. Jews have been persecuted in the worst possible manner. Other ethnic minorities shared the same fate. They have been imprisoned in the Fatherland which was Fatherland just for Poles.

 

It is indeed sickening that pogroms against the Jews have continued in Poland long after the victory – that dragged into 1946 and perhaps longer in a hidden way. Many Jews have died in Poland after the of the death camps have been deliberated and closed – from the Polish hand. Versailles has started that and Potsdam has culminated that into an extreme.

 

I would refrain from commenting the fate of Germans on Polish soil after the fall of the Reich. It was much more than sickening. Instead, I will cite J. R. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Hawaii:

 

Over a million Ethnic Germans and Reich Germans in or from the new post-war Polish territories likely died, 1945-1948. They were killed directly, or died from starvation, disease, exposure, in concentration camps, or during or because of their deportation to Germany. Since these deaths were outright murder, or because conditions were forced on these people that would likely result in their deaths, this was democide. How many died will never be known, and it is even doubtful that we can come within several hundred thousand of the true total. As I often point out, the most thoroughly studied figures for the Holocaust, and with scholarly access to the relevant official archives, the best estimates of Jewish deaths still differ by as much as 41 percent.38. This is to say that such democide surely took place, but experts and scholars can legitimately disagree as to the number.

 

The more critical question is whether the Polish governments, 1945-1948, were responsible for the democide. The answer is yes, on several grounds. One is that there was a functioning and internationally recognized Polish government administering new Poland, and although the Red Army had an overwhelming presence, the government was not fully communist, and could and did in many ways operate independently of Soviet wishes. Second is that even were the Polish government under full Soviet control, the Polish government still, according to international law, could not be excused from responsibility for the orders it carried out. Finally, with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, trails have been held and former communist officials convicted and punished for their crimes against humanity and human rights while in office. If anything established the point, this does: Polish post-war authorities were responsible for the German ethnic cleansing and resulting democide. And thus this massive democide can be attributed to the Polish government of the time.


flag_eu.png


#55 TiredOldSoldier

TiredOldSoldier

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,204 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 06:14 AM

In 1945 that would have been at least an arguably sound position.  By the 1950's not so much.  Certainly the USSR suffered massive damage during the war but in the decades that followed they were one of the two most powerful countries in the world and WWII arguably propelled them to that state.  Another way to look at it is that the US had wealth to spare and they used it to help win the war.  Stalin seemed to think that he has population to spare and he used it. 

What happens in the fifties is not much relevant, other factors than WW2 had stepped in by then, the biggest one being the rebound from Fascism to the other extreme in big segnments on the European population. The USSR benefitted from the post WW2 power void. With 20/20 hinsight a lot of that "power void" was artificially created by  the gross overestimation of Soviet military capabilities by the Westen military, in order to get more funding, that made piliticians unwilling to stand up to the Soviets.

 

Comparing the USA and USSR WW2 one finds one got into the war because Hitler wanted to uterly destroy it and probably reduce it's population to sefdom if not outright exterminate it, the other over a colonial dispute about who should have influence over China. One could argue the war would never have started the way it did without the Ribbentrop Molotov pact, but the pact gave the Soviets some additional 200 Km of strategic depth that were possibly critical in 1941, So why are we condemning that while onsidering the post WW1 Polish advance to Kiev "necessary to reduce the threat of the red army" ? The 1919-20 Red Army was anything but a steamroller and had to deal with multiple crisys from Murmansk to Vladivostock, its threat was more from the ideology it carried than from its fighting power, but Polish nationalism proofed it against ideology so the likelyhood of a Soviet victory at Warsaw was pretty slim.


Truth is the first victim of conflict

#56 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 08:14 AM

The problem of Versailles peace was that it created oppressive states where minorities turned into second class citizens by law and by the practices of new countries. It may seem an absurd, but pre-Versailles empires were treating minorities much better because empires weren’t national countries. Once division of citizens according to their ethnicity began, it was the beginning of the end of large number of peoples who have remained in harsh custody of brutal ruling majority.

 

 

 

The History of these empires, Austria, Germany and Russia all say otherwise.

 

The Polish culture and language were repressed in both the German and Russian empires, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

 

Already during the reign of Catherine II in the 18th century, Jewish people were restricted to the Pale of Settlement within Russia, the territory where they could live or immigrate to. This coincided exactly with the seizure of Polish-Lithuanian lands...primarily the second and third partitioning. Alexander III escalated anti-Jewish, and anti-minority policies.

 

After 1870 the Poles in Germany were under an increasing pressure of Germanisation, and the Kulturkampf attacked their Catholic Church. Most Catholic bishops were imprisoned or exiled. The teaching language which had previously been Polish in the predominantly Polish-speaking areas in Prussia was replaced by German as teaching language, even in religious education where Polish priests were replaced by German teachers. The policy of forced cultural Germanisation alienated large parts of the Polish-speaking population against the German authorities and produced nationalistic sentiments on both sides.

 

 The Austro-Hungarian Empire was the mildest of the three (allowing the language and culture, and with semi-autonomous regions), but even there, there were distinct differences in privilege, based on ethnicity.

 

Your consistent denial of these facts is fascinating.



#57 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:35 AM

@green slime

That is entirely of-topic. If you want to discuss that, please feel free to open a topic about Chaterine II or a conflict among Kulturkampf and Polish Caholic Church.

 

Subject of this theme is whether the Poles were the Greatest Profiteers of the World War 2? Please.


Edited by Tamino, 28 April 2016 - 09:42 AM.

flag_eu.png


#58 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:52 AM

@green slime

That is entirely of-topic. If you want to discuss that, please feel free to open a topic about Chaterine II or a conflict among Kulturkampf and Polish Caholic Church.

 

Subject of this theme is whether the Poles the Greatest Profiteers of the World War 2? Please.

 

No. You made the claim the Empires were "better" than the nation-states in dealing with minorities. I showed you they were the progenitors of the later laws & policies. You insist on claiming the Poles were profiteering, which is utter tripe. The ethnic maps of 1918, were a direct result of German/Prussian and Russian anti-minority policies of the previous century, the very kind of policies you want to blackwash the Poles for. Apparently, according to your measure, it's ok for Germany and Russia to oppress Poles for 150 years, but the sheer injustice of Poles ruling over Germans is too much to bear.... It was the Soviets that primarily set the border (see previous quotes by Stalin and Churchill), and Soviets driving the expelling of ethnicities across Eastern Europe, a policy they had prior to Barbarossa, and which they continued with post WW2.



#59 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 28 April 2016 - 10:08 AM

Yet, you avoid conversation about how Poland acquired quite a sumptuous chunk of German lands - despite that such a gift was against the spirit of Atlantic Charter? What was the purpose of such a generous present?


Edited by Tamino, 28 April 2016 - 10:09 AM.

flag_eu.png


#60 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,249 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 28 April 2016 - 11:56 AM

What happens in the fifties is not much relevant, other factors than WW2 had stepped in by then, the biggest one being the rebound from Fascism to the other extreme in big segnments on the European population. The USSR benefitted from the post WW2 power void. With 20/20 hinsight a lot of that "power void" was artificially created by  the gross overestimation of Soviet military capabilities by the Westen military, in order to get more funding, that made piliticians unwilling to stand up to the Soviets.

 

Comparing the USA and USSR WW2 one finds one got into the war because Hitler wanted to uterly destroy it and probably reduce it's population to sefdom if not outright exterminate it, the other over a colonial dispute about who should have influence over China. One could argue the war would never have started the way it did without the Ribbentrop Molotov pact, but the pact gave the Soviets some additional 200 Km of strategic depth that were possibly critical in 1941, So why are we condemning that while onsidering the post WW1 Polish advance to Kiev "necessary to reduce the threat of the red army" ? The 1919-20 Red Army was anything but a steamroller and had to deal with multiple crisys from Murmansk to Vladivostock, its threat was more from the ideology it carried than from its fighting power, but Polish nationalism proofed it against ideology so the likelyhood of a Soviet victory at Warsaw was pretty slim.

 

I disagree WW2 had a profound impact on the 50's and even by the late 40's the Soviets were arguably a super power.

 

I'm not completely sure where you are going with your second paragraph.  I'm not sure I've seen anyone here state that the Polish advance on Kiev was "necessary to reduce the threat of the red army" but in the chaos of the Russian revolution I can certainly see how it may have seemed that way at the time.  The Soviet annexation of parts of Poland in 39 was like the German conquest of the rest of Poland a clear and unacceptable act of aggression and should be condemned as such.  How this relates to the topic at hand though isn't clear to me.
 



#61 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,249 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 28 April 2016 - 11:59 AM

Yet, you avoid conversation about how Poland acquired quite a sumptuous chunk of German lands - despite that such a gift was against the spirit of Atlantic Charter? What was the purpose of such a generous present?

 

Obviously because Stalin thought it was in his and the Soviets interest to do so.  Part of the problem with your position is that you seam to think that Poland was truly an independent country in the aftermath of WWII.  History clearly illustrates that the Warsaw Pact "countries" were far from independent
 



#62 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 02:21 PM

Yet, you avoid conversation about how Poland acquired quite a sumptuous chunk of German lands - despite that such a gift was against the spirit of Atlantic Charter? What was the purpose of such a generous present?

 

I've avoided nothing of the sort; That was explained earlier; Stalin compensated for the lands incorporated into Lithuania, Belorus, and Ukraine, which did not belong to those "nations" prior to 1939. Which only Stalin could do, as it was the Red Army ruling all these areas. Not the Polish Army. Not the US Army. Not the British Army. Doing so placated the Western Allies to some degree, who were mostly concerned for Polish independence. Poles were forcefully moved into the new Western region of Poland, by the Red Army. Or they were sent to SIberia.

 

Why do you focus on the issue of Poles, and not Czech misdeeds when expelling Germans from Sudetenland? 

 

It was said before; after the brutality of the war, the reckoning was always going to be brutal. There was never going to be any measure of individual justice. It could be seen as a collective punishment. None of the Germans expelled wandered around bemoaning the injustices done to Jews, Poles, Greeks, Russians the French, or anyone else. It's always their suffering we should consider. Well, all I can say is; suck it up.

 

Hell, even the Dutch expelled Germans. Germans had really outworn their welcome everywhere.

 

Could be, that's what you get for voting National Socialist:

NSDAP_Wahl_1933.png


Edited by green slime, 28 April 2016 - 02:31 PM.


#63 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 28 April 2016 - 05:42 PM

... Stalin compensated for the lands incorporated into Lithuania, Belorus, and Ukraine, which did not belong to those "nations" prior to 1939...

Thanks for very informative map but you should have known that the above statement is wrong: Stalin took what he considered correct: lands that in fact belonged to Ukrainians and Belorussians. We know that the Curzon line is the best to cut between Poles and the others. That wasn't a bargain, Stalin just took what he considered as Soviet possession and hasn't opposed a "compensation" proposed by the western allies.

 

And why do you use quotation marks when you make a reference to nations other than "Poles"? Do you think these people are just pseudo nations, "former Poles" so to say? I hope I am wrong this time.


Edited by Tamino, 28 April 2016 - 05:48 PM.

flag_eu.png


#64 Belasar

Belasar

    Court Jester

  • Administrators
  • 7,502 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 06:38 PM

@green slime

That is entirely of-topic. If you want to discuss that, please feel free to open a topic about Chaterine II or a conflict among Kulturkampf and Polish Caholic Church.

 

Subject of this theme is whether the Poles were the Greatest Profiteers of the World War 2? Please.

 

I think you opened the door on this by mentioning the pre-Versailles empires and how they treated minorities, and yes i watch too much 'Law & Order' reruns :) 


Wars are rarely fought in black and white, but in infinite shades of grey

(Poppy is occasionaly correct, or so I hear)


#65 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 06:41 PM

Thanks for very informative map but you should have known that the above statement is wrong: Stalin took what he considered correct: lands that in fact belonged to Ukrainians and Belorussians. We know that the Curzon line is the best to cut between Poles and the others. That wasn't a bargain, Stalin just took what he considered as Soviet possession and hasn't opposed a "compensation" proposed by the western allies.

 

And why do you use quotation marks when you make a reference to nations other than "Poles"? Do you think these people are just pseudo nations, "former Poles" so to say? I hope I am wrong this time.

 

Well, if you can find an independent nation called Belorus prior to 1945, you are welcome to show me. While the idea of a nation of "white" Russians had been around for a while before that, they were never really their own nation until very recently (edit; Just remembered the Germans set up a Belorus state in the wake of the Russian Armistice; it didn't last very long). Exactly when they achieved nationhood is debateable; they were a founding member of the United Nations in 1945, although few would really call them independent then. Ukraine was not independent in 1939, so can't really be called a nation when making reference to that time, however much it also deserved to be; the Soviet Russians were the ones seeing to that.

 

So your reference to my above quotation marks is purely on that basis, and not on the existence of Poles within their borders or not. It was the sorry state of affairs brought on by (in their particular case) Russian Imperialism.

 

As regards to the drawing of the border; it was entirely in the hands of Stalin. There really was nothing the Western Allies could do to enforce or "encourage" anything else; they still desperately wanted Soviet aide in the East against Japan.


Edited by green slime, 28 April 2016 - 06:43 PM.


#66 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 28 April 2016 - 07:18 PM

Essentials first: 

...

As regards to the drawing of the border; it was entirely in the hands of Stalin. There really was nothing the Western Allies could do to enforce or "encourage" anything else; they still desperately wanted Soviet aide in the East against Japan.

Let's be precise: it was a pole Mikolajczyk who was drawing western Border of Poland, not Stalin. He just didn't care. Again, a quote from Matthew Minutes, to support this claim:

 

STALIN I prefer that the war continue a little longer and give Poland compensation in the west at the expense of Germany. I asked Mikolajczyk what frontier he wanted. Mikolajczyk delighted to bear of a western frontier to the river Neisse. I must say that I will maintain this line and ask this conference to support it. There are two Neisse rivers. The east and the west. I favour the west.

 

End of quote 1.
 
The quote below can only come from the the mouth of an ardent Pole who refuses to recognize existence of any other nation between rivers Spree (*) and Volga except Polish.
 
(*) For those who do not know: river Spree flows through Berlin.
 

Well, if you can find an independent nation called Belorus prior to 1945, you are welcome to show me. While the idea of a nation of "white" Russians had been around for a while before that, they were never really their own nation until very recently (edit; Just remembered the Germans set up a Belorus state in the wake of the Russian Armistice; it didn't last very long). Exactly when they achieved nationhood is debateable; they were a founding member of the United Nations in 1945, although few would really call them independent then. Ukraine was not independent in 1939, so can't really be called a nation when making reference to that time, however much it also deserved to be; the Soviet Russians were the ones seeing to that.

 

So your reference to my above quotation marks is purely on that basis, and not on the existence of Poles within their borders or not. It was the sorry state of affairs brought on by (in their particular case) Russian Imperialism.

...

 

 


Edited by Tamino, 28 April 2016 - 07:22 PM.

flag_eu.png


#67 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 28 April 2016 - 07:25 PM

 

Essentials first: 

Let's be precise: it was a pole Mikolajczyk who was drawing western Border of Poland, not Stalin. He just didn't care. Again, a quote from Matthew Minutes, to support this claim:

 

STALIN I prefer that the war continue a little longer and give Poland compensation in the west at the expense of Germany. I asked Mikolajczyk what frontier he wanted. Mikolajczyk delighted to bear of a western frontier to the river Neisse. I must say that I will maintain this line and ask this conference to support it. There are two Neisse rivers. The east and the west. I favour the west.

 

End of quote 1.
 
The quote below can only come from the the mouth of an ardent Pole who refuses to recognize existence of any other nation between rivers Spree and Volga except Polish.
 

 

 

 

 

What a load of crap:

 

Stalin "I favour the West..."

 

and it was he that ultimately decided.

 

Your willingness to assign motives to others, in contrast of evidence offered, has been noted before. You are notorious for doing such when people disagree with your views. Such juvenile and trivial behaviour is really quite laughable.



#68 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,003 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 28 April 2016 - 07:52 PM

 


STALIN I prefer that the war continue a little longer and give Poland compensation in the west at the expense of Germany. I asked Mikolajczyk what frontier he wanted. Mikolajczyk delighted to bear of a western frontier to the river Neisse. I must say that I will maintain this line and ask this conference to support it. There are two Neisse rivers. The east and the west. I favour the west.

 

Since we are being precise....

 

If Mikolajczyk is telling Stalin what he wants...The why is Mikolajczyk delighted to hear of a western frontier to the river Neisse?

 

Thus, it appears that Mikolajczyk was being told by Stalin...not asked...what the border of a "new" Poland would be.  Therefore, a Pole is not the one deciding the borders.

 

So, the quote does not support your position.



#69 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 28 April 2016 - 08:40 PM

At Potsdam, Stalin argued for the Oder–Neisse line on the grounds that the Polish Government demanded this frontier and that there were no longer any Germans left east of this line.


flag_eu.png


#70 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,003 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 28 April 2016 - 08:58 PM

Unfortunately, the Polish government is not in a position to demand anything, especially from the Soviets.

 

The Polish government demanding something from Stalin, and expecting to get it - unless Stalin considers it to be in his best interest - is quite laughable.



#71 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:21 PM

It seems to be your personal opinion. Please, reveal your sources or this is your yet another guess. 


flag_eu.png


#72 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,003 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:35 PM

It seems to be your personal opinion. Please, reveal your sources or this is your yet another guess. 

You already quoted it...Let me refresh your memory

Mikolajczyk was delighted to hear of a western frontier to the river Neisse.

The Poles were not demanding, they were not asked, but they were being told that this is what they will be getting.



#73 Tamino

Tamino

    Doc - The Deplorable

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,462 posts
  • LocationUntersteiermark

Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:37 PM

Thats just yours missinterpretation. I will get back with relevant sources. Good night dear Takao.

flag_eu.png


#74 Takao

Takao

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,003 posts
  • LocationReading, PA

Posted 28 April 2016 - 09:56 PM

Thats just yours missinterpretation. I will get back with relevant sources. Good night dear Takao.

I look forward to it...Because, the subject was battered around a bit here:

http://forum.axishis...?f=111&t=201617



#75 green slime

green slime

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts

Posted 29 April 2016 - 05:25 AM

I'm beginning to recognise that Tamino is an avid follower of the BdV, The Federation of Expellees, the charter of which states; "the right to the homeland is recognized and carried out as one of the fundamental rights of mankind given by God", and which has featured "former" Nazis, such as judge Hans Krüger (the first president of BdV). 

 

Weird how Hans Krüger suddenly adopted that creed, after a decade of dispossessing Jews, Gypsies (and others) and enforcing race laws. Disgusting that he was allowed to continue his career unhindered by his past.

 

Assuming Hans suddenly found religion, God and morality (to say nothing of a sense of justice....) in his life, can someone please point out to me the relevant passage in the Bible's new testament, where this "right to the homeland" is explicitly granted?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users