The Bytown Boozer wrote:
I wonder what that map looks like with major petroleum deposits shown.
The once-feared general, who conquered half of Europe, had nothing more than a few jewels, sculptures, porcelain crockery and the odd painting at the time of his death.
jester wrote:Not sure what parts they're questioning that you were taught, but Macmillan's book on the Versailles negotiations is pretty good.
Remember all those cold war movies where nuclear missile crews are frantically dialing in the secret codes sent by the White House to launch nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles? Well, for two decades, all the Minuteman nuclear missiles in the US used the same eight-digit numeric passcode: 00000000. That fact, originally revealed in a paper in 2004 by Dr. Bruce G. Blair, a former US Air Force officer who manned Minuteman silos, was recently unearthed by Steven M. Bellovin, a computer science professor at Columbia University who teaches security architecture.
The codes, known as Permissive Action Links (PALs), were supposed to prevent the use of nuclear weapons—and the nuclear weapons under joint control with NATO countries in particular—without the authorization of the president of the United States. The need for such controls became clear during the 1963-1964 Cyprus crisis, when NATO members Turkey and Greece were reportedly seeking control of NATO nuclear weapons—to use on each other.
For decades, the codes were carried with the President at all times in a briefcase commonly referred to as the "football." At least that's the way it was supposed to work, following an executive order from President John F. Kennedy. But at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, more than half of the missiles in Europe, including those in Turkey, lacked PAL controls. And while Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara directly oversaw the installation of PALs on the US-based ICBM arsenal, US Strategic Command generals almost immediately had the PAL codes all reset to 00000000 to ensure that the missiles were ready for use regardless of whether the president was available to give authorization.
As Today I Found Out's Karl Smallwood reports, Dr. Blair stated that that the not-so-secret code was hardly a secret from the crews manning the silos. "Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel," Blair noted.
Tapes from late dictator's archive reveal back-up plans should he be toppled during First Gulf War
The late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein gave orders to launch missiles equipped with chemical warheads at Israel should his power be in danger during the First Gulf War, Israel’s Channel 2 reported Friday, based on tapes from Hussein's archives.
According to the report, Hussein stationed missiles armed with chemical weapons at bases across the country and ordered them to be fired at Israel should his regime collapse or he be cut off from his command staff.
A list of strategic targets was drawn up and included, amongst others, Haifa’s leading high-tech university, The Technion, because a teacher at the university had spoken ill of him.
Hussein eventually never launched biological or chemical warheads at Israel “because he never thought he had reached the point that he felt his regime was under threat,” Avner Golov of the Institute of National Security Studies told Channel 2.
Golov analyzed part of Hussein's large audio archive which included many of his meetings with senior Iraqi officials and foreign dignitaries and was captured by the invading US forces in 2003.
During the Gulf War Hussein did however fire 39 Scud missiles armed with conventional warheads at Israel in 199, killing one Israeli. Fears that he might also make use of chemical warheads led to the Israeli authorities distributing gas masks, and instructing people to seal all windows and doorways of their homes when the Scuds were heading toward Israel.
On one of the tapes published by Channel 2, Hussein told the visiting Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in April 1990 that “Iraq has chemical weapons, it successfully used against the Iranians” during its eight-year war with Iran, “and Iraq won’t hesitate to use them against Tel Aviv.”
In another recording dated to 1991 Hussein orders his vice president, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, to attack Israeli targets at night. When al-Douri asks whether Hussein is referring to military targets, he replies, “I consider every city in Israel a target.”
Saddam is still held in high regard by some Arabs for his 1980-88 war with Iran, his confrontations with the United States, his strikes against Israel, and his composure during his execution, which was recorded on mobile phone videos.
Hussein's resentment of the Jewish State continued until his death in 2006. Just moments before his execution, while a list of indictments was read to him, Hussein repeated: "Death to America! Death to Israel! Long live Palestine! Death to the Persian magi,” his executioner recalled in an interview with AFP in December 2013.
dempsey_k wrote:Philip K Dick's The Man in the High Castle is being adapted to a shitty SyFy movie apparently. Got me nostalgic for alternate history books I liked as a kid.
It's entirely possible that Hitler could have won WW2 if not for two things:
1. Franco refusing to allow Hitler to take Gibraltar.
2. Finland refusing to allow German troops in the Karelian Isthmus to advance on Leningrad.
If 1 is reversed, Italy and Germany take Malta, Rommel takes Cairo and Suez Canal, Axis takes Middle East oil, Turkey and Spain likely join Axis, a second front opens up against the USSR in Central Asia, Axis threatens British Raj, possibly crippling British Empire.
If 2 is reversed, Germany and Finland seize the Murmansk-Leningrad line cutting off a major route of American supply to the Soviets, siege of Leningrad ends with an Axis victory freeing up divisions for a second assault on Moscow, possibly crippling USSR.
How secret will of former German president Paul von Hindenburg may have knocked Adolf Hitler off course
- Hindenburg rejected Adolf Hitler's claim to power, pushing for democracy
- He recorded feelings in will, drafted by Fritz Günther von Tschirschky
- But Hitler demanded to see will before it was published and destroyed it
- Hindenburg hated Hitler, despite making him German Chancellor in 1933
- It was intended as a 'bomb timed to go off posthumously' and derail Hitler
If President Hindenburg’s will had been published the German people might never have given Hitler absolute power.
‘What if history” is usually “so what history”. What might have happened can never compete with what did.
But very occasionally history throws up a moment that perfectly illustrates the way that tiny decisions can have vast consequences. One such is the story of Hindenburg’s long-lost last will and testament.
The huge trove of MI5 documents declassified earlier this month includes a file on a pre-war German defector by the splendidly bulky name of Baron Fritz Günther von Tschirschky und Bögendorff. This aristocratic diplomat had been a confidant of Paul von Hindenburg, the venerated field marshal who served as Germany’s president from 1925 until his death in 1934.
Tschirschky said he had helped to draft Hindenburg’s last will and testament, in which the dying statesman, a powerful political figure, disavowed Hitler and urged Germany to embrace democracy.
Had this document been revealed and published, Tschirschky later claimed, it would have stymied Hitler’s rise, perhaps prevented the war, and certainly changed the course of history. But Hitler found out about Hindenburg’s will and destroyed it.
The two men despised each other. Hitler, in Hindenburg’s eyes, was a jumped-up “Bohemian corporal” (he knew perfectly well he was Austrian), while Hitler privately scorned Hindenburg as “that old reactionary”. Hindenburg was persuaded to run for re-election in 1932 as the only man who could prevent Hitler from winning the presidency.
But in 1933, the 84-year-old Hindenburg bowed to Hitler’s repeated demands and appointed the Nazi leader Chancellor. As Nazi violence grew, Hindenburg may have considered sacking Hitler and declaring martial law. Instead, it seems, he drew up a will, a bomb timed to go off posthumously and blow Hitler off course.
According to Baron Tschirschky, Hindenburg’s will was a powerful attack on Hitler’s ambition; he stated that the army should be independent of politics, and called for the establishment of a constitutional monarchy and the permanent separation of the legislative and executive branches of government. Tschirschky told The Times in 1947: “He said further that he wanted the rights of parliament established under a two-tier system on democratic lines, like that of Britain, and that he wanted all racial and religious discrimination abolished.”
Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934. A few hours later, the Reich Government announced that the offices of president and chancellor would now been combined under Hitler, as the supreme Führer. A plebiscite was called, to allow the German people to express its collective opinion of Hitler’s unprecedented new role as both head of the government and head of state.
Hitler got wind of the existence of the will, and gave orders to “ensure that this document comes into my possession as soon as possible”. Colonel Oskar von Hindenburg, son of the late President but a loyal Nazi, duly handed his father’s will over. It has never been found.
Four days before the plebiscite, however, the Nazis announced the discovery of Hindenburg’s “political testament”, which gave an account of his political career and included complimentary references to Hitler; it may have been a forgery.
Hindenburg’s apparent endorsement of Hitler from beyond the grave came at a crucial moment. On August 19, 1934, a fortnight after Hindenburg’s death, some 38 million German voters approved Hitler’s usurpation of power, with fewer than five million voting against it. The following day, the Nazis brought in the mandatory oath of loyalty for every member of the German army. Hitler was now all-powerful.
Would the revelation of Hindenburg’s true opinion have stopped the Nazi juggernaut? Certainly the old war horse was hugely influential, and his will would have proved a rallying point for Hitler’s opponents. At the very least, the publication of the will would have demonstrated to the world the Nazis’ determination to manipulate and lie in pursuit of power.
Baron Tschirschky insisted: “Hitler would never have come into power, and there would have been no war, if the wishes of Hindenburg had been known to the German people.” Instead, an opponent of Hitler in life was represented as a supporter after his death.
“My father has himself seen in Adolf Hitler his direct successor,” declared Oskar von Hindenburg.
We tend to see history in terms of unstoppable forces, great movements of economics or ideology that dwarf individual choice and volition. But small things also change history — the whistle-blower, the resister, the single, history-defining document.
Hitler undoubtedly destroyed the original will, but two drafts survived. One was tracked down by Nazi agents to a bank account in Switzerland, from which it was removed and destroyed. The other was kept by Tschirschky.
As the Nazis tightened their grip on power, Tschirschky, as an opponent of Nazism and a representative of the old regime, came under increasing suspicion. He told the British authorities he had survived several assassination attempts. In 1935, he was summoned to Berlin by the Gestapo. He fled to Britain, but was never entirely trusted by MI5 and spent much of the war in an internment camp.
Before leaving Germany, fearing that the document in his possession would be enough to ensure his summary execution, he burnt what is believed to be the last remaining copy of Hindenburg’s will.
For more than 40 years, Eduardo Galeano’s “The Open Veins of Latin America” has been the canonical anti-colonialist, anti-capitalist and anti-American text in that region. Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s populist president, even put a copy of the book, which he had called “a monument in our Latin American history,” in President Obama’s hands the first time they met. But now Mr. Galeano, a 73-year-old Uruguayan writer, has disavowed the book, saying that he was not qualified to tackle the subject and that it was badly written. Predictably, his remarks have set off a vigorous regional debate, with the right doing some “we told you so” gloating, and the left clinging to a dogged defensiveness.
“ ‘Open Veins’ tried to be a book of political economy, but I didn’t yet have the necessary training or preparation,” Mr. Galeano said last month while answering questions at a book fair in Brazil, where he was being honored on the 43rd anniversary of the book’s publication. He added: “I wouldn’t be capable of reading this book again; I’d keel over. For me, this prose of the traditional left is extremely leaden, and my physique can’t tolerate it.”
Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, handing President Obama a copy of Eduardo Galeano's "The Open Veins of Latin America" in 2009. Credit Matthew Cavanaugh/European Pressphoto Agency
“The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent” was written at the dawn of the 1970s, a decade when much of Latin America was governed by repressive right-wing military dictatorships supported by the United States. In this 300-page cri de coeur, Mr. Galeano argued that the riches that first attracted European colonizers, like gold and sugar, gave rise to a system of exploitation that led inexorably to “the contemporary structure of plunder” that he held responsible for Latin America’s chronic poverty and underdevelopment.
Mr. Galeano, whose work includes soccer commentary, poetry, cartoons and histories like “Memory of Fire,” wrote in “Open Veins”: “I know I can be accused of sacrilege in writing about political economy in the style of a novel about love or pirates. But I confess I get a pain from reading valuable works by certain sociologists, political experts, economists and historians who write in code.”
“Open Veins” has been translated into more than a dozen languages and has sold more than a million copies. In its heyday, its influence extended throughout what was then called the third world, including Africa and Asia, until the economic rise of China and India and Brazil seemed to undercut parts of its thesis.
In the United States, “Open Veins” has been widely taught on university campuses since the 1970s, in courses ranging from history and anthropology to economics and geography. But Mr. Galeano’s unexpected takedown of his own work has left scholars wondering how to deal with the book in class.
“If I were teaching this in a course,” said Merilee Grindle, president of the Latin American Studies Association and director of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard, “I would take his comments, add them in and use them to generate a far more interesting discussion about how we see and interpret events at different points in time.” And that seems to be exactly what many professors plan to do.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
Caroline S. Conzelman, a cultural anthropologist who teaches at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said her first thought was that she wouldn’t change how she used the book, “because it still captures the essence of the emotional memory of being colonized.” But now, she said: “I will have them read what he says about it. It’s good for students to see that writers can think critically about their own work and go back and revise what they meant.”
Michael Yates, the editorial director of Monthly Review Press, Mr. Galeano’s American publisher, dismissed the entire discussion as “nothing but a tempest in a teapot.” “Open Veins” is Monthly Review’s best-selling book — it surged, if briefly, into Amazon’s Top 10 list within hours of Mr. Obama’s receiving a copy — and Mr. Yates said he saw no reason to make any changes: “Please! The book is an entity independent of the writer and anything he might think now.”
Precisely why Mr. Galeano chose to renounce his book now is unclear. Through his American agent, Susan Bergholz, he declined to elaborate. She said he had gradually grown “horrified by the prose and the phraseology” of “Open Veins.”
The Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano, in 2012. Credit Sergio Goya/dpa-Corbis
Mr. Yates said Mr. Galeano might simply be following in the tracks of the novelist John Dos Passos, a radical as a young man “who became a conservative when he got older.” On Spanish- and Portuguese-language websites, others have suggested that Mr. Galeano, who in recent years has had both a heart attack and cancer, might simply be off his game intellectually.
In his remarks in Brazil, Mr. Galeano acknowledged that the left sometimes “commits grave errors” when it is in power, which has been taken in Latin America as a criticism of Cuba under the Castro brothers and of the erratic stewardship of Venezuela under Mr. Chávez, who died last year. But Mr. Galeano described himself as still very much a man of the left, and on other occasions he has praised the experiments in social democracy underway for the last decade in his own country, as well as in Brazil and Chile.
“Reality has changed a lot, and I have changed a lot,” he said in Brazil, adding: “Reality is much more complex precisely because the human condition is diverse. Some political sectors close to me thought such diversity was a heresy. Even today, there are some survivors of this type who think that all diversity is a threat. Fortunately, it is not.”
Still, Mr. Galeano has caught many admirers by surprise, including the Chilean novelist Isabel Allende, who wrote a foreword for the English-language edition of “Open Veins.” In it, she describes how she “devoured” the book as a young woman “with such emotion that I had to read it again a couple more times to absorb all its meaning” and took it into exile after Gen. Augusto Pinochet seized power.
“I had dinner with him less than a year ago, and to me, he was the same man, passionate and talkative and interesting and funny,” she said of Mr. Galeano in a telephone interview from California, where she now lives. “He may have changed, and I didn’t notice it, but I don’t think so.”
In the mid-1990s, three advocates of free-market policies — the Colombian writer and diplomat Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, the exiled Cuban author Carlos Alberto Montaner and the Peruvian journalist and author Álvaro Vargas Llosa — reacted to Mr. Galeano with a polemic of their own, “Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot.” They dismissed “Open Veins” as “the idiot’s bible,” and reduced its thesis to a single sentence: “We’re poor; it’s their fault.”
Mr. Montaner responded to Mr. Galeano’s recent remarks with a blog post titled “Galeano Corrects Himself and the Idiots Lose Their Bible.” In Brazil, Rodrigo Constantino, the author of “The Caviar Left,” took an even harsher tone, blaming Mr. Galeano’s analysis and prescription for many of Latin America’s ills. “He should feel really guilty for the damage he caused,” he wrote on his blog.
But Mr. Galeano continues to have defenders. In a discussion on the website of the Spanish newspaper El País, one participant noted that in a world dominated by Apple, Samsung, Siemens, Panasonic, Sony and Airbus, Mr. Galeano’s lament that “the goddess of technology does not speak Spanish” seems even more prescient than in 1971.
And on his Facebook page, Camilo Egaña, a Cuban émigré who is the host of “Mirador Mundial” on CNN en Español, remembered meeting Mr. Galeano in Havana in the 1980s and hearing him tell a story about a man taking his son to the ocean for the first time. “In the face of that interminable blue, the child said to the man, ‘Daddy, help me to see,’ ” Mr. Egaña recalled.
“That is what Galeano has done with his book, 43 years after it having been published,” Mr. Egaña concluded. “Thank you.”
’60 Minutes’ report spurs archivist’s search for 1939 missive from Sir Nicholas Winton to US president Franklin Roosevelt asking for help in saving Jewish children
Vienna, July 22, 1914
Your Excellency will present the following note to the Royal Government on the afternoon of Thursday, July 23: On the 31st of March, 1909, the Royal Serbian Minister at the Court of Vienna made, in the name of his Government, the following declaration to the Imperial and Royal Government:
Serbia recognizes that her rights were not affected by the state of affairs created in Bosnia, and states that she will accordingly accommodate herself to the decisions to be reached by the Powers in connection with Article 25 of the Treaty of Berlin. Serbia, in accepting the advice of the Great Powers, binds herself to desist from the attitude of protest and opposition which she has assumed with regard to the annexation since October last, and she furthermore binds herself to alter the tendency of her present policy toward Austria-Hungary, and to live on the footing of friendly and neighborly relations with the latter in the future.
Now the history of the past few years, and particularly the painful events of the 28th of June, have proved the existence of a subversive movement in Serbia, whose object it is to separate certain portions of its territory from the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This movement, which came into being under the very eyes of the Serbian Government, subsequently found expression outside of the territory of the Kingdom in acts of terrorism, in a number of attempts at assassination, and in murders.
Far from fulfilling the formal obligations contained in its declaration of the 31st of March, 1909, the Royal Serbian Government has done nothing to suppress this movement. It has tolerated the criminal activities of the various unions and associations directed against the Monarchy, the unchecked utterances of the press, the glorification of the authors of assassinations, the participation of officers and officials in subversive intrigues; it has tolerated an unhealthy propaganda in its public instruction; and it has tolerated, finally, every manifestation which could betray the people of Serbia into hatred of the Monarchy and contempt for its institutions.
This toleration of which the Royal Serbian Government was guilty, was still in evidence at that moment when the events of the twenty-eighth of June exhibited to the whole world the dreadful consequences of such tolerance.
It is clear from the statements and confessions of the criminal authors of the assassination of the twenty-eighth of June, that the murder at Sarajevo was conceived at Belgrade, that the murderers received the weapons and the bombs with which they were equipped from Serbian officers and officials who belonged to the Narodna Odbrana, and, finally, that the dispatch of the criminals and of their weapons to Bosnia was arranged and effected under the conduct of Serbian frontier authorities.
The results brought out by the inquiry no longer permit the Imperial and Royal Government to maintain the attitude of patient tolerance which it has observed for years toward those agitations which center at Belgrade and are spread thence into the territories of the Monarchy. Instead, these results impose upon the Imperial and Royal Government the obligation to put an end to those intrigues, which constitute a standing menace to the peace of the Monarchy.
In order to attain this end, the Imperial and Royal Government finds itself compelled to demand that the Serbian Government give official assurance that it will condemn the propaganda directed against Austria-Hungary, that is to say, the whole body of the efforts whose ultimate object it is to separate from the Monarchy territories that belong to it; and that it will obligate itself to suppress with all the means at its command this criminal and terroristic propaganda. In order to give these assurances a character of solemnity, the Royal Serbian Government will publish on the first page of its official organ of July 26/13, the following declaration:
"The Royal Serbian Government condemns the propaganda directed against Austria-Hungary, that is to say, the whole body of the efforts whose ultimate object it is to separate from the Austro- Hungarian Monarchy territories that belong to it, and it most sincerely regrets the dreadful consequences of these criminal transactions.
"The Royal Serbian Government regrets that Serbian officers and officials should have taken part in the above-mentioned propaganda and thus have endangered the friendly and neighborly relations, to the cultivation of which the Royal Government had most solemnly pledged itself by its declarations of March 31, 1909.
"The Royal Government, which disapproves and repels every idea and every attempt to interfere in the destinies of the population of whatever portion of Austria-Hungary, regards it as its duty most expressly to call attention of the officers, officials, and the whole population of the kingdom to the fact that for the future it will proceed with the utmost rigor against any persons who shall become guilty of any such activities, activities to prevent and to suppress which, the Government will bend every effort."
This declaration shall be brought to the attention of the Royal army simultaneously by an order of the day from His Majesty the King, and by publication in the official organ of the army.
The Royal Serbian Government will furthermore pledge itself:
1. to suppress every publication which shall incite to hatred and contempt of the Monarchy, and the general tendency of which shall be directed against the territorial integrity of the latter;
2. to proceed at once to the dissolution of the Narodna Odbrana to confiscate all of its means of propaganda, and in the same manner to proceed against the other unions and associations in Serbia which occupy themselves with propaganda against Austria-Hungary; the Royal Government will take such measures as are necessary to make sure that the dissolved associations may not continue their activities under other names or in other forms;
3. to eliminate without delay from public instruction in Serbia, everything, whether connected with the teaching corps or with the methods of teaching, that serves or may serve to nourish the propaganda against Austria-Hungary;
4. to remove from the military and administrative service in general all officers and officials who have been guilty of carrying on the propaganda against Austria-Hungary, whose names the Imperial and Royal Government reserves the right to make known to the Royal Government when communicating the material evidence now in its possession;
5. to agree to the cooperation in Serbia of the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government in the suppression of the subversive movement directed against the integrity of the Monarchy;
6. to institute a judicial inquiry against every participant in the conspiracy of the twenty-eighth of June who may be found in Serbian territory; the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government delegated for this purpose will take part in the proceedings held for this purpose;
7. to undertake with all haste the arrest of Major Voislav Tankosic and of one Milan Ciganovitch, a Serbian official, who have been compromised by the results of the inquiry;
8. by efficient measures to prevent the participation of Serbian authorities in the smuggling of weapons and explosives across the frontier; to dismiss from the service and to punish severely those members of the Frontier Service at Schabats and Losnitza who assisted the authors of the crime of Sarajevo to cross the frontier;
9. to make explanations to the Imperial and Royal Government concerning the unjustifiable utterances of high Serbian functionaries in Serbia and abroad, who, without regard for their official position, have not hesitated to express themselves in a manner hostile toward Austria-Hungary since the assassination of the twenty-eighth of June;
10. to inform the Imperial and Royal Government without delay of the execution of the measures comprised in the foregoing points.
The Imperial and Royal Government awaits the reply of the Royal Government by Saturday, the twenty-fifth instant, at 6 p.m., at the latest.
A reminder of the results of the investigation about Sarajevo, to the extent they relate to the functionaries named in points 7 and 8 [above], is appended to this note.«
«The crime investigation undertaken at court in Sarajevo against Gavrilo Princip and his comrades on account of the assassination committed on the 28th of June this year, along with the guilt of accomplices, has up until now led to the following conclusions:
1. The plan of murdering Archduke Franz Ferdinand during his stay in Sarajevo was concocted in Belgrade by Gavrilo Princip, Nedeljko Cabrinovic, a certain Milan Ciganovic, and Trifko Grabesch with the assistance of Major Voija Takosic.
2. The six bombs and four Browning pistols along with ammunition -- used as tools by the criminals -- were procured and given to Princip, Cabrinovic and Grabesch in Belgrade by a certain Milan Ciganovic and Major Voija Takosic.
3. The bombs are hand grenades originating from the weapons depot of the Serbian army in Kragujevatz.
4. To guarantee the success of the assassination, Ciganovic instructed Princip, Cabrinovic and Grabesch in the use of the grenades and gave lessons on shooting Browning pistols to Princip and Grabesch in a forest next to the shooting range at Topschider.
5. To make possible Princip, Cabrinovic und Grabesch's passage across the Bosnia-Herzegovina border and the smuggling of their weapons, an entire secretive transportation system was organized by Ciganovic. The entry of the criminals and their weapons into Bosnia and Herzegovina was carried out by the main border officials of Shabatz (Rade Popovic) and Losnitza as well as by the customs agent Budivoj Grbic of Losnitza, with the complicity of several others.«
On the occasion of handing over this note, would Your Excellency please also add orally that -- in the event that no unconditionally positive answer of the Royal government might be received in the meantime -- after the course of the 48-hour deadline referred to in this note, as measured from the day and hour of your announcing it, you are commissioned to leave the I. and R. Embassy of Belgrade together with your personnel.
Users browsing this forum: jnthomas and 2 guests