The Nuremberg Code and its relevance to the Covid19 vaccines

You may be truly surprised about the legal history and the consequences from Nuremberg

The photo above depicts a cold water immersion experiment being conducted on an unwilling victim at the concentration camp in Dachau in WW2.

It’s widely believed that the Nuremberg Code was the first such code dealing with the issue of human experimentation, but this is not the case, “Instructions for the Directors of Clinics, Outpatient Clinics and Other Medical Facilities” were formulated in the year 1900 in Prussia following some experiments conducted by a chap by the name of Albert Neisser, who injected syphilis into a number of test subjects without their consent/knowledge, and who then went on to contract syphilis. These were never enshrined in law, but simply stated that experimentation should not occur if:

• the subject is a minor.

• the subject has not provided unambiguous consent.

• possible negative consequences have not been explained.

• there is no authorization from the medical director.

Then in 1931 Guidelines for Human Experimentation were enacted in Germany (and were properly enshrined in law), which came about as a reform to Germany’s criminal code after the public’s distaste over the previously mentioned syphilis and other experiments on humans.

They said:

• Full unambiguous and informed consent from test subjects is required, except in extreme extenuating circumstances.

• Risks should be balanced out by potential benefits.

• Caution should be taken for subjects under 18 years old.

• Extreme caution should be taken if microorganisms are involved.

• Poor or socially disadvantaged subjects should not be exploited.

• Animal testing should be conducted first, and human experiments are to be avoided if other means of collecting data are still available.

Gee, sound familiar at all?

These Guidelines were in place from 1931 to 1948. This is significant because all of the Nazi experiments were conducted whilst this law was in place.

Yes you read that right, all this was already well established as illegal during the tenure of the Nazis, and in fact, these guidelines are not very different from the Nuremberg Code at all. In fact, it’s pretty clear that the Nuremberg Code was based on the 1931 “Guidelines” which were in turn based on the “Instructions” from 1900. Perhaps unsurprisingly, by the turn of the century, us humans had figured out that doing experiments on people is pretty wrong, especially if those people are unable to consent.

What this also means is that the Allies didn’t do all that much in response to Nazi experimental atrocities, despite what they claimed and what a lot of people still believe. They simply put on some show trials, concocted a “new” law (by copying old ones), stole all the data the Germans had gathered, and even imported some of the scientists involved rather than letting them face justice, in an operation dubbed “Operation Paperclip”.

So in fact the Allies didn’t really do much about these atrocities, other than some token virtue signalling to make it appear that the issue was addressed (whilst secretly farming all that juicy scientific data gleaned through human suffering).

Of course, since then there have been other laws/codes put into place addressing many of the same issues, such as the Helsinki Declaration, and the WHO also has guidelines on such things. All seem to be pretty similar in nature and intent.

Have a quick look at the Nuremberg Code. Later on, I’m going to look at a “Fact Checker Article” which claims the situation with the Covid 19 vaccines is irrelevant to the Nuremberg Code, and I’m going to deconstruct their Fact Check and show you exactly why this is totally relevant to the vaccines.

But we’ll get to that later, for now, just take a good look and try to get a feel for the vibe of this collection of words. Seems like they were formed with good intentions in mind, with a view to stopping mad scientists doing evil things to unwitting/unwilling victims (notwithstanding the history of these laws). A good plan, I’m thinking.

So, what happened to all of that?

(Emphasis is mine)

The Nuremberg Code

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

So to me this seems like a pretty straight-forward situation. Don’t experiment on people unless they’re willing participants, without any sort of duress. The person should have enough knowledge on the subject to make an informed decision, and that nobody should perform an experiment if they believe it might cause disabling injury or death.

Further, preparations should be made for any potential injuries and adequate facilities provided.

I find it difficult to see how some people can’t see the striking relevance between recent events with Covid vaccines and the Nuremberg Code, but I’m happy to break it all down as I fact-check the fact checkers later.

For now, let’s have a look at what can happen when these codes are not adhered to.

Unethical Human Medical/Scientific Experimentation- the reason these codes exist

With so many test subjects that had no rights in their concentration camps, the Germans concluded that it would be useful to conduct experiments to further their scientific/military studies. It was the perfect opportunity for unlimited human experimentation, with no consequences for failures. The subjects could be (and frequently were) simply murdered after the experiment.

• Experiments on twins - about 1,500 twins were captured and subjected to Mengele's "treatments" at Auschwitz, only 200 survived. e.g. twins being crudely stitched together in an attempt to create a conjoined twin (they died of gangrene after a few days). They subjected twins to weekly examinations and measurements of their physical attributes. They performed experiments such as unnecessary amputation of limbs.
  They intentionally infected a twin with typhus or another disease and transfused the blood of the infected twin into the other. Many of their subjects died while undergoing these procedures. After an experiment was complete, the twins were killed and their bodies dissected.
  Witnesses recalled one occasion where Mengele personally killed fourteen twins in one night through an injection to the heart.

• They attempted to change eye color of victims by injecting chemicals into the eyes of living subjects. They then removed the eyes for study after death, these were often preserved and sent off-site for further study.

• Starved babies of mother’s milk (or any sustenance) and forced their mothers to watch them die, and studied the process.

• Experiments in altitude, these were apparently so horrific that even SS officers suggested prisoners who survived this should be treated better afterwards.

• Injections into the spine and spinal taps were given with no anesthesia.

• Surgeries were performed without anesthesia, including removal of organs, removing genitalia, and amputations.

• A common form of post-experiment execution was that the victim was stabbed with a needle that pierced their hearts, which were injected with chloroform or phenol, causing near-immediate blood coagulation and death.

• Bone, muscle, nerve transplants - in one experiment, bacteria was injected into the bone marrow.

• Head injury experiments - one scenario described a boy tied to a chair, with a hammer rhythmically hitting his head.

• Experiments with poisons/chemicals/medications - exposing people to chemical weapons such as mustard gas, injecting people with poisons or massive quantities of medication to see what would happen.

• Various vaccine experiments - some of which were absolutely disastrous to the victims.

• Sea water experiments - they gave victims just sea water to drink, to see what happened.

You get the idea. They set people on fire, they bled them out to test the limits, tested how long it took to drown people, shocked them with electricity, and so on. Their depravity knew no bounds.

Needless to say, not many of these people survived the experience, and those that did were left forever scarred.

Above is a photograph of some of the preserved tools of the most famous perpetrator of these crimes, Josef Mengele ("The Angel of Death"). He was notorious for his fascination with twins, and his delight in meeting the arriving trains to select prisoners for experiments. The children and unfit would be separated off as soon as they got off the trains for immediate execution (unless there were children that were twins, then Mengele would get them too). From the rest, Josef would get his pick, sometimes assisted by the equally sadistic Margot Dreschel. As music played these two would gleefully taunt and choose prisoners to conduct experiments on.

When the war ended, there was a paltry effort made to find justice for some of these victims. Dreschel was caught and hanged by the Russians, but Mengele got away to South America. He lived a full life, and is believed to have drowned in Brazil. His son says that he never expressed any remorse.

But Mengele was only one of 50 doctors at Auschwitz, a dozen of whom performed experiments on prisoners. Even some SS Doctors had some concerns about later consequences for experiments and were reluctant to take part. But as it turns out, they had little to fear in the end.

The trials at Nuremberg actually encompassed more than just medical experiments, there were issues of genocide and war crimes that also needed to be dealt with. There was a specific part of these trials that dealt with the issue of medical experiments and this was dubbed the “Doctors Trial”. The Doctors at these trials expressed no remorse and arrogantly expressed the view that they'd done the world a favour.

These atrocities gave rise to the Nuremberg Code in 1947. Contrary to what a lot of people think, it's not something that has been adopted into law in every country.

The Code calls for minimum standards on all new therapies and experiments, such as voluntary consent, and the avoidance of unnecessary pain/suffering/death.

So why is it, then, that the recent situation with mandating Covid19 vaccines is something that many, many people have described as inconsistent with the Nuremberg Code and its principles?

Fact-checking the fact checkers

“Fact checkers” arguments attempting to debunk any link seem to run around very similar, central arguments. It’s a bit weird to attempt to “debunk” such a link anyway, people linking the two are usually doing so because they believe one thing is reminiscent of another. Being reminded of something is pretty subjective, it’s a matter of opinion, ultimately, and as such it’s not really something you can “debunk”.

But let’s have a look at one here, and see why these arguments fail. Interestingly, if you have a look at various “fact check” articles, you will see that in fact some appear to be cut and pastes from others. These totalitarians are outright lazy with their progaganda sometimes, aren’t they?

I’ve selected an article from AAP as an example. Most of these are very similar. Take a look at the article below for reference if you like, though I’ll quote from it here.

AAP "Fact Check" - Nuremberg doesn't apply to Covid vaccinations

“Suggestions that those administering vaccines are violating the code and will be tried as war criminals often centre on the suggestion that recipients are being forced to receive the treatments.

However, there is no mandatory vaccination programme in Australia – although COVID-19 vaccinations are strongly encouraged.” - well, this is outright false. All states in Australia mandated vaccines to work across nearly all professions. I personally know several people who lost their jobs for refusing. I also know several people who only had it to keep their jobs and are not happy about being coerced into it via vaccination. I know of one person who had to have it for their work and have been left severely injured. In fact, for some time I was not able to even go to a restaurant or cafe because I was unvaccinated.

So the first principle of the Nuremberg Code which says that the recipient must consent to the procedure without any form of coercion or duress has been breached, repeatedly, millions of times. If you wanted to work, or be able to go visit someone in hospital, or go to a restaurant, you had to have it. So anyone saying nobody was forced into it is being spurious indeed, clearly many people did not have a meaningful choice in the matter.

“In addition, COVID-19 vaccines are not considered “experimental”, as claimed in some of the posts. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, for example, was granted approval for emergency use by US regulators in December 2020 after clearing stage-three clinical trials. In Australia, it was granted provisional approval in January.” - This is the central argument of most “fact checks” on this issue, that the covid vaccines weren’t experimental, therefore everything you are saying about unethical experiments is void. Not only is that glossing over the words “approval for emergency use”, and “provisional approval”, but it’s classic deflection. If these vaccines are not experimental, where is the long-term safety data? Did anyone happen to notice that these vaccines were produced at “warp speed”?

Clearly, we have very little real-world experience with MRNA vaccines and so to inject so many people in the world with this substance counts as some sort of experiment. One I’m glad I did not take part in, personally.

Who knows what the long-term effects of this treatment are? Every day, people are dying from “mysterious causes”, excess mortality is up in all vaccinated countries, and when you look at the Western Australian data as an example of “clean data” (since everyone was vaccinated before Covid hit), the exponential rise in adverse events reported is absolutely sickening. People are dying and suffering, yet there is no outcry from the public nor investigation by government authorities.

Here’s the WA information. It’s incontrovertible, these vaccines are actually really dangerous. The data speaks for itself and the report tries to write this off as being due to the higher number of vaccinations, but even when you factor that into it, the rate of injury for typical vaccines here in WA is around 0.0111%, but with Covid vaccines this is 0.241%. That’s an exponential increase!!! These may look like just small increments in what are already small numbers, but these are real people we’re talking about, who have been hurt.

That's nearly 11,000 people in this fair state that have been hurt by this vaccine, at least, up from 270 the year before. That is an extraordinary increase and is a safety profile that would lead to any other product being recalled from the market. But not these vaccines. Why is that, you think?

We were all told these vaccines were “safe and effective”, but this data clearly shows this isn’t the case. This is the official government data, and the true numbers are probably far higher when you consider vaccine injuries are typically under-reported by a factor of about 10.

Western Australian Vaccine Safety Surveillance – Annual Report 2021

Not an experiment, indeed!

Even if you concede that technically it’s not an “experiment” (which I do not, by any stretch), the same ethical conduct to such a new and untested treatment should apply. The fact is that many people were forced into what they perceive as an experiment, against their will. That’s wrong, regardless of what language or definitions you try to put around things. Their perception is what matters, not how you define the word experiment. Who do you think the Nuremberg Code was intended to protect, anyway? The scientists??

But apparently the “fact checkers” have also determined there was no coercion going on.

“Prof Dawson also addressed the issue of whether people were being coerced into getting vaccinations for fear of losing freedoms such as travel, noting that no vaccinations were compulsory in Australia – except as a requirement of certain types of employment.

“It is true that a choice not to be vaccinated may mean that you do not have access to certain benefits, but this is not coercion, as such,” he said via email.

“If a legitimate law establishes that you do not have access to some benefits as a result of not doing something, (and) this is known and publicly declared, it seems odd to call this coercion.” - What a convincing argument, “it seems odd”, gosh, how am I going to overcome such a bastion of infallible logic! Why, pray tell? Anyway, tell that to my friend who sobbed her heart out the day she had to go and get her first jab so she could keep her job so she wouldn’t lose her house. She said she felt raped. In any case, Professor Dawson, like many of the people supportive of these things, seems to have redefined the word “coercion” to suit himself.

Unfortunately, such a definition is not a mutable thing, it’s quite simple really, it is the the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

For the edification of those of you out there who don’t see the “force or threat” employed, the threat is “you lose your job if you don’t get the jab”. Or “you can’t visit your sick mum if you don’t get the jab”, or “you can’t go to a restaurant with your friends if you don’t get the jab”. Is that pretty clear?

To put it another way, when Harvey Weinstein pressured actresses into having sex with him to get work in the industry, was that coercive, you think? If you think it was coercive of him to insist on penetrating actresses with his genitalia to keep working in the industry, isn’t it intellectually inconsistent to then say that being penetrated with a medical product with unknown long-term effects is not coercive? Strictly speaking, what he did caused less long-term harm.

So why is one a terrible crime, and not the other?

I hope this clears up why mandates are coercive, but if you’re still unclear, please feel free to let me know and I’m happy to elaborate further.

They then go on to say:

“Megan Best, associate professor of bioethics with the Institute for Ethics and Society at the University of Notre Dame Australia in NSW, agreed the code would not apply to use of a vaccine which had been tested in clinical trials prior to administration.

Dr Best and the other experts also noted the Nuremberg Code was an important historical document, but it was no longer used to guide research ethics as it had been replaced by the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration (1964).” - This is a really interesting statement actually, and very typical of “fact checkers” who don’t get much right. This is absolutely false.

The codes/guidelines that govern Australia’s medical research aren’t “The Helsinki Declaration”, sorry Megan.

These are the guidelines/codes that pertain to this sort of activity in Australia. You will find no mention of the Helsinki Declaration, in fact:

Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, 2018

ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice

ISO 14155:2011 Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects — Good clinical practice

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) - Updated 2018

Overall, it seems to me that the “experts” the “fact checkers” have used actually have no clue what they’re talking about, since a very quick search engine search will debunk some of their factual statements. It’s true that many of these codes are based on each other, and that Australia drew inspiration from the Helsinki Declaration, but if you’re going to go “debunking” people, make sure you get your facts straight.

This is a great example of why such fact checks are completely worthless in this context.

But in any case, it’s irrelevant. Why? Because the ethics are the same, no matter how you try to twist the words.

If we just break things down into basics, this is basically what happened.

1. The US Government and China conducted illegal/unethical “gain of function” research and created Covid 19.

2. This was then either accidentally or deliberately spread.

3. They then developed a “vaccine” in record time and said it was everyone’s responsibility to take it to reduce the spread. They said they’d take your job if you didn’t take it, and encouraged society to vilify you and treat you as unclean.

4. It turned out their claims of it reducing the spread are false, and they then backtracked and tried to say “we never said that”, but they most certainly did. If they never said it, what was the reason for the vilification and discrimination? Are you suggesting we were barred from going to a restaurant because the government was concerned we might end up in hospital? That’s just not true, they told everyone we were a risk to the rest of us because we were unvaccinated. They lied, and they did so knowingly.

5. Vaccine injuries were way higher than anticipated (or were they?), but they were ignored, people couldn’t get medical treatment for it because Doctors were scared to acknowledge any injury from vaccines.

6. People’s concerns over the vaccines (including Doctors) were silenced on social media. The CIA covered up the lab leak theories and paid people to say it was a natural virus, and anyone who said it was made in a lab got a strike on social media. So they covered up lies at the detriment of their own people and punished people who told the truth. They basically killed freedom of speech to a large degree, worldwide.

7. They used Covid as an excuse to institute various authoritarian new laws around people’s right to free speech and other rights in general.

People were most certainly pressured into taking the Covid vaccine with threats - that is coercion.

The vaccines were new, and we’re only finding out now what the effects of them are, and I suspect the picture is way worse than anything we can imagine. To me, however you want to define “experimental”, this has the flavour of “experiment gone horribly wrong”.

Now it turns out that even the CDC in the US is admitting that being vaccinated against Covid may actually increase your risk of catching the new variant. What Geert Van Den Bossche and others said turned out to be true, this “vaccine” will make things worse, not better. It will drive the emergence of new variants whilst simultaneously compromising the immune system of the recipients.

Here is the link, and a screenshot if you are having some trouble accepting that.

CDC Current Risk Assessment

Turns out those of us who argued that natural immunity was better than this new substance were right. It’s actually not even a fair comparison - you’re a lot worse off if you’ve had the vaccine.

But still, there is no outcry from the public, and the CDC and others still recommend you take more vaccines, even though the last ones didn’t work and actually heightened your risk. Many will go along to get their updated booster as they’ve been instructed to do.

So to sum up, many people were coerced into an experiment/new and untested medical treatment. This is a clear violation of the very first principle of the Nuremberg Code. Whether it is legally binding in whatever situation it is in is irrelevant really , the concept is the same, it is inconsistent with the ethical concept described in the Code.

The Nuremberg Code is not the law that pertains to such experiments in most countries, that much is true. But most codes and guidelines on such matters are based on it.

People equate recent events with the Code for a number of reasons:

1. The vilification of unvaccinated people particularly towards the end of 2021 as the vaccines were being rolled out was reminiscent of the vilification that occurred towards minority groups in Nazi Germany prior to them exterminating a lot of people. Certainly when one looks at the laws that justify the discrimination against one group, there are some striking similarities. One wonders if they just copied the Germans, frankly.

2. People were coerced into a medical experiment, or shunned from society if they chose not to participate. Whilst no element of force was applied (not in Australia, at least), the coercion was very, very real.

3. The magnitude of the crime if it turns out that the harm caused by the vaccines turns out to be either a result of gross/wilful negligence or even deliberate. Millions of people have been affected, if this turns out to be a deliberate act, it would be the biggest crime against humanity in history.

4. The authoritarian nature of governance occurring over the period, with people hauled off to jail for making Facebook posts about protests, people brutalised at protests by Police, people encouraged to dob in their neighbours for breaches of Covid rules and so on.

5. They embarked on a program to instil a mentality of “the collective good” in people, in much the same way a Nazi or Communist regime would. This mentality persists to this day, unfortunately, and who knows where it will end, since collectivist ideology often results in a big pile of dead bodies. (see article below on the risks of collectivist ideology)

So the comparison between Nazi Germany, their medical crimes, and the situation we find ourselves in today is a fair comparison to many people. You might not feel that way if you were not subject to the discrimination that being unvaccinated brought (and still brings to many), but I can guarantee you that anyone shut out of a restaurant, or told they’d lose their job if they didn’t get a medical treatment they didn’t want feels the comparison is valid.

But I often see people calling for Nuremberg 2.0. With much love and respect to you all, I gotta call bullshit on that one. I know you have the best intentions, but…

WHY YOU SHOULDN’T CALL FOR NUREMBERG 2.0

Bottom line is that only a fraction of people involved in these crimes during World War 2 were ever punished. As mentioned previously, the Allies absorbed a lot of the scientists in Operation Paperclip, so those scientists escaped prosecution. Mengele was never caught. Even most of the people involved in outright extermination mostly got away.

So to those who call for Nuremberg 2.0, I say you’re not thinking nearly big enough, and that we need to do a much better job this time. Because if we don’t, this is what is going to happen:

1. A few people will be thrown under the bus by authorities as a token.

2. Everyone will dust their hands of and call it a job well done.

3. There’ll be no justice for the victims of these crimes.

4. The people behind these crimes will mostly slip away, the thinking will persist, and we’ll face this situation down the track again.

Authoritarianism and forced medical experiments are back again, even though we determined on previous occasions this was a bad path. The people behind these crimes think like Nazis. In fact, some of them are even related to Nazis.

Humanity needs to put an end to these practices for good. New laws need to be devised, ones that leave no doubt that one’s own bodily autonomy is the basis of human rights, and that any attempt to force anyone to violate their bodily autonomy for any reason should be treated as a criminal act with appropriate penalties.

The people will behind these crimes will mount arguments like:

“we did the best we could with the knowledge we had at the time”

“the controls we put in place were proportionate to the risk we faced”

…and so on.

But as it turns out, that’s all lies too. Pfizer at least knew that the vaccine would harm people, and covered it up. The Israeli government also knew, and covered it up. The TGA here in Australia actually covered up adverse effects in children. I’m sure more will come out too.

My view is that many of the parties insisting that we have this treatment knew we would not survive the experience. Yet they still insisted, and exhibited no sympathy towards the vaccine-injured. There are millions of people vaccine-injured around the world, and they consistently report getting no support or help.

That blows any arguments about “we did the best we could with what we knew” or proportionality arguments out the window. It is not a reasonable and proportionate response to demand people have a treatment that carries risks up to and including death, at rates far higher than disclosed, in response to what is essentially a glorified flu.

It was in no way reasonable or proportionate for the government to lock us down, insist we wear masks, or get vaccinated. All these things have done way more harm than good. It is in no way reasonable or proportionate to ignore the vaccine injured, particularly when you knew in advance this would prove to be a major problem.

Make of all this what you will. Maybe you don’t think it stacks up against what the Nazis did, because they had different uniforms. Maybe you think that because the Nazis were “far right” (not strictly speaking true) and today’s regime is “far left”, it just isn’t the same. Make whatever distinctions you like to justify to yourself how it’s “different this time”. It doesn’t matter.

Whether or not you agree that the comparison between the Nazis and today stacks up, I trust you will agree that knowingly lying to and harming people in the name of protecting them against a disease (which isn’t in itself particularly dangerous) is highly unethical, so much so as to be a crime…

…regardless of how you define “experimental”, or which law actually governs the particular matter of medical experimentation in your corner of the world.

I leave you with Dr John Campbell’s take on it, which is similar to my own. If you made it this far, thanks as always for reading and for your support. Incidentally, I used a post I made on LinkedIn as the basis for this article, this post on LinkedIn went somewhat viral and attracted hundreds of comments and tens of thousands of views. Clearly, a lot of people agree that this situation is reminiscent of what the Nazis did, as I do.