Scrapbookpages Blog

December 22, 2010

What I didn’t know about the Holocaust — until now

Filed under: Holocaust — Tags: , , , — furtherglory @ 9:32 am

I thought I knew a lot about the Holocaust; I’ve been studying it for around 17 years.  It turns out that I was wrong about many of the important details.

Today I read this on a wordpress blog:

Another example Eaton gave was a photograph widely circulated by the Holocaust deniers of General Eisenhower standing next to one of the gas chambers at Dachau. “And they hold this up and say, here is Eisenhower being shown a false gas chamber. And they are correct. At Dachau, which was a camp in Germany used mainly for political prisoners, they started to construct a gas chamber. They used inmates to construct the gas chamber. The inmates sabotaged the chamber and it was never actually used as a gas chamber.”   

I didn’t know that General Eisenhower was ever at Dachau; he didn’t mention it in his book.  The only “horror camp” he mentioned in his book was Ohrdruf, a sub-camp of Buchenwald near Gotha, but he didn’t even mention the name Ohrdruf.  Now I find out that he was photographed “standing next to ONE of the gas chambers at Dachau”  but he was “being shown a false gas chamber.”

O.K. this is a bit confusing, but I think I can sort it out.  There were five “gas chambers” at Dachau.  Four of them were disinfection chambers where the clothing was hung up and Zyklon-B pellets were used to kill the lice that spreads typhus.  The fifth gas chamber was the homicidal gas chamber, that was disguised as a shower room.

The photo above shows an American soldier standing in front of a door into one of the disinfection chambers.  Could that be General Eisenhower in disguise?

The man, who said that Eisenhower was photographed standing next to one of the Dachau gas chambers, is Richard Eaton; he gave a talk on “Who are the Holocaust Deniers and How Do They Operate.”  You can read all about it here.

Most of the tour guides at Dachau tell visitors that the homicidal gas chamber was used a few times.  I didn’t know that the inmates had “sabotaged the gas chamber.”  Are all of the tour guides at Dachau lying?

One of the most famous Holocaust deniers was Fred Leuchter a “gas chamber expert.” Eaton explains where Leuchter went wrong:

“They brought in a man who was supposed to be a gas-chamber expert, and actually went over to Poland and he went to the gas chambers and he took samples and scrapings off the walls, and looked at the plans. And he came up and said the gas chambers couldn’t actually do what they were said to have done. They could not have killed these hundreds of thousands of people in the short time with the amount of gas that they had.

“Well, the one thing that they actually proved in doing so is that their expert didn’t understand how the gas chambers worked in the first place. The truth is that the gas chambers worked on displacement. If you take a room like this one and you put about a thousand people into it you are going to literally jam them up to the ceiling. As such, all you have to take is a couple of small cans of Zyklon-B, the gas that was used, and poison what little air is left in the room and most of the victims there die of suffocation from the other people that they are jammed in with. So these people proved they didn’t know how the gas chambers worked, yet they produced this scientific engineering study by this so-called engineer that went to the camps and checked them out. In truth they found out that he wasn’t actually an engineer and he was later tried in the state of Massachusetts for impersonating one.”

In case there are some newbies reading this who don’t quite understand what Eaton is saying, here is my explanation:  Leuchter took samples from the walls of the Krema II gas chamber in Auschwitz II (Birkenau) and he sent them to a lab without telling the lab what the samples were.  He also took samples from another building where clothing was disinfected and sent them to the same lab.  The lab report came back that there was very little residue from Zyklon-B on the walls of Krema II, but a lot of residue on the walls of the disinfection chamber.  The usual explanation for this is that it takes more gas to kill lice than it does to kill humans.  But now we know the real reason that it didn’t take much Zyklon-B to kill the victims in Krema II, thanks to Richard Eaton.

But wait, there’s more.  Eaton explains why the Red Cross didn’t notice the gas chambers on their inspections of Auschwitz-Birkenau.  I always thought that the Red Cross inspectors were stupid and they couldn’t recognize a gas chamber when they saw one.

Now Eaton explains what really happened when the Red Cross went to inspect:

Eaton said that the largest of the true death camps was the Birkenau section of the enormous Auschwitz complex. “The average lifespan of people who were placed on trains and sent there, when they arrived at Auschwitz, was about three hours.” He pointed to the use by the deniers of Red Cross figures that recorded only some 300,000 deaths at Auschwitz, which the Red Cross listed as caused by disease. Auschwitz, Richard Eaton said, was actually a large series of camps the size of the San Fernando Valley. It included gas chambers but also munitions factories that employed slave labor. The Red Cross was admitted to Auschwitz One, where they saw bodies of people who had died of disease, but they were barred by the Nazis from the rest of the complex.

The last thing that Eaton explained is how the figure of 6 million was determined.  Deniers like to say that the statistics from the individual camps don’t add up.  This is the wrong way to go about counting the victims, according to Eaton.

Here is the right way to count the number of victims who died in the Holocaust:

Here he turned to the substance of the denial claims. Eaton commented that everybody knows the figure that six million died, but most do not know how the figure was arrived at. It comes, he said, by comparing the Jewish population of cities and villages throughout Nazi-occupied Europe before and after World War II. That is, not all the killing took place in particular camps. The Holocaust deniers have focused on trying to refute the numbers, particularly at specific concentration camps.

According to the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, there were around 11 million Jews in all of Europe in 1941, including the Jews who were not in Nazi-occupied Europe.  5 million of them were in the Soviet Union or in Soviet-occupied Europe.  That leaves 6 million that were killed in the Holocaust.  What about the Holocaust survivors?  Some were never in a camp, but claimed to be survivors.  But are all of the survivors faking it?

19 Comments »

  1. Sceptic,
    If you notice, the wording of that question is not mine. Wahrheit was using high level of demagoguery in his comments. This is why I have answered to his question loud and clear. In this particularly situation, we are not discussing historical facts with an “honest historian or scholar”, but rather a provocateur, who even might be paid for this modest efforts. He was bringing up the false testimony of a partial witness Blaha, who kept lying about tattooed skin used by SS officers, etc. His testimonies about gas chambers were heard, noted by the court and no follow up actions were taken. This has nothing to do with the historical research, but rather with a liar who was repeating another liar, already dismissed by the court in 1945. Blaha was not a historian but a false witness. In 1945, KZ Dachau was not a historical museum, but rather a crime scene (or at claimed to be one).
    I hope that you understand now, what I was trying to tell.
    Happy New Year.

    Comment by Gasan — January 1, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

  2. Gasan,

    I disagree with you on your stated belief that “a court of law has to establish a fact in a declared opinion” for an historic fact to be accepted by you.

    Historical facts have to be researched, written about and discussed among honest historians and scholars, in an open forum, to be determined as to their validity. Neither a judge nor a jury can determine such — they can only find people innocent or guilty of particular crimes charged, according to the law.

    I think you might be thinking of something else?

    Comment by Skeptic — December 30, 2010 @ 7:52 pm

  3. Warheit admits he has never been to Dachau, yet he assumes to tell people who have been there what’s what about it, based on the contradictory ‘testimony’ of former communist inmates who opposed National Socialism in every way they could.

    The Holocaust is a political invention and it is kept up because of political considerations. Yes, it is a Lie, which is a word no more inflammatory than the word Holocaust. Who gave the expulsion of the Jews in 1941 to 1945 the name “Holocaust?” Can you answer that?

    I’m sure you know no more about that than about the shower room at Dachau that the Allies conspired to reinvent as a “gas chamber” that was never used.

    That is very much like [although turned inside out] the swimming pool at Auschwitz that is said to have never been used as a swimming pool but only as a fire brigade resevoir.

    The lies of the exterminationists never end, and become more ludicrous all along. Another ludicrous answer you came up with is that exterminationists can change their opinions – that is fine – but revisionists cannot have a different opinion from an exterminationist. If so, they are not only automatically wrong, they are lying!

    Gasan is right: You are not even any good at the game you are playing. You have not been to the camps; you don’t try to learn the facts; you just want to obfuscate.

    Comment by Skeptic — December 30, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

  4. Wahrheit, you don’t play chess, do you? Otherwise you wouldn’t be caught in that trap. I deliberately made my response as simple as possible knowing that you would bring up Dresden, Nagasaki, etc.
    Have you heard about such term as “false analogies”? That is the technique you are trying to use. Those outrageous crimes have never been tried at the court and I can only hope that some day they will be. But, have you ever heard anyone denying bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima? We have heard enough from people like Wahrheit and his ilk, that it wasn’t all that bad and that they deserve it anyway.
    Blaha also claimed that SS officers were removing tattooed from skins prisoners for the personal use.
    Here is his recorded testimony at Nuremberg:

    Should we believe it as well? See, who is reading his testimony in English! Our old friend Thomas Dodd.
    Wahrheit should try to read Blaha’s testimony at INT, Volume IV, day 32-33. His questioning by defense team is better than Comedy Central. The guy was a total fraud. He had seen people and things that weren’t there. He has mentioned gas chambers at Nuremberg, but surprisingly there were no follow up questions from any of the prosecutors.
    How did ended up in Dachau in the first place? He stated that he was taking hostage without a charge and spent two years in prison and four years in Dachau. Blaha had never said the real truth about why he was sent to Dachau.

    Comment by Gasan — December 26, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

    • Gasan: I’d appreciate it if you no longer made presumptions about me. As it stands, I DO think that Dresden and Hiroshima were horrible events, as well as unnecessary. On the denial of them, what does that matter? You only recognize history that has been proven at trial, as these events weren’t (as gassings and mass shootings of Jews were in dozens/hundreds of trials), then you logically cannot believe in them; if you do, you merely expose your hypocrisy, fueled by your political bias. I’m also sure David Irving would argue that the bombing of Dresden has, in effect, been denied over recent years by some historians.

      On Blaha, I do not accept his statements about the SS using the skin of corpses at the IMT at Nuremberg. However, I do accept his statements on the numerous medical experiments conducted at the camp, as does the Scrapbook pages site. The gassings were a type of experiment. If it was just his word, admittedly, the claim would be weakened, but as there exists a document from Rascher asking Himmler to conduct such experiments in the camp (with a reference to gassings in Hartheim), the two support one another. I have also shown that Himmler wished for such experiments to take place. Thus, there is a logical progression in the event. By your silence on the document and Himmler’s wish, I imagine you have no response to them, or can only declare it a forgery; both signs of intellectual bankruptcy.

      I also did not see any comedy in the cross-examination of Blaha. He was questioned about some defendants that he saw at the camp, or heard about (rumor), but never crumbled. The only evidence agains Blaha was from the testimony of the defendants themselves, and why exactly would they admit to visiting Dachau? I’m also still waiting for evidence to the charge that Blaha was a communist, as if that automatically discredits him as a witness. I won’t be holding my breath.

      This discussion is a good example of why Holocaust denial is only taken seriously by an extreme minority of people or researchers, and why I had to come to grips that my own denial simply was not an honest treatment of the facts and historic evidence.

      Comment by Wahrheit — December 27, 2010 @ 8:31 am

      • I was right: you cannot play chess. And also, you reveal your bloodthirsty attitude. You still do not acknowledge Dresden and Hiroshima as the crimes against humanity. You just said it was just “unnecessary”, but still not a war crime.
        I don’t know how many people died in Dresden. The jewish historians tend to diminish the number to 25,000. I have read about much larger numbers: 150,000; 200,000; even 350,000. I confess, that I don’t know which one is correct and how, possibly would I? There was an unknown number of unregistered refugees from the East in Dresden, i.e. people, that locals did not know about who they were and probably were not looking for after the bombing. Personally, I would rather learn that the smallest number is correct and that the most of them survived. The same story with the gas chambers. There were none in Dachau and that means MORE people survived. Do I make myself clear? I want less deaths and want to hear about less deaths. But, you are making up stories in order to protect a big lie and trying to bring up the death toll to the sacred numbers. You have heard Dr. Blaha telling outrages lie about tattooed skin used by SS officers and you know for a fact it is a lie. But you are telling that everything else, he testified about, was true. How pathetic!
        If you REALLY believe in any gassing at Hartheim Castle, you need to see a specialist. (Personally, I believe you are a provocateur) You just need to see the pictures of that” gas chambers”. I don’t even need to read Sigmund Rascher’s letter referring to that site.
        Do you know who are the holocaust deniers or revisionists? Are they being paid great money? Do they drive fancy cars? Do they instigate the wars or drop white phosphorus on the children? No. But, the people, who push and support those ideas of nowhere-to-find gas chambers, do or willing to do.

        Comment by Gasan — December 27, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

  5. I have serious problem understanding what Wahrheit is trying to say. You appear to be a very confused person and apparently incapable express your thought (ideas) in more or less coherent sentences.
    I believe that FG has explained to you already about testimony of Dr. Blaha. As a confirmed communist and former inmate, Blaha could not be an impartial witness. His testimony regarding gassings was “HEARD and NOTED” by the court and not further action was taken. It means that his claim was dismissed.
    It is my understanding that Dr. Blaha is no longer with us, and if Wahrheit would like to re-address this issue based on 65 years old testimony; it would become a hearsay.
    Your question:
    BTW, a question for both of you, does a court of law have to establish a fact in a declared opinion for its historic reality to be accepted (by you)?
    The answer:
    Yes!

    Comment by Gasan — December 26, 2010 @ 10:53 am

    • This is becoming tiresome.

      Furthertheglory/Webmaster: I have never been to Dachau, so cannot pass any technical judgement as to how experimental gassings were conducted. I imagine by ‘pellets’ that you are referencing Zyklon-B, which could or could not have been a gas that was employed at Dachau. It would not take much to throw some pellets into the actual room, and then seal the door (which you point out, can only be opened from the outside). Himmler’s aspirations for military experiments, and Rascher’s specific mention of combat gases (“Kampfgase”), also suggests that different material was used in the camp.

      Gasan, who unsurprisingly can only comprehend simplistic sentences, and who also distorts the meaning of ‘hearsay’: What evidence is there to claim that Blaha was a communist? The only relevant hits that one finds through a Google search are all sourced to denier publications, with no type of evidence offered. The Scrapbook pages makes a similar allegation with a lack of evidence.

      In your answer to my question, you have essentially erased 95% of world history as we know it. I imagine you are the type to discuss Dresden, Katyn, and Nagasaki as the ‘real’ atrocities in the Second World War; too bad that none of them have been verified and judged in a court of law. Hoisted by your own petard.

      Get real…

      Comment by Wahrheit — December 26, 2010 @ 11:29 am

      • Sorry, but I don’t remember discussing anything with you in the past. Gasan’s first language is not English. As for Dachau, you should really see the “gas chamber” for yourself. The walls are covered with glazed brick that looks like tile. It is customary to put tile in a shower stall, and the room looks like a shower. If you stand in the “gas chamber” you are immediately aware that the ceiling is only seven and a half feet high. Why make the ceiling so low? A prisoner who was over 6 feet tall could have put his hand up to pull the shower heads out of the ceiling. In fact, all but one of the shower heads have been stolen by visitors and it can now be seen that the shower heads were not connected to any pipes. It is immediately obvious that the shower heads are not evenly spaced, so it looks like the vent was put in later. It is also immediately obvious that the light fixture boxes have been moved to a lower spot on the wall. It is very easy to see that the original shower room was tampered with.

        From 1960 to 2003, the official story was that the gas chamber was never used or never put into operation. Then in 2003 the Dachau Museum was greatly enlarged and the story was changed so that tourists are now told that the gas chamber was “used a few times” or “used for experiments.” This means that the American film of the gas chamber that was shown at Nuremberg was not a lie, but it also means that the Dachau Museum was lying for 43 years.

        Comment by furtherglory — December 26, 2010 @ 1:27 pm

        • Why do you use the inflammatory term “lie”? What evidence is there that the museum was lying, either then or now? More likely, researchers associated with the museum merely came to a different conclusion based on the available evidence. Should everyone who ever changed an opinion be declared a liar?

          Comment by Wahrheit — December 27, 2010 @ 8:35 am

          • At the time that Dachau was liberated, the International Prisoners Committee was in control of the camp. The acting Commandant had turned the camp over to them before he left with all the regular guards. This group is also called the Committee of Dachau. The Committee still exists; it is based in Belgium. The Committee controls the Dachau Memorial site and the Museum. It was the Committee that decided in 2003 that there was a gas chamber at Dachau and that it was used.

            Comment by furtherglory — December 27, 2010 @ 7:29 pm

  6. This is a very good point!
    Would Wahrheit be able to present his evidence in the court of law. And what that evidence would be? The personal testimonies, memoirs? Those are not admissible in the court as hearsay testimonies.

    Comment by Gasan — December 24, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

    • The first time that I visited Dachau in 1997, there was an exhibit in the undressing room which showed a letter from Dr. Rascher to Heinrich Himmler. I have this letter on my web site at

      http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/letter.html

      This letter was being prominently displayed even though, at that time, the Dachau Memorial site was saying that the gas chamber had never been used. In his letter, Dr. Rascher asked permission to use the “chamber” that was going to be built at Dachau in 1943. This “chamber” was going to be like the one in Linz, Austria. This is assumed to be a reference to Hartheim Castle, near Linz, where “terminally ill” prisoners at Dachau were allegedly sent to be killed. Dr. Rascher wanted to use the new facility at Dachau to test “combat gas” on the terminally ill prisoners who were scheduled to die anyway.

      This letter is suspicious because, although Germany had plenty of combat gasses during World War II, the Germans never used them. Why did they need to test these gasses in 1943? Wouldn’t they have already tested the gas before then? Would Himmler have been the man to give permission to test poison gas? Hitler had suffered from a poison gas attack during World War I and I don’t think he had any plans to use gas in World War II. In any case, I don’t think Zyklon-B was considered a “combat gas.”

      The Dachau gas chamber has doors that look like air-raid doors; the doors are air tight. The “gas chamber” was in the SS part of the Dachau camp and it would have been convenient for the SS men to go into, in case of a poison gas attack or an air raid. You can see photos of the Dachau “gas chamber” door on my web site at

      http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/interior01.html

      The photos show that the doors could not be opened from the inside, but the door handles might have been taken off by the American liberators. The doors could have had rubber gaskets that was also removed by the Americans.

      The Mauthausen “gas chamber” also had air-raid type doors and they could have been opened from the inside if the inside door handles had not been removed. You can see the Mauthausen doors on my web site at

      http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/Gas%20Chamber/GasChamberDoor.html

      Comment by furtherglory — December 24, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

    • Personal testimonies and memoirs can be reported from direct witnesses, not hearsay. Had you looked into the matter at all Gasan (you know, before doubting the occurrence of gassings at the camp, as an objective person would), you would know that a direct witness DOES exist for experimental gassings at Dachau. Dr. Franz Blaha, of course, is such witness. Blaha’s testimony fits very well with Rascher’s 9 August 1942 letter to Himmler, stating:

      “As you know, the same installation as in Linz is to be built in Dachau. As the ‘invalid transports’ terminate in the special chambers anyway I wondered if it would be possible to test the effects of our combat gases in these chambers using the persons who are destined for those chambers anyway. The only reports which are available so far are for experiments on animals or of accidents in the manufacture of these gases.”

      A German historian found other statements as well, IIRC, but cannot find my scans of his work.

      The webmaster’s personal doubts and incredulity against this document’s authenticity are simply offbase. Simply because something was never used, it wouldn’t be experimented with? Does not follow, and is manifestly incorrect as seen by numerous countries tests with deadly gases and nuclear weapons. In July 1942 (a month before Rascher’s letter), Himmler set up an ‘Institute for Practical Research in Military Science’ with Wolfram Sievers as its director. In June, Sievers was sending material on experiments with mustard gas to Himmler, as he had been for over a year.

      BTW, a question for both of you, does a court of law have to establish a fact in a declared opinion for its historic reality to be accepted (by you)? I would advise you to keep in mind that the standards are very different for both fields. Still, such gassings were discussed in Martin Gottfreid Weiss case, as this blog’s main site relates.

      Comment by Wahrheit — December 26, 2010 @ 8:56 am

      • My web site does relate that “gassings were discussed in Martin Gottfried Weiss case” but I pointed out that Dr. Blaha was allowed to mention gassings even though no one on trial in that case was charged with gassing prisoners.

        Here is a quote from my web site at http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MartinGottfriedWeiss01.html

        Begin Quote:
        The gassing of Dachau prisoners was not included in the charges against Martin Gottfried Weiss and the 39 others, but in spite of this, Dr. Franz Blaha, a former prisoner at Dachau, was allowed to mention the gas chambers in his testimony. Under the rules of the American Military Tribunal, any and all testimony was allowed, even if it had nothing to do with the charges or the men in the dock at Dachau.
        End Quote

        Here is another quote from the same page on my web site:

        Begin quote:
        Dr. Blaha testified that Wilhelm Welter was responsible for the deaths of prisoners at Dachau, but he also stated that the only deaths that he could remember had occurred in 1944, which was a year after Welter had left the Dachau main camp to work for six months in the Friedrichshafen sub-camp of Dachau. Welter was found guilty by the American Military Tribunal and was executed by hanging on May 29, 1946.
        End Quote

        Wilhelm Welter was prosecuted in a later case, not in the case against Martin Gottfried Weiss and 39 others.

        Something does not have to be established as a fact in a court of law for it to be true. In the case of the proceedings of the Nuremberg IMT and the American Military Tribunal, there were many so-called facts that were later found to be false.

        If the Dachau gas chamber was used for experiments, how was the gas put into the gas chamber? The gas was in the form of pellets that could not go through the shower heads and there is no evidence that the bins on the east wall were there before the American liberators arrived. Not a single person who saw the gas chamber in 1945 ever mentioned the bins on the outside or the little windows on the inside. On my web site, I have a whole page of descriptions of the Dachau gas chamber given by American soldiers who saw the gas chamber immediately after the war, and no one mentioned the little windows. You can read the descriptions at http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/descriptions.html

        Comment by furtherglory — December 26, 2010 @ 9:42 am

  7. Right off the bat, anybody who “thinks” – not very many obviously – would have to question why a camp like Dachau would have 4 disinfestation chambers using gas to kill lice, and one homicidal chamber [that was built as a shower room by the way] using gas to kill people.

    The 4 disinfestation chambers existed to save lives, and the German camp authorities went to a great deal of trouble and expense to keep the inmates healthy and alive. This makes the one used to kill these same inmates something of an anomaly. You have to be pretty stupid not to think there is something strange going on here.

    Yes, you have to be really stupid to believe everything a tour guide tells you.

    Comment by Skeptic — December 23, 2010 @ 8:05 am

    • One thing that you have to consider is that the soldiers in the American Army during World War II were not very sophisticated, like people are today. I had an uncle who served in World War II. He was a farm boy who had never been more than 20 miles from home, and he had only a grade school education in a one-room school. He fought in the war against Japan, but if he had been at Dachau when it was liberated, he would have believed the prisoners who told the soldiers about the gas chamber. He was from Missouri where everyone knew that there were real gas chambers used to execute criminals. People didn’t “think” back then; they just believed the propaganda. That’s why Eisenhower famously said that someday there might be people who would say that it was all propaganda. He was right!

      Comment by furtherglory — December 24, 2010 @ 7:09 am

      • People didn’t think? Might I recommend you read up on the German “corpse factory” tales from the Great War. Some believed, but others did not. When this was exposed as false in the 1920s, the general public in the Allied countries were reluctant to believe news stories of atrocities during the Second World War.

        Then of course we have Skeptic, who can’t understand why delousing chambers can exist in a camp where gassings where committed on an experimental basis. Apparently, having 4 delousing chambers makes Dachau a health resort. Those who think otherwise are “stupid”? What a joke.

        Comment by Wahrheit — December 24, 2010 @ 9:31 am

        • What is your evidence of “experimental” gassing at Dachau? Was this proved at the Nuremberg IMT or at the proceedings of the American Military Tribunal or maybe at the Doctor’s Trial at Nuremberg?

          Comment by furtherglory — December 24, 2010 @ 12:23 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 198 other followers

%d bloggers like this: