Ron Rosenbaum, Writer

November 20, 2007

Devastating New Revelation of Holocaust Warning and Missed Opportunity

Filed under: Uncategorized — ronrosenbaumwriter @ 7:44 am

My friend and former colleague Craig S. Karpel often e-mails me eye-opening links to stories that don’t get the attention they deserve.

This piece from the Jerusalem Post is an example, a true shocker:

it’s about a new book published in Hebrew that reveals that an explicit warning of Hitler’s plan for exterminationist death camps for Jews was passed on to British officials, perhaps even Churchill himself, in the summer of 1942, months before what had been previously regarded as the first explicit report of the industrialized mass murder the one that came in August of ’42.

But to my mind even more important than the timing is what the book reveals accompanied the warning: a proposed practical course of action that might–who knows now?– have made a difference in forestalling it.

The book–Pazner: The Man Who Knew–tells the story of Chaim Pazner an official of the Jewish Agency’s Palestine Office in Switzerland who was approached by a Swiss friend who wanted to pass on an explicit message from a German officer who made clear the gravity and urgency of the message:

“In the East, there are camps being prepared which will be used to destroy all the Jews of Europe and many of the Soviet war prisoners by gas,” the message read. “Please pass this message on immediately to Churchill and Roosevelt personally.”

But what makes this story even more devastating than the fact that it, like other such warnings resulted in no effective action, was the second half of the message:

“If the BBC broadcasts a daily warning to the Germans not to operate the gas chambers maybe they will not operate them, because the criminals are doing everything they can to prevent the German people from finding out what they are planning to do and it is clear that they will also do this.”

Here we get into one of the most controversial areas of Holocaust history: what could the Allies had done if they’d listened to the warnings and not largely dismissed them? Most of the debate has surrounded the question of whether they should have bombed Auschwitz or the railway tracks to the death camp. There are those who say yes, definitely, it would have saved lives, and there are those who say that the best way to save the most lives was to focus on winning the war more quickly and that the information about the camps and accessibility of them to bombing raids was not certain.

But this BBC idea is startling and new to me and has a certain plausibility. According to the book the warning was passed on to the BBC and to Churchill himself although the evidence on the latter is less strong. And of course, as we know, nothing was done. Would it have made a difference if the advice to the BBC had been followed?

From my reading of the situation in the course of writing Explaining Hitler (see left column), it’s true that Hitler had wanted to keep the death camps secret from the Allies because he feared (unnecessarily, alas) that such knowledge would provoke a fierce reaction.

On the other hand the evidence is less clear that the Final Solution was unknown to the German people. Yes, there is a well-known Himmler speech to the SS in which he celebrates their secret participation in the slaughter. But there is also evidence that German soldiers and civilian administrators knew very well what was going on. And Hitler had repeatedly made clear his goal of the destruction of the European jews in public speeches. But the fact that the process was actually going on in death camps in Poland (mainly) was not widely advertised in Germany. Which doesn’t mean the German people didn’t know.

I recall being on some panel with an official of the German consulate here who cited a poll showing that German civilians didn’t know and asking him: what did they think happened to all the Jews of Germany who disappeared from the cities and towns. Did the German people think they’d all decided to take a vacation? Of course a poll would elicit a “we didn’t know” response. And of course it’s an open question whether, if they knew, they’d care.

Still the idea of BBC broadcasts that might have warned any Germans who participated in the extermination process that they would be prosecuted as war criminals, broadcasts that left no doubt in the mind of every single German, every single European (since most European nations were complicit in the execution of the Holocaust) that they would be held accountable. Even if they weren’t, the fear of it might have had some effect, the putative broadcasts might have made a difference.

And–who knows–the widespread broadcast of the on going mass murder might have given more impetus to those few German officers and civilians wavering to go forward sooner with their plans to depose or assassinate Hitler. Or maybe I’m giving them too much credit for caring. Maybe it would have made no difference at all. We’ll never know.

Still among all the stories of warnings ignored, or disbelieved, rescue action denied or delayed till too late, this struck me as a not-impossible lost chance.

And a reminder that the time to stop a nation from committing genocide is before it starts not after it’s finished.

Advertisements

28 Comments »

  1. WS Churchill was facing the defeat of Britain in the spring of 1942,
    the BBC was staffed with appeasers of the worst order.

    Comment by FJ Harris — November 20, 2007 @ 12:47 pm | Reply

  2. Startling … if true. As Reagan said, “Trust but verify.”

    Comment by doc — November 20, 2007 @ 3:32 pm | Reply

  3. I believe there is something in our own psyche that prevents the awareness of really bad news from surfacing, whether psychologically or politically. Not only the knowledge of an imminent genocide, but the human complicity and complacency (as Goldhagen brings out brilliantly in Hitler’s Willing Executioners,) touches on something that we would all prefer to ignore of deny – the pervasive extstence of evil in the wolrd and in us all.

    Comment by BMoon — November 20, 2007 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

  4. I cannot agree with your statement “And of course, as we know, nothing was done.” The war continued for three more years, at very great cost, especially to the hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers killed fighting the Nazis. One might wish that something different had been done – perhaps the BBC broadcast plan, for example – but to say that nothing was done rather diminishes the memory of those who died in the great struggle against fascism.

    I don’t think this is just a quibble – it gets to the heart of the question you raise: what should the Allies have done? That they did something enormous and at backbreaking cost, something indeed that we might not be capable of today, should factor into our consideration of their options and reasons for choosing among them. It would also seem appropriate on other grounds to argue the counterfactuals in a way that respects their sacrifice.

    I regret if you read “nothing was done” to mean I was ignoring the war effort or the sacrfice on its behalf. I explicitlty pose the question whether winning the larger war faster was the most important thing–and the most efficacious way of dealing with the death camps. But for one reason or another nothing was done to deal with the death camps themselves which represented a new evolution of evil: industrialized mass murder

    Comment by Patrick Brown — November 20, 2007 @ 4:33 pm | Reply

  5. I think with respect to the Germans, they had an idea something bad was going on, they just did not get the scope of it.

    After Kristalnacht, they could not deny that something was happening. They could believe that 1000s were being killed, who could believe that millions were?

    Comment by Anthony — November 20, 2007 @ 5:22 pm | Reply

  6. A family friend who was a young lady in the employ of the Waffen SS at the end of WWII once confided that “everyone in Germany knew what was going on” with regard to the Jews. The fact was, as in Ruwanda many years later, there were enough folks who agreed with to convince the others to just go along with it to keep out of trouble.

    I doubt it would have made anything change in Germany and, unfortunately, may have made some anti-semites among the Allies more sympathetic to the Nazis.

    Comment by submandave — November 20, 2007 @ 5:49 pm | Reply

  7. In addition to the effect it might have had on “Aryans” and others in their camp, I think there was a moral responsibility to warn the potential victims, more of whom might have fought back if they knew what reporting to a deportment train meant.

    Comment by DWPittelli — November 20, 2007 @ 6:04 pm | Reply

  8. I was quite shocked when I read the novel Pigeon Pie by Nancy Mitford copyright 1939 and noticed explicit references to the smoke of the crematoriums rising from the concentration camps. It’s a Holiday from History book of a frivolous nature but clearly a lot of people knew what was going on.

    Unfortunately, the last six years have allowed me to observe the psychosis of denial that afflicted and still afflicts most of the mainstream press. It’s not ike they covered the gulag either.

    It must have been a prophetic novel of sorts because the actual death camps weren’t built til after 1941 as far as I know. Up til then roving killing squads used masss execution and asphixiation by carbon monoxide truck emissions.

    I should point out (not to this commenter) but to some others that I won’t waste my time or space here arguing with holocaust deniers; however clever and insidious they think themselves to be, they’re sad fools. And that’s being kind to them.

    Comment by accountant — November 20, 2007 @ 6:04 pm | Reply

  9. Another warning ignored, this one to “neutral” Sweden.

    http://www.scena.org/columns/lebrecht/071031-NL-angel.html

    Thank you for this important story which I urge others to read.

    Comment by James — November 20, 2007 @ 6:10 pm | Reply

  10. Sad to say, but I believe that there were many Allied leaders that just didn’t care.
    There were also those, like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (see http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php)
    who thought Germany was on the right track.

    Comment by Sam Hall — November 20, 2007 @ 6:14 pm | Reply

  11. It has to be remembered that Britain was at war with Nazi Germany from 1939,in 1942 I was being bombed in my cot by the Luftwaffe,the retreat at Dunkirk was long gone and Europe was under the Jackboot.
    It was most uncertain whether Britain would survive.No one is disputing Britain’s ordeal and sacrfice. The issue is not making use of British bombers or fighters, but a few hours of BBC airtime which might have re-enforced the war effort. And what about after 1943 and 44?

    Comment by PeterUK — November 20, 2007 @ 6:28 pm | Reply

  12. The claims advertised here, by way of the book, seem questionable. Hearsay, removed more than 60 years from the fact. The author of this post also makes some errors of logic.

    The removal of German Jews, initially anyway, mirrored the internment of Japanese civilians in the US. German citizens just assumed Hitler would do exactly what he said he would do– which wasn’t genocide. Hitler had long supported the relocation of Jews from Europe, and resettlement someplace like Madagascar (he opposed Jewish removal to then-Palestine because he wanted Muslim support in the war against the Allies).

    There has been a long, obviously uncoordinated campaign to extend blame for the Holocaust as widely as possible. But there is very little real evidence to support almost any of the charges, whether against German civilians, the Swiss, the Catholic Church, now Churchill, FDR, and the BBC. There is literally zero documentary proof of anything. At least with regard to certain parties (i.e. Himmler), there are many other sources of evidence.

    But with say, the BBC, there is neither documentary evidence nor other reliable evidence, such as the testimony of many knowledgeable parties. It is, in legal terms, hearsay within hearsay within hearsay within hearsay (officer to friend to Pazner to author)– at best. There might be many more layers, it’s unclear from this blog post. Sort of like the child’s game “telephone.”

    To morally inculpate parties other than German officials should require something more than 60 year old rumors. And, even if the BBC and/or other parties were alerted, it is illogical to presume they should have responded to those rumors as if they were definitely true. How could the BBC have known? Sensational charges sell books but are no substitute for the truth.

    Sad to see someone, so brave in his anonymity, of course, who has bought into so many holocaust denier-type myths. I won’t bother with the others but in the second paragraph our anonymous commenter ignores Hitler’s famous speech to the Reichstag in 1939 in which he pledged the “destruction”–not the “internment” of German Jews. Ignorance like that speaks for itself.

    Comment by John — November 20, 2007 @ 6:55 pm | Reply

  13. Perhaps the most intriguing ‘what if’ about the Holocaust is on page 212 of Martin Gilbert’s Churchill and the Jews, which describes why Admiral Horthy, the Hungarian Regent, halted Jewish deportations:

    “The immediate cause of Horthy’s intervention was an American daylight bombing raid on Budapest on 2 July. This raid had nothing to do with the appeal to bomb the railway lines to Auschwitz; it was part of a long-established pattern of bombing German fuel depots and railway marshalling yards. But the raid had gone wrong, as many did, and several government buildings in Budapest, as well as the private homes of several senior Hungarian Government officials, had been hit.”

    Martin goes on the explain that some of those buildings and homes had been listed in a deliberately unencrypted telegram send by Elizabeth Wiskemann, a British diplomat in Switzerland, to the British Foreign Office in London. Fearing that they’d seen the first wave of a deliberate targeting of their homes and offices in reprisal for the deportations, Hungarian officials acted quickly.

    Wikipedia has an article on Wiskemann that says: “Wiskemann spent the Second World War in Switzerland, officially as the assistant press attaché to the British legation in Bern, but in reality responsible for gathering non-military intelligence from inside Germany and the occupied territories.”

    We might ask ourselves what German targets, deliberately chosen for their personal significance, might have led the Nazis to halt the mass killings. And might might ask ourselves what similar targets might exist today for responding to acts of genocide or terrorism. The more closely we target those responsible, the more morally justified our response.

    –Michael W. Perry
    Editor of Dachau Liberated

    Comment by Mike Perry — November 20, 2007 @ 6:56 pm | Reply

  14. Along about 1975, I was doing a history project that involved going back into the newspaper microfiche stacks and skimming every daily issue of (IIRC) the Chicago Tribune from 1935 to 1945. It was actually kind of jolting to read of the build-up to war, and the war as it happened, day to day, in drips and drops, rather like looking at the Sistine Chapel cieling through a pin-hole. Every once in a while during those years there was a story, or an editorial touching upon what was happening to Jews in Occupied Europe, some of them with pretty accurate warnings of what was happening – but invariably those stories would be followed up with other stories, editorials and letters to the editor saying things like “Oh, it’s just to horrible for a civilized people to be doing,” or “don’t fall for war-propaganda scare stories” or “remember all those horrible stories of German atrocities in WWI”. It was my impression that people were quite anti-Nazi, and knew that the Nazis were doing some pretty atrocious things, but they did not want to believe the absolute worst. They just did not – it was too incredible, too hideous to accept.

    And then, in April and May of 1945, the Allies actually broke into Germany, and began finding the camps, with bales of human hair, and the crematoriums, the mass graves, and the survivors with tattoed arms – only then did the public in the West begin to realize that the vilest and most fevered imaginings of the most dedicated anti-Nazi propagandist imaginable didn’t even come anywhere near the truth, didn’t come anywhere near the wicked perversity of what had been going on. To say that Americans and British readers were stunned was an understatement.

    Curiously, just as I had gotten up to reading the 1945 newspapers, there began to be stories leaking out about the Cambodian genocide… and each one of those was met by a smiliar series of denials. “Oh, don’t believe that CIA propaganda, no one could be that wickedly brutal.”

    There are some things that are just too large, too hideous to be easily believed by someone sitting in a country more or less at peace, on the other side of the world.

    Comment by Sgt. Mom — November 20, 2007 @ 7:06 pm | Reply

  15. Until an Allied Infantryman stood on the ground of the death camps, nothing substantive could have been done.
    Bombing was a horrendously costly enterprise and instead of bombing the spurs to the camps, the same effort directed to main lines, bridges, and marshalling yards was far more effective. Both delayed the transports of Jews, but bombing the spurs would have done nothing but have the Germans make the Jews get out and walk. There would have been no other damage to the German war effort.
    BBC air time might have persuaded some Jews to leave, but those who hadn’t by that time were not in much of a position to go afterwards.

    It is a shame that the Holocaust isn’t bad enough but that the blameless (the Allies) have to be blamed as well.

    Nobody’s “blaming” the allies for perpetrating the holocaust, some have the right to wonder whether more could have been done to prevent it. The comment seems to miss the point of the post which was not to re-argue military options one way or the other, but to report on a non military suggestion, the use of the BBC. A suggestion not about warning Jews but about warning Germans the world was aware of unprecedented war crimes they would be held accountable for.

    Comment by Richard Aubrey — November 20, 2007 @ 7:24 pm | Reply

  16. Is the name of the officer who sent the warnings Kurt Gerstein? If so, William T. Vollman explored the psyche of this man in his wonderful National Book Award winning novel Europe Central.

    Gerstein figures in another story of warning. In this case the German was Dr. Arthur Zirmer

    Comment by vincent pierce — November 20, 2007 @ 8:59 pm | Reply

  17. Unfortunately, hysterical British “Hun” propaganda of WWI had made British, American and German audiences cynical about claims of German atrocities. Making a big deal out the death camps might have backfired if people did not believe the claims.

    I think the real reason so little action was taken was that the WWII generation simply could not wrap its mind around the concept of genocide. They might read the reports and see the reconnaissance photos but they lacked the same visceral response that we with 40 years hindsight have. We know such things are possible but they really didn’t.

    Comment by ShannonLove — November 20, 2007 @ 10:18 pm | Reply

  18. I came across one comment, by a German in Westphalia: that the Jews could after all, look after themselves. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.

    Of course, what was left were empty stores and apartments, quickly auctioned off to Party faithful, and/or those who had the money. In Poland, there was ‘gold rushes’ to did up the “great wealth” Polish people believed the Jews had hidden. And there were many in Warsaw who sold guns to people in the ghetto for a lot of gold, as ‘everyone knew’ Jews were excessively rich.

    When I was in Munster a couple of years ago, I noticed that the synagogue (built long after The War) was fastooned with security equipment. Parked in front of the place were TWO police vans standing guard.

    Anti semitism allied with greed made it easy to ignore the ‘disappearance’ of the European Jew.

    On bombing: it was awfully hard to hit any target at all. Thus, carpet bombing became the preferred approach in WWII.

    Nancy Mitford was an aristocratic woman, whose sister Unity, was a close friend and acolyte of Adolph Hitler. Another sister, Diana Mitford, married the British Fascist, Oswald Mosley. Jessica became a communist; and then there was Deborah who married the Duke of Devonshire.

    I had never heard of that book “Pigeon Pie”, but I know that Nancy Mitford’s specialty was frivolity.

    Comment by Heather — November 21, 2007 @ 1:13 am | Reply

  19. Please, give the name etc. of that myterious German officer who “knew” (who from and how)and passed on his knowlege to the Jew in question.
    Based on what I read I presume the “myterious officer” might have been a certain GERSTEIN….
    If I am right, I do advise all interested in this problem to thoroughly read “The Confessions of the SS Kurt Gerstein” by Dr. Henri ROQUES, a thsis of the university of Nantes, France.

    21/11/07

    If the link to the story is not working? I’ve had some trouble with it, but here is the passage that describes the German officer:

    On July 29, 1942, Pazner received a coded message in a telephone call from his former economics professor in Basel, Edgar Salin, telling him that he had received information of “supreme importance.” The economics professor, who had converted to Christianity years earlier, was friends with Dr. Arthur Zommer, a German officer and fellow economist who was opposed to the Nazi regime and who had been leaking confidential information about Hitler’s plans to his Swiss friend.

    Comment by G. Deckert — November 21, 2007 @ 6:02 am | Reply

  20. It’s an interesting question whether BBC warnings might have had an effect. In late 1942 bombing of Germany by the Allies was still sporadic and wildly inaccurate, based on sources I’ve read. But by fall 1943, when we were bombing Germany day and night, such warnings by BBC and others might have caused ordinary Germans to wonder, “What might happen to us if we lose the war?” On the other hand, by late 1943 most of the Jews had already been transported.

    It’s really hard to second-guess historical events. We, of course, have the great advantage of hindsight.

    Comment by Randolph Resor — November 21, 2007 @ 8:19 am | Reply

  21. This book is just another exercise in counter-factual history of the Holocaust. Like the “we could have saved lives by bombing the death camps and/or the rail system” meme the idea that warnings from the BBC to the Germans would have materially affected German behavior is just plain silly. The British received this information before the Battle of Midway, El Alamein and Stalingrad. The Allies were losing the war at this time and the Nazis would have seen the warnings as an empty threat. The idea that broadcast warnings to the Germans would have been effective only looks reasonable because we know the ultimate outcome of the war. Unfortunately the decision makers in 1942 had no such knowledge.

    Aren’t you engaging precisely in “counterfactuals” when you insist you know the outcome of a counterfactual proposition? I don’t think anyone can predict with certainty the future or the counterfactual past. And though you present yourself as an expert, the book was written with contributions from Sir Martin Gilbert whom I assume you know is the leading historian of the Allies and the Holocaust. if your credentials are impressive enough to call him “silly” why are you hiding behind anonymity?..

    Comment by jerry — November 21, 2007 @ 8:29 am | Reply

  22. Nobody is blaming the Allies for perpetrating the Holocaust. I never said anybody was.
    The point is that there seems to be an unsatisfied need for blame which, once having hammered the actual perpetrators, continues to look for others.
    The “could have done more” theme is not new. It goes back decades, in the face of granitic evidence to the contrary. Bomb the railroads. Bomb the camps.
    Now we have the “silver bullet” theme. Once having discovered something which, 1, could have been done, and, 2, was not done, that something is assigned all sovereign powers. So that the Allies were morally culpable for not doing that which would have fixed things. Because they were anti-Semitic.
    I recall a documentary about some Jews rescued in Italy and sent to an upstate NY military post, empty since the soldiers were elsewhere, possibly Italy. The point? Some Jews were left in Italy. Bad, bad Americans. That the remaining Jews were living pretty well for civilians in Italy at the time was irrelevant. It was an opportunity to bash the Allies/Americans.
    This BBC-fix theme is an extension of that same, sorry need to blame more than the perps.
    I don’t understand it.
    Goldenhagen’s book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” provides a look at the possibility that the German population would have been outraged at finding out what was going on.
    And there’s no sense trying to convince somebody whose team is just about to win–Germany 1939-1942–that the folks just about to lose would be putting him on trial. That’s so crazy that…. It’s just crazy.

    Well at least you put your name behind your opiniions.Which however run to disdain for anyone you disagree with (Your credentials as a historian are…?), and to stories about well off Jews, and Jews being ungrateful and pre-emptively denying any of those who you agree with are anti-semitic. Someone so quick to pop psychologize others ought to be aware of how one’s own preoccupations might be misinterpreted.

    Comment by Richard Aubrey — November 21, 2007 @ 10:47 am | Reply

  23. Humans are wont to ignore the train coming down the track. I knew a Polish Jew (he was one of those marvellous Mittel European Intellectuals by the way) who escaped the German invasion by going to Russia. There was a 6 week window of opportunity there, he had no family, and he had read “Mein Kampf.”

    But most Jews in Europe, like most people everywhere, hoped for the best, and let time go by.

    At the other side of the chasm, Anthony Eden noted that “yes,” the British government had heard of German atrocities, but no one could believe that anyone anywhere would industrialize Murder, and put people into ovens. It just was not believable.

    One more point: as the Americans were marching into Germany, some were told to ‘take’ one of those prison camps near Munich. They thought that, given the famous German efficiency, that this would be no problem. NO ONE warned these soldiers about what they might face at Dachau. The shock was horrific. Eisenhower had journalists, and his fellow officers tour one of the camps, because he KNEW that no one could believe what they were.

    This shock was universal. One British journalist broke down and wept on radio, trying to make his listeners understand what he had seen at Bergen Belsen.

    The ONLY reason we accept this event as being real, is because of the Nuremberg Trials. Note that we know little or nothing about the full extent of the Soviet horrors – there were no films made of the Gulag.

    Comment by Heather — November 21, 2007 @ 12:34 pm | Reply

  24. The real error in the end was not to take Churchill’s idea of simply executing the Nazi leadership outright en mass.
    There is no way of knowing what could have happened if the warnings were issued, camps bombed and if sanctions against countries aiding the axis were seriously enforced. If may have helped or it may not, but the moral stain of not trying cannot be washed away.

    Comment by cubanbob — November 21, 2007 @ 12:42 pm | Reply

  25. Daniel Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners: has page after page of example after example of ordinary Germans knowing what was going on.

    Another example I was given at a 9-11 memorial service here in NYC: a woman spoke of living near downtown and smelling the awful smell from the sit day after day. she said, “experiencing that, there is no way one can say the Germans living next to concentration camps didn’t know.”

    Comment by Yehudit — November 21, 2007 @ 2:44 pm | Reply

  26. As a former federal prosecutor, I went through the classsifed ULTRA files on the Holocaust. Churchill was getting axcurate weekely reports on the number of Jews being killed as early as September 1941. By the end of October, 1941 the British codebreakers told Churchil: ” It is now clear beyond any doubt that the German police are killing every Jew they can lay their hands on. Therefore, unless directed otherwise, we shall not bother reporting this issue in the future.”
    The bottom line: Jews were expendable to Churchill’s war effort.

    John Loftus, author, the secret war against the Jews, host LoftusReport.com

    Comment by John Loftus — November 21, 2007 @ 3:19 pm | Reply

  27. Of course the Germans knew. Perhaps not all the details, but they knew. My Dad was in the US Army in the mid-50s in Germany and he was flat-out told this by some Germans he befriended.

    You can walk from Munich to Dachau. It’s not like it’s in the middle of a desert and it’s not small, either.

    Try a thought experiment: suppose all members of a minority group (pick one, it doesn’t matter) ALL started disappearing from an American city. Do you think we’d be dense enough not to notice?

    Comment by Chester White — November 22, 2007 @ 11:17 am | Reply

  28. Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany by Nathan Stoltzfus tells the story of approximately 2000 German Jews, mostly men married to non-Jewish women, who were herded into Rosenstra§e 2-4. Their wives and families protested and after a week all were released–include 25 who had already been transfered to Auschwitz.

    A loud persistent protest by the allies would have had some kind of effect.

    Comment by Daled Amos — November 22, 2007 @ 5:04 pm | Reply


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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: