Form and Substance

The debate about Diana West’s book American Betrayal continues to rage in the conservative blogosphere, with new articles attacking her (and others supporting her) appearing too fast for me to keep track.

Because I haven’t read the book, my discussions up until now have concentrated on the form (ad-hominem attacks on the author by people who haven’t read the book) rather than the substance (the degree of penetration of the Roosevelt administration by Soviet agents in the 1930s and 1940s) of the debate. This post will adjust the balance by providing excerpts from substantive critiques and analyses written by people who know far more than I do about the topic.

First, however, I’d like to point our readers to a brief post at Diana West’s blog featuring a comment made by Marten Gantelius here at Gates of Vienna

For those who are interested in what Ms. West has to say about her book, among other topics, see these radio appearances:

And now on to the substantive discussions of American Betrayal.

Diana West has posted a partial rebuttal of the Front Page article by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr at her blog:

Harry Hopkins: Did He Warn the Ambassador or Did He Warn the Embassy?

by Diana West

John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr have posted a new article titled, “Was Harry Hopkins a Soviet Spy?”

There will be more to say about the Hopkins debate in the future, but I would like to call attention to one passage in the Haynes and Klehr article.

Referring to the Mitrokhin archive of KGB documents, they write:

The only new material Mitrokhin provided on Hopkins was a 1943 report that Hopkins had notified the Soviet ambassador in Washington that the FBI had observed a Soviet diplomat meeting covertly with Steve Nelson, who supervised San Francisco area operations of the Communist Party of the United States.

This full incident, as excerpted in American Betrayal, is described here.

For now, I would simply like to address this matter of the Soviet “ambassador.” Haynes and Klehr’s source on this information is Andrew and Mitrokhin, Sword and the Shield, 111. However, the relevant passage from Andrew and Mitrokhin tells us:

Earlier in the year he [Hopkins] had privately warned the Soviet embassy in Washington that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting at which Zarubin (apparently identified by Hopkins only as a member of the embassy) had passed money to Steve Nelson, a leading member of the US Communist underground.64

I don’t see any mention of Hopkins warning the “ambassador.”…

Read the rest at Diana West’s place.

For text taken directly from the book, see Chapter 9, the latest installment of Breitbart’s excerpts with an introduction by the author:

David Horowitz has recently leveled grave charges at Breitbart against my credibility as a writer based on my new book, American Betrayal. Indeed, according to Horowitz, I “should not have written this book.” Thankfully, he is not in charge of free speech in this country, and St. Martin’s Press, which also published my first book, The Death of the Grown-Up, had other ideas.

Horowitz bases this stunning statement on the “extreme claims” he alleges are contained in my book, which, he says, “not only serve to discredit her work but lead her into insoluble dilemmas.” He says the problem — my problem — is “intellectual.”

It’s difficult to tell what he’s talking about, at least with regard to what I have actually written. He goes on to list a series of historical fragments related in some way to events covered in my book — for example, the debate over whether to invade Europe in northern France vs. Churchill’s favored strategy to expand from the Italian front into the Balkans.

I do treat this debate at length, particularly with regard to the machinations of Harry Hopkins, FDR’s top wartime advisor and undeviating booster of what would be the famed Normandy invasion. Readers of the following excerpt from American Betrayal (below) should know that there is a case to be made from varied sources that Hopkins was an agent of Stalin’s influence inside the FDR White House. I lay that case out in detail in American Betrayal.

If the work that went into my book is solid, even more history needs rewriting — regardless of whether, as David Horowitz says about my book, “this is not how anyone should think about history-making events and the political forces that shape them.” The fact is, if the record I have assembled (citing 900-plus endnotes) is correct, FDR might not be as great as we think he is, and, to address the flip side, Sen. Joseph McCarthy might not be as awful as we think he is, and just that changes almost everything about what we “know” as a people.

I believe it is this explosive topic that seems to be driving my critics to ad hominem attacks, perhaps unexpectedly, at conservative sites from Frontpage Magazine to The American Thinker, to National Review Online and the New York Sun. Instead of discussing the contents of my book, they attack my accuracy, honesty, even my sanity; also, instead of just ignoring my book, they try to make me radioactive so readers won’t even to think about the ideas inside it for themselves.

This becomes a question readers will have to make up their own minds about. To that end, I am happy to provide to Breitbart Chapter 9 of American Betrayal in full, including its 84 endnotes. I look forward to reading comments from people who have, for a change, read at least part of my book.

The full text is at Breitbart.

In an article entitled “Major Jordan, Carroll Reece, Birchers, Buckley and the Attack on Diana West”, Stacy McCain considers some of the evidence that suggests FDR aide Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent:

One of the stories Diana West tells in her new book American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character is about Army Maj. George Racey Jordan, whose tale about Lend-Lease shipments to the Soviet Union you can read beginning on page 110 of the book.

West recounts, on pages 139-140, Major Jordan’s narrative of an April 1943 incident in which his Russian liaison, Col. Anatole Kotikov, put him on the phone with top FDR aide Harry Hopkins. According to Major Jordan, Hopkins told him about “a certain shipment of chemicals,” ordering him to “just send it through quietly, in a hurry.”

Has anyone disproven Major Jordan’s account of that incident, or otherwise contradicted his tale of how, he said, the Lend-Lease program aided the Soviets in stealing U.S. secrets and materials necessary to the development of atomic weapons? I am unaware of any such contradiction or disproof, and the question is why — in the wake of what we have learned about Soviet espionage since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the release of the Venona decrypts — scholars have not done more to investigate Major Jordan’s tale, which made headlines when he testified to Congress in 1950.

Frankly, there are too damned many such questions that ought to be of interest to historians, and too few historians working to investigate accusations made during the Cold War that got laughed off as ridiculous or denounced as “witch hunts.” We should be grateful that Diana West is picking at the dangling loose ends of history.

Instead, she’s been denounced for her methodology and condemned as a conspiracy theorist by both Ron Radosh and David Horowitz. There have been some people who, persuaded by the arguments of Radosh and Horowitz, have condemned Diana West without ever reading her book. And I suppose the reputations and persuasiveness of these eminent critics are such that, if you went and bought American Betrayal right now, it would be impossible for you to view it in an unprejudiced light. How can she be right — an intelligent and honest investigator — if Radosh and Horowitz say she is so wrong?

Let me attempt to answer this by asking another question: How much do you know about the Reece Committee?


Think about this: A congressional committee with subpoena power to command testimony and requisition evidence as part of an investigation into how major non-profit philanthropic foundations — Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc. — had influenced policy in a direction that some have called “un-American” or “subversive.”

And they shut that committee down.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist ranting about Commie infiltrators and pinko subversives to see the implications of this.


About 80 years ago, a certain elite in American society decided — more as a consensus than a conspiracy — to bring about this shift that Norman Dodd called a “revolution,” and this shift has proven impossible to reverse, I would argue, because so few educated people are aware of how the shift took place, or what the consequences of that shift have been. This in turn explains why the investigation of Major Jordan’s account, like so many other Cold War mysteries, remains so mysterious to this day: To be “educated” now means to believe that it is impossible for Harry Hopkins to have done what Major Jordan said Hopkins did.


Think about it. Try not to get paranoid, but remember what Stan Evans says: “However bad you think it is, it’s probably much worse.”

Read all the details at Stacy McCain’s place.

In an essay entitled “Conrad Black’s Vitriol Masks His Own Historical Blindspot”, Dr. Andrew Bostom points out Mr. Black’s predisposition to whitewash anything and anyone associated with Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

Conrad Black’s willful blindness to Hiss’s well-documented machinations, before and during Yalta, should give serious pause to those who accept Black’s warped characterization of Diana West and American Betrayal at face value.

The late military intelligence historian Eduard Mark, whose 1998 analysis identified FDR “co-President” Harry Hopkins as “Source 19” in a cable putatively authored by Soviet spymaster Iskhak Akhmerov, lamented,

the indifference of American diplomatic historians to intelligence and of their predominantly liberal political orientation which has led them to ignore the whole question of the relationship between internal security and foreign policy as smacking of ‘McCarthyism’

Irrespective of Conrad Black’s current political orientation, his vitriolic attack on Diana West, and her book American Betrayal, epitomizes the mindset identified with rare candor by Mark—who was not a political conservative.

Black’s 2003 Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom includes this bowdlerized characterization of Alger Hiss, allegedly redressing “lurid allegations” by McCarthyite bogeymen, while trivializing Hiss’s influence at the seminal 1945 Yalta Conference (pp. 1079-80):

Because of the lurid allegations by McCarthyite Republicans in the early fifties, a word must be said about Alger Hiss, who attended the Yalta Conference as a junior State Department official specializing in international organizations. Hiss was eventually revealed as a former member of a Communist espionage ring in the United States, and was convicted of perjury on the dogged examination of Congressman Richard Nixon. Roosevelt had never met Hiss before Yalta, and never spent one minute alone with him at Yalta, according to [FDR interpreter Charles] Bohlen, who was with Roosevelt throughout as interpreter and counselor in Soviet matters, Hiss’s chief contribution at the conference was a sensibly reasoned argument against giving the Soviet Union three votes in the international organization. In this, as in all other matters, while he was competent and unexceptionable in his functions, Hiss had no influence whatever on Roosevelt or American policy at Yalta.

Black does not provide a single footnote for any of these assertions, including his final statement about Hiss’s alleged lack of influence. Fortunately, there is a well-documented corrective to Black’s sanitized court history account of the role Alger Hiss played at Yalta, written, collaboratively, by Cold War scholars par excellence, Herbert Romerstein, and M. Stanton Evans. In Stalin’s Secret Agents, which was just published this past November, 2012, they dedicate a chapter to the actual role Alger Hiss played at Yalta, dubbed eponymously, “See Alger Hiss About This,” based upon a telltale quote by former FDR Secretary of State Edward Stettinius.

Romerstein and Evans open their discussion by explaining how it came about that Hiss, whom the authors acknowledge, circa January, 1945, was “of fairly junior status—a mid-level employee who wasn’t even head of a division”—was in fact singled out by President Roosevelt himself as someone to accompany the President to Yalta. Citing the diaries of Edward Stettinius Jr., US Secretary of State at the time of Yalta, one month before the conference convened, they record how FDR told Stettinius, “he did not want to have anyone accompany him in an advisory capacity, but he felt Messrs. Bowman and Alger Hiss ought to go.“ (A note added by Romerstein and Evans clarifies that Dr. Isaiah Bowman was a Stettinius adviser who had been involved with the post- World War I Versailles Conference, but did not go to Yalta.)

Before elucidating the significant role Hiss in fact played at Yalta, Romerstein and Evans remind us, rather understatedly, who Hiss was…

Read the rest at Andy Bostom’s place.

Previous posts about the controversy over American Betrayal by Diana West:

2013   Aug   11   Diana West: On the Question of “Scholarship”
        13   Yet Another Circular Conservative Firing Squad
        14   Cordon Sanitaire: FAIL
        15   On Reading the Book
        16   Banishing the Cathars

28 thoughts on “Form and Substance

  1. In regard to Ms. West’s assertions that Haynes and Klehr were inaccurate in writing that Andrew and Mitrokhin wrote that the “ambassador” was informed by Hopkins, please see Christopher M. Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB (New York: Basic Books, 1999), p. 122, regarding the FBI incident “The Soviet ambassador in Washington was told confidentially by none other than Roosevelt’s adviser, Harry Hopkins, that a member of his embassy had been detected passing money to a Communist in California.”

    • John Haynes’ quotation from p. 122 of The Sword and the Shield, is correct. However, p. 111 contains the following (emphases in caps mine):

      “Hopkins had established a remarkable reputation in Moscow for taking the Russians into his confidence. Earlier in the year he had privately warned the Soviet EMBASSY in Washington that the FBI had bugged a secret meeting at which Zarubin (apparently identified by Hopkins only as a member of the embassy) had passed money to Steve Nelson, a leading member of the US Communist underground. (64) Information sent to Moscow by the New York residency on the talks between Roosevelt and Churchill in May 1943 had also probably come from Hopkins. (65) There is plausible but controversial evidence that, in addition to passing CONFIDENCES to the Soviet ambassador, Hopkins sometimes used Akhmerov as a back channel to Moscow, much as the Kennedys later used the GRU officer Georgi Bolshakov. Hopkins’s confidential information so impressed the Centre that, years later, some KGB officers boasted that he had been a Soviet agent. (66) These boasts were far from the truth.”


      64 vol 6, ch 12 [of, I think, the Mitrokhin archives] Hopkins had been personally briefed by Hoover on Zarubin’s visit to Nelson (Benson and Warner (eds.), VENONA, document 9). Hoover would doubtless have been outraged had he known that Hopkins had informed the Soviet EMBASSY.

      65. The source for the information on the talks between Roosevelt and Churchill was codenamed “19” – an example of the Centre’s confusing habit of sometimes recycling the same codename for different people. Laurence Duggan had formerly been codenamed “19” but by now had the codename FRANK; he cannot, in any case have provided this information. A detailed, meticulous and persuasive study by Eduard Mark concludes that it is “probable virtually to the point of certainty that Hopkins was 19.” Mark, “Venona’s Source 19 and the ‘Trident’ Conference of 1943.”

      66. Andrew, “Anglo-American-Soviet Intelligence Relations,” pp. 125-6. Crozier, Free Agent, pp. 1-2.

      To recap: while Andrews and Mitrokhin say that the identification of Hopkins as a Soviet agent is “far from the truth,” they swing both ways about embassy/ambassador.

      Haynes and Klehr, in their FPM critique of West, after summarizing the documentary and other evidence that led them to reject any identification of Hopkins as “19,” take a more scholarly and modest tone: “We do not totally dismiss the idea that Hopkins had covert Soviet intelligence ties, but the evidence is very thin.” They don’t understand why
      Breindel and Romerstein, and later West, ignore their argument.

      West, on the other hand, is confident that there is enough evidence to support her assertion that Hopkins was a traitor.

  2. The fact that Ms. West did or did not write a factual book is beside this…
    I find it very disturbing that the right is willing to eat their own…
    Can anyone account for this behavior on the left?
    I think not…

    The disgusting mayor of San Diego has been posturing his proclivities since he was a congressman. It seems that most in the know knew about it (as long as he voted correctly) they kept it quiet. It took Barbara Boxer until last week to say, and I paraphrase; you know, maybe it’s best if this guy steps down…

    I watched a Sunday talk show this evening featuring Steven King, R-NY, and he had a need to smear Rand Paul. He could have made his point just as easily without smearing one of his R compatriots and yet, he had a need to do that…

    The Dems don’t smear their own in fact, they go to great lengths not to do it.

    I have met Congressman King in person and there are a lot of things about his policies that I agree with. I do not happen to agree with him about the NSA. And, I do not happen to agree with him about the smearing of Rand Paul.

    Last fall I was in my house alone with no heat, hot water or electricity. I could not leave my immediate neighborhood because the roads were blocked with fallen trees and all the traffic lights were out. I sat huddled under blankets, because it was quite cold outside, listening to my battery powered radio. What did I hear? The love fest between Mr Christie and Mr Obama… I also heard that the Red Cross showed up with hot chocolate and cookies; no diapers, baby food or rations for the dispossed… In fact, the NYC fire fighters from less effected areas showed with tents to house feeding stations. They were met with dept. of health “advisers” that told them that they were not in “compliance with health standards because they didn’t have ventilation systems (in an open air tent…) “This, in open air tents feeding people that had their whole world taken away from them.
    Was there any kind of outcry from the right that the gov’t has just gotten out of control? Of course not because everyone was looking to jump on the Sandy train with money for fisheries in Alaska or restoration of years ago damage in Florida. No one dared to question the gov’t rain machine.. Especially Gov Christie. I do not recall a single politician saying “hey, this is ridiculous.”
    And yet, I sat huddled under blankets for eight days; no hot food or hot water, no electricity. The “all encompassing” gov’t did nothing for me.
    I managed to make it through because I take personal responsibility for myself. We had days of notice about the super storm Sandy. Anyone that didn’t prepare or evacuate in areas which it was advised deserved to be met with hot chocolate and cookies… (your gov’t charities at work.)
    While what I describe is a societal problem, the fact that R’s continue to eat their own is just as alarming. We will never get a handle on what is rotting our western civilization if the right keeps sniping at each other.

    • A very good point, Babs.

      The soi-disant “Right” eats its own or leaves its own, silenced and abandoned in the outer darkness. Why? Because underneath they are really leftists in sheeple clothing. No spine, no integrity, no solidarity. Scared children who stayed on the playground long after their mommas told ’em to come home. The beatings they endured from the ruling bullies seem to have caused brain damage.

      Kinda reminds me of the Chinese ‘popular’ wars.

      The “Right” is dying of the ‘perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good-enough’ disease. This is obvious in their stiff-arming the various Tea Party entities, the only grass roots entities the Right has.

      With few exceptions, a pox on politicians and the people who enable them.

      Shall we step into the soup kitchen for some federal cocoa and cookies? Oops. Forgot: my body is so damaged from following the gummint’s Food Pyramid suggestions that those two purported nutrients would make me violently ill now. With centralized Food Suggestions, who needs death panels?

    • Did you mean Rep. Peter King? Steve King represents Iowa and probably wouldn’t say anything about Rand Paul, however he does like to compare drug mules’ legs to cantaloupes!! Ha Ha!

  3. I haven’t followed this argument between West and Horowitz, as it just stinks of a circular firing squad.

  4. I am beginning to suspect that Horowitz is not what he makes himself out to be. As I noted earlier, I was taken aback some time ago when his site published a post claiming that Pius XII did little or nothing to help Jews during the Holocaust. That patently false old line from the Left was bad enough, but there is something about this dog-pile on Ms. West that smacks of desperation. It is almost as if Horowitz is trying to make himself and his site the arbiter of which positions will be allowed and which will not. If that is the case, then what would be his intentions? Could he have purposely placed himself where he is precisely in order to run interference on topics and writers who really delve in to the doings of the American Left?

    • The left is but a manifestation of a larger beast. Melanie Phillips positions herself as some sort of arbiter of acceptable rightwing discourse in the UK, while Horowitz does the same thing in the US. Either of them would happily emigrate out of their respective countries if more money presented itself elsewhere.

    • Oh my. “His Holiness, Pope Horowitz” has a certain ring to it. Can’t you picture him reading out a Papal Bull while wearing those red slippers and pounding the floor with his crozier?

      Whatever you’re thinking here, Al, it’s probably not paranoid enough but it sure is entertaining. Like all those acolytes gathered ’round Papa Horowitz’ throne, dressed in surplices and albs, singing Lauds…
      Even when one converts to a diametrically opposed political point of view, the conversion of belief can be quite genuine while one still retains the old beloved mythologies and the faith in one’s childhood’s lost saints.

      Diana’s sin is iconoclasm. They’ll never forgive her for smashing the statues, and yet they’re constitutionally unable to ignore her. Besides, this particular pope long ago lost any discernment he may have had re knowing when to quit digging.

      Darn shame. Simply for the wonderful work of “Discovering the Networks” the man deserves a prize.

    • Jacobite. A good example of the fact that multi-racial/ethnic states do not work. Because we have a number of racial/ethnic groups co-existing in the USA, you have to accept the fact that “everybody” will NEVER be on the same page. As far as I can tell, the nub of this issue is that one side believes that anything was justified to defeat the Germans. It’s obvious that the fer-de-lance of this view would be Jewish-Americans. For them, in particular, Hitler was the ultimate evil. Fine, that’s their opinion and, as far as they are concerned, true enough. But for Gentile-Americans, that isn’t true. Our interests demanded an analysis of whether the USSR or Nazi Germany were more dangerous to us. As German-American, it’s easy for me tyo say, but for the average American, why is it obvious that the Nazis were threat #1? It was the Communists not the Nazis who had infiltrated every branch and every level of our government. Although few knew this at the time, the Communist-Leftist infiltration of higher education (e.g., the Frankfurt School members) was probably more dangerous. WW II began when the Nazis and the USSR divided Poland between them. Honoring treaty commitments to Poland, the Allies declared war on Germany. Why not the USSR? Well, we couldn’t fight both. Okay, but even then, you’re picking and choosing between two states equally guilty of occupying Poland. Maybe there are justifiable reasons for the choice, but I’ve never seen them. Instead, nonbody who wasn’r an adult in 1939 even knows that the Nazis-Soviet Pact began with the mutual occupation of Poland. Nice, that way there’s no problem. More particularly, American Jews have a problem with Communism. Before WW II, the CPUSA was about as Jewish as the ACLU today. Look at the atom spies. Look at the identified spies and agents-of-influence. Look at those defending Hiss and attacking the various Congressional comittees investigating Soviet operations in the US. You can wrap it all up in Constitutional blather, but the practical effect (which we use to impute motive) was to defend Communists and defame Americans. Look at the anti-anti-Communists. As Orwell pointed out, if A is at war with B, a citizen of A impeding A’s war effort in any way is objectively aiding B. Man, we don’t hear that one quoted very often. The larger question is why Jews have been so identified with the Left ever since the mid-19th Century, if not before? My guess is that Jews fear the Right-wing everywhere more than any other group. The defining difference between Left and Right since the French Revolution has been status of the normal society of any nation. The Left works to destroy that society. The Right defends it. Now, as Jews are not natural members of any European nation, their interest would seem to require that the normal society be weakened as much as possible. The structural foundation of every human society is shared ancestry. After that comes a common religion, language, history, mores, and culture. If these matters sound like everything the Democratic Party platform is against, correctorama! Democrats, all Democrats are Leftists in some degree, and degree doesn’t matter. As Leftists they want to destroy normal American society. Jews are one member of the contingent — criminals, sexual perverts, atheists, non-whites, and every other group that is not acceptable to normal society are united in their desire to destroy that society. As they say: what do they have to lose? Like any theory, this one is subject to falsification. But I expect instead denial of facts. I enjoy debate, but one cannot usefully argue with anyone who will not stipulate to the facts or relies on other shyster tricks and obfuscation to confuse the issues. Them you don’t waste time talking to.

  5. A commenter on an earlier thread, in the course of saying some sensible things, asserted that however bad the Soviets were, their crimes “paled” in comparison with those of the Nazis. That seems to be a common view, but one that doesn’t comport with the evidence of Soviet Communist savagery. That it can be held today even by people who are not pro-Communist is an indication of how much the general sense of history has been shaped by an agenda to shield the Communist enterprise from an fair reckoning.

    • Bingo.

      Hitler served as a great shield for the Soviet atrocities and imperialism. What if the Hitler horror hadn’t existed? Could the Soviet killing machine have been hidden? Was Hitler’s evil existence a necessary vector for the spread of Communism?

      • The Hitler Horror Story only started in 1942 and as you know perfectly well Dymphna, has been
        considerably exaggerated. The Red Terror had been ongoing for some time by then [deleted]

        TO S.DUCAIN:



    • Quote:
      A commenter on an earlier thread, in the course of saying some sensible things, asserted that however bad the Soviets were, their crimes “paled” in comparison with those of the Nazis.

      Not true.
      Power for power, the Communist regimes of history were far more violent and lethal than Nazism. That’s not to say the Nazis were gentle, but they are too facile a reference in talking about the dangers of totalitarianism.

      • My point exactly: if people think the Nazis were much worse, it’s because the Communists have been prettified by our cultural commissars for many decades.

    • Half a century of Soviet promulgated, financed, supplied, and orchestrated revolution, left bodies strewn the world over.

  6. Almost all of the conservative politicians in the USA, and certainly all of the arbiters of Official Conservatism, defend an acceptable conservative point of view. They aren’t going do a thing to encourage unsanctioned perspectives or to stop what’s inevitably coming.

    If you’re still listening to those conservatives, watching mainstream news, writing to your congressman and then deciding upon which candidate to vote for in the next election then the batteries in your radar station have died.

    I’ve read “American Betrayal”. Besides being depressing, it forces a reconsideration of a period in US history that we all thought was settled. Read it and then look again at what’s going on today.

    • Agree with the criticism of Conservatism Inc. and all the failed methods of trying to change the system. It has all failed.

  7. Regarding Horowitz. Is he the Leftist/Communist convert. If so, maybe West’s comments are a bridge too far.

  8. Pingback: Recognizing the Wrong People | Gates of Vienna

  9. Pingback: The Rebuttal: Part Two | Gates of Vienna

  10. Pingback: An Army of Kooks | Gates of Vienna

  11. Pingback: The Rebuttal: Part Three | Gates of Vienna

  12. Pingback: Too Much Schnapps | Gates of Vienna

Comments are closed.