Trending Topics:

Kim Philby’s last straw

on 57 Comments

Here’s a great story about the cultural/political influence of Zionists in the west, showing that Zionism and anti-Zionism are ancient ideological rivals, pitted historically like Communists and anti-Communists.

You all know the name Kim Philby. He was the “third man” in the legendary Soviet spying ring inside England’s intelligence service that was discovered in the 50s and 60s. Philby met Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean when they were all young Communists at Cambridge University, but Philby was able to maintain his cover longer than the other two. He was the last of the group to flee, in 1962, to Moscow, the city where all three men died.

Guy Burgess

Guy Burgess

A recent book on the case explains that Philby was done in in the end by… his criticism of Israel as a journalist, which angered an English supporter of Israel who informed authorities that he was a spy. So Philby is in a tradition of writers hurt by taking on Zionism. And, surprise, American reviews of the book by leading writers leave out the Zionist angle entirely.

Pat, a regular reader, lately picked up a copy of that book, Among Friends: Kim Philby and the Great Betrayal, by Ben Macintyre, and he relates the story.

Philby (1912-1988), Burgess (1911-1963), and Maclean (1913-1983) were all from the best English background, had high-status government jobs, and were secretly Communists. Pat writes:

Donald Maclean

Donald Maclean


In the spring of 1951, Philby is 39 and working for MI6 in Washington, DC, when he learns that the Americans have discovered that Maclean, 38, who also works for the British intelligence, is a Soviet spy. Philby alerts Burgess.

Philby only wanted Maclean to flee. But Burgess joined Maclean in flight to Russia. This cast a huge shadow on Philby because Burgess and he were tight; Burgess stayed with Philby in his DC house for months while Burgess was stationed in DC. Maclean was Philby’s friend from college, but they were not that close later.

Philby resigned from MI6 during July of 1951. He was interrogated many times but was able to defend himself with his wit and his Eton and Cambridge connections.

He was given severance pay worth today’s $34k and he went to work as a journalist.

Philby was not named publicly as the “Third man” until October of 1955, when the story came out in the United States. This was world-wide headlines, but the story was not aired in England because of libel laws. Philby gave a presser at that time and denied all allegations once again and the matter was settled.

Philby went to Beirut for the “Observer” and Economist” during August of 1956.

Now here comes the Zionist angle. It seems that back in 1935 Kim Philby had tried to recruit a leftwing heiress who had been born in Russia: Flora Solomon (1895-1984).

Flora Solomon

Flora Solomon

Here is an excerpt of Macintyre’s A Spy Among Friends, Chapter 17, pages 244 and 245:

There was finally a witness in Solomon. A new investigation was started, and Philby confessed in Beirut to his friend and fellow MI6 man Nick Elliot. The interrogation went on in Beirut for a few days and Philby was allowed to go back to his house to sleep every night.

Philby fled to Russia January, 1963. Many believe that the Brits preferred Philby in Moscow than a long public trial in London. The escape was pretty easy.

And here’s the bottom line: Flora Solomon may well have known about the Philby suspicions in 1951, and certainly could have gone to the authorities after Philby’s public outing in October 1955. She didn’t. No, Kim Philby’s last straw was criticizing Israel.

Macintyre has written that Flora Solomon is a hero to him. As she changed British history.

I mentioned the American reviews that have nothing to say about the Zionism.

Walter Isaacson’s review of Macintyre in the New York Times is all about the tribal loyalties of the inbred social class, on the fraying fringe of Britain’s aristocracy, whose members held, Macintyre writes, “a shared set of assumptions about the world and their privileged place in it.” Here’s how Isaacson describes Philby’s discovery:

Philby’s mooring began to slip after his father’s death and, inevitably, his past caught up with him again. By 1962, enough evidence had accumulated that even Elliott became convinced his friend was a mole. He insisted that he be the one allowed to confront Philby and try to extract a confession. “Inside he was crushed,” Macintyre writes. “He wanted to look Philby in the eye one last time. He wanted to understand.”

Macintyre’s book climaxes with a psychological duel over tea, cloaked by a veneer of gentility, which led to some subsequent meetings and a partial confession from Philby. But instead of arranging an arrest or abduction or assassination, Elliott told his erstwhile friend that he was going to Africa for a few days before the process of interrogation resumed. On his own in Beirut, Philby immediately contacted his Russian handlers, who whisked him on a freighter to Moscow, where he lived the rest of his life in exile.

No Zionism in the picture.
And here’s Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker:
He moved to Beirut to work as a correspondent for the Observer and The Economist, only to have M.I.5 launch a second investigation, in the early nineteen-sixties. Before it could be completed, Philby slipped away. In January of 1963, a car with diplomatic plates picked him up from a bar in downtown Beirut and took him to a Soviet freighter bound for Odessa.
Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

57 Responses

  1. ramzijaber on May 23, 2015, 2:31 pm

    “it’s why Jim Clancy, Helen Thomas, Steven Salaita, and a lot of other writers lost their jobs after Philby”

    Not just their jobs but some lost their LIVES. Think JFK. The arm of zionists is very long and very deceitful and very hidden.

    zionists are snakes. In our culture, snake means hypocrite, duplicitous, back-stabber, untrustworthy, opportunist. That’s what zionists are.

    • Jackdaw on May 23, 2015, 5:15 pm

      “The arm of zionists is very long and very deceitful and very hidden.”

      And the hands of your Sirhan Sirhan are covered in Bobby Kennedy’s blood.

      • a blah chick on May 23, 2015, 8:38 pm

        Our Sirhan Sirhan?

        Be careful how you fling your mud, someone’s liable to mention the Liberty. Would that blood be on your hands?

      • RoHa on May 24, 2015, 7:38 am

        Not literally. Sirhan was too far away to get any of RFK’s blood on his hands. Also, he was in front of RFK. RFK was shot in the back at very close range.

        But are you suggesting that the involvement of a single Palestinian in the assassination of RFK excuses the putative involvement of the Government of Israel in the assassination of JFK?

    • Blownaway on May 23, 2015, 5:21 pm

      Not just journalist and academics but Presidents Nixon Bush 1 congressmen senators your life or your career can be ruined

    • jon s on May 24, 2015, 4:14 am

      Ramzi Jaber,
      OK, I’m thinking of JFK. Do you believe every crackpot conspiracy theory, or just those which try to make connections to “Zionists”?

      • Mooser on May 24, 2015, 12:56 pm

        “OK, I’m thinking of JFK. Do you believe every crackpot conspiracy theory….”

        “Crackpot theories” like taking the old Testament as history or a land-deed? “Crackpot theories” like the racist ideas which undergird Zionism? Buddy, you don’t want to be talking about “crackpots”.
        “Crackpot theories” about how Israel has annexed Jerusalem?

      • jon s on May 24, 2015, 2:04 pm

        Let’s not forget that JFK was allegedly assassinated by a conspiracy that included the mafia, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret service, the Dallas Police, anti-Castro Cubans, pro-Castro Cubans…and I’m sorry if I forgot anyone… So, sure, while we’re at it, why not include “the Zionists”?

      • MRW on May 24, 2015, 4:09 pm

        Lyndon Baines Johnson. Just watch the opening minute-30.

      • Mooser on May 24, 2015, 7:44 pm

        “So, sure, while we’re at it, why not include “the Zionists”?”

        Crazy, isn’t it? The next thing you know, people will be accusing the Zionists of murdering Folke Bernadotte.

      • RoHa on May 24, 2015, 11:41 pm

        “Let’s not forget that JFK was allegedly assassinated by a conspiracy that included the mafia, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret service, the Dallas Police, anti-Castro Cubans, pro-Castro Cubans…and I’m sorry if I forgot anyone… So, sure, while we’re at it, why not include “the Zionists”?”

        Here you go.

        I don’t know who did kill JFK. (Though I’m pretty sure it wasn’t me.) The Lone Crazed Gunman story is as fishy as the indestructible passports, but beyond I cannot go.

      • CigarGod on May 26, 2015, 10:18 am

        Jim Marrs does mention the JFK Jewish angle in his book, Crossfire. He barely touches on it, but he does talk about the Jewish mafia…and Jack Ruby (Rubenstein) and those who may have had influence over his life. This is the only section of the book he doesn’t explore in any detail. It is conspicuous. Also, he has declined to explain this shortcoming in response to letter or at book signing.

    • DaBakr on May 25, 2015, 12:22 am


      and to think what a ruckus was made of Ayelet Shakr using the words of another who described his enemies as “snakes” just like the above commenter openly uses the term “snakes” to describe his personal enemies. interesting. I’m sure I’ll read how totally different the context is. bs.

      • James North on May 25, 2015, 10:21 am

        Is “the above commenter” Israel’s new Minister of Justice, describing all Palestinians?

  2. Brewer on May 23, 2015, 3:02 pm

    Thanks Phil, that is truly a revelation. I suspect it will insert a number of missing pieces into the puzzle. Wright’s book raised more questions than it answered but few, if any considered the Zionist angle which may be the clue to the roles of many of the actors in that drama. Back then it was a bi-polar World (us and the Reds) – no-one understood Zionism as an ideology with its’ own infrastructure of covert operatives and ulterior motives.
    Anyone sufficiently intrigued by this story as to follow through should also look to the parts the following cast of characters played:
    Anthony Blunt
    Peter Wright
    Moura Budberg
    James Jesus Angleton

    • jon s on May 25, 2015, 10:23 am

      Your link is to a book by an Anti-Semitic white -supremacist:

      He also claims that the Sandy Hook shootings was a “hoax”.

      • Kris on May 25, 2015, 12:41 pm

        @jon s: “He also claims that the Sandy Hook shootings was a “hoax”.

        Could you please link to your evidence of this? I just wasted several minutes online discovering that, once again, you are using lies in an effort to bolster your point of view.

        As it happens, Michael Collins Piper annoyed many in his circle by arguing AGAINST their theory that Sandy Hook was a hoax. The opposite of your assertion.

        “Thus, I was quite suprised to hear Mr. Friend join in as Jim Fetzer began to ridicule Mike Piper for not showing up “because he was not prepared” ((because of illness)) to make a decent argument against their Sandy Hook Conspiracy theory.”

      • Kris on May 25, 2015, 2:34 pm

        A better link for info about Michael Collins Piper is here:

        He says that there are actual conspiracies and cover-ups, like JFK’s assassination and 9/11, and then there are events like Sandy Hook, which internet “provocateurs” use to cast doubt on the claims of those who are trying to expose the actual conspiracies.

        I can’t find any report where Piper says that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Please share your link!

        @jon s: “RoHa, Your link is to a book by an Anti-Semitic white -supremacist.”

        As a history “teacher,” you no doubt recognize the fallacy of your own ad-hominem argument.
        You should also realize that “anti-semitic” doesn’t mean anything, and “white-supremacist” could easily describe Zionist Israeli Jews, like you, whose lives are based on racial privilege.

      • RoHa on May 26, 2015, 1:13 am

        Your link is to a book by an Anti-Semitic white -supremacist:”

        So what? He still could be right.

        I haven’t read the book myself, so I can’t judge it. Some reviews suggest his evidence doesn’t quite clinch the case, and that he needs a good editor. (And don’t we all?)

        But since it is clear that

        (a) Israel had a motive
        (b) Israel has a record of assassination as an instrument of policy

        it seems reasonable to keep Mossad on the list of suspects (without claiming guilt) until the actual guilty party is discovered.

  3. Citizen on May 23, 2015, 5:19 pm

    Nobody influential cares, although it impacted many lives in its day; so, here’s something funny for you, the Hagee folks sent their bible to the Knesset & the latter wiped their asses with it:

    • MRW on May 24, 2015, 7:02 pm

      That’s a keeper. ;-)

    • jon s on May 25, 2015, 4:10 pm

      I assumed that was Piper’s position based on this:
      In truth, I couldn’t bring myself to wade through all the disgusting nonsense, so I may have been wrong on the debate he was having with his fellow kooks.
      The link you provided is to a neo-Nazi website.

      • Kris on May 25, 2015, 7:05 pm

        jon s: “The link you provided is to a neo-Nazi website.”

        I provided two links. The first was to She accurately reported that Piper did not believe Sandy Hook was a “hoax.” The second was to, where he explained his position (i.e., Sandy Hook was not a “hoax”). His website seems to be about how the media manufactures consent and distributes misinformation.

        I can see how you could call a “neo-Nazi website.” Here is a sample from her “welcome” page:

        “The evidence is overwhelming that all the people of Europe, and genetically European people everywhere, are now the victims of this concerted, long-term effort to replace their historic nations with a globalist, anti-nationalist, multi-racialist ‘New World Order.” The most familiar form of this attack today is non-White immigration, demoralization of White culture, and “hate” legislation aimed against Whites in our White European and Americans homelands. This is what must be understood and resisted with force.”

        Seems to me to have an awful lot in common with what Zionists think, only with themselves as the “victims,” of course.

        Anyway, unlike you, Yeager was accurate in what she said about Piper.

      • Mooser on May 27, 2015, 11:40 am

        “The link you provided is to a neo-Nazi website.”

        Make sure to report Mondo to the Homeland Defense, you little snitch.

      • CigarGod on May 27, 2015, 2:15 pm

        5 Stars!

  4. MHughes976 on May 23, 2015, 5:30 pm

    The anti-fascist alliances of the 1930s created many strange bedfellows, I think.

  5. hophmi on May 23, 2015, 7:25 pm

    The greatest ideological opposition of our times? C’mon, man. Are you really that obsessed with Israel? It’s one country. There are 193 on the Earth. Zionism is the ideology of 1. It is not that important an ideology unless you believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    • Qualtrough on May 24, 2015, 4:05 am

      Hopfmi– Not even 24 hours ago you wrote the following:

      The Israelis have deep connections with the United States on every level – political, economic, military.

      And now you tell us that Israel is only 1 of 193 countries and its ideology is not that important.

      Good liars need good memories, particularly in this Internet age.

      • eljay on May 25, 2015, 10:47 am

        || Qualtrough: … Good liars need good memories, particularly in this Internet age. ||

        Which means that hophmi either is a terrible liar or he just doesn’t care.

        Or maybe he sees himself as some sort of noble “Truth Adjuster”, forever tweaking Truth to suit his purpose:
        – Today, Israel is one of the best nations in the world; tomorrow, it’s not as bad as Saudi Arabia, Mali and African “hell-holes”.
        – Today, Jewish isn’t about religion; tomorrow, Jewish is about religion.
        – Today, Israel is the nation state of and for all Jews in the world; tomorrow, it’s wrong to conflate Israel with all Jews.
        – Etc.

    • jon s on May 24, 2015, 2:21 pm

      I don’t believe this.
      What are you saying? That the “Protocols” endure because there’s “something to it”?

      As far as I know the “Protocols” endure only among hard-core Anti-Semites.
      And everything in the “Protocols” , from start to finish, is a lie.

      For more, see here:

    • MHughes976 on May 24, 2015, 5:31 pm

      The main ideas of the Protos about allegedly nefarious tecniques of influencing public opinion through the press come, almost verbatim I understand, from a pamphlet called Dialogue in Hell written to discredit not Jews but Napoleon III, who had magically converted an idealistic Republic into a cynical Empire. It was the proof of verbatim copying, and of non-Jewish origin, that got the Protos discredited in their turn. They may still be a cogent analysis of how cynical manipulation of opinion works. Be that as it may they also certainly stand as proof that protest against manipulation can be horrendously manipulative.

    • Mooser on May 24, 2015, 7:49 pm

      “And everything in the “Protocols” , from start to finish, is a lie.”

      Even the part about the Jews raising private terrorist armies and sending colonists in to take Palestine for themselves? Even the part about stealing nuclear arms and holding the world hostage with them? Is all that a lie?

    • DaBakr on May 25, 2015, 12:28 am


      have you ever wondered why….”that particular forgery has…”

      Is the same thing as the person who claims: “there sure must be something wrong with those Jews because there is an awful lot of anti-semitism around here. a double blind argument to say the least. i think your actually better then that and wrote too quickly. But maybe not.

    • Mooser on May 25, 2015, 2:11 pm

      “Is the same thing as the person who claims: “there sure must be something wrong with those Jews because there is an awful lot of anti-semitism around here. a double blind argument to say the least. i think your actually better then that and wrote too quickly. But maybe not.”

      Hey, all, looky here! A new tactic in the Zionist war on quotes. Here we have a quote mark (“) at the beginning of a statement (“there sure must be….) but no end-quote mark! So what on earth is that lone quote-mark supposed to mean?

      You know, Zionists may have put Gaza “on a diet” but there’s one thing they are very generous with. They will always put words in somebody else’s mouth.

  6. a blah chick on May 23, 2015, 8:51 pm

    One of McIntyre’s previous books was “Operation Mincemeat” which I read a few years ago. It was about the famous intelligence operation told in the story “The Man Who Never Was.” The man who ran that operation was Ewen Montagu, who was Jewish. His brother was Ivor Montagu, a passionate Communist. Ivor spied for Russia for years and even though British intelligence knew it they never prosecuted him. If I recall correctly the reason was that it was better to have him watched to see whom he dealt with. Also they also were thinking of his more famous brother, who was considered a hero.

    • lysias on May 26, 2015, 1:02 pm

      Clifton Webb played Ewen Montagu in the movie The Man Who Never Was.

  7. RoHa on May 23, 2015, 9:20 pm

    “Instinctively pro-Arab”

    More than just instinct. His father was the splendidly named Abdullah Harry St John Bridger Philby.

  8. W.Jones on May 23, 2015, 10:17 pm

    For those of you who like these kinds of stories, one of the very curious parts of history was the relationship between Father Gapon, perhaps the main Christian religious leader in the Russian Revolution, and Pinhas Rutenberg, who later became a leading Zionist and the Haganah’s chief officer.

    Officially, the story goes that Gapon was with the Socialist Revolutionaries and secretly cooperating with the Tsar’s police. He spent a lot of time with Rutenberg, including in exile abroad. Rutenberg says he went to a cabin where Gapon tried to recruit him for the secret police, but other SRs were hiding in the cabin, overheard it, and killed Gapon as Rutenberg left the cabin on purpose. Meanwhile, one of the SR’s leaders (unbeknownst to the rest of the SRs), named Azef, was a secret police agent himself. And Azef arranged for Gapon to get killed with Rutenberg’s help.

    In reality it’s true Gapon was cooperating with the Tsar’s police, but he was probably doing that in order to play a game against them. Further, “the S.R. party leadership refused to assume the responsibility, announcing that the execution was undertaken by Rutenberg individually and the cause was a personal one and denied ever having sent their comrades to the meeting on March 26. Rutenberg was then condemned and expelled from the party.

    If Rutenberg really was a good guy for the SRs and acting as they wanted, why did they expel him? Some years ago I read a Russian article casting intense skepticism on, if not refuting, the possibility that Rutenberg’s version of the killing could have happened in terms of logistics. It might have had to do with the condition or location of the cabin. Gapon himself was killed by being tied to a doorknob at about waste height. It’s a strange story, and the difficulty with pinning down a full explanation is that Rutenberg was the only one there for sure at the killing. I wonder what the personal motive could have been? Maybe he did not really feel apathetic about priests after all.

  9. jon s on May 24, 2015, 4:09 am

    So exposing a traitor is wrong, if it’s done by a “Zionist”?

    • eljay on May 24, 2015, 11:21 am

      || jon s: So exposing a traitor is wrong, if it’s done by a “Zionist”? ||

      Flora Solomon later maintained that her motives in exposing Philby were strictly political: he was writing anti-Israel articles and she wanted him sacked from the “Observer”.

      Exposing him wasn’t wrong, but you attribute a non-existent purity to her motives.

      • eljay on May 24, 2015, 6:28 pm

        || eljay: … you attribute a non-existent purity to her motives. ||

        Correction: … you appear to attribute a non-existent purity to her motives.

    • annie on May 24, 2015, 11:38 am

      jon, i think you’re missing the point. it’s the job of intelligence to expose traitors. but years later, when the story is told, don’t you find it odd that an important key to that very exposure (the motivation of a key witness) is erased from the story? why the cover up?

    • traintosiberia on May 25, 2015, 2:05 pm

      Not at all,even when one rats out somebody for conveneince or perosnal belief or gain of any degree or magnitude . Criminals do that all the time By staying silent she allowed him to continue spying for along time.He possibly would have got exposed much earlier .

    • eGuard on May 25, 2015, 6:23 pm

      jon s, so covering a traitor for 25 years is OK when don by that same “Zionist”? (Why the scare quotes btw?).

      • Mooser on May 26, 2015, 11:24 am

        ” (Why the scare quotes btw?).”

        Well, there were a couple of quote-marks left over from Dabakr’s comment, so “Jon s” used them.

  10. charlesfrith on May 24, 2015, 10:14 am

    Superb information. Still doesn’t explain why Philby was close with Zionist CIA asset James Jesus Angleton

  11. philweiss on May 24, 2015, 10:47 am

    Good point Jon S but I dont think I was taking a moral stance so much as pointing out, Why did it happen? She had that information for 25 years

    • W.Jones on May 24, 2015, 5:49 pm

      Good point. If you look at it from the Soviet side, it shows that Socialist pro-Israelis can’t be trusted. If you look at it from the US side, then you could ask why she kept it hidden all those years instead of helping the “good guys”, suggesting she could not really be trusted. So either way you look at it, there’s a problem.

  12. MHughes976 on May 24, 2015, 12:32 pm

    It would be surprising if Philby, a great deceiver, would have given himself away by writing reports that would reveal Soviet sympathies. He must have been aware to some degree of the shift in left wing Jewish opinion towards Israel. In 45 Jewish voters were responsible for giving us our last Commie MP, Phil Piratin (Phil the Pirate, as I like to think of him) – by 59 they were responsible for unseating Maurice Orbach, a Labour critic of Israel’s participation in the Suez venture, even though he was a proclaimed Zionist.
    Philby must have been aware of the danger of antagonising former friends, aware of (at least) incautious remarks in the very different world of the anti-fascist 30s.
    It would be interesting to compare his reports with those of other British journalists at the time: my suspicion is that you wouldn’t find that much difference, though perhaps I’m wrong.
    Perhaps it’s less a case of one crucial denunciation motivated by politics than a case of a career of deception whose time was over, everyone who knew him coming to see him for what he was.

    • W.Jones on May 24, 2015, 5:49 pm


      Note the comment about how Phily’s Dad was an Arabist.

      • RoHa on May 24, 2015, 11:12 pm

        Not just any old academic Arabist, but a damned important player in the whole business.

      • MHughes976 on May 25, 2015, 4:54 pm

        He may indeed have had pro-‘Arab’ sympathies inculcated, though I think his dad was actalally a convert to Islam and he never was, which indicates some significant father-son divergence. But he was a master of disguise and evasion and I would be surprised if he would have given himself away by writing unmistakably pro-Soviet propaganda. I suspect he just reported with a certain amount of objectivity and that many journalists and diplomats did exactly the same for decades. For the same length of time Zionist fanatics like Margaret Thatcher, sitting in London, saw this as anti-Semitism.

      • RoHa on May 25, 2015, 8:20 pm

        “some significant father-son divergence”

        There certainly seems to have been some. One one stage it looks as though Kim was sent to spy on his father.
        Interestingly, both of them were British intelligence agents, and they both threw their lot in with the people they were supposed to spy on.
        The father became a Muslim and worked for Ibn Saud.
        The son became a communist and worked for the Soviets.

  13. traintosiberia on May 25, 2015, 2:27 pm

    This information has some lessons for anybody who wants to know why Bush Cheney gang was not expsoed for negligence,stupiditues,dereliction of duties ,wilfull deafness to the emerging concerns to the events of pre 911 despite beung briefed by numerous agneices on numerous occassions .
    Someone would have definitely shone light on the discrepancies in the governmnet’s positions , and on the abscence of any responses to the threats as were revealed to the administration as most likley to happen sooner than later if Bush didnt get on board to attack Iraq , genertae the hysteria around post 911 with subtle islamophobia,threats to muslim countries,and if he agreed to negotaited handover of Osama per inetrnational rules.
    This ‘someone” would have been from the very same group who created and allowed the atmosphere of general dismissiveness and disdain for pre 911 intellignece .They would have leaked to the media as anonymous sources .Think Tank that they patronized or hung around would have asked for details and demanded enquires by outside agencies.
    Bush saved his back( it also made his dream to be a war president come true ) by inserting himself fully in the agenda of the neocons.

    • lysias on May 27, 2015, 2:42 pm

      I have no idea whether or not it’s true, but Webster Tarpley argues in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA that Bush was pressured into going along with the neocon agenda in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

  14. RockyMissouri on May 26, 2015, 2:29 pm

    Mooser: Thank you for expanding my education regarding Folke Bernadotte..!! Good GAWD!!

Leave a Reply