Was Col. John K. Waters (Gen. Patton's son-in-law) wounded in the buttocks or the stomach during Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg?










19















Background:

I have researched Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg March 26-28, 1945 using the following four sources:



  1. Wiki Article on Task Force Baum

  2. War History
    Online's article: The Real Fury: Patton's Disastrous 1945 Raid to
    Rescue His Son-in-Law


  3. Warfare History Network's article: Top Secret Missions:
    Liberating General George S. Patton's Son-in-Law


  4. Don Moore's War Tales: Harry Long was a POW with Patton's
    son-in-law


Summary:

In late March 1945, claiming he was worried about the Germans executing American POWs (ostensibly in the wake of the Malmedy massacre), General George S. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg's Oflag XIII-B POW camp to liberate the American officers imprisoned there. However, his real inent (based in part on letters to his family) was likely to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. The assignment was given to Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams (whom the American M1 Abrams tank is now named after) of Combat Command B in the 4th Armored Division. Abrams wanted to proceed with a batallion or regimental sized force but Patton granted only a much smaller force for the rescue mission. Abrams could not go himself due to illness, so Capt. Abraham Baum was given the assignment and about a company of medium and light tanks and 300 infantry to penetrate deep behind enemy lines, liberate the camp, and return the POWs to safety.



Task Force Baum encountered heavy fighting on the way and suffered many casualties and lost several tanks and vehicles, but made it to the POW camp. During the confusion of the battle at the camp, Col. John K. Waters (Patton's son-in-law) was seriously wounded when shot by a German guard, and could not be evacuated with the rest of the POWs when the camp was finally liberated. The nature of the wound gives rise to my question below. (The initial liberation of the camp is not the end of the story, there was worse to come for Task Force Baum and the POWs, but to get to my question...)



Question:

Was Col. Waters wounded in the buttocks, or in the stomach? The first two sources above indicate the buttocks. The second two sources indicate the stomach. I cannot find a source that indicates multiple wounds (or a single hit with separate entry and exit wounds) so I don't think it is a case of both being true (though I grant that it is a possibility). Is there a superior information source which could clear up this discrepancy? I know it's only a minor detail in the larger picture of this incident, but I would like to know which account (if any) is accurate regarding the nature of Col. Waters' wound(s) in the raid.



Spoiler (for the curious):

Most of the POWs and Baum's task force were recaptured within a day following the raid, and taken back to Oflag XIII-B. Patton, who had not received permission from his superiors in Army Group 12 for the raid, was in trouble and faced Eisenhower's wrath. Patton deftly softened the blow of the tactically botched raid by pointing to the strategic success it offered through diverting large German forces away from the main body of Third Army, thus allowing an easier progression toward their more strategically important objectives. Ike was evidently mollified enough to not officially reprimand Patton for the incident.



Patton and Waters
Gen. George S. Patton visits his son-in-law Col. John K. Waters
April 7, 1945 in Frankfurt hospital. Source: Wiki Commons










share|improve this question




























    19















    Background:

    I have researched Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg March 26-28, 1945 using the following four sources:



    1. Wiki Article on Task Force Baum

    2. War History
      Online's article: The Real Fury: Patton's Disastrous 1945 Raid to
      Rescue His Son-in-Law


    3. Warfare History Network's article: Top Secret Missions:
      Liberating General George S. Patton's Son-in-Law


    4. Don Moore's War Tales: Harry Long was a POW with Patton's
      son-in-law


    Summary:

    In late March 1945, claiming he was worried about the Germans executing American POWs (ostensibly in the wake of the Malmedy massacre), General George S. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg's Oflag XIII-B POW camp to liberate the American officers imprisoned there. However, his real inent (based in part on letters to his family) was likely to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. The assignment was given to Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams (whom the American M1 Abrams tank is now named after) of Combat Command B in the 4th Armored Division. Abrams wanted to proceed with a batallion or regimental sized force but Patton granted only a much smaller force for the rescue mission. Abrams could not go himself due to illness, so Capt. Abraham Baum was given the assignment and about a company of medium and light tanks and 300 infantry to penetrate deep behind enemy lines, liberate the camp, and return the POWs to safety.



    Task Force Baum encountered heavy fighting on the way and suffered many casualties and lost several tanks and vehicles, but made it to the POW camp. During the confusion of the battle at the camp, Col. John K. Waters (Patton's son-in-law) was seriously wounded when shot by a German guard, and could not be evacuated with the rest of the POWs when the camp was finally liberated. The nature of the wound gives rise to my question below. (The initial liberation of the camp is not the end of the story, there was worse to come for Task Force Baum and the POWs, but to get to my question...)



    Question:

    Was Col. Waters wounded in the buttocks, or in the stomach? The first two sources above indicate the buttocks. The second two sources indicate the stomach. I cannot find a source that indicates multiple wounds (or a single hit with separate entry and exit wounds) so I don't think it is a case of both being true (though I grant that it is a possibility). Is there a superior information source which could clear up this discrepancy? I know it's only a minor detail in the larger picture of this incident, but I would like to know which account (if any) is accurate regarding the nature of Col. Waters' wound(s) in the raid.



    Spoiler (for the curious):

    Most of the POWs and Baum's task force were recaptured within a day following the raid, and taken back to Oflag XIII-B. Patton, who had not received permission from his superiors in Army Group 12 for the raid, was in trouble and faced Eisenhower's wrath. Patton deftly softened the blow of the tactically botched raid by pointing to the strategic success it offered through diverting large German forces away from the main body of Third Army, thus allowing an easier progression toward their more strategically important objectives. Ike was evidently mollified enough to not officially reprimand Patton for the incident.



    Patton and Waters
    Gen. George S. Patton visits his son-in-law Col. John K. Waters
    April 7, 1945 in Frankfurt hospital. Source: Wiki Commons










    share|improve this question


























      19












      19








      19


      1






      Background:

      I have researched Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg March 26-28, 1945 using the following four sources:



      1. Wiki Article on Task Force Baum

      2. War History
        Online's article: The Real Fury: Patton's Disastrous 1945 Raid to
        Rescue His Son-in-Law


      3. Warfare History Network's article: Top Secret Missions:
        Liberating General George S. Patton's Son-in-Law


      4. Don Moore's War Tales: Harry Long was a POW with Patton's
        son-in-law


      Summary:

      In late March 1945, claiming he was worried about the Germans executing American POWs (ostensibly in the wake of the Malmedy massacre), General George S. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg's Oflag XIII-B POW camp to liberate the American officers imprisoned there. However, his real inent (based in part on letters to his family) was likely to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. The assignment was given to Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams (whom the American M1 Abrams tank is now named after) of Combat Command B in the 4th Armored Division. Abrams wanted to proceed with a batallion or regimental sized force but Patton granted only a much smaller force for the rescue mission. Abrams could not go himself due to illness, so Capt. Abraham Baum was given the assignment and about a company of medium and light tanks and 300 infantry to penetrate deep behind enemy lines, liberate the camp, and return the POWs to safety.



      Task Force Baum encountered heavy fighting on the way and suffered many casualties and lost several tanks and vehicles, but made it to the POW camp. During the confusion of the battle at the camp, Col. John K. Waters (Patton's son-in-law) was seriously wounded when shot by a German guard, and could not be evacuated with the rest of the POWs when the camp was finally liberated. The nature of the wound gives rise to my question below. (The initial liberation of the camp is not the end of the story, there was worse to come for Task Force Baum and the POWs, but to get to my question...)



      Question:

      Was Col. Waters wounded in the buttocks, or in the stomach? The first two sources above indicate the buttocks. The second two sources indicate the stomach. I cannot find a source that indicates multiple wounds (or a single hit with separate entry and exit wounds) so I don't think it is a case of both being true (though I grant that it is a possibility). Is there a superior information source which could clear up this discrepancy? I know it's only a minor detail in the larger picture of this incident, but I would like to know which account (if any) is accurate regarding the nature of Col. Waters' wound(s) in the raid.



      Spoiler (for the curious):

      Most of the POWs and Baum's task force were recaptured within a day following the raid, and taken back to Oflag XIII-B. Patton, who had not received permission from his superiors in Army Group 12 for the raid, was in trouble and faced Eisenhower's wrath. Patton deftly softened the blow of the tactically botched raid by pointing to the strategic success it offered through diverting large German forces away from the main body of Third Army, thus allowing an easier progression toward their more strategically important objectives. Ike was evidently mollified enough to not officially reprimand Patton for the incident.



      Patton and Waters
      Gen. George S. Patton visits his son-in-law Col. John K. Waters
      April 7, 1945 in Frankfurt hospital. Source: Wiki Commons










      share|improve this question
















      Background:

      I have researched Patton's raid on Oflag XIII-B near Hammelburg March 26-28, 1945 using the following four sources:



      1. Wiki Article on Task Force Baum

      2. War History
        Online's article: The Real Fury: Patton's Disastrous 1945 Raid to
        Rescue His Son-in-Law


      3. Warfare History Network's article: Top Secret Missions:
        Liberating General George S. Patton's Son-in-Law


      4. Don Moore's War Tales: Harry Long was a POW with Patton's
        son-in-law


      Summary:

      In late March 1945, claiming he was worried about the Germans executing American POWs (ostensibly in the wake of the Malmedy massacre), General George S. Patton ordered a raid on Hammelburg's Oflag XIII-B POW camp to liberate the American officers imprisoned there. However, his real inent (based in part on letters to his family) was likely to rescue his son-in-law, Col. John K. Waters, who was a POW there. The assignment was given to Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams (whom the American M1 Abrams tank is now named after) of Combat Command B in the 4th Armored Division. Abrams wanted to proceed with a batallion or regimental sized force but Patton granted only a much smaller force for the rescue mission. Abrams could not go himself due to illness, so Capt. Abraham Baum was given the assignment and about a company of medium and light tanks and 300 infantry to penetrate deep behind enemy lines, liberate the camp, and return the POWs to safety.



      Task Force Baum encountered heavy fighting on the way and suffered many casualties and lost several tanks and vehicles, but made it to the POW camp. During the confusion of the battle at the camp, Col. John K. Waters (Patton's son-in-law) was seriously wounded when shot by a German guard, and could not be evacuated with the rest of the POWs when the camp was finally liberated. The nature of the wound gives rise to my question below. (The initial liberation of the camp is not the end of the story, there was worse to come for Task Force Baum and the POWs, but to get to my question...)



      Question:

      Was Col. Waters wounded in the buttocks, or in the stomach? The first two sources above indicate the buttocks. The second two sources indicate the stomach. I cannot find a source that indicates multiple wounds (or a single hit with separate entry and exit wounds) so I don't think it is a case of both being true (though I grant that it is a possibility). Is there a superior information source which could clear up this discrepancy? I know it's only a minor detail in the larger picture of this incident, but I would like to know which account (if any) is accurate regarding the nature of Col. Waters' wound(s) in the raid.



      Spoiler (for the curious):

      Most of the POWs and Baum's task force were recaptured within a day following the raid, and taken back to Oflag XIII-B. Patton, who had not received permission from his superiors in Army Group 12 for the raid, was in trouble and faced Eisenhower's wrath. Patton deftly softened the blow of the tactically botched raid by pointing to the strategic success it offered through diverting large German forces away from the main body of Third Army, thus allowing an easier progression toward their more strategically important objectives. Ike was evidently mollified enough to not officially reprimand Patton for the incident.



      Patton and Waters
      Gen. George S. Patton visits his son-in-law Col. John K. Waters
      April 7, 1945 in Frankfurt hospital. Source: Wiki Commons







      world-war-two






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Oct 14 '18 at 0:41







      Kerry L

















      asked Aug 29 '18 at 11:41









      Kerry LKerry L

      3,91911354




      3,91911354




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          21














          In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:




          Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
          leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
          Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.




          Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters




          in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
          through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
          left hip...




          The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".






          share|improve this answer




















          • 4





            Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 29 '18 at 13:42







          • 4





            @KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.

            – Michael Karas
            Aug 30 '18 at 1:55






          • 3





            @MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 30 '18 at 15:50











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "324"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47847%2fwas-col-john-k-waters-gen-pattons-son-in-law-wounded-in-the-buttocks-or-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          21














          In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:




          Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
          leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
          Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.




          Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters




          in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
          through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
          left hip...




          The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".






          share|improve this answer




















          • 4





            Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 29 '18 at 13:42







          • 4





            @KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.

            – Michael Karas
            Aug 30 '18 at 1:55






          • 3





            @MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 30 '18 at 15:50















          21














          In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:




          Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
          leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
          Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.




          Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters




          in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
          through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
          left hip...




          The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".






          share|improve this answer




















          • 4





            Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 29 '18 at 13:42







          • 4





            @KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.

            – Michael Karas
            Aug 30 '18 at 1:55






          • 3





            @MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 30 '18 at 15:50













          21












          21








          21







          In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:




          Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
          leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
          Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.




          Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters




          in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
          through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
          left hip...




          The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".






          share|improve this answer















          In The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, Martin Blumenson cites the journal of Hobart R. Gay's journal entry for April 7th. Colonel (later General) Gay was Patton's Chief of Staff. The description is quite detailed and perhaps explains the conflicting accounts:




          Col. Odom returned with two cub planes, bringing Waters, shot through
          leg, bullett coming up through his buttocks and injuring his spine.
          Condition good, will live and probably not be paralyzed.




          Also in April, Patton wrote to his daughter Beatrice (Waters' wife) with a more technical and specific description, saying the bullet struck Colonel Waters




          in the left groin but below the peritoneal cavity. The bullet went
          through the rectum, knocked the end off his coccyx, and came out his
          left hip...




          The coccyx "is the final segment of the vertebral column".







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Sep 9 '18 at 18:59

























          answered Aug 29 '18 at 12:31









          Lars BosteenLars Bosteen

          44.5k9204274




          44.5k9204274







          • 4





            Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 29 '18 at 13:42







          • 4





            @KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.

            – Michael Karas
            Aug 30 '18 at 1:55






          • 3





            @MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 30 '18 at 15:50












          • 4





            Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 29 '18 at 13:42







          • 4





            @KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.

            – Michael Karas
            Aug 30 '18 at 1:55






          • 3





            @MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.

            – Kerry L
            Aug 30 '18 at 15:50







          4




          4





          Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.

          – Kerry L
          Aug 29 '18 at 13:42






          Thank you! I think this information (and sources) should be used to update the Wikipedia article on Task Force Baum to enhance its accuracy.

          – Kerry L
          Aug 29 '18 at 13:42





          4




          4





          @KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.

          – Michael Karas
          Aug 30 '18 at 1:55





          @KerryL - You appear to have somewhat of a passion on this history subject. Wikipedia is a community edited site to which you could contribute to add references and additional commentary.

          – Michael Karas
          Aug 30 '18 at 1:55




          3




          3





          @MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.

          – Kerry L
          Aug 30 '18 at 15:50





          @MichaelKaras - an interesting thought there - I have never considered myself qualified to contribute content to Wikipedia... always felt I would need a PhD in thinkology or something like that. But perhaps I should reconsider that. Thanks.

          – Kerry L
          Aug 30 '18 at 15:50

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47847%2fwas-col-john-k-waters-gen-pattons-son-in-law-wounded-in-the-buttocks-or-th%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

          Edmonton

          Crossroads (UK TV series)