GModo61

Siempre se habla de las 2 bombas atómicas de EEUU para terminar la guerra pero se omiten las atrocidades del imperio japones durante la WWII Solamente la masacre de Nankin se llevó la vida de 300.000 chinos.

It was no secret that the Arabs in 1948 intended to starve 100,000 Jews in Jewish Jerusalem into surrender or death. They proudly declared it & newspapers around the world covered it in real time. The Arabs cut the only highway to Jerusalem, ambushed every food convoy (including the April 13 Hadassah Convoy Massacre when Arabs slaughtered 78 Jewish doctors, nurses & patients), blew the main water pipeline from Ras el-Ein, and reduced the city to 200g of bread and 4 pints of drinking water per person per day. When desperate Jews foraged mallow leaves (donkey food), Jordanian radio celebrated it as proof the Jews were collapsing. This was front-page news. The Arabs’ deliberate starvation campaign was open and boastful. The inversion never stops.

Israel’s legal title to the Land is ironclad under international law - and it was permanently reaffirmed on this day in 1946. On April 18, 1946, the League of Nations dissolved itself & transferred its “sacred trust” to the United Nations: the Mandate for Palestine. That legally binding document, unanimously approved by all 51 member states on July 24, 1922, granted the Jewish people irrevocable title to settle anywhere in western Palestine - the roughly 10,000 square miles between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea (today’s Israel, Gaza, and the so-called “West Bank”). Britain had already sliced off 77% of the original Mandate to create Transjordan (today’s Jordan) out of “eastern Palestine” as a reward for the Hashemites. The remainder - from the river to the sea - remained the Jewish National Home under international law. “Palestine” was never an Arab state, never a nationality, and never even an Arabic word. It derives from the Roman provincial name Syria Palaestina, imposed in 135 CE after the Bar Kokhba Revolt to erase the name Judea and its Jewish identity. The term itself comes from the ancient Philistines - ancient Aegean enemies of the Jews. Under Ottoman and British rule, local Arabs considered themselves part of Greater Syria. British Mandate documents spoke of “Jews and Arabs of Palestine” - never “Jews and Palestinians.” The flagship institutions (Palestine Post, Palestine Symphony Orchestra, Anglo-Palestine Bank) were all Jewish. Crucially, the Mandate reserved political rights to self-determination for the Jews alone. Arabs received full civil rights and their own political rights in four other mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan. Article 80 of the UN Charter preserved every Jewish right under the Mandate when the League dissolved. Israel’s legal title isn’t a “settler-colonial” fever dream. It is the last unamended international accord on the land; and it remains in force to this day. They’ve spent eight decades gaslighting the world with a fabricated “indigenous” peoplehood that never existed before the 1960s. The documents don’t lie.

German war cemetery in Berchtesgaden, Germany.

Did the Jews Steal Land? Although they were unhappy with the partition, Jews did not rob poor Arab peasants of their land, as many of today’s critics suggest. By 1949, Britain had allocated 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews. So Jews were forced to pay exorbitant prices for arid land to wealthy, often absentee landlords—$1,000 per acre, when rich black soil in Iowa was getting $110 per acre. By 1947, 73 percent of land purchased by Jews came from large landowners, including Arab mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem, and Jaffa, and leaders of the Arab nationalist movement. In his memoir, King Abdullah of Jordan said the story of Jewish displacement of Arabs from their land was a fiction: “Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in . . . weeping [about it].” It is true that hundreds of thousands of Arabs felt compelled to abandon their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Yet the vast majority of these Arabs left their homes because Arab leaders told them to, or because they simply wanted to get out of the line of fire. The Syrian Prime Minister Haled al Azm wrote in his memoirs, “Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave.” The Economist, a frequent critic of Zionists, reported in the October 2, 1948 issue that “the Higher Arab Executive . . . clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.” Naveed Anjum

82 years ago today, two young men crawled out of a woodpile in occupied Poland and began walking — straight into the unknown. One was just 19. The other, 26. For two endless years they had endured the unimaginable inside Auschwitz — the worst place on earth. They had seen selections, gas chambers, and crematoria running day and night. They had counted the trains, the souls, the murdered. And they refused to stay silent. Their names were Rudolf Vrba and Alfréd Wetzler. Vrba had stood on the Judenrampe for months, watching train after train arrive, memorizing the horror no one outside was supposed to know. Wetzler had worked in the mortuary, witnessing the machinery of industrial murder up close. In early 1944, they learned the Nazis were preparing for the slaughter of nearly 800,000 Hungarian Jews. New rails, new killing facilities — everything was being scaled up for mass murder on an unthinkable scale. They could not wait any longer. On April 7, 1944, they slipped into a hidden cavity inside a massive woodpile, surrounded by petrol-soaked tobacco to confuse the dogs. They lay there for three terrifying days and nights as SS guards and search parties hunted them. On the evening of April 10 — exactly 82 years ago — they finally emerged and began their journey. They walked 80 miles over eleven harrowing nights through hostile territory. Moving only in darkness, hiding by day, crossing rivers, guided by stars, sustained by the quiet bravery of Slovak peasants who risked everything to help them. On April 21 they reached Slovakia. There, they dictated the first detailed eyewitness report of Auschwitz — 33 pages of precise, devastating truth: layouts of the gas chambers, capacities of the crematoria, transport-by-transport death counts. They estimated 1.75 million Jews had already been murdered. The Vrba-Wetzler Report reached the Vatican, Allied intelligence, and Jewish leaders. But it sat for weeks while the world hesitated. Then, in June 1944, it broke into the Swiss press. Public outrage followed. Roosevelt, Churchill, the Swedish king, and the Red Cross applied pressure. On July 9, Hungarian Regent Miklós Horthy ordered the deportations stopped. Because of their courage, the remaining 200,000 Jews of Budapest were spared deportation. Those lives were saved. Vrba and Wetzler risked everything because they believed the truth still mattered — that if the world only knew, it would act. They were right. Their report became one of the most important documents of the 20th century, entered into evidence at Nuremberg. It stands as eternal proof that two ordinary young men, armed only with memory and unbreakable will, can pierce the darkness and change history. Never forget the price they paid to speak. Never again should the world look away.

A retaining wall is about all that is left of the Berghof, and you have to know where to look to find it. The house was bombed by the RAF in April 1945 and the surviving ruins were demolished in 1952, specifically to stop the site becoming a shrine.

The Ancients believed that a Mixed Constitution – one that balanced elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy – was the best form of government. However, they believed that a functioning democracy required the following limitations. 1. Citizenship after Three Generations: Citizenship was restricted to families with deep ancestral roots to ensure long‑standing loyalty and shared civic identity. 2. Exclusion of Citizens with Criminal Convictions: Those guilty of serious crimes lost political rights because they were deemed untrustworthy stewards of the common good. 3. Prohibition of Dual Citizenship: Dual citizenship was banned to prevent divided loyalties and ensure undivided allegiance to one community. 4. Property Qualifications for Voting and Office: Only property‑owners could vote or hold office because economic stability was seen as the basis of prudent political judgement. 5. Political Rights Tied to Military Service: Citizens earned political participation by defending the state through military service. 6. Exclusion of Resident Foreigners and Immigrants: Foreign residents were denied political rights because they lacked the shared customs and education that formed civic unity. 7. Age Restrictions for Political Participation: Younger citizens were barred from political roles until reaching maturity, since sound judgement required experience. 8. Loss of Political Rights for Impiety: Those who neglected or violated religious duties could lose civic rights because impiety threatened the moral order of the state. 9. Moral Character Examinations for Office: Candidates for office underwent scrutiny of their conduct to ensure only virtuous citizens governed. 10. Educational Requirements for Office: Office‑holding was limited to those with sufficient education, since leadership required intellectual formation. 11. Exclusion of Citizens Indebted to the State: Citizens in debt were barred from political participation because dependency made them vulnerable to manipulation. 12. Disenfranchisement of Citizens Associated with Tyranny: Supporters of tyrants or anti‑constitutional factions were permanently excluded to protect the political order. 13. Loss of Rights for Extended Absence from the City: Citizens who lived away from the city for too long forfeited political rights because participation required physical presence. 14. Exclusion of Citizens Dependent on Public Welfare: Those reliant on public assistance were restricted from certain political roles to prevent corruption and undue influence. 15. Household Representation in Voting: Voting was sometimes limited to the male head of household, reflecting the belief that the family – not the individual – was the basic civic unit. To learn more, check out my latest article – Citizenship as Virtue: Ancient Limits on Democratic Power.

1/ US To Distance Itself From Europe: Moscow paper claims US "will withdraw completely from political collaboration with Europe, substituting economic pressure for collaboration." | Apr 17, 1926

In June 1898, the United States captured Guam from Spain in one of the strangest episodes of the Spanish American War. The island’s small Spanish garrison had no idea war had even been declared, and when the USS Charleston arrived, the Americans expected a fight that never came. Instead, the takeover happened without bloodshed. When the Charleston fired on an old Spanish fort, local officials first thought it was a salute. They even went out to apologize for not returning it because they had no ammunition. Only then did the Americans explain that the shots were hostile and that Spain and the United States were already at war. Spain’s governor soon surrendered the island, and American forces took control with little resistance. The U.S. flag was raised over Guam, and the island later officially passed to the United States under the Treaty of Paris in December 1898.

This is probably the most important video you will ever see. It explains absolutely everything. While propagandists and podcasters line up to tell you how Israel are the bad guys, the “oppressors” of the poor innocent Palestinians, and of the poor innocent fighters of Hezbollah, and Tucker Carlson telling you how lovely the Islamic regime are and that it’s Israel who are trying to build “Greater Israel” rather than the jihadists wanting the greater caliphate, the jihadists themselves tell you a very different story. I’ll bet most people haven’t ever seen this video, and I hope you’ll all share it everywhere. This is a young Hassan Nazrallah talking about who and what Hezbollah really is, who rules them, and importantly, what their true intentions and goals are: “We are an Iranian project, our leadership is in Tehran and not in Beirut. Our goals are to subjugate ALL the countries of the region, not just Lebanon, to the authority of the Supreme Leader in Tehran.” Do you get it now?

While Western intellectuals were romanticizing the Soviet experiment, one American writer went to see it for herself. Then she wrote one of the most compelling accounts of why it was always going to fail. 🧵

‘People-oriented’ from a one-party state is almost satire. Feudalism at least had fragmented power and some space outside it. Marxism concentrates everything. Property, production, and speech under one authority that claims to speak for everyone. You don’t just answer to a lord. You answer to a system that owns everything and answers to no one. The real-world version, like in China, looks exactly like what these people claim to hate. Cronyism, state-corporate collusion, insiders getting rich off political power, just scaled up and made untouchable. It’s centralized control with no exit. Feudalism controlled your land. This controls the system you depend on to live.

Here’s the part they never say out loud: Yes, numbers went up. That’s what happens when you industrialize a backwards agrarian society. Literacy, output, life expectancy, that rise happened everywhere that modernized, not just under communism. The difference is how it was done. Under the USSR: -forced collectivization -mass famine -labor camps -political purges You don’t get to brag about rising production when millions were coerced or killed to get there. And the comparison they avoid is the real one: Not “before vs after 1917” but “USSR vs free economies at the same time” That’s where it falls apart. More freedom produced more wealth, better living standards, and didn’t require terror to achieve it. So no, it wasn’t some miracle of ‘the masses taking control.’ It was rapid industrialization under total control, with a human cost they conveniently leave out.