How Christians were horribly betrayed by Vatican & their leaders; satanists and Jews became ascendant ruling-class, leading "money-power," suckers

Apollonian

Guest Columnist

The Ugly and Forgotten Legacy of Potsdam​

Historians/History

Link: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160181/

by Bradley Brewer

To Americans World War II is all that is great about America. It represents American bravery, sacrifice, fortitude and compassion. After all it was a war worth fighting, and one that could not be avoided in the Pacific and Europe. No nation however virtuous emerges from war and the peacemaking process unscarred physically or ideologically, including the United States.

On August 2, 1945 the Potsdam Conference came to a conclusion. Held at Potsdam, Germany by the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union in order to discuss plans for the occupation of Germany and the dispersal of reparations. Territorial issues, such as the location of Poland’s western boundary, occurred briefly but discussions were delayed until a final peace conference could be scheduled. Negotiations on territorial matters may have been delayed but the fate of millions of Germans came to be decided with the inclusion of Article XIII to the final draft of the Potsdam Agreement. Article XIII mandated that the German minority populations of Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary (this article only deals with Czechoslovakia and Poland) be transferred to Germany in an orderly and humane manner under the direction of the Allied Control Council comprised of representatives of the Big Three Allies.

Article XIII was created for a reason. The retreat of the German army in the spring of 1945 left most of Czechoslovakia and all of western Poland to be occupied by armed forces of the Soviet Union. And within this newly conquered territory there existed millions of Germans, many of whom had lived in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and the newly acquired Polish territories along the Oder-Neisse line (Brandenburg, Danzig, Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia) since the fourteenth century. Over the years relations between the Germans and the Czechs and Poles grew quite contentious, and once the war was over citizens and government officials of both nations seized the opportunity to spontaneously and brutally rid themselves of what they saw as a troublesome German minority within their respective borders. In doing so the Czechoslovakian and Polish governments sought to expel as many Germans as possible and present the Allies with a fait accompli at a future peace conference. The unregulated wild expulsions that lasted from May through June of 1945, saw government, independent and military organizations expel 750,000 Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia, and 200,000 to 1,300,000 Germans from Poland. However, those numbers are an estimate and totals differ depending the study.

The implementation of Article XIII was supposed to bring the wild expulsions under control. United States Secretary of State James F. Byrnes wanted to implement measures that would slow the transfer of Germans, so as to make them less haphazard and violent in nature. Byrnes was also a pragmatist and realized that the expulsion of Germans was never going to be halted completely but could at least be monitored by the Allies so that the focus of the Czechs and Poles would be on the expulsion of Germans, not the pursuit of revenge for war atrocities committed by the Nazis. After the implementation of logistical details to make the expulsions as orderly and humane as possible they began on January 25, 1946. In both Czechoslovakia and Poland the post-Potsdam expulsions differed little from the wild expulsions of 1945, in that the German expellees were herded to assembly centers where they were robbed, physically abused and then crowded onto train cars and shipped to Germany, where they arrived in a state of “physical and spiritual deprivation,” according to German historian Theodor Schieder. However, conditions did improve in the summer of 1946 after Allied Control Council regulations had been fully implemented. When the expulsions came to a halt at the end of 1947 some 1,415,135 Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia had been expelled into the United States Zone of Occupation, along with 750,000 to the Russian zone and 1,500,000 to British zone.

For the United States (and Great Britain), Article XIII was intended to establish some sense of order to an expulsion process, which was a more appealing solution to the German minority problem than the most probable alternatives, uncontrollable chaos or a probable war against the Soviet Union and Poland, which the Allies did not want to happen since they had fought a common enemy with the Soviets. In effect Article XIII legitimized the expulsions that prior to Potsdam were performed with no legal basis or consideration as to how such expulsions would impact the European demographic and political landscape. The legitimacy given to article XIII by the western Allies gave the act of population transfer by forced expulsion a legal respectability to what is in reality ethnic cleansing. Thus, the United States was complicit in legalizing the largest episode of ethnic cleansing that occurred in the twentieth century when 12,000,000 to 16,000,000 Germans came to be expelled from their historic homelands from east-central Europe from the spring of 1945 to the end of 1947.

United States approval of the expulsion of Germans is both explicable and inexplicable. It was explicable in that the expulsion of Germans was probably going to happen whether the United States was involved or not, and by being a part of the process American occupation officials had some control over when, where and how the expulsions were to take place but not total control of the situation. On the other hand, United States approval of the expulsions was inexplicable and it seemed as though the removal of large swaths of Germans from their historic homelands countered the ideological base of morality and justice on which the United States was founded and ran counter to our stated war aims. In wars, where reality and ideology usually collide, the attainment of peace is more complex than the onset of conflict.
 
The Danger of Historical Lies:
Presidential Distortion of History

by Mark Weber

Link: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-2_Weber.html

On January 20, 1997, Bill Clinton began his second term as President with a swearing-in ceremony at the White House followed by an inaugural address. During the first few minutes of this speech, Clinton briefly surveyed the history of the past ten decades:

What a century it has been. America became the world's mightiest industrial power; saved the world from tyranny in two world wars and a long Cold War; and time and again, reached across the globe to millions who longed for the blessings of liberty.
Not only do these proud, even boastful words contain historical falsehoods, they manifest an arrogance that lays the groundwork for future calamity. In truth, in neither the first nor the second world wars did the United States "save the world from tyranny."

World War I​

In April 1917, President Woodrow Wilson called for America's entry into World War I by proclaiming that "the world must be made safe for democracy." On another occasion, he declared that US participation in the conflict would make it a "war to end war." To secure support for this crusade, newspapers and political leaders, and an official US government propaganda agency, portrayed Germany as a power-mad tyranny that threatened the liberty of the world.

However, within just a few years after the November 1918 armistice that ended the fighting, this wartime propaganda image was widely recognized as absurd. Today no serious historian regards Wilhelmine Germany as a "tyranny," or believes that it posed any kind of threat to the United States, much less "the world."

Ironically, America's principal allies in World War I -- Britain and France -- were at the time the world's greatest imperial powers. (A sore point for many Americans of Irish background was Britain's control of Ireland.) Many in the United States regarded Britain, not Germany, as the foremost threat to world liberty, recalling that Americans had waged a bitter, drawn-out war for independence from British rule (1775-1783), and that during a second war with the same country (1812-1814) British troops had sacked and burned down the US capital.

World War II​

President Clinton's distortion of history is even more glaring with regard to the Second World War. America's two most important military allies in that conflict were the foremost imperialist power (Britain) and the cruelest tyranny (Soviet Russia). During both world wars, Britain ruled a vast global empire, subjugating millions against their will in what are now India, Pakistan, South Africa, Palestine/Israel, Egypt and Malaysia, to name but a few. America's other great wartime ally, Stalinist Russia, was, by any objective measure, a vastly more cruel despotism than Hitler's Germany.

If the US had not intervened in World War II, Germany and its allies might have succeeded in vanquishing Soviet Communism. A victory of the Axis powers also would have meant no Communist subjugation of eastern Europe and China, no protracted East-West "Cold War," and no "hot
wars" in Korea and Vietnam.

In fact, and contrary to Clinton's version of history, during the Second War the United States helped substantially to preserve the world's most terrible tyranny. In cooperation with the Soviet Union, the United States helped to oppress "millions who longed for the blessings of liberty."

Today's political and intellectual leaders seem eager to whitewash or forget the Soviet role in the World War II, or America's cordial wartime alliance with Soviet Russia and its leader. To solidify the Allied coalition -- formally known as the "United Nations" -- President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet premier Joseph Stalin met together in person on two occasions: in November 1943 at Teheran, Iran, and in February 1945 in Yalta, Crimea.

In a joint declaration issued at the conclusion of the Teheran meeting, the three leaders expressed "our determination that our nations shall work together in war and in the peace that will follow." The "Big Three" continued:

We recognize fully the supreme responsibility resting upon us and all the United Nations to make a peace which will command the good will of the overwhelming mass of the peoples of the world and banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations.
We shall seek the cooperation and active participation of all nations, large and small, whose peoples in heart and mind are dedicated, as are our own peoples, to the elimination of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance. We will welcome them, as they may choose to come, into a world family of democratic nations.
... Emerging from these cordial conferences we look with confidence to the day when all the peoples of the word may live free, untouched by tyranny, according to their varying desires and their own consciences.
To emphasize the trusting nature of their alliance, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin concluded their joint statement with the words: "We came here with hope and determination. We leave here, friends in fact, in spirit and in purpose."

The wartime leaders of the United States, Britain and Soviet Russia accomplished precisely what they accused the Axis leaders of Germany, Italy and Japan of conspiring to achieve: world domination. At the Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences, and in crass violation of their own loftily proclaimed principles, the US, British and Soviet leaders disposed of millions of people with no regard for their wishes (most tragically, perhaps, in the case of Poland). To insure the rule of the victorious Allied powers after the war, the "Big Three" established the United Nations organization to function as a permanent global police force.

Lessons​

Many Americans recall their country's role in the Vietnam war, and other overseas military adventures since 1945, with embarrassment and even shame. But most Americans -- whether they call themselves conservative or liberal -- like to regard World War II as "the good war," a morally unambiguous conflict between Good and Evil. So successfully have politicians and intellectual leaders, together with the mass media, promoted this simplistic, self-righteous view of history, that President Clinton could be confident that it would be accepted without objection.

The President's distortion of history is all the more remarkable considering that in this same inaugural speech he proclaimed the dawning of an "information age" in which "education will be every citizen's most prized possession."

How a nation views the past is not a trivial or merely academic exercise. Our perspective on history profoundly shapes our actions in the present, often with grave consequences for the future. Drawing conclusions from our understanding of the past, we make or support policies that greatly impact the lives of millions.

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, for example, political leaders, journalists and scholars often rationalized and justified America's ill-fated role in the Vietnam war on the basis of a badly distorted understanding of Third Reich Germany, drawing faulty historical parallels between Ho Chi Minh and Hitler, with erroneous references to the September 1938 Munich Conference.

The hubris of Clinton's portrayal of history is not merely an affront against historical truth, it is dangerous because it sanctions potentially even more calamitous military adventures in the future. After all, if the United States was as righteous and as successful as the President says it was in "saving the world" in two world wars, why would anyone oppose similar world-saving crusades in the future?


From The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3), pages 2-3.
 

Roosevelt’s Fraud at Yalta and the Mirage of the “Good War”​

Link: https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom...raud-at-yalta-and-the-mirage-of-the-good-war/

by James Bovard
June 1, 2020

This year is the 75th anniversary of the end of World War Two. One of the biggest frauds of the final stage of that war was the meeting at Yalta of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and President Franklin Roosevelt. Yalta has become a synonym for the abandonment of oppressed people and helped inspire the 1952 Republican campaign theme, “20 years of treason.”

The fact that Yalta can now clearly be seen to have been a betrayal is another reason to be wary when pundits and talk-show hosts jump on the bandwagon for the next killing spree abroad.
[Click to Tweet]

The American media uncorked a barrage of tributes to Roosevelt on the 75th anniversary of his death in April. CNN, for instance, trumpeted Roosevelt as “the wartime president who Trump should learn from.” But there was scant coverage of one of his greatest betrayals.

Roosevelt painted World War II as a crusade for democracy — hailing Stalin as a partner in liberation. From 1942 through 1945, the U.S. government consistently deceived the American people about the character of the Soviet Union. Roosevelt praised Soviet Russia as one of the “freedom-loving nations” and stressed that Stalin is “thoroughly conversant with the provisions of our Constitution.” But as Rexford Tugwell, one of Roosevelt’s Brain Trusters and an open admirer of the Soviet system, groused, “The Constitution was a negative document, meant mostly to protect citizens from their government.” And when government is the personification of benevolence, no protection is needed.

Harold Ickes, one of Roosevelt’s top aides, proclaimed that communism was “the antithesis of Nazism” because it was based on a “belief in the control of the government, including the economic system, by the people themselves.” The fact that the Soviet regime had been the most oppressive government in the world in the 1930s was irrelevant, as far as Roosevelt was concerned. As Georgetown University professor Derek Leebaert, author of Magic and Mayhem, observed, “FDR remarked that most of what he knew about the world came from his stamp collection.”

Giving Stalin everything

The Roosevelt administration engineered a movie tribute to Stalin — Mission to Moscow — that was so slavish that Russian composer Dimitri Shostakovich observed that “no Soviet propaganda agency would dare to present such outrageous lies.” In his 1944 State of the Union address, Roosevelt denounced those Americans with “such suspicious souls — who feared that I have made ‘commitments’ for the future which might pledge this Nation to secret treaties” with Stalin at the summit of Allied leaders in Tehran the previous month. Roosevelt helped set the two-tier attack that permeated much of postwar American foreign policy — denouncing cynics, while betraying foreigners whom the U.S. government claimed to champion. (Someone should ask the Kurds if anything has changed on that score.)

Prior to the Yalta conference, Roosevelt confided to the U.S. ambassador to Russia that he believed that if he gave Stalin “everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.” Stalin wanted assurances from Roosevelt and Churchill that millions of Soviet citizens who had been captured during the war by the Germans or who had abandoned the Soviet Union would be forcibly returned. After the war ended, Operation Keelhaul forcibly sent two million Soviets to certain death or long-term imprisonment in Siberia or elsewhere. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called Operation Keelhaul “the last secret” of World War II and it was covered up or ignored by Western media until the 1970s. The fact is that those mass deaths that were facilitated by the U.S. and British governments rarely rated even an asterisk by the media-beloved historians who tout the “Good War.”

In the final communiqué from Yalta, Roosevelt, along with Churchill and Stalin, declared that “a new situation has been created in Poland as a result of her complete liberation by the Red Army.” Liberation? Tell that to the Marines. A few weeks later, on March 1, 1945, he gave a speech to Congress touting his triumph at Yalta. In it he declared, “The decision with respect to the boundaries of Poland was, frankly, a compromise…. It will include, in the new, strong Poland, quite a large slice of what now is called Germany.” He agreed with Stalin at Yalta on moving the border of the Soviet Union far to the west — thereby effectively conscripting 11 million Poles as new Soviet Union citizens.

Poland was “compensated” with a huge swath of Germany, a simple cartographic revision that spurred vast human carnage. As author R.M. Douglas noted in his 2012 book Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War (Yale University Press), the result was “the largest episode of forced migration, and perhaps the single greatest movement of population, in human history. Between 12 million and 14 million German-speaking civilians — the overwhelming majority of whom were women, old people, and children under 16 — were forcibly ejected from their places of birth in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and what are today the western districts of Poland.” At least half a million died as a result. George Orwell denounced the relocation as an “enormous crime” that was “equivalent to transplanting the entire population of Australia.” Philosopher Bertrand Russell protested, “Are mass deportations crimes when committed by our enemies during war and justifiable measures of social adjustment when carried out by our allies in time of peace?” Roosevelt signed those death warrants at Yalta. Freda Utley, the mother of the late publisher and author Jon Utley, did some of the first and best reporting on the vast suffering ensuing from the German expulsions. Chapters from her book The High Cost of Vengeance are available at fredautley.com. (The U.S. government approved similar brutal mass forcible transfers in former Yugoslavia during the Clinton administration.) But the German civilians killed after the war were simply another asterisk that could safely be ignored by Good War chroniclers.

Roosevelt boasted to Congress, “As the Allied armies have marched to military victory, they have liberated people whose liberties had been crushed by the Nazis for four long years.” At that point, he and the State Department knew that this was a total lie for areas that had fallen under the control of the Red Army, which was busy killing or deporting to Siberia any potential political opponents. Roosevelt claimed that the deal at Yalta was “the most hopeful agreement possible for a free, independent, and prosperous Polish people.” But he betrayed the exiled Polish government in London and signed off on Soviet-style elections with no international observers — effectively giving Stalin unlimited sway on choosing Poland’s rulers. Any illusions about Soviet benevolence towards Poland should have been banished when the Red Army massacred the Polish officer corps at Katyn Forest — an atrocity that the U.S. government assiduously covered up (and blamed on the Nazis) during the war.

The façade of benevolence

In a private conversation at Yalta, Roosevelt assured Stalin that he was feeling “more bloodthirsty” than when they previously met. Immediately after the Yalta conference concluded, the British and American air forces turned Dresden into an inferno, killing up to 50,000 civilians. The Associated Press reported that “Allied air bosses” had adopted “deliberate terror bombing of great German population centers as a ruthless expedient to hasten Hitler’s doom.” Ravaging Dresden was intended to “‘add immeasurably’ to Roosevelt’s strength in negotiating with the Russians at the postwar peace table,” as Thomas Fleming noted in The New Dealers’ War. Vast numbers of dead women and children became simply one more poker chip. Shortly after the residents of Dresden were obliterated, Roosevelt pompously announced, “I know that there is not room enough on Earth for both German militarism and Christian decency.” Government censorship and intimidation helped minimize critical coverage of the civilian carnage resulting from U.S. carpet-bombing of cities in both Germany and Japan.

Roosevelt told Congress that the Yalta Agreement “spells the end of the system of unilateral action and exclusive alliance and spheres of influence.” By the time he died the following month, he knew that democracy was doomed in any turf conquered by the Red Army. But the sham had been immensely politically profitable for Roosevelt, and his successors kept up much of the charade.

U.S. government secrecy and propaganda efforts did their best to continue portraying World War Two as the triumph of good over evil. If Americans had been told in early 1945 of the barbarities that Yalta had approved regarding captured Soviet soldiers and the brutal mass transfer of German women and children, much of the nation would have been aghast. War correspondent Ernie Pyle offered a far more honest assessment than did Roosevelt: “The war gets so complicated and confused in my mind; on especially sad days, it’s almost impossible to believe that anything is worth such mass slaughter and misery.”

In the decades after Yalta, presidents continued to invoke lofty goals to justify U.S. military intervention in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. In each case, massive secrecy and perennial lies were necessary to maintain a façade of benevolence. Americans have still not seen the secret files behind the harebrained, contradictory interventions in Syria from the George W. Bush administration onwards. The only certainty is that, if we ever learn the full truth, plenty of politicians and other government officials will be revealed to be bigger scoundrels than suspected. Some of the orchestrators of mass misery might even be compelled to reduce their speaking fees.

“Presidents have lied so much to us about foreign policy that they’ve established almost a common-law right to do so,” George Washington University history professor Leo Ribuffo observed in 1998. Presidents have perennially used uplifting rhetoric to expunge their atrocities. On the 75th anniversary of Yalta, Americans have no reason to presume that presidents, top government officials, or much of the media are more trustworthy now than they were during the finale of the Good War. Have there been other Operation Keelhaul equivalents in recent years that Americans have not yet learned about? The fact that Yalta can now clearly be seen to have been a betrayal is another reason to be wary when pundits and talk-show hosts jump on the bandwagon for the next killing spree abroad.
 
Russkie lady tells us how others see the world, how/why Jew S A is LOOOOOSING, suckas

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Well, dear comrade Stalin made it to the "top" rulership of the great workers' "paradise," and this is what happened & how he, dear Stalin, died--isn't it inspiring, the great man dying?--how his brave buddies and followers behaved themselves so nobly, etc.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:

UPDATE: Now 6 AfD Candidates Have Died Suddenly Before Key State Election​

by Staff | Remix September 2nd, 2025 5:20 AM

Link: https://www.infowars.com/posts/4-afd-candidates-have-died-suddenly-before-key-state-election/

Election officials are racing to print new ballots after the "sudden and unexpected" death of 4 AfD candidates right before North Rhine-Westphalia votes.

UPDATE: Now 6 AfD Candidates Have Died Suddenly Before Key State Election
Image Credit: NurPhoto / Contributor / Getty

Update: Now a total of 6 AfD candidates have died.


Four Alternative for Germany (AfD) candidates died “suddenly and unexpectedly” in Germany’s largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia, right before state elections. Anger and theories are running rife on social media about the sudden deaths of the AfD candidates.

“According to WDR, four AfD candidates who were not excluded have died immediately before the NRW municipal election: Blomberg, Rheinberg, Schwerte, Bad Lippspringe. Statistically almost impossible,” wrote Stefan Homburg in a post that received 1 million views.

In another post from Peter Borbe, he writes: “4 AfD candidates died within 2 weeks during the NRW local elections: Wolfgang Seitz (Rheinberg), Ralph Lange (Blomberg), Stefan Berendes (Bad Lippspringe), Wolfgang Klinger (Schwerte), all 4 died suddenly and unexpectedly. An astonishing accumulation of deaths, isn’t it?”

Despite concerns expressed on social media, not much is known about the circumstances of the deaths of the four candidates other than they died “unexpectedly,” which means none of them died from a long battle with cancer, for example.

As of yet, nobody has provided any evidence that the AfD candidates died from anything other than natural causes. In addition, there does not appear to have been any police investigations launched into the deaths of any four of the individuals.

However, in Germany’s polarized political environment, there is no surprise that AfD supporters are worried about the safety of their candidates.

The AfD party is, after all, the most attacked party in the country, including assaults and other forms of violence, according to official government statistics.

Local elections are set for Sept. 14, but the Welt newspaper reports that the latest death was from Ralph Lange, the AfD’s direct candidate for the Blomberg council, who “died unexpectedly,” according to WDR and the Lippische Landeszeitung, among other media outlets. A number of reports claim he was either 66 or 67 years old.

Other candidates were Wolfgang Seitz from Rheinberg, reportedly 59 years old, along with Wolfgang Klinger of Schwerte, reportedly 71 or 72 years old. Finally, Stefan Berendes of Bad Lippsringe passed away, at 59 years old.

Authorities are under pressure to print new ballots, and with elections quickly approaching, there are serious time constraints. In some of the affected districts, new ballots have already been sent out.

Some voters had already sent in mail-in ballots. These ballots will no longer be valid and they must vote again.

Welt writes, citing WDR, that “an AfD candidate (Wolfgang Klinger) in Schwerte (North Rhine-Westphalia, Arnsberg administrative district) and the 59-year-old AfD candidate Wolfgang Seitz in Rheinberg (North Rhine-Westphalia, Wesel district) also died ‘suddenly and unexpectedly’ almost two weeks ago.”

The Rape of the West: Warning – Viewer Discretion Advised – Learn why the UK, Europe, Australia, Japan, and Other Advanced Nations are Now in Open Uprising Against the UN Third World Invasion Replacement Migration Attack
 
Tim Pool analyzes the German AfD candidates' deaths (7 so far today)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Well, things just all of a sudden came together, Jews tried another "bums-rush" on MAGA, which/who is/are sold-out by Jews' hit-man, Israel-first Trump. The good speaker, here, narrator, Jackson, doesn't evidently grasp the religious coup, zionists, once again, out-maneuvering stupid Christians, Jews aided by their carefully constructed weapon, "Judeo-Christian" (JC--see Whtt.org for good expo) heresy, treason, fraud, criminality, conspiracy, etc. But Candace Owens sorely resents these JC phonies.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Owens comments on the idiot fulminations of Tim Pool, who got all hysterical, threw a fit, live for his viewers who began to un-subscribe fm his show/channel

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Here's Hinkle, again, commenting on the latest Tim Pool news--who had a "private" meeting w. his latest new buddy, whose moolah he indicates he's quite so willing to take

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Back
Top