Skip to comments.History Lesson For Anti-Americans
Posted on 06/09/2006 11:31:24 AM PDT by Miami Vice
How many nations could genuinely say that they had the potential to conquer the world or destroy it? How many nations ever had an arsenal capable of obliterating any other nation without risking retaliation?
How many nations, with an army and navy superior to any others, and an economy capable of producing more weapons and material than any other, with forces already deployed for conquest, would try to conquer the world while they had such advantages?
Sixty years ago, this was exactly situation in which our nation, the United States of America, found itself. American military forces were already deployed around the world in 1946. The American economy was already mobilized for war - and was already the arsenal for all other world powers. America was in sole possession of the most destructive weapon ever invented by human beings and could, quite conceivably, destroy whatever was remaining of the rest of the world without being at risk.
Nations like the Soviet Union, Britain, Germany, Japan and China were near ruin. Their populations were demoralized, their military forces and arsenals depleted. Their cities and towns were demolished. We could easily have conquered the world.
If we Americans were the imperialists "peace" proponents say we are, we would have. What actions did we take? What was the response of our "imperialist" government? Did we conquer other nations? Did we use our nuclear weapons to demand ransom for other countries? Did we impose reparations or invade our former allies? Did we exploit our advantages to conquer the world?
No, instead we offered to rebuild the nations destroyed by war. We allowed other nation's armies to occupy the territory we conquered. However, most of all, in a gesture that was the most altruistic in human history, we offered to destroy our nuclear weapons.
The United States of America, the world's only nuclear superpower, in June 1946, presented to the United Nations a plan that eliminated America's atomic bomb monopoly. This plan, called the Baruch Plan after FDR's adviser Bernard Baruch, proposed the creation of an international commission to monitor and develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes only, and to ensure no other country would develop nuclear weapons.
Would Stalin's Soviet Union have done such a thing? How about Nazi Germany? Fascist Italy? Imperial Japan?
What about Communist China or North Korea - nations that many of America's critics adore?
How about the peace-loving peoples of Castro's Cuba or Chavez' Venezuela?
What about Baathist Iraq? Would there have been a Saddam Hussein Disarmament Plan presented to the U.N.?
How about Iran?
Instead of using our nuclear weapons to conquer, we offered to disarm ourselves. We wanted to create a world where nuclear energy was used only for peace. The U.N. rejected the plan. It was vetoed by the U.S.S.R.
Yet, some people, like USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux, say America is a terrorist nation. We are lectured that we are a nation whose only concern is controlling the world.
When you hear such claims, remember the Baruch Plan. Especially remember this as we are treated, by the mainstream media, to the sight of anti-war protestors, led by anti-Americans, who will tell us that America has murdered more civilians than any other country and mention that we are the only country ever to use nuclear weapons.
Of course, these "peace" activists will not mention the Baruch plan.
The "peace" protesters will say that Japan was close to surrendering and we did not have to use the bomb. This is not true. If Japan were close to surrendering, why did they not do so even after Hiroshima? Another bomb had to be used at Nagasaki, which, if anything, indicated the fanaticism of the Japanese Empire of the Sun.
These "protestors" will never tell you that more civilians were killed during the Battle of Berlin or the Battle of Stalingrad between the U.S.S.R. and the Nazis, than were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. They will not say that about as many civilians were killed during the Battle of Manila. Therefore, in this sense, the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved lives.
None of these pertinent facts will be mentioned because those who lead the campaign for peace are not concerned about peace. They are concerned about obtaining political and economic control of the United States.
When Baruch spoke to the U.N. to present his plan, he began his speech by saying, "We are here to make a choice between the quick and the dead. That is our business...If we fail, then we have damned every man to be the slave of fear."
Damning people is exactly what the so-called peace activists have in mind.
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of a Sense of Duty http://www.geocities.com/ddc4010/
Julianne Malveaux is a socialist - who likes to get paid.
The guy whow wrote this piece is a good troop. God bless him.
Preaching to the choir.
No - just informing people of facts that many probably don't know. At least I didn't anyway.
This guy is a great writer. I'm waiting for his book. It was supposed to be published by now. I have not seen it in stores.
Great piece! We need more of these to get out around the internet.
I'll be forwarding it to my email address book.
I had not heard of the Baruch plan.
Well, the case could be made for China in the 1400s. They were dominant and even sent expeditions as far as the coast of Africa. At that point, they packed in the whole deal and tried to wall out the rest of the world.
"Nations like the Soviet Union, Britain, Germany, Japan and China were near ruin. Their populations were demoralized, their military forces and arsenals depleted. Their cities and towns were demolished. We could easily have conquered the world."
we could have easily conquered the world????
forgive me, but i cannot agree
History is littered with attempts to conquer the world.
(reference a recent thread on FR about the difficulties we would have had just conquering Russia....discussing the "Patton plan")
That we did not attempt it speaks to our understanding or the difficulites involved,
as well as the simple fact that we don't want it
which was the author's point, anyway
Julianne Malveaux is nasty black racist. She told a television audience, "I hope [Thomass] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter, and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease. . . .Hes an absolutely reprehensible person." Imagine the public outcry we would have heard if white speakers had uttered such mean-spirited nonsense.
Yeah Malveaux is a whacky commie.
Therefore it is no surprise she is the darling to the mainstream media!!!
USA Today columnist indeed!
I agree, it wouldn't have been easy, but it was distinctly possible at the end of WWII, considering the state of the US war footing at the time. The author is correct about that.
History is replete with examples of US altruism, the world likes to forget in their self-interest:
Returning Phillipines, Cuba, Nicaraugua, countless islands in the Pacific (many who then voted to become American protectorates or states), Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and MANY other nations to self-rule. No other country in the history of the world has better honored it's international treaties and pacts.
Thank goodness for the genius of General Marshall, too bad the rest of the world doesn't produce men of similar character anymore.
They're getting pretty rare in this nation on the left too, that's for sure.
article very well written. we do not use our power for conquest and subjugation..
Please, please, please, all of you email email@example.com and tell them your brilliant comments and let them know you read the article.
We need to support conservative, daily, metropolitan newspapers. This is the only conservative newspaper in the country's 5th largest city and they need to know people are reading them online and in print.
I subscribe to them. It's only $75/year. So if you live in the area do so.
At least send them an email
THANKS for posting it, I know some lefties i'm going to give a copy to.
Sorry to bother you, but I didn't see that thread about the "Patton plan" to conquer Russia. Can you provide the link? Thanks greatly.
Julianne Malveaux, and others like her, are easily 'terrorized'.
RE: "How many nations could genuinely say that they had the potential to conquer the world or destroy it? "
Today, there is indeed something similar. There is a now loose, but ever tightening, confederation of anti American / anti Western lands and groups, who have not only the desire but the twisted will, to do this. Meanwhile, idiots stupidly lash out at the US, calling us a "lone superpower" or "hegemon." In fact, we are only a fading great power, who is not preparing for the inevitable next great war. Do the words "Lost Generation" ring a bell? Who, if anyone, will be our Churchill?
sorry for the confusion
the discussion about the Patton Plan was an offshoot of an Eichmann thread
in post # 3, Spanalot wrote We should have let Patton take the last two nukes into Moscow and Stalingrad
in post # 7, I asked for clarification
and was answered in # 10 by MeanWestTexan
"what was the Patton plan?"
To take the SS (largely intact and willing) and attack Russia.
A moral compromise I am happy we did not make, regardless of how foul Russia was. It would have bitten us somehow, somewhen.
And again, answered by Spanalot in # 18
Patton said (of the bomb) "give me two of them things and we'll take care of the communists now - because we'll only have to do it after they have these things too."
No wonder he was the most feared by the Nazis ( and commies).
Then, we get a discussion of the reasonableness of this plan in #29 by RedStateRocker
As long as one was SURE you wouldn't have to contend with nearly one hundred Russian divisions and those winters.
What makes anyone think the Russians wouldn't have done the same thing, trade space for time, let winter do the dirty work and strike once our lines of supply were hundreds of miles along. I mean I admire Patton as much as anyone on this board but I bet Ike knew a damn sight more than most of us and looking at the logistics said 'no'.
It would make an interesting scenario to game out; have to see if I still have Squad Leader around.
But there were a HELL of a lot of well armed, battle trained Red army and highly paranoid (with good reason having just lost 20 million or so to Germany) leadership, in the scale of things two 20 kiloton nukes might not have been as overwhelming as they were against tiny Japan.
And, answered in # 40 by MeanWestTexan
Nuke their cities and factories and don't advance forward against the russians --- use the winters against them.
Bomb the troops conventionally and use our superior air power to keep them from advancing further.
The russians divisions would have been fairly -- fairly --- easily prevented from forward motion, and eventually starved out as supplies stopped.
/////end of thread
Talk of the US conquering the earth never rises above late-nite drunken dorm room bull sessions.
Not unrealistic at all. It is unrealistic to deny it.
We could have easily conquered the world.
"A net drain on the economy?" Are you kidding? What ended the Depression? Nuke production not mass? So what it easily could have been.
The only thing you state that is true is that Americans were tired of war. Everything else is the product of your own drunken bull sessions - which is where you seemed to have learned your history.