Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

History Lesson For Anti-Americans
The (Philadelphia) Evening Bulletin ^ | 06/09/2006 | Michael P. Tremoglie

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/


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: New York; US: Pennsylvania; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; gwot; iraq; liberalism; liberals; nuclear; war; waronterror

1 posted on 06/09/2006 11:31:24 AM PDT by Miami Vice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice

Julianne Malveaux is a socialist - who likes to get paid.

The guy whow wrote this piece is a good troop. God bless him.


2 posted on 06/09/2006 11:36:57 AM PDT by RexBeach ("There is no substitute for victory." -Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice

Preaching to the choir.


3 posted on 06/09/2006 11:36:59 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

whow=who.


4 posted on 06/09/2006 11:37:22 AM PDT by RexBeach ("There is no substitute for victory." -Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn

No - just informing people of facts that many probably don't know. At least I didn't anyway.


5 posted on 06/09/2006 11:39:15 AM PDT by Miami Vice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

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.

Have you?


6 posted on 06/09/2006 11:40:16 AM PDT by Miami Vice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice

bttt


7 posted on 06/09/2006 11:44:17 AM PDT by Talking_Mouse (Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just... Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice

Great piece! We need more of these to get out around the internet.


8 posted on 06/09/2006 11:44:26 AM PDT by Integrityrocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice
Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.

I'll be forwarding it to my email address book.

I had not heard of the Baruch plan.

9 posted on 06/09/2006 11:45:04 AM PDT by FReepaholic ("I just freaked out and shot him -- boom, boom, boom, boom.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice
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?

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.

10 posted on 06/09/2006 11:47:22 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice

"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????

easily???

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


11 posted on 06/09/2006 11:54:37 AM PDT by kralcmot (my tagline died with Terri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice

Julianne Malveaux is nasty black racist. She told a television audience, "I hope [Thomas’s] wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter, and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease. . . .He’s an absolutely reprehensible person." Imagine the public outcry we would have heard if white speakers had uttered such mean-spirited nonsense.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1779


12 posted on 06/09/2006 11:56:37 AM PDT by Buffettfan (VIVA LA MIGRA! - LONG LIVE THE MINUTEMEN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffettfan

Yeah Malveaux is a whacky commie.

Therefore it is no surprise she is the darling to the mainstream media!!!

USA Today columnist indeed!


13 posted on 06/09/2006 12:00:44 PM PDT by Miami Vice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kralcmot

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.


14 posted on 06/09/2006 12:06:25 PM PDT by wvobiwan (If you're not part of the solution, you're obviously a liberal Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice
After the second war, the US packed up and wen home...THEN we sent aid and money to our defeated enemies and ruined allies.

The Soviets did NOT. They negotiated the peace from the ground they stood on at the end of hostilities and the issue of a Soviet return to prewar frontiers was NOT negotiable.

It just fries my butt that this practical and emotional fact of post-war life is and has always been overlooked. Millions upon millions of E. European people got and stayed behind the eight ball for 70 years while the rest of the world (with the corroboration liberal media) continued to see and portray Communism as a legitimate and viable alternative for them. Disgusting! The media dealt with Communism as if it were legitimate and had a moral equivalence to the free world. No professor I ever had credited the US with its magnanimous behavior for first of all fighting and winning against Hitler, then for subsequent US largess toward allies and the defeated after the dust settled.
15 posted on 06/09/2006 12:06:39 PM PDT by SMARTY ("Stay together, pay the soldiers and forget everything else." Lucius Septimus Severus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMARTY

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.


16 posted on 06/09/2006 12:10:17 PM PDT by wvobiwan (If you're not part of the solution, you're obviously a liberal Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wvobiwan

article very well written. we do not use our power for conquest and subjugation..


17 posted on 06/09/2006 12:14:30 PM PDT by siddude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: siddude

Please, please, please, all of you email publisher@theevningbulletin.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


18 posted on 06/09/2006 12:20:43 PM PDT by Miami Vice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice

THANKS for posting it, I know some lefties i'm going to give a copy to.


19 posted on 06/09/2006 12:20:48 PM PDT by 1FASTGLOCK45 (FreeRepublic: More fun than watching Dem'Rats drown like Turkeys in the rain! ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kralcmot

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.


20 posted on 06/09/2006 12:30:03 PM PDT by Hardastarboard (Why isn't there an "NRA" for the rest of my rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Miami Vice
Yet, some people, like USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux, say America is a terrorist nation.

Julianne Malveaux, and others like her, are easily 'terrorized'.

21 posted on 06/09/2006 12:32:54 PM PDT by Tallguy (When it's a bet between reality and delusion, bet on reality -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
I love this country so much. Ten years ago some liberal scum asked me why i joined the ARMY in 1983 considering what the US did to the Indian people, especially the US army. My reply was nobody in my unit harmed me. i don't do victim politics. This country has done some terrible things, no question about that, but overall this is a kind and benevolent country and i thank God he saw fit to give me the greatest gift. that gift is the honor and privilege to be born in the greatest country in the world. I have some reservations about the War in Iraq. Being at war sucks, but I will never believe we are there to steal oil or to conquer it's people. I believe in the debate but once this country is at war it is time to put those differences aside and win it. Even if, God forbid, Hillary was pres i would feel the same way. When people say we are a terrorist nation, I want them to say it more so people can see who they are and who controls the Dem party. I am still working on my mother. She holds none of the beliefs of the new Dem party but cant pry herself away from them. I am making some inroads but still have a long way to go
22 posted on 06/09/2006 12:54:51 PM PDT by sachem longrifle (proud member of the fond Du lac band of the Chippewa people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sachem longrifle

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?


23 posted on 06/09/2006 1:16:56 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sachem longrifle

good answer


24 posted on 06/09/2006 2:02:20 PM PDT by Rakkasan1 (Illegal immigrants are just undocumented friends you haven't met yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

Oops…sorry for the confusion…

the discussion about the “Patton Plan” was an offshoot of an Eichmann thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644534/posts


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





25 posted on 06/09/2006 4:33:51 PM PDT by kralcmot (my tagline died with Terri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kralcmot
Terribly hubristic to imagine we are or were capable of taking over the world. People were tired of the war, war was a net drain on the economy, and our nuke production hadn't even entered mass production yet. Our wartime propagandists had also been pushing the USSR as our brother in democracy, and there were even still a few Nazi partisans running around after the surrender that needed killing.

Talk of the US conquering the earth never rises above late-nite drunken dorm room bull sessions.

26 posted on 06/10/2006 12:47:32 PM PDT by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox

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.


27 posted on 06/12/2006 5:18:59 AM PDT by Miami Vice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson