History Lesson For Anti-Americans

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?

What about Baathist Iraq? Would there have been a Saddam Hussein Disarmament Plan presented to the U.N.?

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.

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."

Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of a Sense of Duty http://www.geocities.com/ddc4010/

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.