History Lesson For Anti-Americans


I think not
Avatar
#1
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.

--
 
the caracal kid
Avatar
#2
There seems to be a mixing of nations and individuals in this post. A good american does not make america good, a bad american does not make america bad.

This article is suggesting an entity is "all good or all bad", which is simply not the case.
 
EastSideScotian
Avatar
#3
Well, Maybe you should of taken the world over, that way you wouldnt be getting **** on all the time for Policeing it....:P

The Article does point out a very true fact, that the States could f verywell taken over the world. But the American People arent a world conquering kinda people, they fought the Nazis they didnt join them. Lets not forget that fact.
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#4
Thanks ITN, this is exactly the point I have tried to make with people before..........instinctively, the United States is more isolationist than imperialist.....
 
aeon
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by EastSideScotian

Well, Maybe you should of taken the world over, that way you wouldnt be getting **** on all the time for Policeing it....:P

The Article does point out a very true fact, that the States could f verywell taken over the world. But the American People arent a world conquering kinda people, they fought the Nazis they didnt join them. Lets not forget that fact.



Yeah real americans fought the nazi,that is a fact, and americans traitor supported the nazi during ww2, let's also not forget that.

Presscott bush was one of them.
 
I think not
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by aeon

Yeah real americans fought the nazi,that is a fact, and americans traitor supported the nazi during ww2, let's also not forget that.

Presscott bush was one of them.

--

Quote:

Rumors about the alleged Nazi "ties" of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated.

Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.

Quote:

The New York Herald-Tribune referred to the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, as "Hitler's Angel" and mentioned Bush only as an employee of the investment banking firm Thyssen used in the USA. The label was ironic, since by the time the Tribune article appeared, Hitler had turned on Thyssen and imprisoned him. Reportedly, however, there has been a determined effort by Canadian bloggers, apparently connected with Lyndon LaRouche, to circulate reports that Bush himself was known as "Hitler's Angel".

--
 
jimmoyer
Avatar
#7
I'd like to remind everyone in this thread that one of
us should pay attention to those Canadians who
take umbrage at the word 'AMERICAN'.

Canadians are Americans too.

This is a message from your local neighborhood NAFTA SPONSOR.

We now return you back to your regularly scheduled
program, brought to you by ITN, who is another regular
contributor to sanity, balanced fairness.
 
Karlin
Avatar
#8
Geographically, America includes Canada, as part of Columbic land discovered in 1492 for the second or third time.

Its silly to say Canada IS America, jimmoyer

We know NAFTA binds us together legally, sure, but there is clear distinctions of soveriegnty in NAFTA.

History? Natives included? Naw.... just what suits your skewed desires for America to be thw global saviour.

Its been said that the world hates America, but it is really the American GOVERNMENT, and its foreign policies that are hated.

American PEOPLE and the American Government are not the same thing, and we could blame bvoters for this but that would not be fair. America's government has been hijacked by the global wealthy elites and turned it into something that the American people would not approve of if they could see it clearly, but all they get is their corporate controlled media.

YOU should check out the history of America more too.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Canadians are Americans too.

Aw knock if off jim. In common usage, that's simply not true. Identify yourself almost anywhere in the world as an American and you'll be taken to mean you're a citizen of the United States of America.
 
Toro
#10
Well done as usual ITN
 
jimmoyer
Avatar
#11
LOL, Dexter Sinister.

I forgot to put a few smileys in that post.

I didn't expect you to emerge from the deeper waters
to bite that worm of a post.

Man, Dexter, I thought that was what I was saying
about common usage the last time that thread on
the subject came up.

Anyway, may I reserve the right to cast that worm
again in case anybody does still believe otherwise?

 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
Avatar
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

I thought that was what I was saying
about common usage the last time that thread on
the subject came up.

So did I, so I was a bit surprised to see it here without smileys. You always seemed such a sensible guy...

Quote:

Anyway, may I reserve the right to cast that worm
again in case anybody does still believe otherwise?

Well of course, cast whatever worms seem appropriate or necessary to you, but don't be surprised at what strikes at the hook.
 
dekhqonbacha
Avatar
#13
Don't forget that the Nations like Soviet Union, Britain, France, China were destoyed by fighting Nazis.

What did US do at that time?

It kept itself aside. It let its allies like France and Britian, not talking about Soviet Union, to be destroyed.

The Soviets were hated at that time, it's true. But from two bads, the Nazis were worse. And US didn't have much in common with Soviets, but thanks to Soviets Nazies were destroyed.

It's true US was not hurt in WWII and it's thanks to Europeen.

But US itself could never conquer the whole world. It was impossible .

First of all, even though Europe was destoryed, but it was not dead. In case of threat from US, which would never happen, France, GB, Italy, Germany and other nations would unite to defeat US.

Secondly, even though Soviet Union was hurt, but its military arsenal was growing by the end of the war. Don't forget that only Europeen side of USSR was destoryed by Nazis. Before the Nazies reached most of Europeen part of USSR, Stalin had moved most of its factories to the Est. By the end of the war they were producing at full potential. USSR had also recieved a large numbers of military equipment from US as well.

And, by the end of the war Red Army under the commander Zhukov had occupied the whole Europe Est, they capitulated Berlin. Zhukov wanted to destroy capitalism at whole by continuing West. He had potential to do so. But Stalin refused.

Nowadays, the concern with US is that, US is conquering some of sovering countries.
Talking about the past is not appropriate. Today, after about half century of peace time, US started another fragile moment in the world. US is showing that it's possible to conquer the world if you have power. Soon China, India and some other nations will do so claiming that it's possible to use force if one has it.

That's one of the problems.
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by dekhqonbacha

Don't forget that the Nations like Soviet Union, Britain, France, China were destoyed by fighting Nazis.

What did US do at that time?

It kept itself aside. It let its allies like France and Britian, not talking about Soviet Union, to be destroyed.

The Soviets were hated at that time, it's true. But from two bads, the Nazis were worse. And US didn't have much in common with Soviets, but thanks to Soviets Nazies were destroyed.

It's true US was not hurt in WWII and it's thanks to Europeen.

But US itself could never conquer the whole world. It was impossible .

First of all, even though Europe was destoryed, but it was not dead. In case of threat from US, which would never happen, France, GB, Italy, Germany and other nations would unite to defeat US.

Secondly, even though Soviet Union was hurt, but its military arsenal was growing by the end of the war. Don't forget that only Europeen side of USSR was destoryed by Nazis. Before the Nazies reached most of Europeen part of USSR, Stalin had moved most of its factories to the Est. By the end of the war they were producing at full potential. USSR had also recieved a large numbers of military equipment from US as well.

And, by the end of the war Red Army under the commander Zhukov had occupied the whole Europe Est, they capitulated Berlin. Zhukov wanted to destroy capitalism at whole by continuing West. He had potential to do so. But Stalin refused.

Nowadays, the concern with US is that, US is conquering some of sovering countries.
Talking about the past is not appropriate. Today, after about half century of peace time, US started another fragile moment in the world. US is showing that it's possible to conquer the world if you have power. Soon China, India and some other nations will do so claiming that it's possible to use force if one has it.

That's one of the problems.

Wow.

It is hard to know where to start, your post is so full of misconceptions.............

Perhaps you would explain to me how the United States "let" Britain, France, the USSR and China be destroyed by the Nazis............no Germans fought in China, just to start with.

The US came into the war right after Pearl Harbour on Dec.7, 1941. They had already been deeply involved with the British, providing weapons through the lend-lease program, and were actively, although unofficially, involved in anti-submarine warfare in the Atlantic. The United states suffered 294,000 battle deaths and 114,000 deaths otherwise connected to the war effort. The United States provided vast amounts of military equipment, provided the planes and munitions necessary to destroy Germany?Japan, and after 1942 fought the war in the Pacific almost single-handedly.

Then they single-handedly rebuilt Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan............

Stalin was a MUCH worse man than Hitler. Stalin purposely starved to death 10 million Ukrainians because he found them hard to get along with..........that is besides the other 10 million of his own people he murdered in various little political pogroms.......it is hard to even imagine living in stalinist Russia, where you could be (and people often were) shot for being late for work. On the murder scale, Hitler ranks only third, after Mao Tse-Tung and Joe Stalin.

Zhukov was a military genius, as was Patton, and they both were chomping at the bit to have a go at each other.......but you forget, within three months the USA had nukes.........bye-bye Russian army.

Even with conventional weapons, American production so far outstripped anyone else.....the USSR would have been finished. Remember, Russians were getting US weapons, not the other way around.

Oh yeah. And those American nukes not only saved at least a million Allied lives in Japan, the won the war in the East. They also provided a window in time in which the united States could have dominated the world.

But the Americans chose not to, opted instead for peace and reconstruction.

Which was the point of ITN's original post.
 
dekhqonbacha
#15
If Stalin were worse than Hitler, why US helped Soviets with military equipment?
 
dekhqonbacha
Avatar
#16
I agree with reconstruction of Europe by US. Why did they do that?

If they didn't do that, weakened Europe might have got influenced by communism. Or another fascist regime might have got installed.

Ain't I right?

How did Mussoliny, Hitler come to power. Because those states were unstable. Europe and US was suffering from Great Derpression. In prewar election in Germany, National Socialist German Workers Party and Communist Party were the favorites not the traditional parties because the letter couldn't help their nations to take out from Great Depression.

Once Hitler got the power, he destroyed communist. What I mean is that, if US didn't help to rebuild Europe, the poor people, worker would withdraw the governement and form Communism.

That's what US was frightening. US didn't want communism to spread all across Europe.

What I meant by US staying aside and watching is that they didn't open Western Front as on promised day. Western allies didn't suffer much from it though, Soviets were suffering from this.

Quote:

The United states suffered 294,000 battle deaths and 114,000 deaths otherwise connected to the war effort.

Soviets lost more than 20 mln people.

If Pearl Harbor didn't take place US wouldn't enter the war. Remember at that time Japanese in US were negotiating.

So, US's interst in Pascific was thretened by Japanese that's why they entered the war.
 
dekhqonbacha
Avatar
#17
Remainder:
Soveit Union didn't suffer from Great Depression.

At least as Western nations and US.
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by dekhqonbacha

If Stalin were worse than Hitler, why US helped Soviets with military equipment?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" or, as Churchill put it after being criticized in the House for praising Stalin, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I'd find a few good words to say about the Devil"

Stalin was worse, inside his own borders, he was NOT fanatically imperialist like Hitler.
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by dekhqonbacha

I agree with reconstruction of Europe by US. Why did they do that?

If they didn't do that, weakened Europe might have got influenced by communism. Or another fascist regime might have got installed.

Ain't I right?

How did Mussoliny, Hitler come to power. Because those states were unstable. Europe and US was suffering from Great Derpression. In prewar election in Germany, National Socialist German Workers Party and Communist Party were the favorites not the traditional parties because the letter couldn't help their nations to take out from Great Depression.

Once Hitler got the power, he destroyed communist. What I mean is that, if US didn't help to rebuild Europe, the poor people, worker would withdraw the governement and form Communism.

That's what US was frightening. US didn't want communism to spread all across Europe.

What I meant by US staying aside and watching is that they didn't open Western Front as on promised day. Western allies didn't suffer much from it though, Soviets were suffering from this.

Quote:

The United states suffered 294,000 battle deaths and 114,000 deaths otherwise connected to the war effort.

Soviets lost more than 20 mln people.

If Pearl Harbor didn't take place US wouldn't enter the war. Remember at that time Japanese in US were negotiating.

So, US's interst in Pascific was thretened by Japanese that's why they entered the war.

You are quite correct that the USA rebuilt Europe to save it from communism........and should be congratulated for that.

They rebuilt Japan as well, and communism was not a threat there.

The Soviets did lose 20 million, at least. They also turned the tide of German aggression at Stalingrad. How does that lessen the American contribution?

When exactly did the Americans plan or promise a second front before 1944?

And you are wrong about American entry into the war.....it was inevitable, Pearl Harbour was just the deciding factor. American ships were already engaging German submarines in the Atlantic before Dec. 7.
 
dekhqonbacha
Avatar
#20
Yes, Stalin wasn't worse only in USSR. It could threaten the world if he had enough power to do so.

Soviets were suffering from the loss of WWI, and they were fighting the remaining tsarist army who was supported by the Western Countries.

Stalin wanted to rebuild the Russian Empire, which would include Balcans, Bosphorus, Dardanelles and be dominent in Black Sea. Take revenche of Japan for Russo-Japan war of 1904-1905. But he didn't have enough power to do so.

For Stalin WWII was good. He took revenche of Japan, took back Kurillies. He took back Balcans and the whole Europe Est.

If WWII didn't take place, Stalin still would claim of all the lost territory of Russian Empire.

Why US helped Stalin is that, from two bads Stalin was better.
 
dekhqonbacha
#21
Quote:

The Tehran Conference (codename SEXTANT) was the meeting of Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill between November 28 and December 1, 1943 that took place in Tehran, Iran.

Major conclusions:
...

Britain and USA had promised Stalin that they would send troops over to Western Europe, it was agreed that they would arrive in Spring of 1944.
...

When did they open it?

At least not in Spring of 1944.
 
dekhqonbacha
Avatar
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

...
And you are wrong about American entry into the war.....it was inevitable, Pearl Harbour was just the deciding factor. American ships were already engaging German submarines in the Atlantic before Dec. 7.

You are right about it. The entry for US to war was inevitable. And during the Second Battle of the Atlantic even Americans ships were sunk. But US wouldn't, perphaps, the war as they did as the result of Pearl Harbor.

And US ships, that were moving toward GB, were also protected by military ships.
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by dekhqonbacha

Quote:

The Tehran Conference (codename SEXTANT) was the meeting of Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill between November 28 and December 1, 1943 that took place in Tehran, Iran.

Major conclusions:
...

Britain and USA had promised Stalin that they would send troops over to Western Europe, it was agreed that they would arrive in Spring of 1944.
...

When did they open it?

At least not in Spring of 1944.

HUH?!
You'd best re-read that page of your history textbook.

June 6, 1944 , D-Day at Normandy, was the invasion of Fortress Europe by British, Canadian ad US forces under the command of US General Dwight D. Eisenhower. By June 11, 1944 there were 326,000 Allied troops ashore, most of them Americans..

I'd say they kept their promise.
 
fuzzylogix
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Canadians are Americans too.

Aw knock if off jim. In common usage, that's simply not true. Identify yourself almost anywhere in the world as an American and you'll be taken to mean you're a citizen of the United States of America.

Even more than Canadians, the Mexicans, Latin Americans and South Americans will tell you that they are AMERICAN. In the common usage of the self centered US of A, America means the US of A, but in the rest of the world, many countries are insulted by this attitude as in THEIR common usage they are American.
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#25
I've never heard of that. Hmmmm.
 
fuzzylogix
#26
Visit these countries. It's one of the first things you'll be told.
 
dekhqonbacha
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

...
You'd best re-read that page of your history textbook.

...

I'd say they kept their promise.

--
 
Said1
Free Thinker
Avatar
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by fuzzylogix

Visit these countries. It's one of the first things you'll be told.

I was in Costa Rica, didn't hear that - in fact, they seemed more concerned about what Americans were up to, fashion wise, stuff like that - not all, but many of the young were. Not that i'm saying your full of crap, or anything.

But that was a loooooooong time ago, before I cared about culture and stuff.
 
Colpy
Conservative
Avatar
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by dekhqonbacha

Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

...
You'd best re-read that page of your history textbook.

...

I'd say they kept their promise.

--

Am I missing something here?

You said the Americans broke their promse to send troops to western Europe in the spring of 1944.

I pointed out that D Day was June 6, 1944. You posted a link about the Tehran Conference.

What's your point?
 
Daz_Hockey
Avatar
#30
Classic post from a citizen of the united states of America, while trying to point out how great and good the US of A is, they manage to offend pretty much everyone around them.

It does make you wonder what the world would be like if there were no world war one, it's quite possible that the world would be a very different place, Britain would side with it's traditional allies (the germans), keep the cordial etate or whatever, I think it would be safe to save if europehadnt spent the first half of the 20th century in-wardly fighting, a European Union could very well have been established wich would easily be more powerful than the US, as opposed to slowly becoming more powerful (like they are now)

But "What if's", what if, the two most painful of human words. I dont want to have this arguement again about Co-operation or Colonialisation/Imperialism....fact is, where do you draw the line, sure, you withdraw yourself from Japan, Afghanistan, South Korea (all though they all retain a pro-US representation)...how about the Shah of Iran, that foreign meddling didnt help, but no, I digress, simply put, ok, over the world the US goes home, but being that there's a bunch of people who've lived in "America" for thousands of years and do not see most "americans" as owning the land they stand on, well then saying the US isnt a colonial power is a bit of a grey area....I dont want any arguements on the subject, but at least they have their own provence in Canada (however remote).

And the Manpower the US has are usually just immigrants from all over the world too, sheer numbers will tell you that when millions from all over the world converge on one continent, you get a few people, thus a lot of manpower.

I would just like to say I am not actually anti-US, I just feel that sometimes...well it's complicated
 

Similar Threads

0
History lesson
by selin | Mar 3rd, 2010
2
A history lesson for Rush Limbaugh
by Tyr | Feb 1st, 2009
9
Freaky history lesson
by I think not | Apr 27th, 2006
no new posts