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.
http://www.theeveningbulletin.com/s...6766004&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=574088&rfi=6
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.
http://www.theeveningbulletin.com/s...6766004&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=574088&rfi=6
