North Korea’s Understandable Fears

By escalating threatening rhetoric — and staging provocative military maneuvers — President Trump may believe he can intimidate North Korea into capitulation but history would tell you something else, writes David William Pear.

By David William Pear

Like Pavlov’s dog, the mainstream media slobbers predicable reactions every time North Korea launches another test missile. Listening to the blather one would think that once Kim Jong Un has a missile capable of reaching the U.S., he is going to use it in an unprovoked nuclear attack on the U.S. mainland killing millions of Americans.

North Korean missile launch on March 6, 2017.

However, for Kim to attack the U.S., he would have to be insane, paranoid, and suicidal. Top officials in the U.S. intelligence agencies say he is not. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has said publicly that Kim is acting very rationally; Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says that Kim is “not insane “; the CIA deputy director of the Korea Mission Center, Yong Suk Lee, says that Kim is not suicidal, either.

So we can rest fairly assured that Kim Jong Un is highly unlikely to wake up one morning and nuke America because he can. According to Yong, Kim “wants to rule for a long time and die peacefully in his own bed.”[CNN, October 6, 2017]. Everyone in the mainstream media knows this or should.

And, North Korea has long had more reasons to fear the U.S. than vice versa. North Korea is not an existential threat to the U.S. national security; but the opposite is not the case – and the U.S. government is not shy about reminding North Korea of that fact. The U.S. regularly practices nuclear attacks on North Korea by air, land and sea, which draw the predictable response from Kim.

Yet, North Korea has offered to stop testing nuclear bombs, if the U.S. would stop playing nuclear war games on its border [The Guardian]. The reality is that the U.S. has been threatening North Korea for over 70 years.

While the U.S. mainstream media excites the U.S. public with warnings about “crazy” Kim Jong Un, what should frighten the American people is the long history of U.S. crazies who seriously contemplated and/or implicitly threatened to start a nuclear war with a variety of countries. President Trump is not the first president who cannot be trusted with the nuclear button. It is only by sheer luck that the world has escaped a nuclear war or a cataclysmic nuclear accident. There have been many close calls, and one day there may be one too many.

The U.S. keeps gambling with nuclear roulette, threatening North Korea, Iran, Russia, and the enemy du jour. One of the favorite U.S. verbal threats is to say that “all options are on the table,” which adversaries understand to include the nuclear option. The U.S. has even used nuclear bombs twice against civilian populations in 1945, and according to many historians unnecessarily, because Japan had already offered to surrender. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese died mostly so that President Harry Truman could impress Soviet leader Josef Stalin with a terrifying show of U.S. military might.

During the Korean War (1950 to 1953). President Truman publicly threatened to use the atomic bomb, and the military planned, practiced and shipped nuclear bombs to Asia to be dropped on North Korea. General Douglas MacArthur wanted to use 26 nuclear bombs and start a war with China, too [History News Network].

Truman gave General Matthew Ridgeway pre-authorization to use nuclear bombs, even after MacArthur was relieved of his command. Instead, the U.S. chose to destroy North Korea with conventional bombs and napalm, killing an estimated 20 percent to 30 percent of the population.

The Korean War is called the “Forgotten War” for a number of reasons, including that the U.S. military suffered what amounted to a humiliating defeat with some 37,000 American soldiers killed while they were being used essentially as negotiating chips. They “died for a tie,” where to draw the Military Demarcation Line between the North and South; and South Korea, too, was largely “destroyed to save it” from communism.

The South Koreans deserve a lot of credit for rebuilding a modern highly advanced society in all categories such as education, healthcare, technology, and their standard of living. But contrary to propaganda mythology, they did not develop under capitalist free-trade and democracy. The South Korean “miracle on the Han River” was achieved under a U.S.-backed military dictatorship, a highly planned economy, and billions of dollars from U.S. aid, loans and direct investment. [“Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism“, by Ha-Joon Chang].

Very Good Reasons

So, Kim Jong Un has very good reasons to fear U.S. threats. He knows that the U.S. is ruthless enough to kill millions of his people and destroy his country (along with gruesomely dispatching its leaders), much like the U.S. did in Iraq and Libya.

A Korean girl carries her brother on her back, trudging past a stalled M-26 tank, at Haengju, Korea., June 9, 1951. (U.S. military photo)

Sen. John McCain’s daughter Meghan McCain said on Fox News that the U.S. should assassinate the “Crazy Fat Kid“. Words like that along with Trump’s insults (“Little Rocket Man”), threats and nuclear war games are sure to draw bombastic verbal reactions by Kim Jong Un and cause him to redouble his nuclear and missile programs. [The Nation].

While the U.S. constantly talks about a denuclearized Korean peninsula, it is the U.S. that first nuclearized it, starting with President Harry Truman’s threats in 1951. Then in July 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower unilaterally withdrew from section 13(d) of the 1953 Armistice Agreement, which made the introduction of any new weapon systems in the Korean peninsula forbidden to both sides. The U.S. broke the promise so that it could “equip U.S. forces in Korea with modern weapons;” dual capability (nuclear-conventional) weapons, such as the Honest John and the 280 mm. cannon, i.e. tactical nuclear weapons [National Security Council Report].

All during the rest of the Cold War the U.S. stationed at least 950 nuclear weapons in South Korea. The U.S. may have withdrawn its nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991 as it says, but it still has plenty in Guam and elsewhere that it uses to constantly threaten North Korea with a nuclear attack.

While the U.S. mainstream media ponders how to get North Korea to sit down at the negotiating table, it is the U.S. that refuses to talk. North Korea has often offered to sign a permanent peace treaty and non-aggression agreement, but the U.S. has consistently rebuffed the offers. The State Department has repeatedly said in news conferences that it will not negotiate with North Korea unless North Korean officials meet unspecified preconditions first [U.S. Department of State]. What is puzzling is what the preconditions are, and how to get the U.S. to sit down at the table. Yet, the U.S. and its media constantly say it is North Korea that refuses to talk.

Understandable Paranoia

Unless there is a diplomatic solution, Kim Jong Un is rationally following in his father’s footsteps by developing a credible nuclear deterrent against threatened U.S. aggression.

President George W. Bush in a flight suit after landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln to give his “Mission Accomplished” speech about the Iraq War on May 1, 2003.

In 2000, George W. Bush scoffed at President Clinton’s nuclear agreement with North Korea, and then, as President in 2002, Bush intensified threats with his “Axis of Evil” speech, which put North Korea on an enemies list with Iraq and Iran. Bush followed that speech by invading Iraq in 2003 with “Shock and Awe,” leaving the cradle of human civilization in ruins and later hanging Saddam Hussein.

Bush did not plan to stop with Iraq. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark says he was told at the Pentagon that Bush planned to invade seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran [YouTube].

It is the U.S. that has been paranoid, unpredictable and insane during the Twenty-first Century. And the problem did not start with Trump. After the initial U.S. invasion of Iraq, a smug-looking Bush got out of the passenger seat of a fighter jet that the pilot had landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln. He strutted over to the microphone in his flight suit and gave a premature “Mission Accomplished” speech.

Lisa Schiffren gushed in the Wall Street Journal that Bush’s performance made him look hot and sexy in his flight suit, adding with admiration that Bush is “credible as a Commander in Chief.” The mainstream media has been the cheerleader for all of the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton and Kerry wars. The media is now inciting the U.S. public with propaganda for war with North Korea, Iran and Russia.

What can be said of Trump is that he seems to take pride in acting even crazier than his predecessors. So, Kim Jong Un is not paranoid to be fearful of what the U.S. might do and he has been acting predictably. The U.S. has left him little choice other than to defend his country with the deterrent of nuclear weapons.

As part of the “Axis of Evil” strategy, President George W. Bush sabotaged the negotiated nuclear agreement that the U.S. and North Korea had made under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s. That is what precipitated North Korea withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and resuming its nuclear program.

Lessons Learned

Other countries tried submissive tactics to mollify Washington. For instance, in 2003, Bush persuaded Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi to abandon his nuclear program. At the time, Bush encouraged North Korea to follow suit. saying “we want to have lessons learned, because we want Libya to be a model for other countries” to unilaterally disarm.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a press conference on Sept. 9, 2012. (State Department photo)

So, North Korea was paying close attention in 2011 when President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed a military campaign that exploited Libya’s defenselessness, destroyed the country. and led to Gaddafi’s torture-murder. In a TV interview, Clinton gloated “we came, we saw, he died!, hahaha!”

The lesson of Libya, according to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, is that “unfortunately, if you have nukes, never give them up — if you don’t have them, get them.”

Based on that history, the North Koreans are not going to trust a U.S. agreement again. They will trust in themselves, as they did when Kim’s grandfather Kim Il-sung led the guerrilla warfare against the Japanese. Korea’s historical philosophy is based on the principle of self-sufficiency and resistance against foreign domination, especially in the North.

The North Koreans now call their historical philosophy “Juche.” North Korea is determined to follow the principle of Juche to the “realization of independence in politics, self-sufficiency in the economy and self-reliance in national defence.” [official DPRK Juche link].

Now, President Trump has slammed the door shut on negotiations with Kim Jong Un by threatening to totally destroy North Korea with “fire and fury” and insulting him as the “Little Rocket Man.”

Kim takes it seriously when the U.S. repeatedly threatens to destroy his country. Trump’s insults also caused Kim to “lose face (kibun),” a very serious affront in Korean culture. The natural reaction for a Korean who has been disrespected is to become infuriated. It is predictable, and the U.S. knows it.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley’s latest outburst that if war comes, the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed” is a further provocation, which the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called a really bloodthirsty tirade.”

But Lavrov added that “Moscow has been closely working with the U.S. on the North Korean issue, with several meetings being held between the countries’ diplomats in the Russian capital, and other venues.”

Vast Bloodshed

In the late Twentieth and early Twentieth-first centuries, U.S. wars and embargoes have killed millions of people around the planet, according to some estimates. Besides deploying devastating high-tech military weapons, the U.S. has interdicted food and medical supplies as part of total-war concepts.

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright speaking at an Atlantic Council event.

As President Bill Clinton’s U.N. Ambassador (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright once said, 500,000 dead children in Iraq – victims of U.S. sanctions – were “worth it” to punish the Iraqi government’s behavior. That is what the U.S. sanctions are now doing to North Korea. But as Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “North Korea will ‘eat grass’ before giving up nukes.”

The Koreans know the history of U.S. war-making well. The U.S. first contact with Korea in the Nineteenth Century involved a U.S. military expedition in support of a U.S. trade mission that challenged Korea’s isolation, self-sufficiency and refusal to trade. The appearance of U.S. warships sparked a conflict that led to the Americans killing some 243 Koreans at the cost of three American lives. When Japan colonized and annexed Korea in 1910, the Western colonial powers including the U.S. cheered approval.

All Korea has ever wanted was to be left alone. During its 4.000-year history, Korea has not been an aggressive expansionist country. To the contrary, Korea has been invaded by China, Mongolia, Japan, Russia and the U.S. Historically, Korea has resisted contact with foreigners because foreigners had always brought invasions.

Like his Korean ancestors, Kim Jong Un wants North Korea to be left alone for the Korean people to determine their own future.

David William Pear is a Senior Editor for and a Senior Contributing Editor for The Greanville Post. He is a Vietnam veteran having served as a member of the 5th Special Forces Group as a combat advisor to the Army of the Republic of (South) Viet Nam. [First Published at]

38 comments for “North Korea’s Understandable Fears

  1. ranney
    December 13, 2017 at 16:19

    Wonderful article! I hope it gets shared with many people especially those in congress who represent us.

    I’m reminded of the simple Aesop fable “The Sun and the North wind”. The two are arguing who is stronger and agree that the test is who can more quickly force the coat off the man they see walking down the road. North wind goes first and blows and howls as forcefully as he can, but the more he blows his icy breath the more tightly the man hugs his coat to him. Then its the sun’s turn and gradually the sun beams his warmth and in a short while the man takes his coat off.
    It’s obvious that the US is the north wind. The more we blow and threaten the more tightly will N. Korea hold on to their nuclear deterant. Only an idiot could refuse to see that; too bad we elected the most demented idiot the world has ever known – along with a Senate and House full of greedy go-alongs to support his insanity.

    • David G
      December 14, 2017 at 16:45

      That’s a lovely and apt fable, ranney. Thanks for sharing it.

  2. Al Pinto
    December 13, 2017 at 07:59

    @mike k

    “Only deep love can save our world from the dark forces within us that would destroy us.”

    There are all kind of “deep love” in life, depending on whom you ask. The majority of people, including myself, agree with your statement of:

    “There is no justification for war – ever.”

    Unfortunately, majority of the people’s opinion do not govern politics.

    The politic is governed by the choose few, who are in “deep love” with power and money These are the people, “dark forces” who had and will destroy us in the near future. These are the people, who enslave people in their own country. These are the people, who convince the masses that you are protecting our freedom by destroying and/or occupying countries around world.

    That have not changed ever since human kind existed. The only change throughout history is the efficiency of killing people and destroying countries. It is not a question of if, rather, a question of when human kind destroyed efficiently….

  3. David G
    December 13, 2017 at 04:10

    Not off topic, but a bit out of the blue:

    I highly recommend to anyone who hasn’t read it: “General Dean’s story” (1954), the account by the most senior U.S. officer captured during the war of his years (almost the whole duration of the war) as a prisoner of the DPRK.

    It’s absorbing as a personal narrative, and illuminating of many larger issues.

  4. David G
    December 13, 2017 at 03:56

    “[S]ome 37,000 American soldiers … ‘died for a tie,’ where to draw the Military Demarcation Line between the North and South; and South Korea, too, was largely ‘destroyed to save it’ from communism.”

    One fine point: After the Incheon invasion, when the DPRK army had been beaten back to the 38th parallel, the U.S. could have stopped there, thereby:
    • saving the South both from communism (for whatever that was worth) and from almost three more years of war,
    • sparing the lives of most of those U.S. dead,
    • demonstrating “containment” against alleged Soviet communist expansionism in Asia (actually non-existent: this was Korean vs. Korean at bottom; Stalin was not enthused),
    • vindicating the principles of the U.N. in whose name it and its allies were fighting by showing that war was no longer a legal means of changing borders, for either side,
    • maintaining the post-WWII aura of U.S. invincibility,
    • (all this without even considering the destruction of the North that was to come).

    The relatively few U.S. soldiers who had perished in the first phase of the war could have “died for a tie” in September or October 1950 that would have had all these benefits.

    Instead, this was all thrown away just to finally reach an armistice on almost the same lines after nearly three more years of waste and horror, and with “the U.S. military [having] suffered what amounted to a humiliating defeat”.

    • irina
      December 13, 2017 at 12:33

      Growing up in the 1960’s, I learned very little about the ‘Forgotten War’ (although plenty, from an American perspective,
      about the World Wars). My father in law was in the air war over North Korea, after serving in the Pacific Theater in WW2.
      He occasionally spoke of his time in the Pacific Theater but never, ever of his time in Korea. It did not occur to my to
      wonder why, because the Korean War was not part of my mental map of history. This article helps explain his silence :

  5. David G
    December 13, 2017 at 03:09

    Yes and yes to this piece by David William Pear. Thanks.

  6. mike k
    December 12, 2017 at 21:39

    Although our troubled history has been characterized by wars, mutual repressions, and environmental destruction, scientists are warning us that our human history may soon come to an end, unless we can master these destructive and dysfunctional patterns. There is an underlying assumption in many minds that mankind will just continue on into the indefinite future.

    Some astronomers in considering what they have called “the great silence” referring to the absence of any radio signals from other planets in our galaxy, have concluded that intelligent species elsewhere who have cracked the atom and developed other extreme and potentially deadly powers, have all proceeded to misuse their powers and with them destroyed themselves. Most people alive today do not have a clear idea of how deadly to human life a nuclear war would be. And this is not the only extinction capable process currently accelerating wildly.

    • mike k
      December 12, 2017 at 21:41

      The truth is that unless a person has devoted considerable time to studying extinction issues, their ideas about this are no better than shallow daydreams. This is one of the reasons that we are unlikely to take the radical measures that might save us.

    • Annie
      December 12, 2017 at 22:32

      They may not be giving out signals because they don’t want to deal with a bunch of backward alpha chimps. Did you ever read about the bonobo chimps, and how they settle disputes?

      • Gregory Herr
        December 12, 2017 at 22:50

        Something along the lines of “make love, not war”? Reduces tension anyway.

  7. Lois Gagnon
    December 12, 2017 at 21:28

    Hey David William Pear. Nice to see your writing featured on CN. Well said as always.

  8. mike k
    December 12, 2017 at 20:25

    There is no justification for war – ever. Renouncing war is the key to peace on Earth.
    If you say it is impossible for people to live without weapons, fighting, and war – then you have sealed yourself and your world into a death spiral. The idea that war is human nature is just an excuse for not doing away with it. Overcoming the hatred that leads to war is our task as human beings – if we are to survive and thrive. Only deep love can save our world from the dark forces within us that would destroy us.

    • Annie
      December 12, 2017 at 21:09

      It would be wonderful if people could live in peace and the world were done with wars, but from a historical perspective war is ever present. I have no doubt that the world will continue in that direction. Wars are initiated by governments, not by the people, and most often they are the result of disputes over resources and land, or of a government’s desire to increase its influence and power. However history does tell us how willing most people have been to fight in wars, or at least support them. You can see it here right in the good old USA.

      • Tannenhouser
        December 12, 2017 at 21:29

        Bankers not governments Annie. Yes it would be wonderful.

        • Annie
          December 12, 2017 at 22:19

          Well not only bankers, but the military industrial complex, and of course if you want to fill their coffers you need an enemy, Russia, North Korea are just two, but at the top of the list. Well, right now.

          • Eddy
            December 14, 2017 at 03:31

            Annie, I think you are missing the most important people in this mix, that is the Generals who make their living from butchering people, the more they butcher the higher their reputation grows and when they retire, the higher salary they can claim when working for the military suppliers.
            I don’t believe there are any Officers within the U.S. military who do not have such aims for their retirement.
            Thus they don’t serve for their country, they serve for themselves and bugger the rest.

  9. Annie
    December 12, 2017 at 19:37

    I guess you could sum up this article with the quote, “We have met the enemy and the enemy is US.”

    • David G
      December 13, 2017 at 03:06

      I’ve always harbored the hope that Walt Kelly had the double-entendre in mind from the start.

  10. John
    December 12, 2017 at 19:16

    That the US is the world’s largest terrorist state is not seriously up for debate.

  11. mike k
    December 12, 2017 at 18:09

    There is not a single one of the wars and covert military “missions” that the US is engaging in that is defensive in character, or in response to a direct lethal threat to the citizens of the United States.

    In Eastern Kentucky where I live, many people hate and fear snakes. But the truth is that snakes are non-aggressive, and seek to avoid people. Only if they are stepped on will they strike. The only threat North Korea represents to the US is if we keep threatening it and poking at it, it might lash out from fear of being destroyed, as Trump has repeatedly said he would do. The US is in the war and weapons business big time, and enemy creation is part of it’s dangerous game.

    • Tannenhouser
      December 12, 2017 at 21:28

      Except of course that each one has been lethal to the citizens of the united states.

    • David G
      December 13, 2017 at 03:02

      Well said, mike k.

    • December 13, 2017 at 18:02

      China has recently stated it will defend Korea against a USA attack, but will not assist a Korea initiated attack. So the hideous plan would be for the USA would be to create an ambiguous situation which is not clear cut..

      Is it possibly Japan was ready to surrender before the Bombs?

  12. Tannenhouser
    December 12, 2017 at 17:41

    What agenda might that be? More than likely the author’s agenda just don’t jive with yours. The display of force idea is valid. Given the actual facts as agreed upon by all parties. (Japanese historical records on surrender, historical perspectives from American soldiers, and the ensuing cold war) Most don’t even have a good idea of their history within their own timelines, to suggest something is invalid outside our personal timelines with suppositions as vague as the author has an agenda is well…… agenda like. Each to their own, each to their own.

  13. Zachary Smith
    December 12, 2017 at 17:25

    Hundreds of thousands of Japanese died mostly so that President Harry Truman could impress Soviet leader Josef Stalin with a terrifying show of U.S. military might.

    When I read that sentence I realized the author has an agenda, and one not necessarily related to realty. So I could see no reason to read any further.

    • mike k
      December 12, 2017 at 17:47

      You choose to justify the atomic atrocities the US committed against Japan, and Humanity? And what is the “agenda ” of the author you objected to?

    • Gregory Herr
      December 12, 2017 at 18:41

      There is certainly an argument to be made that dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “shots across the bow”. It’s a studied opinion, not an agenda.

    • SocraticGadfly
      December 12, 2017 at 18:48

      Agreed with Zachary. Contra Mike, I don’t think atomic weapons were “right,” but per Stimson, I DO think they were the least wrong option.

      Had we blockaded Japan per six months, and along with that, cut all connections its different home islands had with each other, good estimates say more Japanese would have died from starvation in 1946 than our two nuclear bombs killed in 1945. This ignores the additional American and Allied POW deaths that would have occurred in both Japan and occupied territories, Chinese civilian deaths, American military deaths, Allied military deaths, Japanese military deaths, etc.

      Fact is that Hirohito cited the bomb as why he was surrendering in his Imperial rescript. It let him save face. Oh, please don’t quote what he later told the Japanese Army units in Manchuria, as I’m familiar with that rescript as well. That one let the Japanese Army save face.

      • Gregory Herr
        December 12, 2017 at 19:31
        • Zachary Smith
          December 12, 2017 at 20:34

          There are so many “what ifs” involved that a positive declaration is impossible, but I’m inclined to the belief that the Soviet entry into the war guaranteed the Japanese surrender. They would have “probably” done it after the two a-bombs, but there remained the substantial chance an invasion would have been necessary.

          The death totals after such an invasion would have made the numbers from Hiroshima and Nagasaki trivial by comparison.

          • Tannenhouser
            December 12, 2017 at 21:25

            Entry of the Soviets only reinforces the demonstration of military might suggested by the author’s supposed ‘agenda’, you do realize this right? What was the author’s agenda again? Care to try again?

      • December 15, 2017 at 14:35

        Funny about that. Eisenhower ( some consider him somewhat of an expert on warfare) said that the US had “no need to drop that awful thing on those defencless people”, but then what in Hell would he know.

        Japan was already suing for peace, and was defeated. So yes it was a show of force not to Japan but to Russia and China. Of course all that happened was that the US got the Korean result, the Russians and Chinese both got nuclear arsenals, that match the US arsenal.. In short because of US agression, and backstabbin we all got ” MAD”

        Also the historical record shows that the US forced Japan into World War with a blocade of that country and in getting the American public to go along with it a 9/11 moment with Pearl Harbour. According to recently released documents Roosevelt said that the US had to find a way to make Japan fire the first shot so that the American public would be onside for a war that previous to Pearl Harbour the American public overwhelmingly did not want.

    • Sam F
      December 12, 2017 at 19:58

      That sentence did seem careless without argument, as many factors were involved; the warning to Stalin was one factor rather than a primary motive. The bombing of Japan was a unique case in ending a vast war. But far from making the world safe for democracy, the first superpower promptly abused its status, elevating a selfish and ignorant bully class to pursue secret foreign and domestic policies. Nuclear weapons and war capitalism reduced the US to a fake democracy, an empty suit of armor blundering around the world, swinging its sword madly at illusions, killing millions to satisfy its ignorant bully leaders, and running unconstitutional secret wars and domestic surveillance with no accountability to the people. At long last the US lost WWII by losing its political virtues and emulating its former enemies.

    • Quintus Sertorius
      December 14, 2017 at 04:59

      What a childish thing to say “when I read that sentence, I realized the author has an agenda.”

      We all have agendas, even if you’ve convinced yourself you don’t have an agenda, or more likely, agendas in the plural.

    • David A Hart
      December 15, 2017 at 10:46

      But of course, you just HAD to reply–with comments that fit your OWN agenda, which basically comes down to the US can do no wrong, and has done nothing wrong since its inception as a country. WE are always right, and the rest of the world yearns to be just like us. Why don’t you stick to websites that glorify the wonders of the United States in all aspects?

    • December 15, 2017 at 14:19

      Zachary Smith

      That sentence is a well docunmented historical fact. Truman thought that he would bring the Soviet Union to it,s knees. Churchill and Truman drew up plans to drop over 200 atom bombs on Chinese and Russian cities and that was even before Hitler was defeated. Another prime example of the evil the world deals with in America.

    • historicvs
      December 16, 2017 at 11:48

      Say while we’re speculating about Truman’s motivations let’s remember that the most devastating conventional air raid in all of history, the 1,000-plane bombing mission against Tokyo led by the egomaniacal General Henry Harley “Hap” Arnold, took place on August 14, a week after the two atomic bombings. News of Japan’s surrender was in before all the planes had returned to their bases – so what was the reason to incinerate another hundred thousand people in their homes? Those very people who for four years the American press had been depicted as animalistic subhumans, in cartoons as bad as the worst published of Jews in Germany – d’ya suppose pure old murderous racist hatred – a constant all throughout America’s history – had anything at all to do with it?

Comments are closed.