Posted on 05/11/2005 9:08:36 AM PDT by EveningStar
If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a "smashing" success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.
Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Pat just keeps getting weirder and weirder. I feel like the guy at the party who just can't believe what he just heard. When, I wonder, is Buchanan finally, at long last, going to drop the (admittedly flimsy) disguise and declare himself for what he truly is? It hurts us all when this man is publicly identified as a conservative.
Oh, right. He'd have stayed in Germany if the Czechs, Poles, etc. hadn't provoked him.
There was a time when such blatant misprepresentation of the facts would have been noticed and properly condemned by most of the US populace. Unfortunately, the public schools have so dumbed down their curricula in the last 40 years that most young people can't even tell you when WWI was fought or what started it.
And to think this prick used to be a Reaganite. How utterly sad.
I didn't change the headline. I added a comment to the end of it. The article is still searchable under the true title.
Well, one of the points he is making - that communism was worse than nazism - is a valid point.
"Was World War II worth it?"
Now let's see. . . .
Buchanan wrote this article in WHAT language?
Japanese? No, didn't see the words ah so desuka anywhere.
In German? No, didn't see the words mein herr.
On yeah. HE WROTE IT IN ENGLISH BECAUSE OUR COUNTRY WASN'T INVADED BY EITHER OF THESE COUNTRIES! ! !
Now if Ole Pat wants to live in a country invaded by another country, why doesn't he move?
Remember, Pat quit the Republican party, thank God.
I voted for him 92.. Big mistake. Yes I'm embarrassed for voting for Pat..
Hitler declared war on us first, you twit. After we declared war on Japan.
There are plenty of threads with Barf Alerts. Why are you upset that Buchanan has a Barf Alert?
I voted for him. Regarding WWII, I've always taken his point to be that we shouldn't have taken sides between the Russians and the Germans. They were ancient and bitter enemies and we might have been better off to let them fight and destroy eachother to the bitter end. Instead, we made Russia an ally to defeat Hitler and ended up with an enemy for the next fifty years.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen Pat write. Good Lord, what's gotten into him? Is he crazy? Geez.
So did Soviet occupied East Germany abandon the German language for Russian or did they just keep speaking German?
Pat needs to go into a home.
I voted for him in '88...even bigger mistake. It only encouraged him.
The statement he makes about drawing Hitler into Western Europe was in reference to the involvement of Great Britain and France in the war, not the U.S.
I suspect that most replies on this thread are being posted by people who didn't read the full article first. Buchanan actually agrees with the basic premise of Bush's speech in Russia earlier this week -- and then proceeds to ask a lot of direct, hard-hitting questions about what the hell World War II was all about. The manner in which the FDR administration signed over Eastern Europe to the Soviets -- after most of the media in this country spent years engaging in a deliberate cover-up of Stalin's atrocities -- was an absolute travesty.
opps...make that '92 as well. I voted for Bob Dole in '88.
Pat makes some good points, and as the junior senator from MA, John F...king Kerry would say, 'it's complicated'. Hitler and the horrors of Nazi Germany needed obliteration, otherwise we'd all be dead or speaking German/Japanese, but it's a lasting shame (euphemism), that FDR and Churchill didn't stand up to Stalin at Yalta.
Sometimes Pat argues odd ideas for the heck of it, not because he seriously believes them.
His idea that France, Holland, and Belgium would never have been invaded by Germany without a British/French D.O.W. on behalf of Poland is ludicrous. It would have happened later, but it still would have happened.
This piece is a nice bookend to Buchanan's piece from a few years ago claiming (laughably) that the Pacific War was the fault of Britain and the US because they'd somehow screwed Japan over in the peace settlement of World War I (a war in which Japan suffered a couple hundred killed and acquired dozens of islands and millions of square miles of ocean by gobbling up Germany's Pacific Islands.)
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.