I cannot edit other people's writing. The point here is not whether WWII started in 1939 or not but the parallel of how we are dealing with Iran and how we dealt with HItler. Exact dates or details are irrlevant. This was not a history lesson, it was a philisophical presentation that points to how we once again embrace a dangerous maniac without fully understanding the depth of th threat.
Exact dates or the tiny role of Ireland are nit-picking details good for academic argument not an insight into the similarities of then and now.
Rushing to criticize details ends in you not seeing the forest for the trees or perhaps the other way round in this instance.
If the author can't be bothered to use accurate facts when discussing WWII, why should I believe he's being accurate when he discusses Iran?
I believe facts are important and that no one should email this tome to family or friends without footnotes pointing out the errors of fact.
That is why I am trying to pin down the inaccuracies as I believe the thrust of the opinion in the article is worth discussing.