Replies

I didn't change the headline. I added a comment to the end of it. The article is still searchable under the true title.

Yes, to be sure, and your comment seems to have persuaded most of those commenting, not to read the article, which has thus been grossly misrepresented by those assailing it.

The tragedy of World War II was indeed as Pat suggests. Britain and France went to War to save Poland--truly an admirable course. But in the event, Poland was enslaved by Russia for the next almost half a century. Why is it unthinkable to question that outcome? While Britain and France survived, they did not accomplish their objective.

Nor does Pat, anywhere, suggest that Nazi Germany was a good place to live; that the Nazi party was anything but a loathsome, Socialist force, building a monolithic State, completely antithetical to concepts Americans--Pat included in a lifetime of writings--hold sacred. That non-suggestion on Pat's part, is what those assailing Pat keep suggesting is his purpose.

Frankly, it is probably fortunate that Britain and France acted as they did, because that brought things to a head, in the overall power struggle, even though they did not see the War through, as regards Poland. The Germans were well ahead of everyone else in aeronautics and space potential by the end of the War, and it is rather frightening to think what might have happened had there not been a War in 1939, but rather in 1950. Would the Nazis have been able to obtain total control of the air, in such a hypothetical scenario?

But all of that is also speculation. One can project limitless scare scenarios, had history taken a different turn. None of that makes it inappropriate to question aspects of the turn it did take. And the failure of the allies to stand up for Poland and Eastern Europe after the War has been a subject of Conservative commentary ever since. Why is it a "barf alert," when Pat Buchanan raises it once more?

I read the article, and I'm sure many others lambasting Buchanan for his barely veiled pro-Hitler sympathies have also read the article. His writings--particularly of late--show good Buchanan sliding further and further into the black hole he's been orbiting for years now. One day soon, the darkness will swallow him up completely, and then (hopefully) he'll finally stop being identified as an archetypal conservative. Buchanan may be a number of things, but 'conservative' isn't one of them.

The tragedy of World War II was indeed as Pat suggests. Britain and France went to War to save Poland--truly an admirable course. But in the event, Poland was enslaved by Russia for the next almost half a century. Why is it unthinkable to question that outcome?

Whereas if they hadn't, they would have been enslaved either by Hitler, Stalin, or half and half. Presuming we never confronted either evil, and America defeated both, still today.

Yes, to be sure, and your comment seems to have persuaded most of those commenting, not to read the article, which has thus been grossly misrepresented by those assailing it.

Sad but true. I am not a Buchananite but he made a serious argument that deserves to be addressed.