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.
Even in that context, it's an absurd debating point. Pat seems to think that if Hitler had just been left alone, he wouldn't have attacked France. Which IMO is complete nonsense.
What was WWII about? Like all wars, it became something much different than what it was when the conflict started. And although I don't think much of FDR, I'm not sure what he could have done differently regarding the Soviet Union's occupation of central and eastern Europe after the war - unless he would have waged war with the Soviets after Hitler's fall - something I doubt the American people would have supported.
Don't forget or underestimate the Eisenhower follow-up. Disgraceful.
FMCDH(BITS)
" I suspect that most replies on this thread are being posted by people who didn't read the full article first"
I suspect some don't know WWII history, what happened when germany invaded poland is fairly famous.