I have come to the conclusion that most of the derogatory posts are the result of pre-concieved notions concerning Mr. Buchanan, not an actual reading of the Buchanan article..
I found the ACTUAL article to be reasonable and articulate, in it's context..
I also found it's conclusions to be fairly accurate as well..
Mr. Buchanan did not question the need to rid the world of Hitler and the Nazi's Third Reich..
He questioned the outcome of that war..
He questioned dealings with Stalin, who Churchill and FDR, specifically, HAD to know was as bad as Hitler or worse..
He questioned the abandonment of Eastern European countries, and others, like Poland, to the Stalinist regime..
If you want to bash Buchanan, do it on those points that are actually objectionable.
In this case, Buchanan's premise is right on target..
I wont be a bit surprised to hear Buchannan and his followers to say 'HITLER WASNT SUCH A BAD GUY..JUST MISUNDERSTOOD" sometime in the near future. Or perhaps "IF THE JEWS HADNT PROVOKE HIM NONE OF THIS LITTLE PROBLEM WITH GENOCIDE WOULD HAVE HAPPENED". Truely a disgusting bunch of rabble.
I agree with you. My initial impression based on the title and the excerpt did not last after I actually read the article. He brought up some really interesting points. I am proud of what our country and the Allies did in WWII, but enough time has passed that we should be able to look back with a completely objective mind for the sake of history.
I disagree with the implication in your statement that the excerpt was not representative of the article. In fact it was the best (short) extract that could have been made, as Pat is just there reiterating and summarizing the points he made earlier and moving to his conclusion.
Mr. Buchanan did not question the need to rid the world of Hitler and the Nazi's Third Reich..
He questioned the outcome of that war..
Pat doesn't out and out say WWII was "not worth it," but it requires an extremely eccentric reading to deny that this is in fact his conclusion. Pat went so far out of his way to suggest it was "not worth it" to liberate Germany of Hitler that he was driven to say false (not to mention extremely stupid) things like: "the Germans voted Hitler in." Or maybe Pat's just being devious. Notice he contrasts that with the removal of Hitler from leadership, but he knows Hitler was voted into leadership, but rather appointed to the Chancellorship (and then snatching dictatorial power) at a time his party was a minority in the parliament.