Replies

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.

If anyone thinks Hitler wasnt bent on World domination please go back to MIT and hang out with Noam Chomsky.

Their was no appeasing Hitler and he had to be destroyed. Hitler was going through Russia and would soon reach the oil fields in Iran. Hitler was then going to meet up with Japanese Forces in India. In the meantime Hitler had his Army spread taking over North Africa and had intel units in South America.

Uboats were off the coast of Long Island. Nazi Saboteurs landed on Long Island but were caught right away by the FBI. If PJB was President when this was happening he would just shrug it off and blame Israel which didnt even exist at the time.

Yes Stalin got Eastern Europe but it was a choice of 2 evils. At the time Stalin and the Commies were not ready for an all out War like Hitler was so we chose to work with Stalin. Just like in the 1980's we worked with Saddam and Osama. Interests stay the same but Allies change!

Color me confused on some of the attacks on Pat Buchanan. The questions he raises are legitimate though I very much disagree with his premise that the US should have stayed out of WWII.
The question I have, is some genocide more worthy of condemnation than other genocide. Academia answers this with a resounding yes. By doing so it lets them off the hook for what happened under the purges of Stalin and Mao. I think hunting down former Nazis is a good thing. It is a shame that we cannot do this for former communists. In fact in our town we are "United against Hate" but only certain types. I am dismayed to see signs of political correctness on the FR, perhaps they are trolls????