[Betaille]

"Buchanan brought up valid points about how the Allies mismanaged the war, and those points have been around forever."

Not really. He criticizes the concessions at Yalta, but on everything else seems to be against the allies. His entire basis is that Britain and France started the war rather than Germany, which is naive and false. You're right that England and France should have acted sooner, but Buchanan is saying the exact opposite, that they shouldn't have gotten involved even after Hitler took over Poland.

[GOP_1900AD]

Pat's turned into a bootlicker of Stalin, and to an extent, Hitler. He, although Catholic, may be attracted to pan Slavic, Russophile messianism. On the one hand he claims to lament the fall of the West but increasingly embraces a geopolitical outlook that will precisely lead to the fall of the West.

[Williams]

Well military historians have criticized the Allies for getting into the war at the wrong time. They should have done it sooner, and maybe later. Perhaps they should have waited until after Germany and Russia fought for a while. The fact is they declared war at a time they couldn't do a damn thing about it. That led to the "phoney war" followed by Hitler conquering France. It was only America that bailed out the Europeans.

Pat's logic is flawed in many ways, but he is asking the basic question of what was gained if after tens of millions of casualties just as many people were under dictatorship as before. In Europe, the main liberated areas were West Germany and Italy.

But Pat is wrong in so many ways. First, the rest of Europe has been liberated now. Would that have been possible with Hitler? What if Hitler had conquered Russia? Certainly he would have taken France next and probably Britain and the U.S. And Hitler seems to have been far more aggressive than the Soviets. Pat seems to have missed that Hitler felt his ultimate enemy was America.

But Pat's right that the European allies screwed up their handling of the war, and probably of the post war.