I believe it was I, who discussed Iran as a parallel and I am led to believe that I have standing on this subject. Apparently considered an SME (subject matter expert), so take my word for it if the original author's historical flaws impact your common sense. For the sake of silly argument?
In case, good Doctor, you fail to realize the extent of the global danger we are facing from the neo-Iran regime, do make the time to read up on this at http://www.antimullah.com and perhaps realize that your argumentative comments resemble fiddling while Rome burns.
Enjoy the education you might receive there and take hold of the big picture rather than splitting hairs to show how erudite you may be.
You have helped create a lively discussion but may have lost sight of the purpose of the post and original article in the way and to the degree you are doing it.
What say you?
My point remains: If the author can't be bothered to use accurate facts when discussing WWII, why should I believe he's being accurate when he discusses Iran?
I don't believe that's "splitting hairs".