Pat Buchanan writes on WND:
True, U.S. and British troops liberated France, Holland and Belgium from Nazi occupation. But before Britain declared war on Germany, France, Holland and Belgium did not need to be liberated. They were free. They were only invaded and occupied after Britain and France declared war on Germany – on behalf of Poland.
When one considers the losses suffered by Britain and France – hundreds of thousands dead, destitution, bankruptcy, the end of the empires – was World War II worth it, considering that Poland and all the other nations east of the Elbe were lost anyway?
If the objective of the West was the destruction of Nazi Germany, it was a “smashing” success. But why destroy Hitler? If to liberate Germans, it was not worth it. After all, the Germans voted Hitler in.
If it was to keep Hitler out of Western Europe, why declare war on him and draw him into Western Europe? If it was to keep Hitler out of Central and Eastern Europe, then, inevitably, Stalin would inherit Central and Eastern Europe.
Was that worth fighting a world war – with 50 million dead?
One of the things I most admire about Pat Buchanan is his ability to look beyond the superficial and ask pertinent questions about things that no one else thinks to question. There’s no doubt that he was correct about NAFTA – like many others I originally assumed it was just a free trade agreement back in the early 1990’s – and he was the first media figure to point out Europe’s demographic suicide.
It will be interesting to see if anyone manages to respond substantively to him or if we’ll just see more of the mindless “it was worth it because I can’t imagine otherwise” tripe that often passes for debate these days.
UPDATE – You can always count on this zero to try to interject his race into the discussion. “Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League, called Buchanan’s comments ‘immoral’ and ‘bordering on Holocaust denial’.” It’s a tossup as to who is more egregiously annoying, Abe Foxman or Arianna Huffington.