Buchanan Crosses the Line With World War II Column

Posted on May 12, 2005

Pat Buchanan really crosses the line with a new column in which he questions whether World War II was worth fighting.

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?

Mr. Buchanan is well-versed in the history of the era. So it seems that he is deliberately forgetting the main reason the U.S. entered World War II: the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. They declared war on us. We did try to stay out of the European conflict, but we eventually got drawn in. Yes, Stalin did take control of Central and Eastern Europe and that was not a good thing. Churchill and FDR needed Stalin to defeat Hitler and did the best they could at the time.

Why destory Adolf Hitler? Hitler may have been voted into power, but he was a madman bent on the destruction of so-called inferior races and anyone who didn't agree with his plans for colonization. What our troops found when they liberated places like Auschwitz was beyond horrifying. How can anyone with a shred of decency say that stopping a the man who murdered 6 million Jews wasn't "worth it?"