Thursday, May 24, 2007

Was WWII Worth It?

An interesting article by Pat Buchanan.

The arguments he makes against US-British involvement in WWII seem to match perfectly with the anti-war arguments against Iraq. Not surprisingly, Buchanan has always been against the Iraq war. Oh, yes, the uber liberals should not forget who they're in bed with - the Pat Buchanan right.

His point: The British reason for entering WWII was to free Poland and Czechoslovakia. At war's end, they were free from Hitler, but under another tyrant who in sheer of people who he killed, worse than Hitler - Stalin. (Iraq parallel: WMDs)

The allies freed Western Europe, but Western Europe was only attacked AFTER the British and French declared war on the Nazis. Perhaps World War 2 was in large part, our fault. (Iraq parallel: US and Brits going at it alone)

Other facts not mentioned by Buchanan...the severity of the holocaust didn't escalate until 1942 after the fighting between Russia and Germany had gotten particularly brutal. (Iraq parallel: Al Queda's brutal presence in post-war Iraq)

Maybe if Winston Churchill hadn't been such a neoconservative, Hitler wouldn't have attacked anyone else, Stalin and Hitler would've never come to blows, and the holocaust would've been much less severe. In short, maybe the comparisons between Iraq and Germany are apt - that Hitler wasn't much of a threat until we made him into one. Plus, lets face facts, Germans elected Hitler...we deposed a democratically elected official.

In any case, was it worth 50 million lives?

I'm being facetious.

No comments: