As George W. Bush acknowledged earlier this week, World War II didn't turn out so well for the people of Eastern Europe. Does that mean it wasn't worth fighting?

This is the provocative question Pat Buchanan raises, at least when it comes to Britain and France, in a new column that echoes themes laid out in his book A Republic, Not an Empire (buy it here). For Americans, the debate over going to war in 1941 is moot. The decision, after all, was made for us. First at Pearl Harbor and a few days later in Berlin, when Hitler declared war on the United States. But a different situation confronted France and Britain, and it is upon these two nations that Buchanan's argument fixates.

Buchanan makes a few strong points. Chief amongst them is that it's hypocrisy to praise Churchill while condemning Chamberlain because they both signed away Eastern Europe--one at Munich the other at Yalta--to tyrants. The only difference is that Churchill signed away a larger chunk of real estate. But this, his strongest argument, is also his undoing. Buchanan, here, seems guilty of the same hypocrisy he ably points out in Churchill sycophants. To write an article questioning the wisdom of Britain and France launching a war on Nazism for absorbing eastern lebensraum, amidst a discussion about how awful it was to let Stalin have Eastern Europe, misses something that's rather glaring.

Elsewhere, there is a petty one-upsmanship regarding the bodycount of various socialist tyrants. "Where Hitler killed his millions," Buchanan writes, "Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Castro murdered their tens of millions." When a dictator gets into the seven digits, is it really all that constructive to turn moral questions into mathematical ones?

The enemy in World War II was straight from central casting. It is for this that it's called "the good war." Our friends, on the other hand, proved far more problemmatic. Because teaming with Stalin necessarily calls into question the traditional black-and-white presentation of the war, discussions of our Red allies provoke a changing of the subject in a hurry. Bush, and Buchanan, are right for calling attention to this. But in the case of the latter, couldn't he have made his point more effectively had he held National Socialists and Soviet Socialists to the same standard?

Buchanan is ignorant regarding the facts of history if he blames Churchill for what Franklin Roosevelt actually did at Yalta. Churchill tried to warn Roosevelt repeatedly regarding Stalin's intentions, but Roosevelt, like so many other Democrats, knew better!

Buchanan is a learned historian and is usually pretty darn accurate. He typically makes valid and supportable arguments. From what I’ve read, he has made some valid comments about WWII and everybody from the WWII Vets to the Holocaust survivors are crying foul.

Whatever happened to free speech and a man’s right to his opinion? Especially when he can present history facts to support that opinion?

The only reactions I have seen to the article have been non sequiturs. Dan is critically correct in noting that Buchanan poses this question for Britain and France, but also it has to be clear that he is posing historical subjunctives, that is, he is asking "what if the Brits had decided not to declare war on Germany in defense of Poland?" The logical problem w/ such speculation is the same logical problem attendant on all historical subjunctives. You don't have to have Hegel's faith in the rationality of history ("the real is rational") to recognize the truth of his claim that "the Owl of Minerva flies only at dusk." That is, we understand history only after the fact and are thus commonly given over to consequentialist readings of the rightness or wrongness of past actions.

This is the reason that the Foxman complaint that Buchanan doesn't mention the Holocaust is besides the point, the Holocaust hadn't occurred in 1939 and so couldn't have been a factor for the British in determining how to react to German expansion into Poland. There had certainly been years of Nazi persecution of Jews at that point and they had begun euthanasia programs but neither were ever declared reasons that the British saw the Germans as an imminent threat. Poland's sovereignty *was* the reason given for declaring war. So Buchanan's point that the British were oddly hypocritical in not actively defending Eastern Europe from Stalin seems a reasonable charge given what they were willing to risk for Poland against the Nazis.

I am not sure if I follow you Dan on saying Buchanan is "hoisted with his own petard" about ignoring German expansionism in order to critique Soviet. His point is that how could they have justified the one action without then doing the second? Of course, this question ignores the cost of having done the first (defeat Hitler) which made doing the second (defeating Russian expansion) a practical impossibility (maybe).

But look . . . no one seems to have noticed the real issue in this column, the real point of Buchanan's writing it. He is criticizing Bush! He is looking at the poster child of military intervention to defeat a dictator, WWII, looking at the unintended consequences of it which can arguably be declared worse than the war (although that is a tough sell), as well as the inability to apply the principle that led one to fight in a consistent manner, and says that *Bush* has "opened up a can of worms," that is, that Bush can be criticized in the same manner over invasion of Iraq to defeat Saddam. When Buchanan asks "why destroy Hitler?" Substitute in Hussein for Hitler and you will get the point the column hints at.

Nothing good can come from Pat Buchanan addressing any issue remotely tied to WWII. Pat was once a relevant and respected conservative voice. Today, he is an irrelevant iconoclast. Lucky for us, he left the Republican Party.

Yeah, lucky for us he left the Republican Party and has been replaced with neocons who sway in the wind.

Wouldn't want to be sticking with any of those pesky Repubican principles.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, but extremeism in defense of fascism is.

Dear Mr. Matthew Lewis: Please be explicit. Who are you calling a fascist?

I'm saying that Pat Buchanan is literally coming to the intellectual defense of fascism. (Unlike Leftists who bandy the word "fascist" about in an effort to attack conservatives -- Buchanan is LITERALLY defending fascists).

...To directly answer your question, I'm calling Hitler and the Nazi's fascists.

Dear Mr. Matthew Lewis, thank you for your reply.

I have a follow up question: Where, in what passage, does Buchanan defend fascism, Hitler, or National Socialism?

Short,

He says Hitler killed millions and that the commies killed more. Maybe Mr. Lewis feels this to be praiseworthy. Or maybe saying he killed less than the socialists, who just got a little carried away in their noble mission, is big stuff in the Lewis book. Let's hope we all hear about the racist/fascist tendancies of Buchanan soon.

I would agree with Short here, Buchanan isn't defending Fascism.

Howeve after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, every member nation of the Tripartite act declared war on the United States. It was Germany that declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, not the other way around.

Either way I would still say it was worth it.

PS: If you are against World War II, than why would you have a problem with FDR giving Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta? If FDR had insisted on Stalin leaving Eastern Europe, the result most likely would have been a war between the US and the USSR. And if one feels that WW2 wasn't worth it, than one would no doubt believe that a war over the freedom of Eastern Europe would not be worth it either.

Come on, I can't believe I'm in the enviable position of being the one to defend England (and the U.S.) for going to war in Germany. In terms of quoting an example of where Pat is out of touch -- I give you the entire article. As evidence, I site Dan's blog title: Buchanan asks: Was WWII worth it.

The fact that Pat has to ask that question demonstrates the fact that he is out of the mainstream conservative tradition.

...I'd love to continue this sparring match, but I must go to honor a fellow conservative. Like Winston Churchill, the fellow we're honoring tonight is a great leader...Tom DeLay (I suppose you might think he is another Bush "neo-con.")

Yeah I am in fact a "Bush NeoCon" But I wouldn't call Tom DeLay a great leader.

Pat is out of the mainstream for questioning WW2? He's in good company because Russell Kirk questioned it too.

Kirk cast his first presidential ballot for Norman Thomas in 1944, to reward the veteran socialist for his steadfast opposition to the Second World War.

Obi juan, I too got a chuckle out of the "out of the mainstream" comment. Buchanan's essay settles in nicely with the historical American right-wing on the issue of World War II. The Old Right represented by the likes of John T. Flynn and Garet Garrett opposed US intervention just as they opposed FDR and his New Deal.

PS: Hey Mr. Matt "mainstream conservative" Lewis, I couldn't resist mentioning this because the link is on your website, but how is the fight to "strengthen" and "save" FDR's socialist forced savings program going?

"Obi juan, I too got a chuckle out of the "out of the mainstream" comment. Buchanan's essay settles in nicely with the historical American right-wing on the issue of World War II. The Old Right represented by the likes of John T. Flynn and Garet Garrett opposed US intervention just as they opposed FDR and his New Deal."

-James

Yes well the "Old Right" as you term them are out of touch with the mainstream populace right now, and have been out of touch with them since, oh I can't even remember.

They are after all the OLD RIGHT for a reason. If the Right-Wing refused to ever evolve than we'd all be Monarchists.

Ben-T,

I agree with you that to a certain extent that the views of the Old Right seem to be outside the current so-called "conservative" mainstream. This is the consequence of a consistent campaign of marginalization and character assassination on the part of the post-war right. As for me, I'll take a John T. Flynn, a Russell Kirk, or a Garet Garrett and their consistent dedication to individual freedom and rolling back the centralized state to Rich Lowry and his boys at the National Review any day.

That's fine if thats your decision, so long as you understand that they aren't the mainstream right and they aren't the mainstream view. That's all I was saying.

What I'll admit is that their views are not "mainstream" in the current political morass that calls itself the "right" -- but this movement is arguably not conservative from the historical considerations for the aim of its conservatism is to preserve the legacy of Harry S. Truman (remember that it was William F. Buckley, Jr. who called for a "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores"), FDR (again, good luck to Matt and his GOP friends on "saving" Roosevelt's statist/socialist forced savings program!), and Woodrow Wilson -- not to get rid of big government and restore consitutional constraints on the feds.

Well actually from a historical consideration the small-government people you spoke up about are hard-line left-wingers. Remember that the terms came from the French National Assembly that came about after The French Revolution. But that is besides the point for now. The links NeoCons find with Wilson, FDR, and Truman are found not in their domestic, but their foreign policies.

I find that today's "right wing" finds it's roots in Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and most notably John Locke. The Paleoconservative viewpoint that you adhere to does as well, except it is more hard line.

I see today's Paleoconservatives as Conservative Fundamentalists (not necessarilly to be associated with the negative connotation that that word has taken on since 9/11.) While NeoCons are more reform-minded Conservatives. As for today's Liberals, are they are simply Socialists in Sheep's Clothing.

On to your comments about Social Security. I to, would like to see Social Security more or less abolished. However what do you expect Bush to do? The concept of abolishing Social Security is simply impossible in today's political climate. His privatization plan at least takes steps in the right direction.

I was going to sit out this very complicated (and interesting) thread. It's a tough nut to crack, in part because distant relatives from my grandparents' generation were killed in the Holocaust, and one wore the American Army uniform in the conflict.

It pisses me off when anyone oversimplifies this era. E.g., Haddasah (Mrs. Joe) Lieberman pandering to the American public at the 2000 Democratic National Convention by saying that the Americans liberated Auschwitz, which is objectively false - a lie even - even if it's true metaphorically or ideologically.

But I do appreciate Victor Hanson's latest take on the subject:
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson051305.html

I'll try to sit out the rest of this one while thumbing through one of my favorite used-bookstore-curios: a bilingual Jewish prayer book from the Royal Canadian Air Force from WWII.

Hadassah Lieberman

How could the United States have been going to war with Germany for the wrong reasons when, quite simply, Germany declared war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. Everything else aside the simple fact that it was Germany who declared war on the US is indicitave that WW2 was worth it.

Ben T,

That Buchanan article speaks of whether the war was worth it from the British and, to a lesser extent, Frence perspectives. I would bet that he would have been w/ the Lindbergh America Firsters who wanted to keep the U.S. out of the war but all of that was pre Pearl Harbor and pre-Germany's declaration of war on us.

He doesn't in this article, nor did anyone in this thread try to make the argument that the U.S. was unjustified in going to war against Germany. You have mentioned this twice now so I figured I should point it out.

Yes, once Germany had declared war on us then of course as an act of national defense we could respond by going to war with them.

Brian, I was actually trying to answer Jeremiah's questions about the morality of US involvement in Europe. I may have been misinterpreting the questions he raised, if I was than my mistake.

Was it worth it for Britain and France? I would say it was for Britain, and was not for France. Hitler's hopes for a Thousand Year Reich inevitably would have included Britain and France, as his lust for expansionism seemes unsatiable. By entering into the war earlier than was technically necessary, Britain secured itself a mobilized and prepared military and nation for total war with Germany. Through having a prepared nation, people, and military, Britain was able to resist Operation: Sea Lion quite effectively, a Germany offensive that most certainly would have eventually happened anyways.

France of course really gained nothing from going into war earlier than was necessary, because they simply were steamrolled by the Germans and lost their independence until 1944 when the US and Britain came riding to the rescue.

Pat Buchanan is a very intelligent man. He's not a true historian by trade but he is an amateur historian with a particular fascination with fascism and National Socialism.

When it comes to WW II, however, Buchanan is an abysmally inaccurate and disengenuous commentator. Hitler's designs on Europe extended beyond his borders and beyond Poland. His desire to dominate Europe was no different from that of Stalin. To suggest otherwise is simply perpetuating a lie.

As far as comparing murder #'s, Hitler simply didn't have enough time to murder as many as Stalin...had Hitler ruled as long as Stalin had, there's NO questioning the FACT that his rap-sheet would have come close to 100 million slaughtered.

No other despot in the 20th century resorted to GASSING men, women and CHILDREN (nearly 2 million!) as Hitler ultimately did. At some point, for the sake of humanity, Hitler would have to have been stopped.

Pat Buchanan is a friend to Nazi war criminals, is a sociological bigot and antisemite, and the worst kind of fascistic pre-Vatican II Catholic. His theology is bad, his history is bad, his world view is bad. Pat Buchanan isn't stupid, but he's an awful human being.

Stick a fork in Mr. Buchanan. His latest misguided missive has permanently entrenched him among the David Duke's and other dregs of the lunatic fringe.

"Pat Buchanan is a friend to Nazi war criminals, is a sociological bigot and antisemite, and the worst kind of fascistic pre-Vatican II Catholic. His theology is bad, his history is bad, his world view is bad. Pat Buchanan isn't stupid, but he's an awful human being."--Doug H.

Doug H: gee, do you think you have some kind of bigotries operating here yourself? You hate the man because he's Catholic and because he correctly defended a falsely accused man from a lynch mob 20 years ago?

P.S.: What is a "sociological bigot"? Are you one, too? Am I?