<<Buchanan is a complicated guy. Just last year he was depicted as a Holocaust denier and a Hitler admirer. >>
That's probably when he came up with the idea that WWII was a big mistake that cost Britain and France their Empires and got the U.S.A. unnecessarily involved to its detriment and the U.S.S.R.'s gain. Buchanan seemed to feel that the British and French should have just let Hitler have Poland. It sounded pretty screwy to me, but there are some taboos that are still amazingly strong and one of them is to question in any way the wisdom of fighting Nazis - - the theory being that if you say anything that is remotely critical of fighting Nazi Germany, you must be an anti-Semite and therefore both a Holocaust denier and a Hitler fan.
Buchanan was already in the sights of the Israel Lobby due to his strong criticism of U.S. ties to an "ally" who brought nothing to the "alliance" but a shitstorm of Muslim rage and fury and a multi-billion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, so his analysis of WWII from his weirdly pacifist POV was just red meat for the Lobby.
I never had the time to buy or read Buchanan's book on the war, which I still want to do, but I read some reviews, etc. and I came to the conclusion that I couldn't figure the guy out. The Lobby sure as hell hates his fucking guts, but then The Lobby hates Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky too. AND Obama.
For what it's worth, I think Buchanan's wrong - - the kind of evil represented by Hitler and the Nazis just had to be scrubbed off the face of the earth. They were a menace and war or no war, the evil that they were capable of would have just continued to expand by leaps and bounds. But being wrong doesn't necessarily make him an anti-Semite and a Nazi.
