Here’s some…uhhh…thought provoking commentary from someone who came within a hair’s-breadth of becoming the Republican nominee for the Presidency (via Raw Story):

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?

Leave it to Pat Buchanan to write an article about Nazis without mentioning the Holocaust. Of course this is the same man who advised Ronald Reagan to visit Bitburg cemetery¹, asserted the innocence of Nazi war criminals, and wrote an article praising Hitler’s “great courage” and “genius”². He also won the 1996 New Hampshire GOP primary. It’s amazing the kind of lunatics people will vote for as long as they stick to the script on guns, god, and gays.

^{1 : My brain is hanging upside-down…}

^{2 : Any one of these charges may be defensible on a purely academic level, but a pattern starts to emerge after a while.}