I can't believe I'm doing this...

[csberry]

...because he's usually a pinata of mine in political conversations, I was taken by surprise when I read this column today. I thought Buchanan had some very good points...about the fate of Central and Eastern Europe.

Before I TRY to explain myself, lemme set some assumptions and disclaimers:

1. History should continuously be questioned. Anyone holding certain aspects as sacred is limiting mankind's ability to fully understand all motivations and perceptions of what happened and why.
2. "What if's" are a way of examining history. Resultant assumptions and hypotheses will undoubtedly rub some people the wrong way.
3. A soldier never wants to hear he fought (and his friends were injured or died fighting) an unjust or unwanted war.
4. Any discussion of WWII that doesn't give mention or sympathy about the Holocaust will immediately be blasted for not mentioning it.
5. I think that Hitler's invasion of Western Europe was inevitable, but France and Britain struck before he could...thus giving an opportunity to question the "pre-emptive" aspect of WE's involvement in WWII.
6. Pat Buchanan does have a history of making statements sympathetic to Hitler and WWII era Germany.
7. I am far from agreeing with everything he mentions in the column, I just think he makes a compelling argument about the fate of Central and Eastern Europe.

Now, let's get to what Buchanan wrote about: Was Central and Eastern Europe liberated by the actions of WWII?
I think he makes a good argument that the land east of the Elbe wasn't liberated until the fall of the Soviet Union (nearly half a century later). When we succeeded in defeating Hitler, we replaced one dictator with another on that side of Europe. Rather than a multi-national force providing security to areas liberated from Germany (which would have likely shared the same success of the League of Nations), the U.S. and Britain allowed the Soviets to use their push of Hitler's forces back to Berlin as it's own march for conquest.
Buchanan's comparison of Chamberlain's bad reputation with that of Churchill's and FDR's is a generalization, but Yalta was about liberating countries about as much as the Munich Agreement. Instead of "you can have Czechoslovakia, but advance no further" we had "you can have Eastern Europe, but advance no further." The first agreement didn't hold and WWII happened shortly thereafter. The latter agreement was held in check due to the U.S. policy of containment.

Did WWII succeed in liberating Central and Eastern Europe? No.
Did WWII succeed in liberating France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and 2/3 of Germany? Yes.
Did WWII succeed in liberating the Jewish population in Germany? Yes. (Soviet treatment of Jews is another discussion altogether.)

Was WWII worthwhile? Likely yes, but do we have to stick to a single yes or no answer on this general question? Any event that is stretched over 6-8 years has some aspects that were worthwhile and others that were not.