Was WWII 'worth' it? I think so

If you haven’t read Pat Buchanan’s opinion on the ‘worth’ of fighting WWII, I encourage you to do so before the day is through. In it he argues that the war wasn’t worth fighting at all, largely because it left much of Europe in the hands of the Soviets.

The five-page essay is well-written and cohesive, and he argues his points very well.

Which is why it’s a shame the whole thing is baloney.

Buchanan bases his theory on a simple premise. The war was started by the West to defend Poland and eastern Europe from tyranny and invasion (by Hitler). At the end of the war German occupation was replaced by communism, a political system whose leaders butchered far more people than Nazi Germany.

Therefore the point of the war - again, to free the East from invasion and brutality - was a failure, as, by default, was the war itself.

Under those criteria, the war was a waste.

Of course, if you think England and France went to war for the sake of my ancestral homeland, well then I have some Enron stock to sell you.

If left unchecked Nazi Germany was poised to become the sole continental power, one with a bloody historical rivalry with France. The immediate threat to France’s future wasn’t hard to see, nor was the inevitable face-off between a resurrected Germany and the British empire.

The barbarity of Nazi Germany, and the breadth of its early success, successfully made the war into the equivalent of an old Western, with clear cut good guys vanquishing dire villains.

Rightly so - but at its heart the motivation for the war wasn’t morality, but good old fashioned political necessity.

When that’s understood, Buchanan’s premise falls apart. (as do minor points that stem from it, such as the fact that Western Europe was never directly threatened until the west itself declared war) Still, there is lingering doubt. At some point the war did become a crusade. 50 million people died in that quest. Can it truly be called successful if in the end the east fell to another evil?

 Explain to me how we could have stopped it.

Go ahead, explain to an exhausted public that after six years of total war your Red ally is soon to be an enemy, and dire steps have to be taken to blunt their plans.

(Oh, you cut funding to stunt our ally, risking our son’s life on a drive east so you could grab more land for yourself? How noble Mr. Churchill.)

Direct engagement? Who’s to say it would have worked? Instead of just the east, perhaps all of Europe would have fallen to Stalin.

Lost in his argument is the fact that we did take on the Red Army. Once Germany fell, the US and the Soviets spent forty years as enemies and fought at least three proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan) over ideology.

Of course, Buchanan isn’t really arguing historical points. He’s gone on record denying the extent, if not the existence, of the Holocaust. In his mind there is no contest - we wasted 50 million lives to remove a buffer between us and communism, the “black death of the 20th century”.

I don’t relish the fact that the land of my ancestors spent forty years on the Soviet‘s leash. It was a tragedy, mitigated only by the fact that Poles played such a large role in Communism’s fall.

But I doubt that many of them, given a choice, would have asked for the Nazi’s return.

Comment on this Post (non-AOL)          View Comments