For years, the official left and right have both hailed Franklin Roosevelt, champion of progressive social democracy, saver of capitalism, premier Commander in Chief, savior to the world's freedom and stability. The Republicans and of course Democrats all defend the New Deal but the reason he is so admired is because of the Good War, the war that liberals can cheer, despite the atrocities, and conservatives can applaud, despite the alliance with Stalin. Just as the depression warrants revisionism now more than ever, so too does this war, the war that brought about the permanent US empire, its military-industrial complex, perpetual conflict and new precedents in the acceptability of targeting and terrorizing civilians, including in particular with the use and threatened use of FDR's great accomplishment, the inauguration of nuclear weaponry and warfare.

FDR's buddy Churchill also gets nothing but praise from the entire establishment, despite his socialism, colonialism and murderous bigotry. He was for gassing the Kurds in Iraq more than half a century before it became the war crime that supposedly justified a horrific war on Saddam's Iraq.

But what if the whole popularly-assumed narrative of the war is wrong, if the major events happened as they are recorded, but a careful analysis at the timeline and likely causes and effects of crucial matters has been mostly neglected? What if with better diplomacy, Churchill and the Allies could have avoided a conflagration, the largest in world history, one that consumed 50 million lives, most of them civilian, in battles and genocide? Listen to Scott Horton's interview with Pat Buchanan, on the subject of his new book on Churchill, FDR and that unnecessary war. Here's the youtube version.