A Rashomon Moment

Rashomon is the title of a classic Japanese language film whose story centers upon the rape of a woman and murder of her husband. The hook of the movie is that every witness who claims to have seen the crimes take place, tells a different story of what happened. To a large extent, the movie is an illustrative commentary on the imperfectness of human nature and the strong tendecy we all have to see and interpret things as we want, rather than as what they are.

The underlying theme of Rashomon seems to have reared its head at Southern Appeal over this recent article written by Pat Buchanan on President Bush's celebration of the 60th anniversary of VE day in Russia. Seems that SA, and several of its combox commentators, think that Buchanan's criticism of Bush is a thinly veiled condemnation of America's involvement in WWII, and a backhanded slight toward all those who fought and sacrificed their lives in that war. I think, however, a closer reading of the article shows something entirely different, and is not what some people are interpreting it to be.

As Buchanan rhetorically asks, "But were we and the Soviets ever fighting for the same things, as FDR believed?" The asking of this question essentially sets up the premise of Buchanan's main argument: that the Soviet Union's involvement in WWII was primarily about preserving its world expasionist goals, and not resisting Nazi aggression. In light of this, Buchanan is expressing befuddlement as to why an American President would go and celebrate VE Day at ground zero for historical world communism.

I can only speculate as to why the good folks at SA seem to be misinterpreting Buchanan's article. This is only a guess, but I suspect that their reading of the piece is colored by their frustration with Buchanan's occasional alignment with the Left on various issues like the war in Iraq, his borderline anti-Semitic blatherings, and his pejorative labeling of any conservative he disagrees with as a "neo-conservative." I certainly share in this frustration about Buchanan, but it shouldn't be a reason to start imputing a belief on him that he never expressed.