I generally have no patience for those who pain the (Catholic) Church with a wide brush over this. I've only just started digging into the history of the Orthodox Church in Russia under Communism, and while you'll encounter the "collaborationist" memes and accusations, you'll also find examples of many examples of people who suffered and died for their faith (the so-called "New Martyrs") of the 20th century. And it's the same with Nazis and world war II.
As for the "Latin Mass" movement, it's unfortunate that proto-fascists can be found there (especially the SSPX crowd), which is too bad, because those who oppose Novus Ordo are IMHO on the right side of history. Mass facing the people and communion in the hand, removal of the Altar rails, have contributed to a more Protestant understanding of the Eucharist, and it's not surprising to see that belief in the Real Presence is not strong. Inelegant and badly translated English liturgies. The sad part is that there was a real need for Mass in the vernacular, something the Council was right to advise. But the Bishops on down took a wrecking ball to centuries of tradition. So the rhetorical question to be asked is, "where do you turn?" Turning Latin doesn't sound so bad... neither does turning to the liturgical traditions of the East.
My views of Pat Buchanan are not kind, nor anyone who toys with revisionist history of World War II. I have also zero tolerance for anti-Semitism of the "right" or the "left" - it's the same with me. That he has a following in the United States is sad. He is following in the tradition, and has inherited the mantle of, the radio priest Father Coughlin, who had his own set of issues with Jews and FDR's "Jew" deal. It's a historical oddity that he now echoes arguments once made by Know Nothings against Catholic immigrants.