"Churchill may have not been the best man in Britain, but he wasn't particularly evil, or insane"

No leader is 'insane'. I detest when people call leaders they don't approve of 'insane'. But evil, he certainly was. It was Churchill who first utilized terror-bombing on a mass scale, hitting areas of Germany with zero military-industrial performance. In fact he had a deliberate strategy of trying to break the morale of Germany by punishing the residential areas. And let's not forget his disgusting and at times mindbogglingly incompetent conduct during WWI, in which he terror-bombed recalcitrant natives across the board.

And how the hell do you nuke two cities with no military importance for the sole purpose of revenge for Pearl Harbor and not be evil? I guess in order to be evil you have to be not Anglo-American, is that right?

And he was doing this at time when Japan was begging to surrender since January 1945.

"Hitler and Stalin were evil pshycos"

No, no, no. I have a problem with this for cognitive reasons, not because it is factually wrong, but because it is unhelpful when it comes to understanding, how you think about it.

Listing some people as 'evil' and assuming others are good is a gross simplfication, and this hurts how we make decisions about the world; things like terrorism, personal freedom vs security, privacy vs freedom of information...

Good vs evil is a terrible simplification. Was it just Hitler who was evil, what about the guys running his death camps, what about the soldiers in his army, what about the doctors who used bodies from executions to teach anatomy, what about the french who worked with the Nazis? It is all shades of grey, ON BOTH SIDES. There is a moral question over the use of nuclear weapons, i would also ask the moral question of sending boys to die AT ALL, the question of fire bombing civilian cities, there is no 'good' in this story, but there is also no evil.

Also psycho is a medical term, which may be correct, but you are no psychologist!

^ agreed
But using minorities to produce military weapons and starve them to death and killing them sistematically.it's evil.

"Troll failed" "Obvious troll is obvious."

Well, all the other trolls seem to have pulled it off for him. Good job, trolls!

And all of the other runts seem to have helped the trolls get it going.

dD was successful....

How many comments do we need about whether such and such troll was successful? The anti-trolls are more obnoxious than the trolls half the time.

Why would anyone call the Anti Trolls obnoxious? I mean maybe the weren't the most original early 80's punk band, but for what they did, it wasn't bad. They were no Adolescents or Exploited, but certainly not obnoxious. Unless you think pissing on the audience members at that show at the Roxy in 84 was obnoxious, then I guess I have to agree.

To be fair Putin is more obnoxious than both troll
Or anti troll

I was briefly hurt by that comment until I remembered that Santa is still recovering from Mercury Retrograde.

Don't get it

Don't care.

Don't know.

"How many comments do we need about whether such and such troll was successful? The anti-trolls are more obnoxious than the trolls half the time."

Trolled! :)

It would only be murder if the Jews were actually people.

WTF?!

Jmo did nothing wrong, discuss

Hitler managed to shut the French up for a number of years, and that's good enough for me

Whose sultan jones is he knew?

"Hitler did nothing wrong"

Besides starting a war on six continents that would become the deadliest conflict in human history, in addition to committing one of the largest genocides ever, I suppose Hitler didn't do anything wrong.

Exactly gunfighter, glad you came to the right conclusion.

Just from a strategic perspective, it seems like Hitler should have neutralized the British threat before putting Barbarossa into motion. There are a lot of specific things he did wrong, but overall, he should have listened to his generals more. After all, he was just a stupid corporal.

His hair was very wrong. And do I even have to say anything about that 'stash?

Probably shouldn't have gotten hooked on amphetamines either.

He failed to appreciate the contributions of german-jewish culture.

Sorry folks, but I do like to feed the trolls.

"he should have listened to his generals more"

Hitler believed in the survival of the fittest strategy as a political tool. He would set his generals conflicting goals to see who came out on top. This was terrible inefficient, especially considering that Hitler believed himself the strongest of all German leaders

@ dirge

"Just from a strategic perspective, it seems like Hitler should have neutralized the British threat before putting Barbarossa into motion"

Lol no shit. Hitler should have defeated the UK A) Before Barbarossa and B) Before Pearl Harbor. If he had done that, World War II would have been strictly limited to two fronts. America would not have intervened on the side of the European Allies if Hitler had defeated the UK before Pearl Harbor.

Even after the German declaration of war on the US, it took a hell of a propaganda campaign to convince the American public to focus on Germany. After all, following Pearl Harbor men went to recruiting stations for a chance to waste japs, not krauts.