"12 Million?....20 Million?"

I suppose US educational propaganda hasn't been able to agree on which number to make up out of thin air. How many people did US bombers kill in their firebombings? 100,000 or 10 million? What difference does it make to you, right? Numbers are just things to throw around.

"Your blind admiration for horrible human beings is repugnant."

Horrible human beings? You're the leading mouthpiece for corporate atrocities here. Get that plank out of your eye.

"which is why the fact that you despise me"

I don't despise you. You're not the center of my universe.

Churchill's attempting to preserve the Empire only hastened its destruction. his intransigence in suppressing indigenous politics from naturally developing while moderate political leaders had control of the agenda in the long term only allowed more divisive and extreme leaders to usurp the agenda for their own means. Much of the blame for the political problems of the last half-century in Malaysia, Yemen, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, and even Iran can be laid at Churchill's feet.

Watch the Granada television series "End of Empire" or read the book of the series for an in depth appreciation of what I am talking about.

"You're the leading mouthpiece for corporate atrocities here" lol I am? Please tell me what, in very, very specific terms, corporate attrocity I am for that has laid waste to millions and millions of people.

Sorry Putin...Scholars diagree on the depth of Stalin's evil. I'm sure Stalin wasn't very forthcoming with the information, so the exact answer varies. The Truth will never be learned.

One thing I do know: Putin does not deny that Stalin murdered somewhere between 12 and 20 Million of his own people....and yet still lauds this Russia and this Russian ruler as somehow noble and righteous.

We see Putin in his typical tactic here....backed in to a corner, made to look like a hypocritical ignorant asshole....so he turn, he deflects, and he throws out some other random, meaningless attck made up of imaginary information that he created in his mind.

Putin....please keep on topic...we're talking about Russia....the country that murdered at least twice as many of his own people than Hitler murder of the Jews...

This Russia, whom you laus as some noble Conqueror, while telling us how evil the British or Polish or any "western" nation is that has conquered.

I want to understand what constitutes a moral conqueror in your mind if Russia -- which murdered 12 to 20 million of its own people -- is a noble country. Good lord, what does one have to do to be evil in your eyes?

And Puttybaby....you despise me...you go off on me all the time. You whined about me like a little bitch in the forum discussion with abge....good lord, you are a liar and a coward on top of everything else wrong with you. Man up, bitch.

"You whined about me like a little bitch in the forum discussion with abge."

I only argued for equality of the law. Once assured that the Ombudsman was in fact, an impartial Lord, I submitted to His Will.

I don't despise anyone on the forum.

Back to the original point of the post, the "underbelly of Europe" strategy was more a move against Stalin than a legitimate effort against Hitler. Churchill wanted to move Allied forces as far to the East as possible so as to limit the influence of communist Russia in the post-war europe. I don't think he ever thought that Italy would be as big of a failure as it ended up being, but I think his mind was on pushing into Croatia, Austria and Hungary once Italy had been liberated (since you can't exactly invade the Balkans while Italy is hostile)

Putty-baby...fine, you are an impartial, fair-minded thug who despises noone, though you attack everyone and try to avoid answering direct questions by character defamation and other forms of lies and deciet. Got it....back to the point:

This Russia, whom you laus as some noble Conqueror, while telling us how evil the British or Polish or any "western" nation is that has conquered.

I want to understand what constitutes a moral conqueror in your mind if Russia -- which murdered 12 to 20 million of its own people -- is a noble country. Good lord, what does one have to do to be evil in your eyes?

Why must you believe in evil, Krellin?

Putty, you are deflecting, again. You clearly have your own version of good and evil - you may put in whatever semantic terms you wish - but the very fact that you judge Russia a noble conqueror, and yet morally judge Britian and Poland as conquerors...Russia Good, Britain Evil...or put whatever term you want on it....bottom line is, AGAIN, Putin, you have been caught in a fraud.

You are now deflecting, because you are backed in to a corner and caught looking like an idiot, so you are trying to change the conversation.

Very Thucy of you. So let's get back to the topic, shall we? As I assked before:

...This Russia, whom you laus as some noble Conqueror, while telling us how evil the British or Polish or any "western" nation is that has conquered.

I want to understand what constitutes a moral conqueror in your mind if Russia -- which murdered 12 to 20 million of its own people -- is a noble country. Good lord, what does one have to do to be evil in your eyes?

"Why must you believe in evil, Krellin?"

I'm not krellin, but my reason for believing in evil is quite simple... Adolph Hitler. How else do you explain him except "evil"?

Stalin - worse the Hitler by the numbers...but he's Putin's hero.

Putin *clearly* demonstrates that he believes in good and evil on a daily basis, with every post he makes in which he judges damned near every person to ever say or do anything, and every nation in history suffers from Putin's judgement. Kind of different to judge without good and evil to judge by....so he's jkust being a ridiculous assclown when he asks the question...it's just another perverse attempt by him to defelct from the question at hand....which was.....

By is Russia a good conqueror (even though they killed between 12 and 20 million of their own people, depending on what scholar you listen to), while Poland and Britian as evil conquerors?

Come on, Putty....defend Russia, please.

Krellz, I've discussed this a bazillion times on the forum. In threads you even participated in.

"How else do you explain him except "evil"?"

A product of a whole lot of social forces. The inability of Europe to deal with the German question, the fall-out from WWI and the Treaty of Versailles which itself was a consequence of that problem, the Europe-wide manifestation of anti-Semitism that always arose during economic depression, the shutting out of Germany from international markets, the inability of parliamentary democracy to cope with crisis in the 1930s, the inability of Germany to cope with the social effects of industrialization in an era of mass participation in the political process, the brutality of war and the break-down of law & order under conditions of war, etc, etc.

not relevant, really, but since we arguing about the evils of stalin (which isn't to do with the op), let's just remember that churchill was not only weak in terms of strategy, but a disgusting racist, who advocated chemical weapons on kurds because they were inferior, created policies that led to the seven figure deaths of indians (something he didn't not care to and responded to in base terms), etc.

Never mind all that. The liberal missionaries around here who extol their moral superiority when it comes to statecraft and love to wag their fingers at their favorite bogeymen absolutely adore Churchill.

definitely read that as starcraft

As Home secretary in 1911 Churchill wrote a memorandum after the second Moroccan Crisis, "Military Aspects of the Continental Problem" (CAB 38/19/50) which looked at likely German intentions in terms of advances in France/Belgium in the war that was sure to come. I suggest you all take a look at what he said and compare it to what happened in 1914 before you write him off as either terminally stupid or naïve

the apologists for the evil racist imperialist come out - i point you to gallipoli

@Socrates. !!!!!!!!! "apologists for the evil racist imperialist" What the fuck are you wittering on about?Are you trying to say that JoJoJo is an apologist? As far as I can see he was simply highlighting a point about tactical nous or lack of it.
In terms of the thread I,thought that was what we were talking about. And as I am considered to be a dangerous communist by the likes of Krellin I am tickled pink to be thinking that I am now about to support an "apologist for an evil racist imperialist". JoJoJo is exactly right. Read History Today Vol63 Issue12 for a very clear and academically solid article about Churchill

to argue that one article means that we shouldn't write him off as stupid or naive is to be an apologist when the evidence is all against him. if putin pointed out increased literacy rates under stalin i'm sure people would label him worse than that.

The original question asked was on the strategic wisdom, or otherwise, of opening a second front in the med. I contend, given the circumstances of a locked western front and the perilous state of Russia in 1915, that an excellent case can be made for so doing. The straits were indeed nearly forced by the allied navies, prior to the tactically disastrous troop landings. On such chance events does history turn. The arrow in the eye battle of Hastings analogy springs to mind here.

Clearly you have no interest at all in anything approaching reasoned argument. I cited 1 particular article because it is very recent and very well researched and written. If you want further examples there are plenty of them but I fear you don't as you appear to believe that you have the "evidence". I have better things to do with my day than try to get you to think outside of your little box.

That was for Socrates of course.

On Churchill himself, it is true that one can pick on unfortunate and ill judged remarks. Rest assured that, if I was so inclined, I could have a field day too with Abraham Lincoln. The fact however remains that the "never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" stands. And it it stands in the context of Churchill as a leader just as much as does n the context of the multi-national RAF.

abraham lincoln was a bit of a shit too. i'm just disgusted that you don't all shout out the vils of this heinous human being. western hero worship of an empire loving racist is always worrying. i have no doubt that if the nazis won you are the same people that would be singing hitler's praises.

to be fair to lincoln, he was more progessive than many of his opponents, whereas i think it is fair to say churchill was far behind gandhi for instance (a man he hated and decried in racist terms)

@ Socrates. If I cared at all about anything you said I would be quite offended. However as you are clearly deluded and lacking in any real grasp of history in context I shall just ignore your baseless slurs. You don't even bother to find out if others might actually agree with some of what your say when set in an appropriate context. I can see why the dissatisfied part of your name is appropriate but the Socratic part? A real mystery

"The fact however remains that the "never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few" stands"

No it doesn't, but thanks for proving my point about human rights advocates being apologists for Churchill.

"No it doesn't, but thanks for proving my point about human rights advocates being apologists for Churchill."

You are more than welcome. I am sure that any decent person would, as you say, draw a similar conclusion in the context of 1940. oxo