Re: A take on Winston Churchill

I'm afraid I'm unaware of these war crimes. Could you elaborate please?

Re: A take on Winston Churchill

And now it's Queen Victoria who was the biggest mass murderer in history!

I look forward to seeing your evidence!

Re: A take on Winston Churchill

Let's start with Dresden which typifies the policy of deliberately attacking civilian centres.

Dresden was the most infamous, but the deliberate creation of firestorms over places such as Hamburg when the damage to strategic targets was way exceeded and deliberately aimed at civilians are widely known.

Note the deliberate and intentional attack of civilians as targets, make both Churchill along with "bomber" Harris war criminals up there with the worst.

Re: A take on Winston Churchill

The policies adopted by British colonists that included killing of indigenous people who got in the way yet were never brought before the courts in the UK because of the actual let alone tacit approval of Victoria and her Establishment is evidence enough that as head of the Establishment she was in a position to change things but did not and so must carry the can.

QED.

Re: A take on Winston Churchill

Ah, I see.

So you're perfectly happy with Hitler deliberately bombing cities throughout Britain and, of course, that wonderful V2 weapon that arrived completely silently giving absolutely no warning of what was to happen.

That's nice.

Now, how about Queen Victoria. What did she keep under her skirt, I wonder? Poison gas? Bacterial weapons?

Re: A take on Winston Churchill

Stalin was certainly a 24 carat SOB.

Not only did that arschloch use mass murder he also used highly focused murder for his political ends as a way of getting shot of former political colleagues.

Not much sympathy for Koba!

In spite of everything he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. That was where the wheels came loose on the Nobel peace prize committee but when that POS Arafat was awarded one the whole cart disintegrated with the remnants turned to dust after Hussein Obama got one.

Re: A take on Winston Churchill

I hope your not being sarcastic omah.
We. will have. to. burn all the history books.

Best regards. Donkeyman.

Re: A take on Winston Churchill

To be fair the deliberate bombing of civilian areas by the Axis didn't ever become SOP unlike the Brits. Indeed it was the proven accidental release of its bomb load by a German aircraft that gave Churchill the excuse he needed to start spilling innocent German blood. It is also on record they Her Shicklgruber specifically ordered that bombing was to avoid civilian areas and concentrate on strategic high value assets. what.

Editted to add :-

Obviously it didn't take much spilling of innocent Deutsches volk blut before it became a case of quid pro quo but it was Churchill wot started it guv.

Re: A take on Winston Churchill

It was deliberate bombing , as I’ve said it was total war, this means that the use by any means to achieve victory, it’s arguable that Dresden was a significant rail and communications city, it was in nazi Germany and therefore a legitimate target, it was also a show of force to Stalin, as the allies knew he would be trouble after the war..

Re: A take on Winston Churchill

The Geneva Conventions were established in order to limit harm to noncombatants. Even if Dresden was a railway hub, which it wasn't to any extent, that did not justify the war crime of totally devastating an entire city and its inhabitants.