samneanderthal

Hi Seehund and 42RM,
I fail to see any evidence or arguments at all in your posts.
It seems to me that in your opinion, historical thinking implies swallowing the lies fed to us by Churchill in his award winning books and by Stalin's historians (he didn't even bother to write his own lies). True history implies objective scrutiny and will often destroy the tangled web of deception to which we have been exposed throughout our lives.
In conventional WW II history it is extremely difficult to find detailed and objective information about perhaps the longest and bloodiest battle (on both sides): Rzhev, which was neatly ommitted both by German and Soviet sources (Zhukov's darkest hour). It is also extremely difficult to find information about the tanks that Churchill sent from Malaya-Singapore to the USSR (in addition to the documented hundreds sent from Britain), Patton's criminal act of sending a few men deep into enemy territory to liberate POWs and who were killed or captured (along with the liberated prisoners), the extreme corruption involved in the B-24 (which cost many lives), etc,
Unfortunately, it is these mistakes that really teach us about the chaos and costly blundering during war time, not the neat, immaculate heroe-packed poppicock we are fed in school and most books.

In your view Churchill is a tenacious genius who saved Britain and made brilliant decisions. In my opinion he is a pompous, blundering fool who wasted hundreds of thousands of allied lives, betrayed the colonies which he used so much, attacked France unnecessarily, murdered many more civilians than did the atomic bombs, sucked everything he could from the US, but didn't fulfill his promise to liberate Burma promptly and left Britain with a 31 billion dollar, 60 year debt with the US alone. Never had so many troops and so much equipment been used so daftly, with the exception of Stalin.