Cameroni

He was highly intelligent. He was also a supporter of using mustard gas, bombing women and children and the elderly, and starving millions of Indians.

Well, it's quite simple, over half the famine-related deaths occurred in 1944 after the food security crisis had abated, as a result of disease. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill has been criticized for his role in the famine, with critics arguing that his war priorities and the refusal to divert food supplies to Bengal significantly worsened the situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 What an absolutely mendacious misrepresentation of the facts. Anyone who looks at the Bengal famine will immediately realise that British actions contributed greatly to the final death toll, also Churchill's policy to store food under the Indian's noses but not to give them any, but instead to divert it for use by the British very obviously killed a large number of people. So he does bear responsibility for the Bengal famine to a considerable degree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

You seem to truly suffer from a distortion in your reality perception. Are you not able to read a simple transcript? "Donald Trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542 Kamala Harris blamed Trump for the Covid pandemic.

I would have much preferred the war had ended after the invasion of Poland.

The current narrative in academia is that 960,00 jews were killed in Auschwitz, 865,000 are thought to have been gassed on arrival. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp According to Raul Hilberg, whom I greatly respect, the Einsatzgruppen killed another 1.4 million Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgruppen I have looked at this issue all my life, and read all the transcripts of the Irving trial, so I am aware of the pitfalls with numbers. I won't go into it here, since this is not a holocaust thread but a thread about Churchill. But broadly speaking of course I accept that a large number of jews were killed by the 3000 Germans in the Einsatzkommando and those operating death camps. Clearly they were not killed by accident. The number however, if you have followed the history of the Auschwitz death toll you will be aware of the changing figure there, this is subject to investigation and will continue to be evaluated by academia in the future. At the moment the holocaust is a scared cow, so whilst there is progress in scholarship people are very wary not to stray off path. In the future this will change.

Churchill himself called for the use of Mustard gas on the Ottomans. He also wanted and got, the strategic bombing directive, which sought to kill German civilians. That was a mass extermination of civilians. Churchills lack of action in Bengal, despite his own administration begging for it, led to 3 million deaths of starvation.

I think with statements like this, you show that you are desperately wanting a state of affairs to exist that is completely divorced from reality.

It has now come to light that the fact check intervention on abortion was also wrong. Again, excellent thread. Well evidenced.

Not really. Trump just made a pet gaffe, had the moderators pile in on him and focused too much on defending his own record. Because he waffled about irrelevant stuff, he let Harris' off the hook for her own waffling about anything but the question she was asked. Q: "Why did you change your position on fracking?" A: "My values have not changed". Okay then, real masterful performance. Great answer. True answer: Because I want to get votes any way possible, I have no principles and no policies anyway. I just want to be president.

Yes, that's exactly what Kamala Harris said. We know since we have transcripts: "Donald Trump left us the worst public health epidemic in a century." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542

Riclag obviously succeeded in documenting that an inhabitant of Springfield had called police to warn of a goose being snatched. This was even supported by a recording of the call to police itself. The fact that the police then failed to apprehend the suspects or to do anything about it, is hardly surprising. Police often fail in their job.

True, the Empire was a fait accompli, Churchill did not create it. But he did fight to maintain it long before he became PM, all his life really. We have seen that the British role in the Bengal famine led to 3 million deaths. The genocide of the Amerindians by the British and Spanish, eager to forge their empire, cost 130 million lives. Arguably all these wars of extermination were nightmares of another dimension. We should not pretend the British empire was a fluffy dream for the people who were there before the British arrived. Of course for Churchill totally justified on racial theory alone.

Possibly Kamala Harris will be the first and last female president of the United States, as the world may end on her watch. If she comes to power there can be no doubt a hot war with Russia will be unleashed.

The way the debate rules were written ABC did not disclose that they would have the moderators interrupt every so often with fact checks at their sole discretion and even debate with the candidates on air. They had written the moderators would ensure the debate would be civilized, correct me if I'm wrong. And the moderators then interpreted that as giving total freedom to "fact check". I will say, the moderators did make an efffort at impartiality, they mentioned Harris' flip flops on fracking, they mentioned she supported Bernie Sanders initiative to kill private health care. However, when it came to fact checking they clearly were far more heavy handed with Trump and called him out more often. Not sure if this was a gender thing or because Trump's lies were more saucy, like the pet thing, but clearly it was not even handed. Having said that both candiates still had ample time to speak. And I do think Trump came off as more genuine and passionate and virile, but also fairly self controlled. It was a good peformance in parts. Howeve, marred by his pet gaffe, and his incessant talking about his own record, when he should have made the point at the end more often: Harris was in the white house for 3 and half years and did nothing. Despite Harris smirking, posturing, laughing and pretending to be a statesman, the only things she did well was to not answer questions, waffle on and drone on about things nobody remembers, plus putting Trump on the spot constantly for his past behaviour. Rather defend himself each time Trump should have talked about her.,

Unfortunately the "debate" was heavy on fact distortion and outright lies. From both sides. Trump accusing Biden and Harris of causing inflation was distortion and a lie, because even the most superficially informed person would have been aware that inflation was a global problem. He could have outlined the measures taken by them made inflation worse. But he claimed they caused inflation which nobody in their right mind would believe. Harris claimed Trump was responsible for the pandemic, which frankly was outright ludicrous. She was not called on it, presumably because the lie was so obvious. Just like with Trump's inflation charge. Trump lied about Harris being a Marxist. He was not called on it. She's left and liberal, obviously not a marxist. Harris claimed Agenda 2025 was Trump's agenda. A complete utter lie she was not called on. Even though she made the allegation several times. Trump claimed Ukraine and the Israel wars would not have started with him in power, if not an outright lie still extremely implausible. Harris claimed Trump opposed IVF, a total lie. Not called on it. Trump claimed they sent Kamala Harris to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia days before the war. They wouldn't have sent Kamala Harris to negotiate peace in a Kindergarten. She was sent to meet Zelensky to give him intelligence and promises of weaons, to ensure the war would happen because American wanted the war to weaken Russia. Another lie Trump was not callled on. Kamala harris claimed she always supported private health care. This even after the moderator told her she supported Bernie Sanders push to abolish private medical health care. A blatant lie. Not callled. Trump claimed China paid Biden millions of dollars. News to me. Anyway. Trump was in control until the pet faux pas. He was called out. Then he seemed to debate more with David Muir than with Harris. Both the moderators and Harris made a concerted effort to make the debate about Trump's past record, the capitol, the court cases, and Trump obliged each time. He should have made it more about her, like he did that in the last exchange where Trump was brilliant and clearly won the exchange. But he was floundering for 45 minutes before that waffling about his own past behaviour, which was not helpful. That's why I say it was a tie, because Trump won the beginning and the end, and Harris won the middle by deflecting all questions and instead getting Trump to talk about his own issues. The intervention of the moderators was absolutely extraordinary though, you really would have thought it's the ABC moderator vs Trump debate at one point, not the presidential debate.

Thanks to Riclag for another excellent thread with documented facts, which are relevant to the current debate. The truth about what happened in Springfield will no doubt come out in due course.

He is slinging mud, he's saying Trump can't distinguish reality from fiction. Even if he said it with a nice Dostoevsky reference, which I agree was brilliant, he is nonetheless slinging mud. He is also patently wrong. Trump's problem is not "what she is capable of". Kamala's debate performance was full of air, smirking and not altogether impressive, she evaded questions, lied almost as bad as Trump in a ludicrous way etc. Trump's real problem is that even if he defeats her in one on one exchanges the anti-Trump media will claim Harris carried away a magnificent victory. So the only real way Trump could win a debate is if Harris totally fumbles the ball like Biden. In all other circumstances the media will declare Harris the winner, which is not good publicity. Another problem is the partisan moderators who only seek to embarass Trump on air, but not Harris. So clearly not doing another debate is by far the best decision.

That's true, however, Kamala Harris lied repeatedly about Agenda 2025 being Trump's agenda, that the Covid pandemic was caused by Trump, I mean ludicrous obvious lies. But she was not called on them. Why not? If you could answer with facts rather than rhetoric drivel, that would be much appreciated.

"And it's important to note that he was in favour of using mustard gas against Ottoman troops in WW1, says Dockter, although this was at a time when other nations were using it." https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767 So Churchill was also in favour of using mustard gas.

Yes indeed, that was key, to avoid a war on two fronts, a trauma for Germany. They did not succeed to avoid this in the end. But I doubt it would have been temporary. Hitler thought the Empire was a useful structure in the world. He did not want war with Britain. Britain forced war on him. Some people also said that attacking Russia was also motivated by a desire to show Britain that it was useless to prolong the war. Hitler thought the British were just hoping for Russia to defeat Germany and if he could take Russia out, this would further strengthen his hand to achieve peace on his terms. However, there were probably other more important reasons that made Hitler decide on attacking Russia. However, he did so after seeing figures from his intelligence service, Fremde Heere Ost, which were largely removed from reality. When the scale of Russian arms came out during the war Hitler was shocked and said he was misled. Which had indeed been the case.

The Battle of Britain did have some minor effects, also on the timing of Barbarossa. However, overall the effect was not huge, as mokwit posted the initial successes of the Luftwaffe in Russia bear this out. The superior quality of German arms was not always an advantage, btw. Whilst the Germans focused on producing tiny numbers of jet planes their opponents produced giant numbers of less advanced, but still deadly planes and tanks. Of course Stalin would emphasize the importance of aid, the more he received the better it was for him. But if you'd asked him if he'd preferred if the British and Americans open a second front, that would have been his preference. To put the numbers into perspective. Lend lease gave 7000 tanks to Russia. The Russians themselves produced 100,000 armoured vehicles (!!!). Need one say more? Lend lease was more useful in updating rail infrustructure and providing trucks. But in terms of fighting on the battlefield the effect was not huge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Thanks mokwit, good to see some dynamic perspective. Nobody would dispute that the initial German attack was executed extremely well and was highly successful. Of course this reinforces the point, despite these massive numbers of kills the Germans did in terms of planes and tanks the Russians were still able to field sufficient numbers to defeat the Wehrmacht. How could they do that? Because they learnt to adapt to German tactics and strategy, and to copy them to the letter, but most of all because as you said their production of planes and tanks to replace the losses was incredible. Particularly so if we factor in that the Russians had to transplant entire factories eastwards. The Soviets produced over 100,000 (!!!) armoured vehicles over the course of the war. It is truly an incredible feat. This is why I am saying, they did not really need Lend Lease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

Of course.

On the eve of Barbarossa this was the numerical advantage of the USSR (on the right) 3,350–3,795 tanks[3][1][4][5] 3,030–3,072 other AFVs[6][b] 2,770–5,369 aircraft[3][7] ] Frontline strength (22 June 1941) 2.6–2.9 million personnel[9][10] 11,000 tanks[11][12] 7,133–9,100 military aircraf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa As you can see the Soviets had 11,000 tanks compared to Germany's 3795 They had 9100 aircraft to Germany's 5369. The USSR was already ludicrously outnumbering Germany in terms of material before Lend Lease came into full force. Germany's attack on Soviet Russia was the single biggest blunder of WWII, made on faulty information on Russia's strength by Fremde Heere Ost. Most Generals were aware of this and counselled against this attack. The decision to proceed was made on inaccurate intelligence data provided by Fremde Heere Ost, who bear most of the responsibility for this blunder. The battle of Britain had some effect on Luftwaffe strength, but it was limited.

I'm commenting on the hotel chain Mandarin Oriental, because I've experienced it. I certainly agree it was very obviously among the absolute best of the best from my experience.