> We all knew that Churchill was a supporter of the British Empire. That does not mean that he was a "mass murderer," which would be somebody who is directly responsible for the murder of a massive number of people, by doing it him- or herself or ordering it to be done. This can be argued in the case of the terror bombing of Germany, but it was total war.
I'm a little puzzled by this -- especially the 'but'. I'd have been more likely to write 'because'.
Query: If Churchill isn't a mass murderer, who is? Hitler, I suppose, and Stalin, depending somewhat on one's doctrinal commitments. But what line of argument leaves Hitler in the fire and brimstone and gives Churchill a D-minus pass to the Pearly Gates? Quantity? Technique? Are bombers better than Zyklon-B?
And what about... Truman?
Oh, I know it's conventional wisdom. But surely we're well past all *that*.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com