Churchill was probably a prick he certainly seems like one, but he was the right prick for the job, and got it done (admittedly several hundred thousand people died in order to facilitate that success, I think leaders tend to get a bit too much credit - Churchill didn't win the war, he was just in charge of the country at the time and played his part).

That Bomber Harris seemed like a right c**t as well, but if you're going to have someone in charge of Bomber command during an all out, balls to the wall, war, you want someone I suppose who can give the kind of orders that result in Dresden.

Churchill, wasn't actually that much of a great politician outside of that period - Very much a War Time Leader, a bit of a drunk, plagued by depression, partial to cocaine, amazingly charismatic and quite witty (or cutting). Between 1939 and 1945 he was pretty vital.

Doesn't stop him being a prick. You can't really be a politician without being a prick.

To General Anders (the victor of Monte Casino):

"You can rest assured about the future of Poland..."

In fairness I think he did what he could and genuinely respected the contribution of Poland to the Allied cause.

Roosevelt was the f***ing idiot.

Wasn't it the looney lefties that were against the war right from the start?

Stalin or Roosevelt. I'm not really sure Stalin can be classed as worse than Hitler, on a parr maybe, but having read Mein Kampf, I can safely tell you what Hitler's long term plan was for 'Eastern Europe' was most certainly not as positive as the communist regimes that dominated Eastern Europe after 1945 - Which isn't a defense of those regimes.

Also its important to remember that the holocaust is only the tip of the Hitler / National Socialist genocide. When you include the depopulation and genocide following operation Barbarossa, the decades of soviet pogroms and '5 year plan famines' start to look positively tame (bearing in mind the Nazi's achieved something like 10-12m deaths in the space of a few years).

In truth, when genocide and whole sale murder is part of your domestic and/or foreign policy, you're 'as bad' as any other of the major murder junky c**ts of history. Its just a question of scale.

Murdering two people doesn't make you better or worse than someone who murders one person. You're still a murderer, its only a quantitative difference.