"Why can't Britain handle the truth about Winston Churchill?"

The post that was quoted here has been removed

A simple, Germany lost the war primarily because of a lack of oil. Done. Finished. Kaput.

See how easy that was?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That is inaccurate. You have stated more than once that your literacy is superior to most native speakers. Challenging that assertion is not racist. Only you have referred to whiteness.

'Apparently,' you believe all native speakers of English are white. I find that a bit racist.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Untrue: Duchess64's level of English literacy is notably below the median of all non-native speakers of the language. Yet she's welcome to keep patting herself on the back if it makes her feel better.

It's an even bet, but I'd wager that an average person in Mumbai has a better vocabulary; uses it less repetitively and is better understood.

Mind you, she does deserve credit for trying:
I hereby nominate Duchess64 for an RHP Participation Award.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

To enjoy a good cuppa, one does not need to know the history of tea in China.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You couldn't be much of an historian or a communicator for that matter, if you couldn't brush out the broad strokes of Germany's failure in WW2, over a cup of tea.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Well, there you go.
You bring a new argument to a topic close to my heart (and sincerely, I do find your take interesting), and then you go off on a rant which is neither here nor there.

Most empires are loathed by a majority.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your failure in English is not grammar.
It’s not understanding sarcasm, irony and cynicism.

But that might not be a linguistical issue.

Simplified: if Divegeester states that “Thatcher is greatest English person ever to have lived” it means something completely different than if I state it.

And you can only know that if you know us (from the forum), actually understand English, are older than 8 and don’t score on the autistic spectrum.

All that being said: don’t beat your own drum in public. Just let some matters be.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

As always you miss the point. Churchill was the right man at the right time. We remember him for that reason, and not for being a perfect human being.

Bobby Fischer had a distinctly unpleasant side to his character. Are we therefore not able to recognise his genius on the chess board?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Look at you trying to hide behind a mathematical technicality. Yes, 51% could be called 'most.' Problem is you have also stated your literacy is superior to 'almost all' native speakers. Are you now going to claim that 'almost all' is 51%?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

What do they say about many a true thing spoken in jest (or scorn)

Did you know frinstance that Germany had to utilise 1.1 million horses during WW2 due to their lack of oil? That of the 322 German Divisions in 1943, only 52 were armoured or motorised? That the Wermacht had more veterinarians than doctors? Did you know that German Army trucks often had to be pulled by oxen as they had no fuel and tanks were sent to the battle field by rail and then pulled to the battle field by animals or trucks to save fuel?
https://defense.info/re-thinking-strategy/2018/10/oil-and-war/

It goes on and on. Not enough fuel to give new pilots adequate training, not enough fuel to keep the squadrons flying...

If Germany had all the oil it needed it would not have had to spend so much of its budget on synfuel, converting coal (which it had an abundance) into fuel, thus allowing her to spend on other resources.

Oil was and still is the lifeblood of a modern mechanised army and without it Germany's forces slowly ground to a halt. The corollary you propose would only have allowed her the fuel budget to conduct more blitzkrieg, to keep her supply lines to the battlefield healthy and moving forward.

You should read Pulitzer prize winning author Daniel Yergin's The Prize. It was made into a multipart documentary series. It looks at how the control of oil influenced the outcomes of both World Wars amongst other things. From his perspective, you might not be so flip as to suggest that Germany would still have lost the war even if it had access to cheap and plentiful oil.