Tristan,

There is clear evidence that thousands of Kulaks were murdered and starved at Lenin's behest, not just to curb hoarding, but to bludgeon them into submission.

While Stalin was no doubt the worst killer in the 20th century, the difference between Stalin and Lenin was only of how many they murdered.

The comparison with Churchills sinking of 3 state of the art French battleships is fatuous and you know it, as the Germans would have used them to devastating effect, and the French were not only given ample warning, but were also under the instruction of their superiors to scuttle their fleet, and separately did so to several other vessels.

The difference between Lenin and Stalin was that one (Lenin) implemented the Terror because of a perceived grim necessity re: starvation and economic collapse . as well as internal insurrection (perhaps backed with intervention) - Whereas under Stalin Terror escalated immensely and became a permanent means of social control. ie: 'Totalitarianism'. You argue that Churchill acted out of necessity. And you argue that effectively Lenin did not act out of perceived necessity. I agree re: Churchill it was a difficult decision. Perhaps if he had waited it would not have been necessary. Or perhaps it would have been a disaster with the French fleet turning. Re: whether there is a parallel with Lenin: We will have to disagree because I believe Lenin responded to the threat of starvation. Again that doesn't make me a Leninist. I would have been with the Left Mensheviks, the 'Two and a Half International' and so on. Probably Stalin would have had me shot. Lenin may have had me exiled. There's no doubt Lenin was ruthless and manipulative - but then so are most politicians. There are plenty of other examples of 'Western ruthlessness' ; just take Central and South America during the Cold War. (re: the US) But if we criticise again let's be consistent. Let's consider Lenin was trying to end WWI even if his efforts ended disastrously with civil war. Again as I've said I think he had other strategies to achieve this had he tried.

Tristan a recent book by Max Hastings said that Germany was not badly affected by the strategic bombing, in fact they were producing more tanks than Britain in the last months of the war. The German Minister who was in prison advised that when the Allies targeted the German fuel plants the NAZI's were a week away from collapse and only saved because Bomber Command convinced the Government to go back to bombing cities.
Britain was bombed day and night for months and kept going but obviously Allied Command thought the German people were weaker? Shocking mistake and the most shocking thing is that this is still not acknowledged.

though Allied strategic bombing was far more intensive and killed many more people (many hundreds of thousands in total) ; arguably the Bombing of Dresden drove refugees Westward - costing the Nazi government logistically - ie: destroying infrastructure in the East and overwhelming it in the West. Who knows what to believe? Some say around 20,000 died in Dresden ; others say closer to 200,000. About 35,000 died during the Blitz I seem to recall. More than how many Australians died in total in WWII. But many Germans just 'buckled under' because the Gestapo was everywhere ; and dissent meant death.