Churchill’s arrogance in WWI (1914-1918) cost over 100,000 men their lives - I know some people will say “so what” to the loss of life - after all, we all know the “important” cause of WWI (I guess, making the world safe for dicators to come)... History is scary if you look it in the eye.
As for Abraham Lincoln, over half a dozen European countries abolished slavery without engaging in a bloodbath that killed over 600,000 men and ended with a 12 year occupation.
Winston Churchill, for the record, had as many American parents as Barak O'bama.
Perhaps, Professor, you were not there when it was offered that slavery was not the sole cause of the Civil War. Is Professor a self-generated designation?
Churchill wasnt completely responsible for the Gallipoli debacle. Besides, I’m quite sure Haig and Kitchener could have gotten all those troops killed them if they’d been sent to the western front instead.
There is a tendency for modern historians to try and apportion blame for WWI more evenly, levelling accusations at Britain and/or France for contributing to the crisis by their arrogant imperialism and/or colonialism. Unfortunately, this doesn’t really wash. If you want a reason for the onset of WWI you really dont have to look much further than a very large German army invading Belgium and northern France. WWI could have been prevented, but not once nations start invading each other.
Abraham Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery, not start a civil war. The decision to fight over that issue was the South’s, or more specifically the decision of the great plantation owners who dominated southern politics. There were genuine grievances held in the South against the North, but none of them, in and of themselves, would have pushed the South into rebellion. The absence of conflict in Europe is largely down to there not being much economic benefit in slavery by then.