Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "War Stories" channel.

  1. Oh dear! Gibberish.
    1
  2.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  'Well, he has probably used all the right words, but not necessarily in the right order.' That brings back memories!
    1
  3. G.F. Howe, the official US Historian, estimated that 275,000 Axis troops surrendered in Tunisia. 18th Army Group estimated 244,500 (157,000 German). Rommel later suggested 130,000 Germans, and von Arnim 100,000 Germans & 200,000 Italians. The British official history estimated 238,243 (unwounded) prisoners, of which 101,784 were German.
    1
  4. Perhaps you are unaware that Churchill held no political office between 1929 and September, 1939, when he joined the cabinet of a Britain which was already at war? Sorry, my mistake. No 'perhaps' about it.
    1
  5.  @robertbennett9949  Why not give the full quotation, which sheds rather a different light on Montgomery? :- 'Personally, my whole attention was given to defeating the rebels but it never bothered me a bit how many houses were burnt. I think I regarded all civilians as 'Shinners' and I never had any dealings with any of them. My own view is that to win a war of this sort, you must be ruthless. Oliver Cromwell, or the Germans, would have settled it in a very short time. Nowadays public opinion precludes such methods, the nation would never allow it, and the politicians would lose their jobs if they sanctioned it. That being so, I consider that Lloyd George was right in what he did, if we had gone on we could probably have squashed the rebellion as a temporary measure, but it would have broken out again like an ulcer the moment we removed the troops. I think the rebels would probably [have] refused battles, and hidden their arms etc. until we had gone.'
    1
  6.  @iansneddon2956  I was going to suggest Montgolfier ballons, but feared I might be taken seriously.
    1
  7.  @nickdanger3802  Firstly, I struggle to see the relevance to the Battle of Britain. Secondly, Britain defaulted after Congressional approval of the Johnson Act, which effectively allowed France to default.
    1
  8.  @nickdanger3802  'The Browning .303 Mark II was the standard gun used on British aircraft during the 1930s and Second World War.' True, but again, how is that relevant to anything? The British manufactured the gun under licence, as you appear already to have read. It was not a generous free gift.
    1
  9.  @nickdanger3802  When you post a comment relevant to 1940 I might take you seriously. A few years ago, you were a sensible commentator. What has happened to you?
    1
  10.  @nickdanger3802  Yet again. Absolutely no relevance to the Battle of Britain period. Are you now reduced to posting random comments from wikipedia? Sad.
    1
  11. The last British monarch born outside this country was George II. In 1683.
    1
  12. Oh dear, another 'would have' excreting nonsense. The Commonwealth was supportive at a distance, other than one Canadian Division, two Australian/New Zealand Brigades, and a small number of aircrew. The major contribution eventually made by the Commonwealth came later.
    1
  13. Wrong. Bismarck was built as a response to the French Richelieu class, as part of the Franco-German between the wars naval race. She was used, briefly and totally unsuccessfully, as an (unsuitable) commerce raider, and her first and last operation lasted about a week. Hardly a 'stellar career.'
    1
  14.  @xenaguy01  So, you have no evidence, and content yourself with assuming Royal Navy amateurishness? As I wrote earlier, Ralph Kerr had served at Jutland, and knew better than most the risks inherent in David Beatty's enthusiasm for rates of fire. Beatty had tacitly authorised his battlecruiser captains to follow this procedure. Jutland, even Beatty had grasped the error of his ways, and the practice was not perpetrated. 'Believe' what you want. You could just as easily claim that Hood exploded because s sailot in the magazine was having a crafty drag on a Woodbine. There is just as much, or as little, proof for that.
    1
  15.  @xenaguy01  My evidence is from the National Archives at Kew, which contain the records of RN policy and procedures. I haven't yet come across any book which suggests that flash doors were left open aboard Hood, nor any statement by crew members who served aboard her but were transferred before her last voyage that this happened. You believe something because you want to believe it. Now you appear to be claiming that any author who doesn't support your fantasy is 'lying.' Please explain why a naval historian would feel the need to lie about events which took place over 80 years ago?
    1
  16.  Gerry Hagen  It is a shame that few people have heard of Richard O'Connor and Operation Compass.
    1
  17. Even if true, how is that relevant to Sealion?
    1
  18.  @alfredopampanga9356  Just as you must have a remarkable imagination if you think that Roosevelt's opinion of Churchill, negative or positive, had the slightest influence on Operation Sealion. You might perhaps reflect on whether Roosevelt's alleged personal opinions had any effect on his support for Lend Lease. Or whether Churchill's and later FDR's views of Stalin stopped them supporting the Soviet Union? Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that politicians can hold vastly differing political opinions, as FDR & Churchill certainly did, but still have a cordial personal relationship? I refer you, in British terms, to Enoch Powell & Tony Benn.
    1
  19.  @alfredopampanga9356  You do seem to be a choleric and argumentative little chap. I would ask you for your evidence that the relationship was argumentative, but as you seem more interested in insults than answers, it would probably serve no purpose.
    1
  20.  @alfredopampanga9356  Please be a little more honest, and state the source of that comment. It was, allegedly, made to Joseph Kennedy, the eminent Anglophobe.
    1
  21. No, it wasn't.
    1
  22. Not really.
    1
  23. No, she wasn't. After her redesign after Jutland, she was lower in the water, but certainly not 'top heavy'
    1
  24. Indeed. The Concentration Camps and the mass executions of Slavs were masterpieces of organization. In reality, the Germans were steadily losing from late 1941 onwards.
    1
  25.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  Or, when asked 'is the woman with you your wife or your sister?' receiving the reply 'both'.
    1
  26. Perhaps you might explain, then, how so many of them were killed in action?
    1
  27. 'You can't rewrite history to suit your myth.' Unfortunately, that is precisely what many people are eager to do.
    1
  28. Why? It wasn't.
    1
  29.  @nickdanger3802  I wonder if the opinion of a sergeant, however heroic he may have been, is really entirely relevant?
    1
  30.  @nickdanger3802  Are you referring to the night transfer of 3rd Division in late May, 1940, when Montgomery moved his division into the gap left in the allied line following the surrender of Belgium, and prevented the collapse of the front?
    1
  31.  @nobodyknows3180  You don't perhaps consider that tying down eight Panzer Divisions and three Independent Tiger Battalions around Caen might have facilitated the eventual American break out then? Caen was merely real estate. The capture was intended to make it unavailable to the Germans as a route centre. The same purpose was achieved by drawing almost all the German armour into a battle of attrition.
    1
  32. Don't be a fool. FDR was as determined to follow a Germany first strategy as Churchill. Both had the wisdom to appreciate which axis power was the real threat. As to 'saving Churchill's empire' perhaps you need to buy a 1930s map, which would show you where the Empire actually was, and how irrelevant the landings in North Africa and Italy were towards saving it.
    1
  33.  @EQOAnostalgia  Using your skill and judgement, would you be good enough to explain how invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium, all without declaration of war, shows that 'they tried to maintain peace the entire time?' I must lack your erudition, as it really doesn't seem that way to me.
    1
  34.  sydmccreath4554  I have no need to extend any vocabulary when dealing with people who are lacking in actual historical knowledge. By the way, insults are a poor substitute for debate or argument.
    1
  35. Good optical equipment, but radar which didn't work.
    1
  36. OIh, give me strength! Another of the 'Prinz Eugen sank Hood' people. Indeed, it could, provided of course that you disregard the evidence of survivors, observers, and Prinz Eugen's War Diary.
    1
  37. Auchinleck faced Rommel twice, during Operation Crusader and at First Alamein. Auchinleck defeated him on each occasion, and Rommel didn't have the excuse of numerical inferiority on either occasion.
    1
  38.  @waelomar7065  Because, after winning for the second time, at 1st Alamein in July, Auchinleck refused to be forced into a new offensive until he was prepared. Ironically, when Churchill replaced Auchinleck with Alexander, Alexander promptly gave a later date for the Alamein offensive than had been Auchinleck's intention.
    1
  39.  @waelomar7065  I think it was a political, not a military, decision. In terms of Generalship, I believe Auchinleck to have been superior to Alexander. However, Montgomery, for whatever reason, detested Auchinleck, and once the first choice, Gott, had been killed, it was inevitable.
    1
  40. Perhaps you are unaware that, apart from one Canadian division, two Australian brigades, and one New Zealand brigade, no Commonwealth or Imperial troops were anywhere Britain in 1940. Would you care to explain how troops in Melbourne, Auckland, Toronto, or Delhi could have helped to defeat a German invasion attempt in 1940?
    1
  41. Do explain.
    1
  42. Quite how relevant a book on infantry tactics might have been is doubtful.
    1
  43.  @alankoemel3168  He never completed the Panzer book. What is know of it appears in the 1953 book 'The Rommel Papers.' I know where the quote came from. One of the best satirical comedies about WW2, even if unintentional. Based on Ladislas Farago's hagiography of Patton.
    1
  44. So, why were 2000+ barges requisitioned, converted, and sent to Channel ports? Why were 400+ tugs requisitioned to tow them? Why were 100+ motor boats also sent to Channel Ports? Why were 200+ freighters requisitioned as transports? Oh, and why were some 1700 aircraft and their crews sacrificed to no purpose?
    1
  45. Except that, after the Battle of Britain and the abandonment of Operation Sealion in the face of British naval supremacy, Britain did not need saving.
    1
  46.  @andrewtaylor940  Patton wasn't involved in Operation Overlord. He arrived on 1 August, 1944. Rommel had been badly wounded on 17 July.
    1
  47. Why do you people get so upset about the idea? The video is about the Battle of Britain period. At the time, the Commonwealth & Empire were indeed supportive, but largely at a distance. The Commonwealth had provided aircrew, but the only Commonwealth troops in Britain available to help combat a potential German invasion were one Canadian division, and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. In fact, in September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. Perhaps you struggle to grasp the obvious, but in the event of a successful German landing on the south coast, enthusiastic vocal support from Toronto, Cape Town, Delhi, Auckland, or Sydney would have been of little practical help.
    1
  48. Indian troops were not 'sent' anywhere. There was no conscription, yet 2.5 million joined the allied armed forces.
    1
  49. As you have asked nicely, I will. Not only is it not true, but it borders upon insanity.
    1
  50.  @EQOAnostalgia  The Germans lost the Battle of Britain, and never had the slightest hope of crossing the Channel in the face of British naval supremacy in any case.
    1