Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "When Britain Stood Alone: The Complete Story Of The Battle Of Britain | Full Series | War Stories" video.

  1.  @Dennis-JDB  Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. Moreover, why would anyone be foolish enough to manufacture a famine in India when 2.5 million Indians were serving with the allied forces. None of which, by the way, were conscripts. Furthermore, you seem to think that the 1943 Famine was a one off event. Was Churchill responsible for the famines of 1670, 1770, 1873, 1951, 1971, & 1974 as well? I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit your obvious agenda.
    10
  2. A strange, distorted, opinion you have. Certainly, ther Commonwealth and Empire did aid Britain greatly in WW2, but not as early as 1940. There were, in September of that year, only one (Canadian) division and three (Australian & New Zealand) brigades in Britain. The United States was neutral, selling supplies and equipment to Britain. Greece, Brazil, & Yugoslavia were also neutral, and what exactly was the Jewish League? The United States certainly did look after number one until attacked. How could Poland have done the same? Greece, of course, tried to until attacked by Italy and then Germany. As, of course, did Yugoslavia until invaded by Germany. Australian troops were equipped entirely with British made weapons. Moreover, they did not need to beg. Australian troops, other than one division, were returned to Australia in early 1942. Oddly enough, in British liners and transports, escorted by British warships. Perhaps history isn't your strong point. But there are books available.
    9
  3. Amarican pilots? Less than ten. Canadian pilots 117. 'Alone' means in the sense of being the only nation still actively in arms against Germany in 1940, and it is correct.
    8
  4. Much of what you say is valid. Perhaps the correct phrase might have been 'Britain stood almost entirely alone.' In September, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British.
    7
  5. Adding an exclamation mark doesn't make a facile comment true.
    7
  6. In 1940, aside from the EU not existing, Genial Uncle Joe was old Adolf's bestest chum.
    6
  7. Really? By the time the US arrived in WW1 the Germans had been ground down by the British blockade. The 1918 Spring Offensive had failed, and they were about to suffer the disaster that was the Hundred Days. The Allies were approaching victory before American troops even appeared on the Battlefield. I refer you to the Hundred Days. In WW2, by the time the US was dragged in as an active participant, the idea of a British defeat/German invasion had long passed. Certainly, the arrival of the US ensured a speedier German defeat than would have been possible otherwise, but to suggest than anyone 'saved' Britain is absurd.
    6
  8.  @urielstavras4968  Unlike Germany, Britain had not been actively planning for war for several years, and nor had the British been frenzedly re-arming. In 1940, after the collapse of France & Belgium, aside from one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades, the defence of Britain from invasion was entirely in British hands. On a more general note, if you now bleat about poor little Germany, you might consider whether invading, without declaration of war, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Belgium was really such a good idea?
    5
  9. Actually, stood alone against a heavily militarised country which had successfully defeated Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Germany was, by the way, actively supported by Italy, and supplied with raw materials by the USSR. A shame that there don't appear to be any schools in South Africa any more, sonny.
    5
  10.  @ibrahimismail3107  No, little chap. The bottom line is as I described it earlier. France, by the way, believed to have been the strongest military power in Europe, collapsed in around six weeks, and the closest the USA came to supporting Britain in 1940 was by selling equipment at the full market rate. Given your fairly obvious lack of education, I doubt that your belief about what normal South Africans think or don't think matters a damn.
    5
  11. Perhaps you don't actually know when the Battle of Britain was? At the time, anything Britain was importing from the USA she was paying for, and the Soviets were adolf's keen supporters. Genial Uncle Joe was supplying his chum adolf with raw materials and other supplies. Your ignorance is immense, but, sadly, not uncommon.
    5
  12. In fact, most say nothing of the sort. Many indoctrinated, less well educated, people, with agendas to promote, do indeed blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, however.
    5
  13. And how many troops from 'Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Poland, Czechoslovakia, USA, etc' were actually in Britain ready to attempt to repel a German invasion? This video is about 1940. Why do you people find it so difficult to understand?
    5
  14. Look at the forces defending Britain in 1940. Apart from one Canadian division and three Australian and New Zealand brigades, they were almost all, like the Royal Navy, British. Support from distant areas would not have been much use had the German army ever found a way to land.
    4
  15. Or perhaps your knowledge of the period id somewhat lacking?
    4
  16.  @Neil-yg5gm  Indeed. But how was a success in North Africa from April 1941 relevant to the period of the Battle of Britain, to which the video relates? I know when Australia declared war. But how would troops being raised in Australia have helped defeat an attempted seaborne invasion of Southern Britain from France?
    4
  17.  @LosPeregrinos51  A shame you didn't read the title of the video, which refers to the Battle of Britain period. i.e., 1940. At that time, the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. In September, 1940, of 36.5 operational divisions in Britain, 34.5 were British. This is fully documented. What a pity you didn't bother to check. Certainly, the various nations you list did indeed play an important role later in the war, but not as early as 1940. Don't let your ignorance depress you. Other people suffer from similar misconceptions.
    4
  18. Almost none of which was near enough to provide the military support that Britain needed in 1940.
    4
  19.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  There do seem to be a lot of people around who simply cannot accept what actually happened in 1940. Almost like it is an act of faith with them that Britain could not possibly have, alone, done what Britain did.
    4
  20. Clearly you are a Professor of History at one of the better Universities. Please explain when the British conquered the Phillippines, and then how a nation of 10.1 million (according to the census of 1801) already at war with the greatest military power in Europe, managed to conquer a sub-continent of 139 million people at the same time? Either that, or try to break your indoctrination by buying and reading a real history book, perhaps?
    4
  21.  @ibrahimismail3107  The UK later formed part of an alliance against Germany & Italy, after Germany invaded the Soviet Union and declared war on the United States. That was not the case in 1940, however. I really don't know how I can answer your question more simply, given that you only seem to understand simple answers.
    4
  22.  @ibrahimismail3107  I have answered your question as simply and clearly as I can. Your intellectual weaknesses are of course, to be deplored, but are none of my concern. Don't expect me to waste further time trying to coach you out of your inadequacies.
    4
  23. I wonder how a Britain with, in the first census of 1801, a population of 10.1 million, managed to invade all those countries, when the Indian sub continent alone at the same time is estimated to have had a population of around 169 million? It would be akin to Luxembourg successfully invading Germany in 1940. Perhaps your indoctrinators might explain this miracle to you?
    4
  24. No, it wasn't. There were over 2900 pilots who served with Fighter Command, of which around 140 were Polish. Your post is utter nonsense.
    4
  25.  @georgehegarty7277  Yes, of course I would say that. Largely because it is true. In view of your subsequent irrelevant comment about Shakespeare, I suppose I must assume that you are either odd or 'special?'
    4
  26. 'When exactly did they stand alone again?' For, at least, the whole of 1940. To give an example or two, of 34.5 operational divisions in Britain in September, 1940, 32.5 were British. The only Commonwealth forces in Britain at the time were one Canadian division and two Australian & Canadian brigades. The Royal Navy, other than seven Royal Canadian destroyers, was entirely British. Of 2927 pilots in the Battle of Britain, 2353 were British. The others, both Commonwealth & Foreign, flew British aircraft, under British orders. The United States did not commence their Lend-Lease Programme until March, 1941. Prior to that, any supplies Britain acquired from the US were bought & paid for. THe Commonwealth and Empire played an increasingly large role in WW2, but not as early as 1940. In the (unlikely) event of an attempted invasion, distant voices in support of Britain from the Dominions and the Empire would have had no practical help in repelling it. There are many books dealing with the events of 1940. You might buy one, perhaps?
    4
  27.  @dwight4626  Who protected the Convoy System? The Royal & Royal Canadian Navies. Who planned every assault landing in the war against Germany, except Dragoon of course? Yhe Royal Navy. Who provided the bulk of the forces for these operations, from Torch onwards? The British & Commonwealth armies. As an example, D-Day. On June 6, two thirds of the troops who landed on the beaches were British & Canadian, 3261 of 4127 landing craft were British manned, 892 of 1213 warships were RN/RCN, two thirds of the allied aircraft were RAF. The mine clearance operations were almost entirely RN/RCN, the U-boats sent to attack shipping off Normandy were defeated and largely destroyed by British & Canadian Escort & Support Groups, and the operational commanders of the three forces, air, sea, & land, were all British. In short, you shouldn't believe everything that you see in movies. Although your apparent belief that only the Americans fought the Japanese does rather reveal the depth of your actual knowledge, I suggest. No, Britain could not have liberated Western Europe alone. Neither of course could the United States. However, this obvious fact has precisely no relevance to your comment, which, if you recall, was :- 'If it wasn't for the Yanks. we'd all be speaking German.'
    4
  28.  @r0bbrn140  But didn't you read the title of the video?: 'When Britain Stood Alone: The Complete Story Of The Battle Of Britain' The Battle of Britain took place in 1940. Had anyone claimed that Britain stood alone in, for example, 1942, I would have been among the first to correct them. However, in terms of 1940, the title is correct. Indeed, there were foreign or Commonwealth pilots in the Battle of Britain. 2927 pilots flew with Fighter Command during the batle, of which 2353 were British, and 299 were foreign, by which I mean non-Commonwealth or Empire. In terms of ground forces, of 34.5 divisions available to Britain on home soil in September, 1940, all except two were British. Not that this matters, of course, because Britain's real defence against invasion in 1940, was the Royal Navy, which, apart from a tiny number of French, Polish, & Canadian destroyers, was entirely British.
    4
  29.  @G-Man-half-life  Oh please! The US could have chosen to stay out of WW2? After Pearl Harbor & the immediate German declaration of war? In any case, by January, 1942, the British had already ensured that there was no risk of invasion (actually, there never had been), the Germans had been at war with the Soviet Union for six months, and their offensive against the Soviets had stalled. Education in the US surely isn't as bad as your posts imply?
    4
  30.  @arejaycee5704  Allies who were able to offer little more than moral support. You may not need a history lesson from me, but in view of you comments you certainly need one from somebody.
    4
  31. Britain invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Belgium, all without declaration of war, did she? I must have been off school the day that was taught.
    4
  32.  @kayhass2510  Actual history. In September 1940 the British had 34.5 operational divisions in the UK. 32.5 of these were British. At sea, Britain was defended from invasion by the Royal Navy, which apart from a small number of RCN destroyers, was wholly British. In Fighter Command, of around 2,900 pilots, around 500 were non-British. Mainly from the Commonwealth. Certainly, the United States played a major role in WW2, after being reluctantly forced into it by the Japanese & Germans, but in 1940 the US was neutral, although happy to sell munitions to Britain at market prices. Since then, contrary to what you think, the British fought in the Korean War as part of a United Nations Force, defeated a communist insurgency (unaided) in Malaya, and wisely kept out of the US debacle in Vietnam. If anything, since then it has been the US begging Britain to get involved in a series of unwise American adventures, generally failed ones, in the Middle East. Unfortunately, a series of British Prime Ministers have let Britain become a part of these American antics.
    4
  33.  @AnhNguyen-hr6wh  Why? He only became Prime Minister in May, 1940, having held no position in government since 1929.
    3
  34.  @Scepticalasfuk  You mean apart from having a University First in it, and having a number of books and articles published on the naval war of WW2. If anything I wrote is incorrect, please tell me what.
    3
  35.  @PeakyBlinder  Like may of such videos, it seeks to promote a particular viewpoint. It regards actual facts as secondary.
    3
  36. Perhaps you might check the history books. By 'American volunteers' do you mean the US pilots in the Battle of Britain? There were six of them. The Poles and Czechs came as individuals, after their own countries had been dismembered or conquered. They came precisely because Britain was the only country still in arms against Germany. The only Commonwealth troops in Britain in 1940 were one Canadian division and two Australian & New Zealand brigades. Of 34.5 operational divisions in Britain in September, 1940, 32.5 were British. Yes, Canadian supplies were a godsend. Shipped to Britain in British freighters escorted by Royal Navy warships.
    3
  37. Try to understand, although I suspect you are incapable of it. In 1940, of 34.5 divisions in the UK, 32.5 were British. The only Commonwealth forces were one Canadian division, and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. The Commonwealth and Empire did indeed play an important part in the war effort later in the war, after the governments of the Dominions independently declared war in support of Britain, and by 1945 2.5 million Indians had volunteered for the allied armed services, but at the time of the Battle of Britain Commonwealth & Empire support was, to a large extent, restricted to supportive voices from a distance.
    3
  38. Do provide evidence of the troops from 'Africa/Asia/Australia/Canada/India/ Middle East ' which were on British shores in 1940. You will find one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. That is all. You can, of course, 'forget the Good olé UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! {lend/lease}' in 1940, as Lend Lease didn't begin until March, 1941. 'The U.S.A. saved you twice from the Germans!' Thank you for confirming your (lack of) knowledge.
    3
  39. 'Fighting the nazis for 3 years, alone'. Hardly, until late June, 1941, The Soviets & the nazis were bosom chums. After their acrimonious divorce, the Soviets then received military aid fro Britain and, after December, 1941, from the United States. The Western Allies then carried out a major air offensive which hamstrung German military production, and forced the Germans to retain large numbers of personnel, much of their modern artillery, and most of the Luftwaffe, in the west in a failed attempt to challenge western air power. This of course, is without mentioning the campaigns in North Africa & Italy. They also devoted considerable resources to their U-boat campaign, building over 1100 boats, of which over 800 were destroyed, seven by the Soviets. In the midst of this the Western Allies were heavily engaged against the Japanese Empire, in the Pacific in the case of the US & in Burma in the case of the British. To base your comments simply on the land fighting on the Eastern Front is, frankly, as asinine or blinkered than would a counter-suggestion, that the Soviets contributed nothing because their forces only sank seven U-boats would have been. 'Thank you Russia?' What for, defending herself?
    3
  40. Oh dear. Perhaps you are unaware that the Luftwaffe had bombed civilian targets in Spain, Warsaw, & Rotterdam well before Bomber Command bombed Berliin? Or that the first German bombs fell on London the day before the Berlin raid? Or that 'Churchill has most recently been exposed as a psychopathic war monger with a penchant for small boys,' is simply untrue. 'Trust me' I hardly think so, unless it was to ask you what the words of the 'Horst Wessel' song are. I imagine you are word perfect.
    3
  41. Really? What help do you think the US provided in 1940? By the time the US was dragged into WW2 by Japan & Germany, Sealion was long forgotten.
    3
  42. The Germans in 1940 had radar. Indeed, they thought it more advanced than anything the British had. They were wrong, of course.
    3
  43. At which University are you a Professor of Modern History?
    3
  44. Unfair. Although the Commonwealth and Empire were later to play a major role in WW2, in 1940, just like Britain herself, they were not geared up for immediate action. There was a Canadian Division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades in Britain at the time, but, although Britain was, in effect, alone, the British knew that support was coming. Allied plans pre-blitzkreig had assumed a defensive strategy akin to that of WW1 until Britain organised conscription and troops from the Commonwealth/Empire began to arrive. The issue was that of survival until then. Put simply, neither Britain nor the Commonwealth/Empire had vast numbers of military resources immediately available. Other than the Royal Navy, of course.
    3
  45.  @dixonpinfold2582  Don't be so touchy. I did not correct anything you wrote. I simply suggested an alternative title for the video. You appear to be seeking to take offence at things I did not write. No. I said September, because that was when, if Sealion was ever to have taken place, it would have been attempted. Oh, and by the way, the British actually recovered very quickly from Dunkirk. In August, they were able to send a troop convoy to North Africa to support Wavell & O'Connor.
    3
  46. Why cannot you people understand? Surely it cannot all be down to ignorance? In 1940, which is the period for this video, very little of the 'men and resources' from the Commonwealth & Empire which eventually supported Britain had yet been mobilised. At the time of the Sealion threat, there was only one Canadian division, and three Australian & New Zealand brigades, in Britain.
    3
  47.  @abugina  The whole of the Commonwealth and Empire eventually stood by Britain, but, in 1940, from a distance. If you can explain how Commonwealth forces being built up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or anywhere else, and thus far away from Britain, could have made any contribution to the prevention of a German invasion of Britain in 1940, please try. In September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were made up of British troops. Oh, and in the Atlantic, the Convoy System was introduced from September, 1939. Convoys were escorted, both in the Atlantic and everywhere else, by Royal Navy warships, until the huge expansion of the Royal Canadian Navy, from around May, 1941. Until this happened Dominion navies were tiny. France, by the way, had a large overseas Empire. What happened to France?
    3
  48. In terms of actual military support, aside from supportive comments from a distance, the only Commonwealth support the British had at the time of the Battle of Britain was one Canadian division, and two Australian/New Zealand brigades.
    3
  49. Why wouldn't he? What do you consider wrong with seeking the support of so powerful an industrial nation?
    3
  50. Really? Name one other European country other than Britain still in arms against Germany at the time of the Battle of Britain?
    3
  51. Then you need to do a little more reading.
    3
  52. No. Your comment is not correct. In 1940 the manpower was almost entirely British, although a small number of Canadian & New Zealand/Australian troops were in the UK, and only a small quantity of equipment was being purchased from the US.
    3
  53. You need to 'chase down the details' yourself. If you did, you would find that, at the time of the Battle of Britain, there were, of just under 3,000 allied pilots who flew at least one operation during the Battle, 112 Canadians, and 32 Australians. Of ground troops ready to face any invasion attempt, of 34.5 divisions in September, 1940, 32.5 were British. There was one Canadian Division, and two Australian & New Zealand Brigades. Those are the plain, unalloyed, facts. However much you may dislike them.
    3
  54. But who had precisely NOTHING to do with the events of 1940.
    3
  55.  @dwight4626  I assume you are being humorous.
    3
  56.  @thebun2901  No. To all intents and purposes, Britain was alone.
    3
  57. Really? At the time of the Battle of Britain? In 1940? Think again.
    3
  58. Yes. There were no supplies from Europe, and Lend Lease only began from March, 1941. Britain not only could, but did.
    3
  59. What does 'winning' actually mean? The best the Luftwaffe could have hoped for was control of the airspace over the South Eastern corner of England, within the range of their fighters, as Fighter Command withdrew north of the Thames to regroup. From June 1940 onwards, the British were outproducing the Germans in aircraft, and especially in fighter aircraft. Thereafter, all the Germans needed to do was to get their troops, in largely unescorted barges towed at little more than walking pace by tugs, into and across a Channel dominated by the RN, which had by September around 70 light cruisers and destroyers within five hours steaming of the Dover Straits, and around 500 smaller supporting warships in the same area.
    3
  60. Perhaps you didn't know when the Battle of Britain took place? Try to understand this. In September, 1940, there were 34.5 divisions in the UK. Of these 32.5 were British. The only Commonwealth troops in the UK were one Canadian division and rwo Australian/New Zealand brigades. The nearest Indian division was in North Africa, and the Free French/Poles were not yet forned into (small) coherent fighting units as yet. In the event of any German landing, however unlikely given the naval supremacy of the (British) Royal Navy, supported by a small number of Canadian destroyers, cries of 'Good luck, lads!' from distant Canada, Australian, South Africa, New Zealand, India or anywhere else would not have been of much help. However important the Commonwealth & Empire became later in the war.
    3
  61. Not in 1940, when this video is set, they didn't. There was one Canadian division and three Australian & New Zealand brigades only in Britain in 1940.
    3
  62. Has it still not dawned that people are wise to you?
    3
  63. Indeed they did rally to Britain's defence, but in 1940 they were only able to offer not much more than moral support. In terms of ground forces, the only Commonwealth troops in mainland Britain were one Canadian division and three Australian & New Zealand brigades. Further forces assembling in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or India would have been irrelevant to the defeat of a large German landing force. Please do try to understand that this video is about 1940. However much you may resent it, the facts are as I have stated.
    3
  64. Perhaps you weren't aware that the US only entered WW2, very reluctantly and only after a Japanese attack and a German declaration of war, right at the end of 1941? I assume you are from the United States? Is education over there really so bad?
    3
  65. Yet, apart from one Canadian division & two Australian/New Zealand brigades, there were no Commonwealth troops in Britain in 1940. In the event of an assault landing, however unlikely it might have been, it would be the British who, almost entirely would be the ones who resisted it. Encouragement from far away, whilst good for morale, would not have helped much. There were 574 Commonwealth & Foreign pilots in the Battle of Britain, and 2353 British ones, by the way. Moreover, you greatly exaggerate the importance of the Battle of Britain. After all, if the Germans had achieved a temporary measure of air superiority, all that they then needed to do was find a way past the largest navy in the world for their towed barges.
    3
  66. Poland did not exist at the time of the Battle of Britain. The British & French undertook to declare war if Germany invaded Poland, not to protect Poland. Didn't they declare war, or didn't they?
    3
  67.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  There were a tiny number of Mule Handlers who had been with the BEF and were almost all safely evacuated. They were subsequently feted in the UK, and the toy firm Britain's even made small models of them for sale. Perhaps they are who he means?
    3
  68.  @MarkHarrison733  Hello Troll. Stopped self-medicating again I see. Do your carers know? Indian troops did not fight in France in 1939-40.
    3
  69. The Americans were not 'coming'. At least not until they were dragged in by Japan & Germany at the end of 1941. One might question why the Japanese put themselves in that position by acting as foolishly as they did?
    3
  70. Perhaps because the video is about 1940 and the Battle of Britain? No one ever, for example, refers to the important role played by the Royal Navy at Midway, either.
    3
  71.  @rosesprog1722  Perhaps the concept of sarcasm has escaped you. I was trying to explain to the person who posted that the role of African troops in the Battle of Britain was at the same level as the role of the Royal Navy at Midway. i.e., there wasn't one.
    3
  72. And you must be ignorant of the history.
    3
  73.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  But probably wasted on the recipient, who is doubtless a victim of the US educational system. Or, 'Yee Hah! Let's git the varmints!!'
    3
  74.  @Dennis-JDB  When did I suggest that you were an Indian? It is not necessary to be Indian to have an agenda where Churchill was concerned. You will encounter the same view expressed by the indoctrinators who replaced educators in British schools years ago. Nor did I suggest that Churchill was responsible for other famines. I simply pointed out that there had been numerous previous, and later, famines, as you seem to thing that 1943 was an isolated event deliberately engineered. As to your claim that food was stock-piled for the military, that is factually incorrect.
    2
  75. Considering the comments made about them, they have hardly been under rated.
    2
  76.  @ghostbirdlary  Really? Then explain how they have been 'under rated.'
    2
  77. Odd how a country with a population of 10.5 million in 1801 managed to establish so large an empire by being 'cowardly pigs' isn't it? Perhaps when you leave school and have escaped the indoctrination which has replaced education, you might become more intelligent?
    2
  78. Oh, dear, a victim of the indoctrination which has replaced education in many places. Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. I appreciate, of course, that you won't want to believe any of this, as it doesn't suit your agenda.
    2
  79. Yet, apart from one Canadian division & two Australian/New Zealand brigades, there were no Commonwealth troops in Britain in 1940. In the event of an assault landing, however unlikely it might have been, it would be the British who, almost entirely would be the ones who resisted it. Encouragement from far away, whilst good for morale, would not have helped much. There were 574 Commonwealth & Foreign pilots in the Battle of Britain, and 2353 British ones, by the way. Moreover, you greatly exaggerate the importance of the Battle of Britain. After all, if the Germans had achieved a temporary measure of air superiority, all that they then needed to do was find a way past the largest navy in the world for their towed barges.
    2
  80.  @peterbreis5407 Where 'one eyed jingoism' is concerned, I confess that I am not in your league. Just to correct one or two of your basic errors, Australia actually declared war on Germany on 3 September, 1939. There was no war in the Far East until the end of 1941. What would you have suggested that the Australian armed forces should have done other than that? Yes, Australia paid for British equipment and ships. Shouldn't Australia, just like New Zealand and Canada, have contributed to the maintenance of their own military? Were you to actually look up the war records of such well-known Australian warships as Canberra, Australia, Hobart, Perth, Sydney, & Stuart, you would find, probably to your surprise, that all, after some served in the Mediterranean prior to Pearl Harbor, had been returned to Australian waters, actually before December, 1941. Indeed, after Pearl Harbor, all but one Australian division was returned. The 9th, by the way, was returned after 2nd Alamein following an agreement between FDR & Churchill that a US division would be sent to Australia in the interim. As the ships transporting the other Australian forces back to Australia were overwhelmingly British, as were their escorts, Churchill, supported by Roosevelt by the way, believed that the unfolding crisis in Burma was of greater immediate concern. Actually, he was probably correct, as only those with limited knowledge of the distances and logistics involved could ever have viewed Australia as threatened by any Japanese invasion. Certainly, Tojo's testimony after the war had ended confirmed that Japan had never held such ambitions. Correct, the Yugoslavian merchant fleet was returned to Yugoslavia at the end of the war, just as those of Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Greece were also returned. Not to Tito personally, by the way. Josep Tito was, for good or ill, Prime Minister of Yugoslavia at the time. Again, what would you suggest should have happened to the fleet? 'Canada, New Zealand and South Africa' like Australia, made sacrifices in order to defeat Germany, Italy & Japan. In terms of military deaths as a % of national populations, however, somewhat less than the sacrifice that Britain made. When Australia is deeply mired in a bizarre 'Voice' campaign, accusing others of being 'self obsessed' is, I assume, your attempt at humour, and how is Brexit possibly relevant to events which ended almost 80 years ago, and about which you seem to have little actual knowledge?
    2
  81. They would probably say, 'Quite correct. There were only a tiny number of us in Britain in 1940. Our major contribution came later.'
    2
  82.  @aresee8208  Then you are misinformed. In 1940, there was one Canadian division, and two Australian/New Zealand brigades, in Britain. Of 34.5 operational divisions in Britain in September, 1940, 32.5 were British. A small number of Commonwealth pilots did serve with the RAF in 1940. The Royal Navy, the real first line of defence against invasion, included a small number of Canafian (and French) destroyers, but was otherwise entirely British. Moreover, why do you make the odd assertion that Britain has not thanked the Commonwealth and Empire for their support? That is decidedly not the case.
    2
  83. But in 1940 all were a long way away, and troops in Australia, New Zealand, etc., were not much use if a German invasion attempt took place in September.
    2
  84. Not around at the time of the Battle of Britain
    2
  85. After Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war, Roosevelt had no choice about 'involvement.' Churchill was not against D-Day. He simply wanted to ensure it was not attempted prematurely, as George Marshall initially suggested.
    2
  86. Keith Park had joined the (British) Royal Flying Corps in 1917, and remained with it, and with the successor, the Royal Air Force, for the rest of his military career.
    2
  87. You must mean one Canadian division ans two Ausralian/New Zealand brigades?
    2
  88. Just as you fail to acknowledge that pilots from the Dominions, together with a small number of pilots from neutral countries and from conquered European states, flew in British aircraft, in British squadrons, and under a British command and control system. The Commonwealth and Empire was to play an increasingly important role as the war progressed, but in 1940 the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division, together with two Australian & New Zealand brigades. In the improbable event of an attempted invasion, it would have been faced in September, 1940 by some of 34.5 operational divisions. 32.5 of those divisions were British. Certainly shouts of good wishes from distant Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India would have been much appreciated, but equally they would have been of little practical use against German forces landing, for example, between Rye & Hastings. Clearly, the very idea of British resistance must upset you. You have even broken your caps lock!
    2
  89. Nonsense. The foreign pilots who flew with the RAF played their part, but you are guilty of gross exaggeration, as well as being insulting to all the others.
    2
  90.  @PeakyBlinder  I have. However, I also know the facts.
    2
  91. Actually, your knowledge is quite lacking. In 1940, the Commonwealth and Empire, though it later played a major role, was still far distant, although supportive. In September, 1940, of 34.5 operational divisions in Britain, all except 2 were British. Immediately after the French surrender, the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian dicision and two Australian & New Zealand brigades. There were a number of non-British pilots in Fighter Command. Other than those from Commonwealth countries, and a handful of volunteers from neutral countries, these men had joined precisely because their own countries had been occupied, and joining the British armed forces was the only way they could continue to resist their conquerors. They did, of course, fly in RAF squadrons, using British aircraft. What 'American industrial might?' In 1940, the United States was happy to sell supplies and equipment to Britain, at the full market rate. These items were then shipped across the Atlantic in British ships, escorted overwhelmingly by Royal Navy warships. I appreciate that the idea seems to distress you, but at the time of the Battle of Britain, Britain was, to all intents and purposes, alone.
    2
  92. Not at the time of the Battle of Britain.
    2
  93. Whilst enthusiasts for Russia might claim that WW2 was won by the Soviet Union alone, it really isn't true that most Americans or British think along similar lines. As to the Battle of Britain, there were 2353 British pilots, and 574 non British pilots. All of whom flew British aircraft, maintained by British ground crews, and were trained in the air defence system unique to Britain. The fact that Britain was the only European nation to remain in arms against Germany for the whole of WW2, and was the only one at all to oppose Germany militarily from June 1940 until June 1941, does seem to annoy you, however.
    2
  94.  @Ira88881  Thank you. I must admit that I do get annoyed with those, probably of a certain political persuasion, who dismiss the role of the Western Allies in WW2, especially when they do it by using dodgy arguments!
    2
  95. You mean the allies which let down the alliance by not being up to the task, I assume?
    2
  96. Well, perhaps invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium wasn't such a good idea after all? Was it, herr obersturmbannfuhrer?
    2
  97. And how many troops from 'Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Poland, Czechoslovakia, USA, etc' were actually in Britain ready to attempt to repel a German invasion? This video is about 1940. Why do you people find it so difficult to understand? Certainly, the USA was supplying materials and weapons to Britain in 1940. These were bought and paid for, and brought across the Atlantic in vessels escorted by British warships.
    2
  98. How many time? In the summer of 1940, the only Commonwealth forces in Britain were one Canadian division, and three Australian/New Zealand brigades. How would Commonwealth forces being built up far away have been able to prevent an attempted German invasion?
    2
  99. Please try to understand. This video is about 1940, when the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division, and three Australian and New Zealand brigades. Yes, the Commonwealth and Empire provided immense support from 1941, but not as early as 1940.
    2
  100.  @ClannCholmain  Do try harder. No one in 1940, except possibly Germany, was supplying the Soviet Union with anything.
    2
  101. The Commonwealth had little direct involvement in the defence of Britain in 1940, although it, and the Empire, played a significant role in the eventual outcome of the war.
    2
  102.  @nickdanger3802  'American suppliers delivered sufficient quantities of performance-enhancing 100 octane fuel to England in time for use by Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain." ' Which, of course, Britain paid for at the market rate.
    2
  103. As I assume you know, late June 1940 until June, 1941.
    2
  104.  @georgehegarty7277  Well, anyone who replies to a post about Polish fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain with a comment about the authorship of Hamlet is certainly odd or special.
    2
  105. Perhaps, little chap. But old Benjamin was a very fine musician and composer.
    2
  106.  @k5760-t5p  'was fixed quickly.' What was?
    2
  107.  @k5760-t5p  'that was just for a very very short time.' Again, what was?
    2
  108.  @k5760-t5p  There was little military support from the Commonwealth/Empire until later. In September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. The only significant others were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. Financial support, presumably you mean Lend-Lease, only began in March, 1941.
    2
  109. But in 1940, Britain very much did stand alone. The only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division, and three Australian/New Zealand brigades. In the, admittedly, highly unlikely, event of a German landing on the British south coast, vocal support from states many miles distant would have been of little value.
    2
  110.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  Do you really think he would have taken any notice anyway!?
    2
  111. No. One Canadian division was in Britain, and, indeed, briefly in France until General Weygand told Alan Brooke that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance, and the Reconstituted BEF was withdrawn. By September, there were also two Australian & New Zealand Brigades in Britain. All but two of the 34.5 operational divisions at that time were British. Of course there was a Commonwealth, and it played an increasingly significant role, but not as early as 1940, when, by & large, it provided staunch, but rather distant, support.
    2
  112. Then they might well have had the sense not to get involved in a catastrophic war in the first place?
    2
  113.  @dalj4362  There does seem to be something of a desire to trash Britain's history at the moment. The oddest thing about these people is their complete inability tp accept or understand simple facts, followed by an odd need to take any corrections as a personal attack.
    2
  114. What list? As you seem to think you know something about the subject, please tell me which Commonwealth/Empire troops were based in Britain in 1940, ready to resist an invasion?
    2
  115. Which doesn't alter the fact that Britain had no European military allies after June, 1940. Or that 80% of Battle of Britain pilots were British, or that 303 Squadron only went operational on 31 August, 1940, or that modern analysis of the numbers, which allows access to both claims and losses, shows that the most successful Fighter Command squadron of the Battle of Britain period was more likely to have been No 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron. Or that the most successful pilot was Czech. Or that in September, only two of 34.5 divisions based in Britain were British.
    2
  116.  @dwight4626  'Do you think we would have won without the Yanks ?' Actually, it depends what you mean by 'won.' Moreover, we would certainly not have been invaded, and therefore we wouldn't now be speaking German. We had the largest navy on earth, and from June 1940 onwards the British were outbuilding the Germans in aircraft, and especially in fighter aircraft. This video is about 1940, by the way, when the US were selling supplies and equipment at market rates. You probably don't know this, but FDR viewed Land-Lease, when it was finally pushed through in early 1941, as a means of buying time until the US had begun to re-arm. It was never altruistic in the slightest.
    2
  117.  @dwight4626  Do you think that the British & Commonwealth weren't? The largest single military defeat inflicted upon the Japanese army was the defeat of their Operation U-Go, with 30,500 Japanese killed and a further 23,000 hospitalised. The victors, by the way, were the Anglo-Indian XIV army. The US navy, of course, was able to concentrate almost entirely in the Pacific because the Royal Navy fought, and won, the allied campaigns in the Arctic, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean.
    2
  118.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  Winston Churchill once famously observed that '"Americans will always do the right thing, only after they have tried everything else."
    2
  119.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  I forgot to add a sarcastic comment about how this 'Dwight' person initially pretended to be British, as in his comment 'If it wasn’t for the Yanks we’d all be speaking German' but then revealed himself to be nothing of the sort, with 'who do you think fed and supplied all your forces ? The Canadian and American convoy system. What about all our thousands of tanks and troops.' The lesson here is that, if you choose to lie to people, at least remember the nature of the lie!
    2
  120.  @nickdanger3802  Perhaps you failed to read the tital of the Video? Just to assist you, it read 'When Britain Stood Alone: The Complete Story Of The Battle Of Britain.' I assume you are aware that the Battle of Britain took place between mid July & the end of October, 1940? Perhaps you might try to explain how events in 1944 are relevant to what happened four years earlier, before you wander off on one of your oddly irrelevant rants?
    2
  121.  @nickdanger3802  'The Indian National Army was a collaborationist armed unit of Indian collaborators that fought under the command of the Japanese Empire.' Yet another utterly relevant comment. I know what the INA was. I didn't even need to do a quick cut & paste from Wikipaedia, as you have done. Your turn now. Explain how it was relevant to the Battle of Britain?
    2
  122.  @nickdanger3802  Still replying with odd irrelevancies, I observe. However, you might wish to refer to V. E. Tarrant's's 'The U-Boat Offensive, 1918-1945' for a detailed analysis. Coastal Command are credited with 196 sinkings, US Naval & Army Aircraft with 86, other allied navies with 17, other causes (mines, scuttling, accidents, internment, collisions, and unknown losses) 119, and bombing in ports or shipyards, also 84. Oh, and US Navy 48.5. Royal & Royal Canadian Navy 257.5. Total 808. Do explain the relevance to the Battle of Britain?
    2
  123. Perhaps you are unaware that the US didn't have much choice, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war? Perhaps you missed school the day those events were mentioned?
    2
  124.  @JamesRichards-mj9kw  Oh dear. This seems to happen every time you stop taking your medication for a day or two. You need to get a new prescription urgently.
    2
  125. USA was neutral. Any supplies the British got from the US in 1940 were bought and paid for. No other European nation state was in arms against Germany after 22 June, 1940. The only Commonwealth troops in Britain in September, 1940 were one Canadian division, and three Australian & New Zealand brigades. Support from a distance would hardly have helped if the Germans had managed a landing on the English south coast. Oh, and yes, there were US volunteers with Fighter Command. Eleven or so.
    2
  126. A tiny number of Polish paliots, about 150. The number of American pilots was less than ten. The British did, in 1940, have a small amount of US made equipment, all bought and paid for.
    2
  127. Bizarre how confused people like you can be. Churchill (and Herbert Kitchener) saw Gallipoli as a means of using sea power to avert the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. Had you actually read a book on the subject, rather than simply a 'Churchill was a bad man' manual, you would have found that Kitchener had been asked by the Russian General Staff if the Allies had some means of reducing Ottoman pressure on Russia's southern flank. Thus, Gallipoli was suggested as a means of :- 1). Responding to the Russian appeal. 2). Encouraging neutral Eastern European states to join the alliance against Germany, Austria-Hungary, & Turkey. 3). Perhaps even knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war. Churchill put the idea to Herbert Asquith, who (not Churchill) actually authorised the Operation, after which Churchill, nor any other politician, had any part in the planning or execution of it. When the campaign failed, Asquith needed a scapegoat, which was Churchill' Narvik was rather different. It was an Allied attempt to support Norway after the German invasion, intended to enable at least part of Norway to remain unoccupied, but perhaps more importantly, to prevent German freighters using Narvik as a means of transporting iron ore to Germany when the Swedish ports were iced up in winter. In fact, it might well have worked, at least in denying Narvik to the Germans, had not the expedition been withdrawn following the Blitzkreig on the Low Countries and France.
    2
  128. The subject under discussion is the Battle of Britain, not the whole of WW2. Don't you understand that? I would have thought that there was something of a clue in the title. Whilst the Commonwealth and Empire later played a significant role, as early as 1940 most of it was providing moral rather than actual physical support. In September 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. Earlier, in June, the only Commonwealth forces in Britain were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. Had the Germans attempted Sealion, after securing control of the air from Fighter Command, which consisted overwhelmingly of British pilots, then the ground troops facing the landings would have been almost entirely British. Not to worry, though, because the British Royal Navy was more than capable of dealing with the ramshackle collection of barges which the Germans intended to use. It seems you don't like the actual facts of 1940, so you have invented new ones.
    2
  129. The subject under discussion is the Battle of Britain, not the whole of WW2. Don't you understand that? I would have thought that there was something of a clue in the title. Whilst the Commonwealth and Empire later played a significant role, as early as 1940 most of it was providing moral rather than actual physical support. In September 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. Earlier, in June, the only Commonwealth forces in Britain were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. Had the Germans attempted Sealion, after securing control of the air from Fighter Command, which consisted overwhelmingly of British pilots, then the ground troops facing the landings would have been almost entirely British. Not to worry, though, because the British Royal Navy was more than capable of dealing with the ramshackle collection of barges which the Germans intended to use. It seems you don't like the actual facts of 1940, so you have invented new ones.
    2
  130. But the Spitfire had 100 octane fuel. The Bf109 did not.
    2
  131.  @brianjones5379  '25 countries were helping in some way.' Hardly.There were a small number of individuals from other countries, and from the Commonwealth. They flew in British aircraft.under British command, and following a British air defence system. There was not one European country 'helping in some way' and whilst the Commonwealth and Empire did play a major role later, in 1940 it was still building up for that effort. In September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain deemed operational, 32.5 were British. There were Commonwealth troops in Britain, but only one Canadian division, and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. The only Indian troops were a single division in North Africa, with the Western Desert Force facing the Italians. In the event of an attempted Sealion, good wishes from far away would not help to defeat it. However, the possibility of such an invasion was small, given the overwhelming strength of the Royal Navy in Home Waters. That too, by the was almost entirely British, apart from a small number of Canadian and Free French destroyers.
    2
  132.  @brianjones5379  Ignore him. He is a well-known single sentence troll of total irrelevance.
    2
  133. How many Australian, New Zealand, Indian, and South African troops were available in the British Isles in 1940? To all intents and purposes, apart from Canadian troops and some aircrew, Britain was on her own. The US was, in 1940, generously selling arms and equipmernt to Britain, but certainly not to adolf's best chum at the time, Genial Uncle Joe.
    2
  134.  @GhostNinjaTactical  Don't be silly. The two carriers were delivering Marine Corps aircraft to Midway & Wake Island. The US Army had radar, and the incoming Japanese aircraft were detected, but mistakenly believed to have been USAAF aircraft flying in. Seriously, if FDR was determined to join the war, why would he choose to allow the destruction of a substantial portion of the US Pacific Fleet? Wouldn't a failed Japanese attack have had precisely the same effect? There is precisely NO evidence to suggest that US Intelligence knew of the attack in advance, except in the strange minds of conspiracy enthusiasts.
    2
  135. But at least Sir Keir & his wife are well dressed!
    2
  136. In 1940, Britain was buying equipment and supplies from the United States at the full market rate. FDR was personally sympathetic, but in an election year was hardly likely to commit his country to what many citizens believed to be a foreign war irrelevant to them. A small number of pilots and other personnel from conquered European states joined the Royal Air Force, believing that that was the only hope of eventually freeing their occupied homelands, but there is a difference between such a number of essentially stateless individuals, and political/military alliances with other countries. The only troops from Commonwealth nations in Britain, and thus part of the 1940 anti-invasion forces, by the way, were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. 'But no flight squadrons are almost never mention in British documentaries. Fact!' Are you trying to be serious? Most recent videos (as opposed to accurate accounts) about the Battle would have everyone believe that the Battle of Britain was almost an entirely Polish affair, with the British looking on from a safe distance.
    2
  137. Yes, but, 1n 1940, at a distance. Unless you can explain how forces being built up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, & South Africa could contribute to the defeat of a seaborne invasion of Britain from France?
    2
  138. Perhaps you might try to explain how the two are connected?
    2
  139.  @Kalus_Saxon  Perhaps you lack the ability to answer my original question?
    2
  140.  @Kalus_Saxon  By 'ok for the lame minded' do you mean that, as a member of that community, you are writing on their behalf?
    2
  141. Please try to understand. Apart from a small number of aircrew, one Canadian division, two understrength Australian brigades, and around 5,000 New Zealanders, the defence of Britain in 1940 was left almost entirely to the British people, The Royal Navy was entirely British, apart from a small number of Canadian destroyers, and in September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British.
    2
  142. How was the Battle of Britain, a fight for air superiority over the Channel and over south east England, in any way affected by the existence of the Channel? It had, after all, been there for some time and both sides knew about it! The single, overwhelming, factor, in the prevention of any possibility of invasion was the absolute supremacy of the Royal Navy in Home Waters.
    2
  143.  @anthonynicholich9654  If there was no Channel then the whole history of the British Isles, and Europe, would have been entirely different. Precisely because of the Channel, England/Britain evolved as a sea power, with a large navy and a tiny army, which in effect was little more than an Imperial police force or fire brigade, ferried around to trouble spots as and when they occurred, by that navy. Had there been no Channel, England/Britain, would, perforce, have needed to create and maintain a large army, if only because of the perpetual threat from France. In other words, she would have been far more of a continental power, and far less of a naval power. Much like France, in fact. I hope that is clear, although your immediate resort to insults rather suggests that it will not be? 'They did not establish air supremacy so what makes you think they would have without the channel being there?' Where did I write that? As your magical removal of the Channel is merely a fantasy, you should expect a rational response, even if you cannot cope with one.
    2
  144.  @dalj4362  Considering that the English Channel is believed to have been around for 600,000 years or so, the original comment, and the angry follow up, seem bizarre, to say the least.
    2
  145. Of course. That was why they stripped the European canal network of barges, and converted them into rather inadequate landing craft, why they concentrated a large number of divisions in the French & Belgian coastal areas and trained them in how to board and disembark from these craft, and way they happily lost over 1700 aircraft, and almost 2700 experienced aircrew, in air fighting over Britain. Because they weren't interested.
    2
  146. An odd 'tie' where one side achieved an objective, and the other did not. My cxricket team scored 187 all out last Saturday. The opposition were 189 for 6 in reply. Should I tell them that that was a tie as well?
    2
  147.  @tojamatokanava7778  Along with the rest of the world's population, yes I do. Don't you?
    2
  148.  @tojamatokanava7778  You asked an imbecilic question. I simply replied more politely than you deserved.
    2
  149.  @davidbrims5825  'The reality Britain had the worlds largest navy so the German invasion was never going to happen.' Yes, I know. Now ask yourself who crewed the largest navy on earth? Correct, British crews recruited in the UK. Quod erat demonstrandum
    2
  150. Yes, they did. But 95% of the defence of Britain in 1940 was in the hands of Britons.
    2
  151.  @joebloggs6131  If Churchill "didn't care" about other countries' losses, how was it that, statistically, British military losses as a percentage of national population were significantly higher than those of any other allied country except the Soviet Union? I think you will find that, of 2927 allied pilots listed as participating in the Battle of Britain, 19.6% were non-British. 574 0f 2927, in fact. Of the 574, 304 were from Commonwealth countries, by the way. A shame you didn't check your facts before commenting. Oh, and the Bomber Offensive had barely begun in 1940..
    2
  152. Hpw many Commonwealth troops were in Britain is September,1940, when an invasion might have been attempted? Actually, one Canadian Division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. Of 36.5 Divisions in Britain at the time, 34.5 were British. You could look this up if you wanted. 'Countless thousands of Europeans?' Really? French troops lifted out of Dunkirk had mostly returned, and those Polish troops who arrived did so without equipment, and were re-armed by the British. The Commonwealth did indeed play a significant role in the war effort, but in 1940, when this video is set, apart from the troops I have already mentioned,and a small number of aircrew, that role was largely vocal support from a distance, as they developed their war effort. In short, would cries of 'Good luck, Britain, our thoughts are with you' from Ottawa, Canberra, and Auckland, have been of little use against several German Divisions landing on the South Coast of England. Not, of course, that the (British) Royal Navy would have allowed that to happen. The fact that, to all intents and purposes, the British did stand alone seems to upset you. I wonder why?
    2
  153.  @shootfirst2097  Aside from the fact that the Battle of Britain was not a decisive factor, the naval supremacy of the Royal Navy in home waters was, if you choose to believe that 574 non British pilots were the 'crucial factor' then your knowledge of 1940 is rather lacking. It appears that the fact that Britain was effectively alone during the period July -October, 1940 annoys you? Trying to re-write history does not alter the fact.
    2
  154. Which, of course, isn't in any way contradictory. The Commonwealth & Empire eventually played an important role in WW2, but in 1940 it was still largely unprepared for war, and was supportive at a distance.
    2
  155. Why do you people find facts so confusing? At the time of the Battle of Britain, the only Commenwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division and three Australian & New Zealand brigades. Enthusiastic support from Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa & India would not have been much help in repelling an invasion of Britain from Northern France.
    2
  156. He was interviewed not so long ago. As he is 100 years old, perhaps he simply does not wish to be pestered?
    2
  157. Eventually, yes, but the reality is that in 1940 actual material help from any Commenwealth or Empire country had not arrived. Other than a small number of aircrew, one Canadian divisions, two understrength Australian brigades, and 5,000 New Zealand troops, the defence of Britain was almost entirely in British hands alone. Queen, by the way? In 1940?
    2
  158. Your medication clearly is no longer effective. Another visit to your psychiatrist is clearly necessary. Tell your carers at once.
    2
  159. The 1st Canadian DIVISION was in Britain, and landed in Cherbourg as part of the Reconstituted BEF after Dunkirk, until it was withdrawn when General Weygand warned Alan Brooke that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance, which he did on 14 June. Indeed the British did withdraw their 13 divisions across the Channel, after the 100+ divisions of the Belgian and French armies had either capitulated or collapsed. I do find you ignoramuses, especially those of you with faulty caps locks on your keyboards, extremely tedious. Why don't you just buy a book or two?
    2
  160. In 1940, the threat of an invasion attempt was a credible one. The only help Britain was receiving from the US at the time was paid for. Granted, the US did play a major role in the defeat of Germany, but only after being dragged unwillingly into to the war following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. American 'help' as you call it, was based primarily on self-interest.
    2
  161. Ten or eleven US pilots and around 145 Poles. As to whether Britain was alone, how many other European states were allied with Britain in the summer of 1940? The Commonwealth did indeed come to Britain's aid, but in Summer, 1940, the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division, and three Australian & New Zealand brigades.
    2
  162. Ten of 25 who took part.
    2
  163. People who undulge in festooning their comments with capital letters usually do so to conceal the paucity of their argument, as of course you have done. Please try to break your indoctrination, and think, instead. You might even try to read a book or two? The video is about the Battle of Britain, and the possible threat of German invasion. At the time, the only ground forces from the Commonwealth and Empire were one Canadian Division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. In September, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. The Commonwealth and Empire eventually played an important role in the war effort, but not as early as October 1940. Indian troops did serve in North Africa and Italy, but the bulk of Indian forces served in Burma. By the way, there was no conscription in India, yet 2.5 million Indians served in the allied forces. Your ill-informed comment dishonours the memory of those men. You should take the issue up with those who indoctrinated you, perhaps?
    2
  164.  @michaelwest6330  Perhaps you are unaware of what happened at the General Election of 1951? 'Read French painters art and sold them in the South of France as read.' What does that even mean?
    1
  165. Actually, he does know that 'Britain' was at war. In 1840, the Commonwealth & Empire were supportive, but not as yet where actual boots on the ground were concerned.
    1
  166. How many Australian, New Zealand, Indian, and South African troops were available in the British Isles in 1940? To all intents and purposes, apart from Canadian troops and some aircrew, Britain was on her own. Oh, and the US didn't 'jump in when she knew who the winner was.' She was attacked in December 1941 by Japan, and Germany subsequently declared war on her. In December, Were you off school the day history was taught?
    1
  167.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  I'm not sure whether to thank you or curse you!! I constantly come across posts from Poles about the Bismarck action in which they seem to think that Piorun was the only allied warship involved, and get really annoyed when I tell them what actually happened. Pointing out that Piorun was the only ship froim Vian's force not to fire her torpedoes at Bismarck usually causes great annoyance. However, compared to some of the comments from other sources, such as the one who confidently assured me that the British Raj murdered 100 million Indians, they are quite rational.
    1
  168. That your considered opinion is it? I enjoy reading the opinions of intellectuals and academics. You, sadly, appear to be neither.
    1
  169. Thank you for posting the link. It shows how indoctrinated the teaching of many schools has become in pursuit of biased political beliefs. Just to educate you about the WW2 Bengal Famine, during WW2 around 2.5 million Indians joined the allied cause. Do you really believe that the 'white supremacist drukard pyschopath Churchill' would have allowed the famine and risked mass insurrection in India in 1943? Ask your teacher to answer that. Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. I appreciate, of course, that you won't want to believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda, and clearly the indoctrination is strong in you. In reality, colonialism in the British was almost entirely driven by trade, rather than any ambition to conquer. In 1801, the Population of Britain and Ireland was 10.5 million, and that of India was 159 million. Britain was also in the middle of a major war with the greatest military power in Europe. Do you, or the fool who wrote the nonsense you recommended, really wish to maintain the fantasy that Britain embarked, or was remotely capable of embarking, on the kind of imperial conquests that are suggested? Cetainly, there was a belief in cultural superiority at the time. Perhaps not surprising when western explorers found in the New World, and in much of Africa societies at a neolithic level of development, and, in Australia and New Zealand a mesolithic, hunter-gatherer level of society. Such a view was not restricted to Europeans. Gandhi, when a young lawyer in South Africa, believed that Africans were an inferior form of Humanity, and should not be accorded voting rights. Oh, and the bombing of German cities. Put simply, in words you might possibly understand, please explain why it is perfectly acceptable to kill the man who fires a shell which kills one of your soldiers, but somehow unacceptable to kill the 'civilian' who makes the shell in the first place? In short. There are no civilians in an industrial war. Do try to understand.
    1
  170.  @solrosenberg4529  True, but that was a consequential effect, and not relevent to the situation in 1940.
    1
  171.  @aresee8208  Aside from the fact that the Commonwealth and Empire did receive the grateful thanks of the British, you don't need to repeat my words. What you do need to try to explain is how less than two Commonwealth divisions could have repelled an invasion, in the unlikely event that German forces managed to evade the huge presence of the Royal Navy in Home Waters. In 1940, the British were largely reliant upon their own resources, although distant expressions of goodwill and promises of future support were, I am sure, much appreciated.
    1
  172.  @aresee8208  And as I explained, the British did fully acknowledge the contribution made by the Commonwealth & Empire to Allied victory in WW2 (and WW1, come to that). I am sorry that the efforts the British made in 1940 cause you such annoyance, but facts cannot be changed.
    1
  173.  @glenn9229  Yes there were. There was also a Canadian division, and around 5,000 New Zealand troops. In other words, the land defence of Britain, some 34.5 divisions in September, 1940, consisted almost entirely of British troops.
    1
  174. In 1940? The Commonwealth was largely vocal support from a distance.
    1
  175.  @patavinity1262  Upset? How does posting a few verifiable facts equate to 'upset?'
    1
  176.  @patavinity1262  Oh, sorry. Sometimes it isn't always clear to whom any particular comment is addressed. I apologise.
    1
  177. No, it seems you have missed the point. One Canadian division was in Britain, and, indeed, briefly in France until General Weygand told Alan Brooke that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance, and the Reconstituted BEF was withdrawn. By September, there were also two Australian & New Zealand Brigades in Britain. All but two of the 34.5 operational divisions at that time were British. Of course there was a Commonwealth, and it played an increasingly significant role, but not as early as 1940, when, by & large, it provided staunch, but rather distant, support.
    1
  178. No, they weren't. Not in 1940 anyway.
    1
  179.  @fnqbloke  No. You should. It might enlighten you.
    1
  180. No, they weren't. There was no conscription in India. Moreover, there were no Indian troops in Britain in 1940. Are really as badly educated as you appear to be, or is it simply the result of indoctrination?
    1
  181.  @anishachowhan9630  'Indians fought with distinction throughout the world, including in the European theatre against Germany.' Thank you for your wikipedia cut and paste. Of course Indian troops fought with distinction in North Africa, Italy, & Burma later in the war. But not at the time of the Battle of Britain, which this video is about. Oh, and the Bengal Famine. Just to correct the last sentence by means of actual facts, as opposed to indoctrinator myths & falsehoods. :- Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. I appreciate, of course, that indoctrinators won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit their agenda, but the documents and archives from the period rather contradict their allegations.
    1
  182.  @anishachowhan9630  These would be the 'facts' which told you that 2.5 million Indian soldiers were 'forced to fight for Britain,' would they, even though there was never conscription in India? 'And all I know is wrong' Quite correct. All you 'know' is wrong. Your indoctrinators must be very proud of you for repeating everything that they programmed into you. 'What are you trying to defend?' Nothing, I am simply correcting errors with facts.
    1
  183.  @nickdanger3802  K6, the mule handlers who operated in France, were part of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps. Professional soldiers, in other words. The Quit India movement began in August, 1942. The two events were entirely unrelated. The movement lasted for less than two months. The movement was opposed by the Viceroy's Council, the All India Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the princely states, the Indian Imperial Police, the British Indian Army, the Indian Civil Service, and many leading Indian businessmen. 2.5 million Indians fought on the Allied side in WW2, none of whom were conscripted. At the time of the Battle of Britain, which it seems constantly necessary to remind people this video was about, Gandhi had stated his support for the fight against racism and for the British war effort, stating he did not seek to raise an independent India from the ashes of Britain. Yey again, the issue of relevance arises.
    1
  184. None. But a lot died because the senior military figures who planned the operation made a hash of it. How, by the way, is Gallipoli relevant to 1940?
    1
  185. How many Australian, New Zealand, Indian, and South African troops were available in the British Isles in 1940? To all intents and purposes, apart from Canadian troops and some aircrew, Britain was on her own.
    1
  186. Yes, the Commonwealth & Empire did make a major contribution to the combined war effort, but the video is about the Battle of Britain period, when that contribution was still largely in the future.
    1
  187. You don't actually know much about 1940 at all, do you?
    1
  188. The Lancaster made a first test flight in January 1941. It evolved from the twin engined Manchester, which was a failed design because of unreliable engines.
    1
  189.  @asmodeus0454  I doubt you could give any actual examples of the British actually 'invading, occupying, and colonizing other nations' countries by force of arms and aggressive war.' The British actually acquired their empire largely default, as a result of the activities initially begun merchants with trade goods. The phrase 'the flag followed trade' was a common, and largely accurate one. In 1800, the population of India is estimated to have been 169 million. The first census of Britain in 1801 produced a figure of around 10 million. Do you seriously believe that the British could conquer by force of arms a sub-continent with a population around 16 times greater, whilst at the same time fighting a major war against the strongest military power in Europe? History, and logic do not seem to be your strengths, old chap.
    1
  190.  @GhostOfArtBell0935  Perhaps you are unaware that WW2 ended in 1945. Later events, and the actions of politicians, are not directly connected.
    1
  191. How many South African or Rhodesian troops were based in Britain at the time of the Battle of Britain?
    1
  192. Not yes, but history books in 20 years time may well say that he was.
    1
  193.  @Scepticalasfuk  I don't need to guess. However, this is not entirely correct. Both 52nd Lowland Division and 3rd Division were also fully equipped, and had been intended to form the vanguard of the 'Reconstituted BEF.' Indeed, 52 Lowland began to land in Cherbourg on 7 June.
    1
  194.  @TheDatabaseDude  Certainly, the RCN played a major role in the Battle of the Atlantic, but that is entirely irrelevant to 1940 and the Battle of Britain period. The first U boat sunk by a RCN warship was U501, by HMCS Chambly & HMCS Moosejaw, on 10 September, 1941. I think you have missed the point.
    1
  195.  @stanyeaman4824  Perhaps but the other Dominions also responded in a similar manner.
    1
  196.  @rosesprog1722  The British did not want to be alone. They wanted the support of the Commonwealth and Empire, as well as that of France in Europe. Eventually they received it, but not as early as 1940, when, apart from one Canadian Division, and three Australian & New Zealand Brigades, the ground defence of Britain was in British hands. In fact, by September, 32.5 of 34.5 divisions had been raised in Britain.
    1
  197.  @rosesprog1722  Of 2927 pilots creditted with participating in the Battlre of Britain, 146 were Polish.
    1
  198.  @mattcosgrove8254  Certainly the US was vital to the eventual victory, but perhaps you are not being entirely honest. The US did not so much 'show up to bail out Europe' but was reluctantly dragged in when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war and began sinking shipping in large amounts off the US East Coast.
    1
  199.  @karenblackadder1183  I suspect it is not so much a case of not understanding, more a case of simply refusing to understand.
    1
  200. The first Eagle Squadron, No. 71 Squadron, was formed in September 1940 as part of the RAF's expansion during the Battle of Britain, but only became operational for defensive duties from 5 February 1941.
    1
  201. Don't you mean 'selling' them anmmunition, in terms of 1940? It was rather difficult to hold anyone's hand when there was an ocean 2,000 wide, guarded by the Royal Navy, in between, I suggest.
    1
  202. Oh dear! Gibberish.
    1
  203.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  'Well, he has probably used all the right words, but not necessarily in the right order.' That brings back memories!
    1
  204. 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
  205.  @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
  206.  @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
  207.  @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
  208.  @nickdanger3802  Yet again. Absolutely no relevance to the Battle of Britain period. Are you now reduced to posting random comments from wikipedia? Sad.
    1
  209. 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
  210. 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
  211. Perhaps you might explain, then, how so many of them were killed in action?
    1
  212. 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
  213. 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
  214. 'What a load of BS!' I agree. I wonder why you even posted it. At the time of the Battle of Britain, the only European country still in arms against Germany was Britain. The Commonwealth & Empire became increasing supportive, by in 1940, only Canada (one division) and Australia & New Zealand (one brigade each) had been able to contribute to the defence of the UK. By October, 1940, there were 34.5 operational divisions in Britain. 32.5 were British. Frankly, supportive noises, however enthusiastic, from distant places would have been little use in the event (however unlikely) of German landing. Why does the fact that Britain actually was almost unsupported annoy you so?
    1
  215. Oh dear, another indoctrinated one! Aside from the fact that this video was about 1940 (there were no Indian troops in Britain in 1940, and only two brigades in North Africa), how exactly did 'British Colonialism' take 250 million Indian lives when the population of India in 1801 was 169 million, rising to 340 million in 1947? At the height of the Raj, there were 30,000 British Civil Servants, administrating India through the Indian Princely States, and the rapid rise in population suggests that someone was doing something right. Oh, and the Berngal Famine. Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda with which you have been indoctrinated. Don't you realise that you are making yourself look remarkably foolish?
    1
  216.  @khudrangkd6996  Churchill was born in 1874 and some of his opinions might not be acceptable today. Just, in fact, as some of today's opinions might not be acceptable in 150 years time. Many of his contemporaries held similar views. A lawyer working in South Africa expressed his opinion that Africans were an inferior form of humanity, and should not be accorded equal rights. Perhaps you might have heard of him? Mohandas Gandhi.
    1
  217.  @khudrangkd6996  So, an opinion which does not accord with yours is unacceptable?
    1
  218.  @khudrangkd6996  Which is wholly irrelevant to my comment, of course.
    1
  219.  @khudrangkd6996  I agree you are something of a joke? Firstly, what had the British role in India have to do withn the German invasion threat in 1940, and secondly, I can name a number of economists who would totally discredit Patnaik's calculations and assessments. That is the problem when you base your opinions on the questionable views of a prominent marxist.
    1
  220. Why would it be? How was it relevant to the Battle of Britain?
    1
  221.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  Don't worry. One thing he won't do is thank you.
    1
  222. I would prefer to read a book about Churchill written by a real academic historian, if you don't mind.
    1
  223. No, Britain wouldn't. The Poles were brave & experienced, but the recent exaggeration of their role is becoming tedious. They didn't, by the way, fight for Britain, they fought in Britain, using British equipment, because Britain was the last European country in arms against Germany.
    1
  224. I am sure you wish to elaborate on your thesis. Go ahead.
    1
  225. Most people progress with age. You, however, appear to have regressed.
    1
  226.  @bexhill8777  Not when the narrative is the correct one.
    1
  227. For 'did not' read 'could not.' The Royal Navy saw to that.
    1
  228.  @johnathandaviddunster38  There is something of a difference between going to war with some of the greatest military powers on earth, and steamrollering a weak middle-eastern state. Iraq was easily defeated militarily. The problem was the total lack of planning for what was to follow.
    1
  229.  @johnathandaviddunster38  Whether it did or not, how is that relevant to your original comment?
    1
  230.  @johnathandaviddunster38  Typing something in capital letters doesn't make it any less wrong.
    1
  231.  @johnathandaviddunster38  You might have understood better if the comment to which I refer had not, strangely, been removed. I wonder how that happened?
    1
  232.  @johnathandaviddunster38  I didn't make the comment. You did. Cannot you remember your own words?
    1
  233. Just as the people who 'taught' you have to answer for the fact that they have abandoned education in favour of indoctrination. I would ask you to produce actual evidence for this 'brutal racist colonialism all over the world' but I know that you cannot.
    1
  234. On land the Germans would certainly have defeated the British, just as at sea the British would have defeated the Germans. In the air, the British had been outbuilding the Germans since June, 1940, and, unlike the Germans, were building a strategic bomber force, a resource which the Germans never thought of. Oh, and at Dunkirk, after around 100 French & Belgian divisions had collapsed or capitulated, around 210,000 British & 110 French troops were withdrawn by the Royal & Merchant Navies. Not, as you seem, rather oddly, to think, in rowing boats. The reality of 1940 was that the two adversaries were unable to defeat each other, even when your gallant Soviets sat on the sidelines, supplying Germany with raw materials and with oil. A year later, your Soviet heroes were to learn how that cynical deal would end.
    1
  235. Nonsense. The foreign pilots who flew with the RAF played their part, but you are guilty of gross exaggeration, as well as being insulting to all the others.
    1
  236.  @PeakyBlinder  'Their efforts have been ignored.' No, they haven't, but they have on occasion been rather exaggerated.
    1
  237.  @PeakyBlinder  In point of fact, No. 303 (Polish) Squadron RAF was the top scoring Hawker Hurricane squadron of the Battle of Britain, with 44 victories positively verified. This made No. 303 the fourth highest scoring squadron overall, after No. 603 (AuxAF) Squadron RAF (57.8 verified kills), No. 609 (AuxAF) Squadron RAF (48 verified kills) and No. 41 Squadron RAF (45.33 verified kills), which all flew Supermarine Spitfires. You don't need to recommend videos to me, as I have seen most of them. I have, however, also access to more recent analysis of the battle, and I am not influenced by agendas.
    1
  238. How many troops from the Commonwealth and Empire were actually in Britain, ready to oppose a potential German invasion attempt? Support from distant places, however willing, would not have been much help. To answer my question, by the way, one Canadian division, and three Australian & New Zealand brigades.
    1
  239.  @barrydunn682  Quite correct. At the time of the Battle of Britain, the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were those I have described earlier. Canada was also sending supplies, mainly in British ships escorted by the British Royal Navy. The superb effort later made by the Royal Canadian Navy came later. A few Commonwealth & foreign pilots and air crew were serving in the RAF, of course, but the major contribution subsequently made by the Commonwealth and Empire was still some distance in the future. For your enlightenment, in September, 1940, when an invasion attempt might have been made (the overwhelming probability is that the Royal Navy would have annihilated it, by the way) there were 34.5 divisions in Britain. 20 were allocated to Coastal Defence. Of these, all except two were British.
    1
  240.  @barrydunn682  I am sorry that you feel the need to resort to insults in the face of superior knowledge. The fact is that, however supportive the Commonwealth and Empire may have been, in the summer of 1940 cheering from a distance would not have done much to prevent a German invasion. If you can name a single European nation aside from Britain still in arms against Germany after the French Armistice/Surrender, feel free so to do.
    1
  241.  @barrydunn682  Which is precisely what I have been trying, clearly without success, to get you to grasp. The Commonwealth and Empire was far away, and, apart from one Canadian division, and three Australian/New Zealand brigades, could offer nothing more than vocal support. Do buy a book and read up on the facts.
    1
  242. How many times? Eventually, the Commonwealth & Empire played a major role in the allied war effort, BUT NOT IN 1940.
    1
  243. How many Australian, New Zealand, Indian, and South African troops were available in the British Isles in 1940? To all intents and purposes, apart from Canadian troops and some aircrew, Britain was on her own.
    1
  244.  @ClannCholmain  Perhaps you weren't aware, but after Italy declared war in June 1940, the Mediterranean was effectively closed to Allied merchant shipping, and convoys went round the Cape. Not that this matters, however, as, apart from a tiny number, less than 8,000, there were no Australian, New Zealand, South African, or Indian troops in Britain in WW2. The Australians were in North Africa, Malaya, and then the Far East, the New Zealanders and South Africans in North Africa, & Italy, and the Indians in North Africa, Italy, and Burma/Malaya. The Canadians, of course, played a major role in the European campaign, and were the only substantial Commonwealth force in Britain in 1940. Ever thought of reading a book or two?
    1
  245.  @ClannCholmain  Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the title of the Thread? It relates to the Battle of Britain. Or rather, German attempt to gain control of the air over the Channel & South Eastern England in order to establish conditions which might make a seaborne invasion possible. They were wrong of course, but not because of the size of the British Empire, but because of the overwhelming strength of ther Royal Navy in home waters. By the way, where did you get the number 164 for destroyers from? The correct number is 193. Indeed, the Royal Navy was the largest in the world in 1939-40. I didn't actually mention the Italian navy, as that wasn't what concerned the British in 1940. They simply concluded, sensibly, that to send troopships or merchantmen through a Mediterranean which at the time was dominated by the Italian Air Force was not wise. Hence, troop and supply convoys from Britain went round the Cape, rather than through the Med., and troop or supply convoys from India and the Far East docked at the southern end of this Canal. Here is an easy question for you. Please tell me, from your evident encyclopaedic knowledge, the convoy number of any Brirtish convoy which passed through the Suez Canal during WW2? Should be a simple task for someone of your intellect.
    1
  246.  @ClannCholmain  Please refer me to the post in which I referred to the Italian navy. My only previous reference to Italy at that point was this :- 'Perhaps you weren't aware, but after Italy declared war in June 1940, the Mediterranean was effectively closed to Allied merchant shipping, and convoys went round the Cape.' Or perhaps you are simply rambling because you are unable to answer the simple question I asked about Mediterranean convoys?
    1
  247.  @ClannCholmain  So, it appears you now admit that I didn't refer to the Italian Navy after all. I will take your apology as read. In point of fact, I wasn't thinking of the Italian Navy, as Cunningham's fleet in 1940 was quite capable of escorting convoys through the Med. in the face of it. My concern, which was also that of the British at the time, was the Regia Aeronautica, at a time when the British had few aircraft resources in the theatre. That was why convoys went round the Cape. I observe that you haven't supplied the convoy details. Of course you can't, as there weren't any, but you have chosen instead to ramble on about brexit to cover your obvious ignorance. You do not have any idea what my views might or might not be on that particular subject, and nor is it relevant to the question at issue. I am not seeking to do myself any favours. I have simply presented you with a series of indisputed facts, which you have neither the knowledge nor the intelligence to challenge.
    1
  248. @walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Don't feed the troll.
    1
  249. What is?
    1
  250. The US wasn't shipping anything to Britain in 1940. US ships were not involved. The British were outbuilding the Germans in aircraft, and especially fighter aircraft, from June 1940 onwards. As to the comparative navies, don't even go there.
    1
  251.  @maryjeanjones7569  Indeed, but not as early as the Battle of Britain, the subject of this video.
    1
  252.  @maryjeanjones7569  In 1940 Canada had a tiny navy, of seven destroyers, and no aircraft carriers until 1946. Canada began building Flower class corvettes in 1940, but the first one was not launched until 8 August, 1940. Why does this have any relevance to aircraft construction anyway, by the way? Incidentally, a total of 20,351 Spitfires were built in total. Do you suggest that only around 350 were built in Britain? You will struggle to prove that! The first Spitfire even to arrive in Canada only did so in 1940, and the first Canadian Squadron even to fly them was 403 Squadron in March, 1941.
    1
  253. In 1940, the British got very little from the United States, and, other than Canada, the rest of the Commonwealth was too far away to send support other than a comparatively small number of aircrew. I have got it right, thank you.
    1
  254. Why do you consider it to be an erroneous comment?
    1
  255. Except that, aside from one Canadian division, two Australian and New Zealand brigades, and a handful of non-British aircrew, Britain actually did stand alone in 1940. Do you really think that vocal support expressed from some distance away would really have deterred German troops in the unlikely event that their barges managed to get past the Royal Navy?
    1
  256. True. A small number among a much larger group of pilots.
    1
  257. Not in 1940. Anything Britain acquired from the US before Lend Lease in March 1941 was bought and paid for, and no US freighters were sunk before by the Germans before 1942.
    1
  258.  @onlythewise1  Really? Are you saying that Lend Lease was in force in 1940, or that US Freighters were sunk in large numbers before 1942? I fear you will have difficulties maintaining either claim.
    1
  259.  @onlythewise1  I see the problem here. You didn't know that WW1 had ended with an Armistice in November, 1918. Perhaps you were off school the day that was taught, if indeed it was taught. Still, you had no need to sign yourself 'dork.' You deserve sympathy because of your lack of education, not ridicule.
    1
  260. @michaelmurray5631 Moreover, in terms of total populations, British military deaths were, as a per centage, higher than any other allied country except the Soviet Union.
    1
  261.  @ClannCholmain  Actually, in WW2, France suffered 217,000 military deaths, from a population of 42,000,000. Or 5.1%. I haven't, by the way, included the 38,000 French troops killed whilst serving in the German army. If you seriously think that 3.25 million French military personnel were killed or wounded in WW2, then you are really not in a position to accuse anyone else of 'making stuff up'.
    1
  262.  @LouisKing995  Actually, the British were outbuilding the Germans in aircraft, and particularly in fighters, from June 1940 onwards. Moreover, the Germans lacked any strategic bombers, as their air force was strictly a ractical one. Moreover, the Germans had never even heard of Britain's shadow factories, and thus had no idea where they were.
    1
  263.  @LouisKing995  No, there wasn't. Initially the Germans did concentrate on military targets, particularly 11 Group airfields, as part of their attempt to secure air superiority. The switch to civilian targets was a later development.
    1
  264.  @LouisKing995  No. Only from early September.
    1
  265. None of which were in Britain available to oppose a German invasion, except for one Canadian division and three Australian & New Zealand brigades. Kindly explain how Commonwealth & Imperial divisions foring in India, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, & South Africa might have helped hold the GHQ Line?
    1
  266. Perhaps Germany should not have invaded, without declaration of war, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium & the Soviet Union, then? Having tanks drive over your property, bombers bombing your towns, and soldiers shooting your people, might tend to annoy the mildest of countries.
    1
  267.  @fintonmainz7845  Didn't you read my earlier post? In 1940, the time to which this video relates. Very few. Certainly recruitment was taking place throughout the Commonwealth and Empire, but troops in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India would have been unable to contribute to the defence of Britain in 1940.
    1
  268.  @fintonmainz7845  Certainly some Irishmen did join, but the vast majority of troops in the British army in 1940 were British.
    1
  269. Are you saying that Goering had even less excuse for his failures than has been assumed?
    1
  270.  @leoa4c  I agree.
    1
  271. The video is about the Battle of Britain, which took place in 1940. Lend-Lease was instituted in March, 1941. Do buy a book.
    1
  272.  @mikedimarco3008  Until the Lend-Lease Act was passed on 11 March, 1941, anything Britain acquired from the US, Britain paid for. By the way, how does any of this suggest that Britain was any less 'alone' in summer 1940?
    1
  273.  @mikedimarco3008  The full title was 'When Britain Stood Alone: The Complete Story Of The Battle Of Britain.' Why not the use of this title? If you can name any other nation in opposition to Germany aftert 22 June, 1940, name it.
    1
  274.  @mikedimarco3008  'When the narrator said Britain manufactured its own planes. Question, "Why wasn't the role of Britsh/French purchasing Commision. Brought to everyone's attention. Importantly the role it played in the Battle of Britain???' Perhaps because the aircraft used by Fighter Command during the battle were overwhelmingly Hurricanes, Spitfires, and a small number of Gladiators, Fulmars, and Defiants? What role do you believe the Commission actually played? Which of their aircraft types took part in the battle?
    1
  275.  @mikedimarco3008  'Why during the Battle of Britain. The important roles the United States, the Neutrality Acts, also the Anglo/French purchasing Commision was NOT even mentioned???' Do explain what roles you think these played?
    1
  276. The Indian Navy was tiny in WW2, and in 1940 the only Indian division was one (or actually two thirds of one, as one brigade was British) in North Africa.
    1
  277. The Battle of Britain was in 1940. In Summer1940 the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division and three Australian & New Zealand Brigades. Incidentally, after the French Armistice/Surrender, which other European powers did Britain have as 'allies?'
    1
  278. The Battle of Britain took place in 1940. How many troops from the Commonwealth & Empire were actually in Britain to help repel a theoretically imminent German seaborne invasion? As you clearly don't know, the actual number was one Canadian division and three Australian & New Zealand brigades. If a landing had been achieved, perhaps in September, how might troops in Toronto, Sydney, Auckland, Delhi, or Johannesberg have helped prevent German troops advancing on London? Would you like me to recommrend a book or two, as your education seems sadly lacking?
    1
  279. Your post is largely incoherent, but I assume you refer to Churchill? So he was 'told to surrender multiple times with no conditions of territory take over' was he? I assume you used 'surrender' because you didn't know the word 'negotiate?' If so, when were these offers made, and where may their details be read?
    1
  280.  @LosPeregrinos51  'Can you explain their contribution to the Battle of Britain please?' They had nothing at all to do with the Battle of Britain, of course. But they would have had everything to do with the defence of Britain had German forces been able to land. That, mon vieux, is their relevace to the price of eggs. Moreover, of 2937 aircrew listed with taking part in the Battle of Britain, 302 were from the Commonwealth, and 293 from other countries. 595 of 2937 is not actually a quarter. 'Was that Britain "standing alone"?' Actually, yes it was, as these men were supplied with British aircraft, and flew under British command. Moreover, why do you place such emphasis on the Battle of Britain in any case? Don't you really know what actually mad invasion impossible? The total naval sopremacy held by the Royal Navy throught the period, of course. Perhaps you might explain why the opinions of your American friend of the merits or otherwise of British commanders are even vaguely relevant? You do know, I assume, that the Steve McQueen character in 'The Great Escape' was entirely fictional, and was added to help market the movie in the United States? You didn't? Oh well, never mind. Simply posting insults rather than responding to my facts hardly supportd your case. As my old Professor, M. R. D. Foot, was wont to say, 'When people resort to insults, it is generally because they lack any arguments.' You might bear that in mind?
    1
  281. Why do you people find it so difficult to grasp that, at the time of the battle of Britain, the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division and three Australian/New Zealand brigades? You might not lile it. You may even resent it. But it doesn't make it any less true.
    1
  282. Indeed they did rally to Britain's defence, but in 1940 they were only able to offer not much more than moral support. In terms of ground forces, the only Commonwealth troops in mainland Britain were one Canadian division and three Australian & New Zealand brigades. Further forces assembling in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, or India would have been irrelevant to the defeat of a large German landing force.
    1
  283. Very good! Germany had, without declaration of war, invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Belgium. The one country Germany did declare war upon was the United States of America.
    1
  284. Of course Churchill wanted American support. Who wouldn't? But he didn't get it at the time of the Battle of Britain. Whatever Britain got from the US then was bought and paid for. Lend Lease ( which Britain finished paying for in 2006, by the way) did not happen until March, 1941. Oh, and the US did not ride heroically to the rescue of the hapless British. She was dragged reluctantly into WW2 when attacked by Japan and when Germany declared war on her. Whatever nationality you are, the education you received was, clearly, sadly inadequate.
    1
  285. As I wrote, your education is sadly lacking, old fellow.
    1
  286.  @senda9782  Perhaps I am being unfair to your educational system. Possibly you were playing truant the day your class was taught history.
    1
  287.  @senda9782  I am not deleting anything. What makes you think that, old chap?
    1
  288. United States ships were not supplying Britain in 1940 & 1941. No US merchant ships were sunk by German action in 1939 & 1940, and 16 prior to December, 1941.
    1
  289. Presumably, you haven't heard of a shadowy and secretive organisation called the Royal Navy, which would have had a considerable say in the matter?
    1
  290.  @omutvtube3910  Doubtless the Royal Navy would have suffered some losses, but if anyone knew the meaning of the phrase, 'The Price of Admiralty' the British did.
    1
  291. Perhaps you are unaware that, when the Germans invaded Poland, Chamberlain was Prime Minister, and Churchill was not even in the British Cabinet? Oh, sorry. Clearly no 'perhaps' about it.
    1
  292.  @stevelauda5435  My reply to you was actually 30 words, probably 28 more than you deserved. Oh, and Britain did not 'let the U.S.S.R take all of east Europe,' Stalin simply took it, and if you seriously believe that the British, American, & Canadian publics would have tolerated an attack on Genial Uncle Joe & his gallant lads, as the western had portrayed them since mid 1941, then you are truly deluded.
    1
  293.  @stevelauda5435  You mean the 1943 Yalta Conference which took place in February, 1945? That Yalta Conference?
    1
  294.  @stevelauda5435  You really cannot possibly be as ignorant as you pretend, surely? Simply look up the date of Yalta for yourself.
    1
  295.  @stevelauda5435  If I had only read one book, it appears I would still have been leading you one nil.
    1
  296.  @stevelauda5435  I am sure you do. If we are boasting about knowledge, however, I submit that my First in Modern History rather trumps your books which have apparently led you to believe that the Yalta Conference was in 1943. Perhaps you have been reading the wrong sorts of books?
    1
  297. Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit your agenda.
    1
  298. Except in 1940, the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian Division and three Australian & New Zealand brigades. How would forces assembling in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, & India, have been able to defeat a German landing on the British south coast?
    1
  299. England and Scotland are part of Britain. New Zealand, Canada, India, Australia, & South Africa all made immense contributions to the eventual allied victory, but not as early as the summer of 1940. The only Commonwealth troops in Britain at the time of the perceived invasion threat were one Canadian division and three Australian & New Zealand brigades. Forces being built up in other parts of the work would not have helped defeat a German landing on the British south coast.
    1
  300.  @Followme556  The 50 destroyers, for which Britain paid, only became operational, with British or Canadian crews, well after the Battle of Britain had ended. Britain had to carry out extensive refits on them. Any other items, including aircraft, were also paid for, and had British crews. There were 2927 pilots accredited as flying with Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain. Of these, 574 were not British. If you can name any nation fighting alongside Britain in 1940, other than Commonwealth ones building up their forces but still at a distance, please try. To argue that Britain was not alone is as false as claiming that Britain & America supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War because of the International Brigade.
    1
  301.  @paulroese1376  Of course Churchill wanted the US in the war on the British side. Who wouldn't want the support of the greatest economic power in the world? Lend Lease does not apply to this video, however, as it only came into being in March, 1941.
    1
  302.  @bobbrown9158  The role of the many non-British pilots is undeniable, but it does not alter the fact that, after 22 June, 1940, Britain was the only European power resisting Germany.
    1
  303. But then rejected Attlee in 1951.
    1
  304. 303 Squadron only became operational on 31 August, 1940. The Battle of Britain began on 10 July.
    1
  305.  @matthewmt9148  I would hope that they were, as they were far more experienced than most of the pilots involved. They still, however, were absent for most of the battle.
    1
  306. But how many men from any of the Commonwealth countries were actually in Britain and available to combat an attempted German invasion? One Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades, together with a small number of pilots. Supportive voices from far away would nor have helped much in 1940.
    1
  307.  @antonybarnstormer6285  'The Australian Army was the largest service in the Australian military during World War II.' Yes it was, later, but during the Battle of Britain period the Australian contribution to the defence of Britain from invasion was one Brigade. There was also an Australian Division in North Africa. You hang yourself with your own comment, ' The Australian Army subsequently made an important contribution to the Allied campaigns ' when you use the word 'subsequently.' Of course Australia did, as did Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and India. Just not as early as 1940. Perhaps you might read the title of the video again?
    1
  308.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  It appears that one of the posts to which I responded has disappeared. How fortunate that I included quotations from it in my earlier reply.
    1
  309.  @antonybarnstormer6285  You seem even more upset at the idea, supported by evidence, that to all intents and purposes Britain was alone. Why does the idea annoy you so?
    1