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

  1.  @Boppy-B-B  Only if you are a revisionist, with an axe to grind and an agenda to pursue. 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 assume, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda.
    1
  2.  @oldgitsknowstuff  Sadly, it has a number of inaccuracies.
    1
  3.  @oldgitsknowstuff  It isn't a question of being pedantic. The fact is that two totally fictional scenes were shoehorned into the movie, both intended to appeal to a Transatlantic audience by showing the British in a bad light. Dickie Attenborough even said as much.
    1
  4.  @nickdanger3802  Which isn't really relevant to the fictional scene shoehorned into the movie in which the heroic Robert Redford berates a British officer for 'stopping' for tea rather than making for Arnhem. Just as false as the scene of the SS General saying that, after crossing Nijmegen bridge, there was 'nothing' to stop them.
    1
  5.  Dan2314 Wonderluck  How many times? Churchill didn't plan Gallipoli; he suggested it as an alternative to the Western Front. If you really need to apportion blame, try the Generals & Admirals who did plan it, or Herbert Asquith, who authorised it.
    1
  6. 'THE' HMS Dreadnought? Please try harder!!
    1
  7.  @nickdanger3802  The original comment did not claim that the swap was new. Only that it produced a highly effective aircraft. Perhaps you should read posts before commenting upon them?
    1
  8. is the 'Scumbag' meant to be your signature?
    1
  9.  @kylemackenzie3381  In point of fact, the writer, Alan Wakefield, is not 'far more qualified' at all. He has an MA in a rather general field, that of 'War Studies' and a second one in 'Museum Studies.' Neither of which qualify him as an academic historian.
    1
  10.  @Boppy-B-B  How about the Portuguese, then? They transported far more African slaves to the New World than the British did. Having, of course, acquired them from African tribal leaders and Arab slave traders first. Isn't it odd that there is very little reference ever made to these inconvenient facts?
    1
  11. I think they do, but just don't want to!
    1
  12. 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. The Singapore disaster was a direct result of the fact that a situation existed in 1940-2 for which no pre-war planning could have prepared. The assumption was that a war with Germany would be fought with the support of France, who would take on the bulk of the fighting on land, whilst the French Fleet would play a significant role. Indeed, had France not collapsed, Italy may well have remained neutral. As a result, the British, never a significant land power, were obliged to attempt, with insufficient military resources to meet the new situation, to find ships and men to defend Britain, protect the Atlantic supply lines, and prevent axis control of the Mediterranean. The Far East, not at war until December, 1941, was, inevitably, starved of resources.
    1
  13.  @nickdanger3802  Congratulations! Insulting Britain, Australia, & the rest of the Commonwealth in one sentence. A tour de force even by your deteriorating standards.
    1
  14. He commanded HMS Colossus at Jutland. She helped to sink the cruiser Wiesbaden, and hit the battlecruiser Derfflinger five times. She was the only Grand Fleet battleship to be hit by German shellfire, receiving two hits. What 'risk averse cowardice?' and how was Pound protecting himself? He was in the Admiralty building in LONDON, for heaven's sake.
    1
  15. If you wonder that, you must be a fool.
    1
  16. Actrually, construction was dictated by the limitations of the Washington Naval Treaties. On 3 September, 1939, the RN had seven carriers, with six under construction, and fifteen battleships and battlecruisers, with five under construction. The US Navy had six carriers, with one under construction, and fifteen battleships, with four under construction. At the same time, Germany had 57 U-Boats. The Royal Navy had 63. U-Boat construction was a desperate wartime measure, brought about by the demands of a situation for which the Kriegsmarine had not planned.
    1
  17.  @griffon129  Please read my post again, and then point out where I said that I approved of anything. I have simply pointed out the reality of industrial war. If you choose to ignore this reality, then feel free so to do.
    1
  18.  @griffon129  I am simply trying to explain why it happened. If you cannot grasp that, then that is your problem, not mine. The simple fact is, as Admiral Sir John Fisher said. 'Moderation in war is imbecility.' Or, as a veteran of WW2 said to me years ago when I carried out a series of interviews with ex RN & RAF personnel. 'Sometimes you have to do things that you don't like doing, or the people who do like doing them are likely to win.'
    1
  19. Really? Which wars do you think he 'mongered?'
    1
  20. How do submarines annihilate aircraft? Please explain, Herr von Clausewitz.
    1
  21. Not in the west, they weren't. Naval warfare in WW2 involved far more than simply carriers in the Pacific.
    1
  22. Yes. Blame the awful Ted Heath!
    1
  23. Perhaps it would be expecting too much to ask you to look up the actual Allied casualty figures?
    1
  24.  @CityRedesigner1945  Partly right, but don't forget the RCN's role. You might, however, also mention that the RN also won their campaigns in the Mediterranean and the Arctic, as well as planning and successfully executing every assault landing in the west from Torch to Overlord.
    1
  25.  @nickdanger3802  Never a good idea to accept uncritically an RAF source where the Battle of the Atlantic is concerned. To use an accurate, Naval, source :- 'Total shipping losses of the Allied and neutral nations were about 456,000 gross tons a month during the period July 1940 to March, 1941, more than 60 per cent higher than during the first period. Meanwhile the building rate had increased only slightly to about 114,000 gross tons a month, making the net loss of shipping about 342,000 gross tons a month. Total shipping available had decreased from about 38,000,000 gross tons at the start of the second period to about 35,000,000 gross tons at the end of the second period. Of the 456,000 gross tons of shipping lost monthly, about 404,000 gross tons were lost by enemy action. U-boats accounted for 42 ships of 224,000 gross tons a month (55 per cent of the total tonnage lost by enemy action), more than twice the monthly tonnage sunk by U-boats during the first period. Monthly shipping losses due to enemy surface craft jumped to 87,000 gross tons (22 per cent) and those due to enemy aircraft increased to 61,000 gross tons (15 per cent). Monthly losses due to mines dropped from second place in the first period to only 27,000 gross tons (7 per cent), with other and unknown causes accounting for the other 1 per cent of the total losses due to enemy action. There is no doubt that the U-boats had inflicted a serious defeat on the Allies in the Battle of the Atlantic during the second period, but the situation was beginning to look more promising toward the end of this period. One favorable element was the increasing number of antisubmarine ships and aircraft becoming available for convoy escorts as the threat of the invasion of England was decreasing. The number of antisubmarine ships suitable for ocean escort (i.e., destroyers and patrol craft such as sloops, frigates, corvettes) had increased from about 235 at the start of this period to about 375 (includes 240 destroyers) at the end of the period. Important factors in this increase were the coming into service of the new corvette and also the transfer of the 50 old Town class destroyers from the United States to England from September 1940. These destroyers were equipped with U. S. echo-ranging gear, called sonar, which was similar in principle to the British Asdic.' Thus, although the figures are largely accurate, the conclusions are incomplete, in that, losses in terms of gross tonnage available had decreased by less than 8%, at a time when the first 'Happy Time' was in full swing. Evasive, or Diversionary, Routing didn't apply during the period June-December, 1940. It relied upon widespread use of HF/DF sites on ships and shore bases, combined with successes in breaking German Naval Enigma, both of which post-dated that period. How, by the way, is any of this relevant to PQ17 or Paukenschlag?
    1
  26. Nonsense. Simply look for yourself at the composition of the BEF. Then look at the Order of Battle for Operation Compass. The only Indian troops at the time were in East Africa. Non-British pilots, whether from the Commonwealth or outside it, are detailed in full in almost every account of the Battle of Britain currently available.
    1
  27.  @HAmatelot  Graf Spee was not a 'similar ship to Scharnhorst' Graf Spee had, at most, 3.1 inches of belt armour and a 1.8 inch deck. Scharnhorst had a 13.8 inch belt (thicker than Bismarck's by the way) and 4.1 inch deck armour. Absolutely no comparison at all.
    1
  28.  @raghave1043  I don't suppose you would care to back that up with actual evidence of such events?
    1
  29. Thank you! At last a sensible comment, rather than thos of the idiots who blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death.
    1
  30. Didn't the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star see very limited service in Italy right at the end of WW2?
    1
  31. How might that be?
    1
  32. Last time I looked, the British didn't set up special facilities in order to exterminate several million people, nor did they deport hundreds of thousands for use as forced labour, nor did they carry out a series of military invasions of other countries. Perhaps you could list the dates and details of those many occasions when British troops brutally stormed ashore and imposed their tyrannical will upon smiling, peace loving, locals?
    1
  33.  @guacho30  Indeed. You should stick to kicking an inflated pig's bladder up and down a field, and leave politics to the Grown Ups.
    1
  34. Churchill had nothing to do with the planning or execution. As First Lord, he believed that he had found a means of using Sea Power to avoid the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. Properly planned, Gallipoli might have been successful.
    1
  35. Because at points it is less than ten miles wide.
    1
  36. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing.
    1
  37. When did Churchill force men down pits at bayonet point? Do you have a credible source?
    1
  38.  @Charlesputnam-bn9zy  Presumably you aren't aware of the 'Reconstituted BEF' which began landing in Cherbourg on 7 June, until their commander, Alan Brooke, was told by General Weygand that the French army was 'no longer able to offer organised resistance?' Or that 51HD surrendered only because the French IX Corps, of which they were a part, surrendered on 12 June. An evacuation fleet was intended to lift them off on the night of 12 June, having been stopped by fog on the night of 11 June. Read about it for yourself on the division's website.
    1
  39. A typical example of a 'Fleet in Being.' Tirpitz was a far greater nuisance to the allied cause than Bismarck ever was. Scharnhorst should have been used in a similar manner.
    1
  40. Only if you judge battles by counting corpses, rather than by considering strategic objectives. I wonder if you would consider Stalingrad of Kursk German victories, using the same criterion.
    1
  41.  @xwormwood  The point is that some (generally Germans) do indulge in corpse-counting where Jutland is compared, rather than accepting that the outcome of the battle was an undoubted British strategic success. Of course you can compare battles, simply by determined who achieved their strategic objectives, and who didn't. Regardless of the level of loss.
    1
  42. Doubtless you have a source for the claim? By the way, the 1933 'Treaty' if by that you mean the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, was in 1935, and dealt with the respective sizes of the British & German Navies. The Soviet Union, or the United States for that matter, were not involved. Still, I am sure you will provide complete evidence by citing your sources.
    1
  43.  @davidtanslow3584  Sorry, mon brave, but the 'Anglo-German Treaty of 1935' was actually, the 'Anglo-German Naval Agreement' signed 18 June, 1935. It actually agreed that the German Navy would be restricted to 35% in size when compared to the Royal Navy. Armies, air forces, the Soviets, and the United States, did not feature. The clue is in the two words 'Naval Agreement' which you seem to have missed.
    1
  44.  @davidtanslow3584  'If you have any logic to UK government dates and treaties and laws you will realise that the formalities normally come after the actual integration into the countries.' This doesn't make any sense. What you 'insist ' is irrelevant, given that it has no basis in fact. You fairly clearly aren't aware that Dynamo was not a betrayal but an operation to remove a substantial number of trapped allied troops in order to re-land them elsewhere in France. In this case, some 120,000 French troops were re-landed further west, and British troops began landing in Cherbourg as early as 7 June. The British self-evidently did not 'capitulate' although the French did, when the government of Paul Reynaud collapsed, an Armistice was signed, and the Vichy regime installed. Oh, and Hitler did not issue the Halt Order on the Aa Canal, von Rundstedt did, in order to rest his tank crews and service the vehicles before beginning the next phase of the campaign. Rundstedt was concerned that the French might yet be capable of a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' Hitler had already been told, by Goering, that the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe,' and chose to believe him. It really doesn't matter what you 'state' as it is totally lacking in any credibility.
    1
  45.  @davidtanslow3584  There is no such thing as 'The Anglo-German Treaty.' How, moreover, does a treaty relating to naval issues disadvantage two predominantly Land Powers? 'What other secrets are still to be uncovered?' You haven't uncovered this imaginary one yet!
    1
  46.  @davidtanslow3584  Absolute nonsense. I haven't seen you present any evidence for any of this. Nor have you explained how increasing the German Navy would threaten the Soviet Union. Perhaps you would tell me how I will 'find out?' You haven't produced anything more concrete than 'Mercy me, aren't the British rascals?' so far. Show us this evidence of British collusion with the Germans against France before Dunkirk. All sorts of things are written all over the internet. Generally, they aren't true. Please don't waste you and my time further. You are clearly, as my mum used to say, a Nut Case.
    1
  47.  @davidtanslow3584  Actually, you are the one trying and failing to re-write history, by referring to an imaginary 1933 Anglo German Treaty, which apparently also involved the United States, then consistently failing either to produce any evidence to support your nonsense, or even explain how an enlarged German fleet, which is what the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 actually involved, would threaten the Soviets. By sending Bismarck & Tirpitz to Stalingrad perhaps?! As to the secret plotting with Germany? Ramsay MacDonald & Stanley Baldwin? Seriously?? Did the Appeasement policies of Stan &, later, Neville, completely pass you by? You seem to use the term 'I say,' quite a lot. I suspect anyone reading your nonsense would give a damn what 'you say.'
    1
  48. Nonsense.
    1
  49.  @mustafaaustinpowers5748  Precisely. In other words, it was not ranked third behind the UK & Germany.
    1
  50.  @folksinger2100  I am simply relating what my parents told me. An uncle worked at Warton, and thus was more than a little interested.
    1