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

  1.  @xornxenophon3652  The problem with ships is that they aren't much use on land. Like at Gallipoli, for instance.
    3
  2. So, in your 'unbiased' opinion, the 'winners' spent almost the whole of the rest of WW1 swinging round their cables in the Jade, before collapsing in mutiny when asked to face the Royal Navy again, whilst the 'losers' continued to dominate the oceans, and imposed a blockade upon Germany which, by mid 1918, had reduced her people to starvation and revolution. Have I got that right?
    3
  3. I wonder if you have read the casualty estimates the US produced for Operation Olympic?
    3
  4. As best I recall, after their brirf encounter with the Grand Fleet, the High Seas Fleet fled back to the Jade, and never risked coming within range of it again.
    3
  5. Probably because Bomber Harris had convinced himself of the validity of Douhet's arguments, and no amount of evidence to the contrary could sway him.
    3
  6. Perfidious? Britain had a Treaty with Belgium in 1914, just as she (and France) had an alliance with Poland in 1939. Why do you considering a treaty perfidious?
    3
  7.  @markhitchcock4704  You can say it, but it wouldn't be true. The Halt Order was issued by Von Rundstedt, to allow his armour to be serviced and repaired before commencing the second stage of the campaign. Like many senior officers, he feared a repeat of the Miracle of the Marne of WW1. Hitler had already been assured by Goering that the destruction of the Allied pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe,' and was foolish enough to believe him. Surely, if you want your enemy to come to terms, wouldn't there be more chance of that were his field army to be caged in PoW camps, rather than safe behind an impenetrable sea barrier? If your lovable peacefully intentioned Hitler was not intent upon conquering the whole of Europe, did the invasions of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Belgium, all take place without his knowledge?
    3
  8.  @craignairn4854  You are wasting your time replying to this notorious troll. He infests the internet with his anti-British one sentence comments.
    3
  9. Results rather prove otherwise.
    3
  10. Well? I understood the the US and the UK were allies. Was I wrong?
    3
  11. 'support for the Navy (5 years to negotiate a draw in the Atlantic)' What a blinkered chap you are. The British & Canadian navies won the Battle of the Atlantic in May, 1943. They also made possible the D-Day landings, providing the vast majority of the warships and the crews for landing craft. The RN won the naval campaign in the Mediterranean, lifted over 500,000 troops from France in 1940, held the Channel secure, and fought through the convoys to North Russia.
    3
  12.  @peterclark6290  Are you the same person who posted similar rambling nonsense a year or two ago? If you are, it seems you haven't changed or, indeed, learned anything. The first SWATH vessel actually built by anyone, by the way, was in 1968. Rather late for the Battle of the Atlantic perhaps?
    3
  13.  @Boppy-B-B  Jellicoe did not 'bungle.' He was wise not to risk his fleet in a chaotic pell mell action, after Scheer had begun his run for the Jade. What was foremost in Jellicoe's thinking was the need to retain naval control of the North Sea, which he did.
    3
  14.  @msreviews5576  Don't you think that posting obscenities rather than arguments is a less than credible approach?
    3
  15.  @kjyost  It certainly seems that way.
    3
  16.  @kviolin1313  The administration of Bengal did know, but failed to inform the Westminster government. Churchill, when the facts became known diverted grain convoys from Australia to India, and placed distribution of foodstocks into the control of the Indian army. Perhaps you would explain why, with 2.5 million Indians fighting on the Allied side, Churchill would seek to bring about a situation which could lead to a widespread uprising? I assume you haven't read the communications from the time? Obviously not, or you wouldn't post such foolish comments. What was the worst the British did, if I may inquire?
    3
  17. Do you really think that Churchill had any role at all in the the manner in which the campaign was both planned and executed? Or are you simply one of the 'Blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death' crowd?
    3
  18.  @jimlofts5433  Churchill sent support to Greece because he had previously promised that 'Any country which opposes Hitler will have Britain's aid.' There really was no alternative to the allied campaign in North Africa and then Sicily/Italy if US troops were to see action in Europe before 1944. FDR supported the 'Germany first' strategy, but knew that US public opinion would not tolerate the failure of their troops to engage for around two years, and would demand more immediate action, probably against Japan. The allies were in no condition to attempt to land in France until, 1944, but British & Commonwealth troops were already in Egypt/Libya. After completing the Tunisian campaign, where else, realistically, could these troops be deployed? As I wrote earlier, Churchill proposed the Gallipoli operation, but neither authorised it, planned it nor executed it. Blame Herbert Asquith if you must.
    3
  19.  @rickhobson3211  Which situations might they have been? You don't think that part of the reason for Market Garden's failure was inept planning by the staff of the Airborne Army, in particular where drop zones were concerned?
    3
  20. Didn't your research tell you about the width, or rather lack the lack of width, of the Strait of Messina?
    3
  21. 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.
    3
  22. 'I always thought the major point of "Britain standing alone" was that it was the last country in Europe actually still fighting.' Of course it was. sadly, the Imperial War Museum is a steadily declining institution, due to the political prejudices of those who manage it.
    3
  23. Whereas most of the provinces of the European Empire are rather used to being governed by Germany, so it isn't really a big deal for them.
    3
  24.  @kemarisite  I thought that you were more knowledgeable than you turned out to be. The point about convoys are that they have escorts, whereas independents are unescorted. You don't seriously believe that a submerged U-boat is vulnerable to gunfire, do you? You are simply wrong about Federal control of the US merchant marine. Moreover, King was the head of the US Navy at the time. Again, do you really believe that owners of merchant fleets were able to act independently of government in time of war? Please don't be silly. Kentucky and Ohio were transferred to British management because of the need to send fuel supplies to Malta (in the case of Ohio, as part of Operation Pedestal, which also involved three US registered merchantmen), and the ships were handled exactly as I wrote earlier. Ohio had sailed IN CONVOY, from Houston to the Clyde, at which point Texaco received a telegram from the War Shipping Administration confirming what was to happen to her.
    3
  25.  @sailingtoatlantisandliveab2455  I actually asked :- 'And how many colonies did Britain exploit?? And Massacre the local masses?' You have responded by referring to an isolated incident caused by one officer who effectively ended his own career as a result. Is that really all you have? Would you like a list of massacres perpetrated on one Indian state by another in pre Raj days?
    3
  26. No it didn't. By August, 1940, the British already felt able to send the 'Apology' convoy to North Africa. This was a large troop convoy which included three Armoured regiments.
    3
  27. The Press certainly did, as the scribblers in their offices (and bars) demanded a second Trafalgar.
    3
  28. I'm sure these 'volunteers' were motivated entirely by zeal for marxism. I also believe in the Loch Ness monster, by the way.
    3
  29.  @2adamast  As the French army was ten times the size of the British one, is it surprising that French casualties were higher? Would you wish to use a similar argument to compare naval or aircrew casualties? In point of face, of 338,000 men evacuated from Dunkirk, 123,095 were not British. Almost all were French, although a few were Belgian. French ships evacuated 22,160 French troops. Whose ships evacuated the rest, I wonder?
    2
  30.  @2adamast  Actually, during the Dunkirk evacuation, French deaths totalled around 16,000. Around 40,000 men of the French rearguard surrendered after the evacuation had ended. This decision of yours to introduce corpse counting, especially selective corpse counting, apparently to justify your perfidious Albion theory, is most unedifying, and I won't indulge you further.
    2
  31. Good idea. You stick to ball games, and leave adult issues to others.
    2
  32. The Canadians were part of the 'Reconstituted BEF' which began landing at Cherbourg on 7 June, but were withdrawn after Weygand told Alan Brooke, the commander, that the French army was no longer able to provide organised resistance.
    2
  33. Oh really? Was his failure to do so in 1940 simply a lapse of memory?
    2
  34. In WW1? Please don't be silly. Read about the German Spring Offensive of 1918, and what happened to it.
    2
  35. Breaking news for you. Wars are fought by different rules from games of tennis.
    2
  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.
    2
  37. Clearly, you have never bothered to look up the actual Allied casualty figures.
    2
  38. Please explain how it was that, after the 'German Victory,' the 'winning side' spent almost all of the rest of the war swinging at anchor in the Jade, whilst the 'losing' side controlled the seas, and imposed a blockade on Germany which drove her people to starvation & revolution? Please then explain how it was that, following a naval mutiny, the 'winning side' arrived at the main naval base of the 'losing' side in order to surrender? Please explain how it was that the commander of the 'winning' side immediately after the battle told his Kaiser that a further engagement with the 'losing' side should not be risked, but that a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare should be pursued instead?
    2
  39. What do you think aircraft could have done at North Cape?
    2
  40.  @stevenwoodhouse2725  Bismarck wasn't sunk by aircraft. She was slowed down by aircraft, in accordance with pre war Fleet Air Arm tactical doctrine, but sunk by capital ships. Tirpitz was destroyed by bombs because she was hidden well away from any surface ships. The point I was making was that carriers in WW2 never became the dominant force in the west that they were in the Pacific.
    2
  41. Put simply, Cameron, Hague, and their French chums bombed Libya back to the stone age, reduced it to an anarchic charnel house, and exposed the whole of Europe to uncontrolled mass migration.
    2
  42. Except that the control of the North Sea which the Grand Fleet held throughout the war ensured that the High Seas Fleet remained virtually inactive after Jutland. The British Northern Patrol was able to maintain the blockade which successfully reduced Germany to the edge of mass starvation, ending in revolution, mutiny, and defeat.
    2
  43. Montgomery was the army commander.
    2
  44. Actually, looking for a means of removing the Ottoman Empire from the Central Powers, thus inflicting a massive reversal on Germany. Potentially, a viable alternative to the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. As to Cannon Fodder, it seems you aren't actually aware of the casualties. Australia 28,150 New Zealand 7,991 France 27,000 India 4,779 Newfoundland 142 Britain/Ireland 73, 485. Ottoman Empire 251,309. These are total casualties, both killed and wounded.
    2
  45. Really? Source please.
    2
  46.  @nukni4225  You mean the BBC programme 'Fake or Fortune' which in 2015 tried to prove that a painting attributed to Churchill was a fake? Actually, the programme failed to prove anything of the sort. Even so, where is the sin on Churchill's part if someone tried falsely to claim that a picture was painted by him in order to boost the sale price? That is rather like saying Rembrandt should be blamed because someone falsely attributed a 19th century fake to him. In point of fact, Churchill described his paintings as 'daubs' ang gave away far more to friends then he ever sold. Tell me which 'good and honest' history books claim that Churchill stole from Garibaldi, or that 'fight them on the beaches' or 'blood, toil, tears, & sweat' was stolen from him, or that his wartime speeches were edited, or that he gave any word of honour to the Boers, or that he turned a local conflict between Poland & Germany into a World War, or that he had no military decorations? I have asked you for your sources before, and you have consistently failed to provide them. In short, you have demonstrated yourself to be a liar, and, to use a phrase many of my American friends tend to use about people like you, a complete 'horse's ass' with nothing to say worth listening to.
    2
  47.  @michaelmayo3127  Germany, of course, rarely bothered to declare war on anyone. The first clue was generally the arrival of troops, tanks, and bombers, followed a few days later by einsatzgruppen. Certainly Hitler didn't want war with Britain. He simply wanted Britain to stand by as he invaded and conquered the rest of Europe. I suppose you think that was a reasonable desire?
    2
  48. 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.
    2
  49.  @gregoryrussell9235  You clearly have no idea of the casualties at Gallipoli. Just to educate you, they were as follows :- Australia 28,150. New Zealand 7,991. Newfoundland 142. France 27,000. India 4,779 Britain & Ireland 73, 485. As I wrote earlier, The degree of basic ignorance on here is astonishing. However, thank you for providing further evidence.
    2
  50. Are you actually gormless enough to think that Churchill had any part in the planning of the Campaign? Astonishing!
    2