Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Imperial War Museums"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fus149hammer5 Very few people actually assume that. Most assume that the barges could expect the Luftwaffe to attempt to protect them.
This, however, would be the same Luftwaffe which had not received any training in anti-shipping techniques, and had just failed badly at Dunkirk. The same Luftwaffe which, in the whole of the war, sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship larger than a light cruiser. Just for your information, in September, 1940, the RN had over 110 destroyers in Home Waters, of which 64 were in bases within five hours of Dover.
You can forget torpedo attacks by this Luftwaffe, by the way. The Luftwaffe didn't even have an operational torpedo bomber until mid 1942, so Prince of Wales & Repulse, both sunk by high performance torpedo bombers flown by highly trained crews, do not come to mind at all.
Minefields? Really? The Kriegsmarine had seven auxiliary minelayers. The Royal Navy had around four hundred fleet & auxiliary minesweepers. Moreover, what happens to these minelayers, carefully laying their mines, when they encounter one of the nightly Royal Navy destroyers patrols operating out of Plymouth and Sheerness.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Isn't hindsight wonderful? By June 1940, Germany had invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Belgium (all, by the way, without declaration of war) and had conquered France. Large German forces were within 22 miles of a UK defended almost entirely by the Royal Navy.
The Soviet Union had done a disreputable deal with Germany over Poland, and had occupied the Baltic States. Was Soviet Russia really the greater threat to Britain than nazi Germany.
The reality, as recognised by both Churchill & FDR, was that nazi Germany was the greater of two evils, and that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.'
If you are ashamed to be British, probably that is due to your lack of knowledge.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You don't know much about the Bengal Famine, do you? I suppose that is what happens when education is replaced in favour of indoctrination. :-
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 probably won't suit your agenda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@oldgitsknowstuff The Director was made aware, by Brian Urquhart himself, that he never met Browning, and that there were no photographs of German tanks, but was told by Attenborough that the bulk of the audience would be American, to whom British incompetence would appeal.
For the same reason, the second Bridge at Nijmegen, captured by XXX Corps, was excluded, but a totally fictional scene showing the heroic Robert Redford berating the British for abandoning the Airborne in order to 'drink tea' was put in. Even the American officer this was supposed to depict was offended by the scene, and wrote, without success, to Ryan's widow about it.
2
-
@oldgitsknowstuff It was a Parachute Division, not a Regiment. It was a complex operation, and I agree not everything could be included. So, then, why include invented scenes which did not happen, the first being the meeting between Urquhart & Browning, which did not happen, the second being the tank photos. which did not exist, and the third being that XXX Corps could have reached Arnhem had they not stopped for tea? There are a number of others. I know exactly what a 'brew up' is, by the way.
The tank reference had nothing to do with the vehicles used in the movie. Don't you recall the scene where Urquhart shows Browning pictures of German armour, and Browning dismisses them? Never happened. Neither the meeting nor the photos. Urquhart did have concerns about the operation, but not because of non-existent German tanks, but because he feared that the experienced German commanders in the area would be able to react more quickly than expected.
Instead of simply taking the movie at face value, why not check out the facts?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JimmysEssay In point of fact, the U-Boats never came remotely near blockading Britain. Certainly nowhere as near as the Kaiser's boats did in 1917. Doenitz calculated that his boats needed to sink 600,000 tons per month. In fact, the U-boats rarely surpassed 300,000, and were often below 100,000 tons.
Oh, and the Battle of the Atlantic. Between January, 1942, and the end of May, 1944, the causes of U-Boat losses were as follows :-
RN/RCN surface vessels :- 135, RAF :- 126, US Navy aircraft :- 63, Miscellaneous losses :- 38, US & USCG surface ships 28, USAAF :- 15, and Allies :- 7. Check in 'The U-Boat Offensive, 1914-1945' by V. E. Tarrant, if you don't believe me. I assume, however, that your prejudices are far too deeply ingrained to be altered by mere facts.
2
-
2