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

  1. The Scharnhorsts were called battleships by the Kriegsmarine. They had thicker belt armour than the Bismarcks, the Iowas, the South Dakotas, and the North Carolinas, none of which were ever called battleships. There is no point arguing about nomenclature, but most naval historians would describe them as 'seriously undergunned fast battleships.' The video was about North Cape. Gneisenau was irrelevant to North Cape.
    2
  2. No. She had a thicker belt than contemporary US battleships, as well as the Bismarcks. She was a seriously undergunned fast battleship.
    2
  3. Revisionists have a need to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death. The fact is that Gallipoli was proposed by Churchill as a means of exploiting the Allied control of the sea, and as an alternative to the Western Front. Asquith authorised the Operation, and the military, not Churchill, were responsible for the planning failures.
    2
  4. When Hipper did try to send the High Seas Fleet out in October, 1918, the crews mutinied.
    2
  5.  @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
  6. You don't think that battles such as Mareth or Wadi Akarit were relevant? Or the fact that Montgomery was Ground Forces Commander for the successful Overlord landings?
    2
  7. Why post then?
    2
  8. The destroyers had been sent off to search for the convoy. In the sea conditions, they were more or less useless anyway.
    2
  9. 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
  10. What legends? The reality is that in 1940 the only military support from the Empire came from Canada. Raw materials were supplied from a number of places within the Empire, but had to be conveyed to Britain in British merchantmen, escorted by British warships.
    2
  11. The pre-dreadnoughts were outdated in terms of naval warfare, but were still among the most important ships present. The comment is valid.
    2
  12. Simply not true. Certainly Hitler always regarded his main enemy as the Soviet Union, but the fact is that in for a year, from June 1940 to June 1941, Britain was the only European country still in arm against Germany. Where is this tendency 'to claim the whole world including the USA would have fallen to the Nazi had Britain not saved itself?' The most I have seen is the not unreasonable suggestion that, if Britain fell, the US, should she have become involved, would have had no possible base from which any landing in Western Europe could have been attempted. As far as I know, no-one with the slightest interest thinks that anyone other than the Soviets captured Berlin.
    2
  13.  @hurri7720  'There is also a tendency in Britain to claim the whole world including the USA would have fallen to the Nazi had Britain not saved it self. That is what is simply not true.
    2
  14.  @hurri7720  You might have heard it in one of Churchill's wartime speeches when he was eager to get the industrial power of the US on Britain's side, but no serious historian has ever put the idea forward.
    2
  15. Well, whose fleet controlled the oceans and imposed a blockade, and whose fleet barely poked a nose out from the River Jade, and finally mutinied when asked to sortie in 1918?
    2
  16. Don't be a fool. The Royal Navy won the Battle of Jutland because after it, the German fleet never dared challenge the Grand Fleet again, but swung peacefully at anchor in the Jade whilst the RN's Northern Patrol systematically starved Germany into revolution, mutiny, and defeat.
    2
  17.  @dswrabkln4900  Churchill was, when born in 1874, disgracefully not thoroughly imbued with the morale compass of the 2020s. Is that what you are saying? How would you assess Gandhi, who regarded Africans as inferior forms of humanity? 'Leo Amery remarked in his diary that "on the subject of India, Winston is not quite sane" ' You mean Churchill's opposition to Indian Independence, and the fact that he and Amery disagreed? Amery was Secretary of State for India during the war. If any one British politician should have known about the Bengal Famine, that politician was Leo Amery. I wonder why he was strongly opposed to an investigation into it?
    2
  18. Char B1.
    2
  19. Perhaps you might look up the actual Allied casualty figures.
    2
  20. 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
  21.  @nikaluss5946  The fact that you use so glib a phrase amply illustrates your agenda. Thank you.
    2
  22.  @nikaluss5946  Do you carers know that you spend you time playing on the lap top? You seem to ber either a very immature, or very ignorant, person. Go away and stop trying to argue with adults.
    2
  23.  @nikaluss5946  You mean because I am well educated and able to marshal my facts efficiently? How perceptive of you.
    2
  24. You mean that the British used rivetted construction for armoured vehicles in WW2? Just like everyone else did? It was both quicker and cheaper, especially at a time when welding was still a very new technology. The US did not go over to welding until the later M4s. Earlier types used a mix of casting & riveting. The Matilda II, by the way, also had a cast hull. The hull of a welded ship was more inflexible than that of a rivetted one, which made them less seaworthy, although lighter, as the plates did not need to overlap. A number of welded ships in WW2 broke up in heavy seas, until the technique had been developed sufficiently to overcome the problem. You might as well claim that the British 'covered up' the fact that the Sopwith Camel or the Spitfire did not have a jet engine.
    2
  25.  @jeep146  During the period known as the 'Second Happy Tiime', Axis submarines sank 609 ships totalling 3.1 million tons, against a loss of only 22 U-boats. That was largely down to King's refusal to release destroyers from the US Atlantic Fleet for escort duties.
    2
  26.  @nigeh5326  Don't believe all you see in 'Darkest Hour.' There were never more than 30 or 40 MPs in support of negotiating terms with Hitler. Not all were Tories, although they did briefly find a figurehead in The Holy Fox.
    2
  27. Edinburgh was sunk in May 1942. North Cape was in December, 1943. No connection.
    2
  28. 1). Auchinleck was far from defeatist. 2). I don't care what you think.
    2
  29. 'Strafer' Gott would have been a disaster in command of 8th Army. Why would you criticise a general who assembled a superiority in men, machines, supplies, and intelligence before embarking upon a campaign?
    2
  30. Churchill did not plan Gallipoli. He suggested it, Asquith authorised it, and the army/navy command produced the flawed planning. He was, of course, scapegoated by Herbert Asquith. Most of the people who post on here, however, are convinced that Churchill was responsible for everything since the Black Dreath.
    2
  31. Night bombers were difficult to intercept at that point in the war.
    2
  32. Clem Attlee's decision. He was PM at the time.
    2
  33.  @twolak1972  I believe the message to which you replied referred to the Bf109G, which I understand entered service in mid 1942. Personally, I find it a good idea to read a post BEFORE I reply to it.
    2
  34. And an accurate one, as opposed to the one with Gibson in it.
    2
  35.  @ErichZornerzfun  Twice later in 1916, before returning to port immediately upon receiving reports of the approaching Grand Fleet, and once in 1917 into the Baltic. That does not equate to 'numerous times.'
    2
  36. Silly me. I thought that D-Day was an allied victory. Thank you for correcting me.
    2
  37. Having first supplied the Germans with raw materials since 1939.
    2
  38. Air power wasn't much use in the Arctic Winter. Scharnhorst and her destroyers could seriously harm an Arctic convoy, which is why the Home Fleet did what it was supposed to do.
    2
  39.  @davidpowelson4817  'Battle of Caen during Operation Overlord.' You mean when the British & Canadians faced 8 Panzer Divisions and 3 independent Tiger Battalions, almost all SS, and fought them to a standstill? That Battle of Caen?
    2
  40. The Houses of Parliament might be a worthier one, but only on one of those rare days when the 'Honourable' Members and the 'Noble' Lords and Ladies were actually there.
    2
  41. 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. By the way. He lost his job as First Lord as a result, and served for a time with a Scots. Regiment on the Western Front.
    2
  42.  @dnivaranamaratis  Perhaps you need to learn a little more about the politics of Britain in WW1. Churchill was made a scapegoat to divert blame from Herbert Asquith. Once Asquith was removed in late 1916, the new Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, recalled Churchill to government almost immediately. Your reference to Vietnam is utterly irrelevant, and is presumably simply an attempt to avoid the subject of Gallipoli.
    2
  43.  @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
  44.  @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
  45.  @stephenirving1737  Very well then. You are wrong. My father and his brothers, all working class Northerners from Ancoats, by the way, respected and admired Churchill. They were, I suppose, fairly typical of the working class patriotic traditionalists which the Labour Party of today despise so vehemently. By the way, if everyone was so eager to get rid of Churchill and the Conservatives, what happened in 1951, and for thirteen years thereafter?
    2
  46.  @kalyana9705  1). 'Most likely' doesn't really cut much ice. There were 2.5 million armed Indian troops, mainly in India. In 1943 an insurrection in India could have been catastrophic. Are you suggesting that Churchill actually engineered the Famine, and simply hoped that word wouldn't get out? 2). What supplies do you suggest were deliberately shipped out of India at the time of the famine? Do you have a source (a credible one) for the claim. As to 'It doesn't matter if he later on brought food' of course it does. He made strenuous attempts to alleviate the situation once he knew of it. 3). You accuse me of 'turning a blind eye.' To what? The points I made are fully documented, and confirm my argument. Churchill did indeed make some wrong decisions during the course of the war, as did every other leading politician from every warring state, but failing, apparently, to do something about a famine he knew nothing about was not one of them. 'Makes me think you are a bit prejudiced too.' I don't really care what you think, but making unwarranted accusations is a poor alternative to presenting facts.
    2
  47. Sorry, but the invasion never had a chance of success. Sending troops in towed river barges into a Channel defended by the largest navy on earth really wasn't all that wise a plan.
    2
  48.  @JimmysEssay  'Left behind French & Scottish soldiers?' 120,000 French troops were lifted from Dunkirk. The 51 Highland Division was surrendered at St. Valery after the larger force of which it had been part (IX Corps of 10th French Army) surrendered, before a large evacuation fleet, of 67 merchant ships and 140 smaller vessels, could lift them out. Look at the official 51 Highland Division if you like, instead of simply posting nonsense.
    2
  49.  @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
  50.  @JimmysEssay  You said 'Scottish soldiers.' The only significant group of Scots soldiers left behind were 51 Highland Division. Please don't be disingenuous. Presumably you don't know that the British began to re-land troops in Cherbourg on 7 June, until Weygand told their commander that the French army was 'no longer capable of organised resistance.' I assume you know who Weygand was? Most of the French troops were also re-landed at Cherbourg in order to re-join their army, although some chose to remain in Britain as part of the Free French forces.
    2