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

  1. 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
  2. Scharnhorst was not a pocket battleship.
    1
  3. There were actually 689 British ships & boats involved. Of these, the 'Little Ships' consisted of 203 motor boats and launches, 25 sailing barges, 19 RNLI lifeboats, 56 lifeboats, and 16 wherries. These would, in total, probably only require 600 or so men, which could easily be supplied from RN shore bases. A small number of owners did take their own boats, but in the main would be required to sign documents making them temporary RN personnel.
    1
  4.  @daveofyorkshire301  Actually, my information comes from, among others, 'Whitehall Histories: Naval Staff Histories. The Evacuation from Dunkirk..' The Naval Staff Histories were in the Public Record Office for some time prior to being published from 2000 onwards. They contain around 220 pages of detailed accounts, statistics, and analyses of the evacuation on a day by day basis, and list every vessel which took part, together with the number of men they lifted, and the fates of vessels which were lost. Edward & Mary, by the way, was not part of the flotilla, at least according to the Naval Staff History and to The Association of Dunkirk Little Ships. She, along with several other Hastings-based fishing boats, and the Hastings lifeboat 'Cyril & Lilian Bishop' went to Dover, but only the lifeboat was actually used. 'Cyril & Lilian Bishop' was under the command of Acting Petty Officer W.H. Adkin during the evacuation.
    1
  5. No, Operation Sealion was wargamed in 1974 at Sandhurst, the senior commanders being experienced WW2 commanders such as, on the German side, Galland & Ruge. In order to allow some level of fighting on land, the Germans were (falsely) given a landing window of opportunity when the actual dispositions of the Royal Navy were artificially adjusted, moving them further away than had been the reality. The result? The German first wave landed on 22 September, at dawn. Two days later, the RN anti-invasion forces arrived (17 cruisers and 57 destroyers, with smaller support vessels, which was actually reasonably accurate), annihilating German transports in the Channel. The last pockets of German resistance, out of ammunition and supplies, surrendered on 28 September. Apart from the fact that the RN anti-invasions forces were, in the main, based at the Nore, Portsmouth, & Plymouth, rather than further away as in the game, no-one seriously quibbled about the result.
    1
  6. Yes, I am sure an India under German or (Heaven help them!) Japanese domination would have been a far more harmonious place to live. Apart, of course, for the occasions when the Japanese chose to use civilians for bayonet or samurai sword training practice. Have you even heard of Nanjing?
    1
  7. How do you reason that?
    1
  8.  @theuksmostwanted6103  Thanks for replying. Clearly 'reason' is not one of your strengths.
    1
  9.  @jonathanwilliams1065  Last sentence of Article VIII. - 'All warships outside France are to be recalled to France with the exception of that portion of the French War Fleet which shall be designated to represent French interests in the colonial empire.' Germany & Italy, of course, would decide which ships might be used to "represent French interests in the colonial empire.'' I haven't made this up. Moreover, assuming that the British government knew of this clause, what were they expected to conclude from it?
    1
  10.  @jonathanwilliams1065  Very imaginative, but both Germany & France regarded Algeria as being part of the French Empire. If you seek for evidence that the Germans in particular would have agreed to this, I fear you will search in vain.
    1
  11.  @jonathanwilliams1065  But the new French Government was to be headed by two enthusiastic collaborationalists, Petain & Laval. I doubt that Darlan, with his concern about the honneur of the French navy, would have agreed to the surrender of the French fleet to Germany or Italy, but he was not irreplacable. Moreover, the British concern was not that it be surrendered to the Germans, as they had no immediate means of manning it, but that French ships, with French crews, would appear in the Channel under orders from the Petain/Laval government to operate in support of a German invasion attempt on Britain. Put simply, it was not a risk the British government were willing to take. Interestingly, when FDR heard of Mers, he remarked that, had Britain been in the same position as France, he hoped that he would have taken similar action against the Royal Navy. The scuttling of French ships at Toulon in late November 1942 is hardly relevant. By then, the war situation had changed beyond recognition, and the eventual defeat of Germany by the US, Britain, and the Soviet Union was becoming apparent. That certainly was not the case in July, 1940.
    1
  12.  @jonathanwilliams1065  So, you answer to my comments is 'what a load of crap?' Clearly you are an intellectual! When did I suggest that the French squadron in Mers was going to attempt to steam past Gibraltar? The main British concern was the French cruisers and destroyers in French Atlantic ports, which could have supported a German invasion, but the attack on Mers. was to ensure that the French forces there would not be used in support of the Italian navy in the Mediterranean. Petain had fought against Germany in WW1, over twenty years earlier, but his right-of-centre political views made him more supportive of the nazi regime than of the growing level of left-wing influence in France. I do not think many French historians would disagree. Who said that 'French sailors were going to invade Britain?' The British concern was that the French fleet would be used to support a German invasion of Britain, given the fact that Germany had no credible navy of her own. Perhaps English is your second language?
    1
  13. Not for long. Attlee was out again in 1951. The fact was that Churchill was seen as a War Leader, but not the man for the Britain of the post-war world. Labour, it seems, managed to change that opinion.
    1
  14.  @seraglioborneo2803  Credit to you for your post. Many people seem to feel the need to resort to insults when corrected!
    1
  15. As best I recall, 51st HD weren't at Dunkirk. They were attached to the French IX Corps, which surrendered at St. Valery before the RN task force sent to evacuate 51HD was able to enter the port.
    1
  16. I wonder if you would care to provide evidence of the British treating colonial people 'like animals?'
    1
  17. Lend Lease didn't exist in 1940, but other than that, you are correct.
    1
  18.  @codingblocks3495  Nonsense. Friction between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims had existed for centuries before the first Europeans even arrived.
    1
  19.  @codingblocks3495  Read this article, 'The Origins of Hindu-Muslim Conflict in South Asia,' by Akhilesh Pillalamarri. Then go away.
    1
  20.  @codingblocks3495  I must confess that I don't know much about the history of India, or rather of the large number of different princely states which warred fairly regularly with each other up to the late 18th century. Even so, it is clear that I know rather more than you do. Don't bother replying, as I can't be bothered with you further.
    1
  21. 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. Sorry, I know this doesn't meet the required agenda.
    1
  22. Sadly, the people running the IWM have an agenda.
    1
  23. David Cameron had to be shamed into giving the Arctic Convoy veterans medals. The Russians also paid to refurbish parts of HMS Belfast recently.
    1
  24.  @MrT67  There never was a New Zealand Division in the U.K. The only Commonwealth Division in Britain in 1940 was Canadian. There was an Indian and an Australian Division in North Africa from late 1940.
    1
  25.  @Boppy-B-B  Facts don't really seem to concern you over much. The only substantial Commonwealth ground forces in Britain in 1940, other than the British of course, was a Canadian division. Commonwealth & Empire forces did arrive in North Africa, but only from late 1940 - 1941.
    1
  26. Not without the Distant Covering force, which might have been too far away to intervene. That said, the scatter order based on inadequate information was a mistake. What was right for an Altantic convoy scattering to avoid a lone raider, with no U-boats in contact and far from enemy aircraft, was wrong for a convoy threatened by, potentially, a whole task force, supported by U-boats and aircraft. My view is that the convoy should have stayed united, and Hamilton's cruisers sent in support. However, I have, as we all do, the considerable benefit of hindsight.
    1
  27. Which wars did he 'monger?'
    1
  28.  @chernobylcat1791  Then don't worry about it. It is, however, a fact, and hadsbeen since Giulio Douhet wrote his books about Strategic Bombing in the 1920s.
    1
  29.  @chernobylcat1791  Douhet was a theorist who, basically, argued that bombing civilians would bring about civil unrest. The population would rise up against their government, and a new government would agree to an armistice. It was, of course, nonsense, in that it didn't work against the British or the Germans when it was actually tried, but the British Air Ministry 'Bomber Barons' Goering, and le May, all believed in the theory. One area where it did work, albeit unintentionally, was that it obliged the Germans to retain a large proportion of their air force for home defence, and to keep many anti-aircraft guns around their cities when they were desperately needed on the battlefield. You mistake me. I haven't said that I believe it to be a 'good idea' but I do believe it to have been an inevitable one. If you wish to degrade your enemy's industrial capacity, you must destroy his factories, and the workforce in the factories is civilian.
    1
  30.  @nickdanger3802  I was going to comment, but as your post is irrelevant to jackjennings' comment in any case, I will not bother.
    1
  31. The Soviets played a major part in the war. After being attacked by their 'friends.'
    1
  32. You don't think that the presence of massive allied forces in Tunisia might have been relevant? Of course it was!
    1
  33. 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
  34. Then perhaps you might explain what happened in 1951?
    1
  35.  @richardarsenault865  Thank you for your kind advice. I have access to a university library full of excellent books. This perhaps explains why I am able to ask questions which you are unable to answer.
    1
  36.  @enterchannelname200  Perhaps because it wasn't relevant? The Conservative party in 1951 won more parliamentary seats than the Labour one. Simple as that. The same thing happened in 1974, in reverse. The Conservatives received more votes, but won four less seats, than Labour.
    1
  37.  @enterchannelname200  Where did I express any opinion one way or the other? I simply stated a fact.
    1
  38.  @enterchannelname200  I see. You are one of those who only believes in 'the system' when it suits you. Who are you to say whether Churchill or Attlee was the right or wrong leader?
    1
  39.  @sharonprice42  'A staggering amount of tanks, weapons, and amunition are allowed to fall into German hands to be used against the Allies later in the war.' French equipment, yes. But minimal amounts of British equipment, other than a handful of trucks with very limited life expectancy, given the non-availability of spares.
    1
  40.  @sharonprice42  There were 13 British divisions in the BEF, compared to over 100 French & Belgian divisions. Once the Belgians capitulated and the French collapsed, what would you suggest the British should have done? Incidentally, the British began landing the 'Reconstituted BEF' in Cherbourg only days after Dunkirk, only to be told that the French Army was no longer capable of 'organised resistance' by General Weygand. Have you ever thought of getting your information from history books?
    1
  41.  @sharonprice42  'It was a victory for the Germans, beating the Britain and France showed how much more powerful the Germans were and just how dependant they were on Russia and America.' In 1940, the Soviet Union were Germany's best friends, whilst the US were comfortably on the sidelines selling equipment at the market rate to the British. Until, of course, the US were reluctantly dragged in after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Germans, after declaring war, began sinking US merchant shipping in large numbers.
    1
  42. ' @sharonprice42  '700 tanks captured 900 field guns 500 anti aircraft guns , 850 anti tank guns , 11000 machine guns .45.000 vehicles 25.000 motorbikes captured.' I assume you don't really believe this nonsense. Especially the idea that British equipment was used in anything other than minute numbers by the Germans. Where, by the way, and where did the spares come from?
    1
  43.  @sharonprice42  'It was Britain that declared war on Germany and set out to take on and beat the Germans along with France.' No, France & Britain stated that a German invasion of Poland would result in them declaring war. The hope was that the threat would avert war by deterring hitler from any further aggression in Europe. Incidentally, how was it, if the British had lost 'all their military equipment' they were able to send a large troop/tank convoy to North Africa in August, 1940? Operation Apology.
    1
  44.  @sharonprice42  'British also left over 500 tank at Dunkirk which the Germans upgraded and used against the Allies , a lot of the tanks were used against Russia.' Drivel. The Germans, briefly, used a few A13 cruisers, around 10 or so, until they broke down and could not be repaired due to lack of parts. Do you ever post anything at all based on facts?
    1
  45.  @sharonprice42  'British were beaten by the Japanese in Malaya' Indeed, because the British at the time were busy fighting the Germans and Italians in Europe.
    1
  46.  @sharonprice42  'Remember Britain declared war on Germany and lasted only a few weeks .' A few weeks? 3 September 1939, to 5 May, 1945. Quite a lot of weeks, actually.
    1
  47.  @sharonprice42 'When they met again Britain was under the control of the Americans.' Hardly. The US did become the dominant partner, as would be expected of a country with over four times the population, but only for about the last seven months of the war in the west.
    1
  48.  @sharonprice42  And then people like you would have been blaming the British for not supporting their French allies between September, 1939 & May, 1940.
    1
  49. You would actually struggle to find Britain in military confrontation with Germany (or Prussia) prior to 1914. By the way, the suggestion that Britain (or, I believe it is said, Churchill) engineered the Bengal famine is not supported by any facts from the time, but only by subsequent propaganda. Could you perhaps explain why Churchill, or anyone else, would seek to risk mass rebellion in India when there were 2.5 million Indians (none conscripted, by the way) under arms?
    1
  50. Nonsense. People like Mosley were a busted flush well before Dunkirk. The Halt Order was given, by von Rundstedt for what he believed at the time were sound tactical reasons. Halifax might have contemplated a ceasefire, but he was never in any position to attempt to establish one.
    1