Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "How did Churchill lose the 1945 general election?" video.

  1.  @raghave1043  Nonsense. 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 doesn't suit your agenda.
    123
  2.  @epa2349  I suppose you have evidence to support your allegation? The communications from the time rather suggest that the administration of Bengal were keeping the facts to themselves. Certainly, Churchill regarded Europeans as more advanced, and had a patronising attitude towards Indians, but as far as I know he didn't go as far as Gandhi, who described Africans as inferior humans.
    48
  3. Didn't they rather have an abrupt change of mind in 1951, and maintained it for 13 years thereafter?
    46
  4.  @raynemichelle2996  Yes. Wouldn't it have been far better if the human race neve progressed beyond the Mesolithic, when life expectancy was to the mid 40s at best.
    9
  5.  @hatinmyselfiscool2879  Odd that, if people didn't like him from the start, they voted him back into power in 1951. Seems like Thatcher wasn't the only one with, allegedly, a penchant for 'distorting' history.
    8
  6. Churchill was still concerned with the war against Japan.
    8
  7.  @raynemichelle2996  Indeed. If Europeans had not arrived in Africa, just think how advanced the Africa of today would be!
    6
  8.  @Musingsonthelawofattraction  Presumably your 'peers' are also teachers, but only you know the 'truth?' As someone who was once obliged to take my daughter's history teacher to task after I heard of some of the drivel he was teaching her about WW2. I wonder. In my case, the response I got was 'who are you to tell me anything about history?' As someone with a First in Modern History, who earns his crust as a naval historian, I was happy to tell him.
    6
  9.  @voxbour6018  How exactly was the British Empire (which far predated Churchill, by the way) genocidal? By the way, which wars did Churchill actually 'monger?'
    5
  10.  @జైతెలుగు  You obviously haven't heard of Jinnah. The real force behind Partition and the millions of deaths.
    5
  11.  @jamesb2166  So? In 1929. The Labour party won 287 seats with 8,048,968 votes, the Conservatives won 260 seats with 8,252,527 votes. In February, 1974, Labour won 301 seats with 11,645,616 votes. The Conservatives won 297 seats with 11,872,180 votes. These anomalies do occur in any constituency based electoral system from time to time. The following is perhaps more symptomatic of the general mood in the country:- The 1950 Election, which Labour narrowly won, showed a swing to the Conservatives of 4.3% and a swing away from Labour of 1.6% There was a further 4.6% swing towards the Conservatives in the election of 1951.
    5
  12.  @kalyana9705  Are you really deluded enough, or gullible enough, to believe that, at a time when 2.5 million Indians had volunteered to join the Allied forces, Churchill would have engineered a mass famine in the sub-continent? Presumably, you are not a member of Mensa! 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 doesn't suit your rather prejudiced agenda.
    5
  13.  @technobloode9709  Please don't be silly. The British government gave as much help as it was able once the extent of the famine was known, although these efforts were initially hampered by FDR's refusal to release shipping space to facilitate their efforts. Churchill was as man of his time where some of his patronising attitudes to the colonies were concerned, although he was never as openly racist as Gandhi, who described Africans as inferior humans, but in any case I would be interested to know how his comments actually persuaded crops not to grow. Operation Legacy, by the way, related to documents from the 1950s and 1960s. Nothing in it referred to India.
    4
  14.  @technobloode9709  Perhaps he simply disapproved of Suttee? In any case, what has any of this to do with the Bengal Famine?
    4
  15.  @sumanadasawijayapala5372  When did I say that? The famine had a number of causes, which I have already outlined, but the principal reason it was as extensive as it was was the attempts by the Administration of Bengal to keep that knowledge restricted. The tediously immature claims which appear at regular intervals that Churchill & the British Government deliberately engineered it are unsupported by anything other than revisionist propaganda. In terms of simple self-interest, why should the British Government act in such a manner when there were 2.5 million Indians serving on the allied side, under arms, at the time?
    4
  16.  @coronaviruskillerforthegoo3353  If the Tories had 'accepted all of labour policy by then,' why didn't the people of Britain simply stick with Labour? You don't really believe what you are claiming, surely?
    4
  17.  @eq1373  The same had happened in WW1, when an Election which should have taken place in 1916 was cancelled.
    4
  18. Odd, that. He always spoke well of you.
    4
  19. Churchill did not 'oversee' the Gallipoli campaign. He suggested it as a means of avoiding the carnage on the western front, but he didn't authorise it, Herbert Asquith did, and he certainly didn't plan it, the Generals & Admirals in charge did. Lawrence, by the way, led a small guerilla operation. The Ottomans were defeated by Allenby. Why would building power stations nearer to cities give an impression of economic recovery? Not that it matters, because that had nothing to do with Churchill either.
    3
  20.  @kjyost  It certainly seems that way.
    3
  21.  @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
  22.  @theuksmostwanted6103  Churchill was born in 1874 and died almost 50 years ago, yet you seek to attack him because he didn't subscribe to the transient and bizarre opinions prevalent at the present time? Certainly Churchill believed that British culture was superior to that of India, China, or Africa. Other European countries, and certainly the United States, believed exactly the same of their own, largely because every advance in science, technology, and education since the mid 16th century had been developed by Europeans. I wonder how, in 100 years time, observers will view some of the lunatic opinions which currently exist/ As to the use of poison gas, would you explain why using shells, bombs, and bullets is quite acceptable, but using gas isn't? The use of gas was, at the time, actually regarded as less brutal than the other weapons I have mentioned by many, if not most, military men of all nations of the period. To give you just one quote among many, "Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war." As to Churchill being an aggressive tyrant, which wars of aggression did he pursue, and, as the democratically elected Prime Minister of the UK in WW2, how was he a tyrant? By the way, presumably you are aware that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi referred to Africans as an inferior breed of humanity? Would you wish to add him to your list of evil people?
    2
  23. How would nationalism in the colonies affect voting patterns in Britain?
    2
  24. Yet the Beveridge Report was published in November, 1942.
    2
  25.  @richardarsenault865  If he was such an 'abrasive unpleasant human being' why did they need him again? What was the crisis that demanded his return?
    2
  26.  @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
  27.  @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
  28.  @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
  29. Nonsense.
    2
  30.  @garyseeseverything8615  The British & Canadians won the Battle of the Atlantic. The Royal Navy won the war in the Arctic & the Mediterranean. At D-Day, British and Canadian troops outnumbered American ones by two to one, most of the warships were British, most of the landing craft were British crewed, and most of the aircraft were British. The American became the dominant partner in Europe for about the last six months of the war, but the victory in the west was undoubtedly an Allied one.
    1
  31.  @seanredmond3112  Lucky? How were they lucky?
    1
  32. He was born in 1874, so perhaps his world view didn't quite accord with yours. He was a child of his class, and regarded being British, in Rhodes' terms, as having 'consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.' That said, as you compare him to Hitler, please provide more details about the nations he invaded, or his establishment of euthanasia of certain selected groups as a policy of state, in order to justify your claims. How do you 'choose democracy to get your way?' Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work/ By the way, Hitler was a far better painter than Churchill. As it says in 'The Producers' ' Hitler could paint an entire apartment in a week-end. Two coats!'
    1
  33.  @drpoundsign  Quite the reverse. FDR was asked by Churchill for shipping resources. FDR refused them. The texts of telegrams which passed between to two leaders are available in the Churchill Papers are available for anyone to read. 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.
    1
  34. How exactly did Churchill sell out to the Americans?
    1
  35.  @Alex-cw3rz  You should have said at the outset that you were an idiot. It would have saved me the need to be civil.
    1
  36. How do you reason that?
    1
  37.  @theuksmostwanted6103  Thanks for replying. Clearly 'reason' is not one of your strengths.
    1
  38. 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
  39.  @codingblocks3495  Nonsense. Friction between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims had existed for centuries before the first Europeans even arrived.
    1
  40.  @codingblocks3495  Read this article, 'The Origins of Hindu-Muslim Conflict in South Asia,' by Akhilesh Pillalamarri. Then go away.
    1
  41.  @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
  42. Which wars did he 'monger?'
    1
  43. Then perhaps you might explain what happened in 1951?
    1
  44.  @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
  45.  @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
  46.  @enterchannelname200  Where did I express any opinion one way or the other? I simply stated a fact.
    1
  47.  @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
  48. Really? Which wars did he monger?
    1
  49. No, he really didn't. Perhaps you have confused him with George Patton?
    1
  50.  @sceaserjulius9476  Your fellows are not the only ones who fall for populist propaganda. It is widespread throughout the world!
    1
  51.  @Muralidharan001  Don't be a fool. Who do you think it was diverted the Australian grain convoys to India once the extent of the situation became known in London? Do you really believe that, with 2.5 million Indians in the Allied armed services, Churchill would seek to create a situation which might lead to a mutiny? Just try thinking occasionally, instead of simply accepting revisionism at face value.
    1
  52.  @paidninja1413  Good heavens. Someone born in 1874 didn't have the trendy sensibilities of 2022! Who would have thought it! How about someone born in 1869, who thought that Africans were inferior humans? A chap call Mohindas Gandhi. You don't actually know much about the causes of the Bengal famine do you? Too confused by revisionist propaganda, I expect.
    1
  53.  @Darkcamera45  If you cannot accept proven facts then you simply demonstrate your idiocy. Australian grain convoys to India are documented. At the same time, the London government put food distribution under the control of the Anglo-Indian army.
    1
  54.  @iaf010  Oh dear, such vague and generalised rantings. You are actually surprised that someone born in 1874 did not embrace the, possibly transient, fashionable opinions of today. I suppose it could be attributed to your education? Would you care to express your opinion about the views of someone born at around the same time, 1869, who regarded Africans as inferior humans unfit to be granted the right to vote? Chap called Mohandas Gandhi. Ever heard of him?
    1
  55.  @doctorpanigrahi9975  How exactly did a nation of 10.1 million in 1800 manage to 'loot' and plunder a nation with a population twenty times greater? The East India Company came for trade, and the rulers of the various princely states were eager to benefit from it. When the governance of India passed from the Company to the British Government, 200 million Indians were administed by 20,000 British civilian civil servants, with the enthusiastic co-operation of the wealthy Indian aristocrats exploiting their own people. Wikipedia? If that is your source, no wonder you are so profoundly lacking in actual knowledge. Have you never heard of books?
    1
  56. Perhaps you are unaware that Britain had a coalition government?
    1
  57. Most British people didn't eat cigars. Nor were they starving.
    1
  58.  @coronaviruskillerforthegoo3353  Rotten Boroughs hadn't existed since the 1832 Reform Act, in point of fact.
    1
  59.  @coronaviruskillerforthegoo3353  These being?
    1
  60.  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
  61. Really? Which wars do you think he 'mongered?'
    1