Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "David Starkey Talks" channel.

@chrisb3275 Why? A trifle too frank about the Dear Leader for your taste?
13
@grahamdhv3812 Perhaps it was believed that, as a Civil Servant, she was indeed impartial? You don't actually seem to be attempting to defend her behaviour, I observe.
7
Thank heavens for a real, erudite, historian. Mr. Olusoga, eat your heart out!
7
It must be traumatic for you, for once coming across someone who knows his topic, marshals his arguments logically, and doesn't feel cowed by the 'Agenda.'
5
@sbor2020 An opinion is not a claim, even if the opinion upsets you personally.
4
@sbor2020 Please show me where I called you anything? Your response, by the way, amply justifies my original comment. You are clearly upset.
4
@seastnanseastnan7765 One simple question for you to address. Were Henry VII & Henry VIII kings of Britain, or kings of England?
3
@Sean-p3o Is it 'biased' to have an opinion, and be able to argue the case for it?
3
@murrayeldred3563 Does his opinion of your Dear Leader really distress you so much? How insecure you must really be.
3
Forgive me for questioning your knowledge, Dr. Starkey, but I am sure that a Great Statesman, David Lammy, identified Henry VIII as the predecessor of Henry VII. I recall seeing him making that very statement on the Moving Picture Box in the corner of my living room.
3
The west seems to be in the same condition as the Western Roman Empire of around 425-450 A.D. They could not see what was coming. We can. Indeed, some of us are actively encouraging it.
3
You presumably find his opinion of the Dear Leader very unsettling.
3
@jimclark3120 No actual arguments of your own to dispute his, then? My old Professor used to say that, 'when people lack a coherent argument, they resort to insults instead.'
2
@Sean-p3o He is an academic historian, not a politician. As best I can determine, he states his arguments, and gives his opinion, as he sees things.
2
Why do you feel that his personal behaviour is relevant to his intellect? As you won't listen to him, you obviously will not be able to answer that.
2
Ever thought of buying a history book? Or even reading one?
2
@Westyrulz Only if Kendal has been moved since his birth.
2
@gvdlpgg2406 What I did notice is that he was struggling with a cold and/or a sore throat.
2
@jbloun911 The Battle of Britain was the prelude, supposedly, to an invasion attempt. The building of the Atlantic Wall began in 1942, as WW2 turned against Germany. 'Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt.' Alas, too late in your case.
1
'He also had information on the Japanese and the potential of an attack on Pearl. He shared it with FDR. Utter nonsense. The Japanese never had the slightest intention of racing for California. They had enough on their hands with China, the British & Dutch colonies in the Far East, and the American presence in the Phillippines, not to mention the likely response of the US after Pearl. Moreover, if FDR knew about the attack, why not simply alert the defences in advance? Wouldn't the US population have been just as infuriated by an unsuccessful surprise as they were by the partially successful one of history?
1
To quote from Abe Lincoln (or perhaps Mark Twain) 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.' Sadly, too late in your case. Churchill was not in government between 1929 & September, 1939, although he was consistent in his warnings about nazi Germany. Was he wrong? Moreover, which wars do you think he mongered. His last year as Prime Minister was 1955. You might just as well blame Eisenhower for the current condition of the United States.
1
Why do you believe that Churchill was eager to involve Britain in WW1, let alone WW2? Oh, sorry. When I posted the above I hadn't read the rest of your post from 'Churchill, Stalin etc...' onwards, and didn't realise you were barmy. My apologies.
1
@hanajinks1044 Really? Do explain.
1
@hanajinks1044 'Someone like yourself just learning about these things.' Sorry, but this pitiful attempt to patronise has fallen on stony ground. I have a First in Modern History, and am a published author on naval aspects of World War II, as well as on the events leading up to it. I am sure that your own qualifications are equally valid. Of course I am. By the way, you didn't actually post any 'vid'.
1
@nonono9194 Oh yes. The intellectual giant who based his claims about Dresden directly on the propaganda claims of old Josef.
1
1). 'Did you know that Churchill wanted people below a certain level of intelligence sterilised? Actually, he was interested in the arguments of eugenists in the early part of the 20th century, before WW1, but he considered segregation a better solution, and thought that either was an issue to be addressed at some date in the future. 2). Eight of ten Colossus machines at Bletchley Park were broken up in August, 1945. Churchill had lost power after the Election of 5 July. The decision was made by the Attlee government. 3). He certainly liked to have a say in military decisions, but generally deferred to the advice of people like his CIGS, Alanbrooke, in WW2, and, whilst he proposed the campaign in Gallipoli in WW1 as an alternative to the Western Front, and as an attempt to take Turkish pressure off Russia's southern flank, he neither authorised if (Asquith did) nor planned it. 4). Indeed, as everyone knows, he lost the Khaki election of 1945. People also know, or should, that he was promptly re-elected in 1951. Haven't you missed the bits where Churchill was also responsible for the Black Death, the Thirty Years' War and, as a tennager, was Jack the Ripper? Indeed, don't believe myths. Simply stick to facts. Have you thought of trying it yourself?
1
Always good to read the opinions of an academic and literate historian. What a shame you aren't one, as you obviously know little about the facts of Gallipoli, and about as much about Norway.
1
@sbor2020 'It is very simple. Give me one example of anything that Starmer has done or said that supports the idea that he has a disturbing psychology.' Easier still, mon brave, give me one example of an occasion when I have made any such reference.
1
@sbor2020 How it works, little chap, is that I do not, and never have, seek to defend any comment of which I have falsely been accused, but which I have never made. Perhaps rational comments are a mystery to you?
1
@sbor2020 Do you not recall writing to me that : ' It is very simple. Give me one example of anything that Starmer has done or said that supports the idea that he has a disturbing psychology?' Now you write of me that ' It seems you have a "disturbing psychology", something you share with Sir Keir.' It appears that you now suggest that Starmer actually does have such a condition. Have you changed your mind, do you simply suffer from short-term memory loss, or are you simply a fanatical loyalist? If anyone is suffering from passive aggressiveness, illustrated by accusing someone else of making claims that they did not make, and then attacking them on the basis of that false claim, it certainly is not me.
1
@michaelbullen4146 BA & PhD from Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. Nothing 'pretendy' about that, I suggest. Not bad for a Working Class Northerner, is it?
1
@michaelbullen4146 'Yes, perhaps it was, but I prefer my acedemics politically neutral then I can make up my own mind, i don't need to be spoon fed someone else's prejudices.' Like the notoriously neutral David Olusoga, of Beachy Head Lady fame?
1
@michaelbullen4146 You really haven't heard of David's claims about 'Beachy Head Lady?' How he presented a BBC programme 'proving' by facial reconstruction, that she was of Sub-Saharan origin, and linking her with his (alleged) African Roman Emperor, Septimius Severus? Well worth finding and viewing it, in view of what followed, which was a DNA analysis by the Crick Institute, which demonstrated that BHL really came from that well-known heartland of Sub-Saharan Africa, Cyprus! Odd that, since this setback, the BBC's historian of choice has not commented further on the issue, still less withdrawn his claim, I suggest.
1
@michaelbullen4146 'I would say the boy did good, but I would also say that he is a bit too political a bit of political neutrality would make me like him a whole lot more, but I will say that he can be very entertaining.' Except historians do not exist in a vacuum. Their opinions and their conclusions inevitably arise from their research, and their understanding of that research. That is why you get people like Starkey, Sharma, and Irving.
1
Do try harder! Churchill held no position in government between 1929 & September,1939. Which wars do you wrongly think he 'mongered' and were his warnings about German re-armament really 'wrongheaded?'
1