Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries" channel.

  1. No. They used the benefits of long experience, and their ability to concentrate the right resources in the right place at the right time. Known as Force Concentration.
    3
  2. The British army of 1940 could not have defeated the German army of 1940. Not that it was a problem, because the Royal Navy of 1940 was more than capable of ensuring that the German army largely drowned in the Channel had it attempted to cross.
    3
  3. Indeed, herr obersturmbannfuhrer. So long ago, and so many people still not exterminated. No wonder you are so sad.
    3
  4. Churchill was born in 1874, and he believed in the British Empire. So what? Judging people of the past by modern values is simplistic & foolish. One wonders what someone born in 2050 will think of things such as 'no-platforming,' or any of the other current (and in some cases bizarre) fads prevalent at the moment?
    3
  5. Odd that. 2.5 million Indians joined the Allied cause in WW2, without conscription ever being imposed, or even needed. Why was that? Perhaps some had heard of the way their potential Japanese 'liberators' had treated the people of Nanking. As useful bayonet and samurai sword practice.
    3
  6. Yes. Dad's Army rather conceals what was the reality of the Home Guard. The vast majority of members were in their mid-late 40s, many had experienced what trench warfare was like in WW1, and a fair proportion had outdoor/labouring jobs which kept them fit. When in command of the South Coast, Sir Claude Auchinleck saw the Home Guard as working closely with the regular army, using their local knowledge of the highways and byways where they lived to great advantage. Their main weakness was their lack of motor transport, but in 1940-41, many members had far more experience and understanding of war than regular troops.
    3
  7. Roosevelt was preparing his re-election campaign at the time, in an atmosphere where there was a majority in favour of neutrality, and where people like Joseph Kennedy were proclaiming imminent German victory.
    3
  8. Who do you think actually carried out the holocaust?
    3
  9. But lots of British citizens deported as slave labour, or simply exterminated, of course.
    3
  10.  @ameyas7726  Well then. Perhaps you might explain how it could have been done?
    3
  11. There are many historians who could have made valid contributions to such a debate. Only one of these three seems to have any relevant knowledge.
    3
  12. You mean those wealthy 'toffs' like Horatio Nelson (son of a parson), Jervis (son of a solicitor) or Collingwood (son of a butcher)?
    3
  13. Germany couldn't invade Britain from French & Belgian bases. How could they possible have attempted it from German ones only?
    3
  14.  @miedziany1004  Another huge assumption. That Germany 'would have' invaded Britain. Don't you, just possibly, think that the largest navy on the planet might just have had a part to play? There are, by the way, 2496 pilots recognised as having taken part in the Battle of Britain, of which 147 were Polish. You may choose to insult the contribution of the 'other' 2349. I choose not to, even if the Battle itself, despite subsequent legend, was not vital to the prevention of invasion.
    3
  15. I don't recall anyone actually bothering to define what was meant by 'win.' Total annihilation of Fighter Command (never remotely possible) superiority in the air over the Home Counties (possible) or control of the air over the Channel (more possible). I might have missed such a definition, however. Mind you, as a naval historian, I have always considered the air fighting over the Home Counties in the latter half of 1940 as of peripheral importance anyway, when what really prevented invasion was the absolute supremacy of the Royal Navy in Home Waters. Oddly, the German commanders at the time largely agreed with this view, whatever subsequent myth might claim.
    3
  16. What advantage did the Germans have? They needed to find a way of crossing a waterway 22 miles wide at the narrowest point, when their already small navy had been badly maimed during the Norwegian campaign, and the waterway was defended by the largest navy on earth. Of course, there was always the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe which had not been trained in anti-shipping operations, which had just failed badly at Dunkirk, and didn't even have a high performance torpedo-bomber until mid 1942. The Luftwaffe which, in the whole of the war, sank 31 Royal Navy destroyers, and no RN warship larger than a light cruiser. For information, in September, 1940, there were 64 RN destroyers within five hours' steaming of Dover, supported by over 500 small warships, and over 110 RN destroyers in Home waters in total. Unlike the Maginot Line, there was no cunning way round the Channel & the North Sea.
    3
  17.  @sigmaSERVIS  You don't consider that the Royal Navy saved Britain from invasion?
    3
  18.  @stephenconroy5908  Thank you for the comment. There seems to be a rule-of-thumb about Sealion. The less someone knows about the facts of 1940, the more sure they are that the Germans could have 'pulled it off.'
    3
  19.  @kristianmolloy8622  No. In September, 1940, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were both under repair from torpedo damage. Neither was available until November. There was only one heavy cruiser (Hipper) operational, and only three light cruisers (Emden, Koln, and Nurnburg.) A 4th, Leipzig, was undergoing repairs, but only sufficient to enable her to be used as a training ship. The pre-dreadnoughts, actually two, Schleswig-Holstein & Schliesen, were hopelessly obsolete, and had been stripped of their secondary armaments for use on merchant raiders, and of their crews, who were sent to man the invasion barges. Bismarck, Tirpitz, & Prinz Eugen were not in commission yet, and the two surviving armoured cruisers were either undergoing extended repairs or refitting.
    3
  20. More likely, the wrecks of a large number of sunken barges would still litter the bed of the English Channel.
    3
  21. Actually, little chap, real historians now accept that the Battle of Britain was not the real reason Sealion was not attempted. Far more relevant was the absolute naval supremacy held by the Royal Navy in Home Waters, and particularly in the Channel. Lesson one of 'The Young Boys' Book of Naval Warfare' says that if you hope to undertake an assault landing on an island defended by the largest navy on earth, you need a sizeable fleet of your own. Which, of couse, the Germans didn't. 'Their cowardice got so bad winston churchill is on record calling them out for treachery and betrayal all while calling them yellow bellied cowards.' When did Churchill say that? I am absolutely confident that you have a convincing, credible, source. After all, 'yellow bellied cowards' is obviously the kind of phrase an accomplished orator like Churchill habitually used, along with 'git out of town, you pesky varmints' perhaps? How dear Winston must have loved Western movies! Perhaps when you grow up you will learn more about the actual events of 1940, from things called 'books.' Perhaps you should ask your carers about them? Were you off school, assuming you ever went to one, the day they taught punctuation, by the way?
    3
  22.  @bobbyjoeyoung2becausesteph194  Still a punctuation free zone, I observe. In point of fact, the United States did not so much 'get involved,' more was dragged rather unwillingly into the war when the US Pacific Fleet was attacked by the Japanese, and the Germans declared war and began sinking US merchant shipping in large numbers off the US East Coast, where the ships were helpfully silhouetted against the coastal lights, which no-one had the gumption to switch off. Actions indeed speak louder than words. Actions like, in no particular order, as you probably haven't heard of any of them, the River Plate, the sinking of Bismarck, the Battle of Britain, Operation Compass, & Operation Crusader. The rest of your rant seems to be a repeat of your earlier rant. I would be grateful if you could tell me the occasion when Churchill called the British 'yellow bellied cowards,' as the historians seem to have missed it. Was it around the same time as he said to Lord Halifax 'This town ain't big enough for both of us, pardner?' By the way, British military casualties as a % of population in WW2 were 0.8%, the highest of any allied nation except the Soviet Union. By comparison, US military casualties were 0.32% Generally, I find corpse-counting neither relevant nor appropriate, but when dealing with someone with your obvious intellectual limitations is does seem to serve something of a purpose.
    3
  23.  @chrism7969  That presupposes that German forces could get ashore in any significant numbers.
    3
  24. No. You are the one with no idea. 'The navy got smashed at Dunkirk.' Oh please, do buy a proper book. The RN at Dunkirk lost 6 of 41 destroyers, 0 of 6 corvettes, 0 of 3 sloops, 5 of 36 minesweepers, 12 of 52 trawlers, and 5 of 61 drifters, in exchange for, having been ordered to bring out 40,000 troops, bringing out 338,000. What part of 'naval victory' or at least 'naval success' has evaded your understanding? Repulse & PoW were sunk by high performance torpedo bombers, flown by highly trained crews. The German air force didn't acquire any remotely similar aircraft until mid 1942. In fact, in 1940, the Luftwaffe had been trained only as a ground attack force, rather than as an anti-shipping one. Indeed, in the whole of WW2 your mighty Luftwaffe managed to sink 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship larger than a light cruiser. To put that into perspective, the RN began WW2 with 193 destroyers, and ended it with around 400. By September, 1940, there were 70 destroyers and light cruisers within five hours steaming of Dover, supported by around 500 smaller warships. There were a further 40 or so destroyers also in Home Waters. I do enjoy reading the posts from Sealion 'would haves,' always full of what the wonderful Luftwaffe 'would have' done, whilst blissfully ignorant of what it usually didn't, or couldn't do.
    3
  25.  @moeroahapuku5872  When did I say anything about British naval AA guns? The Royal Navy did mass, and did succeed, at Dunkirk. What I am saying is that in 1940, the Luftwaffe was untrained in anti-shipping techniques. Their ability to hit any sort of ship, whether armed or unarmed, was poor. Take for example the small Dutch barges, or Schuits, which the British commandeered and used to lift around 23,000 troops. 40 of them, of which 4 were sunk. Or 45 unarmed personnel ships of which 8 were sunk. These ships were either stationary, or at best moving slowly in restricted waters. Yet you would argue that the same luftwaffe which failed significantly to prevent their operations would suddenly be able to destroy destroyers and cruisers with the ability to manoeuve freely at 30 or so knots? Nonsense!
    3
  26. You should. You haven't mentioned the extermination of members of some sections of society, and the deportation of many others as slave labour.
    3
  27. What exact part did the Americans play in the operation to intercept to sink the Bismarck? Do the Americans not appreciate all that the British did to make it possible for the US Navy to concentrate in the Pacific?
    3
  28. Perhaps you adhere to the traditional German belief that a scuttled ship isn't quite so sunk? The evidence doesn't support that opinion.
    3
  29.  @BA-gn3qb  OK, I will try again. In September, 1940, the German navy had 61 boats in commission. Of these, 34 were either training boats or new boats working up in the Baltic. The remainder were the so-called frontboote. Of these 27, at any one day in September 13 were at sea. Many of these were Type IIs, too small & short range to operate in the Atlantic I have chosen September, because that is when the RN's escorts had mainly been withdrawn from the Atlantic to act as the cutting-edge of the Anti-Invasion force. Total sinkings for September, 284,577 tons. This figure increased to 363,267 in October, but when the RN released the Anti-Invasion forces back into the Atlantic, the figure fell to 181,695. Moreover, more ships were still being lost when sailing independently than when in convoy. Convoy losses were 25 (out of 59) in September, for example. To give you some idea of the kind of sinkings the Germans needed to achieve, Admiral Holtzendorff, in 1917, estimated 600,000 tons per month, and Doenitz used the same calculation in WW2.
    3
  30.  @mima0151  The medal for Pedestal would probably have been the Africa Star.
    3
  31. Three were lost because the insistence of their Admiral on rate of fire led to cordite being stored in unprotected locations. Hood's loss was rather different, as a result of efficient gunnery and a fortunate hit in an improbable location.
    3
  32.  @admiralfloofz658  Bretagne had gone to action stations before she was sunk. Admiral Gensoul had ordered his ships to sail. Having said that, Bretagne was hopelessly obsolete by 1940.
    3
  33. Odd that the far more intelligent Germans built a ship which was at least ten years out of date when it was launched.
    3
  34.  @221b-l3t  If the munitions still lie, unexploded, in the hold, how is it that none of numerous searches of the wreck have found them?
    3
  35. Probably because this 'destroying messersmits that no British trained pilots could match,' is nonsense. Polish pilots were credited with 203.5 of the 1733 German aircraft destroyed during the battle, and posting exaggerated claims about them actually devalues their actual contribution.
    3
  36. In 1940? What other Fronts were these?
    3
  37. Apparently, Nelson and his Flag Captain, Hardy, had been discussing Fate the night before Trafalgar. The word Nelson probably used was 'Kismet.'
    3
  38. You mean why didn't the 13 divisions of the BEF continue to fight after 100 Belgian & French divisions had collapsed or were collapsing? Why did the British bother to lift 120,000 French troops out of Dunkirk, only for them to surrender two weeks later? Why did the British start landing troops in Cherbourg on 7 June, only to be told that by Weygand that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance?
    3
  39.  @yanndick  The retreat from Dunkirk was a tactical withdrawal, using the flexibility of sea power to rescue Allied troops from an impossible situation. The British intended to re-land troops in Cherbourg to continue supporting the French army, and had begun to land troops as early as 7 June. General Weygand, however, told their commander, Alan Brooke, that the French army was no longer capable of 'organised resistance,' at which point the British accepted that France was beyond aid, and withdrew their remaining troops.
    3
  40. Bismarck wasn't a little 'pocket battleship.' The WW1 allies didn't ignore the Treaty of Versailles, largely because any restrictions in it did not apply to them. They did, however, establish a series of naval treaties restricting the size of navies. Bismarck did indeed sink the 20 years old Hood, but was then swiftly dealt with herself, after an operational career of two weeks.
    3
  41. There were around 110 in Home Waters, of which 64, supported by several light cruisers, were within five hours steaming of Dover. There were also around 500 smaller warships (sloops, corvettes, fleet & auxiliary minesweepers, and gunboats) available in support. The Sealion 'would haves' ( who pontificate about what the Luftwaffe 'would have' done to the Royal Navy ) simply have no idea of how large and capable the Royal Navy of 1940 really was.
    3
  42.  @danielgyllenbreider  Have you actually read 'mein kampf?' The only consistent themes are the need for living space in the East, and the destruction of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union, in your opinion, had to be neutralised before 'any German ambitions to the west was possible' perhaps you could explain why the invasions of Norway, the Low Countries, and France took place a year before Barbarossa.
    3
  43. Actually, he isn't. Of the three, only the aviation historian actually knew anything about Sealion.
    3
  44. Why do you think events in 1940 influenced the decisions of politicians from the 1960s onwards?
    3
  45.  @paulyflyer8154  Do explain to me why?
    3
  46. You mean all those that later fought so gallantly in support of the Allied cause in WW2?
    2
  47. Not during the Battle of Britain, they didn't.
    2
  48. There was no possibility that Scotland could have been conquered, and whereever did you get the idea that Ireland invited the Germans to come? Put simply, if you wish to carry out an amphibious invasion of an island defended by the largest navy in the world, not having a serious navy of your own is something of a drawback.
    2
  49.  @NistaArcheri  I would be interested to know which site, as it is entirely nonsensical. Just to explain, the Kreigsmarine had suffered serious losses in the Norwegian campaign, and in September, 1940, was reduced to one heavy cruiser, three light cruisers, and some 14 destroyers/large torpedo boats. It had no assault landing craft or ships, and for Operation Sealion intended to use barges towed by tugs and trawlers. At the same time, the Luftwaffe was reduced to around 220 transport aircraft, and the number of paratroop troops was, after losses in Norway & the Netherlands, down to about 4,500 men. Not much larger than a single brigade. The invasion was cancelled because ther Luftwaffe never managed to secure control of the airspace over south eastern England, the British had been outbuilding the Germans in aircraft, especially fighters, since June, 1940, and the Royal Navy held total supremacy in Home Waters. As to 'saving' planes' the Luftwaffe lost some 1,700 aircraft and around 2,500 experienced aircrew during the Battle of Britain, so perhaps it was rather late to worry about that?
    2
  50. In point of fact, the Battle of Britain would have progressed exactly as it actually did, and would still have had minimal relevance to the prevention of invasion.
    2