Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14.  @donfarquhar6328  Churchill was a divisive figure within the Tory Party, certainly, but in June, 1939, George VI told Mackenzie King that he 'would never wish to appoint Churchill to any office unless it were absolutely necessary in time of war”.' I.e., precisely the circumstances which applied when he came to office. The vote of No Confidence actually came in May, 1940, and not, as you apparently think, immediately after war was declared. In any case, I did say 'in the country' which involves rather more people than the monarch and the grandees of the Tory Party. Eden was far from heir apparent in 1939. Firstly, he was only just past 40 years old, and had very little ministerial experience, and secondly he, like MacMillian, was a strong supporter of Churchill. He was over ten years younger than either Halifax or Attlee, by the way. He was, certainly, seen as a 'coming man' but certainly not as a national leader in time of war. He was, however, definitely seen as Churchill's successor ten years later. Of course he was voted out of office in 1945, when the general perception within the British population was of a desire for change, as expressed by the Labour party's brilliant manifesto slogan of 'Cheer Churchill - Vote Labour.' Incidentally, if he was so unpopular, how was it that he regained the Premiership in October, 1951? Who would have succeeded Chamberlain later in 1940, assuming that an uncertain peace was still being maintained, is not clear, but Eden was not in the front rank of candidates. Moreover, the appeasement period had already ended ; both Britain & France were rearming, and Churchill's star was on the ascendant, as his concerns about nazi Germany had been proved justified.
    1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34.  @dragilxcom4176  'Could have' is actually defined as 'something was possible in the past, but it did not happen.' In other words, it embraces a possibility. Your 'Germany could have shrink Royal Navy with the U-Boats and Luftwaffe bombing' claim does not meet that definition, in that your blithe assumption, presumably based on a clear lack of actual knowledge, was not within the bounds of possibility. Of course air superiority became dominant later in the war, but if the subject is Sealion then the time is 1940, or more precisely September, 1940, and the air force concerned is the Luftwaffe, then it was still far from attaining that pre-eminence. The strength of the Luftwaffe in 1939-1940 was as a ground attack force, operating in support of the army. It did not receive any training in anti-shipping operations until Fliegerkorps X began receiving some later in 1940, after Sealion had been abandoned. You haven't challenged the facts I have stated about the Luftwaffe's lack of training, their failure at Dunkirk, or their 'successes' against RN destroyers, I notice. Oddly, you Sealion 'would haves' never do. Probably wise on your part. Incidentally, although not particularly relevant to my argument, the British were outbuilding the Germans in aircraft, and in particular in fighter aircraft, by June 1940 at the latest. Whether the Luftwaffe had or hadn't torpedo aircraft technology is irrelevant. The first use of such aircraft, apart from a handful of successes by seaplanes against unarmed merchantmen in the north, was against PQ15, en route to Russia, in May, 1942. Indeed, Goering, on 28 November, 1940, banned the use of the handful of available seaplanes on such operations, and cancelled the production of the LTF-5b, the Luftwaffe's aerial torpedo of which a tiny number existed in 1940. Incidentally, Hitler did not allow the British to escape, as the decision was made by von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A. He wished to rest his armour prior to commencement of the second phase of the invasion of France, and feared the possibility of a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' Finally, I am sorry that you criticise the facts I have stated as 'historical innuendo,' and seek to hide behind your singular self-proclaimed definition of 'could have' rather than continue any discussion, although I appreciate that Sealion enthusiasts and historical facts do not work well together.
    1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1