Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "The Armchair Historian"
channel.
-
@ArjayMartin Seriously, if you must post large chunks from wikipedia, at least take the reference numbers to other books out! Have you read Buchanan? I did, around ten years ago. The most notable thing about him is his failure to refer to any primary sources, and to use what I will generously refer to as 'half truths.'
As to this ' In Buchanan's view, the "final offer" made by the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop to the British Ambassador Sir Neville Henderson on the night of August 30, 1939 was not a ploy, as many historians argued, but a genuine German offer to avoid the war.' There was a much easier way to have avoided the Anglo-French declaration of war on 3 September, 1939, which was for Germany not to have invaded Poland on 1 September, 1939. Have you not considered that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tot0m 'You seems to deny that French, Belgian and British officer were in very bad terms on may/june 1940.' When have I ever expressed such a view?
'You seems to deny that British command didn't trust French army were able to perform, so they preferred to flee without referring to french command, and make french and belgian armies in worse position to defend.' When have I ever expressed such a view? Moreover, when, historically, did this happen? When Belgium capitulated, the British 3rd Division was obliged to plug a 20 mile gap between the BEF and French forces by conducting a 25 mile night march of 13000 men, which they did on 27/28 May, in order to link up with French forces at Nieuport. Was that fleeing without telling the French?
'You seems to deny that french troops and french officiers mostly wanted to try to defend while british troops and officers mostly abandonned their lines, or doesnt wanted to concert with french command.' When have I said that?
'You seems to be trash against french command who asked for more help.' I have simply stated what actually happened. I don't think anything in my earlier comment can be regarded as 'trashing.'
'On what purpose ? You didn't even gave fact, you just deny facts without proof. So that I bet you maybe english patriot, keen on propaganda and myth about glorious british army.' You facts seem to consist of vague nonsense such as claiming that the British ran away, or were willing to fight to the last Frenchman, or abandoned their allies at Dunkirk. None of these 'facts' of yours have any connection with what actually happened. Where I have made counter-arguments, I have provided supporting evidence.
Comments about what 'The British' thought (or, despite your claims, actually didn't think) in the 1920s & 1930s are irrelevant. In March, 1933, Churchill said in Parliament : "there are a good many people who have said to themselves, as I have been saying for several years: “Thank God for the French Army”.
'And so do the British, they doesnt wanted any casualties to defend french soil anymore like in ww1.' Of course they didn't, but they were willing to send a 'Reconstituted BEF' under Alan Brooke, to Cherbourg, and were willing to continue the fight, until General Weygand told him that the French army was no longer able to provide organised resistance.
By the way, there were 78000 British troops killed, wounded, or captured during the campaign in France, excluding losses among naval personnel. What was that about fighting to the last Frenchman again?
Seriously, if you aren't able to post credible arguments, supported by evidence, but insist instead on chanting outdated nationalistic prejudices, then why do you bother?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adelaidesngan604 Nonsense. 14 French destroyers and torpedo boats evacuated 6646 men, 5 despatch vessels 1000, 2 minesweepers 2038, 5 submarine chasers 203, 13 minesweeping trawlers 2665, 7 patrol vessels 2501, 12 cargo ships 2290, 59 trawlers 4814. Total :- 22157.
British ships :- 1 cruiser 1856, 41 destroyers 96197, 6 corvettes 1100, 1 sloop 436, 2 gunboats 3512, 36 minesweepers 46434, 52 trawlers 5396, 61 drifters 12370, 3 AA paddle steamers 4408, 7 MGBs 79, 6 MTBs 20, 3 armed boarding vessels 4848, 40 coasters 22698, 26 yachts 4681, 45 personnel ships 87810, 8 hospital ships 3006, 12 naval motor boats 96, 40 tugs 3164, 13 landing craft 118, 8 motor launches 579, 8 dockyard lighters 418, 7 hopper barges 2166, 8 auxiliary barges 1256, 25 sailing barges 886, 19 life boats 323, 202 'little ships' 5031. Total :- 312668.
Out of interest, one British destroyer, HMS Malcolm, carried only 795 less men than 14 French destroyers and torpedo boats.
Your post rather suggests that you don't even know what the role of the Little Ships even was. Sorry, mon vieux, but you are outclassed. Perhaps you should go away?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hitler didn't 'allow' the troops in the Dunkirk pocket (1/3rd of whom were French, by the way) to escape because the halt order was issued by von Rundstedt. The next phase of the invasion of France was about to begin, and the German armour needed to rest and to service their vehicles. Certainly, Hitler could have countermanded the order, but didn't, firstly because of his WW1 experience, which led him to believe that the Dunkirk area was unsuitable for tanks, and secondly because he had been assured by Goering that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket and the evacuation fleet was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
Seriously, if Hitler wanted to force the British government into an armistice, wouldn't he have been in a better position with the BEF in prison camps, than with it safely on the other side of the Channel, protected by the Royal Navy?
As to Hitler not wanting to go to war with Britain, actually it was more a case of not being able to wage war effectively against Britain, because the Germans, with a tiny navy and an air force untrained in anti-shipping techniques, had no realistic means of bringing such a war to a successful conclusion by getting their army across the Channel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1