Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@koczisek Perhaps, before being so generous about Georgie boy, you should read about the shambles that was his campaign in Lorraine?
I also like your idea of the BEF attacking. Very imaginative, in that, firstly, strategy of the Western Front was dictated by the French General Staff, and secondly in May 1940, the BEF consisted of three corps, totalling 10 divisions, three territorial divisions, which were only partially trained, and a single tank brigade of 50 tanks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raykeane9345 Churchill was not 'shunned' by the population at large, although his warnings about Germany rapidly re-arming after 1933 were viewed with some alarm by people still recovering from the horrors of WW1. Was he wrong about that, by the way? Politically, he was an outcast, as his party continued to follow a policy of appeasement, and what he was saying was not what his leaders wanted to hear.
Churchill did not 'send the Black & Tans to Ireland.' The Prime Minister at the time, was David Lloyd George, and the force was actually sent by him. Certainly, Churchill played a role in the recruitment process, as the Royal Irish Constabulary was becoming increasingly incapable of controlling the unrest. However, as the Canadian historian David Leeson wrote, "The typical Black and Tan was in his early twenties and relatively short in stature. He was an unmarried Protestant from London or the Home Counties who had fought in the British Army. He was a working-class man with few skills".] The popular Irish claim made at the time that most Black and Tans had criminal records and had been recruited straight from British prisons is incorrect, as a criminal record would disqualify one from working as a policeman. Moreover, the popular claims made about their atrocities confuses them with another force, the 'Auxilaries' who were attached to the RIC as a counter-terrorist unit, and bore some responsibility for such actions.
As to India, 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.
In terms of racism, certainly his views would have been unacceptable today, but were the generally held ones at the time of his birth in 1874. Indeed, they were not quite so extreme as another prominent figure from the time, a lawyer who held that Africans were a lower form of human being, and should never be given the right to vote. His name, by the way, was Mohandas K. Gandhi.
In short, you aren't missing much, if you prefer myth to accurate historical facts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Made peace with Germany?' After Germany had, without declaration of war, invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Belgium? Exactly what sorts of terms might Britain have expected? The sort Halifax recommended, negotiated by Mussolini?
Oh, and Churchill did not choose the Soviet Union over Germany. He simply worked on the principle that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.'
Montgomery, by the way, simply waited until he had superiority in men, equipment, supplies, and intelligence, before embarking on a campaign. Only a fool, such as the Desert Fox, willingly commits his forces to something far beyond their capabilities. Montgomery did what any sensible commander would do.
Not very well informed, are you?
1
-
Perhaps you don't know that Churchill had no involvement in the planning of the Gallipoli campaign? He proposed it as an alternative to the impending carnage on the Western Front, to relieve Turkish pressure on Russia's southern flank, and to influence neutral Eastern European states to join the war on the allied side. Potentially, it might even have driven the Ottoman Empire out of the war. Certainly, Kitchener thought in similar terms, and after the war Kemal Ataturk said that Turkey was on the verge of surrender when the allied warships were withdrawn from the Dardanelles.
Be that as it may, Asquith authorised the operation, not Churchill, and the planning was in the hands of the army and navy. When it failed, Asquith needed a suitable scapegoat, and Churchill fitted the bill. Not for nothing was one of Lloyd Georges
first acts when he replaced Asquith returning Churchill to the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tmefly2907 'Narrow Passage?' Even at the narrowest point, the Channel is 21 miles wide, and the RN was hardly 'stuck' although the German barges, around 850 of them being towed at not much above walking pace by tugs, small coasters, and trawlers, might well have been.
As for 'very effective against naval targets' what happened at Dunkirk? RN & merchant navy ships stopped off an open beach, or moored against the Mole, yet of 41 destroyers present, the Luftwaffe managed to sink four.
The RN anti-invasion force ( around 70 light cruisers and destroyers, supported by some five hundred smaller warships) had freedom to move at speed and to take evasive manoeuvres. If the Luftwaffe, untrained in anti-shipping operations, couldn't hit such ships when they were stopped, are they really likely to have been more successful when they had freedom of action?
Have you, by the way, the slightest idea how huge the Royal Navy in Home Waters was in 1940?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1