General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "" (@danieleyre8913) on "Churchill was an idiot" video.

@georgepalmer5497 I strongly doubt that. The Germans had already long lost the war when they lost Kursk in 1943. By the time the Germans could’ve transported forces east to face the Soviet summer offensive of 1944, the objectives would have been met anyway. The US and UK forces from D-Day never faced that much of the Wehrmacht anyway.
12
@timphillips9954 Strange view of the world how? He explained exactly why Churchill was an idiot (which is a fact). And he only used his early war leadership as an example. He could’ve made a 6 hour episode if he went through Churchill’s entire life to justify this.
10
@D-B-Cooper Montgomery is overrated. But he was still many many magnitudes better and more capable than Churchill or MacArthur.
10
@scipioafricanus4328 Well to frank; Churchill didn’t have many positives.
9
@georgepalmer5497 The USSR beat Germany before the western allies committed large enough forces to bother Germany anyway. The USSR was more aided by western material support, such as lend lease, supplies, etc.
7
@beachcomber2008 FFS do you think that the entire population of the UK lived in the east end of London or something? And no he DIDN’T bring comfort. A lot of the UK public thought he was pompous and waffling and utterly incompetent.
5
@beachcomber2008 I don’t remember you saying “quits”. But in any case; Churchill did not inspire courage in most British people at all. He was a grossly overweight bully, hardly anyone who’s strengthen resolve. More people would’ve found him unsettling given how drunk he usually was…
5
@stevesilva2780 Oh give it a bloody rest! The entire idea that Churchill alone prevented some sort of British capitulation is outright ignorant and silly. Britain “stood alone” because it failed so spectacularly in France & Belgium and because the Conservative party electorate forced Chamberlain to not prepare the UK as much as it should’ve. And “stood alone” meant in reality being neutralised as any threat to Nazi Germany. The UK shouldn’t have merely been “on the winning side”; it should performed a lot better against Nazi Germany and been a key driver of its defeat. And Churchill and his bad decisions and atrocious leadership is the major factor in the British empire’s underperformance during the war.
5
@leojohn1615 That I strongly doubt. More likely; it would’ve led to a German victory over Czechoslovakia and then a victory over the French much earlier.
5
@philipsmeeton Germany and the Soviets more or less did anyway.
4
No Churchill’s over aggressive attitude was terrible at every time
4
@mikehiggins946 I don’t need to have been there. There is a ton of contemporary evidence and the fact the was so unceremoniously voted out of power.
4
@oldgreybeard2507 No offence to your family but working class Tory's are the absolute pits.
3
@beachcomber2008 You’ve claimed some personal experience. Even though this would’ve been far from typical for British people.
3
@tonyduncan9852 I must have one thing in common with Churchill then…
3
@jonathansimmons5353 ”That has a name” Yeah it’s called bravery to continue the fight.
3
@victorbernard1256 J.K. Calbraith showed in 1946 that the bombing campaign had negligible effects on the German war effort, it actually cost the allies more in their own resources than it inflicted on Germany. The only lasting effect it had was in reducing the Luftwaffe and petroleum supplies. And in any case; the allied bombing didn’t ramp-up until 1944, AFTER Germany had essentially lost the war at Kursk,
3
@celiacresswell6909 He didn’t persuade the house otherwise and didn’t need to. And neither did he need to persuade the British public. That is a stupid myth that British public are brainwashed with.
3
@ravenclaw8975 Yes Hitler and Churchill would’ve had a lot more in common personally than most of his admirers would be willing to face.
3
@ravenclaw8975 That’s all very true, and shows up what a sleaze and incompetent Churchill really was. However I was really more referring to the two men’s personalities and characters and ways of behaving and reacting. Churchill probably wasn’t as ambivalent about mass murder as Hitler was (unless the victims weren’t Caucasian) and was fatter and in worse health, but the two men weren’t all that different.
3
A lot of other Brits think he was the greatest man in history. Yes, really.
2
@dcelks7338 You also lack self-awareness.
2
@dcelks7338 The kid here is you.
2
@beachcomber2008 Opinion based upon testimonies and facts.
2
@johannpopper1493 Okay you’re not to be taken seriously…
2
@leojohn1615 Having greater numbers means nothing. What is important is the situation of supply, manpower reserves, etc. The French army was not capable of mounting offensives less than a year later so why would they be any more capable a year earlier? Most of the French army was fine for defending lines but in no condition to be mounting any major offensives. And Belgium had withdrawn from the allies. The Germans could have defended their frontier with France with only 1-2 Corps and then concentrated the rest of their army on Czechoslovakia.
2
@johannpopper1493 Pretty much everything you said was uninformed word salad.
2
@CD-SU Oh okay clutch at straws of taking him out of context…
2
@CD-SU The one here talking garbage is you. Now pipe down.
2
@CD-SU No. This video is full of historical fact and you need to do the research here.
2
I would think that fatty Churchill made those bad decisions whilst parked in a very comfortable chair (and boozed up). Most of those bad decisions of Churchill’s were obvious at the time, not just with hindsight now.
2
Absolute nonsense. Britain had been rearming since 1933.
2
@BobHooker The UK was barely challenged it he Mediterranean due to timid Italian naval leadership. And seeing as nobody told you; Britain was swept aside in the far east in Malaya and Singapore, and thanks to Churchill’s moronic decisions! And then almost lost all of Burma. It wasn’t until Mountbatten could work outside of Churchill’s authority did the British turn it around in Burma.
2
@BobHooker Not really. The USA was openly fine with imperialism until the Second World War. The Spanish American war was all about the USA getting its own empire like European nations and Japan. And in reality practiced de facto imperialism on Latin American until the 1980s.
2
@BobHooker The USA just wanted what was in the USA’s interest with no intentions of considering what was best for other nations.
2
Churchill was not popular at the time. Clearly he didn’t make people feel better.
2
@the_bunse In no way did the UK ever need Churchill.
2
@philiprufus4427 Oh okay, because Stalin did worse, that somehow absolves Churchill. It doesn't.
2
@robertortiz-wilson1588 Barely. Only because of gerrymandering.
2
@ElGrandoCaymano He was keen to both initiate the Second World War, and to escalate it by invading Norway (and some he was talked out of). And he was behind the attack on the Vichy fleet at Mers-al-Khabir. And in the First World War; Churchill both manipulated the Ottoman entry on the side of the central powers and the disastrous Dardanelles campaign. As for never hearing Blair being called a warmonger; I can only guess you were getting your information from Fox News 2003-8…
2
I am no whatsoever Nazi sympathiser and I am from a Commonwealth nation called New Zealand. And I have long known that Winston Churchill was a bumbling idiot. And I’m in company with an awful many other people here who also are not Nazi sympathisers. And from the looks of things; it’s something he had in common with you…
2
Making continual mistakes and many of those mistakes being obvious mistakes makes anyone an idiot though, and anyone includes Winston Churchill.
2
This sounds like a load of bollocks. Why would Churchill be carrying 1000 pounds let alone why would he give such a sum of money to a taxi driver (during war time when its usage was limited).
2
An idiot is both the name of a novel and an apt description for Winston Churchill. And also an apt description for the sort of No-intellect moron who thinks that recognising Churchill’s enormous shortcomings and failures means you somehow also are a Nazi sympathiser.
1
The UK tabloid media and the UK Conservative party (and right wing Americans) have succeeded in rewriting popular history with revisionist propaganda, and have slowly lionised Churchill since the 1960s. Even in the 1950s, when he was still involved in the Conservative party, he was an unpopular figure with most of the general public. It is incredible how even left wing and informed Brits today somehow revere this never sober, inadequate, gambling chancer, disaster in two legs.
1
@dcelks7338 No you get a grip. Churchill was an incompetent buffoon. The facts speak for themselves. The UK did worse in the war than it should’ve thanks to his useless leadership.
1
@dcelks7338 "... lmao but your Mr perfect who acnt do nothing wrong smh" Thanks for revealing that you have the mind of a child. Says a lot about Churchill defender. No you couldn't make any video with anything Churchill ever did that was good.
1
@beachcomber2008 Look, maybe as you were a youth at the time; you weren’t aware of how boozed-up and pompous and waffling Churchill came across to adult Brits and what a nasty piece of work he came across as when people encountered him. But there are accounts galore of how adult people across Britain felt about him in 1940-46; and they mostly weren’t very flattering.
1
@beachcomber2008 Ah no I don’t need pontificating to from Churchill apologists.
1
”…which was ultimately beneficial to it…” Nimitz wasn’t. It was extremely detrimental to it. Not that it could possibly be beneficial. The UK in no way needed Churchill. When are you silly poms going to come to that basic realisation?
1
@jonsimmons4150 You’re called an imbecile with the mind of a child.
1
@joepalooka2145 Yet you can’t elaborate further.
1
@scipioafricanus4328 What are you talking about? How did Churchill stand up any more than the government that stood up tot he Nazis and shunned him?! Or the French?
1
@fairnews7484 That is not remotely any fact.
1
@michaels4255 His narcissistic personality and his ineptitude as a field commander and his complete inability to grasp the strategic bigger picture.
1
@BobHooker And how many British veterans of the Second World War have you met?!
1
@night6724 Great how?
1
@night6724 The Japanese in the Phillipines were a much weaker opponent than the Germans in Italy were so that is a silly comparison. MacArthur completely needlessly destroyed beautiful historical Manilla, and the Phillipines didn’t even need to be invaded to begin with, the Japanese forces could’ve been cut off and isolated instead. The Phillipines were conquered by the Japanese thanks to McArthur’s useless defence in early 1942 to begin with. I understand McArthur. He was an incompetent twat.
1
@BDE360 Nope. Other way around.
1
@leestewart72 I suppose if your views align with Hitler’s then you would feel that way…
1
@stevenspilly He never convinced the Americans to do any such thing, they made up their own minds to supply the British. “All appeared lost”? Aaaaah no. All appearing lost would have been if German troops were entering the outskirts of London. And it never looked close to that. The British Isles were safe from invasion, German bombing or not. The German plan was never realistic about ever invading Britain, but more about hoping the Rotterdam bluff would repeat itself, where they could convince the British that there was no point in continuing the war as Germany would just bomb its industry, Contrary to popular history and overrated films with Gary Oldham in a far suit: There was never any serious contingent in British political leadership looking for peace terms, the Brits were prepared to see it through and knew that German success was a long shot.
1
@honkhonkler7732 “lionhearted”. Muppet.
1
Your first paragraph proves that you are an idiot also, so no wonder you love Churchill.
1
You Americans have been grossly misinformed. Britain had already been at war for 9 months when Churchill made his power move. There was not much reluctance for fighting Nazi Germany left in the English population by then. There was a lot of reluctance prior to the German invasion of Poland, but mostly from the conservative voting base who were keen to avoid war at all costs to maintain economic recovery from the Great Depression and to prevent the sharemarket from collapsing. The opposition Labour Party (socialists), some other conservatives, and many in the military held no reluctance and were deeply dissatisfied with the appeasement. Chamberlain was unfairly scapegoated after his death (when he could not defend himself) and in actuality; his public show for appeasement was to please the majority of his voter base, and behind the doors he was very keen to take the war to Germany and working endlessly to get British industry and its military in a fit state to take o on the Germans. Let’s not forget that he and Daladier were tricked and let down by both Stalin and Mussolini at the Munich conference. While this was going on Churchill was a laughed at political animal.
1
@andyhx And why the strong confidence in either the Czech defensive positions or the ability of the French or British to get up and do anything to Germany?
1
@andyhx Ever thought that “the political will” may have been ultimately dictated by what the electorate wanted? And besides; the German army was top notch in 1938 in terms of standards.
1
@andyhx So… …thus the voting electorate really who are to blame for inaction?
1
@spearfisherman308 Britain was a side show for Nazi Germany. Germany was all about conquering the USSR. The Battle of Britain was not a decisive defeat for Germany, the Luftwaffe has recovered to an even stronger position by mid 1941. And the Germans were more about attempting to subdue Britain into a possible peace settlement through bombing than any actual invasion of Britain anyway. The British army was too small to threaten Germany. The Germans only engaged the British in periphery theatres and with small diversionary forces like the Afrika Korps.
1
@victorbernard1256 What a bunch of twaddle. If Chamberlain was ever going to surrender to Germany; then why didn’t he when he was PM? It is an utter myth that the UK would have sought peace without Churchill, for one Clement Atlee would have never allowed it. It’s just made up popular history to lionise Churchill rather than face the truth about him and the underperforming of British during the war for which he is directly responsible. Churchill was an atrociously incompetent wartime leader. Every decision he made was wrong and went against his advisors. He was more drunk than sober.
1
@johannpopper1493 Oh no how will I sleep at night knowing some brain donor who uses word salad terms like “anti-Judaic socialism movements” (AKA a surefire bumbling dunning-Kruger effected failure) doesn’t take me seriously? Take your confused and uninformed gobbledygook somewhere else.
1
@victorbernard1256 The fact you think anyone should thank “god” is very indicative of your mentality. Hey should we also thank Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Seeing as your education isn’t very good: Chamberlain actually still was prime minister when the war began, and hmm did he ever surrender to the Germans? Nope! So what makes you think he would have at any other time? So we can take your authoritative tone as though you know more than TIK does with some chuckles. As for Churchill making mistakes and “nobody is perfect”; the problem is that Churchill literally rarely disn’t make a mistake, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that he actually was a key reason f9t he underperforming of the British empire during the war. To think that Churchill was essential for allied victory is laughable, more likely without such an interfering and limited leader Nazi Germany could have been defeated at least a year earlier.
1
@johannpopper1493 Where do I begin?! Why would you mention if the channel doesn’t treat anything with an ideological context? Having an ideological context is a GOOD thing, it’s what historians are supposed to do. You have no basis to claim that he treats all nations as inviolable and equivalent (he doesn’t at all). The political leadership of France and Britain had both been aware since 1936 that war with Germany was inevitable. The problem was more with the voting electorate. Neither the French army nor the British army were in any condition to “attack attack attack” in the 1930s. It would have resulted in a complete catastrophe that would not have been acceptable tot he voting electorate (and played into Hitler’s hands). What brought the USA into the war with lend-lease was France being conquered and Britain fending off the Luftwaffe. What made the USA an active participant was Nazi German declaring war upon them. The Soviet Union was never allied with Nazi Germany and they were brought into the war when Nazi Germany invaded them. I’m going to stop there. You clearly know little to nothing about history, you’d be better off piping down and listening & learning than making a fool of yourself, and I’ve wasted too much time in you already.
1
@johannpopper1493 You can’t even keep track of what you have previously posted and which anyone can scroll up and see for themselves. Are you even sane?
1
@johannpopper1493 Have you suffered a head injury or something? To simply copy and paste the first post you ever made here about a month ago: "...This channel interprets historical events without any ideological context at all. He treats all countries as inviolable and equivalent. Vision means understanding and foreseeing the long-term consequences of particular ideologies. The late 30s was exactly the right time to "attack attack attack", and the fact is the strategy worked by dragging America into the war and encouraging Russia to break their alliance. ..." Remember that? Aw yeah. Nah nah nothing I said has anything to do with what you first posted. Well done. And that's last thing you're hearing form me and I won't be reading whatever sure to be unworthy reply you make. I was correct first time: You can't be taken seriously.
1
@leojohn1615 Immediately you begin with a falsehood. Of course the French didn’t halt the Saar offensive in 1939 because of fearing casualties (what a ridiculous claim!); they halted and withdrew because Poland was clearly collapsing, and they knew that their forces were vulnerable to a German counter-offensive of forces soon returning from Poland. If anything; that offensive illustrates why France could not have invaded in 1938 when they had even fewer artillery shells and manpower reserves for any hypothetical offensive than they had in September 1939. And why would you bring up the battle of the bulge as an example of not needing supply when it was a disastrous defeat for the Germans, and a key reason being lack of supplies? As for Malaya; different theatre, completely different environment (canopy jungle), and their opponents were even worse supplied.
1
@leojohn1615 What are you even talking about?! The point is (or was) that you think that the French (and British) were able to attack and defeat Nazi Germany during the Sudentenland crisis. You’re now trying to change the subject. And you’re now giving reasons why they COULDN’T have just attacked them, countering your original argument. No surprises that you have a comic book level of historical knowledge.
1
@leojohn1615 You claimed that the French army’s doctrines would not allow them to attack without enough supply; seeing as you need this explained, that means that they could not attack. Because large armies can’t just change their doctrines overnight, even small armies need time to retrain its leadership and reorganise its forces, etc. Germany had a larger industrial base than France, its industry was free from disruptions from political agitators, it employed more modern mass production methods, the German forces were being re-expanded and thus could standardise their equipment (and with more modern equipment) and doctrines, Germany had better economic infrastructure, is why the German forces were better supplied than French forces and were in a position to mount offensives whilst the French we’re not. The Germans also had a larger population base and their army’s smaller size (at that time) meant much larger manpower reserves. But hey your appreciation of history is at adolescent level anyway.
1
@leojohn1615 LOL at your authoritative tone, as if you’re in any position to mouth-off what the French army of 100-85 years ago should have done (especially given your simpleton appreciation of events). It is an irrefutable and well known fact that France suffered from chronic manpower shortages since from the end of the First World War, that’s why they had to recruit men from the African colonies and force older reservists, many of them veterans of the First World War by then in their 40s, back into “Series B” divisions. Germany’s GDP in 1939 was close to 140 billion dollars whilst France’s was only 105 billion and the UK’s was 120 billion. Germany no more imported materials than France and the UK did (LoL what natural resources are in the British isles?). At least France actually prepared themselves for any future major war! The French just weren’t in any position to mount any offensives against Germany, they didn’t have enough mobile forces, not enough ammunition supplies & reserves, not enough heavy weapons, not enough modern weapons, and not enough men. They weren’t going to be in any position until at least 1941. And actually the French did recognise by 1938 that advances in automotive technology called for a change in doctrines and for an army based more on mass concentration of mobile forces and medium tanks (hence the SOUMA S36 tank), but it’s hard to change an existing large army overnight, especially when your industry keeps faltering. Your ideas about history are frankly just laughable. Especially your idea that the French stopped advancing becuase they were afraid of casualties (yeah, right!) or that the Germans “decided to go around the Maginot line because they lacked forces” (ahahah ah no).
1
@leojohn1615 What are YOUR sources? The history channel?! You don’t understand macroeconomics and it is frankly hilarious how you continue this when you clearly don’t know much. Of course the French were adapting to a more mobile form of warfare, they had guys like GLM Brocard, Christian Bruneau, Charles de Gaulle, ACE Bruché in their army. Two proper armoured divisions based around a core of tanks, Division Cuirassée or DCR, were formed in January 1940, with a third formed in March and the fourth (commanded by de Gaulle) that formed-up on the 10th of May, literally on the day the Germans invaded, and the first of the three to form with proper medium tanks instead of improvising a mix of B1 infantry tanks and some light cruiser tanks. The French had also had 2 light armoured divisions, formed in the 1930s and another formed in February 1940, based around a core of light cruiser tanks with supporting motorised infantry. The first 3 Panzer divisions were of a similar composition until literally the months leading up to the Invasion of Poland. You seem to think that the entire French army sat in the Maginot Line or something. And the French manpower shortages are well documented, it is hilarious how you are doubling down on that and says a lot about you as a person. And the Germans could import and borrow from whoever they liked before the war and that includes during the Sudetenland crisis that you imagine the French should have attacked during. As for the German general doubts; you’re unsurprisingly confused. German generals, including Heinz Guderian himself, were worried and skeptical once Hitler adopted Manstein’s plan for a risky mass manoeuvre through the Ardennes, a crossing at Sedan and then using the concentration of armour for flaking the best French forces that would advance into Belgium. And they were right to, as this plan was highly risky and its success was on an extremely thin margin that was almost a failure. Not that it was even relevant to bring up. As the question was about a possible massive French offensive, not the German offensive.
1
@leojohn1615 And once again: You haven’t provided any sources for your funny claims first! Anyone who has actually read up on France during the war knows about the issues they had with compiling supplies, as much as they would know about their manpower shortages. But of course; doing that would require something more than just a vapid judgment call so it wouldn’t suit you. And actually; the manpower shortage in France in the 30s wasn’t that far from where Germany was towards the end of the war, they were both resorting to men over 35 years old. The French just weren’t immoral like the Nazis and didn’t start conscripting teenagers. But that was an idiotic thing for you to mention anyway as we are not talking about the late war, we are talking about the late 1930s when Germany had large manpower reserves and when you think that France could have destroyed Nazi Germany with a military offensive. And yes, by simply thinking that it all came down to GDP and that combined GDP is some advantage proves you have no understanding of macroeconomics. Here’s something you should know; the nation with the biggest GDP in 1939 was the USSR. And the GDP of the USA in 1939 was slightly smaller than France’s. Yet which nation ended up supplying its allies with ample war material again? The French army high command DID embrace mobile warfare and independent armoured formations. De Gaulle was treated as one of the forefront thinkers by French leadership, you must be American to believe the myth of otherwise. The French had begun mechanisation first of anyone, before Germany. They actually had the first independent light armoured division in 1935. They just never got around to upgrading it to a full armoured division. The French military was let down by its industry’s inability to supply them. They didn’t form stand-alone armoured divisions until later in 1940 (less than a year after Germany managed) because they couldn’t as they didn’t yet have the material to. The French military and French government didn’t have control over their industry, and France was not some totalitarian dictatorship like Germany where the Government could step in and take control to get what they needed. And that “and we know how that went” really shows up your lack of critical thinking and general ignorance. The Dyle plan was a sound plan, and seeing as it didn’t sink in the first time; the German plan was highly risky and almost came to a massive catastrophe for them and really got through on a lot of luck going their way. The German crossing at Sedan succeeded against all odds (thanks to some fortunate timing of fighter air patrols and lucky artillery barrages) and the replacement of Gamelin with Weygand fatally delayed the French counter offensive intending to cut-off the German armoured spearheads by two days. But of course the deployments and movements of large armies is beyond your comprehension zone. And this deriding French leadership as “incompetent” again debunks your belief that they could have launched an offensive against Germany during the Sudetenland crisis. And furthermore; the “schwerpunkt” totally mobile warfare mostly used by Nazi Germany, and not adopted by anyone else, isn’t the best nor the one and only way to fight a war as you seem to imagine. After all; Germany did end up losing the war, and the gamble in France came very close to total catastrophe for the Germans. The overall doctrines only suited Germany with its massive industrial base to produce armoured vehicles and artillery pieces but manpower inferiority to the Soviets and allies overall. It could not have worked for Italy nor Japan with their much smaller industrial bases & inability to produce armoured vehicles, and the Japanese grand battleplan & infiltration based doctrines worked well enough without the massive material and fuel demands. It did eventually stutter against Soviet doctrines based around defence in depth, mass assault, deep operations, and over large fronts. And it became decreasingly effective in general over the course of the war, with the British Grand battleplan approach and the US superior firepower approach increasingly being able to handle it. Your earlier claim that it was mimicked by all armies post war is total nonsense. It was studied and included in the possible doctrines of NATO, particularly the “firebrigade” mobile defence, which was judged the best way to stall a possible Soviet invasion of Western Europe until American reinforcements arrived. But it was not adopted for operation’s beyond NATO with the USA sticking to superior firepower doctrines in Korea & Vietnam and the British and French sticking to grand planned battles in all their wars. And it was not adopted by any communist block country, who instead used soviet style mass assault and defence in depth doctrines,a en the Chinese sticking with human wave doctrines.
1
@pungvarlarsson6451 What actually is “western civilisation”?
1
If you think that Churchill alone in the British parliament held these stubborn personality traits then you are a fool.
1
@mathiaspoelman1493 Make no mistake: Churchill was pretty evil. Not an outright horrible person like Hitler nor a calculating psychopath like Stalin, but still evil enough. Conniving, no empathy, bullying, he was probably a sociopath.
1
@michaelgeraghty3989 No you have that entirely wrong. Do you even watch this channel?! Hitler’s goal was ALWAYS the Soviet Union, that’s why he invaded Poland to begin with. He only went to war with France and Britain because they were going to try and stand in his way. He was never going to actually invade Britain, he just wanted to bomb them into submission. End even though the RAF survived and fought the bombers off; Britain was just this thorn in the side sideshow for him. The Battle of Britain was NOT a turning point, Britain did not turn any tide against Germany until the end of 1942 with El Alamein.
1
@Kaiserboo1871 Wrong. The British relied upon lend lease equipment from the USA such as Jeeps, P-40 fighters and tanks. And they relied upon contingents of non British soldiers including from beyond the empire such as the Free French, free Greeks, Palestinians, etc.
1
@leojohn1615 You’re blaming the French?! That has to be the ultimate in scapegoating and avoiding responsibility. The French did more fighting against the German juggernaut in two months of 1940 than the British did for the almost 5 years until D-Day.
1
@leojohn1615 How about google the 1944 bengal famine and then come back to us.
1
@leojohn1615 What a bunch of utter twaddle! The French Dyle plan was sound (and in case you need reminding; the British agreed with it). But when the original German invasion plans were discovered (which would’ve run the Germans straight into French defences at the Dyle); Hitler took a massive risk in instead changing to Manstein’s plan to send only a feint to the Dyke and a bigger thrust through the Ardennes. The Germans just had outrageous luck in that their main thrust was detected too late; and that the Luftwaffe arrived just as their crossing was being bombed. The crossing at Sedan was balanced on a knife’s edge as it was, has things gone a little differently for the Germans it would’ve been a major catastrophe for them. And I said that with the generous assumption that you have even half a clue of what you’re talking about. You probably are another numbskull who thinks that the French all hid behind the Maginot line or something. And by your criticism of French pre war diplomacy; I take you think the British appeasement was better instead of the French desire for punitive action against the Nazis? Even if what you typed isn’t fiction; it would still be utterly illogical to say that the war was “entirely” France’s fault. Do you even pay attention to these videos?
1
@leojohn1615 You must have a double digit IQ. It’s up to government’s to provide relief for their subjects when there is a famine. Britain easily had the means to prevent most of the starvation in 1944, but Churchill prevented any fingers being lifted. And he let that and why be known: Because he had a racist hatred for “Indians”. An absolutely atrocious excuse for a human.
1
@Mitch93 No he lost because most of the British public knew full well what a useless leader Churchill was. It is increasing how the British public today have been brainwashed about Churchill by the tabloid media, BBC, etc and revere this disaster on two legs. And how the stupider one’s like yourself even can’t accept the truth about him!
1
@celiacresswell6909 No it is an absolute load of bullshit myth that it was Churchill or capitulation. The RAF held every advantage in the Battle of Britain and there was not chance of German invasion and little chance of German naval blockade. Face it: Churchill was a bloody disaster and an avoidable one.
1
@CD-SU Your question is retarded to begin with, it’s based around you resorting to taking people out of context.
1
@CD-SU No your question is BS as is this pathetic keyboard warrior pantomime you’re effecting. Britain was never going to sue for peace and Churchill never prevented that. Now piss off.
1
Ah no. Even if that was true; he should’ve known better. And he should not have imposed his ideas over those of career commanders. And it can’t be true, because he was always enthusiastic about assaulting well defended positions.
1
@BobHooker Pretty much everything you posted is a falsehood.
1
@castlerock58 Oh it was France’s fault that Norway was such a disaster. I’ve heard it all now…
1
@francksasser1780 The British army suffered in that campaign from lack of any alpine warfare expertise. There seems to be a running theme of Churchill not understanding gradients in his lifetime.
1
What a load of absolute twaddle. You’re desperately trying to scrape for a thing positive about Churchill.
1
@roberts1711 There is nothing true about what you typed. You’ve either made it up or have got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
1
I beg to differ. I think that Churchill was an utterly effete and incompetent buffoon. Literally nothing about him indicates intelligence. Even his little political schemes always fell over.
1
@redseagaming7832 “victorious retirement” good lord you come across some absolute twaddle on YouTube.
1
He was also bewildered as to how those inferior Japanese could defeat superior Anglo Saxons at anything.
1
@BobHooker What a load of nonsense. Britain (and France) began rearming long before they began appeasing, appeasement was buying time, the British began in 1933 under Stanley Baldwin and continued under Chamberlain. Churchill didn’t take over until mid 1940 9 months into the war. Churchill was a buffoon.
1
I guess some people never learn anything…
1
@bbb462cid Well did you watch this video?
1
@bbb462cid Nah never heard of that word before (*en sarc*). You didn’t watch this video, did you?
1
@bbb462cid Okay you’re just a numbskull. If you’d bothered to watch this video, you’d have seen that Churchill’s pig headed stubbornness was a detriment to the British war effort with how he interfered with the army and stupidly sacked Wavell & Aukchenleck; two very capable commanders. How did Britain ever “need” that? And no that’s not “regardless”; the Brits would have been better off without him fatting around and boozing up everything. Although from the looks of things; you may have watched it but are too stupid to actually put two and two together…
1
@BobHooker You’re obviously low-IQ. The British made far too much hard work of those theatres. And because of Churchill’s bumbling interference. Maybe you should pay attention to the video and learn something?
1
@kkquikB1 Yes the British performing better and less Indians starving would have been such a better outcome…
1
@kkquikB1 No it is mostly true. Churchill almost never made the right decision and continually interferes with military matters compromising the performance of the British. Not taking Malaya seriously, backing Leigh-Mallory and the “circus”, wasting resources O’Conner needed on a futile gesture in Greece, removing Wavell then Aukchenleck for no reason, insisting on the Anzio landings, trying to oppose Normandy, chucking away resources on strategic bombing, Churchill was the worst leader of any major power. You do realise that countries who fight wars usually try to limit the number of their aide who die and perform tot heir best, right?
1
@BobHooker The USA was no less into imperial exploitation than the British (et al) were. What did the USA do with the Phillipines again?
1
@user-sc9oy1kz8g If it weren’t for Churchill; The UK would’ve had Italy booted from North Africa by the end of 1940. It is likely that a pro Free French coup could’ve been instigated in Tunisia and Algeria and that Britain could’ve invaded Sicily (thus removing Italy as a viable enemy) before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
1
@BobHooker It’s called American exceptionalism dishonesty and irresponsibility.
1
@BobHooker Well how about European powers allowing former colonies independence and to maintain advantages of continued ties? But the issue here is that you are claiming that the USA was somehow not into imperialism and instead had some altruistic approach. That is simply a laughable fantasy, no apology offered. Although your idea that the USA was some pioneer in global trade is Also comical ignorance. European empires were built on global trade. The pioneers of global trade were the Portuguese followed by the Dutch & British & French. If anything; the USA was ten e result of global trade and many of its actions in the 19th century were very insular and protectionist.
1
@BobHooker No I’m not venting, I don’t think you’re too informed on this and seem to be regurgitating US high school indoctrination. It’s a bit vapid to condemn imperialism as “evil”. It certainly inherently contains many elements that are morally questionable and always benefits those leading the empire but not many (usually most) of its subjects. But it’s not entirely negative. And it’s something that’s somewhat inevitable in the ebb and flow of nation’s and culture’s fortunes over history.
1
@BobHooker Thank you for that schoolchild level of absolutism…
1
@Hascuce Why? What did he actually do?
1
@mikehiggins946 “...Christian/Western civilisation...” Obviously you’re another limited American with such an idiotic classification let alone belief that this non-existent thing was “saved”. NazI Germany was both no less western and more “Christian” than the UK was, and even saw itself as defending both from the Soviet Union. It fact: Christianity is middle eastern anyway, nothing to do with "the west". What were your sources? I’m guessing history channel and right-wing Americans. Oh and actually Churchill was key to his government being voted out (because he was obviously incompetent) and Atlee's Labour government was objectively the best the UK had had for about 40 years. That's why the conservatives never rolled-back their initiatives, whose legacy the UK benefits from today. Whilst your country winds itself down to terminal decline. I can only suppose that it is really impossible for you to even conceive that the whole story about “Churchill stopped Halifax from capitulating” could be a bunch of revised propaganda nonsense…
1
@nairpic7360 The UK didn't win the second world war. Like France they were merely on the winning side. Nazi Germany managed to contain the UK while it went about trying to conquer the USSR, which is as good as the UK being defeated.
1
@penultimateh766 What the fuck do you imagine you’re farting about?
1
@penultimateh766 I asked you a question.
1
@penultimateh766 What the fuck are you farting about with this statement that tactical military genius is the only qualification for head of state? And how is Biden any example?
1
@penultimateh766 Joe Biden is not relevant to mention. Churchill wasn’t very inspirational at all. He was a very unpopular wartime leader. And he was also absolutely militarily incompetent. You didn’t answer my question. And frankly: You come across both mentally ill (or an absolute moron) and socially alienated
1
@mikehiggins946 Well there’s this thing you should try called getting your information from credible source books (unless it’s the bible - which is mythology) and not listening to turd right wing American political commentators like you clearly have. “Saved Christian/Western civilisation”, what a load of fucking drivel. Was it Bill O’Reilly who told you that? Or Tucker Carlson?
1
@penultimateh766 How about you go back to primary school and learn reading comprehension, critical thinking, and learn how to insult people properly…
1
@ravenclaw8975 The UK could not have remained neutral long in the First World War, and a German victory would been disastrous and if anything would’ve further fanned the German nationalism that led to the Nazis. Please stop believing this American twaddle that the treaty of Versailles caused the Second World War (and was somehow unjust).
1
@ravenclaw8975 Oh yeah I’m the “revisionist” here. What’s your “primary source” then? That discredited revisionist Niall Ferguson? I strongly doubt that German victory would’ve been swift against either France or Russia. Defeating either would’ve taken more than 2 years, considering that the Schliffen plan still would’ve failed and especially considering that the British involvement in the war didn’t become significant until the battle of the Somme in 1916. Given the harsh terms in 1871 after Germany’s victory in the Franco-Prussian war and the disastrous wider effects (a global recession), and the draconian measures within the treaty of Brest-Litovsk: I think it’s a very safe assumption that they would’ve also inflicted extremely harsh terms on Serbia, Belgium, France and Russia that would’ve been a humanitarian disaster and would’ve again ruined the world economy. And that the German Empire then would’ve turned their attention on neutralising Great Britain (and pushing around other states such as the Netherlands). So this “avoiding the loss of a generation” hyperbole you claim would’ve been avoided (erm actually the British empire got off lightly) very likely would’ve occurred sometime later and even worse. And yes this is in consensus with the views of most historians. Including German historians. And it’s not my mere opinion that it’s twaddle that the terms of Versailles caused the Second World War; it is accepted fact. The causes for the rise of the Nazis was due to the effects of the Great Depression, festering German nationalism (that the Kaiser had fostered), and the political chicanery of the German social democrats that neutralised their centre-right opponents the DNVP, which opened the door for the Nazis as a credible right wing opposition. This idea that the terms of Versailles were too harsh (actually Germany got off lightly) and that it was the cause for the rise of the Nazis and the next world war is an idea of American popular history from the last 50-60 years. It’s partly due to justifying propping-up & defending West Germany, partly to absolved the USA for any responsibility of inflicting the Great Depression upon the rest of the world, and partly due to this idea that the USA came and rescued France & the UK and thus also knew better with Wilson’s opposition and his dopey “14 points”.
1
@robertortiz-wilson1588 Well… …it’s a historical fact the Tories lost the popular vote. They got in because the seat boundaries were gerrymandered. Go and look it up.
1
@robertortiz-wilson1588 And that is utterly off-topic. I don’t care what you care for (because so far you come across like an irrational idiot whose opinions should not be of consequence to me). It is a fact: The 1951 UK election was only won by the Conservative party on a thin margin because of gerrymandering as they lost the popular vote.
1
@ElGrandoCaymano He meddled in military affairs in both world wars, overruling the expert advice of military commanders with his own low-IQ ideas. In the First World War we have the Dardanelles campaign. In the Second World War we of course have many more instances. The ultimately disastrous campaign in Norway. Appointing his crony Leigh-Mallory to disastrously lead fighter command over the far superior Hugh Dowding and Keith Park. Placing his crony Freyberg in charge of defence of Meleme airfield in Crete. Unfairly dismissing Wavell. Sending equipment earmarked for defending Malaya and Singapore instead to the USSR (where is was ineffective). Unfairly dismissing Aukchenleck. Insisting on the disastrous Anzio landings. Opposing the Normandy landings (with his pitiful idea that Italy is “the soft underbelly of Europe”). Chucking British finances and resources into the strategic bombing campaign which had such poor returns (while the British army suffered poor equipment issues). Allowing a famine to occur in the Bengal and then doing nothing to help it. Completely incompetent, alcoholic, and out of his depth and who is ultimately responsible for the underperforming of British empire during the war. And his completely misplaced self-confidence was in the absurd basis that his distant ancestor was John Churchill…
1
Name one right decision he made.
1
@jameswebb4593 Yes a little knowledge for you is dangerous. Do you even watch videos on this channel? It is a myth that Churchill alone decided to keep Britain fighting Nazi Germany, in reality there was NO consideration among the British cabinet to not continue. The small world you and your ilk live within to think that’s how it works. Oh and he gave away the silverware for American aid. Oh and the invasion of Norway WAS a joint venture with France, it was the French with their actual mountain trained soldiers who made any impact unlike the hopeless British troops, and those soldiers were among the core of the free French after France fell. And the troops at Crete were forces that had been withdrawn from Greece. Honestly; your historical knowledge leaves a lot to be desired. Perhaps you should watch this channels videos, and listen, and pick up a few books before form8mg strong opinions defending Churchill…
1
@sgrant39 Churchill made errors before and long after the Battle of Britain. And he wasn’t in much danger from his bunker. He couldn’t think clearly because he was blotto’ed in booze.
1
@markoantoinehadrian7286 I think Churchill made the mistakes because he was an incompetent limited moron.
1
@joaquimdantas63 Was John Lucas really trustworthy as a source?
1
@marinanguish9928 What did Churchill even do in the Battle of Britain that was so outstanding? Elaborate with some examples.
1
@joaquimdantas63 You've got wikipedia as a source. And it states that he was biased!
1
@joaquimdantas63 Wrong. Wikipedia is not fact checked at all. Any Tom Dick or /harry with no credentials can write it or edit it. And even that article says that Lucaks was a biased anglophile (even though he was a Magyar - which alone is suspect) and anti-Communist and reactionary. He was just a historical author, not any bonafide academic historian with credentials who does actual history. He works have o credibility and are not much better a source than Hollywood films.
1
@joaquimdantas63 Why are you copying and pasting that word salad for? John Lukacs is not a credible source of information. He clearly was very biased towards Churchill, he likely didn't even really know that much about Churchill & his abysmal career.
1
@marinanguish9928 Chamberlian and Halifax did no such thing. That would have not even have been possible, because the Labour guys in the war cabinet (Attlee et al) would have never allowed for peace with Germany! I asked you for examples. Name one single time when Churchill didn’t make the wrong call, and showed any leadership qualities instead of being an overconfident and stubborn bully.
1
@joaquimdantas63 Wikipedia as a matter of fact is NOT fact checked. You’re wrong about Wikipedia. End of discussion.
1
@joaquimdantas63 No pipe down. John Lukacs was not a good objective source of information about Churchill. The actual minutes from his meetings are in the UK national archives and they paint a very diffferent story to Lukacs’ narrative.
1
@marinanguish9928 You absolute ignoramus. When the Second World War started; Chamberlain (along with every other commonwealth leader) formed a war cabinet. And he included Attlee and other Labour MP’s, so he could make them ministers. Cabinet was who decided if there was going to be any major diplomatic actions. Honest question: Do you get your history from that stupid “darkest hour” film or something?!
1
@marinanguish9928 Oh okay I should’ve said “invited” instead of “included”. However; you clearly did not fathom that Attlee et al were members of the war cabinet and would not have allowed peace terms. And you were talking from your arse with your conspiracy theory about Chamberlain and Halifax. And you never answered my question for examples!
1
Chamberlain was compelled to give up Czechoslovakia by his electorate and by Mussolini backing Hitler & Stalin doing nothing. He’s just become a scapegoat after his death in idiotic popular history. There’s nothing revisionist in this video, it’s just factual.
1
@Icemann89 Erm actually; Churchill was entirely the driving force behind the Norway debacle.
1
That is a complete myth. The Germans had already commenced targeted bombing of civilian areas on Krakow and Rotterdam. They were already bombing civilian areas in England before the Blitz.
1
@MrStarTraveler Jokes also have a certain quality called being in some manner or other funny.
1
@MrStarTraveler I don’t know what society you live in. But the one I live in has no such problems. Your joke just wasn’t funny enough to be recognised by me as a joke. How could’ve I possibly taken any offence over it?
1
@MrStarTraveler It wasn’t technically a joke as it wasn’t funny full stop.
1
@MrStarTraveler Hmm yes a whopping 5 thumbs up after 4 months what an amazing response, of course none of those thumbs up could’ve possibly been from people who also didn’t realise you were joking and thought that you were saying how great Churchill was. So seeing as I can’t see anything resembling funny about this alleged joke of yours; could you please elaborate upon what you imagine I must have took offence over?
1
@MrStarTraveler Erm I think that Churchill was an obese buffoon and horrible human being. So no happy to make you look even stupider; there is nothing for me to be offended over. Your attempt at a joke was just atrocious. LOL at how you can’t just face it and take the criticism constructively…
1