Comments by "Ray Purchase" (@raypurchase801) on "It is easy and safe to criticise a dead man like Winston Churchill" video.

I assume you're referring to the battles and subsequent killings in Ireland. They've been examined in detail by historians. The massacre of civilians is a myth, it didn't happen. The massacre of surrendered soldiers is HORRIFIC to modern ethics, but it was normal practise across Europe at that time. I'm westcountry British. Massacres of this kind occurred in England a few decades later, following the failed Monmouth uprising. History is full of nasty sh*t.
16
Jimmy Savile reads your comment and applauds it. (Just joking!)
7
Churchill was a fierce critic of mediocre generals and admirals. As First Lord, he wanted to modernise the Navy. One admiral fiercely protested, claiming the reforms were contrary to the traditions of the Royal Navy. Churchill snapped back, "What are the traditions of the Royal Navy? Rum, buggery and the lash".
7
SIMON IF YOU'RE READING THIS: Churchill himself regarded Alfred the Great as the greatest ever Brit.
6
Churchill did no evil.
4
@barriegibson6411 Hahaha!
4
@seancassidy4812 Thankyou for your question. It's nice to receive a query which isn't "F*ck you". How very un-YouTube! Look up the names of the alleged massacres. I expect there are detailed Wiki pages. As for the Monmouth Rebellion: Look up both the Rebellion and Judge Jeffries. Some rebels were burned alive at the stake. These were horrific times.
3
@MelbaOzzie Your knowledge of the subject is partial at best. The way you've skewed history is a reflection of your own hatreds. It would take too long to correct your errors. Feeding a troll like you would only make you hungrier.
3
@stephfoxwell4620 An unnecessary comment. Churchill regarded this English (that is, Anglo-Saxon) king as the greatest-ever Briton. If he regarded a Welshman as the greatest ever Briton, that would've been equally valid. There's a statue of Boudica next to the House of Commons. She was British too.
3
@gitfoad8032 Correct. It's funny how the Condor Legion "accidentally" bombed Guernica on its market day, "accidentally" bombed Rotterdam and "accidentally" bombed London. The RAF in '39 and '40 was specifically banned from attacking cities, although it had been pinpoint-bombing German naval docks since September 1939 (with almost catastrophic losses). The turning point in the BoB was when the Luftwaffe ceased bombing 11 Group's airfields and attacked London instead. That is the point when the Luftwaffe's losses became crippling. In September 1940, it was a realistic possibility that a vote of no confidence could have replaced Churchill with Lord Halifax, who would've sought an immediate peace deal with Hitler. If the RAF had continued losing pilots as it had been in the weeks prior to the Berlin raid, a vote of no confidence might've become inevitable. Churchill's decision to carry out a retaliatory raid on Berlin was a turning point of WW2, equivalent to Kursk, El Alamein and D-Day.
2
@stephfoxwell4620 Brunel was born to a Frenchman who'd fled France as a refugee. Young Isambard flourished in libertarian Britain in a way he could never have done in France. Unlike other refugees who've crossed the Channel, this one was useful.
2
@vigilanceman7246 You are mistaken. The RAF did indeed bomb German naval docks as early as September 1939, but never cities. This was BEFORE Churchill became PM, and AFTER the Luftwaffe had already firebombed Warsaw. No German cities were bombed by the RAF until after the Germans had already bombed London.
1
@KopperNeoman It's sad the whole thing had to be re-enacted in the Glorious Revolution (1688). In some ways, the American Revolution was taking care of unfinished business from the English Civil War.
1
@dovetonsturdee7033 Hindsight makes us all wise. If prime ministers possessed hindsight before the events occurred, he would've attended fewer parties.
1
@HeavensGremlin Agreed.
1
@ant7936 Please explain your earlier comment in detail.
1
@ant7936 Thanks, Ant. Goering also discussed this with his Luftwaffe and came to the same conclusion. It's pointless to kill a man in his parachute, who will shortly become your prisoner. The enemy will undoubtedly adopt the same policy, so it's self-defeating. Unfortunately, giving detailed responses to trolls like Olaf Red just emboldens them.
1
@georgehetty7857 Agreed. I regret that offering sensible responses to trolls just makes them hungrier.
1
@ant7936 Churchill didn't encourage Poland to go to war with Germany. That's moronic, and he wasn't called back as First Sea Lord until after the invasion. Churchill didn't "betray" Poland once the shooting started. There was f*ck all the Brits or the French could do in '39, except impose a blockade. The UK didn't attempt to invade Denmark. That's complete invention. Number 9 about Finland is stooooopid beyond comprehension. Churchill didn't "order" the bombing of civilians. It was the only bombing tactic which actually worked and was evolved by Bomber Command without Churchill's intervention. I could continue, but the list of Churchill's alleged crimes is barmy. I'm reminded of the episode of Father Ted, where a singer accuses the Catholic Church of causing the potato famine by closing all the potato factories.
1
@georgehetty7857 No, Hitler wanted Norway for its resources and the Kriegsmarine demanded Norway as a means of confronting British naval power and relieving any blockade. Also, Hitler was wary of Stalin's intentions after the USSR had invaded Finland.
1
@ant7936 You have selected your sources unwisely.
1
@ant7936 Thankyou, friend. Please tell me: Which of the listed items are truthful?
1
@georgehetty7857 That rat Toast is on TV again shortly this evening, so I'll need to be quick or I'll miss him. You're right about the contentiousness, but Hitler wanted Norway and Denmark anyway. I regret we're feeding the trolls by discussing this in any way.
1
@ant7936 I can't be bothered to reply to the whole lot, so I'll just content myself with Number One. It's alleged that Churchill rejected every peace overture from 1933 until the end of the war. Churchill was a disliked backbencher until September 1939, and didn't become PM until May '40. So he was in no position to reject or accept anything. And nobody except an ignoramus would believe otherwise. The British and French governments did indeed give Hitler everything he wanted during the thirties, including the Rhineland and Czechoslovakia. Hitler was an untrustworthy liar, as his ally Stalin discovered. I am unaware of "peace overtures" being offered to the UK during the war itself. There is so much wrong with Olaf's entire list, it's just crap from beginning to end.
1
@MelbaOzzie You haven't got a f*cking clue. Do you even know who Dowding was?
1
@ant7936 Please tell me what's true in the list.
1
@MelbaOzzie You're delusional.
1
@georgehetty7857 I regard it as a success when trolls spend 30 minutes typing a reply which nobody will ever read. Some of the comments made by Olaf and Ant are moronic beyond redemption.
1
@MelbaOzzie Your references to Dowding demonstrate that you possess insufficient knowledge to discuss this subject. You'd be wise to restrict yourself to commenting on subjects which you know something about. You're making a fool of yourself and you don't know it. You're out of your depth..
1
@georgehetty7857 You're smarter than the average bare. (Joke.)
1
@georgehetty7857 Hahaha! Earlier today I read the Wiki biography about Dowding, and learned stuff I didn't know before.
1
@MelbaOzzie I can't be bothered to give detailed replies to every stupid statement. If somebody blames Dowding for carpet bombing, they clearly know f*ck all. If somebody claimed Horatio Nelson fought Napoleon at the Battle of Balaclava, I'd immediately sense the guy is inventing crap and disregard his whole narrative.
1
@MelbaOzzie 11 - Russian refugees - what the f*ck are you twaddling on about/ There were ZERO Russian refugees in Dresden. Any Russians in Dresden would've been shot on sight.
1
@MelbaOzzie 12 - Churchill had been replaced by Attlee before this happened.
1
@MelbaOzzie 2 - Churchill was a back bencher during those years.
1
@MelbaOzzie 8 - No. It was policy to attack ALL vessels and aircraft, regardless.
1
@MelbaOzzie 10 - No. The tactic was evolved by the RAF. The USAAF imagined they could do better, but their tactic failed so they too reverted to area bombing. Same with the USAAF over Japan. Area bombing is the only tactic which actually worked.
1
@MelbaOzzie 3 - Zero "betrayal". If Poland had been betrayed, there would've been no war. As it was, the UK committed itself to a bankrupting war which lasted five and a half years. There was zero which the UK and France could do in '39 except impose a blockade. Churchill didn't become PM until May 1940.
1
@MelbaOzzie If you actually knew anything about the subject, you'd be embarrassed by the drivel you're spouting.
1
@georgehetty7857 Hey George - I'm sorry, I'm weak-willed, I've been feeding the troll again. Please see the latest exchange of comments.
1
@georgehetty7857 Thanks. Any minute now, we'll have someone claiming Churchill was black, the same as Abe Lincoln and Anne Boleyn.
1
@Liam-yr4uf It's a JOKE dammit, because of the part where Liam 1 refers to people making accusations about the dead when they can't defend themselves. Hitler's ghost feels the same way. Probably.
1
@aevans-jl9ym The BBC claims all three of them were black. Probably.
1
@aevans-jl9ym Well duh, as a Cornishman myself, I've never regarded myself as English. There used to be a time when "England" and "Britain" were wrongly regarded as synonymous. The Welshman Lloyd George described himself as the Prime Minister of England. The Tudors were a Welsh family.
1
@yetti423 Yep, seen it.
1