Thanks for this, very useful. I once heard a talk on 'Churchill and India', given by Martin Gilbert at a private club in New Delhi. Members of the extended Gandhi family were there. The atmosphere was frosty to begin with, but warmed as Gilbert's nuanced presentation continued. By the end of the evening some of the local grandees were complimenting Gilbert and vying to take him out to dinner. I think the main thrust of Churchill criticism in India has lately come from the likes of Shashi Tharoor, who as a highly westernised Indian politician presumably feels he has something to (over)compensate for.
I am constantly reminded, whenever a "historian" in search of some cheap headlines comes up with this sort of stuff about Churchill, of what AJP Taylor called him; "the saviour of his country". Taylor was a man of the left (supported the 1926 strike, closely involved with the early days of CND etc.) but recognised that in the nation's moment of greatest need Churchill was there. What would have happened in 1940 if Chamberlain had remained in office, or Halifax succeeded him, doesn't bear thinking about. Ironically (since Churchill was always a strong opponent of Socialism in all its forms), and Andrew Roberts didn't mention this, Churchill to an extent owed his elevation to the Premiership to Labour's refusal to serve in a coalition under Halifax and Labour members of the Cabinet were amongst the most vocal against putting out feelers to see what terms Hitler might be prepared to offer in May-June 1940.
We should have allied with Germany against the only threat. Labour did not refuse to serve under Halifax, and Attlee even said Halifax would make a better Prime Minister than Churchill.
@@Jeremy-y1t What was "the only threat" in 1939? A Soviet Union that was still reeeling from the double whammy of collectivisation and the Purges? Even Stalin had to accept that in 1939 he could not fight a major war (a fact confirmed by his attack on Finland the next year) hence his desire for an alliance with Britain and France against Nai Germany. The August 1939 pact with Germany happened only when Stalin was convinced that the western powers wwre not serious about any form of meaningful alliance. If Labour was willing to serve under Halifax why - when the the majority of the Tory Party and George VI wanted him as PM - did he not step into Chamberlain's shoes? Chamberlain wanted that to happen.
@@markbateman9222 Stalin invaded Finland in 1939, after invading Poland. Poland had prevented the UK and France from being able to ally with the USSR in mid-August 1939. Stalin preferred Germany's terms. Chamberlain told the King to send for Churchill. Communism was the only threat to Britain.
In my high school history courses, and through my own freely acknowledged amateurish scholarship, I had been taught that much if not all of Hitler's early political popularity was due to his persuasive exploitation of the deep German resentment over the raw deal they had gotten from the Allies at Versailles. In answering Peter's question about how Hitler had received an overwhelming 90% approval at the polls for his assuming total personal control over the German government, Professor Roberts does not directly mention popular resentment over Versailles and the widespread financial hardships of the imposed reparations as significant factors in Hitler's rise to absolute power. Did I misread history?
I am a very liberal and progressive old man. But I find it amusing and troubling that people want to judge historical figures. People act as they do because of who they are. Churchill was Churchill.
May our ONLY, EVERLIVING LORD/GOD, JESUS CHRIST - the GREATEST EVER and MOST HIGH - Bless and Protect You, Your Family(ies), Friends, Fans, Subscribers, Staff, Partners, Supporters and your Loved Ones Forever. AMEN
I'm not pursauded blame for Galippoli campaign lies with Churchill at all, Fisher and Halifax forced delays that totally undermined the brilliance of Churchill's orginal plan.
I found the comments about the Bengal famine most intriguing. I do not doubt that WSC sent some cables to Canberra and Ottawa seeking the release of wheat stockpiles to alleviate the famine, although the precise timing of that wasn't mentioned. The intriguing part is that Lord Roberts failed to mention the subsequent communications back to London, seeking the allocation of shipping tonnage to carry it there, were, initially at least, rejected. Eventually Australian wheat, at least, was shipped, but I would be appreciative if Lord Roberts could examine ALL the relevant primary documents relating to this issue, and specify the timing of Churchill's cables.. It may be that it wasn't specifically WSC's fault that the relief supplies arrived too late to prevent a disaster, but the buck stops somewhere.
Read Churchills instructions to Wavell, Governor General of India: ‘The hard pressures of world-war have for the first time for many years brought conditions of scarcity, verging in some localities into actual famine, upon India. Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages….’ Churchill shipped grain from Australia, but UK lacked ships in the theatre as D-Day was looming.. Churchill requested ships from FDR USA who refused. There is your buck.
@@Expatred66 On what date (or month/year) did the famine start? On what date was the British War Cabinet aware of the famine? On what date did Churchill send that cable to which you refer? On what date was any Australian grain (wheat) shipped? How long after wheat was offered (by Australia and Canada) was it shipped? You can't just cherry pick one cable, and sweep culpability under the rug.
@@ianwalter62 er yes i can; this is a youtube thread not a university lecture; all the information you ask is available, much of it in Churchills papers, with the exception of the start date as these things tend not to be clear. one thing i also didnt mention was the famine was exacerbated by indian grain merchants hoarding and profiting. whilst you do your research i'd suggest you also look into the natural cycle of famine in india which EIC reports go back to 1770, and and the BIS work done 1838-42, leading to the 1880 Famine Commission, which measures included grain storage for such eventualities; note the date as now Crown responsibility not the EIC, and the significant role this played in reducing cyclical famine hardship
@@Expatred66 I already know the answers to the question I posed for you to consider. They were both Socratic, and rhetorical. The fact you glibly state that " this is a youtube thread not a university lecture" tells us everything we need to know about your opinion.
Thanks for this, very useful. I once heard a talk on 'Churchill and India', given by Martin Gilbert at a private club in New Delhi. Members of the extended Gandhi family were there. The atmosphere was frosty to begin with, but warmed as Gilbert's nuanced presentation continued. By the end of the evening some of the local grandees were complimenting Gilbert and vying to take him out to dinner. I think the main thrust of Churchill criticism in India has lately come from the likes of Shashi Tharoor, who as a highly westernised Indian politician presumably feels he has something to (over)compensate for.
Gilbert downplayed Churchill's anti-Semitism.
@@Jeremy-y1t There wasn't any to downplay. And Gilbert was Jewish....
@@lucianopavarotti2843 Churchill blamed Jews for Communism. Bobby Fischer was Jewish ...
I am constantly reminded, whenever a "historian" in search of some cheap headlines comes up with this sort of stuff about Churchill, of what AJP Taylor called him; "the saviour of his country". Taylor was a man of the left (supported the 1926 strike, closely involved with the early days of CND etc.) but recognised that in the nation's moment of greatest need Churchill was there. What would have happened in 1940 if Chamberlain had remained in office, or Halifax succeeded him, doesn't bear thinking about.
Ironically (since Churchill was always a strong opponent of Socialism in all its forms), and Andrew Roberts didn't mention this, Churchill to an extent owed his elevation to the Premiership to Labour's refusal to serve in a coalition under Halifax and Labour members of the Cabinet were amongst the most vocal against putting out feelers to see what terms Hitler might be prepared to offer in May-June 1940.
Well said
We should have allied with Germany against the only threat.
Labour did not refuse to serve under Halifax, and Attlee even said Halifax would make a better Prime Minister than Churchill.
@@Jeremy-y1t What was "the only threat" in 1939? A Soviet Union that was still reeeling from the double whammy of collectivisation and the Purges? Even Stalin had to accept that in 1939 he could not fight a major war (a fact confirmed by his attack on Finland the next year) hence his desire for an alliance with Britain and France against Nai Germany. The August 1939 pact with Germany happened only when Stalin was convinced that the western powers wwre not serious about any form of meaningful alliance.
If Labour was willing to serve under Halifax why - when the the majority of the Tory Party and George VI wanted him as PM - did he not step into Chamberlain's shoes? Chamberlain wanted that to happen.
@@markbateman9222 Stalin invaded Finland in 1939, after invading Poland. Poland had prevented the UK and France from being able to ally with the USSR in mid-August 1939. Stalin preferred Germany's terms.
Chamberlain told the King to send for Churchill.
Communism was the only threat to Britain.
This was great. Makes me want to read more of Churchill's writing. 👍
Those who protest Churchill never seem to get the irony that if it weren’t for him, they’d be protesting in German… or not protesting at all.
As opposed to what actually happened? Look at Great Britain today. What do you think the men who fought in the war would make of it?
Wrong, the British that protested Churchill would be protesting in Russian.
We should have allied with Germany.
In my high school history courses, and through my own freely acknowledged amateurish scholarship, I had been taught that much if not all of Hitler's early political popularity was due to his persuasive exploitation of the deep German resentment over the raw deal they had gotten from the Allies at Versailles. In answering Peter's question about how Hitler had received an overwhelming 90% approval at the polls for his assuming total personal control over the German government, Professor Roberts does not directly mention popular resentment over Versailles and the widespread financial hardships of the imposed reparations as significant factors in Hitler's rise to absolute power. Did I misread history?
I am a very liberal and progressive old man. But I find it amusing and troubling that people want to judge historical figures. People act as they do because of who they are. Churchill was Churchill.
A great presentation.
May our ONLY, EVERLIVING LORD/GOD, JESUS CHRIST - the GREATEST EVER and MOST HIGH - Bless and Protect You, Your Family(ies), Friends, Fans, Subscribers, Staff, Partners, Supporters and your Loved Ones Forever. AMEN
I'm not pursauded blame for Galippoli campaign lies with Churchill at all, Fisher and Halifax forced delays that totally undermined the brilliance of Churchill's orginal plan.
The plan was a mistake to begin with.
I found the comments about the Bengal famine most intriguing. I do not doubt that WSC sent some cables to Canberra and Ottawa seeking the release of wheat stockpiles to alleviate the famine, although the precise timing of that wasn't mentioned.
The intriguing part is that Lord Roberts failed to mention the subsequent communications back to London, seeking the allocation of shipping tonnage to carry it there, were, initially at least, rejected. Eventually Australian wheat, at least, was shipped, but I would be appreciative if Lord Roberts could examine ALL the relevant primary documents relating to this issue, and specify the timing of Churchill's cables.. It may be that it wasn't specifically WSC's fault that the relief supplies arrived too late to prevent a disaster, but the buck stops somewhere.
Read Churchills instructions to Wavell, Governor General of India:
‘The hard pressures of world-war have for the first time for many years brought conditions of scarcity, verging in some localities into actual famine, upon India. Every effort must be made, even by the diversion of shipping urgently needed for war purposes, to deal with local shortages….’
Churchill shipped grain from Australia, but UK lacked ships in the theatre as D-Day was looming.. Churchill requested ships from FDR USA who refused.
There is your buck.
@@Expatred66
On what date (or month/year) did the famine start?
On what date was the British War Cabinet aware of the famine?
On what date did Churchill send that cable to which you refer?
On what date was any Australian grain (wheat) shipped?
How long after wheat was offered (by Australia and Canada) was it shipped?
You can't just cherry pick one cable, and sweep culpability under the rug.
@@ianwalter62 er yes i can; this is a youtube thread not a university lecture; all the information you ask is available, much of it in Churchills papers, with the exception of the start date as these things tend not to be clear.
one thing i also didnt mention was the famine was exacerbated by indian grain merchants hoarding and profiting.
whilst you do your research i'd suggest you also look into the natural cycle of famine in india which EIC reports go back to 1770, and and the BIS work done 1838-42, leading to the 1880 Famine Commission, which measures included grain storage for such eventualities; note the date as now Crown responsibility not the EIC, and the significant role this played in reducing cyclical famine hardship
@@Expatred66 I already know the answers to the question I posed for you to consider. They were both Socratic, and rhetorical.
The fact you glibly state that " this is a youtube thread not a university lecture" tells us everything we need to know about your opinion.
@@ianwalter62 ah so still no facts, just more deflection.. have a nice day