I love the back and forth going on in the comments. It's good to consider alternative perspectives. Some are saying Churchill was right to keep fighting during WW2 and not surrender or make peace. I'm generally against war (there's an argument for defensive action, but even then it should be avoided at all costs), so I think there's an argument to be had that he should have made peace after Dunkirk. However, Britain making peace would have had massive repercussions. The blockade of Germany would stop. Hitler would have more fuel for his armies going East, which may have tipped the tide against the Soviets. Millions more people may have been killed as a result, and a terrible Empire would have dominated Europe. It's hard not to be persuaded that this was a "just war" on the part of Britain, even if Britain ended up having 3 million subjects starve to death in Bengal... Honestly, I'm conflicted. I can also understand the argument that once the war has started you're in a struggle for survival and therefore all (or most) bets are off. But this makes me think that humanity is one good declaration of war away from losing its humanity, and that "humanity" is just a synonym of "barbarity". What do you think? Am I being too nihilistic?
Yes, Churchill should have just made peace with Hitler. Then he would have stopped, just like all the other times world leaders tried making peace with him.
Don't you think UK would have made a cease fire agreement rather than surrendering to Mussolini and Hitler's ambitions and attack again later, like in Napoleonic wars ?. Your videos on Italian fascism was an eye opener for me TIK thanks.
Churchill not surrendering was the most significant action he ever took. He was an imbecile when it came to military strategy, the Italian campaign being seen as the soft underbelly was just one point of evidence for this. As far as the Bengal famine & other non European tragedies of the war, that in my opinion can be attributed more to colonialism than directly to the war. Yes the war caused millions of subjects in Britain's colonies to suffer, but they wouldn't have if they were never British colonies in the first place. Let's also not single out Britain. France, The Netherlands, Italy & the US all had overseas colonies that suffered similarly. Keep up the good work TIK, you're one of the few people today who truly understands what history is. It also helps that you don't deny objective reality like most if not all socialists do.
That's honestly a very limited goal for a statesman, and it is a frequently a trait of not very bright people. Pretty much anyone knows someone who failed time and again and yet never stopped to think about it.
@jim I'm not saying churchill was without merit. But he did succumb to unwise military impulses somewhat frequently, and he didn't seem to grasp the fact that his meddling in military affairs did more harm then good.
The "Come to grips with the enemy and attack, attack, attack" mentality had been a very British thing for a long time at that point. In all of Britain's colonial conflicts it was a rare thing for British troops to face an enemy with anything like the level of discipline, training, and equipment that they had. It was not an uncommon thing for the British army to rout enemies through aggressive action even at a severe deficit of numbers. Prior to WW I it was uncommon for the British to face a peer enemy, unless they were fighting the French. At sea, this attitude was even more exaggerated. Britannia had ruled the waves for countless generations at this point, and not only had an enormous navy, but the quality of her forces ship-for-ship would not be disputed until the Americans (who were themselves heirs to British naval tradition) began asserting themselves at sea in the 19th century. It was expected of a British naval captain to be ultra-aggressive, and many victories were had by the Royal Navy even when under tonnage and outgunned. Churchill came up in an age where strategic and tactical aggression had served the empire very well for a long time, so it is not surprising that his natural tendencies would lean in that direction. His greatest fault in this area, IMO, was in not learning the lessons of the first world war that the nature of warfare itself had changed, and in underestimating the logistical complexity of modern mechanized warfare.
Theres just something funny about the though that the guys most associated with "stiff upper lips" and "Civilized, proper behavior" were also the guys who's war strategy was mainly "Go total ape s--- and frontal attack, because where we're going trousers are not a necessity. Sophisticated Strategy is for poofters!"
@@jasonbelstone3427 Yes, indeed. The British were noted for exactly that. Refined manners and politeness right up to the point where they stop apologizing and tear your head off.
What is your comment about British maritime power not being challenged "until the Americans...began asserting themselves at sea" referring to? Assuming it's the War of 1812 (the only time Britain and America fought in the 19th century) and specifically American frigate victories in 1812...then it's worth saying the War of 1812 was a minor conflict which basically involved the Royal Navy turning up, blockading the US Eastern Seaboard, keeping the American navy trapped in port, flatlining the US economy and forcing the American government to sue for peace. Single ship battles didnt change the general picture at sea. The diminutive US navy had 45-gun frigates (closer to third rate ships of the line) designed explicitly to beat British and French 38-gun frigates. That the USN won a handful of frigate actions using these ships against lone enemies is not surprising. The British won the most evenly matched single ship action in 1813, in a battle lasting just over 10 minutes. The War of 1812 is subject to vast mythology in American popular memory- not least the naval side of it. The first real challenge to British naval authority came with the expansion of the German fleet in the late 1890s.
Ah, is that why, when his entire cabinet wanted him to surrender in 1940, In Spite of Churchill, Churchill refused to give up? God, imagine how wonderful it would have been, if there was no Churchill! Surely the war would be won on better conditions!
@@yochaiwyss3843 Oh my the old "HE NEVER SURRENDERED" as if it stemmed from an informed decision after a deliberated strategical analysis of the situation and wasn't an utterly delusional act of bravado by a posh tantrum throwing twat who didn't want to admit to losing. He got lucky, that's all.
MacArthur was an arrogant bastard who got a lot of men needlessly killed but he could come up with military plans which were actually feasible, basically anything Churchill touched went to shit and he was always extremely handsy. If MacArthur had become president or got his hands on some nukes during the Korean war then maybe he could have rivaled Churchill but even then he'd have had a hard time of it.
TIK, I got a D on my college paper called “the many blunders of Winston Churchill”. My professor said that my arguments weren’t supported by “historians in general”. I sited my sources and in fact used many of the sources you use (a lot from Anthony Dix too), along with Churchill’s own words. Just thinking of that “professor” still pisses me off.
Yes, absolutely right. Mainstream opportunists at their best. What a shame: Official history writing done according to weird agreements between criminal colonial terrorists, almost all reliable primary sources being suppressed to forge narratives and these narratives being created just to be as useful for current elites as possible... 😮 Unfortunately, same thing here in Central Europe... 🤧
My father served on the North Atlantic during the war and he hated Churchill. He referred to him as an Old Warlord. He also thought Monty was over-rated.
You speak too soon my fellow fan of history @@ComUnSas Monty likes to portray that image , which was in realoty just his way to cover for his lack of confidence and indecisivness in battle when faced with a difficult choice. Through Montys below average leadershiop skills he lost the perfect oppurtunity to destroy the Afrika corp at El alamein . Arnham was a bloodbath
I think Churchill is a classic example of a purely divisive leader. His greatest attributes are simultaneously his greatest flaws. You cannot separate them because they're one and the same. His stubbornness and "stiff upper lip" and refusal to give ground all made him a great rallying point and excellent figurehead for defiance against all odds. Those same things meant that he didn't learn lessons, expected too much, and rushed forward with often questionable plans.
Biggest flaw, he was bankrupt and was financed to oppose Germany by people willing to settle his debts. As the notsees initial plan was to deport not destroy, but Britain controlled the seas so it was not viable, they went for the harsher approach. Arguably you could blame him for the 11mn.
Except his stubborn refusal to yield was restricted entirely to how he treated his underlings. He wasn't a principled man. He was a bully who whined a lot when his staff proved smarter than him. Among his political peers Churchill was in fact known primarily as a notorious flip flopper. He was originally a Liberal who switched over to the Conservatives; and was a Fascist fanboy before he jumped on the anti-appeasement bandwagon (who actually were led by Anthony Eden, not Churchill, but Eden was thoroughly trashed by all the pro-Churchill historians for supposedly losing the empire when Churchill bankrupted it). That Churchill has a high reputation and his faults are constantly spun as virtues is indeed at the very root of why very few people have great trust for the political and historical establishment. They are just so obviously just a bunch of brazen liars trying to promote themselves and their idiotic ideas. Really, Churchill himself said outright he would manipulate history to put himself in the best possible light, and yet people still keep treating his perspective as gospel truth instead of self-serving distortions.
@@thomasellysonting3554 He literally gave one of the most famous speeches of all time in "We shall never surrender". Saying "his stubborn refusal to yield was restricted entirely to how he treated his underlings" is factually incorrect.
@@CrushedIdealism the speech you heard was recorded in the 1950s. The original in 1940s used the same words, but was delivered badly (likely because Churchill was drunk) and got almost no applause in the Commons. Keep up with the myths and bullshit though.
We will fight in the air, we will fight on the ground, we will fight in the beaches....Churchill was a fighter and get got the Empire for an appeasement policy to geared up war mode. He took the war to Germany where ever he could.
@@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.
My Dad was a veteran of Tunisia and Italy...whilst he always said that "Winnie" made great speeches and was able to motivate people, he was also impulsive and a bully. I suppose he was referring to how generals were scapegoated - especially Wavell
His relationship with the generalsmay have been complex but he had this for him. He listened to the generals, admirals and air marshalls and their points of veiw prevailed when it came to strategy and execution. His opposition in Berlin did not operate like this.
Wavell juggled around several theaters with not enough troops and then when he failed not surprisingly, he was sacked. Wavell was an extremely competent commander.
so do it British style: 1) Try few battles, realize you are so bad you are loosing for one german/japanese soldier, at least 4 or more soldiers, no matter how much you outnumber them or how good position you have. 2) Nevermind, just wait it out and pay other countries to fight... butcher bill saved, uff, we just pay for body bags for russians. its really easy for islands safe from Nazi invasions to keep their butcher bill to their liking :)
@@Enkabard Wasn't the Brits who had a secret pact with the N@zis to split Poland between them... However, it was the Brits & British Commonwealth who were pretty much the only ones fighting from the fall of France to the opening of Barbarossa. Had the latter not happened old 'Uncle Joe' would have been happy to sit back and watch from the sidelines (while executing his own people by the thousands)!
Chief of the Imperial General Staff Allan Brooke summarised Churchill´s contribution to the British war effort the best: "Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again".
As an Aussie, it's his utter incompetence as head of the Admiralty in Gallipoli which pisses me off most about Churchill. Leading like a 6yo boy was his thing.
You don’t think there have been other leaders or generals that have made mistakes? There’s a few mistakes but also a legacy of good decisions. Supporting the development of tanks, helping create the British secret services, supporting the creation of the RAF, these are no small feats.
Controlling Iran was needed to prevent the Germans from making inroads with the Iranians and to ensure a way of supplying Russia. And if I were Germany I would have, for sure, tried to take over Iceland and Greenland. I guess it was too late for them.
The problem with Churchill is he got too involved with military strategy and decisions, for instance his diversion of veteran soldiers to the Balkan’s cost the North African campaign in the earlier years just as Richard O Connor was on the verge of driving the Axis powers out of there for good.
That's exactly what I see. I think Tik does a great job of explaining the details of it but the bigger picture is just what you say. He should have stayed out of it.
I'd argue that was just one of his problems. It wasn't like Churchill was any better at making decisions that were strictly within his own lane. His only real skill was political machinations and climbing the ladder of power.
The delay it caused in the German invasion of the Soviet Union was a bigger benefit to the allied cause than anything it cost on North Africa. It may have cost Hitler the war.
Actually I think the Balkans campaign was political. It said "we will die with you and fight with anyone who fights Nazis". I am sure Stalin took note.
Honestly, the recklesness and deficiencies of Churchill is nothing new to me at this point, but thanks to this video, i have new found respect for Archibald Wavell, given such a huge responsibility that is incomparable to little resources he got, and with the boss who has the same military instinct as a kid in Call of Duty lobby, he still manage to pull it out Too bad he sunk in the middle of big names of Zhukov, Montgomery, Eisenhower and Rokossovsky
eeeh...Wavel and ABDA , Malaya and Overal Asia campaign (= NOT AT ALL support for the DEI up to Darwin Australia!!).. total FAILURE...no GRASP of strategic situation...and NO smartnesses or COOPERATIONS !
@@oddballsok ABDA was probably a clusterf*** regardless of who was in charge. You set up an adhoc organization in such short time between 4 different countries (with 4 leaders of countries yelling at him instead of 1) with little or poor forces in a theater that had been at lower priority then the already severely overtaxed and understrength Middle East command. , I think any commander would have failed in that spot. In the Middle East Wavell only had to contend with Churchill as his boss, and he did leave his command in a better condition then when he found it. Italians in East Africa, dealt with. Vichy French in Syria, dealt with. Iraq, dealt with. Iran, dealt with. And if it hadn't been for the Greek clusterf***, thank you Churchill, Libya would probably have been dealt with too. The Dutch East Indies were f***ed regardless because neither Britain, Australia or the US had the resources to defend it. The British Far East command was, as said, even lower in priority then the Middle East command, Australia had sent the bulk of its forces to the Middle East and the US military plan to deal with Japan was to withdraw from the Far East back to Hawaii, fort up there and only return to the Far East once a massive military buildup had been achieved. Which is pretty much what happened. And with the Netherlands under German occupation the colonial administration of the DEI had to make due with what it had. Which wasn't that much to begin with either. Far better for everyone involved if the DEI army and navy had withdrawn to Australia and await the arrival of the US mobilization. Maybe hold on to Sumatra if the British forces in Malaya and Singapore had withdrawn there too right away.
Allied forces in the colonies were in a poor condition from the get go in regards to supplies, logistical apparatus, troop training, air and naval assets, etc. Coupled with the Europe First policy and it's clear that Wavell and the rest would only be capable of holding out for a while against the Japanese and even then that'd be extremely difficult. Wavell also didn't have any 'aces' like O Connor and Combe. He had the likes of Percival instead...
@@901Sherman yeah, ABDACOM is more like a desperate attempt for wavell to salvage the already bad situation, The Americans just entered the war, and have no huge naval assets in Southeast asia to stop the Japanese advance, the Dutch is not even major military power before the war, and badly unprepared, Australia still reorganize, with some their best units still in Africa, only the British have sizable fighting forces in Southeast asia, but of course they have percival, who are badly suited against Japanese tactics The best thing Wavell can do at that time is to make battle of Burma as long as possible and defend British Raj, which he able to do PS: Hello, didn't expect to see fellow Indonesian in here
As I get older, I begin to realize that the victor actually does get to tell the story. For example, time and again, you hear of capable, intelligent commanders getting demonized by history in favor of mediocre figures who are lionized. I think mediocre people tend to appreciate other mediocre people. And those of competency, after the mediocre have used them up for their abilities, making themselves look better. Then, they shove them into the dustbin of history to make certain that they are always able to take credit for their accomplishments.
Why should you believe the losers? All they do is make excuses for losing and make the victors out to be the true villains. No matter how much a veteran from the losing side of any country may have hated the war they fought in or how much they disagreed with their country's cause, their biggest regret is that they lost.
@@Outlier999 that's not exactly what I meant. I don't mean the opinions of the differing sides, because yeah, bias. I'm more talking about the politics within a specific side. Capable people doing the right thing, then a superior or competitor comes along and takes credit. And you never even hear the name of the person who has the original plan, responsibility, or idea. They get shoved out, and another takes credit for what they actually did.
Churchill both helped and hindered the war effort. His rhetoric and doggedness are famous for inspiring people at the time. His decision to destroy the French fleet (after France’s fall to Germany) apparently impressed Roosevelt and (also apparently) helped to get his support for America’s further involvement in the war. What were Britain’s other options for Prime Minister, and what would the consequences have been for each one? Is it possible to know? Was Churchill the best choice? Interesting video. Thanks!
Sh*theads often get you into trouble as a vehicle to employ their "dogged rhetoric"---he was scum. Good Kings keep you out of trouble, blowhards create trouble so they can 'shine'.
To be fair, I can understand why Churchill thought he could hold back the germans in Norway. In ww1 an army outnumbered 10-1 could wipe out thousands if they held a good defensive position. He probubly thought if the british army got there first then they could build up a defensive position and stop the germans from getting the iron ore as intended.
@@jamesfoss1627 Everyone did this. Even the Nazis were just following old Prussian tactics, just updated for tanks. In major wars that occur a significant time after the last, everyone still thinks according to previous tactics, only for it to take an entirely different and unexpected direction.
@@josephmoya5098 That's not 100% true. German Wehrmacht was an update of the Reichswehr of the late stage of WW1. Squad and stormtroop tactics were already applied, it basically won the Poland campaign where tanks weren't as important as later in France where Guderian and Rommel first time tried their spearhead doctrine. TLDR: Small infantry squads wasn't part of old Prussian doctrine.
That would mean that he overslept all the changes Germans made in their military doctrine in the 20s and 30s. Remember that there was always the so-called "Schwarze Reichswehr" which would re-arm and train in secret which even more pushed the new doctrine of small fighting groups with a flat hierarchy and a lot of initiative. It's the one doctrine that counters trench- and artillery warfare.
@@ragnarlmao9511 You are right. There certainly were modifications. I was simply pushing back on the idea that it is reasonable to expect these modifications to come out of nowhere. We like to pretend that the Nazis invented Blitzkrieg, but they actually just modernized a favored Prussian military tactic and modified it further after seeing the capabilities of their troops in real battles. It wasn't unreasonable to Churchill to assume that WWII would eventually end up in a situation like WWI, and wish to get ahead of his enemy in doing so. And when it proved that it wasn't ending up that way, tactics changed.
@@elomial724 I ask the same question. I'm not aware of the meaning behind it. IMO, both Xi and Putin are trying to undermine the UK and the US, and both China and Russia should be among the top priorities to defend against. Unfortunately, those who largely lean libertarian or right wing, seem to give Russia a pass, more than they do China. I am on the left and I see Russia as a greater present danger to Europe and the US than they do.
The only people who saw Churchill as some kind of hero are those who believe everything that the UK newspaper and TV told them. Everyone else including demobilised forces after WW2 either disliked him or hated his guts. Churchill was an egotistic narcissist of the most childish personality I could imagine. How people didn't see right through him I'll never know.
Calling Indians animals after f forcefully ruling India for close on 200 years ....they are a beastly people with a beastly relegion ......he is a British God... for the British lords.. hated all working class including the British ...so I give back what he gave to me .... he is also a bloody beast ...what goes around must come around .....
A counterargument: Britain had a centuries old strategic tradition of how to deal with a single European nation trying to dominate the continent. This involved: using the might of the Royal Navy to curtail their overseas/colonial activites and impose a blockade upon their shipping; seek to bring as many allies into a coalition against their enemy, often supplying them with money/arms to fight; and by using the comparatively small but solid British Army to engage them in fights around their periphery - i.e. not into the enemy's heartland. This strategy is best on display against Napoleon. An economic blockade put serious pain on France. Then caused Napoleon to institute the Continental System - a largely inneffectual economic counter-blockade of Britain. Russia eventually pulled out of this due to the harm caused to its economy, leading Napoleon to invade Russia -> Napoleon's downfall. Similarly the (later) Duke of Wellington's army fighting the French in Spain and Portugal helped to cause a huge drain on French manpower. I could go on. But if you're trying to put together a coalition to attack a really strong power then boldly attacking them at multiple points to gain many minor victories is an excellent strategy. It both bleeds your enemy of men and resources and helps to convince current and potential allies that your enemy can be defeated. Especially if you can knock some of your enemy's allies out of the war in the process. I believe that Churchill understood and embraced this strategy. This is the thinking behind the Gallipoli campaign in WWI. Norway and the overall Mediterranean campaign in WWII. When your enemy is too strong to engage directly, attack around the periphery. Attack his allies. Bleed him of men, money and resources while you draw upon the resources of the Empire and the rest of the world. Churchill's problem was in its implementation. He wasn't a military man and so didn't understand enough about logistics, organisation etc as you have pointed out. As such he made a lot of mistakes. But I disagree that this was because of an immature/brainless schoolboy brawling attitude. But instead as an integral part of this long standing British strategy. Just not as well implemented as it could have been.
Thomas, mostly I agree with you here. But there's one other critical element. Britain would only fight its European enemies if there was a host of Germans to do the actual fighting and dying. This was Britain's strategy in King William's War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the 1st and 2nd Silesian Wars, the Seven Years War, and in the wars of the French Revolution. Britain even tried to fight the American Revolution using as many German mercenaries as possible. This was one of the reasons why Wellington had such difficulty with the Spanish campaign starting in 1809. Here the British army had to actually fight and do most of the heavy lifting in a hard-fought war with little way to cover their numeric weakness. But the real defeat of Napoleon was not done by Britain; it was done by a host of Germans and Russian at Leipzig in 1813. Once again, Britain was getting a bunch of Germans and Slavs to do most of the hard work and dying in droves because of it.
@@colinhunt4057 Indeed. For brevity I didn't go into specifics, merely talking about Britain encouraging allies to fight and supporting them with arms/money. Who these allies were changed over time. When the enemy was France, then a lot of these allies were indeed "Germans" from the myriad little states in central Europe. But there were also Dutch, Austrians, Swedes, Russians, Italians etc over time and various different conflicts. The point being that every time this strategy was employed the details naturally had to change, while the core principals remained the same. Of course you're right that Napoleon was not defeated by Britain alone. His defeat came in 1814 with simultaneous invasions of France from the coalition armies of Prussia, Russia and Austria coming in from the east, while the British Army came up from the south. Resulting in his abdication. By this time France was so low on both manpower in general and especially experienced manpower, their armies were overwhelmed. What caused this bleeding away of French manpower? Years of general attrition, to be sure. But the greatest losses came during Napoleon's disasterous invasion of Russia, and the lengthy debacle of the Iberian campaign. Both of these campaigns can be partially attributed to Britain's strategy. They kept a British army in the field for years for the Iberian campaign, linking up with local partisans to bleed French armies stationed there. And as previously stated, Britain's blockade of France -> the Continental System -> Invasion of Russia. Certainly Britain didn't do it alone (or even close). But the overall strategic plan that ultimately saw the downfall of Napoleon? That was the tried and true British strategy of how to defeat a continental enemy too powerful to engage directly/alone. Like I say, I think Churchill understood this strategy and tried to employ it. But as stated, every time it is used the details have to change depending on the enemies/potential allies involved and the change in technology and weapons. When it comes to the more "Statesman" side of the plan, Churchill did a great job. Inspiring his own nation to keep fighting. Bringing in and supporting allies and doing his part in building a winning coalition. On the more purely military side of things, he didn't do nearly as well. This really wasn't his area of expertise so that should come as no surprise. But unfortuneately he thought he was more competent in this arena than he really was. Not good - but a common enough character trait.
Agree with a lot of what you say, however Churchill was a military man,being an officer in the Boer War and later in the trenches of World War 1 after his failure's in Gallipoli. He was a bit of a gambler not unlike his later adversary Hitler,who also failed to have regard for human life looking, only at the objective.
@@philiprufus4427 Not actually a military man. He washed out getting into military school. So he had to go to South Africa as a newspaper correspondent. He did not escape from a Boer military prison camp; Mommy ransomed him out. I agree with you that he was indeed a gambler. His problem was that every one of his gambles turned out disastrously wrong. He had that in common with Hitler.
The image most Americans, myself included, had of Churchill was of a solitary man heroically rallying a reluctant English population to fight the Nazis and save Western Civilization. We roll our eyes at Chamberlain coming back with a piece of paper in his hand, saying he had got the English "peace in our time". But I have read other interpretations saying that Chamberlain bought the English needed time to build up their air force to fight the Luftwaffe. Of course, there is the possibility that the Germans needed time to build up their militaries too.
@@pawekuchciak5927 pretty sure the british didn't know exactly the state of the german army in 1938, but they knew the british one was bad. Chamberlain took a decision with the informations his advisors could give him
if the french and British had gone on the offensive against Germany while they were fighting on multiple fronts in 1938 the war would be a footnote in history having ended in the allies favor in a few months.
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.
@@dillonblair6491 Says a guy probably not speaking 20 words in French and knowing about French history and politics what Hellywood told him.... ;-), sorry Dillon, Churchill was not 10% the statesman De Gaulle was ... "I fart in your general direction" to quote someone else. :-)
@@abuseofmainstreammediacanh5713 He didn't even accomplish anything 😂 America and Britain simply appointed him as the new leader of france so they could claim the French government was still alive and fighting against the axis. The liberation of France wasnt even De Gaulle either it was an American effort. He caused fractures in the allies and nato simply because he wanted France to feel important, he contributed nothing to the war effort in practical terms, he caused France to take the anti American foreign policy style for no reason other than pride, he went to Canada and started calling for the French speakers to secede, he angered japan in the 1960s by calling them sketchy car dealers, his meddling in Africa caused almost all of Frances ex colonies to be destitute and France still has a stranglehold on those countries to this day which has been disastrous in every way possible, he was incompetent militarily, etc. He was an idiot who was lucky to have U.S backing in ww2. If Roosevelt and Churchill had picked literally anyone else, they'd be the national hero of france.
@@dillonblair6491 Yep... how about reading some books? He started without even a nation, just a handful of volunteers. His entire infrastructure, supply and logistics at the mercy of Churchill, who constantly conspired to replace him with a convenient yes-man puppet and get rid of him and his followers.... yet, de Gaulle ended not only being the uncontested leader of the Free French, he ended up as the uncontested leader of France after the war when Churchill was already gone ..... one can like or hate De Gaulle for his character, but achieving all this, starting with less than scratch, against all odds, against both enemy AND allied, is something that clearly proves how great a statesman he was.
@@abuseofmainstreammediacanh5713 😂 I love how you didn't refute or debunk anything I said. So, yeah he didn't accomplish anything. "He started out without a nation" 😂 and he never took it back, America did. Also he became the uncontested leader of free France because America literally appointed him to that position. 😂 what achievements??? Nothing you said was difficult or even because of de Gaulle himself. "He ran an artificially created rebel group in exile, and he became leader (after America appointed him to that position)"
I agree. Churchill was such a great orator and this allied with the establishment media gave him the false reputation of greatness. Sold out Australia too
I think the main reason people remember Churchhill so fondly is how they made them feel in a time of great crisis. Similar to why they revere King George the VI. That reverence got him through the 50’s, his health ended his career before the left could. “People may forget what you said or did, they will never forget how you made them feel” Sometimes people just need a rock, even if that rock is a warmongering idiot.
I think you hit the nail on the head Churchill was terrible people manager and loved to meddle in military affairs. He definetly made some things worse and cost lives but his ability to rally the people behind a common cause and to give hope when there is none is what people remember. War is barbaric to think anything else is naive, was Churchill a school boy, yes. Sadly at that time we needed an idiot who did not see the writing on the wall or understand how utterly hopeless the situation was. The germans had the same problem but their generals could not say no. In sport the team that makes the least mistakes often wins.
Its like the space race. Or any other kind of race. Nobody remembers the details, only who won. And Churchill won the war at the end of the day. The average Briton does not give a rat's ass that the war could have been waged much better from all points of view, only that it was won.
When I see a video like this I have to think about what the alternatives were. Had Churchill let Greece and Crete be taken but managed to secure north Africa then I'd expect people would say that he abandoned them and didn't take action. I guess the thing that I can't really determine from this video is what pressure Churchill had back home to attack. I sort of feel like Churchill was the cause of a lot of problems but was also the consequence of the situation in Britain.
I agree, Churchill had be be seen to be defending the world against the Nazi’s so couldn’t abandon more allies (Greece) the way Chamberlain had. Securing a cause worth fighting for and American intervention was more important at a strategic level. Churchill was better at strategy than tactics, although perhaps he thought otherwise!
That's a pretty accurate summary on Churchill's true strengths: clueless with regards to military issues but sufficient in the grand strategic and political arena
Considering how well Greece did against Italy it would have been political madness not to support them militarily. He also had to worry about Turkey defecting to the Axis and so wanted to demonstrate strength in the region.
I have met many people who consider Churchill to have been a great man, and the part saviour of Europe from fascism. Whereas, it was him who prevented the rearmament of England during the interwar years, being diametrically opposed to Chamberlains rearmament position. Yet it was Chamberlain who is still considered the dreamy eyed appeaser, to Churchill's ruthless bulldog image. If not for chamberlain, the first year of the phoney war, may never have occurred, with tragic consequences, in my opinion. Biplanes vs ME-109s, ill-conceived tanks used with bad tactics, and the misdirection of the efforts of boffins into excursions of grandiosity. Very much a champers swilling spiv, with a disdain for the lower classes.
I think Churchill's strengths are being ignored. I would never argue that he wasn't sometimes childishly impetuous or that he was a strategic genius. Even by the intensely frustrated Alanbrooke's own admission, Churchill was largely able to restrain himself from overriding Alanbrooke's cautions. Alanbrooke explained the dangers of impetuous action and the logistical requirements of modern warfare and Churchill grumpily accepted it. It's rare to find a "great leader" without some major flaws and I think you could argue that it was Churchill's stubbornness which prevented Britain from folding in tough times. He was also one of the few who very vocally warned about Germany's ambitions and helped wake up industry into the limited preparations that were made. He was much more aware of the threat from Stalin than the likes of Roosevelt. He seems to have very quickly understood what Stalin was all about and his eagerness to attack through Italy was motivated to a large degree by his wish to prevent the Soviets from swallowing up land the way they in fact did. As for his eagerness to get the war going, it was unwise, but then I think he understood the folly of thinking that Hitler would respect anyone's sovereignty when holding the whip hand. Letting a despot grab land unhindered just let's them pick off the weak one by one until there is nobody left to oppose them. We are seeing the same argument play out now over Ukraine and I find it telling that the political philosophers and commentators who grew up in or have great experience of Russia and Putin are the most likely to advocate stopping Putin now. It's the idealists and people with pet geopolitical theories and superficial understanding of the actors who favour negotiating away Ukraine.
Sir, you have saved me at least 30 minutes by typing out my thoughts on the matter better than I would have. If a less bloodthirsty and stubborn man would have made peace with A.H. at some juncture earlier in the war, what would the UK and Europe look like today? It's an interesting thought and frought with political implications and curious blanks. But can anyone confidently say it would be better without Churchill?
Yes, indeed. Imagine Ukraine trying to resist Russia today without Zelenskyy. Having a pugnacious and charismatic leader for the nation to rally around in wartime does make a difference. Look at France in WWII, for the alternative perspective. Churchill was a central element of the team which got the job done.
The problem with strategy is that it is never purely military. Non-military (and even militarily nonsensical) courses of action must often be pursued, and many of Churchill's actions were equally as political as they were military ones.
Agreed. And because of that political strategy, many of the military operations were nonsense. The intervention in Greece was a perfect example of a massive blunder by Churchill with no chance of success.
Exactly, half these campaigns were politically necessary, irrespective of their military outcome. In war you don't always have the luxury of only fighting the battles you want to fight.
I would look for evidence that Churchill was secretly funded by the United States so that he could destroy the British empire. The United States wanted to destroy the British Empire ever since the American Revolution. That was Amplified when the British considered aiding the South during the American Civil War. The United States did not forget that. In the Years leading up to WW1 they try to stop European colonialism because they knew it was the route of European power. The United States saw their position of power increase after WW1, of course they wanted Europe to have another world war. Churchill was just the fool that they were looking for.
H-man loved britain and was never planning to invade Britain. There was a single plan to do so drawn up by his advisors which was never really considered seriously. H-man also never planned to invade france, or any part of the world west of his own nation.@@80sidd
There are two big flaws in this assessment. The first is the assumption that Churchill only cared about winning battles, even though, he is demanding that battles be fought. Churchill was juggling an alliance, he had diplomacy and geopolitics to worry about. Was he supposed to let Greece fall without a fight? Or is it better to lose in Greece, lose in North Africa, but put up a show that we don't desert our friends, for the sake of the strength of the entire alliance? There is also the factor, which is mentioned, that Churchill and our propaganda machine can easily turn a disaster into a victory in the newspapers, or at least a brave and glorious defeat. The second thing is that we don't know what Churchill knew or thought he knew. And we probably never will. Both Britain and her allies were doing amazing work cracking codes and gathering intel through spies. Churchill must have been continually briefed about the German/Italian plans, their strengths and weaknesses. So yes, there probably were times when Churchill was playing 4d chess while everybody else was fumbling around in the dark. But, if we were always once step ahead of the Germans, they would have known that they had a leak, which would have meant that we had to lose a few, and have some very fortuitous wins. But we don't know. The other thing that occurs to me is that Churchill really did seem to understand asymmetric warfare, the idea of stretching the Axis thin, and hitting them where it counts. My understanding of Chruchill, not that I have studied him that much, was that his grand strategy, was to mimic the mafia, be mercurial and unbeatable, keep causing the Germans pain, until America came into the war.
One of Churchills main concerns after the fall of France was not look defeated in front of its allies and potential allies, that always keep hitting the Nazis even if it failed spectacularly.
- Britain promised aid to Czechoslovakia - Britain threw them to the wolves in 1938 - Britain promised aid to Poland - Britain & France sat on their ass while allowing the Poles to die in 1939. - Churchill becomes PM and unlike his predecessor, promised to fight the Nazis to the end. - Italy attacks Greece while Germany gobbles up Yugoslavia. - Britain is Blitzed and the Population is getting demoralized. TIK: "GeE, WhY Is BriTaiN noT ThRowiNG ThEir AlLies to the WolVeS noW? It'S liKe, SoooOO Un-EcoNoMiCal! EveRy oNe kNowS thAt You wiN a wAR by DoiNg noThing!"
The founder of the construction company I work for was a self made millionaire by a significant margin. I was often told by long term senior engineers who knew him well, how much of an idiot the founder was. He devised hair brained schemes, eccentric, unreasonably demanding so many aspects which made people think he was an idiot and he sort of was, Yet everyone couldn't see every other attribute he had. Charisma, unquenchable desire to win, courageous, gambler with ideas, takes the initiative. These are qualities of a pioneer that makes a company succeed when it's young and vulnerable at the grassroots. What I've learnt about intelligence it can be itself an impediment. It breeds hesitation, compromise and self doubt. In war, qualities like those can also get you killed. Consequently I'm glad Churchill wasn't like that. As Alexandra the Great once said: I'm not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep. I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion. Because lions are all bravado and risk takers. A formidable weapon indeed.
You obviously didn't learn anything from the video nor have any regard for the people's lives who were carelessly thrown away to prop up someone's ego. A war is not a construction business nor is it a casino.
Great comment and well thought out. I agree with that - also anyone knows that Churchill was the leader England had at the time, regardless of armchair historians or revisionist apologist TH-cam fans.
Since Gallipoli its was obvious he was no military genius. But then again we don't remember him just for the things he got wrong, but for the things he got right on the end. Overall its a positive balance.
@@TheImperatorKnight In my personal opinion: Telling halifax to f*** off is the biggest one. His stubbornness caused incredible catastrophe's, but the the other option was much, *_much_* worse
@@TheImperatorKnight If there's one thing he got right is to continue fighting Germany after France surrendered, same as De Gaulle. Even if at the time it seemed hopeless and foolish it proved to be the best choice in the end. Even if he did got some help from Mr. H.for going to war with both the USSR and the USA at the same time.
@@TheImperatorKnight Since Churchill was a Neo-Fascist, his entire world view was in terms of power & control... So besides a few military decisions, his main success was in his use of Propaganda... The bigger question is how Churchill and his supporters would have ruled Britain if given the chance, as I suspect that "similar to Donald Trump" is accurate, as this type of leader just doesn't respect the rule of law...
@@RafaelSantos-pi8py how was that the right thing for Britain? Hitler made it very clear he didn't want anything from the Britain but peace. Then afterwards the British empire ceased to exist with a crippled economy
I’d put it in the same category as Richard The Lionheart. A romantic French idiot who wasn’t born in England, couldn’t speak any English, didn’t spend more than six months of his life in England, bankrupted the English government and wrecked the English economy to fund his military misadventures in the holy land, would have sold London to the highest bidder for the same reason and is regularly lauded as one of the greatest of English monarchs. Who is likewise held up as one of the worst? His brother John who was by all accounts a fair man and a capable administrator who had to sort out the shambles that Richard created. The heavy taxes that he had to levy were needed to pay for Richard’s ransom when his crusade went tits up and he was captured by Saladin. An awful lot of history that British school kids are taught is complete bollocks.
@@marconeevaristoaraujopaima710 wrong! He was the most pathetic man. A fu*king piece of racist and genocidal sh*t. Sometimes i cant believe that people actually admire this animal of a man. I thought the whole world, especially the brits, know about the horrendous things the british did us. but forget a sorry, they even hail these people as heroes. Its honestly sickning to see. First they loot you and then they call you poor. Wah!
Years ago I read one Alanbrooke's war diaries. One of the most incredible parts of it was when he described an argument he had with Churchill, where he was fairly certain he was drunk. I think this was a fairly regular occurrence.
I forget the specific historian who recounted it, but the fellow said something to the effect that after years of reading Churchill's account of the war the archives were declassified. Apparently many historians shouted as one, "That lying son of a bitch!" Within minutes. Churchill always scattered troops willy-nilly through the Mediterranean. Were it not for Brook (who I respect, but with severe qualifications) and Marshall, Churchill would have tossed troops at Rhodes and nixed the invasion of southern France. All the accounts I've read indicate Churchill resisted Overlord to the end (to his credit an Operation Torch era invasion of northern France would have been a fiasco purely on logistical grounds.) The "soft underbelly of Europe" was a witty quip not a strategic reality. The idea of sending troops from Italy into the Balkens and Austria seems to ignore the WWI problem the Austrian and German armies had invading through the region. Even the Italians had no luck with it. Still, the pugnacious old man was likely the best man for the moment. There may have been others who would have done better, but they didn't and he did. Just thank fortune for granting Churchill with competent men willing to argue sense into the very worst ideas Churchill had.
Certain it is and sure, that Churchill was a flawed man. Who, besides Jesus Christ, isn’t or wasn’t? Yes, Churchill made very many mistakes during the war. But he was right more often than not. He took a tremendous calculated risk by sending half of Britain’s remaining tank strength to the Middle East in 1940. It paid off, two Italian armies were destroyed and the war in North Africa almost ended. By sending a small Corp from North Africa to Greece Churchill prolonged the North African war two years but it was another calculated risk on his part. Let it also be remembered that Churchill knew many of his own weaknesses and chose as his Chief of Imperial General Staff Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke who, for all of his flaws had the Moral Courage to tell Churchill “No” when needed. Churchill also saw to it that Sir Dudley Pound, a man of great moral courage, was First Sea Lord who would often ignore Churchill’s orders when necessary.
American foreign policy at the time (and probably still) viewed North America as an island between the shores of Western Europe, and East Asia, and consequently worked out that the USA could not tolerate either one, or worse still both, of these shores being dominated by a single power that could well decide on an antipathetic position towards the USA. Bearing that in mind, and at the time, one would not have to be a genius to see that with the potential dominance of Germany in Europe, and the rising ambitions of Japan, Americas entry into the war was inevitable. All that was required was to give face saving time to FDR's 1940 promise to not enter, or as it turned out, for either Germany or Japan to commit some aggressive act against the USA thus expunging FDR's problems regarding campaign promises. In any event, and given the level of materiel help being given to the AngloFrench, and Chinese before December 7th 41, one would have to conclude that the USA was a player in the war from the very start.
FDR had a hard-on for Stalin and desperately wanted to go to war in Europe. What better way to reduce unemployment at home than to give those unemployed men guns and send them overseas to get killed. The Japanese were just a means to an end.
@@Fanakapan222 US destroyers were hunting U-boats months prior to Dec 7, 1941. FDR also declared most of the Atlantic as US territorial waters prior to Pearl Harbor. This instigated the Germans who saw that the US was not really being neutral as claimed.
FDR was very hungry for war. As a progressive and anti- colonialist he desperately wanted into the war to make the US the new world leader. The current state of the US being "the world police" is exactly what FDR wanted. He put us here, in complete violation of the Monroe Doctrine. FDR's problem was trying to convince the the American people
@@fazole One has to assume that the foreign relations departments of governments do have some really quite competent people, capable of seeing ahead, working for them ? If you view the run up to, and the start of WWII through such a lens, it becomes clear that the USA was bound to get involved. The big problem for the USA was the 1940 elections, and the fact that people such as Lindbergh had mobilised a segment of public opinion firmly against getting involved in a European war. Maybe you could say that it was lucky for FDR, given his campaign promise to stay out, that the Japanese solved the problem for him, but his threat to cut off supplies of oil to Japan was probably calculated to have the response it did. Even so, the fact that Germany and Italy Declared against the USA a week later seems bizzare. Both states were under no obligation to do so, and could easily have put the ball firmly in Americas court by doing nothing.
My dad was born in the early 30s. Said Churchill was nothing spectacular. But he did get a glowing write up. His time at chancellor was what the treasury says was the worst thing to ever happen in its history.
27:04 - - "Like a typical politician, Churchill wanted to twist the facts to make himself look good..." To be fair the propensity to "twist the facts to make himself look good..." is a common human practice not limited solely to people in power.
Hello from France. I am constantly amazed at how impervious you seem to be from all the myths and various narratives that keep getting propagated by movies, historians and other late night comedians. If one day you find yourself tired and demoralized by the huge amount of work you have to put into all these videos, rest assured, somewhere deep in some cow town, there’s a fellow man genuinely grateful to those like you who seek truth above all.
@@heksogen4788 He was radical but ceased to be likely due to seeing things from a new perspective. It happens for some people. Others stay radical forever
Was he essentially a Warhammer Ork with the writing abilities of an Edwardian gentleman? His 1898 book The River War has some interesting passages that may explain his later recklessness.
I think it was covered on Mark Feltons's channel, but there's an account of Churchill nearly being blown up by German Artillery when he got too close to the front lines after Normandy.
The arguement is if Churchill was so smart why couldnt he use the force of his personality to end the war and save the life of millions lost on all sides at the beginning . Alll the best .
I read the memoirs of Lord Alanbrooke, and his job as Chief of Staff was to keep Churchill's delusions and excesses in check and to sort out the few good ideas that he had from the tons of awful ones.
Isn’t that the fault of every leader. Just look at the delusional imperial aspirations of the axis powers. The Axis war goals are what you get if a leader is surrounded by yes men. The reason why Churchill succeeded while Hitler failed is that Churchill had people to tell him no.
I've often had my doubts about Churchill, but I could never really organize my thoughts about it very well, or put it into words. This video did both far better than I could.
None of you seem to have mentioned that he got close to Roosevelt as soon as he could. Churchill was half American when all is said and done. He recognised that only America had the weight to achieve a decisive victory.
Roosevelt received the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from a spy before the war, but did not inform Poland. Roosevelt wanted a war. Wars can be big business. Roosevelt was bad, and not even big.
You don't think seriously that Germany is defeated at western front - with 80% loses on east? There's another Tik's video about what would be if Soviet Union fight alone.
its more about Churchill's aggression pushing a naive Roosevelt into Japanese theaters, which then becomes the propaganda tool Churchill needed to pull USA sentiment into Europe. Even the drunkard Churchill knew England had finally met its match in Germany
A great analysis of the literature sir. As Field Marshall Alanbrooke wrote: "Winston is losing us the war, yet the British people think he is winning it single-handedly." You'll also find that none of his writings about his heroics in South Africa and at Omdurman can be corroborated. In fact, he did not escape from a Boer P.O.W. camp, his mother paid a ransom to the Boers via Sir Alfred Milner for his release.
I absolutely don’t agree with the deification of Churchill, but I have to admit I felt a jab of cognitive dissonance when I read the title to video. Interested in what you have to say.
I feel the beginning was giving Hitler wiggle room on blame for ww2 but all and all its not a bad take or point for discussion but I wonder how drunk he was or if his drinks weren't really watered down or if he wasn't really taking cat naps throughout the day like people say he did.
I guess you knew that this was a hot potato. The title in its self is like a red rag to a bull ! Your arguments are coherent and well reasoned . However , “ idiot “ is in my opinion perhaps isn’t the optimum word to describe Churchill as a whole . Certainly incompetent in many aspects ( as you have well defined ) but not “ an idiot “ . His over aggressive attitude was perhaps necessary at times of adversity. I’m pleased to see with your videos TIK that you can make us all think and consider our own dogmas in history . That is truly positive . Well done .
@@danieleyre8913 the alternative in 1940, and a completely rational one, was capitulation. He was a crazy gambler and a great orator. In the words of Achilles/Brad Pitt: ‘that is why I will be remembered and you will be forgotten’
@@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.
@@danieleyre8913 that’s not what I mean. The country was overwhelmingly against fighting and that means effectively in favour of capitulation, absent a romantic warmonger who persuaded the House and the country otherwise.
@@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.
I remembered the bits and pieces of Churchill tantrums you mentioned during your North Africa Battlestorm series, but bloody hell! My view of Churchill went from "stubborn, if rash" to "utterly reckless" in a span of just 28 minutes. Good job as always
Part of the reason I wanted to make this video was to put all the pieces together in one go. Over the span of multiple hours, it's hard to remember what Churchill's contribution to the North African Campaign actually was. Now you can see a good chunk of it all in one go - and I actually didn't miss a lot of it out between Compass and Gazala. Apart from one convoy in 1941 (which was an extremely risky move anyway and probably shouldn't count as a win) his contribution was almost entirely negative.
As a military strategist and tactician, Churchill was surely an idiot because of his attack-attack attitude, as said above. However if it were not for his conduct in the days at the end of May 1940 cabinet peace feelers crisis, as magistrally and trustworthily described in John Lucaks's book "Five Days in London: May 1940", there would have been simply NO war to fight, because Nazi Germany would have likely won it quickly the moment the UK would be out of it, as Lord Halifax and his group wished to do and were decisively prevented by Churchill's political acumen. And even in strictly military terms, it was he, Churchill, by personally convincing Roosevelt, that also prevented the incommensurable disaster that would be an invasion of Western Europe by the Allies in the late months of 1942 or in 1943. Justice is to give anyone exactly what is one's due.
@@joaquimdantas63 May 1940 shaped the world we live in today, and to be anything other than balanced about Churchill (the man in the seat no one wanted) is historically incorrect.
this also needs to be considered. the fact churchills political career ends shortly after the war also is telling. some of us have the idea that the average subject were tired of churchills general leadership.
He wasn't so much an idiot, but he always overestimated the British position. He thought that British empire would last forever; he was obsessed with Germany in any form, without knowing German "soul" (to call it that); he never understood Russians; ... He was, basically, surprisingly parochial for a man in such a position and historical moment.
He also bayed from the political wilderness that the nazi's were rearming and planning war from the moment they came to power and no one listened, so when Chamberlain resigned his commission to the king he advised the king to call on Mr Churchill, which the king very reluctantly did! How lucky we were!
Winston Churchill was not an idiot. He was devilishly more clever than Hitler. Hitler wasted lot of money on gas to kill Jews, whereas Churchill killed 4.3 million Bengalis without using any ammo.
Percival was one of Churchill's boys. He had a penchant for physically fit veterans from the trenches who had shown personal bravery under fire, ignoring the fact that the qualities that make you a good leader of a company or a batallion do not necessarily make you a good commander of an army. Thus the debacle of Carlton de Wiart (otherwise an intriguing person) in Norway and Freyberg on Crete.
As s Singaporean whose father was born in 1942 in Singapore, I thank General Percival for simply doing the right thing and not behaving like a suicidal maniac with utter disregard for human lives.
Lincoln is reported to have said “Well, I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”
Grant was a brilliant general and strategist. Churchill had a loud mouth and a bully's brain. If they were both drunk, I'd still pick Grant anytime of the day, twice on Sundays.
Clive Ponting wrote an excellent critical biography of Churchill, although it seems to have sunk without trace. He pointed out a number of personality flaws, but I don't recall that he ever claimed that Churchill was an idiot.
It's a ridiculous title, for sure. There would have been many Brits who thought him an idiot, but Britain's class system has blinded a large proportion of the population to the individual merits of anyone whose class differs from theirs by more than one division. Unionists and private soldiers from the UK are notorious for this wilful blindness and visceral hatred of the "upper orders", and even in the US there is now a pathological hatred of "elites". Churchill had heroic faults to go with his heroic virtues, but deficiency of intelligence was emphatically not one. Judgement, sometimes, for sure, but not intellect. I do acknowledge he does get too much credit for being the only UK public figure during the thirties consistently warning that Hitler was a menace. I say this because he had a tendency to take (and stick to) strong contrary positions like this his whole life, and was often wrong. The old "even a stopped clock is right twice every day" syndrome...
Try "The Good/Bad War" by Mike King. He lays out in great detail that Churchill was not only incompetent but corrupt as well. The book left me feeling somewhat disappointed that Hitler tried to sue for peace, but Churchill wanted war at any cost. Mike supports his arguments with copious references to newspaper headlines from the period. I concluded that WW2 was nothing like the version we've been told....
Churchill held no government position between 1929 & September, 1939. 'Hitler tried to sue for peace?' Really? have you any proof of that or are you simply chanting to myth of the disgruntled neo?
Churchill was a master of political survival despite very long odds in early WW2 "after having had a really bad WW1". The fact that his government got tossed when his electors were given the option to do so, spoke volumes.
@@Mitch93 Churchill and the Tories ran a really bad campaign in 1945, they were too arrogant as he clearly expected to win ( rather like Clinton in 2016), there were numerous gaffes, like when Churchill said that Labour would need "some kind of a Gestapo" to implement its policies, they were negative when the country wanted positivity, and they never spelled out a "big picture" vision of what they wanted post war Britain to look like (unlike Labour). Churchill only "won" in 1951 (even though Labour won the most votes) after having accepted many elements of Atlee Government policy
@@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!
@@alexgray2482 I was too young so can’t remember the mood in Britain. My father told me Churchill had canvassed warning the electorate that Britain was broke and that a period of belt tightening and a continuing of rationing was the order of the day. Labour were promising a land of milk and honey fit for heroes. It turned out the state of Britain was precisely as Churchill had warned. After five years of the Attlee government the electorate kicked them out and the cry was, “ ….thank goodness Winston’s back.”
Not sure I'd say genius, he trained to do speeches under David Lloyd-George. Check out some of his if you haven't already. Won't deny him being the right person in 1939-1940, but he's very overrated in almost every regard.
Churchill really almost lost the war in 1940/41 in the Mediterranean. His follies in Norway were just a foreshadowing of later bad decisions but he couldn't have lost the war in Norway. Good stuff as always!
But the setbacks in the Mediterranean meant the British learned to fight an all arms coordinated battle against very effective but a limited German force so when D-day came they knew how to fight and had been re-equipped with efficient American armour. Not planned perhaps but a beneficial outcome to the end of the war. And in war it is better to be lucky than brilliant.
@@scipioafricanus4328 No, that's not what it meant. The British stumbled from defeat to defeat and evidently learned nothing until late 1942 when Rommel arrived at el Alamein with a battered army and no supplies.
@@PaleoCon2008 what a one sided and biased assessment. Montgomery defeated Rommel before El Alamein lol. And what about earlier victories. Crusader or compass?
@@commando4481 Are you really so stupid to make that claim. Compass was Wavell and Crusader was Auchinleck. Montgomery didn't arrive in North Africa until August 1942, three months before El Alamein.
@@philipcamp1370 Anyone, probably. There is no answer, in retrospect, to the question of who else COULD HAVE done what. Who else could have married your mother? Anyone.
You didn't even get to WSC's objections to Overlord right up to the loading of the invasion fleet. It reminds me of William Manchester's quote of Lord Beaverbrook regarding Churchill. "Winston was most usually right but when he was wrong... well, my God."
The Empire was arguably in decline from the late nineteenth century. But Churchill definitely sealed the deal. Mainly due to the amount he put Britain into the hands of the USA.
One of Churchill's assistants/right hand men (can't remember the name) said Churchill had about 10 ideas a day. Two were meh, four were brilliant, and four were awful. His job was figure out which was which.
What you have to bear in mind is that Churchill was hampered during WWII by the disarmament policies during the interwar period, so didn't have enough military resources to fight everywhere e.g. to remain in control of the Mediterranean and fight the Japanese in the Far East. Also Clement Attlee served in Gallipoli and paid tribute to Churchill for his imaginative attempt to break the stalemate of WWI and said he wished Churchill had full control of the operation.
Disarmament policies during the interwar emerged out of necessity. The Great War came at a great cost to the British Empire. It was effectively the beginning of the end for it. Naturally, the aftershocks of economic depression weren't any kind. Were the British Empire to continue militarising during the interwar, the rebellions in not only the colonies but in the home country would have resulted in the end of the empire much earlier than 1943. WW2 wouldn't have happened in that alternate scenario. It would rather have been a series of conflicts between Germany, France, Balkan countries, Asia etc.
And yet the UK did fight in North Africa and won, they did fight in the Atlantic and won, they did fight in Burma and India and won. His aggressive policy of constantly being on the attack in the long run, despite tactical failures, took the initiative from the Fascists and paved the road for the United States. If there had not been a Churchill the world would be in a much worse place.
Narvik port was free of ice during the winter and that is what made it so important. Without Narvik, the German industry will grind to a halt. I hope you will take your time to conduct a proper reaserch. Love your videos BTW.
According to reliable British sources, Churchill wanted to go on and attack the Soviet Union in 1945, after the end of hostilities against Germany, but British generals were so appalled that the idea was quickly dropped.
Effectively, yes. Making them a legit military target and an economy that must be crushed/reconquered in order for the Germans to win means liquidation. W out big daddy USA and warmonger fdr, Churchill’s buffoonery would have spelt the doom of the Brits…the idea that imperial Britain was somehow more moral than Germany or the war had anything to do w morality is absolutely laughable. It was abt consumer product saturation and power politics. Imperial powers fighting for market share. Legit, how is Germany any different than USA, both led ethnic cleaning campaigns for the founding of their new state
U mean how the all1es liquid@ted Dr £sden and H @mburg?…I had a comment here claiming that the 1mp £ rialist w£st has no moral high ground over Germany, and the war was really abt inter wstrn p 0wer competition. It has since been d £ leted
I always learn something when I listen to your YT video. I've known for awhile that the "received narrative" has major gaps or perhaps outright lies, your videos at the very least, give rise to considerable food for thought. Thank you for the time and effort you put into your channel.
schoolboy 'attack attack attack' on Churchill? At least TIK's other videos are genuinely very interesting, objective and funny, well written .. but this 'attack attack attack' on Churchill seems a bit childish, tedious and boring ... The backdrop here is total chaos world war, global failure of politics, liars and psycho's reigned supreme, where prior to this only Churchill actually appeared to emerge at the end of the war as a hero ...
@@luisnunes3863 WW2 wasn't really a 'truth war' more likely a sequence of horrendous actions and cover ups .. by politically ideologicalised adults, maybe it needed a child to see through it all
My grandfather was a veteran of Greece, Crete, North Africa, Italy, left home in 1939 and came home in late 1945 he never had anything bad to say about Churchill or Montgomery. He was known to say if it wasn't for Churchill the British would have sued for peace, although I wasn't there at the time I say hindsight is 20/20
The Colonialization and the birth of Banking Dynasties helped Churchill rise to fame which in my opinion gave him a Black Eye and Galipili Landing was a total failure which cost many Aussies their lives
Failure at Gallipoli meant not having to give Constantinople to the Russians. The British wanted Palestine, Mesopotamia and Arabia, then Turkey could still be used against Russia.
It’s worth noting Aussies casualties and Gallipoli were not higher than other elements of the entente force, and that anzacs made up the smallest portion of soldiers sent
We invaded Norwegian sovereign waters during the Altmark incident when sailors from HMS Cossack under Vivian illegally boarded the Altmark in Jøssingfjord. Norway was not exactly happy when we mined her territorial waters either.
Too many variables. For instance a limited intervention against Narvik - with secret consent from Norway - would be very different from an all-out invasion against Norway's wishes. And giving support to Finland would've been a big questionmark, since it may have solidified the nazi-communist alliance if the Allies effectively declared war on the USSR.
South Africa ( masters of mechanised infantry) was so upset with how Churchill and the British were running the North African Campaign.. their generals literally had a plan to tell the “ Empire” to go jump .. and go back home by driving down the African continent 😂. Brits were fighting in “ open “ conditions like it was trench warfare, instead of fast moving mechanised infantry.
So Churchill was scheduled to broadcast a speech over the radio. He called a taxi to get him to the radio station where he was supposed to give his speech. However the taxi driver didn't recognize him. Upon arriving Churchill said to the driver: "Can you please wait for me here for the ride back? I'll be back soon." The driver responded: "I'm sorry sir but I'm in a hurry to get back home to listen to Churchills speech on the radio." Churchill was so touched by this that he pulled a 1000 pounds out of his coat and gave it to the driver. Upon seeing the money the drivers eyes opened as wide as saucers and he almost shouted: "Fuck Churchill I'm gonna wait for you sir!"
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).
AGREE 100 PERCENT. I read "Eisenhower at War 1943-1945" by David Eisenhower, IKE's grandson. Though I read it over 30 years ago I remember Churchill is calling, or cabling, or radio gram IKE 4 or 5 times a DAY. It took the first 300 pages before we hear FDR contacts IKE about a planning D-DAY matter. Just consult the index for Churchill and he's almost every other page. OMG Churchill makes teenagers texting or on social media look like soldiers writing home once a week. The man doesn't stop talking.
Chruchill's fighting spirit kept Britain in the war, which was ultimately beneficial to it, but that comes at a cost. You need that kind of single-minded obsession to keep going, but it also gives you the disasters you describe ; can't have one without the other.
It wasn't beneficial for great britain at all, they lost their empire because of it, if they had agreed for peace when hitler proposed it to them they would still be a great power
@@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443 doubtful...de-colonisation had only little correlation with the state of Brittain after WW2 or Churchills "spirit". A multitude of other reasons that made holding colonies untangible for Great Britain and other European Empires. Otherwise, why would the other countries have decolonized?
@@Raussl the USA encouraged them and bankrupted the UK to make it happen. Not that I think the Empire was a good thing. The way it broke up was really bad but it needed to happen.
Not really. Parents who lose their children in your war tend to become rather opposed to it. War is popular when its human capital costs are low. Being a stupid strategist leads to a much higher 'tax' on war. The best way to support a war is to fight it efficiently.
The matter of troops for Norway was that it was a minor one. My all standards the Germans had no means tomove any significant number of triops to Norway. For Germany to attempt to ship over troops would be very risky and those that arrived would likely be trapped assumes a German reaction. You assertion that Germany could remove the Brits from Norway how??? The Swedish iron ore was critical to Germany. Narvik is the transshippment point for the ore. The transit of it through the Baltic was only during six months of the year and carries half of it then. The occupation of Narvik was designed to be an occupation not conquest. Doing so would have been a fait accompli. The control of South and Central Norway was determined bythe Luftwaffe controlling the airfields. Even with that they could not retake Narvik unless the Brits abandoned it, which Churchill then did....
Shush! No facts are needed for Dix' narrative! By all things considered, the operation to rescue the British Expeditionary Force was, however, a colossal success regarding the sheer amount of troops saved.
He was a good orator, good at negotiating and backroom dealing, but all of that was undone by his military meddling. Worse than Hitler until about 44 when Hitler went completely off his rocker.
The one major military accomplishment you can give him is that he kept Britain in the war after the fall of France until the US joined in. Being able to hand over the UK to the US as this big unsinkable aircraft carrier and FOB off the Nazi shores was his major accomplishment for which he deserves praise. And which helped shape world history positively. But in military matters he was a bigger disaster then Hitler, who at least was able to chalk up some major victories by his decisions, it's hard to think of any for Churchill.
@@pax6833 "worse than hitler" Really bro? Churchill who many times deferred to Alan Brooke and made it clear that the generals had every right to oppose him if they saw a critical failure in the making?
@@yochaiwyss3843 Hitler was fairly reasonable with his generals until roughly around the time of 1944 when he went completely off the rails. Obviously he was meddlesome even in 1941 and 42 but he was not running roughshod over them. Hitler got progressively worse as the years went on. Generals could still have operational command relatively intact until the disasters of 43.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 not sure making the UK a vassal to the United States and tanking the British Empire is particularly praiseworthy from the perspective of the British back then, given that they were ostensibly fighting to preserve the Empire.
For five years Britain was led by an interfering military incompetent, the war was won in spite of Churchill, not because of him - he is the ultimate example of the power of style over substance. That he is revered as the greatest Briton by so many Britons only illustrates the woeful ignorance of the British about their own military history on land, sea and air.
That was my opinion way back... Wevel pulled off stunning victories when opertunity presented itself. He should have been given a promotion and resources.
What would have happen if Britan and America had stayed out of the war and Germany concentrated it´s efforts against the USSR? He was not really interested in invading England and had offered peace talks.
At least, the Wehrmacht was a better choice than the Red Army. Who wanted to be deported to Siberia etc. by the NKVD - like Poles and people from the three Baltic states. England was protected against a direct Soviet invasion (English Channel). Hitler had never wanted war with Britain. Hitler had also never planned for a world war. Churchill never once attempted to make peace with Germany. Stalin was delighted when the West declared war on Germany - not a good sign.
The scenario you're describing would have been unthinkably horrific. Hitler would have remained in power and had free reign over Eastern Europe and ultimately Russia. It would have been a terrible blow to communism, stopping it in its tracks. British and French blood and treasure would have remained selfishly in-tact. The removal of international communist expansion, would have give Britain, America, and France a free hand for their foreign policy. Regrettably, their colonial empires would have continued on much longer. We'd have ended up with a cold war in Europe between Britain, France, USA and the low countries on one side, and the Axis powers, Spain, Portugal Scandinavia and Eastern Europe on the other side. If Germany were willing to focus her efforts only on colonizing and developing the former soviet union, and the US focused mostly on Latin America, and if France and UK stayed in their lanes as well, there might have been long term peace. We'd be back to where we were in the 1871-1914 period, but with a kind of sickening, disgusting stability. It also would have been a horrible tragedy for the ethnic minorities in Central and Eastern Europe. They'd have been either devastated or completely destroyed. The great intellectual classes would have been ruined, thus depriving the late 20th century of their influence, Asia, apart from Japan, would have been permanently subordinated to the West, The Middle East would also have had its nationalist aspirations hobbled. Islam would not have been able to expand and spread her wings like she deserved to. It would have had a terrible terrible effect on the West, allowing it to hog up most of the worlds wealth. Europe would have been deprived of the rich ethnic and racial diversity we enjoy today. It would have certainly harmed the advancement of LGBT rights, social justice, and feminism. Those ideas would have proceeded much more skittishly and slowly. Thank god for the leadership we had in the 1930s. This allowed us to avoid the horrors of a conservative eugenic nationalist Europe and North America.
He was a genius regardless. A great leader but also a prolific author who wrote volumes of fascinating history. He saved the UK, perhaps the world from certain defeat by the fascists.
worth considering that the French military were apparently all out defence, defence, defence, very sensible but a huge army got trounced with very sensible cautious and decorated generals sipping the occasional glass of champagne, ok took Churchill a couple of years to notch up the victories, not sure many would of kept going, maybe it needed an childish idiot mentality to get through the long dark nights .. and a tot or 2
It wasn't a victory Dunkirk was a victorious retirement we were beaten there's no question about that. this is the quote from one of the survivors of the Dunkirk evacuation. If you want to hear the actual quote Watch the documentary how Hitler lost the war
No he did not he said this about Dunkirk "We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations."
@@standard_gauge The movie was presented in a way that the evacuation was so well executed and planned(Whereas Churchill and the RN's high command expected only 45,000 men would make it out to England. It was only sheer luck, French stubborness to stay in the fight and OKH's hesitancy to advance into the beaches(I´ve been to Dunkirk myself. The flooding that supposedly created a swamp and prevented German troops from entering the beach is a myth. There´s no way in hell it could have been more than two or three feet deep) Nolan didn´t say Dunkirk was a victory. He didn´t need to. He just filmed the movie as a superhuman feat on the British part when only sheer luck, french determination and German incompetence saved the BEF from total disaster. Basically he went full Hollywood on the matter.
How much if any do you think early Japanese victories, due to quick and hard hitting attacks, impacted Churchill’s on military strategy? One of the lessons from The Great War was not to get bogged down in state mates as well. Diseases and artillery duel may end up killing more. That may be a second factor across the board for all generals, we must fight differently.
The issue in WW2 was not even about fighting differently (which would happen in any event because the tank had changed warfare on the ground), but about launching premature attacks before one is adequately prepared. This latter mistake can be made with any style of warfare.
He didnt mention that Churchill could have ended the war in 1940 either, see _What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933-1939 - Time to face the facts!_
Thanks TIK. Another provocative video. I like the focus on Churchill's relationship with UK's North African military leadership. This pre-Rommel portion was especially enlightening, since that has always been a bit of a mystery to me. // I also thought that the emphasis on his schoolboy mentality (what I would call his romantic oversimplification of war and empire) to be very provocative. Basically, you are saying his way of looking at the world was wrong - which seemed to be a job requirement for world leadership at that time. // I had a discussion years ago where a very smart person said: "it's amazing how Churchill was wrong about so many things, yet he was dead right about Hitler - and that was critically important to history." This leads me to ask TIK: Isn't there anything positive you have to say about Churchill? // Your video leads to the question: why did Churchill think that relentlessly pressuring his generals for offensive action was the right thing to do? Was it simply immaturity? I wonder if he looked at historic examples like Lincoln's relationship with McClellan et al (pre-Grant), and felt that the political leadership could not accept inaction even when warranted?
"dead right about Hitler", perhaps not that much. The terror bombing of German towns were based on an assumption that it would affect Hitler. And that was dead wrong.
Great video, as usual. Regarding the ludicrous TH-cam policies about certain words and other content, if you are somehow able to make your videos more accessible for people who are blind or have low vision, that would be great... I'm not one of them but I know someone who is. This person has raised my awareness of the need to provide textual descriptions of images and especially words in images that their text to voice software can't pick up. It might not even be possible to include the author's name in your textual description section though. If so, you'd have to describe it some other way eg "Anthony whose 3 letter surname sounds like the shortened version of the name Richards" or such like. I hate that TH-cam causes these and other problems for creators who are just trying to communicate harmless information. I follow several aviation safety experts who can't show certain footage (that is needed to explain how a crash happened and how it can be avoided by others) without being demonetised. Often such policies disproportionately impact disabled people. I like to show support for them by helping raise awareness. I really love your approach to your work, TIK. So much of early to mid 20th century world history is distorted. This vital period in our history must be communicated with greater accuracy and you are a major provider of such content. Also, due to your recent bereavement, you are often especially in my thoughts. I wish you well.
Churchill was too much a man of the 1800s, of his glorious ancestors. He admitted the failure of his strategy when he reasoned about having "slaughtering the wrong pig": Germany instead of Russia. At least he stepped back from his intentions to wage war against the Sovjetunion after 1945. With whom one must ask since the USA practised defensive containment politics in Europe.
Never good to judge the past. Change one thing and you've changed everything going forward. Churchill is from a different era and may as well be from another planet. And if I remember my history (maybe I don't) Gallipolis had the makings of brilliance. It was the timidity of the ground commanders that turned it into disaster...a lot like Anzio.
I tend to agree with you. But there's more at work. Remember, this was 1915. The previous century of Ottoman history had been one of defeat, disorganization and military collapse. The Ottoman Empire had been considered the Sick Man of Europe: weak, feeble, decrepit. And the Balkan wars of the early 1900s had reinforced this image yet again when the Ottomans were routinely defeated by relatively tiny nations including Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Rumania. So, when the Allies showed up with the fleet at the Dardanelles, what they expected was the Ottoman Empire to simply submit. Instead, to their shock, the shore batteries opened fire, and the ensuing tragedy was on. The allied commanders may have been poor or lackluster. It didn't matter; the Turks were prepared to fight.
I admire your courage in challenging the Churchill hero cult, I hope you don't get hate mail. Churchill is more popular now than he was immediately after the second world war because we haven't been educated about the failures that his contemporaries experienced first hand. Thanks for this informative and well argued video.
I love the back and forth going on in the comments. It's good to consider alternative perspectives.
Some are saying Churchill was right to keep fighting during WW2 and not surrender or make peace. I'm generally against war (there's an argument for defensive action, but even then it should be avoided at all costs), so I think there's an argument to be had that he should have made peace after Dunkirk. However, Britain making peace would have had massive repercussions. The blockade of Germany would stop. Hitler would have more fuel for his armies going East, which may have tipped the tide against the Soviets. Millions more people may have been killed as a result, and a terrible Empire would have dominated Europe. It's hard not to be persuaded that this was a "just war" on the part of Britain, even if Britain ended up having 3 million subjects starve to death in Bengal...
Honestly, I'm conflicted. I can also understand the argument that once the war has started you're in a struggle for survival and therefore all (or most) bets are off. But this makes me think that humanity is one good declaration of war away from losing its humanity, and that "humanity" is just a synonym of "barbarity".
What do you think? Am I being too nihilistic?
Making peace with the nazis was out of the question. That would have left continental Europe at the mercy of the nazis and the communists.
Yes, Churchill should have just made peace with Hitler. Then he would have stopped, just like all the other times world leaders tried making peace with him.
Don't you think UK would have made a cease fire agreement rather than surrendering to Mussolini and Hitler's ambitions and attack again later, like in Napoleonic wars ?. Your videos on Italian fascism was an eye opener for me TIK thanks.
With the power of hindsight though, Operation Unthinkable in 1945 can be argued to be a good idea now in 2022 (although I don't agree to that).
Churchill not surrendering was the most significant action he ever took. He was an imbecile when it came to military strategy, the Italian campaign being seen as the soft underbelly was just one point of evidence for this. As far as the Bengal famine & other non European tragedies of the war, that in my opinion can be attributed more to colonialism than directly to the war. Yes the war caused millions of subjects in Britain's colonies to suffer, but they wouldn't have if they were never British colonies in the first place. Let's also not single out Britain. France, The Netherlands, Italy & the US all had overseas colonies that suffered similarly. Keep up the good work TIK, you're one of the few people today who truly understands what history is. It also helps that you don't deny objective reality like most if not all socialists do.
“Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.”--Winston Churchill
That's honestly a very limited goal for a statesman, and it is a frequently a trait of not very bright people. Pretty much anyone knows someone who failed time and again and yet never stopped to think about it.
The words of an insane man
How fitting.
@jim no theydont. They usually learn from their failures, unlike churchill and zuckerborg
@jim I'm not saying churchill was without merit. But he did succumb to unwise military impulses somewhat frequently, and he didn't seem to grasp the fact that his meddling in military affairs did more harm then good.
The "Come to grips with the enemy and attack, attack, attack" mentality had been a very British thing for a long time at that point. In all of Britain's colonial conflicts it was a rare thing for British troops to face an enemy with anything like the level of discipline, training, and equipment that they had. It was not an uncommon thing for the British army to rout enemies through aggressive action even at a severe deficit of numbers. Prior to WW I it was uncommon for the British to face a peer enemy, unless they were fighting the French.
At sea, this attitude was even more exaggerated. Britannia had ruled the waves for countless generations at this point, and not only had an enormous navy, but the quality of her forces ship-for-ship would not be disputed until the Americans (who were themselves heirs to British naval tradition) began asserting themselves at sea in the 19th century. It was expected of a British naval captain to be ultra-aggressive, and many victories were had by the Royal Navy even when under tonnage and outgunned.
Churchill came up in an age where strategic and tactical aggression had served the empire very well for a long time, so it is not surprising that his natural tendencies would lean in that direction. His greatest fault in this area, IMO, was in not learning the lessons of the first world war that the nature of warfare itself had changed, and in underestimating the logistical complexity of modern mechanized warfare.
Theres just something funny about the though that the guys most associated with "stiff upper lips" and "Civilized, proper behavior" were also the guys who's war strategy was mainly "Go total ape s--- and frontal attack, because where we're going trousers are not a necessity. Sophisticated Strategy is for poofters!"
@@jasonbelstone3427 Yes, indeed. The British were noted for exactly that. Refined manners and politeness right up to the point where they stop apologizing and tear your head off.
What is your comment about British maritime power not being challenged "until the Americans...began asserting themselves at sea" referring to? Assuming it's the War of 1812 (the only time Britain and America fought in the 19th century) and specifically American frigate victories in 1812...then it's worth saying the War of 1812 was a minor conflict which basically involved the Royal Navy turning up, blockading the US Eastern Seaboard, keeping the American navy trapped in port, flatlining the US economy and forcing the American government to sue for peace. Single ship battles didnt change the general picture at sea. The diminutive US navy had 45-gun frigates (closer to third rate ships of the line) designed explicitly to beat British and French 38-gun frigates. That the USN won a handful of frigate actions using these ships against lone enemies is not surprising. The British won the most evenly matched single ship action in 1813, in a battle lasting just over 10 minutes. The War of 1812 is subject to vast mythology in American popular memory- not least the naval side of it. The first real challenge to British naval authority came with the expansion of the German fleet in the late 1890s.
So I suppose the French never had a strong military or navy
We didn’t have a strong navy like that until the 20th century
Churchill and MacArthur share that sweet spot of "Everyone believes we won because of him but everyone who was there knows we won despite of him."
Bingo. I'd throw Eisenhower in that mix too.
Ah, is that why, when his entire cabinet wanted him to surrender in 1940, In Spite of Churchill, Churchill refused to give up? God, imagine how wonderful it would have been, if there was no Churchill! Surely the war would be won on better conditions!
@@yochaiwyss3843 Oh my the old "HE NEVER SURRENDERED" as if it stemmed from an informed decision after a deliberated strategical analysis of the situation and wasn't an utterly delusional act of bravado by a posh tantrum throwing twat who didn't want to admit to losing. He got lucky, that's all.
MacArthur was an arrogant bastard who got a lot of men needlessly killed but he could come up with military plans which were actually feasible, basically anything Churchill touched went to shit and he was always extremely handsy. If MacArthur had become president or got his hands on some nukes during the Korean war then maybe he could have rivaled Churchill but even then he'd have had a hard time of it.
@@gratefulguy4130 A little bit of knowledge huh!
TIK, I got a D on my college paper called “the many blunders of Winston Churchill”. My professor said that my arguments weren’t supported by “historians in general”. I sited my sources and in fact used many of the sources you use (a lot from Anthony Dix too), along with Churchill’s own words. Just thinking of that “professor” still pisses me off.
Yes, absolutely right. Mainstream opportunists at their best. What a shame: Official history writing done according to weird agreements between criminal colonial terrorists, almost all reliable primary sources being suppressed to forge narratives and these narratives being created just to be as useful for current elites as possible... 😮
Unfortunately, same thing here in Central Europe... 🤧
david irving says churchill was saved from bankruptcy by some shady business group in exch ange for being as bellicose as possible
Cited
At least he gave you the D.
He's just an indoctrinator who didn't like being wrong
My father served on the North Atlantic during the war and he hated Churchill. He referred to him as an Old Warlord. He also thought Monty was over-rated.
Many working class people in the UK hate Churchill, that reduces nothing from his massive service to his nation and the entire free world.
Your father was a wise man .
Am personally not a Monty fan. However, he does not appear to have been a 'butcher' general which counts for something imho.
@@ComUnSas Agree
You speak too soon my fellow fan of history @@ComUnSas Monty likes to portray that image , which was in realoty just his way to cover for his lack of confidence and indecisivness in battle when faced with a difficult choice. Through Montys below average leadershiop skills he lost the perfect oppurtunity to destroy the Afrika corp at El alamein . Arnham was a bloodbath
I think Churchill is a classic example of a purely divisive leader. His greatest attributes are simultaneously his greatest flaws. You cannot separate them because they're one and the same. His stubbornness and "stiff upper lip" and refusal to give ground all made him a great rallying point and excellent figurehead for defiance against all odds. Those same things meant that he didn't learn lessons, expected too much, and rushed forward with often questionable plans.
Biggest flaw, he was bankrupt and was financed to oppose Germany by people willing to settle his debts.
As the notsees initial plan was to deport not destroy, but Britain controlled the seas so it was not viable, they went for the harsher approach. Arguably you could blame him for the 11mn.
Except his stubborn refusal to yield was restricted entirely to how he treated his underlings. He wasn't a principled man. He was a bully who whined a lot when his staff proved smarter than him.
Among his political peers Churchill was in fact known primarily as a notorious flip flopper. He was originally a Liberal who switched over to the Conservatives; and was a Fascist fanboy before he jumped on the anti-appeasement bandwagon (who actually were led by Anthony Eden, not Churchill, but Eden was thoroughly trashed by all the pro-Churchill historians for supposedly losing the empire when Churchill bankrupted it).
That Churchill has a high reputation and his faults are constantly spun as virtues is indeed at the very root of why very few people have great trust for the political and historical establishment. They are just so obviously just a bunch of brazen liars trying to promote themselves and their idiotic ideas. Really, Churchill himself said outright he would manipulate history to put himself in the best possible light, and yet people still keep treating his perspective as gospel truth instead of self-serving distortions.
@@thomasellysonting3554 He literally gave one of the most famous speeches of all time in "We shall never surrender". Saying "his stubborn refusal to yield was restricted entirely to how he treated his underlings" is factually incorrect.
@@CrushedIdealism the speech you heard was recorded in the 1950s. The original in 1940s used the same words, but was delivered badly (likely because Churchill was drunk) and got almost no applause in the Commons.
Keep up with the myths and bullshit though.
@@thomasellysonting3554 Ok, your source on that and his other speeches being poorly received?
Churchill is like the hoi4 ai sending troops at evry port possible
What a comment lol.
Soviet Land in Italy with german at the Gates of moscow
We will fight in the air, we will fight on the ground, we will fight in the beaches....Churchill was a fighter and get got the Empire for an appeasement policy to geared up war mode. He took the war to Germany where ever he could.
@@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.
@@BobHooker he could have left millitary alone
My Dad was a veteran of Tunisia and Italy...whilst he always said that "Winnie" made great speeches and was able to motivate people, he was also impulsive and a bully.
I suppose he was referring to how generals were scapegoated - especially Wavell
His relationship with the generalsmay have been complex but he had this for him. He listened to the generals, admirals and air marshalls and their points of veiw prevailed when it came to strategy and execution.
His opposition in Berlin did not operate like this.
History has it that his wife wrote the speeches
@@TheSlimbee Bullshit.
Archibald Wavell was an unsung hero of the Desert campaign. Operation Compass was an amazing feat.
Absolutely agree! O'Connor as well
Wavell juggled around several theaters with not enough troops and then when he failed not surprisingly, he was sacked. Wavell was an extremely competent commander.
Operation Cum Pass hahahahahahahahaha so funni
@@TheImperatorKnight How was O'connor born in India and is white?
@@TheImperatorKnight They only lacked equipment, the achievments of the succesors was only because the equipment came rolling in, like with Montgomery
'A big butcher's bill was not necessarily evidence of good tactics' - never have truer words been spoken
Paraphrasing WC - if you cannot count your enemies on one hand, then you don’t stand for anything.
It depends on what your actual intent is.
@@bobok5566 The term "butcher's bill", in this case, refers to casualties among friendly forces - not the enemy.
so do it British style:
1) Try few battles, realize you are so bad you are loosing for one german/japanese soldier, at least 4 or more soldiers, no matter how much you outnumber them or how good position you have.
2) Nevermind, just wait it out and pay other countries to fight... butcher bill saved, uff, we just pay for body bags for russians.
its really easy for islands safe from Nazi invasions to keep their butcher bill to their liking :)
@@Enkabard Wasn't the Brits who had a secret pact with the N@zis to split Poland between them...
However, it was the Brits & British Commonwealth who were pretty much the only ones fighting from the fall of France to the opening of Barbarossa. Had the latter not happened old 'Uncle Joe' would have been happy to sit back and watch from the sidelines (while executing his own people by the thousands)!
Chief of the Imperial General Staff Allan Brooke summarised Churchill´s contribution to the British war effort the best: "Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again".
That’s painfully accurate.
So it was better to have him than not.
The Churchill myth: th-cam.com/video/dYcXPWhrJ5k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ygL9zPdoaGtLqhCJ
He was a great statesman but unfortunately he rated himself as a great soldier too.
England was lost and lays in Flanders Fields which this Bankrupt Drunk Warmonger was very much for publicly and behind the scenes
As an Aussie, it's his utter incompetence as head of the Admiralty in Gallipoli which pisses me off most about Churchill. Leading like a 6yo boy was his thing.
Mate have you seen the video about John Curtin? 🇦🇺
I am grateful as an American for the Gallipoli movie with Mel Gibson.
Also explains BoZo's love of the man. Rather weirdly, someone's singing "My Darling Clementine", Churchill's wife's name, woah syncronicity!
@@berranari1 About how Churchill hated him? Yeah, it doesn't endear him. He basically left us Aussies undefended. If it weren't for the Americans...
You don’t think there have been other leaders or generals that have made mistakes? There’s a few mistakes but also a legacy of good decisions. Supporting the development of tanks, helping create the British secret services, supporting the creation of the RAF, these are no small feats.
7:19 - This didn't stop the British from jointly invading neutral Iran with the Soviet Union a little later in the war.
Nor the occupation of Iceland which was pre-emptive i.e. to stop Germany taking it.
@@simonh6371 On the other hand they only just beat the Germans - the German embassy in Iceland was rather over staffed with military personnel…
Controlling Iran was needed to prevent the Germans from making inroads with the Iranians and to ensure a way of supplying Russia.
And if I were Germany I would have, for sure, tried to take over Iceland and Greenland. I guess it was too late for them.
@@RaptorFromWeegee while suport your video game entusiasm what wopdul you do with cold climaste island facign enemy whcih rule the sea.
The problem with Churchill is he got too involved with military strategy and decisions, for instance his diversion of veteran soldiers to the Balkan’s cost the North African campaign in the earlier years just as Richard O Connor was on the verge of driving the Axis powers out of there for good.
That's exactly what I see. I think Tik does a great job of explaining the details of it but the bigger picture is just what you say. He should have stayed out of it.
I'd argue that was just one of his problems. It wasn't like Churchill was any better at making decisions that were strictly within his own lane. His only real skill was political machinations and climbing the ladder of power.
The delay it caused in the German invasion of the Soviet Union was a bigger benefit to the allied cause than anything it cost on North Africa. It may have cost Hitler the war.
Reminds me of LBJ picking individual targets in Vietnam
Actually I think the Balkans campaign was political. It said "we will die with you and fight with anyone who fights Nazis".
I am sure Stalin took note.
Honestly, the recklesness and deficiencies of Churchill is nothing new to me at this point, but thanks to this video, i have new found respect for Archibald Wavell, given such a huge responsibility that is incomparable to little resources he got, and with the boss who has the same military instinct as a kid in Call of Duty lobby, he still manage to pull it out
Too bad he sunk in the middle of big names of Zhukov, Montgomery, Eisenhower and Rokossovsky
eeeh...Wavel and ABDA , Malaya and Overal Asia campaign (= NOT AT ALL support for the DEI up to Darwin Australia!!)..
total FAILURE...no GRASP of strategic situation...and NO smartnesses or COOPERATIONS !
@@oddballsok ABDA was probably a clusterf*** regardless of who was in charge. You set up an adhoc organization in such short time between 4 different countries (with 4 leaders of countries yelling at him instead of 1) with little or poor forces in a theater that had been at lower priority then the already severely overtaxed and understrength Middle East command. , I think any commander would have failed in that spot. In the Middle East Wavell only had to contend with Churchill as his boss, and he did leave his command in a better condition then when he found it. Italians in East Africa, dealt with. Vichy French in Syria, dealt with. Iraq, dealt with. Iran, dealt with. And if it hadn't been for the Greek clusterf***, thank you Churchill, Libya would probably have been dealt with too.
The Dutch East Indies were f***ed regardless because neither Britain, Australia or the US had the resources to defend it. The British Far East command was, as said, even lower in priority then the Middle East command, Australia had sent the bulk of its forces to the Middle East and the US military plan to deal with Japan was to withdraw from the Far East back to Hawaii, fort up there and only return to the Far East once a massive military buildup had been achieved. Which is pretty much what happened. And with the Netherlands under German occupation the colonial administration of the DEI had to make due with what it had. Which wasn't that much to begin with either. Far better for everyone involved if the DEI army and navy had withdrawn to Australia and await the arrival of the US mobilization. Maybe hold on to Sumatra if the British forces in Malaya and Singapore had withdrawn there too right away.
@@oddballsok the british cammanders there weren't much better, loosing ground and ressources quite fast
Allied forces in the colonies were in a poor condition from the get go in regards to supplies, logistical apparatus, troop training, air and naval assets, etc. Coupled with the Europe First policy and it's clear that Wavell and the rest would only be capable of holding out for a while against the Japanese and even then that'd be extremely difficult. Wavell also didn't have any 'aces' like O Connor and Combe. He had the likes of Percival instead...
@@901Sherman yeah, ABDACOM is more like a desperate attempt for wavell to salvage the already bad situation, The Americans just entered the war, and have no huge naval assets in Southeast asia to stop the Japanese advance, the Dutch is not even major military power before the war, and badly unprepared, Australia still reorganize, with some their best units still in Africa, only the British have sizable fighting forces in Southeast asia, but of course they have percival, who are badly suited against Japanese tactics
The best thing Wavell can do at that time is to make battle of Burma as long as possible and defend British Raj, which he able to do
PS: Hello, didn't expect to see fellow Indonesian in here
As I get older, I begin to realize that the victor actually does get to tell the story. For example, time and again, you hear of capable, intelligent commanders getting demonized by history in favor of mediocre figures who are lionized. I think mediocre people tend to appreciate other mediocre people. And those of competency, after the mediocre have used them up for their abilities, making themselves look better. Then, they shove them into the dustbin of history to make certain that they are always able to take credit for their accomplishments.
Why should you believe the losers? All they do is make excuses for losing and make the victors out to be the true villains. No matter how much a veteran from the losing side of any country may have hated the war they fought in or how much they disagreed with their country's cause, their biggest regret is that they lost.
@@Outlier999 and why should he believe the winners? WW2 like any wars was just about human scum fighting for power it was never about justice
And then there is Bulgaria... that lost WW2 and yet has gotten to keep it's cake and eat it
@@Outlier999 that's not exactly what I meant. I don't mean the opinions of the differing sides, because yeah, bias. I'm more talking about the politics within a specific side. Capable people doing the right thing, then a superior or competitor comes along and takes credit. And you never even hear the name of the person who has the original plan, responsibility, or idea. They get shoved out, and another takes credit for what they actually did.
Well what you describe is a quality to be had as well
If you are able to use people and have them do as you want…
Churchill both helped and hindered the war effort.
His rhetoric and doggedness are famous for inspiring people at the time.
His decision to destroy the French fleet (after France’s fall to Germany) apparently impressed Roosevelt and (also apparently) helped to get his support for America’s further involvement in the war.
What were Britain’s other options for Prime Minister, and what would the consequences have been for each one? Is it possible to know?
Was Churchill the best choice?
Interesting video.
Thanks!
Well, he was better than Halifax, and that’s it really.
@@richardsmith579 Halifax would have glad-handed Adolf and shown him around Buck House.
In his lifetime he was hated by the working classes and first time he stood for elections as PM he lost to Attlee big time.
Sh*theads often get you into trouble as a vehicle to employ their "dogged rhetoric"---he was scum. Good Kings keep you out of trouble, blowhards create trouble so they can 'shine'.
To be fair, I can understand why Churchill thought he could hold back the germans in Norway. In ww1 an army outnumbered 10-1 could wipe out thousands if they held a good defensive position. He probubly thought if the british army got there first then they could build up a defensive position and stop the germans from getting the iron ore as intended.
Basically he made the error of applying old tactics to a new war like some did in ww2
@@jamesfoss1627 Everyone did this. Even the Nazis were just following old Prussian tactics, just updated for tanks. In major wars that occur a significant time after the last, everyone still thinks according to previous tactics, only for it to take an entirely different and unexpected direction.
@@josephmoya5098 That's not 100% true. German Wehrmacht was an update of the Reichswehr of the late stage of WW1. Squad and stormtroop tactics were already applied, it basically won the Poland campaign where tanks weren't as important as later in France where Guderian and Rommel first time tried their spearhead doctrine.
TLDR: Small infantry squads wasn't part of old Prussian doctrine.
That would mean that he overslept all the changes Germans made in their military doctrine in the 20s and 30s. Remember that there was always the so-called "Schwarze Reichswehr" which would re-arm and train in secret which even more pushed the new doctrine of small fighting groups with a flat hierarchy and a lot of initiative. It's the one doctrine that counters trench- and artillery warfare.
@@ragnarlmao9511 You are right. There certainly were modifications. I was simply pushing back on the idea that it is reasonable to expect these modifications to come out of nowhere. We like to pretend that the Nazis invented Blitzkrieg, but they actually just modernized a favored Prussian military tactic and modified it further after seeing the capabilities of their troops in real battles. It wasn't unreasonable to Churchill to assume that WWII would eventually end up in a situation like WWI, and wish to get ahead of his enemy in doing so. And when it proved that it wasn't ending up that way, tactics changed.
I love that you put Xi as a british politician.
Is there something behind it?
@@elomial724 I ask the same question. I'm not aware of the meaning behind it. IMO, both Xi and Putin are trying to undermine the UK and the US, and both China and Russia should be among the top priorities to defend against. Unfortunately, those who largely lean libertarian or right wing, seem to give Russia a pass, more than they do China. I am on the left and I see Russia as a greater present danger to Europe and the US than they do.
@@elomial724 maybe says that CCP influences UK politics
The UK is a puppet of the US….
very subtle this TIK guy
The only people who saw Churchill as some kind of hero are those who believe everything that the UK newspaper and TV told them.
Everyone else including demobilised forces after WW2 either disliked him or hated his guts.
Churchill was an egotistic narcissist of the most childish personality I could imagine.
How people didn't see right through him I'll never know.
Calling Indians animals after f forcefully ruling India for close on 200 years ....they are a beastly people with a beastly relegion ......he is a British God... for the British lords.. hated all working class including the British ...so I give back what he gave to me .... he is also a bloody beast ...what goes around must come around .....
He was a sociopath.
A counterargument: Britain had a centuries old strategic tradition of how to deal with a single European nation trying to dominate the continent. This involved: using the might of the Royal Navy to curtail their overseas/colonial activites and impose a blockade upon their shipping; seek to bring as many allies into a coalition against their enemy, often supplying them with money/arms to fight; and by using the comparatively small but solid British Army to engage them in fights around their periphery - i.e. not into the enemy's heartland.
This strategy is best on display against Napoleon. An economic blockade put serious pain on France. Then caused Napoleon to institute the Continental System - a largely inneffectual economic counter-blockade of Britain. Russia eventually pulled out of this due to the harm caused to its economy, leading Napoleon to invade Russia -> Napoleon's downfall. Similarly the (later) Duke of Wellington's army fighting the French in Spain and Portugal helped to cause a huge drain on French manpower. I could go on. But if you're trying to put together a coalition to attack a really strong power then boldly attacking them at multiple points to gain many minor victories is an excellent strategy. It both bleeds your enemy of men and resources and helps to convince current and potential allies that your enemy can be defeated. Especially if you can knock some of your enemy's allies out of the war in the process.
I believe that Churchill understood and embraced this strategy. This is the thinking behind the Gallipoli campaign in WWI. Norway and the overall Mediterranean campaign in WWII. When your enemy is too strong to engage directly, attack around the periphery. Attack his allies. Bleed him of men, money and resources while you draw upon the resources of the Empire and the rest of the world.
Churchill's problem was in its implementation. He wasn't a military man and so didn't understand enough about logistics, organisation etc as you have pointed out. As such he made a lot of mistakes. But I disagree that this was because of an immature/brainless schoolboy brawling attitude. But instead as an integral part of this long standing British strategy. Just not as well implemented as it could have been.
Thomas, mostly I agree with you here. But there's one other critical element. Britain would only fight its European enemies if there was a host of Germans to do the actual fighting and dying. This was Britain's strategy in King William's War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the 1st and 2nd Silesian Wars, the Seven Years War, and in the wars of the French Revolution. Britain even tried to fight the American Revolution using as many German mercenaries as possible. This was one of the reasons why Wellington had such difficulty with the Spanish campaign starting in 1809. Here the British army had to actually fight and do most of the heavy lifting in a hard-fought war with little way to cover their numeric weakness.
But the real defeat of Napoleon was not done by Britain; it was done by a host of Germans and Russian at Leipzig in 1813. Once again, Britain was getting a bunch of Germans and Slavs to do most of the hard work and dying in droves because of it.
@@colinhunt4057 Indeed. For brevity I didn't go into specifics, merely talking about Britain encouraging allies to fight and supporting them with arms/money. Who these allies were changed over time. When the enemy was France, then a lot of these allies were indeed "Germans" from the myriad little states in central Europe. But there were also Dutch, Austrians, Swedes, Russians, Italians etc over time and various different conflicts. The point being that every time this strategy was employed the details naturally had to change, while the core principals remained the same.
Of course you're right that Napoleon was not defeated by Britain alone. His defeat came in 1814 with simultaneous invasions of France from the coalition armies of Prussia, Russia and Austria coming in from the east, while the British Army came up from the south. Resulting in his abdication. By this time France was so low on both manpower in general and especially experienced manpower, their armies were overwhelmed. What caused this bleeding away of French manpower? Years of general attrition, to be sure. But the greatest losses came during Napoleon's disasterous invasion of Russia, and the lengthy debacle of the Iberian campaign.
Both of these campaigns can be partially attributed to Britain's strategy. They kept a British army in the field for years for the Iberian campaign, linking up with local partisans to bleed French armies stationed there. And as previously stated, Britain's blockade of France -> the Continental System -> Invasion of Russia. Certainly Britain didn't do it alone (or even close). But the overall strategic plan that ultimately saw the downfall of Napoleon? That was the tried and true British strategy of how to defeat a continental enemy too powerful to engage directly/alone.
Like I say, I think Churchill understood this strategy and tried to employ it. But as stated, every time it is used the details have to change depending on the enemies/potential allies involved and the change in technology and weapons. When it comes to the more "Statesman" side of the plan, Churchill did a great job. Inspiring his own nation to keep fighting. Bringing in and supporting allies and doing his part in building a winning coalition. On the more purely military side of things, he didn't do nearly as well. This really wasn't his area of expertise so that should come as no surprise. But unfortuneately he thought he was more competent in this arena than he really was. Not good - but a common enough character trait.
How well put was that? I whole-heartedly agree. We're all human, fallible, and mortal. Perhaps we should forgive a little more.
Agree with a lot of what you say, however Churchill was a military man,being an officer in the Boer War and later in the trenches of World War 1 after his failure's in Gallipoli. He was a bit of a gambler not unlike his later adversary Hitler,who also failed to have regard for human life looking, only at the objective.
@@philiprufus4427 Not actually a military man. He washed out getting into military school. So he had to go to South Africa as a newspaper correspondent. He did not escape from a Boer military prison camp; Mommy ransomed him out. I agree with you that he was indeed a gambler. His problem was that every one of his gambles turned out disastrously wrong. He had that in common with Hitler.
The image most Americans, myself included, had of Churchill was of a solitary man heroically rallying a reluctant English population to fight the Nazis and save Western Civilization. We roll our eyes at Chamberlain coming back with a piece of paper in his hand, saying he had got the English "peace in our time". But I have read other interpretations saying that Chamberlain bought the English needed time to build up their air force to fight the Luftwaffe. Of course, there is the possibility that the Germans needed time to build up their militaries too.
The RAF could not have taken on the Luftwaffe in 1938 , Chamberlain bought us the vital time we needed.
@@petersmith3953 So the Allies fought with British fighters but without Czechoslovak army.
@@pawekuchciak5927 pretty sure the british didn't know exactly the state of the german army in 1938, but they knew the british one was bad. Chamberlain took a decision with the informations his advisors could give him
if the french and British had gone on the offensive against Germany while they were fighting on multiple fronts in 1938 the war would be a footnote in history having ended in the allies favor in a few months.
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.
"When I am right, I get angry. Churchill gets angry when he is wrong. We are angry at each other much of the time." Charles de Gaulle
De Gaulle was a bigger idiot than Churchill 😂
@@dillonblair6491 Says a guy probably not speaking 20 words in French and knowing about French history and politics what Hellywood told him.... ;-), sorry Dillon, Churchill was not 10% the statesman De Gaulle was ... "I fart in your general direction" to quote someone else. :-)
@@abuseofmainstreammediacanh5713
He didn't even accomplish anything 😂 America and Britain simply appointed him as the new leader of france so they could claim the French government was still alive and fighting against the axis. The liberation of France wasnt even De Gaulle either it was an American effort. He caused fractures in the allies and nato simply because he wanted France to feel important, he contributed nothing to the war effort in practical terms, he caused France to take the anti American foreign policy style for no reason other than pride, he went to Canada and started calling for the French speakers to secede, he angered japan in the 1960s by calling them sketchy car dealers, his meddling in Africa caused almost all of Frances ex colonies to be destitute and France still has a stranglehold on those countries to this day which has been disastrous in every way possible, he was incompetent militarily, etc.
He was an idiot who was lucky to have U.S backing in ww2. If Roosevelt and Churchill had picked literally anyone else, they'd be the national hero of france.
@@dillonblair6491 Yep... how about reading some books? He started without even a nation, just a handful of volunteers. His entire infrastructure, supply and logistics at the mercy of Churchill, who constantly conspired to replace him with a convenient yes-man puppet and get rid of him and his followers.... yet, de Gaulle ended not only being the uncontested leader of the Free French, he ended up as the uncontested leader of France after the war when Churchill was already gone ..... one can like or hate De Gaulle for his character, but achieving all this, starting with less than scratch, against all odds, against both enemy AND allied, is something that clearly proves how great a statesman he was.
@@abuseofmainstreammediacanh5713
😂 I love how you didn't refute or debunk anything I said.
So, yeah he didn't accomplish anything. "He started out without a nation" 😂 and he never took it back, America did.
Also he became the uncontested leader of free France because America literally appointed him to that position.
😂 what achievements??? Nothing you said was difficult or even because of de Gaulle himself. "He ran an artificially created rebel group in exile, and he became leader (after America appointed him to that position)"
I agree. Churchill was such a great orator and this allied with the establishment media gave him the false reputation of greatness. Sold out Australia too
İ'm Türk.Churchill plans remind me Enver Pasha's plans during ww1.Hilarious mentality.
I think the main reason people remember Churchhill so fondly is how they made them feel in a time of great crisis. Similar to why they revere King George the VI.
That reverence got him through the 50’s, his health ended his career before the left could. “People may forget what you said or did, they will never forget how you made them feel”
Sometimes people just need a rock, even if that rock is a warmongering idiot.
I think you hit the nail on the head Churchill was terrible people manager and loved to meddle in military affairs. He definetly made some things worse and cost lives but his ability to rally the people behind a common cause and to give hope when there is none is what people remember. War is barbaric to think anything else is naive, was Churchill a school boy, yes. Sadly at that time we needed an idiot who did not see the writing on the wall or understand how utterly hopeless the situation was. The germans had the same problem but their generals could not say no. In sport the team that makes the least mistakes often wins.
Its like the space race. Or any other kind of race. Nobody remembers the details, only who won. And Churchill won the war at the end of the day. The average Briton does not give a rat's ass that the war could have been waged much better from all points of view, only that it was won.
Fair comment
Churchill was not popular at the time.
Clearly he didn’t make people feel better.
Though I would say king George the VI deserves it
When I see a video like this I have to think about what the alternatives were. Had Churchill let Greece and Crete be taken but managed to secure north Africa then I'd expect people would say that he abandoned them and didn't take action. I guess the thing that I can't really determine from this video is what pressure Churchill had back home to attack. I sort of feel like Churchill was the cause of a lot of problems but was also the consequence of the situation in Britain.
I agree, Churchill had be be seen to be defending the world against the Nazi’s so couldn’t abandon more allies (Greece) the way Chamberlain had. Securing a cause worth fighting for and American intervention was more important at a strategic level. Churchill was better at strategy than tactics, although perhaps he thought otherwise!
That's a pretty accurate summary on Churchill's true strengths: clueless with regards to military issues but sufficient in the grand strategic and political arena
Considering how well Greece did against Italy it would have been political madness not to support them militarily. He also had to worry about Turkey defecting to the Axis and so wanted to demonstrate strength in the region.
Thank heavens someone has enough capacity to ask questions of the "Churchill stoopid" narrative.
A strategist, not a tactician.
He may have botched battles, but he won the war!
I have met many people who consider Churchill to have been a great man, and the part saviour of Europe from fascism. Whereas, it was him who prevented the rearmament of England during the interwar years, being diametrically opposed to Chamberlains rearmament position. Yet it was Chamberlain who is still considered the dreamy eyed appeaser, to Churchill's ruthless bulldog image. If not for chamberlain, the first year of the phoney war, may never have occurred, with tragic consequences, in my opinion. Biplanes vs ME-109s, ill-conceived tanks used with bad tactics, and the misdirection of the efforts of boffins into excursions of grandiosity. Very much a champers swilling spiv, with a disdain for the lower classes.
I think Churchill's strengths are being ignored. I would never argue that he wasn't sometimes childishly impetuous or that he was a strategic genius. Even by the intensely frustrated Alanbrooke's own admission, Churchill was largely able to restrain himself from overriding Alanbrooke's cautions. Alanbrooke explained the dangers of impetuous action and the logistical requirements of modern warfare and Churchill grumpily accepted it. It's rare to find a "great leader" without some major flaws and I think you could argue that it was Churchill's stubbornness which prevented Britain from folding in tough times. He was also one of the few who very vocally warned about Germany's ambitions and helped wake up industry into the limited preparations that were made. He was much more aware of the threat from Stalin than the likes of Roosevelt. He seems to have very quickly understood what Stalin was all about and his eagerness to attack through Italy was motivated to a large degree by his wish to prevent the Soviets from swallowing up land the way they in fact did. As for his eagerness to get the war going, it was unwise, but then I think he understood the folly of thinking that Hitler would respect anyone's sovereignty when holding the whip hand. Letting a despot grab land unhindered just let's them pick off the weak one by one until there is nobody left to oppose them. We are seeing the same argument play out now over Ukraine and I find it telling that the political philosophers and commentators who grew up in or have great experience of Russia and Putin are the most likely to advocate stopping Putin now. It's the idealists and people with pet geopolitical theories and superficial understanding of the actors who favour negotiating away Ukraine.
Sir, you have saved me at least 30 minutes by typing out my thoughts on the matter better than I would have.
If a less bloodthirsty and stubborn man would have made peace with A.H. at some juncture earlier in the war, what would the UK and Europe look like today? It's an interesting thought and frought with political implications and curious blanks. But can anyone confidently say it would be better without Churchill?
Yes, indeed. Imagine Ukraine trying to resist Russia today without Zelenskyy. Having a pugnacious and charismatic leader for the nation to rally around in wartime does make a difference. Look at France in WWII, for the alternative perspective. Churchill was a central element of the team which got the job done.
Right on the money!
@@pavlovsdog2551 Zelenskys a gangster he's no leader even Ukrainians' are fed up with him .
@@lablackzed Putin and his gang are preferable are they ? One would find that hard to believe
The problem with strategy is that it is never purely military. Non-military (and even militarily nonsensical) courses of action must often be pursued, and many of Churchill's actions were equally as political as they were military ones.
Agreed. And because of that political strategy, many of the military operations were nonsense. The intervention in Greece was a perfect example of a massive blunder by Churchill with no chance of success.
Exactly, half these campaigns were politically necessary, irrespective of their military outcome. In war you don't always have the luxury of only fighting the battles you want to fight.
*loses entire empire and millions of lives*
Churchill: Hey lad, at least we're not speaking german.
Empire was to be lost in any case
I would look for evidence that Churchill was secretly funded by the United States so that he could destroy the British empire.
The United States wanted to destroy the British Empire ever since the American Revolution. That was Amplified when the British considered aiding the South during the American Civil War. The United States did not forget that. In the Years leading up to WW1 they try to stop European colonialism because they knew it was the route of European power.
The United States saw their position of power increase after WW1, of course they wanted Europe to have another world war. Churchill was just the fool that they were looking for.
The Churchill myth: th-cam.com/video/dYcXPWhrJ5k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ygL9zPdoaGtLqhCJ
Russia won the war for Britain
H-man loved britain and was never planning to invade Britain. There was a single plan to do so drawn up by his advisors which was never really considered seriously. H-man also never planned to invade france, or any part of the world west of his own nation.@@80sidd
Yes. Mosley said exactly the same about Churchill. He loved a war.
There are two big flaws in this assessment. The first is the assumption that Churchill only cared about winning battles, even though, he is demanding that battles be fought. Churchill was juggling an alliance, he had diplomacy and geopolitics to worry about. Was he supposed to let Greece fall without a fight? Or is it better to lose in Greece, lose in North Africa, but put up a show that we don't desert our friends, for the sake of the strength of the entire alliance? There is also the factor, which is mentioned, that Churchill and our propaganda machine can easily turn a disaster into a victory in the newspapers, or at least a brave and glorious defeat.
The second thing is that we don't know what Churchill knew or thought he knew. And we probably never will.
Both Britain and her allies were doing amazing work cracking codes and gathering intel through spies. Churchill must have been continually briefed about the German/Italian plans, their strengths and weaknesses. So yes, there probably were times when Churchill was playing 4d chess while everybody else was fumbling around in the dark. But, if we were always once step ahead of the Germans, they would have known that they had a leak, which would have meant that we had to lose a few, and have some very fortuitous wins. But we don't know.
The other thing that occurs to me is that Churchill really did seem to understand asymmetric warfare, the idea of stretching the Axis thin, and hitting them where it counts. My understanding of Chruchill, not that I have studied him that much, was that his grand strategy, was to mimic the mafia, be mercurial and unbeatable, keep causing the Germans pain, until America came into the war.
One of Churchills main concerns after the fall of France was not look defeated in front of its allies and potential allies, that always keep hitting the Nazis even if it failed spectacularly.
- Britain promised aid to Czechoslovakia
- Britain threw them to the wolves in 1938
- Britain promised aid to Poland
- Britain & France sat on their ass while allowing the Poles to die in 1939.
- Churchill becomes PM and unlike his predecessor, promised to fight the Nazis to the end.
- Italy attacks Greece while Germany gobbles up Yugoslavia.
- Britain is Blitzed and the Population is getting demoralized.
TIK: "GeE, WhY Is BriTaiN noT ThRowiNG ThEir AlLies to the WolVeS noW? It'S liKe, SoooOO Un-EcoNoMiCal! EveRy oNe kNowS thAt You wiN a wAR by DoiNg noThing!"
When you are weak, pretend to be strong-Sun Zu . 👍🇬🇧
The founder of the construction company I work for was a self made millionaire by a significant margin. I was often told by long term senior engineers who knew him well, how much of an idiot the founder was. He devised hair brained schemes, eccentric, unreasonably demanding so many aspects which made people think he was an idiot and he sort of was, Yet everyone couldn't see every other attribute he had. Charisma, unquenchable desire to win, courageous, gambler with ideas, takes the initiative. These are qualities of a pioneer that makes a company succeed when it's young and vulnerable at the grassroots.
What I've learnt about intelligence it can be itself an impediment. It breeds hesitation, compromise and self doubt. In war, qualities like those can also get you killed. Consequently I'm glad Churchill wasn't like that.
As Alexandra the Great once said: I'm not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep. I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.
Because lions are all bravado and risk takers. A formidable weapon indeed.
Risks have to be calculated, especially in war time. Lives are at stake and this needs deliberation.
Oh please, the only difference between Hitler and Churchill's military structure was that Churchill had Generals willing to say no.
Well said
You obviously didn't learn anything from the video nor have any regard for the people's lives who were carelessly thrown away to prop up someone's ego. A war is not a construction business nor is it a casino.
Great comment and well thought out. I agree with that - also anyone knows that Churchill was the leader England had at the time, regardless of armchair historians or revisionist apologist TH-cam fans.
Since Gallipoli its was obvious he was no military genius. But then again we don't remember him just for the things he got wrong, but for the things he got right on the end. Overall its a positive balance.
What do you think he got right?
@@TheImperatorKnight
In my personal opinion:
Telling halifax to f*** off is the biggest one. His stubbornness caused incredible catastrophe's, but the the other option was much, *_much_* worse
@@TheImperatorKnight If there's one thing he got right is to continue fighting Germany after France surrendered, same as De Gaulle. Even if at the time it seemed hopeless and foolish it proved to be the best choice in the end.
Even if he did got some help from Mr. H.for going to war with both the USSR and the USA at the same time.
@@TheImperatorKnight Since Churchill was a Neo-Fascist, his entire world view was in terms of power & control...
So besides a few military decisions, his main success was in his use of Propaganda...
The bigger question is how Churchill and his supporters would have ruled Britain if given the chance, as I suspect that "similar to Donald Trump" is accurate, as this type of leader just doesn't respect the rule of law...
@@RafaelSantos-pi8py how was that the right thing for Britain? Hitler made it very clear he didn't want anything from the Britain but peace. Then afterwards the British empire ceased to exist with a crippled economy
The Churchill Myth is quite possibly the greatest piece of Propaganda ever created
See what Einstein contemporaries said about him and check back here
I’d put it in the same category as Richard The Lionheart. A romantic French idiot who wasn’t born in England, couldn’t speak any English, didn’t spend more than six months of his life in England, bankrupted the English government and wrecked the English economy to fund his military misadventures in the holy land, would have sold London to the highest bidder for the same reason and is regularly lauded as one of the greatest of English monarchs. Who is likewise held up as one of the worst? His brother John who was by all accounts a fair man and a capable administrator who had to sort out the shambles that Richard created. The heavy taxes that he had to levy were needed to pay for Richard’s ransom when his crusade went tits up and he was captured by Saladin.
An awful lot of history that British school kids are taught is complete bollocks.
Churchill was one of the greatest politicians I've ever known.
@@marconeevaristoaraujopaima710 wrong! He was the most pathetic man. A fu*king piece of racist and genocidal sh*t. Sometimes i cant believe that people actually admire this animal of a man. I thought the whole world, especially the brits, know about the horrendous things the british did us. but forget a sorry, they even hail these people as heroes. Its honestly sickning to see. First they loot you and then they call you poor. Wah!
Marcos, you are an idiot and a complete failure as a human being.
You're not even British, so shut up, Lassie.
Years ago I read one Alanbrooke's war diaries. One of the most incredible parts of it was when he described an argument he had with Churchill, where he was fairly certain he was drunk. I think this was a fairly regular occurrence.
I forget the specific historian who recounted it, but the fellow said something to the effect that after years of reading Churchill's account of the war the archives were declassified. Apparently many historians shouted as one, "That lying son of a bitch!" Within minutes.
Churchill always scattered troops willy-nilly through the Mediterranean. Were it not for Brook (who I respect, but with severe qualifications) and Marshall, Churchill would have tossed troops at Rhodes and nixed the invasion of southern France. All the accounts I've read indicate Churchill resisted Overlord to the end (to his credit an Operation Torch era invasion of northern France would have been a fiasco purely on logistical grounds.)
The "soft underbelly of Europe" was a witty quip not a strategic reality. The idea of sending troops from Italy into the Balkens and Austria seems to ignore the WWI problem the Austrian and German armies had invading through the region. Even the Italians had no luck with it.
Still, the pugnacious old man was likely the best man for the moment. There may have been others who would have done better, but they didn't and he did. Just thank fortune for granting Churchill with competent men willing to argue sense into the very worst ideas Churchill had.
Certain it is and sure, that Churchill was a flawed man. Who, besides Jesus Christ, isn’t or wasn’t? Yes, Churchill made very many mistakes during the war. But he was right more often than not. He took a tremendous calculated risk by sending half of Britain’s remaining tank strength to the Middle East in 1940. It paid off, two Italian armies were destroyed and the war in North Africa almost ended. By sending a small Corp from North Africa to Greece Churchill prolonged the North African war two years but it was another calculated risk on his part. Let it also be remembered that Churchill knew many of his own weaknesses and chose as his Chief of Imperial General Staff Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke who, for all of his flaws had the Moral Courage to tell Churchill “No” when needed. Churchill also saw to it that Sir Dudley Pound, a man of great moral courage, was First Sea Lord who would often ignore Churchill’s orders when necessary.
How eager was FDR for war might be an interesting topic. Sorry if it has been covered thoroughly already as I have missed occasional videos.
American foreign policy at the time (and probably still) viewed North America as an island between the shores of Western Europe, and East Asia, and consequently worked out that the USA could not tolerate either one, or worse still both, of these shores being dominated by a single power that could well decide on an antipathetic position towards the USA. Bearing that in mind, and at the time, one would not have to be a genius to see that with the potential dominance of Germany in Europe, and the rising ambitions of Japan, Americas entry into the war was inevitable. All that was required was to give face saving time to FDR's 1940 promise to not enter, or as it turned out, for either Germany or Japan to commit some aggressive act against the USA thus expunging FDR's problems regarding campaign promises.
In any event, and given the level of materiel help being given to the AngloFrench, and Chinese before December 7th 41, one would have to conclude that the USA was a player in the war from the very start.
FDR had a hard-on for Stalin and desperately wanted to go to war in Europe. What better way to reduce unemployment at home than to give those unemployed men guns and send them overseas to get killed. The Japanese were just a means to an end.
@@Fanakapan222
US destroyers were hunting U-boats months prior to Dec 7, 1941. FDR also declared most of the Atlantic as US territorial waters prior to Pearl Harbor. This instigated the Germans who saw that the US was not really being neutral as claimed.
FDR was very hungry for war. As a progressive and anti- colonialist he desperately wanted into the war to make the US the new world leader. The current state of the US being "the world police" is exactly what FDR wanted. He put us here, in complete violation of the Monroe Doctrine.
FDR's problem was trying to convince the the American people
@@fazole One has to assume that the foreign relations departments of governments do have some really quite competent people, capable of seeing ahead, working for them ? If you view the run up to, and the start of WWII through such a lens, it becomes clear that the USA was bound to get involved. The big problem for the USA was the 1940 elections, and the fact that people such as Lindbergh had mobilised a segment of public opinion firmly against getting involved in a European war. Maybe you could say that it was lucky for FDR, given his campaign promise to stay out, that the Japanese solved the problem for him, but his threat to cut off supplies of oil to Japan was probably calculated to have the response it did. Even so, the fact that Germany and Italy Declared against the USA a week later seems bizzare. Both states were under no obligation to do so, and could easily have put the ball firmly in Americas court by doing nothing.
My dad was born in the early 30s. Said Churchill was nothing spectacular. But he did get a glowing write up.
His time at chancellor was what the treasury says was the worst thing to ever happen in its history.
27:04 - - "Like a typical politician, Churchill wanted to twist the facts to make himself look good..."
To be fair the propensity to "twist the facts to make himself look good..." is a common human practice not limited solely to people in power.
Perhaps, but such characteristics often lead people of that ilk into such positions. Just look at the likes of the War Criminal Tony Blair !
Hello from France. I am constantly amazed at how impervious you seem to be from all the myths and various narratives that keep getting propagated by movies, historians and other late night comedians. If one day you find yourself tired and demoralized by the huge amount of work you have to put into all these videos, rest assured, somewhere deep in some cow town, there’s a fellow man genuinely grateful to those like you who seek truth above all.
This man and other creators like him that deal in facts turned me away from my neo nazism. I’m an American now.
@@westernmonk1210 What?
@@heksogen4788 He was radical but ceased to be likely due to seeing things from a new perspective. It happens for some people. Others stay radical forever
@@westernmonk1210 lololol
@@AgentAlfie they don't. Read any public school history and geography book to convince yourself.
Was he essentially a Warhammer Ork with the writing abilities of an Edwardian gentleman? His 1898 book The River War has some interesting passages that may explain his later recklessness.
Lmao, love that Ork analogy. We will never surrender, I declare WAAAAGH!
I think it was covered on Mark Feltons's channel, but there's an account of Churchill nearly being blown up by German Artillery when he got too close to the front lines after Normandy.
That sounds like a great for a TTRPG character. Not so great for a head of state during a world war.
That’s the best description of Churchill I have ever heard! 😄👍🇬🇧
@@stu8642 Col. 3
The arguement is if Churchill was so smart why couldnt he use the force of his personality to end the war and save the life of millions lost on all sides at the beginning . Alll the best .
I read the memoirs of Lord Alanbrooke, and his job as Chief of Staff was to keep Churchill's delusions and excesses in check and to sort out the few good ideas that he had from the tons of awful ones.
Isn’t that the fault of every leader. Just look at the delusional imperial aspirations of the axis powers. The Axis war goals are what you get if a leader is surrounded by yes men.
The reason why Churchill succeeded while Hitler failed is that Churchill had people to tell him no.
Sounds like a good leader to me. He was willing to listen to the opinions of others and have help sifting through his ideas.
I've often had my doubts about Churchill, but I could never really organize my thoughts about it very well, or put it into words.
This video did both far better than I could.
So you have found something that puts words to your ignorance and prejudice. That must be nice.
Makes you think of Bojo in some ways.
You were better off before 😂
None of you seem to have mentioned that he got close to Roosevelt as soon as he could. Churchill was half American when all is said and done. He recognised that only America had the weight to achieve a decisive victory.
Roosevelt received the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from a spy before the war, but did not inform Poland.
Roosevelt wanted a war. Wars can be big business. Roosevelt was bad, and not even big.
You don't think seriously that Germany is defeated at western front - with 80% loses on east?
There's another Tik's video about what would be if Soviet Union fight alone.
its more about Churchill's aggression pushing a naive Roosevelt into Japanese theaters, which then becomes the propaganda tool Churchill needed to pull USA sentiment into Europe. Even the drunkard Churchill knew England had finally met its match in Germany
@@augustlandmesser1520 wish I understood your comment better. wish you left the link you want us to consider
"" only America had the weight to achieve a decisive victory.""
America couldn't have defeated the European Axis without the British Empire and USSR.
He was an alcoholic. That's got to have seriously impared his judgement.
A great analysis of the literature sir. As Field Marshall Alanbrooke wrote: "Winston is losing us the war, yet the British people think he is winning it single-handedly." You'll also find that none of his writings about his heroics in South Africa and at Omdurman can be corroborated. In fact, he did not escape from a Boer P.O.W. camp, his mother paid a ransom to the Boers via Sir Alfred Milner for his release.
His mother also paid to have his homosexual exploits in boarding school covered up. Churchill was a fraud
Bull#hit !
@@alexsmith-gn4tp You wax eloquently sir. Why not read FM Alanbrooke's autobiography. Reading a book now and then might increase your vocabulary.
@@ravenclaw8975 Brooke had an axe to grind, most serious historians discount his opinions when they are personal in nature, as should you.
Idiot
I absolutely don’t agree with the deification of Churchill, but I have to admit I felt a jab of cognitive dissonance when I read the title to video. Interested in what you have to say.
Churchill was also a mass murderer look up the benghal famine
I feel the beginning was giving Hitler wiggle room on blame for ww2 but all and all its not a bad take or point for discussion but I wonder how drunk he was or if his drinks weren't really watered down or if he wasn't really taking cat naps throughout the day like people say he did.
@@AMultipolarWorldIsEmerging That's not true at all not even TIK agrees with that
Snap
@@JohnnyLouisXIX I think the Japanese are much more responsible for the Bengal Famine than Churchill.
I guess you knew that this was a hot potato. The title in its self is like a red rag to a bull ! Your arguments are coherent and well reasoned . However , “ idiot “ is in my opinion perhaps isn’t the optimum word to describe Churchill as a whole . Certainly incompetent in many aspects ( as you have well defined ) but not “ an idiot “ . His over aggressive attitude was perhaps necessary at times of adversity.
I’m pleased to see with your videos TIK that you can make us all think and consider our own dogmas in history . That is truly positive . Well done .
No Churchill’s over aggressive attitude was terrible at every time
@@danieleyre8913 the alternative in 1940, and a completely rational one, was capitulation. He was a crazy gambler and a great orator. In the words of Achilles/Brad Pitt: ‘that is why I will be remembered and you will be forgotten’
@@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.
@@danieleyre8913 that’s not what I mean. The country was overwhelmingly against fighting and that means effectively in favour of capitulation, absent a romantic warmonger who persuaded the House and the country otherwise.
@@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.
Superficial bad-mouthing if Churchill based on inadequate research.
Legend has it that if you press your ear to Churchill’s grave, you can faintly hear him screaming “TIK, stick to tanks, blast you!”
I'm just saying, I wouldn't be surprised if *this* was the opinion that got this man cancelled.
I remembered the bits and pieces of Churchill tantrums you mentioned during your North Africa Battlestorm series, but bloody hell! My view of Churchill went from "stubborn, if rash" to "utterly reckless" in a span of just 28 minutes. Good job as always
Part of the reason I wanted to make this video was to put all the pieces together in one go. Over the span of multiple hours, it's hard to remember what Churchill's contribution to the North African Campaign actually was. Now you can see a good chunk of it all in one go - and I actually didn't miss a lot of it out between Compass and Gazala. Apart from one convoy in 1941 (which was an extremely risky move anyway and probably shouldn't count as a win) his contribution was almost entirely negative.
As a military strategist and tactician, Churchill was surely an idiot because of his attack-attack attitude, as said above. However if it were not for his conduct in the days at the end of May 1940 cabinet peace feelers crisis, as magistrally and trustworthily described in John Lucaks's book "Five Days in London: May 1940", there would have been simply NO war to fight, because Nazi Germany would have likely won it quickly the moment the UK would be out of it, as Lord Halifax and his group wished to do and were decisively prevented by Churchill's political acumen. And even in strictly military terms, it was he, Churchill, by personally convincing Roosevelt, that also prevented the incommensurable disaster that would be an invasion of Western Europe by the Allies in the late months of 1942 or in 1943. Justice is to give anyone exactly what is one's due.
@@joaquimdantas63 May 1940 shaped the world we live in today, and to be anything other than balanced about Churchill (the man in the seat no one wanted) is historically incorrect.
@@CD-SU I agree with you entirely.
this also needs to be considered. the fact churchills political career ends shortly after the war also is telling. some of us have the idea that the average subject were tired of churchills general leadership.
You forgot to mention the Dresden genocide.
Might want to Google the etymology of the word ‘genocide’.
@@Jack10016 Warcrime is a better description
He wasn't so much an idiot, but he always overestimated the British position. He thought that British empire would last forever; he was obsessed with Germany in any form, without knowing German "soul" (to call it that); he never understood Russians; ... He was, basically, surprisingly parochial for a man in such a position and historical moment.
Actually Churchill had the Russians pegged right from the start, never trusted them and unfortunately he was proved right
Well, he was half yank
He also bayed from the political wilderness that the nazi's were rearming and planning war from the moment they came to power and no one listened, so when Chamberlain resigned his commission to the king he advised the king to call on Mr Churchill, which the king very reluctantly did! How lucky we were!
@@abb5596 So he was an idiot, just as I have been saying for decades.
Winston Churchill was not an idiot. He was devilishly more clever than Hitler. Hitler wasted lot of money on gas to kill Jews, whereas Churchill killed 4.3 million Bengalis without using any ammo.
Churchill was genuinly bewildered as to why Percival hadn't opted to literally fight to the last man.
He was also bewildered as to how those inferior Japanese could defeat superior Anglo Saxons at anything.
Percival was one of Churchill's boys. He had a penchant for physically fit veterans from the trenches who had shown personal bravery under fire, ignoring the fact that the qualities that make you a good leader of a company or a batallion do not necessarily make you a good commander of an army. Thus the debacle of Carlton de Wiart (otherwise an intriguing person) in Norway and Freyberg on Crete.
@@PSPaaskynen Percival was also a war criminal from the time of the Tan War, torturing Irish civilians was always going to get Churchills support.
As s Singaporean whose father was born in 1942 in Singapore, I thank General Percival for simply doing the right thing and not behaving like a suicidal maniac with utter disregard for human lives.
@@eventhorizon3117 You mean not like the Japanese who massacred tens of thousands of Singaporeans after Percival's surrender?
"Because every successful military campaign is planned by an alcoholic"
Ulysses S. Grant: am I a joke to you?
Grant was a military graduate and good tactician. Churchill was neither. He rich adventurer and his mother paid for his release from the Boers.
Lincoln is reported to have said “Well, I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”
Grant was a brilliant general and strategist. Churchill had a loud mouth and a bully's brain. If they were both drunk, I'd still pick Grant anytime of the day, twice on Sundays.
@@barrythatcher9349 He was a regular war munger. Drunk and dangerous.
Clive Ponting wrote an excellent critical biography of Churchill, although it seems to have sunk without trace. He pointed out a number of personality flaws, but I don't recall that he ever claimed that Churchill was an idiot.
It's a ridiculous title, for sure. There would have been many Brits who thought him an idiot, but Britain's class system has blinded a large proportion of the population to the individual merits of anyone whose class differs from theirs by more than one division. Unionists and private soldiers from the UK are notorious for this wilful blindness and visceral hatred of the "upper orders", and even in the US there is now a pathological hatred of "elites".
Churchill had heroic faults to go with his heroic virtues, but deficiency of intelligence was emphatically not one. Judgement, sometimes, for sure, but not intellect.
I do acknowledge he does get too much credit for being the only UK public figure during the thirties consistently warning that Hitler was a menace.
I say this because he had a tendency to take (and stick to) strong contrary positions like this his whole life, and was often wrong.
The old "even a stopped clock is right twice every day" syndrome...
Try "The Good/Bad War" by Mike King. He lays out in great detail that Churchill was not only incompetent but corrupt as well. The book left me feeling somewhat disappointed that Hitler tried to sue for peace, but Churchill wanted war at any cost. Mike supports his arguments with copious references to newspaper headlines from the period. I concluded that WW2 was nothing like the version we've been told....
Churchill held no government position between 1929 & September, 1939. 'Hitler tried to sue for peace?' Really? have you any proof of that or are you simply chanting to myth of the disgruntled neo?
Hitler wanted peace with England in order to be able and attack Russia his main aim without having to fight on 2 fronts.
Churchill was a master of political survival despite very long odds in early WW2 "after having had a really bad WW1". The fact that his government got tossed when his electors were given the option to do so, spoke volumes.
He simply didn't promise enough free stuff for the British people, that was the only reason why he lost.
@@Mitch93 wait, after 6 years of constant war, people want some economic security? Surely not right?
@@Mitch93 Churchill and the Tories ran a really bad campaign in 1945, they were too arrogant as he clearly expected to win ( rather like Clinton in 2016), there were numerous gaffes, like when Churchill said that Labour would need "some kind of a Gestapo" to implement its policies, they were negative when the country wanted positivity, and they never spelled out a "big picture" vision of what they wanted post war Britain to look like (unlike Labour). Churchill only "won" in 1951 (even though Labour won the most votes) after having accepted many elements of Atlee Government policy
@@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!
@@alexgray2482 I was too young so can’t remember the mood in Britain. My father told me Churchill had canvassed warning the electorate that Britain was broke and that a period of belt tightening and a continuing of rationing was the order of the day. Labour were promising a land of milk and honey fit for heroes. It turned out the state of Britain was precisely as Churchill had warned. After five years of the Attlee government the electorate kicked them out and the cry was, “ ….thank goodness Winston’s back.”
As a military leader, I think I agree. As someone rallying the people, he was a GD genius.
Does not make him a good leader tho
He just fed them hatred for the Germans, nothing skillful about that
Not sure I'd say genius, he trained to do speeches under David Lloyd-George. Check out some of his if you haven't already.
Won't deny him being the right person in 1939-1940, but he's very overrated in almost every regard.
Col. 3
Churchill really almost lost the war in 1940/41 in the Mediterranean. His follies in Norway were just a foreshadowing of later bad decisions but he couldn't have lost the war in Norway. Good stuff as always!
But the setbacks in the Mediterranean meant the British learned to fight an all arms coordinated battle against very effective but a limited German force so when D-day came they knew how to fight and had been re-equipped with efficient American armour. Not planned perhaps but a beneficial outcome to the end of the war. And in war it is better to be lucky than brilliant.
@@scipioafricanus4328 No, that's not what it meant. The British stumbled from defeat to defeat and evidently learned nothing until late 1942 when Rommel arrived at el Alamein with a battered army and no supplies.
@@PaleoCon2008 what a one sided and biased assessment. Montgomery defeated Rommel before El Alamein lol. And what about earlier victories. Crusader or compass?
@@commando4481 Are you really so stupid to make that claim. Compass was Wavell and Crusader was Auchinleck. Montgomery didn't arrive in North Africa until August 1942, three months before El Alamein.
@@PaleoCon2008 you claimed they did nothing but lose lol. Simple person.
Churchill was permanently pissed. It was to fight off the "black dog" Depression...
His spells of depression were intermittent, and he was, at worst, a high functioning alcoholic whose decisions were not impaired by it.
@@JagdeepSandhuSJC I'm sorry to hear that, Jagdeep owd lad. Still, I am sure you will get over it.
I've always thought that "Churchill" was more myth than man. He was a classic British Imperialist, a legend in his own mind.
Held this country together in 1940 . Who else would have done that ?
@@philipcamp1370
Anyone, probably. There is no answer, in retrospect, to the question of who else COULD HAVE done what. Who else could have married your mother? Anyone.
@@philipcamp1370 Churchill also killed millions of people
You didn't even get to WSC's objections to Overlord right up to the loading of the invasion fleet. It reminds me of William Manchester's quote of Lord Beaverbrook regarding Churchill. "Winston was most usually right but when he was wrong... well, my God."
Churchill almost single-handedly destroyed the British Empire. Something no other historical figure can claim.
Explain
@@barsukascool Well, what destroyed the British Empire if not WW2, a war Churchill was begging for just so he could cosplay Caesar.
The Empire was arguably in decline from the late nineteenth century. But Churchill definitely sealed the deal. Mainly due to the amount he put Britain into the hands of the USA.
One of Churchill's assistants/right hand men (can't remember the name) said Churchill had about 10 ideas a day. Two were meh, four were brilliant, and four were awful. His job was figure out which was which.
I assume the other 4 ideas are his choice of beverage.
@@sebastianpijov8708 I screwed up the numbers. Fixed
What you have to bear in mind is that Churchill was hampered during WWII by the disarmament policies during the interwar period, so didn't have enough military resources to fight everywhere e.g. to remain in control of the Mediterranean and fight the Japanese in the Far East. Also Clement Attlee served in Gallipoli and paid tribute to Churchill for his imaginative attempt to break the stalemate of WWI and said he wished Churchill had full control of the operation.
True.
Disarmament policies during the interwar emerged out of necessity. The Great War came at a great cost to the British Empire. It was effectively the beginning of the end for it. Naturally, the aftershocks of economic depression weren't any kind. Were the British Empire to continue militarising during the interwar, the rebellions in not only the colonies but in the home country would have resulted in the end of the empire much earlier than 1943. WW2 wouldn't have happened in that alternate scenario. It would rather have been a series of conflicts between Germany, France, Balkan countries, Asia etc.
Britain actually rearmed in the interwar period.
Absolute nonsense.
Britain had been rearming since 1933.
And yet the UK did fight in North Africa and won, they did fight in the Atlantic and won, they did fight in Burma and India and won. His aggressive policy of constantly being on the attack in the long run, despite tactical failures, took the initiative from the Fascists and paved the road for the United States.
If there had not been a Churchill the world would be in a much worse place.
Narvik port was free of ice during the winter and that is what made it so important. Without Narvik, the German industry will grind to a halt. I hope you will take your time to conduct a proper reaserch.
Love your videos BTW.
debatable. German industry would've slowed in the winter but still would've been fine.
@@pax6833 Agreed. Iron ore can be stockpiled quite easily.
According to reliable British sources, Churchill wanted to go on and attack the Soviet Union in 1945, after the end of hostilities against Germany, but British generals were so appalled that the idea was quickly dropped.
"Invading Norway is no different from Hitler invading Poland"
What, was Churchill going to liquidate the Viking population? ffs, that was a miss
Churchill invaded Iran together with Stalin which resulted in millions of deaths from man-made famine
He meant in principle.
Effectively, yes. Making them a legit military target and an economy that must be crushed/reconquered in order for the Germans to win means liquidation. W out big daddy USA and warmonger fdr, Churchill’s buffoonery would have spelt the doom of the Brits…the idea that imperial Britain was somehow more moral than Germany or the war had anything to do w morality is absolutely laughable. It was abt consumer product saturation and power politics. Imperial powers fighting for market share. Legit, how is Germany any different than USA, both led ethnic cleaning campaigns for the founding of their new state
bro believes in the holocaust
U mean how the all1es liquid@ted Dr £sden and H @mburg?…I had a comment here claiming that the 1mp £ rialist w£st has no moral high ground over Germany, and the war was really abt inter wstrn p 0wer competition. It has since been d £ leted
Maybe his purpose was to be the most british guy possible to keep a united front against the enemies?
I always learn something when I listen to your YT video. I've known for awhile that the "received narrative" has major gaps or perhaps outright lies, your videos at the very least, give rise to considerable food for thought. Thank you for the time and effort you put into your channel.
Lot's of outright lies and when we get to the period of the very end of the war, the holes turn into an abyss...
schoolboy 'attack attack attack' on Churchill? At least TIK's other videos are genuinely very interesting, objective and funny, well written .. but this 'attack attack attack' on Churchill seems a bit childish, tedious and boring ... The backdrop here is total chaos world war, global failure of politics, liars and psycho's reigned supreme, where prior to this only Churchill actually appeared to emerge at the end of the war as a hero ...
@@MakeAllThingsBeautiful Sorry, does Curchilll strike you as a truthful type? 🤔🤔
@@luisnunes3863 WW2 wasn't really a 'truth war' more likely a sequence of horrendous actions and cover ups .. by politically ideologicalised adults, maybe it needed a child to see through it all
@@MakeAllThingsBeautiful Don't confuse brazen deception with childlike innocence. I made the same mistake, but was 20 and therefore stupid.
My grandfather was a veteran of Greece, Crete, North Africa, Italy, left home in 1939 and came home in late 1945 he never had anything bad to say about Churchill or Montgomery. He was known to say if it wasn't for Churchill the British would have sued for peace, although I wasn't there at the time I say hindsight is 20/20
The Colonialization and the birth of Banking Dynasties helped Churchill rise to fame which in my opinion gave him a Black Eye and Galipili Landing was a total failure which cost many Aussies their lives
Failure at Gallipoli meant not having to give Constantinople to the Russians. The British wanted Palestine, Mesopotamia and Arabia, then Turkey could still be used against Russia.
It’s worth noting Aussies casualties and Gallipoli were not higher than other elements of the entente force, and that anzacs made up the smallest portion of soldiers sent
Hindsight is a great thing.
Imagine the "What if" if Britain had invaded Norway first?
We invaded Norwegian sovereign waters during the Altmark incident when sailors from HMS Cossack under Vivian illegally boarded the Altmark in Jøssingfjord. Norway was not exactly happy when we mined her territorial waters either.
Britain did invade first, lol.
Too many variables. For instance a limited intervention against Narvik - with secret consent from Norway - would be very different from an all-out invasion against Norway's wishes. And giving support to Finland would've been a big questionmark, since it may have solidified the nazi-communist alliance if the Allies effectively declared war on the USSR.
They tried
Exactly, the british want to invade first, nur the germans were faster
South Africa ( masters of mechanised infantry) was so upset with how Churchill and the British were running the North African Campaign.. their generals literally had a plan to tell the “ Empire” to go jump .. and go back home by driving down the African continent 😂. Brits were fighting in “ open “ conditions like it was trench warfare, instead of fast moving mechanised infantry.
So Churchill was scheduled to broadcast a speech over the radio. He called a taxi to get him to the radio station where he was supposed to give his speech. However the taxi driver didn't recognize him. Upon arriving Churchill said to the driver: "Can you please wait for me here for the ride back? I'll be back soon." The driver responded: "I'm sorry sir but I'm in a hurry to get back home to listen to Churchills speech on the radio." Churchill was so touched by this that he pulled a 1000 pounds out of his coat and gave it to the driver. Upon seeing the money the drivers eyes opened as wide as saucers and he almost shouted: "Fuck Churchill I'm gonna wait for you sir!"
This is fucking hilarious. Thank you for sharing
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).
@@danieleyre8913 You know, jokes have a certain feature to them... They don't have to be true to be funny.
@@MrStarTraveler Jokes also have a certain quality called being in some manner or other funny.
@@danieleyre8913 The problem with modern society is that there are too many but hurt people, one can't even tell a joke without offending someone.
AGREE 100 PERCENT. I read "Eisenhower at War 1943-1945" by David Eisenhower, IKE's grandson. Though I read it over 30 years ago I remember Churchill is calling, or cabling, or radio gram IKE 4 or 5 times a DAY. It took the first 300 pages before we hear FDR contacts IKE about a planning D-DAY matter. Just consult the index for Churchill and he's almost every other page. OMG Churchill makes teenagers texting or on social media look like soldiers writing home once a week. The man doesn't stop talking.
Chruchill's fighting spirit kept Britain in the war, which was ultimately beneficial to it, but that comes at a cost. You need that kind of single-minded obsession to keep going, but it also gives you the disasters you describe ; can't have one without the other.
It wasn't beneficial for great britain at all, they lost their empire because of it, if they had agreed for peace when hitler proposed it to them they would still be a great power
TiK has a very obvious double standard between Churchill and Hitler.
@@adolfhipsteryolocaust3443 doubtful...de-colonisation had only little correlation with the state of Brittain after WW2 or Churchills "spirit". A multitude of other reasons that made holding colonies untangible for Great Britain and other European Empires. Otherwise, why would the other countries have decolonized?
@@Raussl the USA encouraged them and bankrupted the UK to make it happen. Not that I think the Empire was a good thing. The way it broke up was really bad but it needed to happen.
Not really.
Parents who lose their children in your war tend to become rather opposed to it. War is popular when its human capital costs are low. Being a stupid strategist leads to a much higher 'tax' on war.
The best way to support a war is to fight it efficiently.
The matter of troops for Norway was that it was a minor one. My all standards the Germans had no means tomove any significant number of triops to Norway. For Germany to attempt to ship over troops would be very risky and those that arrived would likely be trapped assumes a German reaction.
You assertion that Germany could remove the Brits from Norway how???
The Swedish iron ore was critical to Germany. Narvik is the transshippment point for the ore. The transit of it through the Baltic was only during six months of the year and carries half of it then.
The occupation of Narvik was designed to be an occupation not conquest. Doing so would have been a fait accompli. The control of South and Central Norway was determined bythe Luftwaffe controlling the airfields. Even with that they could not retake Narvik unless the Brits abandoned it, which Churchill then did....
Churchill did not say that the evacuation at Dunkirk was a Victory, he said it was an unmitigated dissaster
Shush! No facts are needed for Dix' narrative!
By all things considered, the operation to rescue the British Expeditionary Force was, however, a colossal success regarding the sheer amount of troops saved.
That’s right, he said ‘wars are not won by evacuations’.
@@scipioafricanus4328 Thankyou
Definitely a lot a bias here. And way too much hindsight.
Right you are on that - "Wars are not won by evacuations."
I think calling him an "idiot" is very strong. He did have skill in other areas from military strategy.
He was a good orator, good at negotiating and backroom dealing, but all of that was undone by his military meddling. Worse than Hitler until about 44 when Hitler went completely off his rocker.
The one major military accomplishment you can give him is that he kept Britain in the war after the fall of France until the US joined in. Being able to hand over the UK to the US as this big unsinkable aircraft carrier and FOB off the Nazi shores was his major accomplishment for which he deserves praise. And which helped shape world history positively. But in military matters he was a bigger disaster then Hitler, who at least was able to chalk up some major victories by his decisions, it's hard to think of any for Churchill.
@@pax6833 "worse than hitler"
Really bro? Churchill who many times deferred to Alan Brooke and made it clear that the generals had every right to oppose him if they saw a critical failure in the making?
@@yochaiwyss3843 Hitler was fairly reasonable with his generals until roughly around the time of 1944 when he went completely off the rails. Obviously he was meddlesome even in 1941 and 42 but he was not running roughshod over them. Hitler got progressively worse as the years went on. Generals could still have operational command relatively intact until the disasters of 43.
@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 not sure making the UK a vassal to the United States and tanking the British Empire is particularly praiseworthy from the perspective of the British back then, given that they were ostensibly fighting to preserve the Empire.
For five years Britain was led by an interfering military incompetent, the war was won in spite of Churchill, not because of him - he is the ultimate example of the power of style over substance. That he is revered as the greatest Briton by so many Britons only illustrates the woeful ignorance of the British about their own military history on land, sea and air.
I’m no advocate for many politicians especially during war but I think Norway was about the supply of iron ore to Germany, forgive me if I’m wrong.
That was my opinion way back...
Wevel pulled off stunning victories when opertunity presented itself.
He should have been given a promotion and resources.
Churchill did lose the British Empire though, the one thing he cared the most about!
What would have happen if Britan and America had stayed out of the war and Germany concentrated it´s efforts against the USSR?
He was not really interested in invading England and had offered peace talks.
At least, the Wehrmacht was a better choice than the Red Army.
Who wanted to be deported to Siberia etc. by the NKVD - like Poles and people from the three Baltic states.
England was protected against a direct Soviet invasion (English Channel).
Hitler had never wanted war with Britain.
Hitler had also never planned for a world war.
Churchill never once attempted to make peace with Germany.
Stalin was delighted when the West declared war on Germany - not a good sign.
The scenario you're describing would have been unthinkably horrific. Hitler would have remained in power and had free reign over Eastern Europe and ultimately Russia. It would have been a terrible blow to communism, stopping it in its tracks. British and French blood and treasure would have remained selfishly in-tact.
The removal of international communist expansion, would have give Britain, America, and France a free hand for their foreign policy. Regrettably, their colonial empires would have continued on much longer. We'd have ended up with a cold war in Europe between Britain, France, USA and the low countries on one side, and the Axis powers, Spain, Portugal Scandinavia and Eastern Europe on the other side.
If Germany were willing to focus her efforts only on colonizing and developing the former soviet union, and the US focused mostly on Latin America, and if France and UK stayed in their lanes as well, there might have been long term peace. We'd be back to where we were in the 1871-1914 period, but with a kind of sickening, disgusting stability.
It also would have been a horrible tragedy for the ethnic minorities in Central and Eastern Europe. They'd have been either devastated or completely destroyed. The great intellectual classes would have been ruined, thus depriving the late 20th century of their influence, Asia, apart from Japan, would have been permanently subordinated to the West, The Middle East would also have had its nationalist aspirations hobbled. Islam would not have been able to expand and spread her wings like she deserved to.
It would have had a terrible terrible effect on the West, allowing it to hog up most of the worlds wealth. Europe would have been deprived of the rich ethnic and racial diversity we enjoy today. It would have certainly harmed the advancement of LGBT rights, social justice, and feminism. Those ideas would have proceeded much more skittishly and slowly. Thank god for the leadership we had in the 1930s. This allowed us to avoid the horrors of a conservative eugenic nationalist Europe and North America.
@@RaptorFromWeegee that... Actually doesn't sound that bad, as a European
Yes
But compared to what we have now, he is a genius.
So were the patients at the asylums.
He was a genius regardless. A great leader but also a prolific author who wrote volumes of fascinating history. He saved the UK, perhaps the world from certain defeat by the fascists.
This says more about the current state, than about him
Today's leaders are nowhere near the level of Churchill's monstrosity
Tik: "Churchill tried to turn Dunkirk into a victory"
Christopher Nolan: "Hold my beer".
worth considering that the French military were apparently all out defence, defence, defence, very sensible but a huge army got trounced with very sensible cautious and decorated generals sipping the occasional glass of champagne, ok took Churchill a couple of years to notch up the victories, not sure many would of kept going, maybe it needed an childish idiot mentality to get through the long dark nights .. and a tot or 2
It wasn't a victory Dunkirk was a victorious retirement we were beaten there's no question about that. this is the quote from one of the survivors of the Dunkirk evacuation. If you want to hear the actual quote Watch the documentary how Hitler lost the war
No he did not he said this about Dunkirk
"We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations."
@@standard_gauge The movie was presented in a way that the evacuation was so well executed and planned(Whereas Churchill and the RN's high command expected only 45,000 men would make it out to England. It was only sheer luck, French stubborness to stay in the fight and OKH's hesitancy to advance into the beaches(I´ve been to Dunkirk myself. The flooding that supposedly created a swamp and prevented German troops from entering the beach is a myth. There´s no way in hell it could have been more than two or three feet deep)
Nolan didn´t say Dunkirk was a victory. He didn´t need to. He just filmed the movie as a superhuman feat on the British part when only sheer luck, french determination and German incompetence saved the BEF from total disaster. Basically he went full Hollywood on the matter.
@@redseagaming7832 There´s no such thing as a "victorious withdrawal", more so after been chased all the way from the Maginot line to the Channel.
How much if any do you think early Japanese victories, due to quick and hard hitting attacks, impacted Churchill’s on military strategy? One of the lessons from The Great War was not to get bogged down in state mates as well. Diseases and artillery duel may end up killing more. That may be a second factor across the board for all generals, we must fight differently.
The issue in WW2 was not even about fighting differently (which would happen in any event because the tank had changed warfare on the ground), but about launching premature attacks before one is adequately prepared. This latter mistake can be made with any style of warfare.
I remember dad being rather pissed off, about how many times they were in and out of Tripoli!
You never mentioned in this video Churchill’s blunders against the Japanese. These blunders were far worse
He didnt mention that Churchill could have ended the war in 1940 either, see _What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933-1939 - Time to face the facts!_
Thanks TIK. Another provocative video. I like the focus on Churchill's relationship with UK's North African military leadership. This pre-Rommel portion was especially enlightening, since that has always been a bit of a mystery to me. // I also thought that the emphasis on his schoolboy mentality (what I would call his romantic oversimplification of war and empire) to be very provocative. Basically, you are saying his way of looking at the world was wrong - which seemed to be a job requirement for world leadership at that time. // I had a discussion years ago where a very smart person said: "it's amazing how Churchill was wrong about so many things, yet he was dead right about Hitler - and that was critically important to history." This leads me to ask TIK: Isn't there anything positive you have to say about Churchill? // Your video leads to the question: why did Churchill think that relentlessly pressuring his generals for offensive action was the right thing to do? Was it simply immaturity? I wonder if he looked at historic examples like Lincoln's relationship with McClellan et al (pre-Grant), and felt that the political leadership could not accept inaction even when warranted?
"dead right about Hitler", perhaps not that much. The terror bombing of German towns were based on an assumption that it would affect Hitler. And that was dead wrong.
Great video, as usual. Regarding the ludicrous TH-cam policies about certain words and other content, if you are somehow able to make your videos more accessible for people who are blind or have low vision, that would be great...
I'm not one of them but I know someone who is. This person has raised my awareness of the need to provide textual descriptions of images and especially words in images that their text to voice software can't pick up. It might not even be possible to include the author's name in your textual description section though. If so, you'd have to describe it some other way eg "Anthony whose 3 letter surname sounds like the shortened version of the name Richards" or such like.
I hate that TH-cam causes these and other problems for creators who are just trying to communicate harmless information. I follow several aviation safety experts who can't show certain footage (that is needed to explain how a crash happened and how it can be avoided by others) without being demonetised. Often such policies disproportionately impact disabled people. I like to show support for them by helping raise awareness.
I really love your approach to your work, TIK. So much of early to mid 20th century world history is distorted. This vital period in our history must be communicated with greater accuracy and you are a major provider of such content. Also, due to your recent bereavement, you are often especially in my thoughts. I wish you well.
Churchill was too much a man of the 1800s, of his glorious ancestors. He admitted the failure of his strategy when he reasoned about having "slaughtering the wrong pig": Germany instead of Russia. At least he stepped back from his intentions to wage war against the Sovjetunion after 1945. With whom one must ask since the USA practised defensive containment politics in Europe.
Never good to judge the past. Change one thing and you've changed everything going forward. Churchill is from a different era and may as well be from another planet. And if I remember my history (maybe I don't) Gallipolis had the makings of brilliance. It was the timidity of the ground commanders that turned it into disaster...a lot like Anzio.
I tend to agree with you. But there's more at work. Remember, this was 1915. The previous century of Ottoman history had been one of defeat, disorganization and military collapse. The Ottoman Empire had been considered the Sick Man of Europe: weak, feeble, decrepit. And the Balkan wars of the early 1900s had reinforced this image yet again when the Ottomans were routinely defeated by relatively tiny nations including Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Rumania.
So, when the Allies showed up with the fleet at the Dardanelles, what they expected was the Ottoman Empire to simply submit. Instead, to their shock, the shore batteries opened fire, and the ensuing tragedy was on. The allied commanders may have been poor or lackluster. It didn't matter; the Turks were prepared to fight.
I admire your courage in challenging the Churchill hero cult, I hope you don't get hate mail. Churchill is more popular now than he was immediately after the second world war because we haven't been educated about the failures that his contemporaries experienced first hand. Thanks for this informative and well argued video.
ive studied him for 35 years. he is the ultimate leader
@@hahanah1463 If destroying your empire makes you the ultimate leader then sure.
It's important to not go overboard and overlook his many morale raising rhetorical, diplomatic, and even a few times military contributions.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 I don't think that there is any danger of that Robert.
@@nicholasbethell2921 they're definitely is. Especially not just with Churchill.