@@dovetonsturdee7033 1951 labour got more votes and the tories has accepted all of labour policy by then, the issue was uncontested seats the tories held in 1951.
Another thing that Attlee started was the liquidation of the British Empire starting with the Indian independence. That important event is untouched in this video. Indians were certainly happy that Attlee won in 1945 which paved the way for their independence in 1947. Churchill was vehemently opposed to that idea.
And that in my opinion is one of the great beauties of social democrats of yestertime. They were not just a different shade of gray but represented very different values and ways of thinking - like sympathies for Indian independence - that are avant-garde to some even today.
The heart of the empire died in 1965 and the rest of it truely died in 1999 with the loss of Hong Kong, Churchill would be sad to see what has happened to the nation he lead to great triumph, a place where the English aren’t even a majority in their own capital city anymore
that's because he was mega racist towards the people of India. as well as Africa, native Americans, Australia aborigines, Irish and even supported the movement "keep England white"
From what I've read about Churchill in the extra history magazines, he took the defeat gracefully enough. They quoted him in his speech as saying something like: "We have no right to grumble or complain. This is democracy. It is what we have fought, strived and sacrificed to protect these last five years."
@@LectionesInterbellum What are you even talking about, I assure you the Great British people still have grit and heart in our Nation. Politics is one thing but the PEOPLE are another.
One interesting anecdote that Churchill told in his post-war memoirs is that when he was talking to Stalin in 1945 about the upcoming election, Churchill said he wasn't quite sure what the result would be, which surprised Stalin, who expressed his disbelief that people could vote out the leader that won them the war, regardless of their disagreements on political matters.
Well yeah, naturally Stalin would have disbelief.... he didn't even give his people the choice to vote him out and if they tried he'd have them shot. I mean if this is true, you realize Stalin often killed people for "disagreements on political matters" ?
@@BelCamryn I'm aware of what Stalin was like. I just thought it was an interesting anecdote, showing how Stalin fundamentally misunderstood Western democracy by thinking that winning a war is all that matters.
@@BelCamryn funny thing is that none of that is actually true. Stalin actually tried to resign from office several times and was turned down each time, and there were general elections. The idea that Stalin murdered anyone who disagreed with him is also ahistorical and far more of a folk tale than a historical reality according to archival information.
I read once that when children from the city were sent to country estates during the war, people who took these children couldn't believe how these children were being raised, dirty, no health care of any type, not potty trained, etc. How could this be allowed in Britain? Many who supported the Conservatives and Churchill felt there was a need for radical change in the government ....
@@danielfronc4304 ah yes, demanding basic human rights is being butthurt, typical conservative 🤦♂️. Let me guess, you think universal healthcare is communist and that we should go back to the good old days when black people had no rights
Still does need change. A lot of the current UK governement want to get rid of Human Rights. They say it on flm! Who would vote for someone that wants to deprive them of their rights?!? Yet millions did. It's possible they didn't understand what a loss of their rights would entail. Yet they still voted for them.
One of my history teachers tried to say Churchill's loss was a mystery, so I asked a family friend Betty (he husband has served in the Merchant Navy during ww2), she said, "what, no mystery, he didn't support the NHS". As stated in the video, I really got the sense they wanted huge change.
They wanted huge change, and the majority of people didn't like him from the start. History has been distorted by people like Margarete Thatcher, who tried to shift history to their liking and as a result the country idiolized people that do not deserve praise, apart from maybe one achievement that they ultimately won through being forced into the situation.
Exactly. People had just been through two world wars and wanted the government to actually do things to benefit the people. What's the point in "fighting for freedom" when you live in squalor in peace time?
@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 not fully true since he became prime minister again in 1951. I hate Margaret Thatcher as much as you probably do, but that does not mean we can generalise an entire population with out own view, especially a population you we likely never a part of.
Your history teacher must be a big fan of Churchill. Why else would they say that it's a mystery when the answer was so obvious for anyone that give even the slightest effort on doing their research.
TL;DR this is a rare case of democracy doing exactly what it should, giving a country the right leaders for the right time. a good war leader during a serious war, and a reconstruction-focused leader afterwards.
Reconstruction?… Well, let’s see - a third of our budget goes to a failing NHS where you can’t see a dr unless you have a private insurance. Fact. The second third goes to a failing welfare system where people can’t find social housing and can’t afford heating. What’s left goes to more wars and killings of millions of innocent people. A bit left for rubbish state schools who don’t get funded so have to ask the parents for money. That turned out really well
Who's to say other leaders couldn't have done better. The conservatives left the British army in tatters, underfunded, under equipped and totally unprepared for a war with Germany. Their diplomacy was terrible too. A Labour government would probably have a better understanding with the USSR than the aristorcratic Torys who fear Communism more than Fascism. True that Churchill was not his party's leader at the time, but it was his party.
@@Ron.S. it did turn out well. Until the conservatives cut funding and cut funding and cut funding even more so that they can profit as much as possible while tricking people like you to believe that social policies like the NHS are a bad idea
@@imienazwisko4219 firstly, I think you can see that I’ve got nothing against social policies. I do agree with your point though. It’s simply so frustrating to see the NHS in such horrible state. If I cast my mind back to 2005 for example, everything was good indeed. But people wanted to “get Brexit done”. Corbyn was the perfect and once in a lifetime Labour candidate for PM
Churchill and the Conservative Party were focused on punishing Germany and Japan for losing or (at the time of the election) certain to lose WW2. Labour on the other hand, were focused on rebuilding the nation and bringing in the financial securities for people that had been lacking in the prewar years. As said in Days that shook the world: "... As for those who led the country through the war, Winston Churchill got back into parliament, but now in opposition, the people cheered him still as he made his way to Westminster, they weren't prepared to entrust him with the peace."
Churchhill was one of the only Allied leaders not interested in punishing the Germans and Japanese, he believed they had had enough and punishing them any further then what the war had already done would just be the same racial cruelness they exercised. He wanted to Nuke Moscow tho
@@deason2365 Actually, he favoured executing all of the Nazi High command and all the leaders who were captured by the Allies. Of course he changed his mind and took the stance of the Americans and called for a trial, hence Nuremberg.
@@Frserthegreenengine yes he wanted too punish Nazis, witch wasn't a bad Idea it beats funding them so they can found the Gestapo on American soil, errr I mean the CIA. but as far as the German peaple, he spoke out many times against forcing all ethnic Germans in Europe back to Germany, hundreds of thousands of them had never been to Germany or even spoke the Language, he spoke out many times about the treatment of the German peaple after the War.
What a lot of people don’t know is that Attlee was the Deputy Prime Minister (second most important government person) to Churchill since 1940 with many Labour government members such as Herbert Morrison (home minister) and Arthur Alexander (head of the Royal Navy). Attlee and the other Labour leaders had shown themselves that they had done a good enough job during the war to govern by themselves and to do at least a good as job as the Conservatives had done.
Churchill was a great war leader, but he needed a good number two, Attlee, to keep the country running to be part of the winning side. It really gets me when the right wing start shouting about defending our history and stand in front of Churchill's statue in an aggressive pose. Attlee's statue is no longer on public view, it was subjected several attacks by vandals, right wing vandals.
shame that can't be done today! In Australia, during covid, our opposition did the right thing & supported the government fully so as to let them manage it, but they certainly weren't gifted with any positions or privilege in return for doing that. Our national government was actually completely incompetent in managing covid & everyone knew it, but the opposition also knew that calling them out on it would just make the whole situation worse, so they did the right thing & stayed quiet & the state governments stepped up & did the federal government's job for them, overall with both sides of politics working together & putting politics aside to do what was right for the country & what was needed (since different states had different parties as their government). As soon as we rewarded the opposition government for doing the right thing & gave them the government in May of this year, the government from the covid era immediately began actively sabotaging them & sledging them & causing International issues for them, cause they just can't help themselves, they're pathetic! That's why we voted them out!
@@raghave1043 Nonsense. Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit your agenda.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Churchill absolutely KNEW what was taking place in India, but he simply didn't gave af. He was notoriously racist towards indians(not a propaganda, rather his own words prove it) so he didn't care to help the people suffering. Churchill has been quoted as blaming the famine on the fact Indians were “breeding like rabbits”, and asking, "if the shortages were so bad, How's Mahatma Gandhi was still alive?" His role in those millions of deaths is the similar to Stalin's in those infamous Soviet familes. But one of them escaped the blame.
Churchill lost because men like my father after being demobbed were determined that things were going to be different. He remembered how badly treated men like his father had been after fighting the 1st war.
The same with my father (Royal Naval Patrol Service) and grandfather (Royal Flying Corps , WW1 and RAF, WW2), they wanted to come home to a better country for everyone.
@@juscholten4248 - So gullible for propaganda. NS Germany wasn't even interested in Western Europe had it not been for Britain and France declaring war on them. Instead all it cost Britain was it's own lives, debt and consequently had them loose their oppressive empire.
Britain was euphoric that peace had come while most Brits only regarded Churchill as a war-time leader, albeit a great one. They were also fed up with the the unfairness of the elitest class team, as was well shown in the military heirarchy. At least that´s the way my parents - who were both active in the war - remembered it.
@@hubertwalters4300 They didn't care about fighting Japan. Japan was no threat to the UK, and no one wanted to go die so the empire could hold on to its far east colonies. Anti-colonial sentiments were rapidly rising in the general population at this time, which was seen to only benefit the wealthy upper class.
@@densityboy Are you saying the British people didn't care about their alliance with the US against Japan and they didn't care that tens of thousands of British troops were being held by the Japanese as pow's.
@@hubertwalters4300 I mean, not enough to vote for Churchill obviously. Besides, by this point Japan was clearly defeated and everyone knew it, it was just a matter of how long they would hold out for, which turned out to be not very.
It has been said that FDR dragged the War out a bit. If Normandy had happened in 1943, and Europe was freed by 1944, HE may have lost that year. Although, I don't know that Japan would have capitulated before August, 1945, in the absence of the Atomic bomb.
My Late Dad was too young to vote, when he was drafted (at age eighteen, on the day of the Normandy invasion.) He served in the Ski Patrol in Italy. He reminded me of that when I complained about the drinking age being raised back up to 21-of course they could not legally drink below 21, either.
I was helping write a biography and was researching wartime conditions for children. One thing that shocked me was that the blitz ended up being a positive for the country, before most of the country still lived in Victorian era slums. We didn't just need to rebuild, we had to revaluate our country.
"the blitz ended up being a positive for the country, before most still lived in Victorian era slums" *"wow, I went from being alive in a slum in Europe, one of the better countries to live in on the whole face of the earth, to being either an orphan or a mangled corpse on top of a pile of flaming rubble!"* *"what an upgrade! Thanks, Germany!"*
Churchill said roughly the same thing in his "History of World War II," that the results were a referendum on the party. He went to far as to suggest that many voters didn't ever realize that a vote for Labor would put him out of office. All in all, in made for an abrupt ending to the book, which had described all the events in such detail, only to come to an abrupt halt, just as the ware was about to end.
I believe that Attlee promoted the social welfare legislation during the war and threatened to withdraw from the National Government should Churchill fail to support it. A most effective politician, Attlee, albeit with no obvious charisma. How times change! 🤔
Probably the best Prime Minister we ever had. But so lacking in 'charisma' that he could use public transport. Someone asked him once on the bus "Do you know you look just like Clement Attlee?" He replied with "Others have commented on that".
@@tedf1471 One could make that argument about Attlee by narrowing to since the Victorian Era; otherwise, Atlee has severe competition from Palmerston, Pitt the Elder, Walpole…Attlee was more effective than MacMillan or Cameron or Wilson, more beneficial than Thatcher in the internal sphere, and essentially the inverse of Tony Blair (Blair started out in a golden situation economically, then got the country involved in the Middle East and the Great Recession, among other troubles) Among interwar figures, I don’t think Lloyd George or Baldwin or MacDonald are 1% better, if they equal him at all
@@silkychan6099 Outside of that debacle (which had little to do with him or his abilities in the grand scheme of things) he’s one of the most impressive political figures in British history
I remember reading Field marshal Bernard Montgomery's book "the path to leadership" (a great book and honestly quite of a lot of it is still relevant to today) and in the chapter on Churchill, he expressed that he was glad that he lost the election as he needed a break. Which was completely true. The man worked tirelessly and even had a desk built into his bed so he could continue his work the moment he woke up. Imagine working round the clock for 4 and a half years, working through the Dunkirk evacuations, countless allied country's capitulations, the battle of the Atlantic which damn near brought Britain to it's knees. And even then this was the tip of the iceberg.
I imagine the champagne and cigars at the Savoy probably helped. Churchill is far too lionised in this country. He was a good wartime leader. He was also an utter bastard.
@@nathanielgonsalves5073 Churchill was s poor peacetime leader .He was of the aristocracy and didn't really care about the working man who he was completely out of touch with . The NHS ,the welfare state ,pensions and decent house building to clear slums and bomb damage would never have happened under Churchill.
@@attackpatterndelta8949 Churchill was on phone with Hitler when Hitler had called and said we are ready for Britain next and Chiurchill conned Hitler saying come now as we are ready and waiting ..If Germany did come to Britain at that time , then Britian would have been taken over , this was Germanys big mistake as Britain was then inbetween all this just getting ready for war , and were not ready at that time continued v Thankfully by the time Hitlers Germany did come , then Britain was at the ready and the rest is history . Well done to Churchill a leader of men .
Keep in mind churchill headed a government of national unity. So it's not like people voted against the wartime government, just for one wing of it. Also it's a parlamentary system not a presidental as in the US.
Also there had not been an election for ten years and there had been national unity governments since 1931. And the government prior to the national unity governments was a Labour government.
Exactly. Clement Attlee was Churchill's deputy prime minister during world war 2. The British public knew the Labour party contributed to Britain's victory.
Simple. Good wartime leader, bad peacetime leader. Churchill is like Captain america, relish the fighting and cannot settle down easily for an easy life.
@@alanfisher9691 By the standards of his time? Not really. I mean lets be real here this was the US was still under Jim Crow laws, the military was still racially segregated, and nothing would really change until the 1960's. And obviously Stalin's genocidal track-record speaks for itself.
That is true, but the question is how did they manage to get that message to the public so well? Especially come out fresh from a gigantic victory against Hitler.
@@lopezmario4633 I forgot that Churchill was actually elected during the downfall of Chambelein because he failed to stop WW2 from happening. Churchill was indeed the wartime leader that UK needed.
My parent's voted Labour in that election. Although they admired and respected Churchill, they didn't like the Party he represented. They told me that they didn't want the Country to go back to the 1930's hardships, which was prevalent under the Conservative's at that time. The Labour Party and it's promise of Healthcare and a better life for the Working Class, seemed a better offer than the alternative proposed by the Ruling classes. I was 10 years old, but understood a lot of what they were against. Illnesses I saw at school, such as Rickets, Impetigo, severe Bronchial infections caused by unhygienic living conditions, Boils, Scarlet Fever and Diphtheria, were common in those days, but are not so widespread today, thanks to the Welfare State bringing free medicine to those who couldn't afford a Doctor's visit before
This is precisely what my elderly father told me years ago when I asked him why Churchill lost the 1945 election. Many felt real change was needed after the war.
@Wallace Carney `Yep,its been re-privatised by these pillocks,nowt against yanks, but get yo money aht of ah health service,string up the bastards that allowed it.
Churchill was so blinded by the victory that he kept aside and overlooked his campaign, peoples were fed up of Wars which they saw in the opposition camp.
@@madrexertheboredtm7728 Japan still held vast territory and wasn’t going to give up without causing the Allies and Comintern serious casualties. That’s actually one of two reasons America nuked Japan: 1) Please give up before more cities go boom. 2) USSR, see how powerful we are. Don’t annoy us.
If I remember correctly even the late Tony Benn, who was as red a "Socialist" as Churchill was a blue "Tory", agreed that Churchill was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. To step up and be the Wartime British Leader. Also bear in mind that Attlee was Deputy Prime Minister for the duration. The "jobs" being divided between the two, insomuch as Attlee ran the country, leaving Churchill to deal with the war......
So true. Could you ever imagine a tory of the day or even now for that matter comming up with a ration system that wouldnt have gave 90% to the aristos .
Benn was a coward who used his fathers connections to get a safe job in the war, then got commissioned in the raf in Rhodesia in the last month to pretend he was "one of the few".
This fails to even mention what I consider a significant factor, and one which used to be widely recognised. But Churchill has been somewhat lionised since his death so it's probably not surprising. The fact is that the regular Tommy, the men that made up the bulk of the nation's fighting forces, were in large part working class people, and they never forgot that in the National Strike in the pre-war years it was Winston Churchil who set the troops upon the striking miners. While they recognised his abilities as a wartime leader, they never forgot his actions against their working-class brethren.
And Churchill was seen as a warmonger up until Germany began renegging on its diplomatic agreements. He was the right man during wartime but seemed utterly out of place to many in peace time.
People were called on to suffer with hardships and shortages all throughout the war and finally wanted to see something come as a result of their efforts and sacrifices.
And they had more shortages over the next 5 years then they had during the war. The labor party had to borrow so much money to fulfill the give me free stuff policies that it lead to leave India and Isreal.
You seem to make granting independence to India and Palestine sound seem like a bad thing. As for the "give me free stuff", those were all things the *people* had earned, and they were just being redistributed. Do not forget what an incredibly rigid social, economic and political system they had (and still have to a great extent) and how the distribution of wealth was highly skewed to the upper classes.
@@paulbrasier372 As an Indian, I'd say, even Churchill would not have been able to hold Indian independence afterwards. There would have been WW3 if that happened. Indian soldiers who returned from WW2 saw how weak Britain was and had started mutinies all over. The INA was allying with the Japanese and the Germans. Gandhi was no longer being respected by Indians and Indians were randomly killing the British everywhere. There was chaos which no amount of British reinforcement could have handled. Not to mention that the British were having issues with the Irish closer home and the Soviet Union was creeping towards India. There was increasing support for communism all over Asia. The only quick solution the British could think was create the buffer states of Pakistan and Tibet and leave the scene. The US which stayed around got hurt really bad in both South Korea and Vietnam. And Britain was not as big as the US and India was not as tiny as Vietnam.
The permanent relegation to a second tier status, they got what they asked for. Britain was no longer the best of innovations after Labor party. But I guess you do get the lower quality healthcare called NHS.
They lost their Empire. You forget what a stratified, you class-based society the were and still are. Before NHS, people had the freedom to die for lack of medical care.
It's hard to believe in these times of ultra partisan politics how you might admire the leader of a party but vote for his opponent. Yet that is what clearly happened in 1945. I have spoken to many people who were active in that election and it was clear while they were happy with Churchill's war time leadership they did not want him to lead them in peace time. We also have to understand that Churchill did not lead a Conservative government, During the war he led a national coalition government. Labour gained much prestige for their involvement in that. Attlee the Labour leader was even made Deputy Prime Minister and chaired the war cabinet when Churchill was overseas on his many international meetings. During the war much of British industry came under the direct control of government. One of Churchill's de facto decisions was to bring the railways under state control (but not ownership) iron, steel and coal production was all state controlled. Even the crops planted on farms was decided by a state controlled committee and if farmers failed to comply their land would be removed and farmed by others. Many began to think 'if our nation's production can be organised to defeat Hitler, why cant we do the same to defeat the five major problems identified by Beveridge;" want (caused by poverty), ignorance (caused by a lack of education) squalor (caused by poor housing), idleness (caused by a lack of jobs, or the ability to gain employment) and disease (caused by inadequate health care provision).
this is exactly the reasoning Oscar Lange used to propose government planning like in war time but for social benefit of the whole population. and I believe this to be correct, the economy should work for the social benefit of all instead of just a tiny minority at the top
I first learned about this from an anecdote Tony Blair gave in 2019/2020 where he described foreign visitors telling him they thought Brits are ungrateful for kicking Churchill out after saving them from Hitler and the Nazis and the horrors they had in store for them. Pretty illuminating to find out why.
Worked out perfectly for the colonies who were pushing for independence. Can’t imagine how long India would’ve had to wait for independence if Conservatives won.
Perhaps not as long as you think because the British people had seen enough of war and would not have accepted that their sons get sent to India to fight a new colonial war just to keep India for the banks.
@@danielwarren3138 Colonies in the Caribbean and Africa gained their independence in the early sixties. With the need to focus on post war reconstruction and social reform at home and a growing and effective Indian Independence movement , it’s likely that the delay in Indian independence would not have been very long even with a conservative government . How long ? Maybe five years ( early fifties) as agitation in India was becoming more and more intense .
"Perfectly" is the wrong word. Attlee was not good at dealing with colonial conflicts and was a notorious racist to the point where Churchill even called him out in Parliament for being an antisemite. So many of the civil wars of independence that came afterwards can be blamed almost directly on Attlee's mismanagement of the process. This was particularly bad in the Middle East where Attlee appointed absolutely brutal leaders that managed to inflame tensions between ethnic groups. In the British mandate of Israel/Palestine, these Attlee appointed governors and military police were known for making the punishment for stealing bread being thrown into an opposing village to be lynched (a Jew would be thrown into a Palestinian village and a Muslim would be thrown into a Jewish village). This meant that the Attlee appointed governors were actively encouraging violence in the region. Under Churchill, he may have resisted the process of decolonization more, but the writing was on the wall at this point and there was no way he wouldn't have seen it.
I've read that after WW2 with it's privation, death destruction and injury in their tightly packed cities, the war had a major impact on the British people. Some kind of dividend was needed to help families with their struggles to reestablish some kind of reassuring change for good. Premier Churchill was far away from any Socialist ambitions arising from the ordinary folks who bore the brunt of Hitler's desire to control as much of Europe as he could. In comparison, Premier Attlee established the NHS.
He was a warriors, a soldier… not a politician by nature. He led this country and the world against the Nazi empire, he did so amazingly. But dealing with economics and other such non military aspects of leadership was not his greatest skill.
@Mark Morris wasn't the Gallipoli disaster his idea in the Great War? And his idea that Italy was the "soft underbelly " of the Axis proved grievously wrong. (Of course, if the US had given command to someone other than that chowderhead Mark Clark....but that was hardly Churchill's fault. )
There are people who judges us by our success and there are those who judges us by our failures But God will not condemn those who have Christ within them
@@brianthomas2434 The war in Italy did it's job though, chewing up the Nazi war machine. I am not sure what the alternative was, certainly invading France any earlier would have been a mistake.
@@CB-fz3li did they chew up the Nazis? Or was a relatively small German force, abetted by the terrain and blinkered Allied leadership, allowed to bog down a numerically superior army? My understanding is only defeat in Berlin ended the Italian campaign. But I don't claim expertise.
I've always thought it curious that he lost that election, after all he had done to inspire Britain during the war. I guess this is as good an explanation as any.
My father fought in WW2 and he was very clear. The population had been promised ‘homes fit for heroes’ in the First World War and instead had the Great Depression. The map of the world may have been painted red but kids in the East End could still be seen without shoes. Churchill was the war leader ‘par excellence’ but to the general population he represented the ‘ancien regime’. Ironic in some ways because the Beveridge Report and the work of ‘Rab’ Butler was still done on his watch, and he was still voted back in during the next election.
He was voted back in but with 300k less votes than Labour in that election… flawed FPTP system we use BUT it has benefited Labour where it shouldn’t have in the past also!
Why oh why do people believe in promises? Easily stated and impossible to honor. We in the States are living under the horror of broken promises. I get it. So sad.
@@juscholten4248 Actually the postwar Labour government kept most of its promises. It created the NHS, made India independent and started a massive public housing programme which really did dramatically improve the conditions of the working class.
4:03 "took a different TACK" not tact. Tact in English is not used in that way. English isn't German and Takt means frequency. The set expression "took a different tack" comes from sailing. Tacking is when a ship goes diagonally in one direction, then in the other, so as to move forward toward its desired goal despite relatively unfavorable winds.
Yes the NHS, without which I would most certainly have died in the time my family's utter poverty. Please support it, cherish it and don't let it fall into the hands of those who place power and money over the needs of the many..
Nonsense. the cold, hard FACTS vs mere anecdote is that NHS is a killer; wonderful for your case that is the exception that proves=tests the rule of people dying from it. This is why those who can afford to avoid it, e.g. flying to non-socialist places like America to get real healthcare the UK and other socialist hellholes don't have. As in everything else, so too in medicine, socialism is fine 'til it runs out of other folks's money. The cold, hard FACTS are that PEOPLE in NHS no one cares about DIE UNNOTICED in waiting rooms waiting for treatment and only bind, ignorant fools fail to oppose its manifest corruption. The reason Brits stupidly turned on Churchill and to vile socialist Atlee is sheer childishness. Ironically they blindly wanted the very corrupt socialism their sons had died to fight. They soon learned they were fools to vote for Atlee/socialism and voted Churchill back in in 1951 but by then it was too late for Atlee's evil Labour leech traitors had already sucked up the country so badly that even today the UK is still ruined. Even Thatcher couldn't turn it around. Only God can save us, One socialists wickedly reject.
@@russedav5 Russ, are you on Planet Zog? Are you that bourgeois and that priviledged that you want the NHS abolished in favour of the American healthcare system, which has been proven to be the least effective in the world? If it weren't for a decade of tory austerity, then the NHS wouldn't be such dogshit. Sod the yanks, why would we want to follow their every move? The only thing America does is pillage, destroy and destabilise in order to keep their capitalist bourgeois war machines fed and satisfied, why should we follow their direction? Death to America.
Jarmint you can have an NHS that isn't a corrupt, backward, wasteful and inefficient, unsustainable waste of money. It isn't a binary NHS or no NHS question. Why is that the mere idea of accepting that the NHS is not perfect seems to always be met with such hysteria? If we carry on burying our heads in the sand we'll lose the NHS eventually because it'll bankrupt the nation. The wastage in the NHS is gargantuan. I have several relatives that work for the NHS. It's only getting worse when hysterical zealots try and shut down any meaningful debate on how to improve it. Just throwing ever bigger sums at it isn't the answer. Neither is saying only the Tories want to privatise it. Especially as the current labour deputy previously worked as a lawyer on PFI hospital contracts.
@@Jarmint America has the least effective health care system...What,I'm American and the American health care system saved my life back in 2000,I'm not rich or privileged, I was just a truck driver and i had to have major surgery and my employer provided health insurance paid 20% of the first $5000.00 and it paid 100% of everything after that,my deductible was $500.00,it even paid for rehabilitation,after I went back to work,whatever I still owed I worked out a payment plan with the hospital and I paid them off,from what I have heard about the government health care sevices in Britain or anywhere on the continent, I don't think I would have got the same high level of care,I may have just been given a prescription for some medication and sent home to die.I am not British so i have never used the British NHS,so I can't compare by direct experience,tell me where I am wrong.
My father was a Durham Miner. He never forgave Churchill, who as Home Secretary, called out the mounted Police and set them on the Jarrow Marchers. The North East has a long memory.
Whoops: Not long enough when they voted Tory in 2019 and we got Bojo the clown as PM! with a huge majority. My grandfather watched Churchill directing the Royal Horse Artillery shelling a house where a handful of anarchists were hiding during the 'Siege of Sidney Street'. A complete over-reaction!
@@johnhooper7040 It sounds like Boris will be losing his job as PM in the next few months -- as soon as another coalition government can be organized. Anyone that lies to the Queen to convince her to use her dictatorial powers to advance his cause (she is not one to use them) is not long for keeping his residence at 10 Downing St. I wouldn't be surprised if Boris is either deported back to the US or sent to prison for that little bit of fascism.
I think that even the soldiers mostly voted labour in that election because they were thinking that once they got back to England they would have nothing but Labour provided something new for them and provided them with the means to live once the war was over.
All the Tories had to offer our troops would be poverty and back-to-back housing if they'd gotten elected, and f*** whatever they did in the war. With the Tories you just end up with a status quo.
Looks a lot like complacency from the Conservatives ‘we’ve just won the war, how could anyone vote us out?”. Whilst Labour offered a lot of reforms and a better life to all those who made sacrifices during the war, a free health service, pensions, etc all of which was unavailable to them before the war. I’m sure that is a very simplistic way of looking at it and there are more subtleties and nuances I have missed. Loved the video and it would be good to learn of similar changes in other countries after the war, for example, how did political system change in Germany after the war.
That is part of the reason. The Conservatives put a lot less effort into their campaign, thinking they would win anyway. That would have made even more sense (for somebody in 1945) to do given the results of the 1944 US Presidential Election, and the fact that Labour had only ever briefly enjoyed power before 1945. Plus, the Conservatives had a large majority and led the wartime coalition government, so they would have assumed something along the lines of ''The people see us as leading Labour.'' But they managed to comeback and win in 1951 of course.
@@LukeSky2207 but notice they never stopped the NHS and social security system. They knew how popular it was and would have been incredibly stupid to have stopped it, even if we couldn't afford it in the short term.
What Labour offered after the war was cold and hunger. The greatest sacrifices of the British people were made after the war, not during it. The NHS was paid for by food rationing, coal rationing and delays to the re-bulding of the housing stock. Rationing was kept in place until 1954. Part of why Churchill lost was that the "reward" for Victory was food rations being cut to lower than wartime. I don't know how anyone can look back fondly at such a miserable time in history.
There was a parallel Marsh Report in Canada. Nationalization was not embraced, and the social programs were eased in starting with the “Veterans’ Bill”. Tommy Douglas, leader of the CCF (analogous to the Labour Party) visited Europe in the spring of 1945 and was popular among soldiers, more popular than among civilians back home. Most soldiers took a dim view of the unions who had organized strikes during the war, but were likely inspired by the lively debate of the Beveridge Report in Britain. Most Canadians in uniform had been living in Britain for years. Douglas would launch the first universal public healthcare in Saskatchewan. It was a fractious start as doctors went on strike in protest, but universal healthcare soon spread through all of Canada. Thus Canada took another step away from the politics and society of the USA.
I would like to know why Churchill called the election so soon after VE Day. Could he not have waited for a few months or at least until Japan had been defeated
He wanted to have it held off until Japan was defeated but Labour insisted on the resumption of the regular Diplomatic process and refused to continue the coalition.
That parliament was already well and truly into overtime with the previous election having been way back in 1935 so the maximum 5 year term ended sometime in 1940. Extension of the term of parliament then becomes possible but only with the agreement of the opposition and I believe the Labour party had agreed only until the defeat of Germany. Therefore Churchill could not have waited any longer but he could have called an earlier general election.
Whilst agreeing with the replies, so far given. There was a ground swell of opinion both within and outside of Parliament. Churchill could well have legally under the constitution stayed on as Prime minister until the Japanese surrendered ending the war. But submitted to public opinion and calling an election.
Simple. Britain was euphoric that peace had come and Churchill wanted to strike the iron whilst it was hot, little realizing that most Brits only regarded him as a war-time leader, albeit a great one
Labours policies in 1945 would be attacked as "populists" and extremist by the current blairite incarnation of the Labour Party. Come to think of it Labours 1980's policies would also be viewed in a similar manner by the current labour lot.
The policy of labour during the last general election was to cancel Brexit and ignore the majority will of the electorate. I wouldn't say the vote for Boris was purely populist against policy. Though considering Diane Abbott is still part of labours front benches you have to wonder how much populism versus policy there is in the Labour party
@Philip Greenwald @Philip Greenwald Lol, when Tories get hand in hand with racist thugs and antisemites, you blame the most progressive men in Labour for a crime they didn't commit? Where are the evidence that Labour's left are genocidal antisemites? The Sun? Starmer boot out the Left thinking he would got more votes when siding with the Liberal wing, now he will only get shadow dung for it.
An old constituency agent told me that the most interesting thing about 1945 was the REVIVAL of the Tories. He said that a few months earlier they wouldn’t have won a single seat. Also Labour said they would bring the service people home - and they did.
Churchill’s great talent during the Second World War was inspiring the British people to persevere until victory over the Axis was achieved. As a military or political leader, he was not that great. During the First World War, he was responsible for the Gallipoli disaster, and during the Second World War, wanted to declare war against the Soviet Union to protect Finland. That would have cemented Germany and Russia together, and the European War might never have been won. The British political system also contributed to the Conservatives’ defeat. In Britain, parliamentary elections are required every five years, except in time of war. The last election was in 1935, but since the war started in 1939, there was no election until 1945. Thus, the 1945 election was the first time the British people had a chance to express an opinion on the Conservative performance since 1935.
You could say he was great leader who provided common goal and managed to inspire courage. However peacetime demands better managerial skills about governance and Churchill was lacking in them even if he was great leader.
@@nobleman9393 Germany would have loved nothing more to see GB and the USSR at war. Hitler made several attempts to convince Stalin to invade Iran in 40.
Fair points, though Britain declaring war on the USSR would have made next to no difference in the long run. The nazis hated the bolsheviks and communism as much as Jews, and both Hitler and Stalin planned to betray the other when their forces were ready. It's just that Germany's were ready first.
Shirtless . I always thought that Churchill was responsible for Gallipoli which he was with others who he drew the plan up with then I saw a documentary that said at the last moments Churchill wanted to abandon the Gallipoli plan but he was over ruled by others and the Gallipoli plan was to go ahead which of course it did.
It's a good question. The short answer is that our electoral system is skewed. Labour received more votes in 1951 than the Conservatives but won fewer seats.
If we look for 1950 and 1951c elections, we found out, that the Labour party was slightly ahead of the Conservatives in both of these elections in the total votes. But the Conservatives managed to win much more key marginals than the Labour in 1951, and so they got the majority thanks to the election system. The same thing happened in Canada earlier in this year. The Conservatives won the total votes, but the Liberals had a better placing of their votes and so they got more seats than the Conservatives.
@@Crashed131963 Funnily enough, after campaigning previously on changing the electoral system to be more fair. Of course that went out of window as soon as he was elected.
@@maggiessky7482 That has happened in the opposite direction multiple times as well. It's a quirk of all representative democracies that occasionally the party with slightly less votes will win an election.
So the British public almost saw Churchill as the “emergency measures” kind of guy. It was like handing control of the Roman Empire to a prominent general while the barbarians are at the walls, and then returning power to the bureaucrats when the threat is over
Tojo? Dont think your timelines are correct. Tojo lost his premiership with the fall of thr Marianas in July 1944. The Japanese prime minister in July 1945 was Kantaro Suzuki.
Churchill wasn't defeated in the '45 election, it was the Conservative party that lost. There are many reasons for the landslide but a couple were that they were largely associated with the Depression and they had a significant number of their leading lights were openly friendly with the Nazis before the war.
I agree it was a factor (Labour had every incentive to milk it for political gain), but the Labour party were not nearly as anti-Nazi/anti-appeasement as is claimed. They were calling for general strikes if there was a war, as well as many of them being in favour of demilitarisation (Chamberlain, despite being known as the worst of the appeasers, was actually increasing military spending at a time when many in Labour were calling for less military spending to avoid war). Most of the intelligentsia and public were anti-war and pro-appeasement as a result of WW1, so I don't think it was a problem unique to the Tory party.
He may have lost the election but he won the war, he served his purpose & we are mightily grateful of this, a fine Man that courageously stood up to a monster.
@@alexj7440 Sorry ime not aware of this or any other monstrosities he may have been behind, he did lead Britain well during World War 2 & wouldn't have succeeded had he not been a bad ass.
@@alexj7440 oh come on, this might be your game here but please don't expect me to know everything, do you know where our intelligence comes from, do you know what happened to Mars, do you know how the roman war machine was driven, do you care about this planet, so what if Churchill was a racist, he was there when it mattered & nazis were brutal, I dont know, what exactly you getting at here, what you been told or what you really know, alien galactic warfare spring to mind?
An unmentioned aspect by our friend above is the services vote for Labour was close to 100%. 'You could weigh it' some said. My Father was campaigning in Taunton told his fellow campaigners 'if a voter says Churchill won us the War or he is a great man do not argue. Say, Yes. He was great for the War but we not for the peace. We need...' Labour before the War fought against spending on the Military so they could have been seen as responsible for Hitler as the Tories in this way if not in others. Churchill made a terrible blunder in not following Keynes advice to not go back onto the Gold Standard. Going back on the Gold Standard hindered even crippled the UK economy. To the bombing of civilians. Germany brought back a massive number of its fighters to protect its cities. Plus its 88's a very effective anti-tank and anti-aircraft gun. I think 600,000 Germans were klled by bombing? 24 Million Russians were killed by the Germans then there was torture & the mass murder of other peoples including Jewish people. Dreden is often used by Neo Fascists with a list of lies. The War was not over, mass killing by the Germans had not stopped. Stalin had asked the Allies to bomb Dreden.
@@Matt-uk7zq Keynes has been frequently proven right in his advocacy for government spending and handling of economic crisis. It's the austerity economists who have been repudiated time and again.
A lovely video. I had always wondered how such a popular wartime leader could have lost before the war was over. One, super-nitpicky note: Harry S Truman has no period after the S, as his middle name is the letter S, and not S. short for something else.
I love it when someone knows the S didn't stand for anything. Trueman was from more common stock but was a big admirer of Grant. Not sure if that's where or why the S came about but it was a quiz tie breaker question back in 1990 and I have never forgotten it. Some interesting trivia around US Presidents.
Good video. How about some videos on how the museum obtained some of the vehicles and planes that they have? Always been interested in the history of the tanks in the Land warfare building. Thanks!
I think it’s interesting how a policy proposal like the Beveridge Report could have such a massive impact. Every election around the world is inundated with proposals and reports like that and yet they seem to have very little impact overall - the fact that this one caused such a shift in the discourse is really interesting.
Thank you for this piece. It was a question in the back of my mind that I never looked up. It was great to see your video. My next question would be .. Didn't Churchill win the position of Prime Minister again afterwards? Why did that happen? The Labour Party did not come through with their promises?
The Labour Party did succeed with most of their aims but the country was bankrupt, times were hard and the reforming zeal of the public soon wore off. When Churchill returned to power, he was already suffering from Dementia, it made no difference, Tories are masters of propaganda and spin.
@@tedf1471 I should bow to superior knowledge, BUT. I've seen too much current day use of the term "dementia " by non medical professionals. It frankly reeks of name calling. I've dealt with dementia in family members. They can't FAKE normality. Churchill was aging, he'd lost a few steps. I don't very much it went beyond that.
@@brianthomas2434 Brian, my main focus and interest has been Attlee but The comparison between the two men is fascinating. Churchill was a functioning alchoholic, heavy smoker and yet could be incisive and brilliant, he could also have long periods of 'Black Dog' where he drank, slept and did very little else. In his final Post War Government, he suffered 3 major strokes and his vascular dementia gradually eroded his personality to the point where he really was only a figurehead.
@@tedf1471 It is thought that Churchill was bipolar and we didn't have medications to treat it back then. Also, the guy is one of the few that would have had a chance of drinking me under the table (and I was one hell of a drinker myself), he always had a drink in his hand. He was reasonable as a war PM but I see where he would have been an abysmal failure at rebuilding the UK after Adolf destroyed 2/3 of the country. I do wonder that if he weren't a roaring alcoholic if he would not have had the strokes and would have survived another ten years, though.
Clement Attlee brought the NHS to the UK, which was the greatest, most positive accomplishment of any UK prime minister, ever. Churchill condemned as many people to death as Stalin through his deliberate starvation of Bangladesh. Oh, and he was also against giving women the right to vote.
Without Attlee, India’s Independence in 1947 would’ve further delayed. Don’t know much about the UK politics but I think Attlee is arguably one of the best (if not the best) PM The UK ever had.
knowing him, he'd claim he would follow it during the next leadership election then when he wins, he would suspend every mp who supported it, claim it to be an unelectable position and then promise businesses he wouldnt implement it while at the sametime offering no clear alternative or difference in a labour goverment to that of Boris's
In a book I read about Churchill it alleged that in 1945 Churchill had second thoughts about the Official Secrets Act which he introduced in WW1 and wanted to repeal it, he also wanted to considerably reduce the budgets of the Intelligence Services who he thought had become too big fighting Germany. Having their expertise against him won't have helped.
So voters are said to blame the Tories for "not standing up to Hitler" in the 1930s. Doesn't seem to me to ring true. Yes in 1939 popular opinion ran strongly in favor of war, pretty well forcing Chamberlain to declare it; but since Churchill had at that time opposed "appeasement", that is a reason for voters to re-elect him in 1945. The election result is a puzzle, but my theory is that while everyone admired Churchill for his leadership they were horrified by the reality of 6 years of war and reacted against those who had begun it - even though, as above, they had in 1939 supported it. I had occasion to meet Beveridge in 1960. A very affable man - yet he authored a basically Communist program, from whose implementation Britain took at least 40 years to recover.
Read this book: Never Again by Peter Hennessy In a lively, stirring history of the postwar epoch that molded Britain's baby boomer generation, Hennessy argues that Britain's economic decline was far from inevitable. Despite a more than adequate industrial base, postwar Britain slipped from superpowerdom, in his view, because of a refusal to abandon its dreams of global empire (notwithstanding the relinquishing of India and Palestine) and because of the increasing economic strain imposed by the Cold War. Professor of contemporary history at the University of London, Hennessy shuttles between high politics and everyday experience, illuminating the Labour Party's ascent, Britain's emergence as a nuclear power, popular culture in the pre-television era, and what he sees as the period's crowning achievement--a national welfare program encompassing universal health benefits, social security, unemployment insurance and aid for housing and education. Photos. (Apr.)
"You can always depend on the Americans doing the right thing, after they have tried everything else" Winston Churchill quote. This was the kind of man that he really was.
@@minimax9452 it isn't a myth. Even though there were many other factors leading to the famine, the main one was that churchill deliberately took grain from bengal to Britain as reserve stockpiles for british soldiers. He said that starvation of anyways underfed bengalis mattered much less than sturdy Europeans
@@novemberguy9 sorry - I meant the „hero - superstar hype about churchill“ is a myth. beside this he was a warmoger, a mediocre talented military and an alcoholic.
Lots of people had their own reasons i would imagine,the older members of my family i spoke to over the years didn't like Churchill as they said he was a loudmouth and a warmonger,but in more words
@@minimax9452 As somebody like most Anglos with distent Family in Germany, it's sad to see somebody who firebombed thousands as a Hero,But be careful what you say brother or you will be in a Gulag before you know it
@@minimax9452 Was just saying a guy like Churchill burned tens of thousands of civilians in air raids and is remembered as a Good bloke.Off-topic but i hope you have a nice Christmas all the best
It boggles my mind how Churchill managed to stay in positions of significant political influence this long. Gallipoli and Singapore happened on his watch, two major embarrassments for the country.
One often forgets just how poor the bulk of the British people we’re after the war. Rationing was still harsh and British soldiers throughout the war made less income than most soldiers form other nations and just 1/3 of American GIs. Britain was poor and the British people wanted some safety for their daily lives back
It wasn't all just NHS and National Insurance policies that Labour were known for post '45 election during the next 5 years the £ devalued by 30%, austerity measures had to put in place to curb national debt and by 1950 the country was still using rationing books. Ultimately this lead to Churchill coming back into power by 1951 after which Britain went through a period of economic boom right through to the early 60's.
How could he have won? Britons like my parents weren’t going back to the hard lives they had before the war - not after six years fighting. The Cons were still the party of the establishment and the big estates, and Labour was the only option. People have short memories.
Umm what about the 4 million Indians he killed in Bengali famine 1943, wait nvm they Brits they like to ignore the cruelties they did but want to pinpoint nazis for being cruel
Usually the death rates are not that high, 2-3 million are more common. In defense, I can say that the situation was bad and the ability to send help was iow. The aid the United States wanted to send, which Churchill said no to, would not have arrived in time. But the lack of attempt to help shows what he stands for. Although if relief efforts had not succeeded in rescuing so many, at least it had looked good, and people had been more forgiving, especially in India. But England were not interested in helping when Ireland starved, so it seems to be something recurring. Probably because the aristocracy had all the power and they saw the people as something like cattle. They were not very considerate of their own people either.
@@Waterford1992 really? Then why you guys still caring for people who support nazis, in most of europe supporting hitler is punishable by jail, seriously sod off germany already said sorry 1000000 times yet why you guys still care about them,they 75 years ago while britan never said sorry for even 1 of the 1000 tragerties they caused in india
@@జై-తెలుగు-తల్లి Because it was Japan that took over Burma does losing the rice fields that feed Bangladesh, heavy rain that destroyed crops, a war that forced shipping to be in convoys that hampered transport of food, internal politics in India that was unhelpful and US that could not spare shipping at that time for there where at war with Japan that controlled most of Pacific at that time.
@@Lunkwow no? Burma didn't feed bengal,bengal was an large exporter of food to other countries ever since British colonized it,it never once faced food shortages when British didnt rule them and about 300 million people or 5% of entire world still live in an area which smaller than United Kingdom,it has largest population density in world and has most fertile land and highest number of rivers,70% of bengal land is fertile while Burma just 15% so they don't relly on burma for food Now British either brunt all the food reserves and crops in 1943 or exported them to britan Then when famine struck,British officials in that area begged wiston Churchill to send food here but he didn't and instead of helping a slight bit he made it worse He was still exporting food to act as extra extra reserves for British soilders in Greece and Yugoslavia,they already had alot of reserves,they didn't need more at all and all the food was wasted while millions died American and austrilian ships carrying food came to help them but British blocked them Atleast he could have let those ships give food which would have saved hundreads of thousands of life but nope
I remember growing up in Scotland in the 1940's and Churchill was very unpopular there, at least among the working class, which included most Scots at that time. We used to boo him whenever he came on the newsreel at the "pictures", which is what we called the cinema. My grandfather never forgave him for the Dardanelles disaster in the Great War. He, my grandfather, fought in that debacle. Churchill was probably equally unpopular among the soldiers at the end of the war and for similar reasons. I have often wondered if he deserves the glowing wartime reputation accorded to him in the postwar years. It is so at odds with my personal recollections. Indeed I have suspected that it might have been deliberately built up for political purposes.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Another factor is that there had been no general election since 1935. It was the people's first chance to speak in 10 years.
Didn't they rather have an abrupt change of mind in 1951, and maintained it for 13 years thereafter?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 1951 labour got more votes and the tories has accepted all of labour policy by then, the issue was uncontested seats the tories held in 1951.
Really? Why’s that?
@@WhoIsJohnGaltt in the past unlike today. certain seats were handed down by family until they reformed it.
@@coronaviruskillerforthegoo3353 ohh no not that. I was talking about why they were able to vote at all til then
Another thing that Attlee started was the liquidation of the British Empire starting with the Indian independence. That important event is untouched in this video. Indians were certainly happy that Attlee won in 1945 which paved the way for their independence in 1947. Churchill was vehemently opposed to that idea.
And that in my opinion is one of the great beauties of social democrats of yestertime. They were not just a different shade of gray but represented very different values and ways of thinking - like sympathies for Indian independence - that are avant-garde to some even today.
A good man indeed, he deserves a movie
Warmonger Churchill would never approve dissolving of his genocidal empire.
The heart of the empire died in 1965 and the rest of it truely died in 1999 with the loss of Hong Kong, Churchill would be sad to see what has happened to the nation he lead to great triumph, a place where the English aren’t even a majority in their own capital city anymore
that's because he was mega racist towards the people of India. as well as Africa, native Americans, Australia aborigines, Irish and even supported the movement "keep England white"
From what I've read about Churchill in the extra history magazines, he took the defeat gracefully enough. They quoted him in his speech as saying something like: "We have no right to grumble or complain. This is democracy. It is what we have fought, strived and sacrificed to protect these last five years."
Some people should take note ;)
@@BalloonInTheBalloon Very much so
@@chrismaddock5790 Some people 😂 couldn't even tell you who Churchill was. People are saying. Some people. 🤣
If he saw Britain today I think he would’ve taken a completely different approach to a rising Germany back then.
@@LectionesInterbellum What are you even talking about, I assure you the Great British people still have grit and heart in our Nation. Politics is one thing but the PEOPLE are another.
One interesting anecdote that Churchill told in his post-war memoirs is that when he was talking to Stalin in 1945 about the upcoming election, Churchill said he wasn't quite sure what the result would be, which surprised Stalin, who expressed his disbelief that people could vote out the leader that won them the war, regardless of their disagreements on political matters.
Well yeah, naturally Stalin would have disbelief.... he didn't even give his people the choice to vote him out and if they tried he'd have them shot.
I mean if this is true, you realize Stalin often killed people for "disagreements on political matters" ?
@@BelCamryn I'm aware of what Stalin was like. I just thought it was an interesting anecdote, showing how Stalin fundamentally misunderstood Western democracy by thinking that winning a war is all that matters.
Stalin wiser than most British
@@BelCamryn funny thing is that none of that is actually true. Stalin actually tried to resign from office several times and was turned down each time, and there were general elections.
The idea that Stalin murdered anyone who disagreed with him is also ahistorical and far more of a folk tale than a historical reality according to archival information.
@@alexp8785 I think that what you said is a bunch of baloney.
I read once that when children from the city were sent to country estates during the war, people who took these children couldn't believe how these children were being raised, dirty, no health care of any type, not potty trained, etc. How could this be allowed in Britain? Many who supported the Conservatives and Churchill felt there was a need for radical change in the government ....
Correct, and the kids could not believe how the other half lived. WW2 changed a lot of peoples perspective as did WW1.
They were butt hurt.
@@danielfronc4304 ah yes, demanding basic human rights is being butthurt, typical conservative 🤦♂️. Let me guess, you think universal healthcare is communist and that we should go back to the good old days when black people had no rights
Still does need change. A lot of the current UK governement want to get rid of Human Rights. They say it on flm! Who would vote for someone that wants to deprive them of their rights?!? Yet millions did. It's possible they didn't understand what a loss of their rights would entail. Yet they still voted for them.
@「 Deadpoppin 」 cringe
One of my history teachers tried to say Churchill's loss was a mystery, so I asked a family friend Betty (he husband has served in the Merchant Navy during ww2), she said, "what, no mystery, he didn't support the NHS". As stated in the video, I really got the sense they wanted huge change.
They wanted huge change, and the majority of people didn't like him from the start.
History has been distorted by people like Margarete Thatcher, who tried to shift history to their liking and as a result the country idiolized people that do not deserve praise, apart from maybe one achievement that they ultimately won through being forced into the situation.
Exactly. People had just been through two world wars and wanted the government to actually do things to benefit the people. What's the point in "fighting for freedom" when you live in squalor in peace time?
@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 not fully true since he became prime minister again in 1951. I hate Margaret Thatcher as much as you probably do, but that does not mean we can generalise an entire population with out own view, especially a population you we likely never a part of.
Your history teacher must be a big fan of Churchill. Why else would they say that it's a mystery when the answer was so obvious for anyone that give even the slightest effort on doing their research.
@@robbieaulia6462 Indeed, although this was the late 80's early 90's. Research was a little different back then :).
TL;DR this is a rare case of democracy doing exactly what it should, giving a country the right leaders for the right time. a good war leader during a serious war, and a reconstruction-focused leader afterwards.
Who was then booted out by Churchill 6 years later…
Reconstruction?…
Well, let’s see - a third of our budget goes to a failing NHS where you can’t see a dr unless you have a private insurance. Fact.
The second third goes to a failing welfare system where people can’t find social housing and can’t afford heating.
What’s left goes to more wars and killings of millions of innocent people.
A bit left for rubbish state schools who don’t get funded so have to ask the parents for money.
That turned out really well
Who's to say other leaders couldn't have done better. The conservatives left the British army in tatters, underfunded, under equipped and totally unprepared for a war with Germany. Their diplomacy was terrible too. A Labour government would probably have a better understanding with the USSR than the aristorcratic Torys who fear Communism more than Fascism. True that Churchill was not his party's leader at the time, but it was his party.
@@Ron.S. it did turn out well. Until the conservatives cut funding and cut funding and cut funding even more so that they can profit as much as possible while tricking people like you to believe that social policies like the NHS are a bad idea
@@imienazwisko4219 firstly, I think you can see that I’ve got nothing against social policies. I do agree with your point though. It’s simply so frustrating to see the NHS in such horrible state. If I cast my mind back to 2005 for example, everything was good indeed.
But people wanted to “get Brexit done”. Corbyn was the perfect and once in a lifetime Labour candidate for PM
Churchill and the Conservative Party were focused on punishing Germany and Japan for losing or (at the time of the election) certain to lose WW2. Labour on the other hand, were focused on rebuilding the nation and bringing in the financial securities for people that had been lacking in the prewar years. As said in Days that shook the world: "... As for those who led the country through the war, Winston Churchill got back into parliament, but now in opposition, the people cheered him still as he made his way to Westminster, they weren't prepared to entrust him with the peace."
Churchhill was one of the only Allied leaders not interested in punishing the Germans and Japanese, he believed they had had enough and punishing them any further then what the war had already done would just be the same racial cruelness they exercised. He wanted to Nuke Moscow tho
@@deason2365 Actually, he favoured executing all of the Nazi High command and all the leaders who were captured by the Allies. Of course he changed his mind and took the stance of the Americans and called for a trial, hence Nuremberg.
@@Frserthegreenengine yes he wanted too punish Nazis, witch wasn't a bad Idea it beats funding them so they can found the Gestapo on American soil, errr I mean the CIA. but as far as the German peaple, he spoke out many times against forcing all ethnic Germans in Europe back to Germany, hundreds of thousands of them had never been to Germany or even spoke the Language, he spoke out many times about the treatment of the German peaple after the War.
Did you know they reelected him some five years later?
@@stevek8829 yes, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote and did next to nothing from 1951-55
What a lot of people don’t know is that Attlee was the Deputy Prime Minister (second most important government person) to Churchill since 1940 with many Labour government members such as Herbert Morrison (home minister) and Arthur Alexander (head of the Royal Navy). Attlee and the other Labour leaders had shown themselves that they had done a good enough job during the war to govern by themselves and to do at least a good as job as the Conservatives had done.
Churchill was a great war leader, but he needed a good number two, Attlee, to keep the country running to be part of the winning side. It really gets me when the right wing start shouting about defending our history and stand in front of Churchill's statue in an aggressive pose. Attlee's statue is no longer on public view, it was subjected several attacks by vandals, right wing vandals.
@@clivemortimore8203 Churchill was also a monster in his own right. He had millions of Indians killed.
@@clivemortimore8203 In today's political climate, Attlee's 1945 Govt. would be considered extreme right wing.
shame that can't be done today! In Australia, during covid, our opposition did the right thing & supported the government fully so as to let them manage it, but they certainly weren't gifted with any positions or privilege in return for doing that.
Our national government was actually completely incompetent in managing covid & everyone knew it, but the opposition also knew that calling them out on it would just make the whole situation worse, so they did the right thing & stayed quiet & the state governments stepped up & did the federal government's job for them, overall with both sides of politics working together & putting politics aside to do what was right for the country & what was needed (since different states had different parties as their government).
As soon as we rewarded the opposition government for doing the right thing & gave them the government in May of this year, the government from the covid era immediately began actively sabotaging them & sledging them & causing International issues for them, cause they just can't help themselves, they're pathetic! That's why we voted them out!
@@vincekerrigan8300 fiscally? No way. Socially, maybe but I don't think so.
From a non-UK citizen, very well explained. Thank you.
As an Indian I must say that if Churchill had come to power our independence in 1947 would get delayed further
So much blood on his hands.. The real culprit of the public masaacre due to Bengal famine
@@raghave1043 Nonsense. Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit your agenda.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 OH look thief british agencies bot commenting
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Tell this all to those 3M Bengalis who died in that famine.
Moreover, this is not agenda; this is truth.
@@dovetonsturdee7033
Churchill absolutely KNEW what was taking place in India, but he simply didn't gave af. He was notoriously racist towards indians(not a propaganda, rather his own words prove it) so he didn't care to help the people suffering.
Churchill has been quoted as blaming the famine on the fact Indians were “breeding like rabbits”, and asking, "if the shortages were so bad, How's Mahatma Gandhi was still alive?"
His role in those millions of deaths is the similar to Stalin's in those infamous Soviet familes. But one of them escaped the blame.
Churchill lost because men like my father after being demobbed were determined that things were going to be different. He remembered how badly treated men like his father had been after fighting the 1st war.
The same with my father (Royal Naval Patrol Service) and grandfather (Royal Flying Corps , WW1 and RAF, WW2), they wanted to come home to a better country for everyone.
It was the 1st war that did huge damage to this nation and for what ?
What did Britain Fain for that stupidity !
Continue...
@@juscholten4248 - So gullible for propaganda.
NS Germany wasn't even interested in Western Europe had it not been for Britain and France declaring war on them. Instead all it cost Britain was it's own lives, debt and consequently had them loose their oppressive empire.
Churchill comes from the ruling class pretending to be working class to better use them. Classic British trick
Britain was euphoric that peace had come while most Brits only regarded Churchill as a war-time leader, albeit a great one. They were also fed up with the the unfairness of the elitest class team, as was well shown in the military heirarchy. At least that´s the way my parents - who were both active in the war - remembered it.
By '50/'51 sentiment had shifted sharply though and Churchill was returned to power
I know the British people were glad the War in Europe was over,but did they forget they were still fighting a war in the far East against Japan ?
@@hubertwalters4300 They didn't care about fighting Japan. Japan was no threat to the UK, and no one wanted to go die so the empire could hold on to its far east colonies. Anti-colonial sentiments were rapidly rising in the general population at this time, which was seen to only benefit the wealthy upper class.
@@densityboy Are you saying the British people didn't care about their alliance with the US against Japan and they didn't care that tens of thousands of British troops were being held by the Japanese as pow's.
@@hubertwalters4300 I mean, not enough to vote for Churchill obviously. Besides, by this point Japan was clearly defeated and everyone knew it, it was just a matter of how long they would hold out for, which turned out to be not very.
As an American whose Grandfather voted Roosevelt for an unprecedented 4th term in 1944 I always wondered. Thank you.
FDR was an impressive President. One of the best certainly. Especially impressive considering his condition.
It has been said that FDR dragged the War out a bit. If Normandy had happened in 1943, and Europe was freed by 1944, HE may have lost that year. Although, I don't know that Japan would have capitulated before August, 1945, in the absence of the Atomic bomb.
My Late Dad was too young to vote, when he was drafted (at age eighteen, on the day of the Normandy invasion.) He served in the Ski Patrol in Italy. He reminded me of that when I complained about the drinking age being raised back up to 21-of course they could not legally drink below 21, either.
@@drpoundsign We were in no way ready for a 1943 invasion.
@@edwardpate6128 Dieppe proved it couldn't be done in 1942
I was helping write a biography and was researching wartime conditions for children. One thing that shocked me was that the blitz ended up being a positive for the country, before most of the country still lived in Victorian era slums. We didn't just need to rebuild, we had to revaluate our country.
"the blitz ended up being a positive for the country, before most still lived in Victorian era slums"
*"wow, I went from being alive in a slum in Europe, one of the better countries to live in on the whole face of the earth, to being either an orphan or a mangled corpse on top of a pile of flaming rubble!"*
*"what an upgrade! Thanks, Germany!"*
@@hobomike6935 the same is said of Jack the Ripper. Greatest social reformer, of the Victorian age?.
Churchill said roughly the same thing in his "History of World War II," that the results were a referendum on the party. He went to far as to suggest that many voters didn't ever realize that a vote for Labor would put him out of office. All in all, in made for an abrupt ending to the book, which had described all the events in such detail, only to come to an abrupt halt, just as the ware was about to end.
Until Churchill came back in 1951.
That's how it should be. People today vote too much on the people [they perceive] instead of their policies [that are seen by party alignments]
@@hashbrown777 On the image of the person, true or false. No one with sense would vote for boris now after all we have seen (and warned people about)
This is not true. The other parties agreed not to stand against Churchill as MP but over 20,000 people voted for an obvious lunatic who also stood.
I believe that Attlee promoted the social welfare legislation during the war and threatened to withdraw from the National Government should Churchill fail to support it. A most effective politician, Attlee, albeit with no obvious charisma. How times change! 🤔
Probably the best Prime Minister we ever had. But so lacking in 'charisma' that he could use public transport. Someone asked him once on the bus "Do you know you look just like Clement Attlee?" He replied with "Others have commented on that".
@@tedf1471
One could make that argument about Attlee by narrowing to since the Victorian Era; otherwise, Atlee has severe competition from Palmerston, Pitt the Elder, Walpole…Attlee was more effective than MacMillan or Cameron or Wilson, more beneficial than Thatcher in the internal sphere, and essentially the inverse of Tony Blair (Blair started out in a golden situation economically, then got the country involved in the Middle East and the Great Recession, among other troubles)
Among interwar figures, I don’t think Lloyd George or Baldwin or MacDonald are 1% better, if they equal him at all
@@warlordofbritannia I will admit to something of an obsession with Attlee and am fairly ignorant pre Victorian Premiers.
@@warlordofbritannia Walpole? Is that the south sea bubble Walpole?
@@silkychan6099
Outside of that debacle (which had little to do with him or his abilities in the grand scheme of things) he’s one of the most impressive political figures in British history
I remember reading Field marshal Bernard Montgomery's book "the path to leadership" (a great book and honestly quite of a lot of it is still relevant to today) and in the chapter on Churchill, he expressed that he was glad that he lost the election as he needed a break. Which was completely true. The man worked tirelessly and even had a desk built into his bed so he could continue his work the moment he woke up. Imagine working round the clock for 4 and a half years, working through the Dunkirk evacuations, countless allied country's capitulations, the battle of the Atlantic which damn near brought Britain to it's knees. And even then this was the tip of the iceberg.
I imagine the champagne and cigars at the Savoy probably helped. Churchill is far too lionised in this country. He was a good wartime leader. He was also an utter bastard.
@@attackpatterndelta8949 I totally agree.
@@attackpatterndelta8949 Churchill was a fantastic leader in and out of wartime.
@@nathanielgonsalves5073 Churchill was s poor peacetime leader .He was of the aristocracy and didn't really care about the working man who he was completely out of touch with . The NHS ,the welfare state ,pensions and decent house building to clear slums and bomb damage would never have happened under Churchill.
@@attackpatterndelta8949 Churchill was on phone with Hitler when Hitler had called and said we are ready for Britain next and Chiurchill conned Hitler saying come now as we are ready and waiting ..If Germany did come to Britain at that time , then Britian would have been taken over , this was Germanys big mistake as Britain was then inbetween all this just getting ready for war , and were not ready at that time continued v
Thankfully by the time Hitlers Germany did come , then Britain was at the ready and the rest is history .
Well done to Churchill a leader of men .
Keep in mind churchill headed a government of national unity. So it's not like people voted against the wartime government, just for one wing of it. Also it's a parlamentary system not a presidental as in the US.
Also there had not been an election for ten years and there had been national unity governments since 1931. And the government prior to the national unity governments was a Labour government.
Exactly. Clement Attlee was Churchill's deputy prime minister during world war 2. The British public knew the Labour party contributed to Britain's victory.
Simple. Good wartime leader, bad peacetime leader. Churchill is like Captain america, relish the fighting and cannot settle down easily for an easy life.
I agree. He could lead them through ww2 darkest moments but he was kinda weird. He was a pretty big racist.
@@alanfisher9691 By the standards of his time? Not really. I mean lets be real here this was the US was still under Jim Crow laws, the military was still racially segregated, and nothing would really change until the 1960's. And obviously Stalin's genocidal track-record speaks for itself.
@@inxe8 jeez peach sounds like a big number.
That is true, but the question is how did they manage to get that message to the public so well? Especially come out fresh from a gigantic victory against Hitler.
@@lopezmario4633 I forgot that Churchill was actually elected during the downfall of Chambelein because he failed to stop WW2 from happening. Churchill was indeed the wartime leader that UK needed.
My parent's voted Labour in that election. Although they admired and respected Churchill, they didn't like the Party he represented. They told me that they didn't want the Country to go back to the 1930's hardships, which was prevalent under the Conservative's at that time. The Labour Party and it's promise of Healthcare and a better life for the Working Class, seemed a better offer than the alternative proposed by the Ruling classes. I was 10 years old, but understood a lot of what they were against. Illnesses I saw at school, such as Rickets, Impetigo, severe Bronchial infections caused by unhygienic living conditions, Boils, Scarlet Fever and Diphtheria, were common in those days, but are not so widespread today, thanks to the Welfare State bringing free medicine to those who couldn't afford a Doctor's visit before
Dave Wilson. You're right, I remember it well.
Funny how that destroyed your country and is now a terrible place to live because of it.
Nailed it. I grew up after the War.
This is precisely what my elderly father told me years ago when I asked him why Churchill lost the 1945 election. Many felt real change was needed after the war.
@Wallace Carney `Yep,its been re-privatised by these pillocks,nowt against yanks, but get yo money aht of ah health service,string up the bastards that allowed it.
Churchill was so blinded by the victory that he kept aside and overlooked his campaign, peoples were fed up of Wars which they saw in the opposition camp.
Churchill was still concerned with the war against Japan.
Churchill was so blinded by the war that he basically handed over domestic policy to Labour long before the election happened.
@@madrexertheboredtm7728 Japan still held vast territory and wasn’t going to give up without causing the Allies and Comintern serious casualties.
That’s actually one of two reasons America nuked Japan:
1) Please give up before more cities go boom.
2) USSR, see how powerful we are. Don’t annoy us.
@@madrexertheboredtm7728 They where still causing damage tough, they where doing great advances in to China
If I remember correctly even the late Tony Benn, who was as red a "Socialist" as Churchill was a blue "Tory", agreed that Churchill was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. To step up and be the Wartime British Leader. Also bear in mind that Attlee was Deputy Prime Minister for the duration. The "jobs" being divided between the two, insomuch as Attlee ran the country, leaving Churchill to deal with the war......
So true. Could you ever imagine a tory of the day or even now for that matter comming up with a ration system that wouldnt have gave 90% to the aristos .
Benn was a coward who used his fathers connections to get a safe job in the war, then got commissioned in the raf in Rhodesia in the last month to pretend he was "one of the few".
@@stuartsviews1565 Here comes the Tory troll again spouting nonsense and spitting bile.
Atlee wasn't as much of a imperial hardliner
@@stephencunningham6557 except it is verifiably true
This fails to even mention what I consider a significant factor, and one which used to be widely recognised. But Churchill has been somewhat lionised since his death so it's probably not surprising. The fact is that the regular Tommy, the men that made up the bulk of the nation's fighting forces, were in large part working class people, and they never forgot that in the National Strike in the pre-war years it was Winston Churchil who set the troops upon the striking miners. While they recognised his abilities as a wartime leader, they never forgot his actions against their working-class brethren.
@NoneOfYour Beeswax - and as Thatcher is also lionised. She set her version of 'troops ' upon the miners.
And Churchill was seen as a warmonger up until Germany began renegging on its diplomatic agreements. He was the right man during wartime but seemed utterly out of place to many in peace time.
People were called on to suffer with hardships and shortages all throughout the war and finally wanted to see something come as a result of their efforts and sacrifices.
And they had more shortages over the next 5 years then they had during the war. The labor party had to borrow so much money to fulfill the give me free stuff policies that it lead to leave India and Isreal.
You seem to make granting independence to India and Palestine sound seem like a bad thing.
As for the "give me free stuff", those were all things the *people* had earned, and they were just being redistributed.
Do not forget what an incredibly rigid social, economic and political system they had (and still have to a great extent) and how the distribution of wealth was highly skewed to the upper classes.
@@paulbrasier372 As an Indian, I'd say, even Churchill would not have been able to hold Indian independence afterwards. There would have been WW3 if that happened. Indian soldiers who returned from WW2 saw how weak Britain was and had started mutinies all over. The INA was allying with the Japanese and the Germans. Gandhi was no longer being respected by Indians and Indians were randomly killing the British everywhere. There was chaos which no amount of British reinforcement could have handled. Not to mention that the British were having issues with the Irish closer home and the Soviet Union was creeping towards India. There was increasing support for communism all over Asia. The only quick solution the British could think was create the buffer states of Pakistan and Tibet and leave the scene. The US which stayed around got hurt really bad in both South Korea and Vietnam. And Britain was not as big as the US and India was not as tiny as Vietnam.
The permanent relegation to a second tier status, they got what they asked for. Britain was no longer the best of innovations after Labor party. But I guess you do get the lower quality healthcare called NHS.
They lost their Empire. You forget what a stratified, you class-based society the were and still are. Before NHS, people had the freedom to die for lack of medical care.
It's hard to believe in these times of ultra partisan politics how you might admire the leader of a party but vote for his opponent. Yet that is what clearly happened in 1945. I have spoken to many people who were active in that election and it was clear while they were happy with Churchill's war time leadership they did not want him to lead them in peace time. We also have to understand that Churchill did not lead a Conservative government, During the war he led a national coalition government. Labour gained much prestige for their involvement in that. Attlee the Labour leader was even made Deputy Prime Minister and chaired the war cabinet when Churchill was overseas on his many international meetings. During the war much of British industry came under the direct control of government. One of Churchill's de facto decisions was to bring the railways under state control (but not ownership) iron, steel and coal production was all state controlled. Even the crops planted on farms was decided by a state controlled committee and if farmers failed to comply their land would be removed and farmed by others. Many began to think 'if our nation's production can be organised to defeat Hitler, why cant we do the same to defeat the five major problems identified by Beveridge;" want (caused by poverty), ignorance (caused by a lack of education) squalor (caused by poor housing), idleness (caused by a lack of jobs, or the ability to gain employment) and disease (caused by inadequate health care provision).
this is exactly the reasoning Oscar Lange used to propose government planning like in war time but for social benefit of the whole population. and I believe this to be correct, the economy should work for the social benefit of all instead of just a tiny minority at the top
Very interesting viewpoint. Thank you.
I first learned about this from an anecdote Tony Blair gave in 2019/2020 where he described foreign visitors telling him they thought Brits are ungrateful for kicking Churchill out after saving them from Hitler and the Nazis and the horrors they had in store for them. Pretty illuminating to find out why.
Worked out perfectly for the colonies who were pushing for independence. Can’t imagine how long India would’ve had to wait for independence if Conservatives won.
Perhaps not as long as you think because the British people had seen enough of war and would not have accepted that their sons get sent to India to fight a new colonial war just to keep India for the banks.
Probably no longer than how long it would've taken for a Labour government to be voted in, so another 5 years probably?
@@danielwarren3138 Colonies in the Caribbean and Africa gained their independence in the early sixties. With the need to focus on post war reconstruction and social reform at home and a growing and effective Indian Independence movement , it’s likely that the delay in Indian independence would not have been very long even with a conservative government . How long ? Maybe five years ( early fifties) as agitation in India was becoming more and more intense .
"Perfectly" is the wrong word. Attlee was not good at dealing with colonial conflicts and was a notorious racist to the point where Churchill even called him out in Parliament for being an antisemite. So many of the civil wars of independence that came afterwards can be blamed almost directly on Attlee's mismanagement of the process.
This was particularly bad in the Middle East where Attlee appointed absolutely brutal leaders that managed to inflame tensions between ethnic groups. In the British mandate of Israel/Palestine, these Attlee appointed governors and military police were known for making the punishment for stealing bread being thrown into an opposing village to be lynched (a Jew would be thrown into a Palestinian village and a Muslim would be thrown into a Jewish village). This meant that the Attlee appointed governors were actively encouraging violence in the region.
Under Churchill, he may have resisted the process of decolonization more, but the writing was on the wall at this point and there was no way he wouldn't have seen it.
"Can’t imagine how long India would’ve had to wait for independence if Conservatives won."
😎Weeks?
Very interesting. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I've read that after WW2 with it's privation, death destruction and injury in their tightly packed cities, the war had a major impact on the British people. Some kind of dividend was needed to help families with their struggles to reestablish some kind of reassuring change for good. Premier Churchill was far away from any Socialist ambitions arising from the ordinary folks who bore the brunt of Hitler's desire to control as much of Europe as he could. In comparison, Premier Attlee established the NHS.
@Bruce Gibbins. Atlee gave us hope of change at last and - finally- forced governmental concern ( now being degraded ) for the populace.
He was a warriors, a soldier… not a politician by nature.
He led this country and the world against the Nazi empire, he did so amazingly.
But dealing with economics and other such non military aspects of leadership was not his greatest skill.
@Mark Morris wasn't the Gallipoli disaster his idea in the Great War? And his idea that Italy was the "soft underbelly " of the Axis proved grievously wrong. (Of course, if the US had given command to someone other than that chowderhead Mark Clark....but that was hardly Churchill's fault. )
There are people who judges us by our success and there are those who judges us by our failures
But God will not condemn those who have Christ within them
@@brianthomas2434 The war in Italy did it's job though, chewing up the Nazi war machine. I am not sure what the alternative was, certainly invading France any earlier would have been a mistake.
@@CB-fz3li did they chew up the Nazis? Or was a relatively small German force, abetted by the terrain and blinkered Allied leadership, allowed to bog down a numerically superior army? My understanding is only defeat in Berlin ended the Italian campaign. But I don't claim expertise.
he also was a warmonger
I've always thought it curious that he lost that election, after all he had done to
inspire Britain during the war. I guess this is as good an explanation as any.
He lost for the same reason that George Bush lost in 1992 after winning the Gulf War in 1991. "It's the economy, stupid!"
A well-grounded social security system is something we pretty much take for granted today. Having said that, the US is less inclined to this path.
He won again in 52 I think
My father fought in WW2 and he was very clear. The population had been promised ‘homes fit for heroes’ in the First World War and instead had the Great Depression. The map of the world may have been painted red but kids in the East End could still be seen without shoes.
Churchill was the war leader ‘par excellence’ but to the general population he represented the ‘ancien regime’.
Ironic in some ways because the Beveridge Report and the work of ‘Rab’ Butler was still done on his watch, and he was still voted back in during the next election.
He was voted back in but with 300k less votes than Labour in that election… flawed FPTP system we use BUT it has benefited Labour where it shouldn’t have in the past also!
200-40 odd k not 300k
Not strictly true. Labour won the 1950 general election as well. Churchill did though win the 1951 general election.
Why oh why do people believe in promises? Easily stated and impossible to honor. We in the States are living under the horror of broken promises. I get it. So sad.
@@juscholten4248 Actually the postwar Labour government kept most of its promises. It created the NHS, made India independent and started a massive public housing programme which really did dramatically improve the conditions of the working class.
4:03 "took a different TACK" not tact. Tact in English is not used in that way. English isn't German and Takt means frequency. The set expression "took a different tack" comes from sailing. Tacking is when a ship goes diagonally in one direction, then in the other, so as to move forward toward its desired goal despite relatively unfavorable winds.
Yes the NHS, without which I would most certainly have died in the time my family's utter poverty. Please support it, cherish it and don't let it fall into the hands of those who place power and money over the needs of the many..
Nonsense. the cold, hard FACTS vs mere anecdote is that NHS is a killer; wonderful for your case that is the exception that proves=tests the rule of people dying from it. This is why those who can afford to avoid it, e.g. flying to non-socialist places like America to get real healthcare the UK and other socialist hellholes don't have. As in everything else, so too in medicine, socialism is fine 'til it runs out of other folks's money. The cold, hard FACTS are that PEOPLE in NHS no one cares about DIE UNNOTICED in waiting rooms waiting for treatment and only bind, ignorant fools fail to oppose its manifest corruption. The reason Brits stupidly turned on Churchill and to vile socialist Atlee is sheer childishness. Ironically they blindly wanted the very corrupt socialism their sons had died to fight. They soon learned they were fools to vote for Atlee/socialism and voted Churchill back in in 1951 but by then it was too late for Atlee's evil Labour leech traitors had already sucked up the country so badly that even today the UK is still ruined. Even Thatcher couldn't turn it around. Only God can save us, One socialists wickedly reject.
@@russedav5 Russ, are you on Planet Zog? Are you that bourgeois and that priviledged that you want the NHS abolished in favour of the American healthcare system, which has been proven to be the least effective in the world? If it weren't for a decade of tory austerity, then the NHS wouldn't be such dogshit. Sod the yanks, why would we want to follow their every move? The only thing America does is pillage, destroy and destabilise in order to keep their capitalist bourgeois war machines fed and satisfied, why should we follow their direction? Death to America.
Jarmint you can have an NHS that isn't a corrupt, backward, wasteful and inefficient, unsustainable waste of money. It isn't a binary NHS or no NHS question. Why is that the mere idea of accepting that the NHS is not perfect seems to always be met with such hysteria? If we carry on burying our heads in the sand we'll lose the NHS eventually because it'll bankrupt the nation. The wastage in the NHS is gargantuan. I have several relatives that work for the NHS. It's only getting worse when hysterical zealots try and shut down any meaningful debate on how to improve it. Just throwing ever bigger sums at it isn't the answer. Neither is saying only the Tories want to privatise it. Especially as the current labour deputy previously worked as a lawyer on PFI hospital contracts.
@@Jarmint America has the least effective health care system...What,I'm American and the American health care system saved my life back in 2000,I'm not rich or privileged, I was just a truck driver and i had to have major surgery and my employer provided health insurance paid 20% of the first $5000.00 and it paid 100% of everything after that,my deductible was $500.00,it even paid for rehabilitation,after I went back to work,whatever I still owed I worked out a payment plan with the hospital and I paid them off,from what I have heard about the government health care sevices in Britain or anywhere on the continent, I don't think I would have got the same high level of care,I may have just been given a prescription for some medication and sent home to die.I am not British so i have never used the British NHS,so I can't compare by direct experience,tell me where I am wrong.
@@Jarmint Yes, China will treat you much better.
My father was a Durham Miner. He never forgave Churchill, who as Home Secretary, called out the mounted Police and set them on the Jarrow Marchers. The North East has a long memory.
Indeed, Churchill, like Thatcher, are an illusion, and a wonderful piece of PR (propaganda).
Whoops: Not long enough when they voted Tory in 2019 and we got Bojo the clown as PM! with a huge majority. My grandfather watched Churchill directing the Royal Horse Artillery shelling a house where a handful of anarchists were hiding during the 'Siege of Sidney Street'. A complete over-reaction!
And what did they get for always striking ? Went too far and got destroyed, leaving the north in poverty until this day.
@@silverreverence6176 they got you an 8 hour a day, overtime rates, conditions, safety. Have some bloody respect.
@@johnhooper7040 It sounds like Boris will be losing his job as PM in the next few months -- as soon as another coalition government can be organized. Anyone that lies to the Queen to convince her to use her dictatorial powers to advance his cause (she is not one to use them) is not long for keeping his residence at 10 Downing St. I wouldn't be surprised if Boris is either deported back to the US or sent to prison for that little bit of fascism.
I think that even the soldiers mostly voted labour in that election because they were thinking that once they got back to England they would have nothing but Labour provided something new for them and provided them with the means to live once the war was over.
most remembered how the previous generation had been treated in 1918
All the Tories had to offer our troops would be poverty and back-to-back housing if they'd gotten elected, and f*** whatever they did in the war. With the Tories you just end up with a status quo.
Britain not Just England others went back home to the other countries in the UK
Looks a lot like complacency from the Conservatives ‘we’ve just won the war, how could anyone vote us out?”. Whilst Labour offered a lot of reforms and a better life to all those who made sacrifices during the war, a free health service, pensions, etc all of which was unavailable to them before the war. I’m sure that is a very simplistic way of looking at it and there are more subtleties and nuances I have missed. Loved the video and it would be good to learn of similar changes in other countries after the war, for example, how did political system change in Germany after the war.
That is part of the reason. The Conservatives put a lot less effort into their campaign, thinking they would win anyway. That would have made even more sense (for somebody in 1945) to do given the results of the 1944 US Presidential Election, and the fact that Labour had only ever briefly enjoyed power before 1945. Plus, the Conservatives had a large majority and led the wartime coalition government, so they would have assumed something along the lines of ''The people see us as leading Labour.'' But they managed to comeback and win in 1951 of course.
Labour promised the "land fit for heroes" that was promised after the first world war. Churchill and the conservatives couldn't.
@@Trebor74 well, no one really could, the UK was so broke they ended their Empire, so, when the next election came, Churchill was back in.
@@LukeSky2207 but notice they never stopped the NHS and social security system. They knew how popular it was and would have been incredibly stupid to have stopped it, even if we couldn't afford it in the short term.
What Labour offered after the war was cold and hunger. The greatest sacrifices of the British people were made after the war, not during it. The NHS was paid for by food rationing, coal rationing and delays to the re-bulding of the housing stock. Rationing was kept in place until 1954. Part of why Churchill lost was that the "reward" for Victory was food rations being cut to lower than wartime.
I don't know how anyone can look back fondly at such a miserable time in history.
There was a parallel Marsh Report in Canada. Nationalization was not embraced, and the social programs were eased in starting with the “Veterans’ Bill”. Tommy Douglas, leader of the CCF (analogous to the Labour Party) visited Europe in the spring of 1945 and was popular among soldiers, more popular than among civilians back home. Most soldiers took a dim view of the unions who had organized strikes during the war, but were likely inspired by the lively debate of the Beveridge Report in Britain. Most Canadians in uniform had been living in Britain for years. Douglas would launch the first universal public healthcare in Saskatchewan. It was a fractious start as doctors went on strike in protest, but universal healthcare soon spread through all of Canada. Thus Canada took another step away from the politics and society of the USA.
I would like to know why Churchill called the election so soon after VE Day. Could he not have waited for a few months or at least until Japan had been defeated
He wanted to have it held off until Japan was defeated but Labour insisted on the resumption of the regular Diplomatic process and refused to continue the coalition.
Because he had already promised to call an election as soon as the war in Europe was over.
That parliament was already well and truly into overtime with the previous election having been way back in 1935 so the maximum 5 year term ended sometime in 1940. Extension of the term of parliament then becomes possible but only with the agreement of the opposition and I believe the Labour party had agreed only until the defeat of Germany. Therefore Churchill could not have waited any longer but he could have called an earlier general election.
Whilst agreeing with the replies, so far given. There was a ground swell of opinion both within and outside of Parliament. Churchill could well have legally under the constitution stayed on as Prime minister until the Japanese surrendered ending the war. But submitted to public opinion and calling an election.
Simple. Britain was euphoric that peace had come and Churchill wanted to strike the iron whilst it was hot, little realizing that most Brits only regarded him as a war-time leader, albeit a great one
A time when the UK still voted on policy and not populism
Labours policies in 1945 would be attacked as "populists" and extremist by the current blairite incarnation of the Labour Party. Come to think of it Labours 1980's policies would also be viewed in a similar manner by the current labour lot.
The policy of labour during the last general election was to cancel Brexit and ignore the majority will of the electorate. I wouldn't say the vote for Boris was purely populist against policy. Though considering Diane Abbott is still part of labours front benches you have to wonder how much populism versus policy there is in the Labour party
@Philip Greenwald blah blah blah it’s proven manufactured bullshit and you know it. Read the EHRC report and the leaked labour report
@Philip Greenwald @Philip Greenwald Lol, when Tories get hand in hand with racist thugs and antisemites, you blame the most progressive men in Labour for a crime they didn't commit? Where are the evidence that Labour's left are genocidal antisemites? The Sun? Starmer boot out the Left thinking he would got more votes when siding with the Liberal wing, now he will only get shadow dung for it.
@Philip Greenwald Because the tory's are the party of anti racists, anti zionism isn't anti semites(not denying labour doesn't have any it does)
An old constituency agent told me that the most interesting thing about 1945 was the REVIVAL of the Tories. He said that a few months earlier they wouldn’t have won a single seat. Also Labour said they would bring the service people home - and they did.
There were few who thought him a starter,
Many who thought themselves smarter.
But he ended PM,
CH and OM,
an Earl and a Knight of the Garter.
My late grandmother voted Labour twice in her life - 1945 and 1997, two elections which have a lot in common
Your grandmother voted for tony blair that a bruh moment
She cannot be blamed for that, look at the opposition. Charisma does attract mass following- then disapointment, then despair.
what a vid! no one covers topics like this. Atlee, what a PM. Sub'd
Churchill’s great talent during the Second World War was inspiring the British people to persevere until victory over the Axis was achieved. As a military or political leader, he was not that great. During the First World War, he was responsible for the Gallipoli disaster, and during the Second World War, wanted to declare war against the Soviet Union to protect Finland. That would have cemented Germany and Russia together, and the European War might never have been won. The British political system also contributed to the Conservatives’ defeat. In Britain, parliamentary elections are required every five years, except in time of war. The last election was in 1935, but since the war started in 1939, there was no election until 1945. Thus, the 1945 election was the first time the British people had a chance to express an opinion on the Conservative performance since 1935.
You could say he was great leader who provided common goal and managed to inspire courage. However peacetime demands better managerial skills about governance and Churchill was lacking in them even if he was great leader.
"That would have cemented Germany and Russia together" Hahahaha!!!
@@nobleman9393 Germany would have loved nothing more to see GB and the USSR at war. Hitler made several attempts to convince Stalin to invade Iran in 40.
Fair points, though Britain declaring war on the USSR would have made next to no difference in the long run. The nazis hated the bolsheviks and communism as much as Jews, and both Hitler and Stalin planned to betray the other when their forces were ready. It's just that Germany's were ready first.
Shirtless . I always thought that Churchill was responsible for Gallipoli which he was with others who he drew the plan up with then I saw a documentary that said at the last moments Churchill wanted to abandon the Gallipoli plan but he was over ruled by others and the Gallipoli plan was to go ahead which of course it did.
Thanks for that I'd always wondered how they lost.
Perhaps you could do another on how Labour lost the 1951 election.
It's a good question. The short answer is that our electoral system is skewed. Labour received more votes in 1951 than the Conservatives but won fewer seats.
@@maggiessky7482 Like our last fall election in Canada. Our PM won with 68% of the voters not voting for him.
If we look for 1950 and 1951c elections, we found out, that the Labour party was slightly ahead of the Conservatives in both of these elections in the total votes. But the Conservatives managed to win much more key marginals than the Labour in 1951, and so they got the majority thanks to the election system. The same thing happened in Canada earlier in this year. The Conservatives won the total votes, but the Liberals had a better placing of their votes and so they got more seats than the Conservatives.
@@Crashed131963 Funnily enough, after campaigning previously on changing the electoral system to be more fair. Of course that went out of window as soon as he was elected.
@@maggiessky7482 That has happened in the opposite direction multiple times as well. It's a quirk of all representative democracies that occasionally the party with slightly less votes will win an election.
So the British public almost saw Churchill as the “emergency measures” kind of guy. It was like handing control of the Roman Empire to a prominent general while the barbarians are at the walls, and then returning power to the bureaucrats when the threat is over
it was remarkable that 2 key leaders England's Churchill and Japan's Tojo lost their leadership about the same time.
One for winning the war, one for losing it…
As well as Churchill and Tojo losing power, Mussolini, Hitler, FDR and Australian PM John Curtin died in office in 1945.
Tojo? Dont think your timelines are correct. Tojo lost his premiership with the fall of thr Marianas in July 1944. The Japanese prime minister in July 1945 was Kantaro Suzuki.
@@stevidente Yes, I think you're right about that
wtf is remarkable about this. when wars end or near their end governments do often change. its a common occurance
Churchill wasn't defeated in the '45 election, it was the Conservative party that lost. There are many reasons for the landslide but a couple were that they were largely associated with the Depression and they had a significant number of their leading lights were openly friendly with the Nazis before the war.
I agree it was a factor (Labour had every incentive to milk it for political gain), but the Labour party were not nearly as anti-Nazi/anti-appeasement as is claimed. They were calling for general strikes if there was a war, as well as many of them being in favour of demilitarisation (Chamberlain, despite being known as the worst of the appeasers, was actually increasing military spending at a time when many in Labour were calling for less military spending to avoid war). Most of the intelligentsia and public were anti-war and pro-appeasement as a result of WW1, so I don't think it was a problem unique to the Tory party.
@@tomdip2094 Well let's face it - it was their supporters would be doing most of the bleeding!
He may have lost the election but he won the war, he served his purpose & we are mightily grateful of this, a fine Man that courageously stood up to a monster.
Churchill was a monster though. Bengal famine for starters.
@@alexj7440 Sorry ime not aware of this or any other monstrosities he may have been behind, he did lead Britain well during World War 2 & wouldn't have succeeded had he not been a bad ass.
@@jahmah519 might want to spend a little more time learning about history then
@@alexj7440 oh come on, this might be your game here but please don't expect me to know everything, do you know where our intelligence comes from, do you know what happened to Mars, do you know how the roman war machine was driven, do you care about this planet, so what if Churchill was a racist, he was there when it mattered & nazis were brutal, I dont know, what exactly you getting at here, what you been told or what you really know, alien galactic warfare spring to mind?
Churchill was a bigger monster that was needed then, and rightfully tossed aside when he no longer was
An unmentioned aspect by our friend above is the services vote for Labour was close to 100%. 'You could weigh it' some said. My Father was campaigning in Taunton told his fellow campaigners 'if a voter says Churchill won us the War or he is a great man do not argue. Say, Yes. He was great for the War but we not for the peace. We need...' Labour before the War fought against spending on the Military so they could have been seen as responsible for Hitler as the Tories in this way if not in others. Churchill made a terrible blunder in not following Keynes advice to not go back onto the Gold Standard. Going back on the Gold Standard hindered even crippled the UK economy. To the bombing of civilians. Germany brought back a massive number of its fighters to protect its cities. Plus its 88's a very effective anti-tank and anti-aircraft gun. I think 600,000 Germans were klled by bombing? 24 Million Russians were killed by the Germans then there was torture & the mass murder of other peoples including Jewish people. Dreden is often used by Neo Fascists with a list of lies. The War was not over, mass killing by the Germans had not stopped. Stalin had asked the Allies to bomb Dreden.
Citing Keynes for economics💀 ok dude
Epic mass bombing of civilians because the Russians asked for it
@@hotlinetech151 by that point German citizens/laborers were viewed as part of the army 🤷♂️
you mean dresden?
@@Matt-uk7zq Keynes has been frequently proven right in his advocacy for government spending and handling of economic crisis. It's the austerity economists who have been repudiated time and again.
Winston Churchill continued as leader of the Conservative opposition until the 1951 election when he was returned as Prime Minister.
Actually something that I have pondered intensely! Cool video!
A lovely video. I had always wondered how such a popular wartime leader could have lost before the war was over. One, super-nitpicky note: Harry S Truman has no period after the S, as his middle name is the letter S, and not S. short for something else.
Didn't know that. 🤔
Wow, i didn't know that. Just a lonely S!
Persnickety, but. My understanding is the S was to honor his grandfathers, each of whose names began with the letter.
I love it when someone knows the S didn't stand for anything. Trueman was from more common stock but was a big admirer of Grant. Not sure if that's where or why the S came about but it was a quiz tie breaker question back in 1990 and I have never forgotten it. Some interesting trivia around US Presidents.
0:39 Stalin looked sad, like he missed his old friends
My Dad was a life long conservative (almost) but even he voted Labour in 1945 - for all reasons outlined in this excellent video.
Good video. How about some videos on how the museum obtained some of the vehicles and planes that they have? Always been interested in the history of the tanks in the Land warfare building. Thanks!
So the British people fought the enemy Overseas and secured a future for their Children at Home, truly the Greatest Generation.
I think it’s interesting how a policy proposal like the Beveridge Report could have such a massive impact. Every election around the world is inundated with proposals and reports like that and yet they seem to have very little impact overall - the fact that this one caused such a shift in the discourse is really interesting.
Thank you for this piece. It was a question in the back of my mind that I never looked up. It was great to see your video. My next question would be .. Didn't Churchill win the position of Prime Minister again afterwards? Why did that happen? The Labour Party did not come through with their promises?
The Labour Party did succeed with most of their aims but the country was bankrupt, times were hard and the reforming zeal of the public soon wore off. When Churchill returned to power, he was already suffering from Dementia, it made no difference, Tories are masters of propaganda and spin.
@@tedf1471 I should bow to superior knowledge, BUT. I've seen too much current day use of the term "dementia " by non medical professionals. It frankly reeks of name calling. I've dealt with dementia in family members. They can't FAKE normality. Churchill was aging, he'd lost a few steps. I don't very much it went beyond that.
@@brianthomas2434 Brian, my main focus and interest has been Attlee but The comparison between the two men is fascinating. Churchill was a functioning alchoholic, heavy smoker and yet could be incisive and brilliant, he could also have long periods of 'Black Dog' where he drank, slept and did very little else. In his final Post War Government, he suffered 3 major strokes and his vascular dementia gradually eroded his personality to the point where he really was only a figurehead.
@@tedf1471 skilled uk workers voted the tories back ,the wage differentials between skilled men and unskilled shrank under labour
@@tedf1471 It is thought that Churchill was bipolar and we didn't have medications to treat it back then. Also, the guy is one of the few that would have had a chance of drinking me under the table (and I was one hell of a drinker myself), he always had a drink in his hand. He was reasonable as a war PM but I see where he would have been an abysmal failure at rebuilding the UK after Adolf destroyed 2/3 of the country. I do wonder that if he weren't a roaring alcoholic if he would not have had the strokes and would have survived another ten years, though.
Let's not forget that while Churchill ran the war Attlee ran the wartime economy. With a few exceptions both were brilliant at their jobs.
@پیاده نظام خان Britain would have survived because the USSR did 75% of the work to defeat Hitler
they took money from the US (land and lease) and lost the empire to the US. far from brilliant.
Thank you very much for sharing this video. It was very helpful and useful!!!!
The Tories have been trying to undo Atlee's work ever since.
Churchill was the right wartime leader, Attlee the right peacetime leader.
Attlee destroyed the country and his failures are felt even today.
“Churchill more like downhill” - J.B Priestly
Clement Attlee brought the NHS to the UK, which was the greatest, most positive accomplishment of any UK prime minister, ever. Churchill condemned as many people to death as Stalin through his deliberate starvation of Bangladesh. Oh, and he was also against giving women the right to vote.
Without Attlee, India’s Independence in 1947 would’ve further delayed. Don’t know much about the UK politics but I think Attlee is arguably one of the best (if not the best) PM The UK ever had.
@@EliasRoy he certainly wasn't for economics perspective.
Attlee also layed the groundwork for invaders to pour into the UK.
@@Charles50Kal He actually was- unless you were rich and selfish.
Capitalists don't fund socialist governments,not in there remit,the success would be an self inflicted self embarrassing disaster. hail Gordon Brown.
Very good video 🙂 and well explained
Glad you liked it!
People also remembered such Churchill actions as sending a cruiser up the Mersey or using troops in the 1927 General Strike.
loved it, thank you !
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video, thank you. What would Kier do with a Beveridge Report? He'd have to check with Rupert first
knowing him, he'd claim he would follow it during the next leadership election then when he wins, he would suspend every mp who supported it, claim it to be an unelectable position and then promise businesses he wouldnt implement it while at the sametime offering no clear alternative or difference in a labour goverment to that of Boris's
In a book I read about Churchill it alleged that in 1945 Churchill had second thoughts about the Official Secrets Act which he introduced in WW1 and wanted to repeal it, he also wanted to considerably reduce the budgets of the Intelligence Services who he thought had become too big fighting Germany.
Having their expertise against him won't have helped.
So voters are said to blame the Tories for "not standing up to Hitler" in the 1930s. Doesn't seem to me to ring true. Yes in 1939 popular opinion ran strongly in favor of war, pretty well forcing Chamberlain to declare it; but since Churchill had at that time opposed "appeasement", that is a reason for voters to re-elect him in 1945.
The election result is a puzzle, but my theory is that while everyone admired Churchill for his leadership they were horrified by the reality of 6 years of war and reacted against those who had begun it - even though, as above, they had in 1939 supported it.
I had occasion to meet Beveridge in 1960. A very affable man - yet he authored a basically Communist program, from whose implementation Britain took at least 40 years to recover.
Read this book: Never Again by Peter Hennessy
In a lively, stirring history of the postwar epoch that molded Britain's baby boomer generation, Hennessy argues that Britain's economic decline was far from inevitable. Despite a more than adequate industrial base, postwar Britain slipped from superpowerdom, in his view, because of a refusal to abandon its dreams of global empire (notwithstanding the relinquishing of India and Palestine) and because of the increasing economic strain imposed by the Cold War. Professor of contemporary history at the University of London, Hennessy shuttles between high politics and everyday experience, illuminating the Labour Party's ascent, Britain's emergence as a nuclear power, popular culture in the pre-television era, and what he sees as the period's crowning achievement--a national welfare program encompassing universal health benefits, social security, unemployment insurance and aid for housing and education. Photos. (Apr.)
The British people voted for Attlee in 1945, 1950 and 1951.
Appeasement was meant to give time to the Allies to build up their militaries.
If only Americans put this much thought into who they voted for.
"You can always depend on the Americans doing the right thing, after they have tried everything else" Winston Churchill quote. This was the kind of man that he really was.
Churchill was directly responsible for Bengal famines in India that led to millions of lost lives. He was a disgraceful monster.
they made a myth out of him. he was a warmonger,
@@minimax9452 it isn't a myth. Even though there were many other factors leading to the famine, the main one was that churchill deliberately took grain from bengal to Britain as reserve stockpiles for british soldiers. He said that starvation of anyways underfed bengalis mattered much less than sturdy Europeans
@@novemberguy9 sorry - I meant the „hero - superstar hype about churchill“ is a myth. beside this he was a warmoger, a mediocre talented military and an alcoholic.
I mean, the real answer to how is "he didn't get as many votes as the other guy".
Exclusive video - well done
The man who gave the UK the NHS, the most popular institution in the history of the country is kind of bound to win.
Lots of people had their own reasons i would imagine,the older members of my family i spoke to over the years didn't like Churchill as they said he was a loudmouth and a warmonger,but in more words
they were right. the churchill myth is a distorted image. all the best from germany
@@minimax9452 As somebody like most Anglos with distent Family in Germany, it's sad to see somebody who firebombed thousands as a Hero,But be careful what you say brother or you will be in a Gulag before you know it
@@danhulson8703 sorry - who firebombed whom?
@@minimax9452 Was just saying a guy like Churchill burned tens of thousands of civilians in air raids and is remembered as a Good bloke.Off-topic but i hope you have a nice Christmas all the best
It boggles my mind how Churchill managed to stay in positions of significant political influence this long. Gallipoli and Singapore happened on his watch, two major embarrassments for the country.
One often forgets just how poor the bulk of the British people we’re after the war.
Rationing was still harsh and British soldiers throughout the war made less income than most soldiers form other nations and just 1/3 of American GIs. Britain was poor and the British people wanted some safety for their daily lives back
It wasn't all just NHS and National Insurance policies that Labour were known for post '45 election during the next 5 years the £ devalued by 30%, austerity measures had to put in place to curb national debt and by 1950 the country was still using rationing books. Ultimately this lead to Churchill coming back into power by 1951 after which Britain went through a period of economic boom right through to the early 60's.
Atlee by far the greatest PM of the 20th century, Churchill was a hierarchal, aristocratic authoritarian from a different era
Lol.
I can't fault the content, but some of the music was too loud and distracting.
How could he have won? Britons like my parents weren’t going back to the hard lives they had before the war - not after six years fighting. The Cons were still the party of the establishment and the big estates, and Labour was the only option. People have short memories.
Labour is now a nest of red Tory vipers
Fascinating, from the perspective of an American history buff!
Because Labour promised something much better during a time of peace which leads to our NHS today despite some Tory undoings
Umm what about the 4 million Indians he killed in Bengali famine 1943, wait nvm they Brits they like to ignore the cruelties they did but want to pinpoint nazis for being cruel
Usually the death rates are not that high, 2-3 million are more common.
In defense, I can say that the situation was bad and the ability to send help was iow. The aid the United States wanted to send, which Churchill said no to, would not have arrived in time. But the lack of attempt to help shows what he stands for. Although if relief efforts had not succeeded in rescuing so many, at least it had looked good, and people had been more forgiving, especially in India. But England were not interested in helping when Ireland starved, so it seems to be something recurring. Probably because the aristocracy had all the power and they saw the people as something like cattle. They were not very considerate of their own people either.
Here we go about the Bengal famine again like seriously sod off will ya you stuck record
@@Waterford1992 really? Then why you guys still caring for people who support nazis, in most of europe supporting hitler is punishable by jail, seriously sod off germany already said sorry 1000000 times yet why you guys still care about them,they 75 years ago while britan never said sorry for even 1 of the 1000 tragerties they caused in india
@@జై-తెలుగు-తల్లి Because it was Japan that took over Burma does losing the rice fields that feed Bangladesh, heavy rain that destroyed crops, a war that forced shipping to be in convoys that hampered transport of food, internal politics in India that was unhelpful and US that could not spare shipping at that time for there where at war with Japan that controlled most of Pacific at that time.
@@Lunkwow no? Burma didn't feed bengal,bengal was an large exporter of food to other countries ever since British colonized it,it never once faced food shortages when British didnt rule them and about 300 million people or 5% of entire world still live in an area which smaller than United Kingdom,it has largest population density in world and has most fertile land and highest number of rivers,70% of bengal land is fertile while Burma just 15% so they don't relly on burma for food
Now British either brunt all the food reserves and crops in 1943 or exported them to britan
Then when famine struck,British officials in that area begged wiston Churchill to send food here but he didn't and instead of helping a slight bit he made it worse
He was still exporting food to act as extra extra reserves for British soilders in Greece and Yugoslavia,they already had alot of reserves,they didn't need more at all and all the food was wasted while millions died
American and austrilian ships carrying food came to help them but British blocked them
Atleast he could have let those ships give food which would have saved hundreads of thousands of life but nope
Great video 👍
I remember growing up in Scotland in the 1940's and Churchill was very unpopular there, at least among the working class, which included most Scots at that time. We used to boo him whenever he came on the newsreel at the "pictures", which is what we called the cinema. My grandfather never forgave him for the Dardanelles disaster in the Great War. He, my grandfather, fought in that debacle. Churchill was probably equally unpopular among the soldiers at the end of the war and for similar reasons.
I have often wondered if he deserves the glowing wartime reputation accorded to him in the postwar years. It is so at odds with my personal recollections. Indeed I have suspected that it might have been deliberately built up for political purposes.
As America is learning first hand, most humans like to be led. Oh, and “free” stuff.
If you are referring to the welfare given out by a government, no it's not free! It is given out by the taxes that the people pay!
Very interesting and well explained. Shame that the sound quality is appalling and what's that " bing bong" noise when the guy is talking ?
Churchill's second term was one of the worst of a prime minister in the history of Britain
Atlee was as determined in fighting Nazi Germany as Churchill. He also was a war leader having served during the war in Churchhill's cabinet.
The background music is too loud and annoying. Other than that, it's a great historical analysis. Thank you.
Churchill was a warmonger but British people were not.
Really? Which wars did he monger?