Churchill was an idiot

preview_player
Показать описание
Churchill's incompetence resulted in numerous failures in both WW1 and WW2 as I explain in this video. Even though I've mentioned a portion of this before, it's nice to have it all in one place so you can see just how much influence Churchill had in the defeats in Norway and during the North African Campaign.

This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.

⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).

- - - - -

📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚

- - - - -

⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐

This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from YouTube ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.

Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!

- - - - -

ABOUT TIK 📝

History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

I love the back and forth going on in the comments. It's good to consider alternative perspectives.

Some are saying Churchill was right to keep fighting during WW2 and not surrender or make peace. I'm generally against war (there's an argument for defensive action, but even then it should be avoided at all costs), so I think there's an argument to be had that he should have made peace after Dunkirk. However, Britain making peace would have had massive repercussions. The blockade of Germany would stop. Hitler would have more fuel for his armies going East, which may have tipped the tide against the Soviets. Millions more people may have been killed as a result, and a terrible Empire would have dominated Europe. It's hard not to be persuaded that this was a "just war" on the part of Britain, even if Britain ended up having 3 million subjects starve to death in Bengal...

Honestly, I'm conflicted. I can also understand the argument that once the war has started you're in a struggle for survival and therefore all (or most) bets are off. But this makes me think that humanity is one good declaration of war away from losing its humanity, and that "humanity" is just a synonym of "barbarity".


What do you think? Am I being too nihilistic?

TheImperatorKnight
Автор

TIK, I got a D on my college paper called “the many blunders of Winston Churchill”. My professor said that my arguments weren’t supported by “historians in general”. I sited my sources and in fact used many of the sources you use (a lot from Anthony Dix too), along with Churchill’s own words. Just thinking of that “professor” still pisses me off.

pathutchison
Автор

Churchill and MacArthur share that sweet spot of "Everyone believes we won because of him but everyone who was there knows we won despite of him."

mnk
Автор

“Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.”--Winston Churchill

bobbyr.
Автор

My father served on the North Atlantic during the war and he hated Churchill. He referred to him as an Old Warlord. He also thought Monty was over-rated.

TimEvans
Автор

Archibald Wavell was an unsung hero of the Desert campaign. Operation Compass was an amazing feat.

kevinpascual
Автор

Churchill is like the hoi4 ai sending troops at evry port possible

kasarlsivaspidesi
Автор

'A big butcher's bill was not necessarily evidence of good tactics' - never have truer words been spoken

whitter
Автор

Chief of the Imperial General Staff Allan Brooke summarised Churchill´s contribution to the British war effort the best: "Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again".

PatrikLooft
Автор

*loses entire empire and millions of lives*
Churchill: Hey lad, at least we're not speaking german.

OceanicSwamp
Автор

The "Come to grips with the enemy and attack, attack, attack" mentality had been a very British thing for a long time at that point. In all of Britain's colonial conflicts it was a rare thing for British troops to face an enemy with anything like the level of discipline, training, and equipment that they had. It was not an uncommon thing for the British army to rout enemies through aggressive action even at a severe deficit of numbers. Prior to WW I it was uncommon for the British to face a peer enemy, unless they were fighting the French.

At sea, this attitude was even more exaggerated. Britannia had ruled the waves for countless generations at this point, and not only had an enormous navy, but the quality of her forces ship-for-ship would not be disputed until the Americans (who were themselves heirs to British naval tradition) began asserting themselves at sea in the 19th century. It was expected of a British naval captain to be ultra-aggressive, and many victories were had by the Royal Navy even when under tonnage and outgunned.

Churchill came up in an age where strategic and tactical aggression had served the empire very well for a long time, so it is not surprising that his natural tendencies would lean in that direction. His greatest fault in this area, IMO, was in not learning the lessons of the first world war that the nature of warfare itself had changed, and in underestimating the logistical complexity of modern mechanized warfare.

stonecoldscubasteveo
Автор

I think Churchill is a classic example of a purely divisive leader. His greatest attributes are simultaneously his greatest flaws. You cannot separate them because they're one and the same. His stubbornness and "stiff upper lip" and refusal to give ground all made him a great rallying point and excellent figurehead for defiance against all odds. Those same things meant that he didn't learn lessons, expected too much, and rushed forward with often questionable plans.

CrushedIdealism
Автор

As an Aussie, it's his utter incompetence as head of the Admiralty in Gallipoli which pisses me off most about Churchill. Leading like a 6yo boy was his thing.

alaricgoldkuhl
Автор

"When I am right, I get angry. Churchill gets angry when he is wrong. We are angry at each other much of the time." Charles de Gaulle

abuseofmainstreammediacanh
Автор

The problem with Churchill is he got too involved with military strategy and decisions, for instance his diversion of veteran soldiers to the Balkan’s cost the North African campaign in the earlier years just as Richard O Connor was on the verge of driving the Axis powers out of there for good.

Bullet-Tooth-Tony-
Автор

7:19 - This didn't stop the British from jointly invading neutral Iran with the Soviet Union a little later in the war.

utcst
Автор

The only people who saw Churchill as some kind of hero are those who believe everything that the UK newspaper and TV told them.
Everyone else including demobilised forces after WW2 either disliked him or hated his guts.
Churchill was an egotistic narcissist of the most childish personality I could imagine.
How people didn't see right through him I'll never know.

dasdasdatics
Автор

Honestly, the recklesness and deficiencies of Churchill is nothing new to me at this point, but thanks to this video, i have new found respect for Archibald Wavell, given such a huge responsibility that is incomparable to little resources he got, and with the boss who has the same military instinct as a kid in Call of Duty lobby, he still manage to pull it out

Too bad he sunk in the middle of big names of Zhukov, Montgomery, Eisenhower and Rokossovsky

briantarigan
Автор

I agree. Churchill was such a great orator and this allied with the establishment media gave him the false reputation of greatness. Sold out Australia too

bernardparsons
Автор

My Dad was a veteran of Tunisia and Italy...whilst he always said that "Winnie" made great speeches and was able to motivate people, he was also impulsive and a bully.
I suppose he was referring to how generals were scapegoated - especially Wavell

brendanukveteran