Churchill | "Face Off" | Official Clip 

@Montana Roots But Ike was more reserved. Strict but reserved.

I loved that detail

@@lolohets6467absolutely 💪🇦🇺

Name some

Doxie 79 : Churchill is depicted as standing alone in the film "The Darkest Hour". Churchill or Britain was not alone the whole British empire was standing beside him. British and Americans are experts in the distortion of history and in the creation of mystery. The production of films "Dunkirk" and "The Darkest Hour" are two good examples of such a criminal mentality. Britain and America are producing films even after 75 years which are more likely propaganda than History. Herodotus was a great Historian as well as a great Liar. Britain and America are great nations and great democracies but both of them are the Liars of superlative degrees.

@Mo Uri There was only one small Germany having 80 million people at that time and there were billions of people on the other side. Shame on the old times British empire.

@@aleempervaiz8789 I beg your pardon? How dare you even think do disrespect the men who fought for the war cause like that. Those men was risking there lives, for the future of every country in the world. And they did not want to do it. Shame of the empire for what? not sending in men willy nilly? You should be ashamed.

@@Leo-hp7ub British Empire is a stigma for the British people. The British forces during WWII were the most coward force. They were running on every front with the slogan " German are coming." In fact, WWII was a war between Germany and Russia. The Polish forces fought bravery against Germans and Russians.

The Brits needed Americans Never ever forget that fact. England was basically bankrupt and starving without America...

@@bclaverenz1 and america was but bison hunting primitives before the British arrived

That and I’m told that Ike and Winston got on much better than this film shows. Also Winston had been up against Rommel. People like to forget that desert warfare was mobile, even though it still relied on old fashioned infantry slogs. Winston was very much up on modern warfare. It was Winston pushing modern tech if anyone was as far back as WW1.

lmao history lessons in america must be a blast haha

@@adz933 actually it’s about the same as Britain, don’t kid yourself we are both part of the same hypocrisy cousin

best comment lol

Both excellent performances might I add.

That's why I recognized his voice, when he said "first war" I knew I heard him some where

Oh yes...

To be fair it is well know there wasn't a good relation between Eisenhower and Churchill. Even Roosevelt had some attrition with Churchill. Churchill wasn't the only one however. De Gaulle and Ike didn't liked each others. On the other side of the globe Roosevelt had a bad relation with MacHartur.

He had no regard for the troops😂

Even though he was the Prime Minister, hero of Britain, leader or whatever, he was still not a guy who you could get an advice if the topic was about military. He was never a great military strategist or an expert on warfare at the first place, except being the First Lord of the Admiralty which was really a political position. Even back in his time, in WWI, he was one of the designers of the Gallipoli landing and it ended up in a disaster. Also, if this particular scene actually happened in real life then he was still thinking with the WWI mentality which was long overdue. You could not win the WWII with mostly infantry pushing tactics without the help of armored divisions, artillery, or air-force. Moreover, even in the WWII, he pointed out the Italy as the weak side of Europe which would allow them to capture the Berlin before the Russians but even that did not turn out well for him because Germans not only just stop them in the Italy but they also installed the Italian Social Republic until the 1945.

@@Derek-d5097 Not just of Britain, Europe. Perhaps the world. Even here in the US we have a holiday on him.

Good point: Churchill was a man full of ideas and inventiveness, but he absolutely needed to be reined in by the professional soldiers around him when it came to feasibility and execution. Probably one of the main reasons Churchill was a more effective war leader than Hitler was his willingness to see sense, even if he did take a lot of convincing. OTOH, once Hitler had an idea in his head, you were removed from your post if you disagreed, and potentally shot if you disobeyed.

@steve gale That must be why they made him PM then...

You have a very good point there, the two branches Churchill could probably be left to run were the RAF and Navy: ironically for a man who was a professional soldier in some of the most famous moments in late Victorian history, he despised the War Office, loathed it. He made demands of most of his Generals that he never made of most of his Air Marshals or Admirals. I will say that he was not inferior in understanding of war, almost no one, even the Generals he drove up the walls with his 1/10 brilliant ideas/bad ideas, thought anyone else could do the job. He was, apparently he prophesied it once, a man truly fitted for the task. You know Hitler claimed to be the man of destiny thousands of times in thousands of speeches. Churchill spent that same time trying to rouse everyone else to defend their Island home and Empire. Both went into the History books, but most certainly Churchill achieved a greater destiny and I find that supremely appropriate.

Yeah, but he had zero idea of how to apply those things to warfare. He had a terrible mind for tactics. Gallipoli showed that in WWI.

Prime Minister of Defence?

IKE was the supreme commander of all allied forces in Europe. He could say what he damn well pleased. However, the reason FDR picked him was because he had the diplomatic skills to run a multinational coalition. So while there would be zero consequences for him talking to Churchill like this, he probably wouldn't because he knew how to work people.

​@@trippibethea7599Well had he spoken to Churchill like this it would have been a royal rumble match every meeting and D day may have failed

He poked a hole in it with something on his watch chain....even gave it a little twist.

he punch his cigar, that's one of many ways to cut it

@steve galelol i know, just still like the differences expressed in the scene. its like the elements set up the subtle tension betwix the two...

Not at all. He was renowned for his ability to keep the alliance together. He was very charming and treated the British and Churchill with the utmost respect. This is so well known that it's amazing how this movie portrayed it.

iChish how can you have so many facts and be so wrong-First of All Eisenhower did not "Inherit" command in 1944 but rather in 1942 when he commanded The Torch landing in North Africa. How could you have gotten that one so wrong! Ramsey's plan was brilliant but was heavily edited. "Fortitude" was an SHAEF operation approved by Eisenhower which was almost derailed by Montgomery's equally arrogant aide. To call Patton a moron is of course silly-He was a deeply flawed Prima Donna of a general but his failures are eclipsed by the sheer incompetence and arrogance of Bernard Law Mongtomery whose failures include not taking advantage of the Victory at El Alamein-credit for which should belong to the unsung British General Harold Alexander. Monty's failure to take Caen in a timely fashion, his refusal to help close the Falaise Gap and of course the disastrous Market -Garden campaign are on record. Eisenhower's job was to keep all these massive egos working together. And yes I think the movie is off course too. Eisenhower had huge respect for Churchill even though they had differences at time over the timetable for the Invasion. The Americans had initially wanted an early landing in France to relive the pressure on the Soviet front. Churchill persuaded then to wait and thank god he did!

tag427 - grab a coffee. This will be a detailed response With the greatest respect we were discussing Overlord and my comment was directed SOLELY at the fact he did 'inherit' command of an already well researched, planned and developed operation. I was not referring to his history as a General. But I am happy so to do. Yes he 'commanded' Torch but from a desk in Gibraltar. And if you want total incompetence in battlefield execution then Ike, as overall Commander of American forces, carries a huge responsibility for the debacles at Kesserine Pass and elsewhere which saw thousands of Americans captured, hundreds killed with huge loss of vital tanks and equipment and ultimately the failure to achieve Operation Torch objectives. Patton was the epitome of a moron who played to the US Media and was an absolute liability to any forces near him. Remind me did he get to Tunis? No he got to Bizerte during 'Torch' and why Monty took the surrender of all German forces in Tunis. In his very first real operation with Monty he caused the unnecessary deaths of many British forces in Sicily because his ego needed to be in Messina first. So he just peddled off on his own route leaving the Brits right hand flank totally exposed to face the German forces on their own. But they still got to Messina and not long after Patton. How many times did Ike have to sack Patton? And your re-write of the events after Alamein (I take it you mean the second battle of El Alamein) are pretty creative. Monty was always aware of the safety of his men as far as is possible in war. No he didn't rush ahead but kept within his logistic supply line capabilities. Something Rommel failed to do and why Monty was able to suck him into an over extended situation. Patton was guilty of that too. As Badley commented after WWII: "The British were more wary of committing thousands of troops to their deaths after their experiences in WWI and their fighting alone for 3 years. We were less concerned because we were new to the war and had a huge population" As for Caen you are miles off the truth there. The British, Canadian and Polish armoured divisions were facing the best and fiercest of German resistance - the SS. Indeed Monty's plan was to draw ALL their armour towards him to give the Yanks a faster run from the South West. The fact remains you only have to see the numbers of Germans and their armour at Caen to prove my point. Its easy to pontificate 70 years later with a biased outlook seeking to criticise Monty. But maybe research the events better? And then you repeat your fallacy. The British, Canadian and Polish armour were EXACTLY where they were supposed to be regarding the Falaise trap. Indeed a Polish armoured division were sitting on a hill overlooking it all! The reason so many Germans escaped was because Bradley stopped as he was concerned about 'friendly fire' from Polish and Canadian forces. Its in his biography. Try reading it. But despite those who escaped and no matter how you re-paint the blame game the pincer plan devised by Monty caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Germans, a total retreat and their loss of huge amounts of heavy armour. And secured major port facilities for onward re-supply. And then we always get the old 'Market Garden' nutmeg. I doubt you even realise it was TWO operations. The first one was totally successful and the second was 90% so. And who authorised the Operation? One General Eisenhower who years later said it was the right plan at the right time but hit unexpected problems. Which is what happens in war. To blame Monty and somehow not mention the man responsible (Ike) betrays your bias .... And I notice you failed to mention how Monty, despite being abused by Patton and the US Media and losing command of US Forces at the request of Bradley in September '44 still turned around his British 21st Army, retook command of US First Army and Ninth Army Forces and basically cleaned up the mess of the Ardennes in December '44. You may not believe it was a mess so lets see what the official U.S. Army history states: "At least seven thousand [men] were lost here and the figure probably is closer to eight or nine thousand. The amount lost in arms and equipment, of course, was very substantial. The Schnee Eifel battle, therefore, represents the most serious reverse suffered by American arms during the operations of 1944-45 in the European theater." And Monty had to reverse that 'mess'. Of course Super Ego Patton had to roar off on his own with the US 310th Press Corps to 'relieve Bastogne'. I am sure the fact it was an R & R area for US Press and media personnel had NO relevance at all!. A totally pointless and unnecessary manoeuvre given the context of what the US Forces had allowed to happen in the Ardennes. And Monty's thanks for this saving of thousands of Yanks? Well Patton, believing a re-directed broadcast from the Germans, misled the US Media on what Monty had said afterwards. Monty was in fact very full of praise for the way US Forces fought and worked to his plan but this was misrepresented in a disgraceful way in the US Media because they could not have a British General save the lives of US troops could they? He never forgot that. So lets see what the German commander of the 5th Panzer Army, Hasso von Manteuffel said of Montgomery's leadership: "The operations of the American 1st Army had developed into a series of individual holding actions. Montgomery's contribution to restoring the situation was that he turned a series of isolated actions into a coherent battle fought according to a clear and definite plan. It was his refusal to engage in premature and piecemeal counter-attacks which enabled the Americans to gather their reserves and frustrate the German attempts to extend their breakthrough" I will believe the Germans in defeat rather than the US Media in victory thanks.

Whoa whoa whoa Look ichish You seem to think I have some kind of Anti-British bias or that we Yanks wanted to hog all the glory (I know we Americans can be insufferably overbearing at times but we do revere fairness!). It's obvious you have deeply researched these issues but I still have to question some of your conclusions which frankly baffle me! That somehow Monty stabilized the Ardennes situation. I know Monty loved to "Tidy his lines" as he put it and there nothing wrong with caution especially when it comes to preserving lives-No one should criticize him for that! As for Market Garden-What succeeded? XXX Corps failed it's objective and Urquhart up against terrible odds not only could not secure the bridge but had his command decimated as you know. It was in many ways a brilliant plan but incredibly risky and Monty pushed for it. You know Monty like Patton was revered by his troops but the Universal loathing that his contemporaries, British and Americans staff officers had for Monty is not some "US Media" myth. My opinions are based on the historians I have read not the fucking US media-to say that is an insult. Let me just say My admiration for the British Armed forces and Winston Churchill is paramount! The men like Dowding , Alexander, Mountbatten, the RAF, John Howard at Pegasus, John Frost at Arheim and uncounted others saved the West from the scourge of Nazism while the rest of the world looked on. You have challenged my opinion on Monty-who Ironically I once admired for his elan. So I will go back and do some more research- Monty deserves that at least! I think your take on Eisenhower is off but we will discuss that anon!

tag427 - Monty made two mistakes in the whole of WWII. The first was to ignore certain intelligence and rely on too many factors coming together in Operations Market and Garden. Market was successful and Garden was nearly successful. His second was to call a press conference after the Ardennes battles and praise the US Forces he had commanded all the way from Normandy up until Sept. '44 and then again for the Ardennes campaign. He admitted afterwards: "Not only was it probably a mistake to have held this conference at all in the sensitive state of feeling at the time, but what I said was skilfully distorted by the enemy. Chester Wilmot explained that his dispatch to the BBC about it was intercepted by the German wireless, re-written to give it an anti-American bias, and then broadcast by Arnhem Radio, which was then in Goebbels' hands. Monitored at Bradley's HQ, this broadcast was mistaken for a BBC transmission and it was this twisted text that started the uproar." And in this telling remark: "Distorted or not, I think now that I should never have held that press conference. So great were the feelings against me on the part of the American generals that whatever I said was bound to be wrong. I should therefore have said nothing." Eisenhower commented in his own memoirs: "I doubt if Montgomery ever came to realize how resentful some American commanders were. They believed he had belittled them-and they were not slow to voice reciprocal scorn and contempt." Sources: 'The Memoirs of Field-Marshall Montgomery' - 1958, p. 311-314 'A Field Marshal in the Family, Pen and Sword' Brian Montgomery - 2010, p.296. And there you have it. American Generals resented a British General because he was British, a magnificent battlefield commander and someone who had years more experience than any of them actually fighting a war. He had been seriously wounded in WWII and re-wrote the battle tactics for the British Army. The US Army never did, ignored his advice and learned the hard way in North Africa. The Yanks always reckoned they knew best and yet time again the 'Old Hands' in the British ranks proved actually they did. The US Airborne refused to use the UK Paras 'One hit twist and go' parachute harness and kept their 5 point harness. Hundreds died in the rivers and flooded areas of Normandy. No Paras ever did. US Admiral King hated the British and despite having U Boats enjoying 'The Happy Time' off the US coast he kept coastal lights on, refused to listen to Bletchley Park intelligence reports telling where each U Boat was and also refused to use local convoys around the USA. Tens of thousands of tons of Allied shipping were lost and thousands of sailors paid with their lives. It took 24 specially converted trawlers to be sent from the waters around the UK, across the Atlantic in Winter for proper convoy protection and sub hunting to start. 3 ships were lost with all hands in the process. Go read about 'HMT Bedfordshire' and others and why there are now British Cemeteries on Ocracoke and Hatteras in North Carolina with others buried in Virginia. Should I mention how the Americans failed to use specially developed British tanks in the Normandy landings which contributed to hundreds more dead? Or how they ignored the British instructions on how to install the British designed and built Mulberry Harbours to beat the British and theirs was destroyed in the first storm? While the British one was undamaged and delivered ALL the supplies off ships for months after. Sorry to labour the point but WWII is littered with examples of American arrogance, stupidity and bloody minded ignorance. They were only in the (European) war from November '42 to June '45 and yet try to re-write history to make out we Brits weren't even there or played some minor supporting role. It is a bit bloody rich IMHO! My late Uncle Jim fought with Monty with the British 7th Armoured 'Desert Rats' all the way back and forth across North Africa, up Sicily and through Italy. He was with him at Caen and Normandy, through France, Belgium, Holland and into Germany and the only two things he would talk about were how overbearing and sloppy the Yanks were and the high regard Monty was held by his troops.

1chish "oh yea the Royal Navy was so help full the the US troop on D-day" lets see I mean your bombardments didn't help at all especially on Omaha and you didn't let US bomber drop there payload on the enemy guns because you were afraid it would hit your ships which led to the slaughter of some many Americans. Not to mention US troops had to clime a cliff to take out german guns that threatened the invasion. The us pars did adopt the British style parachutes after D-Day but they didn't take them during D-Day not because we are to proud there just weren't enough to go around so the Americans stuck with there kit. Even when the US wasn't at war we gave you volunteer pilots. The man who found the Bismarck was American. We also gave not sold you several war ships. Also Patton was a great military commander because he was a student of history. His tactics as I like to put them were like Ulysses S Grants tactics during the American civil war(btw grant was not a drunk contrary to popular belief. he never drank while in command of the union army it came from people trying to slander grant so they used story's from when he was at West Point were he was a super light weight). Grants tactics was to never let the enemy have a break. Although this might seem like it would get a lot of men killed in the long run even more men would die. If Monty wasn't so slow in his advance into France Patton could have used the fuel Monty was using to smash into a poorly defended Germany and took Berlin in 1944. Not to mention during the battle of the bulge the British army was no were to be found while Patton was the one who with the help fro the US AIRBORNE drove back the Germans. Also Ike did fight in wars he went on the expedition to find poncho via and he fought in WWI. Ike was not front line commander I will give you that but he was a genius with logistics D-Day would not have been possible without Ike. There was also plenty of experienced US here also from the expedition into Mexico WWI and the banana wars. Also were was the "experienced British army and navy" in the pacific. I mean the Australians did more then the British. All you did was defend India and totally fail at fighting in Southeast Asia. I mean when ever a brit or some one else says that Americans say that we won the war all by are selves but in reality we claim in to late(even though we entered a few mounts after the USSR was invaded before Stalingrad) they all ways fail to mention that America did all the heavy lifting in the pacific. By the way Americans don't think that we won the war all bye are selves even in American history class were we a learning about AMERICAN history we spend a lot of time talking about the other fronts of WWII. So please don't assume that again.

So a general versus a fucking politician who resigned from military command in the last war. You're a fucking idiot.

This never happened. The movie changed a bunch of shit, they never were at each others throats like this. Eisenhower respected Churchill.

F.u.c.k Allah Eisenhower was a glorified clerk. Real generals were officers like General Patton.

Danny you don't jack read a book

Eisenhower did not fight in the First World War - or any war.

Ike never saw combat during his entire career. Great strategist and politician but he was never under fire.

Garrett Dalley i am mistaken

@steve gale okay no problem

true