Churchill was an idiot 

Making peace with the nazis was out of the question. That would have left continental Europe at the mercy of the nazis and the communists.

Yes, Churchill should have just made peace with Hitler. Then he would have stopped, just like all the other times world leaders tried making peace with him.

Don't you think UK would have made a cease fire agreement rather than surrendering to Mussolini and Hitler's ambitions and attack again later, like in Napoleonic wars ?. Your videos on Italian fascism was an eye opener for me TIK thanks.

With the power of hindsight though, Operation Unthinkable in 1945 can be argued to be a good idea now in 2022 (although I don't agree to that).

Churchill not surrendering was the most significant action he ever took. He was an imbecile when it came to military strategy, the Italian campaign being seen as the soft underbelly was just one point of evidence for this. As far as the Bengal famine & other non European tragedies of the war, that in my opinion can be attributed more to colonialism than directly to the war. Yes the war caused millions of subjects in Britain's colonies to suffer, but they wouldn't have if they were never British colonies in the first place. Let's also not single out Britain. France, The Netherlands, Italy & the US all had overseas colonies that suffered similarly. Keep up the good work TIK, you're one of the few people today who truly understands what history is. It also helps that you don't deny objective reality like most if not all socialists do.

Bingo. I'd throw Eisenhower in that mix too.

Ah, is that why, when his entire cabinet wanted him to surrender in 1940, In Spite of Churchill, Churchill refused to give up? God, imagine how wonderful it would have been, if there was no Churchill! Surely the war would be won on better conditions!

@@yochaiwyss3843 Oh my the old "HE NEVER SURRENDERED" as if it stemmed from an informed decision after a deliberated strategical analysis of the situation and wasn't an utterly delusional act of bravado by a posh tantrum throwing twat who didn't want to admit to losing. He got lucky, that's all.

MacArthur was an arrogant bastard who got a lot of men needlessly killed but he could come up with military plans which were actually feasible, basically anything Churchill touched went to shit and he was always extremely handsy. If MacArthur had become president or got his hands on some nukes during the Korean war then maybe he could have rivaled Churchill but even then he'd have had a hard time of it.

@@gratefulguy4130 A little bit of knowledge huh!

Many working class people in the UK hate Churchill, that reduces nothing from his massive service to his nation and the entire free world.

Your father was a wise man .

Am personally not a Monty fan. However, he does not appear to have been a 'butcher' general which counts for something imho.

@@ComUnSas Agree

You speak too soon my fellow fan of history @@ComUnSas Monty likes to portray that image , which was in realoty just his way to cover for his lack of confidence and indecisivness in battle when faced with a difficult choice. Through Montys below average leadershiop skills he lost the perfect oppurtunity to destroy the Afrika corp at El alamein . Arnham was a bloodbath

That’s painfully accurate.

So it was better to have him than not.

The Churchill myth: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dYcXPWhrJ5k.htmlsi=ygL9zPdoaGtLqhCJ

He was a great statesman but unfortunately he rated himself as a great soldier too.

England was lost and lays in Flanders Fields which this Bankrupt Drunk Warmonger was very much for publicly and behind the scenes

Empire was to be lost in any case

I would look for evidence that Churchill was secretly funded by the United States so that he could destroy the British empire. The United States wanted to destroy the British Empire ever since the American Revolution. That was Amplified when the British considered aiding the South during the American Civil War. The United States did not forget that. In the Years leading up to WW1 they try to stop European colonialism because they knew it was the route of European power. The United States saw their position of power increase after WW1, of course they wanted Europe to have another world war. Churchill was just the fool that they were looking for.

The Churchill myth: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dYcXPWhrJ5k.htmlsi=ygL9zPdoaGtLqhCJ

Russia won the war for Britain

H-man loved britain and was never planning to invade Britain. There was a single plan to do so drawn up by his advisors which was never really considered seriously. H-man also never planned to invade france, or any part of the world west of his own nation.@@80sidd

Theres just something funny about the though that the guys most associated with "stiff upper lips" and "Civilized, proper behavior" were also the guys who's war strategy was mainly "Go total ape s--- and frontal attack, because where we're going trousers are not a necessity. Sophisticated Strategy is for poofters!"

@@jasonbelstone3427 Yes, indeed. The British were noted for exactly that. Refined manners and politeness right up to the point where they stop apologizing and tear your head off.

What is your comment about British maritime power not being challenged "until the Americans...began asserting themselves at sea" referring to? Assuming it's the War of 1812 (the only time Britain and America fought in the 19th century) and specifically American frigate victories in 1812...then it's worth saying the War of 1812 was a minor conflict which basically involved the Royal Navy turning up, blockading the US Eastern Seaboard, keeping the American navy trapped in port, flatlining the US economy and forcing the American government to sue for peace. Single ship battles didnt change the general picture at sea. The diminutive US navy had 45-gun frigates (closer to third rate ships of the line) designed explicitly to beat British and French 38-gun frigates. That the USN won a handful of frigate actions using these ships against lone enemies is not surprising. The British won the most evenly matched single ship action in 1813, in a battle lasting just over 10 minutes. The War of 1812 is subject to vast mythology in American popular memory- not least the naval side of it. The first real challenge to British naval authority came with the expansion of the German fleet in the late 1890s.

So I suppose the French never had a strong military or navy

We didn’t have a strong navy like that until the 20th century

What a comment lol.

Soviet Land in Italy with german at the Gates of moscow

We will fight in the air, we will fight on the ground, we will fight in the beaches....Churchill was a fighter and get got the Empire for an appeasement policy to geared up war mode. He took the war to Germany where ever he could.

@@BobHooker What a load of nonsense. Britain (and France) began rearming long before they began appeasing, appeasement was buying time, the British began in 1933 under Stanley Baldwin and continued under Chamberlain. Churchill didn’t take over until mid 1940 9 months into the war. Churchill was a buffoon.

@@BobHooker he could have left millitary alone

His relationship with the generalsmay have been complex but he had this for him. He listened to the generals, admirals and air marshalls and their points of veiw prevailed when it came to strategy and execution. His opposition in Berlin did not operate like this.

The RAF could not have taken on the Luftwaffe in 1938 , Chamberlain bought us the vital time we needed.

@@petersmith3953 So the Allies fought with British fighters but without Czechoslovak army.

@@pawekuchciak5927 pretty sure the british didn't know exactly the state of the german army in 1938, but they knew the british one was bad. Chamberlain took a decision with the informations his advisors could give him

if the french and British had gone on the offensive against Germany while they were fighting on multiple fronts in 1938 the war would be a footnote in history having ended in the allies favor in a few months.

You Americans have been grossly misinformed. Britain had already been at war for 9 months when Churchill made his power move. There was not much reluctance for fighting Nazi Germany left in the English population by then. There was a lot of reluctance prior to the German invasion of Poland, but mostly from the conservative voting base who were keen to avoid war at all costs to maintain economic recovery from the Great Depression and to prevent the sharemarket from collapsing. The opposition Labour Party (socialists), some other conservatives, and many in the military held no reluctance and were deeply dissatisfied with the appeasement. Chamberlain was unfairly scapegoated after his death (when he could not defend himself) and in actuality; his public show for appeasement was to please the majority of his voter base, and behind the doors he was very keen to take the war to Germany and working endlessly to get British industry and its military in a fit state to take o on the Germans. Let’s not forget that he and Daladier were tricked and let down by both Stalin and Mussolini at the Munich conference. While this was going on Churchill was a laughed at political animal.

That's honestly a very limited goal for a statesman, and it is a frequently a trait of not very bright people. Pretty much anyone knows someone who failed time and again and yet never stopped to think about it.

The words of an insane man

How fitting.

@jim no theydont. They usually learn from their failures, unlike churchill and zuckerborg

@jim I'm not saying churchill was without merit. But he did succumb to unwise military impulses somewhat frequently, and he didn't seem to grasp the fact that his meddling in military affairs did more harm then good.

De Gaulle was a bigger idiot than Churchill 😂

@@dillonblair6491 Says a guy probably not speaking 20 words in French and knowing about French history and politics what Hellywood told him.... ;-), sorry Dillon, Churchill was not 10% the statesman De Gaulle was ... "I fart in your general direction" to quote someone else. :-)

@@abuseofmainstreammediacanh5713 He didn't even accomplish anything 😂 America and Britain simply appointed him as the new leader of france so they could claim the French government was still alive and fighting against the axis. The liberation of France wasnt even De Gaulle either it was an American effort. He caused fractures in the allies and nato simply because he wanted France to feel important, he contributed nothing to the war effort in practical terms, he caused France to take the anti American foreign policy style for no reason other than pride, he went to Canada and started calling for the French speakers to secede, he angered japan in the 1960s by calling them sketchy car dealers, his meddling in Africa caused almost all of Frances ex colonies to be destitute and France still has a stranglehold on those countries to this day which has been disastrous in every way possible, he was incompetent militarily, etc. He was an idiot who was lucky to have U.S backing in ww2. If Roosevelt and Churchill had picked literally anyone else, they'd be the national hero of france.

@@dillonblair6491 Yep... how about reading some books? He started without even a nation, just a handful of volunteers. His entire infrastructure, supply and logistics at the mercy of Churchill, who constantly conspired to replace him with a convenient yes-man puppet and get rid of him and his followers.... yet, de Gaulle ended not only being the uncontested leader of the Free French, he ended up as the uncontested leader of France after the war when Churchill was already gone ..... one can like or hate De Gaulle for his character, but achieving all this, starting with less than scratch, against all odds, against both enemy AND allied, is something that clearly proves how great a statesman he was.

@@abuseofmainstreammediacanh5713 😂 I love how you didn't refute or debunk anything I said. So, yeah he didn't accomplish anything. "He started out without a nation" 😂 and he never took it back, America did. Also he became the uncontested leader of free France because America literally appointed him to that position. 😂 what achievements??? Nothing you said was difficult or even because of de Gaulle himself. "He ran an artificially created rebel group in exile, and he became leader (after America appointed him to that position)"

Mate have you seen the video about John Curtin? 🇦🇺

I am grateful as an American for the Gallipoli movie with Mel Gibson.

Also explains BoZo's love of the man. Rather weirdly, someone's singing "My Darling Clementine", Churchill's wife's name, woah syncronicity!

@@berranari1 About how Churchill hated him? Yeah, it doesn't endear him. He basically left us Aussies undefended. If it weren't for the Americans...

You don’t think there have been other leaders or generals that have made mistakes? There’s a few mistakes but also a legacy of good decisions. Supporting the development of tanks, helping create the British secret services, supporting the creation of the RAF, these are no small feats.

Why should you believe the losers? All they do is make excuses for losing and make the victors out to be the true villains. No matter how much a veteran from the losing side of any country may have hated the war they fought in or how much they disagreed with their country's cause, their biggest regret is that they lost.

​@@patrickmiano7901 and why should he believe the winners? WW2 like any wars was just about human scum fighting for power it was never about justice

And then there is Bulgaria... that lost WW2 and yet has gotten to keep it's cake and eat it

@@patrickmiano7901 that's not exactly what I meant. I don't mean the opinions of the differing sides, because yeah, bias. I'm more talking about the politics within a specific side. Capable people doing the right thing, then a superior or competitor comes along and takes credit. And you never even hear the name of the person who has the original plan, responsibility, or idea. They get shoved out, and another takes credit for what they actually did.

Well what you describe is a quality to be had as well If you are able to use people and have them do as you want…

Absolutely agree! O'Connor as well

Wavell juggled around several theaters with not enough troops and then when he failed not surprisingly, he was sacked. Wavell was an extremely competent commander.

Operation Cum Pass hahahahahahahahaha so funni

@@TheImperatorKnight How was O'connor born in India and is white?

@@TheImperatorKnight They only lacked equipment, the achievments of the succesors was only because the equipment came rolling in, like with Montgomery

Paraphrasing WC - if you cannot count your enemies on one hand, then you don’t stand for anything.

It depends on what your actual intent is.

@@bobok5566 The term "butcher's bill", in this case, refers to casualties among friendly forces - not the enemy.

so do it British style: 1) Try few battles, realize you are so bad you are loosing for one german/japanese soldier, at least 4 or more soldiers, no matter how much you outnumber them or how good position you have. 2) Nevermind, just wait it out and pay other countries to fight... butcher bill saved, uff, we just pay for body bags for russians. its really easy for islands safe from Nazi invasions to keep their butcher bill to their liking :)

@@Enkabard Wasn't the Brits who had a secret pact with the N@zis to split Poland between them... However, it was the Brits & British Commonwealth who were pretty much the only ones fighting from the fall of France to the opening of Barbarossa. Had the latter not happened old 'Uncle Joe' would have been happy to sit back and watch from the sidelines (while executing his own people by the thousands)!

See what Einstein contemporaries said about him and check back here

I’d put it in the same category as Richard The Lionheart. A romantic French idiot who wasn’t born in England, couldn’t speak any English, didn’t spend more than six months of his life in England, bankrupted the English government and wrecked the English economy to fund his military misadventures in the holy land, would have sold London to the highest bidder for the same reason and is regularly lauded as one of the greatest of English monarchs. Who is likewise held up as one of the worst? His brother John who was by all accounts a fair man and a capable administrator who had to sort out the shambles that Richard created. The heavy taxes that he had to levy were needed to pay for Richard’s ransom when his crusade went tits up and he was captured by Saladin. An awful lot of history that British school kids are taught is complete bollocks.

Churchill was one of the greatest politicians I've ever known.

@@marconeevaristoaraujopaima710 wrong! He was the most pathetic man. A fu*king piece of racist and genocidal sh*t. Sometimes i cant believe that people actually admire this animal of a man. I thought the whole world, especially the brits, know about the horrendous things the british did us. but forget a sorry, they even hail these people as heroes. Its honestly sickning to see. First they loot you and then they call you poor. Wah!

Marcos, you are an idiot and a complete failure as a human being. You're not even British, so shut up, Lassie.

He was also bewildered as to how those inferior Japanese could defeat superior Anglo Saxons at anything.

Percival was one of Churchill's boys. He had a penchant for physically fit veterans from the trenches who had shown personal bravery under fire, ignoring the fact that the qualities that make you a good leader of a company or a batallion do not necessarily make you a good commander of an army. Thus the debacle of Carlton de Wiart (otherwise an intriguing person) in Norway and Freyberg on Crete.

@@PSPaaskynen Percival was also a war criminal from the time of the Tan War, torturing Irish civilians was always going to get Churchills support.

As s Singaporean whose father was born in 1942 in Singapore, I thank General Percival for simply doing the right thing and not behaving like a suicidal maniac with utter disregard for human lives.

@@eventhorizon3117 You mean not like the Japanese who massacred tens of thousands of Singaporeans after Percival's surrender?

That's exactly what I see. I think Tik does a great job of explaining the details of it but the bigger picture is just what you say. He should have stayed out of it.

I'd argue that was just one of his problems. It wasn't like Churchill was any better at making decisions that were strictly within his own lane. His only real skill was political machinations and climbing the ladder of power.

The delay it caused in the German invasion of the Soviet Union was a bigger benefit to the allied cause than anything it cost on North Africa. It may have cost Hitler the war.

Reminds me of LBJ picking individual targets in Vietnam

Actually I think the Balkans campaign was political. It said "we will die with you and fight with anyone who fights Nazis". I am sure Stalin took note.

Biggest flaw, he was bankrupt and was financed to oppose Germany by people willing to settle his debts. As the notsees initial plan was to deport not destroy, but Britain controlled the seas so it was not viable, they went for the harsher approach. Arguably you could blame him for the 11mn.

Except his stubborn refusal to yield was restricted entirely to how he treated his underlings. He wasn't a principled man. He was a bully who whined a lot when his staff proved smarter than him. Among his political peers Churchill was in fact known primarily as a notorious flip flopper. He was originally a Liberal who switched over to the Conservatives; and was a Fascist fanboy before he jumped on the anti-appeasement bandwagon (who actually were led by Anthony Eden, not Churchill, but Eden was thoroughly trashed by all the pro-Churchill historians for supposedly losing the empire when Churchill bankrupted it). That Churchill has a high reputation and his faults are constantly spun as virtues is indeed at the very root of why very few people have great trust for the political and historical establishment. They are just so obviously just a bunch of brazen liars trying to promote themselves and their idiotic ideas. Really, Churchill himself said outright he would manipulate history to put himself in the best possible light, and yet people still keep treating his perspective as gospel truth instead of self-serving distortions.

​@@thomasellysonting3554 He literally gave one of the most famous speeches of all time in "We shall never surrender". Saying "his stubborn refusal to yield was restricted entirely to how he treated his underlings" is factually incorrect.

@@CrushedIdealism the speech you heard was recorded in the 1950s. The original in 1940s used the same words, but was delivered badly (likely because Churchill was drunk) and got almost no applause in the Commons. Keep up with the myths and bullshit though.

@@thomasellysonting3554 Ok, your source on that and his other speeches being poorly received?

Churchill invaded Iran together with Stalin which resulted in millions of deaths from man-made famine

He meant in principle.

Effectively, yes. Making them a legit military target and an economy that must be crushed/reconquered in order for the Germans to win means liquidation. W out big daddy USA and warmonger fdr, Churchill’s buffoonery would have spelt the doom of the Brits…the idea that imperial Britain was somehow more moral than Germany or the war had anything to do w morality is absolutely laughable. It was abt consumer product saturation and power politics. Imperial powers fighting for market share. Legit, how is Germany any different than USA, both led ethnic cleaning campaigns for the founding of their new state

bro believes in the holocaust

U mean how the all1es liquid@ted Dr £sden and H @mburg?…I had a comment here claiming that the 1mp £ rialist w£st has no moral high ground over Germany, and the war was really abt inter wstrn p 0wer competition. It has since been d £ leted

Is there something behind it?

@@elomial724 I ask the same question. I'm not aware of the meaning behind it. IMO, both Xi and Putin are trying to undermine the UK and the US, and both China and Russia should be among the top priorities to defend against. Unfortunately, those who largely lean libertarian or right wing, seem to give Russia a pass, more than they do China. I am on the left and I see Russia as a greater present danger to Europe and the US than they do.

@@elomial724 maybe says that CCP influences UK politics

The UK is a puppet of the US….

very subtle this TIK guy

eeeh...Wavel and ABDA , Malaya and Overal Asia campaign (= NOT AT ALL support for the DEI up to Darwin Australia!!).. total FAILURE...no GRASP of strategic situation...and NO smartnesses or COOPERATIONS !

@@oddballsok ABDA was probably a clusterf*** regardless of who was in charge. You set up an adhoc organization in such short time between 4 different countries (with 4 leaders of countries yelling at him instead of 1) with little or poor forces in a theater that had been at lower priority then the already severely overtaxed and understrength Middle East command. , I think any commander would have failed in that spot. In the Middle East Wavell only had to contend with Churchill as his boss, and he did leave his command in a better condition then when he found it. Italians in East Africa, dealt with. Vichy French in Syria, dealt with. Iraq, dealt with. Iran, dealt with. And if it hadn't been for the Greek clusterf***, thank you Churchill, Libya would probably have been dealt with too. The Dutch East Indies were f***ed regardless because neither Britain, Australia or the US had the resources to defend it. The British Far East command was, as said, even lower in priority then the Middle East command, Australia had sent the bulk of its forces to the Middle East and the US military plan to deal with Japan was to withdraw from the Far East back to Hawaii, fort up there and only return to the Far East once a massive military buildup had been achieved. Which is pretty much what happened. And with the Netherlands under German occupation the colonial administration of the DEI had to make due with what it had. Which wasn't that much to begin with either. Far better for everyone involved if the DEI army and navy had withdrawn to Australia and await the arrival of the US mobilization. Maybe hold on to Sumatra if the British forces in Malaya and Singapore had withdrawn there too right away.

​@@oddballsok the british cammanders there weren't much better, loosing ground and ressources quite fast

Allied forces in the colonies were in a poor condition from the get go in regards to supplies, logistical apparatus, troop training, air and naval assets, etc. Coupled with the Europe First policy and it's clear that Wavell and the rest would only be capable of holding out for a while against the Japanese and even then that'd be extremely difficult. Wavell also didn't have any 'aces' like O Connor and Combe. He had the likes of Percival instead...

@@901Sherman yeah, ABDACOM is more like a desperate attempt for wavell to salvage the already bad situation, The Americans just entered the war, and have no huge naval assets in Southeast asia to stop the Japanese advance, the Dutch is not even major military power before the war, and badly unprepared, Australia still reorganize, with some their best units still in Africa, only the British have sizable fighting forces in Southeast asia, but of course they have percival, who are badly suited against Japanese tactics The best thing Wavell can do at that time is to make battle of Burma as long as possible and defend British Raj, which he able to do PS: Hello, didn't expect to see fellow Indonesian in here

This is fucking hilarious. Thank you for sharing

This sounds like a load of bollocks. Why would Churchill be carrying 1000 pounds let alone why would he give such a sum of money to a taxi driver (during war time when its usage was limited).

@@danieleyre8913 You know, jokes have a certain feature to them... They don't have to be true to be funny.

@@MrStarTraveler Jokes also have a certain quality called being in some manner or other funny.

@@danieleyre8913 The problem with modern society is that there are too many but hurt people, one can't even tell a joke without offending someone.

Does not make him a good leader tho

He just fed them hatred for the Germans, nothing skillful about that

Basically he made the error of applying old tactics to a new war like some did in ww2

@@jamesfoss1627 Everyone did this. Even the Nazis were just following old Prussian tactics, just updated for tanks. In major wars that occur a significant time after the last, everyone still thinks according to previous tactics, only for it to take an entirely different and unexpected direction.

@@josephmoya5098 That's not 100% true. German Wehrmacht was an update of the Reichswehr of the late stage of WW1. Squad and stormtroop tactics were already applied, it basically won the Poland campaign where tanks weren't as important as later in France where Guderian and Rommel first time tried their spearhead doctrine. TLDR: Small infantry squads wasn't part of old Prussian doctrine.

That would mean that he overslept all the changes Germans made in their military doctrine in the 20s and 30s. Remember that there was always the so-called "Schwarze Reichswehr" which would re-arm and train in secret which even more pushed the new doctrine of small fighting groups with a flat hierarchy and a lot of initiative. It's the one doctrine that counters trench- and artillery warfare.

@@ragnarlmao9511 You are right. There certainly were modifications. I was simply pushing back on the idea that it is reasonable to expect these modifications to come out of nowhere. We like to pretend that the Nazis invented Blitzkrieg, but they actually just modernized a favored Prussian military tactic and modified it further after seeing the capabilities of their troops in real battles. It wasn't unreasonable to Churchill to assume that WWII would eventually end up in a situation like WWI, and wish to get ahead of his enemy in doing so. And when it proved that it wasn't ending up that way, tactics changed.

Well, he was better than Halifax, and that’s it really.

@@richardsmith579 Halifax would have glad-handed Adolf and shown him around Buck House.

In his lifetime he was hated by the working classes and first time he stood for elections as PM he lost to Attlee big time.

Nor the occupation of Iceland which was pre-emptive i.e. to stop Germany taking it.

@@simonh6371 On the other hand they only just beat the Germans - the German embassy in Iceland was rather over staffed with military personnel…

Controlling Iran was needed to prevent the Germans from making inroads with the Iranians and to ensure a way of supplying Russia. And if I were Germany I would have, for sure, tried to take over Iceland and Greenland. I guess it was too late for them.

@@RaptorFromWeegee while suport your video game entusiasm what wopdul you do with cold climaste island facign enemy whcih rule the sea.

Thomas, mostly I agree with you here. But there's one other critical element. Britain would only fight its European enemies if there was a host of Germans to do the actual fighting and dying. This was Britain's strategy in King William's War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the 1st and 2nd Silesian Wars, the Seven Years War, and in the wars of the French Revolution. Britain even tried to fight the American Revolution using as many German mercenaries as possible. This was one of the reasons why Wellington had such difficulty with the Spanish campaign starting in 1809. Here the British army had to actually fight and do most of the heavy lifting in a hard-fought war with little way to cover their numeric weakness. But the real defeat of Napoleon was not done by Britain; it was done by a host of Germans and Russian at Leipzig in 1813. Once again, Britain was getting a bunch of Germans and Slavs to do most of the hard work and dying in droves because of it.

@@colinhunt4057 Indeed. For brevity I didn't go into specifics, merely talking about Britain encouraging allies to fight and supporting them with arms/money. Who these allies were changed over time. When the enemy was France, then a lot of these allies were indeed "Germans" from the myriad little states in central Europe. But there were also Dutch, Austrians, Swedes, Russians, Italians etc over time and various different conflicts. The point being that every time this strategy was employed the details naturally had to change, while the core principals remained the same. Of course you're right that Napoleon was not defeated by Britain alone. His defeat came in 1814 with simultaneous invasions of France from the coalition armies of Prussia, Russia and Austria coming in from the east, while the British Army came up from the south. Resulting in his abdication. By this time France was so low on both manpower in general and especially experienced manpower, their armies were overwhelmed. What caused this bleeding away of French manpower? Years of general attrition, to be sure. But the greatest losses came during Napoleon's disasterous invasion of Russia, and the lengthy debacle of the Iberian campaign. Both of these campaigns can be partially attributed to Britain's strategy. They kept a British army in the field for years for the Iberian campaign, linking up with local partisans to bleed French armies stationed there. And as previously stated, Britain's blockade of France -> the Continental System -> Invasion of Russia. Certainly Britain didn't do it alone (or even close). But the overall strategic plan that ultimately saw the downfall of Napoleon? That was the tried and true British strategy of how to defeat a continental enemy too powerful to engage directly/alone. Like I say, I think Churchill understood this strategy and tried to employ it. But as stated, every time it is used the details have to change depending on the enemies/potential allies involved and the change in technology and weapons. When it comes to the more "Statesman" side of the plan, Churchill did a great job. Inspiring his own nation to keep fighting. Bringing in and supporting allies and doing his part in building a winning coalition. On the more purely military side of things, he didn't do nearly as well. This really wasn't his area of expertise so that should come as no surprise. But unfortuneately he thought he was more competent in this arena than he really was. Not good - but a common enough character trait.

How well put was that? I whole-heartedly agree. We're all human, fallible, and mortal. Perhaps we should forgive a little more.

Agree with a lot of what you say, however Churchill was a military man,being an officer in the Boer War and later in the trenches of World War 1 after his failure's in Gallipoli. He was a bit of a gambler not unlike his later adversary Hitler,who also failed to have regard for human life looking, only at the objective.

@@philiprufus4427 Not actually a military man. He washed out getting into military school. So he had to go to South Africa as a newspaper correspondent. He did not escape from a Boer military prison camp; Mommy ransomed him out. I agree with you that he was indeed a gambler. His problem was that every one of his gambles turned out disastrously wrong. He had that in common with Hitler.

I think you hit the nail on the head Churchill was terrible people manager and loved to meddle in military affairs. He definetly made some things worse and cost lives but his ability to rally the people behind a common cause and to give hope when there is none is what people remember. War is barbaric to think anything else is naive, was Churchill a school boy, yes. Sadly at that time we needed an idiot who did not see the writing on the wall or understand how utterly hopeless the situation was. The germans had the same problem but their generals could not say no. In sport the team that makes the least mistakes often wins.

Its like the space race. Or any other kind of race. Nobody remembers the details, only who won. And Churchill won the war at the end of the day. The average Briton does not give a rat's ass that the war could have been waged much better from all points of view, only that it was won.

Fair comment

Churchill was not popular at the time. Clearly he didn’t make people feel better.

Though I would say king George the VI deserves it

What do you think he got right?

@@TheImperatorKnight In my personal opinion: Telling halifax to f*** off is the biggest one. His stubbornness caused incredible catastrophe's, but the the other option was much, *_much_* worse

@@TheImperatorKnight If there's one thing he got right is to continue fighting Germany after France surrendered, same as De Gaulle. Even if at the time it seemed hopeless and foolish it proved to be the best choice in the end. Even if he did got some help from Mr. H.for going to war with both the USSR and the USA at the same time.

@@TheImperatorKnight Since Churchill was a Neo-Fascist, his entire world view was in terms of power & control... So besides a few military decisions, his main success was in his use of Propaganda... The bigger question is how Churchill and his supporters would have ruled Britain if given the chance, as I suspect that "similar to Donald Trump" is accurate, as this type of leader just doesn't respect the rule of law...

@@RafaelSantos-pi8py how was that the right thing for Britain? Hitler made it very clear he didn't want anything from the Britain but peace. Then afterwards the British empire ceased to exist with a crippled economy

I agree, Churchill had be be seen to be defending the world against the Nazi’s so couldn’t abandon more allies (Greece) the way Chamberlain had. Securing a cause worth fighting for and American intervention was more important at a strategic level. Churchill was better at strategy than tactics, although perhaps he thought otherwise!

That's a pretty accurate summary on Churchill's true strengths: clueless with regards to military issues but sufficient in the grand strategic and political arena

Considering how well Greece did against Italy it would have been political madness not to support them militarily. He also had to worry about Turkey defecting to the Axis and so wanted to demonstrate strength in the region.

Thank heavens someone has enough capacity to ask questions of the "Churchill stoopid" narrative.

A strategist, not a tactician. He may have botched battles, but he won the war!

Risks have to be calculated, especially in war time. Lives are at stake and this needs deliberation.

Oh please, the only difference between Hitler and Churchill's military structure was that Churchill had Generals willing to say no.

Well said

You obviously didn't learn anything from the video nor have any regard for the people's lives who were carelessly thrown away to prop up someone's ego. A war is not a construction business nor is it a casino.

Great comment and well thought out. I agree with that - also anyone knows that Churchill was the leader England had at the time, regardless of armchair historians or revisionist apologist RU-vid fans.

Sir, you have saved me at least 30 minutes by typing out my thoughts on the matter better than I would have. If a less bloodthirsty and stubborn man would have made peace with A.H. at some juncture earlier in the war, what would the UK and Europe look like today? It's an interesting thought and frought with political implications and curious blanks. But can anyone confidently say it would be better without Churchill?

Yes, indeed. Imagine Ukraine trying to resist Russia today without Zelenskyy. Having a pugnacious and charismatic leader for the nation to rally around in wartime does make a difference. Look at France in WWII, for the alternative perspective. Churchill was a central element of the team which got the job done.

Right on the money!

@@pavlovsdog2551 Zelenskys a gangster he's no leader even Ukrainians' are fed up with him .

@@lablackzed Putin and his gang are preferable are they ? One would find that hard to believe

Grant was a military graduate and good tactician. Churchill was neither. He rich adventurer and his mother paid for his release from the Boers.

Lincoln is reported to have said “Well, I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals.”

Grant was a brilliant general and strategist. Churchill had a loud mouth and a bully's brain. If they were both drunk, I'd still pick Grant anytime of the day, twice on Sundays.

Agreed. And because of that political strategy, many of the military operations were nonsense. The intervention in Greece was a perfect example of a massive blunder by Churchill with no chance of success.

Exactly, half these campaigns were politically necessary, irrespective of their military outcome. In war you don't always have the luxury of only fighting the battles you want to fight.

At least, the Wehrmacht was a better choice than the Red Army. Who wanted to be deported to Siberia etc. by the NKVD - like Poles and people from the three Baltic states. England was protected against a direct Soviet invasion (English Channel). Hitler had never wanted war with Britain. Hitler had also never planned for a world war. Churchill never once attempted to make peace with Germany. Stalin was delighted when the West declared war on Germany - not a good sign.

The scenario you're describing would have been unthinkably horrific. Hitler would have remained in power and had free reign over Eastern Europe and ultimately Russia. It would have been a terrible blow to communism, stopping it in its tracks. British and French blood and treasure would have remained selfishly in-tact. The removal of international communist expansion, would have give Britain, America, and France a free hand for their foreign policy. Regrettably, their colonial empires would have continued on much longer. We'd have ended up with a cold war in Europe between Britain, France, USA and the low countries on one side, and the Axis powers, Spain, Portugal Scandinavia and Eastern Europe on the other side. If Germany were willing to focus her efforts only on colonizing and developing the former soviet union, and the US focused mostly on Latin America, and if France and UK stayed in their lanes as well, there might have been long term peace. We'd be back to where we were in the 1871-1914 period, but with a kind of sickening, disgusting stability. It also would have been a horrible tragedy for the ethnic minorities in Central and Eastern Europe. They'd have been either devastated or completely destroyed. The great intellectual classes would have been ruined, thus depriving the late 20th century of their influence, Asia, apart from Japan, would have been permanently subordinated to the West, The Middle East would also have had its nationalist aspirations hobbled. Islam would not have been able to expand and spread her wings like she deserved to. It would have had a terrible terrible effect on the West, allowing it to hog up most of the worlds wealth. Europe would have been deprived of the rich ethnic and racial diversity we enjoy today. It would have certainly harmed the advancement of LGBT rights, social justice, and feminism. Those ideas would have proceeded much more skittishly and slowly. Thank god for the leadership we had in the 1930s. This allowed us to avoid the horrors of a conservative eugenic nationalist Europe and North America.

We really do live in the worst time line 😮‍💨 ​@@RaptorFromWeegee

​@@RaptorFromWeegee that... Actually doesn't sound that bad, as a European

Yes

This man and other creators like him that deal in facts turned me away from my neo nazism. I’m an American now.

@@westernmonk1210 What?

​@@heksogen4788 He was radical but ceased to be likely due to seeing things from a new perspective. It happens for some people. Others stay radical forever

​@@westernmonk1210 lololol

@@AgentAlfie they don't. Read any public school history and geography book to convince yourself.

Lmao, love that Ork analogy. We will never surrender, I declare WAAAAGH!

I think it was covered on Mark Feltons's channel, but there's an account of Churchill nearly being blown up by German Artillery when he got too close to the front lines after Normandy.

That sounds like a great for a TTRPG character. Not so great for a head of state during a world war.

That’s the best description of Churchill I have ever heard! 😄👍🇬🇧

Did he want to invade Britain?

​@@FiveNineO Operation Sea Lion.

Yes but the Battle of Britain scotched his and Goering's plans @@FiveNineO

Not to mention the geography of the situation. The aggressiveness towards the German occupation of Norway protected the entire eastern coast of the UK. Occupying Norway by Britain however, would have tied down hundreds of thousands of troops and they were, at the time, much needed for homeland defense. Stavanger is little more than 300 miles from the Sottish northeast coastal plain. It would be a very difficult position to defend without horrendous loss of life.

@@FiveNineO there is evidence that hitler didn’t want to invade Britain.

Churchill was also a mass murderer look up the benghal famine

I feel the beginning was giving Hitler wiggle room on blame for ww2 but all and all its not a bad take or point for discussion but I wonder how drunk he was or if his drinks weren't really watered down or if he wasn't really taking cat naps throughout the day like people say he did.

@@AMultipolarWorldIsEmerging That's not true at all not even TIK agrees with that

Snap

@@JohnnyLouisXIX I think the Japanese are much more responsible for the Bengal Famine than Churchill.

I'm just saying, I wouldn't be surprised if *this* was the opinion that got this man cancelled.

Actually Churchill had the Russians pegged right from the start, never trusted them and unfortunately he was proved right

Well, he was half yank

He also bayed from the political wilderness that the nazi's were rearming and planning war from the moment they came to power and no one listened, so when Chamberlain resigned his commission to the king he advised the king to call on Mr Churchill, which the king very reluctantly did! How lucky we were!

​@@abb5596 So he was an idiot, just as I have been saying for decades.

What did he have to know of Russians?

The Australian troops sent to Singapore were the new recruits. The US made a deal to send two div to Aus to keep the Aus troops in the Middle East. Aus troops from. The ME were later sent to New Guinea& Solomons. They kicked total Ass.

Roosevelt received the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from a spy before the war, but did not inform Poland. Roosevelt wanted a war. Wars can be big business. Roosevelt was bad, and not even big.

You don't think seriously that Germany is defeated at western front - with 80% loses on east? There's another Tik's video about what would be if Soviet Union fight alone.

its more about Churchill's aggression pushing a naive Roosevelt into Japanese theaters, which then becomes the propaganda tool Churchill needed to pull USA sentiment into Europe. Even the drunkard Churchill knew England had finally met its match in Germany

@@augustlandmesser1520 wish I understood your comment better. wish you left the link you want us to consider

"" only America had the weight to achieve a decisive victory."" America couldn't have defeated the European Axis without the British Empire and USSR.

Isn’t that the fault of every leader. Just look at the delusional imperial aspirations of the axis powers. The Axis war goals are what you get if a leader is surrounded by yes men. The reason why Churchill succeeded while Hitler failed is that Churchill had people to tell him no.

Sounds like a good leader to me. He was willing to listen to the opinions of others and have help sifting through his ideas.

He wasn't just an idiot he was worse than Hitler in every way

Making continual mistakes and many of those mistakes being obvious mistakes makes anyone an idiot though, and anyone includes Winston Churchill.

Churchill was not an idiot he was a monster and mass murderer responsible for millions of deaths

@@danieleyre8913I hope that you can think clearly the next time they are bombing your home nightly

@@sgrant39 Churchill made errors before and long after the Battle of Britain. And he wasn’t in much danger from his bunker. He couldn’t think clearly because he was blotto’ed in booze.

Certain it is and sure, that Churchill was a flawed man. Who, besides Jesus Christ, isn’t or wasn’t? Yes, Churchill made very many mistakes during the war. But he was right more often than not. He took a tremendous calculated risk by sending half of Britain’s remaining tank strength to the Middle East in 1940. It paid off, two Italian armies were destroyed and the war in North Africa almost ended. By sending a small Corp from North Africa to Greece Churchill prolonged the North African war two years but it was another calculated risk on his part. Let it also be remembered that Churchill knew many of his own weaknesses and chose as his Chief of Imperial General Staff Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke who, for all of his flaws had the Moral Courage to tell Churchill “No” when needed. Churchill also saw to it that Sir Dudley Pound, a man of great moral courage, was First Sea Lord who would often ignore Churchill’s orders when necessary.

One of Churchills main concerns after the fall of France was not look defeated in front of its allies and potential allies, that always keep hitting the Nazis even if it failed spectacularly.

- Britain promised aid to Czechoslovakia - Britain threw them to the wolves in 1938 - Britain promised aid to Poland - Britain & France sat on their ass while allowing the Poles to die in 1939. - Churchill becomes PM and unlike his predecessor, promised to fight the Nazis to the end. - Italy attacks Greece while Germany gobbles up Yugoslavia. - Britain is Blitzed and the Population is getting demoralized. TIK: "GeE, WhY Is BriTaiN noT ThRowiNG ThEir AlLies to the WolVeS noW? It'S liKe, SoooOO Un-EcoNoMiCal! EveRy oNe kNowS thAt You wiN a wAR by DoiNg noThing!"

When you are weak, pretend to be strong-Sun Zu . 👍🇬🇧

Part of the reason I wanted to make this video was to put all the pieces together in one go. Over the span of multiple hours, it's hard to remember what Churchill's contribution to the North African Campaign actually was. Now you can see a good chunk of it all in one go - and I actually didn't miss a lot of it out between Compass and Gazala. Apart from one convoy in 1941 (which was an extremely risky move anyway and probably shouldn't count as a win) his contribution was almost entirely negative.

As a military strategist and tactician, Churchill was surely an idiot because of his attack-attack attitude, as said above. However if it were not for his conduct in the days at the end of May 1940 cabinet peace feelers crisis, as magistrally and trustworthily described in John Lucaks's book "Five Days in London: May 1940", there would have been simply NO war to fight, because Nazi Germany would have likely won it quickly the moment the UK would be out of it, as Lord Halifax and his group wished to do and were decisively prevented by Churchill's political acumen. And even in strictly military terms, it was he, Churchill, by personally convincing Roosevelt, that also prevented the incommensurable disaster that would be an invasion of Western Europe by the Allies in the late months of 1942 or in 1943. Justice is to give anyone exactly what is one's due.

@@joaquimdantas63 May 1940 shaped the world we live in today, and to be anything other than balanced about Churchill (the man in the seat no one wanted) is historically incorrect.

@@CD-SU I agree with you entirely.

this also needs to be considered. the fact churchills political career ends shortly after the war also is telling. some of us have the idea that the average subject were tired of churchills general leadership.

American foreign policy at the time (and probably still) viewed North America as an island between the shores of Western Europe, and East Asia, and consequently worked out that the USA could not tolerate either one, or worse still both, of these shores being dominated by a single power that could well decide on an antipathetic position towards the USA. Bearing that in mind, and at the time, one would not have to be a genius to see that with the potential dominance of Germany in Europe, and the rising ambitions of Japan, Americas entry into the war was inevitable. All that was required was to give face saving time to FDR's 1940 promise to not enter, or as it turned out, for either Germany or Japan to commit some aggressive act against the USA thus expunging FDR's problems regarding campaign promises. In any event, and given the level of materiel help being given to the AngloFrench, and Chinese before December 7th 41, one would have to conclude that the USA was a player in the war from the very start.

FDR had a hard-on for Stalin and desperately wanted to go to war in Europe. What better way to reduce unemployment at home than to give those unemployed men guns and send them overseas to get killed. The Japanese were just a means to an end.

@@Fanakapan222 US destroyers were hunting U-boats months prior to Dec 7, 1941. FDR also declared most of the Atlantic as US territorial waters prior to Pearl Harbor. This instigated the Germans who saw that the US was not really being neutral as claimed.

FDR was very hungry for war. As a progressive and anti- colonialist he desperately wanted into the war to make the US the new world leader. The current state of the US being "the world police" is exactly what FDR wanted. He put us here, in complete violation of the Monroe Doctrine. FDR's problem was trying to convince the the American people

@@fazole One has to assume that the foreign relations departments of governments do have some really quite competent people, capable of seeing ahead, working for them ? If you view the run up to, and the start of WWII through such a lens, it becomes clear that the USA was bound to get involved. The big problem for the USA was the 1940 elections, and the fact that people such as Lindbergh had mobilised a segment of public opinion firmly against getting involved in a European war. Maybe you could say that it was lucky for FDR, given his campaign promise to stay out, that the Japanese solved the problem for him, but his threat to cut off supplies of oil to Japan was probably calculated to have the response it did. Even so, the fact that Germany and Italy Declared against the USA a week later seems bizzare. Both states were under no obligation to do so, and could easily have put the ball firmly in Americas court by doing nothing.

But wasting troops to defend something that was gonna fall eventually either way is a dumb idea and they could've used them properly like knocking out the Italians in libya preventing german troops to land in North Africa

Churchill had to pick up the pieces and try to put things right ,,,the mistakes and incompetence was there before him

@@geraldgreenman4715 It was his grand plan from the start. And he opposed them pulling out.

worth considering that the French military were apparently all out defence, defence, defence, very sensible but a huge army got trounced with very sensible cautious and decorated generals sipping the occasional glass of champagne, ok took Churchill a couple of years to notch up the victories, not sure many would of kept going, maybe it needed an childish idiot mentality to get through the long dark nights .. and a tot or 2

It wasn't a victory Dunkirk was a victorious retirement we were beaten there's no question about that. this is the quote from one of the survivors of the Dunkirk evacuation. If you want to hear the actual quote Watch the documentary how Hitler lost the war

No he did not he said this about Dunkirk "We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations."

@@standard_gauge The movie was presented in a way that the evacuation was so well executed and planned(Whereas Churchill and the RN's high command expected only 45,000 men would make it out to England. It was only sheer luck, French stubborness to stay in the fight and OKH's hesitancy to advance into the beaches(I´ve been to Dunkirk myself. The flooding that supposedly created a swamp and prevented German troops from entering the beach is a myth. There´s no way in hell it could have been more than two or three feet deep) Nolan didn´t say Dunkirk was a victory. He didn´t need to. He just filmed the movie as a superhuman feat on the British part when only sheer luck, french determination and German incompetence saved the BEF from total disaster. Basically he went full Hollywood on the matter.

@@redseagaming7832 There´s no such thing as a "victorious withdrawal", more so after been chased all the way from the Maginot line to the Channel.

You mean Britain, also it was a coalition of nations that contributed.

Could you share some of those facts?

So you have found something that puts words to your ignorance and prejudice. That must be nice.

Makes you think of Bojo in some ways.

You were better off before 😂

No Churchill’s over aggressive attitude was terrible at every time

@@danieleyre8913 the alternative in 1940, and a completely rational one, was capitulation. He was a crazy gambler and a great orator. In the words of Achilles/Brad Pitt: ‘that is why I will be remembered and you will be forgotten’

@@celiacresswell6909 No it is an absolute load of bullshit myth that it was Churchill or capitulation. The RAF held every advantage in the Battle of Britain and there was not chance of German invasion and little chance of German naval blockade. Face it: Churchill was a bloody disaster and an avoidable one.

@@danieleyre8913 that’s not what I mean. The country was overwhelmingly against fighting and that means effectively in favour of capitulation, absent a romantic warmonger who persuaded the House and the country otherwise.

@@celiacresswell6909 He didn’t persuade the house otherwise and didn’t need to. And neither did he need to persuade the British public. That is a stupid myth that British public are brainwashed with.

Quite a few Scots think so.

@@alisdairmclean8605 Add in Lancashire and South Wales.

@@LickorishAllsorts Include Londoners. Many of us were blown to bits in our own homes because of this warmonger.

Was his name Neville chamberlain by any chance

James. My Grandfather served in WW1 with the Royal Scots Fusiliers, Quite possibly 6th Battalion. He was an Ayrshire man, family folk lore has it that he cursed Churchill on his deathbed. He died before I was born unfortunately. As it happens my other Grandfather fought at Suvla Bay with The Royal Enniskillen. A little research soon made me aware that Churchill was, how can I phrase this, a complete, overpirvileged A** hole.

The effects of being born with a silver spoon.

Many did !

@@m.a.118 plenty of British officers had a good military understanding despite also being born with a silver spoon. Churchill was too restless for a full-time Military career, he didn’t have the level of military education that his generals did, though he thought he did.

would churchill have been good at his job if his job was to maximize loss of life?

So you call him an idiot but there is no other politician who would not have given up to Germany what if Hitler got his hands on the British Navy like he did the French Navy we might all be speaking German right now. Montgomery was another commander who failed more than he succeeded, however his attitude and leader ship inspired his men and Churchhill‘s attitude and leader ship inspired both Britain and the United States. Go back and watch why we fight and it will become apparent how powerful Churchhill‘s leader ship was and how little it mattered that his military skill was not too good

We invaded Norwegian sovereign waters during the Altmark incident when sailors from HMS Cossack under Vivian illegally boarded the Altmark in Jøssingfjord. Norway was not exactly happy when we mined her territorial waters either.

Britain did invade first, lol.

Too many variables. For instance a limited intervention against Narvik - with secret consent from Norway - would be very different from an all-out invasion against Norway's wishes. And giving support to Finland would've been a big questionmark, since it may have solidified the nazi-communist alliance if the Allies effectively declared war on the USSR.

They tried

Exactly, the british want to invade first, nur the germans were faster

As an Australian I agree

It's a ridiculous title, for sure. There would have been many Brits who thought him an idiot, but Britain's class system has blinded a large proportion of the population to the individual merits of anyone whose class differs from theirs by more than one division. Unionists and private soldiers from the UK are notorious for this wilful blindness and visceral hatred of the "upper orders", and even in the US there is now a pathological hatred of "elites". Churchill had heroic faults to go with his heroic virtues, but deficiency of intelligence was emphatically not one. Judgement, sometimes, for sure, but not intellect. I do acknowledge he does get too much credit for being the only UK public figure during the thirties consistently warning that Hitler was a menace. I say this because he had a tendency to take (and stick to) strong contrary positions like this his whole life, and was often wrong. The old "even a stopped clock is right twice every day" syndrome...

Lot's of outright lies and when we get to the period of the very end of the war, the holes turn into an abyss...

schoolboy 'attack attack attack' on Churchill? At least TIK's other videos are genuinely very interesting, objective and funny, well written .. but this 'attack attack attack' on Churchill seems a bit childish, tedious and boring ... The backdrop here is total chaos world war, global failure of politics, liars and psycho's reigned supreme, where prior to this only Churchill actually appeared to emerge at the end of the war as a hero ...

@@MakeAllThingsBeautiful Sorry, does Curchilll strike you as a truthful type? 🤔🤔

@@luisnunes3863 WW2 wasn't really a 'truth war' more likely a sequence of horrendous actions and cover ups .. by politically ideologicalised adults, maybe it needed a child to see through it all

@@MakeAllThingsBeautiful Don't confuse brazen deception with childlike innocence. I made the same mistake, but was 20 and therefore stupid.

His mother also paid to have his homosexual exploits in boarding school covered up. Churchill was a fraud

Bull#hit !

@@alexsmith-gn4tp You wax eloquently sir. Why not read FM Alanbrooke's autobiography. Reading a book now and then might increase your vocabulary.

@@ravenclaw8975 Brooke had an axe to grind, most serious historians discount his opinions when they are personal in nature, as should you.

Idiot

He simply didn't promise enough free stuff for the British people, that was the only reason why he lost.

@@Mitch93 wait, after 6 years of constant war, people want some economic security? Surely not right?

@@Mitch93 Churchill and the Tories ran a really bad campaign in 1945, they were too arrogant as he clearly expected to win ( rather like Clinton in 2016), there were numerous gaffes, like when Churchill said that Labour would need "some kind of a Gestapo" to implement its policies, they were negative when the country wanted positivity, and they never spelled out a "big picture" vision of what they wanted post war Britain to look like (unlike Labour). Churchill only "won" in 1951 (even though Labour won the most votes) after having accepted many elements of Atlee Government policy

@@Mitch93 No he lost because most of the British public knew full well what a useless leader Churchill was. It is increasing how the British public today have been brainwashed about Churchill by the tabloid media, BBC, etc and revere this disaster on two legs. And how the stupider one’s like yourself even can’t accept the truth about him!

@@alexgray2482 I was too young so can’t remember the mood in Britain. My father told me Churchill had canvassed warning the electorate that Britain was broke and that a period of belt tightening and a continuing of rationing was the order of the day. Labour were promising a land of milk and honey fit for heroes. It turned out the state of Britain was precisely as Churchill had warned. After five years of the Attlee government the electorate kicked them out and the cry was, “ ….thank goodness Winston’s back.”