Why was Churchill voted out of office after WW2? (Short Animated Documentary)?
Переглядів 1,573,199
Рік томуChurchill, who lead Britain to victory over Germany in World War 2, was quickly voted out of office after victory in Europe was declared and replaced by Clement Attlee. But why was he removed? To find out watch this short and simple animated history documentary.
A special thanks to my Patrons below:
Jens Koch-Nommensen
Øystein Alsaker
Carl Österbrand
Sergio M. Vela
Dave Brondsema
Michael Kram
Hasmuffin
Franco La Bruna
Ethan
Bradley chaulk
Don Bonnigan
Ian Whitcomb
Southside Mitch
Justin Kubusch
Adam Barrett
John
Matthew Literovich
Heath Robertson
JakeBak0905
Ryan Schindeler
Person
Brooks Woolson
Sean D.
Joshua Rackstraw
Martha Grondin
Philip Yip
S. Marisol Asselta
Farquhar Ramshackle
Joooooshhhhhh
sharpie660
Christopher Godfrey
Alex Teplyakov
Jane Sumpter
Shauna K
Aaron Conaway
Mario Peshev
DocOzz13 .
Shion
Vance Christiaanse
Piotr Wojnowski
Nathan Mendelsohn
Steven Gibson
Joshua Schneider
Phoenix Fats
Adrian Marine
Travis Mount
Erik Hare
Nicholas Menghini
Dana Spurgeon
Ron Johnson
Jack Wicks
Dr. Schtnizel
Paul Munro
zockotron
Andy McGehee
BeninPrince51
Windischgraetz
Phillip Gathright
Barry
Peter Marino
Jack Nelson
Andrew F
Jamie van Brewen
Tony Belmonte
D. Mahlik
John Orr
Porkmeister
Andrea Dekrout
Arthur Hosey Jr.
Andreas Mosand
Konstantin Bredyuk
Roman Kynčl
Chris Winther
MGS2600
Thomas McGraw
Zhao Liu
Matthew Toles
Bernardo Cavalcanti
Shawn Morse
Allen Rines
Ivaer
Michael Galloway
Katie Flinn
ConspiracyPizza
Jake Faust
Tactical_Jackal
William Swiacki
Nolan Peale
Contdoko12
Nick Macarius
Jacob Zachs
Ciege Engine
Carl Blanton
Angel Aguiñaga
Bradley Backoff
HelloAgain
Brian George
Clayton Schuman
Zach Rust
Sahni
Bret Allan
Joe DeVito
John Garcia
Chase Labiste
Mickey Landen
GrokThis
Keith A. Layton
mgnesium.poetry
Andrew Patane
William Adderholdt
Chris Weisel
Liam Gilleece
KNSTRKTVST
Vilena5
Zachary Pascalar
Serius_Loyola
Bernice
Dullis
Tom Ebert
Matt Reed
blaZzinG_FurY
Tim Stone
Anthony McCann
Christopher S Nelson
Leena Al-Souki
Ben Drums 24
Perry Gagne
Wilhelm Screamer
ARandomPaperClip
Matthew O'Connor
george tyler
JAY ALAN EDELMAN
Joel Cromwell
Alex Slepak
No way
Matthew Hogan
Bodo Nuber
Justin Short
Dexter_McAaron
Ryan Marinelli
Ahmed Roshdi
David van Reyk
Aaron Larrow
Liquid Chief
Fabrizio Zagonel
Hexapuma
Random Insanity
Tyler Jenkins
Warren Rudkin
Bartosz Zasada
Colm Byrne
Joseph Hutchins
Chach
Joel Wasserman
Curt Helmerich
Ethan Harlow
Blue Cardinal
ThePalestRose
Thomas McGill
Joseph Reinsch
Benjamin Bowring
Tim Sweeney
Geoffrey Sparrow
BattleGoat Studios
Jason Gould
Abhijeeth
Oliver Jenner
Burt Clothier
Matthew Ward
Magdalena Reinberg-Leibel
Logical Insanity
Juan Castillo
Ian Smith
Tim Stumbaugh
B Dryad
James
Andrew Niedbala
bas mensink
Stefan Møller
Matt Busch
Bren Ehnebuske
Łukasz Burchard
Steve Bonds
Donald Weaver
Romney Manassa
Nathan Ngumi
Colonel Oneill
luvrhino
Joseph Kerckhoff
Ryan Lowe
Chris Wreker
Ned Burke
Alen
Steven Mastronardo
nullptr
Azul Bravestrong
Mars Project
Jonny Minogue
Melissa Prober
Clay Carroll
Ali Sadighian
Ryan Haber
kevinh
Yared Cristiano
Joker 54
LambOfLeg
Vegard Tønnessen
Scott Oppel
Joshua A Bishop
SketerK
Emily D
Rob Rollins
Richard Wolfe
Andrey Listochkin
SirAlpaka
anon
Gordon Wilson
Eric Askins
Yuichiro Kakutani
Hiro P
Robin!
Brian Giordano
Thomas Wang
William Clark
Emily Glover-Wilson
Juan Benet
Daniel D.
Yosef Waysman
Michael Dierker
Igor Stavchanskiy
Gregory Priebe
Zach Weakland
Sethars
Charles Doolittle
Pat Stahl
Mik Scheper
pdswanfleet
Jeffrey Schneider
Mirza Ahmed
Laurent Othacehe
Sophie Winter
mohd
Kevin Phoenix
Tristan Kreller
Manny F
David Spellmeyer
Tranier Bocaj
Hunter Bayliss
JT96
Kirk Hoffman
Theodosius the Elder
Mark Ploegstra
Kinfe85
Dr. Howard Dr. Fine Dr. Howard
Sean Long
Anthony Uk
Phil and Lisa Toland
Alex G.
hefcluba
Ian M
Isabel Harrison
John Gross-Whitaker
Wolf
Heytun
אורי פרקש
George Caponera
0_DannyBoy
Lech Duraj
Sara Birnbaum
Allen
Roko Lisica
Dan Reiher
Jesse Plung
I'm Not In The Description
Doug MacLean
Chasen Le Hara
Dustin Koellhoffer
Dr. Sarno
James R DeVries
Austin Martin
Victor Gomez
Nathan Snyder
Colm Boyle
Danny Anstess
Will Sullivan
Miky Hidalgo Morriss
Robert Brockway
Zachary Oertel
Seth Reeves
Riley davidson
Peter Konieczny
Dutchball Animations
Rita Cragwall
AltHistoryConjectures
Shakira Graham
Andrew Sever
Tino
Harley Raptopoulos
Lindorien
Paul McGee
João Santos
Abdallah Al-Ammari
Daniel O'Reilly
Typhoon2401
Gezza The Random Reviewer
Deadlock
Markus Lindström
Michael Corson
blei95
Robin_Col
Olaf
Jan Bart Verbist
Kasi
M Scho
Schwarzer Hai
biohazardgamer
Tarsirrus
James
Rhys Little
Ben L
Jackarice26
Justin McDaid
Twinny Hill
Harrison Tatem-Wyatt
Gina Service
zemnmez
Phil Johnston
DarkLycan
Roberticus1992
Tom Pollard
Rhys Jackson
@Caiddenn Рік тому
Fun fact: Joseph Stalin was informed about the existence of the atomic bomb during the same meeting that Churchill announced he'd been voted out of office. The soviet leader was unphased by news of the bomb (he already knew through spies) but was utterly appalled that Churchill could simply be "voted out" of office.
@blueciffer1653 Рік тому
The last part isn't true since Stalin could also be voted out of office
@richardwulf1122 Рік тому
@@blueciffer1653 With a bullet, yes. But with mere lines of ink on paper, preposterous.
@cshaffrey3438 Рік тому
@@blueciffer1653 by who????
@Noam_.Menashe Рік тому
@@cshaffrey3438 god.
@spiffygonzales5899 Рік тому
@@Noam_.Menashe And God did just that
@anthonybarcellos2206 Рік тому
My college history professor was originally from Scotland and told his American students in the seventies about being in Britain during the 1945 campaign. He said that British subjects crowded the routes traveled by Churchill and cheered their war hero till they were hoarse-and then voted against him anyway. He described a middle-aged woman who applauded and cheered as Churchill passed, and then paused. She said, "Oh, dear. He looks so tired. He really needs a long rest." Then she thrust her fist into the air and said, "And we're going to see that he gets it!"
@MJHdesproj Рік тому
Are you making the professor up, or did someone else actually author that fantasy?
@RaveDecoy242 Рік тому
@@MJHdesproj it's good to be skeptical about things on the internet...but come on, weirder things have been done and said than this! just chalk this up to "plausible", else you stop being a skeptic and instead look like a sheltered twat.
@vercot7000 Рік тому
@@MJHdesproj why would it be false?
@MJHdesproj Рік тому
@@vercot7000 huh?
@visassess8607 Рік тому
@@MJHdesproj I get being skeptical of things you hear on the internet but not every single story is made up.
@malvoliosf Рік тому
Supposedly, Churchill’s wife suggested that as the defeat meant that he could take it easy for while, it might be a blessing in disguise. “If so,” Winston sighed, “it is very effectively disguised.”
@Diego-zz1df Рік тому
One thing that should be noted about Churchill: His present-day reputation was mostly built after the end of his political career. In his time, Churchill was beyond controversial and a lot of his political goals were diametrically opposed to what the majority of the british public wanted (he opposed women's right to vote, the expansion of labor rights for workers, unionization, the expansion of social services and welfare, etc.) and he was also responsible for serious policy failures. Gallipoli wasn't an isolated incident and arguably not even his worst mistake: When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, his decision to return to the gold standard devastated the british economy and was one of the major causes of Britain's loss of competitive advantages, mainly against the US. Finally, though we tend to see Churchill as the sole leader of the United Kingdom during the war, this was not true. Churchill's government was a unity government and Attlee, the leader of the labor party, also held an important leadership position, having far more responsibilities over the home front, the economy, etc. This is why his attack against him in the 1945 election, comparing his party to the gestapo, was seen as a massive betrayal and an unforgivable insult: He was attacking one of the leaders of the unity government, one of his own colleagues, comparing him to Britain's main enemy. In short, contrary to Churchill's present-day polished image, in his own times he was a controversial figure, one that held several unpopular, even backwards positions, one responsible for several major policy failures, one that wasn't seen as the sole political leader responsible for Britain's victory and was heavily criticized for his insult against his main political allies during the war. *THAT'S* why the british public voted him out of office.
@spiffygonzales5899 Рік тому
THIS. RIGHT. HERE!!! The video makes it seem like "the conservative party at the time was just stupid and Churchill was good at war so people thought he'd suck at peace" The reality is that Churchill was terrible at wagging a war, he ruined the economy, and he acted like a pompous A-hole while strutting around drunk. I'm not gonna say he was this God awful guy who doomed Britain or anything. But this image of some great man who single handedly defeated Germany is a joke. Without the U.S.A and U.S.S.R Britain would have been destroyed.
@promethium-145 Рік тому
I feel split about Churchill. Some of his actions were horrendous (Bengal famine comes to mind), but I'd be equally alarmed if people around me supported Stalin, a mass murdering and ruthless despot who decimated his country's food production, and murdered millions of his own people (even children). So I don't blame Churchill for condemning Stalin. On a less morbid note, what you mentioned about Churchill's treachery makes perfect sense. If people found out about that, I wouldn't blame them for voting Churchill out.
@LjuboCupic1912 Рік тому
Churchill was actually fairly supportive of labour unions. He saw them as “the antithesis to socialism” and thought they would be useful as independent institutions that would fight against government control. So he didn’t support them for any noble reasons, but he was okay with them existing, at least.
@promethium-145 Рік тому
@SaxonBlue You're pretty on point, actually. I do remember the miner strikes, and how Churchill brutally suppressed them.
@strategystuff5080 Рік тому
Pretty much, Churchill was an Aristocrat, and a War-monger, he just so happened to be a War-monger in one of the very few wars with a clear bad guy. In any other Era, Churchill would likely be hated like a male version of Margret Thatcher. He was a poor military leader, poor strategic thinker, a drunk, an arch conservative/ reactionary. You know, being born into wealth, gotta keep those filthy peasants poor, and subservient. He gets so much good PR nowadays, like Stalin used to, before you know, it became common knowledge that he was a paranoid crook, that killed millions of his own people.
@AureusYoutube Рік тому
Because James Bissonette felt the UK needed a change. Edit: Obligitory OMG THANK YOU FOR 6K LIKES!!!
@dikshantkandwal5815 Рік тому
James Bissonette for the King of UK!!
@mesa9724 Рік тому
I like to believe James Bissonette is an immortal being that has been guiding humanity through the times.
@Stejers Рік тому
@@dikshantkandwal5815 King James I of the house of Bissonette, by the grace of God King of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Nothern Ireland
@jamesbissonette8002 Рік тому
Nah
@simonrice5748 Рік тому
James Bussinonette was leader of Labour and felt threatened by Churchill's popularity.
@robertsansone1680 Рік тому
I heard a BBC radio documentary about this years ago. They interviewed a veteran. He said, & I am paraphrasing, "When we faced defeat early in the war we were all equal". "As the war progressed & it became obvious that the Axis would lose, the privileges of the upper class returned". "I was wounded at Alamein & was standing in line with a cane at a movie theater". "A young son of a Lord, who probably never wore a uniform in his life, got to go to the front of the line". "That's when I decided I would vote Labor". Thanks again for an interesting documentary
@salimz1376 Рік тому
@Paul Gauthier what
@deezboyeed6764 Рік тому
@@salimz1376 he is not a smart man dont expect qn answer
@lau9076 Рік тому
@@salimz1376 He said that he didin't want to return back to the old ways
@adamesd3699 Рік тому
@@deezboyeed6764 I think he was referring to how there was one rule for the common people and another rule for the governing upper class. During the pandemic, the common British public were practically locked in their homes, while the Tories in government partied in defiance of lockdown.
@robertsansone1680 Рік тому
@Nicky L You're probably correct but it sounded to me like he was a teenager. (probably never been in uniform) All I know is that he had been wounded, standing in the drizzle supporting himself with a cane & the youg guy was allowed to go to the front of the line. I suspect that it wasn't the policy of #10. It was probably the movie doorman sucking up to some Lord.
@chonconnor6144 Рік тому
My grandmother was from Scotland and the only election she ever voted in was 1945. She was a Homeguard volunteer the entire war and like everyone was fond of Churchill. The reason she voted against him was because before the war the government never seemed to have any money to spend but once war was on, all of a sudden money was available for any project. From her perspective Labour deserved a chance to form government after the war because they had promised to spend money on helping people in the UK.
@silverreverence6176 Рік тому
A fair reason
@luisandrade2254 Рік тому
@@silverreverence6176 not really considering that there’s no spending money when it comes to government all government spending comes from the citizenry
@AdamMGTF Рік тому
Your grandmother didn't vote Churchill out. She couldn't vote for or against him! Only the people of Woodford could. I don't know if your miss remembering the story or she didn't understand how the UK political system works. But Churchill did NOT loose the 1945 election. He was returned to parliament!
@attiepollard7847 Рік тому
@@AdamMGTF I understand what you're saying but from this American perspective and maybe from a general election perspective once your government loses the party the technically you are out as that government caretaker. Not sure you'll return to the opposition but who even remembers a opposition leader? No one
@AdamMGTF Рік тому
@@attiepollard7847 but that's not the point. The point is our system is miss represented in the video and this is shown by the ops comment... Very worrying as this is supposed to be an educational channel/video. Churchill WON his election. That's the historical truth.
@waltertaylor44 Рік тому
Always enjoy these videos.On this one, the labour campaign had a great slogan "cheer Churchill, vote labour". Labour didnt attack Churchill during the campaign, instead focusing on the Conservative party and the failures that led to WWII. This tactic helped win the labour majority. One thing that was missed though was that Churchill returned as PM in 1951. Maybe its being saved for another video :)
@rumanuu Рік тому
There's a little nod to the 1951 election in one of the newspaper articles ;)
@hawkeyeten2450 Рік тому
It WOULD be worth a video. Atlee's career completely fell apart due to the Korean War and other factors. It reminds me so much of Truman's downfall here in the US.
@waltertaylor44 Рік тому
@@hawkeyeten2450 I dont know much about Trumans downfall, im going to have to look it up now :) Thanks for the comment
@kurtvanderbogarde8402 Рік тому
Churchill lost again in 1950 and he lost the popular vote in 1951 and tried to get Clement Davies's (non-National) Liberals on side to bolster numbers. He was actually a very crummy peacetime politician just like his fan Boris.
@secretsfullofsaucers 11 місяців тому
Although I would say Churchill lost the popular vote when he won the 1951 election
@DuckSwagington Рік тому
I think one of the most important factors for Churchill's loss was that he was the Tory Party at that point. The Tory party was comprised of older men who weren't politically relevent since the coalition formed and Labour was filled with relatively younger men that, as stated in the video, were the ones running the country, they held most of the important ministerial positions and Atlee was affectively in charge when Churchill wasn't in the UK.
@gazellaspekei168 Рік тому
@Jack Wrath Go find a father figure
@SylviaRustyFae Рік тому
@Jack Wrath Youre a horrible person when you act like this; become a better person. I recommend findin somethin like the vlogbrothers to teach you how to do such
@XXXTENTAClON227 Рік тому
Yup, the conservatives were doomed but assumed he would be enough to save them He was the best individual out of the options, but the Labour Party was the best party out of the options. And the Party is more significant than one individual
@scottmerritt9877 Рік тому
affectively? effectively!
@audunms4780 Рік тому
he was a conservative through and through, that was who he was.
@_____MB_____ Рік тому
When we need answers to questions we didn’t ask, this man is always here to satisfy us
@obama3804 Рік тому
Couldn’t have said it any better lmao
@josephsarra4320 Рік тому
Agreed 100%
@johkupohkuxd1697 Рік тому
I don't know, but this was a pretty major historical event all things considered. The post-war consensus of the strong socialistic welfare state was really created by Attlee. Churchill might not have gone for it in '45.
@davidhouseman4328 Рік тому
Maybe else where in the world but as a Brit this is definitely a question I've asked.
@MomMom4Cubs Рік тому
I asked this question, but I just finished watching Darkest Hour at the time.
@stevenredpath9332 Рік тому
Interesting fact, when Churchill became PM it was labour MPs who cheered him not Tory MPs as they didn’t trust him because he was constantly swapping parties.
@Hand-in-Shot_Productions Рік тому
Interesting, and ironic, too!
@kurtvanderbogarde8402 Рік тому
Most Tories supported Neville C and wanted him to stay on.
@rachelar 9 місяців тому
@@kurtvanderbogarde8402🤮
@rachelar 9 місяців тому
Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin all used their parties as vehicles of their own agendas
@Ukraineaissance2014 7 місяців тому
Neville Chamberlain was well respected and was only carrying out the wishes of the nation, despite his modern reputation.
@KC-dw6yz Рік тому
Another reason as I understand it is that the Tories had been widely perceived as having failed the veterans of the First World War when they governed in the years after, and there was a great desire not to see those mistakes repeated. The vote from servicemen was especially heavy for Labour for this reason
@MrMike855 Рік тому
Also, the general consensus was that the 1920s and 30s were a pretty bad period of time for Britain and from 1918-1945, the Tories had a majority (even if the PM wasn't a Tory) except for 3 years of Labour-Liberal coalitions, and Churchill didn't represent the party establishment as, when he was warning about Nazi Germany, he never had a cabinet position.
@MrMike855 Рік тому
@@thecondesce3904 Yes, but the general population wouldn't have associated him with the Baldwin/Chamberlain wing of the Tories, and they had ruled Britain almost uninterrupted from 1923-1939. I'd imagine when people went to vote 1945, they were thinking of Baldwin's Tory party, not Churchill's.
@shade270 Рік тому
That's a pretty good point. I'd say that while Churchill was popular, he wasn't really seen as the average party politician. So people might have liked him, but not the rest of his party.
@mantea3481 Рік тому
You got some good facts there about the conservative party's relation to Churchill. There is also one massive fact is the future of Britain, Churchill wanted to keep the empire together no matter what as his foreign policy, this scared the rest of the conservatives because the upcoming superpowers were deeply anti-colonial, the US might've isolated Britain while the USSR would fund rebels in the colonials. The establishment saw the writing on the walls and capitulated very easy to Atlee's policy of freeing the colonies.
@girlgarde Рік тому
@@shade270 Yeah, Churchill got dragged down by his own party even though he'd been against appeasement to Hitler in the late 1930's and warned everyone of the threat that the Nazis posed.
@thirdbrother4018 Рік тому
@@mantea3481 USSR was funeling funds for colonies before and after decolonisation anyway, UK fucked it up to guarantee stable governments and simply left. Now imagine almost every country in Africa acting like Botswana without warlords and fanatic socialists at the helm.
@dburton3939 Рік тому
My great-grandma always said: "I didn't vote against churchill because he was bad, I voted against him because he wanted to make an alliance with the french" (She really said this btw) Then again, she also said that she couldn't understand people "from the north", and my dad always thought she meant scotland, turns out she meant people from north of the thames, so it seems in character
@tailnowag8753 Рік тому
Ah, the percularities of the older generation. Also the only thing worse than north of the thames is "north as in up the road"
@Dave_Sisson Рік тому
At the time Britain/England and France had been passionate enemies for most of the past thousand years. Most of Britain's national heroes, like Nelson, Wellington, Marlborough, Henry V became heroes by defeating the French. You can't just change an ancestral enemy into a friend overnight.
@dodec8449 Рік тому
@@Dave_Sisson Britain and France have been allies in WW1 and the "Free French" led by de Gaulle were also allies in WW2. They also fought together against Russia in the 19th century Crimean War. I think the greatgrandmother was more scared that allying with the just liberated French meant that Britain had a higher chance of getting involved in another war again.
@Dave_Sisson Рік тому
@@dodec8449 I disagree, the French were not "seen" as reliable allies. I've been reading about the First Australian Corps, Ski School which trained Australian and British ski troops to fight the French in Lebanon in the Second World War. So we were fighting the French just a couple of years before that election. No wonder D Burton's great grandmother was wary of the French as allies.
@dodec8449 Рік тому
@@Dave_Sisson i don't know, I assume the greatgrandmother cares more about her and her children's safety than a distant war in Lebanon.
@Yatagurusu 11 місяців тому
The ability to differentiate between a wartime and peacetime leader really speaks on how educated voters used to be
@borakaraca9788 4 місяці тому
yeah but labours were not peacetime leaders they were not leaders they were unable to govern
@emberfist8347 4 місяці тому
Except that this the same Labour Party that sold the Nene engine to Stalin. The man himself didn’t believe anyone would be a big enough fool to do that but they were those fools. The result, the MiG-15 and significant problems to the UN forces in Korea.
@cecaloather8701 4 місяці тому
@@emberfist8347 What is wrong selling military hardware to a wartime ally? You do realise that people during WWII and shortly post war don't really view the Soviet Union as the evil empire?
@emberfist8347 4 місяці тому
@@cecaloather8701 The war was over and even back then, nobody trusted Stalin as far as we could throw him. And the engine was pretty advanced hence why Stalin’s quote was about selling their secrets as jet engines were made under the upmost secrecy by everyone during the war. For reference the first jet fighter adopted by the US was the P-80 Shooting Star. Only 5 men in the 130 men team knew what they were building and the police detained the British engineer who came to deliver the De Havilland Goblin engine since the company couldn’t vouch for him. This is between the US and Britain who have a much warmer relationship than the Soviet Union and UK. And there were many people in the UK. The same Labour Party who gave Stalin the Nene engine previously prosecuted a Communist which caused scandal leading to the party’s resignation. Churchill famously said that if Hitler invaded Hell, he would put in a good word for the devil in reference to the alliance with Stalin and British Intelligence was comparing notes with the freaking Gestapo as late as 1937 to track down potential communists. So I doubt the war led to a seriously drastic 180.
@cecaloather8701 4 місяці тому
@@emberfist8347 You make a lot of references to how the political elite thought about the Soviet Union then, not those who did not manage to get into the corridors of power and the common people. I suppose you are still scratching your head on why Churchill was voted out of power even though the video explained why and thought the pro-Soviet people even during the height of the Cold War were just brainwashed sheeple. Thing is, the Soviet Union was portrayed and actually was a great ally who did the heavy lifting against fighting Germany. You'd think that would influence a lot of the British population then to be pro-Soviet. People thought differently back then.
@grahamdeamer128 Рік тому
My late father was in active service WW2, I remember him telling me that he and his comrades absolutely hated Churchill and voted against him en masse. They felt that he was far too enamoured of war and they resented his bellicose posturing.
@randomlygeneratedname7171 Рік тому
I can see why. Churchill wanted to start WW3 immediately with the Soviets but not even the nosy US was having it.
@JoshSweetvale Рік тому
Except he was _right._ If the West had destroyed Russia, we wouldn't have had the Cold War or the rape of Ukraine. If you let medium-sized problems lie, they grow into world-ending dragons. Churchill could've prevented that; could've prevented the *end of the world.*
@Luke_Sandy_High_Ground Рік тому
Churchill also betrayed all 120,000 RAF Bomber Command servicemen after the war. The veterans (including the 55573 KIA) were completely forgotten about and denied any form of medal or memorial until 2012 because of the controversial nature of RAF bombing, even though it was total war and the Germans were doing the exact same thing to the UK. Edit: the bomber boys still dont have a campaign medal. Most of them are dead by now though.
@AdamMGTF Рік тому
Oddly my grandad said his comrades admired Churchill. If course it's important to remember this video is very misleading as Churchill actually won his 45 election. His party lost the majority and so a labour government was formed. The difference between your father and my grandfather shows that you can't take a small sample size when it comes to history.
@AdamMGTF Рік тому
@@Luke_Sandy_High_Ground that isn't technically true. Your right that bomber command didn't get the recognition it deserved. It's still wrong to this day. But this wasn't something that was the fault of Churchill or the war time government. Such decisions were made by the Atlee government. I don't think it helped much that Harris wasn't a very popular person by 1945. I agree with max Hastings, he was a good leader to have in 1942. But really showed he wasn't the right man once D-day rolled around. His nature didn't help matters when it came to recognition for the bomber boys. Too his credit, he did turn down a peerage out of discust that his crews didn't get the medal they deserved. But yes. My point is this wasn't Churchill's fault. Sadly I can't see this travesty changing now given modern sensitivity to the reality of ww2. Lest we forget!
@k.m.7141 Рік тому
The 1945 election has always felt like a really ideal example of how an electorate should act. There was a leader for war that was well-respected, but then the war ended, and the voters wanted someone else for a peacetime government.
@ImperiumMagistrate Рік тому
Except Atwater began to ruin the UK. He was the FDR of the UK
@Protont Рік тому
@Jack Wrath How many subsribers did this get you? I don’t think many
@guillaumegiroux9425 Рік тому
It feels similar to George Bush (the father) vs. Bill Clinton in 1992 after the Gulf War.
@lars9925 Рік тому
I disagree. Voting in Labour was a mistake, the Empire fell because of them.
@gabrieldossantos1116 Рік тому
Yep. A strong-handed leader is good for crisis times but in peace time they tend to clash with the opposition and be very authoritarian in result.
@Osterochse Рік тому
The election of the new prime minister Attlee took place during the Potsdam conference in which Post-war Europe and Germany were organized. You might know the famous picture with Stalin, Truman and Churchill sitting together in wicker chairs. Churchill attended the first 9 days of the conference. Because of the election of the new prime minister the conference had to be interrupted for 2 days, then it was resumed and went on for another 4 days. The closing documents have the signature of Clement Attlee but not Churchill's. It is odd to consider that some the leaders we associate the most with the second world war, Roosevelt and Churchill, were not in office anymore when the war ended. So the final documents don't even bear their names. Except for Stalin of course, because you know... he was Stalin after all.
@justsomeguy1695 Рік тому
Well to be fair though Roosevelt might have been there if only he didn’t suffer from a tiny case of death
@Osterochse Рік тому
@@justsomeguy1695 Sure, but he was in office until April 1945 and is much more associated with being the president during the second world war than Truman is.
@caseclosed9342 Рік тому
Just learned that about Atlee, already knew that about Truman (I am American, though). Harry Truman was a very important but lesser known president, it was him after all who authorized the use of nukes on Japan. After leaving office, he was so less known he drove his car back to Missouri with his wife and was pulled over on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (he had no security detail or even an entourage) and it took a second for the state trooper to recognize him. He was let go (the trooper said he would have ticketed some presidents, but not Truman) and continued on his road trip. Hard to believe that happened to the guy who signed the agreements ending WW2.
@SimonAshworthWood Рік тому
Stalin’s USSR defeated 80% of the nazi war machine. Furthermore, Japan didn’t surrender because of the atomic bombs. The USSR entered the war against Japan a couple of weeks before Japan’s surrender, steamrolling 1+ million Japanese troops in occupied mainland Asia & taking Japan’s vital resource colony of “Manchukuo” (where much of the Japanese military’s food and metal came from), devastating Japan’s hopes for continuing to wage war and dispelling their hope that the (until then) neutral USSR would help them get a good peace deal with the Allies. Also, the USSR threatened to invade the Japanese islands, where they would have killed and imprisoned the capitalist ruling class of Japan’s dictatorship and replaced their capitalist corporations with a socialist system. These were the main reasons why Japan surrendered to the USA when they did.
@encycl07pedia- Рік тому
Most Americans associate President Truman with the atomic bombs and the end of WW2.
@Gopherbee Рік тому
Such a huge fan of your channel. I love coming home to a new upload of yours. It's amazing how well you condense information in such a short time frame. Keep it up!
@m2useinu Рік тому
I love that you go over all the little things that have ever come through my mind while listening or another things and never had time to follow up on
@christosgeorgiafentis4825 Рік тому
I actually learned this in high school. In a nutshell, the simple reason why they didn't keep Winston Churchill was because they didn't need him anymore. Why would you need a guy who loves war during peacetime?
@AD-kv9kj Рік тому
These days, being an aggressive trouble-maker is seen as a sign of strength and greatness to most voters. Rather than a mere smokescreen pandering to the most dull and simplistic minds in order to win power so you can siphon the nation's wealth into your billionaire buddie's foreign tax haven bank accounts. Anyone who questions this must be a "snowflake libtard commie" or whatever other buzz words you've been fed.
@Alusnovalotus Рік тому
*Japanese samurai caste group glare intensifies*
@LuziFearon Рік тому
Came to say this. His infamous WW1 diary was basicly a mad evil guy who loved the killing and war (of other peoples children, not his ofc) more then anything else.
@luisandrade2254 Рік тому
I wouldn’t say Churchill loved war he was simply more equipped to deal with it
@leplus1 Рік тому
@@luisandrade2254 He loved war, thats why his second ministry is thought of as generally subpar compared to his first ministry during WW2, he wasn’t well equipped for normal governing, and he was definitely not good at the strategic aspect of war, his role in keeping the UK together was more do with his energy keeping the British solid through adversity, which is really only important during wartime, as seen with his post war below average performance as PM.
@brandonlyon730 Рік тому
The British public seemed to have been mostly unaware of all the horrible things Stalin did prior or even during the German invasion. Famous Author George Orwell was actually going to publicly publish books on the various atrocities that Stalin has done, but the British government disallowed it since they were now allies with the Soviets and last thing they need is the public having doubts on there only major European ally at the time. This action lead to him eventually creating and publishing Animal Farm, which was a very clear allegory to the Soviet Union and Stalins reign with Barn Animals.
@Toonrick12 Рік тому
Which the 1953 animated movie was the first to be fully made in the UK. Which was funded by the CIA. Which explains the ending to the movie.
@jonathanredacted3245 Рік тому
George orwell was still a socialist tho
@ObadiahtheSlim Рік тому
Although Animal Party was less "Communism Bad" and more "Revolution Makes Tyrants." Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) was an unironic "real communism hasn't been tried" type.
@teenexorcism6432 Рік тому
Also not to excuse the thousands the soviets killed in their ruthless pursuit to Berlin, but sometimes you have to say they were in a war… Not much we can do especially in the moment its easier now because decades have passed but during the war it is much different… Winners never pay for their war crimes ever in history simple as that
@347Jimmy Рік тому
@@ObadiahtheSlim perhaps just my personal interpretation, but I always took it as "communism is easily usurped by tyrants" Probably not exactly what Orwell or the CIA intended
@jamesbissonette Рік тому
on point as always
@AlfaGiuliaQV Рік тому
This channel is the answer that makes my questions go away.
@ismayonez6865 Рік тому
I like how back then the people had trouble choosing between two good choices while in most of today's elections the people have trouble choosing which one is slightly less horrible between two abysmally bad choices. Edit: My point was that back then both Churchill and his opponent seemed relatively popular, while today there is often no popular candidate in elections. I did NOT want to say that I agree with his policies.
@bornstar481 Рік тому
That’s because republicans are racist
@user-lv8dn8gw9z Рік тому
This was before being a politician was a career. You couldn't just spout shite and get paid for it on taxpayer money, hell people would have literally rioted after partygate in the 70s nevermind in the late 40s 😂
@commisaryarreck3974 Рік тому
@@user-lv8dn8gw9z They would've gotten the noose in the 40s TBH politicians should get the noose even today, would keep the traitors somewhat in line
@remembertotakeshowerspleas355 Рік тому
Churchill was a racist who wanted to maintain the British Empire against the wishes of 90% of it's subjects which would have inevitably led to the deaths of millions of people in rebellions in which the British wouldn't have the support of the USA or USSR. Even with Churchill out of the picture they still had the Mau Mau uprisings and near genocidal response by the British forces, with a hardcore imperialist at the head of the government the same thing would have happened all over the world.
@achyuthansanal Рік тому
@@user-lv8dn8gw9z being a politician was a career long before this, what are you talking about
@mland2012 Рік тому
Churchill: Attlee is basically Stalin. Brits: Yay Stalin!
@piggysew797 Рік тому
basically
@anupamtiwari5587 Рік тому
Based brits of the 1950s
@terrorgaming459 Рік тому
Based brits based queen elizabeth ii
@boazjamesmiller6387 Рік тому
Fun fact: Britain under Clement Attlee's government co-founded NATO in 1949. Not many people think about that.
@spiffygonzales5899 Рік тому
@@anupamtiwari5587 Better dead than Red!
@TheHylianBatman Рік тому
I had always wondered that. Thanks for informing us. Very interesting.
@Godtickles Рік тому
Thankyou James for keeping my favorite youtube channel alive
@user-nn8rw8yw4d Рік тому
Video ideas: Why was the Great Leap Forward such a disaster? Why did Greece join the Entente despite having a German king? Why did Romania join the Entente despite having a German king? Post WW2 Hungary (highest hyperinflation in history / Communist takeover)
@InfernosReaper Рік тому
#2's bit about a German monarch means nothing when the same also applied to Britain and a few other countries
@johnthebravesareworldchamp9597 Рік тому
The Greek King was Danish
@ImperiumMagistrate Рік тому
That’s like asking why the US joined the Entente despite having a lot of Germans
@Toonrick12 Рік тому
Why did the Great Leap Forward fail? Mao wasn't a good conveniencer to those who didn't already flow him. Thus, seeing how China didn't have a Siberia to exile those who weren't loyal, he calmly told them that he would listen and change his plan, oh wait, he just had them shot.
@athishnirup1815 Рік тому
They were pro german, but their people were not and even the government
@grzegorzbrzeczyszczykiewic5937 Рік тому
Obviously Churchill lost because he didn’t have a charismatic mustache like so many other leaders at the time had.
@bruhbruh-us6gl Рік тому
The only correct answer
@georgeprchal3924 Рік тому
Truman didn't either and he did just fine.
@bruhbruh-us6gl Рік тому
@@georgeprchal3924 Truman wasn’t elected tho
@georgeprchal3924 Рік тому
@@bruhbruh-us6gl tell that to Dewey.
@bruhbruh-us6gl Рік тому
@@georgeprchal3924 Wait you're right, I forgot he was re-elected after serving the rest of FDR's term. In any case, Dewey's mustache was lacking in terms of charisma.
@willmarsden6921 19 днів тому
I still think Clement Attlee (the prime minister after Churchill) should be taught more in schools in the UK. When I was told about him, the only info I got from our teacher was, "we don't like him, he took over Churchill's job. Therefore, he's not a good guy." And yet, with health minister Nye, made the NHS, employed Britain, and began dismantling a crumbling empire and began the Windrush Campaign to bring people from the Caribbean to help rebuild the economy.
@NPWIII Рік тому
The detail that goes into the 2 second news stories are just amazing!
@needtoknow6423 Рік тому
I love the Churchill quote in the news paper. It's so emotional and inspiring.
@achyuthansanal Рік тому
0:13
@stevemc01 Рік тому
The Matters of History channel knows all the memes.
@PugnaciousProductions Рік тому
What about the freaking news articles, lol
@loucascubeddu Рік тому
"It's no good that we've got Labour in power now" I don't get it, it's easy to read
@Hasan-pj6wp Рік тому
Churchill was despicable, racist, war criminal. Some will argue his “sins” are expiated for his actions during the second world war. It is nothing but nonsense to suggest Churchill went out to fight fascism. He lauded Mussolini as a “roman genius”, donated to Nazi war criminal Erich Von Manstien’s criminal defence and sought to desperatly cling on to the British Empire from which Hitler himself took inspiration for his Reich. What we have to remember is Churchill was not a uniquely villianous British Prime Minister. He was not out of ordinary but in fact a true representation of Britain.
@vladquebec Рік тому
As a guy living in Québec, I can also add that in a British parliamentary system, there is no way to specifically select the PM, only to vote in the general election for a certain candidate attached to a specific party and hope for the best, unlike, for example, the US or France where you can vote for the president, where the legislative and executive powers are clearly separated.
@ehchagas Рік тому
As a guy living in a presidential republic (Brazil), I'd gladly trade it for Westminster Parliamentarism anytime.
@vladquebec Рік тому
@@ehchagas Obrigado, you just got me interested in Brazilian politics. But I understand that your current president is not an inspiration.
@AnaIvanovic4ever Рік тому
Why is you living in Quebec relevant? Who are you explaining obvious facts about parliamentarianism to?
@justsomeguy1695 Рік тому
Well isn’t that basically how a parliamentary republic works? You vote for your MP whose party if in majority forms government
@MillsTC Рік тому
@@AnaIvanovic4ever Quebec, and by extension Canada use the Westminster system. As for who they're explaining to, from personal experience a lot of people, mostly americans don't actually understand how the westminster system works, and the fact that they choose the party, not the prime minister
@MatthewBakke Рік тому
Phenomenal as always!
@Vinemaple Рік тому
Thanks so much for this. Most popular history about this period begins and ends with the war!
@Longshanks1690 Рік тому
1:43 Considering that Labour had also opposed rearmament for years before 1939 on the grounds that the Tories wouldn’t use it against Germany as they claimed but to expand the Empire overseas, it is an insanely hilarious irony of history that they got to claim credit for not being part of that when they were just as opposed to rearmament as Chamberlain, if not moreso, especially after Munich.
@lesthodson2802 Рік тому
Labour winning that election was disastrous.
@jakethesnake3593 Рік тому
It's also a cautionary tale that manybconservative parties suffer... being too much like the left wing party, and vice versa. If your policies are too alike, you risk alienating your base.
@Spongebrain97 Рік тому
When the war did begin though they overwhelming were against Germany and were key supporters of Churchill as opposed to many conservatives who didn't like Churchill and by 1940 wanted to surrender to the Germans
@kingofcards9516 Рік тому
*Labour moment*
@dannyarcher6370 Рік тому
@@lesthodson2802 Labour winning any election is a disaster. And I'm not even British...yet.
@charliefarmer4365 Рік тому
“A modest man, with much to be modest about.” Winston Churchill on Clemont Atlee before losing to him.
@aperson22222 Рік тому
“Mr. Atlee is an honourable and gallant gentleman, and a faithful colleague who served his country well at the time of her greatest need. I should be obliged if you would make it clear whenever an occasion arises that I would never make such a remark about him, and that I strongly disapprove of anybody who does.”
@charliefarmer4365 Рік тому
@@aperson22222 I wonder if he spent hours thinking about those roasts and then being completely humiliated that he lost anyway.
@TomFynn Рік тому
"For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all Parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself." - Winston Churchill
@LuxusHauserGroup Рік тому
Wow! Thanks for letting us know that vital piece of information.
@Dimmo87ie Рік тому
I never get tired of seeing these caricatures skipping across the screen. It warms my cold dead heart
@adeshnarinesingh7712 Рік тому
Ever since I watched The Darkest Hour, I’ve always wondered why Churchill lost office soon after leading his country to victory in WWII. It was glossed over very quickly at the end of the movie as an afterthought. This video cleared things up very much so thank you!
@danieleyre8913 Рік тому
Don’t get your history from movies.
@Big.Stepper. Рік тому
@@danieleyre8913 Why not? It's just as good as any book.
@anupamtiwari5587 Рік тому
@@Big.Stepper. The Darkest hour? It's full of propaganda. It's if someone made a movie of Hitler showing only his good deeds & leaving out the other stuff from the movie.
@nhandinh7404 Рік тому
@@danieleyre8913 movies done right can be as good as the books
@gurditrehal3348 Рік тому
@@nhandinh7404 Not really. A film cannot go into the level of detail a book can. A film is usually restricted to 3 hours at most while books can take far longer to read and therefore contain more content. Films usually focus on specific aspects of a story whereas books have far a greater scope. Films can often fall short of properly explaining certain nuances resulting in oversimplification while a book can take the time to explain nuances. Finally, movies are meant to be for entertainment not education so they often exaggerate things for dramatic effect and ignore vital things to cut down the run time. If you are interesting in learning history, movies are an alright introduction to historical events but they should always be taken with a grain of salt and further research should be done (you can always start with the "Historical Accuracy" section that usually appears on Wikipedia pages for historical films).
@stevemc01 Рік тому
Churchill: *leads Britain and the Allies through WWII* British Government: “I hereby title you with Sir Unemployed.”
@genghiskhan5701 Рік тому
Didn't the King offered Churchill a Dukedom afterwards?
@stevemc01 Рік тому
@@genghiskhan5701 ...probably.
@neogeo6431 Рік тому
Churchill: My opponents are Communist Everyone in Britain: GOOD
@Fr33zeBurn Рік тому
and that was when they learned they'd made a terrible mistake and never did it again.
@smorrow 3 місяці тому
And then what happened? The UK quite famously took longer to recover from the war than did relatively free-market(in itself an anomaly - how was this allowed to happen?) Germany.
@ignacio1171 Рік тому
I feel stupid for just now realising that the newspapers in the video have actual "articles" about other world events of the period and that they're as hilarious as the video itself. Great hidden content!
@gimmethegepgun Рік тому
0:14 "Churchill was said to be endrunkended by the news" I love this channel.
@willdeyam3630 Рік тому
One very important detail forgotten is that Churchill DID return to PM in the election of 1951, although ironically with fewer votes than Labour
@corneliusmaze-eye2459 Рік тому
But that's the way with most western democracies. Despite being better for the economy and the social welfare of the people, Labour governments have only been in power about 30% of the time. It's just so difficult to compete with oligarchy.
@deezboyeed6764 Рік тому
@@corneliusmaze-eye2459 its down to a vicious cycle the conservatives use to their advantage. Conservstives get in and fuck everyone over so that when labours in they have to make hard decision but that will later benefit the nation. Unfortunately most of the gwneral population is too stupid to fsthom planning more then a year in advance. Which is the biggest fucking issue i have democracy, governments have the ability to plan decades ahead, to lay foundations that will later benifit the entire nation. But no we would rather spend every four years arguing
@jgw9990 Рік тому
@@corneliusmaze-eye2459 The opposite occurred with Blair and Major. John Major won the most votes in British history (14m) but only got a tiny majority of MPs. Blair won the next election with fewer votes but had a super majority of MPs. In the last few elections on average conservatives needed 2000 more votes per MP because the constituency borders favour Labour.
@MDP1702 Рік тому
@@jgw9990 It is actually the opposite, the constituency borders favour the tories: In 2019 labour had around 1000 more votes per seat. In 2017 labour had 6000 votes more per seat. In 2015 labour again had 6000 votes more per seat.
@kurtvanderbogarde8402 Рік тому
Basically Churchill in 1951 was like Dubya in 2000 and Flump in 2016. And that was his third and final attempt.
@Freddie1980 Рік тому
It's worth pointing out that Churchill actually managed to overturn the Labour landslide and got back into Downing Street in 1951, he won on the back of dissatisfaction of Attlee's economic polices which hadn't fixed unemployment issues despite the policy of full employment. It's also unique that Churchill is probably the only UK party leader to suffer two election defeats (1945 and 1950 one being a landslide which is normally be a death nail to leadership ambitions) and still comeback as PM.
@raptorfromthe6ix833 Рік тому
didnt nixon also do it
@jackmatthew1880 Рік тому
Interestingly he actually lost the popular vote in 1951. In terms of the public vote it was Attlee 3, Churchill 0.
@gc6096 Рік тому
If I remember correctly it was due to a declaration of a bread ration. I even read a post about it and how it might had affected the election. Just in case I better check again later on today glad someone else mention this.
@kaylynnhammond834 10 місяців тому
@@raptorfromthe6ix833 No, Nixon lost in 1960 by a small margin, won in 1968 by a slightly larger margin, and then was re-elected in one of the biggest landslides in the history of the United States in 1972
@nicktrains2234 9 місяців тому
@@raptorfromthe6ix833Nixon isn't British?
@prakashghumaliya2002 Рік тому
Thank you for video sir
@FakeAnarchist Рік тому
If there isn't already I'd like to see more vids about how the British Empire transitioned into the British Commonwealth and how that affected countries like Canada where I'm from.
@t.b.g.504 Рік тому
With Canada, it led to successive Liberal governments, beginning in the late 1940s, to start de-Anglicizing Canada, with Lester Pearson having a hand in it.
@terrorgaming459 Рік тому
Queen elizabeth is so based she decolonised
@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 Рік тому
The colonies better look out, Charles the third is on the throne now and he's looking to make a name for himself.
@SiPakRubah Рік тому
@@terrorgaming459 It's, inevitalble I mean, it has already happened since her father, King George. Unless you count Afghanistan and Egypt, and probably Ireland and South Africa, which happened much earlier than him (1910's-1920's)
@christoguichard4311 Рік тому
Both my grandads fought in the British army throughout the war, and they both hated Churchill. That generation also remembered the things that Churchill had done before the war, like ordering troops to open fire on striking miners, and sending thousands of Anzacs to certain death at Gallipoli.
@ricardokowalski1579 Рік тому
Not going to sugar coat it, Winston was a terrible person. He won a well deserved hate from many. But he did *one* thing that sets him apart from all others: he walked away from power peacefully. And he had a LOT of power when wwii ended. That, in itself, is not enough to like the man, or to wash away his many mistakes. But is rare enough to be notable. Respectfully.
@personperson.7744 Рік тому
But now, if you say any of that, people say “he was a man of his time” even though many people at the time thought him as a racist man that didn’t understand the struggles of the working class
@sfooter1692 Рік тому
Was it only ANZACs that fought at Gallipoli?
@piggysew797 Рік тому
@@sfooter1692 no, more british troops actually died there than ANZACS
@projektkobra2247 Рік тому
Im sure he had no small part of Canada's Gallipoli....Dieppe. You could perhaps see how we arent too keen to put Charles The Tampon on our money either.
@sam2cents Рік тому
Superb video! A great way to do history.
@jamesstevens2411 Рік тому
I love learning something new about modern British history. Thank you.
@MuchWhittering Рік тому
Ah, the good old days when new Prime Ministers took office after an election.
@anttibjorklund1869 Рік тому
Churchill's predecessor, Chamberlain, became PM without an election.
@Longshanks1690 Рік тому
Yes, everyone remembers the election of 1940, that’s definitely how Churchill came to power.
@johkupohkuxd1697 Рік тому
What? Churchill didn't become PM by election either.
@MrDarkx1000 Рік тому
@@johkupohkuxd1697 people often see the past through the lenses of the present unfortunately.
@heidirabenau511 Рік тому
@@johkupohkuxd1697 Neville Chamberlain was PM at the beginning of the war but resigned so the foreign secretary at the time Winston Churchill became PM until the end of the war or the next General elelction
@1234j Рік тому
Great video. When working 20 years ago on the till in a charity shop, I rang up a book sale. Book was The BWP (The British Way and Purpose). The older buyer told me his dad had a copy of it, and his commanding officer plus regimental padre during the war held frequent discussion groups on what did people want if they won the war? I got a copy cheap on the internet. Fascinating social history for us, and worth a read. I can see why Churchill lost.
@DC-hy2rg Рік тому
Not only wonderfully informative but also hilarious. Labour party rep seen prancing outside and Truman's warning about nevada slayed me 😂
@mencken8 11 місяців тому
This video is only needed because many people don’t understand how a parliamentary system of government (which the UK has) works. Churchill was NOT voted out, his party was. Since they no longer held a majority of seats, the party that did chose a new prime minister.
@nicolajrath1570 Рік тому
The Conservatives didn't really embrace "The Beveridge Report" as much as Labour. Labour was supportive of it in its entirety and also called for full employment and widespread nationalization of industry (most notably steel). Conservatives said they liked some of the ideas but didn't think they could be paid for and mostly wanted things to somewhat go back to how it was prewar
@MichaelGGarry Рік тому
And thus continues the Conservatives to this day.....
@greggv8 Рік тому
And then the Labour Party effed it all up, destroying British industry. No ship building, their automotive companies are owned by foreign ones. Labour didn't help the working people keep their jobs. What better way to push through welfare programs but to expand the number of unemployed to ensure the need for welfare is as big as possible?
@deezboyeed6764 Рік тому
@@MichaelGGarry still fucking up this nation beyond belief
@ANSELAbitsxb Рік тому
@@MichaelGGarry nationalization is never a good thing
@rafaelcosta3238 Рік тому
@Nicky L "The French government have limited prices increases for french consumers" and the consumers pay those increases via income tax, vat, or more expensive products (because companies will charge more if the government tries to raise the money via corporate tax). price caps are there to fool the people that are too stupid to understand that the government cannot give anything that it does not previously takes from someone.
@shakiMiki Рік тому
As a history graduate may I commend you on this video. It achieves more than entire series I have seen on the topic.
@Eddyhartz Рік тому
Thanks I always wondered this. And video was simple enough for my tiny brain to understand.
@spudskie3907 Рік тому
The newspaper articles in your videos are the best! July 27, 1945 “Bright flash in Nevada is nothing, stop asking!“ LOL!!!!
@seeyouchump Рік тому
I mean given that this guy came up with the brilliant idea of "operation unthinkable" immediately after the end of the - by far - most brutal war in history, you kinda get where the impression came from that Churchill is not the guy for peace
@mitjed Рік тому
The world dodge a bullet when they remove Churchill from power, world war 3 was averted. But unfortunately delayed the independence of Poland.
@ollie9486 Рік тому
The only bad thing about operation unthinkable is that it didn't happen
@genghiskhan5701 Рік тому
TBF, Churchill was kinda right at hindsight
@vercot7000 Рік тому
@@genghiskhan5701 He was right but it literally means nothing lol. The soviets were untouchable then
@captainkuijt Рік тому
@@vercot7000 Quite the contrary in fact. The Soviet army was suffering from shortages starting in 1944, and towards VE day in 1945, their army was dangerously close to collapse due to a shortage of manpower. They paid quite heavily in bodycount for every mile they earned in Germany. The Soviet army had massive numbers in 1942, but by 1945 not so much. They didn't have an infinite supply of men after all. After VE day the Soviet army was very vulnerable because of this. Had Britain pressed the attack and gotten the United States to join in, they could have steamrolled through Russia relatively easily. Alas, the people in Europe and America alike were both sick of war at this point and would be very hesitant to fight against a former ally when all they wanted was to have their sons come back home and enjoy peacetime after six years of brutal war.
@catmonarchist8920 Рік тому
Labour has to win one every now and again or people would think we're a dictatorship
@CosmicCreeper99 Рік тому
Yeah yeah no because the people “electing” “different people” that just so happen to be from the same party is totally a dictatorship. I’m not even British and yet that was the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
@Captain-Axeman Рік тому
Eh....
@catmonarchist8920 Рік тому
@@CosmicCreeper99 Singapore isn't exactly seen well because the same party always win even if there are fair elections with an opposition
@nazgual11able Рік тому
Don't worry. Just like the conservatives/public blamed labour for the financial crash, everyone will blame the tories for the coming great recession, the current stagflation and the great crash.
@lesthodson2802 Рік тому
Gotta preserve the myth that your political system has a left and a right party, rather than just left and lefter.
@MichSherl Рік тому
"Uncle Jo" had me on stitches! Great job!
@nik65stgt60 11 місяців тому
Great content!
@Hollows1997 Рік тому
A few noted to consider: • Labour also supported the policy of appeasement in the 1930s • Churchill did not tour the country like we might see today, Attlee however did. • While employment was a key factor in the election, it’s worth noting that unlike WWI jobs would have been available… as unlike WWI Britain had been heavily damaged by bombing (we were bombed just not on the scale of WWII) making jobs in construction highly likely. In fact if I am not mistaken the last bomb damage from the blitz was not rebuilt until 1999. • The Labour party’s spending of our Marshall plan money on welfare programmes is considered to be the reason why Britain now lags behind much of Europe in terms of industrial production.
@silenthunteruk Рік тому
Labour did support appeasement under the short leadership of George Lansbury, but less so under Attlee.
@lawrencedoliveiro9104 Рік тому
Funny how the bigger industrial producers in Europe are, if anything, even more “Socialist” than 🇬🇧 was then.
@cshaffrey3438 Рік тому
@@Martin_Hayes yep absolute nonsense to blame Attlee for Britain's poor industry, when it remained strong under the trade union system well into the 60s and 70s. Don't know how you can blame anyone other than Thatcher for deindustrialization
@weareselenators Рік тому
Ministers at war is an exceptionally well written book and highly recommended if you want to know more about the political atmosphere in the U.K. During WW2
@alparslankorkmaz2964 Рік тому
Nice video.
@jeffrey.a.hanson Рік тому
This was a blessing for Churchill and his legacy. A perfect lesson in not overstaying your success. You did the impossible, now ride off into the sunset or get assassinated (always foolproof). Also, people don’t like debbie downers after winning a war…even if true.
@AFGuidesHD Рік тому
Because after 2 world wars, people had kinda had enough of world wars.
@truthseeker327 Рік тому
India got Independence after Churchill lost office otherwise decolonization would never have happened.
@noelgrippen4707 Рік тому
Yeah especially after all the promises during world war 1 that were not fulfilled. I guess after over a million people dead after two wars, millions more injured and displaced people decided they wanted the promises fulfilled this time and their sacrifice honoured.
@noelgrippen4707 Рік тому
@@truthseeker327 The UK couldn't afford it, the country was quite literally broke and would be in an economic mess for decades to come. Churchill wouldn't of been able to stop the inevitable.
@bobbyr.7578 Рік тому
''History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.'' Winston Churchill
@gilbert8162 Рік тому
Yeah about that. I have some bad news my friend.
@ragulkarthikeyan6104 Рік тому
1945 General Election: Hold my Tea.
@ferretyluv Рік тому
Which he did and that’s why we see Churchill as this great genius. He was the first one to write it down.
@TheSuperBoyProject Рік тому
@@gilbert8162 it has been. He took massive bribes from bankers and arm manufacturers to bring britain to war and he was a massive drunk throughout his life. Facts very often omitted when describing him.
@spiffygonzales5899 Рік тому
Churchill is probably the single most over rated man in British history. I say that as an American. I've seen Brits claim he was more important than Napoleon, Alexander the great, and was once even told that I, as an American, have been affected more by Churchill than George Washington himself. He isn't even the most important man in BRITISH history. Let alone the entire friggin world.
@HarvestStore Рік тому
Great video.
@night_aviation 21 день тому
Not quite, he was kicked out for literally mumbling his speeches
@musamahmood6922 11 днів тому
Was you there?
@night_aviation 11 днів тому
Maybe in another life I was
@mrflag250 Рік тому
Clement could’ve ATLEEst said hello to him
@sfecgtt6084 Рік тому
Ok. You can leave now.
@mrflag250 Рік тому
I’ll show myself out
@Awesome2000WasTaken Рік тому
@@sfecgtt6084 ATLEEst he made a good pun.
@lucamaddalena8357 Рік тому
I literally love these videos
@briankelley7890 Рік тому
It's nice to remember a time where you can both love and respect a leader and also vote for a change from his policies. That seems impossible anymore.
@0011peace Рік тому
that has never been the case in the US
@jasondashney Рік тому
I wish people could be more detached and pragmatic like that.
@samdumaquis2033 Рік тому
Great vid
@jackperl7040 Рік тому
Hmmm, I think that newspaper at 0:14 may possibly have a misprint in the Churchill quote. I googled "Snogooddawegolabrnpowanah" and it doesn't appear that the Prime Minister ever actually said this. In fact, crazy as this sounds, "Snogooddawegolabrnpowanah" doesn't give any Google results *at*all*!
@piercepayumo4212 Рік тому
Churchill: "After everything I've done for you guys, your kicking me out?!" 😡🤬😡🤬 British People: "We don't trust you to keep the peace." 😒 Churchill: 😢
@monarchist1838 Рік тому
Then he came back again in 1951
@cumpanions8105 Рік тому
this is so cringe
@sechran Рік тому
See, "Operation Unthinkable" for how said British People might just have been onto something.
@countsudoku6305 Рік тому
@Jack Wrath dies of cringe
@Svensk7119 Рік тому
The thing I remember best about him are his quotes. He was definitely respected, and I always thought he was a bit hurt by being thrown out on his ear.
@hakimshah8397 Рік тому
search for his quotes on Indians and India, he was definitely not respected by everyone everywhere.
@muksimulmaad7413 Рік тому
dude was a hardline imperialist while the labor party was more focused on domestic affairs rather than the whole empire
@miroBGgsi Рік тому
''Underidoderidoderiododeriodoo'' - Winston Churchill. Love this one.
@Svensk7119 Рік тому
@@hakimshah8397 I didn't say by everyone everywhere... he was definitely an Imperialist.
@Svensk7119 Рік тому
@@miroBGgsi "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."---Winston Churchill. That one is my non-military favorite.
@briankelly5182 15 днів тому
Your little block men bring me comfort, thank you
@dragonsword2253 Рік тому
History Matters continues the trend of answering questions I've always wondered the answer to but were never important enough to Google. love it
@thewestisthebest6608 Рік тому
Important to note he came back and won in the very next election and was PM from 1951-1955 so he lead the UK through The Korean War as well I feel like quite a lot of Americans at least forget about that
@CaseNumber00 Рік тому
Forget about it? I never even knew or learned about the British participated in the K War and I consider myself knowing a bit more than most Americans.
@parvizdeamer Рік тому
@@CaseNumber00 really? The Korean was the North Koreans/Chinese vs the UN technically, so quite a few countries from around the world participated
@fromomelastocarcosa3575 Рік тому
2 elections later. There was an election in 1950.
@AeronKabutoBlade Рік тому
Which also incidentally made him the sitting PM when Elizabeth II took the throne.
@stpat7614 Рік тому
Actually, Churchill lost in the 1950 election.
@Chorutowo Рік тому
Man I just finished an essay on this, this would have been so usefull
@MrBenMcLean Рік тому
"would lead to a new Gestapo in Britain" -- and you're telling us this did not happen? Last I heard, the number of people arrested in Britain in recent years for expressing fairly mundane political opinions on social media has been greater than zero.
@zoch9797 Рік тому
Greater, in fact, than Russians being arrested in Russia for unpopular opinions. Go figure. All hail Ingsoc and Big Brother.
@RealMadrid14UCLs 9 місяців тому
Bingo! Finally, someone pointed that out
@ludovico6890 Рік тому
Anthony Burgess gives pretty good information about the conscripts' state of mind at the time of the election, in his books 1985 and Little Wilson and Big God. Burgess voted tory pretty much all his life, except in 1945.
@chemicaleye5959 Рік тому
@Jack Wrath shut up, Jesus Christ…
@daveharrison84 Рік тому
I didn't that about the author of A Clockwork Orange
@ArthurCSchaper Рік тому
Make these videos next! 1. Why did the revolutions of 1848 fail in Germany in Spain? 2. Why do people drive on different sides of the road in different parts of the world?
@user-zz3sn8ky7z Рік тому
#2 is just because when cars started becoming prominent, globalisation wasn't really a thing, so each place arbitrarily picked one side and once that became an issue it was too much trouble to fix
@BigRockdaBoss Рік тому
#2: because the countries that drive on the left hand side (UK, Australia, NZ, India, etc..) were for the most part of the British commonwealth, and that’s what side the brits drove on
@Awesome2000WasTaken Рік тому
@@user-zz3sn8ky7z globalisation was there, but wasn't very prominent.
@nikomitk8091 Рік тому
Thanks, I've always asked myself why this happened but was too lazy to do research
@emberfist8347 4 місяці тому
I am late but another issues as shown in the film Darkest Hour was that before he became PM, his name was associated with military disasters such as Gallipoli and the more recent Norwegian campaign.
@Ass_of_Amalek Рік тому
0:57 chiang kai shek looks hilarious with no hair and no hat
@mr.matinjothekiller4665 Рік тому
1:56 bottom right text, thank you for including that horrific event in Croatian history, the Bleiburg march, very few non croatian people actually know of that
@pfefferle74 Рік тому
Certainly not something that they teach in Germany about the aftermath of WWII. Our benevolent "liberators" were all saints and beyond worldly criticism.
@karlik4861 Рік тому
im sure the British where very nice and made sure that the Croats were safe and sound in Austria :)
@monkeydetonation Рік тому
@@karlik4861 Of course they were nice. They sent the Croatians back to their home country of Yugoslavia :)
@Noam_.Menashe Рік тому
Boo boo. Nazis sympythizers weren't treated well.
@MYwinters1945 Рік тому
I sat through the whole news paper at 0:14 XD lovely detail.
@joermnyc Рік тому
Correction about the first newspaper, the “bright flash” was in New Mexico. Nevada wasn’t used for nuclear weapons tests until 1951.
@enderman_of_d00m24 Рік тому
tbh, the fact he didn't try to pull a Lenin and say "those don't count", and actually accepted the defeat may be more humble than most give Churchill credit for Yes it was a shock, but they still did their duty and stepped aside for Attlee and the Labor party.
@Niceguy312373636 Рік тому
He couldn't refuse anyway.
@KekusMagnus Рік тому
Difference is Lenin was building global communism and he wasn't going to let some elections get in the way.
@enderman_of_d00m24 Рік тому
@@Niceguy312373636 in a very selfish way, he could've. but, he didn't. and I think that counts
@enderman_of_d00m24 Рік тому
@@KekusMagnus I mean, come on. Does this guy look like a dictator to you? *Lenin's face appears*
@KC-dw6yz Рік тому
Probably the difference is not just in personality but also that Russia in 1917 did not have anywhere near as long a democratic tradition as Britain had (in some form dating back to the 1800s and earlier), so it was much easier for Lenin to ignore the results than it would have been for Churchill
@McRocket Рік тому
0:23 - 'Call it a draw?' 🤣🤣 ☮
@earlleeruhf3130 5 місяців тому
I watched a show on PBS about Gallipoli and that it was Churchill's plan. I found it telling that he continued with his idea even when the soldiers were losing. I also noticed that there was an obvious flaw that even I saw when the map of the terrain and placements of the enemy forces were shown.
@itstitanictime2002 6 місяців тому
Correction: He wasn't voted out after WW2, he was voted out during WW2 because it occurred in July 1945, and the Japanese Empire Surrenders in late August 1945.
@josephsarra4320 Рік тому
Hey History matters, I have a suggestion for the next video, would you like to do a compare and contrast between a peasant, indentured servant, serf, and a slave? Because I think it is important to the distinction between these classes, especially in cases such as India, Russia, USA, etc.
@ferretyluv Рік тому
Peasant is free, indentured servitude is intended to be temporary, serfs are an inherited social status attached to land (not quite slaves but unfree, think like an extreme tenant farmer) and slaves are property. What this meant for your status as a slave meant different things in different places at different times. The race-based chattel slavery of the New World was unique and colors our perception of slavery throughout time. We assume that’s how all slaves everywhere throughout history were like, which isn’t the case. In Ancient Rome, urban slaves could make money and were more like a caste. Some slaves were teachers, especially Greek ones. Norse thralls had rights and could earn the 10th century equivalent of full citizenship. In Sparta, the helots were a whole class of people who did everything while the upper classes fought. It’s best to classify all those things you listed as a scale of unfree labor, which ranges from unpaid internship one one end and chattel slavery on the other.
@josephsarra4320 Рік тому
@@ferretyluv I appreciate that, but I wanted History Matters to cover it, that's why I have that topic as a suggestion just for him to do a video on it. So, that's why, but thank you.
@spiffygonzales5899 Рік тому
I mean... that's a complicated topic. The lives and rights of ANY of these vastly changes between regions and years. Still, I agree that it should be covered.
@sarcasticguy4311 Рік тому
@@ferretyluv How do you explain modern day slavery?
@ferretyluv Рік тому
@@sarcasticguy4311 Modern day slavery also comes in many forms. Corvee labor still exists in places like Kazakhstan, where students have to spend their summers farming, to child soldiers, to human trafficking, to indentured servitude. There are so many different kinds of unfree labor in the modern day, like tenant farming. Modern day slavery is a topic all on its own. It works very differently than today because it’s illegal. Labor trafficking and sex trafficking are but two types of modern day slavery. But the days of an internationally recognized state-sponsored chattel slave trade are behind us. Modern day slavery looks very different and hides behind a veneer of legitimacy since the slavery we’re all familiar with was outlawed decades ago (Except Mauritania, which only criminalized it in the 80s and is rarely enforced).
@martinmorles1 Рік тому
I can totally understand, that prospective since Churchill was very vocal in maintaining the British empire particularly India not the best way to ensure peace.
@g-1393 Рік тому
He was basically a racist
@joemcg3420 Рік тому
The Tories did actually promise Dominion Status for India in the election, albeit with written safeguards for British citizens and business, they did however fear that Churchill would oppose this, as his opinion on further autonomy at the time was varied. Much of the general population at least according to the opinion polls I’ve seen showed public expectations that the retreat from India (to Dominion status, full independence was seen as a bit of a humiliation) should be unhurried, orderly and that troops should stay until a constitution was established. This however with Labour’s victory and other events led to this never happening and instead caused the hurried Indian Independence bill which was passed a mere 6 weeks after its announcement, in stark contrast with the Government of India act of 1935, which took 6 years to finalise. That is not to say the Tories didn’t want to hold onto India, some did, it’s just that they realised it wasn’t practical and thus never made a strong attempt, in parliament and with the people, to stop the Independence bill from passing.
@butterchickenmasala2433 Рік тому
@@joemcg3420 that hurried independence had some serious consequences in the subcontinent. The guy who drew our borders had never set foot into the subcontinent before and he had 1 month or so to actually decide/draw the borders
@butterchickenmasala2433 Рік тому
@@joemcg3420 also not sure how the "dominionship for India" offer was received in Britain, but Indians knew that it was bull. After Jallianwala Bagh, WW2 and then the Bengal famine, Gandhi and his cohort advocated for Purna Swaraj a.k.a "Complete Independence" And it also didn't help that Britain before/during the Great War had made vague statements/offers of Dominionship for India after ww1, and then failed to enforce it. Nobody trusted or wanted them in India by that point.
@XzaroX 10 місяців тому
Churchill should have tried spinning three plates.
@rockbullet3699 8 місяців тому
actually, Attlee became the prime minister a little over a month before ww2 ended
History Matters
Переглядів 2,7 млн
History Matters
Переглядів 2,6 млн
FLIP FLOP Hacks
Переглядів 52 млн
Tips Workshop
Переглядів 4,5 млн
Focus Features
Переглядів 2,6 млн
History Matters
Переглядів 189 тис.
History Matters
Переглядів 1,5 млн
History Matters
Переглядів 832 тис.
History Matters
Переглядів 1 млн