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

Жыл бұрын

The last part isn't true since Stalin could also be voted out of office

@richardwulf1122

Жыл бұрын

@@blueciffer1653 With a bullet, yes. But with mere lines of ink on paper, preposterous.

@cshaffrey3438

Жыл бұрын

@@blueciffer1653 by who????

@Noam_.Menashe

Жыл бұрын

@@cshaffrey3438 god.

@spiffygonzales5899

Жыл бұрын

@@Noam_.Menashe And God did just that

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

Жыл бұрын

Are you making the professor up, or did someone else actually author that fantasy?

@RaveDecoy242

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@MJHdesproj why would it be false?

@MJHdesproj

Жыл бұрын

@@vercot7000 huh?

@visassess8607

Жыл бұрын

@@MJHdesproj I get being skeptical of things you hear on the internet but not every single story is made up.

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.”

@MrDaiseymay

9 күн бұрын

HE HAD SUCH DRY WIT, BUT OF COURSE, SHE WAS RIGHT , CHURCHILL WAS BACK IN 1951, I REMEMBER THE CARS WITH LOUDSPEAKERS TOURING OUR DISTRICT

@nanny287

7 күн бұрын

His pithy, witty retorts are unmatched. God bless you, sir.

@jmwh9654

2 күн бұрын

​@@nanny287 in fairness a lot of them aren't real and made up

@nanny287

2 күн бұрын

@@jmwh9654 I have read so many brilliant, inspiring Churchill quotes, and he was generally very well read and articulate that I find that hard to believe. Why do you say such a thing? That is, what is your basis in fact for your comment. You realize that you cannot libel the dead so that once a public figure passes, a plethora of books full of nonsense are printed. My favorite of his quotes is “Never ever, ever, ever, ever give up.” It is the one that I live by, and I am certain that he said.

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

Жыл бұрын

A fair reason

@luisandrade2254

Жыл бұрын

@@silverreverence6176 not really considering that there’s no spending money when it comes to government all government spending comes from the citizenry

@AdamMGTF

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

@Paul Gauthier what

@deezboyeed6764

Жыл бұрын

@@salimz1376 he is not a smart man dont expect qn answer

@lau9076

Жыл бұрын

@@salimz1376 He said that he didin't want to return back to the old ways

@adamesd3699

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@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.

Because James Bissonette felt the UK needed a change. Edit: Obligitory OMG THANK YOU FOR 6K LIKES!!!

@dikshantkandwal5815

Жыл бұрын

James Bissonette for the King of UK!!

@mesa9724

Жыл бұрын

I like to believe James Bissonette is an immortal being that has been guiding humanity through the times.

@Stejers

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

Nah

@simonrice5748

Жыл бұрын

James Bussinonette was leader of Labour and felt threatened by Churchill's popularity.

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

Жыл бұрын

There's a little nod to the 1951 election in one of the newspaper articles ;)

@hawkeyeten2450

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@hawkeyeten2450 I dont know much about Trumans downfall, im going to have to look it up now :) Thanks for the comment

@kurtvanderbogarde8402

Жыл бұрын

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 ай бұрын

Although I would say Churchill lost the popular vote when he won the 1951 election

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@SaxonBlue You're pretty on point, actually. I do remember the miner strikes, and how Churchill brutally suppressed them.

@strategystuff5080

Жыл бұрын

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.

When we need answers to questions we didn’t ask, this man is always here to satisfy us

@obama3804

Жыл бұрын

Couldn’t have said it any better lmao

@josephsarra4320

Жыл бұрын

Agreed 100%

@johkupohkuxd1697

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

Maybe else where in the world but as a Brit this is definitely a question I've asked.

@MomMom4Cubs

Жыл бұрын

I asked this question, but I just finished watching Darkest Hour at the time.

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

Жыл бұрын

@Jack Wrath Go find a father figure

@SylviaRustyFae

Жыл бұрын

@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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

affectively? effectively!

@audunms4780

Жыл бұрын

he was a conservative through and through, that was who he was.

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

Жыл бұрын

Interesting, and ironic, too!

@kurtvanderbogarde8402

Жыл бұрын

Most Tories supported Neville C and wanted him to stay on.

@rachelar

10 ай бұрын

​@@kurtvanderbogarde8402🤮

@rachelar

10 ай бұрын

Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin all used their parties as vehicles of their own agendas

@Ukraineaissance2014

7 ай бұрын

Neville Chamberlain was well respected and was only carrying out the wishes of the nation, despite his modern reputation.

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

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

Except Atwater began to ruin the UK. He was the FDR of the UK

@Protont

Жыл бұрын

@Jack Wrath How many subsribers did this get you? I don’t think many

@guillaumegiroux9425

Жыл бұрын

It feels similar to George Bush (the father) vs. Bill Clinton in 1992 after the Gulf War.

@lars9925

Жыл бұрын

I disagree. Voting in Labour was a mistake, the Empire fell because of them.

@gabrieldossantos1116

Жыл бұрын

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.

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.

The ability to differentiate between a wartime and peacetime leader really speaks on how educated voters used to be

@borakaraca9788

5 ай бұрын

yeah but labours were not peacetime leaders they were not leaders they were unable to govern

@emberfist8347

4 ай бұрын

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 ай бұрын

@@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 ай бұрын

@@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 ай бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

*Japanese samurai caste group glare intensifies*

@LuziFearon

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

I wouldn’t say Churchill loved war he was simply more equipped to deal with it

@leplus1

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

I can see why. Churchill wanted to start WW3 immediately with the Soviets but not even the nosy US was having it.

@JoshSweetvale

Жыл бұрын

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.*

@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@Anakin_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!

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!

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

Жыл бұрын

Well to be fair though Roosevelt might have been there if only he didn’t suffer from a tiny case of death

@Osterochse

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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-

Жыл бұрын

Most Americans associate President Truman with the atomic bombs and the end of WW2.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

George orwell was still a socialist tho

@ObadiahtheSlim

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

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!

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

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

Жыл бұрын

That’s because republicans are racist

@user-lv8dn8gw9z

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@user-lv8dn8gw9z being a politician was a career long before this, what are you talking about

Obviously Churchill lost because he didn’t have a charismatic mustache like so many other leaders at the time had.

@bruhbruh-us6gl

Жыл бұрын

The only correct answer

@georgeprchal3924

Жыл бұрын

Truman didn't either and he did just fine.

@bruhbruh-us6gl

Жыл бұрын

@@georgeprchal3924 Truman wasn’t elected tho

@georgeprchal3924

Жыл бұрын

@@bruhbruh-us6gl tell that to Dewey.

@bruhbruh-us6gl

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Thankyou James for keeping my favorite youtube channel alive

This channel is the answer that makes my questions go away.

I love the Churchill quote in the news paper. It's so emotional and inspiring.

@achyuthansanal

Жыл бұрын

0:13

@stevemc01

Жыл бұрын

The Matters of History channel knows all the memes.

@PugnaciousProductions

Жыл бұрын

What about the freaking news articles, lol

@loucascubeddu

Жыл бұрын

"It's no good that we've got Labour in power now" I don't get it, it's easy to read

@Hasan-pj6wp

Жыл бұрын

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.

Churchill: Attlee is basically Stalin. Brits: Yay Stalin!

@piggysew797

Жыл бұрын

basically

@anupamtiwari5587

Жыл бұрын

Based brits of the 1950s

@terrorgaming459

Жыл бұрын

Based brits based queen elizabeth ii

@boazjamesmiller6387

Жыл бұрын

Fun fact: Britain under Clement Attlee's government co-founded NATO in 1949. Not many people think about that.

@spiffygonzales5899

Жыл бұрын

@@anupamtiwari5587 Better dead than Red!

on point as always

Phenomenal as always!

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

Жыл бұрын

As a guy living in a presidential republic (Brazil), I'd gladly trade it for Westminster Parliamentarism anytime.

@vladquebec

Жыл бұрын

@@ehchagas Obrigado, you just got me interested in Brazilian politics. But I understand that your current president is not an inspiration.

@AnaIvanovic4ever

Жыл бұрын

Why is you living in Quebec relevant? Who are you explaining obvious facts about parliamentarianism to?

@justsomeguy1695

Жыл бұрын

Well isn’t that basically how a parliamentary republic works? You vote for your MP whose party if in majority forms government

@MillsTC

Жыл бұрын

@@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

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

Жыл бұрын

#2's bit about a German monarch means nothing when the same also applied to Britain and a few other countries

@johnthebravesareworldchamp9597

Жыл бұрын

The Greek King was Danish

@ImperiumMagistrate

Жыл бұрын

That’s like asking why the US joined the Entente despite having a lot of Germans

@Toonrick12

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

They were pro german, but their people were not and even the government

Thanks so much for this. Most popular history about this period begins and ends with the war!

Churchill: My opponents are Communist Everyone in Britain: GOOD

@Fr33zeBurn

Жыл бұрын

and that was when they learned they'd made a terrible mistake and never did it again.

@smorrow

4 ай бұрын

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

Don’t get your history from movies.

@Big.Stepper.

Жыл бұрын

@@danieleyre8913 Why not? It's just as good as any book.

@anupamtiwari5587

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@danieleyre8913 movies done right can be as good as the books

@gurditrehal3348

Жыл бұрын

@@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).

“A modest man, with much to be modest about.” Winston Churchill on Clemont Atlee before losing to him.

@aperson22222

Жыл бұрын

“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

Жыл бұрын

@@aperson22222 I wonder if he spent hours thinking about those roasts and then being completely humiliated that he lost anyway.

@TomFynn

Жыл бұрын

"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

I never get tired of seeing these caricatures skipping across the screen. It warms my cold dead heart

Wow! Thanks for letting us know that vital piece of information.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

Basically Churchill in 1951 was like Dubya in 2000 and Flump in 2016. And that was his third and final attempt.

Churchill: *leads Britain and the Allies through WWII* British Government: “I hereby title you with Sir Unemployed.”

@genghiskhan5701

Жыл бұрын

Didn't the King offered Churchill a Dukedom afterwards?

@stevemc01

Жыл бұрын

@@genghiskhan5701 ...probably.

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.

Thank you for video sir

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

Жыл бұрын

Labour winning that election was disastrous.

@jakethesnake3593

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

*Labour moment*

@dannyarcher6370

Жыл бұрын

@@lesthodson2802 Labour winning any election is a disaster. And I'm not even British...yet.

0:14 "Churchill was said to be endrunkended by the news" I love this channel.

Superb video! A great way to do history.

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

Жыл бұрын

didnt nixon also do it

@jackmatthew1880

Жыл бұрын

Interestingly he actually lost the popular vote in 1951. In terms of the public vote it was Attlee 3, Churchill 0.

@gc6096

Жыл бұрын

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.

@RejectedRecords1998

11 ай бұрын

@@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 ай бұрын

​@@raptorfromthe6ix833Nixon isn't British?

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

Queen elizabeth is so based she decolonised

@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462

Жыл бұрын

The colonies better look out, Charles the third is on the throne now and he's looking to make a name for himself.

@SiPakRubah

Жыл бұрын

@@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)

Ah, the good old days when new Prime Ministers took office after an election.

@anttibjorklund1869

Жыл бұрын

Churchill's predecessor, Chamberlain, became PM without an election.

@Longshanks1690

Жыл бұрын

Yes, everyone remembers the election of 1940, that’s definitely how Churchill came to power.

@johkupohkuxd1697

Жыл бұрын

What? Churchill didn't become PM by election either.

@MrDarkx1000

Жыл бұрын

@@johkupohkuxd1697 people often see the past through the lenses of the present unfortunately.

@heidirabenau511

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Not only wonderfully informative but also hilarious. Labour party rep seen prancing outside and Truman's warning about nevada slayed me 😂

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

Жыл бұрын

search for his quotes on Indians and India, he was definitely not respected by everyone everywhere.

@muksimulmaad7413

Жыл бұрын

dude was a hardline imperialist while the labor party was more focused on domestic affairs rather than the whole empire

@miroBGgsi

Жыл бұрын

''Underidoderidoderiododeriodoo'' - Winston Churchill. Love this one.

@Svensk7119

Жыл бұрын

@@hakimshah8397 I didn't say by everyone everywhere... he was definitely an Imperialist.

@Svensk7119

Жыл бұрын

@@miroBGgsi "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."---Winston Churchill. That one is my non-military favorite.

Because after 2 world wars, people had kinda had enough of world wars.

@truthseeker327

Жыл бұрын

India got Independence after Churchill lost office otherwise decolonization would never have happened.

@noelgrippen4707

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

And thus continues the Conservatives to this day.....

@greggv8

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@MichaelGGarry still fucking up this nation beyond belief

@ANSELAbitsxb

Жыл бұрын

@@MichaelGGarry nationalization is never a good thing

@rafaelcosta3238

Жыл бұрын

@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.

"Uncle Jo" had me on stitches! Great job!

Thanks I always wondered this. And video was simple enough for my tiny brain to understand.

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.

@sirtristram8297

9 күн бұрын

See below for an excellent book on the social history of the ordinary British soldier, which has a chapter on the discussion groups attendended by the rank-and-file. (My father, conscripted into the army in WW2, loved these discussion groups.) Title: "Browned off and bloody-minded" Sub-title: "The British soldier goes to war 1939-1945" Author: Alan Allport Publisher: Yale University Press, London, 2017.

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

Жыл бұрын

The world dodge a bullet when they remove Churchill from power, world war 3 was averted. But unfortunately delayed the independence of Poland.

@Dfoskdty

Жыл бұрын

The only bad thing about operation unthinkable is that it didn't happen

@genghiskhan5701

Жыл бұрын

TBF, Churchill was kinda right at hindsight

@vercot7000

Жыл бұрын

@@genghiskhan5701 He was right but it literally means nothing lol. The soviets were untouchable then

@captainkuijt

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Great content!

I love learning something new about modern British history. Thank you.

Labour has to win one every now and again or people would think we're a dictatorship

@CosmicCreeper99

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

Eh....

@catmonarchist8920

Жыл бұрын

@@CosmicCreeper99 Singapore isn't exactly seen well because the same party always win even if there are fair elections with an opposition

@nazgual11able

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

Gotta preserve the myth that your political system has a left and a right party, rather than just left and lefter.

As a history graduate may I commend you on this video. It achieves more than entire series I have seen on the topic.

"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

Жыл бұрын

Greater, in fact, than Russians being arrested in Russia for unpopular opinions. Go figure. All hail Ingsoc and Big Brother.

@RealMadrid14UCLs

9 ай бұрын

Bingo! Finally, someone pointed that out

Next would love to see why Churchill got re-elected

Clement could’ve ATLEEst said hello to him

@sfecgtt6084

Жыл бұрын

Ok. You can leave now.

@mrflag250

Жыл бұрын

I’ll show myself out

@Awesome2000WasTaken

Жыл бұрын

@@sfecgtt6084 ATLEEst he made a good pun.

''History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.'' Winston Churchill

@gilbert8162

Жыл бұрын

Yeah about that. I have some bad news my friend.

@ragulkarthikeyan6104

Жыл бұрын

1945 General Election: Hold my Tea.

@ferretyluv

Жыл бұрын

Which he did and that’s why we see Churchill as this great genius. He was the first one to write it down.

@TheSuperBoyProject

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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.

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

I remember, years ago, reading an interview with Margaret Thatcher, in which she talked about the 1945 election. She said that when Churchill made the "Socialist Gestapo" comment, her reaction was "He's gone too far this time".

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

Was it only ANZACs that fought at Gallipoli?

@piggysew797

Жыл бұрын

@@sfooter1692 no, more british troops actually died there than ANZACS

@projektkobra2247

Жыл бұрын

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.

But the real question is why did Churchill elected in 1951?

@ImperiumMagistrate

Жыл бұрын

Because it was the Cold War and he again projected an image of being a strong leader

@personperson.7744

Жыл бұрын

@@ImperiumMagistrate he actually lost the popular vote. Atlee got a majority of the votes, but because of britains FPTP system, Churchill got a majority of the seats

@ImperiumMagistrate

Жыл бұрын

@@personperson.7744 Labour got like .8 percent more votes than Tory.

@personperson.7744

Жыл бұрын

@@ImperiumMagistrate oh yes, you are right, sorry. Either way, he still had less votes than Atlee

@petergray7576

Жыл бұрын

Partially because of the FPTP system, partially because Labour was split into two factions, mostly because Attlee's government had been too slow to lift wartime rationing and price controls.

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

Жыл бұрын

that has never been the case in the US

@jasondashney

Жыл бұрын

I wish people could be more detached and pragmatic like that.

Nice video.

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

Жыл бұрын

Certainly not something that they teach in Germany about the aftermath of WWII. Our benevolent "liberators" were all saints and beyond worldly criticism.

@karlik4861

Жыл бұрын

im sure the British where very nice and made sure that the Croats were safe and sound in Austria :)

@monkeydetonation

Жыл бұрын

@@karlik4861 Of course they were nice. They sent the Croatians back to their home country of Yugoslavia :)

@Noam_.Menashe

Жыл бұрын

Boo boo. Nazis sympythizers weren't treated well.

I literally love these videos

I aplaud your language skills seeing how you've managed to spam the word " however " like every other youtuber does these days. Hat's off !

Great video.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@ferretyluv How do you explain modern day slavery?

@ferretyluv

Жыл бұрын

@@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).

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

Жыл бұрын

@Jack Wrath shut up, Jesus Christ…

@daveharrison84

Жыл бұрын

I didn't that about the author of A Clockwork Orange

Not quite, he was kicked out for literally mumbling his speeches

@musamahmood6922

25 күн бұрын

Was you there?

@night_aviation

25 күн бұрын

Maybe in another life I was

Your little block men bring me comfort, thank you

History Matters continues the trend of answering questions I've always wondered the answer to but were never important enough to Google. love it

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

Жыл бұрын

#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

Жыл бұрын

#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

Жыл бұрын

@@user-zz3sn8ky7z globalisation was there, but wasn't very prominent.

Man I just finished an essay on this, this would have been so usefull

Churchill should have tried spinning three plates.

Now you've raised the question: how did he win re-election?

The Tories failed in many of their promises after WW1 regarding veterans, so there was less reason to trust them again after WW2

@jamiengo2343

Жыл бұрын

It was David Lloyd George, the Liberal, that made the promise wasn’t it?

“They suffered the greatest upset in their party’s history” No, they suffered the greatest upset in their party’s history so far!

Thanks, I've always asked myself why this happened but was too lazy to do research

After a traumatic event, people tend to want change. Winnie represented blood, sweat, toil and tears. People were ready for a fresh start.

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*!

Great vid

Both my parents were 23 in 1945 (meaning because ot the war it this was their first chance to vote) and both voted Labour. They saw Churchill as a great wartime leader but who previously had been an hopeless Home Secretary and disasterous Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the man you wanted to be PM in peacetime.

0:57 chiang kai shek looks hilarious with no hair and no hat

Churchill wasn't even in Britain when he found out he was voted out of office. He was attending the Potsdam-Conference where Stalin had an office decorated to his taste (and another office for Truman). The election happened before the conference but the result became known after it started. Churchill left and Atlee joined the conference. Stalin did not bother to have the office redecorated (it is to this day decorated like it was for Churchill). Many believe, that having 2 inexperienced heads of states at the conference allowed Stalin to get much of what he wanted - including moving the polish borders with the USSR and those with Germany west.

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

He was basically a racist

@joemcg3420

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Topic idea: Why did Bolivia lose its Pacific coastline?

@SirAntoniousBlock

Жыл бұрын

In games between the countries Chilean football fans still sing "lets all go to the beach". 😂

Well done, can’t believe that was only 2.5 minutes

Correction about the first newspaper, the “bright flash” was in New Mexico. Nevada wasn’t used for nuclear weapons tests until 1951.

I heard it mentioned somewhere that a major reason was increased British sympathy for communism. This was caused by nothing else than the government propaganda itself since it presented USSR as friends. The video did mention this more positive attitude towards communism, but my point is that the UK government might have had a nonnegligible part in causing it.

@kieranhyde8195

Жыл бұрын

well yeah the officers and army trainers basically had to promise radical change for morale to hold up at all.