Many ordinary British folk didn't like Churchill, recalling his anti-labour stance during the 1920s. They grudgingly admitted he'd been the right person to lead the country through the war, but were damned if they were going to give him carte-blanche to carry on. That, coupled with the promising dream of the social and welfare reforms promised by the Labour Party were enough to tip him out. I think a lot of people today fail to realise how grim it was in Britain, pre-war. The social reforms were a huge thing to many people. Btw, it's not OWchinlech, it's Och-in-leck, right laddy?
Yeah the modern myth of Churchill has very much replaced the reality of man the British public knew. Churchill was a known political entity to the public he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of state for war, SoS for the colonies, and home secretary, to the voters he wasn't just the prime minister of the war but all those other he had been before the war. But to many people today all he is is the prime minister of WW2 and all context of the politician and the man is lost
Yes, he led the country through the war. That's the only thing he was good at----War, division, agression. If he lived in contemporary times, he would have been called a War Criminal. Look at what he did in India, Greece, other parts of the world. Didn't give a tinker's dam for anyone or anything if it wasn't White, English, rich, or spoke English. Kissinger is a saint against Churchill.
"How can I accept the Order of the Garter, when the people of England have just given me the Order of the Boot?" LOL! One of the funniest quips I have ever heard.
@richardhart9204 when retiring for whiskey after dinner a woman who disliked him told him "if I was your wife I would put poison un your whiskey". He quickly responded "and if you were my wife I would drink it, gladly."
After Churchill lost in 1945, his wife said to him, “perhaps this is a blessing in disguise” to which Churchill responded, “if it is, it’s very well disguised.”
It was the most basic food that caused Churchill's down fall, Bread was still being strictly rationed with no end in sight and people (mostly the poor) were fed up of being hungry and felt their lives had not got any better after the war had ended. My grandmother told me about this when we were learning about Churchill in school
Rationing was a big part. But it wasn’t just that. It was clear and obvious to even Tory voters that the nation had not been very well run and that the empire had underperformed during the war. The railways were wearing out, bad administration and neglect was everywhere.
I've always found it interesting that Churchill lost power after the war and this video clearly outlines some reasons why. What's just as surprising is that after voting for Clem Attlee and party that he lost to Churchill in 1951. It would be interesting to see a follow up video on how and why that happened.
One important factor is that by 1951 the Conservative party had accepted more or less completely the economic and social settlement that Labour had defeated them on in 1945. These days it's hard to imagine any political leader or their party having the mental agility to grasp such a total change in circumstance. The last politician to come close was probably Tony Blair. By contrast the Conservative party didn't reform itself one jot between '97 and '10, and look at the consequences.
Something to remember about the 1951 election. Churchill might have won Downing Street but Attlee won the popular vote. The majority of people still wanted Attlee.
Talking to my parents about it years ago they seemed to think that things just didn't improve after the war as much as had been promised. There were massive fuel shortages and a very harsh winter in 46/47 - obviously not any government's fault, but we all know when things go bad the government tends to be judged harshly!
@@NetZeroNo I can remember the winter of 45/46,it was very cold and coal was in short supply,my brother and I,had to take the day off school and queue up at the gasworks with an old pram we had borrowed ,for a big bag of coke,not what people know as coke these days,but fuel.we put it in the pram,and wheeled it home,I was 11,my brother 14
He didn't practice what he preached my grandmother complained about that, while they starved and were rationed, ordered to kill their pet cats and dogs to save on food at one point, he sat there getting fat, drinking, smoking cigars and eating gourmet food all very publicly, it enraged people.
My father maintained that Churchill was booed on the Western Front (he was, after all, there.) The Beveridge Report had been circulated and read widely among the troops as well as the civilian population, and they were hungry for the Welfare State it proposed. Memories of some of Churchill's actions in the 20s and 30s were perceived as hostile to the working classes, who comprised most of the returning forces. It is easy to see that with no further need of a war leader, lots of folk did not want his version of post war Britain.
My parents were the same generation. Mum, lived in Stepney, said when Churchill toured the area giving the V for victory sign it was the 2 fingers he was getting back. Old news reels dont show that. He wasn't popular. Neither was Montgomery. My school friend's father was in the desert rats. He said they hated Montgomery. Jumped up little pip squeak or strutting little bantam cock were the polite names my dad called him in front of us kids. Montgomery went to Dover where my Dad was stationed when invasion was on the cards to give the soldiers a morale boosting talk. He dressed in his half this and half that mess of a uniform but put the corporal on guard at the gate on a charge because his boot lace was coming undone. No idea how to treat people. After his speech Dad said soldiers were saying they weren't inclined to lay down their lives for the likes of him.
It is interesting how Montgomery thought he was entitled to wear a concocted uniform. It's the same with Churchill, wearing fake uniforms. What did the troops think of these odd bods? @@helenamcginty4920
When I was a child my parents had an English babysitter who was an adult in England in 1945. I asked her why Churchill lost. She said that after the war the English were fed up with “blood toil tears and sweat”. They wanted an end to war and to reap the benefits of peace. Churchill seemed to promise more struggle while Attlee promised the benefits of peace.
This was a very well written explanation of Churchill and Attlee on the domestic front. I thoroughly enjoyed this episode. Nice one, Daven and Simon. 😊😊😊❤❤❤😊😊😊
Wow. What a well-done video. I'd often wondered about the seemingly inexplicable defeat of Churchill in the election following WWII and I hadn't seen it addressed clearly by historians and authors. You did address it, and very well. Thanks.
What people today don't understand is that the magnitude of Hitler and the Nazi's evil madness and Holocaust atrocities only came to light after their defeat. For another matter, the British Isles had never really considered landlocked Germany a serious threat before, so it's understandable that many Brits would have considered Churchill a warmonger.
@@dave928OK, like 90% land-locked. The point is that Britain was confident that Germany wouldn't even think for a moment of going up against the British navy. Just trust me on that because I'm too lazy to look up sources of historical figures who've said so.
Churchill always had a Warhawk reputation and wasn't really liked by Brits. He was seen as necessary. So as soon as the war was won everyone wanted him out.
Agreed. And most Britons knew that his 1930s position on retention of India was ridiculous and impossible to sustain. This judgment was shown to be accurate by the horror and mass slaughter of the independence of India and Pakistan starting in 1947 by that bungling oaf Louis Mountbatten.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Perhaps. But the bulk of the blundering was done in the insane policy of imagining that India could be peacefully partitioned. Trying to divide politically a country of hundreds of millions of people would inevitable cause a huge war and deaths by the millions. And to this day, the conflict still has not ended.
@@colinhunt4057 I doubt that the British government, or indeed the leaders of the Congress Party and the Muslim League, ever thought that a peaceful Partition was possible. Attlee had installed Mountbatten as Viceroy on 2 June, 1947, with instructions to end British involvement by mid August. The leader of the Muslim League, Muhammed Ali Jinnah, had already called for ‘direct action’ to create a Muslim state, in 1946. Partition was not the policy of the British, but the demand of those who became the leaders of India & Pakistan. Especially the latter.
@@colinhunt4057 well the trouble was Britain had fought Germany on the basis of stopping their empire building so people began questioning well what about Britain's empire oppression, it became a bad look and seen as hypocritical.
I was surprised by my grandmother once, when she expressed her dissatisfaction at the social situation during the war. Despite being quite conservative, she told me that there was a lot of inequality and that the wealthy had been able to avoid the hardships endured by the rest of the population. On the other hand, my father and uncle were both small boys when the war started, but both grew to over 6ft, so it seems that Jack Drummond's efforts in creating a well balanced diet for all paid off.
I saw a science programme recently that said that the wartime diet was the healthiest we have ever had, less fats than these days, more nutrition than in previous times. They did get a lot right in those days.
The war wasn’t necessary for Britain since hitler proposed peace many times during the conflict (but Winston Churchill regime censured all media to reproduce it, that’s why German threw leaflets over London of the peace speech “last appeal to reason”). In the end, he ruined forever the empire and, Poland that was the reason for the war to begin with, went to the Soviets (together with half of Europe). The only thing he accomplished was to destroy nacionalism in Europe and keeping the financial global elites in charge of west Europe.
This war was a scam. British elites did it just to sell off the empire and open british land to foreign peoples, transforming the native british into subjects.
I remember my Grandfather saying that Winston was the right man for the war, but the wrong man for peace! Churchill was considered a warmonger pre war. Grandad also had personal beef, not only working class and socialist (growing up on stories of Churchill sending tanks to quell a strike in Scotland) but lost a lot of his friends in the fall of Singapore. His school year got called up in the navy, they had a bit of class reunion in singapore before their ship HMS Repulse sailed off with a dozen of so of his schoolmates. Grandad was convinced Churchill sent Z force without adequate back up there as a "big man" gesture, Grandads ship was one of the last out before the fall.
Force Z was indeed Churchill's personal folly but it was more about his contempt for the "yellow races" than a big man gesture. He was one of those who thought it was just a matter of showing the Japanese a bit of British steel and they would slink back home.
Wow. Small world. My own grandfather escaped the Fall of Singapore on the *other* British ship (The Prince of Wales). It too was sunk, and for the rest of his life my Granddad insisted on blaming Churchill's lack of air support for the disaster.
@@danielstride198 Grandad was on a light cruiser that was supposed to be returning home to be converted to an AA cruiser when events intervened. Its WW1 era AA weapons were not really up to the task (fire control or fire power wise).
@@dovetonsturdee7033 No Imagination needed. Documented and proven. Check out the "Battle of George Square" in Glasgow, the Wiki article is solid and sources check out. 6 of the new medium mark C's were dispatched and unloaded. But not used despite Churchills urgings. Mostly because they arrived late.
I asked my father years ago how Churchill lost...he answered that people had had enough of Churchill with a grimace . I think that not everyone was enamoured with Churchill, they put up with him during the war but saw him as a bit much, a tiresome windbag.
"...when the King had offered [Churchill] The Order of the Garter, he declined, saying the people had already given him "the Order of the Boot." One of Churchill's best quips ever.
Churchill was a great society wit, for certain. He was also an arsehole who put the well-being of his own (upper) class before that of the British workers.
👋Howdy!👋 🇺🇸 American here. I knew Mr Churchill lost an election after WW2, also that the 🇬🇧 UK embraced social support systems. But, I knew NOTHING about Mr Attlee, & I learned sooo much! This was a fascinating lesson. Thank you 🎉😊
1 year after a world war that left most uk cities decimated by the german bombing campaign, and leaving our industries and agriculture means near next to useless… with the war also leaving the uk close to bankruptcy and debted up to the eyeballs to the Americans… leaving the uk unable to adequately fund any of its public expenditures.. whilst the tories believed it best to keep their financial obligations and raise the uks gdp by cheap foreign trade, in thanks to adhering to its obligations… labour believed it ‘best’ to borrow more and kick the nations debt further down the road.. and whenever an obligation would need to be paid off… they’d simply just borrow more… Great… labour stuck a plaster on a gaping wound
@@TihetrisWeathersby in thanks to another world war that had also brought the uk close to bankruptcy and massive debts to America… not to mention the Great Depression in the 20’s. Uk citizens, by large had a much better living standards than most other citizens of western countries, who’s citizens, in contrast earned far larger salaries… largely in thanks to the fact that the uk never defaulted on any of huge monetary loans/debts raised during world war 1.. helping to keep incoming trade goods sanction free and therefore at low costs to the consumers #UKCitizens. Whilst also helping to keep inflation down to a minimum… which most other countries suffered from massively.
I once heard the playwright David Harel observe that the working class, as soldiers, had just spent 5 years in far closer proximity to the officer class than in peacetime, and could not fathom why they should not be in charge.
0:13 "Prime Minister of the British Empire" ... the writer needs a slap, and Simon deserves one too for not catching that. The Queen was Queen of the British Empire, but Churchill was only Prime Minister of the UK.
@@jorgiebdeandrade Yes, but the point is the PM of the UK is PM of the UK ALONE. He is not and never was PM of the Empire. This is and was an important point about his actual powers, not just the title (bearing in mind that in a Westminster parliamentary system a PM has much less power than a US President anyway).
@@kenoliver8913 ok I see I didn't realize that his position as prime minister wasnt equivalent to a presidents power, I was more on the fact that the UK was still very much a empire at the time. Thanks for the info
@@kenoliver8913Whilst it wasn't in his official powers, it was within his effective power. Sure he didn't technically rule every single colony, but he was at the top of the chain of command (Barring the monarch)
@@chiefbeef9905 No, you are wrong - the dominions (Aus, Canada, NZ) were completely self-governing, including in foreign policy and defence matters. Eg he famously tried to keep Australian troops in the ME in 1942 and was firmly rebuffed by the Australian government.
My parents grew up in near squalor as did most before and during the war. Attlee, gave them a chance to have a fairer share of this county's wealth and to better themselves. While some now treat it as a career living on the social, for many others it is still a lifeline.
@@adamcarreras-neal4697 as I said some do, but many do indeed only survive. I spent a year myself living on benefits and as 'healthy' younger male on his own, didn't exactly mean the money was rolling in - far from it.
@@adamcarreras-neal4697I'm no tory, but having worked dealing with people I *KNOW* there are thousands see it as a life choice. In my old job I used to deal with such folk every single day. Most usually had more cash on them than I did. *Always* a more up to date phone. I'm sorry,, but there really are such people in their thousands. Perversely, it seems the welfare system though treats genuine people down on their luck really badly. God help you if you've been a worker made redundant as opposed to a lifelong claimant.
@@ChoppingtonOtterits really interesting the claim that no one abuses the system. You can only make the claim that the amount of people doing it isn't an issue. I wish the middle class would see its being fucked from both ends, the rich and the welfare class, instead of just claiming one is all the problem and the other can do no wrong.
It probably helps that the US avoided any serious damage outside of Pearl Harbor. The economy flourished during and after WW2, and innovation took off. To be blunt, there wasn't much to be mad about.
@@benrockefeller6334 The U.S. dealt with rationing, too. It's not like gold rains from the sky and every tom, dick, and hairy set of balls pops up and swings a hammer one day to get a six-digit annual income the next. The majority of the male population got shipped to fight overseas in BOTH directions, while factories only continued pushing out products when they begrudgingly allowed women and children in to work. Sure, it might not have been as bad as nightly bombing raids over London, or watching both sides volleying back and forth everything from bullets to missiles in your own back yard, but pretending that we in the U.S. just ran our usual 9-5's and then sat in front of the TV set to watch the war like it was a video game or sporting event is still completely lunacy. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 The US wasn't unscathed by WW2, sure. But when compared to literally every other country in the world that participated, the US was practically untouched. The US lost fewer troops in WW2 (relative to total population) than in the opening year of the Civil War alone. It is not a debate. WW2 benefited the US in almost every metric. The US military, economy, and global prestige were far stronger in 1945 than they ever were before the war. The primary role of the US in WW2 was logistics and Naval Warfare. The US wasn't fighting the massive battles like Stalingrad, Kursk, the Battle of Britain, or the Battle of France. Rations were painful, sure, but compared to the height of the Great Depression that they had just lived through, they were more than manageable. Having a bit less food to eat is far easier to stomach than watching your home bombarded into dust or your friends and family massacred just because of their ethnicity.
@@benrockefeller6334 That "boost" to the economy, primarily happened AFTER the shooting war... I'll give you that the U.S. suffered less destruction... I already SAID AS MUCH with the point that nobody was making nightly bombing raids on our cities, and nobody was fighting the war in our back yard... Comparison to the Civil War (I'm presuming you DO mean the U.S. Civil War) is a REALLY STUPID metric. NOBODY BUT THE U.S. WAS FIGHTING THAT WAR... Most of the countries in Europe are barely the size of ONE of our 50 States. They'd be hard pressed as any single entity to come out of even a few battles without dire consequences and aftermath... At the END of the war, we still had most (damn nearly all) of our infrastructure, so the task (and clearly profits) from rebuilding the rest of the "Civilized World" was on us. What the f*** else was GOING to happen? We beat the Nazis down, pat ourselves on the back, and move EVERYONE back home or off to occupy Japan??? The gamble may have been fairly solid, but it was still a gamble at the time, even siding against Germany... AND most of the economic boons were PROMISES, not cash or gold up front... SO don't go acting like everything was just hunky-f***in'-dory over hear the whole time. Things were BARELY starting to turn toward the better with the Great Depression winding down, and suddenly there was a war all over again. It may have STOOD to benefit the U.S. but only if the Allies won and then upheld their end of the bargains... and those are rooted in ongoing negotiations... At this point a forgotten very early root to our national debt... even as it continues to exponentiate per decade... ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 Shall we not "compare" pain please. It's insulting to all the people that suffered and lost their lives in that conflict. My own Grandfather deployed to help liberate France, served as a medic, got shot and came back a shell of a man. Incidentally he was German American. We shouldn't weigh contributions or losses great or small. We should honor them and give thanks and respect. Please.
This. This is also why Indian soldiers who had fought loyally in WWII would erupt in rebellion a few months later. Freedom had been promised and not delivered after WWI. People were not going to put up with the same thing a second time
Pretty sure that the British upper class ‘sacrificed the most’ in WWI. It’s leftist revisionist fantasy that ASSUMES that it was their sainted working class: it wasn’t.
Nailed it. The problem with Churchill was his affection of aristocracy that is a criminal, heinous concept. A smart man like Churchill should've recognized the aristocracy massively funded the fascists he was fighting. So wars often are one aristocracy fighting another. The ordinary soldier absolutely detests fighting and sacrificing for years only to find an aristocracy that made no serious sacrifices trying to take everything for themselves. If a country actually has any real democracy, they're not going to put up with the total thievery of the aristocrats forever at all times as the aristocrats think they can always manipulate everything for themselves.
@@gingercat777 It was Churchill’s upper class who ‘sacrificed the most’ in WWI. With their tradition of military leadership they sacrifice the most in just about every war.
My grandfather returned home from WWII to his family living in pre-fab housing barely fit for livestock let alone human beings after they had been bombed out of their home in the East End of London by the Blitz and this was the case for many families. Despite this, Churchill wanted to use what little resources Britain had left shoring up a crumbling empire it could no longer afford and the vast majority of people no longer wanted. As my grandfather put it, "I didn`t trapse across the deserts of North Africa and run onto a beach under machine gun fire on D-Day so the bloody toffs could resume lording it over the world, I did it because the Nazis were a pack of bastards and I wanted to keep my family safe from them. As far as I was concerned, Churchill could shove the empire up his backside along with his toff mates".
Labour always has fairy tales to win over those who want something for nothing. Socialism/Communism relies on the ignorance of the masses to further it's evil agenda
@@justonecornetto80Kinda insane how the US let anti-Soviet sentiment (and anti-Black people) allowed the slow backslide to 1920s profit over people politics. Now with Brexit it seems like you guys are going to join your Western cousins. Seriously, damn if it's labeled as socialism, communism, or boaty mcboat face. I don't want to starve or be homeless, and I don't want it for my fellow countrymen either.
I stun my Russian friends when I ask them what happened to Churchill at the end of WW2. When they hear he was voted out of office their brains explode.
For me, the question was never why Churchill was voted out in 1945, but rather how he was voted back in 1951? I have never heard a conclusive reason put forward by any one, why the Atlee government that had delivered so much at a time when the country was bankrupt was then voted out at the first opportunity? Certainly both Churchill and Atlee were truly great leaders in their own right.
He took more than he gave, which became pretty obvious by 1951. He took over the coal mines, but in the winter the mines shut down, which meant the power went out in London. He promised free health care, but then realised he couldn't afford it and proposed huge cuts. He supported Stalin on the world stage, but when communist sympathisers went on strike, he sent in the army to break them. And he took a country that had spent years fighting and suffering for freedom and told them they should join a world government. I think that covers pretty much every political outlook being put offside.
A lot of floating voters came round to Churchill's point of view in the post war years. They saw the problems socialist policies were creating, where previously they had been bedazzled by their promised benefits.
Attlee didn't lose first time. There was an election in 1950 which Attlee and Labour won, although with a vastly reduced majority. Shortly thereafter, there was a debate on prescription charges. Attlee wanted to bring them in, and the Health Secretary, Nye Bevin, was vehemently opposed, stating that the idea of a nationalised health service was that everything should be free at the point of delivery for the people. The Labour Party collapsed into infighting between Attlee and his supporters and Bevin and his supporters. Attlee couldn't govern and had no choice but to call another election to decide the matter. The British public hate infighting, and don't appreciate politicians playing games and forcing them to have an election just a few months after the last one. Attlee was doomed and lost the election, returning Churchill to power.
Churchill and the Conservatives might have taken note of another pointer. In various war theatres and even in some prison camps, British troops were holding parliamentary-style debates to fill the time. Almost always the Labour Party won overwhelmingly. In the Middle East, where the high command had encouraged this idea, the debates were swiftly banned when it was seen how passions rose and the voting failed to reflect their own views.
It should be specifically noted they chose a strong platform despite a tepid politician, which is very different from a bad politician. In either case it underscores a core problem of elections: if given the choice between two parties, neither of which can manage to present both a good platform and a good candidate, there needs to be a way to throw it back in both their faces and demand better options. In politics, as in in war, sometimes both sides deserve to lose.
This is a good video essay. Peter Clarke’s “Hope and Glory” that covers 20th century Britain explores this topic in detail, definitely worth a read for anyone interested.
Very good. As an addition. One of his many talents was managing the big guns of the Labour Party, sometimes keeping them apart by giving them ministries they could use to the full extent of their talents, namely Nye Bevan, Ernest Bevin, and Herbert Morrison. They should've won in 1951, but Bevan's promise of 5 million houses fell short, partly due to material and labour shortages. He also insisted (rightly) that these houses needed to be of quality over quantity, with no return to the slums. Bevan houses are the best council houses, with two toilets and at least 900sq' of living space. For the butcher, the builder and the doctor! I have argued Starmer is, in the same vein, a bit dull but determined and also a manager of people like Attlee. Let's see what happens...
It was very simple. Atlee and the Labour party had a plan for the future: the Welfare State. Churchill's plan was more of the past , in particular the re-establishment of Empire. But above all, Labour campaigned on the promise to bring all the troops home whereas Churchill made no such commitment. After 6 years of war The Brits had had enough and Labour was clearly the better option. Churchill resumed his former career as a consistent failure as a peacetime leader. It's also important to remember that Churchill did not just lose, he was thrashed with Labor winning by 393 to 197 the biggest majority ever.
@@danieleyre8913 it wasn't a public statement. It was part of a private conversation between President Truman and Churchill. Presumably, someone overheard the comment being made. Is it possible the story of the conversation is apocryphal? I suppose. But it is in keeping with what's known about Churchill's opinion of Atlee
Labour have always been a split party. Half of which are Red Labour, people who are genuinely working for all working people, and Blue Labour, who are basically only interested in the middle classes and elevating themselves into the upper classes 😒
@@spaceman081447democrat party does a way better job of towing the party line than the republican party. If a democrat steps just a bit out of line they get booted. Even at the presidential level the democrat primaries have 2, maybe 3 candidates which basically agree on 99%, whereas look at the current republican presidential debates with 10 ish (idk, didn’t count) candidates who carry fairly significantly. Been that way the last 3-4 elections.
@@ryanhamstra49 I was not talking about the Democrats toeing a party line. I am talking about how the Democrats are much less combative against Trump and the MAGA crowd than they should be, both now and in the past --- particularly in the 2016 election.
Many of the working class men and women who served in WWII felt they had earned the right to a government of their own. They remembered the generations of poverty and hardships of the depression. They also realised they were as good as anyone as they had seen at close hand that the posh accents and conduct of the officers who had commanded them did not equate to a right to rule. Many were fed up of being ruled by entitled "toffee nosed" Tories, even though they did respect officers who knew their jobs and respected the men.
I think Churchill remained very popular with British people all through his life. For his writings as much as he war time leadership. But I think the British people had a different view of what they wanted in a postwar world than Churchill was prepared to give. The majority of British people wanted Indians to get their independence and the implementation of the Beveridge Report. The Beveridge Report is similar to FDR's Second Bill of Rights.
Nope a lot of people hated Churchill in his lifetime. And not just labour voters but also a good many Tories. It was from the 1960s that Churchill’s reputation has been whitewashed, especially by the tabloid media.
Second Bill of Rights? I don't ever remember hearing of that. Because of FDR, my grandfather voted for the democrats 'til the day he died. He often told the story of his first election (32) as a funny anecdote, but I remember nothing of a "second Bill of Rights".
I think you mean "new deal." This was a little hard to follow as I am a Yankee 😅. I know there is context that they don't teach in your average history lesson.
You are mistaken. He wasn't popular all through his life. He did many unpopular things throughout his career And was considered very unreliable at the very least. And a fat disrespectful drunk at his worst
Both the Beveridge Report and FDR's New Deal were a disaster for their people. England is already a SOCIALIST hellhole in ever more rapid decline. America, thanks to DEMS, will soon follow Britain down the Road to Serfdom. 😢
Significantly, and not mentioned in this video, Clement Atlee (then head of the Labour Party) was vocal and active in protesting against the seizure of the Sudetenland, and then the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, and along with Churchill lambasted Chamberlain for the shameful appeasement.
People wanted a new start for the country and approved of the massive reforms of the Labour government that followed (including the formation of the National Health Service).
Given the number of civilians & soldiers who had lifetime conditions thanks to the war, they had no choice but to create the NHS. As they had to make medical care as efficient as possible, to cover the care for all those damaged people...
Winston for all his short commings will forever be a man I will admire for having the stones to say that historical line "we will never surrender" when the world went mad. Of course it was a given that we dominions would be standing right beside our mother country on one of the greatest crusades of our time. I shudder to think what mankind would be like if he had just signed a treaty and let the devil run amok in Europe. He deserves his place in yhe history books.
@@kiwidiesel or gaslite muppets won't view the truth. He let millions die of famine in India, he sent soldiers in to shot striking workers. He was a white supremists racist, an alocholic. Just look at WW1 and his history as First Sea Lord.
@@paulwaswalrus5956I agree tbh, man was a massive racist and white supremacist. He also thought women having rights would lead to the downfall of society.
It pisses me off that this egg head undoubtedly earns a lot of money on his channels, while much more intelligent and well educated people earn less or nothing at all.
He could foresee higher taxes for his class in a proper welfare state too. That is what he was really worried about. Maybe he didn’t like that his biggest ally, FDR, imposed a 90% top marginal rate in the US to pay for the New Deal and he probably feared something similar from Labour.
True, though more often than not his detractors were actually right. Of course Churchill himself said "History shall be kind to me - for I shall write it!". He was already a bestselling author, and his Nobel Prize winning postwar histories are indeed wonderfully written but very selective.
There's also the matter that it's a parliamentary election, not a presidential one. The Conservatives lost rather than Churchill himself. He won his seat comfortably, but people often vote by party or their local candidate, with the leader of the party being just one of several factors in their choice.
1. In UK you vote for a party, not a leader - that person is chosen by the party 2. The Landslide vote was the country were tired of coalition led government that had slept walked in a world war - it had been 12 years since the last election 3. The populace wanted change and the Labour Party, adopting the Beveridge Report offers the people a “reward” for fighting the war
The theory that Churchill suffered from bipolar disorder makes so much sense. That manic blindness of everything but his own belief, closely resembling a runaway train, is quite the hallmark for a manic episode.
Foundations of the welfare state: Pensions, good quality social housing that wasn't enriching landlords but the money went back into the maintainance of tge housing stock, improved education, improved life expectancy, free at the point ofnuse healthcare, nationalised large parts of the economy. He was actually considered to be on the right of the Labour party at the time. Today he'd be called a raging lefty. The guy had his faults for sure, but in government these were compensated for by Nye Bevan. Apologies for typos I can't be bothered to correct, I'm not long home from a very long shift.
I'm convinced Chamberlain was playing for time, well aware of the technical and tactical inferiority of the British Expeditionary Forces. Don't forget, the first engagement of British forces against Germany was fought with biplanes on the British side.
Yes, 1938 - the year of Munich - was when the gap between the RAF/Armee de l'Air and the Luftwaffe was largest, both quantitatively and qualitatively. By the Battle of Britain Britain was producing many more planes than Germany (which is why the Germans were always going to lose that war of attrition).
Indeed, I think there is now a recognition that Chamberlain was a reflection of public opinion. Unlike the jingoism of 1914, the British public was aware of the brutality of war. There were thousands of maimed and limbless former soldiers in their midst.
@@fleshbobregularpants6250 Sure, Germany was not ready for war in 1938 but the point is Chamberlain didn't know that. His military way overestimated German strength, especially air strength, because they swallowed a lot of German disinformation. It's one of the things histories of that period downplay.
the party in power always takes the credit for success, but must also face the blame for failure. The same happened in America - and that's why the Democrats held on to power throughout the war and into the peace. Of course, Britain's and America's experience in the war were totally different so, post-war politics could also expected to come out different. Great video - excellent overview in so short a time.
Appreciation and thanks to the both of you , Simon and Davey , for educating this American about Attley and his leadership during a pivotal period of UK history .
Really great to see a video that was so complimentary of Attlee. He is easily my favourite PM and possibly my favourite politician of all time. It is a great shame that the everyday person on the street wouldn't recognise his name despite that fact that his policies continue to help the people of this country. We owe him a debt of gratitude that we are failing to pay.
I was born under Atlee. 1947 . Bombed, battered, and bankrupt ! And lee managed to give us the Wefare State,Pensions and the NHS ! Against fanarical TORY opposition ! I WAS THERE ! I INOW wtyat happened !
Congratulations and thank you to the author of this piece! As an American, it appears to me that Brits took the road that we didn't, and it made all the difference in the basic respective fabric of our modern societies.
My uncle just waited 7.5 months for a colonoscopy. Which did find cancer. I, myself, am 8 days post op for an "urgent" surgery which took 5 months to schedule. We are both in the American east coast. The NHS is an infinitely better system than America has. Mostly because a national Healthcare system is cheaper (our government spends an insane amount, and then has to bail out hospitals who can't get payment from poor patients), AND encourages a free market. In the UK, all healthcare *can* be accessed for free. That means private offices are forced to offer reasonable pricing and adequate care in order to stay in business. In both cases, the wealthy get timely and top-notch care. In the UK, the poor are actually taken care of and can avoid serious disability. In the US, the poor suffer until they end up on disability as an even greater strain on the system.
@xionmemoria, Yes, if I understand things correctly, some smarties in the US decided that to reduce wastage in healthcare they should create a profit based system where the companies that run healthcare get incredibly wealthy, and that huge wastage continues.
@@farfromperfekSuch a ridiculous US myth. I know that’s what your overlords might tell you, but you don’t need to believe it. How’s the life expectancy looking over there? How many countries above you in that list have insurance based healthcare? Go, have a little read for once.
Churchill was so popular in the north of England that when the news was shown in the cinema he was booed. (People used go watch the news in cinema before TV's were commonplace). Churchill also offered the country continuing austerity whereas Attlee and Bevan offered people the welfare state (pensions, free at the point of use healthcare, decent housing that wasn't Victorian era slum housing crawling with insects and full of holes). Attlee and Bevan were the best post war government. Back when the Labour Party had a right and left wing that could work together and actually had a vision. There's a wonderful quote from Nye Bevan about the UK Conservative party that I hold as true today as when it was first uttered.
@@rainbowappleslicenot sure which quote but my fav is "This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time. speech at Blackpool, 24 May 1945"
@@rainbowappleslice "What is Toryism but organised spivvery? … No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party … So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin."
@@rainbowappleslice nothing will every convince me that Conservatives are lower than vermin. Still true, unfortunately Labour is now the same under Sir Kid Starver
The actor David Niven was an officer in the Rifle Brigade during the war. In his autobiography, he said that regardless of Churchill's qualities as a war leader, (a mixed blessing given his delusions as a strategist which drove his generals to distraction) his men told him that they would not vote for the Tories in an election. They remembered the policies of the thirties which produced the war in the first place, as well as the economic struggles of most people. The British people were voting for the party that promised a new start with the peace.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 In 1951 the Liberal party vote collapsed and most of that vote went to the conservatives but Labour still won the majority vote but not the most seats. The Conservatives had accepted most of the welfare state and nationalisation that had taken place under the Attlee government, which included the National Health Service and the mixed economy.
@@pshehan1 The Liberal vote. Why do you think most of it went to the Tories? Why do you think is stayed there for 13 years? Moreover, why did these people turn away from Labour so quickly.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Because most former Liberal voters were not 'socialists' and preferred the Tories over Labour. The 1945 results were: Labour 47.7% Conservative 36.2% Liberal 9.0% National Liberal 2.9% By 1951 the conservatives had adopted major planks of Labour's 1945 platform The 1951 results were: Labour 48.8% Conservative 48.0% Liberal 2.5% So people did not 'turn away' from the Labour Party. Their percentage of the vote increased. The Tories having adopted key planks of Labour's reforms picked up votes from the Liberals and National Liberals.
@@pshehan1 Didn't you say? 'The British people were voting for the party that promised a new start with the peace.' Seems you are moving the goal posts. Or even changing the game. You are aware that there was a Tory government for 13 years thereafter, I suppose?
That was really good Simon, a few things missing I would say about Churchill, have you seen Bleinheim Palace, he was never one of us. Also his actions towards the Irish, and later the English working class in for instance the General Strike of 1926, were appalling. His wish, I believe to continue the war against the USSR, after they had contributed so much to stop Nazi Germany, makes me think the US had his ear more than the people of the UK. Never mind Clement Attlee, there would have been a revolution. I confess to no other knowledge of this possibility than this expressed in the video. Again all the "socialists will do this and that" shouts that it was from the US and being tone deaf to the people. Attlee managed the Home Front, and although people became increasingly angry about continued rationing and turfed him out, the fundamental changes to the UK will never be forgotten. Also, credo to Churchill for realising this was still democracy. TL:DR Churchill was a git, but it made him a good wartime leader, but a poor government leader, even shorter tl:dr Clement Attlee good
11:00 listen to Sarah Churchill's perspective and the words chosen to articulate it... insights are profound and you know Winston was proud, whether he agreed or not.
The British felt that they had not fought and sacrificed during for the war just to restore the status quo. They wanted a more equal and economically promising future.
People were looking to the future after VE day. They remembered what happened after WWI with all the unfulfilled promises of..."A home fit for heroes." They were afraid of going back to the depression again too. Many also thought Churchill was the right leader for the war, but not for the peace.
"Oosh-in-leck" and "Blen-high-im" for General Auchinleck and Blenheim as in village, battle, bomber, palace. A _native_ English speaker would have been a big help?
Made perfect sense. He got back in because of nostalgia. Churchill was dreadful im WW1. Many of his ideas in WW2 were bad too. Italy invasion? He was however a great speaker and brave. He is one of the greatest leaders we ever had and we had him when we needed him. He was returned and that is a bonus. He was not hard done by given his record. His treatment of Gandi and India was pretty bad. His role in the abdication was pretty good. He changed parties a lot. He was loyal to Winston and the UK. He was insecure due to money. He failed Ireland. He saved Britain. He wasn't always right. He was brutally honest and stood for what he believed. He was a toff and his self importance was his gift and talent. It was also his fault. He was right about Russia. He also was a federalist and MASSIVE pro European. He was a little racist and enjoyed his drugs. He was a hard worker and stubborn. He was entitled and not a very good writer or artist but he never stopped trying. He was funny and direct. He was a good husband but not a good parent. He accepted democracy. He didn't accept losing. He hated tyranny but could help being a bit of a tyrant. He did have a sense of humor. He preferred to be liked but could accept some would never like him. Winston was a unique character.
So there was a time when voters actually understood policy over personality politics.... now compare that with the voters of today, wtf went wrong?? If Churchill had today's witless voters, he definitely would have been re-elected.
But you can also see that their voter skills very ultimately limited, because after a while they got bored with having a good country to live and re-elected conservatives back in.
@@miroslavhoudek7085 "got bored with living in a good country" Hahahaha that my friend is the ultimate F-ing catch phrase of the 21 century right there!!! lol But here in Australia, the labor party have been a disaster every time they have been in power, and yet people still keep electing them.
@@mystikmind2005 labor? you mean the liberal party labor has barely been in power though with fucking up they are doing now the liberals are going to win the next election with the liberals will continue with the fucking over anyone that isn't in the wealthy class.
Atley seems like the kind of guy I would love to see taking care of my country. Given how screwed up British politics are today it is hard to imagine such a guy could win the elections there.
"Quietly competent" was a common description. Almost the polar opposite in personality to Churchill, though at a personal level they liked each other. It helped that Churchill (and the nation) always owed Attlee a huge favour for vetoing Halifax in 1940 so Churchill could become PM. Of course it didn't stop Churchill publicly mocking him as "a modest little man with much to be modest about". Politics is politics.
Those Churchhill warnings were on point, though cultural and government structures luckily remained enough of a safeguard despite so many movements and slow attempts continuing to grow over the decades.
Choosing the different leaders of England might be similar to choosing the right tool for attaching two pieces of wood together. Maybe one job requires a hammer, using a nail, and a different method would require a screw driver, for a screw. England had different tasks to complete during and after the war, so different leaders and their approach was required.
I think it's a shame that we put so much stock on charisma and oratory skills, when they're not likely to be an indicator of true leadership abilities.
Interestingly an Australian Prime Minister visiting during the early part of the war was surprised that Churchill actually read his speeches to Parliament.
I mean its just kind of human nature: being a good talker and seemingly a more interesting person is a lot more tangible of a quality than them apparently doing a good job behind the scenes. Most people vote with their heart, not with their head.
To lead you have to convince people to follow; to convince people you have to be good at oratory. Having a good plan is no good if you can't explain it or convince people it's good. Of course, good oratory can also convince people to follow a bad plan, so there's that...!
Clement Atlee's complete defeat of Churchill after VE day has been a puzzle for me. Let the lights go up on the modest leader who didn't care about "filling Winston's shoes."
Church remained very popular with the British people, even those who did not agree with his politics, it was the Tory Part of the day that the electorate rejected. Apart from the saving the Free Worls from a new dark ages bit, he wasn't a very good Prime Minister, but he had two very able deputy prime ministers who looked after the UK itself(although the title did not exist at the time). Atlee when he was occupied on another matter, and RAB Butler when he was elected in 1951 but his health completely broke down; the Best Prime Minister we ever had and the Best Prime minister we never had, unfortunately to be followed by a third, his son-in-law Anthony Eden, the Worst Prine Minister we could have had.
My mum was 16 when the war ended. She told me that a lot of people after the war felt that Churchill had wanted the war rather than having being forced to fight it to defend the nation, and that was why a lot of people voted against him..
And we now know how wrong they were. Regardless of whether they thought Churchill _wanted_ war, virtually anyone who has studied the historical record _knows_ that Hitler did. And he was an evil megalomaniac. Period.
To some extent I think returning soliders, to working class cities that had a high number of seats in parliament possibly made the difference, I would have to crunch the numbers but this was before the rise - in the 1950s of the new middle class / newtowns "Basildon Man".
Britain's a parliamentary democracy, not a Presidential republic. We elect parties, not presidents. The politics are very different. Also the circumstances between the countries were also somewhat different. Roosevelt came in with the New Deal during a deep recession after the Republicans had been in power. Post-war Britain was broke and needed rebuilding after the Conservatives had been in power for most of the 1930's. The British govt during WW2 was a coalition between the Tories, Labour and Liberals. Labour had been in charge of domestic production and social aspects, which was largely seen as succesfull.
A bit unfair. The diversion of all railway traffic in Bengal to supplying the army in Burma rather than to famine relief was very much a decision of the man on the spot - Wavell. Churchill probably did not even know of it and would have had no authority to change it anyway, India being self-governing in domestic matters by then. Which illustrates how far wrong this post was when it called Churchill "PM of the Empire".
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Many ordinary British folk didn't like Churchill, recalling his anti-labour stance during the 1920s. They grudgingly admitted he'd been the right person to lead the country through the war, but were damned if they were going to give him carte-blanche to carry on.
That, coupled with the promising dream of the social and welfare reforms promised by the Labour Party were enough to tip him out.
I think a lot of people today fail to realise how grim it was in Britain, pre-war. The social reforms were a huge thing to many people.
Btw, it's not OWchinlech, it's Och-in-leck, right laddy?
Yeah the modern myth of Churchill has very much replaced the reality of man the British public knew. Churchill was a known political entity to the public he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary of state for war, SoS for the colonies, and home secretary, to the voters he wasn't just the prime minister of the war but all those other he had been before the war. But to many people today all he is is the prime minister of WW2 and all context of the politician and the man is lost
Ah, another mispronunciation. I just "chewed him out" for pronouncing "Boer" boa.
That’s hilarious. So weird to see people voting with their head no matter the person in charge, or being smart enough to vote both ways.
@@GrahameGould Most British pronunce the last A in a word with an R sound. Bugs the hell out of me
Yes, he led the country through the war. That's the only thing he was good at----War, division, agression. If he lived in contemporary times, he would have been called a War Criminal. Look at what he did in India, Greece, other parts of the world. Didn't give a tinker's dam for anyone or anything if it wasn't White, English, rich, or spoke English. Kissinger is a saint against Churchill.
"How can I accept the Order of the Garter, when the people of England have just given me the Order of the Boot?" LOL! One of the funniest quips I have ever heard.
@richardhart9204 when retiring for whiskey after dinner a woman who disliked him told him "if I was your wife I would put poison un your whiskey". He quickly responded "and if you were my wife I would drink it, gladly."
@@jodycarter7308 In all seriousness, I sometimes wonder if the man could have been a successful stand-up comedian.
@@richardhart9204surely you can't be serious
@@ironymatt I am being serious, and don't call me Shirley.
Being good at dealing with hecklers is essential for politicians.
After Churchill lost in 1945, his wife said to him, “perhaps this is a blessing in disguise” to which Churchill responded, “if it is, it’s very well disguised.”
He most definitely had a way with words.
And he expressed his dislike of socialism very strongly.
An amazing hagiography, showing how the decline of the UK began. That Churchill fellow was more visionary than previously thought.
@@peterlawrence6238 He had a lot experience to give back as his view of the place of his country in the world.
Hardly poetic..
It was the most basic food that caused Churchill's down fall, Bread was still being strictly rationed with no end in sight and people (mostly the poor) were fed up of being hungry and felt their lives had not got any better after the war had ended. My grandmother told me about this when we were learning about Churchill in school
Rationing was a big part. But it wasn’t just that. It was clear and obvious to even Tory voters that the nation had not been very well run and that the empire had underperformed during the war. The railways were wearing out, bad administration and neglect was everywhere.
"Fed up of being hungry." I know what "fed up" means, but it can't be helped that still sounds somewhat like an oxymoron...
@@goytabr 😂🤣😂🤣
Strangely bread was only rationed after the end of hostilities
it seemed the US thrived after the war but Britan was still on food rations years later.
I've always found it interesting that Churchill lost power after the war and this video clearly outlines some reasons why. What's just as surprising is that after voting for Clem Attlee and party that he lost to Churchill in 1951. It would be interesting to see a follow up video on how and why that happened.
There were two elections in 1951. Clem sort of won he first, but definitely lost the second.
One important factor is that by 1951 the Conservative party had accepted more or less completely the economic and social settlement that Labour had defeated them on in 1945. These days it's hard to imagine any political leader or their party having the mental agility to grasp such a total change in circumstance. The last politician to come close was probably Tony Blair. By contrast the Conservative party didn't reform itself one jot between '97 and '10, and look at the consequences.
Something to remember about the 1951 election. Churchill might have won Downing Street but Attlee won the popular vote. The majority of people still wanted Attlee.
Talking to my parents about it years ago they seemed to think that things just didn't improve after the war as much as had been promised. There were massive fuel shortages and a very harsh winter in 46/47 - obviously not any government's fault, but we all know when things go bad the government tends to be judged harshly!
@@NetZeroNo I can remember the winter of 45/46,it was very cold and coal was in short supply,my brother and I,had to take the day off school and queue up at the gasworks with an old pram we had borrowed ,for a big bag of coke,not what people know as coke these days,but fuel.we put it in the pram,and wheeled it home,I was 11,my brother 14
He didn't practice what he preached my grandmother complained about that, while they starved and were rationed, ordered to kill their pet cats and dogs to save on food at one point, he sat there getting fat, drinking, smoking cigars and eating gourmet food all very publicly, it enraged people.
... wait ... they didn't eat those cats and dogs ... did they?
@@richardhart9204 No they were meant to get them put to sleep at vets but many ended up in rivers and things
@@GreatSageSunWukong ... I was just kidding.
@@richardhart9204Right, and now you are in the "find out" part.
Churchill definitely wasn't sticking to war time rations.
My father maintained that Churchill was booed on the Western Front (he was, after all, there.) The Beveridge Report had been circulated and read widely among the troops as well as the civilian population, and they were hungry for the Welfare State it proposed. Memories of some of Churchill's actions in the 20s and 30s were perceived as hostile to the working classes, who comprised most of the returning forces. It is easy to see that with no further need of a war leader, lots of folk did not want his version of post war Britain.
My parents were the same generation. Mum, lived in Stepney, said when Churchill toured the area giving the V for victory sign it was the 2 fingers he was getting back. Old news reels dont show that. He wasn't popular. Neither was Montgomery. My school friend's father was in the desert rats. He said they hated Montgomery.
Jumped up little pip squeak or strutting little bantam cock were the polite names my dad called him in front of us kids.
Montgomery went to Dover where my Dad was stationed when invasion was on the cards to give the soldiers a morale boosting talk. He dressed in his half this and half that mess of a uniform but put the corporal on guard at the gate on a charge because his boot lace was coming undone. No idea how to treat people. After his speech Dad said soldiers were saying they weren't inclined to lay down their lives for the likes of him.
It is interesting how Montgomery thought he was entitled to wear a concocted uniform. It's the same with Churchill, wearing fake uniforms. What did the troops think of these odd bods? @@helenamcginty4920
I heard that Beveridge was just a tall drink of water. :D
Perhaps Britain would have done better to have lost WW2, like France, Japan, Germany...
@@john1703my dad always said that. They done much better
When I was a child my parents had an English babysitter who was an adult in England in 1945.
I asked her why Churchill lost. She said that after the war the English were fed up with “blood toil tears and sweat”. They wanted an end to war and to reap the benefits of peace. Churchill seemed to promise more struggle while Attlee promised the benefits of peace.
Oh ok... The babysitter a political public speaker for the masses ? 😂 It must be true then
Stop talking nonsense man
@theoutlaw5806 It is true, it is exactly why Churchill lost by a landslide.
This was a very well written explanation of Churchill and Attlee on the domestic front. I thoroughly enjoyed this episode. Nice one, Daven and Simon.
😊😊😊❤❤❤😊😊😊
Wow. What a well-done video. I'd often wondered about the seemingly inexplicable defeat of Churchill in the election following WWII and I hadn't seen it addressed clearly by historians and authors. You did address it, and very well. Thanks.
What people today don't understand is that the magnitude of Hitler and the Nazi's evil madness and Holocaust atrocities only came to light after their defeat. For another matter, the British Isles had never really considered landlocked Germany a serious threat before, so it's understandable that many Brits would have considered Churchill a warmonger.
@@user-kb8qw7dy4t Germany is not, and was not during WWII, land-locked.
@@dave928OK, like 90% land-locked. The point is that Britain was confident that Germany wouldn't even think for a moment of going up against the British navy. Just trust me on that because I'm too lazy to look up sources of historical figures who've said so.
Churchill always had a Warhawk reputation and wasn't really liked by Brits. He was seen as necessary. So as soon as the war was won everyone wanted him out.
Agreed. And most Britons knew that his 1930s position on retention of India was ridiculous and impossible to sustain. This judgment was shown to be accurate by the horror and mass slaughter of the independence of India and Pakistan starting in 1947 by that bungling oaf Louis Mountbatten.
@@colinhunt4057 You don't think Jinnah might have played a part?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Perhaps. But the bulk of the blundering was done in the insane policy of imagining that India could be peacefully partitioned. Trying to divide politically a country of hundreds of millions of people would inevitable cause a huge war and deaths by the millions. And to this day, the conflict still has not ended.
@@colinhunt4057 I doubt that the British government, or indeed the leaders of the Congress Party and the Muslim League, ever thought that a peaceful Partition was possible. Attlee had installed Mountbatten as Viceroy on 2 June, 1947, with instructions to end British involvement by mid August. The leader of the Muslim League, Muhammed Ali Jinnah, had already called for ‘direct action’ to create a Muslim state, in 1946.
Partition was not the policy of the British, but the demand of those who became the leaders of India & Pakistan. Especially the latter.
@@colinhunt4057 well the trouble was Britain had fought Germany on the basis of stopping their empire building so people began questioning well what about Britain's empire oppression, it became a bad look and seen as hypocritical.
I was surprised by my grandmother once, when she expressed her dissatisfaction at the social situation during the war. Despite being quite conservative, she told me that there was a lot of inequality and that the wealthy had been able to avoid the hardships endured by the rest of the population. On the other hand, my father and uncle were both small boys when the war started, but both grew to over 6ft, so it seems that Jack Drummond's efforts in creating a well balanced diet for all paid off.
I saw a science programme recently that said that the wartime diet was the healthiest we have ever had, less fats than these days, more nutrition than in previous times. They did get a lot right in those days.
The war wasn’t necessary for Britain since hitler proposed peace many times during the conflict (but Winston Churchill regime censured all media to reproduce it, that’s why German threw leaflets over London of the peace speech “last appeal to reason”). In the end, he ruined forever the empire and, Poland that was the reason for the war to begin with, went to the Soviets (together with half of Europe). The only thing he accomplished was to destroy nacionalism in Europe and keeping the financial global elites in charge of west Europe.
Exactly well said
This war was a scam. British elites did it just to sell off the empire and open british land to foreign peoples, transforming the native british into subjects.
I remember my Grandfather saying that Winston was the right man for the war, but the wrong man for peace! Churchill was considered a warmonger pre war. Grandad also had personal beef, not only working class and socialist (growing up on stories of Churchill sending tanks to quell a strike in Scotland) but lost a lot of his friends in the fall of Singapore. His school year got called up in the navy, they had a bit of class reunion in singapore before their ship HMS Repulse sailed off with a dozen of so of his schoolmates. Grandad was convinced Churchill sent Z force without adequate back up there as a "big man" gesture, Grandads ship was one of the last out before the fall.
Force Z was indeed Churchill's personal folly but it was more about his contempt for the "yellow races" than a big man gesture. He was one of those who thought it was just a matter of showing the Japanese a bit of British steel and they would slink back home.
When do you think Churchill ever sent tanks to quell a strike in Scotland? Very imaginative.
Wow. Small world. My own grandfather escaped the Fall of Singapore on the *other* British ship (The Prince of Wales). It too was sunk, and for the rest of his life my Granddad insisted on blaming Churchill's lack of air support for the disaster.
@@danielstride198 Grandad was on a light cruiser that was supposed to be returning home to be converted to an AA cruiser when events intervened. Its WW1 era AA weapons were not really up to the task (fire control or fire power wise).
@@dovetonsturdee7033 No Imagination needed. Documented and proven. Check out the "Battle of George Square" in Glasgow, the Wiki article is solid and sources check out. 6 of the new medium mark C's were dispatched and unloaded. But not used despite Churchills urgings. Mostly because they arrived late.
I asked my father years ago how Churchill lost...he answered that people had had enough of Churchill with a grimace . I think that not everyone was enamoured with Churchill, they put up with him during the war but saw him as a bit much, a tiresome windbag.
"...when the King had offered [Churchill] The Order of the Garter, he declined, saying the people had already given him "the Order of the Boot."
One of Churchill's best quips ever.
Churchill was a great society wit, for certain. He was also an arsehole who put the well-being of his own (upper) class before that of the British workers.
@@michaeljohnangel6359 By not adopting the ruinous policies of the left, I suppose.
👋Howdy!👋 🇺🇸 American here. I knew Mr Churchill lost an election after WW2, also that the 🇬🇧 UK embraced social support systems. But, I knew NOTHING about Mr Attlee, & I learned sooo much! This was a fascinating lesson. Thank you 🎉😊
Best prime minister we ever had
@@riccardobater-james5396Absolutely. ❤
@@riccardobater-james5396Absolutely.👍🏻👏❤️🇬🇧
@@riccardobater-james5396Absolutely. Attlee looked after the home front during the war and delivered on his promises after. The best ever.❤
One reason Churchill lost is he underestimated his opponent, describing Attlee as "a modest little man with much to be modest about".
Churchill was a good Wartime leader but people's conditions weren't improving and they went with someone else
Summing up the video in 17 words?
They literally gave him no time to make changes. People are so damn fickle.
1 year after a world war that left most uk cities decimated by the german bombing campaign, and leaving our industries and agriculture means near next to useless… with the war also leaving the uk close to bankruptcy and debted up to the eyeballs to the Americans… leaving the uk unable to adequately fund any of its public expenditures.. whilst the tories believed it best to keep their financial obligations and raise the uks gdp by cheap foreign trade, in thanks to adhering to its obligations… labour believed it ‘best’ to borrow more and kick the nations debt further down the road.. and whenever an obligation would need to be paid off… they’d simply just borrow more…
Great… labour stuck a plaster on a gaping wound
@@SPRUbique the 30s and 40s were rough
@@TihetrisWeathersby in thanks to another world war that had also brought the uk close to bankruptcy and massive debts to America… not to mention the Great Depression in the 20’s. Uk citizens, by large had a much better living standards than most other citizens of western countries, who’s citizens, in contrast earned far larger salaries… largely in thanks to the fact that the uk never defaulted on any of huge monetary loans/debts raised during world war 1.. helping to keep incoming trade goods sanction free and therefore at low costs to the consumers #UKCitizens. Whilst also helping to keep inflation down to a minimum… which most other countries suffered from massively.
I once heard the playwright David Harel observe that the working class, as soldiers, had just spent 5 years in far closer proximity to the officer class than in peacetime, and could not fathom why they should not be in charge.
Always true. This time, socialist ideas were spreading. That made the difference.
Worse luck.
It's pathetic many of them still think that now, the working class never learn
elitist much?
0:13 "Prime Minister of the British Empire" ... the writer needs a slap, and Simon deserves one too for not catching that. The Queen was Queen of the British Empire, but Churchill was only Prime Minister of the UK.
Still looked,smelled,an walked like a empire by WW2
@@jorgiebdeandrade Yes, but the point is the PM of the UK is PM of the UK ALONE. He is not and never was PM of the Empire. This is and was an important point about his actual powers, not just the title (bearing in mind that in a Westminster parliamentary system a PM has much less power than a US President anyway).
@@kenoliver8913 ok I see I didn't realize that his position as prime minister wasnt equivalent to a presidents power, I was more on the fact that the UK was still very much a empire at the time. Thanks for the info
@@kenoliver8913Whilst it wasn't in his official powers, it was within his effective power. Sure he didn't technically rule every single colony, but he was at the top of the chain of command (Barring the monarch)
@@chiefbeef9905 No, you are wrong - the dominions (Aus, Canada, NZ) were completely self-governing, including in foreign policy and defence matters. Eg he famously tried to keep Australian troops in the ME in 1942 and was firmly rebuffed by the Australian government.
My parents grew up in near squalor as did most before and during the war. Attlee, gave them a chance to have a fairer share of this county's wealth and to better themselves. While some now treat it as a career living on the social, for many others it is still a lifeline.
Labour were indeed a great political party for the working class. Shame nothing like them exist in politics anymore.
the "living on Social" Tory myth. I know some people that have to live on social security and it's not living, it's surviving and just barely at that.
@@adamcarreras-neal4697 as I said some do, but many do indeed only survive. I spent a year myself living on benefits and as 'healthy' younger male on his own, didn't exactly mean the money was rolling in - far from it.
@@adamcarreras-neal4697I'm no tory, but having worked dealing with people I *KNOW* there are thousands see it as a life choice. In my old job I used to deal with such folk every single day. Most usually had more cash on them than I did. *Always* a more up to date phone. I'm sorry,, but there really are such people in their thousands. Perversely, it seems the welfare system though treats genuine people down on their luck really badly. God help you if you've been a worker made redundant as opposed to a lifelong claimant.
@@ChoppingtonOtterits really interesting the claim that no one abuses the system. You can only make the claim that the amount of people doing it isn't an issue. I wish the middle class would see its being fucked from both ends, the rich and the welfare class, instead of just claiming one is all the problem and the other can do no wrong.
Brilliant video. I've never heard it put together like this before (and I'm British). Nice reminder how tough it is in politics.
I always asked myself this question, considering that many WW 2 generals had fruitful political careers in the U.S. Now I'll know!
It probably helps that the US avoided any serious damage outside of Pearl Harbor. The economy flourished during and after WW2, and innovation took off. To be blunt, there wasn't much to be mad about.
@@benrockefeller6334 The U.S. dealt with rationing, too. It's not like gold rains from the sky and every tom, dick, and hairy set of balls pops up and swings a hammer one day to get a six-digit annual income the next. The majority of the male population got shipped to fight overseas in BOTH directions, while factories only continued pushing out products when they begrudgingly allowed women and children in to work. Sure, it might not have been as bad as nightly bombing raids over London, or watching both sides volleying back and forth everything from bullets to missiles in your own back yard, but pretending that we in the U.S. just ran our usual 9-5's and then sat in front of the TV set to watch the war like it was a video game or sporting event is still completely lunacy. ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 The US wasn't unscathed by WW2, sure. But when compared to literally every other country in the world that participated, the US was practically untouched. The US lost fewer troops in WW2 (relative to total population) than in the opening year of the Civil War alone. It is not a debate. WW2 benefited the US in almost every metric. The US military, economy, and global prestige were far stronger in 1945 than they ever were before the war. The primary role of the US in WW2 was logistics and Naval Warfare. The US wasn't fighting the massive battles like Stalingrad, Kursk, the Battle of Britain, or the Battle of France. Rations were painful, sure, but compared to the height of the Great Depression that they had just lived through, they were more than manageable. Having a bit less food to eat is far easier to stomach than watching your home bombarded into dust or your friends and family massacred just because of their ethnicity.
@@benrockefeller6334 That "boost" to the economy, primarily happened AFTER the shooting war... I'll give you that the U.S. suffered less destruction... I already SAID AS MUCH with the point that nobody was making nightly bombing raids on our cities, and nobody was fighting the war in our back yard...
Comparison to the Civil War (I'm presuming you DO mean the U.S. Civil War) is a REALLY STUPID metric. NOBODY BUT THE U.S. WAS FIGHTING THAT WAR...
Most of the countries in Europe are barely the size of ONE of our 50 States. They'd be hard pressed as any single entity to come out of even a few battles without dire consequences and aftermath...
At the END of the war, we still had most (damn nearly all) of our infrastructure, so the task (and clearly profits) from rebuilding the rest of the "Civilized World" was on us. What the f*** else was GOING to happen? We beat the Nazis down, pat ourselves on the back, and move EVERYONE back home or off to occupy Japan???
The gamble may have been fairly solid, but it was still a gamble at the time, even siding against Germany... AND most of the economic boons were PROMISES, not cash or gold up front... SO don't go acting like everything was just hunky-f***in'-dory over hear the whole time. Things were BARELY starting to turn toward the better with the Great Depression winding down, and suddenly there was a war all over again. It may have STOOD to benefit the U.S. but only if the Allies won and then upheld their end of the bargains... and those are rooted in ongoing negotiations... At this point a forgotten very early root to our national debt... even as it continues to exponentiate per decade... ;o)
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 Shall we not "compare" pain please. It's insulting to all the people that suffered and lost their lives in that conflict. My own Grandfather deployed to help liberate France, served as a medic, got shot and came back a shell of a man. Incidentally he was German American. We shouldn't weigh contributions or losses great or small. We should honor them and give thanks and respect. Please.
Didn't want a repeat of WW1 where nothing changed for the people who sacrificed the most.
... nail on the head.
This. This is also why Indian soldiers who had fought loyally in WWII would erupt in rebellion a few months later. Freedom had been promised and not delivered after WWI. People were not going to put up with the same thing a second time
Pretty sure that the British upper class ‘sacrificed the most’ in WWI. It’s leftist revisionist fantasy that ASSUMES that it was their sainted working class: it wasn’t.
Nailed it. The problem with Churchill was his affection of aristocracy that is a criminal, heinous concept. A smart man like Churchill should've recognized the aristocracy massively funded the fascists he was fighting. So wars often are one aristocracy fighting another. The ordinary soldier absolutely detests fighting and sacrificing for years only to find an aristocracy that made no serious sacrifices trying to take everything for themselves. If a country actually has any real democracy, they're not going to put up with the total thievery of the aristocrats forever at all times as the aristocrats think they can always manipulate everything for themselves.
@@gingercat777 It was Churchill’s upper class who ‘sacrificed the most’ in WWI. With their tradition of military leadership they sacrifice the most in just about every war.
So it comes down to the simple fact that Labour had ideas that people wanted and the Conservatives didn’t
My grandfather returned home from WWII to his family living in pre-fab housing barely fit for livestock let alone human beings after they had been bombed out of their home in the East End of London by the Blitz and this was the case for many families. Despite this, Churchill wanted to use what little resources Britain had left shoring up a crumbling empire it could no longer afford and the vast majority of people no longer wanted.
As my grandfather put it, "I didn`t trapse across the deserts of North Africa and run onto a beach under machine gun fire on D-Day so the bloody toffs could resume lording it over the world, I did it because the Nazis were a pack of bastards and I wanted to keep my family safe from them. As far as I was concerned, Churchill could shove the empire up his backside along with his toff mates".
Socialism
Labour always has fairy tales to win over those who want something for nothing. Socialism/Communism relies on the ignorance of the masses to further it's evil agenda
@@justonecornetto80Kinda insane how the US let anti-Soviet sentiment (and anti-Black people) allowed the slow backslide to 1920s profit over people politics.
Now with Brexit it seems like you guys are going to join your Western cousins.
Seriously, damn if it's labeled as socialism, communism, or boaty mcboat face. I don't want to starve or be homeless, and I don't want it for my fellow countrymen either.
@@justonecornetto80 I believe my father held similar thoughts
I stun my Russian friends when I ask them what happened to Churchill at the end of WW2.
When they hear he was voted out of office their brains explode.
That sounds messy!
Well, that's one way to get rid of friends...
So did Stalin's brains when he was sitting in front of Attlee, not Churchill, at the 1945 Potsdam Conference
@@FranzBieberkopf >> Both Churchill and Attlee were there.
@@jaybee9269 Churchill was there for the first half, Attlee for the second.
Stalin's response to Attlee was as I described earlier.
This did clear up something that has puzzled me almost all my life.
For me, the question was never why Churchill was voted out in 1945, but rather how he was voted back in 1951? I have never heard a conclusive reason put forward by any one, why the Atlee government that had delivered so much at a time when the country was bankrupt was then voted out at the first opportunity? Certainly both Churchill and Atlee were truly great leaders in their own right.
He took more than he gave, which became pretty obvious by 1951. He took over the coal mines, but in the winter the mines shut down, which meant the power went out in London. He promised free health care, but then realised he couldn't afford it and proposed huge cuts. He supported Stalin on the world stage, but when communist sympathisers went on strike, he sent in the army to break them. And he took a country that had spent years fighting and suffering for freedom and told them they should join a world government. I think that covers pretty much every political outlook being put offside.
@@celluskh6009Thank you, that was very informative.
A lot of floating voters came round to Churchill's point of view in the post war years. They saw the problems socialist policies were creating, where previously they had been bedazzled by their promised benefits.
Labour actually won the popular vote in 1951. The electoral boundaries in the UK favour the conservatives.
Attlee didn't lose first time. There was an election in 1950 which Attlee and Labour won, although with a vastly reduced majority.
Shortly thereafter, there was a debate on prescription charges. Attlee wanted to bring them in, and the Health Secretary, Nye Bevin, was vehemently opposed, stating that the idea of a nationalised health service was that everything should be free at the point of delivery for the people.
The Labour Party collapsed into infighting between Attlee and his supporters and Bevin and his supporters. Attlee couldn't govern and had no choice but to call another election to decide the matter.
The British public hate infighting, and don't appreciate politicians playing games and forcing them to have an election just a few months after the last one. Attlee was doomed and lost the election, returning Churchill to power.
Churchill and the Conservatives might have taken note of another pointer. In various war theatres and even in some prison camps, British troops were holding parliamentary-style debates to fill the time. Almost always the Labour Party won overwhelmingly. In the Middle East, where the high command had encouraged this idea, the debates were swiftly banned when it was seen how passions rose and the voting failed to reflect their own views.
A perfect demonstration of people choosing the party over the politician.
It should be specifically noted they chose a strong platform despite a tepid politician, which is very different from a bad politician.
In either case it underscores a core problem of elections: if given the choice between two parties, neither of which can manage to present both a good platform and a good candidate, there needs to be a way to throw it back in both their faces and demand better options. In politics, as in in war, sometimes both sides deserve to lose.
This is a good video essay. Peter Clarke’s “Hope and Glory” that covers 20th century Britain explores this topic in detail, definitely worth a read for anyone interested.
Agree, Clarke's book is great
Very good. As an addition. One of his many talents was managing the big guns of the Labour Party, sometimes keeping them apart by giving them ministries they could use to the full extent of their talents, namely Nye Bevan, Ernest Bevin, and Herbert Morrison. They should've won in 1951, but Bevan's promise of 5 million houses fell short, partly due to material and labour shortages. He also insisted (rightly) that these houses needed to be of quality over quantity, with no return to the slums. Bevan houses are the best council houses, with two toilets and at least 900sq' of living space. For the butcher, the builder and the doctor! I have argued Starmer is, in the same vein, a bit dull but determined and also a manager of people like Attlee. Let's see what happens...
Funny I was pondering this question right yesterday. Spot on 😊
Me too. Yesterday I watched a video about the Potsdam conference, and also wondered how Churchill lost that election.
It was very simple. Atlee and the Labour party had a plan for the future: the Welfare State. Churchill's plan was more of the past , in particular the re-establishment of Empire. But above all, Labour campaigned on the promise to bring all the troops home whereas Churchill made no such commitment. After 6 years of war The Brits had had enough and Labour was clearly the better option. Churchill resumed his former career as a consistent failure as a peacetime leader.
It's also important to remember that Churchill did not just lose, he was thrashed with Labor winning by 393 to 197 the biggest majority ever.
Where are they now?
@crankybastid2197 both dead I believe
@@privatechannel8462 😂🤣
Labour
Choosing the welfare state over the empire started britains downfall.
When President Truman asked Churchill about Clement Attlee, Churchill is reported to have said: "There's far less there than meets the eye."
Really?
Because Churchill never derided Atlee to the public after the war.
@@danieleyre8913 it wasn't a public statement. It was part of a private conversation between President Truman and Churchill. Presumably, someone overheard the comment being made. Is it possible the story of the conversation is apocryphal? I suppose. But it is in keeping with what's known about Churchill's opinion of Atlee
@@keiththorpe9571 Could you name a source for this?
What could Attlee have done if his party had supported him? Labour are always their own worst enemy.
turned Britain into East Germany???
Labour have always been a split party. Half of which are Red Labour, people who are genuinely working for all working people, and Blue Labour, who are basically only interested in the middle classes and elevating themselves into the upper classes 😒
The same thing can be said about the Democratic Party of the United States.
@@spaceman081447democrat party does a way better job of towing the party line than the republican party. If a democrat steps just a bit out of line they get booted. Even at the presidential level the democrat primaries have 2, maybe 3 candidates which basically agree on 99%, whereas look at the current republican presidential debates with 10 ish (idk, didn’t count) candidates who carry fairly significantly. Been that way the last 3-4 elections.
@@ryanhamstra49
I was not talking about the Democrats toeing a party line. I am talking about how the Democrats are much less combative against Trump and the MAGA crowd than they should be, both now and in the past --- particularly in the 2016 election.
Many of the working class men and women who served in WWII felt they had earned the right to a government of their own. They remembered the generations of poverty and hardships of the depression. They also realised they were as good as anyone as they had seen at close hand that the posh accents and conduct of the officers who had commanded them did not equate to a right to rule. Many were fed up of being ruled by entitled "toffee nosed" Tories, even though they did respect officers who knew their jobs and respected the men.
What a bloody marvelous and informative documentary
One of your best episodes. THANK YOU.
Doing this in higher history, great video
I think Churchill remained very popular with British people all through his life. For his writings as much as he war time leadership. But I think the British people had a different view of what they wanted in a postwar world than Churchill was prepared to give. The majority of British people wanted Indians to get their independence and the implementation of the Beveridge Report. The Beveridge Report is similar to FDR's Second Bill of Rights.
Nope a lot of people hated Churchill in his lifetime. And not just labour voters but also a good many Tories. It was from the 1960s that Churchill’s reputation has been whitewashed, especially by the tabloid media.
Second Bill of Rights? I don't ever remember hearing of that. Because of FDR, my grandfather voted for the democrats 'til the day he died. He often told the story of his first election (32) as a funny anecdote, but I remember nothing of a "second Bill of Rights".
I think you mean "new deal." This was a little hard to follow as I am a Yankee 😅. I know there is context that they don't teach in your average history lesson.
You are mistaken. He wasn't popular all through his life.
He did many unpopular things throughout his career
And was considered very unreliable at the very least.
And a fat disrespectful drunk at his worst
Both the Beveridge Report and FDR's New Deal were a disaster for their people. England is already a SOCIALIST hellhole in ever more rapid decline. America, thanks to DEMS, will soon follow Britain down the Road to Serfdom. 😢
Significantly, and not mentioned in this video, Clement Atlee (then head of the Labour Party) was vocal and active in protesting against the seizure of the Sudetenland, and then the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, and along with Churchill lambasted Chamberlain for the shameful appeasement.
People wanted a new start for the country and approved of the massive reforms of the Labour government that followed (including the formation of the National Health Service).
Given the number of civilians & soldiers who had lifetime conditions thanks to the war, they had no choice but to create the NHS. As they had to make medical care as efficient as possible, to cover the care for all those damaged people...
People DGAF about the war result and hated it. They wish to kept their level of life or the empire.
Another great video! Thanks, Simon, missing you on Biographics!
Excellent, sharp and incisive, thanks
Winston for all his short commings will forever be a man I will admire for having the stones to say that historical line "we will never surrender" when the world went mad. Of course it was a given that we dominions would be standing right beside our mother country on one of the greatest crusades of our time. I shudder to think what mankind would be like if he had just signed a treaty and let the devil run amok in Europe. He deserves his place in yhe history books.
He's literally worse than Hitler...
@@paulwaswalrus5956 Haters gonna hate.
@@kiwidiesel Not being a hater for telling the truth, look at the people he's killed.
@@kiwidiesel or gaslite muppets won't view the truth. He let millions die of famine in India, he sent soldiers in to shot striking workers. He was a white supremists racist, an alocholic. Just look at WW1 and his history as First Sea Lord.
@@paulwaswalrus5956I agree tbh, man was a massive racist and white supremacist. He also thought women having rights would lead to the downfall of society.
I’d like to see more videos like this, fascinating topic
Very interesting, I knew the name Clement Attlee, but nothing about him, thank you.
Many thanks! You make great documentaries
Had always wondered about this seemingly incongruous electoral result. Thank you for this illuminating discussion. Warmest compliments. :)
Always love Simon's horrific pronunciations. Please never change.
It pisses me off that this egg head undoubtedly earns a lot of money on his channels, while much more intelligent and well educated people earn less or nothing at all.
Who knew Churchill was a psychic as well. He could see 80yrs into the future
He could foresee higher taxes for his class in a proper welfare state too. That is what he was really worried about. Maybe he didn’t like that his biggest ally, FDR, imposed a 90% top marginal rate in the US to pay for the New Deal and he probably feared something similar from Labour.
@@Jamietheroadrunner Proper welfare state? Where has that unicorn been spotted?
Not sure what point you're trying to make...
I find Churchill to be one of the best talkers, always having a comeback against his detractors
True, though more often than not his detractors were actually right. Of course Churchill himself said "History shall be kind to me - for I shall write it!". He was already a bestselling author, and his Nobel Prize winning postwar histories are indeed wonderfully written but very selective.
He could certainly talk! It's too bad he wouldn't do anything to relieve the post-war difficulties of the British people.
@@michaeljohnangel6359...WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST?
WHEN WW2 ENDED, BRITAIN WAS PRACTICALLY BROKE- WAS THAT CHURCHILL'S FAULT?!
@@daleburrell6273 Yup, he certainly was. I was there, mate; were you?
Thanks for sharing.
I have never heard of the guy, thanks for the information!
They were tired from the war deprivations and death. Clearly, they wanted more government, the NHS,etc,etc.
and now they have it
There's also the matter that it's a parliamentary election, not a presidential one. The Conservatives lost rather than Churchill himself. He won his seat comfortably, but people often vote by party or their local candidate, with the leader of the party being just one of several factors in their choice.
I love the fact Attlee's wife drove him to the Palace to see the King.
Excellent...a lively romp through perhaps a lesser known aspect of WW2 and its aftermath...
1. In UK you vote for a party, not a leader - that person is chosen by the party
2. The Landslide vote was the country were tired of coalition led government that had slept walked in a world war - it had been 12 years since the last election
3. The populace wanted change and the Labour Party, adopting the Beveridge Report offers the people a “reward” for fighting the war
The theory that Churchill suffered from bipolar disorder makes so much sense. That manic blindness of everything but his own belief, closely resembling a runaway train, is quite the hallmark for a manic episode.
He was definitely special. Anyone who can party that hard for so long is special in my book!
I reckon Bonking Boris Johnson could give him a run for his money though.
Can you do a side project on what this Attlee guy did. I never heard about him before
Attlee*
Foundations of the welfare state:
Pensions, good quality social housing that wasn't enriching landlords but the money went back into the maintainance of tge housing stock, improved education, improved life expectancy, free at the point ofnuse healthcare, nationalised large parts of the economy. He was actually considered to be on the right of the Labour party at the time. Today he'd be called a raging lefty. The guy had his faults for sure, but in government these were compensated for by Nye Bevan. Apologies for typos I can't be bothered to correct, I'm not long home from a very long shift.
Brought in massive social changes in the UK such as the national health service
A lady in the crowd that day was quoted as saying “he looks tired, he needs a break. And WE’RE GONNA MAKE SURE HE GETS ONE”
Thanks Simon. I've always wondered about that.
I'm convinced Chamberlain was playing for time, well aware of the technical and tactical inferiority of the British Expeditionary Forces. Don't forget, the first engagement of British forces against Germany was fought with biplanes on the British side.
Yes, 1938 - the year of Munich - was when the gap between the RAF/Armee de l'Air and the Luftwaffe was largest, both quantitatively and qualitatively. By the Battle of Britain Britain was producing many more planes than Germany (which is why the Germans were always going to lose that war of attrition).
Indeed, I think there is now a recognition that Chamberlain was a reflection of public opinion. Unlike the jingoism of 1914, the British public was aware of the brutality of war. There were thousands of maimed and limbless former soldiers in their midst.
People forget that British re-armament started under Chamberlain, he was not a great leader, but was far better than people realise.
But Munich bought Hitler time as well, not just the Allies. Germany wasn't ready for war in 1938 either.
@@fleshbobregularpants6250 Sure, Germany was not ready for war in 1938 but the point is Chamberlain didn't know that. His military way overestimated German strength, especially air strength, because they swallowed a lot of German disinformation. It's one of the things histories of that period downplay.
the party in power always takes the credit for success, but must also face the blame for failure. The same happened in America - and that's why the Democrats held on to power throughout the war and into the peace. Of course, Britain's and America's experience in the war were totally different so, post-war politics could also expected to come out different. Great video - excellent overview in so short a time.
It's too bad that, here in the US, we never had a similar galvanizing moment to for a national health service.
I loved this video👏🏻❤
*This told us in a clear informative style.*
Appreciation and thanks to the both of you , Simon and Davey , for educating this American about Attley and his leadership during a pivotal period of UK history .
Really great to see a video that was so complimentary of Attlee. He is easily my favourite PM and possibly my favourite politician of all time.
It is a great shame that the everyday person on the street wouldn't recognise his name despite that fact that his policies continue to help the people of this country. We owe him a debt of gratitude that we are failing to pay.
Hear hear!
Why do you think that is? Why has 'official establishment' media been so keen to airbrush Attlee from history?
I was born under Atlee. 1947 .
Bombed, battered, and bankrupt !
And lee managed to give us the Wefare State,Pensions and the NHS !
Against fanarical TORY opposition !
I WAS THERE !
I INOW wtyat happened !
Congratulations and thank you to the author of this piece! As an American, it appears to me that Brits took the road that we didn't, and it made all the difference in the basic respective fabric of our modern societies.
Do you mean the road of extreme taxes and crappy healthcare where they can't find enough doctors or beds?
@farfromperfec, Do you prefer losing your home when you get sick, have a catastrophic accident, or lose your job? 😮
My uncle just waited 7.5 months for a colonoscopy. Which did find cancer. I, myself, am 8 days post op for an "urgent" surgery which took 5 months to schedule. We are both in the American east coast.
The NHS is an infinitely better system than America has. Mostly because a national Healthcare system is cheaper (our government spends an insane amount, and then has to bail out hospitals who can't get payment from poor patients), AND encourages a free market. In the UK, all healthcare *can* be accessed for free. That means private offices are forced to offer reasonable pricing and adequate care in order to stay in business.
In both cases, the wealthy get timely and top-notch care. In the UK, the poor are actually taken care of and can avoid serious disability. In the US, the poor suffer until they end up on disability as an even greater strain on the system.
@xionmemoria, Yes, if I understand things correctly, some smarties in the US decided that to reduce wastage in healthcare they should create a profit based system where the companies that run healthcare get incredibly wealthy, and that huge wastage continues.
@@farfromperfekSuch a ridiculous US myth. I know that’s what your overlords might tell you, but you don’t need to believe it.
How’s the life expectancy looking over there? How many countries above you in that list have insurance based healthcare? Go, have a little read for once.
Churchill was so popular in the north of England that when the news was shown in the cinema he was booed. (People used go watch the news in cinema before TV's were commonplace).
Churchill also offered the country continuing austerity whereas Attlee and Bevan offered people the welfare state (pensions, free at the point of use healthcare, decent housing that wasn't Victorian era slum housing crawling with insects and full of holes). Attlee and Bevan were the best post war government. Back when the Labour Party had a right and left wing that could work together and actually had a vision.
There's a wonderful quote from Nye Bevan about the UK Conservative party that I hold as true today as when it was first uttered.
What’s the quote?
@@rainbowappleslicenot sure which quote but my fav is "This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time.
speech at Blackpool, 24 May 1945"
@@rainbowappleslice "What is Toryism but organised spivvery? … No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party … So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin."
@@rainbowappleslice nothing will every convince me that Conservatives are lower than vermin. Still true, unfortunately Labour is now the same under Sir Kid Starver
The actor David Niven was an officer in the Rifle Brigade during the war. In his autobiography, he said that regardless of Churchill's qualities as a war leader, (a mixed blessing given his delusions as a strategist which drove his generals to distraction) his men told him that they would not vote for the Tories in an election. They remembered the policies of the thirties which produced the war in the first place, as well as the economic struggles of most people.
The British people were voting for the party that promised a new start with the peace.
'The British people were voting for the party that promised a new start with the peace.' Perhaps they did, but how would you explain 1951?
@@dovetonsturdee7033 In 1951 the Liberal party vote collapsed and most of that vote went to the conservatives but Labour still won the majority vote but not the most seats.
The Conservatives had accepted most of the welfare state and nationalisation that had taken place under the Attlee government, which included the National Health Service and the mixed economy.
@@pshehan1 The Liberal vote. Why do you think most of it went to the Tories? Why do you think is stayed there for 13 years?
Moreover, why did these people turn away from Labour so quickly.
@@dovetonsturdee7033 Because most former Liberal voters were not 'socialists' and preferred the Tories over Labour.
The 1945 results were:
Labour 47.7% Conservative 36.2% Liberal 9.0% National Liberal 2.9%
By 1951 the conservatives had adopted major planks of Labour's 1945 platform
The 1951 results were:
Labour 48.8% Conservative 48.0% Liberal 2.5%
So people did not 'turn away' from the Labour Party. Their percentage of the vote increased. The Tories having adopted key planks of Labour's reforms picked up votes from the Liberals and National Liberals.
@@pshehan1 Didn't you say? 'The British people were voting for the party that promised a new start with the peace.'
Seems you are moving the goal posts. Or even changing the game. You are aware that there was a Tory government for 13 years thereafter, I suppose?
That was really good Simon, a few things missing I would say about Churchill, have you seen Bleinheim Palace, he was never one of us. Also his actions towards the Irish, and later the English working class in for instance the General Strike of 1926, were appalling. His wish, I believe to continue the war against the USSR, after they had contributed so much to stop Nazi Germany, makes me think the US had his ear more than the people of the UK. Never mind Clement Attlee, there would have been a revolution. I confess to no other knowledge of this possibility than this expressed in the video. Again all the "socialists will do this and that" shouts that it was from the US and being tone deaf to the people. Attlee managed the Home Front, and although people became increasingly angry about continued rationing and turfed him out, the fundamental changes to the UK will never be forgotten. Also, credo to Churchill for realising this was still democracy.
TL:DR Churchill was a git, but it made him a good wartime leader, but a poor government leader, even shorter tl:dr Clement Attlee good
11:00
listen to Sarah Churchill's perspective and the words chosen to articulate it... insights are profound and you know Winston was proud, whether he agreed or not.
how dare you accuse me of not knowing whom clement Attlee is
So the British people basically told Churchill: “It’s the economy, stupid!”
The British felt that they had not fought and sacrificed during for the war just to restore the status quo. They wanted a more equal and economically promising future.
Brother FANTASTIC JOB!!
Excellent report. good health to you
People were looking to the future after VE day. They remembered what happened after WWI with all the unfulfilled promises of..."A home fit for heroes." They were afraid of going back to the depression again too. Many also thought Churchill was the right leader for the war, but not for the peace.
"Oosh-in-leck" and "Blen-high-im" for General Auchinleck and Blenheim as in village, battle, bomber, palace. A _native_ English speaker would have been a big help?
I imagine that having a large chunk of your own electorate sent off to fight and die didn’t help much either.
Made perfect sense. He got back in because of nostalgia. Churchill was dreadful im WW1. Many of his ideas in WW2 were bad too. Italy invasion? He was however a great speaker and brave. He is one of the greatest leaders we ever had and we had him when we needed him. He was returned and that is a bonus. He was not hard done by given his record. His treatment of Gandi and India was pretty bad. His role in the abdication was pretty good. He changed parties a lot. He was loyal to Winston and the UK. He was insecure due to money. He failed Ireland. He saved Britain. He wasn't always right. He was brutally honest and stood for what he believed. He was a toff and his self importance was his gift and talent. It was also his fault. He was right about Russia. He also was a federalist and MASSIVE pro European. He was a little racist and enjoyed his drugs. He was a hard worker and stubborn. He was entitled and not a very good writer or artist but he never stopped trying. He was funny and direct. He was a good husband but not a good parent. He accepted democracy. He didn't accept losing. He hated tyranny but could help being a bit of a tyrant. He did have a sense of humor. He preferred to be liked but could accept some would never like him. Winston was a unique character.
Thanks for the education!
So there was a time when voters actually understood policy over personality politics.... now compare that with the voters of today, wtf went wrong?? If Churchill had today's witless voters, he definitely would have been re-elected.
But you can also see that their voter skills very ultimately limited, because after a while they got bored with having a good country to live and re-elected conservatives back in.
@@miroslavhoudek7085 "got bored with living in a good country" Hahahaha that my friend is the ultimate F-ing catch phrase of the 21 century right there!!! lol
But here in Australia, the labor party have been a disaster every time they have been in power, and yet people still keep electing them.
@@mystikmind2005 labor? you mean the liberal party labor has barely been in power though with fucking up they are doing now the liberals are going to win the next election with the liberals will continue with the fucking over anyone that isn't in the wealthy class.
It's OK dude, literally television has alot to blame, but there is also a line of contributers, including reagen.
@@eddapultstab2078 Reagen? You mean Ronald Reagan?
Atley seems like the kind of guy I would love to see taking care of my country. Given how screwed up British politics are today it is hard to imagine such a guy could win the elections there.
"Quietly competent" was a common description. Almost the polar opposite in personality to Churchill, though at a personal level they liked each other. It helped that Churchill (and the nation) always owed Attlee a huge favour for vetoing Halifax in 1940 so Churchill could become PM.
Of course it didn't stop Churchill publicly mocking him as "a modest little man with much to be modest about". Politics is politics.
It makes sense from the perspective of the British People at the time
Those Churchhill warnings were on point, though cultural and government structures luckily remained enough of a safeguard despite so many movements and slow attempts continuing to grow over the decades.
Really nice informative video
Choosing the different leaders of England might be similar to choosing the right tool for attaching two pieces of wood together. Maybe one job requires a hammer, using a nail, and a different method would require a screw driver, for a screw. England had different tasks to complete during and after the war, so different leaders and their approach was required.
UK not England there is a difference
And stilll 'Americans dont know the difference'.
I think it's a shame that we put so much stock on charisma and oratory skills, when they're not likely to be an indicator of true leadership abilities.
Interestingly an Australian Prime Minister visiting during the early part of the war was surprised that Churchill actually read his speeches to Parliament.
I mean its just kind of human nature: being a good talker and seemingly a more interesting person is a lot more tangible of a quality than them apparently doing a good job behind the scenes. Most people vote with their heart, not with their head.
To lead you have to convince people to follow; to convince people you have to be good at oratory. Having a good plan is no good if you can't explain it or convince people it's good. Of course, good oratory can also convince people to follow a bad plan, so there's that...!
Rubbish. Signed B Johnson, ex PM.
Clement Atlee's complete defeat of Churchill after VE day has been a puzzle for me. Let the lights go up on the modest leader who didn't care about "filling Winston's shoes."
If you’re puzzled by Churchill,being dumped then you clearly haven’t done much research.
@@danieleyre8913 I haven't done ANY research. What happens in the UK hasn't been a concern of the United States since 1776.;)
@@Otokichi786 Yes yes excellent one contradicting yourself.
Attlee is the idiot that England deserved. The Greeks did the same with Themistocles.
Church remained very popular with the British people, even those who did not agree with his politics, it was the Tory Part of the day that the electorate rejected.
Apart from the saving the Free Worls from a new dark ages bit, he wasn't a very good Prime Minister, but he had two very able deputy prime ministers who looked after the UK itself(although the title did not exist at the time). Atlee when he was occupied on another matter, and RAB Butler when he was elected in 1951 but his health completely broke down; the Best Prime Minister we ever had and the Best Prime minister we never had, unfortunately to be followed by a third, his son-in-law Anthony Eden, the Worst Prine Minister we could have had.
Stunning. This video dies not have more discussion of ads and ads and ads and ads and ads and ads than USA network TV. Reasonable, not greedy
Tip top job Simon!
My mum was 16 when the war ended. She told me that a lot of people after the war felt that Churchill had wanted the war rather than having being forced to fight it to defend the nation, and that was why a lot of people voted against him..
And we now know how wrong they were. Regardless of whether they thought Churchill _wanted_ war, virtually anyone who has studied the historical record _knows_ that Hitler did. And he was an evil megalomaniac. Period.
Do you think she still holds that opinion all these years later?
He did, he's a big reason Europe was destroyed, now we've got a pathetic pushover mess
You'd think with all of the time he spent with Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill would've learned how to win an election in a landslide
To some extent I think returning soliders, to working class cities that had a high number of seats in parliament possibly made the difference, I would have to crunch the numbers but this was before the rise - in the 1950s of the new middle class / newtowns "Basildon Man".
If he had cared to learn from FDR. But he had massive disagreements with FDR on numerous political topics.
Churchill ever capable of learning anything?
Britain's a parliamentary democracy, not a Presidential republic. We elect parties, not presidents. The politics are very different. Also the circumstances between the countries were also somewhat different. Roosevelt came in with the New Deal during a deep recession after the Republicans had been in power. Post-war Britain was broke and needed rebuilding after the Conservatives had been in power for most of the 1930's. The British govt during WW2 was a coalition between the Tories, Labour and Liberals. Labour had been in charge of domestic production and social aspects, which was largely seen as succesfull.
Socially, Roosevelt was offering people what they wanted and needed, Churchill wasn't.
The thug who murdered a million peasants in Bengal by stealing their grains ?
A bit unfair. The diversion of all railway traffic in Bengal to supplying the army in Burma rather than to famine relief was very much a decision of the man on the spot - Wavell. Churchill probably did not even know of it and would have had no authority to change it anyway, India being self-governing in domestic matters by then. Which illustrates how far wrong this post was when it called Churchill "PM of the Empire".
I don't care what Simon talks about.. if it's Simon, I WILL watch!
Good video, Brain Boy.
I've often wondered how this whole thing had happened.
Now i know!