One massive and inspiring story was left out: the 1948 olympic games of London. Each athlete bringing food to the population, a massive construction project and event despite the economic situation that led to a depressed nation to feel inspired and great again, reboosting the economy in the 50s.
@@TheLoneWanderererr it's uncouth, petty, disrespectful and childish, I thought this was a series history channel? Obviously though, it's American run, they can't even take it seriously when they rule the world no wonder this crap creeps in.
I'm still amazed, whenever I'm at an event covering the immediate post-war period just how little the general public knows about the UK during the late 1940s. The actual deepening of austerity is not well remembered. That said the austerity of the war years is often glossed over too with a glitzy romanticisation, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised!
I'm not talking about people in the rest of the world, I'm talking about people in the UK who I speak to at living history events who know very little of our own recent history. The US took the position on the world stage because they had a booming economy in the immediate post-war years due to the amount of money pumped into industry both by the US government and from abroad. In contrast, Britain had wrecked its economy paying for its part in the war turning over almost its entire industry to war purposes. Regarding the Royal Navy, from 1945 it has been in a pretty much steady decline. Though I think you could say there has been a recent up-turn in capabilities from the preceding low point caused by a lack of aircraft carriers.
I worked with a British immigrant (I am Canadian) until he retired about 5 years ago. He was a young man when WW2 finished and I was quite shocked to hear him say that rationing was in effect in the UK until approximately 1950.
@ The empire ended bcz of British leaders were too full of themselves styling themselves as new Romans or Civilising force or other mumbo jumbo. If it weren't for its racism Britain would still have an empire.
@ British industries enjoyed monopoly over trade in industrial goods with all colonies, and made exorbitant profits. Also considering that the British gov was in debt to a number of colonial govs. That fiscal drain thing is another fallacy to paint British Empire as less evil.
@@ryanmcmichael9217 ´´ A few steps away from communists ´´ No, or when did he announce to seize the means of production let alone have people advocate for this in the party ? Also communism doesn´t automatically mean authorianism.
@@54032Zepol not really. Yeah a lot of fascists got off very lightly but the political landscape of Italy post-war is fascinating. Referendum ended the monarchy. Communist party almost achieved major electoral victory.
Дмитри Полковник The referendum was a very interesting story. Subterfuge, kidnapping, possible electoral fraud, monarchists vs. republicans. Truly a story filled with drama and intrigue
@@DmitriPolkovnik Yeah, the main reasons the communist lost in Italy post war was because of the CIA propaganda and rigging campaign to keep Italy Democratic. This is well documented and unclassified by now. It is a fascinating story of intrigue and who knows what would have happened if Italy went communist instead of the Democratic state it is today.
Lets take a moment to appreciate how much has David improved his presentation skills *hats down* happy to see the whole team is developing the content distribution process
The latter is true, but I don't think the former is. By 1945, the British public had mostly forgotten about the pre-war years, but they did know about the Beveridge Report, which had been distributed among members of the Army in order to keep morale up during the relative lull between Dunkirk and D-Day. Labour adopted the report with gusto and inspired the electorate in ways that Churchill and the Conservatives didn't manage.
@@Septimus_ii According to wikipedia: "Though voters respected and liked Churchill's wartime record, they were more distrustful of the Conservative Party's domestic and foreign policy record in the late 1930s". In addition, the voters liked and respected Churchill, but distinguished between him and his party.
@@perperson199 Fool's??? Not really unlike Mr Churchill Clem Attlee was a genuine war hero who unlike Winston didn't feel the need to paradise around in military uniforms he had no right to wear The 'genuine' fighting men in 1945 made the right choice 🇬🇧
Couldn't be true, according to the Brits I've recently had the pleasure of exchanging views with, Britain was an industrial power house that supported up to 30% of the US Army in the ETO. Etc, etc. They seem to have forgotten what happened during the war.
Most British colonies had a local ruler for indigenous matters and those had their own nationalities. Most French colonies were ruled by centralised French administration denying that nationalities existed except the French citizenship. So the people under French rule had to create a dissident entity from scratch to gain power and independence. The British just gave the power to the locals already in place.
By my opinion it was not because of theyr smartness or political wisdom but because of necessity: After war most of army units were demobilised ,India,Malay peninsula, Burma in political turmoil, Canadian Australian NZ and other nations' armed forces went home happy it's over and they are still alive .Britain had no forces to patrol even night streets of Singapore not to mention to do something more. Z If You saw British forces in any war /Sudan,South Africa., India Malay region East Africa, Afghanistan ,Irak, Palestine, actually any conflict they were involved in there were no more than 15 to 25 percent of really Brittons. Maybe Singapore , Calcutta, Bombay had better percentage.This statement I made doesn't belong to those who fought for Britain occasionally survived but very often they didn't or were disabled even they survived I have highest respect.What they didn't know they put theyr lives no for themself, theyr families very often not even for theyr countries but for full pocket of some chosen ones / starting w
The UK gov also had to sell or dismantle 840 warships for steel, because of how bad the situation was, which was a big blow to the "britannia rules the seas" national identity and explains in part how Britain went from 1st navy to 6th today
Dad pointed out things were actually tougher in the immediate post WW II years. Rationing actually tightened. Also unexpected events like the winter of 1947 made things even more miserable. It is also worth noting that both the railways and the coal industry were on the verge of collapse and without nationalization they would have in all probability failed.
@@nicholaskelly6375 they weren't dependent upon British railways and coal. My tax dollars shouldn't be going to support and prop up failed and unsuccessful industries. Doing so not only harms the industry but also harms the economy and the country.
@@kordellswoffer1520 Er No Actually NOT ONE$ was received by Great Britain after the 8th May 1945 . Once the ink on the surrender document signed by Messrs Jodl & Keitel had been signed "Lend Lease" ceased. Also Great Britain received No Marshall Plan Aid. So None Of Your Tax $ went to Great Britain (and unless you are in your 90's they were not "Your Dollars" anyway!) America made sure that Great Britain came out of WW II emasculated. Also for your information In the early post war years Britain Did Depend on both the railways (petrol rationing saw to that) and coal (As most people had open fires or coal stoves).
@@nicholaskelly6375 so not only are you wrong but amusing. The uk did recieve marshall aid. They were the largest recipient of Marshall aid. They also got money from Canada and India as well as other loans. Britain dependence on those thing has nothing to do with the whole of Europe like you asserted. I never meant my "pounds" I meant my money in a general situation where the government would do as such. The uk didn't use marshall aid or loans to be the subsidiary of those industries but used that money to expand the welfare state and the nhs. All bad investments with a good opportunities.
People often forget quite how bad the UK's position was circa 1945 - the debt to GBP ratio was something like 225% if I recall correctly, far more than even Greece's in recent years. One aspect that wasn't mentioned in the video was the "Dollar gap", caused by the UK's immense loan repayments to the USA. The UK eventually weathered the storm by devaluation (from $4.03 to $2.80) and prioritisation of exports to the USA - including by restricting domestic demand of some manufactured goods through rationing (clothes were rationed until 1949, for example).
As a British person, I dont think you've been to hard on our history or nation during this period of history. Many mistakes were made and many were to happen in decades afterwards. All are due to be remembered accurately.
American: Tell me one good thing about labour and post war Britain Everyone in the UK: welfare state and NHS!!!!! American: that commie plot! Everyone in UK: :-D (trying not to laugh at Americans being proud to live in a society with no social support) P.S I understand not all Americans feel like this (according to the popular vote a majority in fact) just trying to point out we had this debate in the 1940s and have never really looked back
Attlee kind of put the people first when thinking about how to recover from the war. In the UK at least. Millions of returning troops had jobs to go to because they nationalized major industries*. They built millions of homes. They introduced public health care to make sure workers remained healthy. They poured resources into public education and technical training to up skill the work force. They greatly bolstered the welfare state, so nobody needed to be destitute and working families had enough to get by on. I grew up there during the final two decades of the Cold War. It was good in many ways, but it has been systematically dismantled over the years. * People might ask 'but US troops had jobs to go to without nationalization'. US companies remained private, but many received huge military contracts from the government, which had a ripple effect though the entire economy. That is a step or two off nationalization and had a similar effect on jobs (so called military industrial complex). The economic situation of the UK was completely different too. The war broke the UK economy, but in the USA capital expanded massively. Private capitalism boosted by government contracts being the Arsenal Of Democracy created huge fortunes for tycoons in the USA, but obliterated private tycoons and even public state budgets elsewhere. So much so, that they turned to borrowing in the Marshall Plan to survive, which increased US wealth and power even further -- to the point that NATO countries are often accused of being compliant vassals of Uncle Sam. They are very dependent on US investment companies buying their government bonds. It is very difficult for governments to borrow without them, so they make sure they remain within Uncle Sam's good graces. The bond market is often the USA's most effective soft power weaponry (it also has very effective information propagation. So called media industrial complex).
Dear Aquila Rosa, forgive my trying to translate Your name to English/I'm not English/ looks to me : pink vodka /in Russian translation mean small/little/precious water/. BTW I'm not Russian eather/. So let me think Your name is actually ,by my opinion is a sort of a nickname , pseudonym,a.ka. Just name it.If I'm mistaken or You feel offended forgive me please my question.Just I didn't speak any oSpanish from 1971 .But back to Your statement . There are several guys/ in my expression language - ladies and gentlemen - I have highest regards for theyr opinion and bravery to express it. You do belong to that club . I'm afraid that in very yearly fifties,if You would try to put any similar statement in any media ,/that time newspaper -cheapest but wildly accessible,or radio way more expensive but still affordable.or Tv only several thousands but not everywhere may afford it at that time /no internet ,Facebook Wikipedia or any similar BS existed/.So if you would try to put similar statement in media that era You would be shot before FBI would be able to ask you about Your nonamerican activities. But don't worry, You wouldn't alone. I do believe if Jesus Christ would come here today and he would try to spread his teachings,he would be dead sooner than You.
Can someone please tell me what music is starting to play at 9:40 and gets really epic by 10:31? It seems like every history channel uses this as an outro but i can't find the original
The only way the empire could had survive if britain, canada, new zealand, Australia southafrika, Rodesia solomon islands,fiji in one imperial superstate... let the other ones leafe
Ok, i am confused. UK has a large debt, no cash, and now 50+ billion grant, thats more debt. It will spend it on a nuke, armed forces, reconstruction, rebellions and welfare. It lost India. How did it prosper? If you answer this, you might get more questions.
A pretty good show that details every moment of post-war Britain is Andrew Marr History of Modern Britain, it goes into far more depth if anyone is interested.
@@jon_3453 I can't remember which one but I think in Harper's 2nd term (his majority) , we had some interesting results in regards to voters to ridings distribution. So, he's pretty correct with the phrase of 'the gift that keeps on giving'. The last Federal election is just the most recent, but not the only qualifier of FPTP's inadequacies.
@@Acularius That's true about Harper's majority, and Trudeau's majority as well had quite a skew to it. But this most recent election was uniquely egregious in the fact that the Conservatives won more votes than the Liberals overall (and significantly more at that) but lost the election because their support was too geographically concentrated. But I have a lot of respect for the fact that most Conservatives who were against vote reform before continue to be against it now even though FPTP cost them forming government.
The historical reality of the United Kingdom being financially insolvent at the end of WW2 and therefore to some degree dependent upon the USA for financial support remains a very sensitive, sore topic with Brits today. Discussing it will evince strong emotions from Britons ranging from complete denial of Britain's precarious financial situation in mid-1945 to a thorough denunciation of all of America's shortcomings and misdeeds beginning with its independence from Britian in 1783. Brits have been reluctant to admit this was not something of their own doing. Major wars had steadily sapped the financial strength and vigor of Great Britain. Historians have argued this even started as far back as the Boer War which turned into a serious struggle which required the full mobilization the British Empire's might. This conflict itself was very costly to the British. Subsequent, no historian disputes the financial and economic distress inflicted upon the United Kingdom by WW1. The nation essentially had to liquidate its vast store of wealth in order to finance WW1 and the huge expansion of the British Army, Royal Navy, and the new Royal Flying Corps. The costs of the Great War and the debilitating global Great Depression were huge blows economically and financially for the United Kingdom. Throughout the 1930s, unemployment was endemic in the British Isles, as it was elsewhere around the world in places like the U.S. and Europe. Germany is well-known in the history books for its 1932 statistic of six million unemployed, about one-third of the working population. The U.S. suffered 25% unemployment of its working population. Historians are in agreement that the United Kingdom was insolvent at the end of World War Two. It had been funding its global conflict by 1945 through U.S. Lend Lease, printing money, raising taxes to high levels in some areas, and spending whatever liquid wealth that was left. The British government was careful not to liquidate its gold reserves, which would have collapsed its economy and made recovery much more difficult since a nation's economic strength during that time was still in many ways based on its gold and other bullion and specie holdings. Yet if anything, this was no occasion for schadenfreude for Anglophobes. The British government and its People tightened their belts and lived with whatever adjustments were necessary to accommodate its smaller position in the post-war era. One of these was the drastic reduction of the British military until the United States government stepped in and urged the British government not to reduce any further. It was not all peaches. The British People grudgingly lived with continued wartime rationing until 1951. Great Britain was, nonetheless, able to enter an era of prosperity from the mid-1950s through the very early 1970s until growing economic stagnation, exacerbated by rising worldwide petroleum prices, brought the prosperous times to an end.
I'd never studied this topic in any detail, awesome to get so much new knowledge. Thank you. That's so sad what happened to the UK, poor people =( The US thinks of the post WW2 times as the best we ever had (only the 80s and 90s are close). Like, nothing but suburbs and Dennis the Menace Leave it to Beaver Falloutland until those damn turbulent 60s - which still rocked, man... I know the real history has a lot of bad stuff to. The Civil Rights Movement not having happened yet, plus McCarthyism, and another Red Scare; those alone spoil the nostalgic image of that time that Fallout based it's lore on. Even in the good lands that inspired all that, quite frequently mommy was an alcoholic. It's also where the "pill popping' culture and problem we have today began (where rich kids with perfect little lives often steal from the medicine cabinet to get high etc). So many WW2 vets and generation people were told to take pills for everything that they were seen as miracle drugs. And the whole "keeping up with the Jones" bit lead to shallow materialism and gross waste that have afflicted the US from within ever since the start of our time as the world's top super power. Like a boxing champion who starts to get out of shape as soon as he wins the belt, because of living the life of a champion and indulging, and it shows in every title defense bout Still tho, that idealized and reaching for perfection kind of life from the mid 40s to the mid 60s is what I want for everyone in the world. My own little castle in my own nice little neighborhood (like the old man in Gran Torino, one of my very favorite movies) was all I ever wanted and needed to be happy; and I know the same can be said for most people - and I truly believe it's attainable for the entire species. Most Americans don't want to impose their way of life on the world and control it, so much as we want to share it with them when we see them suffering as they do. We weren't so nice to the Japanese and Germans out of pure self-interest, the people here really are some of the most charitable and forgiving on earth - especially when we're clearly the dominant ones. Check the stats on how much $ the US gives to charity, even allowing for tax write offs, it's a lot! General Patton was severely criticized for being too lenient on the defeated Germans and forgiving them too easily. Despite what so many people say, George wasn't a cruel or sadistic man, he meant every tear he cried for his own wounded soldiers. Had Patton not perished in a jeep accident, Germany's history probably would have been much brighter. One of the few good things I have to say about Old Mega-Death (General MacArthur) was how he handled the post WW2 reconstruction and occupation of Japan, I understand why many saw him like a new god lol. It just wasn't the right thing for his ego, and it negatively affected how he handled the Korean War I'm sure. Those 2 stories, more than anything, are why I agree with Total War games where the character in charge of a region makes a huge difference, based on their personality, skills, retinue, and other traits. Best damn history portrayal machine I've ever seen, those games are... My point is, the Imperialism really is from the rulers and not The People of the US most of the time. And that when it is from The People you can blame Yellow Journalism (Spanish American War), the CIA's information control (Vietnam), fake news, propaganda, censorship (watch footage of the Gulf War, you can see the military learned not to let the press be free like they were in Vietnam! everything has Uncle Sam's approval mark in the corner lol), ignorance from the education system our government gives us, and other reasons for The People of America to have simple (but gross) misunderstandings of the situation I've never met a Conservative or Republican who will support the Vietnam War after I've had a couple of hours to talk to them about it, (much less binge a bunch watch this show, the best on Vietnam ever made, and which I plan to assign when I'm a professor: ruclips.net/video/jxtqTsPZAYc/видео.html) but their Conservative ideology and personal morality stay the same. They're still a Conservative Republican, they just aren't a Hawk anymore - they're a Dove. It's just new info, so they can see through propaganda and what Uncle Sam kept hidden or just learn what they never knew existed, and come to the conclusion their hearts and minds naturally gravitate to - once they know the truth I personally have consistently found that, in stark contrast, the Democrats never seem to acknowledge how much of a part they played in both starting the Vietnam War and the Jim Crow laws of the South. The "big bad evil racist South" is in reality it's not such a terrible place. I think Slingblade and this movie do it justice: ruclips.net/video/EHgLR6TYyOQ/видео.html The South hated the Republican Party of "that tyrant" Lincoln after the end of the Civil War and especially because of Reconstruction, the people who founded the KKK were all Democrats lol. Sherman (my favorite general of the war) is still a curse word down there the way "bloody" is in the UK. The South only became mostly red states fairly recently, by those standards. JKF (big Liberal Democrat hero) literally wouldn't help the Civil Rights Movement because his electoral victory was so narrow, and it had been the South that made the difference. If JFK helped black people etc, the South would turn against him enough to cost him power. So he did nothing. But that "evil racist cowboy LBJ from Texas" was actually a great hero and friend to the Civil Rights Movement. Despite JFK looking like the "perfect" person from the SJW/PC/Feminist perspective, and people (usually Liberals, Democrats, and Leftists in general) thinking LBJ is a racist bigot just because he has a certain accent and likes certain kinds of hats. That kind of thinking shows me who the real bigots are in the US, the ones saying whites, straights, and males have some kind of "privilege" that I've never felt - but watched everyone else benefit from Affirmative Action. So I haaate it when Democrats, Liberals, and Leftists in general try to portray the Right in the US as always the KKK, always the Confederates, always the Neo Nazis, always the ones destroying the environment like an episode of Captain Planet (that "evil gun guy" Theodore Roosevelt is the one who made our national parks!), always bad guys holding back progress on human rights, etc. Give me a few minutes with the average Democrat, and I can show that their party probably did more than the Right in the US to add to Uncle Sam's sins. The difference is, they never change their mind with the new facts and when their reasoning shown to be invalid. The Conservatives do. That's why I'm a Conservative, even if I am a Socialist lol That, and Edmund Burke. Supporting the American Revolution, predicting the French one (plus how it would shake out and why), while being a member of British Parliament, and founding the Conservative ideology while saying great words like, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" yeah, Edmund Burke is an intellectual worth listening to and reading. I can't say the same for most of the other ideologues I read about in Political Science 101 and 102 I'd probably get a lot more out of this video if I understood basic British politics, but I don't. Thanks for filling in a great many gaps in my historical knowledge Great work here, with sound historical information (to the best of my knowledge), as always PS I love the old school TV showing the old footage, it's a great effect on this channel. This is what it reminds me of, my favorite video game character, ever. Because he's Alaskan!: ruclips.net/video/2PwKMcpvq08/видео.html
@@PrezVeto You're referring to the suspension of Habeas Corpus (right to trial by jury)? Or the cronyism in how he appointed generals and ministers (getting countless soldiers killed and wounded through grossly incompetent leadership), in order to have the political support to stay in power?
@@justsomeguy3931 His unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus was certainly tyrannical, but I consider the waging of a war to keep unwilling states in the Union to be tyrannical in itself. Ending slavery was a post hoc justification he switched to in about 1863 when the bodies had piled up so high he feared he'd go down in history as a monster if he'd put the country through that just to prevent secession. There were better options, ones compatible with the Declaration of Independence, had the true goal been the ending of slavery. Unfortunately it's extremely fraught to even talk about such things because people immediately suspect ulterior motives. Outside the South, at least, the whole war is truly dogma at this point. The scene from the movie The Conspirator in which Mary Seratt (sp?) is executed despite a federal court order that she not be well illustrates how sick the mindset of the time was, and Lincoln helped create that. He could've prevented it, at the very least. I hadn't heard about bad reasons for appointing generals.
@@PrezVeto In order to fully answer you, I need to paint the background scene picture that I'll be referencing to explain myself, so please bear with a bit of a rant or two that may seem unrelated at first lol I've been trying to reply for about 2 hours, and I can't because it "contains an invalid argument." I'm used to being censored on the Internet, FB and YT get lots of complaints about me. I'm going to reply in small snippets to see if I can finally say what I have to say, because 1 big post is being blocked. I'll say when I'm done, to avoid confusion
I would love to see a video on post ww2 commonwealth nations like New Zealand, Australia and Canada. New sense of nationhood, ten pound poms increasing mix of non anglophone migrations. Could be cool to look at the similar and different experiences of "Britain's Children".
Alot of European countries could only afford their "great" welfare states because they could minimize defense spending due to the fact that American power shielded them against any USSR aggression. Knowing that the superpower would protect Europe, American taxes and lives were spent so socialism could spread in Europe.
I always thought it sad that the one country that stayed the course against Germany fared so poorly after the war. The US turned into an economic dynamo and the USSR turned half the world communist. Yet the UK lost so much.
Well, it didn't help that one of the things the USA and USSR agreed on was the end of the British Empire; both cast it in the light of self-determination for the colonized, but both also saw advantage in a United Kingdom unable to challenge either superpower.
Britain at the start of the war controlled 25% of the Worlds land area. 24% of the population. Oh and The Royal Navy ruled the world's Oceans. Plz stop with the fake narrative of a little island standing up to Germans.
James Bond theme music INTENSIFIES. #007 I still think this channel is missing videos on some key organizations, the CIA, KGB, M16, FBI, Mossad. The Spy game was considered a very important part and tangled in with the diplomatic game. Don't need a full historical briefing but the formation on how these players came to be would be all that we need.
Since it was the KGB the overthrew the Afghan government that lead to the Soviet invasion. I say Yes. Also Afghanistan is a much different country than Finland.
@@Aviationlord7742 . History is History. Everybody has a problem with something. I'm just fascinated in Colonial African history and am interested in this channels take on South Africa and Rhodesia. But this channel has also described in great detail, concepts such as Fascism and Communism many times.
Juliusz Milewski I’m very interested in African colonial history as well. Unfortunately whenever Rhodesia is mentioned the comments section inevitably spills into *”RhOdEsIa WiLl RiSe AgAiN”*
Likely touch on it when we get further into decolonization in Africa. Could have fit it into this video as a rationing relief scheme but felt more appropriate as an example of late-colonial failure
@s1 While it was in the interest of the US, I would say it was in a vastly larger interested of NATO countries for the US to spend massive sums of money propping up their defense in order to keep western Europe from being puppets states ruled from Moscow.
Have you covered Portugal? I think you could do a whole series on the Estado Novo regime, the rebellions in Mozambique, Angola, and Portuguese Guinea (Guinea-Bassau), and the Carnation Revolution in 1975.
it is still amazing that Germany losing WW2, still managed to knockout two prewar hegemons - France and Britain, and one superpower, albeit with a time defuser for 45 years.
The Indian independence movement was already well under way, their declaration of independence having been in 1930. Moreover, the dominions of Australia and Canada were almost fully independent by WWII. The main reason empires collapsed was that, as free trade became more normal, there was less of a difference between trading with an imperial subject/master, and trading with a foreign country, so empires weren't worth the investment. I imagine that, without the war, India would still have achieved independence by 1960 anyway for that reason, so while WWII hastened the collapse of the Empire, it was not the main cause.
Bit disappointed not hear any mention of the Windrush and the thousands of West Indian and African immigrants. Would’ve been interesting to have been talked about seeing that they played a big part in rebuilding post-war Britain and had such an indelible affect upon British society
We are going to go into the Windrush Generation more in a later episode, dealing with the massive societal upheavals that have taken place in the UK. This episode was only intended as a very brief overview and we didn't get into changing ethnic composition or gender expectations inside the country.
I appreciate your mostly neutral coverage of the cold war. Really enjoy your videos and plan to watch most by the first week of next year. Keep up the great work.
Now I'm looking back, my life was destroyed even before I was born, due to my family being moved around the country at the end of WW2. No one knew where anybody else lived, and the consequence of that was I suffered a family illness that would have been picked up decades sooner had the whereabouts of the family been known.
The British claimed to have detonated a hydrogen bomb. I think it was a boosted fission bomb, not a two stage fission/fusion bomb. The second one may have been a legitimate two stage.
And even Canada.... come on without Canada Britain wouldn’t have survived 3 months we fought the longest battle of the war... the battle of the Atlantic
i've always wondered why england, london, had it so rough after WWII. considering the city of london, i would have figured the recovery would have been short and sweet.
If you allow me just some extra information on the UK's international trade relations, in the 30s, it scored the Roca-Runciman treaty with Argentina that was soooo beneficial to the UK (including the fact it guaranteed an adequate supply of beef) it is largely remembered in Argentinian history as the treaty that turned the country into a British protectorate and the beginning of the "infamous decade", if I recall well. Britain was also very smart in their trade relations with neighbouring Brazil: it agreed a sort of trade system that made Brazil's surpluses actually beneficial to Britain lol If I managed to grasp the technicalities, it virtually turned Brazil's trade surpluses into indirect subsidies to British firms: the Brazilian government would be granted an account at the Bank of England, all trade profit would be deposited in that account, but here's the catch: that money couldn't leave the country, so it had to be spent on British goods !
I'm guessing he doesn't like Churchill that much, at least for his politics. I'm also going out on a limb and saying he doesn't like Margret Thatcher that much.
7:28. People in the United States and Britain complain about "first pass the post" but I think they don't get the alternative. It serves to give representation to areas, not people in general. In a proportional system, like here on Brazil, you get a lot of politicians elect with laughable number of votes, because some huge figure go a lot a votes to his party, and if you are from the countryside, like me, you are screwed! There are much more people in the big cities, so politicians want to please them, because it gives more votes. Who cares about your little town?
"First past the post" properly refers to the person who wins a plurality of the votes being the winner (like the winner of a footrace). The various forms of ranked choice voting are alternatives to it. What you're referring to is legislators having geographic constituencies, rather then being proportional representatives of a party. The "first past the post" term is often used in the UK to refer to the whole scheme they use, but that conflates different aspects of the electoral system, IMO.
I can't decide whether I think party-proportional representation or a blending of geographic and party-proportional representation is the best. The problem with geographic is that you get a lot of waste due to each legislator fighting for spending for their territory rather than something more optimal at the level of the whole polity. Federalism is a good tool for achieving balance between the two.
It's not strictly first past the post which allows the party with fewer votes to win but instead geographical constituencies where where support is heavily concentrated in a small area.
In July 1946,against the Atlantic Charter, the United Kingdom took possession of the Kingdom of Sarawak and North Borneo as two of its last colonial acquisition. Upon the decision to retreat from the East of Suez in the 1960s, instead of granting these colonies their independence, Westminster decided to collude and illegally transfer the sovereignty of these colonies to its biggest ally in the region, the Federation of Malaya, and renaming itself as Malaysia in 1963. All these went against the UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV) (Declaration for Decolonisation) and UNGA Resolution 1541 (XV) (Self Determination).
Oh no don't be so hard on the British empire we are a very fragile people and having our nations previous war crimes in Africa pointed out really upsets us all.
Has anyone pointed out that the 1945 Election hich seated Attlee as Prime Minister was in July 1945, while the war with Japan was still in full swing - The expectation was that the US, UK, and others would be invading Japan in the Autumn.
Hey guys, as a geopolitically isolated American I need help clarifying my understanding of communism versus socialism versus labour parties versus social reform from the pre to post war era through the cold war, and into the modern. Help me see the lines in the sand here. It looks a lot closer to a cat fight in a mental institution than an ideological struggle.
Communism is basically the end all of the socialist and labour parties. No country was ever actually "Communist" as they never got past the more moderate socialism stage, USSR included. Communism is literally the establishment of a money-less, stateless world society where everyone is equal, quite clearly this has and never will happen. Socialism is what the USSR and most Eastern European nations followed, it is a very, very broad spectrum which really doesnt make much sense, but all in all to have the most basic form of socialism is to have major industries such as rail, food etc state owned and have social welfare systems, this type of "less extreme socialism" is what most European nations have implemented today, UK included. The Socialism the Warsaw pact followed was more extreme, with state-controlled economy etc, but it wasnt communism, for the most part life was very similar in those countries to how we live today, just with less luxuries and more social welfare (free housing, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income etc). Labour parties are basically just Socialism parties, the UK labour party follows a more extreme version of Socialism than the Conservative party, while the Conservative party is trying to keep socialist policies at a minimum by trying to privatise the NHS and rail services as well as reduce pensions (basically lowering British standard of living massively).
@@samwell8 So, when the dialogue shifts to 'the UK was a staunch ally in the US struggle against communism,' in reality, it was the geopolitically insulated US oligarchy pretending that one foreign clownsuit was somehow different than another in order to invent and exploit tensions for financial gain? Sounds about right. I'm beginning to see how the geopolitics of US insulation/isolation are heavily exploited. The general nonchalant ignorance of people from the States, myself included, enables some really terrible political maneuvers and exploitation. People just don't question things like who really started an arms race, or which country provoked the other. I've never heard of the Soviet equivalent of surveillance camera ballons, the U-2, SR-71, or current RQ-4 drone like the one Iran shot down. Probably because they don't exist. The whole socialist/capitalist thing looks like a sham created to mask foreign exploitation and oppression. The US lack of post WW2 disarmament really was the last major crime against humanity.
Hahaha that's a myth. USSR collapsed because its economy was mismanaged, inflexible and did not make adequate consumer product. Also Afghanistan War was costing a fortune. Gorbachev's reforms weren't enough to save it. Reagan and Thatcher were waving their fists in the right place and right time.
If people are wondering why the Conservative Party wasn't big on privatisation at the time, remember that the party was, before Thatcher, largely made of One Nation Conservatives, who believed in a paternalistic government. After Thatcher, the pro-market, anti-society ideology of Thatcherism dominated the Conservative Party, while the Labour Party, responding in the '90s, removed its commitment to nationalisation of industry.
Still weirdly unfair on British colonial policy. "Other people's land"? Considering in many places the population was split between being pro-independence and pro-British I don't see how that makes sense.
The Mau Mau rebellion and Malaysian war were British victories but they still gave them independance. The UK wasn't like Spain to where they got their ass beat by their own colonies.
Me: did you win ww2
United Kingdom in 1945 : yes
Me:What did it cost
United Kingdom in 1945: Everything!
*Nazis go back in time to stop the Brits
UK: NANI?!
They should have just let the Germans fight the Soviets and stayed out of it.
UK didn't win anything, they just managed to not get invaded
@@cv4809 It was the water. And UK was never the target of Adolf because he was a racist.
@@JudeLind and in the aftermath of the war they lost territory , sea hegemony and their economy was shit
So what did they win again?
One massive and inspiring story was left out: the 1948 olympic games of London. Each athlete bringing food to the population, a massive construction project and event despite the economic situation that led to a depressed nation to feel inspired and great again, reboosting the economy in the 50s.
Yeah the guy referring to Churchill as a 'colonialist elderly baby' obviously wasn't looking for positives.
@@amh9494 well, he kinda was that too to be frank.
@@Game_Hero he was a ruthless Kant on several occasions but a baby? Really?
@@amh9494 while this guy is definitely biased against Britain i think its just a reference to him looking like a baby lol
@@TheLoneWanderererr it's uncouth, petty, disrespectful and childish, I thought this was a series history channel?
Obviously though, it's American run, they can't even take it seriously when they rule the world no wonder this crap creeps in.
I'm still amazed, whenever I'm at an event covering the immediate post-war period just how little the general public knows about the UK during the late 1940s. The actual deepening of austerity is not well remembered. That said the austerity of the war years is often glossed over too with a glitzy romanticisation, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised!
I admit that I had no idea.
I'm not talking about people in the rest of the world, I'm talking about people in the UK who I speak to at living history events who know very little of our own recent history.
The US took the position on the world stage because they had a booming economy in the immediate post-war years due to the amount of money pumped into industry both by the US government and from abroad. In contrast, Britain had wrecked its economy paying for its part in the war turning over almost its entire industry to war purposes.
Regarding the Royal Navy, from 1945 it has been in a pretty much steady decline. Though I think you could say there has been a recent up-turn in capabilities from the preceding low point caused by a lack of aircraft carriers.
@@RiflemanMoore Ok.
I worked with a British immigrant (I am Canadian) until he retired about 5 years ago.
He was a young man when WW2 finished and I was quite shocked to hear him say that rationing was in effect in the UK until approximately 1950.
The post-war years were truly the end of the British Empire.
The End began at the beginning of WW1
@ The empire ended bcz of British leaders were too full of themselves styling themselves as new Romans or Civilising force or other mumbo jumbo.
If it weren't for its racism Britain would still have an empire.
@ British industries enjoyed monopoly over trade in industrial goods with all colonies, and made exorbitant profits.
Also considering that the British gov was in debt to a number of colonial govs.
That fiscal drain thing is another fallacy to paint British Empire as less evil.
@@minimax9452 you are correct. In terms of modern Europe, and the world in general ww1 was an extremely important event.
Finally.
British people after hearing about the Soviets blockading West Berlin:
"Oye, bit rude innit?"
Corbyn would've supported the blockade
@@06hurdwp
Why do you think that ?
@@aroace7913 he's basically a few steps away from communist, so it's very plausible he would have had us join the east, or at least become neutral
@@ryanmcmichael9217
´´ A few steps away from communists ´´
No, or when did he announce to seize the means of production let alone have people advocate for this in the party ?
Also communism doesn´t automatically mean authorianism.
@@aroace7913 the only way to effectively have any form of communism would need authoritarianism which would almost inevitably result in a dictatorship
Could you make a vedio on Italy after WW2
Fascist still exist in italy that sums it up
@@54032Zepol not really. Yeah a lot of fascists got off very lightly but the political landscape of Italy post-war is fascinating. Referendum ended the monarchy. Communist party almost achieved major electoral victory.
Дмитри Полковник The referendum was a very interesting story. Subterfuge, kidnapping, possible electoral fraud, monarchists vs. republicans. Truly a story filled with drama and intrigue
@@DmitriPolkovnik Yeah, the main reasons the communist lost in Italy post war was because of the CIA propaganda and rigging campaign to keep Italy Democratic. This is well documented and unclassified by now. It is a fascinating story of intrigue and who knows what would have happened if Italy went communist instead of the Democratic state it is today.
@@Schmidty1 You mean to keep Italy capitalist (a country is either "communist or capitalist", not "communist or democratic").
Lets take a moment to appreciate how much has David improved his presentation skills *hats down* happy to see the whole team is developing the content distribution process
The Tories lost because they were the party of Appeasement. Labour lost because they were the party of the ration book.
UK food rationing continued years after those in West Germany.
The latter is true, but I don't think the former is. By 1945, the British public had mostly forgotten about the pre-war years, but they did know about the Beveridge Report, which had been distributed among members of the Army in order to keep morale up during the relative lull between Dunkirk and D-Day. Labour adopted the report with gusto and inspired the electorate in ways that Churchill and the Conservatives didn't manage.
@@Septimus_ii
According to wikipedia:
"Though voters respected and liked Churchill's wartime record, they were more distrustful of the Conservative Party's domestic and foreign policy record in the late 1930s".
In addition, the voters liked and respected Churchill, but distinguished between him and his party.
And Labour lost in December 2019 because they were communists
@@abrahamwilberforce9824 yep. Rationing got worse, or tighter after ww2.
In fact the British general election of 1945 took place during the war - between VE day and VJ day.
According to the friends who fought in wwii they did not vote for Churchill because of him breaking miner's strike in 20s yusing troops.
Fools then
@@perperson199
Fool's???
Not really unlike Mr Churchill
Clem Attlee was a genuine
war hero who unlike Winston
didn't feel the need to paradise
around in military uniforms he
had no right to wear
The 'genuine' fighting men in
1945 made the right choice 🇬🇧
Couldn't be true, according to the Brits I've recently had the pleasure of exchanging views with, Britain was an industrial power house that supported up to 30% of the US Army in the ETO. Etc, etc. They seem to have forgotten what happened during the war.
It decolonised quite effectively. It never had a Dien Bien Phu.
Just a few massacres here and there.
Most British colonies had a local ruler for indigenous matters and those had their own nationalities. Most French colonies were ruled by centralised French administration denying that nationalities existed except the French citizenship. So the people under French rule had to create a dissident entity from scratch to gain power and independence. The British just gave the power to the locals already in place.
By my opinion it was not because of theyr smartness or political wisdom but because of necessity: After war most of army units were demobilised ,India,Malay peninsula, Burma in political turmoil, Canadian Australian NZ and other nations' armed forces went home happy it's over and they are still alive .Britain had no forces to patrol even night streets of Singapore not to mention to do something more. Z If You saw British forces in any war /Sudan,South Africa., India Malay region East Africa, Afghanistan ,Irak, Palestine, actually any conflict they were involved in there were no more than 15 to 25 percent of really Brittons. Maybe Singapore , Calcutta, Bombay had better percentage.This statement I made doesn't belong to those who fought for Britain occasionally survived but very often they didn't or were disabled even they survived I have highest respect.What they didn't know they put theyr lives no for themself, theyr families very often not even for theyr countries but for full pocket of some chosen ones / starting w
@Zeed "If they do massacres I am allowed to do it too."
@Zeed The british committed more atrocities in their century long colonisation of Africa.
Charles got his crown!
The UK gov also had to sell or dismantle 840 warships for steel, because of how bad the situation was, which was a big blow to the "britannia rules the seas" national identity and explains in part how Britain went from 1st navy to 6th today
Dad pointed out things were actually tougher in the immediate post WW II years. Rationing actually tightened.
Also unexpected events like the winter of 1947 made things even more miserable.
It is also worth noting that both the railways and the coal industry were on the verge of collapse and without nationalization they would have in all probability failed.
Good they should have.
@@kordellswoffer1520 and then what exactly? Most of Europe then was heavily dependent on the railways for transport and coal for fuel.
@@nicholaskelly6375 they weren't dependent upon British railways and coal. My tax dollars shouldn't be going to support and prop up failed and unsuccessful industries. Doing so not only harms the industry but also harms the economy and the country.
@@kordellswoffer1520 Er No Actually NOT ONE$ was received by Great Britain after the 8th May 1945 .
Once the ink on the surrender document signed by Messrs Jodl & Keitel had been signed "Lend Lease" ceased. Also Great Britain received No Marshall Plan Aid.
So None Of Your Tax $ went to Great Britain (and unless you are in your 90's they were not "Your Dollars" anyway!)
America made sure that Great Britain came out of WW II emasculated.
Also for your information In the early post war years Britain Did Depend on both the railways (petrol rationing saw to that) and coal (As most people had open fires or coal stoves).
@@nicholaskelly6375 so not only are you wrong but amusing. The uk did recieve marshall aid. They were the largest recipient of Marshall aid. They also got money from Canada and India as well as other loans. Britain dependence on those thing has nothing to do with the whole of Europe like you asserted. I never meant my "pounds" I meant my money in a general situation where the government would do as such. The uk didn't use marshall aid or loans to be the subsidiary of those industries but used that money to expand the welfare state and the nhs. All bad investments with a good opportunities.
9:16-9:27
Ooof.
lmao....
"How dare you suggest we British love tea" I say Britishly into my steaming mug of tea as I watch this
People often forget quite how bad the UK's position was circa 1945 - the debt to GBP ratio was something like 225% if I recall correctly, far more than even Greece's in recent years.
One aspect that wasn't mentioned in the video was the "Dollar gap", caused by the UK's immense loan repayments to the USA. The UK eventually weathered the storm by devaluation (from $4.03 to $2.80) and prioritisation of exports to the USA - including by restricting domestic demand of some manufactured goods through rationing (clothes were rationed until 1949, for example).
If David wants to explain more about the Post-war Britain, you could make a video about the negotiations between China and UK about Hong Kong.
🇨🇳🇬🇧🇭🇰
As a British person, I dont think you've been to hard on our history or nation during this period of history. Many mistakes were made and many were to happen in decades afterwards.
All are due to be remembered accurately.
American: Tell me one good thing about labour and post war Britain
Everyone in the UK: welfare state and NHS!!!!!
American: that commie plot!
Everyone in UK: :-D (trying not to laugh at Americans being proud to live in a society with no social support)
P.S I understand not all Americans feel like this (according to the popular vote a majority in fact) just trying to point out we had this debate in the 1940s and have never really looked back
this is a Canadian talking about the UK and you just had to make it about how you think you are better than America?
@@mariacheebandidos7183 Butthurt much?
9:27 boy, that aged badly
I enjoy the fallout bobblehead on his desk
Attlee kind of put the people first when thinking about how to recover from the war. In the UK at least. Millions of returning troops had jobs to go to because they nationalized major industries*. They built millions of homes. They introduced public health care to make sure workers remained healthy. They poured resources into public education and technical training to up skill the work force. They greatly bolstered the welfare state, so nobody needed to be destitute and working families had enough to get by on. I grew up there during the final two decades of the Cold War. It was good in many ways, but it has been systematically dismantled over the years.
* People might ask 'but US troops had jobs to go to without nationalization'. US companies remained private, but many received huge military contracts from the government, which had a ripple effect though the entire economy. That is a step or two off nationalization and had a similar effect on jobs (so called military industrial complex). The economic situation of the UK was completely different too. The war broke the UK economy, but in the USA capital expanded massively. Private capitalism boosted by government contracts being the Arsenal Of Democracy created huge fortunes for tycoons in the USA, but obliterated private tycoons and even public state budgets elsewhere. So much so, that they turned to borrowing in the Marshall Plan to survive, which increased US wealth and power even further -- to the point that NATO countries are often accused of being compliant vassals of Uncle Sam. They are very dependent on US investment companies buying their government bonds. It is very difficult for governments to borrow without them, so they make sure they remain within Uncle Sam's good graces. The bond market is often the USA's most effective soft power weaponry (it also has very effective information propagation. So called media industrial complex).
Atlee sort of gave India independence
Dear Aquila Rosa, forgive my trying to translate Your name to English/I'm not English/ looks to me : pink vodka /in Russian translation mean small/little/precious water/. BTW I'm not Russian eather/. So let me think Your name is actually ,by my opinion is a sort of a nickname , pseudonym,a.ka. Just name it.If I'm mistaken or You feel offended forgive me please my question.Just I didn't speak any oSpanish from 1971 .But back to Your statement . There are several guys/ in my expression language - ladies and gentlemen - I have highest regards for theyr opinion and bravery to express it. You do belong to that club . I'm afraid that in very yearly fifties,if You would try to put any similar statement in any media ,/that time newspaper -cheapest but wildly accessible,or radio way more expensive but still affordable.or Tv only several thousands but not everywhere may afford it at that time /no internet ,Facebook Wikipedia or any similar BS existed/.So if you would try to put similar statement in media that era You would be shot before FBI would be able to ask you about Your nonamerican activities. But don't worry, You wouldn't alone. I do believe if Jesus Christ would come here today and he would try to spread his teachings,he would be dead sooner than You.
Can someone please tell me what music is starting to play at 9:40 and gets really epic by 10:31?
It seems like every history channel uses this as an outro but i can't find the original
heroic march 01 (johannes bornlöf)
I searched a lot for this
@@dioni5580 Thank you. What a fitting title. You are my hero today ;)
The only way the empire could had survive if britain, canada, new zealand, Australia southafrika, Rodesia solomon islands,fiji in one imperial superstate... let the other ones leafe
If only
I'm sure the natives of Rhodesia and South Africa wouldn't agree.
@@stephenchappell7512 thank God they'd never get a vote.
Ok, i am confused. UK has a large debt, no cash, and now 50+ billion grant, thats more debt. It will spend it on a nuke, armed forces, reconstruction, rebellions and welfare. It lost India. How did it prosper?
If you answer this, you might get more questions.
Trade
American trade... Really just trade in general...
@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 They could sell something to someone in competition with america?
@@pancakes3250 That is suicide on Britain's part...
@@lamolambda8349 How did they trade. Who bought from them?
A pretty good show that details every moment of post-war Britain is Andrew Marr History of Modern Britain, it goes into far more depth if anyone is interested.
Lol "the gift that keeps on giving with first past the post electoral system" I get that reference to last years federal election.
Last few I would say, as its not exactly a new issue.
@@Acularius I don't know about that, million more people voting for the opposition but losing cause of strategic ridings.
@@jon_3453 I can't remember which one but I think in Harper's 2nd term (his majority) , we had some interesting results in regards to voters to ridings distribution.
So, he's pretty correct with the phrase of 'the gift that keeps on giving'.
The last Federal election is just the most recent, but not the only qualifier of FPTP's inadequacies.
@@Acularius huh cool. I've only recently caught onto federal politics since 2015 in high school.
@@Acularius That's true about Harper's majority, and Trudeau's majority as well had quite a skew to it. But this most recent election was uniquely egregious in the fact that the Conservatives won more votes than the Liberals overall (and significantly more at that) but lost the election because their support was too geographically concentrated. But I have a lot of respect for the fact that most Conservatives who were against vote reform before continue to be against it now even though FPTP cost them forming government.
Having learnt a lot of this as a Brit myself studying postwar history in politics class, it's fascinating to see it from an outside perspective.
Great, as usually!
The historical reality of the United Kingdom being financially insolvent at the end of WW2 and therefore to some degree dependent upon the USA for financial support remains a very sensitive, sore topic with Brits today. Discussing it will evince strong emotions from Britons ranging from complete denial of Britain's precarious financial situation in mid-1945 to a thorough denunciation of all of America's shortcomings and misdeeds beginning with its independence from Britian in 1783.
Brits have been reluctant to admit this was not something of their own doing. Major wars had steadily sapped the financial strength and vigor of Great Britain. Historians have argued this even started as far back as the Boer War which turned into a serious struggle which required the full mobilization the British Empire's might. This conflict itself was very costly to the British. Subsequent, no historian disputes the financial and economic distress inflicted upon the United Kingdom by WW1. The nation essentially had to liquidate its vast store of wealth in order to finance WW1 and the huge expansion of the British Army, Royal Navy, and the new Royal Flying Corps.
The costs of the Great War and the debilitating global Great Depression were huge blows economically and financially for the United Kingdom. Throughout the 1930s, unemployment was endemic in the British Isles, as it was elsewhere around the world in places like the U.S. and Europe. Germany is well-known in the history books for its 1932 statistic of six million unemployed, about one-third of the working population. The U.S. suffered 25% unemployment of its working population.
Historians are in agreement that the United Kingdom was insolvent at the end of World War Two. It had been funding its global conflict by 1945 through U.S. Lend Lease, printing money, raising taxes to high levels in some areas, and spending whatever liquid wealth that was left. The British government was careful not to liquidate its gold reserves, which would have collapsed its economy and made recovery much more difficult since a nation's economic strength during that time was still in many ways based on its gold and other bullion and specie holdings.
Yet if anything, this was no occasion for schadenfreude for Anglophobes. The British government and its People tightened their belts and lived with whatever adjustments were necessary to accommodate its smaller position in the post-war era. One of these was the drastic reduction of the British military until the United States government stepped in and urged the British government not to reduce any further. It was not all peaches. The British People grudgingly lived with continued wartime rationing until 1951.
Great Britain was, nonetheless, able to enter an era of prosperity from the mid-1950s through the very early 1970s until growing economic stagnation, exacerbated by rising worldwide petroleum prices, brought the prosperous times to an end.
I'd never studied this topic in any detail, awesome to get so much new knowledge. Thank you. That's so sad what happened to the UK, poor people =( The US thinks of the post WW2 times as the best we ever had (only the 80s and 90s are close). Like, nothing but suburbs and Dennis the Menace Leave it to Beaver Falloutland until those damn turbulent 60s - which still rocked, man...
I know the real history has a lot of bad stuff to. The Civil Rights Movement not having happened yet, plus McCarthyism, and another Red Scare; those alone spoil the nostalgic image of that time that Fallout based it's lore on. Even in the good lands that inspired all that, quite frequently mommy was an alcoholic. It's also where the "pill popping' culture and problem we have today began (where rich kids with perfect little lives often steal from the medicine cabinet to get high etc). So many WW2 vets and generation people were told to take pills for everything that they were seen as miracle drugs. And the whole "keeping up with the Jones" bit lead to shallow materialism and gross waste that have afflicted the US from within ever since the start of our time as the world's top super power. Like a boxing champion who starts to get out of shape as soon as he wins the belt, because of living the life of a champion and indulging, and it shows in every title defense bout
Still tho, that idealized and reaching for perfection kind of life from the mid 40s to the mid 60s is what I want for everyone in the world. My own little castle in my own nice little neighborhood (like the old man in Gran Torino, one of my very favorite movies) was all I ever wanted and needed to be happy; and I know the same can be said for most people - and I truly believe it's attainable for the entire species. Most Americans don't want to impose their way of life on the world and control it, so much as we want to share it with them when we see them suffering as they do. We weren't so nice to the Japanese and Germans out of pure self-interest, the people here really are some of the most charitable and forgiving on earth - especially when we're clearly the dominant ones. Check the stats on how much $ the US gives to charity, even allowing for tax write offs, it's a lot! General Patton was severely criticized for being too lenient on the defeated Germans and forgiving them too easily. Despite what so many people say, George wasn't a cruel or sadistic man, he meant every tear he cried for his own wounded soldiers. Had Patton not perished in a jeep accident, Germany's history probably would have been much brighter. One of the few good things I have to say about Old Mega-Death (General MacArthur) was how he handled the post WW2 reconstruction and occupation of Japan, I understand why many saw him like a new god lol. It just wasn't the right thing for his ego, and it negatively affected how he handled the Korean War I'm sure. Those 2 stories, more than anything, are why I agree with Total War games where the character in charge of a region makes a huge difference, based on their personality, skills, retinue, and other traits. Best damn history portrayal machine I've ever seen, those games are...
My point is, the Imperialism really is from the rulers and not The People of the US most of the time. And that when it is from The People you can blame Yellow Journalism (Spanish American War), the CIA's information control (Vietnam), fake news, propaganda, censorship (watch footage of the Gulf War, you can see the military learned not to let the press be free like they were in Vietnam! everything has Uncle Sam's approval mark in the corner lol), ignorance from the education system our government gives us, and other reasons for The People of America to have simple (but gross) misunderstandings of the situation
I've never met a Conservative or Republican who will support the Vietnam War after I've had a couple of hours to talk to them about it, (much less binge a bunch watch this show, the best on Vietnam ever made, and which I plan to assign when I'm a professor: ruclips.net/video/jxtqTsPZAYc/видео.html) but their Conservative ideology and personal morality stay the same. They're still a Conservative Republican, they just aren't a Hawk anymore - they're a Dove. It's just new info, so they can see through propaganda and what Uncle Sam kept hidden or just learn what they never knew existed, and come to the conclusion their hearts and minds naturally gravitate to - once they know the truth
I personally have consistently found that, in stark contrast, the Democrats never seem to acknowledge how much of a part they played in both starting the Vietnam War and the Jim Crow laws of the South. The "big bad evil racist South" is in reality it's not such a terrible place. I think Slingblade and this movie do it justice: ruclips.net/video/EHgLR6TYyOQ/видео.html The South hated the Republican Party of "that tyrant" Lincoln after the end of the Civil War and especially because of Reconstruction, the people who founded the KKK were all Democrats lol. Sherman (my favorite general of the war) is still a curse word down there the way "bloody" is in the UK. The South only became mostly red states fairly recently, by those standards. JKF (big Liberal Democrat hero) literally wouldn't help the Civil Rights Movement because his electoral victory was so narrow, and it had been the South that made the difference. If JFK helped black people etc, the South would turn against him enough to cost him power. So he did nothing. But that "evil racist cowboy LBJ from Texas" was actually a great hero and friend to the Civil Rights Movement. Despite JFK looking like the "perfect" person from the SJW/PC/Feminist perspective, and people (usually Liberals, Democrats, and Leftists in general) thinking LBJ is a racist bigot just because he has a certain accent and likes certain kinds of hats. That kind of thinking shows me who the real bigots are in the US, the ones saying whites, straights, and males have some kind of "privilege" that I've never felt - but watched everyone else benefit from Affirmative Action. So I haaate it when Democrats, Liberals, and Leftists in general try to portray the Right in the US as always the KKK, always the Confederates, always the Neo Nazis, always the ones destroying the environment like an episode of Captain Planet (that "evil gun guy" Theodore Roosevelt is the one who made our national parks!), always bad guys holding back progress on human rights, etc. Give me a few minutes with the average Democrat, and I can show that their party probably did more than the Right in the US to add to Uncle Sam's sins. The difference is, they never change their mind with the new facts and when their reasoning shown to be invalid. The Conservatives do. That's why I'm a Conservative, even if I am a Socialist lol
That, and Edmund Burke. Supporting the American Revolution, predicting the French one (plus how it would shake out and why), while being a member of British Parliament, and founding the Conservative ideology while saying great words like, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" yeah, Edmund Burke is an intellectual worth listening to and reading. I can't say the same for most of the other ideologues I read about in Political Science 101 and 102
I'd probably get a lot more out of this video if I understood basic British politics, but I don't. Thanks for filling in a great many gaps in my historical knowledge
Great work here, with sound historical information (to the best of my knowledge), as always
PS I love the old school TV showing the old footage, it's a great effect on this channel. This is what it reminds me of, my favorite video game character, ever. Because he's Alaskan!: ruclips.net/video/2PwKMcpvq08/видео.html
@EZ Gaming You misidentify the year of my birth - by quite a bit
Lincoln really did act tyrannically, though
@@PrezVeto You're referring to the suspension of Habeas Corpus (right to trial by jury)? Or the cronyism in how he appointed generals and ministers (getting countless soldiers killed and wounded through grossly incompetent leadership), in order to have the political support to stay in power?
@@justsomeguy3931 His unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus was certainly tyrannical, but I consider the waging of a war to keep unwilling states in the Union to be tyrannical in itself. Ending slavery was a post hoc justification he switched to in about 1863 when the bodies had piled up so high he feared he'd go down in history as a monster if he'd put the country through that just to prevent secession. There were better options, ones compatible with the Declaration of Independence, had the true goal been the ending of slavery.
Unfortunately it's extremely fraught to even talk about such things because people immediately suspect ulterior motives. Outside the South, at least, the whole war is truly dogma at this point.
The scene from the movie The Conspirator in which Mary Seratt (sp?) is executed despite a federal court order that she not be well illustrates how sick the mindset of the time was, and Lincoln helped create that. He could've prevented it, at the very least.
I hadn't heard about bad reasons for appointing generals.
@@PrezVeto In order to fully answer you, I need to paint the background scene picture that I'll be referencing to explain myself, so please bear with a bit of a rant or two that may seem unrelated at first lol
I've been trying to reply for about 2 hours, and I can't because it "contains an invalid argument." I'm used to being censored on the Internet, FB and YT get lots of complaints about me. I'm going to reply in small snippets to see if I can finally say what I have to say, because 1 big post is being blocked. I'll say when I'm done, to avoid confusion
I would love to see a video on post ww2 commonwealth nations like New Zealand, Australia and Canada. New sense of nationhood, ten pound poms increasing mix of non anglophone migrations. Could be cool to look at the similar and different experiences of "Britain's Children".
I wanna learn about insurgency in Quebec
This deserves more views. Top notch documentary.
Alot of European countries could only afford their "great" welfare states because they could minimize defense spending due to the fact that American power shielded them against any USSR aggression. Knowing that the superpower would protect Europe, American taxes and lives were spent so socialism could spread in Europe.
I always thought it sad that the one country that stayed the course against Germany fared so poorly after the war. The US turned into an economic dynamo and the USSR turned half the world communist. Yet the UK lost so much.
Well, it didn't help that one of the things the USA and USSR agreed on was the end of the British Empire; both cast it in the light of self-determination for the colonized, but both also saw advantage in a United Kingdom unable to challenge either superpower.
Britain at the start of the war controlled 25% of the Worlds land area.
24% of the population.
Oh and The Royal Navy ruled the world's Oceans.
Plz stop with the fake narrative of a little island standing up to Germans.
@@azankhan88 that narrative wasn't discussed here lol?
@@azankhan88 he literally never said that. The Empire was still built by those small islands though.
Do Luxembourg! Or at least Benelux countries after WW2.
James Bond theme music INTENSIFIES.
#007
I still think this channel is missing videos on some key organizations, the CIA, KGB, M16, FBI, Mossad. The Spy game was considered a very important part and tangled in with the diplomatic game. Don't need a full historical briefing but the formation on how these players came to be would be all that we need.
Love that you are a fellow Canadian. Just makes your channel more awesome lol
😁
I wonder, If the KGB operated the same way in Afghanistan as they DID in Finland, the invasion would have never happened??
We'll later know that. We're yet to start with American war in Vietnam
Since it was the KGB the overthrew the Afghan government that lead to the Soviet invasion. I say Yes. Also Afghanistan is a much different country than Finland.
Apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia!!! C'mon we're nearly there...
Juliusz Milewski the comments section on those videos is going to be a minefield
@@Aviationlord7742 .
History is History. Everybody has a problem with something. I'm just fascinated in Colonial African history and am interested in this channels take on South Africa and Rhodesia. But this channel has also described in great detail, concepts such as Fascism and Communism many times.
Juliusz Milewski I’m very interested in African colonial history as well. Unfortunately whenever Rhodesia is mentioned the comments section inevitably spills into *”RhOdEsIa WiLl RiSe AgAiN”*
@@Aviationlord7742 What about blocking the comment section?
What's the issue with the video?
I hope someone talks about the Tanganyika groundnut scheme
What was that about?
Likely touch on it when we get further into decolonization in Africa. Could have fit it into this video as a rationing relief scheme but felt more appropriate as an example of late-colonial failure
9:25 Well that didn’t age well
If only we hadnt been betrayed in the Suez. Maybe the world wouldn't laugh at us so much.
*If only the UK had stayed out of the first world War.
@s1 While it was in the interest of the US, I would say it was in a vastly larger interested of NATO countries for the US to spend massive sums of money propping up their defense in order to keep western Europe from being puppets states ruled from Moscow.
no business in suez anyway
Have you covered Portugal? I think you could do a whole series on the Estado Novo regime, the rebellions in Mozambique, Angola, and Portuguese Guinea (Guinea-Bassau), and the Carnation Revolution in 1975.
it is still amazing that Germany losing WW2, still managed to knockout two prewar hegemons - France and Britain, and one superpower, albeit with a time defuser for 45 years.
The Indian independence movement was already well under way, their declaration of independence having been in 1930. Moreover, the dominions of Australia and Canada were almost fully independent by WWII.
The main reason empires collapsed was that, as free trade became more normal, there was less of a difference between trading with an imperial subject/master, and trading with a foreign country, so empires weren't worth the investment.
I imagine that, without the war, India would still have achieved independence by 1960 anyway for that reason, so while WWII hastened the collapse of the Empire, it was not the main cause.
Interesting video - many thanks. Would be really interested to see your take on the individual countries in the UK during the Cold War period
Brilliant video
THX a lot - can you do a video about Operation Gladio / "Stay behind" please?
Didn’t know you were Canadian! Will there be videos dealing with Canada in the Cold War?
7:28
what system?
First past the post
@@david___7039 I see, thanks.
I'm glad I know a lot of these facts after watching The Crown.
As a Briton watching this channel, I must say that all the 'mean' things you might have said were well deserved and we brought it on ourselves.
Bit disappointed not hear any mention of the Windrush and the thousands of West Indian and African immigrants. Would’ve been interesting to have been talked about seeing that they played a big part in rebuilding post-war Britain and had such an indelible affect upon British society
We are going to go into the Windrush Generation more in a later episode, dealing with the massive societal upheavals that have taken place in the UK. This episode was only intended as a very brief overview and we didn't get into changing ethnic composition or gender expectations inside the country.
David ___ Ah right, sorry for misinterpreting the purpose of the video. Excited to see the future episode mentioned - sounds very interesting
I appreciate your mostly neutral coverage of the cold war. Really enjoy your videos and plan to watch most by the first week of next year. Keep up the great work.
Nice videos! Can you make episode on Baltic states?
Now I'm looking back, my life was destroyed even before I was born, due to my family being moved around the country at the end of WW2. No one knew where anybody else lived, and the consequence of that was I suffered a family illness that would have been picked up decades sooner had the whereabouts of the family been known.
I'm sorry that happened to you 😔
Atlee secretly developed the nuclear research.
I just noticed that there is a Fallout Vault Boy on the desk. 😂
Finally someone noticed haha
He appeared in many videos before in fact :)))
Okay I loved The Crown and that was funny
will there be an episode on Ireland?
can you do an episode on australia. please
I have to say the Australians did put in an impressive performance in both
World Wars.
@@AQuietNight bloody oath.
The British claimed to have detonated a hydrogen bomb.
I think it was a boosted fission bomb, not a two stage fission/fusion bomb.
The second one may have been a legitimate two stage.
Correct.
been updating myself on british history and I feel like a giddy ol wikipedia admin making the correction from is to was
Why is Churchill called the "Empire Baby?
Because objectivity is not to be found here.
And even Canada.... come on without Canada Britain wouldn’t have survived 3 months we fought the longest battle of the war... the battle of the Atlantic
True
Per Person thank you!
i've always wondered why england, london, had it so rough after WWII. considering the city of london, i would have figured the recovery would have been short and sweet.
London was in absolute ruin though, everything had to be rebuilt and the gov had no Money or materials to rebuild
If you allow me just some extra information on the UK's international trade relations, in the 30s, it scored the Roca-Runciman treaty with Argentina that was soooo beneficial to the UK (including the fact it guaranteed an adequate supply of beef) it is largely remembered in Argentinian history as the treaty that turned the country into a British protectorate and the beginning of the "infamous decade", if I recall well. Britain was also very smart in their trade relations with neighbouring Brazil: it agreed a sort of trade system that made Brazil's surpluses actually beneficial to Britain lol If I managed to grasp the technicalities, it virtually turned Brazil's trade surpluses into indirect subsidies to British firms: the Brazilian government would be granted an account at the Bank of England, all trade profit would be deposited in that account, but here's the catch: that money couldn't leave the country, so it had to be spent on British goods !
And now Charles has his crown 🙂. Thank you for the video.
4:05 Murica?
Can confirm theres nothing worse then hearing anyone from any country other then Britain trying say cuppa
Clap for the NHS
Niall Cook no
Anyone else starting to think they see the present day US heading in the same direction?
Post War British Government - "In terms of money, we have no money."
NHS? Us still waiting on that one :P
7:35 And I thought the Electoral College was bad.
Churchill said - an empty taxi arrived at the houses of Parliament and Clement Atlee got out .
"the elderly baby"
I cannot unsee that now 🤣🤣🤣
I'm guessing he doesn't like Churchill that much, at least for his politics.
I'm also going out on a limb and saying he doesn't like Margret Thatcher that much.
Cuppa in hand, let's do this David!
7:28. People in the United States and Britain complain about "first pass the post" but I think they don't get the alternative. It serves to give representation to areas, not people in general. In a proportional system, like here on Brazil, you get a lot of politicians elect with laughable number of votes, because some huge figure go a lot a votes to his party, and if you are from the countryside, like me, you are screwed! There are much more people in the big cities, so politicians want to please them, because it gives more votes. Who cares about your little town?
"First past the post" properly refers to the person who wins a plurality of the votes being the winner (like the winner of a footrace). The various forms of ranked choice voting are alternatives to it. What you're referring to is legislators having geographic constituencies, rather then being proportional representatives of a party. The "first past the post" term is often used in the UK to refer to the whole scheme they use, but that conflates different aspects of the electoral system, IMO.
I can't decide whether I think party-proportional representation or a blending of geographic and party-proportional representation is the best. The problem with geographic is that you get a lot of waste due to each legislator fighting for spending for their territory rather than something more optimal at the level of the whole polity. Federalism is a good tool for achieving balance between the two.
The side view shots are cringey
It's not strictly first past the post which allows the party with fewer votes to win but instead geographical constituencies where where support is heavily concentrated in a small area.
please link videos :(((
In July 1946,against the Atlantic Charter, the United Kingdom took possession of the Kingdom of Sarawak and North Borneo as two of its last colonial acquisition. Upon the decision to retreat from the East of Suez in the 1960s, instead of granting these colonies their independence, Westminster decided to collude and illegally transfer the sovereignty of these colonies to its biggest ally in the region, the Federation of Malaya, and renaming itself as Malaysia in 1963.
All these went against the UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV) (Declaration for Decolonisation) and UNGA Resolution 1541 (XV) (Self Determination).
Oh no don't be so hard on the British empire we are a very fragile people and having our nations previous war crimes in Africa pointed out really upsets us all.
You don't really need a biscuit or two for a ten minute video.
10 minutes. That's three mugs of tea at least. You need more than a few biccies for that.
Has anyone pointed out that the 1945 Election hich seated Attlee as Prime Minister was in July 1945, while the war with Japan was still in full swing - The expectation was that the US, UK, and others would be invading Japan in the Autumn.
Hey guys, as a geopolitically isolated American I need help clarifying my understanding of communism versus socialism versus labour parties versus social reform from the pre to post war era through the cold war, and into the modern. Help me see the lines in the sand here. It looks a lot closer to a cat fight in a mental institution than an ideological struggle.
Communism is basically the end all of the socialist and labour parties. No country was ever actually "Communist" as they never got past the more moderate socialism stage, USSR included. Communism is literally the establishment of a money-less, stateless world society where everyone is equal, quite clearly this has and never will happen. Socialism is what the USSR and most Eastern European nations followed, it is a very, very broad spectrum which really doesnt make much sense, but all in all to have the most basic form of socialism is to have major industries such as rail, food etc state owned and have social welfare systems, this type of "less extreme socialism" is what most European nations have implemented today, UK included.
The Socialism the Warsaw pact followed was more extreme, with state-controlled economy etc, but it wasnt communism, for the most part life was very similar in those countries to how we live today, just with less luxuries and more social welfare (free housing, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed income etc).
Labour parties are basically just Socialism parties, the UK labour party follows a more extreme version of Socialism than the Conservative party, while the Conservative party is trying to keep socialist policies at a minimum by trying to privatise the NHS and rail services as well as reduce pensions (basically lowering British standard of living massively).
@@samwell8
So, when the dialogue shifts to 'the UK was a staunch ally in the US struggle against communism,' in reality, it was the geopolitically insulated US oligarchy pretending that one foreign clownsuit was somehow different than another in order to invent and exploit tensions for financial gain? Sounds about right. I'm beginning to see how the geopolitics of US insulation/isolation are heavily exploited. The general nonchalant ignorance of people from the States, myself included, enables some really terrible political maneuvers and exploitation. People just don't question things like who really started an arms race, or which country provoked the other. I've never heard of the Soviet equivalent of surveillance camera ballons, the U-2, SR-71, or current RQ-4 drone like the one Iran shot down. Probably because they don't exist. The whole socialist/capitalist thing looks like a sham created to mask foreign exploitation and oppression. The US lack of post WW2 disarmament really was the last major crime against humanity.
Seeing the comparison to Canada
Looks like Charles became king after all
Will we have episodes dedicated to Maggie and Reagan? After all, they were main players to the end of Soviet Union and to the end of the Cold War.
Hahaha that's a myth. USSR collapsed because its economy was mismanaged, inflexible and did not make adequate consumer product. Also Afghanistan War was costing a fortune. Gorbachev's reforms weren't enough to save it. Reagan and Thatcher were waving their fists in the right place and right time.
@@DmitriPolkovnik As per your name, you must know what really happened there in the 90's! My apologies!!
@@RAM-wv1vr haha no worries, I assumed you were just a Reagan or Thatcher lover coming along to spout this.
If people are wondering why the Conservative Party wasn't big on privatisation at the time, remember that the party was, before Thatcher, largely made of One Nation Conservatives, who believed in a paternalistic government. After Thatcher, the pro-market, anti-society ideology of Thatcherism dominated the Conservative Party, while the Labour Party, responding in the '90s, removed its commitment to nationalisation of industry.
Well the Brits won anyway if you think about it... the UK made the US do their things for them...
I didn't know the UK had it's own version of the electoral college.
CreatorUser We don’t. People vote for an MP and that constituency returns 1 MP based on which party got the most votes.
God Save the King!!!
Also a little harsh on Churchill there at the beginning. Credit to him, he didn’t negotiate with Hitler
Still weirdly unfair on British colonial policy.
"Other people's land"? Considering in many places the population was split between being pro-independence and pro-British I don't see how that makes sense.
Many progressives are stuck in ethnic collectivism. It's ironic, but many they presume ethnic nationalism is the proper order of the world.
The Mau Mau rebellion and Malaysian war were British victories but they still gave them independance. The UK wasn't like Spain to where they got their ass beat by their own colonies.
And, after so much struggle, British was almost conquered by German in the 21th century.
The sun has almost set