churchill as 1940 prime minister
TRANSCRIPT
Churchill: 1940 PM
Why did he become
PM?
What was his
leadership
style?
How justified is the view
that he was a great
wartime leader?
Norway
Churchill wanted to attack Norway, for supplies. Did so-
despite possibility of bringing Germany in to occupy
Norway.
Many think forces should have been concentrated in
France due to difficulties of Norway campaign.
Raided the Altmark (German supply ship with 300 Allied
prisoners). Worked. Popular in Britain, but did hasten the
German's actions in Norway.
This was when the Germans took Norway after some
blunders by the Allies (planning, Germans knew what
they were up to).
Norway's impact on Churchill
Chamberlain took the blame- despite it being Churchill who
initiated the campaign.
Churchill blamed the Norwegians. And him not having
enough of a free hand.
Historians (not contemporaries) criticise him for losing the
moral high ground. And for not planning for the Germans
knowledge of the plans. And diverting resources. And for
giving conflicting orders and being indecisive.
British people
liked the
Altmark affair.
Royal Navy had done well, sinking ten
destroyers and a famous battleship. Churchill
associated with this.
Other factors in Churchill becoming
PM
Churchill's oratory
Chamberlain's resignation.
Halifax (viable alternative) reluctance to stand.
Churchill made it clear that he was standing with the
support of Chamberlain and Halifax (important-
because it was the King who was reluctant to
appoint him).
Churchill's leadership
style
Speeches
Popularity as a symbol of defiance.
Ability to rally the nation.
Churchill's actions?
Churchill's government was running out of time in
1940 (after French surrender)- he had to consider
negotiating with the Germans (not something the
public were told!)
But, Churchill did not accept Halifax's suggestion
that Britain should find out what Hitler's terms
would be because he assumed they would be
overlordship of Central Europe.
What do we have to support this?
Genuine fear of invasion from the Germans in Britain- but
the navy would have destroyed any German landings.
Churchill in a position to know this (although this is more a
hindsight position).
Battle of Britain boosted morale.
Decision to send a force to North Africa to protect Egypt
was brave when the army had barely recovered from being
evacuated from France.
Is this true?
Churchill's friend A.l. Rows and the family biographer wrote in his book
the Later Churchills published in 1958
"By the end of the year 1940 a remarkable transformation had come over
the outlook for us. The Battle of Britain had defeated all serious threat of
invasion. Suez was firmly held and one of the Axis parties (Italy) had
been started on the road to defeat... Transcendent as were the services
yet to come from Churchill, 1940 must rank as his finest hour, along with
the nation's, for in that year, his contribution made the difference
between defeat and survival."
Was Churchill right to fight this war?
Very controversial viewpoint. Certainly morally repugnant. Some consider it
to be an insult to those who fought in WW2.
National existence not threatened by Hitler's conquest of Eastern Europe.
Mein Kampf had little that was hostile to Britain in it. Hostile to Russia-
which Britain had poor relations with as early as 1917.
We weakened ourselves more in concessions to USA and the USSR, did
not save Poland and did not preserve the British Empire but lost it.
Britain might have been more able to preserve its empire against Japanese
assaults on South East Asia.
ButNo one could have
predicted the collapse
of the French.
Maintenance of balance
of power in Europe was
a long standing British
policy
If the Germans had beaten Russia
then Britain's position would have
been very vulnerable.
Any agreement with
Hitler could not be
relied upon- also there
would be involvement
in Nazi racist policies.