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?

"Nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat"

Why would he become PM?

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.

Two Sources: compare as evidence.

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).

Some sources

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.