📘BRITAIN HISTORY CHAPTER 2 Flashcards
(64 cards)
Churchill becoming Prime Minister (date?, how?)
10th May 1940
He was appointed to become PM by King George VI (the 6th) following the resignation of Neville Chamberlain in the aftermath of the Norway debate.
Churchill’s stance towards the war in 1940
Churchill felt that he was destined to lead Britain.
- he had first hand experience of war
- he had confidence in the ability of Britain and its considerable empire to wage war successfully.
he was determined to continue the war even tho the Brits faced a greater crisis than at any time since the invasion fears in the Napoleonic period.
Churchill made mighty speeches to rally them behind the war. It has been said he made the English language a weapon of war, so powerful were the words he used. though there is a debate on how much influence these speeches had on peoples opinions.
Churchill rejected a compromise peace and hoped that the USA would eventually join in.
Key elements in Churchill’s leadership style that marked him out from his twentieth century predecessors
- His belief in establishing strong personal relations with his allies. His personal diplomacy was of considerable importance and played an important part e.g. in his relations with both Stalin and Roosevelt. He also relied on strong personal friendships with informal advisers and friends.
- His mastery of both written and spoken expression, seen at its finest in 1940 and in many speeches in the House of Commons, which he never neglected throughout the war.
- A personal flamboyance. No other British prime minister appeared in such an array of uniforms and costume - from the famous one-piece ‘siren suit’ to the various naval and military uniforms he wore to emphasise that he was a war leader.
- He was the most travelled of all prime ministers before him. His wartime journeys undertaken at considerable hazard and lack of comfort for a man of his age were remarkable and showed his astonishing energy.
- His daring and ruthlessness marked him out from his predecessors. This included his determination to fight on in 1940; his decision to destroy the French feet even at the cost of thousands of lives of former allies in 1940; his support of civilian bombing of Germany; his plans to destroy the German invaders by poison gas; his impatience with any signs of delay or weakness in pursuing campaigns; and his support for covert operations by spies and saboteurs in occupied Europe, regardless of the cost to either the agents or the civilian populations.
What was special about Churchill’s leadership style during the war?
‘The PM expects all his majesty’s servants in high places to set an example of steadiness and resolution.’ - This memo of July 1940 sums up the very high levels of dedication and energy demanded by Churchill.
He was a hard taskmaster because of his determination to supervise details. He was fascinated by what he saw as imaginative ideas, particularly the ideas of one of his special advisers and close associates, Fredrick ‘the prof’ Lindemann, even when scientific experts showed that many of the ideas, such as germ warfare, were impractical.
Constantly restless and energetic, Churchill worked irregular hours and exhausted his staff.
He revolutionised methods, and often insisted on very precise and concise paperwork.
He insisted that queries and ideas were presented only on one sheet of paper, and would fire off demands in a mass of written instructions.
He was happy to dictate from his bed and even, to the dismay of new secretaries (males), from his bath.
Officials who could not keep up or who displeased him were dismissed, but there are many instances of Churchill being able to take advice and respecting those who stood up to him.
Who was Edward Wood/Lord Halifax?
Halifax had been close to Chamberlain long before becoming foreign secretary, and, when Chamberlain resigned in May 1940, he hoped Halifax would succeed him as prime minister.
In fact, the issue was decided otherwise at a meeting between Chamberlain, Halifax, and Winston Churchill. Halifax remained foreign secretary for the first seven months of Churchill’s ministry, but in December 1940 he was named British ambassador to the United States.
Lord Halifax declined the position of Prime Minister in May 1940, when Neville Chamberlain resigned, as he felt that Winston Churchill would be a more suitable war leader. Halifax’s membership in the House of Lords was given as the official reason for his decision.
In that post he gave great service to the Allied cause during World War II, in recognition of which he was created earl of Halifax in 1944.
HALIFAX’S POSITION
Halifax’s position was not cowardly nor defeatist, but simply a way of making a rational decision.
As Italy was still neutral, it was a possibility that Italy could be asked to find out what Hitler would offer and then Britain could make a decision as to whether it was indeed necessary for national survival to continue fighting.
On 28 May the Cabinet discussed a French proposal to approach Mussolini to find out what peace terms Hitler might accept. As foreign secretary, Halifax needed to know what Britain’s options were, but it would have been dangerous to suggest by approaching Italy that Britain was considering a negotiated peace, as this would have shown Hitler that Britain was weakening in her resolve to carry on the war.
Halifax’s proposals both for an approach to Mussolini and an appeal to the USA were rejected
Halifax had argued that it might be better to consider terms before France was defeated and before German bombing destroyed Britain’s aircraft factories. The Australian High Commissioner pleaded for an appeal to Roosevelt for a peace conference but his memorandum was firmly rejected by Churchill with the word ‘rot’.
The situation had improved by 4 June with the evacuation of 224,318 British troops and 111,172 of their allies from Dunkirk.
The cabinet had resisted French demands for more aircraft and an air defence of Britain was possible. Belgium had surrendered and relations with France were very poor.
situation with France regarding their surrendering
Events moved quickly and even an offer of union, which would have seen France and Britain becoming one country and pooling their forces, could not prevent the French surrender in 1940 (June 22). Once again, there was talk of peace terms but by now these were not considered a serious possibility.
The remarkable achievement of Churchill was to maintain a war with no allies against what was perceived to be one of the greatest military powers the world had ever seen.
13th May 1940 significance (and the 14th)
By 13th May, the situation was dangerous but the British army was intact; the French had large forces, Italy had not joined Germany; the British were fighting on only one front and Churchill had put together a Cabinet with some of his own supporters.
Churchill was highly determined to wage war energetically, but his past record was not especially encouraging. The Norway campaign had not been a success; he did not have a good record in WW1; there is little enthusiasm from US president Roosevelt for his appointment; and both the House of Commons and the government contained many who liked and admired Chamberlain
The war moved quickly and on May 14 Germany broke the French defences. The prospect of a rapid defeat of France was suddenly a reality. If France were defeated, Britain’s army would be isolated. Hitler had already defeated Poland and his treaty of friendship with Russia meant that all of his forces could be directed against Britain.
Challenges that Churchill was facing by 28 May 1940
- The British army had been cut off from the French forces and had fallen back on Dunkirk, hoping to be evacuated. However, the chances of rescuing 300,000 troops seemed low given German air superiority and the possibility of a German assault.
- There was the danger of Italian entry into the war, which would threaten Egypt and the Suez Canal. This would cut off Britain’s quickest sea route to India, and its colonies in the far East and make them more difficult to defend against Japan.
- Japan was a possible threat to British possessions in South Asia.
- Gold reserves were running out and it was not clear whether Britain could afford to carry on fighting.
- Germany had bombed Poland and the Low countries. There was considerable fear of large-scale bombing of Britain and very heavy casualties were expected.
- Lord Halifax, who had been a major supporter of appeasement, was still in the cabinet as foreign secretary, and was making discreet approaches to discover what German terms for peace with Britain might be.
3 July 1940 significance
- On 3 July 1940 a massive gesture of defiance was made by the attack on the French fleet to prevent it falling into German hands.
- The RAF had been bombing Germany since its invasion of the Low Countries and continued to do so, despite inevitable German reprisals.
- A very bold decision was taken to send British armoured forces to Egypt even when there was a real threat of German invasion.
- The British achieved rapid victories against Italy, Hitler’s ally, which had colonies in North Africa adjacent to Egypt.
Hitler and Göring (air force related)
Hitler and Göring, the head of the German air force, thought that bombing cities was more important than destroying the RAF.
- They believed that civilian populations would not withstand bombing, that morale would crack and that this would make a continuation of the British war effort impossible.
- In September Germany diverted its attention from the RAF airfields to the bombing of British cities, which had the unintended effect of enabling the RAF to recover.
Sir Hugh Dowding (air force related)
- The strategies of Sir Hugh Dowding in mobilising small groups of fighters and preserving the strength of the RAF by not pursuing German bombers over the Channel with the suggested ‘big wing’ or massed groups of aircraft of his rival strategists proved effective. But Dowding had enemies who thought that a larger-scale strategy would have worked better and Churchill, despite Dowding’s success, did not back him.
- Dowding’s stern/gloomy/dour personality did not help. He was removed from command in November 1940 with Churchill’s blessing. This was a poor reward for his services.
By end of 1940 Britain’s situation
- By the end of 1940 Britain had enjoyed some victories in North Africa and had defeated the German air offensive.
- Churchill had established his position over his rivals and his oratory had become a weapon of war. His determination had prevented any negotiations with Germany and the nation had steeled itself for a long struggle.
- Given the situation - Britain standing alone against Germany, Italy and possibly Japan with no allies, with no commitment to help from the USA and with a population who had suffered the terrible losses of the First World War - this was a considerable achievement.
What characterised Churchill’s relations with his generals?
Though Churchill wanted to influence the way the war was fought, his military chiefs were all too aware that Churchill’s own military career had not been very distinguished. As a young man he had seen action in the Sudan, The north west frontier of India, Cuba as an observer, and South Africa as a war correspondent. He had little experience of command, planning or overall strategy and no naval experience.
This did not stop him giving direct orders to the Navy when he was first lord of the Admiralty. , a political post, or offering opinionated strategic views when the First World War broke out in 1914.
The attempt to avoid large scale war in France against the main enemy Germany by invading Germany’s ally Turkey was a disaster. The Gallipolli campaign of 1915, which involved the navy landing armed forces, mainly from Australia and New Zealand, to take the Turkish Capital Constantinople, resulted in heavy losses and total failure to get beyond the beaches. Only the evacuation by the navy was a success.
Churchill was forced to resign and went to the western front as a colonel. He saw little action, left his regiment to pursue political intrigues in London and quickly went back into government.
When he was once more in charge of the navy in 1939-40 he again supported a large-scale and unsuccessful military campaign in Norway.
What dominated Churchill’s view of the generals?
First, the experience of the First World War and the heavy losses in the fighting in France, which he attributed to politicians letting generals like Haig pursue their costly plans without proper supervision.
Second, he had been frustrated by the caution of the leading military commanders during the appeasement of the 1930s in advising against decisive action because of their fears of under-preparedness and having to deal with a possible war on three fronts - against Germany, Italy and Japan.
What dominated the generals views of Churchill?
What influenced the generals’ view was Churchill’s unpredictability, lack of what they viewed as realism and his amateur strategy. They were all too aware of his previous failures.
His first months as prime minister saw him making criticisms of military leaders and issuing unrealistic orders from London. When the German forces broke through the French lines at Sedan and their fast-moving attack proved too much for the French, the British commander, Lord Gort, was forced to ignore Churchill’s orders in order to preserve the British forces - a key decision that allowed Britain to continue the war.
Churchill’s insistence that the port of Calais be defended to the last was pointless in military terms and lost valuable men. Churchill’s desire to send another British force even when France was on the brink of defeat was thwarted only by firm and tireless argument by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir John Dill. Churchill got rid of Dill as soon as possible.
BROOKE 1941-45
military adviser to Churchill, wanted to be cautious and preserve the lives of soldiers.
relationship with Churchill was tempestuous
Throughout the war Churchill constantly interfered with operational matters, sacked able and thoughtful commanders and preferred military leaders with often doubtful abilities but with the right attitude. The main burden of Churchill’s interference fell on the head of the army, Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke
Brooke was a highly competent organiser and a thorough professional. However, in temperament he was very different from Churchill. He was conscious of the need to deploy British forces carefully and avoid heavy casualties. He was often annoyed by Churchill thinking aloud’ and coming up with all sorts of different military ideas.His wartime diaries, often written up after long and exhausting meetings, give a sense of frustration with political interference. They are supported by many other recollections by senior officers.
Personal dealings with Churchill, a highly opinionated and charismatic leader, tended to be tricky but when it came to major decisions there were fewer disagreements between Brooke and Churchill.
Churchills bold decision of 1940 - Brooke continued
Churchill took a bold decision in 1940. It was not clear whether, after the fall of France, Hitler would invade Britain. But Churchill decided to send a substantial amount of Britain’s military equipment to the Middle East to deal with any potential Italian threat to Egypt, the Suez Canal and the route to India. The need to maintain Britain’s empire was not challenged by the military leaders as it was seen as the role of the navy and the RAF to defend the homeland. Brooke and other generals supported Churchill’s decision to send troops and equipment to North Africa. They, too, had little enthusiasm for a renewal of fighting in northern Europe.
WAVELL
COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE MIDDLE EAST
sept 1939 - june 1941
- Scored the first British land victory of the war in North Africa by freeing Egypt from foreign troops and capturing 40,000 Italian prisoners of war
- The rapid British victories in North Africa in 1940 justified the decision to concentrate on fighting in North Africa, but Churchill gave little credit to the commander, Sir Archibald Wavell, whom he personally disliked.
- War cabinet in 1940 ordered 55,000 of Wavell’s troops in North Africa to be sent to defend Greece from the Italians - when the attacks failed, Wavell got the blame. (as he often unfairly received blame.)
- Churchill took forces away from him when Italy invaded Greece in 1940 and the cabinet made a decision to send troops to defend it and establish a new Balkan front. Wavell was not given time to prepare properly without him in command in Greece. His troops were taken off to a deeply flawed campaign. Without proper planning and resources, this was another expedition that failed when German forces invaded.
- The British had to be evacuated to Crete and then were defeated there by a German attack and forced out again. The early successes in North Africa were thrown away, and Wavell did not have the resources to meet German forces under Rommel who were sent to Africa. He took the blame and was demoted.
21 June 1941 Churchill sacked Wavell
AUCHINLECK & MONTGOMERY
AUCHINLECK : commander in chief of the middle east July 1941-aug 1942 (Wavell’s successor)
MONTGOMERY : commander in chief of middle east command, aug 1942-44
- Wavell’s successor, Sir Claude Auchinleck, was not prepared for a premature attack on the German forces and, to Churchill’s annoyance, he insisted on delaying until he was well prepared. Despite an effective defence against German attacks and making thorough preparations for a counter attack, he too was sacked for his delays and not being sufficiently dating and aggressive.
- His replacement, Bernard Montgomery, won over Churchill by his self-confidence but insisted on very thorough preparations involving accumulating more than twice the men that Rommel had before attacking at El Alamein in October 1942.
- Much of the credit for the first major British victory in the war should have gone to Auchinleck because of the efficient preparations he had made, even though he did not actually lead the attack. However, Churchill disliked him and favoured ‘Monty’. Montgomery was very slow in following up his victory after El Alamein, which allowed Germany to retreat to Tunisia. But Churchill continued to favour him.
War In Italy 1943-45
In 1943 considerable resources were devoted to an invasion of Sicily by British and US forces, which failed to prevent the Germans retreating to the mainland. With North Africa, Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus and Sicily in Allied hands, the Mediterranean was secure.
By 1943, also, Italy had been weakened by defeats and was no longer a serious threat. The German forces were established in Italy but the British had naval supremacy and considerable air power.
Sixteen Allied divisions were occupied in heavy fighting in Italy. As Germany had roughly the same number of forces, there was no question of a smaller Allied force holding down large numbers of German troops which could have been used against Russia or the Allied invasion of France. It was rather the Allies who were tied down. Finally, if Italy had fallen, it is difficult to see how this would have led to the defeat of Germany. This required a decisive defeat of the German forces in France, rather than in Italy, and an invasion of Germany itself.
It was not until June 1944 that Britain and the US launched the long-awaited D-Day invasion of occupied France. Thus the bulk of the war in Europe had been centred on the Mediterranean. Why was there such a delay?
Such high casualties were expected that an invasion of France was put off as long as possible. The more Russia was weakening Germany and the more the Allied bombing campaign was hitting German cities, the fewer losses there might be from invading northern Europe.
The long struggle in Italy was not anticipated and the Allies hoped that bold landings might speed the process, such as the failed landings at Anzio, south of Rome, in 1944.
Britain’s electoral system
Britain’s electoral system meant that the popular vote was not as great as the number of seats won by Labour. However, the result was still a resounding victory for change. It reflected a widespread desire to ensure that costly and grinding years of war would result in a better Britain.
Churchill and Britain in Italy
- British policy was to maintain British dominance over the Mediterranean to preserve the links with Empire and to extend British interests in south east Europe. This was vividly shown by the so-called ‘percentages agreement’ that Churchill made with Stalin in 1944, virtually dividing eastern Europe into Russian and British spheres of influence.
- The invasion of Sicily and Italy seemed the logical next steps from the long pursuit of German forces after the Battle of El Alamein in 1942.
The Suez Canal
Was a waterway/ship canal from the Mediterranean/ North-eastern Egypt to the Red Sea.
Britain acquired a major shareholding interest in the canal in 1876 and from the 1880s dominated Egypt.
Suez Crisis of 1956,
in which the Egyptian Government seized control of the Suez Canal from the British and French owned company that managed it
