Churchill’s view of events 1929-1940 Flashcards
1
Q
Churchill’s Career & Life Before 1929
A
- aristocratic family, father Tory politician
- served in India & Sudan, became Tory MP 1900, joined Liberals 1904 (controversial)
- cabinet 1908: led social reforms until 1914
- influential in WW1 before failed Turkey attack (poorly planned on Constantinople in Gallipoli Landings) in 1915 = RESIGNATION (widely distrusted)
- strong support for Monarchy, British Empire & war against communism after 1917, opponent of trade unions (after General Strike 1926 & troops against striking miners in south Wales 1910 increased unpopularity with Labour)
- served in Lloyd George’s coalition the re-joined Tories & was chancellor of the exchequer 1924-29 (criticised for Gold Standard in 1925
2
Q
Britain Before 1929
A
- empire 240 million people; self-governing Australia, New Zealand, Canada & South Africa (limited for India), dominated Egypt & Suez Canal
- 750,000 men lost in WW1, rising middle class & lost faith in patriotism, women had equal vote after 1928
- older industries declining (textiles, iron, steel…), unemployment didn’t fall below 1 mill in the 1920s, trade limited due to high price of the pound after the return to Gold Standard
3
Q
Why was Churchill out of office for so long, 1929–1939?
A
- 1929 Labour victory THEN Wall Street Crash = coalition National Government 1931
- Churchill was politically isolated due to controversial views (India, King Edward VIII, Rearmament, Hitler)
- seen as old-fashioned (in his 60s, part of the “long-gone imperial age”, out of touch speaking style not on radio)
- 1930s necessitated united government; Churchill’s economic and militaristic decisions were seen as reckless in the past and him as a “renegade” = no room for him in coalition
4
Q
What were Churchill’s views about the Empire and India?
A
- Churchill served in India: thought that British rule alone prevented domination of the Hindu elites over the majority Indian Muslims & had ended barbaric practices, allowing economic and social progress without endemic corruption
- India as ‘jewel in the crown’, Britain’s greatness interconnected with Imperial status & racial superiority of Anglo-Saxons (destined to rule over and develop lesser peoples)
- INDIA: pressure from educated elite & mass populace under Gandhi in non-violent protest; April 1919 campaign against The Rowlatt Acts (increased police powers by allowing imprisonment without trail) at Amritsar, 400 killed, shots wounded 1200 - brutality gave Indian nationalism more support = mass civil disobedience campaign in 1920s = the Government of India Act 1935, expanding electorate to 35 mill
- Churchill lead only by prejudice since Australia, New Zealand, Canada & South Africa were loyal to Britain in WW1 despite their self-governance ??? …extreme public statements and support of racist negotiations
- Stanley Baldwin mocked his views & undermined his position through calm, moderate speeches…former supporter Leo Amery MP critiqued him, in aiming to make Sir Samuel Hoare, the Secretary for India, resign he won ridicule and lost trust BUT after 1935 he stopped his attacks publicly wished India well
5
Q
What was Churchill’s attitude to the Abdication Crisis?
A
- November 1936, PM Baldwin told the King that public opinion would not accept Wallis Simpson as Queen = IF they married, it would have meant the resignation of government and possible break-always of the dominions since the cabinet did not approve = December 1936, Edward VIII broadcast his speech of abdication
- Churchill’s minority position: ‘The King’s Friends’ informal group supporting monarch
- In one of the worst days of his career, Churchill misjudged the mood in the House of Commons and made a speech in favour of the King that was shouted down
- Seemed rooted in the past, in 1930s, the Monarchy was a source of stability and respect NOT like the rule of Edward VII
6
Q
What were Churchill’s views about German rearmament?
A
- Churchill did not object to the concept of a nationalist dictatorship (praise for Mussolini) BUT was alarmed by Hitler’s rearmament after 1933 because of his concern for the defence of British power and influence like INDIA
- He knew the dangers better than others: had been in govt that agreed Treaty of Versailles, as colonial secretary had seen effects of aerial bombing so feared the new German airforce, feared a repeat of 1914 where Germans new naval fleet had been a threat to European peace
- Criticism for his calls for British rearmament in response to Germany: he had been partly responsible for 1920s disarming & 10 year rule, financial crisis necessitated CUTS not rises in government expenditure (like 1934 means tests), many felt WW1 had started in such an arms race, seen as unnecessary (Hitler may be violent but Germany can’t be expected to have small army forever) and international disputes should be dealt with by League of Nations
- Churchill seemed too much part of pre-1914 mentality of opposition to Germany - exaggerate figures and alarmist terms reduced credibility - UNTIL 1938 when Hitler got worse and govt did rearm extensively
7
Q
What was Churchill’s view on appeasement (of Germany)?
A
- Britain wanted to avoid the possibility of war at all costs & Baldwin admitted that rearmament would have meant lost general election as electoral drove the Conservative govt’s actions. This is what drive: Locarno Pact 1925, ignored 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria & 1935 reintroduction of conscription in Germany as well as 1936 remilitarisation of Rhineland (also see Mussolini + Ethiopia)
- Churchill (again in a minority) horrified by Anglo-German Naval Treaty 1935 (German ships could be 35% of Britain’s)
- Chamberlain had little faith in LoN or Kellogg-Briand Pact but wanted to negotiate proactively to prevent war and build up defences in case appeasement failed. Knew Britain didn’t have strength to fight Italy, Germany & Japan. Labour wanted collective security.
8
Q
German Expansion
A
- Hitler’s well-thought-out indifference to regaining German colonies in Africa/Pacific lost in WW1 made rearmament argument less credible
- Annexation of Austria after Chamberlain became PM in 1937 caused protest in France but little sense of responsibility from British
- Chamberlain’s Government pressure Czechs to make concessions to Germany after border unrest as France alliance could trigger war - PM flew to meet with Hitler and negotiate; SEEMING morally dubious as on behalf of & separate from Czechoslovakia - outmanoeuvred as Hitler IGNORED anyway, sensing Britain wouldn’t react
- MUNICH September 1938: little resistance to Hitler’s demands (4 leaders: Mussolini who was his ally through Pact of Steel, French wanted to avoid Czech involvement,Chamberlain signed pact to ensure future consultation - seen as victory “peace for our time”)
- ARGUABLY justified in buying time - Britain not prepared - BUT Hitler encouraged by bloodless victory & no reaction by League of Nations
- occupation of Bohemia & Moravia & dismemberment of Czech state March 1939 signalled no chance for negotiation LEADING to ‘gesture politics’ that Chamberlain had tried to avoid: The Polish Guarantee 31 March 1939
9
Q
Churchill’s Reaction to Munich
A
By now, Churchill had stopped criticisms of a govt trying its best to build bridges. His prestige was rising as man who stood firm against Hitler, even though his alternative policies were not especially realistic. He:
- was against not getting involved (as major European power, signatory to treaties ending WW1 BUT arguably Britain wasn’t committed - thus fear was about French & USSR involvement) & against persuading Czechs to make concessions (MORAL COWARDICE, indicated Britain though LoN irrelevant, ruled out later possible Grand Alliance & collective security, assumed Hitler could negotiate meaningfully)
- thought there should have been a forceful response which opposed Germany, made in conjunction with an alliance of other nations
- UNREALISTIC idea of war 1938 because; Britain’s lack of troops (tied down in Empire / Palestine), risk of exploitation by Japan/Italy of war to take Egypt/Suez Canal/India/etc (Churchill had little understanding of Britain’s vulnerability in Far East), Soviet internal changes 1930s meant little chance of alliance, smaller eastern European nations feared USSR more than Germany & France wanted to avoid losses of WW1 again - lack of allies?, USE isolationism & Neutrality Acts, LoN which Churchill had supported showed little efficiency
- in many ways, Churchill could propose no real alternative to appeasement,
10
Q
Why did Churchill become Prime Minister in 1940?
A
- public opinion swung after Munich - war less unrealistic -and when German forced invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, Chamberlain asked Churchill to become a member of an inner war cabinet, 11am 3 September ultimatum expired & Britain declared war, thus Churchill ceased to be an outsider (first lord of the admiralty - same as 1914)
- Churchill had pressed for action in Norway, 1940, proposing laying mines in the Norwegian waters to prevent possible invasion (too late) - first real initiative - British Army landings did not meet with success - forced to withdraw in early May, poorly managed campaign & purpose was questionable, Hitler succeeded in taking Denmark and Norway anyway
- debates began over ineffectual ministers and planning - Churchill as only one with war experience, Sir Roger Keyes, Leo Amery, etc attacked Chamberlain 7/8 May 1940 - led to vote about Norway conduct 281 to 200 for govt compared to usual 200-string majority - exposed hostility to Chamberlain
- most wanted Lord Halifax (but wouldn’t renounced Lord peer title), Chamberlain ill so Winston only option! Not big support, but backing from Labour and leader Clement Attlee guaranteed promotion:
- not popular with Labour but seen as leader who would bring new determination to the war; DECISIVE ACTION NEEDED
- 10 May; Germany invaded Holland and Belgium, war cabinet (including influential Kingsley Wood) not in favour of Chamberlain staying and thus the King, against his judgement, appointed Churchill PM - unexpected, without solid support of his party
