To What Extent Was Winston Churchill a Successful Wartime Leader 1940-1945 - Essay Example

 To what extent was Winston Churchill a successful wartime leader 1940-1945? Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill- mostly popularly known is history as just Winston Churchill was born in the Spencer family on thirtieth November 1874. In history, his early childhood years have been recorded as having non-conformist views against the society and lead his life trying to be independent. Many times he had faced punishments from his teachers for falling behind his coursework and activities in school. His family was had a lot of influence in England at that time and that lead him to attend good schools and universities. Churchill, after completion of his education enlisted for war and saw combat at many different posts in World war one (Keegan, 2002). After seeing combat Winston Churchill came to the city life and took up politics. His political career has been transcended in history as both rebellious and inconsistent till the time of world war two. In 1900, Churchill got a position ion the parliament form the conservative party side from Oldham. His support for the conservative party lasted for about four years and in 1904 Churchill joined the liberal party- which he believed was coherent to his views on economic policies and international relations. He served as member of parliament, representing the liberal party for another twelve years (Keegan, 2002). During this time he was appointed on many leading positions such as the President of board of trade and Home secretary. On both these positions Churchill administered his control in answering issues that made him known as a man who would go to any edge to get things done. However, later on till 1922, Churchill faced quite a few set backs in performing and delivering for the parliament and eventually lost his position in the parliament- which lead him to even leave the liberal party and eventually came back to the parliament as a constitutional anti-socialist (Keegan, 2002). Winston Churchill was not part of the government till 1939 and had risen his voice in public many a times on the policy of England towards India. Another issue that he addressed publicly was his concern on Hitler becoming dominating in Europe and expanding his armies throughout the region. He was not too happy with the normative stance taken by the then head of state of England, Neville Chamberlain and urged people and the government, as the war broke out, to be more proactive in standing against Hitler and called out for a much needed early conscription to support the very cause (Jenkins, 2002). This campaign put Churchill back in to the politics of England and in 1939, as the war broke out, Chamerlain appointed Churchill as the first Lord of the Admiralty. However as the war progressed into the 1940s, England failed to resist Hitler and his forces in Norway and it seemed that the government was failing to protect the state and the region and Chamberlain and his administration became more and more weak in the eyes of people- receiving increasing criticism day by day. In early 1940s, Chamberlain was replaced by Winstion Churchill as prime minister and his new policies throughout the war have been praised in history- remembering as a good administrator and having an eye for opportunities to call for answers to England’s problems during the war (Jenkins, 2002). During world war two, Churchill emerged as a highly impressive orators in history. As Hitler was being very successful in leading entire Germany to war- and gaining support of not just his generals but civilians too, Churchill had to perform as an equal adversary for his war cause to take England with its heart to war and to uphold the moral of the troops during battle- which at times were being iluusive in winning and rendered heavy casualities and turned out to be an economic burden. Churchill’s speeches at the time of world war two are the very example of how he used his literary background to bolster moral at home. Out of his many famous speeches, Churchill said on the fourth of June, 1940: "Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be [...] we shall never surrender" (qtd. in Jenkins 611). Speeches as above, which first propagated the need to not just win the war but to protect the values of free people in England and across Europe were aired for the people of countries that had either already been hit and taken over by Hitler or the German armies were already taking their positions on the borders of those countries- including England. Churchill’s inspiring words like the ones quoted above and many others did help in lifting the spirits of many nations in Europe and helped pave a supporting path to England’s troops in their strategic placements for battle in the region (Jenkins, 2002). Churchill’s words were heard clearly and predominantly in England and they brought out the best in the civilians. The general public inspired and concerned by the acts of heroic forces of England in war responded to the internal challenges with courage, compliance and determination. The society reshaped itself in days to break down the social divisions they had of class and culture- uniting themselves as just one nation with a common cause to survive and help England and the rest of Europe to live freely (Jenkins, 2002). The state of mind of the people in Europe was to be changed if England had to go to war. Churchill’s administration dealt with raising the morale of civilians in a successful way as, especially in England, civilians did reach a general unified state of mind. This might have been as important as fighting with a well trained army. The scare of Hitler had painted a picture in the minds of people that was not rosy at all. War efforts and care had promoted panic, shaken peace, profiteering and social conflict. Churchill’s propaganda on the media through messages and speeches promoted a sense of solidarity and commitment to the war effort (Jenkins, 2002). To achieve social harmony in the country, many mediums were used to help people focus on lives and maintain social upkeep. Air-raid precautions were methodologically fed to the people and the system of rationing was introduced. The government took immediate steps to improve on the welfare program and the working conditions of the general public to foster a comfortable living to reduce stress. Several leisure initiatives were taken up which extended to regular and extensive availability of alcohol, tobacco and cosmetics. Al these actions were to divert the attention of the civilians in England form the pressure and scare of war and to lead them back to their normal lives where they could work in collaboration with the army to win the war (Churchill, 1986). Moreover, the government would not highlight anti aircraft positions in England nor the Bombardment of other European countries by Hitler and instead it quickly opened up many closed cinemas to feature movies and shows that might have helped in putting off war stress form the public. The extensiveness of these steps were so much that Churchill at many times stepped in to ensure that the markets in England had fresh supply of flowers to be used as they were previously in pre-war conditions. Along with these minuet details on social life, Churchill also ensured that the people who made sacrifices were rewarded dearly by the nation and the poor were given provisions, many a times more than pre-war conditions, to support a positive atmosphere which was supportive to the needs of war (Churchill, 1986). Churchill, during the time of war, also ensured that the rich of England could not use their influence and money to seek out a refuge on the cost of the poor. Hoarding and stocking of provisions of needs and luxuries were controlled by rationing so that supplies of life would be available for everyone and at the normal price as pre war-time. The Churchill administration also formulised many print materials distributed among people with plans of how the damaged areas of England would be reconstructed and made better in terms of relocation of people and building better cities and towns than before. All of these steps, with the help of the media helped the government influence people to rise as one against Germany and support the war with not just their voices but by their social commitment to several government military projects (Lamb, 1993). Churchill’s vision to trust his own people played a key role in developing these social control strategy which worked in many ways to help England win the war. Furthermore, it taught people that the fabric of civilization can be kept intact even in the worst cases. It helped develop the conscious of the people and re-structured the entire society to form on grand collation against a mutual enemy- Hitler. Churchill’s approach towards his people that he governed was very than his predecessor Chamberlain and even to Orwell. A sudden trust by the government was taken well as during the 1930s they had expected nothing but what they got from the government. A sense of role and responsibility gave rise to a better social fabric in England during the 1940 and 1945 (Lamb, 1993). Playing an important role as the leader of his countrymen and taking the spirit of England into battle, Churchill knew that strategic alliances would play key roles in building Europe back and free from the atrocities of Hitler. One of the few important alliances that Churchill was able to forge during the war was with America. Although Roosevelt and Churchill had many things in common in their learning, knowledge and personalities but the political relationship between the two did come around in proper context (Lamb, 1993). The external circumstances that made Churchill and Roosevelt of both the regions in the second world war was one of the main reasons that lead to the strong bond between the two nations during the era. Since the early days of the war with Germany, Britain’s need for help form the United States of America was a dire need- whether it be direct or indirect. Although many of Churchill’s fellow leaders in Britain did not see the necessity in establishing a collation with America, Churchill could not see a war being won without the support of the Americans (Best, 2002). Furthermore, the structure of the European region was also of importance to America and a total control of the Germans would have served as against the vested interest of the American regime and power role for control. However, the concern of Britain alone was much greater than America as for the Americans Germany was not going to be the fall of the American republic as Britain could have had been. Much before the Japanese attack on the American territory of Pearl harbour, Roosevelt was only inclined to support the Britain’s offensive against Germany and its allies in a way that was politically viable- that is to not to be directly involved in the war and take an aggressive stand (Best, 2002). However, Roosevelt was facing pressure from the American media which had been influenced by Churchill to propagate that America was under threat and fall of Britain may adversely affect the global power structure and leave the United States isolated form the rest of the world. This public opinion and the mind sets of the political hierarchy in America meant that the people were in no way convinced that the problems of the British did not any way affect the land of America and the social structure that could evolve afterwards (Best, 2002). However, amongst the propaganda, Roosevelt presented help to Churchill on tough terms- providing the navy with destroyers and the army with supplies. The disparity between Britain and America- that Britain had no other choice than to seek help form America while America apart form the fact that Britain was a former colonial master, had many choices to restructure its alliances around the globe. The propaganda in the United States made it possible that Roosevelt could not look disinterested in Britain’s war but came around with a supply of military support (James, 1970). Winston Churchill’s strong developing ties with Roosevelt managed to route American supplies in the form of food, oil and armaments. These supplies were hoarded to Britain through the North Atlantic Shipping routes in large transport vessels and an uninterrupted supply was tried to be created. Much to the relief of Churchill in Britain, Roosevelt was once again re-elected in 1940 as president of the United States of America, and upon re-election he immediately reinforced the supplies that were being routed to Britain (James, 1970). During his second term, Roosevelt stood firmly in support of Britain in front of the congress and convinced them that the costly service that the Americans were providing the British was in the interest of the defence and interest of the United States of America. This was to develop the idea that Britain did not need to make a monetary payment against these services that were helping them in supporting the war but transformed into what came to know as Lend-Lease. It turned out to be a critical factor in the ultimate success of the allies in world war two and especially in the early years when the United States was not directly involved in the war and the economic burden of the war was endured by other nations on their own- especially the nations of commonwealth and the after June 1941, the then Soviet Union (James, 1970). The Lend-Lease concept’s importance is better understood when all economic factors are taken under consideration of the distortions that are caused by war. Most economic systems may divert their production on nonessentials severely and will shift to utilize their resources in producing the maximum possible military units and weapons. This will lead to a severe shortage in other goods that are needed to support the military weapons like fuel, food, and other supplies- which are a necessity to develop the military or industrial economy and may force a country into being financially and socially crippled. This problem was answered by the Lend-Lease program and the significance of the stance is such that Hitler declared the Lend-Lease program and its significance as the front for declaring war on The United States of America in 1941 (James, 1970). As the days of the war were extended the extensive manufacturing bases in America slumped short of the developments in Britain. As Roosevelt had placed strict conditions initially for the support it was passing on to Britain, America soon found that the terms of this partnership were inclining more towards in the favour of Churchill. This was in turn doctored by Churchill himself whose farsightedness made him realise with time that at the eventuality of the war where Hitler would be defeated, the world would be dominated as the united States and Russia being the dominating superpowers and that the Britain may be left struggling and not being able to join the power sharing and dominance (James, 1970). In the chain of events that lead to the end of the war, Churchill gained a lot more for Britain that it gave back or in turn passed back as favours. Had it been that Britain was to be left alone with the commonwealth to part with Hitler, the post-war reforms and re-building would not have been possible. The war itself would have prolonged and might have generated different results and Europe may have been placed differently in today’s map. Britain could not have supported both of its Military and social industries at the same time and the idea of developing morale in the population of Britain by Churchill would have been a pointless activity. The partnership between Roosevelt and Churchill proved to be a quicker way and economically feasible way to end war in Europe (Jenkins, 2002). However, apart form strategic alliances made across the globe by Churchill to end the Hitler regime, the war itself had made a tremendous affect on the internal politics of the country and affected the British in many ways. As history dealt its cards, Chamberlain had failed to convince people and the political leaders of his failure of military in Norway in 1940. He lost his footing and confidence in the country and after a lot of scrutiny he resigned. Churchill picked up on the brink of the war and one of his major successes at the very initial stage was when he refused any negotiations with the Germans and refused to capitulate when most of the nations thought that the British were sure of a defeat (Jenkins, 2002). Churchill’s stance in Britain that was the result of the strong public opinion pushed the British people to accept a long war. This was explicitly nurtured since day one of his taking office and shortly afterwards when his starting speech as the Prime Minister stated that Britain had no other option than to go to war with Germany and its allies. Furthermore, to clear any confusions and end the haunting of criticism, Churchill took up the office of Minister of Defence as well to ensure that the public knew that there was someone in charge of the strategies and application of the war. Churchill, furthermore, directed one of his closest friends, an industrialist, to take charge of air craft production. This allowed Britain to stabilize itself in preparation for the needs of war (Jenkins, 2002). Churchill had at a very early stage perceived that the division in Europe can be imminent and Europe would soon transform into two hostile blocs. He believed that if Hitler was let lose and was negotiated with rather than stopping and turning back his occupations, Europe’s larger area would unite as one German Leadership and Britain would lose its standing in the region. However, this also created a blind spot for Churchill, who was deeply taken by the his affection of Britain’s imperial past. This nostalgic affection of Churchill for the past did not make him realize that the vast British Empire standing under one flag- the Union jack, was about to be broken apart (James, 1970). Churchill had assumed quite a few things during the war era between 1940 to1945 such as that even after war Britain will be able to retain its position as playing its imperial role in the region and that the state would be able to detach itself form the movement of continental economic cooperation. With the toll of time, the affects of the war were such that the British Empire saw itself liquidating itself to converge to the needs to support its economy and development. This was initiated when the Anglo-American and Soviet military forces converged in the middle of the defeated Germany (James, 1970). The most destructive war in the human History came finally to an end and some new trends emerged form the grand Alliance’s victory over Nazism. These trends unforeseen by Churchill himself transformed the position Europe radically in the coming years. The continent was automatically being partitioned into two main politically and socially different economic blocs. These blocs were each influenced and tied to the respective nation that had defeated Hitler in the specific region and had removed German occupation. Adding to this presence of non-British control in the region was the decline of colonial empires that were known to be the major European powers- especially Great Britain and France (James, 1970). One of the main weaknesses of the Churchill administration during the war time have been which had eluded his perception of war and resulted in a few failures- but significant ones, has been the way Churchill had placed his close associates and friends on key positions as advisors and head of certain institutions of the state. Churchill had paid too much attention to his acquaintances on seeking advise on war and had in course neglected the strategic information supplied by his army generals and other military appointees (James, 1970). An example of such is that when Churchill tried to save Greece in April, 1941 and lead a serious defeat by the German army. This in turn lead to a very weak presence and front for the Desert War forces that were engaged in fighting the war. Churchill’s downside apart from not being able to fully understand the war had been to disregard information of military intelligence and finding himself too much involved in military matters (James, 1970). It was all these factors and the continuous development at many other fronts at the same time for the British troops that eventually found Churchill being in a weak negotiating position at the end of the war. The United States and the Russia had taken leverage in bisecting the once glorious Union jack empire and had taken divided the European states among themselves- leaving Britain behind in a far inferior position than being a super power. Whereas, post war had decreed the other two allies of Britain- America and Russia, to emerge as not only superpowers but also aggressively taking control of the European region (James, 1970). The concept of war or victory at all costs had placed Britain as not much of a winner at the end of the war as victory was considered an eventuality when America officially stepped into the war against Germany and its allies. Though the support of Britain’s allies had been there to match the armies of Hitler, the end result and the consequences for Britain were to lose its imperial integrity. However, the Churchill administration amidst the general illusions of victory and the compensated war effort by the allies, continued to enjoy the support of the people for the war. But the perception of Churchill as a political force weakened towards the end of the war as the post war restructuring and the promises made to the people were hard to meet and fulfil (James, 1970). Although the war resulted in the end and Churchill’s war at all cost policy did lead to a different form of Europe but this was not at all an alone decision made by Churchill. In May 1940, Churchill and his adversary in Britain, Halifax, staged each of their own theories on the way Germany should be tackled and for the War effort in the five member British war cabinet. Churchill took a severe resistance from Halifax at things turned in such a manner that it felt to many at the time that eventually Churchill would have no other choice but to be removed form office (Best, 2002). However, Churchill at the very moment of losing called a meeting of his twenty five member outer cabinet and delivered one of his greatest speeches in front of them. In that speech he was able to convince in the necessity of waging a war against Germany based on that the survival of Freedom of the Imperial nation was solely dependant upon the war. He emphasized that as Hitler had set course to fight out the British Empire through its associated states, war at any cost was a necessity. Many believe that it was the same speech that saved the Britain and maybe the whole of the western civilization from complete Nazi transformation (Best, 2002). Churchill enjoyed the support of his cabinet throughout the course of the war between 1940 and 1945. One of the main reasons of his success was that he had combined all the parties in the cabinet and was leveraging roles of every party in the war effort. So much so that he was able to convince his cabinet to merge France and the Britain as one State and common ruling to counter the threat of Hitler in the region. However this idea was not upheld by the French and the amalgamation of the two states could not take place (Best, 2002). Churchill emerged out of the world war two as a war leader in the eyes of the British population. They regarded him as the saviour of Europe and the protector of freedom of the British people. However, being a war leader had not been enough for Churchill to continue as the leader of the British cabinet and act prime minister. Churchill was defeated in the 1945 election and although he himself did win himself a place in the cabinet but his party lost to the majority support. The loss of his election hit Churchill as a surprise as well, who was not expecting a defeat after gaining a much popular support as a war leader (Best, 2002). Of the main reasons that lead to his defeat, it was a desire in the public of more social reforms after the war that the Churchill administration had been reluctant to offer to the public. People had perceived Churchill only as the man who had made and lead the Britain empire to a war. However, Churchill had failed to make an impression along with his cabinet that he would be able to take the post war Britain through the gates of peace and back to social development (Best, 2002). It was the VE day at the end of Second World War when people of Great Britain greeted Winston Churchill as a great hero. His successful leadership in the war did not mean that he would be a great peacetime Prime Minister as well. Running the office of Premiership had one core difference from War and that was “policy making”. Churchill presupposed that his fame from war will make him acceptable to public in the post-war scenario too. However his assumption was challenged as Labour demanded a general election soon after the war (Best, 2002). The Conservatives did not focus on effective policy making and depended heavily upon the charisma of their leader instead. They fell back on such things as “trust the government” and “let’s win the war first”. Churchill was thinking too much about the image of empire, new world order and Labour’s intentions with his “Gestapo” speech while ignoring what people had been clamouring for at that time (Best, 2002). They were demanding for improved welfare and reconstruction initiatives by the government while the Conservative’s leader thought differently. Upon huge public demand for welfare reforms, the Conservatives had a split in the party, since many including Churchill did not like the idea. Churchill had not been a party man for a long time as he changed various parties before the war; he had little support in the party. The Beveridge Report, a proposal that no one should fall below a set standard of living, intensified the division amongst Conservatives (Best, 2002). Churchill’s supporters feared further involvement of state in public issues and increased taxation while their opponents, The Tory Reform Group, supported welfare and collectivism. This difference within the party ensured that there was lesser concentration on policy making and hence the post-war reconstruction matter was not addressed (Best, 2002). Churchill headed the demise of the great British Empire and downgraded probably the most powerful country in the world to a low-rate lap-dog of United States. 450 years of English rule ended due to all the worst possible decisions made by Churchill during the war (Best, 2002). The least sensible and stupidest of decisions was to support Roosevelt to protect and promote Soviet Communism. This was evident from Churchill’s own writing after the war which said that he could make peace with Hitler at any time. Vice Fuhrer Rudolph Hess had brought peace proposals from Hitler who considered British as natural allies. Hitler considered British were also Aryans and true cousins to Germans (Anglos and Saxons originally came from the territory in Germany, below eastern Denmark) and therefore it made sense for British to rule the seas and Germans to rule to continent. Another least moral decision was made by Churchill in 1940 when he introduced the idea of aerial bombing instead of establishing peace with Germans. This barbaric act lead to mass murdering of thousands of innocent civilians, something that Europe had not experienced in 20 centuries. Aerial bombings forced Hitler to respond to Britain similarly, after three months. Churchill made another ill judgement at that point as he believed Americans will reply to this by entering his side of the war. Instead, they yawned at a distance and saw England take all the beating. This hideous war crime makes Churchill the second biggest mass murderer and the second most evil man in world history after Stalin, prior to 1942. His policy made other war-evils to follow his actions and even now Churchill may be ranked as the fifth most prolific murderer in the history, only to follow, in course Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. Today it may be argued that Churchill may be the fifth most evil man in history. Word Count: Works Cited: James, R. R, 1970. Churchill: A Study in Failure, 1900-1939, World Best, G. 2002. Churchill: A Study in Greatness, Hambledon & London Keegan, J. 2002. Winston Churchill, Thorndike Press Lamb, R. 1993. Churchill as War Leader - Right Or Wrong, Bloomsbury Jenkins, R. 2002. Churchill: A Biography, Penguin Group Churchill, W. S. 1986. The Second World War, Volume 1: The Gathering Storm, Mariner Books Read More