XPost: aalt.war.world-war-two, sci.military.naval, soc.history.war.misc

Steven Haddock
Follow
B.A. in Political ScienceJul 19

Why was Winston Churchill chosen instead of Lord Halifax to succeed
Neville Chamberlain in 1940?
Halifax was actually a lot more popular than Churchill, and was seen as incredibly competent, but he had two major knocks against him.

The first was that he was a Lord. As such, unless he gave up being a
Lord, he couldn’t sit in the House of Commons, and it was pretty much unthinkable by the 1940s that the Prime Minister wouldn’t have to answer
to the House. The last Lord to be Prime Minister was Robert-Gascoyne
Cecil, Lord Salisbury, who ended his last term in the job in 1902. The
power of the House of Lords had been greatly diminished since then. When Chamberlain asked Churchill straight out if he could think of any reason
a Lord shouldn’t be prime minister, Churchill just looked out the window
and smoked his cigar, not even attempting to answer.

The other was that no-one thought Halifax had any chance of running
military affairs. Everyone knew even if Halifax was Prime Minister, it
was Churchill who was actually going to be running the war behind the
scenes. Churchill had twice been Lord of the Admiralty (the minister in
charge of the Royal Navy) and had served as an Army Captain in World War
I. He knew his stuff.

It was a close call. Churchill had only recently returned to the
Conservatives from the Liberals. As such, he was widely distrusted by
many in the Conservative party.

Secondly, due to his connection with the Gallipoli campaign in World War
I (which ended his rather amazing political career to that point) and
the Norway campaign in 1939–40, Churchill was seen as a reckless
adventurer on both sides of the aisle. People were afraid he was going
to try something stupid.

94.7K views
View 1,522 upvotes
View 40 shares
1 of 12 answers
115 comments from
Chris Spencer
and more

Terence Hall
· Jul 20
Small correction. “Army Captain in World War I.”

After his resignation from government following Gallipoli he served at
the front as Lieutenant Colonel of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers.

Profile photo for Mike Dixon
Mike Dixon
· Jul 22
But Churchill did this to escape public opposition from the Gallopoli
debacle, he was in the Army about 11 months in WW1 was it and then
returned to the House of Commons as I think as MP for Dundee? He did go
back to the Western Front as either war minister or munitions minister a
few times, after this, but Clement Atlee later Labour Prime Minister
served more time in the Army both on the Western Front and I think the
Middle East, in WW1, Atlee was wounded on a couple of occasions one time
at the battle of the Somme etc.

Profile photo for Justin Lee
Justin Lee
· Jul 23
The problem with Gallipoli is that it wasn’t his disaster. He took the
fall for it, as the idea was his. However, he had no ability to
influence the local Naval and Army commanders on the ground. They’re the
ones who totally screwed up. Churchill, being honourable, took the fall
for that. However the blame for the failure lands firmly with the
military, especially De La Roebuck.

Profile photo for Steven Haddock
Profile photo for Ian Gill
Ian Gill
· Jul 27
Churchill’s strategic concept to take the Dardenelles was spot on …. the execution on the ground/sea was abysmal.

Profile photo for Mike Galvin
Mike Galvin
· 16h
Ike, who knew a little about military strategy called it the only flash
of brilliance on either side in the dismal Great War. Unfortunately
service chief squabbling (Army support was never more than half hearted
as the idiot generals didn't want to spare troops from their next
brainless “Over the Top” offensive on the Western front and the Navy
didn't like the unglamorous job of ferrying soldiers) delayed it long
past losing the crucial element of surprise. Moreover Churchill and
everyone else on the Allied side underestimated the Turks. Yes the
Ottoman Empire, like the Austro-Hungarian one was more than half senile
by the 1910s but Turkish soldiers when well led and equipped and
prepared as they were here were still a formidable foe.

Profile photo for Ian Gill
Profile photo for Ian Gill
Ian Gill
· 14h
Spot on !

And the Turkish soldiers on the ground were most definitely well led by
Ataturk who went on to lead Turkey and make it a secular state.

Profile photo for Aaron Turner
Aaron Turner
· 3h
WW1 generals tried to spare troops from the “over the top” mentality
many times. And in many theatres, it was maneuver warfare (Eastern
Front, sometimes in Italy, Middle East, Mesopotamia, Africa). It took a
while to get tactics right on the Western Front after trenches were
built, but eventually, i…
(more)
Profile photo for Timothy Baxter
Timothy Baxter
· Sat
yep

Profile photo for Alex Levy
Alex Levy
· Aug 1
Churchill was also a graduate of Sandhurst, I believe, and a powerful
voice against Nazism long before the rest of the country caught up.

Profile photo for Mike Dixon
Mike Dixon
· Thu
I grant you he was an early voice against the rise of the Nazis as were
others Eg Anthony Eden, Duff Cooper etc. But Churchill did sign with
others an early day motion in parliament in either late 1938 or early
1939 congratulating Chamberlain’s efforts to secure peace at the Munich Agreement, which was either self delusion on Churchill’s part or an
attempt to ingratiate himself with Chamberlain and co it did n’t work
because Chamberlain for his own reasons could n’t stand Churchill.

Philip Buczko
· Jul 20
Halifax was a defeatist who wanted to appease Hitler.

Profile photo for Jeff Tipton
Jeff Tipton
· Jul 19

”People were afraid he was going to try something stupid.”

He did try. His fierce advocacy of an invasion of the Balkans during
World War II was an example of policy that had the right goal, but
couldn't possibly succeed. Thankfully, Ike told him multiple times to
forget it.

Profile photo for Philip Felton
Philip Felton
· Jul 20
Actually it was Alanbrooke, CIGS, who vehemently opposed his Balkan
ideas. The Americans also opposed the Balkan ideas but for non-military reasons.

Profile photo for Jeff Tipton
Jeff Tipton
· Jul 20
Yes, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to support such an operation logistically. Which is what Ike told him.

Profile photo for Nicholas Martin
Nicholas Martin
· Jul 20
Churchill was a micromanager and an adventurer. He lost all of Great
Britain's foreign currency reserves and most of the British empire. He
nagged Roosevelt and Stalin to launch a huge invasion through the
Balkans. He pushed a plan to invade Rhodes.

But….he was a tough old bird who had personally fought in war. His determination strengthened morale at a time when many people in the
British government were trying to seek peace terms. He wisely yielded to
advice from experts. He understood the value of keeping fighters in
reserve, of building up the Chain Home radar system and utilizing the
work being done at Bletchly.

He also hated Communism. He understood the danger to the post war world.
He tried very hard to stop Communism from spreading over Europe.

The Western world was very fortunate that Churchill became PM.

Profile photo for Pufu Lucian
Pufu Lucian
· Jul 25
I think he won the WWII, or at least was the personality who had
contributed the most.


Profile photo for Thomas Driscoll
Thomas Driscoll
· Sat
His claim to fame as far as WWII goes was that he was able to convince Roosevelt to get the US involved in the European conflict.

Profile photo for JM12BFC
JM12BFC
· 23h
The USA was only actively involved when attacked by Japan and when
Germany declared war on them, so not really anything to do with
convincing Roosevelt.

Profile photo for Thomas Driscoll
Thomas Driscoll
· 22h
The US was active way before Pearl Harbor. You are forgetting the
military aid the was shipped to GB prior to the US formal involvement.

JM12BFC
No, I’m differentiating actively involved (ie fighting) from involved
(ie supplying).Or as you say formally involved I suppose
Profile photo for Pufu Lucian
Pufu Lucian
· 5h
If UK made peace with Germany, as some members of his cabinet wanted
after the fall of France and the retreat and lossess from Dunkirk, then
US will never come to war in Europe and URSS will never been able to
stop Germany after their initial disaster start of the war with Germany. Without stubborn…
(more)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)