OT - a Quora - Why was Winston Churchill chosen to succeed Neville Chamberlain in 1940?

[a425couple]

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)

[William Hyde]

Post by a425couple
Steven Haddock
Follow
B.A. in Political ScienceJul 19
Why was Winston Churchill chosen instead of Lord Halifax to succeed
Neville Chamberlain in 1940?

Mostly because Halifax himself felt that he was not the right man.

As he wrote in his diary on May 9

"I had no doubt at all in my own mind that for me to succeed him would
create a quite impossible situation. Apart altogether from Churchill's
qualities as compared with my own at this particular juncture, what
would in fact be my position? Churchill would be running Defence, and in
this connexion one could not but remember the relationship between
Asquith and Lloyd George had broken down in the first war... I should
speedily become a more or less honorary Prime Minister, living in a kind
of twilight just outside the things that really mattered."



Churchill said that he would serve under Halifax, though no doubt he
wasn't happy at the prospect.

Question: do polysci graduates study any history at all?

Post by a425couple
Halifax was actually a lot more popular than Churchill,

As Beaverbrook said, everyone wanted Halifax.


and was seen as

Post by a425couple
incredibly competent, but he had two major knocks against him.

Both reasons given are far less important than the fact that Halifax was
an appeaser, and appeasement had catastrophically failed as a policy.

Things are different now, but of old, when a politician was associated
with a spectacular failure, he resigned, or at the least wasn't
promoted. Halifax was well aware that he'd been wrong, and Churchill
right, on the important issue of the day (he could take consolation in
the fact that he'd been right on India, though).

Were it not for this, Churchill would not have even been mentioned as a
possible PM.

Post by a425couple
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.

Not at all. In an emergency it could have been tolerated, with
Churchill as the government's main spokesman in the commons.


The last Lord to be Prime Minister was Robert-Gascoyne

Post by a425couple
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.

As Halifax himself noted.

But not because of Churchill's military experience. Because he'd been
right about the Nazis for years, and Halifax wrong. Because C had
studied and written about war for decades.


Most of the UK's great war leaders, such as the elder Pitt, had no
military experience. Churchill himself had no experience with modern
war, just as his minister of aircraft production, Beaverbrook, had no
experience in aircraft production. In neither case did this matter.

Still, it is true that the other war leaders of 1914-1918 were out of
the picture. One A. Hitler noticed this, saying that if war broke out
the British would:

"Call on the old War Horse".

Though whether he meant for PM or just a cabinet post he didn't say.



Churchill had twice been Lord of the Admiralty (the minister in

Post by a425couple
charge of the Royal Navy)

He won praise for his work early in the war, but his attempt to defend
Antwerp caused people to doubt his sanity, and the Gallipoli campaign,
as mentioned in the original article. caused many to think him arrogant
and incompetent. His defense of this in his history of WWI won some
opinion back, but it was still a millstone.


and had served as an Army Captain in World War

Major and Lt Colonel.

Halifax had been a Captain before the war, fought on the Western Front,
and was "mentioned in Dispatches" which for those of you not in the UK,
is the equivalent of getting a medal in other armies. And he was
actually at the front for a much longer time than Churchill. He
certainly had military experience.

Post by a425couple
I. He knew his stuff.
It was a close call. Churchill had only recently returned to the
Conservatives from the Liberals.

Recently as in 1924. Fifteen years earlier. Since then he'd held the
prestigious post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was considered by
conservatives to have done a good job there.


As such, he was widely distrusted by

Post by a425couple
many in the Conservative party.

Churchill was distrusted by everybody. Asquith had said earlier, when
Churchill was in his cabinet, that C had all the qualities necessary for
a great leader except that of inspiring trust. He predicted that C would
never be PM, and but for the war he'd have been right.

If Halifax had wanted the job, he'd probably have had it. But for how
long is another question. Probably the moment he talked about making
peace he'd have been out and Churchill would have become PM.

William Hyde

[a425couple]

Post by William Hyde

Post by a425couple
snip
Why was Winston Churchill chosen instead of Lord Halifax to succeed
Neville Chamberlain in 1940?

Mostly because Halifax himself felt that he was not the right man.
big snip
If Halifax had wanted the job, he'd probably have had it.  But for how
long is another question.  Probably the moment he talked about making
peace he'd have been out and Churchill would have become PM.
William Hyde

Thank you William for your additional information.

By the way, have you read Boris Johnson's biography of WSC ?

[William Hyde]

Post by a425couple

Post by William Hyde

Post by a425couple
snip
Why was Winston Churchill chosen instead of Lord Halifax to succeed
Neville Chamberlain in 1940?

Mostly because Halifax himself felt that he was not the right man.
big snip
If Halifax had wanted the job, he'd probably have had it.  But for how
long is another question.  Probably the moment he talked about making
peace he'd have been out and Churchill would have become PM.
William Hyde

Thank you William for your additional information.
By the way, have you read Boris Johnson's biography of WSC ?

No, and I never will.


William Hyde

[The Horny Goat]

Post by a425couple
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.

There's actually one more critical factor that's often missed.

One of my most desired historical questions to have answered is "When
did Neville Chamberlain get the bad news that he had cancer and would
be unlikely to see 1941?" We know it was after 3 Sept 1939 (when
Britain declared war) and 10 May 1940 (when Germany struck into the
Netherlands, Belgium and France) but while I've read a lot have never
heard the precise answer.

Clearly Chamberlain knew he simply could not die in office in wartime
and from Churchill's account (he devotes a whole chapter to it in his
6 volume history) that's particularly clear.

My personal opinion is that the main thing Churchill had going for him
was that he was a far better speaker than Halifax and that inspiring
the nation (mostly in radio broadcasts) would be critical in the WW2
era. Though Churchill's view was your argument about not being able to
effectively be Prime Minister in the Lords in wartime.

One Youtube video (which I can't find right now) is the one from 8 May
1945 (aka VE Day) where Churchill is out on his balcony where a crowd
has gathered, gives him a huge cheer then breaks into "Land of Hope
and Glory" after which he gives his "This is your victory" speech.

It's probably my favorite of a lot of great Churchill speeches.

[a425couple]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by a425couple
Why was Winston Churchill chosen instead of Lord Halifax to succeed
Neville Chamberlain in 1940?

snip

Post by The Horny Goat
There's actually one more critical factor that's often missed.
One of my most desired historical questions to have answered is "When
did Neville Chamberlain get the bad news that he had cancer and would
be unlikely to see 1941?" We know it was after 3 Sept 1939 (when
Britain declared war) and 10 May 1940 (when Germany struck into the
Netherlands, Belgium and France) but while I've read a lot have never
heard the precise answer.

Good question. This does not much help.
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain

Chamberlain had long enjoyed excellent health, except for occasional
attacks of gout,[65] but by July 1940 he was in almost constant pain. He
sought treatment, and later that month entered hospital for surgery.
Surgeons discovered that he was suffering from terminal bowel cancer,
but they concealed it from him, instead telling him that he would not
require further surgery.[214] Chamberlain resumed work in mid-August. He
returned to his office on 9 September, but renewed pain, compounded by
the night-time bombing of London which forced him to go to an air raid
shelter and denied him rest, sapped his energy, and he left London for
the last time on 19 September

Post by The Horny Goat
My personal opinion is that the main thing Churchill had going for him
was that he was a far better speaker than Halifax and that inspiring
the nation (mostly in radio broadcasts) would be critical in the WW2
era. Though Churchill's view was your argument about not being able to
effectively be Prime Minister in the Lords in wartime.
One Youtube video (which I can't find right now) ------
It's probably my favorite of a lot of great Churchill speeches.

Long story,,,, still too long.
I was a fan of WSC since 1957 when I asked for his book / books
for Christmas.
I have loooong enjoyed racing sports cars, in 2001 I realized I
had the finances and time to do it better than prior. I bought
a RV/Motor home to use as tow vehicle and 'home' at the tracks.
I have used it less lately.
Somewhere in it I put my big collection of WSC tapes of his
greatest speeches. I just searched, and can not find them!

[The Horny Goat]

Post by a425couple
I was a fan of WSC since 1957 when I asked for his book / books
for Christmas.
Somewhere in it I put my big collection of WSC tapes of his
greatest speeches. I just searched, and can not find them!

While my wife knew I had already read the 6 volume history, she found
a first edition (minus original dust jackets) during the one period in
our marriage I was out of work and gave it to me as a Christmas
present. It's rare enough that I told my history honours daughter that
I wanted her to have the set when the time inevitably comes.

We probably should make any further postings on this to
soc.history.world-war-ii. Unless you count The History of the English
Speaking Peoples, I don't know of any medieval connection to
Churchill. His family first came to prominence with the Duke of
Marlborough's military exploits which of course are long after
medieval times!

[William Hyde]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by a425couple
I was a fan of WSC since 1957 when I asked for his book / books
for Christmas.
Somewhere in it I put my big collection of WSC tapes of his
greatest speeches. I just searched, and can not find them!

While my wife knew I had already read the 6 volume history, she found
a first edition (minus original dust jackets) during the one period in
our marriage I was out of work and gave it to me as a Christmas
present. It's rare enough that I told my history honours daughter that
I wanted her to have the set when the time inevitably comes.
We probably should make any further postings on this to
soc.history.world-war-ii. Unless you count The History of the English
Speaking Peoples, I don't know of any medieval connection to
Churchill. His family first came to prominence with the Duke of
Marlborough's military exploits which of course are long after
medieval times!

There are too many groups for the remaining population. There are at
most enough contributors to support one history group. The fracturing
of groups in the 1990s was a serious mistake.

Well, it was a good idea to split rec.games.chess.politics from
rec.games.chess, as that diverted a sewer away from the stem group.
The new group is the only one I can recall where sooner or later
everyone was revealed as disgusting.

But then the bastards began to cross-post to rec.games.chess.misc anyway.

William Hyde

[The Horny Goat]

Post by William Hyde
Well, it was a good idea to split rec.games.chess.politics from
rec.games.chess, as that diverted a sewer away from the stem group.
The new group is the only one I can recall where sooner or later
everyone was revealed as disgusting.
But then the bastards began to cross-post to rec.games.chess.misc anyway.

Not that there is enough volume left in that group to notice. And no
question I have enough "skin in the game" to be interested in it.
https://www.chess.ca/en/cfc/personnel/
(Hint: you'll see me as #3 on that page)

[William Hyde]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by William Hyde
Well, it was a good idea to split rec.games.chess.politics from
rec.games.chess, as that diverted a sewer away from the stem group.
The new group is the only one I can recall where sooner or later
everyone was revealed as disgusting.
But then the bastards began to cross-post to rec.games.chess.misc anyway.

Not that there is enough volume left in that group to notice. And no
question I have enough "skin in the game" to be interested in it.
https://www.chess.ca/en/cfc/personnel/
(Hint: you'll see me as #3 on that page)

RGCP was all USCF and FIDE politics, mostly the former. Aside from
myself Canadians were far too smart to post there, and even I learned my
lesson quickly.

William Hyde

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:44:32 -0400, William Hyde

Post by William Hyde
RGCP was all USCF and FIDE politics, mostly the former. Aside from
myself Canadians were far too smart to post there, and even I learned my
lesson quickly.

I don't recall much FIDE politics but no question you are right about
the USCF stuff - but then I wasn't all that surprised given that most
newsgroups tend to be US-centric.

Given the Canadian federation operates on a shoestring compared the
the USCF (and FIDE for that matter) I tend to mine the USCF site for
ideas and make the odd recommendation to the board on the general
subject of "good ideas we should consider doing ourselves"