In my title I paraphrase the less than thoughtful words of Hillary Clinton and, moving swiftly on, apply them to that fateful meeting in May 1940 - see post below. Suppose, oh go on, just suppose, that Churchill had not been appointed PM and ask yourself what difference would it have made?
I have been a life-long admirer of Churchill's tremendous qualities whilst reminding myself constantly of his equally tremendous faults. The man, after all, was just that - a man and therefore not perfect. His political acumen in spotting, well before most other people, that Hitler was a very real menace stands to his huge credit, although equally, Chamberlain saw enough to order a re-armament programme as far ahead as 1935. Alas for him, his Munich settlement damaged his reputation for ever, although there is a good case to be made that it was an act of sensible real-politik given the pathetic state of the British military - as we all learned the hard way in 1940!
Most people are agreed that Lord Halifax possessed a good political brain but, alas for him, the notion of running a wartime government from the House of Lords whilst a deputy would have to play the part of front man in the Commons simply would not work. Sensibly, he saw this and decided not to push for the job.
Even so, my totally theoretical question remains - would it have made that much difference which of the three had led Britain through the war? The die was cast when Britain declared war in 1939 and from that point on the great cataclysmic events, Germany crushing western Europe, Hitler invading Russia and Japan attacking Pearl Harbour, were unleashed for good or ill and despite anything a British prime minister might do or say!
despite anything a British prime minister might do or say!
After the fall of France it was only Britain and the Commonwealth that stood against Hitler until the US joined in after Pearl Harbour. Given that situation it was tremendously important that the British Prime Minister would not even consider peace with Hitler unlike Halifax so your final premise is not correct. A more timid man than Churchill may have thrown in the towel.
Posted by: AussieD | Saturday, 09 December 2017 at 02:59
Churchill’s voice and rhetoric I think would have made the difference.
Posted by: Peter Whale | Saturday, 09 December 2017 at 07:28
I think under another PM Britain would have sued for peace. It was far from clear that the will to fight was there and it was largely Churchill who kept the show on the road.
Posted by: Cuffleyburgers | Saturday, 09 December 2017 at 09:16
Gentlemen, I think your fears are overdone. The day the premiership changed, German tanks were already on their way to the Channel. There was no-one in Britain, except for a few 'Mosleyites', who would have contemplated surrender. Remember, the Dunkirk evacuation was only just over two weeks away! The die was cast, even if it was Hitler who cast it! Yes, Churchill's rhetoric was uplifting but rhetoric is all it was!
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 09 December 2017 at 09:41
Duffers, as an internacional actor myself, (Widow Twanky in the British School panto, Caracas1988) I am surprised you belittle the power of rhetoric. Look what it did for Obama!
Posted by: Timbo | Saturday, 09 December 2017 at 10:42
Wars are usually on two fronts: the battle field and the home front. Rhetoric of the calm, firm and steady kind is needed for the people at home. No one was better at it than Mr. Churchill. On the other front, capable generals with workable plans are needed to give the PM, President or whomever, enough confidence to speak to the people. When the general's well crafted plans go sideways as lead starts flying, that is when the ultimate war fighters- sergeants- step up along with capable corporals who ultimately win the thing.
Mr. Churchill had the ability to speak like a sergeant but in a calm steady voice. A nation of tough capable "corporals" was eager to hear and to fight.
Posted by: Whitewall | Saturday, 09 December 2017 at 12:31
A common saying is "90% of life is showing up." Churchill did it brilliantly.
Posted by: Bob | Saturday, 09 December 2017 at 13:15
Timbo, darling, I had no idea that your were a fellow 'thesp'!
I do not deny the importance of rhetoric but in the end it is those bloody "events, dear boy, events" that really count.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 09 December 2017 at 17:54
Eh, David?
https://audioboom.com/posts/6544350-japan-1941-countdown-to-infamy-by-eri-hotta-part-1-of-2
Posted by: JK | Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 03:27
https://audioboom.com/posts/6539996-the-chrysanthemum-throne-abdicates-pearl-harbor-day-2017-wjmurphy2-gordongchang-thedailybeast
Posted by: JK | Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 03:36
JK, thanks for that link to Ms. Hotta's book which I have instantly added to my Xmas wish list for SoD's attention! Should he fail in his duty, I will treat myself because it looks like a corker!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 10 December 2017 at 12:10
https://audioboom.com/posts/6551966-the-kingdom-falls-down-gregory-copley-defense-foreign-affairs
Posted by: JK | Friday, 15 December 2017 at 00:56