Let us not forget that at the same time Churchill was named Prime Minister, May 10, 1940, the Low Countries were successfully invaded, quickly conquered and the Battle of France would commence.
Chamberlain had become the symbol of appeasement, specifically with ill-fated Munich Agreement, which surrendered the Sudetenland (the industrial part of Czechoslovakia) to Nazi Germany, his failure to take action against Germany when they invaded Poland, and finally with the collapse of Norway on April. With all that in mind, the Churchill, who is known and revered today, is a result of his leadership in the days after the collapse of the Chamberlain government, which was seen as a failure. Thus, the post of First Lord of the Admiralty had great cachet for Churchill. Of course, because Britain was primarily a naval power since the time of Drake and through Nelson, therefore, with vast overseas interests, it had to dominate the seas.
He had cabinet level domestic responsibilities early in his career, but his name and fortune was linked with the British Navy when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. His forte was more foreign policy and the Empire. He was a man of action and not a calculating “planner.” He never understood the need to build organizations of political support. His “black” moods and depression limited his ability to have the confidence to “rule.” He had too many opinions that limited his ability to make political alliances. He was certainly a remarkable talent, but had too many inner doubts to be completely confident with himself.
He was much more of a “loose cannon” and never really felt comfortable working with others. Churchill never had to really stand for election as leader and was never really trusted with “domestic” responsibilities. With regards to Winston Churchill, the political role of the American system is much different then Britain.
0 kommentar(er)
