How far was Churchill personably responsible for maintaining national morale?

When Churchill took over from Neville Chamberlin it was at a time when national morale was low, particularly because of the Norway campaign, where although the British sent a task force to prevent invasion in Norway they were swiftly defeated by the Germans. This significantly cut national morale as the public became aware of the well disciplined and advanced nature of the German forces.

Churchill’s appointment in itself was a morale boosting act. Churchill was in political wilderness previously and had not held office in the previous national government, thus he was not associated with their failures. Throughout the 1930s Churchill had criticised appeasement and called for rearmament, this was significant to boost morale at the time of his appointment as the nation recognised he had the right ideas all along. MPs also felt a morale boost at the appointment of Churchill because most agreed that his bullish qualities and self belief meant he had the character for the job.

Churchill’s popularity with the public was a key factor in maintaining national morale. Historian Michael Lynch had found that his popularity with the public at times was as high as eighty eight percent, and even in his darkest moments never dropped below seventy eight percent. This is significant because it shows that the public were happy with Churchill as prime minister and they thought he was doing an adequate job, thus maintaining morale.

Churchill also had the ability to maintain morale by his skills in speeches. While his cabinet saw his speeches as emotional bravado, Churchill’s self confidence meant he convinced most of his cabinet and the population that it was better to fight on and hope America would be persuaded to join the war to support Britain. This was significant as rather than being a weak leader and putting doubts in people’s minds, Churchill was able to unite the country towards the war effort thus maintaining national morale.

However despite his ability to unify the nation Churchill also had his faults. Churchill has been described to be dictatorial and interfering in other governmental departments. This could be seen as morale damaging because Churchill’s nature could have led to alienation within government, leading to wider public doubts about his effectiveness as leader. This was similar with Churchill’s liaisons with army generals as he thought he knew more about tactics and strategy then the generals did. Similarly this could have alienated generals causing divisions in the army and working to damage national morale with the army such divided.

Churchill was also lucky in the composition of his cabinet in maintaining national morale. Deputy prime minister Clement Attlee was an effective organiser serving to organise the cabinet to make government efficient. Thus worked in Churchill’s favour to boost morale because it appeared Churchill had government in order, but this meant Churchill himself was not personally responsible for boosting morale.

Similarly Labour politician Ernest Bevin was responsible for maintain morale in the underlying structures of government. He fought against communist infiltration in the party and in unions. This served to keep the labour forces of the nation united and maintained national morale by keeping labour directed to the war. Historian Michael Lynch found Bevin had the enormous task of British industry to meet the demands of the war. This involved him negotiating with bosses, managers and trade unions to reach compromises that adequately rewarded workers. This served to maintain morale because as the workers felt better rewarded and paid it maintained morale.

In conclusion, on the face of government Churchill’s skill in self sufficiency, charisma and self belief served to maintain morale by providing a leadership that united and gave the nation a sense of hope and unity against foreign enemies. However it can be argued that in the underlying structures of government Churchill’s dictatorial nature threatened to tear parts of the country apart. It was also the underlying structures in Churchill’s colleagues that meant he appeared a more effective leader. Thus while Churchill appeared to maintain morale, his personable responsibility only stretched as far as his personality traits of charisma and self belief.