Oswald Mosley was a man “intellectually and temperamentally a product of his aristocratic upbringing and the emotional aftermath of the First World War” (Beadle 328). During this time period, he influenced his surroundings with distinct political views and actions throughout Britain. Oswald Mosley influenced his time being a Member of Parliament however discounted many opportunities for action blinded by the search of personal power. This blindness led to a fascist approach towards government with views of leadership, resembling control and courage, and actions facing the problems of the new modern world. The upbringing of Oswald Mosley, born 16 November 1896, started with his aristocratic family. The family had attempts to campaign against nineteenth century laissez-faire capitalism however, never achieved mass support from their peers. His parents separated and Mosley developed under his mother and grandmother. He excelled in many fields leading some to envy in his success. Oswald Mosley married Lady Cynthia Curzon, also known as Cimmie, on 11 May 1920. The wedding was one of the largest social events of the year. Cimmie encouraged Mosley’s determination, however the toll of leaving her out on his own endeavors was an immense burden. These burdens including affairs, a mistress, Diana Guinness, who he had become fond of, all while reaching no conclusion to leave Cimmie. At this point he was well traveled, acquiring diverse perceptions to leadership and the correlation to
The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the
The year was 1940; the world’s second great World War was in full swing, with Britain and Germany at the forefront. The fall of Britain’s closest ally, France, stunned the British Empire and threw it into disarray. Through the chaos, Winston Churchill emerged. Churchill would be an inspiring leader who was able to rally the entire nation in times of hardship. Through his leadership, the “British Bulldog” would face the Axis powers and come out victorious, as well as become a public hero for the British people. Yet, immediately after the war, Churchill did not return to the prime minister seat because of a shocking defeat in his re-election, despite his immense reputation he gained from the war. Though lauded by the British population for his prowess as a wartime leader, Churchill’s conservative politics were out of touch with a population ready for post-war relief and led to his defeat in the 1945 election.
On the brink of war, with the enemy force appearing impenetrable and unstoppable, new Prime Minister Winston Churchill has the daunting task to rally parliament to enter the war. While speaking to the House of Commons, the representing body in the United Kingdom, he must not only create a lasting impression, but illustrate the logistics of the meeting as well as the dire importance of victory for the Allies. He opens with the immediate facts to answer any of the parliament’s doubts or concerns, then he focuses his attention to unity and expands his audience to the entire country of the United Kingdom to express the sentiment of unity and the importance of the call to arms.
By the early twentieth century the Liberal Government was worried that Britain’s military capability and general military power was not as strong and it once was. Therefore, the Government’s concern over national security definitely influenced the decision for the reforms. However, there are three main factors that also need to be taken into account when deciding if concern over national security was the real reason for the reforms: the Social reasons, concerns for Britain’s Empire and the Political motive. The Social reasons played a large part in persuading the Liberals to reform. The detailed reports of Booth and Rowntree, and the evidence which was brought to light, highlighted that nearly a 1/3 of Britain’s population lived in
Despite J.R. Booth’s discreet personality he still received the highest regard in the society. The former prime minister, Arthur Meighen, had said that Booth’s “quiet generosity, and his sincerity made him an outstanding gentleman among his fellows”.
War can destroy a man both in body and mind for the rest of his life. In “The Sniper,” Liam O’Flaherty suggests the horror of war not only by presenting its physical dangers, but also by showing its psychological effects. We are left to wonder which has the longer lasting effect—the visible physical scars or the ones on the inside?
Even before the climactic World War II, Churchill’s mental war starts with the Indian Independence movement. Churchill was brusque about his opinion on the movement, knowingly showing his opposition to the public. “To Churchill, all Indians were the pedestal for a throne. He would have died to keep England free, but was against those who wanted India free.(Tondon, n.d.)” With this ornery still in the mind of the public and government officials, Churchill’s 1940 election was met with opposition. In Churchill and Orwell, “Peter Eckersley, a Tory MP, predicted that “Winston won’t last five months.”(Ricks, pg. 91)” The general public were critical of such a disposition leading the United Kingdom during a time struggle. Even with the public’s pessimistic prospect of him, Churchill’s resilience will become a favorable trait to exhibit in this psychological war.
His life is an example of his spirit, overcoming the difficulties with which he was presented, and making himself stronger as a result of it. Churchill was a more than just a great speaker though; he was a great man and a great leader as well. He took over as Prime Minister of Britain during one of the most trying times ever to come upon the country, and led his country to eventual victory over their adversaries. The analysis of his speech allows one to come closer to understanding the true rhetorical genius of the man known as Churchill. In particular,
Hyam, R. (2006). ‘Rugged and tangled difficulties: the Churchill and Eden governments and the end o
The erosion of Neville Chamberlain’s# reputation was brought about quickly as his policy of appeasement failed to prevent WW2. The Cato# collective branded him as a criminal in the ‘Guilty men’#. Churchill# further reinforced this view telling the commons “England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war.”#. These more orthodox views starkly contrast the reactions of the public and media pre-war. Hailed as a hero “Most newspapers supported Chamberlain uncritically, and he received thousands of gifts, from a silver dinner service to many of his trademark umbrellas.”#, with
Similar to the convergence of physical issues, the soldiers had a similar emotional trauma experienced. The mass death that was a consequence of the physical carnage of the war could easily lead to emotional distress due to the nature of death. Consider in All Quiet on the Western Front when the soldiers had to seek protection in a graveyard when “heavy fire” overtook them, what Paul thought about the event described the messed up mental side of the soldiers regarding death (Remarque 65). Primarily, when trying to escape the bombs and gas, and Paul had to hide in a coffin, he realized that the coffin “shall protect [Paul], thought death himself lies in it,” (Remarque 67). This whole statement can be analyzed as Paul coming to the understanding that the only way to
“Fascism has as an underlying economic purpose the preservation of Capitalism and the prevention of Socialism. To prevent even the discussion of Socialism or Communism all democratic liberties are destroyed. The most influential profit makes form a partnership with the Fascist politicians for the complete control of the state so that the power of police and soldiers may be used to punish all dissenters.” (Miller, p.74)
Winston Churchill’s headstrong resiliency in the face of danger defined his career as a war leader. Former Prime Minister David Cameron states,” He was an incredible leader for our country, and indeed for the whole free world, at an impossibly difficult time.” (1). Five months before his inauguration, Churchill gave his speech “House of Many Mansions” wherein he urged the then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and other world
The Battle of Britain in 1940 In the summer of 1940, the German Luftwaffe attempted to win air superiority over southern Britain and the English Channel by destroying the Royal Air Force and the British aircraft industry. This attempt came to be known as the Battle of Britain, and victory over the RAF was seen by the Germans as absolutely essential if they were eventually to mount an invasion of the British Isles. The Germans had overrun Belgium, the Netherlands and northern France in May 1940, using the Blitzkrieg ('Lightning War') technique that relied, among other things, on close coordination between ground troops and the air force.
In order to fully understand how Britain’s decision to go to war against Germany is best explained one must engage into the debate revolving around the question of the extent to which Britain and other countries were responsible for causing war. This helps explain the intention Britain had for war which is vital in understanding their decision making process to cause war in the first place. Some schools of thought have come to the conclusion that it was everybody or nobody- the continent “slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay.”1 That analysis will be considered in this essay as will the widespread thesis that it was Germany’s aggression which not only created the preconditions for war, but also triggered Britain into war with the political imbalance of power being created from the growing naval and colonial expansion of Germany. Other factors that help explain why Britain went to war against Germany