What military decisions did Winston Churchill make in World War 2?

I am having trouble finding information on specific orders Churchill made in the Second World War regarding military action. I am not looking for political moves but military commands that would have an effect on the conduct of war at the time.What military decisions did Winston Churchill make in World War 2?What one Canadian military historian called the bloodiest nine hours in Canadian military history, was entirely the fault of Churchill.



Following the disastrous invasion of Norway in April 1940, which cost primeminister Chamberlain his job, but was the idea Churchill. Britain again invaded Europe in 1942 in the French port of Dieppe. Two thirds of the 6,000 commandos, mostly Canadians were killed in an assault even the German defenders regarded as suicidal sacrifice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_RaidWhat military decisions did Winston Churchill make in World War 2?Churchill was Prime Minister, England's political leader. As such he gave no specific military orders, as that was his generals' job. He did express opinions on overall strategy, and tried to influence military leaders to conduct campaigns in line with his own interest in preserving England's political position, especially in the Mediterranean, but often, he was seen as kind of a pest when he tried to push for specific operations, when in fact he knew very little about the details of operational tactics. Specific orders were given by military leaders, who were closer to the action, and who thus had a clearer view of what was going on.What military decisions did Winston Churchill make in World War 2?Like other Conservatives who opposed appeasement, Churchill was an anachronism in the 1930s. He was an old-fashioned British imperialist, at a time when the Conservative Party increasingly preferred calculating technocrats like Chamberlain, who carefully worked out the cost of everything.

When Britain found itself confronted by an utterly fanatical German nationalist, an able, traditional imperialist was exactly what Britain needed - the sort of person who lets others worry about finance, a man who had a very clear sense of national and imperial dignity, a man with a sound grasp of international affairs and a man with determination.

In 1939 when Britain went to war, Chamberlain had talked about "evil men", but had said nothing about winning the war.

In Churchill's first speech as Prime Minister (13 May 1940) he made his aims clear in rumbustious terms. He stated his aim as "Victory! Victory, whatever the cost. Victory, however long and hard the road may be". However, he immediately went further and added, "We shall not lay down our arms till the Nazi curse has been lifted from the brow of mankind for ever". Instead of talking of "evil men", he spoke of "the most monstrous tyranny in the long, lamentable catalogue of human crime".

Here was a political leader with the kind of grasp of international affairs that British leaders of the 1930s had lacked, a man with a sense that a great nation and great empire has a global mission, that it was fighting for and on behalf of mankind. (Implicitly Churchill was calling, already in May 1940, for nothing less than the unconditional surrender of the Nazi regime, though it was not expressed in these terms).

In the Battle of Britain it became clear that this was not mere rhetoric. Here was a nation determined to fight on. Churchill inspired hope at home and among the defeated nations of Continental Europe. Here was a nation that a growing number of American politicians felt was worth supporting. Even in Germany astute observers noted that the Western Front had NOT been eliminated, and that behind Britain hovered the USA.

It is ironic that the British Empire collapsed after WW2, but I don't think it had would have lasted much longer anyway.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Wins鈥?/a>