Did Churchill help win WWII?

There have been several recent movies, and god knows how many bios written, most of them hagiographiers. I read one. And we all know the speech - We shall fight…we shall never surrender etc.

We also know that he was a total racist who supported colonialism and the British domination of India because those brown people needed the white man to take care of them.

We also know he was an opportunist, first he is a liberal, then a conservative, whatever it took to get elected.

I’ve always forgiven him for all that shit because he rallied the British people with his speeches. Just like Rudy in NYC after 9/11. I lived about half a mile from ground zero. And Rudy went on TV and said be strong, keep going to restaurants, don’t let the terrorists win. And at the time I sort of bought the America’s Mayor stuff. But he didn’t do anything, he made the same speeches that any mayor would have made. Do we think if there would have been a different mayor he would have said we are all fucked?

So when I ask if Churchill helped win WWII, I’m not talking about military strategy and such. I’m asking if the speeches really made a difference. Would the Battle of Britian been lost without him?

Yeah, I think they did. The BoB very well may have been lost without the early warning radar and intelligent deployment of the limited resources.

When you’re asking people to go into battle with a high probability of death, it surely makes all the difference whether they believe that their cause is just, worth fighting for, and ultimately winnable. That if they die it means something. His speeches still give me goosebumps, so I have to believe that during actual war they would have made a difference. The significant of morale also depends on the type of war being fought. If we’re firing rockets at ISIS camps from drones, all that matters it intelligence and technical superiority. If we asking men to jump out of landing craft under heavy fire, morale is everything.

Churchill’s most famous speech (well, one of two) was a rather sombre after-action report about Dunkirk given in the House of Commons. Here’s the whole thing

To finish on that note is a masterpiece of rhetoric.

I would think that speeches would not be much important considering the choices Churchill actually made. In this case, this example is about what Churchill wrote:

https://bletchleypark.org.uk/news/episode-50-action-this-day

Why have you limited it to just speeches? Why don’t his policy decisions and efforts toward coalition-building count? It’s not so much that you’ve asked the wrong question as you’ve asked people to ignore the things that really would be necessary to properly answer your question.

FWIW, I think we have good evidence that, no, not all politicians will say the right thing, and some who should be leaders in trying times might just get out there and say (or convey via other means, perhaps with limited characters) the most boneheaded thing imaginable, completely undercutting the morale of fighting forces and sowing division rather than unifying people towards a singular end (be it peace or war).

ETA: So, to be clear, I wouldn’t take it for granted that anyone could have said the right words in Churchill’s place. I suspect there were others who could have plugged the gap if he hadn’t been available, but how they would have fared will be forever unknowable.

Try reading John Lukacs’s “Five Days in May”, all about the debate in the War Cabinet about possible peace moves*, given the impending defeat in France.

Churchill was hardly single-handed in the decision to fight on, but his leadership was decisive in pulling the mood together to see it through. Had it not been, the war would have been lost, and Hitler given a free hand with the Soviet Union and in due course with the USA once Japan decided to attack.

*And take the movie “Darkest Hour” with a bucket of salt.

There may have been other people who wanted to continue the war after France fell but Churchill was the only person who was plausibly in a position to become Prime Minister and actually make this the official policy. So without Churchill, there almost certainly would have been a negotiated surrender around 1940.

Churchill also realized that Britain wasn’t going to be able to win the war without help from the United States and/or the Soviet Union so he cultivated relationships with both of those powers. But while doing so, he was able to maintain Britain’s reputation as a great power that should be seen as an equal to the United States and the Soviet Union.

Would Germany have won the war if Britain had sought peace? I think it probably would have. I think Britain could have negotiated a peace that would have kept Britain independent and in control of its empire but Britain would have had to acknowledge German control of the continent. If Britain stopped fighting, America would have lost its focus on Europe; resisting Japan would have become the main foreign policy. Germany would have been free to turn its undivided military strength against the Soviet Union and the Soviets would have been fighting without American and British aid. I think a stronger German attack could have defeated a weaker Soviet defense.

I think we would have ended up in a Cold War situation like we historically had except America’s opponent would have been the German Reich instead of the Soviet Union.

Just want to point out that Rudy did noting on 9/11. Nice of him to attend the funerals afterward, but as was pointed out after the fact, the best thing Rudy did after 9/11 was stay out of the way.

Sounds like the OP doesn’t really understand how the pen can be mightier than the sword. A well-crafted speech or pamphlet can do astonishing things. Some historians think that America would have lost the Revolutionary War if not for the inspired pen of Thomas Paine.

It takes a terrifically strong motivation to make people willing to die for a cause, and not many things are capable of producing such a motivation. Well-crafted rhetoric is one of those things.

I’m not sure what radar or the RAF’s strategy had to do with Winston Churchill, whose speeches were responsible for neither.

You are right, I made the question too narrow. Unlike Rudy, Churchill did more than make speeches. Reading all the posts I do remember some now, especially he and Roosevelt working together. Lend Lease was it? I did not know Britian would have probably surrendered without him

Honestly, I think my abhorrance for a lot of Churchill’s beliefs had me looking for reasons to diminish his contributions in the war. And that is not a very honest approach to history, is it? I pride myself on being objective and looking at all sides.

Is there a good movie I should see, one that doesn’t lionize him and shows his faults as well as strengths?

Dizzy Gillespie was asked once about Satchmo. Dizzy said “No him, no me!”

The same could be said of Churchill and Roosevelt. If Churchill hadn’t kept Britain in the war, it’s highly doubtful that Roosevelt could have ever led the US to enter the war in Europe. The war likely would have been over before Pearl Harbour, and American neutrality would never have been tested.

Churchill’s grand strategic goal was to seek allies: “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable mention of Satan in the House of Commons.”

In his memoirs, he wrote that after December 7, 1941, he slept easily, because he knew that with the US in the war, Britain would survive.

I dispute this poisoning of the well. Why say crap like that? was it necessary to make your point?

But in any case, other than his speeches, there are two other things that Churchill did that helped win the war:

  1. He wouldnt give up and the nazis’ knew it.

  2. If you read * Churchill’s Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare *by Giles Milton, it will be clear that the entire idea of a resistance and a sabotage dept run and funded by the brits would not have occurred if it wasnt for Churchill. Everyone else was against it. An example if given of saboteurs slowing the Das reich Division from getting to the D-Day beaches, they destroying the heavy water plants, and so forth. Not to mention invented the shaped charge and the hedgehog anti-sub weapon. Those brave commandos certainly lessened allied casualties and quite possibly shortened the war.

On other forums there are endless “what if” battles where the viewers hypothetically usually ask “if you were in control of the Nazi High Command at <some date in the 1930s or 1940s>, how would you go on to win”.

Or, alternately, they are hypotheticals like 'what if the Nazis had nukes sooner, or a nuclear submarine fully loaded with nuclear-tipped ICBMs, or a stargate, or".

Some of these hypotheticals give the allies a similar advantage, but generally this isn’t interesting, because we historically already know it wasn’t anywhere close. Giving the allies a bigger advantage just means they win even faster.

Anyways, one trend here is generally it’s thought that the material and numerical advantage was so drastically in favor of the allies that almost nothing the Germans could have done, and almost no sequence of mishaps and defeats for the Allies, would have changed the ultimate outcome.

So if you hypothetically have a silenced pistol with 10 shots and can teleport and shoot in the head up to 10 allied leaders - it wouldn’t be enough. It would be disruptive. Might drag ww2 out another few months but it still wouldn’t change the outcome.

You might be interested in a TV program where a bunch of modern people were given the training of the SOE. Wiki Entry. I’ve seen it, and it includes lots of interesting history.

In addition to what others have said, Churchill had to make the tough choice of sacrificing some of Britain, like Coventry, to keep Enigma a secret.
Churchill was very much against giving independence to India, but that does not reduce what he did for England in the war.

I have to point out the absurdity of the comparison of a war time leader, who dealt continuously with an on-going threat which required leadership to actually manage the military strategies and battles, inspire and rally civilians, and manage foreign policy and alliances, with someone who happened to be mayor of a one-time surprise attack over which he had no warning or control, which had no reasonable expectation of being an ongoing situation, where there were no follow up attacks or continued threat, whose accomplishments in your eyes were telling people to go back to restaurants.

Even within the limits of your OP - not talking about military strategy or anything - Britain had to survive an ongoing assault by a military power that was shockingly powerful, who had been winning battles all over Europe, who was starving Britain of food and supplies with a u-boat campaign, who were bombing Britain on a daily basis with no apparent end and sight, whereas NYC had to survive one isolated attack. Britain had to stay strong against an extended campaign against a foreign power that could’ve forced their surrender. New York… how would they have lost? Surrendered to nobody and abandoned the city over one attack with no ongoing threat?

You are right, and I addressed it above. Well, it is not crap to say he was a racist, but that is beside the point.

Don’t watch movies for history. Movies are entertainment.

A good one-volume comparative book is “The Warlords” by AJP Taylor: aricles about Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, from their role as war-leaders.

See also the Lukacs book recommended by PatrickLondon, and also Lukacs’ earlier book The Duel: May 10 - July 31 1940.

You could also read the wiki article: War Cabinet Crisis, 1940

(Lukacs once joked that given the narrowing of focus, his third book after “The Duel” and “Five Days in May” would have to be “Cabinet Room, May 26 1940”).

Churchill’s speeches were important, but asking if Churchill “helped” win WWII is a remarkable question.