# Did Churchill help win WWII? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2019, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032 "2019-10-20T04:12:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mike\_Mabes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mike_mabes/32/1782_2.png) [@Mike\_Mabes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_Mabes)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2019, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/21 "2019-10-20T23:02:43Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > 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 > > [1940 British war cabinet crisis - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_cabinet_crisis,_May_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. I don’t want to watch a movie for history. I love Lawerence of Arabia but as history, there are a lot of things that just didn’t happen. I would like to watch a movie that is reasonably accurate about Churchill in WWII. Darkest Hour is apparently not that movie. Back to my original post, as I’ve said it was way too narrow, I was specifically asking about the speeches, and whether they, in and of themselves, mattered. It was a stupid title for the thread. I’ve read the speeches, I’ve listened to them. Churchill speaking in a voice that is much more subdued than is portrayed in movies (I have not seen a whole movie but I’ve seen clips). If he had never made those speeches, he would have still did all the other things that he did, some of which I am learning about. Thanks for the reading list, but this a not a subject that I want to spend a lot of time reading about, there are many other books I would like to read instead. This thread and all the good information I am getting is my book on this subject. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/22 "2019-10-21T00:00:23Z")
Another book you might want to take a look at is [Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime by Eliot A. Cohen](https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Command-Soldiers-Statesmen-Leadership/dp/1400034043). He uses Lincoln, Clemenceau, and Ben-Gurion as examples along with Churchill. The section on Churchill is a strong case for his leadership and political expertise in guiding Britain. Since Churchill is just 50 or so pages, you’ll find it less of a slog than the many full books on the man. Along the way he examines both sides of the case and discusses the way that opinions have changed since the war. Cohen choose these four because he admires the way they handled their wartime problems, but I wouldn’t say it’s a hagiography. He concludes with a chapter on the way Johnson bungled Vietnam, so he knows the alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Mabes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mike_mabes/32/1782_2.png) [@Mike\_Mabes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_Mabes)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/23 "2019-10-21T00:27:56Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Another book you might want to take a look at is [Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime by Eliot A. Cohen](https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Command-Soldiers-Statesmen-Leadership/dp/1400034043). > > He uses Lincoln, Clemenceau, and Ben-Gurion as examples along with Churchill. The section on Churchill is a strong case for his leadership and political expertise in guiding Britain. Since Churchill is just 50 or so pages, you’ll find it less of a slog than the many full books on the man. Along the way he examines both sides of the case and discusses the way that opinions have changed since the war. > > Cohen choose these four because he admires the way they handled their wartime problems, but I wouldn’t say it’s a hagiography. He concludes with a chapter on the way Johnson bungled Vietnam, so he knows the alternatives. Sounds interesting. How does it compare, if you’ve read it (I haven’t), to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Leadership? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/24 "2019-10-21T00:43:33Z")
> [@Mike\_Mabes](#): > > 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. As were the vast majority of his contemporaries. Roosevelt wasn’t much better, (actually, he was just as bad), but we wouldn’t have won the war without him either. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Mabes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mike_mabes/32/1782_2.png) [@Mike\_Mabes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mike_Mabes)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/25 "2019-10-21T00:53:34Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > As were the vast majority of his contemporaries. Roosevelt wasn’t much better, (actually, he was just as bad), but we wouldn’t have won the war without him either. Right. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears. Teddy and his “splendid little war.” It’s just the way it was, and in many cases still is. Link to Humans: A Brief History of How We Fucked It All Up. Haven’t read it yet but will. Just reading the first pages on the Amazon preview, I’m laughing through my tears > **[Humans: A Brief History of How We F\*cked It All Up: Phillips, Tom:...](https://www.amazon.com/Humans-Brief-History-How-cked/dp/1335936637)** > > Humans: A Brief History of How We F\*cked It All Up \[Phillips, Tom\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. Humans: A Brief History of How We F\*cked It All Up ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/26 "2019-10-21T01:55:12Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > 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 \, 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… Once the war was going and the Japanese attacked Pearl harbor, yes, the Allies were gonna win. No amount of early jet fighters or better decisions in battle would have done anything but drag it out, if that. But if Lord Halifax had accepted Hitlers deal, then the USSR fights on alone. Stalin himself said he needed that second front and lend lease/aid. Now then Japan attacks Pearl, but since the USA isnt sending lend lease to GB or USSR etc, there’s no reason for Hitler to declare on the uSA. The USA whups Japan, turning it’s full force against them. Meanwhile, the USSR, without that needed 2nd front and without the millions of tonnes of supplies, food, tanks, truck, trains, factories, etc- falls. If Hitler could avoid getting the USA mad at him, the germans have won. England is safe, France is Vichey (One story is the Hitler was even offering to withdraw occupation forces from France, Belgium, etc. Of course, a puppet protectorate would go in, but they’d have had nominal independence), Japan is defeated. In one way this might have actually been better for the world, but who knows? But year, once the war was _fully going_, it was a certain Allied victory. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/27 "2019-10-21T02:08:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > In one way this might have actually been better for the world, but who knows? > > But year, once the war was _fully going_, it was a certain Allied victory. Indeed. The Soviet Union ended up being a far bigger threat than the Nazis ever were. One way to re-play ww2, if you somehow could, would be for the Allies to let the Nazis face the Soviets alone - with carefully limited amounts of lend-lease to the weaker side - while developing long range bombers and a large arsenal of fission bombs. Then, when the two enemies are weakest, nuke em both. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/28 "2019-10-21T02:19:33Z")
> [@Mike\_Mabes](#): > > Sounds interesting. How does it compare, if you’ve read it (I haven’t), to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Leadership? That one I haven’t read. Can’t read 'em all. I try. But I can’t. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/29 "2019-10-21T03:47:29Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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… > > If Britain stopped fighting, America would have lost its focus on Europe; resisting Japan would have become the main foreign policy. Britain was in no position to cultivate much of a relationship with the Soviet Union while it was still supplying Germany - not until the attack actually took place. If Britain had stopped fighting, the USA wouldn’t have had much of a focus on Europe in the first place - unless and until Hitler followed up Pearl Harbour by declaring war on the USA just the same. In that case, then yes, it would have been next to impossible for the USA to do much in relation to Europe. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/30 "2019-10-21T04:02:33Z")
> [@Mike\_Mabes](#): > > Churchill speaking in a voice that is much more subdued than is portrayed in movies . That’s because the recordings may have been made by him after the war for fundraising purposes. Many of the famous ones were made in Parliament, and the general public only read or heard them secondhand through the press or radio news bulletins. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/31 "2019-10-21T06:24:55Z")
Perhaps the best miniseries ever made about Churchill is _Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years_ (1981) - eight one-hour episodes. It deals with Churchill from 1928-1939 - the time before WWII when he was out of power, so not exactly what you are looking for. But it does show how he recognised the danger of Nazi Germany early on, and pushed unrelentingly for Britain to build up defences against Hitler, against strong opposition. It’s a brilliant and highly accurate series, but I’d be the first to say that it’s not for everyone. It’s slow, there are many characters to keep track of, there are many complex political issues to follow, and it assumes a long attention span. But it shows both Churchill’s strengths and weaknesses, and the acting is exceptional. Of course, it also helps to know Churchill’s earlier history - his highly eventful early life, and his first stint in government in WWI. [IMDb reviews](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081963/reviews?ref_=tt_urv) [Episode 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTzyAuFR60o) on YouTube. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/32 "2019-10-21T10:03:36Z")
He was absolutely needed, the man for the moment. Complex, conflicted, imperfect and infuriating certainly but having read widely on this it is clear that his influence on the Allies initial willingness to resist, and the civilian willingness to bear it, has not been overstated. Prior to the War he was a prime architect of the UK’s re-arming and preparation for war. He also brought Bertram Ramsay out of retirement for the express purpose of defense against German invasion. When others were inclined to sue for peace he wasn’t. His eloquence and force on that point really did matter. The “success” narrative of Operation Dynamo (organised by Ramsay) enabled a willingness to rebuff the Luftwaffe through 1940. No air superiority and a solid coastal defence (Ramsay) meant the invasion was now impossible. Germany is forced into a second front and from that point they are unable to win. For all his many faults, I think you take Churchill out of the equation for that period and I’m not sure the UK resists and if the UK doesn’t resist then Germany is much better placed to triumph. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stainless_steel_rat/32/5727_2.png) [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stainless_Steel_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/33 "2019-10-21T13:03:52Z")
You can remember all the reasons Churchill was not perfect, and there is no argument with me. But as a leader in a time of war, a man who would not surrender and would keep his country safe or die trying, well… The closest US leader to him was Lincoln, who is remembered for his speeches and was also ‘less than perfect’ in terms of slavery, but had the uncompromising will where others didn’t in leading his country to victory. I always remember a column written by the New York Columnist Jimmy Breslin when Churchill lay dying. Breslin was a dyed-in-the-wool Irishman and thus had no great love for the English, but he quoted a Cockney woman he spoke to that has resonated with me ever since… “E’ was there when e’ was needed.” And to me, that sums up Churchill (and Lincoln, and yes, Stalin). ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/34 "2019-10-21T13:25:08Z")
> [@The\_Stainless\_Steel\_Rat](#): > > “E’ was there when e’ was needed.” “And e’ was thrown under the bus when e’ wasn’t” ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/35 "2019-10-21T13:38:49Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > “And e’ was thrown under the bus when e’ wasn’t” I mean, he was still an MP, and he was still knighted, and he would be PM again when his party regained the majority, so… It’s not like they put him on an ice flow. I believe I reas he turned down a hereditary peerage so as not to jeopardize his son’s chance at a career in the commons (though that didn’t quite pay off IIRC). ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/36 "2019-10-21T13:44:18Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > As were the vast majority of his contemporaries. Roosevelt wasn’t much better, (actually, he was just as bad), but we wouldn’t have won the war without him either. This is the typical apologist Bladderdash with large subtext of _these darkies are so sensitive, humour them_. :rolleyes: The man was a vile, vicious racist. Even by the standards of the time. His contemporaries thought he was too racist. To illustrate, his views were [extreme even for his own Secretary of State for India.](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/piers-morgan-in-explosive-row-with-academic-who-called-winston-churchill-a-racist-and-compared-him-a3957396.html) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/37 "2019-10-21T14:39:44Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Britain was in no position to cultivate much of a relationship with the Soviet Union while it was still supplying Germany - not until the attack actually took place. Yes, but there were people at the time who felt that Britain should adopt the policy of sitting back and letting the Germans and the Soviets fight it out and kill each other off (and there have certainly been people saying this since). Churchill was smart enough to see this was a bad idea. He understood that Britain needed to support the Soviet Union and help the Soviets win. > [@PatrickLondon](#): > > If Britain had stopped fighting, the USA wouldn’t have had much of a focus on Europe in the first place - unless and until Hitler followed up Pearl Harbour by declaring war on the USA just the same. In that case, then yes, it would have been next to impossible for the USA to do much in relation to Europe. Obviously, if Germany had declared war on the United States, there would have been a war. It only takes one side to start a war. The United States had made contingency plans around the possibility of fighting a war across the Atlantic without a base in Britain. But if we’re talking about a British armistice in 1940, we’re talking about a very different war. It’s not automatic that Hitler would have declared war against the United States in support of Japan, even if we assume that Japan followed its historical path. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/38 "2019-10-21T14:51:32Z")
> [@Mike\_Mabes](#): > > 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? Did he help win? Certainly. Hell, I think he was instrumental in holding the UK together. You have to ask yourself, if Churchill wasn’t the PM, who would have been…and what were the policies they were leaning towards? Would they have sought some sort of peace with Hitler and Germany? Hitler certainly WANTED them too, and had put out feelers for peace. Would any of Churchill’s contemporaries with a shot at being the PM have stayed the course wrt the war, a war where at one point the UK was pretty much all alone (except for some US aid)? My take is, no…several of the people who might have been PM had there been no Churchill or he not gotten the nod might very well have accepted the peace Hitler was offering. IMHO, had this happened the Soviet Union would have fallen and the US probably would have stayed isolationist, or, if not, would have had very little they could do wrt Germany anyway. We probably would have pursued a war against Japan and left Europe to itself. Hell, it might have made things more peaceful between the US and Germany, considering one of the main issues was the US supplies going to the UK, sparking a covert war between the German Navy and the US Navy. Without that potential conflict point, and with the UK at peace with Germany I doubt the US would get involved…hell, we might not have even been able to help the Soviets had we wanted too if the UK was a neutral. So, yeah, I think he helped. How much is probably debatable, but he definitely had an impact. As I noted, IMHO, he had a major impact as great as any individual in the war, by MMV on that one. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/39 "2019-10-21T15:17:37Z")
British policy for nearly 300 years was to oppose there being a dominant power on the continent. Churchill or no Churchill that would not change. The British had several peace agreements with Louis XVI, Revolutionary France and Napoleon. None of those lasted. Any agreement with 1940 Germany would be similarly temporary. By 1941, events in East or Southern Europe or N Africa would lead the British back to war. Not like they did much against Germany anyway until 1942. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032/40 "2019-10-21T16:21:48Z")
Like AK84 alludes to above, even if Germany and GB had made peace in 1940 they would have soon been at war over North Africa. The Italians would have still been fighting the British there, the British would still have won, and the Germans would have been forced to intervene. Also lets say the Germans really did push the Russians hard and took Moscow in 41 or 42. As they pushed further east and south in Asia they would have run afoul of GB like if they tried to attack the middle eastern oilfields. Finally even though German had taken countries like France and Belgium, they still had to control those countries. Resistance movements were popping up all over Europe and I feel the British would have supported those. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-churchill-help-win-wwii/842032.md?page=3)