Of those realistically in a position to become PM in 1940, only Churchill had the determination, force of will and governing skills to rally the British people and see that a Nazi air assault would be defeated and a potential invasion averted. He was not perfect, and he made many mistakes, but he also really made the difference between victory and defeat for his country.
Of course there have been many books about him, but I particularly recommend Roy Jenkins’s one-volume bio, Churchill: A Biography.
That is, in fact, the situation in 1964 in Robert Harris’s excellent what-if novel Fatherland.
Ok, how would Churchill not being PM would make RAF fighter command and chain home radar stations useless and the Royal Navy unable to beat back an invasion?
Another PM might have accepted Mussolini’s attempts to broker a peace deal - before there was any question of a Battle of Britain or an invasion: or, in trying to do so, have caused such division in government, parliament and the country that there would have been no clear authority setting strategy.
If you are looking for evidence that he had his hand on the tiller and personally directed the BoB, you aren’t likely to get that. But all the radar and intelligence systems in the world are useless without the political will to deploy it in the first place. That is very definitely what he did. And he did engineer and drive Dynamo and hand-pick its architect, Dynamo is what made the BoB viable and necessary.
He did meddle, for better and for worse, I’m not aware of too many wartime leaders that didn’t but we can’t make an easy calculation as to the overall net benefit. His meddling often took the form of pushing his military command to pay greater attention to detail and justifying what they were proposing. They often hated it but he respected that push back and welcomed being challenged, when he got rid of people it was often because they outlived their usefulness or weren’t up to the tasks, rare for it to happen just because of a personality clash overall I’d say that he got it right more often than he got it wrong and honestly, that is as much as you can hope for in such a massive, fluid conflict.
Interestingly, I’ll be visiting Bletchly Park on Sunday with the family, should be interesting.
#1, they were broadcast, except for the “Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat” speech, his first public address.
However, just because it wasn’t broadcast doesn’t mean it wasn’t printed, and we’re talking a completely different media environment: Over 70% of the 1930’s British public read a newspaper daily, and “almost everyone” read the Sunday paper*. The top-5 British papers of the era had a daily circulation of 23,000,000, in a population of 44 million (1941 figures, Google).
This is a highly literate society which took in most of its information via reading, not visual or audio media. Regardless, as mentioned, all his speeches except the first one, was broadcast, and they were all printed, again, to a society which 70% of the people could be assured of reading what was said.
Those RAF airbases and Radar stations, being PART OF A GERMAN CLIENT NATION, would have been in full readiness. And would have prevented any attempt by the US, Russia or whomever to enter British airspace.
The difference that Churchill made is that he convinced the parliament that a negotiated peace (surrender but with favorable terms) with Germany would not be honored, and that the British did actually stand a chance if they fought.
I have serious doubts that Britain would ever have been a German client state. Nor do I see any possible scenario where the home islands were successfully invaded by Germany and conquered. The only real alternative would be that the British would have opted for peace with Germany and, essentially, stopped fighting. THAT was a real possibility. Chamberlain’s faction, and even the man himself was, after all, pushing for this once the BEF and France were obviously going down, and, frankly, Hitler’s terms were pretty generous all things considered. Without Churchill I think there was a good possibility that the British government would have gone for that peace to preserve the Empire, especially considering that at that time they were pretty much alone, with no prospect, as far as they could see, of other allies fighting with them. They had, at best, the US giving them material support but they were pretty much otherwise on their own.
Not sure what point you think you are even making here, to be honest. My responses would be 1) So what? Sure, it made them essentially invasion proof at home, but it was stretched very thin across the rest of the empire and wasn’t even that great at keeping their supply lines open…not without the US aiding them. It had the wrong mix of combatants to really help much wrt the submarine interdiction war Germany was waging. And 2) And? The rest of the Empire wasn’t magically going to teleport to their aid back in Europe, nor was it able to really even get vital resources TOO the home islands without, again, outside aid…even with that aid, the home islands were being slowly strangled.
All of which is beside the point. Because they had a large Empire didn’t make them any less alone, especially when the other parts of the Empire were either weak, basically only being held in the Empire by force or simply couldn’t materially help the home islands…or a combination of those. They had no external allies, and at that time there was no prospect of getting them, at least from where they sat. The US president told them we weren’t going to enter the war, and it was a fight for Roosevelt to even keep extending aid to them, especially with the displeasure the German’s were being made known about that. Russia was at least nominally on the German’s side at this time, or at least they had a working relationship to carve up Poland and do their own things elsewhere. France was gone.
Again, not sure what you are getting at wrt Churchill and the broader discussion, or even what your point is at all. There were other factions in the British government who were saying the same things and urging a peace with Germany after the defeat in France. There weren’t a lot of folks saying, ‘well, we really aren’t alone or threatened because we have the largest fleet and a vast Empire, so stiff upper lip…’.
balkanized England? From what I know, Hitlers peace offer would have been very generous. Even eventual withdrawal from western Europe, and GB gets to keep everything.
A cite from that, which also helps dispel some of the other base canards in this thread:C. H. Rolph was wrong in thinking that the story was “not very important,” because it has become part of the ugly tapestry of denigration of Churchill, of which Irving was the first practitioner, his lead followed by others who also claim to be reputable historians. Some of this so-called “revisionism” is subtle, much of it less so, like the malicious and ludicrous exaggeration of his drinking, which ignores all the testimony to the contrary by those who worked closely with him.
I had posted a cite saying the Churchill really wasnt that much of a racist.
The book I have doesn’t refer to Irving as the source but if it is correct I’d be prepared to think the whole story was a sham. (Then again I wouldn’t totally trust a website dedicated to Churchill either).
Sati was made illegal forty-five years before Churchill was born. If he was still blaming Indians for it, it would actually support claims about his bigotry.
wiki: It was not before 1861 sati was legally banned in all princely states of India,
but as with many things making it illegal doesnt stop it. Still cases up until 1987, with a few women committing suicide until just recently. It was fairly prevalent while Winston was still alive, illegal or no.
I understand that FDR was dumbfounded when Churchill referred to Chinese as “Chinks” which would probably reflect a lot of the prejudices of the Victorian era. I would have thought that FDR would have been exposed to it and while not liking it, hardly be shocked.
FDR had the Little White House in Warm Springs, GA where he often traveled for polio therapy. I would think he would be familiar with racism and terms like “Chink”. Would Victorian prejudices be less than New England ones? Perhaps FDR was “shocked” in that it should be unusual for the PM of the British Empire to use racial slurs.