I am reading through William Manchester's masterful three-part biography of Winston Churchill, entitled The Last Lion. The biography covers Churchill's whole life, from his boyhood and military service under Queen Victoria to his years both on the front lines and in Parliament during World War I (including his term as First Lord of the Admiralty). I am about 70% through the third volume, Defender of the Realm. It covers the World War II years in great detail, though Manchester died before completing it (Paul Reid finished the work). I am intrigued by Churchill's time as a war prime minister. Perhaps more than most anyone else in Britain or among the Allies, Churchill knew the danger that Germany posed to the rest of the world and warned his colleagues throughout the 1930s about the dangerous new fuhrer Adolf Hitler. While most of Britain was content to cede territory throughout Europe to keep a new generation of their boys from dying in the fields of France and Belgium, Churchill knew that force alone would stop the Third Reich. I am curious as to the opinions of forum participants concerning Winston Churchill's successes and failures as prime minister. What do you see as his greatest achievements, and in what areas do you find greatest fault with his leadership? I'll post my own thoughts in a day or two, once people have a chance to respond.
He galvanised the nation and helped keep up morale in the dark days of 1940. His failures were similar to Hitler's. He believed he was a master strategic and tactical genius. He had the habit of interfering in the decisions of the General Staff and overuling them on occasions. This is most evident in regards to Japan. He constantly underrated the Japanese military and was way off the mark when considering the threat Japan posed to the far east. He alone prevented British reinforcements being sent to Singapore and the far east during 1941 when the Chief's of Staff urged just that. In fairness, he had difficulty getting British formations sent to the Middle East, as the Chief's wanted British units kept at home on Anti - Invasion duties, while Empire formations (Indian, Canadian, New Zealand & Australian) dealt with the Middle & Far East
Thank you for your well-written response. I am also curious as to how Britons today view Mr. Churchill. He is a legend and a hero to my grandmother, who was born in 1937 and who lived in England for a couple of years in the mid-1950s. Her husband, my grandfather, was stationed there for nearly two full years. I suppose any American of that age living in England during Churchill's lifetime would have a similar impression.
Unforunately, left wing, politically correct views tend to dominate in British Education. History is a subject that is almost ignored in the UK. When it is taught, the British Empire is hardly mentioned, and if you asked British people under the age of 40 who was Winston Churchill? I kid you not when I say most would have heard of him, but a great many could not give a single fact about him. They could of course tell you everything you want to know about every soap opera on British TV. It is a national disgrace!
That grieves me. I have never visited England, but have an affection for it. It would seem to me (as an American) that Churchill would be given similar respect in England as someone like Franklin Roosevelt would receive in America. But then again, Roosevelt is known more for his social reform and for expanding the role of the federal government than he is for his service as a war leader.
Some say Albert Einstein was the greatest figure of the 20th Century, but I think the preponderance of opinion would give the nod to Churchill. He was a success at almost every thing he turned his hand to, from writing (histories, journalism) to politics and military strategy. Later in life, he became an impressionist painter whose skill is only now being truly appreciated. He was a wit and raconteur of the highest rank, an adventurer and fearless warrior. In the punitive expedition sent up the Nile to avenge the beheading of General Major-General Charles George Gordon, he led a cavalry charge against what turned out to be Muslims in overwhelming numbers hidden in a swale. Because of an injury suffered in India, he had traded in his sword for a German pistol. This saved his life (a story wonderfully told in The River Wars) as he blazed away, killing several before they could dismount him or hamstring his horse. He joined the army, greatly aided by the influence of his mother, knowing it was the surest and fastest path to political office in England. He had his ups and downs -- the Dardanelles disaster was more Admiral Fisher's fault than his -- as Manchester masterfully showed in the first two volumes. The third, ghost written by a magazine writer, unfortunately fails off some in quality. Along with his own histories (he declined a salary during the war years for the right to use official sources) and a host of others.
Churchill's wartime decisions were tempered by one man who encouraged Churchill where necessary and refused point blank to carry out his 'madcap schemes' . Churchill threatened to sack Field Marshal Alan Brooke many times - but knew that would reverberate around the British general staff - 'When I thump the table and push my face towards him what does he do? Thumps the table harder and glares back at me. I know these Brookes – stiff-necked Ulstermen and there's no one worse to deal with than that!" They had a lot of respect for each other - Churchill would when wishing to make a point - that 'Brookie' backed him up. Brooke's war diaries Churchill is described as a "genius mixed with an astonishing lack of vision – he is quite the most difficult man to work with that I have ever struck but I should not have missed the chance of working with him for anything on earth!".
Sir Alexander Cadagan, the No. 2 man at the foreign office as permanent undersecretary of state during the war years, was another close-up and astute observer of Churchill. He was greatly disappointed when Chamberlain chose Winston over the wobbly Halifax as his successor, thinking Churchill was too shallow and impulsive for the job. Like Alan Brooke, he was often infuriated by the prime minister's tendency to fly off course because of some hunch or outmoded Victorian idea of strategy (attacking the soft underbelly of Europe being one), but as time went on he admired Churchill more and more and decided at the end that the war could not have been won without him. Martin Stuart is the man if you really want to get into Churchill. This distinguished scholar has made it his life's work to assemble every fact that can be known. http://www.amazon.com/Great-Liars-T...=1420213108&sr=8-1&keywords=jerry jay carroll
Indeed - Sir Alexander Cadogan: http://www.ukwarcabinet.org.uk/people/2 http://www.ukwarcabinet.org.uk/documents
I know Winston C. had time served in the British Army. He served in Sudan? in 1895, in the Boer War (1898-1900), and in the trenches in WWI command troops. Did any of the other leaders in WWII have experience commanding troops in combat? Adolf was a corporal. Franklyn didn't. What about Bunito? Uncle Joe? Tojo? Anyone else?
General (Later Field marshal) Smuts South Africa: https://archive.org/stream/JcSmuts/SmutsJC#page/n0/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/generalsmutscamp00crow
