"Rate Winston Churchill" Topic

How would you rate him as a WWII leader? On a scale from 1 (awful) to 10 (magnificent).

Without Winston, we would have capitulated under Halifax. So, as a WWII leader he has to be a 10. "Cometh the hour, cometh the man".

What Huscarle said.

Overridingly, his total and unequivocal poilicy in the defence of the Realm, from developing chemical weapons, the tragedy of Oran to willling the USA and Soviet Union as allies etc knew no bounds.

10

10

10

10

Haven't we been here before? Anyway, right person at the right time, so, limited to war leadership, 10.

As I understand it he did on occasion have bad ideas. He didn't insist that they be carried out. That's a pretty strong trait in itself.

10

11

10

9.

Absolutely inspirational on the home front, vital to the budding coalition between UK, USA and USSR as well as being realistic about the possible post war world.

That said, he did have some remarkably silly military ideas, especially in relation to Italy and the Balkans, and while he didn't manage to get most of them implemented, he was a burden on the various military professionals who had to pour cold water on his projects…

10 in 1940 for political will.
9 for coalition building and maintenance.
7 for keeping home morale up thereafter
4 at a pinch for military decision making – too many peripheral projects, searches for quick fixes,obsessions with 'soft underbellies', indirect strategies, dispersal of main effort. If he was kept away from the military stuff and the professionals allowed to do their jobs, he was okay.

Good old Winston, a liberal among conservatives, a conservative among liberals. Utterly convinced of his own manifest destiny. He could be absolutely spot on or miss the broad side of a barn, but he was never afraid of committing himself whatever the cost may be.

It's sometimes a bit hard to sort the brilliance from pure foolhardy dogged determination in the face of adversity.

For much of his career Churchill went from bust to boom like a rollercoaster with his wartime leadership as the high note.

His wartime leadership is just the same, he gets so many things right, some through great insight, others through sheer luck, and he makes devastating mistakes.

I give him a 9.0 with the mention : Winston carried himself far beyond his actual ability in good and in bad times, he deserves praise if only for his role as motivator, though he does not have a perfect score he still outshines most others, a true descendant of the Duke of Marlborough.

10

The world would be a different place without him
10

I'm in the midst of William Manchester's wonderful (and enormous) biography of Churchill. What an incredible man. Flawed to be sure, but in the case of his leadership in WWII he was not just the right man for the job, he was the only man for the job. A 10 for sure.

The last thing I'd have wanted to hear as a soldier embarking on a new military campaign was that it had been thought up by Churchill!

Stil, he had the determination and ruthlesness the situation required

10. Visionary.

Was he the guy playing on the the German side of the Bridge Too Far game at Historicon 2014? No?

Never met him personally. Seems like a nice guy from his own memoirs. Gives good radio message.

10. Fallible but no one can be perfect.

1930's 8
1940 10
1941 5
1942 6
1943 6
1944 8
1945 5

My opinion based on quite limited knowledge is that almost every decision he made or advocated for in WW2 was flawed or outright wrong.

Except the one not to sue for peace in 1940. That was 100% right and made all the difference to the outcome of WW2.

A key difference between him and Hitler and Stalin is while Churchill was an egomaniac and a bully, be was not a tyrant. He never sought absolute power not was handed it. As such some of his more stupid policies were quashed.

Fascinating life story. And while a deeply flawed human being what human being is not deeply flawed? Don't lionize the man, but do give him his due.

3
Politician endowed with an old mentality, he made his nation go backward, did not understand what great transformations were being built by acting as an oracle of micro transformations.

10

In the big picture … overall 9 or 10 …

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

-- Winston Churchill

What Skarper said. But as strictly a measure of his ability to lead (not concerned with what direction he was leading in), definitely a 10. Throw in also his ability to work closely with Roosevelt and to get along (sorta) with Stalin. Oh, and he was right about not invading France in '43.

Right man in the right place at the right time.

10 for oration and morale building
7 for military decisions

Wacmole has it right.
Greece was a very bad idea.
Anzio was not quite as bad.
"Soft underbelly of Europe" would have been dumb. Very dumb.

But "Their Finest Hour" was magnificent. A 10+++

Let's not forget Gallipoli, but different War. He should have learned from it.

You will notice that the British didn't get around to kicking him out of office until they thought it was safe to do so.

Exactly what England needed in 1940 so a "10." After that he did a fairly sub-par job but still represented/portrayed exactly what the British people needed to carry on.

The people who lived through the war loved him. Easy to second guess him now.

Soft-underbelly of Europe would have been very different without Mark Clark going off seeking glory in Rome. That was an opportunity entirely missed due to a military commander when the politician, Churchill, saw that correct thing to do.

I think the key issue about Churchill was that any alternative put into that position on May 1940 would probably have sued for peace with Germany. He recognised that Germany was not the old Germany of the Kaisers but the Germany of National Socialism. He had been a consistent lone voice in pointing out the threat from that pernicious state and still, even that late in the day, he alone recognised that this was not a 19th century Germany intent on gaining a few provinces, but a vile regime which was in danger of throwing away all of the liberties which Europe had struggled to gain over hundreds of years.

Had we not had Churchill in 1940 I hate to think what state Europe would be in today. In that respect, he took the lead and provided the moral backbone which saw Britain stand alone as a beacon in democracy on the edge of a Europe which was being submerged into the dark night of dictatorship.

As to sub-par jobs after that. I feel that is questionable. He certainly attempted to stand up to Stalin and the threat of Communism, something that Roosevelt failed to do.

Ultimately, no person is without fault, and no performance is without failings, so attempting to use a 1-10 scale is somewhat futile. Suffice to say that Hitler was the one man who could have started WWII, Churchill was the one man who could have thwarted Hitler's plans and ensured that the forces of democracy could liberate the many millions of subjugated people in Europe. That looks like a pretty unique accolade to me.

10

A 10, definitely. He is one of the great men of the modern era.

Advocate and TooFat – very well said.

He was a bricklayer so he's alright by me.

Churchill was a great wartime leader who had the media, if not the people, behind him. It should be remembered though that he was the leader of a coalition government.

When peace broke out he was dumped for a socialist government that had promised to reward the electorate for the trials of six years of war with the establishing of a welfare state.

<<As to sub-par jobs after that. I feel that is questionable. He certainly attempted to stand up to Stalin and the threat of Communism, something that Roosevelt failed to do.>>

As Roosevelt died while Stalin's Soviet Russia was still an ally against the Axis that statement is a little pointless.

It's a small point but both parties were promising a welfare state. The Tories were dumped because nobody had delivered a land for heroes in 1919.

10 despite the flaws. As Murrow said of him. "When he had no other weapons he mobilized the English language and sent it off to war."

The Greek diversion was because Britain had promised Greece support if she were attacked, and he didn't want to break that promise. That's an honourable reason to make what turned out to be a a major error.

Well said toofatlardies!

Toofatlardies +1
And 10 from me.

10, without him we'd all be speaking German.

10 and a nod to Toofadlardies

Hindsight is 20:20 – but at the end of the day it was the Allies dividing up Germany, not the other way around

10 without a doubt. GB surrenders, DAK captures mideast, Suez, oil reserves and a very different strategic situation arises with USSR. Obtw, been watching the Crown – Winston is a treat.

10

As Roosevelt died while Stalin's Soviet Russia was still an ally against the Axis that statement is a little pointless.

Stalin might have been our ally, but that was no reason not to oppose his plans for post war at the Yalta conference. Churchill could see the way things were going with the Soviets refusal to help the Warsaw uprising or even basing of British and US planes on supply missions. Roosevelt was too focussed on getting the Soviets involved in the Pacific, something which ultimately proved unnecessary.
Churchill did what he could. Sending British Airborne troops to Athens to prevent a communist takeover and rushing British troops into Austria after the German surrender to prevent Tito's forces from annexing a large part of the country.