"Winston Churchill? About 9.5..." Topic

We asked – TMP link

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

37% of you said he rated a 10.
21% said he rated a 9.

(2% rated him as a 1.)

Leaders are hard to rate.

On the one hand he got Britain into the war and kept it there. He also played no small part in building U.S. sympathy for the allied cause, which made the U.S. entrance into the war, on way or another inevitable.

On the other hand, he was a dedicated imperialist. The cost--in blood, treasure, and public morale--of two massive continental wars in a generation made the British Empire unsustainable. So, in his own way, he help destroy what he sought to protect. Of course, much of the empire was about to slip away regardless and a less aggressive British leader might have allowed the Axis to move directly against British India, speeding up the whole process.

Which brings us back to the issue of rating leaders, particularly successful ones. We don't know what the alternative would look like.

Churchill had a very useful mix of good instincts and tremendous luck. He was a very capable leader, but he could be obstinate and made quite a few mistakes, but none of which were truly critical, they may have been major setbacks like Dunkirk, Greece or losing Crete, but he always bounced back.

How is that 9.5? 10 would appear to have won the poll.

It's not the first time that the announced result of these polls bears no resemblance to the actual voting.

The actual math comes out to 8.5. 1049 'points' 123 votes (with a rating) 1049/123 = 8.53. Of course, 10 got the most votes. Really depends on how you count.

On the one hand he got Britain into the war

Eh?

DBDD

(1*2)+(2*1)+(3*0)+(4*1)+(5*4)+(6*3)+(7*14)+(8*24)+(9*27)+(10*47)=1049
2 + 2 + 0 + 4 + 20 + 18 + 98 + 192 + 243 + 470 = 1049 points

2 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 4 + 3 + 14 + 24 + 27 + 47 = 123 votes

1049/123=8.5284558455285 looks like 8.5 to me

Hitler & Stalin score higher but, that's because the low vote(r)s were eliminated.

My rate is 2

Also at least partially responsible for the success of D-Day – he got such a shock from Gallipoli in WW1 that he made sure that every amphibious landing he had any control over was a success. I suspect that Dieppe was an expensive 'lesson' for the US General Staff who wanted to invade Europe in 1943.

If you did a poll for fav colours and red came top and yellow came second – would you say orange won?

…. he got such a shock from Gallipoli in WW1 that he made sure that every amphibious landing he had any control over was a success.

Wasn't Anzio his idea?

Anzio might have worked with a more aggressive local commander and an overall commander who wasn't more concerned with his press reports.

+1 for Teppsta, made me LOL!

I'd say, his ability to lead was a 10, where he wanted to lead you to, somewhat less.

There's more than reason he spent all those years "in exile". People remember. Good thing he was there, tanned, rested and ready when needed.

I remember my dad discussing how people viewed Churchill during the war. According to him, early in the war, people thought he was the best option of leader in the coalition government, but as the war went on, he was less well regarded, mainly for his opinion on how Britain was to be run after the war. I suspect Attlee's Labour party landslide in the 1945 election reflected this.