Churchill was haunted by the Dardanelles for the rest of his life, It appears to be the cause of a great many of his 'Black Dogs', and even engendered a rare hesitance in the man whenever any kind of Amphibious assault was mooted.
It may have destroyed him at the time the Cromer Report came out (no matter if that document was a whitewash or not, it still crippled him politically). But it can still be viewed by me as a good thing in the overall long-term that he stayed in politics.

If he had not, or had fully slunk away to Journalism or painting I just can't picture any British politician of the period that could have Galvanised resistance to Hitler in 1940 as WSC did. From Day one he saw the war as a World conflict, in a manner that many others refused to believe possible (either through blind hope, disbelief that it was all happening again as it had in 14-18, or pure ill-judgement). That foresight alone was such an important factor in why he was the right man for WW2, and had the good judgement, not shared by all of his peers, to court the USA from the start.

Combine that galvanisation of resistance with the diplomatic offensive on the USA right up to Pearl harbour and you have two of the absolutely crucial factors in defeating Hitler across the entire war revolving at several points purely around the willpower of one peculiar old man, who had been apparently washed up so many times in his career.
I feel you can't overrate him in WW2 terms, he was utterly central to the successful outcome, and despite his faults other viewpoints are largely sophistry.

Though I do sometimes wonder what would have happened without Alanbrooke there to counter and calm WSCs wilder schemes and impulses. And importantly; place the right men in the right diplomatic/military positions, showing a fine skill in diverting WSC away from some potentially poor choices of men. I feel quite strongly that not enough credit is given to the two men as a team. Both remarkable figures, but combined, the sum was even greater than the parts.

~A