Was Churchill overrated?

I know i will have churchill apologists jumping up and down but its a fair question,for me the only good thing he did was stand up to hitler.

Lets have a look at his record,what he did seem to have is a genuine talent for attatching himself to success while distancing himself from politically damaging stuff.

1.gallipolli,,,,,easy to be brave when its not you neck on the line,foolish.

2.norway,,,,his idea,chamberlin got the blame.

3.british retreat out of greece,,,,,,he pushed for british involvement but sent a force too small to do the job and then blamed the men on the ground for the poor showing.

4.he advocated the use of poisen gas and area bombing and it was his spitefulness that lead to the blitz(which by accident more than design to british victory in the BoB).

5.He was also quick to slam lucas at anzio(a debate for a different day)but this was probably more for promoting his own public image than anything,lucas and clarke both thought churchill an amateur.

6.He did nothing good to help post war relations with russia,apologists will maintain that what he has done for democracy cant be overlooked but he didnt do anything for reasons of democracy,when he drew up the"naughty little document"he was thinking only of the british empire.
Be grateful he didnt always get what he wanted because he wanted plans drawn up to invade russia,thats one greedy eye.

No doubt i have forgotten many things and some people will get the rats but is this forum for discussion or is it just a get-along-club.

So,what was churchills worth and could it have been done without him?

 

I agree on all points. Churchill was no saint, but macker's criticisms are either simplistic or based on half truths. The fact is NO one is infallible. Gandhi and King certainly were not.

A perfect man has not yet taken a breath of air.People who criticize greatness for their flaws miss the point. It is not that these persons are without sins, it is that they managed to transcend their own character defects to achieve something that benefited mankind greatly. That is why we celebrate them.

The truth is that the critics who revel in tearing down heroes are much more flawed than the people they are taking aim at.

 

Of course the winners can tell the story the way they want afterwards, but even with his faults you can ask " who could have saved the world from Hitler other than Churchill especially in 1940 and onwards?" I believe his stubborness was the key that united the people of Britain and also FDR, especially the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir as I have read about it and FDR´s response.

 

Churchill's faults - as a personality, politician and military figure - could ( and have ! ) filled several books.

But even his harshest critics have to concede that in 1940 he was the right man in the right place at the right time.

 

Churchill is my heroe. Who cares about his faults. Rather an efficient moody Churchill with his faults and balls than a bad popular leader. Would yo uhave prefered a guy like Chamberlain? The Bulldog saved Britain and largerly contributed to the victory. He fought "alone" for more than a year when France had quit, the Soviet Union still being tied to the non agression pact and the U.S. not having entered the war therefore he is on the podium of my most respected leaders.

 

And if you believe the rumours Churchill did it all while stoned on brandy, What A Man!

 

I don´t know if he drank as much as is claimed...

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/9910-lesser-known-details-ww2-part-two-3.html#post119530

 

"Churchill Apologists" is an Interesting turn of phrase. Positively Irving-esque.
I'd say the apologists were those that strain so hard to attack Churchill, & as to what they're being apologist for... well...
Got to ask Macker; have you been reading the ridiculous 'Churchill's War' by Irving?
"It was his spitefulness that led to the Blitz" is a fascinating statement, and one I only ever hear in certain circles, not even the most critical sensible biography of the man follows that line, only those seeking to transfer some sort of blame from their boy Hitler.

Overrated? No, I don't think so. Despite the black dogs, the booze, and occasionally meeting chiefs of staff in the buff (none of which seems to have particularly held him back, or affected his overall judgements) he was exactly the right war leader to emerge and counter the Nazi project at that specific time.
We can take any major figure and pick a few holes, it's easy, the tabloids are experts at it - but a narrow list of cock-ups and some 'unusual' personal behaviour are not enough to build a solidly condemnatory view - the wider picture on WSC shows those factors to be largely irrelevant when building an honest picture of the man.

~A

 

Strolling around the web a bit; I have to ask Macker, are you based in Ireland mate?
As I suspect I may now see the real subtext/motivation to your distaste for Churchill, and it's quite possibly nothing to do with the second war?

If I'm wrong I apologise for that, and will turn back to my query of the Irving-esque line.

~A

 

"Von Poop", I too was catching a whiff of David Irving's Churchill's War in that poorly thought out post. I didn't even bother to respond since it seemed to fall into a category reserved for persons who "bash" those who succeed in spite of flaws, since they are incapable overcoming their own shortcomings.

 

well if that is really true, i salute the guy

 

German policy led to the Blitz.

In Poland, Norway, France, Belgium and the Netherlands the Luftwaffe proved that it was perfectly prepared to flatten cities when it suited them. That at a time when the RAF was not allowed to attack even military targets in Germany.

In June Jodl set out his views on the conduct of the war against Britain:

Hitler set it out in Directive 17, 1 August:

What was the largest port and food storage area in the world? London. It was simply Britain's turn next. The Luftwaffe were not going to show any more restraint over London than they had over Poland or Rotterdam.

 

Judging by some of macker33's other posts, you are all wasting your time posting replies. You only have to look at his Sealion post ( http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/32405-were-germans-wrong-operation-sealion.html ) to know that his views are heavily biased towards Germany (in my opinion, only a step or two away from revisionist history) and that no amount of reasoned, informed & educated responses will change his views.

 

I usually have no problem with the initial question/statement he posts - by all means throw them out there into the public domain if 'you' wish to promote or provoke a reasoned & sensible debate but like you say, no matter how many people respond proving otherwise he doesn't change his views/arguments and just seems to completely ignore everything everyone posts and keeps on regurgitating the same old stuff.

 

Well put "hucks216", there is no point in debating a person who refuses to alter his/her view in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Oddly enough, isn't that the working definition of both religion and superstition?

 

Ohhh - don't get me started on that!!!