churchillOn Churchill

“Whatever the PM’s shortcomings may be, there is no doubt that he does provide guidance and purpose … which, without him, would often be lost in the maze of inter-departmentalism or frittered away by caution and compromise. Moreover he has two qualities, imagination and resolution, which are conspicuously lacking among other ministers and among the chiefs of staff.”

Indeed…where did we used to find such leaders….

This entry was posted in Life, Military and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Leaders

  1. Niall says:

    In Churchill’s case, from the upper classes. Of which we don’t have any.

    Recall as well that Churchill was the father of many, many military disasters. Gallipoli, Antwerp, Archangel, Norway, Dunkirk, Dieppe, Arnhem, and others. He was in fact a total disaster as a military strategist. He also was a vociferous opponent of the D-Day invasion.

    So, I’m sure he was an inspiring fellow to listen to on the radio during the Blitz, but whether he was a great leader or not is open to question.

  2. fastnav says:

    True, he led to many disasterous decisions, but there’s something to be said for having an inspiring leader with conviction.

  3. Niall says:

    Oh, very true. It’s interesting to compare how Churchill is viewed in the US and how he’s viewed in the UK. In the US he’s lionized as a hero. In the UK he’s seen as an upper-class f**k up who only late in life found something he was actually good at, after failing at everything else he’d tried. Kind of their own Ted Kennedy, which would be a better analogy.

  4. virgil xenophon says:


    I demur. In his day prior to WWII Churchill was one of the highest paid journalists in the world. Hardly a failure. He was also instrumental in the development of the tank and airpower. Gallopi was actually a brilliantly conceived “end-round” attempt to break the dead-locked blood-letting on the Western Front which failed only because of the hesitation/lack of aggressiveness at seizing initial surprise advantage by Royal Navy commanders on the scene who worried more about losing capitol ships to nearby shore-based arty than achieving the obj. (although I have some sympathy for their concerns–given long lead times for ship const. fitting-out, crew tng, etc. And US commanders at Guadacanal and Iwo Jima also departed the scene abruptly or ceased shore-bombardment prematurely due to similar concerns.) Blame for Dunkirk must be laid to both British and French Army commanders and Arnhem was Monty’s brainchild.The Norwegian campaign too, was not totally Churchill’s fault. The poor performance of the British Army due to bad training and poor and/or inadequate quantities of equipment must be laid at the door of a pre-war Government, Parliament and Dept of the Army of which Churchill played little or no role.

    And to equate Churchill with Teddy boy is a calumny of the first order. The ONLY thing either had in common was that they were both over-weight and they drank. But to compare the cowardly and licentious reprobate Kennedy to a highly moral man such as Churchill who fought in the trenches in WWI and took part in, and was in the thick of the last great Cavalry charge in human history fought with sabers is to commit the foulest of literary crimes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s