There were 3 million Bengalis in 1943 who would probably have taken issue with your assessment of Churchill as an individual of vision, inspiration, genius and charisma. Had they survived the famine he inflicted upon them, that is.

Churchill, despite rumours to the contrary largely circulated by the man himself, was indebted during wartime to quite a large group of extremely astute strategists. The man had at least learnt enough from his own previous disasters when he had tried to single-handedly "take military control" (as ANZACs, the Royal Navy, and the British Mediterranean Expeditionary Force could attest to with justified bitterness) to elect to stay in his bath with a large cognac and a good Cuban for most of the day while the actual leaders got on with things.

Whether these individuals, who Churchill rather ungraciously was always loath to acknowledge let alone praise, decided things by committee process or not was largely up to them - strategies benefit often from diverse input whereas tactical decisions may not. Many of them certainly ended up on a committee whether they liked it or not when it came to the American led planning and conduct of the Allied European invasions from 1943 onwards. As far as we know, Churchill - whose insistence against better advice on landings in Italy which immediately proved more bloody and less strategically intelligent than he'd hoped - was then hardly even consulted when it came to further crucial strategic decisions from this time onwards, though he was certainly informed about them afterwards in case he wanted to work them into a later speech - one thing he was admittedly good at.

I think you're confusing Churchill the brand with Churchill the actual man, just as I think you maybe have forgotten quite a bit of history when you aver "those who will not be defeated cannot be defeated" to be a "truism". British colonial history alone should disabuse you of such a fallacious idea, at least from the point of view of the exploited in that particular relationship - though in truth one could do well to find even one instance of where it is true for every thousand instances from history which amply demonstrate that it most palpably isn't. As Churchill himself once remarked "recognising failure for what it is may, in the end, be the only true success to which any government can aspire".

terrence.monroe wrote:

The story of Winston Churchill sums up those indispensable elements of leadership that defines the role of the individual in history: vision, inspiration, genius, and charisma. Most of all, his political career and his defiance of the dire Nazi threat embodied the truism that those who will not be defeated cannot be defeated. In part isn’t this because the countless compromises—large and small--that are implicit in group-think, make it impossible for leadership to ever be a product of a committee—any more than a committee can paint, sculpt, compose, or write a masterpiece?


Aloha... Terrence
[url=www,wisdommaps.info]WisdomMaps: the Future of the Past[/url]

  Another person who had the leadership qualites of vision, inspiration genius and chrisma was - Adolf Hitler.
  I know that my grandfather, after being pursued through the streets of Newcastle by mounted policemen, egged on by Moseley's blackshirts had no truck with Churchill or any other Tory (he also disliked Communists in his union).
 

Despite this he was into Europe before war was declared, as a reservist from WW1 (where he won an MC)
, came back via Dunkirk,  and ended going off again, to return via North Africa and Italy.

 He despised Churchill till his dying day, in 1967, as he thought there was little difference between the Hitler he had helped defeat and the Churchill who had ordered the military to execute Welsh miners in 1910.

From what I have read on line  - of a BBC investigation doc of the Tonypandy riots, this happened during Churchill's Liberal Party phase, not Tory, and when military were called in to assist local police during rioting by miners after high handed pit closures. There were clashes but no deaths - or at least from what I read so, perhaps it was a a tad unfair to equate Churchill with Hitler who really has a rather dreadful track record for applying violence and subjection with deaths. 
But this is  often the way in mind set; good leadership being matched against bad leadership  and in my experience  it is  applied when the real reason for specific opinion and grievance remains veiled and related to personal issues.
I guess few perfect people get to be leaders.... none come immediately to mind. WC was the best we had at the time, I think - and he walked a knife edge the entire time; the War Cabinet was no Happy Band of Brothers. Having - or finding the strength and self belief to take a people through dark days is commendable whatever ones personal failings are. Leaders of quality are so very few and they must  learn to stand knee deep in the ever constant quicksands of critics - learning on the job, I suppose.

I can hear Johnson hastily scribbling notes to self, even as you speak. Keep it up, P.

If Boris can make something of himself through pulling us along with him during difficult times all power to him. If he fails - as so many wish and expect then ignominy will be his lot. In any case whatever, he or the next to take it on will be slagged off by those who carp but who never chose the harder course of leadership. There are many who aspire to it, agreed but few can hold their finger in the dam for long. Mrs May comes to mind. Mr Corbyn does not  qualify because unseen hands held the strings there. Tony Blair had a fair go at it - and Gordon Brown fell into leadership but the problem for  the electorate is to identify true quality. And that is nigh on impossible in a political climate which is not as transparent as it claims. So a leader has to be a bit of a bruiser to get to the top of a tacky heap. Most critics, on the other hand have a less arduous route. Tunnel vision, of course helps some of those .... along with a few other  comfy aids to bolster untried and untested qualities by which to make judgment.

Whoa, slow down! Johnson's crayon can't keep up!

Now what was that again? If Boris can pull his weight ... no wait, pull the wool ... oh bugger! And what was that about Corbyn again? Should Boris maybe scribble it in red crayon? And should he really mention the tunnel at all given who's at the other end of it? Can it be a bridge instead? Everyone likes bridges. Oh, and buses! Did Churchill have a bus? Cripes, this muddling through like Winnie crap is bloody complicated!

Damn! Crayon snapped! Note to Boris self - better take "full responsibility" for that later ....

Would you like one or those colouring in books for adults, nord. Seeing that you cannot keep up. dear.

Pencils are better than crayons.... and later if you can manage it we';ll try painting by numbers, shall we?
Wheel him out nurse.... and end of the queue for his jab, perhaps.

Give him a book of Winston's Coffee Table Book - Advanced Colouring and Wall Buifing for Learner Leaders. and lAssorted Critics.

You're confusing me with some Eaton twit, P. Can't be the hair ....

I believe Specsavers is that which is most commonly recommended for people in your situation. If you don't want to stoop however to such a common option you could of course always aim for the more refined alternative which might also help - "thinking before you write". It doesn't work for Boris, mind you, but I have higher hopes in your case should you elect to adopt the practice as an obviously new habit.

brenogler wrote:

terrence.monroe wrote:

The story of Winston Churchill sums up those indispensable elements of leadership that defines the role of the individual in history: vision, inspiration, genius, and charisma. Most of all, his political career and his defiance of the dire Nazi threat embodied the truism that those who will not be defeated cannot be defeated. In part isn’t this because the countless compromises—large and small--that are implicit in group-think, make it impossible for leadership to ever be a product of a committee—any more than a committee can paint, sculpt, compose, or write a masterpiece?


Aloha... Terrence
[url=www,wisdommaps.info]WisdomMaps: the Future of the Past[/url]

  Another person who had the leadership qualites of vision, inspiration genius and chrisma was - Adolf Hitler.
  I know that my grandfather, after being pursued through the streets of Newcastle by mounted policemen, egged on by Moseley's blackshirts had no truck with Churchill or any other Tory (he also disliked Communists in his union).
 

Despite this he was into Europe before war was declared, as a reservist from WW1 (where he won an MC)
, came back via Dunkirk,  and ended going off again, to return via North Africa and Italy.

 He despised Churchill till his dying day, in 1967, as he thought there was little difference between the Hitler he had helped defeat and the Churchill who had ordered the military to execute Welsh miners in 1910.

Brenogler, thanks for the personal thoughts from your inner circle as your father was. Mine was only a soldier during the 18 days campaign in Belgium May 1940. But during his many stories to me about his life, I was be able to trace over the years what his "views" were and as nordmann just said overhere "views" can change during a lifetime.
I had the intention to reply this morning but due to my "fullday's" workload I wasn't able and now that i see that there are two heavyweights on the question I am even more reluctant...

But "what the heck" would Temperance say...

First I want to react to the mentioning of the site by "Terrence"
https://www.wisdommaps.info/
And I see now that you have to subscribe before you can seek for "Churchill". No, no with me...and based in Honolulu...

But about Churchill now...I didn't read his memories nor a book about the "leader". I studied more Hitler and Stalin as this one: Hitler and Stalin. Parallel lives" from Bullock
https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Stalin-Parallel-Alan-Bullock/dp/0679729941
and also this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/06/devils-alliance-hitlers-pact-stalin-1938-1941-roger-moorhouse-review

OOPS...back to Churchill...

As I see it, compare Churchill with Hitler...? I agree, both "leaders" came to it by "circumstances". But perhaps that is the only parallel to compare? After a while Hitler could act as Stalin in a dictatorship nearly as they wanted protected by a state apparatus which let no choice for the population. Churchill had to act within the frame of a democratic state I think.

And it is not easy to judge a person, even while all the "judges" as perhaps myself aren't without "cognitive bias" ( a new word that I learned today from nordmann) (and btw proven by the critique on the book "Devil's pact just mentioned).

But  about Churchill and his leadership...
In my humble opinion and it was perhaps that what Priscilla said today somewhere, it is not easy there as leader at the top.

As for instance there at Mers-el-Kébir, where he wanted to prove to the Pétain government and indirectly to Hitler that Britain would in no case surrender.
Or when following de Gaulle in his ill interpretation of the Dakar invasion leading to the debacle.
Or when he made the Stalin deal for supplies in the beleagered Russia.
To call but some decisions...

For all that I know or read about the person for me he comes over as a very "human" personality as for instance when he received Maiski the Soviet ambassador at his home, brick laying on an extension (in the garden?).

And yes his bipolar disorder, who makes him for me even more "human"
https://www.healthline.com/health/celebrities-with-bipolar-disorder
"The twice-over Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who achieved victory during World War II was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in middle age. Winston Churchill often referred openly to his depression, calling it his “black dog.” He was known for making the best of his situation and often capitalized on episodes of sleeplessness by directing his energy into his work. He published 43 books during his time as prime minister. He went on to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953."

Kind regards, Paul.

I suppose you might say that Winston was diplomatic.


 He was, after all, Our Man With Havanas.

Amongst Naval historians, the "blame", if blame there be, for Mers-el-Kebir is mostly attributed to Gensoul, and the considered opinion is that the decision to take action had little to do with convincing Petain, more a demonstation to Roosevelt that Britain was not about to conclude a peace deal with Hitler

Green George wrote:

Amongst Naval historians, the "blame", if blame there be, for Mers-el-Kebir is mostly attributed to Gensoul, and the considered opinion is that the decision to take action had little to do with convincing Petain, more a demonstation to Roosevelt that Britain was not about to conclude a peace deal with Hitler

 
Thanks GG. Up to now I thought from my readings that the decision was, indeed not so much to convince
Pétain, just Hitler's puppet, but more intended for Hitler as a message that Britain would not in any case surrender. But of course you are right that Mers-el-Kébir at the same time was a signal to Roosevelt, that Britain would stay firm against a Nazi dominated continental Europe.
Kind regards, Paul.

Green George wrote:

Amongst Naval historians, the "blame", if blame there be, for Mers-el-Kebir is mostly attributed to Gensoul, and the considered opinion is that the decision to take action had little to do with convincing Petain, more a demonstation to Roosevelt that Britain was not about to conclude a peace deal with Hitler

Pretty fair appraisal.It could have ended differently as what happened at Alexandra,but Gensoul wasn't going to talk ball let alone play ball and the rest is history....


In regards to Churchill...

Right man at the right time in terms of May 1940, however his copy book was well and truly blotted in other regards, such as Force Z's destruction and the fall of Singapore for example. When the Royal Navy recieved the signal

"Winston's back" its fair to say that many were not rejoicing in the senior service and their thoughts were along the lines of "clucking bell". After all people remembered Coronel and Gallipoli as it was fairly recent history.


Probably the archetypal British hero.Drunk like a fish,witty, a great orator but flawed.

Churchill, despite undoubtedly being a patriot and serving his position for purpose of the nation - not himself, was not a genius political or millitary strategist that he is often portrayed as. 

I often consider his handling of the after-war crisis with Soviet Union to be a fine example of his bad political strategy. If it was not for Roosevelt who carefully considered Soviet demands about Eastern Europe, there is a very large chance that very soon after WWll another war would erupt. Churchill was oppossing the possibility of Soviet Union building up a large sphere of influence in Europe - but Roosevelt considered the size of Red Army at that time and the power it had. 

Those aspects of Churchill's philosophy are easily detectable in modern thought of many western Europeans too. What people saw in Churchill is his love and patriotism for the country, as well as passion for the alliance - they saw a man they can relate to, and in the meanwhile the people also adopted his philosophy, not considering its relevancy. Modern western Europeans are handling the Russian relations with no consideration of Russian demands.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing when the dust has settled for a clear view and cloaks of concealment fallen. But for those in the cellars with bombers above and with family god knows where in  strange lands, that there was someone here we could really believe in holding firm for us and who we would follow to the beaches if he called on us to do it;  he was our man of the moment and many bless his memory for being what he was for us then.  So stack up the faults, the weaknesses if you will, but from a corner of my mind where dark memory lingers, his bold light of hope was there - and of truer value to remain with the likes of me when  posterity blithely takes  old souls to the  racks  of forensic investigation.