> It's interesting. Whilst I still have tremendous respect and 
> gratitude
> to Churchill(*) for his leadership in the war, the more you read on 
> the
> subject the more you realise that he was not the perfect leader that
> many think he was. He was stubborn and obstinate, and too often
> interfered directly with the plans of the armed forces (particularly 
> the
> navies).

Indeed. Churchill was always interfering in a wide range of things. He 
had many good ideas and many more that were less than good. He was a 
great annoyance to many who had to work under him.

BUT

He was the right man in the right place at the right time. He had the 
ability to appeal to and rally the populace. He did a good job as 
frontman against the common enemy. He was intelligent and insightful 
(and opiniated and idiosyncratic). Overall he did a superb job as 
leader during WW2. His earlier disasters helped pave the way for his 
later successes. He also had his fair share of disasters in WW2. In 
grateful thanks for what he had done for them the British public 
turfed him out of office immediately after WW2. He regained power 
quite some years later.

For current NZers I think the current closest equivalent to Churchill 
is John Banks (!) But Churchill had a higher IQ.

FWIW Churchill lost most of his money in the stock market crash and 
made his fortune subsequently with his writing.

> (*) it goes without saying that I also have tremendous respect for
> those that fought and gave their lives in the wars

I also. On *all* sides. It would however be a good idea if everyone 
did a bit less of it :-(. War is a lose-lose situation for the 
soldiers. I have visited the major German cemetery in Ypres and it is 
a moving experience. The walls of the entrance way are covered in fine 
print with the names of dead German teenagers who fought and died for 
their country. These provided examples for Hitler to use to encourage 
the Hitler Youth in WW2. The Turks at Gallipoli included many locals 
who were fighting not only for their country but also for their homes. 
The origins of WW1 are complex and in large part do not reflect 
honourably on most involved. WW2 arose in large part because the 
injustices on both sides from WW1 led to great injustices being 
inflicted on Germany & provided fertile ground for Hitler's ideas. 
Hitler was a genius & a true patriot but also a man driven by his own 
distorted vision which increasingly with time departed from reality. 
The injustices inflicted on the populace of the invaded countries*, 
while severe, were arguably no greater than those which towards the 
end were inflicted on the Germans by both the allies terror policies 
and Hitler himself. Hitler at the end sought to destroy the German 
people (!). [Hard reputable documentary evidence of this exists].
    * Jewish holocaust is outside this statement.

After WW2 the allies started again with reprisals that would have led 
to more of the same. Somewhere along the line they became more 
enlightened - arguably as a result of having to counter Stalin's 
'interesting' approach to life.

It seems there's aplace for war, but I wish we'd manage to need less 
of it. Donovan's "Universal Soldier" comes to mind.


        RM

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist