Thomas F. (hardtack) -
After every war there is a period during which we lionize the leaders for leading us to victory, while castigating those who were authors of defeat. This period may last for decades, but eventually some historians begin to question the general trend and look at the defects of the first and the redeeming qualities of the latter. A good example in American history is the adulation given Douglas MacArthur during and after World War II, when many historians now agree MacArthur should have been relieved for a Philippine disaster that was greater than Pearl Harbor.
On the other side of the world, there was the British Lion: Winston Churchill. I remember once reading that the British military chiefs agreed that they couldn't have won the war without Churchill, but that if he had let them do it as they were trained to do, they would have won it a lot sooner.
Gordon Corrigan was educated in British military schools and was a regular officer of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, and Member of the British Empire, until retiring in 1998. A successful military historian, he also lectures at the British Joint Services and Staff College. His book. Blood, Sweat and Arrogance, takes a revisionist look at how Winston Churchill ran World War II.
Corrigan begins long before the first shots were fired when he shows that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill made decisions that crippled the evolution of the British military and doomed Singapore in World War II.
During World War II, Churchill often either countermanded the orders of his military chiefs or interfered enough to destroy the effectiveness of operations. His decision to recall some surface vessels without first verifying German naval moves in the North Atlantic led to the most horrific destruction of a convoy during the war. His desire to place politics over sound military strategy led to military disaster and losses of life on a grand scale in Greece, Cyprus and Africa. His impatience with his generals when he wanted action often led him to relieve good commanders and replace them with less skilled commanders. He may even have been responsible for the Allied defeat in Norway. The list goes on.
Corrigan is by no means the first historian to attack our perception of Churchill as a great war leader. However, his 479 pages of text may very well be the most complete compilation of evidence forcing us to view Winston Churchill through other than rose-colored glasses.
Winston Churchill certainly deserves his high standing in history, but interested readers of World War II owe it to themselves to consider the other side of man who lead Britain to victory.
On the other side of the world, there was the British Lion: Winston Churchill. I remember once reading that the British military chiefs agreed that they couldn't have won the war without Churchill, but that if he had let them do it as they were trained to do, they would have won it a lot sooner.
Gordon Corrigan was educated in British military schools and was a regular officer of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, and Member of the British Empire, until retiring in 1998. A successful military historian, he also lectures at the British Joint Services and Staff College. His book. Blood, Sweat and Arrogance, takes a revisionist look at how Winston Churchill ran World War II.
Corrigan begins long before the first shots were fired when he shows that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Churchill made decisions that crippled the evolution of the British military and doomed Singapore in World War II.
During World War II, Churchill often either countermanded the orders of his military chiefs or interfered enough to destroy the effectiveness of operations. His decision to recall some surface vessels without first verifying German naval moves in the North Atlantic led to the most horrific destruction of a convoy during the war. His desire to place politics over sound military strategy led to military disaster and losses of life on a grand scale in Greece, Cyprus and Africa. His impatience with his generals when he wanted action often led him to relieve good commanders and replace them with less skilled commanders. He may even have been responsible for the Allied defeat in Norway. The list goes on.
Corrigan is by no means the first historian to attack our perception of Churchill as a great war leader. However, his 479 pages of text may very well be the most complete compilation of evidence forcing us to view Winston Churchill through other than rose-colored glasses.
Winston Churchill certainly deserves his high standing in history, but interested readers of World War II owe it to themselves to consider the other side of man who lead Britain to victory.
