I totally agree BD.
Most genius is flawed, I would suggest, but here I am arguing on a technical point, because in this case I am not sure that it ever became a flaw. After all, re. direction and control of a great war, I must opine that the work of a genius can only be assessed and appraised by a similar genius. (Giants and Pygmies). Who qualifies? Where were they during WW11 and where are they now - I don't see them? God knows, we could do with some! My technical point is this; was Churchill ever officially diagnosed as an alcoholic at any time? If not, then there is no case to answer.

Let us rest easy in the recognition of the quality of our first belief in this giant , that he has earned his reputation as the greatest Brit. As for all the criticism - the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. It is written history, and the finger has moved on. I am embedded somewhere in there, so I cannot live silently with denial and revisionism, and altho' the alcohol issue is not so important, it contributes the chipping away process, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

I totally agree BD.
Most genius is flawed, I would suggest, but here I am arguing on a technical point, because in this case I am not sure that it ever became a flaw. After all, re. direction and control of a great war, I must opine that the work of a genius can only be assessed and appraised by a similar genius. (Giants and Pygmies). Who qualifies? Where were they during WW11 and where are they now - I don't see them? God knows, we could do with some! My technical point is this; was Churchill ever officially diagnosed as an alcoholic at any time? If not, then there is no case to answer.

Let us rest easy in the recognition of the quality of our first belief in this giant , that he has earned his reputation as the greatest Brit. As for all the criticism - the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. It is written history, and the finger has moved on. I am embedded somewhere in there, so I cannot live silently with denial and revisionism, and altho' the alcohol issue is not so important, it contributes the chipping away process, in my opinion.

But hang on a sec we judge other leaders from periods throughout recorded history without ever knowing them Churchill is no different in those respects.

As has been mentioned previously his actions and achievements will always be judged separately as we can see their results however that should not stop us discussing perceived flaws that may have affected the course of WW2.

In the end it wouldn't matter if this entire forum decided he was the worst alcoholic in the history of the world because his place in history has already been written but discussing these things does give us insight into the man and his achievements/failings.

Certainly MontyB - I am not suggesting that the matter is not discussed. It is simply that I am opposing the motion and have been pleased to take up the cudgels and register my opinion. I recommend to you, in this respect, my post 9.

I assume this is acceptable, however inconvenient it may seem.

Be my guest, run with it. I am at your service.