I have never blamed him for anything 'just because he was in charge.' That is simply untrue. I assign responsibility to him for the orders that he issued. I blame him for ill advised operations that he, specifically promoted or was involved in the specific dispositions for. I do expect the man in charge of the navy to have a basic understanding of how it works. If he doesn't he's incompetent.
For example, he was Prime Minister when Singapore fell to the Japanese. A disgraceful defeat for the british empire, which saw an outnumbered Japanese force attacking and capturing a fortified place, a major strategic base. However, I don't blame churchill for this, because he made certain the place was reinforced, and he was told that it was 'impregnable.' The fault does not lie on him.
I don't even blame him for Operation Market Garden, which he DID have a hand in promoting. However, it was an operation that appeared to have a reasonable chance of success, and what failures there were happened well below his level. It was a risky operation to put forwards, but risk is acceptable in war, and occasional defeats aren't to be matters of blame. Plenty of people would disagree, considering the whole operation to have been a reckless 'lets get the war done by christmas' sort of pipe dream. But I won't ascribe blame for a merely very risky operation as I would one that has manifest incompetence, ignorance and bungling.
I DO blame him for the loss of the Prince of Wales, which he sent with no air protection, to reinforce Singapore. (against the advice of his admirals) After Pearl Harbor, no one had any excuse to think the Japanese couldn't sink a battleship with a bomber.
I DO blame the battle of Coronel on him, because he was responsible for selecting the ships, and he gave the orders, overruling the officer on scene. He failed to understand that the ships were incapable of fulfilling the orders, and instead blamed the men.
I DO blame him for Galipoli, because he was the one most aggressively promoted it, overlooking the problems involved, many of which were naval in nature, and he was in charge of the navy.
How dare you accuse me of inconsistency and bias? I have evidence and facts for every one of the things I blame him for, and I don't blame him for a myriad of defeats that occurred during his PMship, only those where his bungling, arrogance, and ignorance are obviously manifest. Yet you would have me praise him for things that he clearly was not responsible for, like the Battle of Britain, as if his Heroic Aura inspired the pilots of the RAF and caused Radar installations and Spitfires to spontaneously assemble themselves. It is no great leadership to be handed a tool and to say 'this is a good tool, let us use it.' That is ordinary leadership. On your side you only have the fantasy movie idea that officers have total ability to ignore bad orders, and those giving the bad orders have no responsibility for them. It is absolutely a fact that Winston Churchill ordered Cradock to fight a battle he couldn't possibly win. Don't you dare deny that. The fact that you refuse to assign responsibilty to the man who gave the orders shows not just an intellectual, but a moral failing on your part.
Whilst Churchill is the subject of a certain amount of hagiography, the above post is inconsistent and, to a large extent, ignorant.
Coronel; Churchill was on the far side of the world, the Admiralty’s orders to Cradock were unclear. Cradock signalled the FLA (Churchill) seeking clarification but the FLA didn’t understand what was being asked and referred the matter back to the Admiralty. For the avoidance of doubt the FLA isn’t in charge of tactical operations. So Churchill can hardly be blamed there. If you were to compare roles then the FLA was equivalent to the US Secretary of the Navy and we know that Knox didn’t carry the blame for Pearl Harbor. So why should Churchill be solely to blame for Coronel? At worst what Churchill is guilty of is not understanding the importance of why a commander at sea would go over the heads of the Admiralty to the FLA. Cradock was obviously frustrated at the lack of clarity from his immediate superiors and wanted someone with the authority to knock heads together to do so and gain clarity. Churchill failed to recognise this by referring the matter downwards again, thereby foiling Cradock's plan. To be fair, however, the FLA not being in tactical command, did have something on his plate at the time that was his responsibility i.e. the dispute between Battenburg and Fisher.
Gallipoli; again, whilst Churchill promoted the issue, the failure was mainly a tactical one, especially on the part of the army who moved far too slowly thereby enabling the Turks to occupy, fortify, and reinforce the high ground. It is thoroughly inconsistent to blame Churchill for Gallipoli and exonerate him for Market-Garden and Singapore. Blame could not be assigned to him in any of those cases. However, he eventually resigned over Gallipoli and thereafter served as an officer on the Western Front.
The loss of Prince of Wales and Repulse cannot be compared to Pearl Harbor since the latter was an attack on ships stationary in harbour. In fact the loss of these RN ships was the first time major surface combatant vessels were sunk at sea, and under way, by aircraft. Neither Churchill nor the Admiralty (nor even the USN for that matter) “knew” this was possible and, once again, you assume that Churchill was in tactical command, in fact the decision to deploy the ships was taken by Admiral Phillips, who did actually have tactical command of Force Z. Furthermore, sending capital ships to reinforce Singapore had ALWAYS been part of the Admiralty's planning It wasn't an idea plucked out of thin air by Churchill and he certainly did not override his Admirals to send those ships to the Far East. To assert so is incorrect.
The Battle of Britain was certainly won by weapons and tactics devised before Churchill became PM. However the crucial point you miss is that had it not been for Churchill the BoB would not have been fought at all. The possible alternative PMs to Churchill after Chamberlain stood down would have surrendered after the fall of France. Only Churchill was prepared to continue the war despite the UK being isolated.
Churchill was prone to grandiose and strategically naïve thinking, most of which was quietly quashed by the CIGS during his premiership but he was never directly involved in tactical decision making except at battalion level when he was in the Royal Scots Fusiliers. He may have THOUGHT he was and, in his arrogance, he certainly asserted that he was in his wartime memoirs but insisting he actually was isn’t correct.
Churchill’s gift was his stubborn refusal to give in and his ability to inspire others into believing that Britain could not only survive but could prevail in a continued war with Germany.
The world would be a very different place today had Britain, under Churchill’s leadership, not stood alone against Germany. Some of the carping in this thread by Americans is understandable but the Europeans who have also done so have a very, very misguided view of history and forget that their individual countries would simple have been subsumed into the Greater Reich and then airbrushed from history had it not been for Churchill and Britain’s resilience.
