Charmley, and some his reviewers, have got things wrong. Sure Churchill was an empire man, that is why he got so unpopular between the wars, when he resisted efforts to give India even the most limited self-government.



But Churchill had no war aims, save victory. OK, victory was important, but we would not have had victory on Churchill's watch.



He was terrified of D-Day, believing a re-run of the Battle of the Somme was in the offing.



All his life, he was a side-show man. When troops were needed in Normandy, he pleaded for them to stay in Italy.



In 1939-40 he even floated a notion - you could not call it a plan - to attack Germany via the Caucusus! The small matter of crossing Russia didn't seem to daunt him.



Then there was his little known adventure in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1943: this was an attempt to drag Turkey into the war. It was a dismal and humiliating failure.



Unlike the other two leaders, Churchill lacked post-war aims.



Stalin was quite clear: he wanted to take Communism westwards. He got his way.



Roosevelt had clear war aims: one of which was to break down the system of trade on which the British Empire was based. He got his way, though he did not live to see it. (Globalisation started here.)



Churchill? He basked in glory, a romantic to the end. Was he good for Britain, though?



He got it wrong, very wrong on Europe: one of the biggest lost opportunities in British history was waved away by a nation that ended the war under the killer illusion that it was still a great power.

Charmley, and some his reviewers, have got things wrong. Sure Churchill was an empire man, that is why he got so unpopular between the wars, when he resisted efforts to give India even the most limited self-government.

But Churchill had no war aims, save victory. OK, victory was important, but we would not have had victory on Churchill's watch.

He was terrified of D-Day, believing a re-run of the Battle of the Somme was in the offing.

All his life, he was a side-show man. When troops were needed in Normandy, he pleaded for them to stay in Italy.

In 1939-40 he even floated a notion - you could not call it a plan - to attack Germany via the Caucusus! The small matter of crossing Russia didn't seem to daunt him.

Then there was his little known adventure in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1943: this was an attempt to drag Turkey into the war. It was a dismal and humiliating failure.

Unlike the other two leaders, Churchill lacked post-war aims.

Stalin was quite clear: he wanted to take Communism westwards. He got his way.

Roosevelt had clear war aims: one of which was to break down the system of trade on which the British Empire was based. He got his way, though he did not live to see it. (Globalisation started here.)

Churchill? He basked in glory, a romantic to the end. Was he good for Britain, though?

He got it wrong, very wrong on Europe: one of the biggest lost opportunities in British history was waved away by a nation that ended the war under the killer illusion that it was still a great power.

Charmley, and some his reviewers, have got things wrong. Sure Churchill was an empire man, that is why he got so unpopular between the wars, when he resisted efforts to give India even the most limited self-government.

But Churchill had no war aims, save victory. OK, victory was important, but we would not have had victory on Churchill's watch.

He was terrified of D-Day, believing a re-run of the Battle of the Somme was in the offing.

All his life, he was a side-show man. When troops were needed in Normandy, he pleaded for them to stay in Italy.

In 1939-40 he even floated a notion - you could not call it a plan - to attack Germany via the Caucusus! The small matter of crossing Russia didn't seem to daunt him.

Then there was his little known adventure in the Eastern Mediterranean in 1943: this was an attempt to drag Turkey into the war. It was a dismal and humiliating failure.

Unlike the other two leaders, Churchill lacked post-war aims.

Stalin was quite clear: he wanted to take Communism westwards. He got his way.

Roosevelt had clear war aims: one of which was to break down the system of trade on which the British Empire was based. He got his way, though he did not live to see it. (Globalisation started here.)

Churchill? He basked in glory, a romantic to the end. Was he good for Britain, though?

He got it wrong, very wrong on Europe: one of the biggest lost opportunities in British history was waved away by a nation that ended the war under the killer illusion that it was still a great power.