Originally Posted by Zeno

But he led the cavalry charge at Omdurman, no?

Originally Posted by deadkenny

From my perspective, the 'flaw' with the 'soft underbelly' strategy was not completely of Churchill's making. Before the Americans entered the theatre (which took almost a year after they entered the war) on land, there was not much more that the British could do. Later on, it was a matter of compromise 'compromising' the strategy. The Americans wanted to land in France early. The British wanted knock Italy out of the war.

The Italian peninsula would have been difficult for the Germans to defend, if adequate resources had been allocated to the campaign. Clearly any line the Germans attempted to man could be 'outflanked' by a landing on the coast 'behind' the German positions. However, the resources allocated to the Anzio landing were inadequate, and a cautious American commander gave up any chance for a decisive result there. When the German line was finally broken, just before the Normandy landings, another American commander decided to give priority to his 'victory parade' into Rome over trying to cutoff the German defenders, and again any chance for a decisive result was squandered.

In the final analysis, it would have been better to either allocate more resources to the Italian campaign, or not pursue it at all. But that was not completely within Churchill's power to control.

Originally Posted by sylla1

IMHO what was in Churchill's control here already included some significant blunders. It was not only that he constantly and consistently insisted in diverting more and more allied forces in Italy to almost the last day of the war; he was constantly suggesting the most diverse additional landings, from Norway to Sumatra.....

Originally Posted by sylla1

In spite of his notable strategic abilities, he was not a military man.

Originally Posted by deadkenny

Perhaps I do not fully understand your meaning. Churchill's constant 'demands' may have made him a 'handful' to manage to those actually trying to carry out the agreed upon strategies. However, the fact that none of these demands were actually met would appear to 'prove' that in fact he was not 'in control'. Historically, massive resources were diverted away from Italy, to allow for not only the Normandy landings but South France as well. If Churchill had been 'in control', certainly the South France landing at least would have been cancelled, and the effort directed elsewhere in the Med, perhaps the Balkans.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Sylla1, what is your definition of a military man? My definition encompasses one who has graduated from his countries military academy and served in the armed forces of that country. From my post above, WSC was a military man fulfilling those criteria.

Originally Posted by Cicero

He had pretty intimate detailed knowledge of some technical features, was an innovator - the tanks and air power (himself a pilot) and had a firm grasp of every aspect of his government.