Upvote:0
His treatment of colonial troops in both wars was poor, some of the best troops available to him where colonial troops and he constantly wasted them in futile engagments in world War 1. He refused to listen to colonial generals, Monash who Churchill desperately wanted to sack was an Australian General of Jewish decent. The Australian prime minister grabbed Churchill by the throat and threatened him after a discussion about the deployment of Australian troops. I would rate Churchill overall as a poor HR man but he more than made up for it with his forceable will, and his genius at mass psychology.
Upvote:3
I recall a quote by one of Churchill's senior generals about his military prowess going something like this:
"Churchill's amazing; he comes up with 10 completely original ideas every single day.
Of course, only one of them is any good; and Winston doesn't know which one it is."
I argue that the fundamental difference between the management styles of Churchill, Hitler and Stalin is that Churchill generally knew when to defer to his military advisors; Stalin sometimes knew when to defer; and Hitler didn't know the meaning of the word defer.
Given that most supervisors have great difficulty deferring to subordinates, that would make Churchill well above average; Stalin about average; and Hitler somewhere off the bottom of the scale.