Leaders who got far to much credit

>>1584470
>His speeches don't seem to have been as important for the war morale as earlier thought.
Literally what. That's the reason he was so popular, my grandad loved listening to him, but he would not be shy on telling everyone how shit he was.

>>1584470
churchill will burn in hell for being a lying anglo rat

>>1584470
Read shit m8.
Churchill wasn't to blame for Galipoli. Naval attack he endorsed was a hair-split away from succeeding, which would knock out Turkey out of war.
It was a good gamble. He was never really behind land invasion.

>>1584548

Not OP, and I realize that the British flinched, but quite honestly, the idea that shelling Istanbul and then withdrawing would knock the Ottomans out of the war is a bit far-fetched.

I mean hell, the second World War, you saw much heavier ordinance being delivered on capitals all around and nobody broke from morale failure over it.

File: 32971892[1].jpg (3MB, 4840x3204px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4840x3204px

>His speeches don't seem to have been as important
wut

Leaders in the 20th century were successful more because of their power of persuasion (thanks to inventions like radio and media) than leading men into battle. Hitler, for example, was a brilliant orator but a terrible commander.

Churchill was the anti-Hitler in that regard. He was literally the only leader speaking and inspiring people on behalf of classical liberalism on a continent taken over by fascism.

>>1584590
The Ottomans were weak as fuck, though. "Sick man of Europe," remember? It's possible a bit of shock-and-awe would have gotten their unraveling started a bit sooner.

File: HMS_Indefatigable_(1909).jpg (155KB, 1120x679px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1120x679px

>>1584590
>the idea that shelling Istanbul and then withdrawing would knock the Ottomans out of the war is a bit far-fetched.
Except the russians were attacking via armenia as well. So we have an amphibious assault to force the Turks into a two-front war, a common theme of 20th c warfare.

>>1584633

True, but the evidence of such civilian bombardments forcing governments to knuckle under is spotty at best. It took what? 3 months of pounding by half of Nato to get tiny serbia to abandon their attacks on Kosovo.

If anything, there's more evidence for a rally around the flag effect for dramatic but not materially crushing attacks like that.

>>1584646

> So we have an amphibious assault to force the Turks into a two-front war, a common theme of 20th c warfare.

AFAIK, Churchill wasn't interested in actually landing (and trying to amphibiously invade inside Istanbul itself would have been suicidal). He just wanted to steam some BB up the Dardanelles, shell the capital, and go home.

No second front (or third, Egypt was already a second front) no material support, just a morale shock. And as weak as the Turks are in WW1, I think they were a lot tougher than that.