Although most everyone has come across the information about Churchill, it is rarely presented honestly. But this is an odd exception to the gross changes that have occurred in other areas. In the intervening years our perspective on drinking has changed markedly. People who were once little more than good natured drunks have come to be shunned alcoholics in need of tough love encounters and 30 days in an asylum to dry out and get on the wagon. Today when there is reference to Churchill's drinking it is always presented in terms of the times but in fact it is not. Even in his day when drinking to excess was much more acceptable, he drank far in excess of even those times. But we find in his writings that he was self-medicating to deal with bouts of depression. But even there let us consider, we he have all had periods of depression to some degree and it passes. And we too might self medicate with a few drinks (OK, many drinks) to make it less painful while waiting for it to pass. But in Churchill's writings were find a description of his depression. Tellingly we find the remark that many days he could not get out of bed for the depth of the depression. That is a characteristic only of real medical clinical depression. That is not "feeling blue" on occasion. That is the kind of depression that demands treatment. The US once had a Vice-presidential nominee who suffered from it. He had to withdraw when it became known. It is an incapcitating mental illness. Even with today's drugs, treating it is problematic. This is not to detract from the man's accomplishments but given the real facts without making them look good are we to marvel over his accomplishments under these handicaps? Or are we to investigate more closely and find which of his staff are to be given the real credit instead of him? Both FDR's and Reagan's wives kept things going towards the end. We should not discount the possibility for Churchill out of hand. Another odd thing you will find about Churchill are the descriptions of him as a military leader. If it is in comparison to Hitler, why hands down Churchill was a genius. If it is his own career we find his naval operation against Turkey in the Dardenelles was not only a grave disaster, it was the only significant loss in British Naval history. It was in fact that which kept him out of politics and serious public office until the sting of it died down. That is why he supported himself as a writer for ten years. As for his second world war strategic ability, he single-handedly nearly lost the Battle of Britain. The only thing that saved England was Hitler directing the Wehrmacht to attack civilian targets. And if you wish to consider Churchill more brilliant for that fine. Churchill had gotten Britain so close to defeat that he had to draw off german attacks on military targets as they were winning. To do that attacks on civilian targets in Germany were ordered. Yes, Churchill's "brilliance" was in getting Germany to respond in kind and start attacking british civilian targets. I personally hope I am never a civilian in a country with a leader of similar brilliance. So brilliant that most estimates put Britain a week to ten days from losing the air war over Britain. In any war the man at the top gets all the credit or blame depending on winning or losing. But let us clearly look at Churchill. He has barely managed to survive until the US enters that war. Then and only then do the fortunes of Britain change. And there are plenty of biographies of Churchill out there and I do not take any side on the overall impression of the man. I note him as an odd exception where the orginal perception is preserved.