This is inaccurate. Churchill if anything was underrated by history. The Gallipoli disaster occurred not because of his plans (which was a quick naval attack up the straits, which the British were on the verge of doing and the Turks later admitted would have taken Constantinople had then done so - probably ending the war much earlier, saving millions in Europe, Russia, and elsewhere).

This is a man also largely responsible for the tank (also ending the war, eventually) and probably the main reason Britain did not back down in 1940, saving much of the world from far far worse in Nazi Germany. We can disagree about his methods, but he was probably right in why he was so aggressive after WW2 - he saw the USSR for what it was, as he did many things through his life.

Not without flaw or mistake, but to describe him as you have is not very accurate. There's few people who deserve to be considered "great men", but he was one of them. Even if not, he was not the one sided caricature you have put forward. I'd suggest a good, in-depth biography.

It's perhaps easier to understand some of him when you read the pleadings of a boy for his parents to see or respond to him, which they ignored while they had time for the king and the rest of British high society. This is a man whom actually fought in battles, didn't shy away from conflict or duty, unlike some in his social class. He was at times a liberal and at times a conservative (and took principled stands for both sides), but at the end of the day, was not a monster and was much better than most. The victors may write history, but sometimes there is a reason they won.

To offer a counter-example, consider Churchill's dressing down of the man responsible for the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre in front of Parliament:

http://www.indiaofthepast.org/contribute-memories/read-contr...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Both Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill and former Prime Minister H. H. Asquith however, openly condemned the attack, Churchill referring to it as "monstrous", while Asquith called it "one of the worst outrages in the whole of our history".[54] Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons debate of 8 July 1920, said, "The crowd was unarmed, except with bludgeons. It was not attacking anybody or anything… When fire had been opened upon it to disperse it, it tried to run away. Pinned up in a narrow place considerably smaller than Trafalgar Square, with hardly any exits, and packed together so that one bullet would drive through three or four bodies, the people ran madly this way and the other. When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, the fire was then directed down on the ground. This was continued to 8 to 10 minutes, and it stopped only when the ammunition had reached the point of exhaustion."[55] After Churchill's speech in the House of Commons debate, MPs voted 247 to 37 against Dyer and in support of the Government.[56] Cloake reports that despite the official rebuke, many Britons "thought him a hero for saving the rule of British law in India."[57]

Dyer was celebrated by the pubic at large both before and after the attack (and after this speech). But if Winston was a such an inhumane monster, why take the side he did? You'll find in many occasions in history, he took principled and considered if not always correct positions. He certainly wasn't a Hilter or even a Bush.

For more reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Last-Lion-Winston-Churchill-1874-1932...