His drinking and smoking habits, whilst above what would be considered to be healthy today, were not staggering. They may have been 'horribly unhealthy' in the words of one chap above, but weren't so outlandish for the time or indeed today.
The received wisdom, simply put, is wrong. The discussion in Posts #101 and #102 of this thread is instructive:
Others have pointed out the mathematical and logistical brick wall the Axis was facing...so I guess their only chance is resolve? I suppose they have to call this bluff: "I have, myself, full confidence, that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made -...
www.alternatehistory.com
The first makes the observation, that Churchill was constantly in a state of (legal) intoxication (not that there was such a measure during his lifetime). My response drills down into the actual data regarding Sir Winston's daily intake and puts it in its context - spread out over a day, it really didn't amount to much that could intoxicate, as it were.
His smoking habits:
https://winstonchurchill.org/the-life-of-churchill/life/man-of-leisure/smoking-cigars/
- Chewing on cigars, puffing the smoke out and often discarding them half smoked. The combination of these doesn't seem to be equivalent to chaining on the level of Eisenhower.
To put it in its context, consider a young person today who goes out on the town at 4pm in the afternoon and has 4 cans of awful premix lolly water over the first two hours, then dinner with a glass of wine, then goes out to a club afterwards and has 2 shots and 4 vodka and Red Bulls over 3 hours, before calling it an early night and hopping in a cab at midnight. (I've no idea if that is typical drinking patterns for the youth of today, but the example doesn't require accuracy)
Would we describe this young man or woman's intake as 'staggering'?
Would it be so outlandish as to be the stuff of legend?
As that afternoon and evening amounts to more standard drinks in half the time than Winston Churchill put away over the course of a 17 hour day (14 standard drinks vs 12), sans his naps, two extra meals and two hot baths.
Another way of putting it is to use the 425ml schooner/pint most often consumed by Australian drinkers. 6 of those will render 9.6 standard drinks; it wouldn't be completely unreasonable for a bloke to sink three an hour over the course of a Friday happy hour/two hours. Is that 'staggering'? Even 6 Imperial Pints, or the standard 568ml found in Britain as well, isn't really outlandish or amazing, yet that would exceed Churchill's daily intake. Would that be 'staggering'?
A significant part of the misunderstanding of Churchill's drinking habits comes from reading his intake of Johnnie Walker Red as being full drinks, not ones so watered down as to be the functional equivalent of mouthwash.
