Customer Reviews

The World Crisis, 1911-1918

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Sir Winston has a wonderfull dominion of the English language and, with the simplest words, conveys the action, or completes a description, in way that you feel part of the story.
On this particular opus the style is vintage Churchill and the book is quite a delight to read.
Having said all that, and to go to the point, this is not a book you want to read as your first on WW I.
His is a personal narrative, of all the episodes on which he played a part, with insights that only a witness to the events can give.
Large parts of the events of this war are skimmed over or simply not mentioned, the descriptions of battles are succint and to the point, etc.
His coverage of the Turkish front, specially the infamous Galiopoli campaign, is an attemt to come clean on that dark episode and, this section is worth the rice of the book by itself.It honestly narrates it from the inside and lais the blame evenly and with great sincerity.
If you have a working knoledge of the war, if you have read a general history of it or, for an example of a great starting book "The Guns of August", then this book will be gem on your library's history section

I would love to read Churchill's World Crisis - but only in the original set. This is a condensed version, and reading it would be like reading an abridgment of Gibbon. If anyone knows where I can get the complete text, please send me a message and let me know.

The World Crisis is as much a project to be undertaken as a book to read. Churchill approached his writing in much the same manner as his paintings, attempting to include as much color as possible. He once noted that he felt sorry for the color brown. This book strikes out to chronicle a complex and rapidly shifting period of time, and Churchill packs history with as much color and description as possible. Not a book for the casual reader, you need to both enjoy history and thoughtful prose.

This one-volume history of WWI is necessarily a severely abridged version of Churchill's multi-volume history. What is remarkable is that this book never reads as an abridgement - it is engrossing and complete in its own right. Any problems I have with this abridgement I would also have with the full version. Some are not Winston's fault: the most obvious is that maps are difficult to read and placed in bizzare locations. There is also the glaring omission of any kind of post-war analysis. The last volume of the full work came out after the peace conference, so Churchill could have included a chapter or even a few pages on Versailles. There are, of course, many modern books on the subject (e.g. MacMillan's recent "Paris 1919"), but these are written knowing that Versailles was simply a cease-fire (or to use Churchill's own memorable phrase, the "20-year armistice"). What did the British and French think of the treaty in the '20s? Finally, as a Canadian, it is deeply insulting that Churchill never once mentions the presence of Canadian soldiers in the line - we are simply lumped in with the "British Army", even when acting as an independent corps, as at Vimy Ridge (it's not like the Battle of Vimy Ridge is ignored, in fact it is talked about several times!).

The other criticism that has been levelled against this work, and it is entirely valid, is that it is very self-serving to the author. To quote another Churchillism (although he apparently never said it exactly this way), "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." A neophyte reader could be excused from thinking, on the basis of this book, that the most important battles in WWI were between Britain and Turkey. More chapters are dedicated to the Dardenelles campaign than to the ALL the battles on the Western and Russian Fronts combined. Churchill uses these chapters to vindicate his decisions and to comment on the sources of the failure of the campaign. Although he spreads blame, he doesn't really blame people, certainly not because the people involved were malicious or stupid. No, Churchill rather blames the fact that they disagreed strategically with the direction of the war. Because Churchill's prose is so powerful, it is hard to disagree with his analysis - had the Dardenelles offensive proceeded apace, with sufficient initial force, and with a vigourous naval presence, Turkey would likely have been forced to sue for peace. However, it seems extremely unlikely to me that this would have changed anything substantial in the main theatres - I think Germany would still have grappled with England and France for several more years, Russia would have suffered revolution, etc., regardless of the presence or absence of Turkey.

Similarly, the British-German naval battles are afforded more space than was necessary. That Britain maintained control of the seas was never in doubt, even when fighting a general fleet action (i.e. Jutland). However, I can see the importance in this case of focussing on the naval preparations, upon which all else depended (the support of France with a sizable field army; the transportation of troops from Canada and Australia, and later the U.S.A.; the feeding and supplying the civilian population of England, etc.). Two whole chapters on Jutland (double the space devoted to the Somme) might be a little excessive, but it's still interesting.

The Dardenelles and Jutland chapters also provide the highlight of the book, because it does what Churchill does best - provide an overall strategic sense of the situation, including all the important details. In lesser hands this would lead to a unreadable mass, but Churchill's writing is so clear that it's easy to understand and appreciate each situation in all its complexities. He also combines a healthy dose of analysis, and even makes clear his preferred position. This is not a failing! Good writing presents all the alternatives (which Churchill does), but that does not mean that the author cannot prefer one alternative. The reader may disagree - and a post-colonial liberal reader like myself is likely to often disagree with Churchill! - but that does not dilute the effectiveness and enjoyment of the reading.

In conclusion, this abridged version of Churchill's history of WWI is a fascinating and informative read. It is very well written, and in the absence of the full version being easily available, it will do admirably for anyone with an interest in military history. I imagine the 4-star rating that many give this book is because it IS abridged, and they would prefer the full version. That's no reason to deduct a star for this book, which is still excellent in and of itself.

This is a great work. Be aware, however, that this particular version of Churchill's The World Crisis does not include the final volume, entitled The Aftermath, which is an integral part of the original though published a bit later. I bought this book primarily to have a reading copy of the chapter regarding Ireland contained in The Aftermath and was disappointed to find that this is not contained in this particular version.

The first part covers 1914 to 1916 when Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. This is an apologia for Churchill's actions, especially the Dardanelles and Gallipoli campaigns. It's quite self-serving, for instance Churchill expressed surprise when Jackie Fisher resigned as First Sea Lord. If Churchill was surprised, he was in the minority, considering how loudly Fisher objected to the Dardanelles fiasco.

After Churchill was forced out of office and became a lieutenant colonel in the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the book was no longer written in the first person. It became a thought-provoking commentary on the last two years of the war. Churchill no longer had to justify his actions, and wrote an intelligent, knowledgeable discussion on the war. This second part of the book is well worth reading.

I have read many of Sir Winston's many writings, and aftercoming across the fact that a World War One hitorical commentary by Sir Winston was extant, I proceeded to aquire the same for my library, and found it was a perfect addition to my collection. It brings to life the various members of the British Government and traces the attempts to attain a peaceful solution to the growing problems, were being rebuffed by the local interests of other countries, eventually leading to WW I, many due to diplomatic miscalculation, and errors in judgement of some national leaders. Altho, it is a bit biased in favor of the strategy proposed as First Lord of the Admiralty, (which was tried in a half-hearted manner by others of the War Council). Mr Churchill definately put the British navy on a superior war footing for the conflict. The handling of the land war was excellent, showing how a misquided leadership actually threw away countless lives with their futile stratigies. This book takes us into the midst of the War leadership on the diplomatic as well as strategic fronts. A very worth-while read for an student of recent history.

Granted, there are many things Churchill isn't mentioning about the conduct of the war because they were secret, detrimental to Britain's image or to himself; and also, his attempt to defend the Gallipoli enterprise is defined by subjectivity. On the other hand, it is next to impossible to read the opinions of an insider to WW1 decision-making at the highest level of government. Also, the author's writing style is nothing short of brilliant.

In this abridgement of his multivolume work, released in 1930, Churchill provides a masterful overview of the War To End All Wars as seen and experienced by him. When he wrote the abridgment, he had time to read other authors who experienced the war. His profound insight about the failure to "solve the European problem" indicates to me that as early as 1930, he could see the certainty of further multinational conflict on the Continent, YEARS before Hitler and the Nazis!!
The style of writing is superb, indicative of his later being awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. All can learn about the craft of wordsmithing from him.
If this book has a fault, it is the poor quality of the maps, too few in number, too small to see clearly. An Atlas of the War would help. Also, the publisher could make available a re-issue of the fifth volume about the post war situation which is not included. Other reviewers note correctly that the space devoted to the Dardanelles/Gallipoli theater is disporportionate to the scope of the war, but that is how Churchill saw it. What else should one expect?
Churchill's role in preparation of the Royal Navy, as minister for munitions later, and his sober assessment of the futility of frontal assault in trench warfare are especially strong points.
This is not a first book for World War I; I suggest starting with Barbara Tuchman's two volumes: The Proud Tower and The Guns of August. Hew Strachan has a one volume abridgement of his so far incomplete encyclopedic work. John Keegan's The First World War is also a good first book.
The tragedies of current world conflict have their roots in the origins and outcomes of World War I more than in World War II.
Much thoughtful material for the serious student of our global political problems.

Extremely well written with very logical explanations from the fated Dardanelles expedition to the technicalities of submarine warfare.

There are many passages that simply sparkle with Churchillian language and rhetoric. The strongest passages are when Churchill describes the broad outlines of the war like the shaky alliance with Russia and Italy. He also shows an excellent grasp of the overall European scope of the war - something that would serve him well in the coming years. He is not solely concerned with the Western Front in France and hardly sees it as the only facet of the World War. He saw this front primarily as a stalemate with both sides bleeding themselves to death.

But at times the book focuses only on Mr. Churchill's perspective of the war. For much of the war he was head of the Admiralty until the Dardanelles. He speaks volumes on the English government role and its procrastination during the war, but little is said of the French government. Clemenceau gets only a few scattered lines here and there. Surely this great historical figure merits more. There are several pages on Lord Fisher for instance.

There are some who compare this work favourably to his monumental Memoirs on the Second World War. I cannot agree. The `World Crisis' is more autobiographical (I suppose due to the limited role of Mr. Churchill) and has a narrower perspective.

If Mr. Churchill had not attained immortal fame (and that would have been tragic indeed) during the Second World War, I do not believe this work would merit much attention today - except perhaps as a personal view of one of the many players of `The Great War'.