What do you think?
Rate this book
The World Crisis #complete
The World Crisis, 1911-1918
As first lord of the admiralty and minister for war and air, Churchill stood resolute at the center of international affairs. In this classic account, he dramatically details how the tides of despair and triumph flowed and ebbed as the political and military leaders of the time navigated the dangerous currents of world conflict.
Churchill vividly recounts the major campaigns that shaped the war: the furious attacks of the Marne, the naval maneuvers off Jutland, Verdun's “soul-stirring frenzy,” and the surprising victory of Chemins des Dames. Here, too, he re-creates the dawn of modern warfare: the buzz of airplanes overhead, trench combat, artillery thunder, and the threat of chemical warfare. In Churchill's inimitable voice we hear how “the war to end all wars” instead gave birth to every war that would follow, including the current war in Iraq. Written with unprecedented flair and knowledge of the events, The World Crisis remains the single greatest history of World War I, essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand the twentieth century.
Churchill vividly recounts the major campaigns that shaped the war: the furious attacks of the Marne, the naval maneuvers off Jutland, Verdun's “soul-stirring frenzy,” and the surprising victory of Chemins des Dames. Here, too, he re-creates the dawn of modern warfare: the buzz of airplanes overhead, trench combat, artillery thunder, and the threat of chemical warfare. In Churchill's inimitable voice we hear how “the war to end all wars” instead gave birth to every war that would follow, including the current war in Iraq. Written with unprecedented flair and knowledge of the events, The World Crisis remains the single greatest history of World War I, essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand the twentieth century.
880 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1931
108 people are currently reading
1753 people want to read
About the author
Winston S. Churchill
1,398 books2,489 followersSir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill, politician and writer, as prime minister from 1940 to 1945 and from 1951 to 1955 led Great Britain, published several works, including
The Second World War
from 1948 to 1953, and then won the Nobel Prize for literature.
William Maxwell Aitken, first baron Beaverbrook, held many cabinet positions during the 1940s as a confidant of Churchill.
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can), served the United Kingdom again. A noted statesman, orator and strategist, Churchill also served as an officer in the Army. This prolific author "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values."
Out of respect for Winston_Churchill, the well-known American author, Winston S. Churchill offered to use his middle initial as an author.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston...
William Maxwell Aitken, first baron Beaverbrook, held many cabinet positions during the 1940s as a confidant of Churchill.
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can), served the United Kingdom again. A noted statesman, orator and strategist, Churchill also served as an officer in the Army. This prolific author "for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values."
Out of respect for Winston_Churchill, the well-known American author, Winston S. Churchill offered to use his middle initial as an author.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
October 2, 2016
Nobel Week is approaching fast, and there is a unique literature laureate waiting impatiently for me to give him credit for his opus magnum.
Dear Mr Churchill, it took me years to read your book, please bear with me while I collect my thoughts for a moment at least.
What can be said of this brick of a book, telling the story of the World Crisis, culminating in the Great War 1914-1918, as perceived by one of its witnesses and active participants?
Is it biased? Yes, massively!
Are there inaccuracies? Probably, but I will leave it to other petty historians to find them and fill their dissertations with the stuff that Churchill got wrong.
Is it hard to read? Yes, there is a whole lot of detail, referring to military, technical and political specifics, that need checking and rereading. I spent many, many hours over maps and other history books.
Is it boring? No! Not once! I have read hundreds of history books, and many of them I have skimmed through or read certain parts of, but I read every single word of this 1000-page heavyweight.
Why?
Because Winston Churchill is a storyteller and a politician and a bundle of energy and a brilliant analyst, all in one person. And a fallible, biased human being as well. What he DID fills more than one life, but then he sat down and reflected on it, and wrote this, and published it - in 1930! There was so much more to come, and he had already achieved more than most people, and done so in outstanding, beautiful prose!
My copy of this book is falling apart. The spine is broken and it carries traces of the many places I have taken it. I spilled coffee on the "Abandonment of the Dardanelles", and I ate an orange on "The Ruin of the Balkans". I managed to move twice between "Preface" and "Victory", and I probably read three other books on the first World War in between as well. It DID take me some time.
When I reread the opening sentences now, after all that time, I feel a shiver down my spine, considering where Churchill started his historical path, where he was standing when he wrote those words (in 1930), and where he was heading:
"It was the custom in the palmy day of Queen Victoria for statesmen to expatiate on the glories of the British Empire, and to rejoice in that protecting Providence which had preserved us through so many dangers and brought us at length into a secure and prosperous age. Little did they know that the worst perils had still to be encountered and that the greatest triumphs were yet to be won."
When I think of that society, I think of Virginia Woolf's The Voyage Out or Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage, both published in 1915, at the beginning of the war. And I see them before me, changed forever by that hiatus which is the topic of Churchill's life and writing. I see them change in the way Kipling changed when he lost his son, mourning not only a child, but a whole world, brilliantly dramatised in My Boy Jack. I see the hope and glory of millions of soldiers shatter and crumble in the face of poison gas, forever made tangible in The Poems Of Wilfred Owen. This generation set out with the mindset of "Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori", only to call it an old lie in 1918. And still, there was worse to come. After following Churchill's fabulous recapitulation of "the war to end all wars", we read his conclusion with a shudder:
"The curtain falls upon the long front in France and Flanders. [...]
Is this the end? Is it to be merely a chapter in a cruel and senseless story? Will a new generation in their turn be immolated to square the black accounts of Teuton and Gaul? Will our children bleed and gasp again in devastated lands? Or will there spring from the very fires of conflict that reconciliation of the three giant combatants, which unite their genius and secure to each in safety and freedom a share in rebuilding the glory of Europe?"
Here ends Churchill's account of World War I, published in 1930. He would write another opus, published in 1948, on the continued European crisis, when he could see an Iron Curtain separating Europe.
What would he think of our world today? Of Britain's place in Europe, and its choices? Of international developments and internal conflicts? Of the immense destructive powers in the hands of people with the mental capacities of Kaiser Wilhelm II? What would Churchill's take on the world of today be?
I don't know. Just like Churchill did not foresee the future in 1930, we can't see what is in store for us, but one thing is clear: if we do not learn from the past, the future will not be bright.
Churchill's THE SECOND WORLD WAR: Abridged Edition with an Epilogue on the Years 1945 to 1957, which is up next as my long term reading project, starts with a quote:
"One day president Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once 'the Unnecessary War'. There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle".
Those are the saddest words I can imagine!
Dear Mr Churchill, it took me years to read your book, please bear with me while I collect my thoughts for a moment at least.
What can be said of this brick of a book, telling the story of the World Crisis, culminating in the Great War 1914-1918, as perceived by one of its witnesses and active participants?
Is it biased? Yes, massively!
Are there inaccuracies? Probably, but I will leave it to other petty historians to find them and fill their dissertations with the stuff that Churchill got wrong.
Is it hard to read? Yes, there is a whole lot of detail, referring to military, technical and political specifics, that need checking and rereading. I spent many, many hours over maps and other history books.
Is it boring? No! Not once! I have read hundreds of history books, and many of them I have skimmed through or read certain parts of, but I read every single word of this 1000-page heavyweight.
Why?
Because Winston Churchill is a storyteller and a politician and a bundle of energy and a brilliant analyst, all in one person. And a fallible, biased human being as well. What he DID fills more than one life, but then he sat down and reflected on it, and wrote this, and published it - in 1930! There was so much more to come, and he had already achieved more than most people, and done so in outstanding, beautiful prose!
My copy of this book is falling apart. The spine is broken and it carries traces of the many places I have taken it. I spilled coffee on the "Abandonment of the Dardanelles", and I ate an orange on "The Ruin of the Balkans". I managed to move twice between "Preface" and "Victory", and I probably read three other books on the first World War in between as well. It DID take me some time.
When I reread the opening sentences now, after all that time, I feel a shiver down my spine, considering where Churchill started his historical path, where he was standing when he wrote those words (in 1930), and where he was heading:
"It was the custom in the palmy day of Queen Victoria for statesmen to expatiate on the glories of the British Empire, and to rejoice in that protecting Providence which had preserved us through so many dangers and brought us at length into a secure and prosperous age. Little did they know that the worst perils had still to be encountered and that the greatest triumphs were yet to be won."
When I think of that society, I think of Virginia Woolf's The Voyage Out or Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage, both published in 1915, at the beginning of the war. And I see them before me, changed forever by that hiatus which is the topic of Churchill's life and writing. I see them change in the way Kipling changed when he lost his son, mourning not only a child, but a whole world, brilliantly dramatised in My Boy Jack. I see the hope and glory of millions of soldiers shatter and crumble in the face of poison gas, forever made tangible in The Poems Of Wilfred Owen. This generation set out with the mindset of "Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori", only to call it an old lie in 1918. And still, there was worse to come. After following Churchill's fabulous recapitulation of "the war to end all wars", we read his conclusion with a shudder:
"The curtain falls upon the long front in France and Flanders. [...]
Is this the end? Is it to be merely a chapter in a cruel and senseless story? Will a new generation in their turn be immolated to square the black accounts of Teuton and Gaul? Will our children bleed and gasp again in devastated lands? Or will there spring from the very fires of conflict that reconciliation of the three giant combatants, which unite their genius and secure to each in safety and freedom a share in rebuilding the glory of Europe?"
Here ends Churchill's account of World War I, published in 1930. He would write another opus, published in 1948, on the continued European crisis, when he could see an Iron Curtain separating Europe.
What would he think of our world today? Of Britain's place in Europe, and its choices? Of international developments and internal conflicts? Of the immense destructive powers in the hands of people with the mental capacities of Kaiser Wilhelm II? What would Churchill's take on the world of today be?
I don't know. Just like Churchill did not foresee the future in 1930, we can't see what is in store for us, but one thing is clear: if we do not learn from the past, the future will not be bright.
Churchill's THE SECOND WORLD WAR: Abridged Edition with an Epilogue on the Years 1945 to 1957, which is up next as my long term reading project, starts with a quote:
"One day president Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once 'the Unnecessary War'. There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle".
Those are the saddest words I can imagine!
July 11, 2014
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’.
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’.
May 30, 2014
It is the one hundredth anniversary of World War One and I have been busy reading the newly published works on the subject. I thought I should go into my own library and re-read Winston Churchill’s book on the subject, “The World Crisis 1911-1918”. Winston Churchill’s reputation rest above all on his leadership during the Second World War. Churchill not only made history but he also wrote it. He earned his living as an author/historian and won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1953. The book is well researched between the documents, maps and Churchill’s narrative it brings history to life. From a historical perspective, Churchill’s detailed description of the internal politics of the British Government during the Great War, documented by thousands of internal letters, memos, etc. has no other precedent in world history. Churchill is quick to praise others and equally quick to defend his own wartime decisions, backing them with dated documents. Although Churchill did not attack the ‘brass hats’ as vehemently as Lloyd George did in his memoirs, Churchill’s criticism of Generals French, Haig and the commanders strengthened the negative image of the Great War generals that has prevailed to the present day, despite the efforts of revisionist historians. The dysfunctional relationship between Churchill and Lord Kitchener lead to the disastrous Gallipoli campaign in 1915, Churchill documented this in the book in minute detail providing a vigorous defense of the decision and a critical explanation of what went wrong. The ten years after the Great War, Churchill wrote the four volumes of history which were combined into this book covering primarily British history from 1870 to 1918. The book covers the time prior to the War and during the War it takes us into the midst of the War leadership on the diplomatic as well as strategic fronts. It recounts the major campaigns that shaped the war, the attacks on the Somme, the Marne, naval maneuvers off Jutland, Verdun and the surprising victory of Chemin des Dames. After Churchill was forced out as First Lord of the Admiralty he served as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Royal Scots Fusiliers fighting side by side with other British soldiers. He provided the view point of the war from Admiralty to the trenches. I love reading books written by Churchill. The rhythm of Churchill’s language is unsurpassed. I love the meter and beauty of his prose. The book is readable and compelling history of World War One. Churchill’s refined, aristocratic language seems appropriate for the War which ended the age of empires. If you are interested in the history of the Great War you will enjoy this book.
September 25, 2017
“The World Crisis” by Winston Churchill is a masterwork on World War I…this tome being a one volume abridgement of his five volume composition. While at times the narrative comes off as “I Told You So” it is very hard to argue long with someone who writes with firsthand knowledge of the subject. He was there and he was part of it.
I enjoyed Churchill’s six volume work on World War II (5 stars) a bit more – maybe because of how his writing evolved. In his WWI opus he is an important cog in the war machinery but still a very ambitious man (the five volumes were released between 1923 and 1931 when he was 49 to 57 years old)…while in his WWII work he had already achieved greatness, had nothing more to prove, and could write with more clarity (the six volumes were released between 1948 and 1953 when he was 74 to 79 years old). To put it another way, in the WWI effort (before he ever rose to Prime Minister) Churchill continues to remind the reader of how important he was, but he had no need to do so in his WWII tour de force after he had achieved everything he wanted.
Overall this work focuses a bit more on the British naval activities rather than the allied army movements. While army actions are of course summarized, analysis of the naval activities in which Churchill had a direct impact is more detailed and insightful. The narrative is in three parts: Part I (1911-1914) is a masterful account of how the world powers edged their way into a global conflict; Part II (1915) is chiefly a detailed review of the Dardanelles/Gallipoli fiasco; Part III (1916-1918) returns to the telling of naval and army undertakings through the end of the war.
All in all, the reader will see how Churchill essentially “went to school” during WWI, and garnered experience that would be of great benefit in WWII. For The World Crisis, if you are looking for detailed movements of the allied armies…you’ll have to look elsewhere. If you want a sketch of what went on with a bit more detail in the naval events, this is your book.
I enjoyed Churchill’s six volume work on World War II (5 stars) a bit more – maybe because of how his writing evolved. In his WWI opus he is an important cog in the war machinery but still a very ambitious man (the five volumes were released between 1923 and 1931 when he was 49 to 57 years old)…while in his WWII work he had already achieved greatness, had nothing more to prove, and could write with more clarity (the six volumes were released between 1948 and 1953 when he was 74 to 79 years old). To put it another way, in the WWI effort (before he ever rose to Prime Minister) Churchill continues to remind the reader of how important he was, but he had no need to do so in his WWII tour de force after he had achieved everything he wanted.
Overall this work focuses a bit more on the British naval activities rather than the allied army movements. While army actions are of course summarized, analysis of the naval activities in which Churchill had a direct impact is more detailed and insightful. The narrative is in three parts: Part I (1911-1914) is a masterful account of how the world powers edged their way into a global conflict; Part II (1915) is chiefly a detailed review of the Dardanelles/Gallipoli fiasco; Part III (1916-1918) returns to the telling of naval and army undertakings through the end of the war.
All in all, the reader will see how Churchill essentially “went to school” during WWI, and garnered experience that would be of great benefit in WWII. For The World Crisis, if you are looking for detailed movements of the allied armies…you’ll have to look elsewhere. If you want a sketch of what went on with a bit more detail in the naval events, this is your book.
June 12, 2023
Sir Winston knew how to write to keep readers engaged. By writing of his experiences as they happened, and in the first person where possible, we feel his fears, frustrations and excitements. His biggest frustration being that having more or less defeated Germany in the first year of the war, we allowed immediate victory to slip away from us and thus condemned many millions to die in the following three years.
By revising his original edition, Sit Winston was able to confirm or deny some of the assumptions upon which his decisions were made (having read the accounts of other military and politely leaders in the meantime). To a degree this reduces the main weakness of any first person account, including his first edition - you only have your own perspective. But regardless, that will always be the main weakness of this book compared to more academic accounts of WWI written many years hence.
The BBC narrator on Audible has decided to impersonate the voice of Churchill (or at least the actor who read his WWII radio broadcasts). I didn’t need that, but there could have been far worse readings.
By revising his original edition, Sit Winston was able to confirm or deny some of the assumptions upon which his decisions were made (having read the accounts of other military and politely leaders in the meantime). To a degree this reduces the main weakness of any first person account, including his first edition - you only have your own perspective. But regardless, that will always be the main weakness of this book compared to more academic accounts of WWI written many years hence.
The BBC narrator on Audible has decided to impersonate the voice of Churchill (or at least the actor who read his WWII radio broadcasts). I didn’t need that, but there could have been far worse readings.
Read
August 15, 2007This book marks the turning point from War-as-Profession to War-as-Hobby. No longer can a child say, "Daddy, where do you work?" and daddy replies, "War." Instead, on weekends and evenings, as daddy heads into his garage and pulls down the door, the child is left to ask his mother, "Mommy, what is daddy doing?" and she replies, with a dish towel in one hand and a quickly spotting glass in the other, "War."
Read
June 3, 2023Incredible book written by Churchill about the first world war when he was the war minister. He took all the secret papers and created this astonishing book that led him to win the literature Nobel prize. After this book the concept of top secret was created not revealing the state secrets after decades.
August 15, 2014
This book is an essential part of understanding The Great War and its world-wide complexities. Other reviewers have done a great job; I would only add that this volume added greatly to my understanding of that cataclysmic event encompassing not only the fronts and battles, but especially the behind the scenes actions of the British Admiralty and War Office.
Also, the details of the strategic issues in the East - Bulgaria, Roumania (sic) and the Balkans - were new to me.
He perhaps spends too much time on the Dardanelles fiasco for which he was unfairly blamed, but I now understand the importance of opening an Eastern Front - keep Turkey and Roumania out of the war and Russia in it. Victory there would have created a completely different 20th century.
Clearly worth the time and effort during the 100th anniversary of the onset of this historic event.
As one other reviewer mentioned, keep your PC warm with windows open to Wikipedia and Google. You'll want them
Also, the details of the strategic issues in the East - Bulgaria, Roumania (sic) and the Balkans - were new to me.
He perhaps spends too much time on the Dardanelles fiasco for which he was unfairly blamed, but I now understand the importance of opening an Eastern Front - keep Turkey and Roumania out of the war and Russia in it. Victory there would have created a completely different 20th century.
Clearly worth the time and effort during the 100th anniversary of the onset of this historic event.
As one other reviewer mentioned, keep your PC warm with windows open to Wikipedia and Google. You'll want them
February 5, 2008
Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty during much of World War I, and hangs this history on his personal recollections and involvement, giving it an immediacy and personality not often achieved in historical writing. Churchill himself was an excellent writer (he eventually won the Nobel Prize for Literature) and is at the top of his form in this comprehensive two-volume study of The Great War. Later historians have disputed some of his facts and conclusions, and he has been occasionally criticized for being self-serving at times (especially as regards the sinking of the Lusitania and the expedition to the Dardanelles), but I found his thinking often compelling, and his historical voice both compelling and entertaining. This is a deep, heavy book written with a delicate touch.
Read
September 27, 2015A work in 6 volumes that contentiously holds the title of the "most comprehensive" history of the war. A modern abridgment (clocking in at around 850 pages, linked above) is readily available, and well worth a look. There are significant debates within WWI historiography about Churchill's judgments and biases, so it would be worth looking into them as well before taking everything within the book at face value. I'll have some books that would help with this in the Debates section below.
December 3, 2007
Winston Churchill claims invention of the tank, which I must say seems a rather obvious insight given the following starter facts:
- moving beats standing still, especially in no-man's-land
- internal combustion engines: stronger than horses
- machine guns hurt, even if you live on a silly island with a king
- moving beats standing still, especially in no-man's-land
- internal combustion engines: stronger than horses
- machine guns hurt, even if you live on a silly island with a king
April 3, 2013
Some of his sneering critics said of this book that "Winston's written his autobiography disguised as a history of the universe." But this is a big book treating the First World War in which Churchill would play such a significant part until 1915 and the Dardanelles disaster, and then again later in Lloyd George's cabinet.
April 24, 2017
Por ratos algo lento, pero en general muy educativo y con un estilo limpio.
February 24, 2024
Winston Churchill was a master archivist who saved every letter, memo, directive, meeting minutes, resolution, public or private announcement—the list goes on—from his various times in the British government, in all the offices he occupied—First Lord of the Admiralty, Minister of Munitions, and later Prime Minister (twice). He used this material in full measure in compiling “The World Crisis”, a history of the Great War which, besides the main body of the work covering 1911-18, also includes “The Unknown War” dealing with the eastern front at great length, and “The Aftermath” dealing with the postwar years up to 1928.
While detailing the war’s background and most of the major (and many of the minor) battles in a general sense—with the greatest attention paid to, and detail included about, the conflicts in the planning and execution of which Churchill was personally involved—this work is most valuable for the way it showcases the inner workings of the British government and its military command at the highest level. Discussions of strategy, logistical planning, alternative courses of action, speculations on how critical events would have turned out had different plans been adopted, and (of course) the influence of party politics even the midst of national crisis (when, theoretically at least, this needed to be put aside for the sake of presenting a united front against the enemy!) are all fully portrayed. Also evident is Churchill’s skill at wearing several hats simultaneously: as diplomat, playing a part in holding the Allied coalition together and dealing with Asquith, Lloyd George, Kitchener, Haig, Joffre, Petain, Foch, Wilson, Pershing and many others; as strategist and tactician, as the major architect of the Dardanelles operation and having a role in the war against the U-Boats, the introduction of tanks and airplanes in combat, and how to equip and supply the hundreds of thousands of American troops flooding into France in 1918; as futurist, anticipating the continuation of the war into 1919, but with an air of confidence in eventual allied Victory; and finally, simply as a man of sensitivity and compassion. His horror and revulsion upon visiting the slaughterhouse battlefields of the Somme and Passchendaele are unmistakable. Many of his criticisms of how these battles could have been fought differently in order to minimize the horrendous casualties were not appreciated at the time and interpreted as mere armchair strategizing and attempts to gain political advantage even though they were made in the hope of avoiding needless loss of life. And to be sure, his oh-well-they-were-obsolete-ships-anyway attitude to the loss of HMS Ocean, HMS Indefatigable and other ships to the minefields at Gallipoli does seem a bit callous, and he seems hesitant to admit that the responsibility for the overall failure of that operation was largely his.
Most touching are his descriptions of the spontaneous pandemonium of joy and celebration that took place as Big Ben tolled 11 a.m. on November 11, 1918, and people poured into the streets and into Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus, dancing, waving flags—“it grew like a gale”, in his words—as they rushed to congratulate the King and Prime Minister; and, finally, the hope he expresses at the end of the work (written in 1931) that the world—especially Germany—had had enough, and that the sacrifices of nearly 20 million soldiers and civilians who perished or shed their blood had meant something, even as the ravaged fields and towns of France began to heal themselves or rebuild. He asks “Is this the end?” and hopes that the youth of Europe would not again be called upon to shed their blood. Sadly, he would have to take upon himself eventually the task of writing yet another history, the first volume of which would be called “The Gathering Storm”—since the thunderheads of the next cataclysm were already on the horizon even as the history of the previous one was concluded.
***** review by Chuck Graham *****
While detailing the war’s background and most of the major (and many of the minor) battles in a general sense—with the greatest attention paid to, and detail included about, the conflicts in the planning and execution of which Churchill was personally involved—this work is most valuable for the way it showcases the inner workings of the British government and its military command at the highest level. Discussions of strategy, logistical planning, alternative courses of action, speculations on how critical events would have turned out had different plans been adopted, and (of course) the influence of party politics even the midst of national crisis (when, theoretically at least, this needed to be put aside for the sake of presenting a united front against the enemy!) are all fully portrayed. Also evident is Churchill’s skill at wearing several hats simultaneously: as diplomat, playing a part in holding the Allied coalition together and dealing with Asquith, Lloyd George, Kitchener, Haig, Joffre, Petain, Foch, Wilson, Pershing and many others; as strategist and tactician, as the major architect of the Dardanelles operation and having a role in the war against the U-Boats, the introduction of tanks and airplanes in combat, and how to equip and supply the hundreds of thousands of American troops flooding into France in 1918; as futurist, anticipating the continuation of the war into 1919, but with an air of confidence in eventual allied Victory; and finally, simply as a man of sensitivity and compassion. His horror and revulsion upon visiting the slaughterhouse battlefields of the Somme and Passchendaele are unmistakable. Many of his criticisms of how these battles could have been fought differently in order to minimize the horrendous casualties were not appreciated at the time and interpreted as mere armchair strategizing and attempts to gain political advantage even though they were made in the hope of avoiding needless loss of life. And to be sure, his oh-well-they-were-obsolete-ships-anyway attitude to the loss of HMS Ocean, HMS Indefatigable and other ships to the minefields at Gallipoli does seem a bit callous, and he seems hesitant to admit that the responsibility for the overall failure of that operation was largely his.
Most touching are his descriptions of the spontaneous pandemonium of joy and celebration that took place as Big Ben tolled 11 a.m. on November 11, 1918, and people poured into the streets and into Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus, dancing, waving flags—“it grew like a gale”, in his words—as they rushed to congratulate the King and Prime Minister; and, finally, the hope he expresses at the end of the work (written in 1931) that the world—especially Germany—had had enough, and that the sacrifices of nearly 20 million soldiers and civilians who perished or shed their blood had meant something, even as the ravaged fields and towns of France began to heal themselves or rebuild. He asks “Is this the end?” and hopes that the youth of Europe would not again be called upon to shed their blood. Sadly, he would have to take upon himself eventually the task of writing yet another history, the first volume of which would be called “The Gathering Storm”—since the thunderheads of the next cataclysm were already on the horizon even as the history of the previous one was concluded.
***** review by Chuck Graham *****
May 31, 2020
Originally written in 3 or 4 volumes, this review is based upon my 1939 Odhams Press issue released in 2 volumes. But it is fully complete, unabridged and over 1400 pages long.
First, a word about the Odhams Press 1939 issue - it looks & feels beautiful! Blue hard-backed with the book title, Churchill's silhouette and signature embossed on the front cover. Just picking the book up was a pleasure!
For those wanting a comprehensive history of WW1, this is not for them. Churchill wrote this book based on his own involvement and his own experiences. For example the Russian revolution is barely touched upon.
But it is a cracking book! First hand history written by someone intimately involved. Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty (Cabinet post) in 1914-15 and the first 900+ pages of this period are devoted to that period. Original reports, letters, Minutes, Notes all reprinted adding significant power to the text. The Gallipoli campaign is prominent because of Churchill's involvement. He makes a robust defence of his position during this disastrous campaign which cost him his job. My eyes were opened by the many original documents supplied. I have no doubt that Churchill was not completely blameless as he was a very pushy individual who could very easily rub people up the wrong way. But, for all that, the campaign's outcome could have been different if not for the continual unnecessary delays and the timidity of certain commanders.
Chuchill's active mind strayed to many different aspects of the war. He advocated the use of tanks far earlier than many others. He admired the German army who throughout the war inflicted far greater casualties on the British & French than they themselves incurred.
After Gallipoli, Churchill served as an Officer on the Western Front which is a remarkable thing for a serving MP to do. Recalled in 1917 by the new PM (Lloyd George) he was Minister of Munitions in 1917-8 responsible for producing all the war materiel - guns, shells, steel etc etc. This department was massive by the end of the war.
The commitment of all combatants was staggering and the slaughter immense. Britain had a small army at the outbreak of the war but, by the end, we had 3 million men in arms. In fact, we were running out of men! Men up to the age of 50 had been called up.
This is a superb history written in Churchill's own individual and endearing style.
First, a word about the Odhams Press 1939 issue - it looks & feels beautiful! Blue hard-backed with the book title, Churchill's silhouette and signature embossed on the front cover. Just picking the book up was a pleasure!
For those wanting a comprehensive history of WW1, this is not for them. Churchill wrote this book based on his own involvement and his own experiences. For example the Russian revolution is barely touched upon.
But it is a cracking book! First hand history written by someone intimately involved. Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty (Cabinet post) in 1914-15 and the first 900+ pages of this period are devoted to that period. Original reports, letters, Minutes, Notes all reprinted adding significant power to the text. The Gallipoli campaign is prominent because of Churchill's involvement. He makes a robust defence of his position during this disastrous campaign which cost him his job. My eyes were opened by the many original documents supplied. I have no doubt that Churchill was not completely blameless as he was a very pushy individual who could very easily rub people up the wrong way. But, for all that, the campaign's outcome could have been different if not for the continual unnecessary delays and the timidity of certain commanders.
Chuchill's active mind strayed to many different aspects of the war. He advocated the use of tanks far earlier than many others. He admired the German army who throughout the war inflicted far greater casualties on the British & French than they themselves incurred.
After Gallipoli, Churchill served as an Officer on the Western Front which is a remarkable thing for a serving MP to do. Recalled in 1917 by the new PM (Lloyd George) he was Minister of Munitions in 1917-8 responsible for producing all the war materiel - guns, shells, steel etc etc. This department was massive by the end of the war.
The commitment of all combatants was staggering and the slaughter immense. Britain had a small army at the outbreak of the war but, by the end, we had 3 million men in arms. In fact, we were running out of men! Men up to the age of 50 had been called up.
This is a superb history written in Churchill's own individual and endearing style.
October 6, 2025
This is an amazing, tremendous book, which despite its size, and all the horrors in its pages is such an interesting read you can hardly put the book down.
Churchill — who, of course, was himself a decision-maker for much of the time — succeeds in the difficult task of writing from the perspective of what they thought * then *.
Many historians write armchair stories how it should have been done, when you have the conclusion of the story in your hand.
There are so many bad coincidences in the start of this war, so much bad luck, but behind it all is still the driving force of German militarism. Without it, there would never have been such a terrible conflict. And without it, Germany would not have marched through Belgium, and would not have started the unrestricted submarine war, the two main reasons why it lost.
Germany was behind the main declarations of war. Germany started the invasions. Germany started the Schrecklichkeit (mass shootings of civilians, burning villages, hostage taking). Germany invented the gas war. Germany invented the flamethrower. Germany invented the unrestricted submarine war (the idea of just sinking unarmed civilian ships!).
Still, the disciplined German army was on every front on the enemies land, and on every front inflicted twice the casualties it suffered itself.
“The martial might of Germany lay heavy on us all. The sense of grappling with a monster of seemingly unfathomable resources and tireless strength, invulnerable- since slaughter on the greatest scale was no deterrent … “
Churchill abhorred the war and the slaughter (and cites himself at the time to show it), and tries in multiple ways to end it. Either by outflanking the siege lines geographically instead of frontal assaults or by trying different weapons, like the tank.
So, Churchill defends the decision to attack Gallipoli, it was just badly supported and badly managed. The political fruits were hanging low, but everything went to the front in France. It was several missed chances, and in the end evacuation, and somehow Churchill got the blame of it all.
Churchill returns several times to this, everything to avoid the slaughter on the Western front. He is filled with horror when he visits a military hospital, all these young men with the most awful wounds. All these men, the flower of the nation, sacrificed in failed frontal attacks. Again and again.
At last, after 4 terrible years, the Teutonic giant falls. Surprisingly fast, when the cracks start to appear.
Churchill ends the book (1930) on a hopeful note, hoping the three combatants will unite their genius and secure safety, freedom and peace.
* Sigh *
Churchill — who, of course, was himself a decision-maker for much of the time — succeeds in the difficult task of writing from the perspective of what they thought * then *.
Many historians write armchair stories how it should have been done, when you have the conclusion of the story in your hand.
There are so many bad coincidences in the start of this war, so much bad luck, but behind it all is still the driving force of German militarism. Without it, there would never have been such a terrible conflict. And without it, Germany would not have marched through Belgium, and would not have started the unrestricted submarine war, the two main reasons why it lost.
Germany was behind the main declarations of war. Germany started the invasions. Germany started the Schrecklichkeit (mass shootings of civilians, burning villages, hostage taking). Germany invented the gas war. Germany invented the flamethrower. Germany invented the unrestricted submarine war (the idea of just sinking unarmed civilian ships!).
Still, the disciplined German army was on every front on the enemies land, and on every front inflicted twice the casualties it suffered itself.
“The martial might of Germany lay heavy on us all. The sense of grappling with a monster of seemingly unfathomable resources and tireless strength, invulnerable- since slaughter on the greatest scale was no deterrent … “
Churchill abhorred the war and the slaughter (and cites himself at the time to show it), and tries in multiple ways to end it. Either by outflanking the siege lines geographically instead of frontal assaults or by trying different weapons, like the tank.
So, Churchill defends the decision to attack Gallipoli, it was just badly supported and badly managed. The political fruits were hanging low, but everything went to the front in France. It was several missed chances, and in the end evacuation, and somehow Churchill got the blame of it all.
Churchill returns several times to this, everything to avoid the slaughter on the Western front. He is filled with horror when he visits a military hospital, all these young men with the most awful wounds. All these men, the flower of the nation, sacrificed in failed frontal attacks. Again and again.
At last, after 4 terrible years, the Teutonic giant falls. Surprisingly fast, when the cracks start to appear.
Churchill ends the book (1930) on a hopeful note, hoping the three combatants will unite their genius and secure safety, freedom and peace.
* Sigh *
August 3, 2021
Combinando su mirada como historiador y al mismo tiempo participante en la propia Historia, en La Crisis Mundial Winston Churchill aborda la Primera Guerra Mundial, el acontecimiento que definió el siglo XX.
Gracias al desarrollo tecnológico que supuso la Revolución Industrial y al nacionalismo exacerbado durante la era de los imperios, Europa se sumergió en la hasta entonces mayor guerra jamás librada en la Historia, cambiando para siempre el destino de la Humanidad.
Millones de hombres tomaron las armas y perdieron la vida en el fango de las trincheras, en batallas que alcanzaron condiciones extremas que solo se repetirían 25 años más tarde en el frente oriental de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Como Primer Lord del Almirantazgo, Churchill fue un testigo excepcional de la contienda. Aunque al abordar ciertos aspectos de la guerra esto pueda antojarse como una ventaja al contar con el punto de vista de un “insider”, para mi gusto esto supone más bien un inconveniente.
Por ejemplo, Churchill dedica casi 150 páginas en explicar y justificar el Desastre de Galípoli, que supuso un golpe casi terminal para su carrera política. Sin embargo, a batallas más importantes como la del Somme o Verdún Churchill apenas les dedica un puñado de páginas.
También esperaba un análisis más detallado de las consecuencias de la guerra, y es que en esta obra no se aborda el Tratado de Versalles, que eventualmente sentó las bases de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. El final del libro con el armisticio de noviembre de 1918 es abrupto y poco elaborado.
Este seguimiento desigual de la Primera Guerra Mundial es la principal debilidad que en mi opinión tiene La Crisis Mundial. Aunque se trata de un documento de gran valor histórico por la privilegiada posición del autor durante la contienda, desde un punto de vista historiográfico presenta un tratamiento desigual de la Gran Guerra que le resta interés.
Gracias al desarrollo tecnológico que supuso la Revolución Industrial y al nacionalismo exacerbado durante la era de los imperios, Europa se sumergió en la hasta entonces mayor guerra jamás librada en la Historia, cambiando para siempre el destino de la Humanidad.
Millones de hombres tomaron las armas y perdieron la vida en el fango de las trincheras, en batallas que alcanzaron condiciones extremas que solo se repetirían 25 años más tarde en el frente oriental de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.
Como Primer Lord del Almirantazgo, Churchill fue un testigo excepcional de la contienda. Aunque al abordar ciertos aspectos de la guerra esto pueda antojarse como una ventaja al contar con el punto de vista de un “insider”, para mi gusto esto supone más bien un inconveniente.
Por ejemplo, Churchill dedica casi 150 páginas en explicar y justificar el Desastre de Galípoli, que supuso un golpe casi terminal para su carrera política. Sin embargo, a batallas más importantes como la del Somme o Verdún Churchill apenas les dedica un puñado de páginas.
También esperaba un análisis más detallado de las consecuencias de la guerra, y es que en esta obra no se aborda el Tratado de Versalles, que eventualmente sentó las bases de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. El final del libro con el armisticio de noviembre de 1918 es abrupto y poco elaborado.
Este seguimiento desigual de la Primera Guerra Mundial es la principal debilidad que en mi opinión tiene La Crisis Mundial. Aunque se trata de un documento de gran valor histórico por la privilegiada posición del autor durante la contienda, desde un punto de vista historiográfico presenta un tratamiento desigual de la Gran Guerra que le resta interés.
August 3, 2021
This is an important work, both in terms of First World War historiography and in the life of Sir Winston Churchill.
For war historiography, Churchill's partial account of his role within Britain's war effort to some degree set the pace for subsequent work. In particular, Churchill's often negative criticisms of the principal British commanders, Jellicoe and Haig, provided platforms for other views, both for and against. As to Churchill's own career, 'The World Crisis' was to a large extent an attempt to justify and vindicate his role at the Admiralty, notably in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaign.
The work is beautifully written in the florid style for which Churchill was celebrated.
This edition is the abridged and revised version that Churchill produced in 1931 of the four volumes that deal with the pre-war period and the Western Front campaigns. Thus it is manageable for the reader.
For war historiography, Churchill's partial account of his role within Britain's war effort to some degree set the pace for subsequent work. In particular, Churchill's often negative criticisms of the principal British commanders, Jellicoe and Haig, provided platforms for other views, both for and against. As to Churchill's own career, 'The World Crisis' was to a large extent an attempt to justify and vindicate his role at the Admiralty, notably in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli campaign.
The work is beautifully written in the florid style for which Churchill was celebrated.
This edition is the abridged and revised version that Churchill produced in 1931 of the four volumes that deal with the pre-war period and the Western Front campaigns. Thus it is manageable for the reader.
July 9, 2025
This book has been sitting on my shelf for years waiting for its time. It was time, so I read it. I didn’t mind the bias because it’s Churchill. He’s all Britain and I don’t fault him. This is a one volume abridged edition of his 3 volume history of the First World War. I have no idea where he found the time to write this, paint, smoke cigars and do all one has to do to live even if you aren’t Churchill. Just an amazing man. I struggled to read this. There is a lot of technical language and certainly not enough maps. If you’re looking for a good introduction to the war, this isn’t it. On the other hand if you want to know Churchill’s view point, he is more than happy to tell you within these pages. Because it’s Churchill I’ll keep the book, but I won’t ever read it again. I just want visitors to think I’m smart. Like Churchill.
June 10, 2021
Llevaba tanto tiempo queriendo leer este libro. Siento que es una lectura obligatoria para todos los amantes de la historia, principalmente de la 1° GM. No creo que sea buena idea leerlo sin antes conocer la guerra de un modo imparcial.
Pero hay que decir que Churchill tuvo acceso privilegiado a la información del gabinete británico, opiniones de generales y empresarios, para darnos sus opiniones (aunque muchas veces en vez de narrar parece querer defenderse)
Siento que igual le falto una conclusión, un cierre mas digno del libro. Porque es un tocho bastante grande que finaliza sin contarnos mas que la ultima batalla, pero se escuda con que no es el deber de su generación el de sintetizar y valorar "la gran guerra" sino de futuras generaciones.
Pero hay que decir que Churchill tuvo acceso privilegiado a la información del gabinete británico, opiniones de generales y empresarios, para darnos sus opiniones (aunque muchas veces en vez de narrar parece querer defenderse)
Siento que igual le falto una conclusión, un cierre mas digno del libro. Porque es un tocho bastante grande que finaliza sin contarnos mas que la ultima batalla, pero se escuda con que no es el deber de su generación el de sintetizar y valorar "la gran guerra" sino de futuras generaciones.
October 9, 2025
An astonishing book, for many reasons. I've known about WW1 all my life, but to have it laid out so clearly and concisely (in 5 volumes!) is a new experience. I read it because I wanted to see why Churchill got the blame for the failure at Gallipoli. He makes it clear that it was NOT HIS FAULT!
And he came back to government after commanding units in France. In the key position of Minister for Munitions, he held the entire strategic situation in his grasp, pushing and prodding the War Cabinet to make decisions that could actually win the war.
At the end he poignantly asks if the victory would hold or would the Britons and Teutons have to fight it out again. He didn't know the answer, but we do. So there's a melancholy edge to the victory.
And he came back to government after commanding units in France. In the key position of Minister for Munitions, he held the entire strategic situation in his grasp, pushing and prodding the War Cabinet to make decisions that could actually win the war.
At the end he poignantly asks if the victory would hold or would the Britons and Teutons have to fight it out again. He didn't know the answer, but we do. So there's a melancholy edge to the victory.
November 19, 2020
It is pretty awesome getting to read the inside thoughts of one of those who saw, lived, excelled, failed and rose back to power during the Great War. Churchill was one of a kind. Long read-recommend to real WW1 war buffs and/or Churchill fans.
Note my rating does not reflect a negative opinion. If I don't like a book I don't finish it and it does not get a rating. I try to spread my ratings over 1 to 5 stars rather than let rating inflation make it look like I think every book is 5 stars-they aren't.
Note my rating does not reflect a negative opinion. If I don't like a book I don't finish it and it does not get a rating. I try to spread my ratings over 1 to 5 stars rather than let rating inflation make it look like I think every book is 5 stars-they aren't.
April 29, 2019
It's not an objective view on tha many happenings in World War One, and it's not meant to be.
It's the perspective, justification and corrections in hindsight of one of the key players of the Gallipolli campaign, and then in World War 2.
It really opened my eyes to a series of events that I didn't know about. Great depth in facts and analysis, it's a great overview of the general happenings of World War One, and a must read for anyone wanting to understand the Gallipolli campaign.
It's the perspective, justification and corrections in hindsight of one of the key players of the Gallipolli campaign, and then in World War 2.
It really opened my eyes to a series of events that I didn't know about. Great depth in facts and analysis, it's a great overview of the general happenings of World War One, and a must read for anyone wanting to understand the Gallipolli campaign.
December 19, 2019
The original work is 6 volumes, published between 1923 and 1932. This is the "abridged version" but is nonetheless an in depth history of the The Great War. Winston churchill is an amazing author and this is a great book for anyone interested in European history. It is incredibly complete, accurate, and balanced. Highly recommended. You will not be disappointed.
October 6, 2020
Me costó leerlo porque e estado ocupada y muchas veces me perdí, por lo complicado q estaba por ratos de entenderlo pero al fín lo pude acabar también porque estaba larguito, pero vale la pena leerlo porque está bastante completo y muy interesante conocer muchos datos históricos desconocidos para mí.
January 6, 2021
La historia de la Primera Guerra Mundial vista desde los ojos de Winston Churchill, que la vio desde los despachos del gobierno y desde las trincheras. Con su habitual prosa fácil y su agudo, aunque probablemente subjetivo, punto de vista. Además aporta la perspectiva de un hombre de su tiempo, sin las ventajas y desventajas de saber todo lo que ahora conocemos sobre la época.
March 30, 2025
Churchill’s writing style is nothing short of engaging, bordering on breathless at times and I thoroughly enjoyed 2/3 of this book. That said, however, the middle portion gets bogged down with his relitigation of Gallipoli and gets quite tiresome. I still thoroughly enjoyed it, but reader be warned.
December 30, 2018
An extremely thorough and at times long winded account of Churchill’s doings during a during the years surrounding WW1. I recommend this for anyone interested in the Great War or Military and political strategy, but wouldn’t recommend to casual non-fiction readers.
July 29, 2020
A 5 volume narrative by Winston Churhill on World War I, part of which time he was in the British Cabinet. Wonderfully written, if you want one good source in your library I recommend this set. Is his history slightly bias? Probably, but in such an elegant manner.
November 25, 2021
Es una obra curiosa perquè parla al voltant de la I Guerra mundial sense tindre la.possibilitat de compararla amb la II GM, bàsicament perquè no havia esdevingut encara. Ofereix una perspectiva diferent des del meu punt de vista.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews