A review of Winston Churchill’s The
Gathering Storm (1948)
Part
of Winston Churchill’s World War II
memoirs
(Rating 4 of 5)
In
the last few books I read by Winston Churchill he was discussing the history
of English-speaking peoples. That is a
subject that he was not really that impartial about but he was certainly more so
than about this topic. For this is the
first volume of his personal war memoirs and World War II was the event that
was going to define his legacy. Primary
sources are always fascinating because you get into the head of the great
actors who performed on the world stage.
You get to see their point of view on everything, how they saw other
historical figures, and their thoughts on individual actions. In that Winston Churchill never disappoints.
This
volume, The Gathering Storm, divides
into two books. The first book deals
with Churchill as a parliamentary backbencher battling against the
establishment, trying to alert the government and the people of the coming
threat of the Nazi menace, and getting beaten back each time. The second book deals with Churchill as the
First Sea Lord, the British equivalent to the Secretary of the Navy in the
United States, managing the Royal Navy in the first year of the war. Of the two books I find the first and most
interesting, it deals with a lot of political intrigue and the nature of humans
particularly humans who have just gone through great conflict not too long
ago. The second book I find almost kind
of dull. It consists Churchill’s day to day running of the Navy trying to
decide to place what admiral where,
occasionally going to dinner with Prime Minister, and even though it’s
about a great conflict doesn’t seem to have
much drama until the fall of the Chamberlain Government.
In
the beginning of this volume Churchill discusses the allotment of what led up
to the war, like any good World War II story and he begins of course with a
disastrous Treaty of Versailles.
Churchill points out the one hand the treaty left Germany practically
intact with the largest homogeneous racial block in Europe, while on the other
hand it ruthlessly punish the Germans trying to force them to pay these
indemnities that would give fuel to the anger in the average German that would lead
to the rise of Adolf Hitler.
“The economic clauses of the treaty were malignant and silly to the extent that it made the modestly futile. Germany was condemned to pay reparations on a fabulous scale. These dictates give expression to the anger of the victors, and to the belief of their peoples the any defeated nation or community can ever pay tribute on a scale which would meet the cost of modern war.” (pg. 7)
He also
discusses in length of the Great Depression.
Americans tend to think of the Great Depression as an American event, it
begins with the administration of Herbert Hoover is finally chased away by
Franklin D. Roosevelt. But in reality the
Great Depression was a worldwide phenomenon that hurt many nations including
those in Europe. As bad as it was the
American and British institutions survive the crisis, but many nations in
Europe had governments that were now far younger and far more
experimental. For those fragile regimes
the Great Depression would destroy them, for the people had very little faith
in them to begin with. Whereas the
American and British Experience only saw the fall of politicians; both Herbert
Hoover and Ramsay MacDonald paid the political price for being in office at the
wrong time. That is not to say that either one could not have done better but universal blame is beyond ridiculous.
“The consequences of this dislocation of economic life became world-wide. A general contraction of trade in the face of unemployment and declining production followed. Care restrictions were imposed to protect the home markets. The general crisis brought with it acute monetary difficulties and paralyzed internal credit. This spread of ruined unemployment far and wide throughout the globe. Mr. MacDonald’s government, with all their problems behind them, saw unemployment during 1930 and 1931 bound up in their faces from one million to nearly three millions. It was said that in the United States ten million persons were without work. The entire banking system of the great Republic was thrown into confusion and temporary collapse. Consequential disasters fell upon Germany and other European countries. However, nobody starved in the English-speaking world.” (pg. 35)
I also found the
view of Winston Churchill on what Germany should have done to be very
interesting. Ever a loyal monarchist,
Churchill believed that many of the defeated European nations instead of
tossing off their old monarchies should just embrace the British model and
retained the sovereign for at the very least to be a rallying figurehead with
little actual power in practice even if substantial power was retained on
paper. In Churchill’s view Hitler and
the Nazi Party might have had a difficult time coming to power if Germany was
able to retain a Kaiser in some form. He
was disappointed in failure of German officials to carry that through.
“This policy, if achieved, would have filled the void at the summit of the German nation towards which Hitler was now in evidently making his way. In all the circumstances this was the right course. But how could Bruening lead Germany to it? The conservative element, which was drifting to Hitler, might have been recalled by the restoration of Kaiser Wilhelm; but neither the Social Democrats nor the trade-union forces would tolerate the restoration of the old Kaiser or the Crown Prince. Bruening’s plan was not to re-create the Second Reich. He desired a constitutional monarchy on the English lines. He hopes that one of the sons of the Crown Prince might be a suitable candidate.” (pg. 63)
Churchill
was also does a great job explaining the political climate of the day. There was a very strong and powerful antiwar
movement in Great Britain; these were people who believe the tragedy of the
First World War was caused by nations running into the conflict with reckless
haste. If anything the lesson I think we should take from this is not to be
overly simplistic in politics. The antiwar movement in the 1930s was right
about the problems of World War I but they’re completely wrong about the
situation World War II. A generation
later that antiwar movement would be in the right again and would find
mainstream resistance mostly based on the legacies of the Second World
War. In Churchill’s view although being
a politician in such climate is hard it is no excuse for negligence.
“It would be wrong in judging the policy of the British Government not to remember the passionate desire for peace which animated in the uninformed, misinformed majority of the British people, and seem to threaten with political extinction any party or politician who dared take any other line. This, of course, is no excuse for the political leaders who fall short of their duty. It is much better for the parties or politicians to be turned out of office than to imperil the life of the nation. Moreover, there is no record in our history of any Government asking Parliament and the people for the necessary measures of defense and being refused. Nevertheless, those who scared the timid McDonald – Baldwin Government from their path should at least keep silent.” (pg. 112)
Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, who Churchill blames for Britain's failed state of readiness for World War II |
One of the most interesting pieces of this book is the character of Neville Chamberlain. Most people remember Chamberlain from his embarrassing press conference in which he declared “peace in our time.” Most Americans tend to associate Chamberlain as the British Herbert Hoover, the out of touch in at political leader who is pushed aside for a more dynamic Roosevelt in the person of Winston Churchill. But nothing would be further from the truth. Roosevelt was a Democrat and Hoover was a Republican. Churchill and Chamberlain belong to the same party. Chamberlain died shortly after leaving office, he had been set to hold a position Winston Churchill’s Government and if he had he might’ve repaired his broken legacy. Since he can not, Churchill takes it upon himself to defend him. Churchill wants the reader to know that the true villain of the story was not Neville Chamberlain but rather Stanley Baldwin. In Churchill’s view Baldwin left the country dangerously unprepared and Chamberlain had little to work with. Chamberlain was tasked with buying time so Britain could prepare to take on Germany. Churchill says that Britain could never go to war for Czechoslovakia she just didn’t have the means. Chamberlain’s failure to block it was not a failure like most people thought.
“Thus an administration more disastrous than any other in our history saw all its errors and shortcomings acclaimed by the nation. There was, however, a bill to be paid, and it took the new House of Commons nearly ten years to pay it.” (pg. 180)
“There was also a serious and practical line of argument, albeit not to their credit, on which the Government could rest themselves. No one can deny that we were hideously unprepared for war. Who have a more forward in proving this and I and my friends? Great Britain had allowed herself to be far surpassed by the strength of the German Air Force. All are vulnerable points were unprotected. Barely a hundred anti-aircraft guns could be found for the defense of the largest city and centre of population in the world; and these were largely in the hands of untrained men. If Hitler was honest and lasting peace had in fact been achieved, Chamberlain was right. If, unhappily, he had been deceived, at least we should gain a breathing – space to repair the worst of our neglects. These considerations, and the general relief and rejoicing that the horrors of war have been temporally averted, commanded the loyal sent of the masses of Government supporters. The House approved of the policy of His Majesties Government, ‘by which war was averted in the recent crisis,’ by 366 to 144. The 30 or 40 dissident conservatives could do no more than register their disapproval by abstention. This we did as a formal and united act.” (pg. 326-7)
As I mentioned earlier the second part of the book is simply Winston Churchill as the First Sea Lord. It is a very good account of the day-to-day life of the First Sea Lord during World War II. This section of the book was hardly interesting until the government battle at the end. That battle resulted in the fall Neville Chamberlain’s Government. What is interesting is that Chamberlain was not forced out of office in any sort of landslide election. It is important to remember in a parliamentary system they have what is called a vote of no-confidence that has the power to bring down a prime minister. Chamberlain never received a vote of no-confidence his majority prevailed in Parliament. It had however gotten smaller and this concerned him seeing as he was trying to fight a war. Churchill urged him to stay on the Chamberlain felt he was too much of a lightning rod and a new government had to be formed with all the parties cooperating. Chamberlain suggested to King George VI that Churchill be appointed his place.
“The King had made no stipulation about the Government being nationally character, and I felt that it my commission was in no formal way dependent upon this point. But in view of what happened, and the conditions which had led to Mr. Chamberlain’s resignation, a Government of national character was obviously inherent in the situation. If I had found it impossible to come to terms with the Opposition Parties, I should not have been constitutionally debarred from trying to form the strongest Government possible of all who would stand by the country in the hour of peril, provided that such a Government could command a majority in the House of Comments.” (pg.665)
So the book ends
with Winston Churchill becoming his nation’s Head of Government. He would be the coalition of all the parties
against Nazi Germany. His actions in
that office are the subject of the following volumes.
{Video is from the film The Gathering Storm 2002}
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to leave a comment on any article at anytime, regardless how long ago I posted it. I will most likely respond.