PDF Summary:The Gathering Storm, by Winston S. Churchill

World War II erupted due to the Allies' failure to stop Germany's growing militaristic ambitions after World War I. In The Gathering Storm, Winston S. Churchill examines the period between the wars and how diplomatic missteps—an overly punitive Treaty of Versailles, ineffective responses to German rearmament, and attempts to appease Nazi Germany—gave rise to Hitler's aggression.

Churchill then recounts his own strategic efforts to strengthen Britain's defenses and counter German expansion in the early years of WWII. He provides an insider's view of the "phony war" period and Allies' failures to aid Poland and stop Hitler's invasion of Scandinavia, underscoring their lack of preparedness.

(continued)...

The disintegration of the framework set up by the League of Nations for collective security and the diminishing influence of the Allied countries.

Churchill expresses his profound disappointment with the League of Nations' failure to guarantee collective defense against aggressive actions. He attributes the downfall to the member countries' hesitancy in upholding the Covenant and their inconsistent resolve to confront the aggressors with the prospect of military intervention. The author, a staunch advocate of the League's core values, acknowledged that its lack of efficacy played a substantial role in precipitating conflict through the bolstering of autocratic regimes and eroding worldwide confidence in the structure of international cooperation.

The maritime pact between the United Kingdom and Germany significantly weakened efforts to limit the expansion of German military might and bolstered Hitler's assurance in defying international accords.

Churchill viewed the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement as a substantial hindrance to the already diminishing efforts to limit Germany's burgeoning military might. Churchill contended that by sanctioning the growth of Germany's naval power, which contravened the Treaty of Versailles, the British Government undermined the pillars of collective defense, alienated its partners, and granted Hitler a significant diplomatic victory. Churchill argues that the agreement, with its excessive focus on Britain's naval interests and misplaced confidence in Hitler's assurances, sent a dangerous message of weakness and appeasement, which in turn emboldened Hitler to flout international treaties and pursue his expansionist goals.

Italy's aggression in Abyssinia, coupled with the League's ineffective sanctions and the subsequent erosion of British influence, emboldened Hitler to escalate his aggressive actions.

Churchill criticizes the global institution for its inadequate response to Italy's forceful annexation of Abyssinia, highlighting the detrimental effects of its lukewarm stance toward such hostile actions. He condemned the imposition of so-called "sanctions" which, while seeming to oppose Italy's aggression, were carefully crafted to avoid provoking war and ultimately proved completely ineffective. Churchill contended that the so-called "sham sanctions" were not only ineffective in protecting Abyssinia but also substantially weakened the League's credibility, thereby emboldening Hitler. The strategy referred to as the Hoare-Laval proposal sought to partition Abyssinia and, as an unintended consequence, emboldened Hitler to escalate his ambitions for territorial growth, recognizing the Western nations' hesitance to enter into conflict.

President Roosevelt's proposal to increase the United States' role in alleviating European tensions was met with inaction, resulting in a stronger feeling of diplomatic isolation for both the United Kingdom and France.

Churchill laments the British government's rejection of President Roosevelt's 1938 proposal, which sought to use American diplomatic clout to initiate conversations between European countries, potentially easing worldwide strains. He argues that this missed opportunity, stemming from Chamberlain's worry about Hitler's reaction and his hesitance to risk his appeasement strategy, resulted in an increased sense of alienation in foreign affairs between Britain and France, which in turn discouraged Roosevelt from engaging more deeply in European issues. Churchill believed that Roosevelt's proposal, despite its risks, presented a substantial opportunity to gain support from the United States, which might deter Hitler's aggressive intentions.

The choice to forgo the chance to form a substantial and sincere alliance with Soviet Russia in order to oppose the Nazi menace while collaboration was feasible.

Churchill criticizes the British government's reluctance to form a genuine alliance with Soviet Russia against Nazi Germany, arguing that this constituted a major strategic blunder. He argues that a robust alliance, bolstered by the substantial military and industrial might of the Soviet Union, might have significantly impeded Hitler's aspirations for territorial expansion. Churchill posits that Britain, France, and Russia, despite their differing ideologies and the apprehensions of surrounding countries, could have come together with the shared objective of restraining Germany's ambitions to enlarge its territory. The author highlights the repeated failure of Western countries to acknowledge the Soviet Union's multiple offers to collaborate against the impending threat from the Nazis, including a proposed conference involving six countries in 1939 aimed at discussing the aggressive actions of Germany. Churchill implies that these dismissals stemmed from a combination of ideological leanings favoring the Soviet Union, underestimations of its military might, and a lack of decisive diplomatic measures in responding to the issues faced by smaller nations such as Poland and the Baltic states. Convinced of the need to protect Russian interests after becoming disenchanted with the West and doubtful of their commitment, Stalin chose to forge an alliance with Hitler.

Other Perspectives

• The policy of appeasement may have been a strategic choice to buy time for Britain and France to rearm and prepare for the inevitable conflict with Germany.
• Some historians argue that the British Government's conciliatory stance was a reflection of the public's strong desire to avoid another war, given the fresh memories of the horrors of World War I.
• The focus on domestic issues by the governments under MacDonald and Baldwin could be seen as a response to the immediate needs of their citizens during the Great Depression.
• The economic instability in Germany and the resentment due to severe reparations could be viewed as factors that made the German population susceptible to extremist ideologies, rather than direct causes of World War II.
• The lack of a firm response to Germany's noncompliance with the Versailles Treaty might be attributed to the complexities of the political and social climate of the time, rather than simply a failure of will.
• The League of Nations' framework for collective security was an unprecedented attempt at international governance, and its disintegration could be attributed to the inherent difficulties in achieving collective action among sovereign nations.
• The Anglo-German Naval Agreement could be defended as a pragmatic attempt to engage with Germany diplomatically and maintain a balance of naval power, which was a key interest for an island nation like Britain.
• The response to Italy's aggression in Abyssinia might be seen as a calculated decision to avoid a broader conflict, which the League of Nations and its member states were ill-prepared to handle.
• President Roosevelt's proposal to alleviate European tensions could be criticized for being too vague or optimistic, lacking concrete measures that would have been effective in the complex European political landscape.
• The reluctance to form an alliance with Soviet Russia could be understood in the context of the deep ideological divide between the West and the Soviet Union, which made trust and cooperation difficult.

Churchill's leadership in the early years of World War II, including his strategic initiatives and efforts to counter German aggression

In this section, the narrative focuses on Churchill's acute awareness of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and his relentless advocacy for the United Kingdom to bolster its defense forces. The narrative illustrates how the British leader's insightful warnings were often ignored or ridiculed, highlighting the contrast between his unique understanding of the impending conflict and the government's and society's failure to anticipate and their apathy towards it. Churchill's book details his development of a comprehensive strategy that encompassed both engaging Germany in battle and exploring diplomatic options, culminating in his rise to the position of First Lord of the Admiralty as hostilities began.

Churchill's precise evaluation of the danger posed by the re-armed Nazi forces and his strong support for bolstering Britain's military capabilities.

Churchill distinguished himself from his peers through his precise evaluation of the danger that a re-equipped Germany under Nazi rule presented. Churchill recognized the danger of a regime fueled by intense nationalism and a military eagerness to grow, unlike those who believed that Hitler's ambitions might be placated by diplomatic discussions and compromises. Winston Churchill's keen insight compelled him to persistently advocate for the enhancement of Britain's defense forces, endeavoring to awaken both the complacent government and citizens to the urgent need for preparing for war.

Churchill, anticipating future conflicts, underscored the critical importance of bolstering Britain's aerial defense capabilities in light of Germany's growing aerial might.

Churchill anticipated the pivotal importance of air warfare in future conflicts, leading him to persistently champion the enhancement of the United Kingdom's air defense systems. He persistently raised alarms about the rapid growth of the Luftwaffe and highlighted the vulnerability of the United Kingdom to attacks from the sky, stressing the immediate need to strengthen air defenses to deter aggression from Germany. He criticized the government's indifferent approach and the slow pace of airplane production, highlighting the growing gap in air power between the United Kingdom and Germany. The foresight of Churchill, frequently labeled as advocating for war, was unfortunately confirmed as essential when his support for the advancement of military planes played a decisive role in the crucial air battle over Britain.

He endeavored to expose the inadequacies in the defense tactics of the United Kingdom, working to awaken both the leaders and the citizens to the looming threat, irrespective of the possible harm to his own political reputation.

Throughout the 1930s, Churchill was a lone voice, tirelessly exposing the inadequacies in Britain's military readiness. He emphasized the outdated nature of military gear, the scarcity of essential materials for warfare, and the universal unpreparedness within the military's various divisions. He often deviated from the established positions of his political group, leveraging his position in the legislative assembly and his public addresses to express disapproval of the government's slow pace in readying for looming conflicts. Despite encountering political solitude and personal disapproval, Churchill's unwavering commitment to the country's security was eventually rewarded with his exoneration and the populace's trust in his guidance upon the outbreak of conflict.

Churchill staunchly opposed the government's approach to appeasing potential foes and consistently supported a position of defiance against Europe's most formidable and aggressive power.

Churchill staunchly disagreed with the government's strategy of trying to appease Nazi Germany. He argued that this policy, based on concessions and a mistaken belief in Hitler's good faith, would only embolden the German dictator and ultimately lead to war. Churchill supported the resurgence of traditional British diplomatic tactics, which included forming partnerships with other nations to balance the preeminent power in Europe, a tactic that had guided Britain's foreign policy for an extended period and, in his view, remained relevant in the face of the Nazi threat.

Churchill, with the outbreak of conflict, returned to his leadership position within the Admiralty, orchestrating strategic plans for the movements of the Royal Navy.

Upon the commencement of hostilities, Churchill once again took charge of the British naval forces, highlighting his strategic vision for naval warfare and his vigorous management of the Royal Navy. Drawing on his deep-seated expertise from leading the Admiralty during the First World War and his ongoing involvement with maritime strategy, Churchill quickly took charge and skillfully managed the United Kingdom's naval resources.

Churchill carried out a meticulous analysis of the strategies employed by the German navy, consistently placing his confidence in the Royal Navy's ability to meet the challenge, despite limitations in their equipment.

Churchill shrewdly predicted that Germany would resort to using submarines and warships to disrupt British commerce, given their inability to match the Royal Navy's supremacy on the oceans. Churchill was confident in the Royal Navy's ability to meet challenges despite acknowledging its partial unpreparedness, particularly due to the insufficient number of cruisers and destroyers in the fleet. Churchill's profound understanding of naval warfare and his confidence in the readiness and skill of the naval forces were confirmed as they swiftly implemented the convoy system, successfully thwarting the early onslaught of U-boat assaults as the conflict began.

Churchill devised a naval strategy to sever Germany's trade with Scandinavia while simultaneously establishing a connection with Russia through the Baltic Sea.

Churchill, always seeking an offensive dimension to naval strategy, advocated for a bold plan to establish British naval dominance in the Baltic Sea, codenamed "Catherine." He anticipated the establishment of an elite naval force skilled in navigating narrow channels and engaging adversaries along their shorelines, aiming to disrupt Germany's procurement of Swedish iron ore and to establish a naval link with the Soviet Union should the situation allow. Despite confronting a multitude of strategic and operational obstacles that hindered its implementation, this strategy underscored the military planning acumen and the British leader's resolve to strike at the heart of Germany's capacity for warfare.

Churchill's understanding of new technologies, such as the development of radar and Asdic, was instrumental in improving naval tactics and reducing the threat from U-boats.

Churchill acknowledged that innovations like radar could fundamentally transform maritime combat. He championed the development and application of these technologies, recognizing their crucial role in mitigating the threats posed by U-boats and improving the coordination of naval operations. He advocated for the creation of a panel dedicated to the study of air defense, promoting collaboration between military planners and scientific researchers, and supported the development of sophisticated radio location and ranging systems. Churchill's foresight and active involvement in the rapid implementation of these tactics provided the British navy with a substantial technological edge in their battle against German submarines.

Churchill expressed his dissatisfaction with the way the government was handling the war, advocating for a stronger and more effective approach to safeguard the country.

Churchill openly criticized the government's management of the conflict in the period referred to as the Twilight War. He criticized the lack of urgency in industrial mobilization, the sluggish advancement in strengthening military capabilities, and the bureaucratic inertia that impeded rapid decision-making. He strongly recommended a significant strengthening of the nation's defense mechanisms, underscoring the need for immediate action in developing emergency strategies and creating a military framework capable of rapidly adapting to the extensive demands of a widespread war.

He advocated for a more efficient wartime structure that could make rapid decisions, avoiding the usual slow pace associated with committee-based processes.

Drawing on his experiences during the First World War, Churchill argued for the creation of a war administration system capable of rapid decision-making, unencumbered by the typically sluggish processes of interdepartmental committees. He understood the importance of establishing a robust command center to coordinate military operations, thereby unifying different governmental sectors and surmounting administrative stagnation. Churchill's fervor for reorganizing the hierarchy within the military, particularly the Military Co-ordination Committee, led to a bolstering of the role of the Defence Minister, thereby granting him greater power and setting the stage for his subsequent leadership in wartime.

Churchill focused on expanding the military and bolstering home defenses in anticipation of the forthcoming assault by Germany.

Churchill, anticipating a prolonged and difficult struggle, committed his efforts to expanding Britain's armed forces and readying the general populace for a significant duration of warfare. Churchill argued that the United Kingdom needed to form a powerful army consisting of 55 divisions to assist the Allies and protect the British shores against potential enemy invasions. He also championed the establishment of a specialized Ministry of Supply to improve the oversight of industrial production and to increase the output of critical military gear, including weapons and ammunition. Many doubted his prescience, expecting a short and limited skirmish, but it was crucial in ensuring the acquisition of vital resources for the long and grueling struggle that was to come.

Practical Tips

• You can enhance your personal risk assessment skills by practicing evaluating potential threats in your daily life. Start by identifying areas in your personal or professional life that may be vulnerable to unexpected events, such as job security or health. Then, research and list possible threats, rate their likelihood, and develop contingency plans. For example, if you're concerned about job security, you might learn new skills relevant to your field to make yourself more marketable.
• Improve your decision-making speed by setting personal deadlines for everyday choices. To avoid the slow pace of indecision, give yourself a strict time limit for making small decisions, like what to eat for dinner or which movie to watch. Track your decision times and outcomes to refine your ability to make choices quickly and confidently. This practice can translate into more significant life decisions, enhancing your ability to act swiftly when necessary.
• You can practice strategic resource allocation by managing your personal budget with a focus on prioritizing essential expenses. Create a budget that emphasizes savings and investment in areas that will bring long-term benefits, such as education or health. For instance, allocate a higher percentage of your income to a retirement fund or learning a new skill that could increase your earning potential, while cutting back on non-essential expenses like dining out.

The conflict's opening stage was characterized by Germany's invasion of Poland, followed by the Allied forces' response, which included strategic maneuvers by both naval and ground troops.

The narrative highlights the initial phase of the conflict, underscoring the Allies' subdued response to Germany's bold incursion into Poland, in sharp contrast to the methodical and energetic actions of the Nazi military. The author portrays the swift collapse of Polish resistance as a foreboding indicator of Blitzkrieg's overwhelming power, highlighting the tactical difficulties faced by the allied troops when battles took place in conditions dominated by the opposition.

The rapid and forceful occupation of Poland demonstrated the effectiveness of Blitzkrieg tactics, which combined air superiority with the tactical deployment of armored units.

Churchill characterizes the attack on Poland as a brutal demonstration of Blitzkrieg's effectiveness, showcasing a rapid and coordinated offensive that utilized both air dominance and tank divisions. Poland's defenses were swiftly breached by the rapid advance of German forces, which employed a mix of powerful armored assaults and relentless bombing from the air. German mechanized divisions capitalized on the firm summer terrain to make swift progress.

725 The effectiveness of the aerial military branch in disrupting communication channels and undermining the defenders' spirit contributed to the swift territorial gains and the isolation of significant Polish forces, rendering their resolute defense futile.

The Allies' failure to deliver substantial aid to Poland or to launch an operation that could impede the progression of German forces.

Churchill conveys his disappointment with the lack of substantial support provided to Poland by the Allies in the face of the German onslaught. He underscores the inherent limitations that Western democracies encounter in response to unforeseen aggressive acts, which arise due to their commitment to international legal standards and the consequences of sustained neglect and inadequate defense spending. Britain and France's hastily offered assurance to Poland was ineffective in deterring Hitler, as the military capabilities of the two nations were insufficient for meaningful intervention in Eastern Europe. Due to a combination of cautious strategies and political hesitancy, there was no significant offensive military action on the Western Front, which allowed Germany to concentrate all its military resources on Poland, achieving a swift and decisive victory.

The Soviet foray into Poland, subsequent to the pact with the Nazis, cemented the fate of Poland and bolstered Hitler's assurance.

Churchill describes the Soviet Union's strategic incursion into Poland, which began just over two weeks after Germany's attack and in accordance with the secret terms of the Nazi-Soviet Pact, as an opportunistic act of aggression that sealed Poland's fate. He underscores the Soviet Union's complete indifference to the struggles of Poland and its willingness to collaborate with Nazi Germany to enlarge its own borders. Poland's defenses were swiftly overwhelmed by the encroaching armies of Germany and the Soviet Union, resulting in the country being carved up by these authoritarian powers. Churchill was of the opinion that such deceitful behavior only served to reinforce Hitler's perception of his enemies as divided and weak, thereby intensifying his alliance with the Soviet leader.

The Allied forces' significant oversight was their failure to take decisive action that would have barred Germany from tapping into the vital resources of Scandinavia.

Churchill emphasizes the strategic importance of the Scandinavian peninsula, particularly as a vital source of the iron ore essential for Germany's wartime production capabilities. He criticizes the alliance of countries for their hesitation and indecision when establishing strategies in the region, arguing that their failure to take decisive steps in diplomacy and defense allowed Germany to persist in utilizing these vital resources, thus strengthening their position.

Britain's reluctance to violate Norwegian neutrality and establish a strong naval presence in the Baltic allowed Germany to maintain its supply of Swedish iron ore.

Churchill argues that the British Government's reluctance to challenge Norway's neutrality and establish a commanding naval presence in the Baltic was a considerable strategic mistake, allowing Germany to maintain access to vital Swedish iron ore throughout the winter. He assesses the cautious approach, shaped by a commitment to global legal standards and concern over provoking aggression from Germany or Russia, and concludes that ultimately, this strategy did not yield success. He contrasts this hesitant policy with the boldness of Hitler, who exploited Norwegian neutrality to his advantage, allowing German ships to transport vital supplies through Norwegian territorial waters under the guise of peaceful commerce.

Finland's struggle against Russia was exacerbated by inadequate assistance, and the failure to capture the crucial port of Narvik further compounded the situation.

Churchill's frustration is palpable when he addresses the lack of significant aid provided by the Allies to Finland in their conflict with Soviet forces in the winter of 1939. Despite the public's passionate backing of Finland and recognizing the essential requirement to prevent a victory by the Soviets, Churchill underscores the Allies' incapacity to overcome the significant logistical and diplomatic obstacles to deliver meaningful aid. Churchill argues that a failure to act resulted in a missed opportunity to hinder Soviet expansion into crucial regions and to establish a strong Allied presence in Northern Scandinavia, potentially influencing the course of events in the area and strengthening ties with Sweden.

The German forces' advance into Norway and Denmark exposed the Allies' unpreparedness for strategic operations and the vulnerability of their military organization.

German forces' aggressive incursion into Norway and Denmark in April 1940 exposed the weaknesses of the Allied nations. The swiftness and scale of the military operations caught them off guard, showcasing their lack of readiness for a modern, coordinated assault. The lethargic and inefficient reaction underscored the deficiencies within the collaborative endeavors of the Allied nations during the war, characterized by procrastination in making critical choices, insufficient collaboration among the armed forces, and a lack of resolute action in the face of Hitler's audacious tactics.

The initial triumphs of the Royal Navy over German naval forces in Norway were balanced out by substantial losses from air attacks.

The writer highlights the variety of challenges the Royal Navy encountered during the Norwegian campaign, which demonstrated their preparedness for battle and the growing vulnerability of surface ships to attacks from the air. Despite achieving a number of tactical victories, the British naval forces recognized the significant threat posed by air attacks, especially at Narvik and during other engagements, which highlighted the effectiveness of the German air force and forced the British fleet to operate with greater caution.

The failed operations in Norway highlighted the lack of effective coordination between the different armed forces and the inadequacy of their gear for warfare in the severe Arctic environment.

Churchill conveys his disappointment regarding the unsuccessful military engagements in Norway, pointing out various factors that exposed shortcomings in the British and French military efforts. He underscores the poor cooperation across various military divisions, impeded by a cumbersome command hierarchy and insufficient communication among the different sectors. Churchill also emphasizes the British soldiers' unpreparedness and their incompatibility for combat in the Arctic, highlighting their deficiency in appropriate attire for cold weather, specialized equipment, and the essential expertise for traversing snow-covered, mountainous terrain. The shortcomings, combined with the dominance of the German air force and the superior mobility and tactical skill of German soldiers, compelled the Allies to abandon their comprehensive plans and evacuate their forces from Norway, leading to a considerable strategic loss and growing discontent with the direction of the war among government leaders.

Other Perspectives

• The effectiveness of Blitzkrieg in Poland may have been exaggerated due to the Polish military's lack of modern equipment and outdated defensive strategies, rather than solely the superiority of German tactics.
• The Allies' response, while seemingly subdued, was constrained by various factors, including the need to mobilize forces, the desire to avoid a wider conflict, and the underestimation of Germany's military capabilities.
• The assertion that air superiority and armored units were key to Blitzkrieg could be nuanced by acknowledging the role of other elements such as surprise, speed, and the psychological impact on enemy forces.
• The Allies' failure to aid Poland significantly could be seen in the context of their unpreparedness for war, rather than a lack of will to assist.
• The Soviet invasion of Poland, while opportunistic, was also a result of complex geopolitical strategies and security concerns, not just a simple act of aggression.
• The strategic importance of Scandinavia was recognized by the Allies, but their actions were limited by diplomatic considerations and the desire to avoid escalating the conflict.
• Britain's reluctance to violate Norwegian neutrality can be seen as adherence to international law and an attempt to maintain moral high ground, rather than purely a strategic oversight.
• The lack of assistance to Finland could be attributed to the complex logistics involved in supporting a nation so far from Britain and France, as well as the risk of provoking a wider war with the Soviet Union.
• The German advance into Norway and Denmark might not solely reflect Allied unpreparedness but also the inherent difficulty in defending multiple fronts and the element of surprise used by the Germans.
• The Royal Navy's initial triumphs in Norway suggest that there was some level of preparedness and capability to counter German naval forces, despite the subsequent losses from air attacks.
• The failed operations in Norway could be attributed to the challenging environment and the novelty of the situation, which would have been difficult for any military to handle effectively, not just a lack of coordination and inadequate gear.