Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson

snowflake5 Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 04:45:34 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

He has got his history wrong




On this comment on the Thatcher thread, a Tory called alexswanson  stated that:

Churchill himself in his memoirs tells of how Labour people called him a "warmonger" during the 1930's. Military action to stop Hitler when he could easily have been stopped was opposed by the Left in Britain and France. All this is a matter of record.


One of the most shameful acts of the Conservative party was their appeasement of Hitler, and it's not surprising that they would rather re-write history or create a fantasy where they were really heroes, and try to blame the left instead. However the reality was different.

First of all, Conservatives were in power in Britain in the 1930's. Here's the result of the 1935 general election:

Conservatives 386 MPs
Labour 154 MPs
Liberal 21 MPs
National Liberal 33 MPs
National Labour 8 MPs
Independent labour 4 MPs
National 4 MPs
National NI 2 MPs
National Independent 2 MPs
Communist 1 MP


All the parties with "national" in their name voted with the Conservatives. Opposing were the Labour party and
the Liberals and one Communist MP.

The opposition was far too small to block anything the Conservative/National government did.

Both the Labour party and the Liberals opposed Hitler. The Conservatives however decided on a course of appeasement. When the bill on the Munich agreement came to parliament Conservatives voted in favour, Labour and Liberals voted against, and MacMillan, Churchill and a few others abstained (Churchill didn't have the guts to vote against his government despite his grand rhetoric after the war). The Conservative government even had the gall to ask Labour MPs to stop making anti-Hitler speeches as Hitler had told Chamberlain that they annoyed him!

Note also that the Labour party had opposed the Versailles Treaty of 1919, in particular they opposed the reparations imposed on Germany, worried about the effects it would have, and wanted them overturned. In 1933, before Hitler came to power, Stafford Cripps made a speech saying that "if you are ever going to remove the unrest from Europe you will do it only upon the basis of justice, and in order to do that, you must remove first of all some of the iniquitous provisions of the post-war Treaties." He was right, but it took the Americans and the Marshall plan after WW2 to prove definitively that imposing reparations destabalises the losing side and providing help stabalises things. 

The unions also opposed Hitler voiciferously. British unions had close links to the German trade unions, and they were alarmed at the way Hitler completely destroyed the German trade unions (who hated him) as soon as he came to power.

The public in the 1930's and 40's were perfectly aware of who did what. I believe that Labour won the 1945 general election by a massive landslide not merely because the people wanted a New Britain, but also because they were intent on purging Parliament of Tory appeasers. All subsequent Tory PM's came from the handful of men who had abstained over the Munich agreement.

As for France - the Vichy government was right-wing, and the resistence was led by socialists and De Gaulle, who was in a category of his very own - a Gaullist.

All the shame of WW2 lies with the right.

tags: , , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson | 24 comments (24 topical)

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#1)

by e10rifles on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM GMT

I knew I'd agree with snowflake on something eventually.


Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#2)

by jkitleft on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:40:27 PM GMT

Hear hear.

I really should get round to reading Michael Foot's book which denounced the policy of appeasement, which he wrote in 1940.


Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#3)

by swatantra on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:09:27 PM GMT

There is some truth in that. The returning soldiers remembered that it was the Tories that had put them through 5 years of hellish war, and they weren't going to forgive and forget. Perhaps the extent of the Hitlers threat had not been realised by the Tories in the 30's and the right prparations for the Defence of Britain not made. But one of the unfortunate consequences of the whole episode is that the word 'appeasement' has become a dirty word. For example it is used frequently by the Right to justify their stance against Russia, Iraq and Iran, when there is no threat of domination by them. This is a great pity. There is always room for diplomacy to defuse conflicts.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#4)

by Tankist on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:39:04 PM GMT

Actually, not strictly true. After 1931 Labour was led by George Lansbury, a great hero of the left but an utterly hopeless man.

Lansbury was a pacifist and under his leadership Labour took a very weak line against fascists - instead arguing for "collective security" (ie no rearmament but rely on the League of Nations) but matters eventually came to a head in 1935 when the right, led by Ernie Bevin demanded Labour press the Tories on sanctions against Italy after the invastion of Abyssinia. Lansbury essentially backed the Tories' policy of appeasment, lost the vote on the NEC and resigned as leader just as Labour's conference began.

In the debate that followed Bevin accused Lansbury of dragging his conscience from body to body asking to be told what to do with it and was booed ferociously, while Lansbury was cheered to the echo.

Of course, Ernie had the votes so one the day and Labour went on elect a firm anti-appeaser in the form of Clem Attlee, but up until that point Labour could not make much of a claim to have been firm on the fascists.


Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#5)

by snowflake5 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:51:19 PM GMT

The point is that Labour had the debate in the party, the anti-appeasers won and Atlee led the party from 1935 onwards. And note that Lansbury led a very small parliamentary party of just 52 MPs. Under Atlee, in the 1935 general election Labour increased MPs to 154.

The Tories by contrast were a vast party and they did not have the debate. Churchill didn't even had the gits to vote against Munich. They say history is written by the victors, and part of Churchill's motives in writing his memoirs so early was to paint himself in a better light. But he wasn't so brave at the time either with his votes or to force a change in Conservative leadership and policy. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#6)

by Free Radical on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:32:57 PM GMT

I have a lot of time for Churchill. However (and it's easy to say this with the benefit of hindsight) I think a big mistake was his opposition to support for the Republican government in Spain, while the Nazi government in Germany armed the Franco forces and tested out their equipment.

But let us give Churchill credit for understanding the menace that Naziism represented, for his opposition to appeasement, and for dissuading the cabinet from making peace with Hitler. And, of course for leading the country through the most dangerous period of our history.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#7)

by sunderkatwala on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 08:10:35 AM GMT

snowflake is right about this. well done.

Lansbury's resignation in 1935 came after Bevin's fierce attack on his policy the Labour conference voting against him.

Ben Pimlott writes in his biography of Hugh Dalton that "In 1933, Labour was essentially a pacifist party. By the end of 1937, it had become a party that believed in armed deterrence, a party that urged collective security through the League of Nations and a party that bitterly opposed Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. The architect of this remarkable change was Hugh Dalton". 
(Pimlott, Hugh Dalton, chapter 15, Anti-Appeaser)


There are a couple of key points after 1939 which are not as well known as they might be:

(i) Chamberlain's resignation in May 1940 was triggered by Labour's refusal to join a government led by him. While the government's majority fell from over 200 to 81 in the Norway debate, Chamberlain believed he could stay on (and the King was pressing Labour to serve under him).

(ii) Even after Churchill became PM, there was a crucial debate in the War Cabinet of five (three Conservatives, two Labour) in May 1940, in nine tense meetings between the 26th and 28th of May.

Lord Halifax wanted to take up an Italian offer to mediate towards a negotated peace. "we might get better terms before France went out of the war and our aircraft factories were bombed than we might get in three months time". Chamberlain's view was that he didn't say "what we would lose if we said openly that, while we would fight to the end to preserve our independence, we were ready to consider decent terms if offered to us".

Churchill was adamantly opposed to this. Peter Hennessy, in his brilliant 'Never Again' on the 1945-51 Labour government, writes

"at this stage, it was two for mediation and one against. Everything turned on the Labour members of the War Cabinet, Attlee and Greenwood. They did not hesitate. Attlee backed Churchill unequivocally. If negotiations began, "we should find it impossible to rally the morale of the people". Greenwood said the industrial areas of Britain would "regard anything like weakening on the part of the government as a disaster". All in all, it took two hours to reach the decision to fight on: the most crucial two hours in modern Cabinet history."
(Hennessy, Never Again, chapter 1)
---

Pimlott concludes the anti-appeasement chapter of his Dalton biography saying "The importance of Labour opinion may be briefly stated. The government had an overwhelming majority but it was more vulnerable than it seemed - not least to the arguments (if never the numbers) of critics on its own backbenches. The ability of these critics to be heard and to offer a serious challenge depended on the Opposition. It may be contended that criticism failed to stiffen the government or alter its course. Yet this is only partly true. The gathering pace of British rearmament, the Polish guarantee, the September 1939 ultimatum and the declaration of war were all influenced - if not actually forced - by the House of Commons pressure which Labour helped to create. Most vital of all, the political combination which brought down the government in May 1940 was as much a product of the hostility and tactics of the Parliamentary Labour Party as of disaffection on the government benches. Neville Chamberlain fell from office because the Labour leadership refused to join a Government of which he was the head. The basis of that refusal had been laid long before the war began".


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#8)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:27:34 AM GMT

It's suprising to remember that Attlee, for all his nationalisations, was quite hawkish when it came to foreign policy.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#11)

by snowflake5 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:57:04 PM GMT

I think most of the Labour party from 1935 onwards were hawkish, Ernest Bevin was not only fiercely opposed to Hitler, he hated communists equally fiercely (especially after his experience of how they tried to infiltrate the Transport and General Workers Union when he was running it).

Unsurprisingly after the war, when he was foreign secretary, Britain sent troops to Greece to try to keep the communists from taking over that country. Labour sent troops to Korea too.

Bevin also liked the Americans and negotiated and oversaw the setting up of NATO in 1948 and helped persuade the Americans the Marshall plan really was necessary.

That first Labour government was absolutely stunning. It really makes you pause when you realise just how much of the modern world they formed - NATO, NHS, nuclear deterrant, the clearing of the slums and the building of hundreds of new council houses, nationalisation of the Bank of England. It's amazing they had the time and energy after just fighting a horrendous war.

And they nearly won a third term - it's forgotten but they got just 7 fewer seats than the Tories (295 to the conservatives' 302) in the 1951 general election. But in popular vote, Labour got 48.8% to the conservatives' 44.3% (a difference of 1,288822 votes!)

Regarding hawkishness - pretty much all Labour governments are hawkish and pro-American to some extent. It's only when we get into opposition that the pacifist elements crawl out and try to take over the party.

There is a tendency in the media to believe that the Labour party of 1983 was the "definitive" Labour party and that current Labour is somehow out of step with it's roots. But 1983 was the aberration, wildly out of step with 1945 Labour on foreign policy and out of step with Wilson's pragmatic Labour on domestic policy (recall "In Place of Strife") too. However current Labour is well in line with historical Labour, in terms of foreign policy, domestic re-distribution and support for the NHS, despite mischevous attempts by the press to pretend otherwise.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#13)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:07:49 PM GMT

I actually don't blame Attlee for being so pro-American. I am a firm supporter of NATO and Europe, but also of multilateral non-proliferation. Nuclear weapons kept us on the second peg on the world stage, not up with the US and the Soviets, but on the next level. After Keynes failed to secure an £8bn loan, we were tied to America.

Actually, the lesson of Attlee's foreign policy for me, while I disagree with proliferation in current times, is that we need multilateral efforts if foreign policy is to work. I would've been passionately in favour of removing Saddam, on Ann Clwyd style grounds, if we had secured more international support. But Europe and NATO were divided. This is the key difference with the wars in Kosovo and Afghanistan, as only the efforts of many countries, can keep these countries stable.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#16)

by Free Radical on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:58:55 PM GMT

On Labour, hawkishness and pro-US foreign policy - there is at least one very significant exception - this was that Harold Wilson had the wisdom (or for whatever reason) to keep the UK out of Vietnam, despite considerable pressure - thereby avoiding involvement in that other US foreign policy catastrophe.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#9)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:19:12 PM GMT

It should not be forgotten that Neville Chamberlain's positions on foreign policy had been driven by his personal experiences in the First World War. After his appalling time in the trenches, his attitude was peace at any price.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#12)

by snowflake5 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:59:06 PM GMT

All British males had a bad experience in WW1. Indeed the lower class you were, the worse your experience. Atlee fought in WW1 too - but it didn't stop him being an anti-appeaser.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#14)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM GMT

I believe that the old guard of the Conservatives still maintain an inherent suspicion of not only Europe, but also America. That is where anti-americanism has been more fashionable.

It was always the Left who were internationalists, and not isolationists.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#18)

by Tankist on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 08:27:39 AM GMT

Eh? He had a desk job in Britain. He was 45 when the war broke out in any case.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#10)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 02:28:15 PM GMT

Hitler's attitude to Chamberlain's signing of the much vaunted  declaration at Munich was summed up by his quip. "I liked the old man. I gave him my autograph".


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#15)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:15:32 PM GMT

Just recommended the post. But it was negated by another vote. The vote of a Mr. Swanson perhaps.....


Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#17)

by snowflake5 on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:34:01 PM GMT

It keeps going back and forth from teh Recommended list. I expect it's because the Tories on this board want to suppress their appeasing history! :-)


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#19)

by mwell on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM GMT

This is an excellent post and thread. Let us also not forget the Spainish Civil War and the role of thousands of brave men and women on the left who supported the legitimate republican government against the fascist-backed Franco military coup.

If anyone is in London this Saturday, it is the annual memorial commemoration for the International Brigade at Jubilee Gardens at 1pm. It's a very moving event, with some incredible veterans in their 80s and 90s in attendance - absolute heroes.


Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#20)

by e10rifles on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 01:50:49 PM GMT

And I remember reading about Conservative MPs cheering when they heard about British ships bringing supplies to the (elected) Spanish Government being bombed by the fascists.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#21)

by Free Radical on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:37:55 PM GMT

To be fair, not all Tories took this view. The young Edward Heath visited Spain as part of a student delegation at the invitation of the Republican government and early on seemed to have recognised the dangers of fascism - see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article545267.ece


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#22)

by doctordunc on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 12:22:22 PM GMT

While I agree with the overall theme of this thread (very strongly so, indeed) - I have to challenge the suggestion that George Lansbury was 'a hopeless man'.

He had lost his potency and vitality by the time he was allowed to lead a rump Labour Party, but he was a hero of the left for a reason.  Well, several reasons actually:

He was a heroic Suffragist, putting his principled support of women's suffrage ahead of his political ambition, resigning his seat and fighting a by-election for suffrage (a much more vital and controversial performance than the recent sideshow from David Davis).  He was jailed for sedition in 1913.

He was a marvellous campaigning mayor for Poplar in which he achieved an enormous amount of good.

He was a genuinely effective socialist (he was kept out of one Cabinet because the King said that he wouldn't be able to shake his hand - personally I think we should all aspire to such a reputation!!)

He was a pacifist, by principle and conviction.  As such - as the foreign policy scene evolved through the '30s - he regularly offered his resignation, but colleagues wouldn't accept it (not because they agreed on the pacifism, but because they couldn't stomach the thought of a right-wing bigot - either Bevin or Greenwood - assuming the leadership).  He was furiously and openly critical of the government's policy vis-a-vis the Spanish Civil War and never wavered from his anti-fascism (however toothless his anti-fascism may have appeared, located as it was in his pacifisim). 

The real crime of the 1930s Tories was not appeasement - I think History probably judges Chamberlain too harshly - it was active support for Hitler.  As such Baldwin is probably a worse offender than Chamberlain, he just didn't have the pieces of paper.  Many Tories were entirely supportive of the Nazis and of European fascism, and supported them as a bulwark against Communism.  Therefore we should not condemn too strongly pacifists, or those who believed diplomacy or the proper use of the League of Nations and international law may have worked.  It is those who actively supported Hitler, and actively wanted him to re-arm and form a buffer against Bolshevism who should receive the full force of our condemnation.


Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#23)

by swatantra on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:05:12 PM GMT

Thank you for putting it into some kind of context. Your last paragraph says it all. There was some support for Hitler amongst the aristocracy inc the Duke of Windsor. Te fault was largely Baldwins; Chamberlain did his best to prevent war, by diplomacy. Unfortunately the piece of paper he signed was worthless, but at least he tried, to get a peaceful solution, first. And when he learnt that Hitler broke the agreement, he then declared war. We have to sometimes beware the warmongers. Millions of lives were lost unnecessarily. Only when it is absolutely necessary should a country go to war.


[ Parent ]

Re: Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson (#24)

by Free Radical on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:18:16 PM GMT

Yes, that is true that one should not go to war unnecessarily, but, as Churchill points out in his history of the Second World War, action by Britain and her allies at an earlier stage, especially before Czechoslovakia was surrendered, would have led to a very different military balance in which Nazi Germany could have been contained. As I am sure you know, Churchill called the war the "Unnecessary War."

I don't agree with these recent revisionist histories that say that Nazi Germany should just have been allowed to get on with it. In any case, it is crystal clear that Germany would have attacked Russia, as that was always Hitler's intention.


[ Parent ]

Basic History Lesson for AlexSwanson | 24 comments (24 topical)