Maurice - Cowling The Impact of Hitler PDF

THE IMPACT OF HITLER
Cambridge Studies in the History and Theory of Politics
EDITORS
MAURICE COWLING
G. R. ELTON
E. KEDOURIE
J. G. A. POCOCK
J. R. POLE
WALTER ULLMANN
Mr. Anthony Eden and Viscount Halifax
Illustrated London News
THE IMPACT OF
HITLER
BRITISH POLITICS AND
BRITISH POLICY
1933 - 1940
MAURICE COWLING
Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo
Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521205825
© Cambridge University Press 1975
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 1975

This digitally printed first paperback version 2005
A catalogue recordfor this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 74—12968
ISBN-13 978-0-521-20582-5 hardback

ISBN-10 0-521 -20582-4 hardback
ISBN-13 978-0-521-01929-3 paperback

ISBN-10 0-521-01929-X paperback
CONTENTS
Preface IX
Introduction 1
PROLOGUE:
THE UNFOLDING OF THE PROBLEM
The recovery of the Labour party 15
The rejection of Lloyd George 33
The function of the League of Nations 63
P A R T I THE NEW D E P A R T U R E
The failure of the League of Nations 97
Chamberlain and Eden 143
Chamberlain and Hitler 177
P A R T II THE O P P O S I T I O N
The Labour party 209
Eden, Churchill and their allies 223
P A R T III THE E F F E C T
Halifax 257
Chamberlain, Churchill and Hitler 293
The declaration of war 313
P A R T IV THE P O L I T I C S OF E A S Y V I C T O R Y
Chamberlain and the war 355
The fall of Chamberlain 367
Conclusion 387
Appendix: the actors 401
Bibliography 421
Notes 427
Index 543
PREFACE
This volume is the third in a sequence about The Politics of
British Democracy. In the future there will be an introduc-
tion bearing the sequence-title which will deal in its widest
aspects with the period from 1850 to 1940 and will assess the
methods used in the volumes which have now been publish-
ed. Whether there will be anything more is uncertain. For
that period an abundance of material is already available or
will be shortly. For later periods there is a problem. It can be
only a hope that a volume entitled The Development of the
Class Struggle 1924-1935 will be followed by The Impact of
Inflation (from 1936 onwards).
For this volume no general introduction is needed. Readers
who want one should read the first twelve and last forty-
seven pages of The Impact of Labour or pages 287-340 of
Disraeli, Gladstone and Revolution. All it is necessary to say
here is that no attack is intended. The sole aim is to remove
misunderstandings based on an implied contradiction be-
tween expediency and principle, and to present democratic
politicians in a multi-dimensional context where they display
on the fragmented nature of God's handiwork the only ra-
tional way of acting politically.
'Rational' here means what politicians can understand. It
means working through contingency and accident, not rising
above them. It means that principles are manifestations of
personality no less than interests and passions and that all
three form the context of political consciousness.
Politicians understand as much as they need to of the
situations in which they work. This need not be much. But
their actions follow from the solipsisms in which they are
located. In locating them and in imputing right to no one in
relation to the rest, history need not deny that conflict can
be good or its outcome better than its parts.
What political history can do is to dissect solipsisms. What
it can also do is to show them in conflict. What it can do
most of all is to show them conflicting in face of perpetual
envelopment in a prudent, necessary and corporate venality.
X PREFACE
For access to material which they own or control, the author

is grateful to Mr and Mrs Stephen Lloyd, Mr John Grigg,
Viscount Bridgeman, Captain Stephen Roskill, Mr William
Rees-Mogg, Lord Keyes, Mr Patrick Attlee, Lord Croft,
Mr Julian Amery MP, Mr David Marquand MP, Mr Martin Gil-
bert, Mr Philip Goodhart MP, Lady Beatrix Levison, Viscount
Simon, Mr Michael Dawson, Mr John Hull, Mr David Watt,
Mr Guy Paget, Sir O. O'Malley, Lady Vansittart, Mr Robert
Rhodes James, Mr Alan Beattie and Professor David Dilks.
He is grateful to the Controller of H.M. Stationery Office
for permission to quote from Crown-Copyright records. He is
grateful also to other owners of copyright material for per-
mission to use it, and he apologises to any whom he has
failed to consult. He has been helped by innumerable librar-
ians and archivists — and especially in the Public Record
Office and by the staffs of the Beaverbrook, Churchill Col-
lege, Bodleian, Birmingham University and Cambridge Uni-
versity libraries.
The author has incurred debts to the Faculty of History at
Cambridge for a grant from its Political Science Fund; to
Messrs Peter Baker, J. McNee, M. Ramsay and T.A. Woolley for
checking references; to Mrs M J . Anderson for making the
index; and to Mrs E.D. Beebe, Mrs O.G. Page, Mrs J. Ratcliffe
and Mrs H. Stephens for typing. To Mrs H.M. Dunn his debt
in these respects is especially great.
Professor F.H. Hinsley, Professor J.R. Vincent and Mrs Zara
Steiner very kindly read the typescript and made many
valuable suggestions. Dr CM. Andrew, Lord Blake, Dr Fraser
Cameron, Mr Alistair Cooke, Dr Patrick Cosgrave, Professor
J.A. Gallagher, Mr C. Howard, Professor E. Kedourie, Dr
Andrew Jones, Mr J J . Lee, Dr E.R. Norman, Dr Anil Seal and
Mr I.R. Willison made suggestions or gave advice. Dr P. Byrd
kindly lent his Ph D thesis. Mr Paul Addison, Mr Martin Ceadel
and Dr Daniel Waley made helpful remarks or read helpful
papers at Mr AJ.P. Taylor's seminar. The Master and Fellows
of Peterhouse provided conditions which were both helpful
and agreeable.
April 1974 Maurice Cowling

'I doubt whether the absolutely unparalleled series of diplomatic blun-
ders in the last four months can ever be sufficiently repaired. They may
quite easily end by destroying all that you and I have worked for. For
Baldwin doesn't know and cannot act, and is well fitted by virtues,
dilettantism and inertia to become the Lord North of a far greater
catastrophe.' Garvin to Amery, October 2 1935
*No supporter of the Government should ever again without shame lift
up the Union Jack at a public meeting or on an election platform. The
Labour party is alone entitled to lift not only the Union Jack which
stands for Britain, but the Red Flag, which stands for Socialism and
democracy. The "old man of Munich" and the rest could only raise the
white flag of the coward on the one hand and the black flag of the
traitor and the robber on the other.' Dalton at Southport, May 28 1939,
The Times, May 29
'I feel that our world, or all that remains of it, is committing suicide,
whilst Stalin laughs and the Kremlin triumphs.' Henry Channon MP,
Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, in his diary, September 3 1939
INTRODUCTION
In 1933 Europe was governed by innumerable politicians pre-
siding over the many pockets of insecure power which con-
stituted the regime in each particular state. On all these re-
gimes the impact of Hitler was profound. In all the geography
of politics was transformed as the danger of war raised prob-
lems so acute that all other problems were affected. By 1939
few regimes had escaped a transformation. By 1945 many
had been swept away.
In Britain the problem was defined psephologically.
Though a general election in 1940 might have returned a
Labour government with greater power than Labour had in
the Churchill Coalition, the possibility was important not just
because it might have occurred but because the thought that
it might be prevented affected policy when Hitler had been
made central, not just by himself but by publicists and the
party leaders.
In these years foreign policy became centred not only be-
cause it was but because politicians could fit it into the poli-
tical battle which had begun in the twenties. To the Labour
party it gave a respectability it might not otherwise have
regained so quickly after 1931. By others the domestic
appeasement of the twenties was assumed in order to attack
the international appeasement of the thirties. The result was
an alliance between a class-conflict programme in the Labour
party and an international-conflict programme in parts of the
Liberal and Conservative parties.
In 1939 the effect was devastating. In the first nine
months of the war, Chamberlain tried to circumvent it. In
May 1940 he was discredited and his coalition replaced.
The displacement of Chamberlain was a victory for Con-
servatives who, in disputing his leadership, had developed
links over the whole range of opinion. In reducing him from
being leader of a party into being leader of a group, Churchill
had abandoned the anti-socialist role he had played since
1919. In the process he had assisted at the event at which
Labour was in office not as minor partner, not as pathetic
2 INTRODUCTION
remnant and not on Liberal sufferance, but as a major ele-

ment in a centre government.
As a centre coalition, the government of May 1940 realised
the hopes which many politicians had had since the 1931
regime had first cracked electorally six years before. It sur-
vived the fall of France, the threat to Egypt and the loss of
Singapore, developing in office the consensual relationship
established in opposition and leaving it uncertain whether it
was a Lib-Lab trap for Conservatives or a Conservative trap in
which Attlee was the victim. Its continuation into the period
of Russo-American victory established the post-war illusion
that a regime which had been on the 'right side' in relation to
Hitler must have embodied an indefeasible centrality for the
future. Through Churchill, Sinclair, Attlee and Eden (who
were its founders) and through Butskellism (which was in-
vented by Hoare in 1934) it lasted until Macmillan's retire-
ment, establishing inflation, disestablishing the Empire and
permitting a receptivity in which the central features of
Labour thinking became entrenched as normal.
For historical writing the regime's success had two con-
sequences. It made it possible to see the foreign-policy con-
flict of the thirties as anticipating the egalitarian patriotism
of the forties rather than as continuing the class conflict of
the twenties. And it produced a built-in negativity about the
regime which had been defeated. Though neither normally
deliberate nor always self-conscious, identification with the
regime that 'won the war' made writing about its enthrone-
ment an act of self-congratulation.
This obstacle to understanding was supplemented by an-
other. The most accessible material, being designed for publi-
cation (to the public or other governments), enabled policy
to be equated with diplomatic statement and the half-truths
of democratic reassurance with the intentions behind acts of
state. Since the intentions of critics were similarly lost in
their public appearances, policy conflict was presented in the
single-dimensional terms in which it had been discussed pub-
licly in the first place.
The result was neglect of the fact that the public state-
ments of politicians were functional, not 'true', and were
about other politicians as much as about policy. This was
strengthened by the reticence of Feiling's Chamberlain
INTRODUCTION 3
(which was completed in 1944)1 and by the sale and scale of

the first volume of Churchill's Second World War.
Churchill's report of his encounter with destiny embodied
more genuine recollection and more impressive documenta-
tion than Lloyd George's report of his. But both were colour-
ed by the needs of their post-war situations and by their
desire to stand above the post-war conflict of the parties.
How far the 'saviour of the nation' was the suppliant leader
of a defeated party is not clear. What is clear is that Churchill
established a view by catching a mood which so deepened the
contrast between himself and what went before him that
even defenders of Chamberlain thereafter assumed that the
differences were as he had described them.
A similar conviction that the policies differed, and that
Munich reflected the difference, was enshrined in Wheeler-
Bennett's Munich and in the crude memorials to his fellow
Jews erected by a great historian of British aristocracy.2 It
was confirmed by denigration of Chamberlain's civic origins
and by shrill nonsense from a great thinker. It was deepened
by the assumption that Chamberlain had emasculated parlia-
ment and deceived the people, and had caused Britain to
stand alone after commitments had been given that he never
really wanted. It was condoned historically when Rowse dis-
cerned a 'deep ... propriety' in the 'coming together' in May
1940 of the 'old ruling class ... and the solid representatives
of the working class'. It achieved immortality when the self-
inflicted wounds of June were seen as permitting a 'happy
breed' to make a 'contribution to the world...even greater
than that of our ancestors'.3
This assumed that 'liberty' was being defended, not an
empire being lost, and that Churchill was Pericles, Marlbo-
rough, Elizabeth and Drake. It did not ask whether he was
implicated in the situation he inherited and how far his rela-
tions with Baldwin affected the positions he adopted.
Churchill need not be blamed for climbing Olympus. Nor
need his Lib-Lab laureates like Rowse, who had spent the
thirties as laureate to Keynes and Morrison.4 Nor even should
Bryant, who had been Chamberlain's editor and a Baldwinian
defender of the Chiefs of Staff, and who might have been ex-
pected to know better.5 But assumptions generated in malice
and gratitude between Dunkirk and Abadan established a
4 INTRODUCTION
living interest which will survive the most zealous attempts at

reinterpretation.
Reinterpretation began in the mid-fifties with the memoirs
of Hoare. They were followed by works from Medlicott, Watt,
Taylor, Thompson, Gilbert, Robbins, Lammers, Wendt and
Gannon, and by the slow unearthing of a City and Whitehall-
based suspicion of the economic power of the United States.
Hoare gave a retrospective coherence and did considerable
injustice to his own positions. Lammers established that
neither Chamberlain nor the Foreign Office thought 'ideo-
logically': he also questioned the belief that Chamberlain
wanted to set Hitler on to Stalin.6 Gilbert's Roots of Ap-
peasement (1966) recanted much of The Appeasers of 1963.
Without either Chamberlain's papers or the Public Records,
Watt had intuitions which in policy respect were right.7
Taylor's book was an isolationist landmark which implied
the need to explain why Chamberlain felt obliged to inter-
vene in Eastern Europe. Robbins saw that the explanation
would be complicated. Wendt emphasized economic policy,
Howard the Empire. Thompson and Gannon gave differing
twists to Medlicott's view that the difference between Cham-
berlain and his critics was insignificant. Before and after the
government archives were opened in 1970, all of these differed
from Taylor in assuming — what Middlemass, Aster, Parkinson
and Barnett assumed also — that 'the notables outside the
government, most backbench MP's, the Parliamentary Opposi-
tion and the Press... made little impact on decisions during
the Chamberlain government.' 8
Whether foreign policy can be understood from govern-
mental archives depends, however, on its place in party con-
flict. In the past hundred and fifty years, though often im-
portant, it has seldom been centred. From the beginning of
1936, it was as central as Protection in 1846 or Ireland in
1886, and as the Turkish question had been in the 1870s.
In these circumstances, policy-making was a complicated
matter. Ministers were informed by Foreign Office, Treasury
and Defence staff advice. And they reacted to an indictment.
But advisers were listened to or not as the indictment con-
nected 'manifest truths' about the international order with
the controversial 'truths' of party conflict, and decisions were
taken in face of other politicians who, like ministers them-
INTRODUCTION 5
selves, were artificial persons made up of the assessments

they made about the advice that they were given.
For party leaders, some ex-ministers and a few back-
benchers, advice came from a parallel bureaucracy. For most
backbenchers on most questions, it came from newspapers,
White papers and discussion with one another. For everyone
it involved an implicit understanding that policy-making was
inseparable from the spectrum of conflict which had been
established when Baldwin and MacDonald stabilised the class
struggle ten years before.
Whatever the legacy of the past, the future was unknown.
Churchill, Eden and Sinclair helped the Labour leaders to
become central. But they did not know that they would do
so, and the 'truths' they established about the regime they
replaced must be seen, initially, as merely instruments for
replacing it.
When foreign policy is marginal, it is possible to neglect
the total situation and still show how policy was conducted.
In the late thirties, foreign policy was the form that party
conflict took. Politicians conducted it in the light of party
considerations; it can only be understood if these considera-
tions are reconstructed. It is for this reason that the Prologue
sketches the party situation of the early thirties. Part I then
presents foreign policy as an extension of its function from
the Hoare-Laval pact to the occupation of Prague in March
1939. Part II describes the attacks made on Chamberlain,
Part III their effect between Prague and the Russo-German
pact in August. Chamberlain then resumes control (Part IV),
fighting a politician's war and expecting a political victory
until brought down (the sketchiest part of the book docu-
mentarily) by defeat in Scandinavia.
The theme is the relationship between the objectives of
politicians and their decisions about policy. The claim is that
this is the way in which foreign policy must be understood.
To make this claim, and write in this way, is misleading
since the obvious context was the international system. This,
however, whatever else it was, was a register of opinion in
national capitals. If it is to be understood, the politics of the
Powers must be seen through the filtering effected by the
politics of the parties. Until they are seen — and seen in
detail, in most of the states concerned — it will be impossible
6 INTRODUCTION
to give a real account of the development of events.

Parties performed different functions in different places
and registered differing relationships between politicians and
public. Though all reacted to Hitler (who was also reacting),
their reactions reflected pre-existing functions, as well as con-
sidered conclusions about the international situation. These
functions must be established in depth. Establishing them
may take a long time. In some cases it may be impossible.
For the moment British policy may be seen emerging from
the situation in which Hitler became a problem.
This situation was dominated by the class struggle, which
had been defined in the early twenties, won (by the forces of
resistance) in 1931 and renewed with the electoral dilapida-
tion of 1934. In the following six years, it was dominated
(and the class struggle transformed) by Hitler's challenge to
the double-talk which surrounded nearly all discussion of
Imperial defence.
The realisation that the world would not be as it had been
was the essence of the situation to which politicians had
responded in the decade before 1914. Whether 'peace' was
'threatened' by 'violence' or 'the Empire' by 'rivals', this was
the need to which relevant thinking responded. On the one
hand, it produced the internationalism which became the
norm when the war was over. On the other, it produced
demands for autarky, Imperial unity and renovation of the
national and Imperial defences.
Though pre-1914 Imperialism had an expanding and jingo-
istic rhetoric, its essence was the realisation that the Empire
was in danger. To some extent it assumed that defensive
impregnability was possible so long as Isolation was ended.
To some extent, it assumed that sentiment could make up for
financial deficiency. The system of sentiment lasted the war
which, however, eroded the financial base on which military
power depended. In the indebtedness of post-war Britain, the
League of Nations on the one hand, the Statute of Westmin-
ster on the other, and Locarno — the type of non-alliance
guarantee of peace — provided new sentiments and altruistic
clothing to deal with the fact that air power had placed Im-
perial frontiers on the Rhine.
Both the sentiments and the clothing were impermanent.
The peace settlement was denounced in England as soon as it
INTRODUCTION 7
was made and had lost moral force long before Hitler began
to dismantle it. Though victory brought entanglements which
had not been there before, the governments of the twenties
undermined them by leaving it uncertain at what point Brit-
ish intervention in Europe could become effective. With the
rejection of the Geneva Protocol and the refusal to make
Locarno an alliance, financial, imperial and isolationist con-
siderations became important.
In spite of this, the nakedness of the Empire created a
vested interest in the status quo and contradictory desires
both to restore the pre-war economic system and to anti-
cipate its erosion. Moreover, the importance of liberal opi-
nion in a class-polarised politics made a power-political justi-
fication unsuitable, so foreign policy was presented in terms
which the League of Nations Union would approve. Laissez-
faire, however, was dead, and was buried in 1933. 'Collective
Security' was a bluff which had only to be called. When
Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese called it, politicians creat-
ed new aligments among themselves in the course of wrestling
with the discovery that this had happened.
The effect was as striking as the discovery of the Labour
party in the twenties. It produced the same reactions and
provided similar opportunities for reputations to be made.
Where MacDonald had played according to the rules, how-
ever, Hitler did not, and did much damage in the course of
establishing that he would not do so. All but one of the
foreign secretaries and prime ministers who dealt with foreign
policy were destroyed, as well as a number of soldiers and
officials. But it was neither depravity which determined
policy up to September 1939 nor a reign of virtue that began
in May 1940, and Chamberlain merely fumbled when faced
with a contradiction between the desire to maintain peace by
being detached from central and eastern Europe and the
desire to be involved strenuously in it.
Central and eastern Europe had never been areas of British
interest; except at the Peace Conferences, they had not been
primary subjects for British action. Though the Turkish col-
lapse had produced conflict with Russia and Greece and the
beginning of a Middle Eastern empire, both conflict and
empire had been confined. In the post-war decades, British
interests followed the thin line of oil and trade through the
8 INTRODUCTION
Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf to India, Malaya,

Hong Kong and Australasia.
This was the 'Empire' as the Services saw it — and the hard
core of the strategic problem. It required acquiescence from
Italy, Turkey, Greece and Egypt and a want of interest in
central and eastern Europe. Politically, however, central and
eastern Europe became the crux. Not because of direct in-
terests and commitments but because French governments
regarded a second front as crucial if the Rhine was to be
defended. It was for this reason that the British desire to
keep out was thwarted by the French need to keep in, and
why policy had to be conducted on the assumption that
detachment was impracticable.
Whether, in these circumstance, Britain should help or halt
German influence in central and eastern Europe depended on
whether this was seen as a guarantee of peace or a prelude to
world domination, and on whether an anti-German alliance
would give undue assistance to the Russians.
The East European commitments of 1939 were, of course,
primarily about Hitler. But to say this is to beg the question.
For, if Hitler's 'object' was to 'hurl his armies against Russia'
(rather than to secure relations with the army and the
German public), then the decision to obstruct him would
have done Stalin's work for him if the French collapse
in 1940 had not prevented it being done, and this would have
been so unless Stalin wanted to co-operate with France and
Britain more than he wanted to involve them in war against
Germany.
Hitler may have wanted to destroy the British Empire. But
this was not obvious then and is far from obvious now. It is
at least as likely that he aimed primarily to fulfil promises
about Germany's economic and world role and was com-
pelled to attack Britain only by British action in May and
September 1938. 9 Even if it is assumed that his aims from
the start were to 'purify' Germany, destroy Russia and colon-
ise the Ukraine, that suggests nothing about his attitude to
Britain.
It may be that Hitler was the 'beast from the abyss' whom
Britain had a duty to destroy. 10 It may be that victory over
Russia would have been followed by an attack in the West. It
is possible to deny the duty, to question the sequence or to
INTRODUCTION 9
believe that success, or failure to succeed against Russia,

would have affected the character of the regime in Germany.
Why Hitler wanted to destroy Russia and what he would
have done afterwards are questions to which many answers
can be given. This book gives none. All it does is to display
the problem and the curious thinking that lay behind the
British decision to resolve it.
The final solution was a succession of commitments be-
tween the Runciman mission in August 1938 and the guaran-
tee to Poland eight months later. At each point in the ap-
proach to involvement, however, detachment was the object-
ive. That it turned into an attempt at alliance with Russia was
the work of Halifax who was the chief cause of the events
which made Chamberlain a ghost in the machine between the
occupation of Prague and the Russo-German pact in August.
To history, until yesterday, Halifax was the arch-appeaser.
This, it is now recognised, was.a mistake. His role, however,
was complicated. In these pages he is not the man who
stopped the rot, but the embodiment of Conservative wisdom
who decided that Hitler must be obstructed because Labour
could not otherwise be resisted.
Why Britain should have chosen to obstruct Hitler except
in France or the Low Countries was not obvious. Until Sep-
tember 1938 it had been out of the question. The change was
made possible by the decision then to underwrite an interna-
tional guarantee of a dismembered Czechoslovakia.
However ambiguous, the guarantee was crucial. If Cham-
berlain erred (as, given his intentions, he did), one element in
the error consisted in the decision to give it when he had
previously assumed that Britain's only commitment beyond
Locarno should be in the defunct mechanics of the League.
Up to September 1938 his policy was exactly that; he
abandoned it then the better to pursue it, and his failure
thereafter was a result of political pressures imprisoning him
in a policy he had no intention of adopting.
Chamberlain knew that war would be damaging to Britain,
to the Empire, and in terms of human suffering. He had,
therefore, been performing a balancing act in which the
threat to intervene was designed to make intervention un-
necessary and where commitments to France had been
stepped up, beyond the formal need, in order to prevent the
10 INTRODUCTION
French intervening. After Berchtesgaden this failed; he lost

balance, gave a guarantee he did not expect to honour and,
after Prague, gave himself a retrospective firmness when he
needed to establish that he had meant it.
The negative calculations of 1938 thus initiated the com-
mitments of 1939. But these, too, were made so that the
threat of war would prevent war being declared, just as the
declaration of war would make it unnecessary to fight it, and
because, after Prague, the policy of avoiding war could only
be pursued in terms which the political climate would permit.
This was determined by the reactions of politicians which
themselves were a function of the conceptions they had of
the roles they should play in the system they were working.
For some (not only in the Labour party) the leading role was
a class-war one. For others, it involved adopting positions
designed to conceal the class war. For many Conservatives, it
involved sensitive responses to what was conceived of as the
opinion of the Centre.
As an object of pursuit, the Centre was a moving fixture.
With the crumbling of the Centre established in 1931, it had
meant primarily economic flexibility (and criticism of Cham-
berlain for being inflexible) until it came to mean criticism of
Chamberlain for being inflexible about foreign policy.
No more than in office were changes in opposition dictat-
ed solely by the merits of questions. For Chamberlain's cri-
tics, as much as for him, the conclusions reached resulted
from the situations in which they reached them and the ef-
fect they had from the situations to which they applied
them. Whether as genuine belief or as 'an instrumentality'
necessary for removing a prime minister, the 'Centre' was
central both in developing criticism after 1936 and in affect-
ing policy in 1939.
The 'central' position in foreign policy in the early thirties
was a League and disarmament one, but, until 1935, foreign
policy was not central. The Peace Ballot and Abyssinia then
became the chief focus of discussion and the issue through
which Baldwin re-established his 'centrality' at the election.
It was the lead Chamberlain gave against the League after the
defeat of the Abyssinians which initiated a division about
himself and the foreign policy his party position had led him
into representing.
INTRODUCTION 11
On the one hand, the Labour party, Sinclair, Churchill and

the League of Nations Union emphasised the need to rescue
the League and moved, when this failed, towards demanding
'collective' resistance to dictators. On the other, Chamberlain
and most Conservatives contested the League's 'centrality'
and asserted the significance of other methods of maintaining
peace.
Chamberlain implied a contrast with what had gone be-
fore, but the differences were verbal. The new policy in-
volved the same aim as the old and the same search for issues
with which to bring France and Germany together. Even
when the language was different, it pursued the same com-
bination of rearmament and reconciliation as had been
pursued since 1933 and maintained the same hope for agree-
ment about treaty revision, disarmament and a German re-
turn to Geneva.
By March 1939 Chamberlain had been pursuing this for
two and a half years. He had also been opposed for two and a
half years for doing so. The objection, however, was not so
much to 'appeasement' (which was not an accurate descrip-
tion of his policy) as to his insistence on asserting that 'Col-
lective' Security was dead. When the occupation of Prague
showed that 'detente9 was dead too, it came to seem that it
had died because 'dictators' could not be 'resisted' while the
League was disregarded.
Whether Churchill (or Eden) would have been more suc-
cessful it is difficult to know, since their policies (except
about Russia) were much the same as his. The similarity,
however, did not stop them seeming to be different or pre-
vent the 'difference' having an effect. The effect was the
commitments of 1939 which were given because a climate
had been created which made it dishonourable not to give
them.
Since the climate which established the relationship
dominated most subsequent accounts of the pre-war party
situation, a peculiar self-denial is needed if Chamberlain is to
be understood in his functioning context, where he was the
new embodiment of a realistic version of average wisdom,
and where his actions were contested and dismissed because
contest and dismissal were the normal modes of procedure in
the system on which his power depended.
12 INTRODUCTION
In the thirties the system contained heavy deposits of Con-

servative opinion. These included Chamberlainite Unionism,
as well as innumerable droppings from the resistance situa-
tions of the twenties, the coalition situations of 1916 and
1921 and the soothing streams of Cecilian, Whig, Young Eng-
land and suburban idealism which had persisted throughout.
The deposits cannot easily be separated; together they
created a coherence as effective as the coherence of the
Liberal Left. But whereas the foreign-policy coherence of the
Left has found its place in history, the Conservative co-
herence has suffered the oblivion of defeat. If it is to be
recovered, disbelief will have to be suspended.
This is not the same as believing that Chamberlain 'had a
case' for delaying an 'inevitable' confrontation or did 'the
right thing' in going to war when he did. It involves asking
(heuristically) why 'inevitability' should be assumed and why
Conservatives recognised that more options were open than
were taken. It demands as dispassionate a language in writing
about Chamberlain (and Nevile Henderson) as in writing
about Churchill (or Vansittart). Above all it demands the
assumption that it was neither morally obligatory nor pru-
dentially self-evident that Hitler should be obstructed in Eas-
tern Europe.
Inevitably, these demands will make it seem that Chamber-
lain is being defended. But, in fact, no defence has been
given; nor would defence be an historical undertaking. What
is required, alike by inherent probability and the historical
duty, is a dramatic detachment which presents all equal
actors equally and imputes logical equality to all the posi-
tions with which it deals. If this reduces Chamberlain's
responsibility, it does so only by seeing him in the context of
the system of which he was a part.
Whether Britain would have obstructed Hitler or gone to
war under a different system, regime or form of government
cannot be known. What this book does is to show in what
sense the decision to do so was a facet of the way in which
'politics' were conducted in the shadow of 'British democracy'.
PROLOGUE
THE UNFOLDING OF THE PROBLEM

THE RECOVERY OF THE LABOUR PARTY
'If Simon is a catastrophe, as I agree that he is, the Prime Ministei
seems me to be a cataclysm. If only there were an alternative govern-
ment, I think it would be the duty of all of us to say so.'
Cecil of Chelwode to Lloyd George, April 27 1934.
'At the last general election the Government had immense support in
popular journalism. Now the Daily Herald and the News Chronicle
together give the Socialist opposition all the pull in the Press for the
millions. For different reasons, and pointing their guns from divergent
angles, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express batter National Govern-
ment from the other side. Nothing can correct this enormous disadvant-
age but some new and vivid organisation for propaganda directly or-
ganised by the Government itself.' Garvin in the Observer, May 6 1934.
'The National government in 1934 is certainly not as strong as it was in

1931 ... Yet the alliance between different schools of political thought
which brought it into being, has become quietly and steadily stronger,
in spite of a Liberal recession. The allies at first regarded the emergency
which brought them together as a mere interruption of normal con-
ditions; they are beginning to recognise it now as the end of an era. Old
policies which they had been willing to suspend as temporarily inap-
plicable, they are now inclined to write off as fundamentally obsolete.
They are no longer content with the "doctor's mandate"; they want a
new school of medicine. And if any of them feel some doubt whether
the National Government, as at present constituted, can found such a
new school, they are at least sure that it cannot be founded by any of
the old political parties acting on the old lines.
'All these considerations are obvious enough ...' Lord Eustace Percy,
Government in Transition (1934), pp. 2—3.
At the general election of 1931 MacDonald, Baldwin and
Samuel received over 14 million votes, won 554 seats and had
a majority of almost 500 in the House of Commons. Three
years later the 'National government' seemed likely to lose
the next election. During the electoral dilapidation of 1934 it
was under attack from Lloyd George, the Labour party and
the Samuelite Liberals (who had resigned in 1932), and from
Cripps and the Socialist League, Cecil and the League of
Nations Union, Mosley and the British Union of Fascists and
a broad span of Conservative critics who clustered round
16 PROLOGUE: THE UNFOLDING OF THE PROBLEM
Garvin, Amery, Churchill, Salisbury, Rothermere and Austen

Chamberlain.
These oppositions opposed in the shadow of the belief that
the general election had been a fluke and that the by-
elections supplied a more adequate guide to the future. The
questions they raised were whether the Conservative party
would stay in one piece, whether the government could keep
hold of its Liberal vote and what changes (if any) would be
needed if a Labour victory was to be avoided.
Of the oppositions about which ministers had to think, the

least significant was that led by Mosley, who was thought to
have such bad judgment that there was nothing to fear.1 This
may have been a mistake. It might have been more accurate
to say that Mosley was unlucky in the timing of his major
acts as a politician. There was room for the broad-based
Centre lead he had aimed to give on resigning from the La-
bour Cabinet in 1930. But the formation of the National
government followed closely on the formation of his New
party, which might have gone far if the election of 1931 had
been indecisive. Nor is it certain what would have happened
if he had still been a Labour MP after the Labour party had
been massacred. It was only after the election (when the
prospects for unemployment seemed limitless) that he staked
his future on the presumption that the regime would col-
lapse.
Mosley came from a family of Conservative squires who
had become rich with the development of Manchester. Poli-
tically he was a Young Englander ex-service MP who had
worked with Salisbury and Cecil and had married Curzon's
daughter. From both angles he was well placed to understand
the uncertainties felt by Conservative politicians in face of an
unknown electorate.
Mosley intended to be a demagogue. But, in being one, he
was trying, like Baldwin, Salisbury and Cecil, to translate the
politics of judgment and decision into terms which an un-
educated electorate would understand. Being an opportunist
and seeking an opportunity where none existed so obviously
in the Conservative party, his membership of the Labour
party from 1923 onwards involved him in another approach
to the problem which all politicians faced equally. It was
THE RECOVERY OF THE LABOUR PARTY 17
only when that failed in 1930, after coming near to success,

and after he had failed with the New party, that he tried the
British Union of Fascists.
It is easy to say that Mosley stood no chance of getting
anywhere as a Fascist. Certainly he got nowhere. He provided
something for Labour politicians to be solemn about. He
worried the government when Rothermere supported him at
the point of electoral recession. His followers fought a few
seats on local councils. But Hitler's violence on June 30 1934
did him no good; his own violence at Olympia did him less.
Association with Randolph Churchill did nothing to restore
him.2
Apart from Carson, no serious modern parliamentarian had
called the regime in question. But where Ulster escalated at
Carson's touch, unemployment did the opposite to Mosley.
In the four years after the British Union of Fascists was
formed, unemployment halved as the restrained demagoguery
of the parliamentary leaders and the relationship between
newspapers and the parliamentary parties destroyed him. The
rise in unemployment in 1938 did him no good. Nor did
Jewish immigration and the prospect of a war 'on behalf of
Jewish interests'. By 1939, he mattered as little as the Com-
munist party, and had less effect. In his early forties, his only
hope was a German occupation. Once he is put into the
Cecilian context from which he emerged, there is no Mosley
problem except to explain why a Cecilian should have ex-
pected the politics of Limehouse to become the politics of
the nation.
Where Mosley and the British Union of Fascists fought

elections Cecil and the League of Nations Union did not.
They, however, did not need to, since the Union had for long
been established as a respectable statement of the desire for
peace. Though many of its active supporters were Liberals,
Cecil expected the Union to seek support in all parties and
expected all parties to support it. Until he resigned from the
Baldwin government in 1927, he was Austen Chamberlain's
ministerial assistant. Having been Henderson's adviser during
the second Labour government, he accepted membership of
the Geneva delegation after the formation of the National
government.
Cecil was an uncomfortable colleague and natural resigner:

in office he was seldom decisive. Yet, through persistent pro-
paganda, a nation-wide organisation and association with
politicians who mattered, the Union contributed to the frame
of mind which established that 'alliances' were bad and League
and Locarno 'mutuality' the remedy for the power-politics by
which war situations were supposed to have been created.
In the 1930s the leaders of the Union were Cecil himself,
Gilbert Murray, who was an Asquithean, and Noel-Baker,
who was a member of the Labour party. Apart from Lans-
bury and MacDonald, the party leaders were all presidents
(with Grey as distinguished figure-head until his death in
1933). The Conservative contingent included Austen Cham-
berlain, Lytton, Cranborne, Crookshank, Lord Eustace Percy
and Mrs Dugdale (until she joined the National Labour party
in 1937).
Cecil's object remained what it had been ten years before
— a 'complete transformation of international relations' and
the 'abolition of war'. Success in inserting this into the poli-
tical vocabulary had not been paralleled by success in White-
hall. Resistance there had been paralleled by failure at Gene-
va where the League machinery reflected the absence of the
United States. When the Japanese rubbed the point home in
1931 and the Disarmament Conference collapsed two years
later, the problem became acute.
To Cecil the events of the next two years were a struggle
between the Union, backed by the 'whole force of public
opinion' and the instinct of ministers and civil servants for
circumventing it.3 In these years experience at Geneva con-
vinced him that the League was being endangered by two
major defects in British thinking.
The first was 'Hankeyism' — the belief that the balance of
power and interests of states were the only basis for interna-
tional relations and that 'war' was 'the right and proper pro-
cess by which things move in this world'.4 Cecil had for long
believed that Hankey was 'not in favour of the abolition of
war'.5 In the years when the Disarmament Conference was
broken, Hankey, his 'technical advisers' and the dominance
of the Services over the Service ministers were seen as major
obstacles to British support for the League.
This would not have mattered if Cecil had believed that
the government intended to be firm. Its ambiguity towards

Japan convinced him that it did not. He admired Eden6 and
Halifax7 and had high regard for Baldwin's intentions. But
Baldwin was not Prime Minister and had no grip where for-
eign policy was concerned. MacDonald was an enemy of the
League and Eden was not in the Cabinet, which included
Simon as Foreign Secretary, Londonderry as Air Minister and
Hailsham, who did not conceal his 'contempt and disapproval
of the disarmament movement and all that led up to it'. 8
What Cecil and his followers wanted was 'courage ... sincer-
ity' and moral leadership at Geneva.9 What they got was a
clever lawyer who believed in secret diplomacy where 'every-
thing that ha[d] been hopeful in the Disarmament Confer-
ence ha[d] been achieved by public discussion'10 and whom
'foreigners at Geneva, Americans in the United States, offi-
cials in the Foreign Office [and] may I add, colleagues in the
Cabinet' dismissed as 'the worst Foreign Secretary since
Derby in 1876'. 11
Cecil wanted a disarmament agreement as an end itself,
and because the Versailles settlement had assumed that other
states would reduce their armaments at the same time as
disarmament was imposed on Germany. Having supported
the attempt to make one with Briining, he continued to want
one when Hitler arrived in office. In March 1933 he favoured
'the total abolition of naval and military aircraft, plus the
creation of an international air force' (for civil aviation), be-
lieving that 'if we fail to secure substantial air disarmament
and to give the Germans equality there ... [there would be]
little hope [of] doing anything anywhere'. 12 Even after set-
backs later in the year he advocated 'the abolition of aggres-
sive arms' since 'the power of the defensive' would be such
that 'France and the smaller countries would be safer than ...
in any other way'. 13
Hitler, however, presented a problem. Though 'much dis-
turbed by [his] educational policy', Cecil and Murray were
not sure that 'militarism' had come to stay or was 'quite as
dangerous or ... deep-rooted as it would be ... in France or
America'.14 On hearing that 'Goebbels [had] made rather a
favourable impression at Geneva and [was] said to be quite
pleased with the League', Cecil explained on the wireless a
month before the German withdrawal that the 'rules govern-
ing [German] disarmament' should be 'the same in principle

as those governing the armaments of any other civilised
power'. 15
Uncertainty did not survive the events of 1934. Barthou, it
is true, was 'a bad man' and Herriot a 'dangerous' one, and
the Germans were 'seriously frightened of... a preventive
war'. 16 But the manifest fact of 'German youth ... being
trained to ... idealise war' made it difficult to believe 'the
peaceful professions made by German statesmen for foreign
consumption'. 17 An Anglo-French alliance was as undesirable
as it had been before, but Russian membership of the League
was highly desirable. By the end of the year, Cecil was much
less sure about the opinion he expressed six months earlier
that 'if [the French] made an attack on Germany after Ger-
many had expressed her willingness to accept some reason-
able settlement of the disarmament question, England would
not support France, and we should have to consider what our
duty was under the Locarno Treaty'. 18
1934 was decisive for Cecil's judgment of the government
which missed the opportunity provided by the election vic-
tory of the French Radicals to get French co-operation and
entered the disarmament conference with so little concep-
tion of a policy that, when asked, he was even more unwilling
to join the delegation than he had been the year before. 19
When even Baldwin cited the 'arch-militarist F.S. Oliver' in
declaring that Britain's frontier was on the Rhine, it was
obvious to Cecil, for whom Collective Security knew no
limits, that he was a very long way from a League frame of
mind. 20 He decided that the government 'ought to go', in
spite of 'the intellectual nonentity of the Labour party'. 21
1934 was the first of Cecil's years of ultimate anguish. The
world-wide spread of 'nationalism' had been matched by 'iso-
lationism' at home. Yet 'the truth was' that isolation was a
'principle of anarchy' and that 'in modern conditions' nations
could 'no more live alone than individuals'. 22 It was in this
situation, when both government and Union were at their
nadir, and when 'blind tradition and bewildered selfishness'
were resuming their sway, that the Peace Ballot was invented.
The Peace Ballot, or National Declaration, was designed to
give members of the Union a sense of participation between
crises. By getting them to distribute a nationwide question-

naire, it was hoped to restore the 'waning faith' in the
League, rehabilitate the Union as a public force and combat
Beaverbrook's and Rothermere's 'mischievous campaign of
isolationism*.23 Cecil did not anticipate the attention the
Ballot received when it was completed in 1935. Nor did he
anticipate the conflict it produced between himself, Murray,
Noel-Baker and their supporters in the Union on the one
hand and Austen Chamberlain, Percy, Cranborne and most
Conservative members of the Executive on the other.
As the Foreign Secretary who negotiated Locarno, Austen
Chamberlain embodied an average Conservative commitment
to the League. In that role and at the request of Conservative
Central Office, he had joined the Executive of the Union in
1932 after Manchuria had undermined Simon's credibility.
When he got there, he found 'some of the worst cranks [he]
had ever known 24 and spent the next two years 'immobilis-
ing' (Cecil's word) their attempts to 'dictate to the govern-
ment the exact method it shall employ' at each particular
crisis. 2S The outcome was a prolonged argument in 1934
about the wording and presentation of the Ballot, in the
course of which he threatened to resign and left Cecil the
impression that he had called him 'a liar' in a letter to The
Times.26 The Ballot arrangements, as eventually adopted,
met Cecil's rather than his requirements. 27
Murray was a prolific publicist with political access and
liberal beliefs that cut across the politics of the classes. Cecil
was an experienced politician who had played an important
part in Conservative politics between 1906 and 1927. Despite
the blows struck at the League by both Germany and Japan,
both believed from some time in 1933 that the government
was so vulnerable electorally that it could be compelled to
resume the policies Simon seemed to have abandoned in
1932. 28
Cecil was treated respectfully by Baldwin, but also re-
proachfully; he was conscious of the malice displayed by
Garvin, Rothermere and Beaverbrook in reflecting Conserva-
tive feelings about the League, even when they failed to make
them effective. He had no relations with Lansbury who did
not like the League. On deciding that the government was so
'anti-League' that he should 'sever' his Conservative 'connec-

tion', 29 he began to play up relations with Attlee and Pon-
sonby.
This had some effect. Despite Conservative objections to
the loaded nature of the Ballot,30 Baldwin eventually allow-
ed it to be said that he did not object to it being held. 31
When its findings were presented, he welcomed them.
The 'National Declaration' was supported by an unusual
collection of public figures, including Sir Cedric Hardwicke,
Dame Sybil Thorndike, Miles Malleson, A.A. Milne, Rose
Macaulay, Sir Norman Angell, H.A.L. Fisher, Dick Sheppard
and Jack Hobbs. It received imprimatur from Archbishops
Lang and Temple, from the Chief Rabbi and the Roman
Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool and from a variety of sur-
geons, physicians and Free Church leaders. On July 23, Cecil
took Baldwin a deputation to present it. In the presence of
representatives from the British League of Unitarian Women,
the National Sisterhood and Brotherhood Movement, the
National Union of Soroptimists and the Woodcraft Folk, as
well as more obviously political manifestations of the power
of fragmented Liberalism, he explained how much he hoped
to be a help to the government. For the rest of the year, with
eleven million signatories behind him, he was a presence to
which both the government and the Labour party respond-
ed. 32
For the Labour party, the events of 1931 were a shock. From
being the largest party in the House of Commons, it became a
Rump, with no prospect of power, no certainty of survival
and an obvious leader — Henderson — who was not even an
MP. Some of the most important Labour leaders of the pre-
vious decade had left — MacDonald, Snowden and Thomas in
one direction, Mosley in another.
However, although only about fifty MPs were returned,
five million voters voted Labour, including a large part of the
Trade Union movement and major parts of the whole com-
munity in areas of South Wales, Scotland and Northumber-
land. This sort of die-hard support was not adequate if
Labour was to be a governing party. But it promised a social
indestructibility which the Liberal party lacked.
One by-product of MacDonaldite participation in the
National government was the loss of the leaders who invented

the accommodation with which Labour had covered itself in
the twenties. Another was a refusal to be frightened when
central opinion seemed to have gone for good. From both
viewpoints the primary question was how best to convince its
members that the movement had a future. 33 To Lansbury,
Attlee and Cripps, who ran what was left of the parliament-
ary party, and to all three equally, the answer was to exclude
compromise with any of the other parties. In the aftermath
of betrayal, Lansbury, at seventy-four, was a popular figure
in the House of Commons. Brotherly love (except for capital-
ists) and community politics (in Poplar) supplied a harmless,
and mindless, basis for a platform which was not really a
legislative programme.
What the platform said was that Capitalism had failed not
just because of the unemployment of the twenties but be-
cause the Great Crash had highlighted its incapacity to con-
trol its own inner workings. In this sense the economic crisis
widened the area of discussion and propaganda. It was in the
light of manifest disaster that the claim was made not only
that Capitalism was evil but that there was so much 'muddle
and chaos' in the international economic system that 'the
Capitalist system was breaking down under its own weight,
and this state of affairs [was] recognized not only by Social-
ists but by the Capitalists themselves'. 34
The feeling that Capitalism could no longer be justified
economically made it easy to justify state action in further-
ance of 'the rational organisation of economic life'. 35 It did
not mean, however, that Capitalism was dead politically. On
the contrary, so many interests were involved in maintaining
it that it was unlikely to collapse without a struggle. In this
context the National government — 'the most reactionary...of
modern times'36 was seen as Capitalism's attempt to prop
itself up in defence of that vast body of private profits which
were all that was left of its justification.
After the counter-revolution of 1931, therefore, it was
Labour's duty to defend the status quo created by the
changes which had been effected in the 'political privileges of
wealth' during the previous half-century in face of anything
the City of London or the House of Lords might do to pre-
vent 'the abolition of private profit-making' in the future. 37
One of the chief things that had been effective in 1931 had
been the 'parliamentary dictatorship' which, it was proposed,
should be controlled by defining the relations between party
and Prime Ministerial decisions and by taking Emergency
Powers to deed with Vested interests', 'reactionary mono-
polists' and 'money-lords' whose 'nefarious conduct...had
manoevred Labour...out of office...by international juggling
with gold and credits'. 38
These accusations were made generally. They were also
made in detail. In detail the targets were the housing and rent
policies of Young, the police reorganisation of Gilmour and
Trenchard, the damage done to trade with Russia by Simon's
handling of the Metro-Vickers case and the contrast between
Chamberlain's 'tariffs...fiscal policy, restriction of public
works and cutting down of social services' and the socialist
and technocratic policies pursued by Roosevelt in the United
States. 39
Trenchard's reorganisation was an attempt to 'turn the
police into a middle-class force' which could be 'used against
the workers'.40 The government's housing policy would do
nothing to meet the 'wretchedness and...degradation' of the
slums.41 Chamberlain's protectionism would restrict trade
and employment and increase import duties at the expense of
the working-class consumer.42 His deflationary 'packages'
were dictated by Norman and the Bank of England and
aimed to reduce taxation, increase unemployment and im-
prove the position of the 'well-to-do'.43 The 'economies' he
was imposing on the social services were 'undermining...phy-
sical and mental health' and perpetuating 'the monstrous
paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty'. 44
These claims remained constant. From the position reach-
ed at the end of 1933, there were no significant changes in
the content of the domestic programme, despite changes in
the tone. In relation to foreign policy, the changes were sig-
nificant.
The new aspect of the foreign policy platform which
emerged in the next two years was a result of the demolition
of German Social Democracy, the setbacks suffered by inter-
national socialism45 and the difficulties which stood in the
way of European disarmament. The attempt to absorb these
experiences coincided with a change in the leadership as the
removal of Henderson, Cripps and Lansbury completed the

process which the removal of Mosley and the MacDonaldites
had begun.
Under the new leadership the Labour party developed the
intimation that pacifism was not enough. This, however,
came slowly and without premeditation. Though it produced
no systematic rejection of the positions which had gone be-
fore, it made a perceptible difference as Dalton, Morrison,
Bevin, Alexander and Citrine were projected by Stevenson,
Williams and a Daily Herald circulation of around two mil-
lion.
When disarmament was still a possibility in 1933, AngelFs
attacks on patriotism were the ordinary staple of political
diet, and it was possible for the Labour party, the League of
Nations Union and the pacifist movement to feel that they
were moving in a common direction. Nor was sentiment di-
vided by the response to Sheppard's Peace post-card in 1934.
So long as there was no occasion to use League-based force as
an instrument of peace, issues could be blurred in face of a
government which was hindering Henderson's efforts on be-
half of 'peace, disarmament and international co-opera-
tion'. 4 6
The nearest the Labour party came to wanting an active
international policy came through its support for China
against Japan. Even there, however, it had confined itself to
demanding a trade boycott. In general its view was that
Labour should strike if the government neglected its League
or Kellogg duties 47 and that 'international anarchy' was the
result of 'international monopoly' which 'Socialism' would
cure. 48
In the sense that peace remained the priority, the Labour
attitude was unaffected by Hitler's arrival. In relation to the
Versailles settlement, it produced a change.
One aspect of Labour belief in the twenties had been that
Versailles was tyrannical and oppressive and should be speed-
ily and thoroughly overhauled. What Hitler did was induce a
doubt. This was not exactly a belief that Versailles was right
or that the Germans deserved the treatment they had receiv-
ed. Rather it was a feeling that explanations of his appeal
ought not to be allowed to excuse it.
The earliest Labour reactions were mixed. At first Hitler
was a 'clown' who would be defeated by inflation and re-

armament on the one hand or by the Junkers and Hindenberg
on the other. 49 Soon, however, it was clear that there had
been a brutal revolution which had established his paranoids
and perverts for a long time to come. 50 Once this was under-
stood, the Labour attitude was both shocked and accom-
modating, distressed by the fate of comrades who had been
killed, determined to help the German people condemn
bestiality 51 and yet moved by the comfortable hopes that
Hitler would not last 52 and that his reassuring noises might
be genuine expressions of a desire for peace. 53
The belief that Hitler might genuinely want peace was not
strong. But its weakness did not kill the peace-policy which,
though compatible in principle with rearmament, was assum-
ed to be incompatible in fact. For this, and for many other
uncertainties, there were two chief reasons. 54
The first was that the leader of the parliamentary party
was Lansbury whose pacifism was religious and whose object
was a disarmed Britain, an unarmed Germany and a weapon-
less world. 55
The second was that Henderson, much more than Lans-
bury, was the architect of the Labour movement and carried
it with him as Chairman of the World Disarmament Con-
ference. The government mistrusted Henderson not because
he was pacific but because he encouraged the public to be
optimistic 56 and was too much in France's pocket. The Con-
ference ended in failure, and the contrast which he implied
between his own commitment and the government's evasions
was misleading. But its proceedings confirmed the belief that
Labour had a practical peace role which support for re-
armament would obscure.
Even, therefore, in face of Hitler's treatment of their Ger-
man comrades, Labour responded by attacking rearmament
profiteers, demanding a state monopoly of arms manufac-
ture 57 and placing an emphasis on the League which grew
greater as Simon discovered how difficult it was to use it.
From the viewpoint of the Labour leadership, 'Geneva'
embodied both a genuine belief and a convenient symbol. It
had not attracted the ILP: nor did it recommend itself to the
Socialist League. But when Hitler replaced disarmament as an
issue and Germany and Japan had left, the demand to involve
Stalin and Roosevelt instead became a focus through which

the party responded.
It did not, however, respond militarily. So far from credit-
ing the League with a military capability, the claim was that
it could cope with aggression provided 'courageous leader-
ship' mobilised 'the moral forces of the world' in 'acceptance
of higher loyalty to the world community of mankind'. 58 It
was only the events of 1934 which established that Collective
Security might involve 'the government of Great Britain [in
using] its military and naval forces in support of the League
of Nations to restrain an aggressor nation which refused to
submit to the authority of the League'. 59
This did not involve approval of national armaments which
were to be abolished by a 'Peace Act binding the government
...to abandon force as an instrument of national policy'.
There was a promise that 'the immediate short-term measures
of the next Labour government 'would be [taken] with refer-
ence to the...establishment...of a Cooperative World Com-
monwealth'. But there was also a statement that 'Labour' was
prepared to 'fight against any nation which breaks the Col-
lective Peace'. 60
At the same time as this shift was occurring in the thinking
of some, at least, of the Labour leaders, attempts were made
to meet the accusation that Labour was a party of revolution.
This took shape in the Programme of Action of July 1934.
The Programme of Action was intended for use in case an
election took place. In publishing it, the leaders were aiming
to restore 'respectable Socialism'. They were also preparing
to meet, and pre-empt, the criticisms which Cripps and the
Socialist League were expected to make, and made, at the
Party Conference in October.
From 1933 onwards the Labour leadership faced a Cripps

problem. Or rather, Cripps attached himself to the problem
which Lansbury, Smillie, Hodges and the Clydesiders had in-
vented — whether Labour should establish governing creden-
tials by liberal accommodation or doctrinal integrity.
The prophets who denounced accommodation during
Labour's rise to power had not been effective in face of
MacDonald's desire to display a governing capability. It was
only when the MacDonaldites were left stranded in office in
1931 that virtue became an option.

After the landslide in November, virtue became dominant.
For the next two years there was no prospect of an election,
so a ghetto propaganda was suited to the situation. The pro-
phetic position, therefore, became official as the ILP broke
off and suffered a relapse while the parliamentary leaders
offered not 'gradualism and palliatives' but 'the pure milk of
the word'. 61
This situation did not last long. The electoral improvement
of 1933 and the LCC elections of March 1934 opened pros-
pects which the failure of the Samuelites made real. The
Labour leaders did not make a dead set at the support the
government was losing. But there was an instinct that some
statements of policy were too stark and that some 'worth-
while... things' could be done without promising to 'abolish
Capitalism'. 62 It was in this setting that the Cripps problem
became acute.
Cripps's father had been a member of the first Labour
Cabinet, but in the thirties Cripps was a new recruit. His
father was not a socialist but a High Church Conservative. His
first political mentor was H.P. Macmillan, who, though also a
member of that government, was also a Conservative. Cripps,
so far from responding to offers of Labour seats 63 , had spent
the twenties establishing a lucrative practice at the commer-
cial Bar. It was not until MacDonald offered him the chance
to be Solicitor-General in 1930 that he yielded. 64 In August
1931 he may just possibly have thought of joining the Na-
tional government. 65 His success in keeping his seat when
nearly all the Labour leaders lost theirs then gave him a posi-
tion he could not have expected two years earlier.
Cripps was forty-two, rich, well-educated and a member of
a highly respectable family. His attitudes were paternal (after
the manner of the Webbs and Sir Charles Trevelyan); he aim-
ed to give elevated leadership by identifying himself with the
'interests' of those he wished to lead.
Descending thus from a height to help, many things in-
fluenced him towards becoming the Labour party's con-
science. A Christian sensitivity, a sense that prophecy was
needed as power approached and a belief that good men
would leave if prophecy was abandoned — all helped him into
the niche which the ILP had vacated. In the next six years he
worked through a variety of organisations which provided

platforms as effective and audiences as captive as the League
of Nations Union to Cecil, the Disarmament Conference to
Henderson, the TUC to Citrine, the Council of Action to
Lloyd George, the National Executive to Dalton and the LCC
to Morrison. Of Cripps's platforms, the first in time was the
Socialist League.
Unlike the ILP out of which it grew, the League was not
intended to be an extraparty group. When it was founded,
Cripps was part of the parliamentary leadership and wished
to make his 'influence within the party as effective as possi-
ble'. 66 Nor did he differ from the rest of the triumvirate.
With Lansbury, who was his pensioner and an early member,
he had 'revolutionary' Christian affinities, while Attlee, with-
out the Christian affinity, for a time saw nothing odd in the
opinions he was expressing. 67
Cripps's quarrel was with Citrine and Dalton, and with the
party and trade union 'bureaucracy', which disliked the
grandeur of his manner, the intermittent nature of his atten-
tion and his attacks on its management. The censure passed
by the Executive Committee in January 1934 6 8 made the
League step up its attacks. It increased the impression, which
Cripps 'seemed...unable to see', that he was 'damaging the
party electorally'69 by using newspaper coverage to dra-
matise a conflict between 'socialism', as embodied in con-
ference resolutions proposed by a handful of constituency
parties, and the 'compromises' embedded in the 25-page pro-
gramme which the National Executive presented to the
Southport Conference. 70
Cripps, Pritt, Laski, Mitchison and their allies presented
Britain as a battlefield on which Fascism — not only Mosley's
— was advancing and it was necessary to take extreme steps
to resist it. It was the 'spiritual' and 'world-wide' nature of
the struggle and the extremity of the situation as they saw it
which was taken to justify the proposal to set up a virtual
dictatorship in the first days of a Labour government.
The Socialist League's programme included abolition of
the House of Lords, extensive reform of the House of Com-
mons and the socialisation of land, banks and industry with-
out compensation. It included attacks on the League of Na-
tions as a 'Capitalist institution' and demands for a foreign
policy based on alliance with the Soviet Union and any other
socialist states which happened to emerge. 71
In describing the boundaries of a position, Crippsians were
offering the details of a 'busy scene — the building of a new
Socialist State...instinct with life and reality'. 72 This did not
make Cripps more popular among his equals.
The objection was to a degree personal; Dalton — who was
also in his forties — disliked Cripps who had done nothing for
the Labour party until Dalton had fought half-a-dozen by-
elections and had kept a seat at the election of 1931 when
Dalton had lost his. Primarily, however, it was practical; his
critics thought Cripps lacking in experience and common
sense and insensitive to trade union and central opinion. 73
Like Laski and Strachey, he saw Fascists under every bed and
forgot, they thought, that Britain had a well-established legal
and parliamentary system which Baldwin and MacDonald
were not planning to subvert, and which Mosley would not
succeed in subverting.74 In the event Morrison — his would-
be patron — conducted the platform attack. No trade union
supported the League, whose amendments were defeated,
though its major objective was achieved with Cripps's elec-
tion to the National Executive.
In 1934 Cripps established himself as a late arrival. But his
chief significance for the Labour party lay in the opportunity
he gave for Citrine, Dalton and others to highlight themselves
by adopting a 'responsible' position against him. So far as he
was significant over the political spectrum as a whole, he was
so because politicians and newspapers of all opinions, and
particularly anti-socialist opinions, fixed coUusively on him as
a Labour leader for the future.
In spite of Cripps, the Labour party had re-established
itself. Henderson had been removed from the party secretary-
ship, much against his will. 75 Lansbury had become a well-
loved parliamentary booby. But in the various satrapies that
individuals had built up, public reputations had been made.
Henderson had played a world role at Geneva. At London
County Hall, Morrison had been a well-publicised success. In
newspapers, at Party Conferences and the National Executive
and through Practical Socialism for Britain, Dalton had
become the important figure that Bevin had been for fifteen
years. In the person of Citrine, trade union power had been
identified with the Peace Ballot. 76 The 1934 local govern-

ment and by-elections had been considerably more favour-
able than those of 1933. Optimism about a general election
was not as great in the first half of 1935. 77 But manifest
recovery gave the same sort of purchase as in 1921.
THE REJECTION OF LLOYD GEORGE
'This afternoon the PM called Baldwin, Chamberlain, Thomas, Runciman

and myself together and told us formally that he was, on grounds of
health, giving up the Premiership. He spoke with manly dignity and one
felt it was a historic moment. We all expressed our sympathy and
devotion in sincere and unstudied terms. I could not help contrasting
the scene with the satirical, not to say malignant, description which
Rosebery once gave me of Gladstone's leavetaking — "William Harcourt,
blubbering like a child, produced from an inner pocket a much correct-
ed manuscript, yellow with age, from which he read a valedictory
address". Today all was simple and between real friends and comrades'.
Simon, diary, May 28 1935
'If S.B. offers the deputy leadership in the Commons to Simon until the
end of this Parliament in order to soften his fall, he is not proposing to
give the post any increased importance...I am quite aware that Simon
likes the idea of being deputy leader because he thinks it would bring
him back into touch and sympathy with the House of Commons and
might enable him possibly to become PM on the ground that a minority
leader was required to preserve the character of the National Govern-
ment.
'In this Simon deceives himself and I need never be jealous of him
because I know now that he lacks certain qualities essential to a leader
...The fact is the House detests him; he hasn't a friend even in his own
party and the reason is that, quite wrongly, they distrust his sincerity'.
Chamberlain to Hilda, May 22 1935.
'I had never seen him before, and in his photographs his face had always
seemed to be chiefly amiable and a little whimsical, just as his speeches
sound simple, honest and ingenuous. Actually he is not like that at all.
His face is rugged and knobbly; his right eye is either going wrong or
has some sort of a cast in it and was mostly half shut. But the character-
istic of his face is its determination and shrewdness — or rather, because
it is much more than shrewdness, a sort of deep rustic craftiness. More
than any other politician he reminded me of Lloyd George in this, but
while L.G. is gleefully and maliciously cunning, Baldwin seemed to me
to look shrewd and crafty in a rather hard and grim way. I got quite a
new idea of him and for the first time understood how he had come to
be leader of the Tory party and Prime Minister'. W.P. Crozier, editor of
the Manchester Guardian, interview with Baldwin on June 12 1934.
By 1935 Labour was the major party of opposition. Cecil,
Murray and Noel-Baker had carried their followers farther
away from the Conservative party than at any time since the
League of Nations Union was founded. In addition, there was
a Liberal opposition which consisted not just of Lloyd
George and his family but of Samuel, Sinclair and their fol-
lowers.
Under Lloyd George and Samuel, the Liberals campaigned
at the 1929 election as the only party with a policy for
unemployment. Despite a marked increase in their vote, the
failure to gain more than twenty seats was a major setback.
The decision to support Labour in office then produced
strains and splits which centred on Lloyd George's belief that
the Liberal party had a future as the brain and money behind
the reluctant radicalism of MacDonald, Snowden and their
followers. By the time of the government's collapse in August
1931, Runciman had virtually withdrawn from day-to-day
politics. Simon and Brown led parliamentary groups which
saw no future in alliance with Labour and had Conservative
links through positions of carefully defined support for
Protection. Lloyd George had had a serious illness and a
major operation, and had transferred effective leadership to
Samuel who, however, had only a handful of supporters to
lead.
From a position of gloom and despondency extreme even
in the experience of twentieth-century Liberals, Samuel res-
cued them by playing a crucial part in forming the National
government. He became Home Secretary and was leader of a
major constituent which included Reading, Maclean, Sinclair,
Crewe and Lothian. In the measures which were taken to save
the pound and to leave the Gold Standard, Samuel and Read-
ing — the Samuelite members of the Cabinet — were involv-
ed intimately.
At the general election the Samuelites differed from the
Conservative party about Protection, but probably gained a
few more seats than they would have done if they had not
been part of the National government. Fighting separately
both from Lloyd George and from the Simon group (which won
35 of the 40 seats it contested), they had thirty-three seats in
the new House of Commons. After the election Maclean and
Sinclair entered the Cabinet when Reading and Crewe left.
Maclean died, unexpectedly, in June 1932. In September all
but one of the Samuelite ministers1 joined Snowden in re-
THE REJECTION OF LLOYD GEORGE 35
signing when Chamberlain and Baldwin gave effect to the

Imperial Preference policy on which the body of the Con-
servative party had fought the election.
Once Snowden left the government, he did not think of
going back. As a pensioner of Beaverbrook and Lloyd
George,2 he despised MacDonald's 'ignorance and incapacity'
even more than he despised Labour. For him the future lay in
'Radicalism'. After supporting the anti-government freetrader
at the East Fife by-election in February 1933, he was an
active supporter of the New Deal. In 1935 he and his wife
watched rancorously as the National Liberal party became a
'laughing stock', as Brown disgraced himself at first appear-
ance on the government front bench and as 'slimy Simon'
was humiliated by being removed from the Foreign Office.3
The Samuelites, on the other hand, were by no means cer-
tain that opposition was their natural position. They were
not sure what the government would do at the World Eco-
nomic Conference,4 and they put off a decision when they
resigned because it would not have been unanimous if it had
been made. 5 The votes polled by the anti-government can-
didates at East Fife,6 however, made a decision inevitable.
Half a dozen Welsh MPs joined Lloyd George in opposition.7
When the party conference passed a resolution,8 the decision
began to press. By mid-1933 Samuel was looking for an ex-
cuse. He would have found one if a reduction in unemploy-
ment and a measure of economic recovery had not made the
moment seem inappropriate. 9
When they went into opposition, the Samuelite leaders
were conscious that the breakdown of the World Economic
Conference had taken the stuffing out of 'Free Trade'. In its
place, they needed 'a large issue of [their] own choosing'.
When they first thought of moving, the 'demand in the coun-
try' and among 'newspapers of all shades of opinion' had
been for a positive policy to deal with unemployment. 'A
moderate policy of expansion', however, was less helpful
when unemployment began to fall, so it was supplemented
by 'the Conservative party's hatred of the League' as the
reason why the Disarmament Conference had collapsed.
In 1934 Liberal policy was a system of 'truths' about the
politico-economic system, in which a third way was suggested
between Conservative 'tariffs' and socialist 'planning'. It gave
extended attention to the need for treaty-revision and pre-

sented rearmament as a consequence of economic error. It is
doubtful whether the leaders believed in the world they had
lost or expected to get very far until Protection had had time
to get hung. In any case, none of this succeeded. 10
What Samuel hoped when he found opposition thrust
upon him was to beat the Labour party to that part of the
non-Conservative vote which had been lost in 1929 and had
been decisive on behalf of the National government in 1931.
In 1933 the Labour failure to pick up the votes the govern-
ment was losing made this seem possible. By the end of 1934
it was still only a possibility. There had been no public re-
sponse and no real support from the News Chronicle. There
was no reason to believe that Labour could be reduced to
insignificance in the two or three years before the election.
Between 1933 and 1935 Samuel's Liberals showed that
they could not stand up by themselves. When they went into
opposition, they lost a number of supporters. At by-elections
they suffered heavily. At the LCC elections in 1934 they
were wiped out. At the 1935 election they polled one and a
half million votes and were returned in twenty-one seats.
From 1935 onwards, the Samuelites had hoped that the
Conservative preponderance could be destroyed. It was not
destroyed. In 1935 it was partially restored when Cecil and
the League of Nations Union half-returned part of the Liberal
support which they had intended to remove. In retrospect,
one must say that the Samuelites under-estimated both
Labour and Conservative flexibility. So did Lloyd George,
but it took six months of Cabinet negotiation and a general
election to make him see that this was what he had done.
For Lloyd George in his early seventies, the years from 1933
to 1935 were much like most other years since he left office
in 1922. Volumes three and four of his War Memoirs were
published in the autumn of 1934; the rest were nearly finish-
ed. Most of his time was spent with Frances Stevenson at
Churt where he was a small-scale farmer. Despite occasional
depression, he was in better health than at any time in the
previous ten years and was positively looking for something
to do. n What he found was the fourth opportunity to regain
the importance he had lost ten years before.
In these years the pattern of the past was repeated. There

was the same shifting from position to position as cir-
cumstances and possibilities changed and the same ambiguity
of intention as he left it uncertain, even probably to himself,
whether Radical Conservatism or a Radical Labour party
would provide the better instrument for making use of the
government's failure.
To Samuelite Liberalism he was hostile, even while leaving
the impression of wishing to be reconciled to it. 12 He despis-
ed the official leaders whose distinguishing characteristic was
that they were anti-Labour, 'provide[d] the sort of "slop"
that Tory voters would accept' and 'were not likely to get
more than a dozen seats at the next election'. He made it
clear that he disliked the National Liberal Federation and did
not think the Liberal party worth leading.13
For his successors as the Conservative party's Radical
allies, he expressed his customary contempt which grew as
their reputations grew weaker. The weaker their reputations,
the less 'national' he thought it likely that the National go-
vernment would become. The more this happened, the more
it would become apparent that the Conservative party did
not have a majority and would not win an election without a
new infusion of Radical blood to replace Simon who was 'a
world catastrophe', Runciman, about whom the War Memoirs
repeated a nasty remark Kitchener was supposed to have
made before he died, and MacDonald, under whom he would
'never...serve' and who would have to resign shortly because
he was 'nine-tenths gaga'.14
The thought that he might once more become the Con-
servative party's ally occupied only one part of Lloyd
George's mind. In others he was conscious of the difficulty of
removing MacDonald against his will l s and the probability
that the government would survive unless all its opponents
worked together.16
Lloyd George would have liked the government to col-
lapse. In early 1933 he was hoping that Chamberlain's eco-
nomic policy would provide the occasion.17 For a short time
in late 1934 it seemed possible that India might. In general it
seemed likely that nothing would, so he had to prepare for an
election at a time of the government's choosing. Since neither
he nor Samuel was going to have a majority, he convinced
himself that either of two courses was open to him. He could

persuade one or other of the parties that neither could win
without him, in which case a coalition situation might arise
before the election. Or, by backing 'any candidate of any
party who [would] support his programme' he might emerge
from the election at the head of a block of 'progressive' MPs
in which case 1929 would be repeated if neither party had a
majority of its own. 18
The first policy was pursued, largely in relation to the
Conservative party, up to July 1935. The second, pursued
concurrently with it, came to an end when the Conservative
majority at the election removed the opportunity to play a
part.
In relation to the Labour party Lloyd George had no great
expectation. After the LCC elections of 1934, he was think-
ing of a merger between the News Chronicle and the Daily
Herald. He supported Addison when he won Swindon for
Labour. He had discussions with Lansbury about electoral
co-operation between the Liberal and Labour parties and the
'growing body of able young men on the government side
who would go along with an...effort to lift the poor out of
the mire and the needy from the dunghill'. 19
By the end of the year these hopes had collapsed. Layton
would not allow the News Chronicle to become a Labour
newspaper. 20 Lansbury's view was that Labour was 'the
second party in the State' and that there could be no 'mutila-
tion of the socialist programme'. He added not unreasonably
that, whatever might be possible after an election, it was
unreasonable to expect to 'come to terms before the election
with both parties at once'. 21
Though he let it be known that he was up for auction in
early 1933, Lloyd George found no Conservative bidders un-
til, at various points of electoral difficulty in the following
year, approaches came from Boothby, Macmillan and the
Oliver Stanleys who disliked Chamberlain's economic policy
and wanted a repetition of what they had wanted Mosley to
do in 1930. They also came from Rothermere, Astor, Jones,
Home, Smuts, Grigg and Wood. 22 After the municipal elec-
tions at the end of the year there were nibblings from Bald-
win.
In order to be worth nibbling at, Lloyd George needed an
'issue' about which to establish a 'position'. Which issue to

take and which position to adopt were dictated by his under-
standing of the opportunities that were open. In early 1934,
with a Free Church audience in mind, he tried a 'great appeal
for Peace'. This had proved that no such audience was avail-
able 23 and had been followed, as India difficulties became
acute, by support for Churchill's Air Defence campaign
through which Conservative credentials were presented. 24
Until Lothian persuaded him that it did, Lloyd George had
assumed that foreign policy did not matter. For much the
same reasons as Rothermere, he had a fellow-feeling for Hit-
ler — 'a very great man' 2S and the German equivalent of a
Welsh Radical leading the Conservative party on the way to
becoming a world statesman. Since Britain had no 'special
interest in the racial conflicts of Europe', he spent the winter
of 1934 taking economic advice and preparing a set piece to
match the professorial set pieces of the twenties.
In making unemployment the centre of the New Deal he
launched at Bangor in January 1935, Lloyd George was doing
six things. He was contrasting the Chamberlain policy of
'waiting for a trade recovery' with the Roosevelt policy of
providing the 'workless' with 'work'. By his willingness to use
tariffs 'ruthlessly and to the full', he was showing that he had
finished with the Liberal party except in Wales and was
standing above party as the mouthpiece of Wales's contribu-
tion to the nation's life. By rejecting nationalisation of the
Bank of England, he was distinguishing himself from Labour.
By being agreeable about Eden and Macmillan and by attack-
ing the financial policy of the Bank, he was fishing for sup-
port in the higher reaches of the government. And he was
claiming to embody practical, non-partisan sanity without
prejudice to ultimate decisions for or against 'Individualism,
Capitalism or Socialism, Fascism or Communism or even the
old "isms" of Conservatism or Liberalism'. 26
It is an open question whether he wanted to join the go-
vernment and expected to be invited, or was trying to show
Frances Stevenson that she had a future. She, on the whole,
was sceptical. His feelings varied. Sometimes he was 'not
going to pull tory chestnuts out of the fire' and 'wanted the
existing government to be beaten at the next election' since
the defeat any government would suffer 'would be a tragedy
for the new blood that joined it'. On other occasions he was
'worth a million votes to the government' and willing to take
charge of slum housing or unemployment, but did not believe
that Chamberlain would let him even if Baldwin wanted
to. 2 7
Lloyd George had no reason to doubt that Baldwin was 'as
crafty as the craftiest of politicians'. But he had been flatter-
ed by him in public, allowed himself to be convinced and
started talking about forming a government with him (and
Churchill) if the India bill had to be abandoned. 28
At this time Baldwin allowed Grigg to promise that he
would have a talk. When the India bill was saved in Decem-
ber, he decided that a talk would be 'premature'. 29 In the
New Year Lloyd George was excited by the newspaper re-
ception of the New Deal and by the by-election results. 30
When the Cabinet decided to interview him, the New Deal
seemed to have more than justified the effort. Knowing that
he had admirers among Conservatives, he recalled that he was
'instinctively drawn towards [them] for his friendships',
'hate[d] the sanctimonious humbug which...characterised the
majority of successful Liberals' and had always said that
'there are no Liberals who would make a jolly dinner party
such as we used to have in the days of the old coalition'. 31
In May (probably without Simon's knowledge), his agents
were co-operating with the Scottish Simonites to seize con-
trol of the Scottish Liberal Federation. By mid-May, having
been outmanoeuvred both there and in the Cabinet, he began
to threaten. 32 When Baldwin formed a government without
him, he decided that Conservatives were neither interested in
him as an asset nor intended to do anything about his pro-
gramme. By mid-July, he had reverted to being a Radical who
would get enough seats at an election 'to form a government
with Lansbury as nominal Prime Minister' so that, between
them, they could 'formulate a devastating progressive pro-
gramme' and get 'a majority of 150' at a second election. 33
In the course of the summer, Lloyd George had been in
close touch with Allen's Next Five Years group. They, how-
ever, had found him a demanding collaborator and had de-
clined to be taken over. 34 When he had failed there too, he
published his own manifesto, called a Convention and set up
a Council of Action for Peace and Reconstruction. 35
In respect of its main target — unemployment — his

campaign suffered when Abyssinia pushed it off the head-
lines. 36 About foreign policy his followers were divided. 37
For him, as for the Samuelites, the election was a catastro-
phe. It rubbed home the fact that, except in Wales — and
really there too — he no longer mattered.
Between 1933 and 1935, then, five armies were advancing.

They had neither a common language, common aims nor a
common policy. For the government the danger was that an
election might produce a Labour majority in the House of
Commons (without any vast increase in the Labour vote) if
Cecil, Samuel and Lloyd George between them stuck Liberal
pins in the broad-based balloon that had taken off in 1931. 38
The non-Conservative leaders of the government were Mac-
Donald, Simon, Runciman and Thomas. About Runciman
there is little to say except that he was a distinguished Liberal
who happened to have been converted to the need for import
duties. Having remained in office when Samuel resigned, he
spent the subsequent years as President of the Board of Trade
justifying 'tariffs' on the ground he claimed Grey had ap-
proved before he died — that they would facilitate negotiated
reductions in the 'foreign tariffs to which [British] goods
were subjected'. 39 Runciman was a silent member of the
Cabinet, but he hated Lloyd George, his presence was a
symbol of Liberal support and he may, for a moment, have
been a possible successor to MacDonald. 40 In general, how-
ever, he did not present a problem. The National Labour
party and the Simonites did.
The most important fact about Simon, MacDonald and
their followers after 1932 was that they were political pri-
soners. They complained about the treatment they received
and threatened to go on strike, and they effected an undefin-
ed erosion of Conservative thinking. But they were so lacking
in public or party support that they had nowhere to go if the
government collapsed and no audience to appeal to if Con-
servatives decided that they had had enough. Though the
government was run by what were known to themselves as
the 'Big Six' — only two of whom were Conservatives — it
was true from the start, and became truer in the course of
1934, that the major domestic decisions were made by Bald-

win and Chamberlain.
The Big Six were these two, along with MacDonald, Tho-
mas, Simon and Runciman. Between Runciman and Chamber-
lain, Chamberlain and Thomas, Thomas and MacDonald and
MacDonald and Baldwin, there were close relations. But other-
wise each would quite happily have got rid of any of the rest.
This may not have been so at the start, but it was so by the
middle of 1933 as mutual execution plans were made in the
sections into which they were divided.
This permeated down, as similar feelings permeated up,
with the result that in both non-Conservative groups there
was almost total demoralisation. This was, perhaps, greater in
the National Labour group, since animosity between Simon's
and Samuel's Liberals was not as deep as the animosity which
the Labour party felt for MacDonald. But both were con-
scious of the overwhelming weight of the Conservative par-
ty. 4 1
So were Conservatives. Despite the knowledge that they
were dominant, they assumed that the price to be paid
was so small that coalition should continue. This assumption,
once made, produced four sorts of consequence — a search
for symbols to prove that something more than a Conserva-
tive government existed; an attempt to provide it with a
raison d9etre\ an attempt to show that illiberal (divisive) Con-
servative policies had been abandoned; and efforts to square
such critics as were willing to be squared on the assumption
that a 'national government' would continue.
What needs to be said about Conservative criticism can be
said briefly. MPs from Depressed Areas ran campaigns. But
except in three respects, criticism centred on the housing, 42
debt settlement, incitement to disaffection, 43 and betting
bill questions 44 or on the figures of German aircraft produc-
tion about which, by April 1935, Churchill made the govern-
ment look extremely foolish. All of these were important.
None presented a serious threat. Unemployment assistance
and India did.
The chief elements in Chamberlain's economic policy were
the lowering of interest rates, the raising of prices, the balanc-
ing of the budget, the establishment of an Imperial Trade
bloc, a reciprocal lowering of tariffs and an overriding deter-
mination to avoid governmentally-created inflation. These

policies, intellectually conceived (if not by Chamberlain) and
professionally secured, were ambiguous in terms of political
credit. Whether because of their character or because of the
movement of world trade, there was, by late 1933, a distinct
drop in unemployment. At the same time, there remained a
core of 2\ million unemployed which seemed unlikely to dis-
appear.
Whether the policy was presented as a success or a failure
depended on the response which Chamberlain aroused. The
Labour party accused him of being obsessed by inflation. Its
criticisms were echoed in the Cabinet, in the City and among
economists. Among the leaders of Conservative opinion, it
was an important consideration in the minds of those who
wanted to remove Baldwin and MacDonald in 1933 45 and
among the Lloyd George collaborators of 1935.
In Chamberlain's mind there were two feelings — that the
reduction in unemployment was a result of his policies and
that the refractory nature of the residual problem was some-
thing that no government could control. This double stan-
dard was necessary in preparing for an election; it meant that
the electoral aspect of unemployment depended on the
course of international trade. It meant too that, unless the
trade recovery was startling, unemployment would have to be
given a wide berth at a general election.
Unemployment, however local in incidence, would have
been sensitive in any circumstances. It became doubly so
when complicated by the Means Test.
For the Labour party, the unemployment assistance prob-
lem had been made symbolic by MacDonald's betrayal.
Whether, and how much, unemployment assistance should be
reduced had been a main source of conflict in his Cabinet and
the breaking-point with those who left him. Since, however,
the cuts introduced by the National government were not
very much different from those accepted by the defectors
before they resigned, it was a matter of importance for
Labour, but for no one else, that they attacked them when
they were made. 46 Given the government's invincibility in its
first two years of office, their attack had little effect. In 1933,
though an important element in the by-election platform, it
cut no ice with serious politicians. When a radical reorganisa-
tion of unemployment assistance was instituted, it did.

The Unemployment Act of 1934 was the work of Cham-
berlain and Betterton, the Minister of Labour. Its object was
to put unemployment insurance on a firm footing after exist-
ing deficits had been funded and to remove unemployment
assistance from the hands of local authorities by laying down
uniform rates which would apply nationally. By establishing
a statutory commission (the Unemployment Assistance
Board) to administer whatever money was voted by parlia-
ment, and by appointing a national figure to run it (after
others had refused, Betterton, on retiring from the House of
Commons), Chamberlain hoped that the question could be
'removed from party polities'.
Though the bill was fought by the parliamentary Labour
party on the ground that working-class welfare was a proper
subject for democratic discussion, its criticisms were political-
ly insignificant. They remained so until the Act came into
force and the Board laid down, and paid, the new scales of
benefit.
While the Act was being passed, the government's support-
ers, and indeed members of the Cabinet, believed that the
new scales would not be lower than the old. When the
Board's regulations were presented to the Cabinet Committee
in November 1934, Chamberlain found them so strict that he
had them revised. 47 Even so, when given effect in early 1935,
many rates of benefit were lower than they had been before.
This produced a great deal of complaint, a widespread feeling
of alarm at a time of psephological disintegration and parlia-
mentary attacks from so many sides at once that Chamber-
lain had no time to consult the Cabinet or the Cabinet Com-
mittee when allowing Stanley (the new Minister of Labour)
to announce a standstill on their operation. 48
What followed was a battle between Chamberlain and Bet-
terton to maintain the UAB's powers and Stanley and the
Ministry of Labour to reduce them. Stanley had expected
criticism before the regulations were published; 49 having to
bear the brunt of the Labour attack, he was 'rattled' and
thought of resigning. 50 He asked for drastic changes, includ-
ing a restoration of some of their powers to local author-
ities. 51 Chamberlain resisted this but agreed that the regula-
tions should be revised. After a Cabinet decision to withdraw
them temporarily, he persuaded Baldwin to put off further

decisions until Stanley and his Under-Secretary 52 had been
found new departments. When they were moved in June, he
and Brown defused the situation. 53
The UAB problem arose from administrative mistakes and
became a political issue when Labour took the opportunity
to show that it had been right in 1931. Once the political
issue arose, its impact was so great that the government seem-
ed, not only to its opponents, as though it was intending to
be mean. When combined with everything else that had hap-
pened in the previous two years, it inflicted the deepest
damage on the morale of the Conservative party 54 and pre-
cipitated a Cabinet conflict between Chamberlain and the
'compassionate' friends of Lloyd George at a time when
Lloyd George was offering a 'compassionate' programme of
public works. It convinced Baldwin that the Conservative
party needed reassurance if a 'National' government were to
survive. It destroyed the impression, which the India bill had
left, that Chamberlain alone could provide it.
The India bill was a continuation of the long-term policy
of implicating a larger part of the Indian educated and pro-
pertied classes in the ostensible aspects of British rule and
was presented in terms which suggested that, so far from
destroying the Indian Empire, 'there [was] more chance of
losing India' if it was defeated. 5S Though tailored to meet
Conservative criticism, it had little genuine support in the
parliamentary party and was widely disliked in the consti-
tuencies. In the Cabinet until a late stage, Simon, Hailsham
and Chamberlain were prepared to move either way. But for
Hoare's determination, it might well have been abandoned. 56
The campaign against it was run by Churchill, Lloyd,
Croft, Wolmer and Salisbury. It began in constituency asso-
ciations (especially in Lancashire) and at area and national
meetings of the Conservative party. It was then continued
(with much heat, without Opposition support and with per-
sonal animus against Hoare) 57 in the Conservative party in
the House of Commons. The major failures were with Derby,
Amery and Austen Chamberlain. The major successes were at
the Bristol Conference in October 1934, in Parliament in
December and on the second reading the following Febru-
ary, 58 a few days after Randolph Churchill had ensured a
Labour victory by standing as an 'Independent Conservative*

in the Wavertree by-election.
The passage of the bill had four sorts of significance. It
established Hoare as a major figure. It gave Rothermere and
Beaverbrook something to complain about. It eroded Bald-
win's authority. And it compelled the government to appease
critics in other directions.
This last compulsion became pressing when Conservative
mistrust of the bill was strengthened by Samuelite and, even-
tually, Simonite, approval. 59 It was one of the factors the
party chairman had in mind when opposing the attempt to
turn the government into a national party. 60 It was why
MacDonald was pressed to take steps about House of Lords
reform and to defer to the Conservative campaign against the
land tax which Snowden had introduced in the Labour gov-
ernment. 61 It had some importance in making it necessary
to be agreeable to Beaverbrook and Rothermere.
The fact that Beaverbrook and Rothermere were journalists

whom ministers wanted to ignore did not remove the diffi-
culty they felt in ignoring them. They had been effective
through high-tension efforts for short periods in the past —
against Lloyd George in 1921 and against Baldwin in 1930,
when Baldwin had had to attack them in order to deal with
them. Neither was a conventional Conservative but between
them they had created a popular politics which could be
mistaken for 'Conservatism' by those who thought they were.
That a large part of the electorate, including the Conservative
electorate, got its view of the National government from
them was important. It was extremely important at a time
when the government had to prepare for elections with no
other support from the large-circulation newspapers. 62
Although it was assumed that both were dangerous, it was
not assumed that both were equally approachable. Rother-
mere had for long been treated as an oddity. In the thirties
this impression was confirmed. Having supported the Na-
tional government in 1931, he had then decided that it
should be brought to an end. 63 Having been scared by
Cripps, he gave public support to Mosley and the British
Union of Fascists. After dropping Mosley in July 1934, he
reconciled himself to Labour succeeding and looked forward
to paying Conservatives back for what they had done in

India. 64 Along with everyone else, he played a part in the
baiting of Simon. He then supported the New Deal and urged
Lloyd George to take up India and air defence so that 'at the
end of a couple of years' he could become 'leader of the
Conservative party and...Prime Minister'. 65 When Lloyd
George went on stressing unemployment instead, Rothermere
started to support the government. He was hoping that it
would scrape home at an election when its League position
about Abyssinia drove him away again.66
Rothermere's closest acquaintances in the government
were Thomas and MacDonald who succeeded, from time to
time, in scaring him about the consequences if the coalition
collapsed. In general, however, he had no friends there. In
this respect Beaverbrook's position was rather different.
Like Rothermere's, Beaverbrook's connections were loose.
At the 1931 election he gave highly detached support on an
Empire Free Trade basis. When the election was over, he
became more detached still, criticising Norman's economic
policy and advocating the need for 'inflation'. He had views
about agriculture, including higher wages for agricultural
workers, which were expressed by the candidate he ran, un-
successfully, at the East Fife by-election. He spent a good
deal of time with Lloyd George whose views about domestic
policy coincided with his own. Unlike Rothermere, however,
he did not support the New Deal. Again, unlike Rothermere,
he supported the India bill (and was against Churchill). He
was prepared to 'smash' the British Union of Fascists. 67
Over the years Beaverbrook had accumulated four friends
who happened to be in the Cabinet. With Hailsham relations
seem to have been intermittent. 68 With Hoare his relation-
ship grew out of their friendship with Law. With Thomas it
started in the early twenties when Thomas was offering him-
self, almost licentiously, as a central figure. Through Wood,
and directly, he had links with Chamberlain for whom a high-
ly synthetic regard fed on the hope that he believed in Im-
perial preference and could be used to show up Baldwin for
what he was. The last three were all involved in the negotia-
tions which Thomas started in February 1934. 69
When Thomas asked why Beaverbrook was not supporting
the government, Beaverbrook offered to do so 'until the day
after the next election' provided there was a protection

policy for wheat and a 'Customs Union' with 'such of the
Crown Colonies as were not controlled by Treaty'. 70 Nego-
tiations, thereafter, were conducted through Hoare who ar-
ranged conversations, correspondence and a dinner with
Chamberlain. 71 They were punctuated by requests (from
the Conservative chairman) for a newspaper campaign to make
the Junior Imperial League the spearhead of resistance to
Mosley.72 They came to a head when Beaverbrook sent a
memorandum about the Customs Union in June.
This plan was abandoned when the Colonial Office shot it
to pieces. 73 The following January74 it was revived (by
Thomas). A couple of months later Chamberlain asked for a
further statement75 during the Norwood by-election 76 and
replied in a way which made Beaverbrook expect the Colo-
nial Office if he became Prime Minister. 77 It was Baldwin's
failure in this, as well as in policy directions, which freed Bea-
verbrook to attack Eden's influence on Hoare, whose Abyssi-
nia policy he disliked even when he recognised its electoral
effectiveness.78 His newspapers, while technically supporting
the government at the election, were unenthusiastic and at
times 'intolerable'.79
Although, in other words, there was contact with Rother-

mere and Beaverbrook, it did not affect policy thinking. This,
so far as it had a political content, aimed at restoring the
impression of 'progress' which had been brought in 1931 and
lost since.
This need was met in the first place negatively — by
dropping controversial legislation, pressing reassuring legisla-
tion and resisting Conservative causes. The Tithe bill, 80 for
example, was withdrawn as an irritant to both farmers and
Nonconformists. 81 The Committee and Royal Commission
on the Private Manufacture of Armaments, on which Mac-
Donald and Thomas insisted, were substitutes for a Dis-
armament Convention. 82 The India bill did not please Simon
but was welcomed as an application of Liberal principles and
a proof that the National government was not 'an instrument
of Toryism'. The same could have been said about House of
Lords reform.
'Reform of the Lords' was a pre-war reaction to Liberal
attacks. For the wartime Coalitions, it had been delicate and

divisive. By 1922, nothing had been agreed. In the decade
which followed, Conservative governments were no more act-
ive than Lloyd George. The idea of an enlarged and, in part,
elected Chamber, would have died if it had not been kept
alive at Conservative Conferences and in Parliament by Salis-
bury, by his relatives, Selborne and Rockley, and by Midle-
ton, Steel-Maitland, Linlithgow and Rankeillour. 83
The arguments varied; in 1934 Salisbury was trying to
'make democracy safe against Mosley, Cripps and Co'. 84 He
found little support among the Conservative managers 85 and
none in the Cabinet, except from Ormsby-Gore (who was his
son-in-law)86 and from Hailsham who had to threaten to
resign before Baldwin and MacDonald would agree to appoint
a Committee. 87 A point was gained in May when the Lords
gave a decisive majority to the second reading of his private
member's bill. In the Liberal and Labour parts of the govern-
ment, however, this was so unpopular that Sankey and de la
Warr, who had voted against the first reading, had to be
restrained from doing so again by a Cabinet decision that
ministers should not vote at all. 88 When Baldwin told a large
deputation of Conservative MPs that there would be 'no time'
to deal with it in the House of Commons, Hailsham again
threatened to resign, withdrawing only when Baldwin ex-
plained (after Chamberlain had intervened), that his remarks
referred to 'the present session'. 89 Even if he was hampered
by Salisbury's disregard of popular opinion, it is unlikely that
he wanted to do much. 90 In the course of 1935, it was
decided that the bill introduced by Rankeillour should be
opposed and no opinion expressed about Rockley's. The
ministers who drafted the election manifesto decided that the
question should not be mentioned. 91 The public did not
know of Chamberlain's assurance that this would not 'debar'
the government from 'introducing a measure...in the next
Parliament'. 92
These were negative actions designed to remove obstacles to

reassurance. They did nothing to provide a raison d'etre.
In this respect, nothing systematic existed when the
government was formed in 1931. Then the purpose was to
save the pound. When the pound fell and the Gold Standard
was abandoned, it was still 'responsibility in crisis' which

provided the justification. No single policy was produced to
justify the mandate at the election in October, when protec-
tion and free trade were both offered as crucial aspects of
economic strategy in the future. One aspect of the contradic-
tion was resolved when Chamberlain replaced Snowden as
Chancellor in November and it was decided to give protection
to domestic industry, in this respect confirming what many
Conservatives had said was necessary at the election. It was
not until the Ottawa policy began that Snowden and the
Samuelites resigned.
There were, then, two stages in the acceptance of protec-
tion which was supported by Simon's and Brown's Liberals
and advocated by Runciman in terms which made it so un-
controversial (except to Protectionists 93 ) that it ceased to be
a serious slogan.
As Protection receded, Baldwin hoped that disarmament
and economic recovery would replace it. In 1933 it was possi-
ble to believe this. In the following year international tension
seemed about to threaten economic recovery 94 at the same
time as India threatened the government. By the end of 1934
events in Europe had not only made disarmament problema-
tical but had made rearmament necessary on an extensive
scale in the not very distant future.
Baldwin recognised this but was unwilling to say so in
public. As a basis of policy, rearmament was as unpopular
among the Simonites and MacDonaldites as among the lead-
ers of the Opposition. It underlined the need for a platform
which would do more than MacDonald had done to create a
unity of sentiment between the Conservative party, the non-
Conservative support of 1931 and the non-Conservative parts
of the Coalition.
This is not to say that MacDonald had not tried. He had
tried hard. There was nothing apologetic about his contempt
for the 'cowards' who had 'sneaked away' in 1931 or the
asinine vacuity of Lansbury's platform. Nor did he conceal
the duty to wean the people from their 'willingness to...get...
something for nothing...and make claims...of right...upon in-
comes...they had never earned'. 95 By inserting a 'fine, proud
spirit' into the 'national character', he was aiming to prepare
it for foreign competition 'the like of which we have never

known'. 96
In marrying Voluntary effort and government action'
(especially about housing) 97 and in injecting both with a new
moral vigour, MacDonald was not 'abandoning socialism'. On
the contrary, he was imitating Mussolini in defending it
against the 'sentimentalities' of Poplar. 98 But where Musso-
lini was young and in control, MacDonald was harassed by
Conservative vigilance, to which his only answer was the
double-edged threat of dissolution." Though he battled with
his critics and threatened where that seemed helpful 10° , his
failure reflected a wider failure to establish parity of esteem
between the Conservative party and its allies.
From early 1932, mechanical relations had been managed
by a committee whose main function was to receive Simonite
and MacDonaldite demands for more seats. This, however,
was made difficult by the reluctance of Conservative associa-
tions. Difficulty was increased by Simonite reluctance to sup-
port non-Liberal candidates against sitting Samuelites and by
the failure of the National Labour party to gain constituency
existence in face of the 'unpleasantness' that would be creat-
ed in relations with 'fellow Trade Unionists' if they stood
against them. 101
There was, therefore, in organisational terms, an even
greater Conservative preponderance than in 1921 and the
same problem as then about the desirability of converting the
coalition into a party. At one point a hundred Conservative
MPs supported the idea. On the other hand, a great many
others — especially opponents of the India bill — threatened
to secede if it was adopted. 102 Simon and MacDonald also
opposed it, believing, doubtless, that they had a position in a
coalition of equals which they were much less certain to keep
under any other arrangement.
The 'National party' did not get off the ground, so the
problem of a 'National policy' did not arise in that connec-
tion. Since, however, the Coalition was to continue, the
policy question became urgent when by-elections made it
unsafe to rely on the claims which had served two years
before. At this point in some quarters there were varying
versions of a desire for a move towards an etatisme of the
Right.
The belief that 'laissez-faire' was as dead as the 'slave

trade', 1 0 3 that the state would 'become associated...more
and more...with the industrial life of the country' 104 and
that it was desirable to 'drop' one's 'Toryism on...public
ownership of land and land taxes' 105 had an extensive exist-
ence in the higher reaches of the party. There was a wide-
spread feeling that 'capitalism' was 'finished' and that a 'na-
tional' programme on this basis was the most plausible
response to the re-emergence of the Labour party. 106 This
was an important element in the Amery/Lloyd move-
ment. 107 It existed on the Garvin/Astor front, and among
those who wanted Lloyd George in the government. 108 On
the basis of what Elliot had done at the Ministry of Agri-
culture (and Mussolini in Italy), it was a strand in the propa-
ganda conducted by Lord Eustace Percy.
Percy had been a junior minister and high-level League
propagandist in the twenties. After the 1935 election he
presumed on a coterie reputation to use National Labour to
make the Conservative party a 'Tory Socialist' party of the
Centre. 109 He probably tried too hard. The following April
he left the Cabinet when Baldwin neglected to make him
minister for the co-ordination of defence 110 after making it
clear that he would not give him serious office at all. n l His
period of significance covered the eighteen months before the
election when Government in Transition, The Modern State,
Conservatism and the Future and a well-publicised period as
'Minister of Thought' attempted to recommend the govern-
ment to the intelligentsia in the same way as Allen's Next
Five Years group recommended positions slightly further to
the Left.
From being the tied exponent of the National Labour posi-
tion in 1931, Allen had been alienated by the distance of
MacDonald's manner. MacDonald's failure to promote Na-
tional Labour ministers when the Samuelites resigned and his
inability to make much of the 'National Labour' idea showed
that an opportunity had been 'missed'. 112 In loosening ties
and resuming his independence, Allen hoped to give leads
MacDonald ought to have given towards 'reconstruction' at
home and peace, disarmament and the amicable settlement of
disputes abroad. 113
This produced the Liberty and Democratic Leadership and
Next Five Years groups, which, beginning from League-based

pacifism, shifted internationally as circumstances changed and
developed domestically a non-marxist demand for a 'new
social order', based on a recognition that neither competitive
capitalism nor state control provided the answer for the
future.
Allen's object was to mobilise opinion, not to form a par-
ty. He had no real organisation (apart from Macmillan's
publishing house) and made no real public appeal. By them-
selves, his activities were of little significance, except to the
liberal intelligentsia who signed his manifestos and to the
National Labour party (which he refused to support at the
general election). 114 But they implied the same needs as
were implied elsewhere and contributed to the climate to
which the government felt obliged to respond.
So far as the League was concerned, Hoare responded
gracefully. So far as planning was concerned, Chamberlain
did not.
In theory Chamberlain had no objection to state activity.
But he had no contact with Allen, had no time for Percy and
equated 'planning' with Lloyd George whom he wished parti-
cularly to avoid. Moreover, from an electoral point of view,
he was more interested in the future course of international
trade. The result of discussion with Conservative ministers
and the other parties to the Coalition was, therefore, a pro-
gramme of safe progress involving changes in the school-leav-
ing age, the five-day week, workers' holidays, land settle-
ment, unemployment insurance for agricultural workers, the
organisation of leisure and the unification of coal-mining
royalties. 115
The third method of appeasing modern opinion involved eva-

luation of existing members of the government for the 'na-
tional' purposes to which they were being put and the pos-
sibility of replacing them by others. Addison and Bevin were
mentioned as reinforcements, as well as Lloyd George.
Simon, Young and MacDonald were the chief candidates for
replacement. 116
Simon's inadequacy was obvious; the newspaper attacks he
suffered in 1934 were the result of his being a weak link
about whom ministers' judgments stimulated the judgments
of public critics. 117 MacDonald would almost certainly have

removed him from the Foreign Office but for unwillingness
to weaken the non-Conservative element in the Cabinet.118
Towards the end of the year plans were made to remove him
by creating a policy Cabinet of overlords, or by giving the
Foreign Office (according to the needs of the situation) to
Baldwin, to Chamberlain, Halifax and Eden (in order to
guarantee that the government was) or to Chamberlain and
Hailsham (as a guarantee that it was not) internationalist.119
In the case of Young, another Liberal problem, there was a
similar difficulty. Housing was as sensitive a subject as un-
employment and one to which the Labour party gave much
attention. It was also one on which Chamberlain had made
his reputation. The policy — of ending the Wheatley sub-
sidies, allowing private enterprise to build for letting and de-
veloping a local authority programme for slum clearance —
was under constant attack. But it was approved by the gov-
ernment majority120 and would have presented no problem
if the slum clearance proposals had included adequate com-
pensation for owners of slum properties. There was, however,
a coincidence between by-election criticism, Young's sensi-
tiveness about it and the feeling that property (often the
property of not very wealthy Conservatives) was being ex-
propriated. It was this that produced the decision that Young
should go to the War Office unless Housing was detached
from Health and given to another minister to look after.121
The first plan failed because Sankey, when asked to vacate
the Lord Chancellorship so that Hailsham might vacate the
War Office, 'made a terrible scene' with MacDonald about the
injustice of 'promoting...the source of the trouble' (i.e.
Young) while he was to be 'sacrificed'.122 The second was
dropped when it became known that Chamberlain wanted to
replace Young, not by a Liberal, doubting, as he did 'whether
Shakespeare' (the obvious Liberal) 'was the right man', 123
but by a Conservative of his own. 124 This gave MacDonald a
shock12S and raised difficulties perhaps, as Chamberlain was
told, on account of the 'jealousies' it would create,126 possi-
bly because it would represent an undue strengthening of his
influence in the Cabinet. Success in keeping office did not
reduce Young's demoralisation or make him less critical of
MacDonald for allowing him to feel it. 127
In Baldwin's attitude three things were important. The

first was the possibility that the India bill would be defeated.
The second was that Chamberlain's credit seemed to have
survived it better than his own.
The third was that his advisers did not believe that electors
who were shifting their votes were either socialists or sym-
pathisers with a socialist programme. What they thought had
been lost since 1931 was 'youth', Virtue' and 'progressive
Liberalism'. They discerned a non-socialist radicalism which
was waiting to be fed and would do them damage, especially
in the north of England, unless they fed it. They had no idea
how to present rearmament, unemployment or the Means
Test. Cecil and his followers were unpopular in the Con-
servative party, weak in the country and antagonistic to the
government, so there was no point in running after them.
From alliance with Lloyd George, one major gain was expect-
ed in relation to the difficulties which lay ahead.
This was that Lloyd George was not only Joseph Chamber-
lain's chief successor as responsible Radical — and a more
vigorous example than MacDonald and Simon — but was a
coalition of opinions in himself. He had no commitment to
one way of conducting India policy rather them another. 128
He was not necessarily an admirer of the League of Nations.
He believed in associating in the Concert of Europe but did
not object to armaments or to rearming. His admirers includ-
ed Garvin, Astor, Beaverbrook and Rothermere; if an answer
was needed, he was an answer to Mosley. In the course of a
pragmatic career, he had acquired many principles and some
friends, who could be used to associate the Conservative party
with his un-socialist concern for the 'future of the underdog'.
From some time in 1934 Baldwin was brooding on the
mechanics of bargaining. He mentioned them in a speech in
May. 129 Between the Putney by-election and MacDonald's
retirement from the Prime Ministership, they were a major pre-
occupation.
So far as Chamberlain was concerned, the position remain-
ed the same throughout. The Bangor proposals were 'the
poorest stuff imaginable, vague, rhetorical and containing not
a single new idea'. 13° The document of mid-March, on which
Lloyd George had sweated blood, was 'sketchy...full of
padding and without details or estimates'. 131 To sit with him
in Cabinet would involve the 'demolition of all [Chamberlain]

had worked for as Chancellor'.132
By this Chamberlain meant that he believed in his own
handling of the financial problem, did not believe in the
handling to be expected from anyone else and would have
nothing to do with deficit financing or inflation. Since be-
coming Chancellor, he had aimed to restore international
confidence and reduce taxation in time for a general election.
When tempted with the Foreign Office at the end of 1934, it
was for this reason that he thought Baldwin and Runciman
the only tolerable successors, though he ruled the first out by
reason of his laziness and assumed that the second was ruled
out because he was a Liberal.133
The Foreign Office was suggested by Margesson: it is not
certain that Baldwin had agreed. Even if he had, it is not
certain why the suggestion was made. It may have been made
in order, as Margesson claimed, to get rid of Simon. It may
have been made in order to facilitate co-operation with Lloyd
George by giving the Treasury to Cunliffe-Lister. 134 Probably
the situation was not so far advanced. What is certain is that
Chamberlain's hatred halted any moves there might have
been in that direction.
The hatred Lloyd George had earned he had earned by the
treatment Chamberlain was given as Director of National
Service in the third year of the war. Neither subsequent suc-
cess nor Lloyd George's failure had softened it. It was as
strong in 1934 as in 1917; between November, when Cham-
berlain first heard of the Lloyd George idea, and the follow-
ing June when it was finally dropped, he let Baldwin know
that he would resign if it happened and persuaded the rest of
the Big Six to do the same.135
Chamberlain treated the problem as a personal conflict in
which it was his enemy's dearest wish 'to hit out at the
Chancellor, "cold, narrow, hard, unimaginative", as the News
Chronicle describes him'. 136 In the first month of negotia-
tion, when Lloyd George was given newspaper coverage, he
was unhappy. Instead of responding directly, however, he let
him 'develop his ideas' before beginning 'to attack in earn-
est'. 137 Eventually he was rewarded. 'I have', he wrote to
one of his sisters in late February, 'thought of such a lot of
really nasty things to say about him that I am almost sorry I
have no more speeches to make. But I am not sure that it

doesn't hurt him more to have no notice taken of him. Today
he does not appear on the notice-board of any of the Sunday
papers.' 138
The Bangor speech and newspaper reception of the New
Deal had two main consequences — assurances of attention
from the Cabinet and a Cabinet discussion about 'financial
policy in relation to public works' (at which younger minis-
ters were represented). 139 It also produced statements from
MacDonald, Runciman and Simon that they would resign if
he was offered office. Since this would have destroyed the
government and might have split the Conservative party as
well, 140 Baldwin assured Chamberlain that he would not
serve with Lloyd George either. 141 Even if his own, Simon's
and Thomas's real feelings were more ambiguous,142 the real
decisions were made before the Cabinet charade began. On
February 7 the Big Six agreed that they would all resign
rather than work with Lloyd George.143
In ignorance, and with an optimism which the newspapers
encouraged, Lloyd George began, nevertheless, to believe that
he had them where he wanted them. When nothing had been
done to honour the 'assurances', he complained about a
speech in which Chamberlain had implied that public works
were not a remedy for unemployment.144 After an article on
these lines in the Daily Mail, he had a further 'assurance'
from MacDonald and a request that the Cabinet might see his
plans.145
Lloyd George answered on the assumption that Chamber-
lain was isolated and on the run. 146 In this he was mistaken.
It was certainly a Cabinet decision that MacDonald should
write, and Chamberlain might not have written if the decision
had been left to him. But he converted the letter into a
request to see 'estimates and calculations' which he believed
did not exist. 147 He had no doubt that the 'bluff could be
'called'148 by showing that the New Deal consisted of pro-
jects which the Cabinet was undertaking, was in process of
investigating or had already, for the best of reasons, turned
down. 149
When MacDonald asked to see Lloyd George's plans, there
was a fortnight's delay before they arrived. 15° In the fort-
night following they were studied by the General Purposes
Committee of the Cabinet. 151 The Committee, which con-

tained none of Lloyd George's admirers, invited him to a
special meeting on April 18. Chamberlain, believing that most
of his colleagues 152 were afraid, devised a procedure which
would prevent a general discussion taking place. 153 He en-
couraged an appearance of friendliness — by which Lloyd
George was surprised 154 — but insisted that the object of the
meeting was 'elucidation'. He wrote out 'in CAPITALS' a list
of questions for MacDonald to ask. In reply to Lloyd
George's suggestion that the Cabinet should send investiga-
tors to see how continental countries dealt with 'bacon-
curing, training camps, housing in suburbs, cooperative farm-
ing etc., [he] suggested that possibly it might be found that
we already had the information in Whitehall'. 155
Lloyd George's impression of the meeting, and of his meet-
ings with individual ministers in the afternoon, was that 'they
want to make terms', though 'of course, as cheap terms as
possible'. 156 Chamberlain's opinion was that Lloyd George
was 'kept guessing' and weakened his case by 'stat[ing] that
the unemployment problem would...be solved if work were
found for 550,000'. 157 The 'very long and wasteful' 158
meetings which followed were designed to ensure that Lloyd
George went away a lesser man than he arrived. 159
By the middle of 1935 Baldwin had been playing Lloyd
George along for a year. He was still afraid of him 16° but
knew that nothing could be done. When Cecil provided an
alternative, he took it. In the week in which the breakdown
of the Lloyd George negotiations was announced, 161 he gave
a warm welcome to the Peace Ballot. Acton might well have
claimed that 'he did not know the difference'. It would be
better to say that he did not mind.
From before the discussion about Lloyd George, Conser-

vatives were clear that the rebellions about India and unem-
ployment assistance were symptoms of a positive hatred of
MacDonald. Just, however, as Simon did not realise how
much he was despised even after the Putney by-election, so it
took time to make MacDonald see that all the disasters —
from the LCC elections to Wavertree — were being blamed on
him. 162
From early in 1933, the National Labour ministers were
conscious of difficulty — about their party organisation,

about the impression the Labour party left that they had sold
out to reaction and about Conservative disloyalty to the ex-
tinct volcano by which they were led. 163 They were embar-
rassed by the contrast between themselves and the New Deal
in America which was damaging their 'moral influence' and
making it difficult 'to return to...and bring the [Labour] par-
ty back to its old principles and political conceptions'. 164
Over the land tax, the House of Lords and Chamberlain's
plans for taxing Co-operative Societies, they had inconve-
nient commitments. In face of the Conservative newspapers,
the agricultural lobby and the difficulties of the housing
question (in which MacDonald invested much energy), they
found it difficult to establish a continuity with what they
had been doing in the past. They were sensitive about their
difficulty and greatly discouraged by deterioration in the Eu-
ropean situation. Even a striking by-election at Kilmarnock in
November, wiping away the Conservative failure at East Ful-
ham in October, did not help them much. 16S
In mid-1934 MacDonald's eyesight was so bad that he was
expected to resign. 166 At various points of extreme irrita-
tion, he or Thomas threatened to do so. 167 When he went to
Canada to recuperate in the summer, it seemed unlikely that
the party would survive.168 His health was better when he
returned, but not the political situation. 169 On one or two
occasions Thomas, probably hoping to be told to stay, sug-
gested that he and MacDonald should go. In a condition of
mental depression MacDonald, from time to time, threatened
to go. 170 In February 1935 Baldwin suggested that he and
MacDonald should go together when the India bill was out of
the way.171 After a rumour-laden week, in which Baldwin
stated publicly that the 'government was not breaking up',
MacDonald promised to go before Whitsun. 172
Between the point at which MacDonald agreed to go
eventually and the point at which his going became imminent,
Baldwin changed his mind about the succession. In February,
he more or less told Chamberlain that Chamberlain would
succeed. In mid-May he left him in no doubt that he proposed
to become Prime Minister himself. On June 7 he did so. 173
MacDonald's removal (to be Lord President of the Coun-
cil) and the subsequent reconstruction were designed to
achieve two sorts of objective. These were to have a Conser-

vative Prime Minister, and to provide symbolic assurance of
the fact that Stanley and Hudson had left the Ministry of
Labour, Londonderry the Air Ministry, Gilmour the Home
Office and Young the Ministry of Health and that Simon had
been removed from the Foreign Office.
There were difficulties. As Derby's son and an intelligent
holder of 'humanitarian views',174 Stanley had to be given
something. Despite Chamberlain's feeling that he was too
weak to deal with the teachers' unions, he was given the
Ministry of Education. Londonderry was closely connected
with MacDonald, a great Conservative host and a makeweight
to Salisbury among peers. Hailsham and MacDonald both
pressed Baldwin to keep him. When Cunliffe-Lister replaced
him as Air Minister, he was made leader of the House of
Lords.175
Young was removed summarily, despite an offer to stay
until the election, 176 and replaced by Chamberlain's candi-
date, Sir Kingsley Wood. When Eden was not made Foreign
Secretary, which some hoped he would be, he and Percy were
added to the Cabinet as reassurance. Simon was reassured
first by being told that Hoare would not be Foreign Secretary
if he moved, then by the promise that the Cabinet would
include an extra Simonite, 177 finally by being made deputy
leader of the House of Commons and Home Secretary instead
of Lord President of the Council (with MacDonald-like over-
sight of foreign policy) which had been suggested when nego-
tiations began.178 After declining another suggestion that he
should leave the Treasury,179 Chamberlain was left where he
was, nursing suspicions of the price Simon had got for accept-
ing the demotion he deserved and not altogether trusting
Baldwin's promise to let him become deputy leader in the
House of Commons if the election was won. 180 On hearing
that he might be made Minister without Portfolio, Hoare
renewed claims to be Foreign Secretary.181 Apart from
these, the chief difficulties centred around MacDonald and
the National Labour party.
As soon as MacDonald saw that his days as Prime Minister
were numbered, he began to state his price for moving. Apart
from an outside wish to become Viceroy, 182 this had three
elements — a desire to keep oversight of foreign policy
(which was met when he became chairman of the Defence

Policy Requirements Committee after the election); insis-
tence on keeping Thomas in the Cabinet, despite heavy drink-
ing and a reputation for newspaper leaks; 183 and pressure
(which Conservatives expected 184 ) to be joined there by his
son, Malcolm, who was thirty-four. This made it necessary to
remove Sankey, the Cabinet's third National Labour member.
Sankey was an elderly and extremely morbid Puseyite who
lived with his sister. After his father's death when he was
young, his mother had scraped to send him to Lancing, Ox-
ford and the Bar, where he had a successful practice until, in
1914, at the age of forty-eight, he became a High Court
judge. Thereafter his career was a triumph of situation over
opinion.
Sankey had begun legal life in South Wales where he made
his name on workmen's compensation. Up to 1919, however,
his political reputation, so far as he had one, was as a Con-
servative opponent of Welsh Church disestablishment and a
moderate member of the LCC. Then Lloyd George made him
chairman of the Coal Commission in order to get impartial
support for a sell-out to the miners. This turned him into a
miners' hero. He would have been offered the Lord Chancel-
lorship in the first Labour government if Haldane had not
insisted on being Lord Chancellor himself. In 1929 he was
made Lord Chancellor because no adequate Labour lawyer
was available. He followed MacDonald into the National gov-
ernment in 1931 after trying hard to bring the rest of the
Cabinet with him. Since then his chief interest had been in
the passage of the India bill.
Being, as he put it, both 'a public school' and a 'university
man', though, as he also believed, a man who had made his
way, 185 Sankey liked working with Conservative and Liberal
ministers. He had, however, little contact with MacDonald,
except through Thomas. With Thomas he had only such con-
tact as Thomas encouraged when difficulties loomed. He was,
in fact, a cipher. His appointment as Lord Chancellor had
'astonished both bench and bar'. 186 He had a rough passage
when the National Economy Act was applied to judges' sala-
ries and was publicly censured by the Lord Chief Justice over
the Judicature bill. 187
Sankey's sole claim to consideration was his one-time
membership of a Labour government. Having assured him

that he would resign rather than let him go, MacDonald tried
to get him to go in March 1934. 188 Sankey knew — and
Thomas hinted — that MacDonald would try again. In subse-
quent months he was in touch, perhaps innocently, with
Snowden, Laski and the Secretary of the Labour party. 189
When eventually asked to go (by Thomas and Baldwin) be-
cause his place was needed for Malcolm MacDonald, 19° he
consulted an old friend who was a friend of Baldwin. The
friend, having told him to stand firm, suddenly told him that
he would have to go. Sankey then refused the earldom he was
offered on the ground that he would not connive at nepo-
tism. 191 When MacDonald failed to mention Malcolm Mac-
Donald in a talk they had after his resignation, Sankey added
himself to the members of the 1929 Cabinet with whom
MacDonald's parting was unfriendly. 192
When Baldwin became Prime Minister, he did so knowing

that he would have to fight an election before November
1936. He did not know when the election should take place
or how it could be conducted. Least of all had he solved the
problem of providing an alibi for unemployment. When he
went on holiday in August, he had been thinking of October
but had made no decision. 193 The decision was made with
the Labour party's demand for military sanctions against
Mussolini and the opportunity this gave to play peaceful sup-
port for a League policy in Abyssinia in place of uneasy
support for the New Deal which Lloyd George had hoped
might be used as the guarantee of Conservative centrality.
THE FUNCTION OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
'I know that Henderson has a convention worked out and which he
intends to put before the Conference when it is at its last gasp. This
would not suit us at all (i) because of political reaction at home (ii)
because from what little I hear his Convention would prove unaccept-
able to us. We should then be on the defensive, the victim and not the
hero'. Eden to Baldwin, February 24 1933
*I am glad to know that I correctly interpret your sentiments when I

say that the object of the Ballot was by no means to criticise the
Government...but rather to show the Government that we have a large
volume of public opinion behind us in the efforts which we are today
making to maintain the authority of the League of Nations...The
League of Nations remains, as I said in a speech in Yorkshire, "the best
sheet-anchor of British policy".' Baldwin, at meeting with the National
Declaration Committee to present the result of the Peace Ballot and the
Resolution passed at the Albert Hall on June 27, July 23 1935. The
Times, July 24
*I am bound to recognise that, if I supply the policy and the drive, S.B.
does also supply something that is perhaps even more valuable in retain-
ing the floating vote'. Chamberlain to Hilda, November 9 1935
(i)
When Foch turned the German offensive of 1918 into a rout,
he destroyed the power-balance which had operated in Eur-
ope before the war. Despite a vacuum in Russia, the withdraw-
al of America and the balkanisation of the Danube, an Anglo-
French alliance had a potentiality for dominance which it
had never had before.
In fact, the reality in the 1920's was not an Anglo-French
alliance but French predominance. British disarmament was
more rapid and thorough than that of any of the Powers
apart from Germany. Russia was not the power she had been in
1914. The United States had declined to take her place. Though
French connections in central and eastern Europe to some ex-
tend had, the security of France depended on the powerless-
ness of Germany and France's willingness to make use of it.
In using it to protect themselves against future German
predominance, French statesmen insisted on French predo-
minance in the present. In Britain this produced suspicion of

France as great as the pre-war suspicion of Germany. The
Locarno Treaty guaranteed Germany against France as well
as France against Germany, but the disarming of Germany
and the occupation of the Ruhr remained formidable warn-
ings.
Within ten years of Locarno French predominance had
been destroyed. In withdrawing from the League, agitating in
Austria and announcing conscription, Hitler started to do
what previously he had promised. In these years he re-estab-
lished Germany as a major power.
At the same time he played a political, as well as a mili-
tary, role, aiming in the course of destroying the Versailles
settlement, to appease Poland, isolate France and establish
that Germany had no quarrel with Britain. If his object was
to provide reassurance, he was unsuccessful.
The British reaction had two aspects and produced two
sorts of policy which, however, interacted. Though diplo-
macy was affected by considerations of financial and military
power, it was conducted on the assumption that it could do,
without force, what force could not do by itself to ensure the
peace of Europe and the stability of the world.
In attacking the post-war settlement before he came to
power, Hitler had singled out reparations, the demilitarisation
of the Rhineland, the restriction on German rearmament (to-
gether with the failure of the other powers to disarm) and the
steps which had been taken to divide Polish and Czech Ger-
mans from Germany and reduce Austria to insignificance.
So far as reparations were concerned, the German critic-
isms had been recognised and accepted at the Lausanne Con-
ference in 1932. After Lausanne, the centre of interest was
disarmament and the Disarmament Conference at Geneva
where Eden, as Foreign Under-Secretary, got the first of his
Geneva enthusiasms1 (for the abolition of military aircraft).
In Whitehall, he aroused little enthusiasm as Hankey estab-
lished, among the ministers and departments concerned, that
an arms, or arms manufacture, agreement was crucial and
improbable, and should not be accepted if likely to damage
the armaments industry or leave Britain more vulnerable than
she was already.
THE FUNCTION OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 65
Ministerial discussions about poison gas, police bombing,

international supervision and the internationalisation of civil
aviation were overshadowed by Hankey's insistence and by
the fact that, in reflecting departmental suspicions, the Ser-
vice ministers embodied a Conservative reluctance to permit
other states, or international bodies, to control, or view, Brit-
ain's defences.2
Whatever hope had been left by Lausanne disappeared in
the course of 1933. Thereafter, breakdown was expected be-
cause the French demand for guaranteed assistance in case of
German infringement of an agreement was incompatible with
any conditions which Hitler was in a position to accept. In-
creased British involvement was not something the Cabinet
would have offered, even if its military power had been great-
er. Establishing a scale of equality between France and her
overseas empire on the one hand and Germany with her East
European frontiers on the other would have been difficult in
any circumstances. Since general reassurance was unlikely,
the French were unlikely to agree.
Even before Hitler's arrival, depression had dominated
Geneva. In early 1933 the French proposed a disarmament
plan which, in many respects, went too far for the British.
The British proposals of January 31 and the draft conven-
tion of March 16 were answers.3 But these were proposed
less in order to produce agreement than because it was as
undesirable, if the conference broke down, that Britain
should be blamed for the breakdown as that she should be
blamed for the breakdown of the Economic Conference.4
Until Germany withdrew in October, the fear of blame was
equalled only by a refusal to give even tactical support to
proposals that were thought objectionable.5
Fear took three forms — fear of Hitler, fear of France and
fear of Arthur Henderson. Hitler, for example, might demand
equality in rearmament as a preliminary to disarmament.6 If
this was challenged, he might leave the Conference and rearm
illegally, while blaming Britain for lining up behind the
French.7 Or he might 'manoeuvre' Britain into conceding 'a
measure of rearmament' before security arrangements had
been agreed, thus exacerbating relations with the French. The
French, on the other hand, might make impossible conditions
about 'equality' and involve Britain in resisting German rear-

mament.8 In either case the government would suffer if
French jumpiness and German clumsiness produced an 'inci-
dent' leading to a 'flare-up'.9
In some ways Henderson was feared most of all. As Presi-
dent of the Conference, he was well placed to cover his own
failure by implying the need for unacceptable advances to-
wards the French 10 and to use his position as an election
platform (which he did when he won the Clay Cross by-elec-
tion in August). Fear was strongest at the end of 1933. But it
was present when he produced his programme of work for
the Conference in January and was one of the chief reasons
why Eden and the Geneva delegation produced the plan
which MacDonald took on his European tour in March. 11
The tour was a failure. In Rome MacDonald resumed long-
standing socialist cordiality with Mussolini.12 But in Paris
there was a frame of mind which was thinking in terms of
1914. Though the British plan was accepted in principle, the
Conference was not expected to survive.13
In proposing the plan, ministers had gone as far as they
thought safe. Though willing to go further at a late stage if
agreement would otherwise be impossible, they believed that
Hitler's only object was to strengthen himself against his
neighbours.14 They were not surprised, and may well have
been relieved, that it was his withdrawal which broke up the
Conference.15
In the following six months, they wanted, and to some
extent expected, an agreement. To some extent, they went
through the motions because Henderson had caught them on
the hop by producing a Convention which the French liked,
the Germans would reject and contained points 'considerably
embarrassing' to themselves.16
In the winter of 1933 Simon, MacDonald and Eden work-
ed hard. But the reality behind their professions was the
realisation that Hitler intended to rearm, whether by agree-
ment or not and that his 'tactical position' was 'strong' be-
cause he had 'nothing to lose either way'.
This meant that France was expected to move forward. It
meant that, unless she did so, and did so quickly, German
rearmament would become formidable. 17 And it imposed a
strain on France during the early stages of a revolutionary

situation. 18
What a French government could have done without 'Sta-
visky' is uncertain. Probably no government would have done
much. In the circumstances of early 1934, it seemed obvious
that no government would be stable enough to carry through
a policy.
In 1933 the British attitude had not been sympathetic. In
the course of 1934, it became unsympathetic in face of
French insistence on negotiating at Geneva, to which Hitler
had said that he would not return, and the 'fallacious' opi-
nion, which was held in Paris, that the Nazi regime was 'tot-
tering'. 19 Mutual suspicions developed as British ministers
emasculated French control proposals and the French exclud-
ed any increase in the accepted level of German armaments.
There was also a suspicion that France and Germany might
do a deal to Britain's disadvantage.
In these circumstances, the British attitude was one of
ostentatious impartiality. There was no French alliance and
no suggestion, even when withdrawal from the League cast
doubts on Germany's participation in Locarno, that Locarno
had been turned into an alliance with France and Belgium. 20
Although French policy was disliked, 21 it was not sup-
posed that Germany could be relied on. In the first six
months of 1934 almost everything that was to be said about
Hitler in the next six years was said for the first time. Doubts
were expressed about his good faith and about the perceptiv-
eness of some of his British visitors. 22 It was said that he
'trail[ed] his coat' and 'raise[d] his bids' as soon as he was
given anything he wanted, and that he was trying to divide
Britain from the French. 23 He was thought of as a 'racial...
idealist...like Hess' 24 who led a 'reforming' element 25 and
(before the killing of Roehm) was encountering opposition
from the Junkers who would be much less accommodating
than he was. It was thought that, if he wanted to expand, he
might go east and south-east rather than west. 26 It was
hoped that he would be reasonable and autarky modest, and
that Schacht would find grounds for economic co-opera-
tion. 27 Baldwin thought about a visit; the chief visitor
(Eden) described Hitler as having 'charm', having too much
to do 'internally* to be planning to go to war and seeming

much 'more like Dollfuss on a larger and rougher scale than
like the Hindenberg type or the von Bulows' who were 'the
sinister beings' in Berlin, having 'learnt and forgotten
nothing' in their hatred of Britain. 28
Once German rearmament was accepted as a fact, the Serv-
ice departments saw the point of a disarmament agreement to
keep it under control. In early 1934 Hankey had a positive
enthusiasm 29 as a new optimism produced discussion about
the extent to which Britain could help it forward.
So far as Germany was concerned, there were doubts
about the size of the army and the predominance which
equality with France would establish in relation to Austria
and Czechoslovakia. But the demand for equality was regard-
ed as a requirement which could not reasonably be contested.
To French requirements, the attitude was more compli-
cated. Though French insistence on supervision reflected an
'outmoded' assumption of superiority, reassurance was re-
garded as important. Throughout the winter of 1933, the
public objective of ministers was to do whatever was possible
to secure French co-operation. 30
In fact, very little was possible; the concessions that were
made were limited, and designed much more for English than
for continental consumption. In April the French made it
clear that they wanted something more binding than 'consult-
ation' in the event of aggression or the breakdown of an
agreement.
Despite the hopes of 1934, ministers were going through
the motions. The British Memorandum of January 26, and
Eden's visits to Paris, Rome and Berlin were earnests of inten-
tion. But all that emerged was the certainty that the Germans
wanted a scale of rearmament which the French were unlike-
ly to accept, and that the Conference would break down
unless the British attitude changed radically.
This led to two conclusions — that Britain would support
whatever economic sanctions the United States would agree
to impose in the event of aggression or the breach of an
agreement, and that efforts should be made to establish a
world-wide system of regional pacts to supplement the gene-
ral obligations imposed by Kellogg and the Covenant. 31
Since no other changes were acceptable, the ministerial dis-
cussions of April and May were conducted in the belief that

France must be made to take the initiative which led to
breakdown. 32
Breakdown was then made more certain by French at-
tempts to approach 'security' outside a disarmament conven-
tion. Barthou's 'Eastern Locarno' and luridly-expressed ob-
jections to disarmament and treaty revision raised Anglo-
French tension. 33 It was not reduced until his visit to Lon-
don in July, when the Cabinet accepted an East European
pact as a guarantee of German security and a method of
limiting Germany's claims to agreed rearmament. 34
'Encirclement' was unpopular. But the events of 1934
(especially in Austria) showed that Germany was a major
power which, under Hitler (or other, less amenable, manage-
ment) might make a systematic attempt to dominate Euro-
pe. 3S There was no conviction that this would happen. But
the basis of discussion was the possibility that it might and
the prospect of the same threat as had been faced in 1914 to
the peace of Europe and the existence of the Empire.
With territories as vast and co-ordination as limited as in the

Empire of 1933, it was impossible to be impregnable against
all contingencies at once. This had not mattered in the twen-
ties when few contingencies seemed likely to arise. From the
beginning of the Japanese action on the mainland of China, it
did.
Up to this point, the assumption had been that an equilib-
rium had been established in both Europe and the Far East
and that Middle Eastern oil — the new factor in the post-war
Empire — would be safeguarded if the Middle Eastern garri-
sons operated in the shadow of Mediterranean peace. India
was seen as a guarantor of Middle Eastern power, as much as
the other way round. But it was assumed that financial effort
to create a more decisive superiority was impossible and that
relations within the Empire put unified defences out of the
question.
The Empire, therefore, was a mass of plunder which could
not be protected by force, and whose existence was bound
up with the sword-settlement, practical idealism and naval
bargaining embodied in the Versailles, Locarno, League and
Washington Treaties. It depended on naval power. But it also
depended on Collective Security, which depended on the

unwillingness of other powers to change the status quo.
The Japanese invasion of Manchuria threatened the status
quo in the Far East and made it uncertain whether diploma-
cy, shoe-string defences (in relation to world responsibilities)
and political policies in Europe, India and the Middle East
were sufficient. It also made the Far East the most probable
area of conflict and Japan the most probable enemy. With
the dropping of the ten-year rule and the restarting of the
Singapore base (which had been set back in the twenties),
this was the assumption until Hitler's arrival in office. In the
course of 1933, it disappeared. By the time the Cabinet ini-
tiated an investigation of the defence position in late 1933,
different assumptions had prevailed.
The Defence Requirements Committee, set up after Ger-
many left the Disarmament Conference, consisted of Hankey,
Fisher, Vansittart and the Chiefs of Staff. 36 Assuming a pre-
sent 'menace to our position in the Far East' and that the
'German menace will grow to formidable proportions within
the next few years', its report stated that war with France,
Italy or the United States were not contingencies that needed
to be faced, that naval power was crucial and that a defi-
ciency programme was needed to get back to the position
that had been abandoned in the twenties.37 Despite being
edited in anticipation, 38 this was given critical analysis by
the Ministerial Committee on Disarmament which issued two
reports — an interim report on air defence, 39 and a report on
defence and finance which the Cabinet accepted in July
1934.40
The Ministerial Committee and the Cabinet confirmed the
Hankey Committee's analysis. While confirming it as an anal-
ysis, however, it modified its recommendations. Basing itself
on the view that financial recovery was too fragile to sustain
the proposed expenditure without deficit financing (which it
was the object of policy to avoid), it decided that the naval
and military programmes should be smaller and the air pro-
gramme considerably larger.41
These decisions assumed that Japan or Germany could be
dealt with separately but not together, that Japan had to be
dealt with by diplomacy, and that military attention should
be concentrated on Germany. They made no provision for
action under the Covenant of the League. Recognising that

air power had made isolation impossible, they took Locarno
seriously, not least because they took more seriously still the
public fear of air attack from the Low Countries under host-
ile occupation. 42 But they allowed for only a token expedi-
tionary force on the Continent in honouring it, and they
decided against a special guarantee to Belgium as 'lead[ing]...
logically...to a tripartite alliance with France'. 43 They as-
sumed that the size of the Empire made further entangle-
ments undesirable unless very much more money was to be
spent. They took it as axiomatic that none would be. They
issued in Baldwin's declaration of November 28 that 'in air
strength and air power, this country' could 'no longer' be 'in
a position inferior to any country within striking distance of
these shores'. 44
Defence decisions, made first in order to remedy deficien-
cies, and then, after the announcement of German rearma-
ment, to step up the size of the defence effort, did not as-
sume that war was inevitable. They assumed that rearma-
ment, once effected, would make war less likely and that a
strengthened Britain would be in a better position to handle
Hitler and bring France and Germany together.
Execution of this policy involved Treaty revision. In the
next four years there were many points at which it seemed
possible that this might start. Until the Munich Conference in
September 1938, no agreed revision took place.
For this, at different times, there were differing reasons.
Difficulties began with the attempt to develop a special Lo-
carno relationship with France and Italy.
The essence of the Locarno Treaty of 1925 was the mutual
obligation, established under League auspices, between Ger-
many, France, Italy, Belgium and Britain. In the twenties it
had worked unproblematically. In 1933 it ceased to, as
Franco-German relations deteriorated. In attempting to res-
tore them as a prelude to disarmament, Simon fixed on Italy
as the central factor.
For this there were two reasons — that, except in Me-
mel, 45 the most dangerous threat to peace, once Polish-
German relations were settled, was in Austria 46 and that
French security in relation to Germany could not be guarant-
eed unless Italian relations with France were as cordial as
those with Germany. Mussolini's special relationship with

Hitler and his special interest in Austria, therefore, gave him
dual status as earpiece and barrier against expansion, and
made it possible to hope that he might bring Germany back
to the League. With Britain it established a common interest
in Locarno as a 'buttress' to 'sustain the status quo without
pressing on one side more than the other'. 47 Even in face of
doubts about his connection with Hitler and his complacency
in face of Nazi influence in Austria, Mussolini was treated,
after MacDonald's visit to Rome, as holding 'the key to Euro-
pean peace' when manifest rearmament made it a matter of
time before Hitler repudiated the 'Versailles limitations' he
was 'secretly disregarding'.48
Although it had been known for some time that the Treaty
had been violated, there was reluctance to say so in public.
At MacDonald's insistence49 the air programme of July 1934
had been presented in terms of a general threat of air bom-
bardment. Despite explicit accusations from Churchill, Gar-
vin and Austen Chamberlain, it was not until November that
accusations were made specific.
The Cabinet responded then by gearing defence require-
ments to the possibility of a German war before 1939 50 and
by coupling announcement of the air parity policy with the
news that it knew about German rearmament.51
In doing this, it was not shifting ground. It was rearming,
but it was in favour of conciliation too. On November 28
Baldwin stated that Germany had a military air force of be-
tween 600 and 1,000 and would shortly have an army of
300,000 (with more in reserve). But he did not say what
could be done to remove 'apprehension' or restore 'the Con-
cert of Europe'. 52 The function of the speech was to estab-
lish (against critics) that Britain had air superiority, to pull
Hitler up short (so as to get a better negotiating position
about disarmament) and to edge the French towards nego-
tiating on the basis that Germany had rearmed. Simon was
explicit about the 'wisdom' of 'get[ting Germany] back to
Geneva on the basis that these violations of Part V are con-
doned'. At the end of the debate, he spoke of 'an oppor-
tunity based not on the prescriptions of the post-war period,
but on a new effort to establish more firmly a secure pros-
pect of peace in the world'.53
In talking in this way, Simon was anticipating the next

step. This was expected to be a German announcement, after
the Saar plebiscite the following January, that rearmament
had been proceeding in violation of the Treaty. He was cer-
tain that the French would not punish the violation. He be-
lieved that the alternative to legalisation would be further
illegal rearmament and that it was desirable to 'keep the ini-
tiative' by beginning Four-Power discussions before the con-
clusion of the Saar plebiscite relieved Hitler of the need to be
agreeable.54
What Simon intended was to deny France the chance to
arraign Germany at Geneva and to prevent a polarisation be-
tween a Franco-Soviet bloc on the one hand and Germany on
the other. At the same time he thought that Hitler would be
more dangerous outside the League than in it and might be
pushed, by threat of a tripartite alliance, into returning to
Geneva in order to obstruct it. He expected prolonged bar-
gaining about the future level of armaments once agreement
had been reached about the past and proposed, as Britain's
contribution, a reaffirmation of the obligation to Belgium, a
new statement of interest in the independence of Holland
(which the Cabinet rejected) and further expressions of indi-
rect support for a pact in eastern Europe. Despite a German
landslide in the Saar plebiscite, a new phase seemed about to
begin with Britain, France and Italy making concerted ap-
proaches to negotiation. 5S
In the next two months, France and Italy moved closer
together. During Simon's Paris visit, the Barthou position was
abandoned. When Flandin and Laval came to London, the
Cabinet agreed to a Locarno-style mutual guarantee against
air attack 56 and a declaration of interest in Belgian indepen-
dence. 57 A strong Anglo-French statement during Simon's
second visit to Paris a few days later 58 was followed by
German agreement to the Air Pact and a German request for
a British visit to Berlin. 59
The Simon/Eden visit was called in question when the
much-rewritten wording of the Defence White Paper of
March 1935 60 caused a good deal of offence in Germany.
When eventually made (after German violations of the Treaty
had been admitted) it convinced Simon that, though Hitler
wanted an 'understanding' (especially about naval rearma-
ment), his methods were likely to divide Europe and drive

Britain and Russia together. 61
From the Berlin visit onwards, policy ran along tightropes.
On the one hand, it had to make sure that firmness did not
make Hitler recalcitrant. On the other, it aimed to develop
relations with France and Italy and to imply the prospect of
closer relations with Russia so as to make him accept an East
European treaty. 62 Yet again, while aiming to support both
an East European treaty and the independence of Austria, it
had to avoid action which might increase the range of British
commitments. 63
After the Berlin visit, Eden visited Moscow, Warsaw and
Prague. At the Stresa conference in April, 'solidarity' showed
Hitler that he could not do to Locarno what he had done to
Versailles. 64 Between April and June German air strength
became the central subject of political discussion and the
cause of a further air programme, 6S as the government and
the Conservative party developed the opinion 66 that France,
Italy and Russia might have to come very close together if
Hitler would not negotiate reasonably. By the end of May, it
seemed possible that he might. 67 On June 7, Simon was re-
moved from the Foreign Office, just before the signature of
the Naval Agreement with Germany.
Simon's removal was not exactly the result of disagreements

about policy. Though an instinctive isolationist, 68 he saw, as
well as anyone else, that with ' 2 | million people enrolled in
the forces...Hitler...might be menacing'. 69 Nor did sympathy
for Germany distinguish him from most of the Cabinet who
would have been much less certain than Vansittart whether
to see 'Joan of Arc' or 'the bottomless pit' in Hitler's 'simple
bearing', and 'dangerous' but 'sincere' 'conviction' that 'he
[was] destined to bring about the moral rehabilitation of the
German people'. 70
Part of Simon's difficulty arose from a want of warmth, an
appearance of insincerity (particularly at Geneva) and a hu-
mourless rigidity that irritated such diverse figures as Tho-
mas, Chamberlain and Ormsby-Gore. Part of it arose from a
failure to express generous sentiments, 71 a deep uncertainty
about the presentation of policy and a failure to convince his
equals that he knew what it was. 72 There was also a suspi-
cion, which time confirmed, that he was trying to dodge the

blame about defence weakness 73 and rearmament, for both
of which he was as much responsible as any other member of
the Cabinet. 74
Like MacDonald, Simon felt the lack of newspaper support
where, before Manchuria and the resignation of the Samuel-
ites, he had had some. 7S This made him sensitive to appear-
ances and unwilling to expose himself in public. It also made
him anxious to be liked by those he did not know, including
'Youth' with whom he was conscious that he was a failure
where Eden was a success. The result was that he dressed
Eden down too often for his own safety and was blackguard-
ed, not only behind his back, 76 by Ormsby-Gore, Tyrrell
(from the Paris embassy) and Eden himself, who had all be-
come Baldwin's listening-posts on (and off) the Continent. 77
So far as rhetoric was concerned, Simon's language was
impeccable. The 'disease of fear', 78 the 'barriers of memo-
ry' 79 and the 'character of the people' 80 were prominent. He
made the usual noises about 'mutuality' and disarmament
and made few attempts to resolve the unavoidable contra-
diction between detachment from Europe and an 'unshaken
purpose' in relation to the League. 81
Unfortunately for him, success was impossible within the
framework of expectation which the public was encouraged
to entertain. 'The League', 'disarmament' and 'Collective Se-
curity' had not had very much in them, even before Hitler
came to power. Hitler destroyed them, and Simon with them.
In some respects Simon was more pro-German than The
Times; in others he stood somewhere between The Times's
'understanding' and Vansittart's dislike of Germany. He was,
however, identified with neither and was not involved in the
campaigns each waged against the other. If he seemed public-
ly cautious, that was at least partly because of the diplomatic
danger involved in 'speaking out'. 82
In this, he was in the same position as other ministers who
were tougher in Cabinet and committee than they wished to
seem, talked the same language as he did in public while
feeling the same doubts in private and differed only in avoid-
ing over-exposure when manifest contradictions made this
dangerous.
Knowing that his future was at stake, Simon tried hard to
prevent contradictious occurring. But, though aware of the

power struggle and the need for rearmament, he was aware of
the unpopularity of both, and regarded emollient altruism as
the best guarantee that his future would be assured. 83
Simon did not conduct foreign policy by himself. It was
processed by Vansittart and the Foreign Office on the one
hand and by the Disarmament Committee on the other. What
emerged from the Foreign Office ran the gauntlet of the
Committee and was then put to the Cabinet. Though the
Cabinet added criticisms of its own, the main sifting occurred
in committee where MacDonald, Baldwin, Hankey, Hoare,
Monsell, Hailsham, Londonderry, Thomas, Chamberlain,
Runciman and Cunliffe-Lister were the chief performers.
Of these, Thomas talked chiefly about tactics except when
he talked about the need for disarmament. When London-
derry spoke, he did so with little effect. Monsell was prepared
to abandon the Disarmament Conference and wanted chiefly
to improve relations with Japan in order to negotiate renewal
of the Naval Treaty. Hailsham disliked Geneva 84 and mis-
trusted Germans. 8S He regarded the Economic and Disarma-
ment Conferences as 'mistakes' and believed that the govern-
ment had 'acted with a courage almost amounting to fool-
hardiness' in 'disarming] itself in the hope of persuading
other people to do the same'. 86
Hoare, too, by and large, expounded a negative line about
Geneva. 87 Cunliffe-Lister spoke, almost invariably, in an iso-
lationist sense standing, it is true, on Locarno but being will-
ing to sympathise with Hitler's point of view, unwilling to
extend commitments, and anxious to abolish military aircraft
as the best defence against the bombing of London. 88
Against this background Chamberlain was an internationalist
hawk with a firm grasp of the importance of France and the
interconnectedness of European peace.
Simon's policy was accepted by all his colleagues more or
less equally. Despite reluctance to support Dollfuss, who was
unpopular on the Left, 89 he wanted to be on good terms
with Mussolini. He was irritated by the French, unenthusiast-
ic about Russia and overwhelmed by the whiphand he
thought the Germans had about disarmament. 90 Even when
being criticised for the Eastern Security pact 9 1 or being
taken apart by Chamberlain and Hailsham (for neglecting
France 92 or assisting German rearmament 93 ), he was really

being attacked for incompetence in execution rather than for
the wrongness of his opinions. 94
Until Barthou's assassination, Simon hedged approval of an
East European pact with stipulations about 'mutuality' being
'to the fore' and Germany regarding it as 'helpful'. 95 After-
wards, he was much more forthcoming. In the winter of
1934, he was congratulating himself on the 'steadiness' of his
policies. He continued to believe in success until Hitler gave
him a kick in the teeth after the publication of the Defence
White Paper on March 1. 96
By the middle of 1935, Simon was trusted as little as
Curzon, had had his telegrams redrafted as much and left the
impression of having been 'led up the garden' when he met
Hitler. 97 Vansittart and Eden were both trying to get rid of
him. 98 He had been attacked by name on more than one
occasion at Conservative backbench meetings." Above all,
he had been at the receiving end of a great deal of criticism
from MacDonald.
Signs of age and peculiarities of public performance did
not prevent MacDonald playing an important role in foreign
policy in his last three years as Prime Minister. He went to
Lausanne, made the European tour of 1933 and led the Brit-
ish delegation to Stresa. He presided at both the Cabinet and
the Disarmament Committee and gave leads which Simon's
inadequacy made it doubly easy to give.
MacDonald had thought deeply about diplomacy and had
strong views about how it should be conducted. He recog-
nised the nature of the German threat and that 'peace itself ...
was in jeopardy'. 10° His long-term identity and dislike of
Henderson brought home to him, more acutely than to other
members of the Cabinet, the importance of ensuring that
rearmament could be avoided.
MacDonald disliked the League and 'military alliances' and
believed in something like secret diplomacy. He accepted
Locarno (as a non-alliance). But he objected to extending it
and was adamant about retaining the power to determine the
'automatic' nature of its 'obligations'. 101 While conscious
that Britain lacked friends, he mistrusted the French and
treated Barthou as a menace who might make Hitler into an
'aggressor'. 102 Having visited America in 1930, he believed in
a 'special relationship'. For this reason he wanted no special

relationship with Japan and regarded the Washington Treaty
as the sole guarantee that the Far East could be stabilised
without an unacceptable measure of rearmament. He felt no
confidence that rearmament could be avoided. Even at his
most optimistic, he felt a deep pessimism about the future
and from a mature, disillusioned, pacifist practicality reached
conclusions not very different from those of Hailsham, Lon-
donderry and Monsell.103
MacDonald wanted a bipartisan policy and objected when
party politics intruded. 104 He was irritated by idealists 105
and contemptuous of their failure to understand the difficult-
ies of situations. But he kept in touch, even when suggesting
that the world had moved on. While confident that his Ger-
man policy had been right in the twenties, 106 he made no
bones about the 'dangerous unsettlement' Hitler was causing
by rearming secretly. 107
Nor, at first, did he avoid the real problem. Even if his
Canadian recuperation coincided with its adoption, he did
not really oppose the deficiency programme of 1934. Much
as he disliked it, and much as he complained about rearma-
ment a year later, 108 he took the unusual step of signing the
Defence White Paper which caused so much offence in Ger-
many in 1935.
MacDonald was not alone in wanting 'a security agree-
ment' rather than 'inferiority for Germany'. But he knew
that Hitler would have to be pressed if he was to behave
reasonably. He opposed the Simon/Eden visit to Berlin as a
sign of weakness 109 and allowed himself to be overruled, in
the week in which he agreed to renounce the Prime Minister-
ship, only when the Cabinet Committee insisted. n o He was
generally regarded as the best person to lead the delegation to
Stresa when an Eden illness made it unsafe to send Simon by
himself.111
Simon understood the significance of Mussolini and knew
that he had to put up with the 'stiffness and intransigence' of
the French. He agreed too (when pressed) that tripartite firm-
ness was essential. But where MacDonald treated diplomacy
as a game at which he was rather good, he merely went
through the motions with little sense of execution, both eyes
on the public and no conception of the unity of the Euro-

pean situation.
By the time MacDonald and Simon had been replaced, differ-

ences had been small and concerned the mode of execution
of policies that were agreed. Hitler had been identified as a
threat to peace and a possible enemy in war. A policy of
pressure had been developed in company with France and
Italy. There was no certainty that pressure would be needed.
It was thought, however, that it might be, and that it might
have to be heavier than Simon could manage if Hitler was to
be made co-operative.
How, if at all, it would operate was not clear. But it was
clear that the public would have to be educated. It was at
least partly with a view to maintaining 'the facade of national
unity' 1 1 2 as an aid to educating it that Simon and MacDon-
ald were kept in the government. It was with a view to iron-
ing out differences in the Foreign Office that Hoare replaced
them. 113
(ii)
Baldwin had made himself Prime Minister in order to win the
next election. In approaching it, he had a programme (which
Chamberlain had written) but he lacked a theme. It was
doubtful whether a theme could be invented. It was certain
that invention would be important if the election was not to
be dominated by the Means Test, unemployment and disar-
mament, about which little could be said that was thought
convincing.
The Abyssinia problem emerged from circumstances which
the government regretted and could not control. As soon as
the contours were identified, reactions were controllable.
One control-element which came to be increasingly impor-
tant was the opportunity the Peace Ballot provided to hold
an election after the blowing out of the storm from Lloyd
George and his replacement by Cecil as leading evaluator of
Conservative liberality.
Cecil was not aiming to stand by Baldwin. Nor was his

support constant or secure. The doubts of 1934 persisted and
it remained uncertain whether support would be earned. But

he had no doubt that the electoral power the Ballot had
created could be used to make the government rescue the
League from disintegration.
That disintegration was in sight had not been doubted.
Russia, it was true, had joined, and the government (no
thanks to Simon) had proposed an international force for the
Saar. 114 But Hitler was an enemy. The Disarmament Confer-
ence was in ruins and Simon 'minimize[d] the extent' to
which he was willing to 'enter into a system of Collective
Security'. 115
From Cecil's point of view, Stresa was objectionable be-
cause it looked like an alliance from which Germany was
excluded116 and condoned the other powers' failure to fulfil
their part of the Versailles bargain by disarming. It was desir-
able, therefore, even after the admission that Germany had
rearmed illegally, that Hitler should be given the chance to
sign a treaty 'for the limitation and reduction of arma-
ments'. 117
This was the first priority, but Cecil did not expect it to be
effective. Everything Hitler had done, and everything that
had been done by Prussia in the last two hundred years,
suggested that it would not be. The sole object in proposing
it was to reach a position in which, after it failed, the League
would have grounds for thinking about the 'economic and
financial measures which might be applied to a state endan-
gering peace by unilateral repudiation of its international
obligations'. 118
This mention of sanctions was made in relation to Germany
against which it was assumed that they might have to be
applied. Nor did Cecil want either a quarrel with Mussolini or
unilateral British action to stop him. He wanted him stopped,
but assumed that he would back down in face of 'a collective
threat from the League or a breach of British friendship'. 119
He approved of the attempt to buy him off by ceding part of
Somaliland. When Mussolini began to act like 'the mad Mul-
lah', 120 he was clear that even a madman would not take on
France, Britain and the Little Entente if he knew that they
would be against him. He did not feel sure, however, that he
would take the point unless Britain compelled the League to
make a stand, and he spent a good part of late 1935 using the
Union to remind the government that this was so. When Mus-
solini refused to respond, he wanted oil sanctions and the
closing of the Suez Canal (even to the point of infringing
international law). m
In 1934 Cecil had threatened to attack the government for
betraying the League. Nothing done by Simon or MacDonald
in the New Year made him alter his opinion. 122 In May he
was 'in entire agreement with the Labour party' and wanted
an 'arrangement' by which it would 'accept the assistance of
Liberals or others on [the foreign policy] issue'. 123 At the
end of August he was talking about joining the Labour par-
ty. 124 It was an indication of the standing the Union had
regained as a result of the Peace Ballot that he was called to
the Foreign Office along with Churchill, Austen Chamberlain,
Lloyd George and the official party leaders at the beginning
of the third week of August.
When approached, Cecil agreed to talk about foreign poli-
cy at Lloyd George's Convention. 12S At the same time he
refused to support the New Deal and was cautious about
getting involved generally. His caution was increased by the
'excellence' of a speech Eden made at Fulham in May and by
Eden's inclusion in the Cabinet in June. Instead, therefore, of
getting closer to Lloyd George, he brought pressure to bear
on MPs to strengthen the 'Eden wing of the Cabinet' (among
whom, at this time, Hoare was numbered). 126 On Septem-
ber 10 the Executive Committee of the Union offered
'unwavering support in the country for any action necessary
to prevent Italian aggression in Abyssinia'.127
As the situation developed, Cecil felt revived suspicion of
Hankey and Vansittart behind the scenes. 128 For Herbert
Morrison, on the other hand, when he appeared with him at a
public meeting, he felt extraordinary admiration. 129 There
can be no doubt that he was much impressed by the Labour
party's change of mood.
The Union position at the election was that electors should
vote for the candidate most likely to support the League. 13°
Even while Cecil wondered whether ministers meant what
Eden had been saying, there was a swing towards the govern-
ment at the same time as Labour suffered an upheaval.
Between August and October there were four indications of

upheaval. There was Ponsonby's resignation from the leader-
ship of the Labour peers. There was Lansbury's resignation
from the leadership of the parliamentary party. There was
Cripps's withdrawal from the National Executive. And there
were commitments from the Trade Union Congress and the
Labour Party Conference to support a sanctions policy, in-
cluding military sanctions, if Mussolini invaded Abyssinia.
By the time the invasion began Lansbury had resigned
and Citrine, Henderson, Bevin, Morrison, Dalton, Attlee and
Noel-Baker had put the party on one rather than the other of
the foreign-policy forks over which it had been hovering in
the previous year.
It is not clear whether the removal of Lansbury was design-
ed from the start or was the fortuitous result of the embar-
rassment caused by senility, sympathy for Cripps or long-
standing pacifism in a situation very different from the one in
which he had been elected. Nor, probably, was there a plot,
however strong the desire, to reduce Cripps's influence (and
if there was, Attlee's election was not part of it). But the
coincidence of two Conferences with a foreign-policy crisis
increased the effectiveness of Dalton, Morrison, Bevin and
Citrine and produced an impression, which far outweighed
the impression of disunity, that the Labour party had be-
come more belligerent internationally.
In 1934 Lansbury had reluctantly accepted both the flight
from Cripps and the shift from pacifism. In 1935 his reaction
to the Abyssinian problem had two faces. In parliament and
in official conversation he reported the party's position. In
public speeches he explained his own.
Like Hoare's, the party position envisaged a League crisis
in two stages. In the first it was necessary to 'state publicly
[Britain's] adherence to [her] obligations', which the govern-
ment had been none too quick in doing, 131 and to show that
Labour favoured 'collective' (by which was meant 'Anglo-
French') action on the ground that 'it was...essential that the
League machinery should be tried out'. If, however, 'there
proved to be the basis for collective action and...collective
action then failed, the time would have arrived for scrapping
[it]...and for attempting some new plan of international
cooperation', 132 perhaps in the form of a 'world economic
conference' to 'discuss and organise plans for a sharing of raw

material'. 133
Alongside this official view that 'the causes of war are
economic', Lansbury's own became more personal the closer
other Labour leaders came to demanding action. Eventually
the differences became striking. Few, if any, of the others
believed that the alternatives were 'to abandon the whole
idea of war...or to try and dominate the world by overwhelm-
ing force'. 134 There was no affinity between their language
and the idea Lansbury repeatedly expressed that 'now is the
time to say that in the name of God we shall have no more
fighting'.135 Citrine and Bevin would not have been happy,
if they had been asked, to approve the call for 'a truce of
God'. 136 Far less were they in tune with the claim that
it is the duty of the Christian Church to stand forth, whether from
Mount Calvary, from Rome or from Geneva, and tell the nations that it
is blasphemy both against God and Nature to endeavour to find means
to destroy one another rather than sitting down to discover how better
they can use the gifts God and Nature have given us. 1 3 7
By the time Lansbury appeared as fraternal delegate, Citrine
had sewn up the Trade Union Congress behind the view
that 'pious declarations on the need of preserving peace were
wasted on Mussolini', 138 that League-based coercion would
be needed if he invaded Abyssinia and that the acceptable
means of coercion would be 'economic and financial sanc-
tions', 'closing the Suez Canal to Italian ships' or war. 139
In proposing a resolution on these lines, Citrine urged dele-
gates 'not to let George Lansbury down by voting against
it'. 140 When Lansbury told him that he would have to ex-
plain his position, Citrine replied that the fraternal delegate
could only explain the position of the Labour party. For this
reason Lansbury made a noncommittal speech which, when
interpreted as a sell-out, was followed by a public statement.
During the whole period I have been serving as Leader of the Labour
party [he said on September 8], I have made it quite clear that under no
circumstances could I support the use of armed force, either by the
League of Nations or by individual nations...My own view remains if
anything, stronger than ever and...I should quite loyally and cheerfully
make way for someone who would be able to voice [the] views...of my
colleagues...on this matter better than it is possible for me to do. 141
Between this announcement and the Labour Party Con-

ference a month later, attempts were made to persuade Lans-
bury to stay. They were accompanied by public statements
of his own opinion 142 and by counter-statements from Mor-
rison against 'unilateral British disarmament'.143 The ILP
had expressed its 'deep horror' at the attitude of the Party
Executive and the TUC towards a 'capitalist quarrel' which
was 'not worth the life of a single British soldier'. 144 On
September 17 Ponsonby, who had been thinking of resigning
because of the expense, resigned the leadership in the Lords
because of the 'jingoism' of the trade unions, the impossibil-
ity of unanimous sanctions and his long-term position as 'an
extremist in favour of disarmament'.145 Cripps resigned
from the National Executive and announced that he would
not stand for re-election at the Party Conference. On Octo-
ber 1 Lansbury told the Conference that the movement was
'making a terrible mistake'. 146 He resigned when it gave
overwhelming support to the advice it received from Dalton,
Bevin, Clynes, Dallas, Marchbanks and Morrison 147 two days
later.
By October 9, there had been an uncontested election. The
parliamentary Labour party was led for the rest of the session
by Attlee and Snell and was committed, where the govern-
ment was not, to supporting military sanctions. On Octo-
ber 19 Baldwin decided that the general election should be
held in three and a half weeks' time.
(in)
By the summer of 1935 Hitler seemed to be potentially so

strong and politically so ruthless that collective restraint
might have to be threatened. There was no alliance against
Germany, nor any extension of Britain's commitments. But
there was a distinct hope that the League might get teeth,
particularly since Russia had joined in 1934. The next year
was spent in a shattering and unsuccessful attempt to show
them to Hitler by showing them to Mussolini.
When Hoare succeeded Simon, there was every prospect of
a change of mood. Hoare intended to go on working with
Italy and France in order to press Germany to come to terms.
But he intended to be more active in carrying Mussolini and
to show a good deal more warmth toward the Soviet Union.

At this time Hoare was a register of Conservative opinion
and intended to give the lead he thought it wanted. Unlike
Simon and MacDonald, he had been rejecting 'pseudo-dis-
armament' from an early stage 148 and had wanted a tripart-
ite bloc with France and Italy to resist the 'menace' which
Germany 'presented]...to the peace of Europe'.149 Even if a
'strong' attitude was a way of outbidding Churchill over the
India bill, 15° he did not exclude a military alliance with
France and treated Stresa as the beginning of something very
much more formidable. His 'Conservative instincts' were
'rather outraged' by the thought of Simon and Eden 'run-
ning] around' after Hitler. 151
Before June 1935, however, Hoare was advocate of a posi-
tion rather than executor of a policy. The policy he inherited
was the restoration of Locarno, which was neither an alliance
against Germany nor an alliance with France 152 and the pur-
suit of which was designed less to restrain Hitler them to
reassure France by keeping Mussolini out of his arms.153
Both the East European and Stresa policies had been recom-
mended on the ground that it was the 'mutual' reciprocity of
Locarno that 'constituted its essential feature and made it so
valuable a guarantee of European security as a whole'. 154
Although Hoare would have been happy to build a system
of 'alliances', he was in no position to do so. The unreality of
the League position had in no way diminished its rhetorical
force. Even when its professional proponents were most con-
scious of its weakness, politicians continued to make their
genuflections.
So long as aggression was unlikely, this had few conse-
quences. When the imminence of aggression coincided with
Cecil's rescue-operation on the League of Nations Union,
Hoare faced a body of organised opinion such as few Foreign
Secretaries had faced before.
Hoare had no reputation as a friend of the League 15S and
had been actively critical. Knowing that League opinion
wanted Eden to be foreign secretary, he insisted on him stay-
ing at the Foreign Office when he went there.156 In respond-
ing to what turned out to be the death-rattle of the Union, he
anticipated 'the kind of movement that Gladstone started
over the Bulgarian atrocities'.157
Hoare was conscious that an Italian conquest of Abyssinia

could be represented as a threat to India and Egypt, and
would diminish the prospect of collective resistance to Hitler
in Europe. From this point of view he could not let Mussolini
succeed in face of open British opposition. Far less, after the
Peace Ballot, could he connive at a breach of Italy's (or Brit-
ain's) obligations under the Covenant. At the same time, he
shared the Cabinet belief that Italian co-operation was crucial
to Franco-German agreement and was willing to do a lot to
get it.
It is not certain that Hoare would have raised the Abyssi-
nia question at Stresa, where Simon and MacDonald did not.
Nor is it clear that an understanding would have been reached
if he had. The opportunity, in any case, was missed; by the
time the Peace Ballot was completed, Mussolini was not talk-
ing in terms of agreement. In these circumstances Hoare had
to seem to want to stop him and was compelled, both by
previous undertakings and by judgments of public feeling, to
appear to be acting through the League.
Individual League members, however, had no obligation to
resist aggression unless the League asked them to and, in the
British view, were under no automatic obligation even then.
There had been little enthusiasm when the Cabinet discussed
sanctions as a guarantee of French security the year before.
There was no reason to expect greater enthusiasm now.
The prospect of Italy invading Abyssinia when the summer
rains stopped in October first became actual in May. At this
point Simon was conscious, chiefly, of difficulty; while will-
ing to support the League if compelled to make a choice, he
hoped, by conciliation at Geneva, to avoid having to do
so. 1 5 8 One of Hoare's first actions was to send Eden to
Rome to buy off Mussolini by compensating Haile Selassie
out of British Somaliland.
When Mussolini rejected this, the second phase of policy
aimed to persuade the French government to join in concilia-
tion, on the understanding that there would be Anglo-French
resistance if it failed.159 This was put cautiously in respect
both of Anglo-French and of League action, 16° and was
qualified by the view that the objection was not to 'Italian
expansion' (the 'need' for which was 'admitted') but to the
proposal to 'achieve' it 'by war'. 161 It, too, failed because

Laval failed to respond. 162
Before parliament dispersed in August, Hoare made a
strong League speech which, however, did not explain what
Britain and France would do if Mussolini defied them. Nor
was it clear that Britain and France would act together. 163
Eden saw Laval in late July and was in Paris for three-cor-
nered discussions with the Italians in mid-August.164 By
August 21 it was obvious that the French would not promise
to co-operate before it was necessary 16S and that Mussolini
was unimpressed by British threats. 166 It was for this reason
that Hoare had the Cabinet brought back from their holidays
in order to decide what to do if something happened in
September.
This was a prelude to the third phase, in which Hoare,
anxious to avoid the odium which would come from 'repu-
diating the Covenant' but sensitive to the effect of Italian
retaliation, 167 tried to set up a position which would meet
all eventualities. He saw Lansbury, Austen Chamberlain,
Lloyd George, Samuel and Churchill separately on August 20
and 21 and had Cecil interviewed by Eden. The position
(which all accepted 168 ) was that, though military action was
out of the question, economic sanctions were unavoidable,
provided Britain and France acted together and received 'col-
lective' support. 169 During Baldwin's flying visit from Aix
on August 22 170 the Cabinet decided to investigate the sort
of sanctions that might be suitable.
Throughout this series of half-decisions taken in a slow-
motion run-up to an anticipated invasion, the Cabinet was
both cautious and reluctant. Not all ministers objected to
economic sanctions. 171 But it was well understood that
French support was problematical and that the naval and air
position in the Mediterranean would remain weak unless the
Home defences were weakened in order to strengthen them.
There was overriding knowledge that isolated action might
'exhibit our weakness' to Japan, and there was a resolute
determination to prevent Eden and the Geneva delegation
committing the Cabinet without its knowledge. It was as
clear in June as in October that the Cabinet would not im-
pose sanctions unless other governments did the same, and
would do everything possible to avoid them until other mem-

bers, and the non-League powers, had made up their minds
about co-operation. 172
At some points the Italians seemed likely to do so badly if
they invaded Abyssinia that time would solve the prob-
lem. 173 At others Mussolini seemed to have been so effect-
ively isolated that he would think twice before allowing any-
thing to be done. 174 On the other hand, both he and the
Italians were in such an 'abnormal* frame of mind that he
might do something regardless. Even when hoping that he
would not, ministers assumed that a response would be neces-
sary if he did. 175
This was as true of those who did, as of those who did not,
share Eden's belief that sanctions were desirable. 176 At his
one brief appearance in August, Baldwin said only that he
agreed with Chamberlain and 'was going to catch the 8 p.m.
train' back to Aix. But MacDonald, who wanted only a 'com-
pletely pacific method of applying economic sanctions', was
certain that the public would expect action of some sort. 177
It is evident that Hoare and Chamberlain felt the same. 178
In Baldwin's absence, Chamberlain was Hoare's collabor-
ator and was in the closest touch. Neither was sure that Laval
would co-operate, or that other League members would do so
if he did. Even if the League agreed that sanctious should be
imposed, they would not be effective unless Germany, Japan
and the United States — the non-members — co-operated. It
might even turn out, they thought, that there was 'no collect-
ive basis for sanctions', in which case the world would have
to 'face the fact that sanctions were impracticable'. I79 The
'general feeling of the country, fully reflected in the Cabinet',
was to combine the 'self-contradictory...feelings' of 'determi-
nation to stick to the Covenant and anxiety to keep out of
war', and this had been met by the decisions of August 22
which made it 'impossible to criticize us on the ground that
we were deserting the League'. 180 The one essential now was
'to play out the League hand'.
We must [Hoare wrote to the Ambassador in Paris on August 24] on no
account assume the impracticability of sanctions until the League had
made [its] investigations. It must be the League and not the British
government that declares that sanctions are impracticable and the Brit-
ish government must on no account lay itself open to the charge that
we have not done our utmost to make them practicable. 181
The next major event, short of an Italian attack, was as-

sumed to be the Council of the League meeting at which
Hoare intended to speak on September 11. There was no
Cabinet before this. But Hoare 'took a great deal of trouble'
about what he was to say, 182 consulted Eden and Chamber-
lain continuously, and thought of having Parliament recalled
in order to go with unanimous support. 183 When Baldwin
returned from Aix, he had him to dinner 184 (along with
Chamberlain) in order to tell him what had been agreed. 185
Though warned by the Rome embassy that Mussolini would
not back down, 186 he made his speech in the belief that
'things' could be 'made unpleasant' for him without giving an
excuse to attack Britain in return.
The speech had three sorts of significance. In Cobdenite
fashion, it fixed on economic dislocation as the cause of war.
It singled out access to raw materials as the most important
aspect of the Colonial question, about which 'certain Powers'
had a right to be 'satisfied'. And it stated that 'the attitude of
His Majesty's Government has been one of unwavering fidel-
ity to the League and all that it stands for'.
In conformity with its precise and explicit obligations the League
stands, and my country stands with it [Hoare said], for the collective
maintenance of the Covenant in its entirety and particularly for steady
and collective resistance to all acts of unprovoked aggression. The at-
titude of the British nation in the last few weeks has clearly demon-
strated the fact that this is no variable and unreliable sentiment, but a
principle of international conduct to which they and their Government
hold with firm, enduring and universal persistence. 187
This was received as a 'terrific' commitment and was ap-
plauded as a 'resounding' success. 188 It struck oil in liberal
areas where the Conservative party felt particularly vulner-
able and where its managers wished to generate support. It
sprang, nevertheless, from as little expectation as the deci-
sions of August 22.
Though Hoare had declared his belief in Collective Secur-
ity, he was not sure that it could be made effective. Even
when Laval was most co-operative, he seems almost to have
expected the opposite. When Mussolini failed to respond, his
policy was to 'strengthen our weak points in the Mediterra-
nean' and take steps to 'avoid the risk of Geneva going on
talking for weeks'. But this was designed to stop Mussolini
fighting, not to fight him, and 'if the League breaks down
under the test, the sooner we know this the better'. 189
Chamberlain, on holiday in Scotland, had the same idea when
he wrote, after talking to Hoare on the telephone from Gene-
va, that, though Mussolini could not now draw back, 'I can-
not help feeling that he must be worried over the unanimity
among other countries and maybe, if he can claim something
like a success when he advances to Adowa, he may be pre-
pared to call a halt and open discussions'. 19°
One difficulty about economic sanctions was that, if ap-
plied, they might provoke military sanctions in return. This
made ministers cautious about enforcing them alone. It made
their viability depend on the reactions of other states in gene-
ral and of France in particular, including especially Laval,
who, 'with his very cunning peasant mind, was determined
not to commit himself until the last possible moment'. 191
There were moments when Hoare thought that he could be
relied on. 192 There were many others at which it was clear
that he could not be.
Nor was there greater confidence elsewhere. The Chiefs of
Staff, the Defence Requirements Committee and the Cabinet
all expressed fears about Laval's 'elusiveness'.193 They all
sensed that public opinion, which had supported Hoare so
far, was 'a very long way behind feeling at Geneva' and would
be deeply divided 'if it came to a question of war'. They were
quite clear that there could be no sanctions without 'an un-
mistakeable announcement that an attack on one meant an
attack on all'. 194
Even this limited measure of belligerence had to be pressed
by Chamberlain before the Cabinet would accept it. 195 At
subsequent meetings, on October 2 (before the invasion be-
gan) and October 9 (after it) and in the week that followed,
it disappeared in face of the realisation that Laval would not
take military action and was trying to get out of economic
action, 196 and that the door must be kept open for territor-
ial adjustments leading to a settlement. 197 After two months
of impenetrability, 198 Baldwin assured the Conservative
Conference on October 4 that he wanted friendship with Ita-
ly, that the government 'have not, and have never had, any
intention of taking isolated action' and that 'Collective Secur-
ity and the League of Nations' provided 'the best means of
preserving peace or of exercising some measure of control

over events'. 199
Unwillingness to quarrel with Italy was a general back-
bench and party feeling of which a deputation on October 15
was only a marginal die-hard expression. 200 In the Foreign
Office it was felt, by 'everybody of importance' apart from
Eden that 'we ha[d] beaten the drum too vigorously in re-
sponse to the demands of the ignorant public'. 201 On
Hoare's part this produced scrupulous attention to any aspect
of sanctions which might offer 'provocations' to Mussoli-
ni. 202 It produced sharp words at the Cabinet of the 16th, 'a
considerable feeling', however unjust, 203 that [Eden] had re-
cently taken the initiative too much at 'Geneva' and 'a unani-
mous desire that [he] should go as slowly as possible and take
the initiative as little as possible...whilst we are still running
the risk of being stabbed in the back'. 204 Caution remained
the keynote when Baldwin decided to hold an election. 205
The person who had prepared most effectively for an elec-
tion was Chamberlain. He had turned Baldwin's mind to the
problem in 1934, had consulted Conservative ministers and
had produced a programme. On the other hand, he had kept
Lloyd George out and, while believing that prospects had
been improved by the new Cabinet, was not convinced that it
had solved the problem. He was worried by the Labour as-
sault on the Unemployment Assistance bill and the contin-
uing level of unemployment, and was troubled in a personal
way by the electoral relationship between rearmament and
taxation.
By origin, Chamberlain was a Chamberlainite — a believer,
that is to say, in the significance of Imperial Defence in the
spectrum of duty. But he had belonged for far too long to
the ruling cadre to be part of a faction; his record was much
like that of anyone else. Nor had the movement to replace
the National by a Conservative government in 1933 looked to
him as a probable leader. In the course of time, however, it
did, and Chamberlain came to think rearmament a central
issue. When Mussolini exposed the weakness of Britain's de-
fences, he decided that this was the subject about which an
election could be fought.
Before leaving for Aix in early August, Baldwin had made
no decision about an election and had left the impression
that unemployment could be dealt with by existing schemes

for the depressed areas. 206 Chamberlain thought Baldwin did
not understand the depressed areas or how much had been
done for them 207 and that the schemes to which he referred,
though useful 'for a debate in the House when we come
back', were things upon which 'we can never win an election'.
He decided that an issue was needed 'that will put them in
the background and, if possible, substitute for the hope of
future benefits a fear in the public mind'. He found this in
Cripps's social programme, Hitler's armaments programme
and the government's programme for rearming Britain.
This platform was thought to have two advantages, apart
from the enthusiasm he expected it to arouse among Conser-
vatives. It would bring help to Tyneside and the Clyde — in
the form of shipbuilding orders — more effectively than exist-
ing plans for the depressed areas. And it would stymie the
most damaging facet of Labour propaganda.
The Labour Party, [Chamberlain wrote] obviously intends to fasten
upon our backs the accusation of being 'warmongers' and they are
suggesting that we have 'hush hush' plans for rearmament which we are
concealing from the people. As a matter of fact we are working on
plans for rearmament at an early date for the situation in Europe is
most alarming...We are not sufficiently advanced to reveal our ideas to
the public, but of course we cannot deny the general charge of rearma-
ment and no doubt if we try to keep our ideas secret till after the
election, we should either fail, or if we succeeded, lay ourselves open to
the far more damaging accusation that we had deliberately deceived the
people...I have therefore suggested that we should take the bold course
of actually appealing to the country on a defence programme, thus
turning the Labour party's dishonest weapon into a boomerang. 208
Chamberlain had a favourable reception when he tried this

on Simon, Runciman and Hoare. He also tried it on Rother-
mere who 'approved' and promised to 'help with his pa-
pers'. 209 Others 210 hesitated, perhaps because of the 'heavy
weather' MacDonald and Thomas had made during the latest
rearmament discussions and the possibility that the National
Labour ministers might think it necessary to break up the
government as a consequence. 211 When Chamberlain tried it
on Baldwin, he was told that it would be 'something to think
over at Aix but...he would prefer not to express an opinion
now'. 212
In the month which followed, Chamberlain had only one
period of contact with Baldwin — on August 21/22 — and

then strictly for the business in hand. Baldwin was in Aix the
whole time where, however, he had visitors from Geneva.
Chamberlain was also away for part of the time — in Switzer-
land briefly and then in Scotland. But everything that hap-
pened in these weeks, including an approach from Garvin and
Lloyd, 213 'emphasize[d] the wisdom of the conclusion at
which I was the first to arrive viz. that we ought to fight the
election on a defence programme'. 214 In Scotland on Sept-
ember 21 he made a rearmament speech which was intended
to be 'the preliminary to the election campaign'. 215 He re-
peated its substance at the Mansion House, in Glasgow and at
the Conservative Conference where 'the party showed great
enthusiasm'. 216 There was no doubt in his mind that the
election should be held soon and on this issue. 217 He was
surprised when Baldwin decided that it would not be the
leading issue. 218
The prospect of an election by the end of 1936 had domi-
nated Baldwin's politics since the first run of by-election de-
feats in 1933. The obvious steps had been taken and the
obvious instruments brought into play. Despite a marked im-
provement at the by-elections of 1935, 219 it was still felt at
high levels that the government majority could be lost, with-
out a large Labour advance, if the Liberal vote which had
supported the government in 1931 declined to do so again.
The Chief Publicity Officer expressed this view to Baldwin in
August:
Even if the Socialist party did not obtain the support of a largely
increased section of the electorate we could still lose the next election
or at any rate arrive at a stale-mate position if the bulk of the Liberal
vote went over to them. From that point of view the Liberal vote is
vital and no political issue is likely to influence them more than the
question of peace and war and the future of the League of Nations. 220
In the course of the summer and after Baldwin's return
from his holiday, Chamberlain had more than his usual diffi-
culty in getting decisions out of him. About the election his
difficulty was even greater. Whether because he was sensing
the belligerence of the new Labour position, wanted to avoid
identification with 'the theory of large armaments' 221 or was
hoping that 'an emergency' would absorb the issues about
which he felt uncertain, 222 Baldwin's intentions were veiled.
Eventually he decided that, though rearmament on Collective

Security grounds should play a part, Labour belligerence had
made it possible to emphasise the League as guarantor of a
peaceful outcome in Abyssinia. 223
PARTI
THE NEW DEPARTURE

THE FAILURE OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
*I have never known anyone in anything like Eden's position who has
achieved such universal approval*.
Cecil to Baldwin, June 6 1935
*I was sitting next to Neville as hostess of the 1900 Club and was
chuckling with delight at his pronouncement. I do hope it will achieve
the desired result, though I confess I should like it to do even more, as
for some time past I have thought that Anthony is a great danger to
European peace'.
Lady Londonderry to Hailsham, June 18 1936, Londonderry MSS.
'Eden ha[s] put his country in a position where she sustained the great-
est diplomatic reverse since Bismarck in similar circumstances had call-
ed Palmerston's bluff in the matter of Schleswig-Holstein...Further da-
mage was done when Russia proved by her action in Spain, that she was
not a good European as Mr Eden had assured the world was the case*.
Petrie, Lords of the Inland Sea (1937) pp. 272—6
(i)
The election of 1935 restored much that the government had
lost in 1934. Labour did well in London and parts of the
North but realised none of its larger expectations. Liberals,
except when supported by the Conservative party, did badly.
Even Conservative support could not rescue Malcolm and
Ramsay Macdonald who lost Bassetlaw and Seaham respect-
ively. Though only a third of the qualified electors voted
Conservative, there was a bigger majority than had been ex-
pected1 and the prospect of a simple struggle between La-
bour on the one hand and a thinly disguised Conservative
party on the other.
Within six weeks Conservative 'centrality' had been des-
troyed as the 'betrayal' of the League became the govern-
ment's 'failure' and the occasion for onslaughts on its inte-
grity. These onslaughts, and the Conservative reaction, estab-
lished the foreign-policy polarisation which constituted the
centre of high politics in the three years that followed.
Whatever the effect of Abyssinia on the election, it is
certain that Hoare raised expectations of a League policy to
resist Mussolini. In spite of campaign rumours to the con-
98 I. THE NEW DEPARTURE
trary,2 these expectations were in no way reduced when the

election was over. 'The government', he told the editor of the
Manchester Guardian on November 21, 'is going to move
rather more towards the Left' and, in relation to the League,
'there is not going to be any change in any way. ...With
regard to the chances of settling the war I have at present no
hopes. Mussolini's terms are too far from anything that either
this country or the League could accept'. 3
The decision to support economic sanctions, made when
the war began, was not expected to involve military sanc-
tions, unless an extension (in the direction of oil sanctions)
made Mussolini attack the nations responsible for enforcing
it. Hoare wanted an oil sanction because it was 'politically
impossible' not to. He threatened to resign if he did not get it
and was willing to be held back only so far 21s the Cabinet
wanted the situation to develop without Britain making it.4
Oil sanctions, though accepted in principle on October 9,
were not to be supported at Geneva unless non-League as
well as League producers agreed to co-operate. Agreeing to
co-operate, however, would not involve enforcement at sea,
let alone action against Italian retaliation, which it was as-
sumed would be directed against France or Britain rather
than against Russia, Rumania or the United States. The
American decision (towards the end of November) that
American co-operation would be forthcoming, so far, there-
fore, from solving the problem, merely made French co-oper-
ation vital.5 On December 2 Hoare told the Cabinet that Brit-
ain might find herself at war alone if retaliation occurred.
At this meeting the Cabinet agreed to support oil sanctions
if the other League members did the same, provided the
French were willing to co-operate militarily, but decided to
ask for a postponement in case settlement-terms emerged
from discussions which had been going on between British
and French officials.6 It was explicitly stated that the prob-
lem should be brought back if the peace talks offered no
prospect of a settlement or if 'the military conversations
showed that France was not willing to co-operate effect-
ively'.7 Ministers almost certainly expected to discuss propo-
sals for a settlement before they were published as statements
of policy.
They had not expected, therefore, to read in The Times on
THE FAILURE OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 99
December 9 that Hoare had reached agreement with Laval

and was 'satisfied' with the agreement that they had reached.
They were surprised to find the terms laid out in a French
newspaper later in the day. They were even more surprised to
find, at a Cabinet meeting called hurriedly that evening, that
these envisaged only the vaguest disclosure to the Abyssinian
government of what the Italians were to be told in detail.8
Hoare did not propose that the settlement terms should be
imposed on Abyssinia. All he was doing was to 'bring back
the League into the front of the picture'.9 This was not
convincing.
After sending an account of his discussions to London,
Hoare had gone to Switzerland for a holiday. He was not,
therefore, present when Simon made difficulties and Eden
proposed modifications, including one, which the Cabinet, in
'supporting' Hoare's policy, approved — that Laval should be
told that the plan must be shown to the Abyssinians as well
as the Italians. 10 Laval, when consulted, asked for a declara-
tion that Britain would not agree to an oil sanction. n Bald-
win, Chamberlain and Eden, meeting together next morning,
proposed, and the Cabinet accepted, a declaration that,
though oil sanctions could not be imposed now, they were
not to be dismissed from consideration. 12 Eden was author-
ised to speak in the House of Commons that afternoon, de-
fining the principles on which a settlement could be based
but leaving it uncertain whether the Hoare-Laval proposals
had the government's backing. 13
These 'principles'14 were discussed at the Cabinet next
morning when Eden was reluctant to 'champion' Hoare's pro-
posals 'in detail' at Geneva. Chamberlain proposed that Eden
be given the principles as instructions, but Baldwin refused,
so he went off free to use his discretion.15
By the time Hoare returned to England on the 14th, Bald-
win had talked to him reassuringly on the telephone. 16 Eden
had seemed to be suspicious and, with the help of the
head of the Abyssinian department of the Foreign Office
(who spoke at the Cabinet of the 10th), had left the impres-
sion that the proposals were more favourable to Italy than
they should have been. 17 The criticism they had attracted in
the Foreign Office, the newspapers and the House of Com-
mons (even among Hoare's own admirers 18 ) had ensured that
they were dead. Hoare recognised this. He prepared to aban-

don them, while also defending them, when he spoke in the
House of Commons on the 19th. By the 19th he had been
forced to resign.
During his stay in Switzerland, he had broken his nose in a
skating accident. On returning, therefore, he let it be known
that he would stay indoors until he made his speech. Baldwin
called to repeat that everything was all right, and Chamberlain
to discuss the line of defence. 19 After Chamberlain had
sketched this to the Cabinet on the morning of the 17th,
Baldwin and Eden were sent with him to tell Hoare what was
wrong. 20 Hoare then redrafted the speech and sent Chamber-
lain a copy that evening in preparation for the Cabinet next
morning. 21
During the 18th Dawson told Hoare that he should re-
sign. 22 The same conclusion had been reached by MacDo-
nald, by a wide range of newspapers and by Simon and the
National Liberal party. 23 Among Conservative backbenchers
it was felt that, even if Hoare's object was tolerable, it was
intolerable to reverse the policy immediately after it had won
an election. After receiving criticism of Baldwin's slackness,
and after the Foreign Policy Committee had instructed its
chairman 24 to tell Baldwin that Hoare must go, the Chief
Whip had formally asked Baldwin to make him. 25
At the Cabinet on the morning of the 18th Chamberlain
explained that Hoare's line when he spoke next day would be
that the terms he had negotiated were better than those Mus-
solini had demanded in the summer and included some points
which the Abyssinians and the League had already accepted.
He would be able to say that there were many of the proposals that he
had not much liked, but that they were the best that he could at the
time get the French to agree to with a reasonable chance that Signor
Mussolini would discuss them. That would bring him to a point which
the public ought to be made to grasp.
TTiere were only two methods of making peace: either (1) a nego-
tiated peace, or (2) a dictated peace. Force could only be exercised if
either we were strong enough to exert it alone or had a definite and
concrete arrangement with other Powers. The Foreign Secretary would
be able to say that we might try and try for a negotiated peace at the
present time, but it would be impracticable to get it without giving
something to the aggressor. That was the fault in the alternative to a
dictated peace. The Foreign Secretary would admit that the peace pro-
posals were dead, but would say that they were the best that he could
be got in the form of a negotiated peace — though, admittedly, they
were not acceptable.
We had therefore to fall back on sanctions. This was very dangerous.
The effect of sanctions was cumulative, and that was equally true of the
existing relatively mild sanctions. As they approached the point of
becoming effective there was always the danger of an act of aggression.
The Foreign Secretary would probably speak with the utmost frankness
as to the position M. Laval had taken up in the event of sanctions.
Sanctions might mean war. We were not prepared to engage in war
alone and had to look round and assure ourselves on the position. The
actual situation was that no ship, no aeroplane or gun had been moved
by any nation except ourselves. We alone had done all that we could.
The future, therefore, lay in the hands of the League. Unless it was
prepared to implement its action in putting on sanctions, success could
not be expected. So the whole position must be cleared up.
To all this Chamberlain found an unwelcoming and perhaps a

concerted response. Only Zetland said anything in its favour.
Wood was 'apprehensive'. Stanley said that the speech would
be 'disastrous'. Hailsham thought it looked like an announce-
ment that sanctions were impossible. For Percy it was 'tragic'
but clear that anyone who took the line that we were 'afraid
of Signor Mussolini...could only do so if he resigned first'.
Elliot felt that the speech would have 'a shattering effect in
Europe' and should not be delivered, even from the back
benches. Duff Cooper questioned the claim that France was
not ready to fight. Swinton feared that the speech could only
be made by Hoare speaking personally. Thomas wanted him
to resign before he spoke because, if he did, 'the whole
thing...would be dead'. Ormsby-Gore was clear that Hoare
had been 'caught' by Laval and would have to go. 27 Halifax
agreed. When asked (by Chamberlain) whether Hoare might
offer to go and go only if the debate went badly, he said that
what was 'at stake' was 'the whole moral position of the
government before the world' and 'if the Prime Minister were
to lose his personal position, one of our national anchors
would have been dragged'. 28
After Baldwin had closed the meeting without commit-
ment, Chamberlain went to Hoare's house to explain what
had happened. Hoare was upset, but promised to resign at the
end of his speech. Seeing Austen Chamberlain (the chairman
of the Foreign Policy Committee) on the way back, Cham-
berlain was told that he should resign at the beginning. Bald-

win then completed the salvaging of the position by going to
tell him that he must resign at once. 29 It is not surprising
that, when Neville Chamberlain went to 'say goodbye' on
Friday, he found Hoare 'more emotional than usual and, as I
thought, a little inclined to bitterness'. 30
Hoare's last wish was that he should be succeeded by Aus-
ten Chamberlain, 31 whose age and status would ease his fall
and who agreed that Germany, not Italy, was the central
problem. Baldwin however, preferred Eden not just as the
brighter symbol of the League, but also, perhaps, because his
firmness in German directions was smaller.
At an interview on December 21, he told Austen Chamber-
lain that his health ruled him out and asked what he would
think of Eden, who had been Chamberlain's private secretary
ten years before. 32 Getting veiled warnings about Eden's
health and stability, he sent for Chamberlain again next
day. 33 After explaining that Eden was to be appointed, he
asked him to join the Cabinet with undefined defence respon-
sibilities and the possibility of becoming Lord President if
Macdonald failed to find a seat. After establishing that the
salary could be £5,000 p.a. (rather that the £3,000 Baldwin
was offering), Chamberlain promised to consult his wife. Her
negative confirmed his instinct. 'You laid so much emphasis
on my age and health', he wrote, 'that I am compelled to add
that anxiety about my health has played no part in my
decision'. In a memorandum, like the one he wrote in a simi-
lar situation in 1923, 34 he explained that Baldwin's
repeated reference to Ramsay MacDonald's condition and to the danger

of men becoming senile without being aware of it were offensive in
their iterations. I could perceive no prospect of public usefulness in the
acceptance of such an offer so conveyed and I came to the conclusion
that what he wanted was not my advice or experience but the use of
my name to help patch up the damaged prestige of his government. 3S
With Hoare's resignation, two foreign secretaries had been

broken. Another casualty now occurred as Eden identified
himself with the view that the League could stop Mussolini if
Abyssinian resistance gave sanctions time to bite.
When Eden became Foreign Secretary, he had been in of-
fice for four years, all of them at the Foreign Office, as

Under-Secretary, Lord Privy Seal and Minister for League of
Nations affairs. From his prolonged residence at Geneva in
1933 he had been greatly admired by the leaders of the
Left. 36 Admiration was increased by his attacks on Isolation-
ism and the Daily Express 37 (which did not 'grace or dis-
grace' his 'breakfast table' 3 8 ) , by the assertion that there was
no Russian threat to Germany 39 and by repeated reiteration
of commitments to 'the Covenant, the whole Covenant and
nothing but the Covenant'.40 His visit to Moscow in 1935,
his promotion to the Cabinet and his appointment in Hoare's
place were all designed to reassure that broad band of enlight-
ened opinion to which he was responding when he deviated
from the foreign secretaries he was serving. 41
In attempting to stop Mussolini Eden had advantages over
Hoare. He had positive support from Baldwin who had been
shaken by the uproar of late December and told the Cabinet
that 'a refusal to impose an oil sanction...would have a disas-
trous effect both now and at the next general election'.42 He
had the benefit of a feeling that the defence programme re-
quired trade union support which would not be given if the
Defence White Paper was published at the same time as 'our
representative at Geneva had just declined to co-operate in an
oil sanction'.43
In spite of this he was 'under no illusions' about the diffi-
culties. He hoped that Mussolini would have difficulties of his
own and proposed to 'go slow' in bringing pressure on him.
In any case he expected Cabinet resistance; he accompanied
his oil sanction proposal of February 26 with alternatives
which the Cabinet might prefer.44
Only Runciman and Monsell recorded their dissent.45 But
Eden was told to avoid the initiative at Geneva since there
could be 'no question' of 'applying' an oil sanction 'unless
the oil-producing or exporting countries co-operated'.46
At Geneva, Flandin suggested a further attempt at media-
tion. When Eden agreed, because he did not see how he could
refuse, French support was made conditional on a British
undertaking to resist a German occupation of the Rhine-
land. 47 A decision of this sort required Cabinet authorisation
which Eden did not have. It would have taken time to get it,
so he made a speech which took the lead about sanctions
much more than the Cabinet had intended. 48

This speech was made for public consumption at a point at
which there was little danger that an oil sanction would be
imposed. The Cabinet of March 5 refused Flandin's condi-
tions. It would have precipitated discussion about Locarno if
the prospect of French co-operation in Abyssinia had not
disappeared with the German occupation of the Rhineland
two days later. From then on, the Rhineland occupied the
centre of the stage. Despite continuous affirmations of the
possibility of defeating Mussolini, 49 Eden had not imposed
an oil sanction by the time Haile Selaisse fled to Palestine in
May.
The 'debacle' of May 1936 imposed a strain on Eden person-
ally. 50 But it was not the central problem in British policy
during his first year as Foreign Secretary. The central prob-
lem was Germany, about which he was at least a common
denominator and was, if anything, at times an advocate of
the soothing touch.
When he became Foreign Secretary, Eden had three sorts
of reputation. Through age, looks and dress, he had become a
symbol of 'Youth'. Through service in the trenches and at
Geneva, he embodied the heartfelt desire for reconciliation
through the League. He had been a guarantor of Russia's
suitability to be a member and, when Russia joined, had
aimed to complete its role as guarantor of peace by persuad-
ing Germany to return as well.
Eden's attitude to Germany was a continuation of the atti-
tude he had had acquired when Hitler had behaved, on first
meeting, like an ex-serviceman 51 and the French desire for
' "Locarnos" in various parts of Europe' seemed 'a foolish'
contribution to 'encirclement'. 52 In early 1936 he was blam-
ing French insensitivity then for the difficulties which Hitler
was creating now. 5 3 His Cabinet paper on 'The German Dan-
ger', like Hoare's on German rearmament two months be-
fore 5 4 , explained Hitler's aims as being 'the destruction of
the peace settlement and re-establishment of Germany as the
dominant Power in Europe'. He proposed to do this, Eden
told the Cabinet, by acquiring 'new markets for German in-
dustry', 'new fields for German migration' and new 'sources
of...raw material', and by 'absorbing all those of German race
who are at present citizens of neighbouring states'. 55
Eden had no wish to quarrel with Hitler. While half-ex-

pecting 'foreign adventures' as a way of 'distracting attention
from...[economic] failures at home', he regarded them as 'an
additional reason for coming to terms quickly'. 56
Eden's appeasement raised a finely-aimed combination of
expectations. His long-term objective was League-based dis-
armament. But this would only be possible if short-term rear-
mament was effected first. Short-term rearmament was neces-
sary in order to prevent Hitler taking steps to make detente
or disarmament possible. Since this would be greatly disliked
'by an important section of British opinion' it was essential,
therefore, 'so far as the home front is concerned', to make a
'renewed attempt at a political settlement'.57
Eden was not aiming to resist any particular act of aggres-
sion. He had wanted to defeat Mussolini because a victory for
'the League principle' would facilitate 'a political settlement
in Europe'. 58 But he did not want Anglo-French, or British,
involvement in a Franco-Russian alliance against Germany,59
and he resented the Abyssinian somersaults of the French as
much as he resented those of his critics in the Cabinet. One
reason why oil sanctions receded in the New Year was his
refusal to promise Flandin reciprocal co-operation in Europe.
One reason why he was unwilling to do this was his belief
that it would be unnecessary if Mussolini could be checked in
Abyssinia.
What Eden had to do was to recognise that Stresa was
dead. What he wanted instead was a return to the normality
of the twenties and the creation of conditions in which Hitler
could behave like Stresemann. This would involve major ad-
justments and a major effort to bring institutional arrange-
ments in line with the realities of power. It would remove the
impression which Hoare had created and confirm the moral
centrality of the Conservative position. By the time of the
next election (in 1940), success might be in sight, he thought,
after a three-year haul 60 in the course of which Hitler would
remilitarise the Rhineland, have 'one or more' of the ex-Ger-
man colonies and benefit from economic priority along the
Danube in return for signing a disarmament convention, join-
ing a reconstructed League and renouncing further territorial
claims in Africa and Europe. 61
Nor was this affected by March 7. That Hitler would put
armies into the demilitarised Rhineland had been expected for

a long time before he did it. When the Cabinet had discussed
the possibility after Flandin asked it to, it agreed that, since
'neither France nor England was...in a position to take effect-
ive military action', 62 its Locarno obligations should be
swallowed up in discussion of a general settlement. This was
swallowed up by Hitler's action two days later.
Eden described the coup as discrediting Hitler's peaceful
protestations. But he said that 'good' might come out of 'evil',
that the Rhineland might have been conceded in negotiation
and that it was desirable to promote a 'far-reaching settle-
ment'. 63
When faced with the occupation, the Cabinet talked in a
way which frightened Baldwin. But the outcome was an ear-
lier opportunity of discussing a settlement than there would
otherwise have been. Eden was sent, at Flandin's request, to a
meeting of the Locarno powers in Paris, where he was asked
to support a public demand for withdrawal on pain of war.
On his return to London, the Cabinet allowed him to ap-
proach Hitler secretly with a view to persuading him to with-
draw pending discussions about the future. When this was
leaked to the newspapers, his main object at the League and
Locarno meetings in London was to defuse the conflict. 64
Eden had no desire to go to war. His policy was the Cabi-
net's policy of avoiding war while trying to 'avoid a repudia-
tion of Locarno'.65 Such firmness as he displayed 66 was
designed to anticipate Flandin's demands for more; none of it
was intended to be turned into action.
The question was not, in fact, put in terms of action; the
French claim was that the threat to act would be enough to
be effective. But, whereas he was prepared to push the Cabi-
net where his own threats were concerned (in Abyssinia),
Eden did nothing to press it about the Rhineland.
In restraining Flandin, Eden was conditioned by defence
deficiencies, by the damage a German crisis would do to
sanctions against Italy and by the Conservative party's refusal
to go to war. He was also moved by the belief, which Flandin
sometimes confirmed, that French firmness was designed for
public consumption in France.67
After his isolated approach to Hitler, Eden aimed to per-
suade Belgium to restrain Flandin, whose position at the be-
ginning of the London meeting was that troops sent to the

Rhineland since March 7 'should be withdrawn before negoti-
ations for a settlement were begun'. 68 Though van Zeeland
wanted Locarno procedures activated if Hitler refused guar-
antees for the future, his demands were a great deal less
extensive. He and Flandin were both pulled back when Eden
insisted on the importance of constructive negotiations for
the new Europe' and 'could not agree to fight a war to drive
Germany out of the demilitarized zone' if it was to be hand-
ed back as part of a settlement. 69
This first erosion was followed by a French proposal that
the Hague Court should be asked to decide whether Locarno
and the Franco-Soviet pact were incompatible. This was ac-
companied by a Cabinet decision that Hitler should be asked70
to send a senior person to London to be on hand while the
other powers discussed the German action. 71
From March 13 British policy was conducted by Eden,
Halifax and Chamberlain in the shadow of brooding negatives
from Baldwin and unsuccessful attempts by MacDonald to
'thrust himself into [the] team'. 72 By March 16 they had
sold Flandin and van Zeeland the idea of an international
force on both sides of the French and German frontiers. 73
Though Flandin was told that a German refusal would 'hard-
en British opinion' against Hitler, 74 the point was not to
harden British opinion but to remove any excuse for verbal
belligerence and 'get the 5 Locarno Powers (including Ger-
many) round the table'. 7S
In spite of Flandin, the British government emerged a fort-
night after the occupation of the Rhineland without having
honoured existing commitments, without having gained new
ones and having 'rather limited than extended our commit-
ments under Locarno'. 76 When Hitler then restored tension
by rejecting all short-term proposals about the demilitarised
zone, Eden aimed to postpone discussion of the major issues
until the French elections relieved Flandin, or his successor,
of the need to yield to pressure. 77
In aiming once more at restraint, Eden asked the Cabinet
to reaffirm the Locarno position and propose staff talks with
France and Belgium about the 'technical conditions' neces-
sary to meeting it. 78 Despite doubts about the public's reac-
tion, the Cabinet agreed. On March 26, there was a successful
parliamentary debate in which, for the first time since

March 7, by being firm themselves Eden and Chamberlain
elicited a demonstration of conciliatory firmness towards
Germany. 79
These acts of reassurance did nothing to satisfy the French
who fixed on the fortification of the demilitarised zone (if
that occurred) as a ground for Locarno sanctions against Ger-
many. Eden denied the Locarno powers' authority to impose
sanctions and questioned their ability to enforce them. On
April 22 he persuaded Flandin that there should be no fur-
ther Locarno meeting until the French elections were over.
By this time Hitler had made no concessions about the
Rhineland and had justified the occupation on the ground
that the Franco-Soviet alliance was a threat to German secu-
rity. 80 In response to the British suggestion, he had sent both
Ribbentrop and a Peace Plan to London. Their arrival (on
April 1) 81 enabled Eden to claim that conciliation was going
on when sanctions were rejected. It was his promise to send a
probing reply which enabled Flandin to agree that the Locar-
no meeting should be postponed. 82
The defusing of the Rhineland situation without an Anglo-
French confrontation 83 was, doubtless, a triumph for British
diplomacy. But the occupation had not been, and nothing
that had been done had improved the credit of the League.
When it was further damaged by the Italian victory in Abyssi-
nia, collapse was complete.
(in)
While the government's reputation was thus being damaged,

Baldwin's retirement was becoming fixed. From the begin-
ning of the year, when retirement was first mentioned for
1938, until Margesson and Chamberlain were allowed to ar-
range a date, 8 4 Chamberlain became certain that he would
hold the position for which he had first been suggested thir-
teen years before. 85
Not that the final approach was easy, or was eased by
Baldwin who talked about retiring with nods and winks rath-
er than with open statements of intention. Having been disap-
pointed in 1935, Chamberlain was anxious about rivals. He
was nervous about The Times (until a visit to Dawson in
Yorkshire) and afraid that it might be left to the newspapers

to 'run alternative candidates'. 86
Nor was co-operation closer than in the past. Baldwin at
seventy, slightly deaf, depressed mentally and suffering from
low blood pressure, lumbago and insomnia, increasingly irri-
tated Chamberlain by his failure to work, by his apparent
aimlessness when he did work and by the extent to which the
public was encouraged to believe that he was working hard
where Chamberlain did much of his work for him. 87 At the
1935 election, over Abyssinia, over the Rhineland, over de-
fence and even over the abdication, when Baldwin recovered
the ground he had lost in the previous year, Chamberlain
thought he was working at least as hard — and probably
harder. 88
In this year of waiting, he was conscious of a change in
Conservative thinking about foreign policy. He did not be-
lieve in the things the initiators of change believed in; in
responding, he was behaving politically. Nor did he say as
much as some of his admirers heard. Even when his novelty
seemed most striking, he reflected a great deal more of the
Cecil and Foreign Office frameworks than he might have
cared to admit. It is important, nevertheless, that he did not
admit it and that the atmosphere imposed, as he thought,
both a conflict and a duty to impose his will. If we are to
understand his policies as Prime Minister and the support and
opposition they aroused, this atmosphere must be under-
stood, including, in the first place, the Opposition atmo-
sphere after Abyssinia.
The salient feature of the propaganda conducted by the ene-

mies of the National government in the two years before
Chamberlain became Prime Minister was an emphasis on for-
eign policy as the head and front of the attack. There was a
sense that important events were occurring in Europe and
that there was advantage to be gained from discussing them.
The shift made by Labour was paralleled in the Liberal party
and in the large body of liberal opinion over which Cecil and
Murray presided from one end and Layton and the News
Chronicle from the other.
Although the directions ran parallel, they were also compe-
titive. This was so at the start of the Abyssinian crisis when
the government had adopted Liberal policies where Labour

was confused and divided. 89 It would have been so during
the Hoare-Laval episode if the Liberal party had not suffered
so heavily at the election.
Even before their clothes were stolen, a general election
was the last thing the Liberal leaders had wanted. Baldwin's
decision to exploit the consensus was 'monstrous'. Despite
Samuel's last-minute reconciliation with Lloyd George, the
results were disastrous. 90 Samuel lost his seat. Seven candi-
dates out of every eight were defeated. In the new Parliament
there were about twenty Liberals, of whom three were mem-
bers of the Lloyd George family. Though the Council of
Action had named the candidates of which it approved, the
result made its approval irrelevant. The size of the govern-
ment majority and the strength of the Labour party made it
impossible for a Lloyd George bloc to emerge. 91 The Council
remained in existence as a personal secretariat and in the next
few years endorsed (chiefly Labour) candidates at by-elec-
tions. But it suffered a distinct recession as Lloyd George
entered into loose co-operation with the Liberal leadership.
When Lloyd George proposed Sinclair as parliamentary
leader after the election, 92 the position, as Liberals under-
stood it, was that 'the country no longer regards us as a
competitor for office'. 93 Unless the Labour vote frightened
the government into reforming the electoral system to the
Liberal party's advantage, 94 they had, therefore, two alter-
natives — to 'encourage liberally-minded people to join the
other two parties' or to find a new role for the Liberal party
itself. 9S In either case, they assumed that the future would
revolve around the relationship between the Liberal elector-
ate and the Conservative and Labour leaders.
The Labour party, they believed, was a thread-bare coali-
tion between Marxists and liberal socialists which might well
break up in approaching power as it had nearly done in 1921.
The Conservative party was also a coalition, which Baldwin
had created, between Imperialists and Liberals, and this too
might break up as soon as he retired. If it did, and if the
Conservative party became so 'Tory as to drive its liberal
section out' at the same time as Labour was 'torn by con-
flict', then even a small group of parliamentary Liberals
might provide 'an...influence over the liberal vote' which
would make it an indispensable ally for either of the other

parties. 96
These were, initially, hopes for the future. They became
present realities when the Hoare-Laval pact 'destroy[ed]
the...illusion that Bald win... could be trusted' 97 and subse-
quent events showed that Eden could not uphold the League.
To Johnstone, Harris, Meston, Muir, Mander, Lothian, Ac-
land and, above all, Sinclair, they showed that a new future
was around the corner.
Sinclair was a Scottish landowner who had begun life as a
professional soldier. He had been Churchill's second-in-com-
mand in the trenches in the War and had been his private
secretary at the War and Colonial Offices afterwards. Since
entering Parliament as an Asquithean in 1922, he had sat
continuously and been Chairman of Committees and a Liber-
al Whip. In the National government, he had been Secretary
for Scotland until resigning with Samuel and Snowden in
1932. When elected Chairman of the parliamentary party af-
ter the 1935 election, he was standing in (at the age of forty-
five) until Samuel found a seat (which he had not done by
the time he accepted a peerage in 1937 9 8 ) .
Sinclair's chief aim was to bring 'Liberalism' out into the
open and Liberals out of their hibernations elsewhere. Though
cautious about attacking Protection until the gilt had worn off,
he was clear that the attack should begin. " He had been civil
towards the New Deal and had prodded Samuel into making
it up with Lloyd George before the election. 10° When the
leadership was suggested afterwards, he made it a condition
that Harris, Acland and Lloyd George should be given the
reversion if they wanted it. 1 0 1
About defence and foreign policy, he had been cautiously
firm: Liberal pacifism could not survive if Germany meant
business 102 and international forces were projects for the
future. 103 He was responsible for much of the vigour with
which the Liberal party spoke about Abyssinia. He expected
the access-to-raw-materials and colonial aspects of Hoare's
Geneva policy to create tensions inside the government.
With the fall of Hoare, these tensions were exploited. In
the New Year of 1936, Sinclair was contrasting 'Liberalism'
with the 'true-blue creed of Sir Henry Page Croft and the
Duchess of AtholP. 104 He opposed 'exclusive Imperialism' to
'world co-operation' and 'failed to see' how Simonites could

prefer a 'closed Colbnial Empire' to the 'Liberal conception
of the Open Door'. 105
In addition to rejecting 'conservatism', Sinclair rejected the
doctrines of Labour, which issued in 'public' rather than pop-
ular ownership and nationalization rather than redistribution
of wealth, and which 'so far as [it] advocated social reform...
was following in the footsteps of the Liberal party, but, when
it attacked private property...was pointing the way to the
totalitarian state'. 106
Sinclair may not have meant much by this. But he saw no
point in making exorbitant proposals for public expenditure
when Attlee could easily outbid him. 107
In adopting these positions, Sinclair was not meaning to
exclude co-operation. He would have liked co-operation with
Conservatives and Simonites (as well as with members of the
Labour party) in a popular front on an economic and foreign
policy, rather than a class, basis. Co-operation, however, es-
pecially with Labour, was likely to divide the Liberal par-
ty. 108 It was impossible without a fully-developed public
demand and was difficult to envisage while Baldwin had more
Liberal MPs than he had. 109 Since Baldwin was well supplied
with mugwumps to affirm the Liberal character of his govern-
ment, Sinclair's public position remained that an 'aggressive
Radicalism' n o and a strong Liberal party were essential if'a
'natural' alternative to the National government was ever to
be developed. 111
In preparing for eventual co-operation, he gave new twists
to old doctrines. Freedom remained the keyword, not laissez-
faire which 'was never a doctrine of the Liberal party'. By free-
dom was meant not just 'social improvement' within the frame-
work of 'private property' or 'laws which restrict the rights of
the individual so far as was necessary to advance the general
good', but free trade as a cure for the conflict which Impe-
rialism had generated. 112
For Imperialism, he was saying, 'socialism' was not a reme-
dy. Nor was 'isolation' or a policy of 'alliances'. 113 Neither
was it reasonable to think that the Tory party would reverse
what had been done at Ottawa. 114 It was, indeed, only if a
new government was allowed to 'moralise' the Empire by
allowing 'liberal principles' to do their work that armaments
would be reduced, taxation diminished and an end put to the

'frenzy of...economic despair' which had driven Germany and
Japan into a state of nationalistic hostility. 115
If [the government] were to secure world peace [he told the Eighty
Club] they must free trade from shackles...abolish Imperialism and re-
establish the old Liberal principle of trusteeship...for the natives and ci-
vilization... as the only moral justification for British possession. 116
Sir Eyre Crowe [he told the National Liberal Club] had pointed out
that Britain could not have hoped to retain undisturbed a quarter of the
world's surface except on principles of trusteeship and the open door.
That was the safety valve, and at Ottawa we had jammed it. If we want
peace, we must loosen it. 117
As father of a family and leader of a party which was short
of money, Sinclair rationed appearances both in parliament
and by-elections. As leader of a coalition of generations and
opinions he compromised. 118 What, nevertheless, he devel-
oped was a platform which could lead, 'by natural stages', as
tension escalated, into emphasising 'freedom' rather than 'free
trade'. In identifying 'Liberalism' with the League, Eden and
the Commonwealth, in presenting the occupation of the Rhine-
land as a consequence of the Hoare-Laval pact and in demand-
ing increased sanctions after the Italian victory in Abyssinia,
he aimed eventually to divide liberals from protectionists in
the government. 119
The government [he wrote to an academic correspondent on
June 29] have allowed themselves to be blown about from one course
to another by every change of wind — at Stresa, by the fear of German
re-armament, then by the Peace Ballot, then by the chance of exploit-
ing Hoare's September speech at a general election, then by Laval, then
by the public reaction...to the Hoare/Laval negotiations, till they have
finally relapsed into their original mood of cynical scepticism, having
injured both the League and the prestige of Britain by their vacilla-
tions. 120
In many of these respects his platform resembled that of

Cecil and the League of Nations Union.
To Cecil, Murray and the League of Nations Union the

Hoare-Laval pact was objectionable because, if put into prac-
tice, it would mean that 'as between the League of Nations
and Mussolini, Mussolini ha[d] won'. 121 It did not matter
that, without it, Britain might have to conduct sanctions by
herself, which it had never been Union policy to propose. m
The 'only thing that matter[ed]' was the affront to the 'au-
thority of the League' 123 and the fact that Hoare had done
more even than Simon to set back the only hope of showing
that aggression would not pay.
This meant that Hoare was a bad thing who should not be
allowed to return to office.124 It meant that Eden's promo-
tion was a good one which stimulated a demand for oil sanc-
tions. 125 At the same time there was discussion about the
need for disarmament, limited rearmament and co-operation
with the Soviet Union, which had been a feature of Union
policy since Germany and Japan had turned against the
League two years before. 126
Cecil treated the French obsession with Germany as the
main cause of backsliding over Abyssinia and wanted to bar-
gain British co-operation against Germany for French co-op-
eration against Mussolini. His sharpness survived the occupa-
tion of the Rhineland which, though the 'most dangerous
crisis since 1914', would not be resolved by 'letting off Italy',
since 'the security of France, of Russia and indeed of every
country in Europe would now be greater had the League
already proved by its defeat of Italian aggression that the
organised community as a whole could stifle war'. 127
Cecil did not question the Italian desire for colonies. Nor
did he doubt that Abyssinia was a backward state. His inter-
est was in the League and Britain's chance to rise to the level
of her 'greatness'. 128 He saw no use for 'kid gloves' since
Italy was not a formidable power and was 'as much afraid' of
Hitler 'as any of us'. Even when aiming to restore peace by
saving Mussolini's face, he was clear that Abyssinia had to be
treated 'not less well than she would have been before the
war'. 129
In April 1936 Cecil wrote that, since the Italians were 'in a
very bad way' and needed to 'smash' the Abyssinians quickly,
'we ought...to press...not only for the existing sanctions but
for increased sanctions'.130 When Abyssinian resistance col-
lapsed a few weeks later, Italy was 'out for control of the
Mediterranean and Egypt' and should be expelled from the
League in order to establish that 'an effective system of col-
lective security' was possible. 131 Unless it was, it would be-
come obvious, he thought, not only to those who believed it
already, that the League was 'a...failure', the Union 'bank-
nipt* and Collective Security 'a farce'. 132

The belligerence of the Union's response stimulated resis-
tance among its Conservative members and the resignation of
Austen Chamberlain.133 Though Lytton and others remain-
ed, the Union became more partisan than in the past. Noel-
Baker's campaign as Labour candidate at the Derby by-elec-
tion was not 'a turning-point in the history of this country or
even of the world'. 134 But the first occasion on which Cecil
gave a Labour candidate official support as President of the
Union was the prelude to a leftward shift in the years that
followed.
For the Labour party, too, Abyssinia was a crux. Overnight

its foreign policy was transformed. Once the new course had
been embarked on, there was a raising of stakes as the policy
it advocated was fudged by the government, then failed and
was finally dropped in May 1936. Thereafter, Labour credit-
ed the League with potentialities it had not always attributed
before. It was not until Henderson was dead (in October
1935) that this aspect of his policy became unequivocally
central.
This is not to say that Labour was warlike at the 1935
election. In emphasising the government's failure to resist
aggression, it emphasised the peaceful possibilities of the
League. Nor did the emphasis on military sanctions, which
had been given at the two Conferences, become a salient
feature of Labour policy in the year that followed. Despite
Dalton and Citrine,135 the line for most of 1936 was that
the Defence White Paper would produce a boom in the arma-
ments industry and 'six new Millionaires'136 and was the
result of the marked 'decline of the world's position' for
which the government had been responsible since 'Labour
was in office in 1931'. 1 3 7 It was not until Spain transformed
the situation that a speech from Bevin,138 two National Exe-
cutive meetings 139 and Baldwin's unfortunate admission 140
gave the 'instruments of death' 141 a respectable place in
Labour policy.
The National Executive resolution of October 6 142 was a
cautiously-hedged statement that the 'armed strength of the
countries loyal to the League of Nations must be conditioned
by the armed strength of the potential aggressors'. The ac-
companying discussion established that Labour would not

support the rearmament programme until it reflected the re-
quirements of an intelligible policy abroad. 143
The assertion that the government had no policy had be-
gun when the Hoare-Laval pact was presented as evidence of
Tory hostility to the League. Hoare's resignation had shown
this sort of Toryism defeated and a rift in Tory thinking,
which had been resolved when Eden was promoted. From
Eden's promotion a great deal had been expected, including
victory for the Abyssinian resistance whose collapse at a time
when Hoare seemed to be on his way back shocked the
Labour movement as much as it shocked the League of Na-
tions Union. 144
By then, moreover, the failure in Abyssinia had been anti-
cipated in the Rhineland where the abrogation of Locarno
might seem to leave Britain allied with France and Belgium.
The decision to hold staff talks with the French was present-
ed as a preference for 'alliances' over 'the League'.145 The
belief that the Defence White Paper marked 'a return' to the
policy of attaining 'security' by 'national armaments' 146 be-
came the occasion for highlighting the relevance of the Gen-
eva Protocol to the 'socialist principle' that the world must
'co-operate or perish'. 147
These statements were expressions of the view that the
causes of war are economic and that 'civilization' could be
'saved' by 'a new world order' based on the 'language of
humanity' and 'the brotherhood of man'. 148 Redemptive so-
cialism thus aimed to provide reassurance as the Labour lead-
ers moved grudgingly through a series of peace demonstra-
tions to the view that 'this country [should] make its proper
contribution to the collective forces which are necessary for
the preservation...of peace' until such time as all 'national
forces' are merged into an international force. 149 With the
outbreak of the Spanish war in July a policy which aimed to
maintain sanctions against Mussolini in order to protect the
League was absorbed in the general demand that good should
be protected against evil.
The positions developed by the Labour party in the course
of reacting to Spain had already been reached in relation to
Manchuria, the Rhineland and Abyssinia.150 But Manchuria
was a far-away country and Haile Selassie an ideological em-
barrassment. It took Blum's victory in France151 and the

'threat to democracy' in Spain to turn dislike of Hitler and
Mussolini and a reluctant emphasis on the Franco-Soviet
alliance into a systematic affirmation that a world struggle
called Labour to an historic destiny.
This was as true of those who supported non-intervention
as of those, like Morrison, who did not. When non-interven-
tion was dropped in 1937, it was true of everyone. 152 When
a 'Great Crusade', the Immediate Programme' and a member-
ship drive were launched in June, 1 5 3 the League lessons
taught by Abyssinia and the Rhineland had been transform-
ed. The Republic 'was creating a new Spanish nation after...
years of hopelessness'. Collective Security could now be
equated with 'socialist reconstruction'. 154 Both condemned
a government which allowed the 'class' interests of its mem-
bers to override Britain's 'historic' interest in keeping 'strong
continental powers out of the Iberian peninsula'. 155
(iv)
Between 1933 and 1935 the Labour party had been thought
a dangerous threat, even when its progress was not positive.
After the election Baldwin thought that its intellectual lead-
ers might be finished off for good. 156 If this ever seemed
likely, it seemed much less likely after the Hoare-Laval pact.
It was not until the League position had been destroyed by
Mussolini's victory six months later that Conservative opinion
shifted the initiative as foreign-policy truths which had pre-
viously been unfashionable were given relevance by events.
In the 1931 Parliament the Conservative party had been
comparatively quiescent about foreign policy. In the midst of
quiescence, however, dissent had existed. Doubt about
the League had been expressed by Hailsham and others in
Cabinet. It was expressed most clearly in the Observer and
the Morning Post (until its death in 1937), in the National
Review, the English Review and the Saturday Review (under
Lady Houston's proprietorship), in Wilson's Nineteenth Cen-
tury and After, in the Beaverbook and Rothermere news-
papers, in the writings and speeches of Amery and Croft, in
Lloyd's attempt, with Carson's blessing, 157 to remove Mac-
Donald and Baldwin 158 and in the efforts which Grigg made,
first with and then without Lloyd, to replace the feeble Radi-
calism of Simon by the national Radicalism of Lloyd George.
This was a movement among politicians and publicists who
regarded themselves as leaders of opinion or makers of an
alternative 'when the present government collapses'.159 It
was paralleled by fringe organisations dedicated to rescuing
the Conservative party from 'Socialism', 'Pacifism' and Coali-
tion. Its effect was to revive a 'realistic' way of talking which
showed that the League was 'futile'160 and the Empire 'cen-
tral' and that 'our foreign policy during the last thirty years
ha[d] been beneath contempt because we simply would not
face "hard facts" '. 161
These were the assumptions which Hankey and the Chiefs
of Staff had always made. But their political expression had
seemed reactionary, and their exponents eccentric, through
lack of major leaders to put the point of view. Nor had unity
of action made up for lack of authority. On the contrary,
there was so little organisation that, until events transformed
them, they were (and must be seen as) random attempts to
control the parameters of discussion by defending Unionist
principles against enemies on the Liberal-left.
Rothermere's interest in foreign policy was affected by his

interest in Hungary which had begun with a signed article in
the Daily Mail in 1927. In this he had called for revision of
the Treaty of Trianon on the ground that Hungary had got
rid of the Communist tyranny of 1919. This had given him a
Hungarian reputation and enabled him to pay visits over the
next ten years in conditions of almost royal splendour. As a
result, he developed the Hungarian dislike of France and ad-
miration for the German Right, and decided, after Hitler's
arrival, that disarmament was doomed. 162
From 1933 onwards, he ran rearmament campaigns. In the
course of 1934 he decided that the 'world' was going to be
'ruled' by 'right-wing polities'. One aspect of this was that
Hitler — 'one of those gallant men of the trenches'163 —
wanted British friendship and, if he did not get it, would
compel 'our political mandarins' to choose between 'abject...
surrender' and 'destruction by aerial bombing'.164
This now became the centre of Rothermere's politics. He
gave repeated and exaggerated warnings about France's weak-
ness 165 and the growth of German air and submarine pow-
er. 166 Throughout the next three years, he was talking about
the imminence of war, the irrelevance of the League and the
importance of meeting the Nazi desire to be on good terms
with Britain. 167 In some respects Beaverbrook agreed. But
not in all.
For Beaverbrook, Britain was an Imperial power and in
that role impregnable. This meant not only that a whole-
hogging League policy would have been a mistake if it had
ever been adopted but that Locarno was a 'menace' which
'enacts' that 'we must go to war for the defence of France or
Germany when the League of Nations Council directs it'. 1 6 8
Having first despised and then admired the Nazi regime, he
had been alienated by its violence, and had come to dislike it
for 'regimenting' opinion, supporting the aristocracy and per-
secuting the Lutheran Church. This, however, did not reduce
his desire to destroy the League. Even when Hitler had be-
come a 'danger', 'Isolation' was the object. 169
As an isolationist, Beaverbrook knew himself to be a ma-
verick in relation to effective politics and politicians. In
1933/4 he had felt this strongly. In 1935, he hoped to move
into orbit if the Franco-Soviet alignment made Conservatives
see that the choice lay between 'alliance with France and
Russia on the one hand...and the Empire on the other'. 1?0
Beaverbrook disliked Hoare's Abyssinia policy and the part
played by Eden ('that misguided gentleman') in creating it.
But he was a supporter of Hoare personally and was in close
touch with him, even when taking pains to make it seem that
he was not. 1 7 1 The reaction against the League in June 1936
gave him his first real sense that the public was on his side. In
November he was pleased to believe that the government,
while talking the language of Collective Security, was about
to pursue a policy of 'undiluted...isolationism'. 172
When Beaverbrook began to be optimistic, he made a dis-
tinction between the public who agreed with him and politic-
ians who had not yet been persuaded. It is not clear that he
tried very hard with politicians or was in touch with politic-
ians who mattered. He had supported Randolph Churchill
against Malcolm MacDonald in the Ross and Cromarty by-
election earlier in the year. Like Rothermere, and as improb-
ably, he had run Home to succeed Baldwin. His relations
with Lloyd George and Churchill were intermittent. In terms

of policy he was probably closest to Amery.
When the National government was formed in 1931, Amery

was on holiday in Switzerland. Nobody seems to have mind-
ed. It is easy to see why so relentless a protectionist was
omitted from a coalition which included equally relentness
Liberals and the leading Socialist Free Trader, and why it was
not thought necessary to invite him when Snowden and the
Samuelites resigned.
In 1932, at the age of fifty-eight, Amery settled into a
regime as company director, publicist and backbencher who
made it his business, as a supporter of the National govern-
ment, to run parliamentary and public campaigns in criticism
of its failures. Simon was an old and, for a time, close friend.
Halifax too was an Oxford friend and a member of the 1924
government. Chamberlain in addition, was a fellow-Birming-
ham member. Amery had access to all of these, and also to
Baldwin. With Hoare he had sympathy and contact which
increased when he supported the India bill as the best hope
for the Empire. 173 But those to whom he talked 'agreed'
without necessarily being persuaded, while the vigour of his
politics became less plausible the further he found himself
from power and office.
Amery came from a semi-professional, middle-class family
and had made his way, by academic effort, through Harrow,
All Souls, The Times and the South African war into a Bir-
mingham seat. Unlike many Conservatives, therefore, he had
no social position from which to lead. Since he was an intel-
lectual, he had a doctrine instead. This included a compre-
hensive interpretation which asserted the irrelevance to the
twentieth century of the methods suitable to dealing with the
'international society' of the nineteenth. It also included the
belief that 'nationalism had come to stay' 174 and that it was
desirable to give up the 'silly make-believe that the future of
civilization depends on our running round with our fussy
well-intentioned efforts to mediate' when what was needed
(instead of Simon) was 'a Foreign Minister who could say
frankly that his main duty is to defend British interests'. 17S
These criticisms were present at most periods in Amery's
career; in the thirties his targets included Chamberlain's fail-
ure to go far enough at Ottawa (and Runciman for being

insufficiently protectionist), the world Economic Conference
(as an attempt to re-establish a nineteenth-century interna-
tional order) and Salter's Recovery — the 'vain effort of an
amiable nineteenth-century liberal to restore a world on the
nineteenth-century pattern'. 176
As the government's standing dropped, Amery prepared
for a situation in which it would drop to rock bottom, critic-
ising over a wide range of policy from the inadequacy of
defence preparations, 177 through Chamberlain's 'pure Treas-
ury budget', 178 to a demand for a Policy Cabinet to provide
a 'clear point of view'. 179 The break-up of the Disarmament
Conference marked 'the end of the era of Wilsonism' and a
chance to 'get back to the more elastic methods of the old
diplomacy'. At the beginning of 1934 he wanted Germany
told that 'she can now rearm as she likes' because the removal
of the 'psychological grievance' would enable Hitler to 'coun-
sel moderation' in using the rights that he would gain. 180
When he met him in 1935, though much less bewitched than
others, he thought him 'intellectually better equipped than is
commonly supposed'. 181
Amery was an Imperialist, not an Isolationist; he favoured
limited Continental commitments ('no commitment beyond
Locarno') 182 and none that would endanger the interests of
the Empire. It was for this reason that he opposed both the
Abyssinia policy and any sort of alliance with the Soviet
Union.
His objection to a Soviet alliance was not so much to the
character of the regime as to the danger of making Japan an
enemy and driving Germany and Japan together. 183 In rela-
tion to Abyssinia he was the leader of Conservative dissent.
For this there may have been more than one reason. He
had hoped for office in 1933 and may well have expected it
two years later. 184 However, he was passed over when Bald-
win became Prime Minister and, though encouraged (by
Hoare) to expect something after the election, 185 thought he
had waited long enough. He was as unwilling to quarrel with
Hoare as Hoare was with him,186 but saw no reason to restrain
indefinitely the expression of opinions he would have held in
any case.187
Amery's objection, from Hoare's Geneva speech onwards,
was that, 'for electioneering purposes' and 'largely through

Eden's insistence', Italy was being made an enemy where the
German problem demanded that she remain a friend, and
that Britain was being committed to new League obligations
which might 'shake the Empire to pieces'. 188 His first public
criticism was made in a speech in his constituency three days
after the invasion of Abyssinia. 189 It was followed by a let-
ter and deputation he took to Baldwin on behalf of about
forty MPs and peers who wanted a declaration that Britain
would not support sanctions at Geneva. 190
When Amery first understood the strength of his own feel-
ings, his chief hope was that Laval would get Hoare off the
hook. 191 Everything that happened thereafter, including
everything he found inhispostbag, 192 confirmed his instinct.
Far, therefore, from being shocked by the Hoare-Laval plan,
he supported it, approved of the defence Hoare made of it
and blamed the occupation of the Rhineland on the govern-
ment's failure to support it. 193 In 1936, as a well-established
critic of the League, he merged into a movement of which
Garvin was the symbol.
In the nineteen thirties Garvin was the intellectual Chamber-

lainite. Far more than Amery (who had been originally) and
more effectively than the Round Table, he was the organ of
the message which Joseph Chamberlain had left. It was Gar-
vin who wrote the official life (of which three volumes were
published between 1932 and 1934). It was Garvin — and
Astor, his proprietor — who made the middle page of the
Observer an event which politicians and an important part of
the educated public read most Sundays of the year.
Astor was a transatlantic millionaire whose (American)
wife was the first Conservative woman MP. Like Lothian, he
was both a Milnerite and a Christian Scientist. He was also an
H.A.L. Fisher Conservative, with a rich man's concern for
social causes, a viewy interest in agricultural rationalisation
and a desire to be in touch with the best that was thought by
the English intelligentsia. Though a disappointed member of
the Garden Suburb, he remained an admirer after Lloyd
George had refused to become a prohibitionist. 194
Like Londonderry and his wife, the Astors were major
Conservative hosts. Again like the Londonderries, they made
a great deal of Ribbentrop (both before he became German

ambassador in 1936 and afterwards). Their salon included
Inskip, Hoare, Dawson, Grigg and Jones.
About the League, Astor was a disillusioned idealist who
hoped, eventually, for World Federation. As patron of Chat-
ham House, he was against France's East European entangle-
ments; he worked with Angell, Bartlett, Toynbee and Noel-
Buxton in the 1937 campaign to restore colonies to Ger-
many. 195 As owner of Cliveden, he was much disturbed by
the immortality it was given in the course of that year. 196
Garvin's Observer stood for the Unionist transformation of
the Conservative party. While assuming that capitalism (in the
ownership sense) was beyond question, it had none of that
fear of state activity which 'Liberalism* in some respects had
made its own. Whether social welfare was Danegeld to keep
the poor happy or the outcome of positive protectionist ide-
alism, its combination of Empire, welfare and defence had
enabled a large part of the Conservative party to find its way
towards a conception of political duty in the first third of the
century.
Before the war Garvin had been anti-German. After the
war he was interested in Europe so far as the peace settle-
ment would affect the Empire. At the beginning of the thir-
ties he held orthodox opinions in favour of the League and
Locarno. He was a strong advocate of 'National Government'
and admired MacDonald for making it a possibility. 197
Garvin's 'Empire' was an expanding confederation in
which men of goodwill and all colours and creeds co-operated
in pursuit of common ideals. It embraced a self-governing
South Africa, which it had been the experience of his genera-
tion to tame, as well as something approaching a self-govern-
ing India. He did not, however, suppose that the Empire
could be preserved merely by showing that it had been moral-
ised. Remembering the pre-war situation, he conceived it as
being based ultimately on military power. From 1933 on-
wards, along with Rothermere, he was the most insistent ad-
vocate of a large-scale rearmament programme as the un-
avoidable reaction to 'the new barbarism in the centre of
Europe'. 198
Garvin's initial judgment of Hitler was not favourable, but
it was not unfavourable either. He grasped the unexpected
nature of the phenomenon, regarding him as an unknown

quantity who might, or might not, settle down under the
weight of the economic problems he would have to face. The
licensed teaching of a war gospel, so much at variance with
Goethean Germany, was deplored, and also the persecution
of the Jews. The suppression of communism was seen as an
excusable benefit and a valuable contribution to the stabilisa-
tion of Europe. But it soon became obvious (more so, per-
haps, in private than in the Observer) that 'the absolute sup-
pression...of all advocacy of peace and the organized glorifi-
cation of the spirit of war must lead to war itself. 199
This led to three conclusions. The first was that the
'sword-drawn settlements of 1919' were 'the cancer of Euro-
pe'. The second was that German inequality could no longer
be sustained and that the Versailles frontiers would have to
be revised. Garvin did not, therefore, conclude that the 'excited
and vehement temper rampant in the Reich' should be 'ap-
peased'. Not would peace be preserved by 'the methods...
pursued at Geneva'. Disarmament by itself might 'facilitate
war'. If revision was to be effective, Britain must make it
clear that illegal revision would be resisted. 200
Garvin did not move willingly into a position of detach-
ment from Europe. Before Barthou made him change his
mind, he was willing that France should be given 'solid guar-
antees'. He was suspicious of Hitler's assurances and treated
an Anglo-French defensive alliance as more essential even for
British than for French security. 201
This did not mean that Britain should take sides in a tribal
quarrel. All that was necessary was a 'defensive' air alliance
and rejection of any 'mental' involvement the government
might have slipped into so far. 202
It was in this context that the Abyssinia policy was objec-
tionable. The objection was to the nature of the Abyssinian
regime, the loss of Italian friendship and the fact that Bald-
win's neglect had made it impossible to stop Mussolini, even
if that was desirable. The supreme facts were the danger from
Germany, Hoare's failure to make Eden see it and the fact
that Laval saw it only too well. 203
Garvin believed that Laval was as right from a French
point of view as the Cabinet was wrong from an Imperial one.
Between Laval's 'common sense' and the Imperial viewpoint,
there was a consonance which the League should not be al-

lowed to destroy. Its 'rabid jingoes', he wrote a fortnight
after the war had started,
already clamour for the economic stifling of the Italian people; for a
total interruption of the communications between that people and its
armies in East Africa; for the closing of the Suez Canal; for a naval
blockade in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic.
It is a course that would lead not only to desperate war between
Britain and Italy, but to long convulsions in Europe and the world, such
as will assuredly bring the British Empire to its doom, whatever happen-
ed to the others. 204
Between August and December Garvin argued that Stresa
was better than the League and that a bargain with Mussolini
was essential in face of Germany. 205 Above all, he was clear
that oil sanctions must be avoided.
Garvin had no notice of the Hoare-Laval agreement (which
became public on a Monday). The following Sunday it had
saved peace from 'insane destruction by an Abyssinian ma-
nia'. 206 Hoare's defence (on December 19) was 'a classic
document...in the history of the League'. 207 His resignation
showed (innocently) that
without reproach to his colleagues but without hesitation in his own
duty, [he had] decided that neither with integrity nor usefulness...could
he consent through his own mouth to stultify his position, policy and
character; or to continue in office without the willing support of his
colleagues and the decisive confidence of the nation. 208
Between Hoare's resignation and the defeat of the Abyssi-

nians a gale blew among Conservative publicists and politi-
cians against the new policy which the government was sup-
posed to have adopted. Until Abyssinia changed it, British
support for the League had been based, it was alleged, on
rejection of the Geneva Protocol and a 'tolerably well-defined
policy...directed towards the organization of peace through
interlocking pacts...of which the Western Locarno Treaty was
the model'. 209 More recently, the government had moved
into a position 'as rigid and pedantic as anything Bob Cecil
might have asked for', the danger of which was that Article
XVI of the Covenant might 'involve us later all over the world,
perhaps even in supporting Russia against Germany'. 210
The sole consequence of Eden's policy, therefore, had
been to damage Anglo-Italian relations (where Britain's 'only
hope of maintaining [her] Empire was to have Italy as an

ally' 211 ) and to 'invoke the logic of the League as a reason
for [the] vast disaster which the older statesmanship...would
assuredly have prevented'. 212
This 'older statesmanship' would have returned to 'allian-
ces and the balance of power' as soon as it was realised that
the existing League included 'some nations not all'. 213 Even
when the ultimate objective was World Union, 214 it was felt
that the coercive clauses should be dropped, that the Empire
was 'the only successful experiment in international govern-
ment' and that there would be no improvement in Europe or
the Far East until Britain was 'extricated' from 'the egregious
entanglement of sanctions'. 215
'Reform of the League', though a central concern in all
these quarters in mid-1936, was not, however, thought an
adequate guarantee for the future. Three further things were
required — the development of a 'British' as distinct from an
'international' point of view, a comprehension (which the
Foreign Office lacked) of the ability and popularity of total-
itarian regimes, 216 and a policy, especially about Germany.
About Germany there was a spectrum of agreement, incor-
porating a variety of positions, few of which were occupied
by supporters of France. On the whole (except in the Mor-
ning Post), there was a lack of sympathy for France and
positive hatred of the Soviet alliance which had 'brought war
to Europe once' and could easily do so again.217 Even when
there were doubts about the skill of Nazi diplomacy, allow-
ances were made in face of German sensitivity to the belief
that Collective Security without her was a form of 'encircle-
ment'. 2 1 8
In some senses Germany was seen as resembling Britain.
For the Nazi leaders 'were not anxious to promote paganism'
and wanted only to 'put the German churches into the same
position as the Church of England'. 219 Their need for expan-
sion was matched by the British need for peace which was
'vital' to the Commonwealth's 'scattered world-wide inter-
ests' and, as the Aga Khan testified after talking to Hitler and
Goering, could be met if a modest colonial deal was followed
by a settlement that would 'once and for all bury the hatchet
and make all the great European race fellow-workers for
world-prosperity'. 220
From some points of view, indeed, it seemed that 'Ger-

many was seek[ing] our...friendship'. 221 From others — Lon-
donderry's for example — British policy since 1918 consisted
of 'slavish subservience' to France which was 'a less depend-
able ally' since the Germans 'at least knew what they were
trying to do', and Hitler 'dread[ed] war'. 222
As Air Minister and a member of the Disarmament Com-
mittee, Londonderry had been stiff and negative about air
disarmament in 1933, and had made a fuss about German
rearmament. At first he had supported the other Service Min-
isters in making a fuss about British rearmament. Then, he
began to deplore it as a Rothermere stunt, preferring instead
to 'pull' Hitler 'up short' by having his violations of Versailles
'out with him' in the hope of bartering 'equality' for an arms
limitation agreement. In 1935 he objected to Simon going to
Berlin since the Germans 'ought to be made to come
here'. 223
Londonderry disliked Geneva, mistrusted Eden and com-
plained about Simon's failure to control him. He sensed con-
nections between the Foreign Office which had 'always apol-
ogised for our having an Air Force' and 'the Ormsby-Gores of
the Cabinet who look[ed] on the services as the playthings of
politicians'. He found Thomas's pacifism jocular and offen-
sive. 224
As social link between National Labour and the House of
Lords, Londonderry's standing was high in the early years of
the National government. By the end of 1934 he was a light-
weight who kept office because MacDonald was a member of
his household. Speeches about air disarmament and the
League, 225 difficulties about the estimates of German air
strength and signs that he would become a major target once
India was out of the way, 226 ensured his removal to the
leadership of the House of Lords and a banishment from
policy-making so complete 227 that he was thinking of resign-
ing228 when Baldwin compelled him to after the elec-
tion had made MacDonald's feelings irrelevant. 229
Like Rothermere, Londonderry had seen much of the Nazi
leaders. He admired them as self-made men and was impress-
ed by their successes with communism. While sensing hostil-
ity and opposing 'grovelling', he believed that they need not
turn against Britain.230 From different assumptions and by
different routes The Times eventually reached the same con-

clusion.
The identity was accidental. Until they began to stand
behind Halifax and Chamberlain in early 1938, Dawson and
Barrington-Ward had stood firmly behind Eden.
Barrington-Ward was a young mandarin who, having been
marked by the trenches, believed profoundly in the League
of Nations. Though he had been made by Garvin on the
Observer, he felt as strong a revulsion against Mussolini's 'mi-
litarism' in Abyssinia as he felt against 'Hitlerism' in Ger-
many.
Dawson came from a middle-county family in Yorkshire.
After Eton, Magdalen and All Souls, he was taken to South
Africa by Milner, where his reputation was made in a situa-
tion of violence and conciliation. In his early thirties he was
editor of the Johannesburg Star. His arrival as editor of The
Times in 1912 marked its affirmation of the modern Conser-
vatism of his generation.
Though socially Conservative, Dawson was also a Milne-
rian. In his hands in the thirties Modern Conservatism meant
administrative efficiency, popular Imperialism, land disarma-
ment and detente with Germany. 231
About Europe Dawson knew no more than most other
leading Conservatives. What he knew was South Africa and
England. His life moved between Printing House Square,
Eton, All Souls and the moorland estate he inherited from an
aunt in 1917. His affections were engaged in the last three as
much as in the first. The Times made a brilliant deployment
of the average opinions of his age and station.
As a party Conservative, Dawson saw Baldwin often and
advised him regularly. He was a close friend of Halifax and
was on easy terms with Ormsby-Gore, Hoare, Wood, Inskip
and Eden (as well as with Jones and the Cliveden Astors). In
1936 he took the view that reactionary Conservatism no
longer existed.
Dawson supported both the National government and its
non-Conservative components. But he had more time for
Eden than for Simon (and perhaps also than for Hoare). 232
He treated Thomas as a music-hall turn. He saw through Mac-
Donald — the 'weary Titan' — and failed to respond to at-
tempts to gain his sympathy. 233 To him Rothermere seemed
a joke and Cecil a 'menace to the League'. Lloyd George had

'nothing to suggest', and the Labour party was saved from
absurdity by the hair's breath which made Greenwood a bet-
ter man than Attlee. 234
Dawson did not believe that Conservative intellect should
be peremptory. Like his 'Empire', his Times was 'bound up...
with social reform'. 235 Both stood for 'liberal magnanimity'
of which Smuts, both by presence and doctrine, was the
embodiment.
Like Smuts, The Times had picked up most of the nos-
trums of the post-war world. It stood for Collective Security
as the only way to carry the Empire through an 'era of suspi-
cious nationalisms'.236 It saw the Empire and the United
States as guarantors of law and freedom and liberal-Conser-
vative centrality as the answer to socialism. Detachment, in-
formation and rejection of Isolation distinguished it from
Garvin, Rothermere and the rest. 237
Dawson shared Garvin's uncertainty about Hitler, sensing a
portent and fearing that his 'methods' would destroy confi-
dence in France. He did not mince words about debt repudia-
tion, Church persecution or brutality in Austria which was
'making the name of Nazi stink in the nostrils of the world'. 238
In criticising the imprisonment (after acquittal) of the
Communist suspects in the Reichstag's fire-trial, The Times
doubted 'whether Germany can...be treated on the same basis
as other nations...in...the difficult political problems of the
moment'. 239
Nevertheless, The Times's policy in 1933/4 was to keep
the Disarmament Conference going and to make the League a
reality. 240 While denouncing the savagery, it interpreted the
Roehm putsch as Hitler's way of transforming 'revolutionary
fervour into moderate and constructive effort'. 241 Dawson
may not have been taken in by the 'impeccable pacifism' of
Hitler's early speeches, but he interpreted German rearma-
ment as restoring 'self-respect' by acquiring a defensive army.
Provided offensive rearmament was avoided, he accepted the
German claim to equality among the nations. 242
The Times wrote of a 'prison of the mind' being built
'from Strasbourg to Vladivostok'. 243 It recorded the vio-
lence of Hitler's language and the 'militancy' of Mussolini's
doctrine. But it interpreted both cynically. In 1934 Mussolini
was seen as wanting to avoid 'a common frontier with the

Germans', Hitler as turning on the Nazis as soon as the army
insisted. 244 It was then hoped that he would respond to
generosity as Smuts and Botha had responded before the war.
The Times associated Hitler with the 'stern discipline of
the Prussian code* and the 'fervour and idealism of South
Germany'. 245 But it did not identify him as a Prussian nor
suggest that his aims were those of the Junkers. So far was it
from sharing the Vansittart view that it sensed the chance to
do what Haldane and Joseph Chamberlain might have done if
the Germans had been willing. 246 It showed British policy
aiming 'impartially' at reconciling the irreconcilables in
France and Germany. 247
Until some time in 1937, The Times'* position was that
peace would only be kept through the League. Having sup-
ported Hoare's League policy, having attacked the Hoare-
Laval plan and having expressed Eden's suspicions of Musso-
lini after sanctions had been dropped, it gave bitter reminders
of the 'immorality' of successful aggression. 248 Throughout
these years Barrington-Ward believed that 'alliances' had
failed and that the public would willingly make sacrifices for
'Collective Security'. 249
Nor was The Times unsympathetic towards the French. It
did not criticise Barthou; after initial doubts, 250 it praised
Blum for keeping France out of Spain. It approved of the
Franco-Soviet pact for leaving it open to Hitler to turn an
alliance into a Locarno-type pact of mutual security. 251 Af-
ter broadcasting Eden's position that the occupation of the
Rhineland might herald a 'return to peace', it spent the fol-
lowing year reminding Hitler that it would be his fault if it
did not. 2 5 2
The Times was as suspicious of the Comintern as Dawson
of 'the Bolshies'. But it liked Litvinoff (even if he was only a
frontman against Germany and Japan). 2 5 3 The liquidation of
the brutalities of the twenties registered a shift towards 'nor-
mality', just as the Purges were significant in case a Red
Army counter-revolution reversed it. 254
Up to late 1936, The Times was.judicious about the Rus-
sians and criticised Hitler for criticising the Franco-Soviet
pact. 255 It rejected anti-Bolshevism both as an attack on
Czechoslovakia and because the Berlin-Tokyo axis would
divert Japanese attention towards South-East Asia. 256

In supporting Eden's search for 'a new world order', Daw-
son said that Britain should take a lead. It was on this ground
that he justified the rearmament programme of 1936. 257
Though The Times became cautious after Abyssinia had
shown it up, it criticised Chamberlain for criticising the
League and reflected Eden's (and Baldwin's) resentment at
his interventions.258 It was not until Spain joined Abyssinia
as a 'failure' that The Times slipped slowly via 'regional
pacts'259 towards the League as an 'organ of conciliation'.
In Barrington-Ward's version, the position was that 'no
great country' could be kept indefinitely 'in an inferior posi-
tion'; he believed that Germans, emerging from the 'valley of
humiliation', might be induced to 'prefer the self-respecting
to the thuggish elements in Nazism' if they could be given a
'vested interest in a peacefully evolving world' by relieving
the League of its obligations to Versailles. 260 This was not,
he thought, a matter for 'power polities', 'alliances' or the
'balance of power' which was 'no longer a British doc-
trine'.261 Even when it thought that Hitler wanted to go
East, The Times would do nothing to encourage him. It re-
jected the Garvin doctrine of a 'free hand'262 since so 'cyni-
cal and shortsighted' a conception fell short of the challenge,
which was to 'secure by negotiation the removal of the causes
of war'.263
Though negotiation would involve concessions, The Times
was opposed to any concessions outside a general settlement.
When the Nazi leaders took up Hoare's point about colonies
and raw materials, Dawson almost always mentioned the Em-
pire's duty towards its subjects and the insignificance of colo-
nies to the German economy. 264
In 1937, there was a shift. Not only was Britain's role
increasingly perceived in terms of 'interest',265 but Stalin
was criticised for his actions in Spain.266 Though a 'Holy
Alliance' against Bolshevism would make 'Europe safe for
Bolshevism in the future', the German attitude was increas-
ingly 'understood'. 'No Englishman in German shoes', The
Times wrote on January 28, 'could consent to...a new treaty
while the Franco-Soviet pact and the Russian pact with Cze-
choslovakia are in force'. 267
In 1935/6 The Times had wanted strong ministerial con-
tact with Berlin. In 1937, it was still doing so. But it was
increasingly conscious of German reluctance. The line did not
change (even after its correspondent's expulsion in Au-
gust 268 ). But it began to say that, though agreement was
essential, 'the threads' were 'not in Britain's hands'. It reflect-
ed Eden's irritation at German intervention in Spain.269
About Spain Dawson was so scrupulously neutral that
Conservatives attacked him. 27° In addition, he shared much
of Eden's vexation with Mussolini. He was a strong supporter
of the cordon policy of January and of the Nyon policy in
September 1937, and wrote approvingly about Eden's con-
cern for British interests.271
By mid-1937 Dawson's position was that disarmament
had failed 'because too much was attempted all at once' 272
and that any attempt at military action by the League would
divide Europe into blocs. It was the fear of 'alliances for and
against the status quo'213 that made 'economic appease-
ment' the only suitable area for League activity.274
In 1937 The Times took up van Zeeland's plan for eco-
nomic co-operation. But it said little about treaty revision in
Europe. It was not until the Halifax mission that it began to
talk urgently about the Germain desire for colonies.27S
What Dawson felt about the League is obscure. What The
Times said was that an ailing League 'was no guarantee
against aggression', and that it was urgent to do something to
restore it. 2 7 6 What was meant was what Barrington-Ward had
meant before — that 'the road to peace lies through Berlin'.
When Halifax set off on November 13 'world peace' required
'a solid understanding between the British and the German
peoples'. 277
Where the Observer was explicit about German predomi-
nance in Eastern Europe, The Times was explicit only about
colonies. Where Garvin's positions veered off towards the Im-
perial Right, Dawson allowed Barrington-Ward to write about
'appeasement'.
Dawson thought of The Times (rightly) as a world power;
his journalism up to a point was tactical. The object, on The
Times no less than with Eden, was to lead Hitler towards a
settlement. There can be no doubt that, in Barrington-Ward,
this hope flowed from feelings as genuine as they were ab-
surd, that power politics were evil.
In 1937 Chamberlain had to work hard to convince Daw-

son that he was moving fast enough towards Hitler. 278 In
1938 Dawson kept close to the government, moving when it
moved and imposing increasing restraint upon his staff. 279
After the Anschluss, he wanted 'no wild measures';280 he
was heavily attacked (on the Liberal Left) for wanting Cze-
choslovakia dismembered in September. 281 For him the An-
glo-German declaration was 'a great achievement' and a 'set-
back to the Nazi extremists'. 282 At the time of the pogroms,
he renewed demands for a deal with Hitler about colonies.
Dawson saw Chamberlain off to Godesberg. But he had
little contact with Halifax between Berchtesgaden and Mu-
nich. In the winter of 1938 he watched gloomily as Halifax
fell into the hands of the Foreign Office.283 After the Polish
guarantee in March 1939, The Times (like Beaverbrook) gave
a narrow definition of its scope. For this, and for other at-
tempts to restrict the continental commitment, it was the
object of bitter assault. 284
In 1939 The Times was blown off centre as the 'anti-
appeasers' advanced towards political credibility. 285 In 1937
it had seemed to be reviving the Peace Movement of the early
thirties as Dawson carried in his wake a boatload of Liberal,
Round Table, Oxford, Chatham House and even pacifist
opinion whose most plausible exponent was Lothian. 286
Though more important than Lady Astor (with whom he was

caricatured), Lothian was not of first importance. But he was
listened to. As a Milnerite young man, he had been one of
Dawson's friends. As a Lloyd George secretary, he had been
at the top of Coalition politics and, as an active Samuelite,
had joined the National government when it was formed in
1931. Before Ottawa, he was the least willing of the resigners;
he had not allowed his friendship with Lloyd George and an
assured place among the Samuelite leaders to prevent him
keeping in touch with Baldwin and Simon afterwards.
Lothian had a highly-developed capacity for theoretical
statement. His statements mattered because he was a
prominent Liberal who believed that the Liberal era had ended.
About Germany, he made three assumptions — that Na-
tional Socialism did not want to 'incorporate other races into
itself, that it was a 'national movement against internal dis-
unity' and that, without Austria-Hungary, the Polish corridor

and many of her pre-war fortresses, she was strategically so
weak and the Franco-Soviet treaty so obviously a threat that
Hitler had had good reason to rearm contrary to Versailles
and reoccupy the Rhineland contrary to Locarno.287
From this, further conclusions followed — that 'pro-
French timidity' must stop, that there must be a summit
meeting between Baldwin and Hitler288 and that the only
way to restore the League was by giving Germany 'a square
deal in Central Europe'.289
From this point of view, German co-operation was the best
way of preserving the Empire. It was the only way of dealing
with Mussolini who presented a threat to Egypt and Kenya
and whose tail could not be twisted until Germany was 'on
the Brenner'.290 'If we join or drift into the anti-German
group, we shall have world war' Lothian wrote in May 1936.
'The only way to peace is justice for Germany', including 'a
German solution of the Austrian problem'.291 'Personally',
he wrote to Eden early in June, 'I believe that, if we assist
Germany to escape from encirclement to a position of bal-
ance in Europe, there is a good chance of the 25 years of
peace of which Hitler spoke and that we shall then be able to
deal with Mussolini.' 292
In 1936 this seemed a possible position to adopt. In 1937
he woke up to the difficulties. In Berlin (like Henderson
later), he found an 'ominous' suspicion of British policy and
a feeling that it might be necessary to 'threaten London with
bombing'.293
I am sure [he wrote to Chamberlain on his return] that the idea that by
strengthening the military combination against Germany and contin-
uing relentlessly the economic pressure against her, the regime in Ger-
many can be moderated or upset is an entire mistake...
The German people are determined by some means or other to recov-
er their natural rights and position in the world equal to that of the
great powers. If they feel driven to use force in power-diplomacy or
war, they will do so with a terrifying strength, decision and vehemence.
Moreover, because they are now beginning to think that England is the
barrier in the way, they are already playing with the idea that...they
may have to look for support...to Italy and Japan, if they are to achieve
their aims. 294
With much of this Garvin agreed. He too thought that

Hitler was right to be obsessed by encirclement, and that
Litvinoff's aim in supporting the League was to 'draw...Brit-

ain into commitments' in Russia's favour. 29S In these cir-
cumstances he thought it was idle to expect Germans to put
up with 'any kind of military restrictions' from which Russia
was free, and dangerous to connive at a French policy which
might compel 'Britain and Germany [to] destroy each other'
in order to 'establish Bolshevist supremacy over Europe and
Asia'. 296
These judgments were strengthened by Russian interven-
tion in Spain and by Benes's 'suicidal' policy of allowing
Prague to become Moscow's 'open door' into central Euro-
pe. 297 They made it important to avoid mistaking the mili-
tary preparations Hitler was making against Russia for threats
against Britain. 298
Garvin blamed Eden for Abyssinia and gave a cool recep-
tion to his appointment as Foreign Secretary; he disliked the
Egyptian treaty as a 'fatal example to India'. 299 Coolness was
increased by the 'self-righteous temper' of the 'question-
naire', 30 ° and when Eden seemed to imply a British 'com-
mitment...to Paris, Moscow and their clients'. 301
These criticisms were indications. But they implied the
need to remove Baldwin and Eden 3 0 2 so as to see whether
Chamberlain was 'deep enough' to solve the problem. 'Espe-
cially' they implied a duty to 'scrutinize the melodramatic
theory that any and every expansion of German scope in the
East must be an automatic menace to the West'. 303
In early 1937 Garvin saw relations between Britain and
Germany — 'natural allies...through many generations' — as
the crux for peace which would best be approached by a
German attempt to create an East European and Danubian
federation as makeweight to Russia.
Such a federated system [he wrote on March 14 1937] would contain at
least 150,000,000 of people with an equal wealth of industrial and
agricultural resources. It would be able to hold its own in all ways and
circumstances — thus removing one of Herr Hitler's chief anxieties for
the future against the Soviet power which...within a few years will
number 200,000,000 of people.
If we are for world peace in earnest we must refresh our imagina-
tions, broaden our minds, and brace our moral courage. No jealous nor
frightened motives should daunt us or deter us. Let the German race, in
its turn, have a mission and a task and a scope corresponding to its
greatness and given a peaceable outlet to its incomparable organising
energies. 304
In the thinking of many Unionists, this combination of

altruism, 'realism' and rejection of 'collective lunacy' was a
central feature. The defeat of the Abyssinians had proved it
'triumphantly right'. 3OS When the Austen Chamberlain fac-
tion 306 questioned it, they were being distinctly old-fashion-
ed.
Although Austen Chamberlain was old-fashioned, he had the

natural importance of an ex-foreign Secretary who had pro-
pounded the policy which was under consideration and had
predicted Hitler's responses in 1935.
Up to then, moreover, he had had no major conflict with
the government. Over the housing and slum clearance pro-
grammes, his co-operation had been important. Over India,
his refusal to co-operate with Churchill had given him an
influence he had previously had only through office. 307 As
the Hitler problem emerged, he had brought authoritative
support against Attlee, Samuel, Sinclair and Lloyd George.
Nevertheless, differences existed about German and British
air strengths, about an Expeditionary force for the Conti-
nent 3 0 8 and about the extent to which 'hostility to the
League' would place Britain and the Dominions 'in antagon-
ism to any other country which felt it'. 309
Chamberlain's criticisms of Hitler were put at first cau-
tiously, as queries about the extent to which Nazi propa-
ganda contradicted his assurances. 3i0 He denied that the
Versailles frontiers were unjust or that Germany was being
encircled. He underlined the extent to which the economic
clauses had been revised, and was clear that further revision
would be problematical. 311 He gave a warm welcome to the
French decision to develop closer relations with Russia.312
Chamberlain anticipated *a time...when some nation will
make war...of set purpose'. He concluded that 'the only way'
to prevent this was 'by overwhelming force', 313 which, how-
ever, was not available, because the military aspect of the
League had been neglected. 314 In May 1935, when 'the situ-
ation in Europe [was] graver than...at any time since
1914', 315 this was crucial. 316
Chamberlain was scathing about the Labour and Liberal
oppositions, the League of Nations Union and The Times
which was 'entirely under Lothian's influence...and might
have been written in Berlin'. 317 He thought Simon 'basically

wrong' about Hitler, a danger to relations with France and
Italy and a handicap to MacDonald who had 'the root of the
matter' in him. He shared MacDonald's desire to avoid war
against Italy and made direct attempts to dissuade Mussolini
from invading Abyssinia.318 But he approved of Hoare's
League policy and praised the vigour of Hoare's public state-
ments. Despite doubts about French reliability and an Impe-
rial contempt for the Abyssinian state, he supported him
because the League could not fail in Africa 'without...de-
stroying the value of collective security...for Europe.' 319
On this view Germany, not Italy, was the problem and
Austrian, not Abyssinian, independence the key to peace.
Abyssinia, however, had consequences in Europe, where the
League machinery would have to be strengthened if it was to
be effective in the future. 320 Its failure there made him insist
on the Locarno obligation in the Rhineland in March.
Chamberlain did not want war. 321 He wanted a symbolic
German withdrawal while the International Court discussed
the Franco-Soviet treaty 322 and a stronger affirmation of
Collective Security than Eden at first appeared to offer. 323
After initial doubts, however, Eden was supported, and
Chamberlain moved through Locarno-based rearmament and
a refusal to return colonies 324 towards a division between
'those who take a short view of what lies in front of us and
those who...cannot feel it in their conscience to accept an
easy settlement if they know that it will bring disaster to
their children in a few years time'. 325
I wonder how many members [he asked the House of Commons on
May 6] can realise what [the remilitarization of the Rhineland] means
not merely to the excited politicians in Paris, but to the French peasant
in his hovel, to the mother who feels that once again the...peril has
come near and that once again her children will be mowed down by the
scythe of war. 326
These were statements of hostility to Hitler. They were
also hostile to Baldwin against whom Chamberlain retained
the animus of 1922 as much as Neville Chamberlain retained
the animus of 1917 against Lloyd George. In early 1936 he
made a bitter personal attack about the air programme in the
House of Commons. 327 As the foreign policy 'sheet-anchor'
was dragged, chronological intemperance waited resentfully
for Baldwin's ignorance, arrogance and incompetence to be

rewarded. 328
(v)
In early 1936, then, there were two movements of Conser-
vative criticism, one complaining because Hitler had been
trusted and Collective Security neglected, the other com-
plaining because pursuit of the wrong sort of League had
made it impossible to trust him. As Baldwin's decrepitude
increased, their importance was illustrated by the fact that,
for a time, it looked as though both might be led by Hoare.
When compelled to make him resign, Baldwin had left
Hoare the impression that he would have him back soon.
Margesson, however, had told him that he should not return
too soon, so, when pressed for a decision, Baldwin had been
vague.
During the six weeks he spent in Switzerland after his
resignation, Hoare thought a great deal about his future. The
situation, as he understood it, was that he had been let down.
Though the Cabinet's reasons were reasons he would have
approved of in September, they could be used to imply a lack
of interest in the German problem. From whichever angle
foreign policy was looked at, Germany could be made to
seem central, and this applied whether one agreed with
Churchill and Austen Chamberlain, who were unsympathetic
to Hitler, or with Amery and Garvin, who were not. As a
senior politician, Hoare needed less to adopt a point of view
than to pinpoint a problem. He was as well placed for an
anti-sanctions as for a rearmament line and for using the
freedom he had been given to restore the Conservative cre-
dentials he had lost over India. 329 When Baldwin delayed, he
used 'the advances of discontented factions' as a way of en-
suring his return to office.
Hoare said that he had no wish to be 'a captious critic of
the government' but might need to prepare for 'a new line of
life' in 'literature', 'business' or 'polities'. He said, too, that
the coalition could not last, that a 1922 situation was on the
way and that his 'future' might lie in 'a more Conservative
government'. 33° The impression he left was that 'he hoped
to be taken into the Cabinet very shortly' and meant to be
'disagreeable if he was kept waiting'. 331

In early February, Neville Chamberlain persuaded Baldwin
to make Hoare minister for the co-ordination of defence when
the office was established. 332 Having discussed the possibil-
ity with Hoare, 333 Baldwin then spent a month brooding
over alternatives. 334 After backbench criticism, 335 com-
plaints from Eden, Elliot and MacDonald 336 and a tastelessly
ingratiating speech from Hoare, 337 he decided to send him
to the Admiralty instead. 338
In mentioning the Admiralty as an alternative, Baldwin
had told Hoare that, if he went there, he would do so before
Whitsun 'at the latest'. 339 When Hoare accepted in March,
the offer was to be effective between Easter and Whitsun. 340
In early April he was 'disappointed' at having to wait but
promised to do so provided Baldwin would make the change
when Parliament adjourned. 341 When he returned on June 5,
he was saying that the flight of the Emperor had justified his
attitude the previous December and that the real blame
should be laid on Simon and MacDonald for failing to men-
tion Abyssinia at Stresa. 342
Hoare had been able to threaten because Baldwin had
seemed to be slipping. Chamberlain sensed a similar oppor-
tunity when the Rhineland and Abyssinia made him slip fur-
ther.
In the first four years of the National government, Neville

Chamberlain had succeeded far better than Baldwin in retain-
ing his credentials as a guarantor of Conservatist principle.
His involvement in the India policy had been marginal.343
His financial policy had been 'sound'. He had left the impres-
sion that he understood the need to rearm. Even when seem-
ing to favour a new party to 'look at...new problems with
unprejudiced eyes', 344 he had gained a reputation as an ene-
my of both MacDonaldite pacifism and the 'internationalism'
of the League of Nations.
This reputation was an illusion. Chamberlain objected not
to the League but to the 'cranks', 'fanatics' and 'Anti-Japs'
who ran the League of Nations Union. 345 He had no objec-
tion to Collective Security so long as it worked, and was the
prime advocate of an international force to deal with breach-
es of a disarmament agreement and the Saar in 1934 and the
Rhineland problem in 1936. In between he had been heavily

implicated in Hoare's League policy when the Peace Ballot
made this desirable and was only thinking of a 'reconstructed
League to deal with European affairs' if it failed. 346 He was
pleased when the election result showed that the Beaver-
brook-Rothermere foreign-policy campaign had made no dif-
ference. 347 After the last Cabinet before the Hoare-Laval
meeting, he thought that 'by putting his great army on the
other side of the Suez Canal, Mussolini [had] tied a noose
round his own neck and left the end hanging out for anyone
with a navy to pull'. 348
At this time, Chamberlain did not express doubts about
the League, support for which was an essential element in
justification of the rearmament programme. Even after the
Rhineland made sanctions questionable, and Mussolini estab-
lished that they had failed, he was unwilling to have this said
publicly. 349
Nevertheless, Abyssinia had made the League a problem.
In early April, Eden asked the Cabinet to think about closing
the Suez Canal.350 When Baldwin, 'without contradiction',
gave an emphatic negative, 351 he was still hoping that the
Italians might be beaten by the rain. 352 Soundings at Gene-
va,353 however, convinced him that collective support no
longer existed and that the war was over. By the end of April,
the Cabinet had agreed to have a committee to discuss the
League's future. 354
From April 22 onwards, these discussions centred around
Article XVI of the Covenant and the automatic duty to co-
operate in imposing sanctions on an aggressor. No decisions
were reached, and a Baldwin speech on May 14 implied the
need for a League to which all the great powers belonged.
In saying this, Baldwin reflected the reluctance which min-
isters felt about handling the subject in public and the danger
they anticipated if they said too strongly that the League had
been a failure. The League had, nevertheless, received exten-
sive attention (even if no conclusions had been reached 355 )
before the speech of June 10 in which Chamberlain stated
that a policy of alliances or isolation was as reasonable as
'Collective Security based on sanctions', and that the League
of Nations Union demand for increased sanctions was 'the
very midsummer of madness'. 3S6
Chamberlain did not make this speech in May, because he

doubted the public's willingness to be told that Mussolini had
won. 357 He made it in June because the Labour, Liberal and
League of Nations Union demand for increased sanctions
made it safe to say negatively what it was unsafe to say
positively. The speech was made because 'the party and the
country needed a lead' which others were failing to give.
Eden was not consulted because he would have asked Cham-
berlain not to make it; Baldwin was not consulted because it
was his neglect that was being repaired. 358 Its effect, and the
effect of subsequent speeches, 359 was to bruise Cecil as ef-
fectively as Hankey had been bruised earlier in the year, to
show Chamberlain off to Eden's disadvantage at a moment
when he was thinking about his future 36° and to make the
point, which Hoare had bungled in December, that there
were ways of talking about foreign policy at least as sane, and
quite as realistic, as those favoured on the Left.
Chamberlain was not attacking the ideals on which the
League was based. He left the impression that he wanted it
strengthened 361 and said, what Baldwin said also, that 'we
should...devise...more effectual means of achieving the ob-
jects for which [it] was founded'. 362 His real feelings are
difficult to intuit; he probably wanted to seem ambiguous
even when appealing to the Right. It is likely that he fudged
his points in order to avoid too abrasive an impression when
the Prime Ministership was in sight.
5
CHAMBERLAIN AND EDEN
'There seems to be a certain difference between Italian and German

positions in that an agreement with the latter might have a chance of a
reasonable life especially if Hitler's own position were engaged whereas
Mussolini is, I fear, the complete gangster and his pledged word means
nothing'. Eden to Chamberlain, January 9 1938, PREM 1/276
(i)
With the defusing of the Rhineland crisis on April 22 and
the collapse of Abyssinian resistance in the week following,
the foundations of British policy had been destroyed. Collec-
tive Security had failed, and it was necessary to find some-
thing to replace it. From mid-April onwards a major element
in Eden's policy was the search for an alternative.
So far as the League was concerned, he was clear that it
could not be restored to its pre-Abyssinia position.1 However
unwilling to abandon it and however insistent on the need to
revitalise it,2 he saw that it would be a long time before it
was revived. Germany was not a member. Since German and
Italian intentions were the problem, it could only be restored
if Hitler turned out to be a reliable European. He had left no
reason for supposing that he would be.
Towards Italy Eden had been consistent and unequivocal.
It had been essential, in the first place, that Mussolini should
be beaten. When he won, it had been essential to do nothing
to condone his victory. In both cases Eden had refused to
buy co-operation against Germany,3 since an Italian success,
following Hitler's success in the Rhineland, would so much
discredit the League that there would be Rhinelands else-
where.4
This policy was a paper-tiger. In the first place, because
Eden had no more power to contest German action in Aus-
tria than he had had to contest it in the Rhineland. Secondly,
because it was doubtful whether he had the power to damage
Mussolini once Flandin made it clear that French support
would not be forthcoming. Without French support, he had
no Cabinet support; he received repeated warnings5 that
naval defence against Germany could not be guaranteed so

long as the navy was preparing for sanctions against Italy. 6
When the Abyssinian rains had failed to help him, his only
object had been to reduce the Italian economy to a point at
which Mussolini would have to negotiate before Haile Selassie
was beaten.
There had, then, been a close connection in his mind be-
tween his inability to do anything about the Rhineland and
his wish, and inability, to keep on doing what he had failed
to do about Abyssinia. This was so for one set of reasons
when Hitler and Mussolini seemed to be working together. It
was so for another set when the prospect of a German coup
in Austria seemed likely to frighten the Italians.
From the position thus reached at the end of April, disen-
tanglement was rapid. By mid-June the Cabinet and opinion
at Geneva had compelled him to agree that sanctions should
be lifted.
In the process, Eden's calculations changed. Having origi-
nally expected Italian failure in Abyssinia to make Hitler
think twice about intervening in Austria, he now decided that
intervention was more likely if Mussolini continued to be
under pressure, and would be much less likely if he returned
to the League.7
Eden had no more intention of asking the Cabinet to fight
over Austria than he had over the Rhineland. But he was led,
reluctantly and suspiciously, to three conclusions — that Lo-
carno 8 would have to be reconstructed, that Italy's position
would be crucial and that it would be easier to carry the
French towards a European settlement if Mussolini had not
been forced to come to terms with Hitler. For these reasons
he asked the Cabinet to agree that sanctions should be raised
and secured the face-saving assurances with which Mussolini
rescued him in the closing part of the Abyssinian chapter. 9
The liquidation of the Abyssinian problem did not mean
that Eden wanted an alliance with Mussolini. His object con-
tinued to be the MacDonald policy of reassurance to France
in preparation for negotiation with Germany. 10 In this res-
pect he was both active and unsuccessful.
In announcing the occupation of the Rhineland on
March 7, Hitler had given assurances of peaceful intentions.
CHAMBERLAIN AND EDEN 145
When asked what he intended for the future, he had edged

away. By the time Ribbentrop brought a Peace Plan to Lon-
don on April 1 (after the German elections), Hitler and Eden
were both trying to swallow the Rhineland in discussion of a
general settlement
The Peace Plan of March 31 deplored 'the tendency to
involve Europe in a network of military alliances' and repeat-
ed that the Rhineland had been occupied because of the
Franco-Soviet alliance. It announced Hitler's willingness to
contribute to a 'lasting and secure peace' through an air trea-
ty, extended naval agreements, a colonial settlement, a return
to the League and the replacement of Locarno by a twenty-
five year non-aggression pact.
The document affirmed the German government's 'confi-
dent belief that it had 'opened the way...to European under-
standing'. n But it did not 'take into account' the 'shock'
caused by the occupation, and it failed to meet the points the
Powers had made. 12 When the French recognised that nego-
tiation was unavoidable, Eden prepared questions which Hit-
ler was to be asked to answer.
Before presenting the questions to the Cabinet, Eden re-
ported Phipps's belief that German expansion would go east
and west and that there was no longer a moderate party in
Germany. He also reported his own belief that probing of
Hitler's intentions should continue notwithstanding. 13
The questionaire was drafted in the Foreign Office and
discussed at three Cabinet meetings between April 30 and
May 6.14 After criticism and redrafting,15 and after the remov-
al of phrases likely to be offensive to the Germans, it was
sent to Berlin.
In sending it, Eden had three objects — to register doubt
about Hitler's manner, to keep negotiations going and to find
common ground between the British and German under-
standings of the future. There was a Cabinet decision that the
colonial question should not be mentioned. The League's
position was put interrogatively, because it had not been de-
cided how it was to be reformed. 16 But Eden was hoping to
find out on what terms Hitler would rejoin, whether he was
willing to renegotiate Locarno and how far he 'claimed to
speak...for Germans outside the Fatherland'. 17
From this point onwards, virtually nothing happened. Hit-

ler let it be known informally that he would not guarantee
to leave the Rhineland unfortified. When Eden wanted to
press him to say so formally (so as to be free to talk to
France and Belgium), the Cabinet refused to let him. 18 When
he telegraphed from Geneva six weeks later for approval of a
meeting of the Locarno powers (without Germany), he was
brought back to explain why he wanted it. 19
When he returned, ministers were suspicious. They became
even more suspicious when it was made clear that the meet-
ing would be held without Italy. 20 They agreed only when
Eden convinced them that the French would impose impos-
sible conditions unless he and van Zeeland persuaded them
not to, and that there could be no question of a five-power
meeting with Germany unless the preliminary meeting was
held first. Even so, he was compelled to negotiate the final
communique before the meeting was held and had to submit
it to the Cabinet before it was agreed to. 2 1
What Eden expected from abandoning the questionnaire is
not clear. He would have liked, doubtless, to negotiate a new
Locarno but was far from certain that he could do it. He now
believed that a conflict was going on between 'moderate' and
'extreme' elements in Germany, which it was far from clear
that the moderate elements were winning, and that the fragil-
ity of German economic recovery might make Hitler do
something desperate in order to conceal it. He half-thought
that the questionnaire had had the wrong effect and was look-
ing for ways of producing the right one. 22
Eden had no illusions about small powers supporting col-
lective resistance unless Britain and France supplied teeth. 23
Nor did he want to quarrel with Hitler until teeth had been
grown. 24 He feared, however, that the League would be lost
in 'humiliation' if an attack took place. 25 It was with a view
to saving it that he thought of sending Halifax to Berlin in
order to arrange a conference whenever Hitler and Mussolini
might agree to have one. 2 6
By 'saving the League' Eden meant the Geneva protocol
and a strengthening of the machinery of coercion, not a
watering down of the Covenant. While expecting it to be a
long time before the public or the Cabinet would accept the
first, 27 he wanted to avoid a decision in favour of the sec-
ond in order to give the first a chance. 28

Whether there could be a revived League depended on Hit-
ler and Mussolini being willing to talk. Early in the winter
both agreed to. 29 In the following six months, the prospect
of agreement receded. Though the Spanish interventions of
late 1936 made a conference more necessary, 30 they also
made it impossible. By the time Baldwin retired, no confer-
ence had been held.
Of Baldwin, alternative things may be said. It may be said

that he was hoping to 'get alongside Germany' 31 in order to
'see some agreement*32 in his last year as Prime Minister and
was considering a meeting with Hitler in order to lay the
foundations. Or he may have been 'tired and discouraged',
unwilling to make up his mind and 'disinclined' to make a
'sustained effort'. 33
Baldwin played an important part in the defence pro-
gramme of 1936. But he was conscious of the difficulty in
making it acceptable 'in a democratic country'. He steered
clear of Chamberlain's negativity about the League, but felt
as deep repugnance for French belligerence over the Rhine-
land as he had for League belligerence over Abyssinia, and
had a die-hard fear that a diplomacy which aimed at resisting
Hitler might establish Bolshevism in Berlin.34 He was no
more willing to prejudge German policy than to prejudge
Italian policy six months before, and he was as suspicious of
'automatic' Locarno obligations as of automatic League ones
then. 35 Hitler and Mussolini were 'lunatics'. But he found
the mood of the Cabinet unintelligible and insisted on involv-
ing Halifax in the Rhineland negotiations because he was the
one minister who seemed to understand how dangerous it
was. 36
In the summer of 1936 Baldwin's temper was unrelievedly
pacifist. He coupled the decision to rearm with reminders
about the horrors of war and an 'appalling frankness' about
his reluctance in 1933. 3 7 Even if he used them to justify
rearmament, there can be little doubt that these feelings were
real and were conveyed when Jones saw Hitler in May.
Nor, despite differences of mood, did Baldwin differ radi-
cally from the body of the Cabinet. Everyone could see that
Hitler wanted something, but it was no clearer than in 1934
whether it was colonies, economic supremacy and war against

France and Britain or whether his main object was 'a western
pact...that would permit him to attack Russia while...prohib-
iting France from coming to Russia's aid'. 38 Nor could they
tell whether he would conduct himself as part of the Euro-
pean Concert once the servility of Versailles had been re-
moved. The difficulty he would face in getting Germany
through another winter might 'impose a restraining influence'
'at any rate for a year or two'; it might compel him to aim at
'foreign adventure'. 39 British rearmament was so determined
that, 'if he waits too long', he might find that 'he had missed
the bus' 4 0 or might decide that he had to take up the chal-
lenge.
In these circumstances policy was based on the conflicting
beliefs that Britain must keep out of war, must be willing to
'go a long way...to get...a real settlement' and, while trying to
deal with [Germany] on the basis that she means what she
says', must recognise that she might be 'seeing how far [she]
can exploit our weakness' or 'playing for time until she feels
herself strong enough to make her next spring'. 41
By the time Baldwin retired, Eden had been as unsuccessful
as Simon. There had been discussion about the relationship
between a colonial deed in Africa, an air pact or new Locarno
for western Europe, the willingness of Germany to return to
a reformed League and the possibility of an Eastern Security
treaty. 42 But the League had not been revived; there had
been no Locarno conference, and there was no sign of one
taking place.
In the months before Chamberlain became Prime Minister,
Eden was increasingly announcing the possibility of eco-
nomic break-down in Germany. He expected Hitler to deal
with it by war (if the Nazi party had its way) or by trade
liberalisation if it did not. 4 3 In attempting to encourage the
latter, publicly-proclaimed rearmament was one factor. 44
Another was the threat of intimacy with Russia if Stalin
allowed Litvinoff to liquidate the Comintern. 45
Whereas in 1935 a tripartite alliance had received a good
deal of Conservative support, now it was highly controversial.
Not only among Conservatives at large but also in the Cabi-
net, adhesion to a Franco-Soviet alliance was interpreted as
certain to precipitate division between Britain on the one
hand and the enemies of Russia on the other.

The Berlin-Tokyo axis was based ostensibly on fear of Rus-
sia. From that point of view it had no significance for Britain
which was neither allied with Russia nor ideologically con-
nected with her. Nor did Eden want an alliance. 46 But he
wanted to be liked by the opposition (which admired the
Popular Front in France) 47 and needed to keep close to
Blum (so as to help him resist French pressure to abandon
non-intervention in Spain). This combination of needs, and
anxiety to be disconnected from Hitler's crusade against Bol-
shevism, made it easy to identify him as a 'crusader against
Fascism'. The result was an increase in the fear that war with
Germany and Japan was being brought closer by an ideolo-
gical conflict which had nothing to do with the danger they
presented.
Eden was aware of this. He said repeatedly that he wanted
to involve states in the benefits of 'freer trade, freer speech
[and] freer thought across the frontiers of Europe' and to
induce recognition that, 'in the modern world', where 'war'
was the 'merciless begetter of poverty', nations were all 'mem-
bers one of another'. 48
In relation to public opinion, Eden thought he was suc-
ceeding. But his claim to speak on behalf of 'the democracies'
and his identification as Litvinoff's friend did not always
cohere with his objective. By the time Chamberlain became
Prime Minister, the ideological division was the most delicate
of his problems.
(ii)
In the six months after Baldwin decided to retire, the irrita-

tion with which Chamberlain had watched him in the pre-
vious two years issued in two sorts of practical intention. It
issued in a determination to shake up the machinery of gov-
ernment. And it produced a desire to show that he could 'get
more done in a month than he could in six when SB was on
top'. 4 9
Chamberlain did not send Hore-Belisha to the War Office
in order to give lessons to the General Staff. His object was to
remove Duff Cooper, who had been 'lazy' and had disagreed
with Chamberlain about the Army's role in war. The need for
competence was established by Inskip and the C.I.G.S. 50 and

was nearly abandoned when the Cabinet jigsaw presented dif-
ficulties. 51 The appointment meant, however, that the War
Office was being run by a minister who shared Chamberlain's
belief that it must 'renounce all idea of a Continental army
on the scale of 1914-1918'. 52 It meant, also, that a radical
'trouble-shooter' could behave as Joseph Chamberlain might
have pretended to behave in an entrenched institution. 53
This sense of movement was then confirmed as Chamberlain
discovered that he himself was a national figure54 and by 'a
sense of the wonderful power' induced by the knowledge that
he had become a world statesman.55
The discovery that there was a public willing to respect
him came as he toured the country in the summer of 1937,
making speeches to establish the key-note of his approach
and staying in the houses of his richer supporters. Public
acclamation was a new experience to one whose contempt
for the public that he knew had been considerable. Sponta-
neous greetings in the streets created a sense of affinity which
his apparent distaste for ordinary press publicity convinced him
must be real. This feeling was increased by the intimacy of the
acquaintance which many of his correspondents claimed to
have got from his broadcast talks and by the response he re-
ceived from the King, from Baldwin, from the Commonwealth
Prime Ministers, from functionaries like Perth and Grandi
whose profession it was to keep their hearers happy, and from
those who were closest to him whenever he made a speech.56
By the end of June Chamberlain felt free of the Baldwin-
ian incubus. He was admired, as he understood, in the House
of Commons. At the Imperial Conference, he had been popu-
lar. His few attempts to take a grip on government had sent
ripples of activity through it. His wife had been a success, not
least by contrast with her predecessor, and the confetti had
been showered not only on the junior ministers whom he had
appointed but also on the 'older hands' who were 'show[ing]
a new confidence which is being remarked on a good deal'.
Conscious of having established himself in the hearts of the
people and feeling a great sense of success, he turned his
attention to foreign policy. 57
In doing this, Chamberlain did not know that he was to
spend the rest of his Prime Ministership, indeed, the rest of

his life, on it. At first he hoped for a quick success so as to
return to domestic questions in time for the next election. 58
His understanding was based, nevertheless, on extensive expe-
rience.
By 1937 Chamberlain had been involved for six years in

the high-level web of professional calculation in which all
politicians were engaged with the Chiefs of Staff, the Service
departments, the Treasury, the Foreign Office and the Board
of Trade. He knew which parts of the analysis and which
persons he trusted, and which he did not trust. He had given
twists and emphases of his own in Cabinet, on the commit-
tees and as financial controller of the defence programme,
and had been present at the Lausanne and Ottawa Confer-
ences in 1932 and at the World Economic Conference a
year later.
Having watched the hopes of Lausanne fade, he had seen
that nothing would happen at Geneva unless Britain eased the
way for France. He had had full experience of the difficulties
surrounding Collective Security. But he had had no time for
the 'older diplomacy' and had wanted chiefly to make the
Collective System manageable by limiting its operation.
In 1934 Chamberlain shared the Cabinet desire to revise
the treaties. But he was clear that this must be done by
'agreement' and that 'the only thing which would make Ger-
many hold her engagements was...force'. He wanted the
closest collaboration with France and believed that Britain's
continental interests could not easily be limited. He wanted
the French to take German fears seriously but believed that it
would be Hitler's fault if they did not. 59
Chamberlain was closely concerned in the Defence White
Paper of 1935. When Simon's visit was put off in retaliation,
his reaction was that 'Hitler's Germany' was 'a bully' and that
Eden's visit to Moscow must go on. He wanted the Germans
told that 'we only saw two ways of attaining security — a
system of Locarno pacts or a system of alliances' and, if denied
the first, would be forced into the second.60
While willing to hold out Russia as a threat,61 he wanted
to avoid the impression that France, Britain and Italy had
lined up against Hitler. 62 Having been irritated by Simon's

failure to press the Eastern security pact when his German
visit eventually took place, he thought that he should have
led the delegation to Stresa. The press briefing he gave (while
MacDonald was on his way to the Conference) included so
striking an affirmation of Collective Security that the dele-
gation had to play it down. 63
In May 1935 Chamberlain was talking about Hitler's at-
tempt to 'drive a wedge' between France and Britain. But he
was impressed by his proposals for a settlement. 64 Though
the Rhineland made him write about the 'mad dictator', 6S it
no more relieved him of the desire to keep contact than
gloom about disarmament had made the Cabinet wind up the
Conference in 1933. On both electoral and public grounds
and because talking did not exclude rearming, he thought it
necessary to do decisively what had not been done by Bald-
win.
From his close-up position, Chamberlain had watched
Eden and Vansittart being damaged and Hoare and Simon
being destroyed. He had formed a low opinion of Foreign
Office 'lethargy' 66 and believed that Baldwin had survived
only because he was too lazy to be involved.
Although Chamberlain had exerted himself about foreign
policy, it had not been his central interest. His central inter-
est had been economic reconstruction. Fear of a crushing
arms programme dislocating confidence had dominated his
view both of defence and of foreign policy and had produced
effective and distinctive interventions to reduce the scale of
military risk to which Britain might be subject in the future.
During defence discussions Chamberlain had combined
support for rearmament with a determination to stop Hankey
rearming too heavily for health. Egged on by Fisher he was
primarily responsible for the Cabinet's treatment of the De-
fence Requirements Committee programme in 1934. He then
developed an animus against Hankey 67 who had defeated his
proposal for an international force and was overruled in his
turn when the Cabinet accepted the French proposal for a
Locarno Air Convention.
In the discussions which followed Hitler's announcements
of rearmament, Chamberlain had protracted arguments with
the Service ministers. He questioned the meaning of the Bald-

win pledge and attacked the view that it meant parity of
numbers. He was responsible for deferring part of the naval
programme and for rejecting the Continental Field Force. He
was an effective opponent when Hankey used the Defence
Requirements Committee to revive plans for a Field Force
and a major naval expansion after ministers had been scared
by Abyssinia. 68
Though Baldwin was chairman of the Ministerial Commit-
tee, Chamberlain was a leading member, played a leading part
in drafting the Defence White Paper of 1936 and increased
taxation in the Budget as a way of educating the public. 69
He had Weir added to the Committee and tried to persuade
Baldwin to get Hoare or Austen Chamberlain to conduct an
investigation of the defence position. 70 When Hankey resist-
ed, he damaged his control of defence policy by establishing
that a minister would be in control. 71 While refusing to take
control himself, 72 he was responsible for establishing that air
defence was the 'best' and 'cheapest' way of dealing with
Germany, and that 'if war ever c[a]me...our resources
[would] be more profitably employed in the air and on the
sea than in building up great armies'. 73 He had no time for
the War Office view that the French would 'refuse to defend
the Low Countries' unless the British army was prepared for
Continental service. 74 By the end of 1936 an expeditionary
force was a way of preparing for the next war 'from the point
of view of the last'. 75
Chamberlain, then, had proposed economic strength as an
element in defence and had pared down the Hankey pro-
gramme accordingly. But he did not question the analysis on
which it was based or the need to deal with the dangers that
it suggested. Where he differed was in thinking that enough
of them could be dealt with by air power and diplomacy to
make the Hankey level of rearmament unnecessary.
Before failure in Abyssinia added a third, this took two
forms — pressure to restore relations with Japan and a desire
to help Germany acquire a stable economy. By 1937 neither
had got very far. There was no prospect of Anglo-Japanese
understanding, let alone a restoration of the alliance, aban-
donment of which, under American pressure in 1922, Cham-
berlain had greatly regretted. Nor had the military threat

been reduced by developing Hitler's taste for economic pro-
gress.
For doctrinal purposes Chamberlain was an Imperialist: he
was also apprehensive about American economic power. In
practice, his doctrinal component was thin. Though respon-
sible for Ottawa, he did not regard the agreements as autar-
kic and presented them as negotiable bases for a co-opera-
tive World System.
Moreover, the Imperial Conference confirmed what Abys-
sinia and the Rhineland had suggested — that Dominions
statesmen were suspicious of the League. It became clear that
Canada and South Africa were allergic, that the primary Aus-
tralian interest was in Japan and that the British interest in
the Low Countries and France aroused no enthusiasm for
France's alliance-system in eastern Europe. 76
Though the Imperial connection was valued, there was re-
luctance to anticipate difficulties and no sentiment in favour
of a unified Treasury. Not only was the Royal Navy the chief
line of defence, the British taxpayer was the chief source of
revenue. It was, therefore, the coincidence between Chamber-
lain's desire to keep down taxation and the Dominions' dis-
like of limitless commitments which produced the feeling
that a 'general interest' might be developed by reconciling the
non-imperial Powers to the Powers of the status quo.
Chamberlain shared the contradictory feelings that eco-
nomic dislocation was a cause of war and that Hitler might be
restrained if his economic difficulties became acute. 77 He did
not, however, draw simple conclusions. Nor did he fall into
Sinclair's trap. 78 While borrowing the Hoare idea that access-
to-raw-materials was the most important aspect of the colo-
nial problem, he made it clear (for the benefit of Imperial
Conservatives) that economic agreement would be impossible
unless there was political agreement first. 79
Political agreement, however, did not depend, as economic
agreement did, on 'the German moderates'. Politically Hitler
was the problem; Chamberlain's fundamental task was to find
out what could be done with him. 80
Once involved in the details of negotiation, Chamberlain
dramatised his role into one of feeling and principle. When
attacked by critics he deployed arguments which were not
present to his mind at the beginning. But his reactions under

pressure, and the anxious peacefulness of his speeches, should
not obscure the fact that his interventions began at a point of
tension rather than crisis in intelligent pursuit of the lessons
he had learnt in the past.
Chamberlain believed that there was no necessary identity
between the aims of Hitler and those of Mussolini, and that
their ideological solidarity was thin. His object was to detach
one from the other in order to involve both in a general
negotiation, but in both directions his expectations were li-
mited. Germany was the bigger bait as well as the bigger
danger and, 'if we could only get on terms' with her, he
would not 'care a rap for Mussolini'. 81 At first, too, Ger-
many appeared the more promising prospect. 82 It remained
the more important one, even after the lack of response made
it less promising. 83 In July 1937 he made Mussolini the first
priority when an Italian military build-up synchronised with
the development of an anti-British propaganda by the Italian
broadcasting services in the Middle East.
Chamberlain's first reaction had been to think of improv-
ing relations with Germany.84 When Eden proposed the re-
inforcing of the Mediterranean fleet, he referred the question
to the Chiefs of Staff who replied that this would only be
done by dangerously weakening the Home Fleet. Hankey
then made it his business to ask for an effort to improve
relations with Italy 'in any event during the completion of
our defence programme'. 8S
In 1936 Chamberlain had beaten Hankey about control of

defence policy and the Continental Field Force. Once this
had happened, they collaborated to work out the implica-
tions of the policy he had imposed. Until his retirement in
July 1938, Hankey not only recognised 'sound finance' as a
strategic asset 86 but, as Secretary to the Cabinet and spokes-
man of the Chiefs of Staff, was Chamberlain's chief check on
the Foreign Office.
The belief that a check was needed arose from the realisa-
tion that post-war foreign policy had been a failure. Baldwin
understood this and had talked about cleaning up the Foreign
Office before he retired. 87 In fact he had not done so; all he
had done was to allow Vansittart to refuse to go to Paris.
About Hitler Vansittart had been clear from the start. Any-
thing he said was 'for foreign consumption'. He would need
time before he took on Poland but might win in Austria
without a blow and, once he had done so, would 'loose off
another European war just as soon as [he] feels strong
enough'. 88
Vansittart was not an advocate of the status quo. Like
everyone else he believed that treaty revision was desirable.
What he believed Hitler had done was to defer it indefinite-
ly. 89
Vansittart was not looking for barriers against Bolshevism.
He was unenthusiastic about negotiations and believed that
'the collapse of Hitlerism' was essential. His fears gained
point when the Roehm putsch 'handed Hitler over' to 'the
Junkers', who were much more likely to move towards rap-
prochement with Russia. 90 It was for this reason that he
advocated a Russian alliance with France, British co-opera-
tion with Litvinoff and tripartite firmness towards Germa-
ny. 91
Like Hankey, Vansittart was urgent about rearmament. He
regarded the Austrian struggle as the beginning of a crisis. But
he had no proposal for resistance and was troubled chiefly by
the fear that Simon had isolated Britain by his incapacity to
effect tripartite cordiality. 92
Vansittart disliked Germans who 'cringed' when 'down'
and had a 'superiority complex' when 'up'. 93 In this he dif-
fered from Simon.
In 1934 ministers had well understood that there were
differences of emphasis between Simon's German, and Van-
sittart's French, orientations. These had been resolved and
transcended in the short term by Cabinet decisions; for the
long term they were supposed to be resolved when Hoare and
Eden took over the Foreign Office.
Before Abyssinia Vansittart saw no similarity between
Nazism and Fascism or between Hitler and Mussolini (who
was 'the bigger and wiser' of the two 9 4 ). At the beginning of
the crisis, he was in favour of resistance. Once seized of Laval's
reluctance, he could tell as little as Hoare or Chamberlain
whether resistance would succeed. 95 The Hoare-Laval plan
involved only incompetent adoption of one rather than the
other of the options they all thought they were keeping open
in the summer.
From the subsequent outcry, Vansittart suffered as much
as Hoare, and felt the same need for self-justification. 96 In
the course of 1936 he was under continuous fire from Wil-
son, Hankey and Fisher and was increasingly discredited with
both Baldwin and Chamberlain. 97 He was heavily criticised
in the Foreign Office, and, though closer to Eden than to
Simon, seems still to have been breathing unwelcome fumes
down an unwelcoming neck.
The decision to remove him has been seen as a reply to the
lightness of his warnings about Germany. His warning, how-
ever, had been matched by Hankey and Fisher and had more
than registered with Chamberlain and Hoare, with whom he
had then been implicated in encouraging Hitler by failing to
halt Mussolini.
Vansittart had for long doubted whether Hitler 'meant
business in our sense of the word'. But once the League and
Stresa had collapsed, 'the policy of waiting' would be 'dan-
gerous'. 'Collective security' would become 'encirclement...
unless...combined with an elastic policy of settlement', so it
was essential that the Czechs should be flexible. Though re-
luctant to negotiate without prior decisions about objec-
tives, he was willing to start so long as German expansion in
Europe was excluded.98
In the summer of 1936, moreover, Vansittart visited Ger-
many. There he found a climate which 'the ghost of Barthou
would hardly have recognised' and where, since 'the people in
authority' wanted 'an understanding' and 'perhaps, even
something closer', he decided that negotiation should be pur-
sued.
Vansittart treated the Franco-Soviet alliance as non-nego-
tiable. But he assumed that a settlement would have to pro-
vide for German expansion. This he was willing to contem-
plate. What he rejected was the 'immoral' desire to 'satisfy'
Hitler's 'land hunger at Russia's expense'. It was because Ger-
many had equality in Europe already that he wanted Britain
to facilitate expansion in Africa."
While talking tactically in terms of 'democracy', 10° Van-
sittart wished to avoid an ideological policy. But by late 1936
he was clear that Hitler was not conducting one. Whatever he

had been doing before the putsch, Hitler was now a successor
of the Prussians. The 'Bolshevist menace' was a cover for
'expansion in Central and South-Eastern Europe'. 101 His at-
tacks on 'Semitic Marxism' were neither directed at the Sovi-
et Union nor excluded a deal with Stalin, which would cer-
tainly be made if it became necessary to isolate the French,
just as the Berlin-Tokyo axis had anticipated the British de-
sire to improve relations with Japan. 102
Like Hankey, Vansittart thought in real-power terms. He
saw Hitler brooding on the historic options of Prussian poli-
cy. But he did not know whether he would follow Goebbels
(and Tirpitz) in viewing Britain as 'the ultimate enemy', or
whether he would adopt the Ribbentrop policy of appeasing
Britain in order to engage in military expansion in the East.
In either case the 'position' had to be 'stabilised' and 'time
bought for rearmament' by pursuing economic agreement,
meeting the 'genuine grievance' about colonies and giving
'moderates and moderation' a chance in Germany. 103
In 1936 this was as central a position as the belief that war
between Germany, France and Britain would destroy the 'so-
cial order as we know it'. 1 0 4 So, too, was his defence of
Non-intervention (as a political necessity in England), even
after the communisation of Republican Spain. 105
Despite scepticism about Hitler's intentions, Vansittart did
not deviate until late 1937. Then, like Eden, he objected to
Chamberlain's precipitancy with Mussolini and to the Halifax
visit to Berlin. At the same time he moved sharply towards
the belief that Germany was 'not ready for action on a large
scale' and that Britain could 'contemplate' her 'own posi-
tion... without the panic and precipitation that seem to ani-
mate some of our publicists'. 106
About Mussolini Vansittart blew hot and cold. But he
wanted to detach him from Hitler if that should be possible.
While doubting the outcome, he supported the idea of Ger-
man negotiations, even when Schacht's influence was moving
towards its close. The real difference between his position on
the one hand and the Cabinet's on the other was that, since
Conservatives might resist concessions about colonies, Cham-
berlain, Halifax and Eden assumed that there might have to
be unspecified adjustments in Europe.
Vansittart thought the Empire an 'incubus'. 107 He regard-

ed 'Europe' as the central British interest and doubted wheth-
er agreement would be possible there. His doubt hinged on
the claim that the object (if Nazi attention turned eastward)
would be a military Empire between the Baltic, the Adriatic
and the Black Sea. 108 Even at his most forthcoming, he was
vigorously contemptuous of those who disagreed.
Vansittart felt persecuted by Lothian, Londonderry and
The Times and tried to persecute them in return. 109 He
evidently believed in 'Cliveden' and claimed to be an object
of concerned assault. n o There is no need to adopt this ex-
planation of his removed.
Vansittart's prose and prognostications were dramatic
(and, as it turned out, accurate in respect of German expan-
sion). They also implied that 'Collective Security' should be
submerged into 'national interests'.
It is likely that Eden found him an inconvenient adviser. In
any case, he may well have been tired of a situation in which
he had to mediate as nervously as Simon between the Foreign
Office and the Cabinet.
Eden's uncertainties reflected his own inexperience and
differences among his advisers. As his grip tightened, his pref-
erences prevailed, with the result that he stubbed his toes not
only on the 'power-politics' of Vansittart (who did not be-
lieve in the Empire) but on the 'power politics' of the Chiefs
of Staff, who did.
Throughout the twenties the Chiefs of Staff had deplored

disarmament, while recognising that nothing could be done
to check it. It was not until the Japanese action in 1931 that
they sensed a chance. When the Japanese danger was supple-
mented by the German, they expected the chance to be ta-
ken.
What they wanted was an attempt to educate the public —
an attack by 'statesmen' on 'the false teachings' of 'pacifists'
and 'politicians'. 111 Occasionally they made public state-
ments themselves;112 more often they assumed that minis-
ters would do it better. In any case, they felt called to battle.
By 1935 it had been made clear that the battle would be
lost. However preferable to what had gone before, 113 the
National government had its limitations. They did not need
to be told that conscription was impossible, that money

would be limited and that the 'Empire in arms' was not a
conception to which the Cabinet would respond.
Up to a point, no doubt, their reactions were tactical,
exaggerating the dangers in order to make the Cabinet afraid.
To some extent, they were worried about differences among
themselves as scarce resources were competed for by conflict-
ing Services. From both angles, they were driven to an impor-
tant conclusion about foreign policy.
This was that Britain had either to arm sufficiently for a
world role, or to reduce the world role to the measure of her
power. From early 1935 these were the lessons they began to
teach. They taught them over Abyssinia, the Rhineland and
in considering the European situation thereafter. In doing so,
their most important agent was Hankey.
Throughout the twenties Hankey had tried to resist disar-
mament. After 1931 he had made himself the spearhead of
assault on the 'pacifists' in the Cabinet. He had done his best
to begin naval rearmament in face of Chamberlain's Treasury
scrutiny and had defended the munitions industry against
liberal and socialist attacks on its independence.
In this last respect (by 1937) he had succeeded. 114 In
other respects he had not. Chamberlain had restricted rearma-
ment and affected its direction, and had wanted a forward
policy in Europe and Africa notwithstanding.
Hankey's view of Hitler was conditioned by the 'moral
disarmament' created by the peace movement of the twen-
ties. By 1933 he knew that Germany was rearming and might
eventually have to be resisted. 115 He knew, too, that a pre-
ventive war was the answer. 116 But he knew that it was
impossible politically. He knew, also, that it would be strate-
gically dubious in view of his longstanding mistrust of France
which Chanak had established and the French connection
with Russia now greatly increased.
Hankey's mistrust of France did nothing to reduce his fear
of Germany; if massive rearmament had been possible in
1933, fear would have become a policy. The rearmament
programme, however, by his standards, was niggardly. It ne-
cessitated a chronological priority, in which the build-up
against Germany had to be long term in case the danger ever
became imminent. 117
This did not stop him feeling that danger existed. But the
immediate danger came less from foreign enemies than from
the enemy within, and much more from Cecil and Eden than
from anything that was being planned in Berlin.
The danger was that moral sympathies, League require-
ments or unlimited obligations would land the Empire in
difficulties which disarmament made it incapable of facing,
and would produce disasters so manifest that it would have
to be dismembered, whether the Powers wanted to dismem-
ber it or not. The danger was implicit in the loss of the
pre-war alliances with Italy and Japan. It would have been
brought closer by the proposed Japanese trade embargo in
1932, by Chamberlain's International Police Force two years
later and by the air pact of early 1935. 118
Hankey's preference was for naval superiority in all the
seas at once. This was politically difficult, and became im-
possible when the German naval agreement was not accompa-
nied by renewal of the agreement with Japan. In these, and
other respects, he expected the pace of rearmament to be
slow and the period of danger protracted.
Hankey was no respecter of politicians 119 who reflected
the 'era of shame' which Cecil had imposed upon them. 120
He treated the League as merely an 'organ of conciliation',
and regarded the break-up of the Disarmament Conference as
a chance to return to the 'balance of power'. From his point
of view, the Empire, France and the Low Countries were the
real limits of British commitment;121 he saw a great mari-
time Empire being turned by defects of prudence and imagi-
nation into the Sick Man of the World.122
These feelings, strongly entrenched by the beginning of the
Abyssinia crisis, were confirmed by it 1 2 3 and became acute
as Spain divided Eden from the Cabinet. In 1937 they provi-
ded the ballast for Cabinet resistance.
What was feared was 'foreign policy...carry[ing] us into
war when we are not ready for it'. 124 What was also feared
was military, or naval, defeat in a war fought without al-
lies. 125 What was feared, after Blum's victory in 1936, was a
war fought in company with the French ('half-riddled with
discontent and Communism') and in indirect alliance with the
Russians, whose object was 'to...force Bolshevism on a shatte-
red Europe.126
Neither Hankey nor the Chiefs of Staff saw any reason to

bring this about. They saw 'the sentimentalists' dragging
them into war against Japan. They felt the same about Spain
and had no interest in propping up the Republic. They had
no objection to Mussolini ('however untrustworthy') and
wanted to repair the breach which Spain and Abyssinia had
been causing.127
In urging negotiations, they were not assuming that 'an
enemy' was to be 'appeased'. They believed that the Italian
people were friendly and that there was no need for enmity
between the governments.128 They discerned an Anglo-Ita-
lian interest in 'a free Mediterranean and Red Sea' and belie-
ved that the only obstacle was Eden's dislike of Mussoli-
ni. 129
About Germany they were apprehensive. But they were
also cautious. Sometimes they treated German colonies as a
threat; at others they thought them likely to disperse German
naval power.130 They thought the German economy inade-
quate to dominate Europe, and they did not expect Hitler to
attack the Empire. So long as there was no evidence that he
would do so, they were willing to accept German expansion
in south-eastern Europe.131 They were quite clear that the
Russians were 'foul'. They were equally clear that Britain had
a duty to 'stave off war...and strengthen ourselves in case one
day we can stave it off no longer'.132
In the first half of 1937 Hankey did not need to exert
himself since the Cabinet had its own reasons for holding
Eden back. When he undertook his special intervention in
July, he was much more worried.
It was, therefore,133 in the hope of better relations 'car-

rying] us' through a 'danger period' that Chamberlain was
acting when he opened negotiations. It was in order to buy
the 'necessary time' for rearmament that he sent Mussolini a
letter hoping that relations would be better in the future.134
At first, he wanted a bargain — with Mussolini promising
to withdraw volunteers from Spain if Britain undertook to
initiate recognition of the Abyssinian Empire at Geneva. He
thought, however, even then, that recognition, though some-
thing the Italians wanted, would become less valuable as time
went on and that Italy could best be excluded 'from the list
of possible enemies' by not making conditions. 13S By the

end of August he believed that his correspondence with Mus-
solini had so completely blunted Italian propaganda that he
should take the initiative regardless.136 In this, as Eden war-
ned him, he was taking a risk. 137 But he took it with his eyes
open in the hope that success would 'weaken' the 'artificial'
ties between Germany and Italy and be of 'immense value...if
we had any disagreement with Germany'. 138
In approaching Mussolini, Chamberlain aimed to set an
example to the Foreign Office.139 Its hesitations increased
his determination to conduct policy himself, largely through
the regular machinery but occasionally through intermedi-
aries like Ball and Ivy Chamberlain. 140 Though these were
intended to be supplementary, rather than central, they en-
sured that major questions were discussed with Wilson,
Hankey and Halifax as much as with Vansittart and Eden.
During the attempt to talk Mussolini out of war in 1935

Chamberlain had formed a favourable opinion of Eden's di-
plomatic skill. 141 During his period as Mayor of the Palace,
his view was that Eden had a 'genius' for 'personal contacts', 142
was good at listening to advice and showed 'courage and
statesmanship' over the Rhineland. 143 Eden, however, was
forty, he was sixty-eight and there was no affinity of sympa-
thy or background between them. The League position he
had adopted in June 1936 had been implicitly critical. Eden,
for his part, feared that Chamberlain would destroy his bipar-
tisan position by intensifying party conflict. 144 In the
months of waiting, he had threatened to resign if he could
not remain Foreign Secretary. Within ten days of Baldwin's
retirement he had annoyed Chamberlain and upset the Impe-
rial Conference by trying to get the Dominions Prime Mini-
sters to make a strong statement of support for the
League. 145
On both sides, therefore, there had been difficulties. On
both there was a predisposition to prickliness — on Eden's at
Chamberlain's conception of the relationship between party
and foreign policy, on Chamberlain's at the feeling that Eden
had had too much limelight under Baldwin for reasons, and
in defence of causes, that were bogus.
Except in the sense that it was an achievement to have
become Foreign Secretary at thirty-eight and to have implied

the possibility of further advancement in the future, Eden's
period at the Foreign Office had not been either a technical
success or punctuated by successes. No four-power confer-
ence had been held. Germany and Italy had, in effect, with-
drawn from Locarno, as had Belgium after the party crisis of
1936 and the French alignment with Russia.146 In Spain
Russia had behaved badly. Mussolini's capacity for failure
had been over-estimated, not only in Abyssinia (even after he
had won 147 ), but also in Spain where non-intervention, if
considered as a contribution to a Republican victory or the
emergence of a 'middle government', was self-defeating, and
where increasing Communist control of the contracting Re-
public made it extremely unpopular among Conserva-
tives. 148
For Eden Anglo-Italian relations were delicate. Mussolini
was not only the Fascist who had committed atrocities in
Abyssinia. He was also the man who had stood up to the
League and beaten it. When deciding on conciliation, there-
fore, he took pains to avoid enthusiasm. He had done so,
even when contemplating a Mediterranean Locarno 149 and
would have had great difficulty in doing anything else in view
of the tenuousness of the connection between the Embassy
in Rome and the highest reaches of the Italian govern-
ment. 15°
How long Eden would have persisted with virtue is uncer-
tain. In the early winter of 1936 he was under Cabinet pres-
sure 1S1 to move faster than he liked, and tried to use Aus-
ten and Ivy Chamberlain as intermediaries with Mussolini.152
After the conclusion of the 'gentleman's agreement' in Janua-
ry 1937, however, Italian intervention in Spain was stepped
up.
The Spanish war had begun at a time when Eden was
interested primarily in renegotiating Locarno. Since, there-
fore, it came inopportunely, he had wished, so far as possible,
to contain it. This was the object when he and Blum propo-
sed, and the Powers agreed, that none of them should inter-
vene. Despite the establishment of a Non-intervention Com-
mittee in London, it became clear by October that Russia,
Italy and Germany were intervening in strength and that the
Labour party proposed to turn 'Spain' into a test of mer-

it. 153
Eden's chief aim was to limit intervention (including inter-
ventions from organised Italian volunteers). He had not been
very successful. When Italian intervention was stepped up in
early January, he confronted first Baldwin and then a hastily
summoned meeting of ministers with a plan to ask for inter-
national agreement to the establishment of a British naval
cordon round the Spanish coast.154
In excusing his haste, Eden explained the need to prevent
'an international war between the Fascist and Bolshevist
states' and the danger, if the dictators got away with it, of the
'moderate influences in Germany' being 'silenced' and the
Germans 'undertaking] other adventures, for example, in
Czechoslovakia'.
If he was trying to rush the Cabinet, he was disappointed.
Hardly anyone spoke in his favour. Wood and Inskip told him
that the plan did not amount to much and would, in any
case, be rejected by the governments concerned. Stanhope
disliked 'this country playing the role' of 'unpaid policeman
to the world'. Simon did not see how the world could agree
to it being judge as well. Hoare said that the plan amounted
to an attempt to 'stop...Franco winning' where 'some mem-
bers of the Cabinet were much more interested in stopping
the Soviet Union winning'. When Eden replied that 'there
would be a great deal of complaint in this country...if Madrid
was captured by the Insurgents', he was told 155 that 'many
people...would be equally troubled if the Bolshevists achieved
a victory'.
Hoare pointed out that the Admiralty had not been con-
sulted, was not in favour and regarded land control at ports
of embarkation as the only feasible way of proceeding. Some
ministers disliked even this, and it eventually became clear
that most of them wanted the Germans and Italians to make
proposals of their own. When Baldwin ruled out the block-
ade, Eden suggested a conference of the Powers in London. He
dropped this (after the Cabinet had agreed) in favour of an
attempt to collect4views' and refer them to the Non-interven-
tion Committee. They emerged from there a month later as a
plan for a joint naval patrol by all the leading Powers, which
was not put into operation until the beginning of April.156
In deciding, early in the war, that the Republic ought to

win, 157 Eden was thinking strategically (in terms of the Me-
diterranean) and politically (in terms of the liberal Left in
England). He stuck to non-intervention, which the Cabinet
and Conservative party would not have agreed to abandon
and which gave a negotiating hold through the French threat
to open the Spanish frontier. But he was against an agree-
ment with Mussolini so long as Italian troops were fighting
for Franco and was conscious of a difference between his
own desire to prop up the Republic and the feelings of many
other members of the Cabinet. From his point of view, the
war went the wrong way.
For Chamberlain, on the other hand, it went the right way.
Though in no sense a partisan, he had no desire to see Fran-
co, or anyone else, 'messed up' by 'the Bolshies' who were
'the limit'. 158 For him 'Spain' meant the possibility of war
between France and Italy and a cementing of Mussolini's
alliance with Hitler. He did not believe that a Franco victory
would establish 'a third dictator State', give France 'a third
frontier...to be defended' or 'increase the likelihood of some
early advance elsewhere' by Hitler and Mussolini. Nor did he
expect Italy to get 'submarine bases...for bargaining purpo-
ses...in case of war'. 159 He, therefore, minded less than Eden
about the presence of Italian troops and was much more
concerned with playing Spain down in order to negotiate
elsewhere. He did not agree that 'the only way to make any
impression on the Italians' was 'to hit back at them'. 160
In 1937 Chamberlain went a long way with Eden against
Cabinet pressure to grant belligerent status to Franco. Until
late in the summer he agreed that a quid pro quo would be
needed from Mussolini. Eventually, however, a point was rea-
ched at which the Mussolini problem seemed to be too urgent
for bargaining. 161
From the beginning of negotiations, Chamberlain believed

that Mussolini need not be an enemy and could be made a
friend. He knew that Eden was sensitive and that negotiations
would be difficult. Instead, therefore, of getting him to con-
duct them, he conducted them himself. His first sense of
success, and the first quarrel, came when Halifax was his link
with the Foreign Office while Eden was on holiday. I62
On August 10 Halifax held a meeting of Foreign Office

officials in order to write Chamberlain a programme. 163
When Eden saw it, he spent a great deal of time chewing it
over. Having made up his mind that he 'really...could...not...
bring [him]self to any kind of approval of what Italy had
done', he asked Halifax to spend a night with him in his
holiday house on the Solent. 164
Halifax brought back the news that Eden, though 'very
sensitive' about getting 'advantages...for ourselves' from re-
cognising the conquest of Abyssinia, was 'probably willing' to
'contemplate' action at Geneva provided 'the French and as
many others as possible [were] willing to co-operate\ He fear-
ed, however, that, 'having once given Mussolini the thing
that he principally wanted' Britain might get nothing in re-
turn. He thought it best therefore to begin by encouraging
the newspapers to anticipate recognition so that, when other
League members had taken the initiative, he would be in a
position to tackle the Italians about their naval build-up,
their propaganda and their forces in Spain. 165
Halifax also brought back the news that Eden wanted
Chamberlain to come back from his holiday. The result was
that Chamberlain insisted on having his way, while leaving it
uncertain at what point recognition would be given. The dis-
pute was not resolved before the submarine attacks which led
up to the Nyon Conference in September. 166
Eden had been put down in January and had had prolong-
ed disagreement with the Admiralty about the blockading of
Bilbao three months later. 167 When German warships 168
were attacked on naval patrol by Republican submarines, he
refused the German request for a naval demonstration in
front of Valencia. 169 On both occasions he left his critics the
impression of being insensitive to the German position, 170 of
acting on behalf of the Republic 171 and of wishing to avoid
even minimum recognition of Franco's status. 172
Eden had no ideological preferences. But he was sensitive to
those who had and was anxious to prevent the Labour party
making Spain a ground for challenge. He was embarrassed by
the Insurgent sympathies of other ministers and the Conserva-
tive mistrust of the Republic.173 When he appealed to 'the
governments of Europe' to turn 'the Spanish tragedy' into an
'occasion for co-operation',174 he was hoping to undermine
Franco's supporters. The bombing of Guernica at the end of

April and Italian attacks on Republican ships produced
additional reasons for demonstrating his liberality.
From this point of view, attacks on British ships at the end
of August were damaging. At first he was shrill and ner-
vous. 175 In the following fortnight he began to sound like
Palmerston. 176 When the Nyon Conference agreed to 'set up
a police force' and '80 Anglo-French destroyers patroll[ed]
the Mediterranean' in late September, he believed that 'a pro-
found impression' had been made. 177
At Nyon Eden recovered from the gloom of January. He,
however, was not the only person who was pleased. Chamber-
lain was pleased too, because the demonstration of strength
would make it reasonable to resume negotiations. Even so, he
tried to stop Eden addressing a Conservative rally, ostensibly
because he would 'tire himself out', 1 7 8 in fact because he
would present the agreement as a victory over Mussolini.179
Only the danger of the Blum government opening the fron-
tier when Mussolini announced involvement in Franco's vic-
tories compelled him to drop talks for the time being. 180
The concurrent switch to German appeasement produced
disputes about which Chamberlain proposed to *sav[e] Eden
from himself'181 while praising him in public in view of
German newspaper claims 'that there were fundamental dif-
ferences between them'. 182 The decision that Halifax should
go to Germany was settled as a result of a newspaper leak
while Eden was at the China Conference in Brussels.183 It
produced an Eden tantrum 184 on the ground that Anglo-
German relations would suffer from 'exaggerated expecta-
tions'. 18S
Chamberlain's response was that he should 'go back to bed
and take an aspirin'. 186 His comment, when the visit was
over, was that Halifax would not be reporting to him until
'honour had been satisfied' by a visit to the Foreign Offi-
ce. 1 8 7 He was amiably contemptuous when Eden's followers
took pains to establish that Eden's authority had not been
damaged. 188
Although Eden irritated Chamberlain, there was a measure
of agreement. Eden raised no objection to Halifax's visit
when it was first suggested 189 and eventually came to sup-
port it. 1 9 0 He supported the removal of Vansittart whom he
had presssed Baldwin to send to Paris in 1936 and was able to

shunt sideways a year later, because Chamberlain wanted a
'sane, slow man' like Cadogan to have a steadying effect on
his own 'natural vibrations'. 191
Nevertheless, there were differences. Eden preferred Hitler
to Mussolini and had for long believed that the 'moderate
elements' in Germany deserved help in their attempt to pre-
vent the Nazi party capturing his mind. 192 He took Italy less
seriously than the Chiefs of Staff whose sense of weakness
rationalised an instinctive desire to 'clamber on the band-
wagon with the dictators'. 193 In November, he began to say
that negotiations with Germany should be deferred until rear-
mament had been completed. 194 After the defence review in
December, he talked about the need to hurry it up and de-
nied that Britain could find herself at war alone against Ger-
many, Italy and Japan. 195
Eden was not alone in thinking the Mediterranean impor-
tant and Turkish, Arab and Egyptian collaboration central.
But, where others expected this to be matched by collabora-
tion with Spain and Italy, he assumed that Spain and Italy
were certain to be hostile.
So far as Chamberlain could see, Eden did not understand
the danger from the anti-Comintern powers or the urgency of
the need to keep them apart. He 'deserved' the rebuke he was
given for attacking Mussolini in reply to an attack on the
'democracies' a few days after Ciano had refused to come to
Brussels for a meeting during the Conference on China. 196
The Brussels Conference was attended by most of the signa-

tories of the 1922 Treaty. It marked a definitive rejection of
the idea that international action would be taken to stop the
Sino-Japanese war. 197 With its failure, a problem which had
haunted British diplomacy for four years became a reality.
Fear of war against Germany and Japan had been a central
feature of the defence discussions of 1934. It had not, how-
ever, become critical, because it had been assumed that diplo-
macy could deal with Japan. 198 Diplomacy had then made
Italy hostile.
By mid-1937, the attempt to restore Anglo-Italian rela-
tions had failed; by the end of the year, relations with Musso-
lini were as difficult as in 1935. Russian intervention in Spain
and the Franco-Russian alliance had produced the Anti-Co-

mintern pact which, though aimed at France and Russia, was
the greatest danger the Empire could face. The problem then
escalated when the Japanese attack on China in late July was
followed by incidents in the international settlements.
The British interest in the Sino-Japanese war was that li-
mits should be placed on Japanese expansion. But it was not
obvious whether this should be done by restoring peace, by
propping up the Chinese or by encouraging the Japanese to
become over-committed. Nor was it obvious what could be
done by way of retaliation, so long as it was impossible to
send an adequate fleet, dangerous to send an inadequate one
and essential to avoid a direct Japanese attack on the Empire.
In these circumstances, the Japanese action increased the
importance of appeasement in Europe at the same time as the
danger in Europe made it 'suicidal...to pick a quarrel' in the
Far East. 199 At first this did not affect relations with Italy
since the Blum government's domestic difficulties would hold
up Abyssinian recognition so long as Mussolini was openly
announcing his support for Franco. 200 But it was a material
factor in Chamberlain's enthusiasm for the Halifax visit to
Germany. The Yangtse incident in December merely highligh-
ted the difficulty. 201
The escalation of tension in all three areas in late 1937
presented, therefore, in an acute way, the simmering conflict
between Eden on the one hand and Hankey and the Chiefs of
Staff on the other.
Hankey's reaction was a sharp escalation of pressure as the
Chiefs of Staff were persuaded that war with Italy was being
made inevitable by Eden whose 'perspective' was 'wrong' and
who was 'play[ing] to the gallery of the extreme Left'. 202 It
was in the belief that coolness towards 'dictators' was no
longer supported in the Foreign Office and was becoming
unpopular in the Conservative party that Hankey pressed
Chamberlain to the view that improved relations with Italy
were 'vital' to the Empire's existence...as a first-class po-
wer'. 203
Eden's reaction was subtler than the Palmerstonian reac-
tion of September. Now he took the view that, though nego-
tiation was desirable because action was impossible, agree-
ment should be avoided while Britain was weak. In relation
to Italy, he believed that the weakness was not serious. Else-

where, he believed that nothing should be decided until there
could be agreement from strength.
So long as agreement with Germany was unlikely, this was
not different from Chamberlain's point of view. It became
very different when Chamberlain moved on from the tactical
aim of 'detaching one dictator from the other' towards 'far-
reaching plans for the appeasement of Europe and Asia'. 204
Chamberlain talked about 'checking' the 'mad armaments
race'205 and 'bringing about European peace', 206 but he did
not think that this would be easy. On the contrary, peculiari-
ties of character and the nature of the regimes would make it
difficult.207 His consciousness of the odds made him sensit-
ive when Eden seemed to be sabotaging the policy he was
adopting.
In these circumstances he came increasingly to rely on
Halifax — 'the most important statesman...England ha[s] at
the present time' 208 — who had convinced Hitler of Britain's
sincerity and brought closer the time when discussion of the
colonial question might produce conditions in which 'we' say
to Germany 'give us satisfactory assurances that you won't
use force to deal with the Austrians and Czechoslovakians
and we will give you similar assurances that we won't use
force to prevent the changes you want, if you can get them
by peaceful means'.209
Eden was relieved that the Halifax talks had been more or
less a failure. Chamberlain believed that they had not
been 210 and looked forward to talks about air disarmament,
Locarno and Eastern Europe in the future. He was willing to
go 'a long way' about Colonies if that seemed likely to produ-
ce agreement in Europe. 2n
Chamberlain was conscious of backsliding in the Foreign
Office. He knew that he had to set the pace and make con-
structive suggestions. Eventually, he and Eden settled down
to consulting the French and making preliminary approaches
to Hitler.212
There were differences of emphasis.213 Eden wanted a
strong League, Chamberlain agreed with Hitler that the Lea-
gue 'should not impose its views by force'. 214 Eden did not
share Chamberlain's urgency after the January flare-up in the
Far East. 215 But he shifted when a statement he made about
arms limitation attracted favourable attention in England 216

and seems then to have accepted the Chamberlain time-table
for negotiations with Italy. 217
Having accepted, he interfered with a Grandi/Chamberlain
meeting on February 4 and tried to stop Ivy Chamberlain
talking to Mussolini. When the Schuschnigg/Hitler meeting of
February 11 made Italy crucial, he 'horrified' Chamberlain
by imposing delays and conditions, and then, after agreeing
that talks should go on, asked him to postpone them until
Mussolini had agreed that Italian troops would be withdrawn
from Spain. 218
Eden alleged that Hitler's Austrian policy had been cleared
with Mussolini and that the Germans were claiming that it
had been cleared with Halifax too. 219 In any case he had no
intention of resisting and differed from Chamberlain only in
doubting whether the prospect of German armies on the
Brenner had produced conditions in which Mussolini could
be detached. 220
After a sharp exchange the day before, 221 Chamberlain's
impression on February 9 was that he and Eden were 'in...
more complete...agreement' than at any time in the past. 222
On February 12 Eden more or less said so in public. 223 On
the 16th he asked that Grandi be allowed to see him at the
Foreign Office instead of with Chamberlain in Downing
Street, giving, however, as his reason the 'sharp reaction' a
Chamberlain/Grandi meeting would cause in Berlin 'where it
may be regarded as taking advantage of the Austrian situation
in order to seek to break the Berlin-Rome Axis'. 224
From Chamberlain's point of view, crucial events occurred
on February 17 and 18 when Ciano used Ivy Chamberlain to
send a request for talks to begin and Eden, having claimed,
inaccurately as it turned out, that Vansittart objected, edged
Cadogan forward at luncheon to press the view that he
should see Grandi alone. 225 The argument they had after
their joint meeting with Grandi on the morning of the 18th
confirmed Chamberlain in the view that after losing 'chance
after chance with Italy' Eden was so obstinately determined
to repeat his performance that they could 'never work to-
gether'. 226
Even before this meeting Chamberlain had made up his
mind that talks must begin at once. 227 Having made the
decision, he explained the dispute to the Cabinet on the

19th. No one supported Eden. It was not until after the
discussion, when he said that he would have to resign,228
that he received any support of substance. Though ministers
were greatly worried when they thought about the conse-
quences, the one constant factor at the two Cabinets before
his resignation next day was Chamberlain's determination not
to stop him. 229
In the week after the resignation, Chamberlain decided
that 'at bottom Anthony did not want to talk either with
Hitler or Mussolini and, as I did, he was right to go'. 230 It is
unlikely that Eden would have admitted this, even if it was
true. It is not likely that it was true, in the form in which
Chamberlain put it, since one of Eden's objectives was to
prevent Mussolini driving a wedge between Chamberlain and
himself. 231 For this reason he attached great importance to
procedure and believed, as he said more than once, that 'we
have nothing to gain by showing ourselves over-eager' as 'it
always pays to be firm with the Italians'. 232
Eden gave three reasons for refusing to run after Mussolini
— his breach of the 'gentlemen's agreement',233 his insignifi-
cance in relation to the 'big issues' of the year234 and the
certainty that the anti-Comintern powers would quarrel
among themselves 'unless we gravely mishandle the interna-
tional situation in the near future'. 235
These judgments assumed that Hitler would not go to war
'at the behest of Japan and Italy' and was so 'sincere' about
the 'racial business' that he would dissociate himself from
the anti-white crusade being run from Tokyo. They assumed
that Mussolini had to chose between 'going deeper into the
mire' and 'cutting his losses' after Franco's failure to take
Madrid, and that his appeal to Hitler had provoked disagree-
ment in the German government, the removal of 'the modera-
tes' (i.e. von Neurath) on February 4 and the establishment
of the Ribbentrop policy in Austria. 236 Mussolini would dis-
like this, Eden thought, even if he had promised Hitler a free
hand,237 but could do nothing about it in face of military
set-backs in Spain where Chamberlain's negotiations would
merely help him 'rally his...disgruntled fellow-country-
men...to a further expedition'.238
The judgments were genuine, but it may still have been the
case that Eden wanted to resign as much as Chamberlain

wanted him to. There is much reason to suppose that he
sensed support on the government back benches, expected
Chamberlain to fail (for the new reason that Hitler and Mus-
solini were in league) and thought it wise to present the
negotiations as 'another surrender' which would cause 'panic'
among 'our friends' in Europe and the United States and
leave an impression of 'scuttle' in England. 239
Recognition of the conquest of Abyssinia was a reminder
of the extent to which the purposes implied by Eden's tenure
of the Foreign Office were being abandoned. It was the chal-
lenge presented to 'liberal hopefulness' which made Mussolini
seem like 'anti-Christ'. 240 It was the damage he would suffer
if he remained in office while the League failed in Austria
which justified the claim Eden made after his resignation that
he could not have supported the Anglo-Italian agreement if
he had stayed. 241
It is true that Hitler had not occupied Austria (which he
did not do until March). But Eden had already talked about
the danger of negotiating with Germany while rearmament
was incomplete 242 and thought of resigning both at the time
of the Halifax visit to Berlin and in the course of the argu-
ment he had had about Roosevelt's 'initiative' in January
1938. 243 At a moment at which Hitler had bullied Schusch-
nigg, the negotiations with Germany, which he had been in-
volved in starting, were about to become indefensible to the
moral constituency he represented.
On the two earlier occasions, Eden had got his way but he
had not really tried to stop negotiations with Hitler. After
initial support and subsequent doubt, he had begun to be
critical only when the German government made negative
noises about returning to the League. Even then, he left it an
open question whether to abandon the League element in a
settlement. 244 At the point of maximum reluctance over
Mussolini, he agreed once more that relations with Hitler
should be developed. 24S Over the Roosevelt problem, he and
Cranborne had got their way.
The disagreement then was a continuation of differences
of opinion about Roosevelt's interventions in general. Eden
and Chamberlain agreed that American involvement was desi-
rable and recognised that it would be reluctant. 246 But
where Eden found the few steps Roosevelt had taken 'the
most important thing that had happened for years', 247
Chamberlain found American policy 'incredibly slow', even
in the Far East. 248
Roosevelt wanted to resist Japanese expansion, but Ameri-
can opinion did not. Therefore, he had to move cautiously.
He did not move cautiously enough. 249 In the Cabinet it was
well understood that this was so and that action might not be
forthcoming. 25° It was also understood (by Eden as well as
Chamberlain) that sanctions could not be enforced without
the risk of war 2S1 and should not be imposed unless 'the
United States and the other signatories of the China Treaty'
agreed to support them 'by the use of force if need be'. 252
Chamberlain had learned 'from experience' that the chief
effect of Roosevelt's interventions had been that Britain bore
'the blame and the odium' while Japan was driven towards
Italy and Germany. This made him cautious in public and
much more pacific than he felt. Even when hoping for a
'steadying influence' from an Anglo-American demonstration
of force after the Panay incident in late 1937, he did not
believe that the United States would make one. His doubts
survived the American naval mission to Britain in the New
Year. 253
By the Labour leaders and the League of Nations Union,
on the other hand, every attempt to edge the American pub-
lic towards recognising the danger was interpreted as sup-
port for sanctions and every hint at American action against
Japan interpreted as a challenge to the British failure to resist
dictators. It was Eden's sensitiveness in these directions
which determined his response to Chamberlain's treatment of
the Roosevelt 'initiative'.
This began in January 1938 when Roosevelt asked the
ambassador in Washington to find out whether the Cabinet
would welcome a small-power conference to discuss the
world situation and define possible areas of agreement about
arms limitation, access to raw materials and the laws-of-war
aspects of international tension.
This was intended to look like a contribution to appease-
ment. When Chamberlain replied (while Eden was abroad), he
so much emphasised the importance of his own negotiations
that Roosevelt was put off. 254 When Eden returned, he
treated it as so much the most importcint step that had been

taken for a long time that he raised strong objections to
Chamberlain's failure to respond gracefully.
Chamberlain described the initiative as a 'preposterous ef-
fusion'. His judgment was confirmed, as he believed, by the
embassy in Washington, despite Eden's attempts at conceal-
ment. He gave way after the event, when Eden insisted on the
question being taken to the Cabinet Committee. 25S
Eden and his entourage misunderstood Chamberlain's opi-
nions and made the wrong accusations. The accused him, for
example, of being anti-American (which was only true econo-
mically). But they did not make the serious point that he was
over-optimistic. They also thought that he allowed Hoare and
Simon to flatter him where he seems to have been much less
dependent on his intimates than Eden on his. The policy
differences they discerned certainly existed. But it is difficult
to avoid the feeling that their real objection was that Cham-
berlain was undervaluing the Foreign Office and was leading
the Conservative party. 256
Although, then, policy was a cause of disagreement, it is
difficult to see it as the only cause of resignation. Eden had
not only got his way in January; by the time he resigned on
February 20, Chamberlain had (perhaps disingenuously) brid-
ged the gap by accepting his formula about volunteers. 257
Halifax and others offered this as a basis for agreement,
but Eden refused to be trapped. It is not clear how far he was
thinking about the Cadman report 258 or the Ipswich by-elec-
tion of February 11 259 (when a boyhood friend of Crook-
shank and Macmillan could not save a Conservative seat, des-
pite his obvious ability). Nor is it clear to what extent he was
tired and ill, 260 hoping for other resignations or trying to
catch up with that liberal stage-army of the good of which his
'World Free From Fear' had become a symbol. 261 What is
clear is that six years in office were ending in ignominy (in
Austria) when resignation enabled him to turn an unsuccessful
stewardship into a claim to the Prime Ministership when
Chamberlain retired.
CHAMBERLAIN AND HITLER
'Czechoslovakia!! rule in the Sudeten areas for the last twenty years has
been marked by tactlessness, intolerance and discrimination*.
Runciman to Chamberlain, September 21 1938 PREM 1/266A
* Neville annoys me by mouthing the arguments of complete pacifism

while piling up armaments'.
Attlee to Tom Attlee, February 22 1939
'The principal trouble, of course, remains that we cannot possibly tell...

what is going on inside the brains of the one man who matters'.
Halifax to Runciman, September 6 1938, FO 800/309
Chamberlain did not try to get rid of Eden and Cranborne,

but he felt a great sense of relief at their going.1 Now that
they had gone, the Foreign Office could be run as he wanted
it run, secure in the knowledge that Halifax and Butler2 were
enthusiastic proponents of his own point of view who would
be less sensitive to Opposition opinion and more willing to
take the steps needed 'to avoid another Great War'. In parti-
cular they would help him to rid himself of 'Collective Secur-
ity' of which Eden had been the symbol3 and Chamberlain's
attack on which was thought of by those who heard it in the
House of Commons to be 'a scrapping of the ideas which had
been built up since the war' and a reversion to 'good old Tory
doctrines'. 4
In this, those who heard him were mistaken. In preferring
'national strength' to an 'international police force' (which
previously he had wanted) Chamberlain took a politician's
view of Tory opinion. Though willing to use them as threats
he took a moralistic attitude towards 'power polities'. He had
two views about 'alliances' and had made it his chief object in
1937 to break up the ideological alliance by which he was
confronted.
Chamberlain was innocently jealous of the contrast be-
tween democracies which made governments 'lay their cards
on the table' and dictatorships which would 'keep them in
their hands'. 5 But he had no admiration for dictators in gene-
ral or for Hitler and Mussolini in particular; he hovered be-
tween believing that Russia had shown her strength in Spain

and that she had been weakened by the purges. He was anti-
Bolshevik. But he had as little desire to join the anti-Comin-
tern pact as to 'defend democracy' against 'the dictators'. He
thought ideological conflict dangerous because it would push
Britain into alliance with France and Russia and cement the
connection between Germany, Italy and Japan.6
By the beginning of 1938, he had acquired two leading
ideas — that the division of the world into ideological blocs
would damage Britain and the Empire and that Britain could
not resist attack in both Europe and the Far East. He had
reached three conclusions — that France was politically unre-
liable, that the United States would do nothing anywhere and
that the national interest required a policy of positive, paci-
fic, international amicability. He had a conviction of the con-
nection between the maintenance of peace on the one hand
and the preservation of the Empire on the other, and a calcu-
lation that a national interest was involved in the systematic
attempt to prevent the division of the world on ideological
lines.
By this time, moreover, the defence review of late 1937
had abandoned bomber parity and the bomber deterrent (as
providing no guarantee against a knockout blow) and had
decided that the main effort should be defensive. With an
increased fighter programme, it came to be assumed that,
given time, Germany would be unable to win an air offensive
against Great Britain.
These emphases were designed to ensure that, if war came,
it would last long enough to allow naval blockade to reveal
the weakness of the German economy. It was because econo-
mic weakness would prevent Hitler winning and because the
'staying power' of the British economy was an 'essential ele-
ment in our strength' that rigid control was exercised over
every form of military expenditure.7
For foreign policy this provided an assurance, quite diffe-
rent from the bomber deterrent, that a German victory
would be impossible once the air programme had been com-
pleted. It proved that a German war could be won if delayed
long enough. It convinced Chamberlain that Hitler and the
German General Staff knew this as well as he did and, unless
CHAMBERLAIN AND HITLER 179
tempted by an early knockout blow, would do their best to

avoid it.
Chamberlain was worried by the 'knockout blow' and al-
lowed it to affect him at points of crisis — to some extent,
probably, at Munich, more notably during the occupation of
Memel. In general, however, he did not believe until early
1939 that Hitler was even thinking of attacking Britain and,
by the middle of the year, believed that a knockout blow
could no longer be effective. Although, therefore, defence
expenditure was controlled, he thought that he and Hitler
understood that he would shortly have the advantage. It was
the desirability, from a British point of view, of avoiding war
in the near future and the hope that Hitler would understand
the danger he would face in going to war at all (unless he
could win quickly) that formed the strategic basis from
which he operated in the next eighteen months.
How far, and at what point, Chamberlain believed that he
had a mission to prevent war, how far, and at what point, his
policy was tactical, must be matters for guesswork. What
cannot reasonably be doubted is that he brought a consistent
range of thought and calculation to the shocks and surprises
he experienced in the months which followed the Anschluss.
One reason Chamberlain had given for pressing the Italian

negotiations in mid-February was that they provided the only
hope for preserving 'the last shreds of Austrian inde-
pendence'.8 But neither he nor Halifax regarded Austria as
more them a counter for negotiating the general agreement
which Halifax's visit had hinted at. On Eden's advice, and
after he resigned, there had been caution about warning Hit-
ler in case that forced him to turn Schuschnigg's capitulation
into an Anschluss.9 It did not hold up the decision to present
proposals for settling the colonial question.10
Like Eden, Halifax and Chamberlain believed that the
Austrians could not resist and should not be helped if they
did. They took differing views of Mussolini but agreed that
he was the person whose reaction mattered most. Schusch-
nigg's decision to hold a plebiscite was treated as a mistake,
about which they had not been consulted and for which they
felt no responsibility. n But, since they were assuming that
the Berchtesgaden meeting was itself the coup, they were

greatly shaken a month later by news of the occupation.
This arrived in the middle of a luncheon at which Cham-
berlain was telling Ribbentrop about his plans for improving
relations. His reaction was that the Italian conversations
should have started earlier, that Roosevelt would have looked
foolish if his 'initiative' had been pursued and that what Hit-
ler had done was a 'typical illustration of Power polities'. 12
He decided to 'announce some increase or acceleration in air
and anti-aircraft rearmament' and to stop the conversations
which Henderson had started ten days earlier. 13
His aim in doing this was not, however, to abandon the
conversations but to prevent a coup in Czechoslovakia so that
they could eventually be resumed. 14 It was in order to keep
open relations with Hitler and to reassure him that he
thought of giving the Czechs a guarantee or promising to
support France if France went to war in honouring the Czech
Treaty. 15
The Czech guarantee was dropped because nothing could
be done to make it effective. So also was alliance with France
and the Little Entente in deference to the view that it would
extend commitments while adding nothing to strength. An
alliance with Russia was rejected on the ground that Russia's
chief aim was to get Britain involved in fighting her war
against Hitler for her. 16
These produced subsidiary decisions which constituted
policy for the future. There was an attempt to persuade Yu-
goslavia and Turkey to anticipate anything Hitler might do in
the Balkans. There was the agreement with Italy which,
though emasculated in order to forestall criticism in Parlia-
ment, was effected in April to the accompaniment of a warm
exchange of letters with Mussolini.17
From Chamberlain's point of view, the Anschluss was im-
portant as confirming that no country could 'appeal to Col-
lective Security with any prospect of success'. 18 While co-
operation with France in Locarno remained the kernel, there
was, however, to be no 'alliance'. There was reluctance to
underwrite French commitments 19 and a refusal to be invol-
ved in central Europe, where it was as desirable to take the
Sudeten question out of Angla-French relations with Ger-
many as it was to take the Abyssinian question out of rela-

tions with Italy. 20
Three decisions, therefore, were made. One, approved by
the Cabinet on March 23 and announced by Chamberlain in
Parliament next day, 21 was that no guarantee could be given
of British support for a French attack on Germany if Ger-
many attacked Czechoslovakia. The second, announced at
the same time, was that, though there could be no guarantee
that support would be given, it nevertheless might be. The
third was that the Czech government should be 'induced...to
apply themselves' to producing a Sudeten settlement 22 so
that 'it might presently be possible to start again in Berlin'. 23
In the next two months, this combination of positions was
designed to show the Germans that 'they could get say, 75%
of what...they wanted by peaceful means', to ensure that the
French pressed Benes as the price for British support in war
and 'to keep Hitler guessing' so that the reasonable assump-
tion that Britain would not fight for Czechoslovakia could
not be turned into the presumption — fatal to detente — that
he could use force without Britain doing so too. 24
At Anglo-French meetings in London in April, Chamber-
lain intended to explain that Britain's land forces were so
small that military staff talks were unnecessary. 25 Eventual-
ly, he decided that talks were the best guarantee of French
pressure being brought to bear on Benes. 26 But it was made
clear that, though the Sudeten Germans must be satisfied
'while this was still possible', Britain would express no opi-
nion about the terms and give no guarantee of action in the
event of breakdown. 27
It was in this frame of mind that he responded to the war
scare of May 21 when troop movements on the Czech fron-
tier and expectations of a German invasion were reported
throughout the world. Believing these reports, he acted out
the scenario that had been anticipated in March. Benes was
told to be generous, the French to be careful and Hitler given
the impression that a French response to a German invasion
might involve Britain in open intervention. 28 This was, in
fact, a bluff,29 which the Germans could not call since they
had not been preparing to invade and could neither make,
nor halt, an invasion. Their denials, when made public, were
not believed. When no invasion took place, Chamberlain saw

how easy it was to restrain Hitler when the League was not
involved. 30
His conduct, thereafter, was overshadowed by the twin
beliefs that British firmness had worked and that the Franco-
Czech alliance had nearly caused a war. 31 British pressure on
Benes, and the assurances Hitler was given that pressure was
being brought, were coloured by 'success', by the 'nasty
shock' supposed to have been given to the Rome-Berlin Axis
by the Italian treaty and by the Anglo-Turkish financial
agreement which proved that 'in central and south-eastern
Europe...Hitler had missed the bus'. 32
It was from a position of 'strength', therefore, that Cham-
berlain took pains to prevent marginal difficulties dominating
the situation. He imposed iron control on anything likely to
produce conflict with Japan and persuaded the Cabinet to
reject Halifax's proposal to make a loan to China. 33 He for-
bade any sort of intervention in Spain, even when British
ships were attacked, 34 and did his best to damp down both
the Foreign Office and the French desire to retaliate when-
ever Mussolini behaved disagreeably. 3S
About Germany he had no illusions; any that had survived
the Anschluss were dispelled by May 21 which proved that
Germans were 'bullies by nature' and would keep Europe in a
state of 'chronic anxiety' so long as they had the advanta-
ge. 36 Detente continued to be the objective (and one which
the German people wanted 3 7 ), but it did not seem to be
urgent so long as Britain had a long way to go militarily.
Chamberlain, therefore, behaved cautiously. He mentioned
the resumption of negotiations at a press conference in
June 38 and to the German Ambassador in July. But he did
not take the initiative. Contact, begun as a German initia-
tive, 39 culminated in a visit by one of Hitler's staff and a
proposal that Goering should come to London. Chamberlain
'welcome[ed]' the idea of a Goering visit provided there was
'adequate preparation' and a 'favourable...atmosphere...parti-
cularly in connection with Czechoslovakia'. But he emphasis-
ed that no amount of provocation would justify the use of
force 40 and erected a peaceful settlement of the Sudeten
question into a hurdle before a general negotiation could
begin. 41
Since Chamberlain and Halifax were not pressing, there

was no real motion in the summer of 1938. May 21, however,
had nearly produced a 'wholly unprofitable' war 42 which
might well happen unless the Sudeten question was settled.
This convinced them that something must be done. They
thought of three possibilities.
The first 43 was that Benes should couple the best terms he
could offer the Sudeten Germans with a choice between an
immediate plebiscite and a plebiscite about joining Germany
after the new offer had been in operation for five years. The
second, which Chamberlain preferred, was to help France
abandon the Czech treaty by giving Czechoslovakia a Swiss
status under international guarantee, provided the Sudeten
Germans could be made a 'contented people' within the ex-
isting state. 44
The third was to send a Foreign Office official45 to Prague
and Berlin. When he decided that the Germans were worried
primarily by 'encirclement', an opportunity was discerned to
bring together their fears with the French desire to renounce
the treaty. It then became the object of policy to find ways
of doing this, while repeating warnings about the need to
produce concessions striking enough to satisfy Henlein.46
When Benes seemed to be stalling and Hitler to be thinking
of a coup 4 7 , this merged into the plan, conceived by Cham-
berlain in the last week in June, that an independent arbitra-
tor might work for agreement between the Czechs and the
Sudeten Germans. This was the mission that Runciman ac-
cepted, reluctantly and without expectation and agreed to
formally when the Benes/Henlein talks broke down in late
July. 4 8
By the time Runciman arrived in Prague with a British
staff on August 3, it seemed so likely that the German go-
vernment would be unco-operative that Chamberlain and Ha-
lifax wrote Hitler a letter. 49 After repeating that a Czech set-
tlement was a pre-requisite to negotiation, this repeated the
formula which had been used in May — that his present atti-
tude might involve all the Great Powers in war. 50
When Hitler side-stepped by getting Ribbentrop to ans-
wer, 51 there was a plan to send a special ambassador to
Berlin with proposals for a settlement. 52 By August 30 this
had developed into the idea that Chamberlain should visit

Hitler.
Chamberlain's difficulty was that he had no feel for the
situation in the German Government. 53 Hitler had little con-
tact with ministers and officials, imposed secrecy on his staff
and 'lived in a state of exaltation' unusual among English
politicians. He was almost certainly at least 'half mad', but
'the fate of hundreds of millions depend[ed] on him, 54 so it
was as essential to understand him as it was difficult to do so
without meeting him.
It was essential, in particular, to know whether he was
determined to invade Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain had
floods of Intelligence reports and a good deal of unsolicited
warning from anti-Nazis on the army staffs. But he could not
evaluate the reports, and he compared the anti-Nazis to the
Jacobites. Invasion, however, would make detente impossible
so he needed to know — what he could not know indirectly
— whether invasion was intended. As it came to seem likely
in the last week of August that invasion was intended, pre-
vention became the essence of policy. 5S
In order that the policy should have a chance, it was neces-
sary that Hitler should do nothing to stop it. This made the
'warning' of March 24 important. It was repeated by Simon
at Lanark on August 27. 5 6 It was the main subject when
Chamberlain recalled ministers from their holidays three days
later. 57
The problem, as he and Halifax explained it, was to evalua-
te Henderson's analysis of Hitler's intentions. S8 They poin-
ted out how difficult this was. They laid out what they knew
about opinion in the German army and recorded the claims
registered by Churchill, Boothby and the German opposition
that an early statement of intention to declare war in the
event of invasion would enable Goerdeler and the generals to
get rid of Hitler. 59
Since they did not feel sure that the Goerdeler plot exist-
ed, their advice was that a statement of this sort would be
resented in Britain and the Empire and, if carried into effect
after an invasion, would neither prevent Czechoslovakia being
overrun nor lead to a restoration of the 'existing' Czech state
after an Anglo-French victory. Though there was more to the
problem than the continued existence of Czechoslovakia,
they doubted 'whether it [was] justifiable to fight a certain

war now in order to forestall a possible war later'. 60 The
practical question therefore was whether the Simon warning
was 'innocent' enough to puzzle Hitler, while 'strengthening]
the hands of the generals' in case the reports about them
were 'really true'. 6 1
About the warning they made no false claims. Its sole
purpose was to keep Hitler guessing, but if he had already
decided to invade, then it was redundant. It was only if his
mind was not made up that it might be effective. It was on
this assumption that they urged the importance of handling
him more gingerly than in May and persuaded the Cabinet to
agree that no further warnings should be given for the mo-
ment. 62
What Chamberlain was doing between August 21 and Sep-
tember 14 was to prevent a deteriorating situation deterio-
rating so far that he could play no part in it, and to prevent
action likely to 'bring about exactly what we want to avoid —
namely Hitler, faced with no choice save war or humiliation',
invading Czechoslovakia or mounting an air attack on Lon-
don and Paris. 63 The refusal to mobilise the fleet, evacuate
the cities or give commitments to the French, 64 and his re-
luctance to repeat the warning, all reflected a determination
to persist until he had got beyond Henderson, Ribbentrop,
the Foreign Office and the German Foreign Ministry to real
knowledge of Hitler. 65
The idea of a visit was conceived of as a coup which need-
ed surprise in order to be effective. It was not proceeded with
at the end of August because invasion did not seem to be
imminent. In early September Chamberlain was not sure that
it would be needed. It was only when the Sudeten Germans
threatened to break off negotiations and Intelligence sources
predicted an early invasion that the Cabinet Committee deci-
ded (late on the evening of September 13) that it should be
put into operation. 66
Between conceiving the visit and deciding to propose it,
Chamberlain had tried it on Henderson, Cadogan, Vansittart,
Wood, Runciman, Wilson and MacDonald in addition to
Simon, Hoare and Halifax (the members of the Cabinet Com-
mittee). All had been told to keep it secret from the Cabinet,
which knew nothing as a body until the morning of Sept-
ember 14, after Henderson had been told to ask whether Hitler
would see Chamberlain if he came. 67
In the first week of September Halifax had come to the
conclusion that the Sudeten situation could not be controlled
by any of the proposals which had been made so far. When
the Sudeten Germans twice rejected Benes's proposals, 68 he
decided that they might have to be given the chance to be-
come German citizens. He also decided that Britain might
propose a rectification of frontiers and offer a loan to facilitate
the transfer of populations if that seemed likely to be
helpful. 69
The idea of transferring Czech territory had been consi-
dered after the Anschluss and mentioned by Chamberlain at a
press conference before the May crisis. 70 It had not, how-
ever, become part of policy. In deciding that it should be,
Halifax may have been thinking about 'self-determination* as
a genuine solution; he may have wanted the Czechs to accept
it in order to ensure that the Cabinet could not abandon
them. 71 Whatever his reason, it was at this point that a shift
occurred from the federal and cantonal aspects of a solution
(which Benes had virtually accepted 72 ) to the idea of detach-
ing the Sudeten areas, which Hitler did not raise until his
speech at the Nuremberg Rally on September 12.
This speech hinted at it and Chamberlain picked up the
hint. 73 When the Cabinet Committee approved Plan Z next
day, it agreed that, though a plebiscite should not be discuss-
ed unless Hitler mentioned it first, it would be wrong to
'involve the country in war' if 'a plebiscite on fair and reason-
able terms' was the alternative. 74 At the Cabinet meeting
next morning one of Chamberlain's chief objects was to esta-
blish that a transfer of Czech territory was not to be ruled
out of consideration. 75
In the fortnight before he went to Germany, Chamberlain
had thought a great deal about what to say when he got
there. He hoped that Hitler would be flattered by the visit
and moved by the prospect of making 'Germany and England
the twin pillars of European peace and barriers against Com-
munism'. Having held out 'the inducement...of...better rela-
tions', he proposed to say that these would only be possible
if the Sudeten question was settled first. When Hitler replied
with his customary 'tirade' against Benes, he would then sug-
gest that the Czechs and Sudeten Germans should 'put their
views before Lord Runciman — who had reluctantly agreed —
and 'accept [him] as the final arbitrator* with an 'internation-
al body to supervise any agreement that was reached*. It
would only be if Hitler asked for a plebiscite that he pro-
posed to discuss dismembering Czechoslovakia and only if
dismemberment seemed likely to occur that he would men-
tion a guarantee. 76
The Cabinet of September 14 congratulated Chamberlain
on the decision to fly to Germany. The plebiscite, however,
aroused suspicion, and seven ministers expressed doubts. 77
Four or five supported the proposals as a whole, but there
was general agreement that the conditions must be defined
carefully and that the ideal solution was the plan Halifax had
mentioned in May, and which Simon now made his own, for
the Sudeten Germans to have five years autonomy within
Czechoslovakia before a plebiscite took place. 78
Chamberlain left for Berchtesgaden on the morning of the
15th, intending, when he got there, to talk about detente in
the future and to put off the Czechoslovak discussion until
next morning. On arrival, he began according to plan but
found that Hitler put the Sudeten problem so urgently that
he had to talk about it straight away. 79
Chamberlain's account of the preliminaries was as follows.
Adopting the attitude of a 'practical man' who had to take
account of British opinion, he began by saying:
Since I have been Prime Minister I have been anxious to improve Anglo-
German relations...but during the last few weeks events have occurred
which aroused such feelings of apprehension that I saw the whole pros-
pect of a renewal of these Anglo-German relations disappearing... Many
people in England thought that [the Fuhrer] was not sincere, that his
words in respect to Peace were only words and that he had behind them
a plan which was not at all consistent with what he was saying... I do
not myself accept that view but I welcome an opportunity of a frank
talk with him to see where he stood.
He then said that however desirable it might be to explore one an-
other's views on general questions between the two countries, there was
a question which was very urgent and could not wait. According to
today's information three hundred Sudeten Germans had been killed
and many more injured and that produced a situation which demanded
instant solution, so that it would be better if we started at once on it to
which I said 'All right: go ahead'.
The Fuhrer then began a long account of what he had done; how he
had made an agreement with Poland which finally settled territorial

questions so far as himself and Poland were concerned... He had public-
ly disclaimed any idea of attempting to recover Alsace and Lorraine. As
far as we were concerned he had made a naval treaty under which he
had limited his strength in regard to ours but that treaty was made on
the understanding that we would not go to war...and if people talked as
they had been doing lately of the possibility of England coming into a
war against Germany, then it would be better to denounce that treaty.
When I reached that point in the translation...I interrupted and said
'Does the Fiihrer mean that he might denounce the treaty before we go
to war?' He replied that, unless there was an understanding on both
sides that in no circumstances would we go to war with one another, in
his opinion it would be impossible that the treaty could stand... He said
that from his youth he had been obsessed with the racial theory and he
felt that Germans were one, but he had drawn a distinction between the
possible and the impossible and he recognised that there are places
where Germans are where it is impossible to bring them into the Reich;
but where they are on the frontier it is a different matter, and he is
himself concerned with ten millions of Germans, three millions of
whom are in Czechoslovakia He felt therefore that those Germans
should come into the Reich. They wanted to and he was determined
that they should come in. Apart from what he said, there was no other
place where frontiers made any territorial difficulty. He spoke of
Memel and said as far as that was concerned he was glad to leave that as
it was as long as the Lithuanians followed the Memel Statute. It was
impossible that Czechoslovakia should remain like a spearhead in the
side of Germany.
So I said 'Hold on a minute; there is one point on which I want to be
clear and I will explain why: you say that the three million Sudeten
Germans must be included in the Reich; would you be satisfied with
that and is there nothing more that you want? I ask because there are
many people who think that is not all; that you wish to dismember
Czechoslovakia*.
He then launched into a long speech: he was out for a racial unity
and he did not want a lot of Czechs, all he wanted was Sudeten Ger-
mans. As regards the 'spearhead in his side*...he could not feel he had
got rid of the danger until the abolition of the treaty between Russia
and Czechoslovakia.
I said 'Supposing it were modified, so that Czechoslovakia were no
longer bound to go to the assistance of Russia if Russia were attacked,
and on the other hand Czechoslovakia were debarred from giving asylum
to Russian forces in her aerodromes or elsewhere; would that remove
your difficulty?'
To that his reply was that if the Sudeten Germans came into the
Reich, then the Hungarian minority would secede, the Polish minority
would secede, the Slovak minority would secede — and what was left
would be so small that he would not bother his head about it.
I then said: 'Well, you have stated pretty clearly what your view is
and I will restate it to show that I have got it right'. I did so and he
confirmed it.
I said that...I saw considerable practical difficulties about the seces-
sion of the Sudeten Germans... Even if, for example, the areas contain-
ing 80% of Germans were taken into the Reich, there would still be a
very considerable number of Germans left outside, and moreover there
would be a considerable number of Czechoslovakians in the German
area and, therefore, it looks as though, for a solution of the problem in
your sense, it would require more than a change of boundaries; it would
also require a transfer of population: have you any ideas about that?
He said that percentages of Germans could not come into this. Where
the Germans are in a majority, the territory ought to pass to Germany,
and for the rest, the Czechoslovaks in German Sudetenland should be
allowed to pass out and the Germans in the other parts to pass in; or
alternatively each minority could remain where it was under suitable
safeguards.
I was then going on to some further inquiries on the subject when he
said 'But all this seems to be academic; I want to get down to realities.
Three hundred Sudetens have been killed and things of that kind can-
not go on; the thing has got to be settled at once:... I am determined to
settle it and settle it soon and I am prepared to risk a world war rather
than allow this to drag on'.
To that I replied 'If the Fuhrer is determined to settle this matter by
force without waiting even for a discussion between ourselves to take
place, what did he let me come here for? I have wasted my time. If on
the other hand he is prepared to discuss the question with me as to
whether he is prepared to find a peaceful solution, why does he not
make a joint appeal, to be signed by both of us perhaps, to both sides
to refrain from incidents and to keep quiet while we have time to
converse'.
He replied 'I could not appeal to the victims: how could I accuse
them while they are flocking across the German frontier because their
homes and villages are being burnt. It is imposssible for me to do that
because the German people would not understand me and I cannot do
it'.
I said 'I do not see then how we can make any further progress unless
the Fuhrer has got anything further to suggest'. 8 0
This brought discussion to the crux — whether Britain would

agree to...secession...and an alteration in the present constitution of
Czechoslovakia...[for as Hitler explained] if Britain could assent to a
separation of this kind and this could be announced to the world as a
fundamental decision of principle, then, no doubt, it would be possible
by this means to bring about a large degree of pacification in the
regions in question. 81
According to his own accounts, Chamberlain's reply was
that, so far as he personally was concerned, he 'didn't care
two hoots whether the Sudetens were in the Reich or out of

it'. He added, however, that he 'was not in a position to
give...an assurance on behalf of the British Government who
had not authorised [him] to say anything of the kind, and
moreover [he] could not possibly make such a declaration
without consulting the French Government and Lord Runci-
man\ 82 According to the minute of Schmidt, Hitler's inter-
preter, the only other person present, Chamberlain stated
that 'he...personally...recognised the principle of the detach-
ment of the Sudeten areas' but saw 'difficulty...in the imple-
mentation of this principle' and 'in these circumstan-
ces...wished to return to England' in order to consult Runci-
man and the French and 'to report to the Government and
secure their approval of his personal attitude'. 83
Neither Hitler nor Chamberlain mentioned a plebiscite, but
Chamberlain assured the Cabinet that that was what Hitler
meant by secession and self-determination. 84 He believed,
therefore, that Hitler was asking for something he had al-
ready persuaded the Cabinet was possible and had promised
in return, 'even at the risk of this being interpreted as weak-
ness, as perhaps the British Press would interpret it', that he
'would not give the order to set the military machine in
motion during the next few days, unless a completely impos-
sible situation should arise'. 85
Armed with his first success in keeping Hitler's trigger-
finger still, Chamberlain returned to England next day pre-
pared to sell his opinion to the Foreign Policy Committee, the
Cabinet and the French government. Runciman was brought
home from Czechoslovakia. He attended the Cabinet Com-
mittee on the evening of the 16th and the Cabinet on the
morning of the 17th. At the Committee he reported Benes as
telling him that the Czech army would prevent a plebiscite
being held and himself as telling Benes that he had 'done
more than anybody else to sacrifice his country'. 86 After
giving the Cabinet a further criticism of Benes, he told it that
none of the plans he had considered stood any chance of
acceptance. 'Something' nevertheless 'would have to be done'
and 'the only solution' was 'a plebiscite'. 87
At the Cabinet Committee on the 16th Chamberlain was
'satisfied that it was impossible to go to war to prevent self-de-
termination' and that 'there was no longer any solution ex-
cept by self-determination'. 88 On some parts of the Cabinet

next morning he left a 'painful impression' of having been
'blackmailed', of having 'failed to mention' the 'elaborate
schemes' he had taken with him and that he had been 'made
to listen to a boast that the German military machine was a
terrible instrument'. 89 This did not stop ministers accepting
his proposals in principle. But it produced a feeling that the
method of effecting self-determination and the nature of the
international guarantee would be crucial, and that Hitler
must not seem to be getting 'everything he wanted' without
'our' getting 'some concession' in return.90 It was stated
more than once that 'if we reached a settlement which looks
like a surrender to force, it was doubtful whether the Govern-
ment would carry the policy in the House of Commons or...
the country'. 91
At this stage this had no effect on Chamberlain who refu-
sed to take back preliminary conditions since, if he did, Hit-
ler would simply invade. When, however, he promised to ask
Hitler to behave reasonably once self-determination had been
approved, it turned out that even those whose misgivings
were strongest about the method would not say that they
disagreed with the policy. The result was that he received
approval in principle on the understanding that formal agree-
ment would be given after the visit Daladier and Bonnet had
proposed for next day.
The uncertainties of the French government belong to the
politics of France. French reluctance to face war, however,
and French suspicion of the Berchtesgaden visit were turned
at meetings on September 18 into support for an initiative
which Daladier and Bonnet hoped might save them from obli-
gations they thought it impossible to fulfil. In this they eased
Chamberlain's task with the Cabinet.
They did this in two ways. In the first place, because their
reluctance weakened any British obligation to fight if Hitler
invaded Czechoslovakia. And, secondly, because, if they were
reluctant, there was no reason why Benes should receive spe-
cial consideration.
Benes was France's ally, not Britain's, but the obstacle he
presented arose from the dangers the French government
would face in France if it took the lead in forcing him to
'capitulate'. French ministers were better placed, and more
willing, to follow a British lead than to propose one of their

own; they allowed Chamberlain to press the Cabinet to agree
to the Czechs being made to do what they had been slow to
do so far.
Nor is there reason to doubt that British participation in a
guarantee to Czechoslovakia and willingness to associate with
Russia in giving it — both major departures in policy — were
thought of as temporary aids in solving the immediate prob-
lem which would provide bargaining counters in subsequent
negotiation with Germany and be abandoned once detente
had been achieved.
The possibility of guaranteeing a neutralised Czechoslova-
kia had been discussed by the Cabinet before the Anglo-
French meetings. At long meetings on the 18th, the Cabinet
Committee and the French agreed to tell the Czechs that,
unless they preferred a plebiscite, an International Commis-
sion should decide which areas were to be transferred to
Germany. Provided this was done peacefully and according to
an agreed schedule, Britain would provide a loan to ease the
transfer of populations, and the new state would receive a
guarantee 'against aggression' from France, Russia, Britain
and (possibly) Germany. 92
These 'Anglo-French proposals' were the detailed formula-
tion of policy for which the Cabinet had asked. After being
approved in Paris, they were sent to Prague next day while
the Cabinet was discussing them. "
The discussion of the 19 th registered dislike of the guaran-
tee (as a new entanglement) and acceptance of its inevitabil-
ity, 94 along with a determination that it should bind the
guarantors together but not separately and concern unprovo-
ked aggression, not the preservation of a particular frontier.
Though Chamberlain still refused to ask Hitler to define the
conditions before self-determination was accepted, there was
a wide measure of agreement about what the conditions
ought to be. 95
When the proposals were sent to Prague, the Czech govern-
ment was asked to reply in time for Chamberlain to return to
Germany on Wednesday. 96 Since it took a long time to make
up its mind, Chamberlain's return was delayed. A negative
reply arrived at 8 p.m. on Tuesday, accompanied by the Bri-
tish Minister's opinion that the Czechs would probably bow
to an ultimatum. An ultimatum was then sent in the early

hours of Wednesday morning after Halifax had come back to
the Foreign Office at eleven o'clock at night to consult
Chamberlain about it. By the time the Cabinet met at three
o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, the Czechs had, 'sadly' and
under pressure, 'accepted'. 97
At the Cabinet on the 19th, Chamberlain had reacted stiff-
ly to the suggestion that Britain should go to war if the
Czechs decided that they would prefer to. 98 At the Cabinet
Committee on the 21st, he refused to discuss the question
but had to listen when told that the press and the public
would expect him 'to show that he had obtained some con-
cession from Herr Hitler'. " At the Cabinet that afternoon he
promised to refer back or send for Halifax if Hitler wanted
anything done about Hungarian or Polish Czechs, or objected
to the Russians being associated with the guarantee. He also
proposed that in the predominantly German parts of the Su-
detenland, the Czech army and police should be replaced at
once by units of the German army. 10°
This proposal, made deliberately and fudged only when
opposed, was much what Hitler asked for next day. When
ministers heard it they responded so sharply, and from so
many angles, that Chamberlain was obliged to withdraw. He
promised not to propose a German occupation in advance of
a plebiscite or international control and not to accept it with-
out consulting the Cabinet. He also agreed not to mention an
international force unless Hitler claimed that the withdrawal
of the Czech forces was insufficient.101
Chamberlain went back to Germany on the 22nd not ex-
pecting to succeed. 102 On arriving at Godesberg, he told
Hitler that self-determination could be applied to 'all Ger-
mans in Czechoslovakia' and made 'practical proposals for
putting [it] into effect'. After rejecting a plebiscite because 'it
would mean...delay...and disorders', he explained that
the simplest method...would...be...to agree on a cession of territory by
Czechoslovakia...There were no difficulties to be overcome in the
cession to Germany of districts where there was a preponderant Ger-
man majority. But in districts where there was a mixed population...the
frontier could not be systematically laid down as a rigid line, but a
commission must be set up [consisting of a German, a Czech and a
neutral] and provided with guiding principles... As a guiding principle
for the decision of the commission he proposed the establishment of a
given % of Germans in relation to the total population... In all districts

where the German population reached 80% the decision presented no
difficulty at all. Where, however, the proportion of Germans was
smaller an average figure must be taken as a guiding principle. He had in
mind 65%.
In addition to this major condition, Chamberlain made
suggestions about government property and the national
debt, the protection of minorities and enclaves and the gua-
ranteeing of the new state.
Although...the Fiihrer had told him in his first conversation at Berchtes-
gaden that, apart from the Sudeten German question, Germany would
make no further territorial demands, it could be understood if the
Czechoslovak government, after giving up part of their territory and the
fortifications situated within it, demanded a substitute for the security
which they had lost...He recalled that in their first conversation the
Fiihrer had spoken of Czechoslovakia as a spearhead directed against
Germany's flank. The objections expressed by the Fuhrer and the desire
of the Czech government...could be satisfied by replacing Czechoslova-
kia's existing treaty alliances [and] military obligations by a guarantee
of security against unprovoked agression. The British government were
prepared to join in an International guarantee against an unprovoked
attack on Czechoslovakia whereby this guarantee would replace existing
treaty alliances, involving military obligations.
Having thus discharged his duty to the Cabinet, Chamber-
lain found that Hitler had moved on. At Berchtesgaden, he
told him, 'he was naturally speaking in the first place for the
Germans'. But he sympathised with the other minorities and
could not guarantee the dismembered state until their claims
had been dealt with too. When Chamberlain pointed out that
he had confined himself to the Germans because that was
what Hitler had talked about, he was told that their problem
must be 'finally and completely solved by October 1'.
Hitler's conception of a solution — immediate occupation
of the whole of the disputed area and a plebiscite afterwards
— was more or less the proposal the Cabinet had turned down
the day before. Chamberlain, however, did not reject it. He
explained that 'he was being accused' at home of 'having...be-
trayed Czechoslovakia' and that the public would dislike a
plebiscite under military occupation. But he asked for a map
of the areas that Hitler wanted. After a certain amount of
grumbling, he went back to his hotel where he sat up with
Wilson for a good part of the night making up his mind what
to do. 1 0 3
What he decided was to write Hitler a letter, offering to

put his proposals to the Czechs but holding out no hope that
they would be accepted. The letter repeated what he had said
in conversation — that a plebiscite was unnecessary for the
bulk of the areas of occupation, where both sides agreed on the
size of the German population. But he was 'sure that an
attempt to occupy forthwith by German troops areas which
will become part of the Reich at once in principle and very
shortly afterwards by formal delimitation, would be condem-
ned as an unnecessary display of force' which the Czechs
would 'order their forces to resist...in the event of German
troops moving into the areas as you propose'. 104
In the course of the letter Chamberlain suggested that the
Czechs might be asked to allow the Sudeten Germans to take
control of the areas that were to be evacuated. Hitler rejected
this and, in paragraphs of his oldest propaganda, left no
doubt that he would go to war if pressed to abandon his
proposals.
When this reached Chamberlain on the afternoon of the
23rd, he was in a difficulty. He did not want to go home
since this would leave Hitler free to invade, but he could not
accept the proposals, nearly all of which the Cabinet had
rejected. He decided, therefore, to ask for a written state-
ment which he was given at the final meeting with Hitler late
that evening.1OS
Before leaving his hotel to go to it, Chamberlain had a
telephone call from Halifax about the need to end his visit on
a note that the public would like. In the course of the meet-
ing, he was told about Czech mobilisation, which he had
asked Halifax to put off and which greatly shook him when
he heard about it.
Chamberlain did not, however, speak as sharply as Halifax
had suggested. When Hitler said that Czech mobilisation
meant the end of negotiations, he described it as a 'defensive
measure' and stated that the Czechs would not go back on
their assurance about the 'cession of territory'. It was only
when Hitler repeated that 'the memorandum was really his
last word' that Chamberlain made it clear that 'there was no
point in continuing the conversation'.
At this point it was kept going by the Germans who asked
Chamberlain to read the memorandum. When Wilson and
Henderson had done so, he replied that it was an 'ultimatum'

which, when published (as it would be, if sent to Prague),
would 'have a very bad effect on opinion in Great Britian and
other countries'. After getting one concession (a common
date—October 1—for the transfer of territory), he failed to
persuade Hitler to distinguish areas of obvious German predo-
minance from areas where occupation should be deferred
until after a plebiscite.
During this talk, Chamberlain became aware of a 'gulf
between Hitler's demands and the conditions the Cabinet
would be likely to accept. He neither exceeded his authority
nor suggested that the Cabinet would agree. Whenever he
mentioned the Czechs or the French, however, he meant the
Cabinet; it was the Cabinet he had to carry with him when he
promised to forward the proposals to Prague.106
By the time he arrived in England — at lunch-time on the
24th — ministers were in a strong frame of mind. In his
absence there had been four meetings of the Cabinet Com-
mittee and almost continuous consultation. There had been
rebukes to Hungary and Poland for mentioning their minor-
ities. There had been discussion of the procedure to be fol-
lowed if negotiations broke down, and a decision that the
best issue to stand on would be the German determination to
use force. The occupation of Sudeten towns by the German
Freikorps had become the occasion for reopening the deci-
sion that Czech mobilisation should be halted. The French
government, when asked, had replied that it should begin.
When Halifax telephoned Godesberg on the 22nd that
the Committee agreed, he had been told that Chamberlain
wanted to leave it till next morning before making up his
mind.107
When the ministers met at three o'clock next day, Halifax
reported both the French view and Chamberlain's request for
a delay until Hitler had replied to the letter he had been sent
that morning.108 After the letter had been read out, it was
decided to tell the Czechs that the ban had been withdrawn.109
At this meeting Simon was authorised to give background
briefings to other ministers, which he did in a critical and
belligerent frame of mind. He also carried a proposal to ask
Chamberlain whether British mobilisation could begin n o
By the time of the next meeting — at nine-thirty that
evening — Chamberlain had said that mobilisation must be

put off until he returned. Halifax, however, had decided,
after talking to Wilson on the telephone, that the visit 'should
end on some simpler and stronger statement than...the Prime
Minister seemed to contemplate'. He produced a draft which
the Committee agreed should be sent to Chamberlain un-
ciphered by telephone 'in view of the urgency of getting a
message to [him] before [he] left...for his final talks'. U 1
Chamberlain intended originally to fly on from Godesberg
when the talks were over in order to tie up the plebiscite and
transfer arrangements in Prague. In the new situation, he flew
back to England to tie up the Cabinet.
On the morning of the 24th his last action in Godesberg
was to transmit Hitler's proposals to the Czechs. 112 His first
on returning to England in the afternoon was to tell the
Cabinet Committee that 'there was not much difference be-
tween the Franco-British proposals and Herr Hitler's', that
Hitler 'would fight...if [his terms] were rejected' and that,
'having once agreed to cession, the sooner the transfer took
place the better'. 113
At the Cabinet afterwards, he explained that Hitler 'had
certain standards', which were 'racial', and that his object was
'racial unity, and not the domination of Europe'. He thought
that Hitler 'trusted him' and would 'work with him', and
'would not deliberately deceive a man whom he respected'.
In the course of the conversations he had left the impression
of being 'extremely anxious to secure the friendship of Great
Britain' and had said that 'if the present question could be
settled peaceably, it might be a turning point in Anglo-Ger-
man relations' and the end of his 'territorial ambitions'.
There was every reason, Chamberlain thought, to assume that
Hitler meant this, and 'it would be a great tragedy if we lost
this opportunity of reaching an understanding'.
The only way of taking the opportunity, however, was to
work on the lines of Hitler's proposals. These were not the
proposals the Cabinet had accepted the previous Sunday. The
differences were extensive but it was, Chamberlain suggested,
an open question whether they 'justified us in going to war'.
In pressing ministers to face the question, he urged them to
bear three things in mind.
The first was that, if the Czechs decided to fight, 'there
would...in futurc.be no Czechoslavakia as it existed today

or...might exist if the...proposals were accepted'. The second
was that 'if we now possessed a superior force to Germany,
we should probably be considering these proposals in a very
different spirit'. The third was put as follows:
This morning I...flew up the river over London. I imagined a German
bomber flying the same course. I asked myself what degree of protec-
tion we could afford to the thousands of homes...stretched out below...
and...felt that we were in no position to justify waging a war today in
order to prevent a war hereafter. 114
Chamberlain probably believed these arguments. He was
also using them to edge the Cabinet towards the conclusion
that he wanted. In this he was by no means successful. He
established that a decision of principle would be made before
mobilisation was considered. But the Cabinet refused to be
rushed; when ministers returned after dinner to look at the
maps, they saw that he was proposing a 'capitulation'. That
evening at least six of them were thinking of resigning.115
At the Cabinet of the 24th it was decided to transmit
Hitler's proposals to the French government. 116 After this
had been done in the course of the day, Daladier and Bonnet
announced that they would be coming to England next
morning.
On the 25th there were two meetings of the Cabinet — one
all-day one and another at eleven-thirty at night after the
Cabinet Committee had met the French. At the first there
was widespread dissent, not only from the usual dissenters
but also from Hailsham, Hoare and Dorman-Smith who com-
plained variously about the absence of a guarantee, the lack
of proposals for international control and the moral defeat
the Czechs would suffer if they had to accept. It also became
clear that Halifax saw 'a distinction...between orderly and
disorderly transfer' (with Hitler apparently 'dictating terms')
and wanted 'to lay the case before the Czechs' so that 'if they
rejected it [and] France...joined in...we should join in with
them'. This opened up a difference which survived Chamber-
lain's attempts to play it down. The Cabinet was held to-
gether only by deferring decisions until the French ministers
had arrived. 117
At the Cabinet at eleven-thirty that night Chamberlain,
looking 'absolutely worn o u t ' , u 8 stated that the Czechs
would almost certainly reject the German terms. After con-

siderable disagreement, he prevented more by announcing
that he was sending Wilson to Berlin. There he would see
Hitler and tell him that, though a settlement could be reach-
ed by accepting a Three-Power Commission to supervise exe-
cution of the Anglo-French proposals, it 'seemed certain'
that, 'if this appeal was refused, France would go to war...
and...we should be drawn in'. 119
This statement was an advance on anything that had been
said so far. It was followed next morning by further Anglo-
French meetings in the course of which Gamelin, who had
been sent for the night before, explained in what sense he
would attack Germany on land if she attacked Czechoslova-
kia. The Cabinet immediately afterwards decided that Parlia-
ment should be re-called and that mobilisation should begin
whenever it seemed suitable. 120 At the Committee of Impe-
rial Defence meeting on the afternoon of the 26th, 'dozens of
decisions' were taken 'which would have taken months or
years to get through in peacetime'. 121
These events marked the end of the attempt to keep Hitler
guessing. They left no room for doubt about Anglo-French
intentions, even while leaving it uncertain how they would be
carried out. There is no record of Chamberlain's opinion;
there is evidence that he tried to soften their effect. A denial
that the Czech rejection was the 'last word' 122 and the claim
that Britain had not approved of Czech mobilisation 123 —
both suggest a reliance on Hitler to keep control of the Cabi-
net and a wish to keep in touch in case Hitler needed help in
getting off the hook his bluff had put him on. 124 This im-
pression is strengthened by Sir Frederick Maurice's visit to
Berlin on September 26, by a press communique appealing to
Hitler to play the game 125 and by a request that he should
ignore statements from anyone but Chamberlain, whose posi-
tion should not be made difficult by 'false moves' likely to
upset his control of British policy. 126
When Wilson saw Hitler on the evening of the 26th, Hitler
was rehearsing a speech and behaved so hysterically that Wil-
son did not transmit the warning. 127 The speech, on the
other hand, left the impression that Hitler did not intend to
go to war. Though the Cabinet Committee discussed mobili-
sation after reports had arrived, it decided that nothing
should be done until the warning had been delivered.128

When Wilson saw Hitler again before flying back next
morning, he delivered Chamberlain's letter. He also stated
that, although the French had not said that they would at-
tack Germany if Czechoslovakia was invaded, they would
'fulfil their treaty obligations' and, if this involved 'their for-
ces...in hostilities against Germany, then...Britain would feel
obliged to support them'. 129 At four-thirty that afternoon,
the Cabinet Committee decided that the Fleet should be
mobilised next morning. When Wilson told it that war could
only be avoided by immediate evacuation of the undisputed-
ly Sudeten territories, Chamberlain insisted on a Cabinet
meeting to consider his opinion. 130
The Cabinet at nine-thirty on the evening of the 27th saw
the first rejection of a Chamberlain proposal since the Cabi-
net of September 21. And on this occasion as then, the pro-
posal involved German occupation of parts of the Sudeten-
land before agreed procedures had been established. Cham-
berlain did not take the initiative in making the proposal. But
he introduced Wilson's statement with a survey which show-
ed that the Dominions wanted peace, that the Poles would
support Hitler and that the Czechs were facing the fate of
Abyssinia.
As an official, Wilson did not make proposals. But he put
the position in the following way:
Assuming that Czechoslovakia would not accept Herr Hitler's terms, the
only plan which could prevent the country from being overrun would
be for the Czechoslovak Government to withdraw their troops...and
allow Germany to occupy them without loss of life. When this had been
done, the determination of the areas to be ceded permanently could be
carried out by an international commission, with a plebiscite. If this
happened, the Czechoslovak Government would have the benefit of
Herr Hitler's public declaration that Sudeten German territory represen-
ted the last of his territorial aims in Europe. They would also have the
Franco-British guarantee, as proposed in the joint Franco-British memo-
randum.
Chamberlain did not ask the Cabinet to press the Czechs to
accept this. But he wanted it conveyed with a statement of
the consequences if they refused. It was this proposal that
Halifax squashed.
Halifax was unequivocal. What Chamberlain was asking in-
volved 'so complete' a 'capitulation' that the Czechs could
not be pressed to accept it. The House of Commons would

not approve it and 'we could not adopt [it] unless we
assured...Czechoslovakia', which he would find difficulty in
doing, that the Germans would 'stop' where they were
supposed to. 131
Halifax was not thinking of resigning. But his statement
was so formidable that Chamberlain at once offered to with-
draw. When Simon supported Halifax, and no one disputed
what they said, the plan was dropped.
This negative decision was a decision to go to war if Hitler
fulfilled his promises. But war did not happen, because
Chamberlain and Hitler took steps to prevent it.
In the course of the speech he was preparing when Wilson
interrupted him on the 26th, and during their conversation
next day, Hitler had said that he would not attack France or
Britain and did not want them to attack him. This was inter-
preted as a wish to be rescued and was confirmed, as it seem-
ed, by the friendly tone of his reply to the letter which
Wilson had left. This reached Chamberlain during the Cabinet
of the 27th. On the 28th he asked Mussolini to mediate at
the same time as the French moved significantly towards
Hitler's position about the area of occupation. In reply to
Mussolini's request, Hitler sent invitations to a Four-Power
Conference at Munich next day.
In the fortnight since his first visit to Germany, Chamber-
lain had not found it difficult to persuade the Cabinet to
agree to a cession of Czech territory. After establishing that
this was unavoidable, he had confined discussion to the small
print. Godesberg, however, had provided the only procedural
discussion he had had with Hitler which, though discouraging,
he had no reason to believe could not be repeated more
profitably. On the 28th Wilson told Ribbentrop's London
representative that it was essential to remove the appearance
of 'forceful occupation'. With this in mind Chamberlain went
to Munich on the 29th.
In announcing the Conference, the German government
had referred helpfully to the French proposals of Septem-
ber 28. When Hitler opened it, he wished to 'absolve' the
occupation from the 'character of violence', proposed six,
seven or ten days for evacuation to take place and offered to
'leave open the question whether Germany would...march in-
to the territory in which the plebiscite was to be held...in

order to conciliate public opinion in England and France'.
This move towards the Anglo-French position was taken fur-
ther in a detailed Italian plan, which had been drafted in
Berlin.
This plan, to which all four governments agreed, went a
long way to meet Anglo-French views about procedure. It
provided for a ten-day occupation, an international commis-
sion to supervise the transfer of territory (together with a
plebiscite in areas of greatest uncertainty) and a Four-Power
guarantee of the dismembered state to replace the Franco-
Czech Treaty once the Polish and Hungarian questions had
been settled. 132 It was followed by a conversation in Hitler's
flat at which Hitler and Chamberlain talked amicably about
Spain, south-eastern Europe and disarmament, and signed a
statement, which Chamberlain had brought with him, about
Germany and Britain 'never go[ing] to war with one another
again'. It was this detente afterthought — the real object of
his visits — which made Chamberlain speak on his return to
England of 'peace for our time'. 133
Opinions differed about what Chamberlain had accomplish-

ed, but he did not think that he had failed. Nor had his
actions been either weak or dishonourable. He had pushed
himself to the limit of endurance, but in the end 'all the
prayers of all the peoples of the world including Germany'
had prevailed 'against the fanatical obstinacy of one man'. 134
Hitler had backed down. He had not gone to war. What
he had gained was that Chamberlain thought he was entitled
to. He had gained it in the shadow of a British undertaking to
support France if Czechoslovakia was invaded and in the light
of far-reaching decisions to contribute to an international
guarantee to relieve France of her burden. An acute sense of
national solidarity and relief at saving the world from war
confirmed the belief that honour, duty and dramatic success
'had laid the foundations of a stable peace'. 13S
Nor had Chamberlain been subjected to criticism that mat-
tered. He had had the usual business in the House of Com-
mons. He had been attacked in the Opposition newspapers.
He had heard Halifax and others dissent in Cabinet. But poli-
tical criticism was what politicians were trained to ignore. He
had no respect for the Opposition and disliked Attlee.

Halifax's dissent proved, what Eden had proved before,
that the Foreign Office was unreliable. By the Right, by Gar-
vinian Unionists, by the provincial press, by the Royal fami-
ly, by innumerable functionaries and by Baldwin — his 'old
friend and trusted colleague' — he had been supported. 136
Above all, he had sensed 'a gratitude' so 'universal' 137 as to
leave no doubt about his standing as a public figure.
At this time Chamberlain talked chiefly to Wilson, from
whom he received not criticism but confirmation. This would
not have been a problem if Chamberlain's policies had been
successful, but it led Wilson to write things which, with re-
trospective historians in mind, it would have been prudent to
leave unwritten. Once it is assumed that the policy was
wrong, Wilson's minutes and memoranda show not only that
he connived at it, but that he was the genius behind it.
Yet the policy was a communal work. All Wilson did was
advance towards the objectives which Chamberlain had
chosen. In this he was acting as a chef de cabinet, not as a
'statesman in disguise'. There was an affinity of experience
and competence between Chamberlain and himself, and a
sympathy which enabled them to work together against the
unscrupulousness of critics and the recalcitrance of events. If
their touch had been lighter, or their success greater, they
could easily have been 'Happy Warriors'.
Since what Chamberlain had done had been widely ac-
claimed, he felt free to criticise his critics and to pursue his
policy despite their criticisms. He also felt it right to ignore
disappointments like the Anglo-German newspaper war, 138
Hitler's failure to mention the joint statement in his first
speech after Munich and 'horrif[ying]' things, like the pog-
roms, which showed that there was a 'fatality about Anglo-
German relations which invariably blocks every effort to im-
prove them'. 1 3 9
A more formidable difficulty emerged with Intelligence
reports which Halifax brought to an urgent session of the
Foreign Policy Committee on November 14. These showed
that Hitler was treating Munich as a defeat; they connected
the Goering-Ribbentrop power-struggle with attempts to
press Hitler to turn anti-Semitism to account by enlisting
Arab (and Italian) aid in driving Britain out of the Middle
East. They were followed by hints that he was irritated by

Chamberlain's popularity in Germany, was allowing Ribben-
trop to make up to the French in order to break up the
Anglo-French alliance and was thinking of invading the Low
Countries in order to mount an air attack on London. After
Schacht's dismissal, the German economy seemed so shaky
that he might do almost anything, including the constructing
of a Russo-German alliance, whether by overthrowing Stalin
or by doing a deal with him. 140
Whether this was true (or, as Henderson thought, false)
and whether British Intelligence ever knew anything about
Hitler's court, is a question for its historian. Whether true or
false, it had an effect.
Chamberlain did not believe everything Halifax told him.
At the November meeting of the Cabinet Committee he quer-
ied his sources and questioned their reliability, and persuaded
the Committee to reject the demand to replace the voluntary
national register with a compulsory one. 141 In January, how-
ever, he took a lead in deciding that the invasion of Holland
would involve war against Germany and was led on into ac-
cepting a Continental Field Force and Anglo-French staff
talks on a scale and intimacy characteristic of an 'allian-
ce\ 142
Neither in November nor in January did Chamberlain deny
that his earlier expectations had been disappointed. This,
however, necessitated not only a heightened scale of military
preparations and the introduction of Chatfield to the Cabinet
but also a new attempt to move forward with Mussolini, who
had contrasted favourably with Hitler at Munich, had invited
Chamberlain to Italy and, after a 'heart-to-heart' talk,...
might...feel that our friendship would...help him...to escape
from the German toils'. 143
The decision to go to Rome entailed a preliminary visit of
reassurance to Paris; 144 neither there at the end of Novem-
ber nor in Italy in January did Chamberlain receive the im-
pression that France and Italy would be likely to co-operate
with one another. In Rome he talked about the benefits of
disarmament. 14S But Mussolini took none of the opportun-
ities he was given 'to express his real feelings' about Hitler or
to facilitate talks with Germany. 146 The visit was followed
by Italian abuse of France so striking that Chamberlain had
to make a major declaration of Anglo-French co-operation on

his return. 147
These setbacks showed 'what fools' dictators were in their
dealings with 'democratic states'. 148 But Chamberlain nei-
ther abandoned the hope for detente nor wavered in the
desire to prevent the Foreign Office expressing its 'dislike...of
the totalitarian states'. 149 Munich had made war less like-
ly. 15° Doors should be kept open, therefore (and none slam-
med in response to the pogroms, which had had more effect
in America than in England). 151 Neither should rearmament
escalate so much as to make a political policy impossible.152
For Chamberlain's residual confidence, there were three
reasons — the prospect of peace in Spain (as reducing Franco-
Italian friction), 153 improvements in the Anglo-French de-
fences which meant that the Germans could 'not make...such
a mess of us' as at the time of Munich, 154 and the certainty,
born of the family contribution to political science, that the
Italian people wanted peace, 'loathed Germans' and could
have an effect on Mussolini.155 Even in relation to Germany,
he read the reverse side of the coin Halifax presented, believ-
ing — what, according to Halifax's information, Hitler believ-
ed too — that he rivalled Hitler as a hero and emphasising not
the 'jealousy' Hitler felt but the prospect of a second Munich
provoking popular acclamation or military revolution in fa-
vour of himself as 'a nice, kind old gentleman who would not
ever want to treat Germans roughly and unfairly'. 156
About detente, Chamberlain was as inactive in the winter
of 1938 as he had been in the early summer. He emphasised
that Munich had been a matter of 'treaty revision' and that
rearmament was not directed against Germany. 157 But he
took no steps to resume talks. Until well into the New Year
his policy consisted of decisions to step up wireless propagan-
da, 158 accelerate rearmament 159 and declare war if Ger-
many invaded Holland. Such discussions as went on with the
German government were almost exclusively economic and,
though designed to lead to political discussions later, had no
material effect on the situation.
In the summer Chamberlain had refused to take the initia-
tive until war was imminent because he believed that Hitler
might do so if he did not. Now there was much less reason to
believe that Hitler would do anything unless he did some-
thing first. In order, therefore, to prevent Franco-Italian con-

flict doing what the Sudeten conflict had nearly done six
months before, he took the initiative himself. From a posi-
tion of 'firmness' and 'strength', 160 he let Hitler know that
he would welcome a 'reassuring' statement about the situa-
tion. 161
When this was given,162 he called for deeds in addition to
words. 163 He then waited for a response, believing, as he
waited, that Hitler was 'searching round' to 'approach...us
without the danger of a snub'. 164 The response came in a
conciliatory passage which Henderson was told that Hitler
had inserted into a speech by the Duke of Coburg at an
Anglo-German Fellowship dinner hi Berlin. When Chamber-
lain read it, he knew that his policy was alive.16S
For the next three weeks he went about 'with a lighter
heart...than for many a long day'. Confirmed in his instincts,
he began to believe that 'we have at last got on top of the
dictators' I66 and looked forward to a period of 'disarma-
ment' and 'gradually increasing peacefulness' in the course of
which, if 'given three or four more years, [he] might retire
with a quiet mind'. 167 At Blackburn on February 22 'the
reward of our foreign policy' was to be an 'increase of em-
ployment among our people'. 168 At a meeting of backbench-
ers on March 7, he was 'jolly...open and confiding' and saw
'the dangers of a German war' receding 'as our rearmament
expands'. 169 On the evening of March 9, he gave a talk to
Lobby correspondents in which he again mentioned disarma-
ment. 17° When Czechoslovakia was dismembered during the
night of March 14, his reaction was not very much different.
This phase of thought ended with the talking-to he was given
by Halifax between the Cabinet meeting and his parliamen-
tary statement on the 15th and the sternness and firmness of
his Birmingham speech two days later. 171
PART II
THE OPPOSITION
THE LABOUR PARTY
'Only by a firm adherence to righteous principles sustained by all the
necessary instrumentalities...can the dangers which close in so steadily
upon us and upon the peace of Europe be warded off and overcome.
That they can be overcome must be our hope and our faith.' Churchill
in House of Commons, November 5 1936, Hansard (317) cols. 3 1 2 - 1 3
'It is a very melancholy thing to find that one is a true prophet. The
Labour movement has warned the country ever since 1932 that yielding
to aggression in one part of the world meant an increase of aggression in
another. We are now paying in anxiety for a wrong foreign policy
assumed since Labour was thrown out of office. I pray heaven that we
may not have to pay in blood.' Attlee at Limehouse Town Hall, Sept-
ember 18 1938, The Times, September 19
'Our proposal is the building up of a League not only of peace and

security, but on the principle of social justice. You cannot preach the
brotherhood of man abroad and practise the Means Test at home.'
Attlee at Old Kent Road Baths, March 7 1938, Daily Herald, March 8
Between 1936 and 1939 the Labour movement found that the
positions it had reached doctrinally in the previous three years
acquired practical point. This happened as foreign policy
moved from being a matter of report to being a matter of
threat, and hostility to dictators on ideological grounds was
supplemented by hostility on behalf of the British Empire.
Even though the threat to Empire was not as prominent as
the threat to Collective Security, a propaganda was developed
which identified the abandonment of the League and the
threat to freedom with the tendency to put the interests of
class and capital above the interests of Britain.
This composite position assumed that Britain had a role to
play and that Labour had a part to play in choosing it. It
presupposed the rejection of both 'Isolation' and 'Allian-
ces' and of the 'white flag' the government had shown in
face of Hitler and Mussolini.1 In attempting to remove humi-
liation, it squared the circle between socialist internationa-
lism on the one hand and the silent jingoism of the trade
union movement on the other. As the existing foreign policy
consensus was replaced by a nasty type of Capitalistic Tory-
ism, it tried to establish that this could have been avoided if
210 II. THE OPPOSITION
Arthur Henderson had been at the Foreign Office to establish

for the benefit of Germany, Italy and Japan that 'one could
not buy peace in one corner of the globe by conniving at war
in another'. 2
The 'indivisibility of peace' was thus an important ele-
ment in the conflict between the democratic states and the
dictatorships which was occurring because world politics was
a manifestation of Capitalism. This explained the failure to
check Hitler. Since 'Imperialism' was a 'stage of Capital-
ism', it explained the failure to check Italy and was the
reason for non-intervention in Spain. Chamberlain's pussy-
footing with Japan where there ought to be a trade embargo
and his attempts to get onto terms with Hitler and Mussolini
made purposeful and self-conscious what the nature of Capi-
talism had made inevitable. 3
Where, therefore, Chamberlain wanted to end the ideologi-
cal conflict with which he thought he was confronted, the
Labour leaders claimed that the 'there was a fundamental
conflict between the Aggressors and the...Empire' which tur-
ned on an identification between the 'democratic principles'
which lay at the root of British politics and the duty (or
interest) to co-operate with democratic sentiment else-
where.4
This was supplemented by Cockburn's invention of 'Clive-
denism' which suggested a false identification between Cham-
berlain, Halifax, Garvin, Dawson and the Astor family on
the one hand and Hitler and Mussolini on the other, and im-
puted a Conservative desire to thwart democracy by attempts
at mutual co-operation. When taken up as a staple of anti-
Chamberlain propaganda, this enabled recognition of the need
for rearmament and a distinctive dislike of it to combine in
withholding support from a government which 'had betrayed
both democracy and the security of the British Common-
wealth of Nations' and bore a 'terrific responsibility for
the...cruel slaughter which is afflicting China, Abyssinia and
Spain'.5
This did not mean that there could not be a settlement
with Germany. Both publicly and in private, the Labour lead-
ers said that the causes of war were economic and could be
dealt with in part by a colonial settlement. They also said
that they wanted a disarmament agreement because arma-
THE LABOUR PARTY 211
ments expenditure was depressing living standards through-

out the world.6 These, however, were long-term features of
Chamberlain's thinking. The fact that Chamberlain said them
made it difficult for the Labour leaders to repeat them, but
the fact that they believed them did not reduce the need to
say something which gave them the advantage. In early 1938
it seemed possible that the Eden problem would bring consi-
derable advantage.
Before Eden resigned, he was beginning to be criticised;7
afterwards he was praised at the expense of Halifax — 'the
servile instrument of an ignorant and reckless Prime Minis-
ter' 8 who 'did not.take his stand on a moral basis'9 and had
'returned to the old policy of alliances'. 10 Since this was
'dividing the nation' and bringing war closer, and since La-
bour would play a crucial role in war, an election should be
held about the opening of negotiations with Italy, the plight
of the Spanish people and the 'sacrifice' of Austria on 'the
altar of power polities'. n
It is possible that the setbacks in Spain and the peace
position which Chamberlain had carved out made the Labour
leaders more belligerent than they would otherwise have
been. If so, they fell into a trap. It was a feeling that the trap
might be sprung, as at the election of 1935, which made
them cautious in the early days of the September crisis.12
In the summer of 1938, they were saying that Chamberlain
was 'spineless' and 'immoral', had lost touch with public feel-
ing and was blinded by 'class prejudice' to the duty to organ-
ise the 'democratic powers' to resist the dictators. This, it was
claimed, was what Henderson would have done; it was the
'inept and evil policy' pursued since 1931 that had transfor-
med the peaceful world he left into the 'barbarism' that was
'now upon us'. 1 3
Mr Chamberlain and his colleagues [wrote Morrison on July 9] talk
peace not because they mean [it] but because the language of pacifism is
the new political technique of the Tory Central Office. On the Prime
Minister's own admission, we are living under more disturbed interna-
tional conditions than at any time since the outbreak of the Great War.
And I charge that the British government by its betrayal of the League
of Nations, its sabotaging of the Disarmament Conference and its rejec-
tion of the policy of the collective organisation of peace has made a
major contribution to the wars taking place and to the unsettlement of
Europe. 14
At the Trade Union Congress in early September, there

were resolutions in favour of accelerated rearmament. 15 The
National Council of Labour repudiated the government's
right to use diplomatic or other pressure to compel the Czech
government 'to yield its democracy to force' and called for
'positive' action to convince Hitler that Britain would 'unite
with the French and Soviet governments to resist'. 16 By Mor-
rison, Attlee and Greenwood the crisis was seen in terms of a
battle for 'freedom' in which 'the Fascist dictators' must 'be
given to understand that...if they went into war, they risked
defeat and revolution at home'. On September 18 Attlee
hoped that 'peace might be preserved without yielding to...
threats of military force and...the sacrifice of the rights and
liberties of the people of Czechoslovakia'.17
This was one side of the Labour face. The other was Attlee
hoping that Runciman could solve the problem by agree-
ment 18 and Morrison suggesting a transfer of populations.
When Halifax asked whether they wished to declare war 'if
there were aggression in Czechoslovakia', Attlee and Green-
wood hesitated before replying that, if France honoured her
obligations, 'we should immediately declare ourselves in
support of France'. 19 When told by French socialists and by
Snell, who had just been to Paris, that even Blum was not
certain that France should fight, Dalton talked privately about
dissuading the Czechs from a heroic battle against overwhelm-
ing odds. 20
When told by Chamberlain on the 19th that the Czechs
should transfer territory rather than population, 21 the La-
bour leaders decided to turn on the heat. That evening, the
National Council of Labour announced its 'dismay'. 22 On
the 20th Attlee asked Chamberlain to recall Parliament in
view of the 'reported proposals submitted to the government
of Czechoslovakia which contemplate the dismemberment of
a sovereign state at the dictation of the ruler of Germany and
involve this country in giving a guarantee in the future of
continental frontiers'. 23
The attack was then developed with a new vigour. On the
21st Chamberlain was visited by Attlee and Greenwood; the
National Council of Labour sent Dalton, Citrine and Mor-
rison to see Halifax. In both interviews the tone was sharper
than before. 24 There was no demand for a declaration of
war, but a campaign was launched against the 'shameful sur-

render' of Britain's tradition of democracy and justice. 'Hit-
ler's ambitions', the Joint Labour statement of September 21
concluded, 'do not stop short at Czechoslovakia...His present
triumph will be a new starting-point for further warlike ad-
ventures which in the end must lead to a general conflict.' 2S
The Labour leaders may have called on the government to
'stand fast for peace and freedom' because they thought Hit-
ler would back down if it did. Or, expecting war, they may
have wanted to establish that they were not responsible. 26 In
whichever mood they were acting, they filled the gap be-
tween Godesberg and Munich proclaiming a 'moral obliga-
tion' the betrayal of which had produced 'a general feeling
of shame and humiliation throughout the nation'. The same
idea was pursued when Attlee and Greenwood visited the
Czech Ambassador to express 'deep sympathy...with the
people of Czechoslovakia in their tragic plight'. 27
After Godesberg, the imminence of war produced a claim
that the government could have taken steps to prevent it.
Co-operation with Russia was one. A clear warning to Hitler
was another. There was, however, no demand that Britain
should go to war. All there was was a restatement of the view
that 'a strong and united stand by...France, Britain and the
Soviet Union...could prevent war'. A letter which Attlee
wrote to Chamberlain, unwillingly at Dalton's insistence on
September 26, alleged that 'the terms of Herr Hitler's memo-
randum which you agreed to submit to the Czechoslovakian
government' had 'profoundly shocked British opinion' and
that 'the only means by which peace could be preserved' was
through the Labour policy of a tripartite declaration of inten-
tion 'to resist any attack upon Czechoslovakia'.28
For a moment after Chamberlain's return from Munich,
the Labour party was uncertain. Very soon it adopted the
position that 'several million people' had been 'sacrificed for
peace' and another 'blow' struck at the League of Nations.
Hitler's Saarbriicken speech showed that 'talk of a Tory peace
in our time' was 'humbug' since 'what had happened...had
not averted war but merely postponed it'. War would not be
averted by a Prime Minister who 'did not understand the
conditions of the modern world' and had failed to stop Axis
penetration of British markets. Chamberlain had 'tricked' the
Labour party 'again and again', truckled to the dictators be-

cause he 'liked their principles' and made it impossible to
support National Service so long as he was Prime Minister. 29
The demand for a new government anticipated the changes
that would be needed if war began and Labour support was
needed, or if Conservative doubts were translated into a major
erosion of Chamberlain's authority. 30 It was not certain how
erosion would occur; in a sense, it depended on Hitler's co-
operation. Yet there was a distinct hope in late 1938 that
Chamberlain might come a cropper. This raised the usual
question about the future.
This was the question, which had been asked in 1921,
1923, 1929 and 1934 - whether Labour should ally itself
with other parties if alliance seemed likely to bring it into
office. After the 1935 election, there had been no need to
take the Liberal party seriously, however seriously some La-
bour leaders took 'Liberal opinion'. 31 In 1935/6 a Left-Wing
Popular Front had been rejected. 32 After the Anschluss and
in 1939, the problem centred on the possibility of a Popular
Front with the Right as well as the Left. In both cases a
leading part was played by Cripps.
In the year following the defeat of the Socialist League at the

party conference in 1934, Cripps stood out as the leading
critic of two aspects of the compromises inherent in 'gradual'
socialism. On the one hand, he attacked the blurring of inten-
tion which left it uncertain whether a Labour government
would give priority to the 'abolition of capitalism'. On the
other, he attacked the assumption that Collective Security
through the League was a policy which would help the work-
ing classes.
Of these aspects of his platform, the first remained un-
changed through all the changes of emphasis it underwent in
the following five years. When he was expelled from the La-
bour party in 1939, Cripps's position was what it had been in
1934 — that the party had 'lost its spiritual and moral back-
ground' 33 and ought to split (as in 1914) so that 'one part
of it' could 'do what it can to protect the workers while the
war is...being fought' and the other could be 'ready to step in
when the workers are disillusioned by the result'. 34 Through-
out his subsequent treatment of the war as harbinger of a
'change* in 'our civilisation' and a 'ferment in social living', 3S

this continued to be the case up to the point at which he
joined the Churchill government, after Russia had become an
ally, in 1942.
At the same time Cripps developed an emphasis on foreign
policy. This became the basis for a new view of the party
situation which his Labour critics treated as itself a capitula-
tion. 36
In 1935 he had begun by supporting the policy from
which Lansbury dissented. When Lansbury's resignation
seemed likely to result, he resigned from the Party Executive
on the ground that the League was an Imperialist organisa-
tion which it could not be a 'working-class' interest to sup-
port. As the Labour party emphasised the League in the years
that followed, Cripps rejected it, along with rearmament, in
favour of a socialist foreign policy based on alliance with the
Soviet Union. Spain merely strengthened and deepened the
ideological obligation from which the Popular Front emer-
ged.
Cripps's support for the Popular Front became an issue in
1936 when Labour setbacks in the municipal elections coin-
cided with Baldwin's prospective retirement, the hints drop-
ped by Sinclair in favour of a Popular Front and the Labour
and TUC decisions to support rearmament. It coincided also
with a self-styled 'jingo-Imperialist' declaration from Citrine
in favour of a non-Communist People's (as opposed to the
Popular) Front and the National Executive's decision to dis-
sociate itself from a speech in which Cripps 'did not believe it
would be a bad thing for the British working class if Germany
defeated us'. 37
It was at this time that Tribune was founded in order to
put Cripps's point of view and to establish the viability of a
Front between the Labour, Communist and Independent La-
bour parties. His first calls for a United Front were then
rejected by the National Executive, which disaffiliated the
Socialist League early in 1937. However, he neither resigned
from the Labour party nor dissociated himself from it. In-
stead, he became chairman of the Committee of Constituen-
cy Labour parties which, along with Tribune, was his chief
platform for the next eighteen months and helped to elect
him, Laski and Pritt to the National Executive at the same
time as the rejection of the United Front was confirmed at

the Party Conference in October. 38
In the eighteen months following, his position was that,
though the decision was mistaken, he had no intention of
resigning so long as Labour had the only organisation capable
of opposing Chamberlain. 39 Along with Pritt, Laski, Strauss,
Gollancz and Bevan, he used Tribune and the Left Book Club
to create the impression that, by supporting rearmament, the
Labour leaders were producing a consensus situation by de-
fault.
This campaign was an attempt to play on two Labour
sentiments — of friendship for Russia and fear of a 1931. 4 0
It produced a decision, not very effectively pursued, that
Morrison should be put in Attlee's place. 41 It issued in de-
mands for alliance not only with the Communist and In-
dependent Labour parties but also with Sinclair, Amery and
the dissentient Conservatives, with whom Cripps thought
agreement was possible about a programme for 'the preserva-
tion of our democratic liberties, reconstituting Collective
Security and national control of...economic life'. 42
In this respect, he was a dissenter. Despite backstairs nego-
tiation in October 1938, Attlee and others believed that Con-
servatives would not co-operate unless they had to, and that
Liberals and Communists would do so only in order to steal,
or divide, the Labour vote. The National Executive withheld
official approval of Bartlett, to whom Cripps, like others,
sent a letter when he stood at Bridgewater (with support from
the Labour association).43 Cripps, in his turn, despite his own
co-operation with anti-Chamberlain Tories and anti-govern-
ment Liberals, attacked Labour co-operation in government
war preparations. 44
By the time the National Executive expelled him from the
Labour party in January 1939 (on a technicality), Cripps had
been under attack for advocating the sort of accommodation
which in 1934 it had been one of his chief objects to prevent.
Where previously he had regarded a Lib-Lab alliance as in-
volving opportunistic compromise, he was now hooking him-
self on to the main chance. 'In the light of our experience,
and bearing in mind especially the difficulty of winning over
large numbers of the middle class and all classes in the rural
areas,' he and his supporters wrote after the Anschluss, 'we

have come to the conclusion that an effective victory by the
Labour party alone is highly improbable at the next elec-
tion'. 45 On January 3 1939 after a detailed analysis of La-
bour's prospects he wrote to Middleton:
I certainly should not desire to encourage the Party to any combination
with other non-socialist elements in normal political times [but] the
growth of strength of the Labour party...is not such as to warrant the
belief that the Party can defeat the national government single-handed
at a general election within the next eighteen months... . A progressive
democratic block dominated by a numerically strong Labour nucleus
would be vastly preferable to the continuance of the National govern-
ment...and, if the Labour party were to come out boldly as the leader
of the combined opposition to the National government...and...support
combined opposition candidates in such of those constituencies not at
present held by any opposition member, as could offer no reasonable
chance of success in a straight fight between any single party opposition
candidate and the National government...such a step would, I am sure,
enormously increase its prestige and popularity...and...bring within its
ranks many who are not at present ready to join up because they are
not convinced of its power and capacity to defeat the National govern-
ment. 4 6
Cripps claimed that an alliance of this sort was necessary
to meet the 'certain use by the National Government' at the
next election 'of the call for National Unity against the for-
eign enemy'. 47 He asserted that any government which emer-
ged would be likely to improve old age pensions, raise the
school-leaving age, expand secondary and university educa-
tion, nationalise mining, transport and the Bank of England
and build up an alliance with France and Russia.
The socialist element in the programme raised doubts in
the Liberal party. After his expulsion, Cripps tried to orga-
nise a monster petition (in company with Strauss and Gol-
lancz). He then tried to tempt Lloyd George, Baldwin, Chur-
chill, Roberts, Richard Acland, Halifax, Wood, Stanley and
others (including Dean Johnson of Canterbury) into a broad-
based front to deal with the international situation. 48
In 1938/9 Cripps's theatre was a versatile piece of hedge-
hopping, an attempt — entirely unsuccessful — to make a
'Left-wing' foreign policy the centre of power in a positively
constructed coalition. In this respect Attlee was right to see
him as the successor of Mosley and MacDonald.
The idea of electoral alliance with Liberals and dissentient

Conservatives had begun after Eden's resignation. 49 It had
not survived his conduct out of office. The Labour leaders
were not interested in assisting dissentients unless they would
damage the Conservative party in the process. They needed
to be sure of a major secession. Until Munich, none seemed
to be in sight.
It was probably Macmillan, Sandys and Cartland rather
than the Labour leaders who made the first approaches.
There were then meetings with Dalton and limited co-opera-
tion about procedure in the House of Commons. There was,
however, no co-operation at by-elections.
At the Oxford by-election, Liberals and Conservatives had
worked with the Labour association in support of A.D. Lind-
say, the independent candidate. Oxford, however, was an un-
typical constituency. The working arrangment was not regar-
ded as a precedent 50 and Lindsay had, in any case, been
defeated. Even the support of the Co-operative party and the
letter sent by thirty-nine Labour MPs when Bartlett fought
the Bridgewater by-election as a progressive Independent did
not indicate that the Labour party was prepared for electoral
co-operation.
The Executive's decision of November 24 may have been
designed to leave open the possibility of an anti-government
alliance at or after a general election. 51 So far as the imme-
diate future was concerned, it concluded that 'coalition
would be a grievous discouragement to those holding Socia-
list convictions' and that a 'combination of parties was...poli-
tically unsound, electorally disadvantageous and governmen-
tally impossible'. 52
The Popular Front was rejected because it would raise the
'Red Bogy'. 53 The 'National Opposition' was rejected be-
cause Labour would be the beneficiary of the government's
difficulties without it. 54 Rejection was also connected with
Labour's Immediate Programme which was 'a coherent
whole' where 'the workers' movement', 'social reconstruc-
tion' and an attack on luxury would do more than a 'bour-
geois...government' to 'save the world from the abyss'. 55
The object of national reorganisation was that Britain
should 'take the van in the cause of peace'. 56 This meant a
Britain where the Immediate Programme had been carried
out. 'I would ask those who are dissatisfied with the Govern-
ment's handling of international affairs', said Greenwood on
December 4, 'whether they hate Socialism more than they
hate Fascism or whether they are prepared, in the interests of
democracy and freedom, to sacrifice some of their ancient
prejudices in order that Labour may have the opportunity to
blaze the path of peace abroad and prosperity at home'. 57
'Only in Socialism', Williams wrote on December 9, 'is there
to be found any true resolving of the conflicts which present
us with the threat of war abroad and the reality of poverty
and distress at home'. 58
What the Labour leaders were saying in the six months
after Munich was that 'the very foundation of our Western
civilisation' was 'imperilled'59 and that the government had
'allowed the peace forces of the world to be dissipated'. 60
The world's 'one strong voice' was Roosevelt's 61 but both
Russia and America had been neglected. In Britain Labour
was the only embodiment of progress and the only party that
had the nerve to stop the rot. For this reason it had a right to
Liberal support and had no need to depend on a Popular
Front. By the time the decision to expel Cripps had been
confirmed by the Southport Conference on May 29, 62 the
disappearance of Czechoslovakia seemed to have shown that
Chamberlain was finished.
To the Labour leaders the events of March 1939 had come
as 'no surprise'. Hitler-based appeasement had always been an
'illusion'. A 'peace pact with France or Russia' was the only
way of checking German aggression and facilitating 'a world
conference...to deal with the fundamental causes of war'.63
'Labour's foreign policy had been right' and 'now, in far less
favourable circumstances', with Czechoslovakia and Austria
lost, 'the government had come round to the views which we
had so long been pressing upon them'. M
The claim that it was following Labour's lead did not pro-
duce support for the government. For Chamberlain 'hatred'
was as 'passionate' as it had been six months before.65 When
Greenwood went out of his way to contrast him with Hitler,
he was unusual. Behind the public moves towards France and
Russia and the continental guarantees, the government's chief
characteristic was still said to be 'Simonism — in other words
casuistry'.66 After the occupation of Albania, it became once
more an important point that 'Chamberlain Must Go'. 67

Although the Labour leaders were pushing at an open door
so far as Halifax was concerned, they left no doubt that they
would reject 'appeals...to rally behind the government in the
interests of national unity'. 68 They made aggressive demands
for advances towards Russia which became more pressing the
clearer it was that Chamberlain's feet were being dragged. 69
They also objected to Conscription.
Conscription was an industrial as well as a political issue;
the reaction of the trade union leaders mattered more even
than those of the party leaders. It is at least possible that
many of both were 'happy in their hearts' when it was intro-
duced. Nevertheless, they protested and, in doing so, made
two claims. They claimed to know what war would be like if
it came. And they claimed that foreign policy must be right if
industrial co-operation was to be given.
The two claims were connected. On the one hand, there
was the view that in war Britain would keep sea-lanes open,
deploy the largest air force in Europe and develop a muni-
tions industry for her allies (while having no spare capacity
for a large continental army). On the other hand, in the
modern forces 'highly skilled men' would be operating expen-
sive machinery where the continually rising ratio between the
size of the Services and 'the far greater numbers engaged on
munitions and supply services' would make 'national service'
mean 'in effect...industrial Conscription...a demand that the
whole nation should be regimented and particular jobs
allocated to every individual'. 70
To this the objection was that it would be a step on the
road to fascism. Under a Capitalist government, Conscription
would do nothing to ensure that essential goods were pro-
duced. The national debt would be increased by deficit finan-
cing and almost anything done to keep purchasing power out
of the hands of the state. An increase in state power was
essential, however, if as much was to be done as in the first
war to 'produce...the right things', 'conscript wealth' and 'im-
pose equality of sacrifice' in order to 'maintain the standard
of life and morale of the people'. 71
In the summer of 1939 the Labour Leaders had to face in
two directions. If there was to be a general election, the
domestic programme of 1937 had to be deployed construct-
ively. If there was to be a war, they had to state the terms on

which they would offer co-operation. The common factor
was the removal of Chamberlain.
With these eventualities in mind, Labour was 'ready for an
election' whenever one might come. If war came instead,
equality and public ownership would ensure a 'strong nation'
and socialism success. The Immediate Programme would be
as relevant as when it was devised; it would be specially rele-
vant in turning the Services into a 'citizen army' where trade
unionism would be permitted, where promotion would be
from the ranks and where the distance between the ranks
would be diminished. 72 Labour was not, as its enemies claim-
ed, a war-mongering party. But in face of 'war more catastro-
phic than the last', the only sane reaction was the twin policy
of economic accommodation for states with a grievance and a
strong group of states pledged to 'mutual aid against aggres-
sion'. 73 'The banks', Bevin told the Labour Conference on
May 30, 'are responsible for the policy of appeasement of
Germany...I don't want us to fight for them...but for the
common people throughout the world.' 'This country', said
Attlee on May 15, 'is not organised as it should be because at
every point the interests of private profit and the interests of
property and class are put before the interest of the country
as a whole...You will only get first things put first when you
have a government that stands for the whole nation.' 74
EDEN, CHURCHILL AND THEIR ALLIES
*Let our first thought be of our duty to England. Let it be our desire
and determination...that we shall so acquit ourselves that the name of
England shall be honoured and respected. ...England would wish, I
believe, to see prevail throughout the world those conditions which she
has tried and is trying to create in her own land, an equal opportunity
for all to develop to the full their own individuality without let or
hindrance. We have found that one essential condition of such progress
is the rule of law. This being so, what must be our aim? We must first
wish to see the rule of law between nations acknowledged. We must
wish this because it is a condition of civilized life between countries. We
must, therefore, also wish justice to be done by just means. This must
make us readily accept, as trustees of a great part of the earth's surface,
the duties of trusteeship, the need of understanding, of toleration, and
of generosity. The England of to-day stands for something positive, the
creation at last of a comity of nations in which each can develop and
flourish and give to their uttermost their own special contribution to
the diversity of life*. Eden at annual dinner of the Royal Society of
St George, Grosvenor House, April 26 1938, The Times, April 27
*I venture to send you a little book I have just published on much the
same subject as your St. George's day speech, though you call it Eng-
land and I call it Liberality'. Murray to Eden, June 1 1938
'I am not sure what your line would be in the present crisis. I found it
this week quite easy to make a class analysis of the situation and leave
it at that, but I felt that it would be cowardly. If it is true that there is
half a chance of preventing war by the Winston sort of policy, I feel I
ought to say so...As you know I have always tried to make a distinction
between a war we ought to risk which would genuinely be in the
interests of Socialism in Spain and a war for the British Empire. It is
now, I am afraid, obvious that they would be the same thing...'. Martin
to Cripps, March 18 1938
The Labour opposition to Chamberlain was bitter but its
power to change policy was small, and what power it had
came from the need for trade union support in war. Cham-
berlain, however, was not aiming to go to war. He was aiming
to persuade Hitler to keep the peace. In doing so, he needed
less rather than more of the belligerence which some of the
Labour leaders were offering. The Labour party affected his
policy, chiefly through a change in climate in which the non-
Labour opposition was more important.
At its fullest extent, the non-Labour opposition was the

work of Churchill, Sinclair, Eden, Amery and Cecil, assisted
by twenty or so Conservative or National MPs inside Parlia-
ment and a handful of publicists outside. For the develop-
ment of policy, the crucial points were the Anschluss,
Munich and Prague. In the development of expectations, the
resignations of Eden and Cranborne were crucial.
The resignations, however, were less important than they
seemed at the time. 1 The Conservative party turned out to be
a hard nut to crack. Easy victories were not available. No
sudden sweep of feeling restored the critics to the centre of
the scene. A raising of stakes, a heightening of tension and
much searching of hearts was to go on before events fell out
as Churchill and Eden wished. A prolonged, complicated and
devastating experience turned out to be necessary before
either could make his way back.
Of the five leaders under discussion, Amery was the least

important. In the first place, because of his comparative isola-
tion. Secondly, because, after the disagreements of 1935, he
agreed with a good deal of what Chamberlain did in 1937.
Thirdly, because, having been a founder-member of the regime
in 1922, being close, though none too friendly, to Chamberlain
and always imagining that he might be needed, he did not,
until a late stage, regard himself as part of a regular opposi-
tion.
When it became clear that Chamberlain was going to be
Prime Minister, Amery called 'to inform [him] quite unasked,
which of the great offices of State he would be prepared to
accept'. 2 Believing, 'now...Austen [Chamberlain] had gone',
that he had 'more influence and authority in the party than
anyone', he did not 'consider [himself] an ordinary candidate
for office'. When Chamberlain apologised for failing to tit him
in,3 he received a dignified note which pointed out 'what a
difference' Amery would have made to his government both
in fact and in public estimation...had he intended a real
Imperial policy'. 4 His view of the government was that it had
emerged from
a mere reshuffle dominated by no other consideration apparently than
of giving the appropriate number of places to the representatives of the
so-called parties. That...de la Warr is made Privy Seal and a member
EDEN, CHURCHILL AND THEIR ALLIES 225
of the Cabinet and bouncing Hore-Belisha put into the War Office. The
Admiralty is inflicted with Duff Cooper while Sam [Hoare] moves on
to the Home Office of all places...Worst of all, Oliver Stanley is put at
the Board of Trade. That Neville should not only put a Liberal at the
Exchequer but a very partially converted Free Trader at the Board of
Trade at a time like this shows a complete disregard not only of the
feelings of the party but an even more complete lack of any real interest
or understanding in his father's policy. 5
From this position, Amery developed an indictment. It
was not just, he was saying, that Chamberlain had construct-
ed a 'one-man cabinet', for that obviously was what he had
wanted to do. 6 It was much more that he was failing to give
it a 'national character'.
By 'national character' Amery did not mean what Baldwin
had meant. Nor did he mean the inclusion of all parties in a na-
tional government. He meant, on the contrary, a policy in the
mould of Milner and Joseph Chamberlain and an attempt to re-
do what they had done for those of us who were young men be-
fore the war'. He meant a repetition of his own campaign in the
Boer War, a revival of Roberts's defence campaign and 'con-
vert[ing]...the...negative rationale of the coalition into a
positive...creed based on social welfare and...Empire unity'. 7
Amery did not object to appeasement. He thought it im-
portant to prevent Europe being divided into ideological
blocs and was willing to recognise Germany's 'natural econo-
mic predominance' in central Europe. He regarded Mussolini
as a good European and hoped that encirclement could be
'eliminated' by making him France's ally in place of Russia.8
On the other hand, he was cautious about any particular
step to ease relations with Germany. He had strong views
about the Colonial campaign (which he thought had been set
off by Hoare's Geneva speech in 1935) and founded a Colo-
nial Defence League (with help from Sandys) in order to
oppose it. Above all, he took the view that the best policy
was to approach Italy first because Mussolini was more ame-
nable than Hitler.9
Over Eden's resignation, Amery supported Chamberlain,
whose criticism of the League was 'the first breath of fresh
air on the Government front bench for many a long year'. 10
He refused to support Churchill in exploiting it u and, when
told about Hitler's brutality to Schuschnigg, recalled his 'trag-
ic apprehension [at] Eden's performances and those of the
Cabinet in launching the Abyssinian campaign at Geneva in

1935'. 1 2
For Amery the Anschluss meant 'facing realities and, much
as I dislike it from an Empire point of view,...Continental
entanglements'. 13 He believed, however, that the govern-
ment's policy and his own were 'identical' and rejected Chur-
chill's 'Grand Alliance' because one of the allies, Czechoslova-
kia, was surrounded, Hungary was an enemy and 'we have got
to fall back on holding Yugoslavia and the Balkans and giving
Germany...plenty to occupy her in the rest of the Danubian
and Eastern European area'. 14
In the summer of 1938 Amery was asking for a policy
Cabinet to include the Opposition and a National Register as
a first step towards Conscription. He wanted a Ministry of
Supply (which Churchill did not understand), a policy for
food supplies (which Chamberlain did not understand) and
an attempt to use Italy as a barrier against Germany (which
was one object of the visit he paid to Rome in April). 15 On
these, and other matters, he expressed his opinions in Parlia-
ment, in the newspapers, at public meetings, through the
organisations he helped to run and at committees of the par-
liamentary Conservative party, which he found more conge-
nial platforms than the floor of the House of Commons.
During the early days of the Munich crisis, he was terrified
by the sound of Hitler's voice, 16 unable to believe that Fran-
ce could 'do...nothing if the Czechs fight' 17 and convinced
that the government had 'to avoid...Grey's mistake and leave
[the Germans] in no doubt where we stand'. 18 Believing that
a settlement was 'almost impossible' but hoping for a solu-
tion if the Czechs offered 'a corner of Czechoslovakia', he
regarded the Berchtesgaden visit as 'a bold stroke...which
might just conceivably save the situation'. 19 He wrote to
Chamberlain and told Halifax that this was his opinion.20
This did not mean that he was happy. On September 20 he
refused to propose a pro-Chamberlain resolution at the party
conference in October. 21 When Eden told him, while Cham-
berlain was at Godesberg, that the British plan was 'quite
vague as to who is to be handed over', he began to anticipate
'a general mutilation...that would...make our guarantee of
[Czech] neutrality very different from what [he] had contem-
plated'. 22
The fear that the Cabinet might press proposals of this sort
was so worrying that he wrote both to Halifax and The
Times, and got up at six o'clock on the morning of Septem-
ber 25 to write to Chamberlain in anticipation of the Cabinet
meeting that day. To Halifax he wrote that 'almost everyone
I have met has been horrified at the so-called Peace Plan' and
that it was unlikely that the House of Commons 'would stand
any more surrender'. 23 The letter to Chamberlain expressed
the opinion that 'we could not shirk the responsibility of
expressing our own views about Hitler's ultimatum, namely
that it was unreasonable and that we should not ask the
Czechs to accept it'. 2 4
On September 23 Amery attended a meeting of MPs in
Spears's house. On the 26th he went to a meeting in Spears's
office at which his main contribution was to refuse to sign a
statement in favour of co-operation with Russia.2S From
there he was taken, with the rest of the meeting, to Chur-
chill's flat where he found a 'queer collection' consisting,
among others, of Cecil, Lytton, Iindemann and Lloyd.
Amery had had no special contact with Churchill, none
with Cecil, of whom he was not an admirer, and very little
with Eden, of whom he was intellectually contemptuous. It
was not until Spears took him to Churchill's flat that he was
anywhere near the centre of the anti-Chamberlain movement.
He went to another Spears meeting on September 27 and to
meetings of Churchill's on September 28, October 3 and Oct-
ober 5. Thereafter, he had little direct contact with the
Churchill group, which probably found him wooden about
Collective Security and Russia and too willing to hedge his
bets about Chamberlain. 26 He tried, unsuccessfully, to in-
volve Attlee and Lloyd George in supporting Conscription27
and to construct a joint programme with the Sinclair Liber-
als. 28 From late October he was a regular member of a group
which included Eden, Cranborne, Duff Cooper and Nicolson.
Amery was an enemy of the League of Nations, a hammer
of pacifist, 'leftish' or woolly-minded internationalism and a
critic of Cecil's understanding of the needs and nature of
Collective Security. As recently as September 25, he had
written that the real origin of the crisis was to be found in
the 'years of self-deception...when, refusing to reason, we
thought that we could interfere anywhere...on behalf of
Peace through the League'.29 Nevertheless, the alliance he had

joined included Cecil who believed that 'the old attitude
about power and imperialism...was as dead as Queen
Anne'. 3 0
The high point of the influence exercised by Cecil and the

League of Nations Union was in 1935. 1936 was a bad year
for the League; the Union lost the central position it had
regained the year before. Thereafter the decline was sharp, as
Cecil and Murray had a developed experience of being in
their seventies, as the Peace Pledge Union emphasised peace
rather than the League and as both Chamberlains turned offi-
cial Conservative opinion against them. 31
It is true that they tried to stop the Conservative with-
drawal by dodging the colonial question 32 and presenting the
League as 'an almost ideal machinery* for the 'preservation*
of the Empire. 33 It is true also that, at times, they expected
the German and Italian problems to go away or be solved if
'peaceful Change' was taken as seriously as Collective Secur-
ity. M In company with Lytton, they held meetings, issued
statements and used a long-standing entree to Downing Street
to support Eden and Cranborne in February and the Czechs
in September 1938. But it was clear that something was miss-
ing as the breach with Chamberlain produced conditions in
which, for the first time since the war, the Union lost its
standing as a sacred cow. 3S
Despite Eden's and then Halifax's presence at the Foreign
Office and the restraint they would impose on 'the anti-
League party in the government', 36 the result was a further
swing to the Left and an increase in the number of embarrass-
ing bedfellows. This showed itself in a heightened desire for
association with Russia, support for Republican Spain and the
development of relations with the International Peace Cam-
paign which Cecil hoped might do what the National Declara-
tion had done in 1935. 37
This followed a wrangle which had begun at an office
Christmas party (in 1936) when one of the Union's senior
officials, who was a Roman Catholic, gave imitations of Cecil,
Noel-Baker and other Union leaders expressing admiration of
the IPC. In the next two years Cecil and Murray were much
pre-occupied with the subsequent argument in which Catho-
lie, trade union and most Conservative members of the Exe-

cutive opposed amalgamation on the ground that the IPC was
a Communist front. When settled in favour of Cecil's view
that relations should be close — he had said in 1936 that
'Communism [was] not a danger' 38 — it was followed by the
resignation of Archbishop Hinsley, the dismissal of Garnett,
the Union Secretary, and complaints from Chamberlain and
Conservative Central Office about the Left-wing tone of
Union propaganda.
Except for a brief period after the false alarm of May 21,
Cecil spent 1938 'struggling for the survived of the work' to
which he had 'given the last twenty years of his life'. 39 The
government had 'allowed the League to disintegrate'. 40 The
Union was suffering a 'psychological slough' such as had been
experienced in 1934 and a 'general loss of faith in League
principles'. Churchill was beginning to provide one substitute,
Eden a more 'central' one. But the government's 'ambiguities
and timidities' were failing to make Hitler understand that
further aggression would be a breach of even Chamberlain's
conception of international relations.41 Right into 1940
Cecil was complaining about the failure to resist aggression in
the Far East. 42
By the winter of 1938 his party connection had disappear-
ed. Halifax had been written off.43 Chamberlain's activities
before Godesberg had been 'disastrous to British interests and
fatal to British honour'. 44 Munich was an 'abdication' and
necessitated 'a great effort to try and organise a joint opposi-
tion to the government of all those who are really terrified by
their foreign policy'. 45
If war had come before Munich, Cecil would have wanted
Churchill at the head of a Conservative government. At the
Oxford by-election he wanted Lindsay to win (when Murray
decided not to stand himself). 46 After Prague he wanted
Eden to stay out of office because 'any strengthening' of
Chamberlain would be 'a disaster'. 47 But except for Cripps
and Noel-Baker, he had lost regard for the Labour party
which he thought doctrinaire and unpractical and to join
which 'at [his] age seem[ed] ridiculous'. 48 He had no time
for Attlee who was 'not a leader' and would have to be
removed if it was to become effective.49
What Cecil wanted was what Eden was trying to make his
own — a liberal-minded, post-Imperialist centrality leading to

intimations that Collective Security was an aspect of the Bri-
tish way of life, that freedom and democracy required resis-
tance to dictators and that the post-war world should include
a 'closer union between European states' against 'national-
ism'. 50 In presenting these sentiments for the benefit of the
young, he offended a great many of the Union rank and
file. 51 When he appeared with Lytton at Churchill's flat in
September 1938, he was not the man he had been three years
before. In these directions Sinclair was the effective leader.
Sometime in 1936 Sinclair had seen that foreign policy

might help him to effect a Liberal revival. In the following
two years, however, his position remained what it was then —
that Liberals had a part to play in 'constructing] a platform
on which the parties of the Left would come together' but
would not 'go grovelling to the Labour party' or 'exhibit
[themselves] in the guise of a weak applicant' to anyone
else. 52
Though electoral alliance was 'impossible' and 'undesira-
ble', 53 he saw scope for advance, as Lloyd George had in
1935, in face of all those on both sides who advocated 'trade
wars' or 'class wars'. 54 This might happen as the result of a
Labour split. S5 It might happen, in the absence of Labour
electoral success, as it came to be seen that 'Liberal candi-
dates, supported by active organisations, would do far more'
in many constituencies 'to weaken the government vote' than
the Labour party could do by itself.56 There was a greater
chance in this way, he thought, of a general election pro-
ducing an anti-Conservative majority pledged to reform the
electoral system to the Liberal party's advantage. 57
Encouraged by the Labour failure to follow Cripps, Sin-
clair played a part in the League of Nations Union, the New
Commonwealth and Churchill's Focus of which he was an
unpublicised member from an early stage. He had hopes of
both Parmoor and Snowden (before his death in 1937) 58 and
through White and Mander, had a certain amount of cautious
contact with the New Five Year group. 59 In addition to
Lloyd George (who also helped Nathan win Wandsworth for
Labour), at least one of his sixteen MPs — Mander — support-
ed Noel-Baker when he won the National Labour seat for
Labour on Thomas's retirement from Derby. 60 Another —

Dingle Foot — was deputed to liaise with Macmillan's plans
for a Popular Front. 61 Harris and Sinclair talked frequently
to Bernays, and Meston to the National Labour Party. 62 For-
mal support was withheld from Salter at the Oxford Univers-
ity by-election only because of the uncertain temper of the
electorate. 63
In facing the future, Sinclair thought primarily about the
young, the universities and the communicators. Much was
said about being 'radical and imaginative' and something
about Simon's 'smugness'. M Though technical objection was
raised to the Defence White Paper of 1936, Liberal pacifism
was rejected. In preparing against a possible threat to 'the
people of these islands', League-based co-operation with
France was the only way of 'sharing the risks' entailed by the
'world-wide' character of the Empire. 'I am', Sinclair wrote in
April 1935, 'entirely opposed to the conception of the Rhine
as the frontier of Great Britain...It would be as sensible to
describe the Vistula as our frontier. If we want to preserve
peace in this country, we must prevent war from breaking
out in Europe.' 65
Peace, however, would be preserved only by removing the
causes of war, which were not to be found in the character of
Nazism or the idiosyncrasies of Hitler. The cause was the
Ottawa policy of erecting tariff walls against German and
Japanese goods. This was why the Samuelites had resigned in
1932, and why their resignation freed them from responsibil-
ity for armaments expenditure. It was why Chamberlain was
primarily to blame for the situation in which
Japan [would] seize by force...what is denied her by peaceful trade,
Italy [would] take Abyssinia and Germany [would] prepare to break
the ring which holds the economic life of her people in a vice...and you
will have to pay in direct...and indirect taxes on the necessities and
luxuries of daily life, 1 million pounds every weekday for the next five
years to arm yourselves against the resentments and designs of foreign
countries. ^
In mid-1936 Sinclair expected the 'betrayal' of election
pledges to create conditions in which, 'among those who
[had] voted for the government' there were 'tens of thou-
sands' who would not vote Conservative again. 67 As Abyssi-
nia and the Rhineland receded and Baldwin was restored by
the abdication, expectations then waned. Even when Cham-

berlain presented a rawer target after Baldwin had retired,
Sinclair was much less confident than the year before. 68 It
was not until the Ipswich by-election in February 1938 that
opportunities seemed to knock.
Ipswich taught Sinclair two lessons — that the Simonites,
even in their strongest area, could no longer deliver the Liber-
al vote, and that a Labour candidate — standing on a Liberal
programme — had done infinitely better than Labour candi-
dates had done when they stood on a socialist programme. It
seemed, therefore, that the prospect for a Liberal revival was
not dead. When followed by Eden's resignation, it seemed
certain that it was very much alive. 69
In the previous eighteen months Eden had been acclaimed
as much by Liberals as by Cecil and the Labour party. For
Sinclair, he was a man of 'sincerity...in a Cabinet of agnos-
tics'. In an 'Imperialistic and isolationist' government, he was
the one supporter of the League and had quarrelled with
Chamberlain against whom the Liberal understanding of
international relations had been established in 1936. 70
Up to Eden's resignation, Liberals had been active — about
food prices and the damage Protection had done to the eco-
nomy. 71 Sinclair shared Eden's reluctance to recognise the
conquest of Abyssinia. 72 But, so far from prejudging Hitler,
he had blamed Conservatives for suppressing discussion of the
colonial question and criticised Labour for wanting a line-up
— at variance with League universality — between Britain,
France and Russia on the one hand and the Rome-Berlin axis
on the other. 73 While half-anticipating a crooked deal, he
had welcomed Halifax's visit to Germany and the attempt to
make friends with Italy. 74 Despite contrary pressure inside
the party, 7S he had supported non-intervention in Spain. 76
His demand for sanctions against Japan had co-existed with
the policy of the Open Door. 77 He had criticised Conscrip-
tion as an 'encroachment on civil liberty' 78 and, when Hitler
was established in Vienna, wanted 'moderation' and 'generos-
ity' in Prague. 79
With Eden's resignation the plans Sinclair had made in
1936 had become relevant. The 'determination' to have a
League policy including Russia, was not new. What was new
was the Conference decision to co-operate with other parties
and groups, 80 the attack on non-intervention in Spain 81 and

the assertion that, if peace was to be kept, it was not Swinton
but 'the architect of Ottawa' who must be removed. 82
In the summer of 1938, Sinclair sensed a shift as Eden's
position took root on the Left. Until Munich proved other-
wise, he expected Mussolini to transform the party situation.
In early September he wrote:
The Prime Minister's failures are obscured by the crisis in Central Euro-
pe, and the edge of criticism is naturally blunted by its seriousness...
Nevertheless, if the Central European cloud does pass, the criticism of
the Prime Minister's failure in Spain and in Italy will be renewed with
full force, and Eden may yet get his opportunity if he has the strength
and agility to take it.
These policies were challenged in the Liberal party. 84 So
was Sinclair's urgency.85 Samuel was sceptical about the
League.86 Crewe, who was eighty, and Spender, at seventy-six,
tried to establish collective leadership. 87 All three supported
the Munich settlement, though Crewe (like Sinclair) support-
ed Lindsay (where Samuel criticised him) at the Oxford by-
election. 88
From Sinclair's shift, Spender's Imperial 'pacifism' suffer-
ed as much as Hirst's Cobdenism had begun to suffer from
the attempt to have a social policy. 89 Having no wish to have
anything to do with the Labour party, Spender offered to
resign the presidency of the Liberal Council. He then echoed
the Hankey view that 'the League of Nations Union...wishes
us to face another war, with Italy and Japan as well as Ger-
many hostile'. 90
In relation to the Liberal party, Sinclair and Johnstone
were in control. But Johnstone was not an MP and the party
scarcely functioned in the House of Commons. 91 In develop-
ing public positions, the greatest difficulty was with the News
Chronicle.
The Chronicle had been formed in 1930 by amalgamation
between the Daily News and the Daily Chronicle. Since then,
to a rising circulation, it had brought Radicalism up to date.
Under Vallance, Barry, Cummings and Layton (the presiding
mind), it had pinpointed the choices that lay between Radi-
cal Liberalism on the one hand and the revived Labour party
on the other. In 1934 it hovered cautiously between Lans-
bury and Lloyd George. In 1935 Layton was a go-between
between the Peace Ballot and the Left. 92

Layton was a Cambridge economist. He stood, politically,
where Keynes and Beveridge stood, exposing the position
more contentiously and antagonising Conservatives more ob-
viously; but expressing, through his journalism, the mediating
uncertainties of unbeneficed Liberalism. 93
As editor of The Economist and in the Chronicle, Layton
was a 'rational' Radical who equated 'reason' with the mixed
economy and the League of Nations Union. In 1933 his for-
mula consisted of political disarmament, economic appease-
ment and that it was a matter of 'expediency' whether there
was to be 'socialisation' or not. 9 4
As the Lothian of the Liberal-Left, Layton gave economic
body to vague aspirations towards an 'international order'. 9S
He also supplied vague aspirations towards 'a new vision built
up on...understanding...private office [as] a public trust'. 96
After supporting the New Deal, he supported the Council of
Action and Reconstruction at the 1935 election. 97
Layton's foreign-policy language was a negation of Cham-
berlain's; Chamberlain's 'confession of disbelief in the Lea-
gue' gave The Economist a handle. 98 In 1938 it criticised the
appeasement of Italy and the failure to support democracy in
Spain. It presented early war as likely to be more favourable
than a war later. Chamberlain's attempt to replace 'the inter-
national democracy of Geneva by a Four Power Pact' should
be rejected, it said, since there was 'no common ground...be-
tween the democracies and...the liberty-destroying regimes...
and...no assurance that...the...desire for economic better-
ment...in totalitarian states [would] put a check on imperial-
ist designs fostered by mass propaganda'."
Like Cripps, Layton intended, from a height, to provide
something for the people to believe in. He wanted them to
believe that Imperialism was wrong and that autarky would
fail. He implied an ideological identity between a liberal eco-
nomic system, League commitments and the defence of 'civili-
zation'. 10°
In all these respects, his support was valuable. Samuel had
treated him as a colleague. When Sinclair became leader, he
had hoped to do the same. 101
This turned out to be impossible. 102 Though Layton was
a Liberal (and an associate of Allen as well as Lloyd George),
the Cronicle aimed to be a mass-circulation newspaper at a

time when the election had shown that mass-circulation Libe-
ralism was dead. The 'combination of progressive forces' 103
which Lay ton wanted in 1936 (when Sinclair was tactically
cautious) was presented, therefore, as something the Labour
party might bring about, 104 while the Popular Front of 1939
(which Sinclair supported) was played down because it was
Cripps who was leading it. 105
like the Liberal party, the Chronicle was a coalition of
generations (between ownership and staff). It produced a si-
milar combination of antagonism to 'power polities', 'collect-
ive' resistance to aggression and the half-hope that economic
appeasement might turn Hitler into the world statesman Lay-
ton had hoped for in 1933. 106 Even after Munich, it did not
give up. The point was, however, that appeasement was im-
possible without the Soviet Union, that 'inspiring leadership'
was needed and that 'unity of purpose' could only be achiev-
ed under 'a new government formed on the broadest possible
basis of opinion'. 107
Layton's Chronicle highlighted divisions in the government
and implied that Chamberlain had lost his following. It was
virulently nasty about the Nazis and was the newspaper of
which the Nazi leaders complained most regularly. But it did
not exclude a peaceful outcome. After Munich it was winded
(though it soon recovered). Its celebrations of Benes, Russia
and the League got under Chamberlain's skin, even when its
line (like his) combined resistance (if necessary) with reconci-
liation (if that should be possible). If Crowther's Economist
reflected Layton's frame of mind, Layton may still just possi-
bly have had hopes in the summer of 1939. 108
In addition to being close to Labour, Layton was closer to
Churchill than to Eden. So was Sinclair, 109 and it may be
that 'Eden' was his way of saying 'Churchill'. Certainly it was
later. Until well into 1939, however, Eden was the more
credible symbol of Conservative division and more likely to
make the Liberal party look centred by association.
When he resigned, Eden faced alternatives as problematical as

those he had faced when Foreign Secretary. Having climbed
faster than anyone in the twentieth century and having ex-
pectations of a further climb into the highest place of all, he
had, now that he had taken off, to take care not to kick away
the ladder he had been climbing.
The problem, which neither the Anschluss, May 21 nor
Munich resolved, was whether to keep to a Conservative line,
or whether he should put himself at the head of an eclectic
movement of public protest in order to establish that be-
tween him and Chamberlain there was 'a difference of out-
look' which was 'deep and real'. n 0
Churchill had chosen the second course, which, however,
involved association with the Labour party. This Eden want-
ed to avoid, not least because an essential feature of his pro-
gressive reputation was that he was a Conservative. Moreover,
the door back into the Cabinet was being kept open. Simon
said so. m Chamberlain did not say so and was happy that
he had left. But Chamberlain did not want Eden stumping
the country and did his best to play down the disagree-
ment. 112 Even if he did this as much in order to keep Eden
quiet as because he meant it, it had an effect. 113
After a mild resignation speech (which he had cleared with
Hankey 114 ), Eden's first step was to have a holiday. His
second was to consult, not Churchill (whose threat of a
Midlothian campaign he found 21s embarrassing as the Labour
embrace), but first Halifax, to whom he wrote and talked in
Yorkshire, 115 and then Baldwin, whom he visited in the
South of France. 116
Baldwin had not seen Chamberlain much since May 1937
but there is no reason to believe that he disliked his foreign
policy or admired Eden as Foreign Secretary. 117 What he
believed, or was reported as believing, was that Chamberlain
had destroyed the central position it had been his own life's
work to establish, had alienated the 'floating vote' and 'liber-
al opinion' and, at a time when trade union support was
essential, was making the government look reactionary by
conducting it on 'party lines' and 'splitting the country'. 118
After Swinton's resignation, Baldwin was 'proud' to be his
'friend' and did not expect 'the country' to 'stand' Chamber-
lain 'much longer'; 119 his advice thereafter was that Eden
should go around, showing himself off and performing the
manifold functions which a Conservative politician had to
perform if he was to look like a prime minister. 'Studying the
depressed areas and unemployment', 'the danger of democra-

cy ending if allowed to deviate to Left or Right' and 'a revival
of Disraelian Tory Democracy' were the slogans he suggested
in the course of repaying Chamberlain for the criticisms he had
been given in their twenty years of uneasy collaboration.120
Eden did this. He exposed the danger of the country being
'split into two camps on foreign policy'. He called for 'na-
tional unity', talked about the moral and physical 're-equip-
ment of the nation' and promised to 'attack' the government
if it 'could not secure TUC co-operation' for a 'drastic regi-
mentation of industry and labour'.121 He advised his sup-
porters in the House of Commons to 'keep the flag flying'
above the 'reactionary' backbenches while he 'stood for post-
war England against the old men'. 122 He offered youth, pa-
triotism and service in the trenches in justification of the claim
that liberty, equality and moral regeneration were necessary to
the establishment of a 'lasting peace'. 123
In the midst of this synthetic Jacobinism, there was not
very much about the League of Nations. There was a great
deal more about Anglo-American liberty and the rule of law,
and about the League dream not having become a reality. 124
In his constituency on June 11 Eden announced that 'mo-
dern Conservatism' was a 'virile, progressive force' which
would not forever identify 'retreat' with 'the path of
peace'.125 He then decided to make each of his speeches 'hotter'
than the last. 126 He made factory visits to Durham (in July)
and Tyneside (in August), the outcome of which were state-
ments about the increase in unemployment 127 and essays for
Baldwin at Aix announcing further visits to South Wales and
Lancashire and the commonplace reflections that any young
politician might offer to a mentor. 128
If Eden expected his resignation to trigger off others and
bring down the government, 129 he was disappointed. Labour
won government seats at Lichfield and West Fulham, and
Swinton was allowed to resign. But no one else did. Chamber-
lain reacted strongly on May 21. The Stafford by-election 13°
in early June was a good one for the government which look-
ed no weaker in July than it had been in January.
Whether Eden expected to be the next Prime Minister is
not certain. His entourage talked about the possibility;131 he
said that he was not going to be used by the present one and
had ruled out a return to office in the present Parliament. 132
From this position he acted cautiously. He made no
complaint when the Runciman mission was appointed. 133
When Czechoslovakia seemed likely to produce a crisis, he
said that Hitler should be warned. When the Lanark warning
was not repeated, he wrote a letter to The Times which Hali-
fax suggested and Chamberlain approved before it was
sent. 134 While sharing Halifax's fear that the government
might 'run away if it came to a show-down', he did not
support Churchill's demand for a declaration of willingness to
go to war. 135 On September 18 he was going to 'go for the
government' when Parliament reassembled but, in a mood of
considerable depression, wanted neither resignations nor a
Cabinet revolt. On September 21 he made a public call for a
'stand'. 136 He found the idea of recommending the Godes-
berg terms 'incredible' and wrote to Halifax to say so. On the
28th he wished Chamberlain God speed in Munich. Next
day he refused to sign a Churchill telegram because he would
not be party to a 'vendetta against Chamberlain'. 137
After March Eden telephoned Halifax to object to the fact
that Britain had presented Hitler's ultimatum for him. 138 At
the same time he began to say that it would 'give us time to
reconstruct'. By 'reconstruction' he meant nothing hostile to
Chamberlain who deserved 'deep sympathy...in [his] unparal-
leled ordeal', 139 but the use of special wartime powers to
increase industrial production and, if Chamberlain could invite
Labour and Liberal cooperation, he would become personally
impregnable and impress the world with Britain's resolute
intentions. 140
Until the settlement was reached, Eden's chief ally was
Halifax; he played no part in the Churchill group meetings in
late September. He was present on October 3 when Churchill
and Dalton drafted a Labour motion for which Conservatives
could vote, but, like the rest of the dissentients and against
Churchill's advice, abstained in the division three days lat-
er. 141 He told Amery that Chamberlain's speech had almost
persuaded him to support the government. 142 He told Hali-
fax that he had 'agreed with 90%' of it 'and would have voted
with the government had it not been for his feeling of obliga-
tion to those with whom he had been working'. 143
Eden was leader of a parliamentary group which had been

meeting secretly. It consisted of about twenty-five MPs. He
was careful to distinguish it from the Churchill group.
Apart from Eden, Churchill was the most formidable leader

of Conservative opposition. And in his case, more even than
in Eden's, ambiguity was important. He had had a period on
a sort of Left before 1914 and had picked up the language of
reaction as the Liberal party had fallen away under him.
From then onwards this was the language he used. By 1932
he had cast himself as an anti-Bolshevik, pro-Japanese ad-
mirer of Mussolini with a well-established reputation for fis-
cal backwardness.
In the course of the next couple of years, this role was
confirmed as the enemy of the India bill (with a semi-Mosley-
ite son and connections with Lady Houston) developed an
articulated distaste for universal suffrage. It was only when
Chamberlain made a dead set at the Conservative Right in
June 1936 that Churchill tried to form a miscellaneous or-
chestra out of the Labour party, a broad span of Liberal and
Conservative politicians and the League of Nations Union
where his name had previously *st[u]nk in the nostrils of [its]
warmest supporters'. 144
For Churchill the thirties so far had been a period of ex-
tensive activity and total failure. His first attempt to challenge
Baldwin (in January 1931) had been followed by the for-
mation of the National government and its attempt to exclu-
de him at the general election. He was in a relationship of
critical hostility as his sixties heaved into sight, when it ob-
tained the largest parliamentary majority any government
had had since 1832. The result was an intensification of liter-
ary effort of which the completion of Marlborough (with its
account of British leadership in Europe) and the beginning of
the History of the English-Speaking Peoples were the fruit.
Though Randolph Churchill did, 145 Churchill did not in-
tervene in the by-elections of the early thirties. Nor did he
attempt to emulate Mosley. Though fishing for a position on
the Right, it was the parliamentary Right that was the object
of his attention.
In the course of the thirties Churchill took up four causes
and, from a position of formal independence from the gov-
eminent, used them as ways of attacking it. The first — the

Betting bill — was a rehearsal for the India bill. 146 India
failed him and divided him from natural allies like Derby and
Austen Chamberlain; in 1935 he dropped it. The third — the
uselessness and over-promotion of the MacDonalds — lasted a
long time and touched sensitive areas. 147
The fourth — air defence — was an admirable subject for
parliamentary warfare, combining, as it did, a major public
fear, an unavoidable reticence on the part of the government
and a minister who was both a childhood friend and close to
MacDonald. By April 1935 he had cast doubt on the govern-
ment's figures for British and German air strengths and was
primarily responsible for Londonderry's removal from the
Air Ministry. From the middle of 1936 his interest in air
parity with Germany turned into an invigilation of the execu-
tion of the air programme, the chief effect of which in 1938
seemed, somewhat misleadingly, to be the removal of Swin-
ton and Winterton.
In the cases of Londonderry, Winterton, and perhaps Swin-
ton, Churchill was shooting at targets he did not really want
to hit. It is not clear when he saw that foreign policy might
restore him to the centre of the scene. Even after Hitler's
arrival in office, he had thought India more important. In
reacting to the murder of Dollfuss, the invasion of Abyssinia
and the occupation of the Rhineland, he was still, despite
dim forebodings, acting as an ex-minister who was laying bets
both ways. It was not until 1938 that 'destiny' began to
come through, alcoholically, at the same time as Chamberlain
experienced the feeling without alcohol.
One of Baldwin's first acts as Prime Minister in 1935 was
to invite Churchill to join the Air Defence Research sub-com-
mittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence. 148 Churchill
accompanied acceptance with the announcement that he
would be on good terms in view of the 'period of strain'
which lay ahead. Having supported Lloyd George in January,
he now changed direction, supporting the League line in
Abyssinia, expecting Hoare to make Mussolini 'climb down'
and thrusting his help onto Baldwin at the election. 149
Chamberlain thought this Churchill's way of easing himself
into office, 15° but it is likely that Baldwin wanted only to
take defence and rearmament out of public argument. Even if
he wanted to have Churchill in the government, Chamberlain

would have objected (as he had to Lloyd George eighteen
months before); Baldwin did not want to, not least in view of
the nuisance Churchill would make of himself if he was there
when Baldwin retired. 151
During the search for a minister to co-ordinate defence,
Austen Chamberlain and others wanted Churchill. Churchill
agreed with them and made the mistake of offering to sup-
press criticism 'if there were any chance' of being appoint-
ed. 152 After Inskip's appointment, Chamberlain and Chur-
chill built up a heavy-weight body of defence critics who
caused Baldwin a great deal of trouble. 153
In pressing the defence question, Austen Chamberlain
hoped to remove Baldwin. By mid-1936 Churchill had vir-
tually resumed hostilities and was having a measure of suc-
cess. No less than Hoare and Neville Chamberlain, he was
preparing to take hold as Baldwin's grip loosened. In speaking
powerfully about defence deficiencies, he was speaking to the
Right. Through connections with Cecil, Citrine and the Lea-
gue of Nations Union, and by emphasising the League (which
he had first hooked on to in 1933), he was showing how well
he would wear liberal clothes when Baldwin removed his. 154
At the turn of the year Churchill's clothes were removed.
The attempt to form a King's Party during the abdication
proved that he was as erratic as the worst interpretations
suggested. Austen Chamberlain's unexpected death four
months later removed his strongest supporter. With the be-
ginning of Neville Chamberlain's Prime Ministership, the pros-
pect of office disappeared.
Though Churchill may have offered himself, 15S his prevail-
ing expectation was that office was impossible unless the
situation changed. The best way of changing it was to devel-
op an opposition.
This meant finding policy dilemmas that would ring bells in
quarters which were ready to criticise the government in the
first place. About the Rhineland it meant the estrangement of
Mussolini as Hitler's opportunity and Britain as the real cause
of Laval's failure. 156 It also meant 'national honour' versus
'funk', 'encircling' Germany 'through the League' and 'orga-
nising] the merciful tolerant forces in the world' against the
'heavily armed, immoral dictatorships'. 157 Later, in spite of
Spain, it meant restoring relations with Mussolini and recog-

nising that 'we are...not in position to go to war without very
active Russian assistance'. 158 As Chamberlain dissociated
himself from the League, it meant 'standing] by the Cove-
nant' and the French, and 'gathering] together...the largest
number...of well-armed peace-seeking Powers'. In suitable
company it meant the 'preservation' of 'the British Empire...
for a few more generations in its strength and splendour'. 159
By the beginning of 1938, Churchill had got nowhere. Af-
ter the excitement of 1936, nothing had happened. Blum,
whom he professed to admire, 160 had been removed (along
with the Popular Front). His League position, though tailored
to meet Conservative dislike, was a passport to Cecil; 161 dur-
ing the abdication Cecilian goodwill had disappeared. What
he had left was not very much. He had a German (and unusu-
ally reactionary) scientific adviser — Lindemann — who was
treated as a nuisance when he joined the Air Defence Re-
search Sub-Committee, 162 was resisted when he tried to be-
come Conservative candidate for Oxford University and had
been defeated when he stood against the official Conservative
notwithstanding. 163 In the House of Lords his only supporter
was Lloyd, who, even if he hoped (mistakenly) for office
from Chamberlain, had been ostracised (by Baldwin) as a
'die-hard extremist' after his Egyptian performance in the
twenties. 164
Otherwise, Churchill's support was random. He was close
to Sinclair and, at his request, had become President of Lord
Davies's New Commonwealth Group. 165 He had a loose
friendship with Lloyd George, who was old, and had nibbled
at Crewe, who was even older. 166 He had taken trouble with
Kenneth Lindsay (of the National Labour party). He had had
something to do with Citrine and Dalton and had praised the
'great trade unions' for the new interest being taken 'by the
Left-wing forces' in 'questions of Imperial defence'. 167 He
had formed the 'Peace with Freedom' movement which held
lunches and meetings with a view to applying 'Liberal princi-
ples' to foreign policy. 168 This had merged into The Focus
through which Spier's money enabled him to meet a broad
range of conspirator, some of whom were concerned primari-
ly about Jewish persecution, one of whom (Steed) was in the
pay of the Czech government, and another of whom (Angell)
believed that 'patriotism was a menace to civilisation'. 169

When Eden began to quarrel with Chamberlain, Churchill
took trouble with him — over the Halifax visit, in the South
of France during a holiday in late 1937 and in Parliament
throughout. 170 But his only real successes were with non-
Conservatives with whom his leads had, on the whole, been
surreptitious. Until Eden and Cranborne resigned, only Van-
sittart's demotion suggested 171 that anything was moving in
the monolith over which Chamberlain presided.
The resignations were promising in themselves and made it
possible to identify a change of direction. Since Chamberlain
had 'dismissed the Liberal, Labour and non-party voters
whom Mr. Baldwin had painstakingly gathered', Churchill did
his best to break in from the Centre, praising Cranborne as a
Cecil, Eden as a 'memorable' Foreign Secretary and antici-
pating in 'millions of cottage homes throughout this coun-
try...a pang of bitter humiliation' if Britain made a pact 'in-
volving the recognition of the conquest of Abyssinia'. 172
In presenting the resignations as a victory for Mussolini,
Churchill still hoped for Italian co-operation in Austria. 173
When Austria was occupied, the 'nation' had to be 'roused' if
'catastrophe' was to be avoided. But Chamberlain's statement
of March 24 went a long way. Churchill did not expect an
immediate attack on Czechoslovakia, wanted only a tempo-
rary pledge against invasion and spoke mainly of the need for
a Franco-British alliance to provide stiffening in the Bal-
kans. 174 He went to Paris to advocate staff talks and 'bring
the...democratic European countries into combination with a
view to resisting the dictator countries'. 175 When waving the
prospect of fifty rebels under Margesson's nose, he threaten-
ed a rearmament campaign through the League of Nations
Union if Chamberlain really did intend to 'throw over the
League'. 176
The League campaign began with meetings at Bristol and
Manchester 177 and Randolph Churchill began editing his re-
cent speeches. 178 But no real rebels materialised in Parlia-
ment. The attack on the Irish Treaty was a failure. De-
mands for an enquiry into the administration of the Air Mini-
stry were refused. It was not only Churchill's criticisms which
made Chamberlain appoint a committee. Its demolition of
Swinton was the work of Cadman, Wilson and Fisher, and
perhaps, even of Garvin and the Observer. 179

Although Churchill had established himself as a well-
informed critic, 180 he recognised that air deficiencies imposed
restraints on policy. When Wood succeeded Swinton, he half-
threatened to resign from the Air Defence Research Sub-
Committee. 181 During Henlein's visit to London in May he
was as much bamboozled as anyone else. 182
About Germany Churchill was a monarchist who hoped
that Hitler could be removed. After a visit from an agent of
the German General Staff, he believed that the 'German
people* were against war and that the army might do some-
thing to stop it. He consulted Halifax before sending a reply
which told Beck and his colleagues that an invasion of
Czechoslovakia would produce a 'world war' which the Em-
pire would fight to the 'bitter end'. 183
In telling Halifax that a demonstration of naval power, an
appeal to the League or an Anglo-French approach to Russia
would be ways of activiating the 'peaceful elements in Ger-
many', 184 Churchill was not intending to 'irritate' Hitler 'if
his mind was really turning towards a peaceful solution'. 185
But the 'old Germany' was anti-Nazi and wanted to be res-
cued. Anglo-French land superiority would disappear by
1940; and Chamberlain was not doing his 'utmost to avert
war'. 186
At the beginning of the second week of September, Chur-
chill asked for a declaration that the government 'would go
to war in the event of a German invasion of Czechoslovakia'.
He described Chamberlain's decision to go to Berchtesgaden
as 'the stupidest thing he ha[d] ever done'. 187 Afterwards, he
is said to have said that 'having chosen shame' he would
nevertheless 'get war'. 188
Having been to Paris in order to repeat the incitements of
March, 189 Churchill's view was that the issue was 'not...self-
determination but...[the] murder by a great state of a small
one'. 190 He interpreted Hitler's speech of September 26 as a
'climb-down'. 191
As the situation developed, Churchill held meetings of
friends and allies, including Sinclair, Cecil, Lloyd, Lytton,
Wolmer, Bracken, Lindemann, Amery, Grigg, Boothby, Mac-
millan, Home and Nicolson. The first decided that, if Cham-
berlain came back from Godesberg carrying 'peace with dis-
honour', they would 'go all out against him', the second that
it was essential 'to take Russia into our confidence'. These
decisions set the tone for the effort which most of the critics
were to make between Munich and Prague. 192
Between September 20 and 29 all the forces of opposition

came together to make identical noises at Chamberlain and
Halifax. In these days of uneasy collaboration the embryo
began which was born eighteen months later as a new coali-
tion.
However, although it began, it was not very strong. In
relation to Churchill, Attlee was less forthcoming than Dal-
ton. Such warmth in contact as there was came largely from
Churchill. There is no sign of Attlee believing that Conservati-
ves would dissent on any widespread scale or that the Labour
party should co-operate unless they did.
Attlee was right. On the Conservative side, conceptions of
co-operation varied. In some cases, it was limited to specified
subjects. In others it arose from fear of an election at which
constituency associations might withhold readoption. 193 In
general, Conservatives avoided open entanglement once their
constituency associations had been squared. 194
It is true that Churchill, when challenged, prepared for a
by-election with Liberal and League of Nations Union sup-
port, and had discussions with Muir and Sinclair about it. 195
His victory in the Association vote in early November, 196
however, made open co-operation unnecessary. When the
Duchess of Atholl resigned her seat and re-fought it as an
anti-appeaser (after her Association had adopted a new candi-
date for the next election) he supported her on the ground
that she *adher[ed] to the first principles of the Conservative
party'. 197 But he refused to support Lindsay 198 and Bart-
lett. 199 Despite much Liberal support, some of it unsoli-
cited, 200 he was so far from expecting a transformation of
parties that Macmillan seems to have been alone in doing so.
In 1938 Macmillan was forty-four and had been in Parlia-
ment for fourteen years. In spite of wealth, marriage and
intellectual respectability, he had been outdistanced by his
contemporaries. Where Stanley, Eden and Duff Cooper had
succeeded, he had failed and had allowed infatuation with
Mosley to be converted into hysterical dislike of Baldwin and

Chamberlain.
As member for a vulnerable seat where Liberal and Labour
votes mattered, 201 he had wanted a 'National party' in 1933.
In 1934 he was hesitating between Churchill and MacDonald
(who was 'deeper than any of us imagines') and hoping that
the government might fall as a result of the India bill (which
he did not himself oppose). 202 Then he had worked with
Allen's Next Five Years group before the 1935 election 203
and through The New Outlook (on edging Allen out of the
group) after it. 204 After resigning the Conservative Whip
(over the raising of sanctions in mid 1936), he developed
contact with Sinclair and renewed the Lloyd George contact
which the group had broken off the year before. 205 After
Baldwin's retirement he resumed the Whip. 206 1938 provid-
ed the third opportunity to persuade Conservative dissen-
tients and the Sinclair Liberals to work with Labour in pre-
paring for a reverse-version of 1931.
Macmillan aimed to liberate political thinking from the
'class war'. He stood for the fact that 'the free play of the
market' had never ensured 'that the right things [are] pro-
duced in the right quantities'. He wanted 'Socialism' reconcil-
ed with 'Capitalism' and was against the 'diehards on both
sides' who would produce a 'trial of strength by...ballot-
box...strike or lockout...and (if the problem of poverty is too
long neglected) by Civil War'. 207 In sketching plans for the
next stage in 'social progress', he aimed at a high-tensioned
fusion between the liberal intelligentsia and the progressive
Conservatism which was the chief aspect of Eden's theatre.
In the thirties Macmillan's later manner had not yet been
perfected. He was thought of as odd, way-out and bookish
and would have been no more significant than Boothby (with
whom he worked) if publishing had not provided a platform.
He was the only Conservative MP who supported Lindsay at
the Oxford by-election. 208
During the September crisis, the Conservative critics were
hampered by the fact that Parliament was not sitting. Before
the fined visit to Munich, the arrival of war was expected to
damage Chamberlain permanently. The visit and, even more,
the agreement had a dampening and cautionary effect on
those who had decided to oppose him. 209
Churchill's speech of October 5 was an indictment of the

past, not a plan for the future. It presented the settlement as
a defeat, predicted the early destruction of the Czech state
and implied that Anglo-French co-operation with Russia
could have had a striking effect on opinion in the German
government. But he neither called for a new Cabinet nor
suggested a policy. In face of the dominance which Hitler had
gained and the threat he presented to France and Britain, the
only way of avoiding further humiliation was to 'acquire that
supremacy in the air which we [had been] assured [that] we
had' and which would alone 'make ourselves an island once
again'. 21°
On October 6 about twenty-five MPs 2 n abstained in the
House of Commons division on Munich. Thereafter they for-
med the nucleus for two dissenting groups.
Churchill's group consisted of Bracken, Boothby, Sandys
and Keyes (with Lloyd in the House of Lords). Boothy, how-
ever, was erratic; Bracken was a personal aide and Sandys a
relative. All three of these were in their thirties. Though
Bracken used reactionary language and Sandys's version of
the Percy line had a reactionary component, neither em-
bodied influential Conservative opinion. 212 Keyes, so far
from being an experienced politician, was a war-time hero
and die-hard admiral who had taken up politics after being
passed over for the post of First Sea Lord. Having known Chur-
chill at the Admiralty and Lloyd in Egypt in the twenties,
he had been supported by the India Defence League when he
won the Portsmouth by-election in 1934. Though much neg-
lected when he arrived in Parliament, he had for long identi-
fied himself with 'the restoration of Sea-Power' and the over-
whelming nature of Churchill's merits. 213
Keyes sensed an 'all-round slackening of the nation's
fibre';214 he stood for 'St George and England', 'English liber-
ties' and the 'fight against the enemies within our gates'. 215
He 'despised parliamentary government' 216 and went out of
his way to attack Cecil and the League of Nations Union. 217
Though a cruder version of Lloyd, who had the mind and
opinions of an authoritarian proconsul, he was not very much
like Sandys, Bracken, Boothby or Randolph Churchill.
Lloyd had an unpleasing manner and made little impact.
Keyes was an appalling speaker and carried little weight. 218
Towards Chamberlain, Boothby was as ingratiating as Si-

mon. 219 Bracken's fantasies about 'the Coroner's' 'bleak cha-
racter' did not help; nor did 'shame' and 'danger' get Chur-
chill any further. 22° The most significant die-hards support-
ed Chamberlain. Sandys's attempt to flatter Amery into
forming an Amery group was a failure. 221 Even when Con-
servatives responded, Churchill succeeded much more in ex-
tending the non-Conservative support he had picked up in the
previous three years. If McKenna, at seventy-six was merely
an answer to Runciman, 222 Sinclair was a very great deal
more.
To what extent Sinclair and Johnstone were acting as
Churchill's agents is uncertain. The answer is, probably, not
at all. But just as it is difficult to believe that Sandys was
acting innocently with Amery, so Sinclair may have been a
rallying-point for elements on the Centre-Left where Chur-
chill was neither particularly acceptable nor wished publicly
to be thought so.
The methods of stealth, if they were used, 223 would have
been dropped if Churchill had fought a by-election in his
constituency. In the end, he did not have to. For Sinclair,
however, stealth was unnecessary (except in contact with
Hannington, the Communist). 224 He supported Lindsay and
Bartlett and praised Cripps (without actively supporting
him). 225 He persuaded the Liberal candidate to stand down
as part of the Liberal and League of Nations Union campaign
to rescue the Duchess of Atholl at the West Perth by-elec-
tion. 226
Lindsay, Cripps and the Duchess failed in their immediate
objectives. The Conservative dissentients were reluctant to
co-operate with Sinclair while their numbers were small. 227
Approaches to the Labour party were received with as much
coolness as Attlee had shown towards Churchill. 228 Angell's
support for the Liberal candidate at Holderness was not im-
portant. 229 Even Bartlett's success at Bridgewater 230 was a
disappointment since he did not stand as a liberal (though he
was one) and did not ask Sinclair to appear on his platform
because Attlee would not join him. 231
The Liberal party began to do better at the elections of
1939 at the same time as the Labour party began to do
worse. Though this made the 'democratic Conservatives' im-
portant, Sinclair got little attention from the Conservative

newspapers and was virtually ignored by the Telegraph. 232
Nevertheless, he was important. He said reputably, and
bitterly, what Conservatives could not say about Chamberlain
being the 'dupe' of 'dictators' and the government no longer
being 'national'. 233 He said what some parts of the Labour
party believed about the need for a Popular Front. In offer-
ing to abandon controversial policies in order to create a
'national opposition', he was basing himself on the Liberal,
League of Nations Union and IPC policy of defending 'the
moral principles of our civilisation against the principle of
force'. In advocating a Russian alliance, praising Halifax and
Eden and demanding Conscription as an aid to the German
opposition, he was close to Churchill to whom, in return, the
Liberal party 'represented]...the heart and soil of the British
nation'. 234
Eden's group — which met in the houses of Tree, Thomas or

Patrick — was a more influential body than the one over
which Churchill presided. It was also more broad-based.
Alongside Amery, there were two ex-Liberals — Spears (who
was part-French and had close contact with Mandel, Reynaud
and the war-party in Paris) and Hopkinson, protesting against
the treatment he saw Chamberlain giving Inskip when he was
his Private Secretary. 23S And there was Nicolson — an ex-
Mosleyite and National Labour MP, who had been a success-
ful diplomatist and written a trendy book about Versailles
and who, as protagonist of the League of Nations Union and
regular columnist in Harris's Spectator, embodied more
brashly than anyone else the group's desire to square circles
with the Liberal Left. 236
Most members of the group, however, were both Conser-
vative and comparatively young, and left an impression of
being smart officers or 'old school tie men' (i.e. the Glamour
Boys). This included progressive amiability of which Eden
was the embodiment. Law, the son of Bonar Law, ran Feder-
al Union. Crossley had been part of the Percy conspiracy in
1935. Tree (who had a lot of Liberals in his constituency)
had wanted a National party in 1934 and had had a certain
amount to do with the National Labour party thereafter; as a
'Christian idealist', Cartland had thought of joining it. 237
Cranborne and Wolmer were also Christian idealists. Duff

Cooper regarded the group as a protest by Baldwin's 'most
loyal supporters in evil days' against 'all that element in the
party' which was once 'so false' to him; he wanted an 'ideolo-
gical ' foreign policy to attract American support in the future
in the same way as Baldwinian virtue had attracted Liberal
support in the past. 238
Even if some of them were friends of Noel Coward, the
body of the group consisted of intellectually industrious MPs
who, on personal or public grounds, were discontented with
existing arrangements. They laboured the point that the Con-
servative party must appeal to the body of the people who,
while not Conservatives (however conservative by instinct
and inclination), would respond to a programme of 'social
reform and national regeneration'.
What Eden claimed was that, if the group did not contain
all the 'best' elements in the Conservative party (since some
of these — like Halifax and Stanley — were in the govern-
ment), it represented them where the Prime Minister had
handed over to 'businessmen'. 239 By this he meant that
Wood and Simon were nonconformist lawyers who lacked
charm and League idealism, and would have made uncon-
vincing Young Englanders. He meant also that, apart from
Halifax and a single Stanley after Lord Stanley's death, the
Cabinet lacked that paternalistic compassion which the va-
rious Percies, Stanleys, Cavendishes and Cecils were supposed
to have given to all Conservative governments up to 1929. In
this respect he was claiming not only that the Cabinet was
socially defective, but that the only two of its members who
were not agreed with the policy criticisms he was making. 240
There may have been a point after Munich when he
thought of leading a Left-Centre government consisting of
the dissentient Conservatives, the Sinclair Liberals and the
Labour party. If so, he decided not to. 241 The demands, 242
even threats, 243 he made for Labour and Trade union parti-
cipation in a government of national unity were not pointers
towards the radical democratic party of the future. If meant
seriously at all, they envisaged nothing more radical than the
existing Conservative leadership plus himself and a Labour
contingent pursuing egalitarian policies which Labour would
not accept from Chamberlain.
It is true that he stated that he was 'fed up with Parliament

and the politicians', and might oppose Chamberlain at by-
elections unless an All-Party reconstruction occurred. It is
true, too, that he said that Baldwin and Halifax should be
given the opportunity to effect one. But those were threats.
He at no point voted against the government, in which he
would find many admirers if he was given the chance to
return. Baldwin's opinion was that Churchill's and Lloyd
George's attempts to 'use' him had failed, and that he could
return if Chamberlain wanted him to. Eden was probably
hoping for a situation in which Chamberlain would need him
at an election. 244
Unless he was expecting Chamberlain to crack up as sud-
denly as his father and half-brother had done, 245 it is likely
that Eden's desire to get back increased the clearer it became
that the expectations of February had been false ones. After
a visit to America, he was playing down his disagreement in
the New Year 246 and dropping hints about accepting offi-
ce. 247 After Prague he made emollient calls for a government
of national unity 248 and discouraged the group from sup-
porting Conscription when Chamberlain refused to accept
it. 249 The group's newspaper conspiracies embarrassed him
visibly. 25° On at least two occasions he offered to join the
government — after Albania, and in August 1939, by under-
taking special missions to Turkey and Russia. 251
Nor was Eden the only person who hoped to be recalled.
Duff Cooper (despite ferocity towards Chamberlain) and
even Amery, after eight years of waiting, half-hoped that
they might be brought back. 252 Nor did the group as a
whole join Churchill, Bracken and Macmillan when (for the
first time) they voted against the government on Novem-
ber 17 (over Chamberlain's refusal to set up a Ministry of
Supply). 2S3
Though the increase in its expectations was not conti-
nuous, the group was encouraged by the feeling that Cham-
berlain had lost touch with the House of Commons, that the
government (especially the National Liberal element) was
weak and that Baldwin would have got Labour to agree be-
fore introducing Conscription. 254 It kept up running de-
mands for a firm policy in the Far East, for a National govern-
ment and a National Register and for a genuine attempt to
reach agreement with the Russians. In July it was involved in

a major press campaign.
This was set off by a German staff officer's claim, which
Tree brought to a group meeting on June 29, that a German
occupation of Danzig could only be stopped by mobilising
the Fleet, sending the air force to France and putting Chur-
chill in the Cabinet. 255 One result was that Amery wrote to
Halifax, spoke to Margesson and Hoare and made a speech at
Birmingham, praising Halifax and demanding a War Ca-
binet. 256 Another was that Macmillan drafted a letter which
he and Nicolson were deputed to get printed in the Daily
Telegraph.
The Telegraph was chosen because Camrose — its pro-
prietor — admired Halifax and had said that Chamberlain
could not form an All-Party government 'as Labour did not
trust him'. 257 On June 30 he was visited in his office by
Eden, Nicolson and Macmillan. Efforts were also made with
other newspapers, 258 and with Sinclair who then made a
series of speeches praising Halifax's 'liberal spirit' and de-
manding office for Churchill and Eden. 259
At the same time the same feelings were being felt by
Garvin, whom Prague had turned into a guilt-ridden anti-
Chamberlainite, and by Astor, who, having turned round
with him, wanted to declare war when Mussolini invaded
Albania. 260 In the summer of 1939 they wanted Conscrip-
tion and a Russian alliance. 261 From the end of June, with
Halifax's approval and Trenchard's help, Astor was negotiat-
ing with Churchill, Eden, Sinclair and the Labour leaders for
a public warning to Hitler. 262 He not only went with Eden
to see Camrose but was in touch with a group of Conservative
backbenchers who sent an observer to the meeting.
Though Camrose and Astor pulled their punches (in case
denigration of Chamberlain encouraged Hitler unduly), they
made it plain that Halifax was important and Churchill vital.
About Churchill there were numerous newspaper articles.
They were punctuated by statements from Salisbury and Sel-
borne — whose sons were members of the Eden group — and
by a public wrangle about The Times's refusal to print a
Churchill letter from Layton, Meston, Smuts and Lady Violet
Bonham-Carter. On July 9 the Telegraph had a leading article
explaining why Churchill's admission was a necessary act of

state. 263
This campaign was in no way decisive. It irritated the
Edenites who did not understand why there was so little
mention of Eden. 264 It confirmed not only Camrose's broth-
er, Kemsley, 26S but also Chamberlain in a determination not
to be 'bounced' into giving way to agitation. 266 Even after a
good Liberal by-election in North Cornwall, 267 Chamberlain
seemed as secure as before. For the effect of criticism, it is
necessary to look at the inner history of the Cabinet.
PART III
THE EFFECT
HALIFAX
* Reverence for the old, dislike of things new, made it indubitable that
his sympathies in matters of religion would be Catholic, and cast him
back in the middle of contemporary difficulties upon what he regarded
as his sheet anchor — the ancient consent of the Universal Church. At
the same time allowance must be made, in the cause of charity, for past
mistakes. "Dissenters" he used to say "should be dealt with lovingly
and forbearingly" '.Halifax (Irwin), John Keble, 1932 (new edition of
work first published in 1909) p. 233
'When I heard your wireless address to the young some weeks ago I felt
it was saying in more measured language exactly what I had been saying
to the students at Aberystwyth a few weeks before. It is not worth your
while to read my remarks, but I think it is rather interesting to see how
you from your Conservatism and I from my Liberalism come to so
much the same conclusion about the present dangers of the world'.
Murray to Baldwin, April 9 1934
'Have you really quite decided to go? If you go the country will be
plunged back into party politics and union will vanish and our enemies
rejoice. There is no member of the House on either side who wants you
to go, who would not rather have you than Neville. I believe every
member of your Cabinet feels the same — I have better means of
knowing than you have'. Wedgwood to Baldwin, March 12 1937
(i)
A striking feature of Chamberlain's first twenty months as
Prime Minister was his feeling that he need have so little fear
of opposition that he could do more or less as he liked. There
was the battle with Eden, which he won. There were back-
bench revolts — over the National Defence Contribution (as
*a tremendous instrument in the hands of the Left') and over
the unification (or 'nationalisation') of coal-mining royal-
ties.1 There were major upheavals because of his speeches
about agriculture,2 the agricultural implications of the Irish
treaty and the bill for rationalising (or 'socialising') the distri-
bution of milk, which resulted in the replacement of the
Minister of Agriculture.3 There were moments of difficulty —
after the Anschluss, about Franco's bombarding of British
ships and over air production in May 1938, when Swinton
was removed in order to save the government.4 On the second
258 III. THE EFFECT
day of the Munich debate, criticism was so strong that a

general election began to seem unavoidable. 5 At the turn of
the year there was a period of 'anguish' and 'isolation' when
Chamberlain first wanted and then threatened to call an elec-
tion but was compelled, by the prospect of losing it, to sacri-
fice Inskip and Winterton instead.6 In general, however,
whatever others felt, he felt untroubled by criticism and ca-
pable of meeting it whenever it was made.
One reason for this was a certain pride in his own capabil-
ity which reacted gratefully to praise and answered criticism
by showing that it resulted from the ignorance, demagoguery
or self-seeking of his critics. Another was that he was lucky in
his relations with public opinion and was encouraged by this,
as the international situation became more complicated, to
develop a conviction of rectitude and indispensability.7
Chamberlain was attacked by the Daily Herald, the News
Chronicle and the New Statesman. After Eden's resignation,
he had only uncertain support from Mann and the Yorkshire
Post} He had a difficult time with the Daily Telegraph where
Camrose allowed criticism a free hand. After Rothermere's
retirement, the Rothermere newspapers were controlled by
Esmond Harmsworth, whose enthusiasms were less helpful
than his father'^. But (except about agriculture), Beaverbrook
on the whole supported him.9 So did Kemsley, Hadley and
Sidebotham — the proprietor, editor and columnist of the
Sunday Times — who believed, more simply and far later
than he did, that Hitler could be made a friend. 10 So too did
Garvin and the Observer and Dawson and The Times, and a
wide range of provincial newspapers. There was enough news-
paper support for Chamberlain to feel that his position was
being put and more than enough response when millions of
listeners heard his voice. n Despite psychological recessions
in May 12 and November 1938, there was no run of by-elec-
tion disasters to compare with the by-elections of the pre-
vious Parliament.
If it had been simply temperamental seriousness which
stopped Chamberlain responding to alternative points of
view, the silence would have been broken by other ministers.
In these months they did not really bark. Where they seemed
likely to, except immediately before Munich, he was able to
silence them because there was neither unity among the pos-
HALIFAX 259
sible oppositions nor sufficient confirmation from events to

make their understanding of policy more credible than his
own.
Nor had Conservative MPs any reason to doubt his credibil-
ity. The Baldwin/Chamberlain management of the Conserva-
tive party had been highly successful. Protection had been
established; the era of revolutionary danger had passed. The
defeat of 1929 had been turned, almost casually, into the
landslide of 1931 and the jettisoning of Snowden and the
Samuelites who had helped to make it possible. The Liberal
accessions, both before 1931 and afterwards, had provoked
social tension and varying responses in the Conservative
party. But the more prominent recruits belonged to the com-
fortable classes or the respectable professions. Though occa-
sionally Jewish, nonconformist or too obviously ideological,
they accepted Protection, opposed socialism and did not
seem out of place.
Baldwin's methods had been slow. He avoided detail; crit-
ics said that he avoided thought. 13 He did not avoid thought
about the major problem of the time. He assumed that, since
constitutional safeguards would not stop socialism 'if the
Socialists [were] determined', 14 persuasion had to work in-
stead.
Considering that he was a reactionary Tory, his achieve-
ment was remarkable. By the time he began his third period
as Prime Minister, no politician doubted that his freedom
from 'high and dry Toryism' made him 'totally acceptable' to
his non-Conservative colleagues, to the 'mugwumps', 'cle-
ricals' and earnest, theoretical 'liberals' 15 who were to be
found in all parties 16 and to the many Labour politicians for
whom his 'quintessentially English' combination of peaceful
intentions and a 'modern outlook' 17 provided a social re-
assurance which no other Conservative could provide.
Baldwin aimed to demonstrate the humanity, responsibil-
ity and social edgelessness of industrial wealth. So far, how-
ever, from showing that his message was different from the
message of Hatfield, he had shown that it was very much the
same. As the protectionist overtone receded, his speeches be-
came statements of decency and law in face of the 'wild
menace of totalitarianism'. He talked about England and the
English and did not 'hesitate to speak in plain terms of
260 III. THE EFFECT
Christianity'. 18 His address to the Peace Society during the

1935 election was 'the most beautiful and sonorous' he had
'ever delivered', 19 proved that 'one' could 'remain' an Eng-
lishman and yet back the League' 20 and seemed, even to an
unfriendly critic, to be more 'packed with wisdom and
humanity' than anything he had 'ever read'. 21
Baldwin presented the working-class movement as created
by average men who were very much like himself and would
respond to a message of conciliation. In implying the exis-
tence of a strong, gentle and happy people who had not been
perverted by 'intellectuals' and 'press-lords', he held up a re-
pertoire of social heroes, none of whom resembled Beaver-
brook or Layton and most of whom reflected, in sometimes
eccentric ways, the qualities which the English were supposed
to admire. 22
The context was pre-industrial. Though 'rural society' had
'disappeared' in Baldwin's lifetime, 23 his rhetoric implied an
admiration of its virtues. His newspaper appearances confirm-
ed this, and his speech writers articulated it. 'I enclose for
what it is worth a draft of my very introductory talk', wrote
one of them, when asked to prepare a broadcast on the
National Character.
After that I go to an historical survey which will be more interesting on
national types like the Squire, the Parson, the Yeoman, the Craftsman,
the Merchant, the Adventurer and the Housewife... But I believe that
what people would like most, and what you, above everyone else could
give them, [is] a few sketches of the English men and women whom
you have encountered both in life and books and who, though one
could never explain why, reveal that they are English from the very
moment that one meets them: I mean people like Falstaff and Sarah
Gamp and Lord Radnor and old squire Askhurst of Waterstock and
almost any middle-aged working man you can think of. M
Was Baldwin creating a myth? Probably not. Jones, who
wrote some of his prose, may have been. But Bryant probab-
ly meant what he wrote. Davidson almost certainly did. It is
likely that Baldwin felt as he spoke, meant what he said and
really thought, like his admirers, that he was 'recalling' them
to 'the fundamentals of life'. 'It isn't easy', he wrote in 1933,
'it isn't easy... There is so much I hate in this age. But there is
a lot of good, and one must hold to it and have Faith.' 2S
Baldwin had moral, social and aesthetic beliefs, and also a
religion, but few of his beliefs were political. He was pessi-
HALIFAX 261
mistic about purpose and felt an instinctive resistance to it. 26

Though he succeeded, where necessary, in mastering the re-
luctance that he felt, his interests were spiritual and at-
mospheric, his instrument of demonstration the wand rather
than the baton.
What he wanted to express were the feelings of a 'decent
Englishman'. In imagination he lived a version of what these
were and created a teaching about what they should be. In
doing so, he did something that no twentieth-century politi-
cian, except Grey, had quite done before. In doing it he
implied a consonance between the politics of the public-
school gentleman of middle rank, literary interests and rural
tastes and the reticence of the body of the people as a whole.
'Englishmen', he wrote in 1935, 'may appear to take [their]
mutual loyalities for granted: we don't talk about them. But
it is good once and again to break the silence of our instinc-
tive reserve and say to each other what we might regret never
having said if death came to one of us unexpectedly.' 27
All this, however moving, was also misleading. Baldwin was
a tough operator of long experience and high accomplish-
ment; he had beaten everyone who had challenged him. By
the middle thirties his scalps included Lloyd George, Birken-
head, Beaverbrook, Rothermere, Cecil, Salisbury, Churchill,
MacDonald and Austen and Neville Chamberlain.
In the 1931 Parliament there had been difficulties and, in
relation to India, a major problem. Over unemployment as-
sistance there had been a full-scale loss of nerve. In the new
Parliament the same thing had happened over Abyssinia,
where backbench Conservatives were expected in the course
of six months to believe that League support for Abyssinia
would be forthcoming, that the Hoare/Laval policy was
necessary because it would not be, that sanctions could be
effective and then that sanctions should be dropped.
This produced the realisation that Cecil was a 'highly
dangerous man', 28 that it would be dangerous to do anything
about the Rhineland29 and that there was a defence crisis
which the Defence White Paper had done little to resolve. It
produced argument about the 'liberal or semi-socialist' nature
of the Coalition, back-biting about the use of 'Conservative'
funds for 'national' propaganda and a nasty spirit of Tory
hostility towards the retention of the MacDonalds. 30
262 III. THE EFFECT
Baldwin's followers counter-attacked but the period of dif-

ficulty lasted throughout the autumn. It was only the abdica-
tion that ended it. The abdication, however, ended it decisive-
ly. By the time Chamberlain became Prime Minister, the pre-
vailing fact was success with Chamberlain as one of its engi-
neers.
Chamberlain was a Midland Unionist who came to Parlia-
ment late in life after failing, when given a chance, as an
administrator during the Lloyd George Coalition. Like Bald-
win he had spent a long time in business. Like Baldwin, too,
he was public schoolboy who believed in the decency and
modesty of all good men. Moreover, he was a tough (and
quietly rough) manipulator who represented the marriage
between Left and Right that Baldwin had made his own.
There, the similarities ended. Though they had the same
social objective, Chamberlain lacked the external embodi-
ment which Baldwin, or Jones, had created. Where Baldwin's
prose was distinguished, Chamberlain's was serviceable (and
his slang juvenile). 31 Baldwin had a relaxed perspective about
effort and social contact and a Leibnizian security about the
providential order. Chamberlain was cshy' and 'bottled', 32
with a temperamental will to succeed and a Unitarian con-
viction of infallibility. Where Baldwin's father was a Tory,
Chamberlain's was a civic Radical first and a Unionist second,
the creator of the Unionist doctrine and one of the tributa-
ries by which civic Radicalism became conservative. Where
Baldwin had long holidays in an inaccessible place and had to
be 'shamed' 33 into shortening them, Chamberlain and his
wife accepted invitations to the discomfort of other people's
homes, was usually available for consultation and was always
ready to come back if he was not.
Chamberlain had strong opinions about policy and in-
tended to assert them. He had even stronger opinions about
persons and showed no false tolerance for those he disliked.
Baldwin had spent fifteen years 'suffering fools' 34 and shuf-
fling the pack between leading politicians. Chamberlain de-
ployed narrower sympathies and was well aware of the con-
trast which others drew between himself on the one hand and
'that good grey head that all men knew' on the other.
Chamberlain believed that Unionism was radical and com-
prehensive enough to be right. He had the thinking Radical's
HALIFAX 263
contempt for the unthinking Radicalism of the Labour party

and the practical Liberal's contempt for the theoretical Lib-
eralism of the Liberal party. Where Baldwin believed little,
and put up with those who believed more, he expressed his
own feelings, had no time for sentimental resonances be-
tween working-class politicians and the aristocracy and allow-
ed 'sarcasm' to raise the bristles which Baldwin went out of
his way to smooth. 35
Chamberlain disliked Mrs Simpson ('a heartless adven-
turess') and admired King George VI and his Queen. He at-
tached spiritual significance to the nation's physique; until
evacuation showed that it was bad, he was pleased when
Conscription showed that it was good. He believed in sepa-
rated peoples rather than our common humanity and in the
nation as the centre of political virtue. But his 'patriotism'
was as quiet as his 'decency' and as unlike Kipling's as Kip-
ling's was unlike Mill's. Indeed, he was much more like Mill
than he was like Kipling, and much more like him than his
father who admired Mill much more. 36
Chamberlain thought of himself as a typical Englishman,
upright and honourable and honouring honour and upright-
ness in others. He believed in 'ordinary people' who were
'patriotic, progressive [and] sympathetic with the under-
dog' 37 and shared his mistrust of political posturing, even
when he was good at providing it. He was a 'stiff man. 38 He
was a man of 'brains and common sense'. 39 He would allow
neither 'sloppy sentiment' nor 'personal considerations' to
obstruct the 'causes' to which he had become committed,40
and he had a burning belief that any policy which had been
objectively conceived could be effectively sold to Parliament
and the public. He admired the younger Pitt more than any
other Prime Minister. He thought popularity 'a very ephe-
meral thing' by the side of the one thing '[t]hat mattered' —
which was 'to do the job'. 41
In doing their 'jobs', Chamberlain expected ministers to
know their subjects. In Chatfield (who was an admiral), in
Wilson, Hankey and Anderson (who were civil servants), in
Zetland, in W.S. Morrison (for a time), in Burgin and Hore-
Belisha (whom he had disliked as Financial Secretary to the
Treasury),42 in Butler, Geoffrey Lloyd and Malcolm Mac-
Donald (whom he much preferred to his father) and in Sir
264 III. THE EFFECT
Reginald Dorman-Smith (who brought professional knowl-

edge to the Ministry of Agriculture), he found what he want-
ed. He found it, most of all, in Sir Kingsley Wood.
Wood was a Methodist solicitor who had graduated
through LCC politics into the lowest reaches of the Lloyd
George Coalition. Throughout the 1924 government, he was
Chamberlain's Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Health. By
1933 he had established himself as an efficient manipulator
of the party system.
In the thirties Chamberlain was closer to him than to any
politician. He brought him into the Cabinet and the Con-
servative machine and had him as Chief of Staff during the
1935 election. He consulted him regularly and allowed him
to be influential at the major turning points — when forming
his Cabinet, removing Inskip, 43 declaring war, and in relation
to newspapers throughout.
Wood's constituency was in Woolwich; his home was a
large house in Tunbridge Wells. He was writer of legal text-
books. But he had been to neither a public school nor a
university. Much more than Chamberlain (who fished and
shot, and whose interests as a naturalist were so attractive
to his hosts), he was rurally tone-deaf. If his critics spoke
of him as a 'cynical professional', 44 that meant merely that
he registered the civic mind and was the successful propagator
of a reactionary reassurance foreign to the elevating half-truths
of aristocratic idealism.
As the only politician who had made anything of the Post
Office 45 and one of the few ministers whom Chamberlain
would trust at the Treasury, 46 he was a possible, if socially
unusual, War Minister in 1937. 4 7 As the minister responsible
for the three millionth post-war house, he was a natural
successor when Swinton left the Air Ministry in 1938. 4 8
Chamberlain may have been clearing the way when he put
Inskip out of political circulation in September 1939. 49
If so, he was disappointed. By mid-winter Wood was doing
badly. 50 He was worried when Chamberlain abandoned
Hore-Belisha with whom his relations had been almost as
close; 51 his removal in 1940 recorded a failure which Cham-
berlain had not anticipated.
In addition to being close to Chamberlain, Wood recognis-
ed the potentialities of Lloyd George, whose advocate he was
HALIFAX 265
in 1935. Eventually, too, he recognised the importance of

Churchill to whom, after inducements, he transferred in May
1940.
It was not, however, for these connections that Chamber-
lain valued him, nor for any striking originality of mind, but
for 'competence' without abrasiveness, fertility and shrewd-
ness in advice and the certainty (until damaged by the war)
that he would exercise sensitive control over any of the de-
partments of state. 52
Wood was efficient. In this he was unusual; Chamberlain
complained as continuously about government backbenchers
as he had about Baldwin's inefficiency before he retired. 53
Chamberlain was not the only person who drew the con-
trast with Baldwin. But, so long as he was waiting to succeed,
criticism was confined to colleagues and rivals. The trouble
he had over unemployment assistance 54 and Lloyd George
did him no permanent damage with the parliamentary party
which shared none of the distaste felt by his Cabinet critics
for his clarity of mind about inflation.
Nor had Chamberlain done anything untoward on Bald-
win's retirement. He had got rid of Runciman and Mac-
Donald but had allowed Simon to get rid of the National
Defence Contribution (through which, as Chancellor, he had
himself upset Conservatives). But he was so far from con-
structing a Conservative government that the Simonites and the
Labour party were reassured. It was some time before it
seemed that a Baldwin-type government would be used to
lend respectability to the foreign policy of the Right.
In the Conservative attitude to post-war Europe, there had
been many shifts, all of which were reflected in the Cabinet.
Even after the occupation of the Ruhr, Conservative feeling
was anti-German. The stubbornness of the French then modi-
fied it. German rearmament, the assassination of Dollfuss and
Hitler's repudiation of Versailles modified it in the other di-
rection and produced a period, after Russia's accession to the
League, when Germany was regarded as the danger and
League-based co-operation with Russia a guarantee of stabil-
ity. 5S The Franco-Soviet pact, on the other hand, was dis-
liked and was a source of sympathy for German action in the
Rhineland. Disillusionment about the League, the Russian
intervention in Spain and Labour hysteria against Franco
266 III. THE EFFECT
then turned the coin over.S6 From 1937 there was a feeling,
as strong as the anti-Russian feeling of the twenties, that
Russia was a bad thing and the Franco-Russian alliance
worse.
Though most Conservative MPs sympathised with Franco
from the start, the Spanish war did not become significant
until Communist infiltration highlighted the connection
which the Left increasingly made between the ideological
correctness of the Republic and the need to activate the
League in order to resist dictators. Conservatives did not re-
gard Franco as a Fascist or his rebellion as a Fascist revolu-
tion. 57 They spoke of him as a 'Christian gentleman' and did
not expect British interests to suffer if he won. 58 They be-
lieved that the 'Socialists' were being 'wagged by their Com-
munist tail' in trying to turn the League into an anti-Fascist
'War Office' which would bring Britain into conflict with
Germany, Italy and Japan when it was not even certain that
the public would fight for France and Belgium.59
Though they lacked the clarity of the Chiefs of Staff (who
had not spent the previous decade making League noises to
their constituents), they were afraid of blundering into war.
They did not want war. They did not want avoidable escala-
tions of public expenditure.60 The knew that there were
commercial reasons for working with the Japanese and that,
about communism, Japan was the 'one outstandingly realistic
power in the Far East'.61
They were not, therefore, impressed by eulogies of the
League (even from Eden) 62 and were quite prepared to listen
to criticism. Their willingness was greatly increased when it
came from the top.
By 1937 Chamberlain had been at the top for a very long
time. He seemed efficient, could make up his mind 63 and
could present anything that was decided as a development of
party principle. He pulled the party together when faction-
fighting broke out in 1936 and, by criticising the League, had
given it something to believe in. He was not identified with
the Foreign Office and shared none of Eden's liking for Litvi-
noff. There was no hint of him cutting a dash, leading fashion
or corsetting himself in the sunburnt romanticism of the
Riviera. 64 His deviations from Eden could be seen as rejections
of encirclement, communism and (quite wrongly) Blum.
HALIFAX 267
Eden's resignation was a problem. But it was not obviously

about anything in particular and was not supported by par-
ticular criticisms in the future. So far as it had a policy con-
tent at all, it was about Italy (where the major problem was
to be German).
Chamberlain's German policy seemed as much like the
Peace movement's as MacDonald's had seemed like Monsell's
in 1934. But he had previously been typecast as a 'fire-eater'
(like Amery and Churchill) 6S and remained convincing about
defence even after Baldwin had ceased to. There was every
reason to admire the creative imagination which had blurred
the issue between those who were against war and those who
wanted to avoid war over central Europe.
It was not only that Chamberlain had blurred the issue but
that his natural critics had been undermined. The peace
movement of the early thirties had been broad-based. After
Abyssinia, the Peace Pledge Union divided it by pin-pointing
the prospect of Collective Security entailing war. Over Eden's
resignation and at Munich, Chamberlain was supported by
Ponsonby, Lansbury and the Union and by McGovern, Max-
ton and the ILP.
Even in the Labour party, antagonism was not as universal
as it was made to seem. At the time of the Runciman mis-
sion, Noel-Buxton went to Czechoslovakia to give a hand
with 'treaty revision'. MacDonald's Arnold and a blind ex-
member of the Executive resigned from the party out of
sympathy with Chamberlain. Among non-pacifists, Green-
wood and Alexander (until a late stage) showed considerable
understanding. Citrine seems to have liked Chamberlain as
much as Wilson and Hankey did. He coached him for meet-
ings to attract TUC co-operation for the defence programmes
and left the impression, at many points up to the beginning
of the war, that his policies were not as depraved as Dalton
and Attlee were suggesting. 66
In spite of Ottawa Chamberlain received friendly attention
from Cobdenites who believed in economic appeasement as
the cure for war. 67 Though an emphatic advocate of a
League policy, Allen gave support on these grounds and join-
ed Noel-Buxton in supporting the transfer of the Sudeten
Germans at the time of Munich. 68 Among party Liberals,
Lothian praised Chamberlain (after Munich) as 'the only per-
268 III. THE EFFECT
son' who refused to believe that 'Hitler and the Nazis are
incorrigible'. 69 So did Samuel, who had described Hitler as 'a
mystic' with a 'conscience' and told Chamberlain that he had
done the right thing since 'any fool can go to war'. 70
Conservatives who supported Chamberlain by their votes
or acquiescence did not all claim to know about Europe. Nor
were they consistent or predictable in their reactions. 71 But
they knew that the Opposition was dishonest and its views 'a
menace to the peace of the world'. 72 They believed that
Chamberlain preferred 'facts to exploded theories'. 73 They
were impressed by the 'build-up' he was given as the guaran-
tor of European security and they saw no one who was as con-
vincing. 74 The more monstrously Hitler behaved, the easier it
was to claim that what had happened was 'bound to happen'
and that, thanks 'mainly to the Prime Minister's visits...we
can now fight, if we have to...with...clean hands...and the
advantage... that the peoples of Germany and Italy know him
...to be a just man and lover of peace'. 7S
This applied not just to admirers of Hitler, of whom there
were a few, 76 but to the body of average MPs who had no
interest in German politics, were impressed by Chamberlain
personally and would not think of upsetting him unless com-
pelled to by contradictions between policy and events.
About defence policy, contradictions had been easy to
establish. What foreign policy dissentients tried to do, from
Austen Chamberlain onwards, was to establish that there
were contradictions in foreign policy too.
The difficulty was that, while still Chancellor, Chamberlain
had given a foreign-policy lead which informed opinion had
then followed. In acting out the assumption that the League
was finished, he seemed only to have reacted sensibly in a
disappointing situation.
In Chamberlain's mind, the objective was 'peace'. In the
minds of others, it was a disciplined and stable Germany.
Whether heartfelt (as with him and the Peace Pledge Union),
prudential (as with him and his military advisers) or ideo-
logically anti-Bolshevik (as among those who saw the point of
Hitler), the outcome was a feeling that the lines on which he
was working were right.
For a long time, MPs found the feeling reflected among
HALIFAX 269
their constituents. They found contradictions easier to dis-

cern in the Opposition view than in Chamberlain's and ac-
cepted his because he had been the first to point them out. It
was not easy to think that an industrial power like Germany
could be kept down permanently. There was a strong wish to
believe that no nation could ' "unalterably be the enemy of
another" \ 7 7 Beaverbrook was not the only person who
sensed connections between dislike of Continental entangle-
ments, the prospect of war and the feeling that there were
'already far too many Jews in London'. 78
Conservatives did not believe that Chamberlain's object
was 'alliance with dictators' at the expense of 'democracy'.
The policy they were supporting was the Eden policy of
getting France and Germany to create a regional pact in place
of the limitless commitment which had been discredited by
Abyssinia. 'Rearmament and reconciliation' seemed as realistic
as any alternative and much more reasonable than 'Arms and
the Covenant'. It was much more reassuring than the critics'
claim, so much at variance with Hitler's assurances, that
Hitler's ambitions were Napoleonic.
There were Cecils (on grounds of Church persecution) and
long-term anti-Germans who believed that Hitler was as evil
as the Prussians. To others he was merely confusing. He had
attacked Versailles and aimed to upset the victory of 1918.
But he was a racial patriot, an enemy of communism and an
ex-serviceman who, like them, had seen through the cobweb
of illusion which surrounded the League of Nations. Some
did, most did not, believe in the international Jewish con-
spiracy (of which, where necessary, Blum could be represent-
ed as a leader). Hitler often seemed mad, odd or idealistic.
But he expressed sentiments which some shared and had ex-
pressed forcibly in the early twenties, 79 and had made a
point of wishing to be allied with Britain.
These judgments did not exclude the belief that German
rearmament was a threat and that colonies ought not to be
bartered. Nor did they remove the impression — which the
wireless confirmed — that Hitler was violent, dangerous and
hysterical. But they made it difficult to believe that he would
attack the Empire. They made it impossible to forget — what
many of them knew from boardrooms, bank parlours or the
270 III. THE EFFECT
Empire Economic Union — that Britain and Germany had

interests in common while America's interests were often
antagonistic. 80
These assumptions died hard, buttressed as they were by
the belief that 'the British people' 'would not willingly go to
war except in the defence of interests [that were] vital'. After
Prague a young Conservative MP stated that Britain's interests
would best be served by Germany having central Europe. 81
Even Bracken thought 'the fear of war negligible if we push
on with our rearmament programme and avoid internal politi-
cal quarrels' since the 'real hope for peace' lay in the 'Nazi
gangsters" sense of 'weakness in the event of a war in which
first-class powers engage'. 82
These assumptions had not really been destroyed in Septem-
ber 1938 when Britain threatened Hitler and the Blum role
was played by Benes — the pin-up of the League of Nations
Union 83 — who ruled a country 'half of [whose] people
could not be relied on to give it loyal support'.
The objections to Benes were ample — that he had been
Arthur Henderson's assistant at Geneva, that he was doing
nothing about treaty revision and that his 'diabolical cunning'
was perpetuating the 'disastrous artificialities' of the French
'system' by letting the Russians into central Europe. They
were deepened by a widespread assumption that the con-
sequence of fighting on September 27 might well have been
'the triumph of Communism in Europe'. 84
Though most backbenchers believed that treaty revision
was unavoidable, they wanted Britain to avoid the responsi-
bility. 85 From this angle the Runciman mission was a 'dan-
ger' and the Anglo-French guarantee a mistake; the Czechs,
therefore, should be grateful to Chamberlain for averting
their 'annihilation'. 86 It was the 'midsummer of madness' to
fight once it had been decided that territory would be trans-
ferred, and 'the maddest war...a reluctant people...ever faced
— to fight over a method of implementing an agreement that
had already been agreed by all concerned'. 87 So far from
apologising for refusing to 'go meddling in distant parts of
Central Europe', they saw 'right triumphing over might',
'God's will' being done and Chamberlain emerging as 'a great
leader' and the 'greatest statesman of his generation'. 88 Even
those who doubted whether Hitler meant what Chamberlain
HALIFAX 271
had said did not expect to be 'worse off if he broke his word
'in six months or a year's time'. 89
Chamberlain did not repeat to the House of Commons
what he had said about 'peace for our time'; he told it, on the
contrary, that 'the superstructure' was 'not even begun'. 90
His credibility depended, however, on Hitler meaning what
he had said; he had said that his territorial demands had
ended. It was in this context that the occupation of Prague
and his Commons statement of March 15 made Chamberlain
look incredible. Even so, he might have got away with it if he
had not changed direction at Birmingham two days later. It is
far from clear that he made the change willingly.
Since Chamberlain believed that he had overwhelming

public support even when the occupation of Prague had made
him look foolish, he was not really interested in the pressure
brought by the Labour and Liberal parties and by the Con-
servative dissentients. So far as they were concerned, his
view was that he knew where he was going, and they did not.
Nevertheless, their pressures had an effect. They sank, or
seeped, into the minds of publicists and MPs. They were
reported, and repeated, in the Cabinet. They came slowly, as
events appeared to confirm them, to create an indefeasibil-
ity which no politician could ignore. In making them effec-
tive, the chief instrument of mediation was Halifax.
In the course of 1938 Halifax developed doubts about
Chamberlain's policy which he had not felt when he became
Foreign Secretary. This happened, however, not just because
he acquired a new view of Nazism, but because of the damage
he imagined Chamberlain to be doing to the Conservative
party.
In public life, before everything else, Halifax was a pin-up,
or symbol, of the twentieth-century Conservative alliance
between education, wealth and social standing. In his context
'Conservatism' was a flexible, even porous, container which
various Cecils and Stanleys had constructed and into which
(though not a Conservative) Grey had poured much Whig
water immediately after the war. In their cases, decency,
idealism and landed virtue had been offered as bandages to
industrial society. Halifax's contribution was a tone and
manner which Tractarian benevolence had established, which
272 III. THE EFFECT
implied a Whig attitude to dissent and which was connected

with conceptions about the duties and instincts of a 'gentle-
man'. 9 1
Halifax's father had been the lay brain behind the most
successful failure to unite Canterbury to Rome. His paternal
grandfather was Gladstone's Halifax. From his early years he
shared Gladstone's regret at the Church of England's failure
to remain the centre of the nation's life. An interest in moral
solidarity followed and developed, with experience, into the
belief that any point of view could contribute, provided it
was meant sincerely and was not meant to be revolutionary.
like Baldwin, Halifax talked about the 'character' of the
British 'race'. He sensed an instinctive desire to subordinate
'theory' to 'practice' and a resistance to 'promises' which
politicians had no intention of redeeming. He presented
democracy as an 'endless adventure' towards an 'ideal social
order' where 'the Christian personality' could be 'developed'
and necessary extensions of State power mitigated by a Mill-
like conception of rational freedom. 92
Halifax disliked communism as a doctrine and Russia as a
state, and was reluctant to have anything to do with either.
For this reason (among others), he had been a minor Die-
Hard hero in the early twenties. Since 1925 his career had
been built on conciliation (especially in India); it had pro-
duced a Conservatism which, though neither reactionary nor
Machiavellian, was socially impregnable and assumed that
existing society was good. Though he believed this, and was
relaxed about it, Halifax was anxious that no one should do
anything to shake it. 93 In fearing that it might be shaken by
class conflict or international tension, and in approaching it
with a religious dimension, he had long-standing affinities
with Baldwin who treated him as though he was a younger
Bridgeman. 94
Chamberlain also admired Halifax, as he had done when he
got to know him in the twenties, and intended a compliment
when suggesting that he might be the first Chairman of the
Unemployment Assistance Board. 95 He regarded him as a
desirable Foreign Secretary in the period of Simon's disinte-
gration.
Confidence, therefore, was long-standing before he was in-
herited as leader of the House of Lords. It increased in the
HALIFAX 273
next nine months when Eden was on holiday or at Geneva,

Brussels or elsewhere. Nor was Halifax devious in using the
opportunities this gave him. Eden's supporters in the Foreign
Office were suspicious, 96 but it is fairer to say that he did
not share Eden's feelings about the League of Nations, of
which he had had little direct experience, was less dependent
on the approval of Cecil, with whom his relations were closer,
and felt no objection to being a 'realist' when Eden had pre-
empted his usual role as practical idealist. 97
As Fellow of All Souls, MP, infantry officer, Viceroy,
Churchman and working landowner, Halifax had touched
life at many points. He made use of his versatility and
treated himself as a leading member of the government.
He may well have thought that Chamberlain would find him
a more congenial Foreign Secretary than Eden, who was fif-
teen years younger.
Halifax's 'soul' had 'risen in indignation' against Musso-
lini's 'crimes' in Abyssinia. He had done the same about the
League's inability to stop them, and had reached the same
conclusions as Chamberlain about the illusions by which it
was surrounded. He disliked involvement beyond the Rhine
and wanted only a defensive arrangement with France. He
wanted the French alliance-system dropped (in return for
'tight commitments from us') because of the danger of being
dragged into an east-European war if it continued. 98
The Germanies he assumed were the Germany of the Ox-
ford of the nineties, the Germany of Anglo-Saxon mythology
and the Germany that had fought bravely in the war. He
assumed that communism would destroy them, that Nazism
might not and that Hitler had restored Germany's 'self-re-
spect'. He thought Eden at fault in having better contact with
Blum's government than with Hitler's and that British opin-
ion was 'biassed' against the German attitude to Spain."
Before his visit to Hitler in 1937, he thought 'sympathy'
suitable and that 'Britain should go as far as...possible' about
Austria and Czechoslovakia. He expected 'a great many ques-
tions' to become 'less intractable' if it could be established
that 'we wanted to be friends'. 10°
Halifax did not like the impression he received of 'bar-
racks' and a 'regimented people' or the evidence he found of
'a different set of values'. 101 But Hitler 'struck' him, though
274 III. THE EFFECT
'dangerous', as 'very sincere' and the regime as 'absolutely fan-

tastic'. He 'liked all the Nazi leaders' and 'could not doubt'
that they were 'genuine haters of Communism'. Unless 'these
fellows' were 'kidding', immediate aggression was unlikely 'if
only' because they had 'constructive work to do at
home'. 1 0 2 After talking to Hitler, Goering and Goebbels, he
felt 'more than ever [the] tragedy [of] Versailles' and that it
was 'essential for us to get on with them'. 103 On returning to
London, he mounted a campaign to persuade their proprietors
to stop Low and Dyson drawing 'cruel' cartoons of Hitler.104
Halifax agreed with Chamberlain and Hankey that avoiding
a three-cornered war against the anti-Comintern powers would
place an 'immense...burden' on diplomacy. He took a low
view of Roosevelt's power. Having 'ridiculed' his 'initia-
tive', 1OS he moved into reverse only when it seemed possible
that Eden would resign.
In relations with Eden, there was no animosity, though he
undermined Eden's position and his tone was that of one
who was equal in the Prime Minister's sight. 106 He wanted to
take Abyssinia out of Anglo-Italian relations, even if 'many
good people' would oppose 'a bargain...with the aggres-
sor'. 107 But the difference between Eden and Chamberlain
was 'a comparatively small one'. 1 0 8 Public disagreement
would be damaging, so, when Eden threatened to resign, he
took the lead in working for a 'compromise'. When Eden
resigned after getting his way, his comment, said to be an
angry one, was that he had 'put us in a most impossible
position'. 109 His summary afterwards was that 'Anthony was
over-strained and tired and...his judgement was not at its
best', partly because of 'his excessive sensitiveness to the cri-
ticism of the Left' and partly because of 'his natural revulsion
from Dictators, which I have always told him is too strong
inasmuch as you have got to live with the devils whether you
like them or not'. n o
Halifax may, or may not, have had doubts about taking
Eden's place.111 From February 21 he worked harmoniously
with Chamberlain in negotiating with Mussolini, preparing for
conversations with Hitler112 and adapting League 'ideals' to the
facts of life. It was Halifax who faced Haile Selassie at Geneva
when the League was asked to recognize Italian rule. He told
HALIFAX 275
the Cabinet that the Anglo-Italian agreement had 'made a

deep impression in Italy'. t 1 3
Halifax's view of the Italian problem was that, since the
Italians 'want to make friends', they should be encouraged;
he encouraged politicians who wanted to go to Rome. 114
He believed that reconciliation would be helped by a Franco
victory in Spain, as enabling Mussolini to withdraw.
About Spain which was an 'excrescence' he carried no
ideological lumber. He supported non-intervention and tried
to avoid all but verbal retaliation when British ships were
torpedoed. 115 Mediation (to avoid a direct clash between
France and Italy) 116 was held back only by the rebuff he
received from Ciano when he tried it. 117 He was more
'ashamed' when women and children were bombed in China
where, after all, it was not a 'Civil War that was raging'. 118
His view of the German problem was as distinctive.
Halifax did not assume that Hitler had an 'international
power-lust' since his policy was 'based on race'. He was great-
ly impressed by Anglo-French weakness, and had no desire to
convert Locarno into an alliance. In case Anglo-French talks
implied the opposite, he spoke 'with obvious emotion' about
'the kindred nations, Germany, Britain and the U.S. unit [ing]
in joint work for peace'. 119
Halifax knew that the German Churches were being harass-
ed. He was not sure why and was quite sure that they would
be harassed more if harassment was denounced publicly. He
did as much to keep English Churchmen quiet as he had done
to quieten the press. 120
After his visit to Germany, he had discovered that Hitler
was less accommodating than he had supposed. 121 He half-
expected an Anschluss but thought it would be done 'in a
manner which did not enable any other country to inter-
fere'. 122 When it happened he was 'somewhat excited' and
gave Ribbentrop a lecture about the 'rude...shock' it had
given to 'European confidence'. 123 According to Cadogan he
was 'calm and sensible' about the fact the Britain could do
nothing about it. 124 According to his private secretary, he
talked about 'highwaymen's methods' and the 'situation'
being 'bloody'. 125
It was not, however, in his view, 'a new situation' and
276 III. THE EFFECT
provided no reason for new commitments. He rejected the

Grand Alliance (while recognising the danger of Anglo-
French isolation) and was not yet persuaded that Hitler
would end by attacking the Empire. His advice to the Cabinet
was that the British obligation to Austria was minimal and
that the dictators should be spoken to sharply lest the public
decide to follow EdenVlead about Mussolini.126
Like Chamberlain, Halifax's resting-place was the 'guessing
game'. He justified this on the ground that dictatorships
would not last indefinitely since 'hubris in international af-
fairs brought its own revenge'. 127 After the May crisis, he
was willing to talk to Hitler about Colonies. But he was
against German hegemony and wanted to stiffen resistance in
the Balkans. He wanted Benes to offer a plebiscite in five
years' time and the French to 'liquidate' their Czech commit-
ment which had been 'entered into many years ago' at a time
when they had a backdoor approach to Germany through the
Rhineland. 128
In preparing for detente, Halifax thought seriously about
the neutralisation of Czechoslovakia.129 He agreed that
Danzig and the Corridor were 'an absurdity' and was pre-
pared to mediate between Germany and the Poles. 130 He
thought it a good idea to invite Goering to Sandringham and
was 'rather startled' when told that it was a bad one. 131 He
thought it possible that Hitler feared France and Britain as
much as they feared him, and that his military demonstra-
tions were a reaction to Intelligence predictions of a pre-
ventive war against Germany. 132
As he understood it, Chamberlain's policy was to show
Hitler that he could get much of what he wanted provided he
would not go to war. 133 He believed in this and thought it
viable, so long as France and Britain avoided the details of
negotiation. 134 He had, however, a number of reservations.
In the first place, pursuit of detente in Europe need not,
he thought, immobilise Britain in the Far East, where the
need to appease Japan did not reduce the need to boost
British influence in Asia by containing Russian influence in
China. 13S Secondly, German relations with Franco and the
Arabs were important, Italian policy was opportunistic and
'the stronger we can show ourselves in the Mediterranean',
the more likely events were to 'swing...in our direction'. 136
HALIFAX 277
Thirdly, although the French should be discouraged from

going to war over Czechoslovakia, it was clear that, if they
did, 'we could not stay out' 1 3 7 and that, although Czecho-
slovakia ought to become a Switzerland, the Little Entente
should not be destroyed 138 or the French, Czech or Russian
governments asked to denounce their alliances. 139 Finally,
while believing that Benes had been 'slow with his re-
forms' 140 and that a plebiscite might eventually be necessary,
he complained when The Times discussed it because he
doubted whether Benes could accept it and survive. 141
These were differences of emphasis; none of them con-
flicted with Chamberlain's understanding of policy. On
Chamberlain's part there was relief at having an 'unruffled
Foreign Secretary' who liked having him around, 'never
cause[d him] any worry' and might have prevented the An-
schluss if he had been at the Foreign Office at the start of
negotiations with Mussolini. 142 Where differences existed,
they resulted from Chamberlain's abrasiveness about 'inter-
nationalist woolliness', his contempt for the Liberal and
Labour leaders and the impression Eden was trying to create
that he was out of touch with modern feeling. 143
This did not amount to much, but it reminded Halifax that
anti-dictator feeling was strong 144 and that 'harm' was being
done 'by hitting up the Opposition' at a time when trade
union co-operation was essential. 14S He pressed Eden to re-
turn to office on the grounds that Chamberlain's 'methods'
were 'unlikely to retrieve the floating vote' and that Baldwin
regarded him as his 'successor'. 146 After an offensive speech
from Mussolini in May, he said that, after all, Eden 'had been
right'. 147 In the summer of 1938 he was closer to Eden than
Churchill was and closer to Churchill than Eden was, and
was very more effective than either.
Halifax may not have believed that he could be Prime
Minister while Eden was trained up. But he found his resigna-
tion speech 'awfully good', 148 paid close attention to what
the Labour leaders said and reminded them of the co-opera-
tion he had received as Viceroy during the second Labour
government. 149
From Halifax's point of view, in one sense, Munich was a
non-event. Between September 13 and 30, Chamberlain was his
own Foreign Secretary and had his own adviser — Sir Horace
278 III. THE EFFECT
Wilson. Halifax was neither part of the team which went to

Germany nor carried the interim message between Godesberg
and Munich. At all these points he was an onlooker with no
more control than any other member of the inner ring of the
Cabinet.
This is not to say that he had no opinions about what was
done or failed to express them, or that there was nothing for
which he was responsible. He was an important presence at
the committees to which Chamberlain explained himself be-
fore explaining himself to the Cabinet, and was one of the
dozen or so people who knew about Plan Z before it was put
into operation. His preliminary surveys set the tone and
structure of Cabinet discussion. They helped to establish that
France was unwilling to fight and that Britain had no obliga-
tion to Czechoslovakia whose 'thousand year old' problem
would lead to war unless the Czechs and Sudeten Germans
were 'separated and divided up'. 15° In discussion with cri-
tics, he deployed a casuistry and 'commonsense' which issued
in claims that it was difficult to know the mind of a 'mystical
politician', that 'we had "lectured" everybody too much...
during the past few years', and that 'those who spoke for this
country should not place themselves in a position of using lan-
guage which, in the last resort, they might not be prepared
fully to implement'. l s l
Halifax did not overplay the merits of the policy he was
supporting. Neither did he allow the Cabinet to have illu-
sions. He sketched the risks and the dangers and laid out the
odds. The odds were that Hitler was mad, wanted to use
force and intended to chloroform Britain until he had done
so. In that case no outside action would have an effect, so it
was easy to justify a policy to which only irrational calcula-
tions were relevant. When put in his 'languid, weary' manner,
these were important aids without which Chamberlain could
not have gone as far as he did. 152
Nevertheless, the Munich fortnight marked a parting of the
ways. It was Halifax 153 who wanted the BBC to repeat the
Lanark warning, had been worried when Chamberlain dis-
agreed 154 and had been greatly upset when Henderson pro-
tested against the warning he was allowed to send notwith-
standing. 15S On September 9 he was 'very much afraid' that
the government might 'yet run away and let the Czechs
HALIFAX 279
down'. 156 He was staggered by Chamberlain's decision to fly

to Germany. 157
Halifax had anticipated, and accepted, most of the Berch-
tesgaden conditions. 158 He then sent Butler and de la Warr
to Geneva to ask Litvinoff what Stalin would do in the event
of war. During Godesberg week he turned round. 159 At the
first Cabinet afterwards he was sensitive to suggestions of an
Anglo-French plot. 160 After a sleepless night thinking over a
talking-to from Cadogan, he 'was not sure' next day 'whether
he and the Prime Minister were quite together' since 'he
could not rid his mind of the fact that Hitler...was dictating
terms...as though he had won a war without having...to
fight'.161 After telling the last Cabinet before Munich that
there would be no peace until Nazidom was destroyed, he
sabotaged Chamberlain's attempt to carry the 'capitulation'
which Wilson was proposing. He was responsible for the deci-
sion that Britain should go to war, 162 in spite of the fact
that she was not equipped to fight it. 163
Like everyone else, he was exhausted by strain and tension
in the fortnight of constant brinkmanship. 164 He had seen
how near Chamberlain had come to failure; he saw how easily
the failure could be repeated. He made an effective defence
in the House of Lords, 16S but the impression he left on
those to whom he talked was that he was tired and wanted to
quit, 166 that the whole thing 'had been a horrid business...
there was no use blinking the fact' 167 and that he had come
to 'loathe Nazism' and regarded Hitler as 'a criminal
lunatic'. 168 'He put up such defence as he could', wrote
Amery on meeting him the day after the Four-Power Agree-
ment was signed, 'excusing Hitler on the ground that no revi-
sion could ever have come about without the threat of force
...but he obviously wasn't proud of the result'. 169 'All the
credit', he told a young minister, 'is Neville's and my admira-
tion for him surpasses all bounds but I see political troubles
ahead both in parliament and in the country.' 170
For Halifax's gloom at the moment of Chamberlain's
triumph, there were three reasons. The first was that he had
come to believe that the sincerity which Chamberlain intuit-
ed in Hitler, even when he saw and recorded the opposite,
simply did not exist. The second was that, where Chamber-
lain talked daily to Wilson, he talked to Cadogan and Sargent
280 III. THE EFFECT
who believed, and said, that Chamberlain was being con-

ned. 171 The third was that it was Halifax who bore the
burden of dissent while Chamberlain was involved in the
negotiations.
This was not just the Cabinet dissent, nor the 'dishonour'
and 'humiliation' discerned by the Labour and Sinclairite lea-
ders, 172 but a moral disturbance which fixed on the 'shame'
involved when a small democracy was bullied and the bully
being helped by the British government. This was put in a
variety of ways and at the highest of levels. The King's pri-
vate secretary was 'horrified' and 'disgusted' and let it be
known that he was consulting Eden. 173 Eden and Churchill
were in 'the depths of despair'. 174 Cecil 'had not felt so
bitterly on any public question since the fall of Khar-
toum'. 1 7 5 Lloyd, though a collaborator of Churchill, was
one of Halifax's oldest political friends.
It would be worse than war [he wrote to him with Anglo-Catholic fervour
on September 12] to be unwilling to be the champions of weak peoples,
or that we should, through a shrinking from suffering, fail in a task
surely set us by Providence. This is the moment to play the man, to
face clearly what is coming, confident that we are capable of drinking
the cup and that we shall not be left without the power to do so. 1 7 6
The feeling was put more emotionally still by George Dallas,
the leader of the agricultural workers and chairman of the
Labour Conference, who, when Halifax met a Labour deputa-
tion before Godesberg, half-rose from his chair at one stage
to say that 'Lord Halifax, after listening to you, we are
ashamed to be Britishers'. 177
What these experiences taught Halifax was the need for
political reconstruction. Since detente would be intolerable
unless Hitler changed, there would be difficulty if Chamber-
lain persisted regardless. Not only would the policy fail if
Hitler was as evil as he believed, but Chamberlain would look
incredible as his failure to avoid war, or his surrender, if that
was the outcome, were attributed to rejection of consensual
positions about the League.
Halifax believed in consensual government which Cham-
berlain seemed to have abandoned and which Labour would
pick up if Munich was established as a 'capitulation'. This was
a dangerous possibility, requiring a restoration of the sort of
unity which would be needed if industry was to be mobilized
HALIFAX 281
for war or the Conservative party to retain its moral supre-

macy in peace. It meant, as he told Chamberlain after Mu-
nich, that he should resist the temptation to snatch a cheap
advantage by holding an election. It meant also, as he told
him more than once in the three weeks following, that he
should invite Eden and the Labour and trade union leaders to
join the government, if only for the reason that much would
be gained from an offer that was rejected. 178
The only effect was an attempt at 1931-style unity and a
strengthening of Chamberlain's control when the death of
Lord Stanley, Duff Cooper's resignation and the removal of
Hailsham enabled Anderson and Runciman to join the
Cabinet at the same time as Samuel refused to. 1 7 9
Halifax did not doubt that bankers and industrialists
should prepare for economic agreement. But he was reluctant
about ministerial contact with Germany. In the winter of
1938, the most important aspects of his thinking, behind the
advocacy of policies he only half-approved, were the linked
beliefs that 'Hitler [was] much more dangerous than Musso-
lini' and that for him there were going to be 'no more Mu-
nichs'. 180
Halifax saw Munich confirming — what he had long
thought inevitable — a 'German predominance in Central
Europe'. He expected France to withdraw while Poland drift-
ed permanently into the German camp. Russia could not be
allied with Germany ('so long as Hitler lives'); she might well
be attacked. Though the French should take care to keep out
if she was, he wanted the Soviet pact kept going since 'for good
or evil', Russia was 'part of Europe'. His conclusion was that
France and Britain should 'uphold' their position in 'Western
Europe', keep a 'tight hold' on their Empires and maintain
their existing positions in the Mediterranean and Middle East.
This involved rearmament 'sufficient for strength' and 'the
closest co-operation with the United States'. It did not ex-
clude detente (given French co-operation). But it necessitated
a sensitive effort to counter defeatism in France as the
French government bit hard over the unpalatable truth that
Franco was going to win in Spain. 181
During his visit to Rome with Chamberlain in January,
Halifax found Mussolini 'calm and unaggressive' and unlikely
to go to war. 182 But he warned the Cabinet before he went
282 III. THE EFFECT
against giving him anything unless he would help positively

towards detente.183 He told Chamberlain when he got there
to keep a written record of the conversations and was re-
sponsible for the affirmation of an Anglo-French 'alliance'
which made Chamberlain so popular in early February. 184
He thought Chamberlain unduly optimistic about the pros-
pect of reconciliation between France and Italy. 185
About Hitler Halifax thought that not very much could be
done, except to ask what he wanted, 186 keep in touch with
Russia 187 and use charity to refugees as reassurance to Ame-
rican opinion after the pogroms had made appeasement un-
popular. 188 In mid-November he gave the Cabinet Commit-
tee a lurid account of Hitler's determination to destroy the
Empire and the need to encourage 'moderate elements' in
Germany by correcting the 'false impression that we were...
spineless'. 189 Having failed then to persuade Chamberlain to
accept the first steps towards Conscription, he tried again in
January with accounts of the extent to which 'the financial
and economic condition of Germany was...compelling the mad
Dictator...to insane adventures'. 190 In early February he told
the Cabinet that he would 'sooner be bankrupt in peace than
beaten in a war against Germany'. 191 On February 20 he
told Henderson that 'smooth words' in Berlin did not guaran-
tee the existence of 'friendly hearts'. 192
It is unlikely that Halifax responded to the general run of
anti-appeasement propaganda. He probably did not read the
Chronicle or the Herald (though it would be surprising if he
did not see the Telegraph). He may not have read Gedye,
Voigt, Rauschning or Reed or been affected (except by
Rauschning) if he did. But he did not need to examine
Penguin Books or the Left Book Club to know what was
going on. He knew that a propaganda was being accomplished
and that a new climate was being created.
Halifax had never been a pacifist; he was remembered on
the Right for being 'at heart...a warrior'. 193 When the issue
was presented he had little doubt.
In these months he hardened, both because he had new
policies to propose (in relation to France and Holland) and
because he was responding to a climate very different from
Chamberlain's. It would be wrong to say that he had lost
confidence in Chamberlain, though he may have been under
HALIFAX 283
the impression that Chamberlain had lost confidence in

him. 194 But there was a sharpening of tone flowing from a
sense that doubt and disaffection were spreading among
junior ministers, 'the young' and 'the best traditional ele-
ments' in the Foreign Office and Conservative party of which
Eden was claiming that Halifax alone had not turned against
Chamberlain. 195
(ii)
Up to the end of 1937, for most ministers, the Foreign

Office meant Vansittart. He, however, had been damaged by
the Hoare-Laval pact and by his conduct of his office. As his
standing dropped, the Foreign Office's dropped too. By the
end of 1937, its influence had been greatly reduced, as
Fisher, Hankey, Leith-Ross and Wilson helped Chamberlain
tackle the foreign-policy failures of the previous four years.
To some extent, no doubt, Vansittart was a scape-goat.
But it was primarily a judgment of competence by Chamber-
lain and of compatibility by Eden that made them agree that
he should be replaced. It was because he would not take an
embassy and would be dangerous if pushed out altogether
that he was pushed downstairs to be Chief Diplomatic Ad-
viser at the beginning of 1938. 196
Though Cadogan was Eden's choice as successor, he had
only six weeks with him. From the end of February, it was
Halifax with whom he dealt.
Where Vansittart had conducted himself as a politician and
thought of standing for Parliament after his demotion, 197
Cadogan acted as an official, advising Halifax but not cajoling
him, and avoiding a conspiracy-conception of his function.
There is no sign that he dissented from the Cabinet's policy
in the summer of 1938. It was only a general dislike of the
'surrender' and 'gullibility' involved in Chamberlain's attitude
after meeting Hitler that made him press his opinions on
Halifax in September.
Though the Foreign Office felt the 'ignominy' of Munich
and the abandonment of professional diplomacy, Cadogan
accepted it as a consequence of the failure to make conces-
sions in the twenties. He recognised that Britain could not go
on policing Europe and must give first attention to the Medi-
284 III. THE EFFECT
terranean. He interpreted Munich as showing the German

people that they could get what they wanted without war.
He was in favour of a colonial deal. 'Even at this late date', he
wanted Britain to propose an 'examination of the difficulties,
fears and suspicions that seem likely to make Europe shortly
uninhabitable'. 198 It was not until the beginning of 1939
that he responded to the Intelligence assessment that what
Hitler would 'like best, if he could do it, would be to smash
the British Empire'. 199
This was what Vansittart had been saying, but, since he
had been saying a lot of other (contradictory) things besides,
Cadogan was no more willing to take him seriously than he
had been in the past. 200
In 1938 Vansittart had mattered very little. He had a room
in the Foreign Office and kept up a high output of memoran-
da. He retained contact with Intelligence sources, and deve-
loped contact with Churchill and Dalton. He made himself an
alternative source of briefing for the press. He tried to stir up
feeling against Phipps (his brother-in-law) in Paris and against
Henderson in Berlin and was responsible for much of the
contempt which Chamberlain aroused in the lower reaches of
the Foreign Office.201 But his memoranda were not im-
portant. Halifax treated him as a foil and Cadogan barred the
way. Phipps was indestructible and Henderson had not yet
been destroyed.
Just as the Foreign Office and the Chiefs of Staff conveyed
opinions to the highest quarters, so did ambassadors in the
most important capitals. These were not necessarily the opi-
nions of those who made policy at home. But even if ^(as is
unlikely) Loraine's Ciano, Phipps's Bonnet and Henderson's
Goering were systematically misleading to their auditors,
they conveyed as adequately as Vansittart's sources an im-
portant set of possibilities.
As Ambassador in Berlin, Phipps had had no more time for
the Nazis than his predecessor (Rumbold). Nor did he think
much better of French politicians after moving to Paris in
1937. There, however, he had a ladder of reputability on
which believers in the Entente came top and the advocates of
'ideology' bottom. For this reason he was glad when Blum
fell in 1938 and did his best to keep Boncour out of the
Daladier government on the ground of his 'idiocy about Mus-
HALIFAX 285
solini' and hankerings after intervention in Spain. 202 He re-

garded the Daladier/Bonnet combination as the best possible
in the circumstances and suggested more than once that Hali-
fax or Chamberlain should * fortify' it 'by a visit'. 203
Phipps presented Halifax a version of his role which show-
ed him aiming to restrain the 'war-mongers' in and out of the
new government. In addition to the Communists, these in-
cluded Reynaud and Herriot who, in spite of believing in the
Entente, 'revel[led] in the Soviet bloodbaths' as 'increasing
the efficiency of the Soviet army'. 204 Above all, they includ-
ed Mandel, the only incurable in the Cabinet whose 'real
name' was 'Rothschild' and who, like most French Jews, had
his own reasons for 'tightening up the Soviet connection. 205
In relation to Italy, Phipps's object was to circumvent Leger
— the permanent head of the Quai d'Orsay, who encouraged
Daladier to be obstinate about Mussolini. He had no time for
Kemsley's brother-in-law, Flandin, whom he regarded as a
defeatist. Nor was he a defeatist himself. But he reported
Bonnet's doubts during the September crisis and stated that
Daladier 'always talks bigger than he acts'. He recorded the
belief that they would not go to war over Czechoslovakia
unless Hitler made them; he expected them to accept 'any
plan' advocated by Chamberlain and Runciman and to 'dis-
interest' themselves if the Czechs rejected it. 206 It was at
least partly on Phipps's advice that Bonnet and Daladier were
treated brutally when they came to London on Septem-
ber 18. 2 0 7
Phipps assumed that Bonnet was 'prudent' about Germany
and 'well-meaning' about Italy, and, in a delicate situation,
would be more resistant than Boncour to the 'extreme ele-
ments of the Popular Front'.208 In the middle of 1938
he invented a triangle on which he pressed Halifax (on Bon-
net's behalf) to neutralise the pressures Daladier received from
Mandel, Reynaud and Herriot. 209 In 1939 the triangle was
developed to include Fran^ois-Poncet, the Ambassador in
Rome, when Chamberlain made his unsuccessful attempts to
get Daladier to come to terms with Mussolini. If war had not
begun when it did, Halifax and the King would have made
further attempts on Daladier during his visit for army ma-
noeuvres in Yorkshire in September.210
As well as being Vansittart's brother-in-law, Phipps was a
286 III. THE EFFECT
friend of Hankey. He was unhappy about Henderson's view

of Berlin. He knew that Vansittart (who had supported him
in Berlin) was unhappy about his own view of Paris, 211 and
he helped Hankey and Wilson against him. He described Cadett
(The Times correspondent) as a 'red' and Bartlett and Scott
of the News Chronicle as 'feather-brains'; he spent a great
deal of time attempting to thwart the conspiracies he expec-
ted when Pertinax came to England. 212
Phipps's aim was to persuade the French government to
pursue British policies; he reported what he knew within
these limits. What he saw, on the one hand, was a 'criminal'
war party stoked up, during visits to Paris, by Spears, Chur-
chill, Duff Cooper and Lloyd George.213 What he saw, on the
other, was that 'the French' would 'fight like tigers' for
the 'independence...of metropolitan France'. 214 In Berlin,
Henderson had the same feelings about 'the Germans'.
Henderson was not sent to Berlin because of any belief he
may have had in the significance of Anglo-German amity.
Nor did he think of his mission as urgent until Chamberlain
talked to him in October. 215
What Henderson felt (when called upon to feel) was that
Britain was an 'island' rather than a 'continental' people and
that the centre of her interest was the Empire. Between the
Empire and the Reich there need be no incompatibility and
should, he thought, ideally, be a positive identity based on
the fact that both embodied the principle of national, or
racial, self-determination. It was belief in self-determination as
a 'principle' for world organisation which sustained the claim
that 'the British Empire was...infinitely too valuable to be
risked' in a situation where principle had not yet issued in
'real practice'. 216
Before the Anschluss Henderson was not optimistic. Nor
did he want it to be the Nazis who brought it about. But he
had no sympathy for the Austrians who, he had 'always be-
lieved', would have to join Germany once the Hapsburgs had
been removed. He thought that they should be abandoned
gracefully so as to give Czechoslovakia a chance of survi-
val. 217
Henderson's view was that Benes would have to concede if
conflict was to be avoided. He made more of neutralising
Czechoslovakia than Halifax liked. But his solution was can-
HALIFAX 287
tonal; he did not advocate dismemberment, which he be-

lieved that the Germans did not want. 218 Benes's failure to
do anything made him extremely upset.
Henderson shared the Conservative and Chiefs of Staff
view of the League, and Garvin's view of Germany's role in
central Europe.219 He was as much relieved when Eden re-
signed as when Duff Cooper resigned after Munich. 220 But
he liked neither the balance of power nor the 'narrow' pursuit
of British interests. The 'truest...interest was the highest...
principle', and the principle of the twentieth century was
nationalism. It was because Czechoslovakia was polyglot and
anachronistic (like the Hapsburg Empire) that the Sudeten
Germans had 'a moral right' to 'self-determination'. 221
Henderson's principles would have been less exigent if the
danger had been less urgent. As the danger of war became
acute, long-standing judgments became effective. From early
May 1938, he was telling Halifax that Hitler would not let
the Sudeten question slide. 222 But he 'could not bear the
thought of losing a single British life for either Sudetens or
Czechs'. 223 Whether by Czech concessions or a Runciman
award, he wanted the question settled. 224 He regarded
May 21 as wholly deplorable. His advice was that Benes was
courting disaster and that May 21's must be avoided.225
Henderson liked Goering. But he held no brief for the Nazi
system. He disliked Ribbentrop who was 'as vain as he is
stupid and as stupid as he is vain', and was a dangerous in-
fluence on Hitler because he did not know when to
stop. 226
On the spot, ill, in close touch and overworked, Henderson
could not make up his mind whether the Germans would
behave reasonably if given the chance. Up to early Septem-
ber, he was saying that Hitler should be handled carefully
since he had not yet decided to go to war. 227 In the next
three weeks he was disabused. Though he wrote (to Chamber-
lain) about the 'moral Tightness' of the Munich agreement, he
told Halifax that he 'never wanted to work with Germans
again'. 228
Before returning to London for a cancer operation, Hen-
derson aimed to dispel optimism. Though the German public
admired Chamberlain for Munich, there was no point trying
to divide it from Hitler. It was ridiculous to clutch at the idea
288 III. THE EFFECT
that Germany was 'short of food, personnel and oil'. Hitler

had won at Munich because of air superiority. Even if he did
not intend to attack Britain, he intended to enforce a Tax
Germanica' on Europe. 229
Between his return to Berlin and the occupation of Prague,
Henderson's agnosticism was restored. He exonerated Hitler
from responsibility for the pogroms. 230 In late February he
wrote that the 'Germans want peace' and that 'all would be
well' so long as the defence programme was continued in
Britain. To this frame of mind Prague came as a shock. 231
After Prague, more even than after the Anschluss, Hender-
son's object was to persuade Halifax of Hitler's determination
about Danzig, and to make it clear that much needed to be
said if he was to be convinced that Britain and France would
fight a world war to stop him. 232 Polish concessions were
essential. But a Russian Alliance was essential too. It was
only when he sensed that 'the Germans were getting at Stalin'
that he began to be urgent about the need for British agree-
ment with Germany.
From his special position, Henderson decided that parlia-
mentary belligerence was bringing war closer. He discounted
Vansittart's fears and refused to examine the Intelligence re-
ports on which they were based. 233 'Public Enemy No 1'
was 'the Press'; he sensed the situation he had long foreseen
in which Jews, journalists and the London intelligentsia
would envelop diplomacy in a 'conflict of philosophies'
which had nothing to do with British interests. 234
Henderson's concern was with the effect of newspapers
and political speeches on the Nazi leaders. But he also be-
lieved that the Foreign Office had been infected. He made it
his business to mediate between it on the one hand and Hitler
on the other, just as Chamberlain had mediated with the
Cabinet the previous September.
In face of criticism from the Embassy in Warsaw, Hender-
son received little sympathy from Halifax. 235 He was in-
creasingly operating at the limits of physical tolerance. His
letters became increasingly intense as he discerned increasing
insensitivity to the central fact that 'hundreds of thousands
of British lives' were being risked 'in order to free Germany
from Hitler', where prudence required a renunciation of 'Vic-
torian' assumptions and a recognition that 'the sooner...we...
HALIFAX 289
cut our coat to the measure of our cloth, the better it will be
for the British Empire'. 236
What Henderson was saying was what Halifax believed un-
til he turned round. Henderson can scarcely be derided for
crying painfully in a wilderness from which an active imagina-
tion saw Halifax's capitulation making war certain by giving
'a blank cheque to Poland'. 237
Henderson did not conceal Hitler's determination to in-
corporate Danzig into the Reich. But he believed that war
could be prevented 238 by showing both that Britain meant
business and that there was no desire to attack Germany in
the future. 239 With the Russo-German pact, he expected the
Poles to get what they deserved. 240 'If the British public
cannot stand Hitler's fidgetiness any longer', he wrote on
August 24, 'there is nothing more to be said'. 241
When Henderson's reports were circulated in the Foreign
Office, Vansittart presented his own understanding of the
situation. 242 Cadogan, Sargent and the Intelligence Services
presented theirs. From early 1939 all contributed to the view
that Hitler might be intending to 'strike an overwhelming
blow at the Western powers'. 243
Halifax was not run by Cadogan. Far less was he run by
Vansittart. As elsewhere, so in the Foreign Office, he listened.
Having come to believe that Munich had made Hitler antago-
nistic to Britain, he groped slowly towards prudential con-
clusions very similar to the ideological ones which had been
reached on the Left.
By mid-February Halifax had come to grips with his office

and used the power this gave to exercise the skills he had
learnt during thirty years at the top of Conservative poli-
tics. 244 Where Chamberlain had made a divisive departure,
he aimed to restore the atmosphere in which Baldwin had
been enveloped. Where Eden seemed to be floundering, his
touch was sure, responding to the need to confront evil, even
when nothing could be done about it, and leaving an im-
pression on Eden's followers, on the followers of Cecil, Sin-
clair and Churchill, in the Labour party and among his own
advisers, that he understood the need for a line so stiff that
he was in fact 'very close to Eden'. 245
The outward signs were sparse — an address to the 1922
290 III. THE EFFECT
Committee, a talk to Churchill's Focus and a speech in

the House of Lords on February 23. But they were accompa-
nied by an extreme fussiness about what he said and an in-
sistence that Cadogan should help him to say it. They issued
in a firm incantation and a warning that the British were not
only not 'decadent' but would be 'not less tenacious in de-
fence of their liberty than they had ever been before'. 246
Apart from the rebuke he administered on the occasion of
a Chamberlain talk to Lobby correspondents in early
March, 247 there was a continuing loyalty, even when he may
not quite have felt it. In talking to Eden and other politi-
cians, and in talking to his private secretary, who talked in his
turn to members of the Eden group, there were many occa-
sions on which he made clear the identity between the drift
of his own thinking and the drift of theirs.
With a manner as offhand as Halifax's, it is impossible to
know whether he thought he could be Prime Minister or,
indeed, whether he would have wanted to if he had thought
he could be. It is probably best to make a positive assump-
tion, while not suggesting that he wanted to do more than get
the government back on course after Chamberlain had blown
it off. He did not exactly put himself at the head of the
movement which Eden and Churchill had created. But he
absorbed what he was told and had decided, long before
Prague, that his major priority was to persuade them to
renew support for the government.
How he, or anyone else, was to do this given that Cham-
berlain had no desire either to give up being Prime Minister or
to have them in the Cabinet, 248 was not a question to which
anyone gave an answer. Probably it did not need to be asked
since a mood was being created not, at this stage, a coup
being planned. Halifax was not thinking of removing Cham-
berlain, even when he doubted Eden being 'tough enough'
and spoke of the impossibility of Hoare, Simon or Inskip
succeeding. 249 He was thinking aloud, as were Eden and
Stanley 25° when they said that the ideal solution would be a
Halifax government with Eden as leader of the House of
Commons.
The idea of a Halifax (or Baldwin) government may have
been put about by Eden and his followers because Halifax
was the weak link and the one valuable minister who might
HALIFAX 291
be detached from Chamberlain. Or it may have emerged from

a considered judgment that he and Baldwin were the only
leaders who could restore the Conservative position. What-
ever the origin or reason and whether Chamberlain realised
this or not, the dominating fact as Hitler occupied Prague was
Halifax's belief that the policy would have to be changed if
the party was to be saved.
10
CHAMBERLAIN, CHURCHILL AND HITLER
The Government has to take seriously the fact that the two Opposi-
tions are now appealing over its head to a certain amount of latent
jingoism in the country*.
Spender to Simon, August 1 1939
*I often think to myself that it's not I but someone else who is P.M. and
is the recipient of those continuous marks of respect and affection from
the general public who called in Downing Street or at the station to
take off their hats and cheer. And then I go back to the House of
Commons and listen to the unending stream of abuse of the P.M., his
faithlessness, his weakness, his wickedness, his innate sympathy with
Fascism and his obstinate hatred of the working classes'.
Chamberlain to Hilda, May 28 1939
* All our information points to a quiet time until about the third week in
August when it is suggested a "crisis" might begin to boil up. But nearly
always it is the predicted crisis that never materialises and I expect it
will be so again. The curious accident by which we shall have a gigantic
fleet exercising in the North Sea all August and September may pos-
sibly have some influence in this direction. There are more ways of
killing a cat than strangling it and if I refuse to take Winston into the
Cabinet to please those who say it would frighten Hitler, it doesn't
follow that the idea of frightening Hitler, or rather of convincing him
that it would not pay him to use force, need be abandoned'.
Chamberlain to Hilda, July 15 1939
(i)
The barrage of critical testimony with which Chamberlain

was confronted — from the Sinclairites, the Labour party, the
Collective Security and League of Nations lobby and two
sorts of Conservative dissentient — did not at first make
much impact on him. Before Berchtesgaden, there was no
problem. After Munich his position was so strong that he was
a free agent. Nothing Hitler had done had destroyed it; the
public really supported it. With a good by-election in mid-
February, a strong statement of Anglo-French unity and the
divisions created by Cripps's expulsion from the Labour
party, 1 the future seemed boundless.
294 III. THE EFFECT
Like Chatham [he wrote on March 12] I know that I can save this
country and I do not believe that anyone else can...Barring accidents...I
ought to be good for at least one more Parliament after this to exaspe-
rate and infuriate the Gilbert Murrays of this world...
Meanwhile all the Prodigal Sons are fairly besieging the parental
door. You may have seen Winston fs eulogies as reported in the Saturday
press. Anthony loses no opportunity of letting me know how cordially
he approves the government policy. Duff Cooper is loud in his praises.
Young Jim Thomas wants to be a Whip(!) Wolmer speaks in the coun-
try in the warmest and most admiring terms of the P.M. Duncan Sandys
is a reformed character and makes moving speeches in support of the
government. Vernon Bartlett says the P.M. is going to win and Harold
Nicolson declares he is 'dead right'! ... Even poor Leo Amery is eating
humble pie. 2
Of the prognostications of doom which these critics had
uttered, the German occupation of Prague two days later
gave apparently decisive confirmation. It marked the end of
the period in which Chamberlain was confident that policy
would respond to his touch. From then onwards, he ceased
to be confident — because Hitler was not responding and
Halifax moved into an independent and potentially com-
manding position from which, in September, Simon exercised
command.
Halifax and his advisers treated the occupation as proof
that Hitler was not the racialist they had been willing to
believe in and was seeking European or world domination.
The conclusion they drew was that Western Europe was not
safe, that every act of expansion must be contested and that
a new policy was needed, including a systematic attempt to
activate Russia. Chamberlain's practice was not exactly dif-
ferent, except so far as Russia was concerned, but it was a
balancing act that he began to perform, not a collapse on one
side of the policy fence or the other. He recognised, as be-
fore, that Hitler was a 'mad dog' and was now convinced that
he was untrustworthy. But he did not accept the view that
his aim was European or world domination. Neither did he
draw the conclusion until a little later — and then perhaps
disingenuously — that 'Collective Security' was the answer.
After Munich, there was prolonged discussion, but no deci-
sion, about the Four-Power guarantee to replace the tem-
porary guarantee which the British and French governments
had given in order to facilitate dismemberment of Czecho-
slovakia. There was a pronounced fear of Britain and France
CHAMBERLAIN, CHURCHILL AND HITLER 295
being pledged to provide protection by themselves (as France

had been before Munich)3 or being 'asked to take action
with...Russia against Germany and Italy on behalf of a State
which we were unable effectively to defend'.4 Despite the
'moral obligation' announced in Parliament on October 5,
Chamberlain was hoping that the guarantee would 'fade out';
it had been decided, before March 14, that the secession of
Slovakia would annul it even if it had come into operation.5
Since nothing could be done to give effect to the temporary
one and since the advantages of delay were now a leading
feature of policy, the question of war was excluded from con-
sideration.
The exclusion of war, however, left a difficulty. This was
not just that Hitler had broken his promises but, as the new
duke of Devonshire (a significant junior minister) explained
in public on March 16, that Chamberlain's policy was 'not
bearing fruit'.6 It soon became obvious that the optimism
and involvement of the previous September had made it dif-
ficult for even isolationist supporters to pretend that the oc-
cupation did not matter. It was at least partly with a view to
his own credibility that Chamberlain asked the Cabinet to
cancel Stanley's and Hudson's visits to Berlin and to recall
Henderson for consultation.
At Birmingham on the 17th — the day before his seven-
tieth birthday — Chamberlain announced a new determina-
tion.
Germany [he told the City's Unionist association] under her present
regime has sprung a series of unpleasant surprises upon the world. The
Rhineland, the Austrian Anschluss, the severance of the Sudetenland —
all these things shocked and affronted public opinion throughout the
world. Yet, however much we might take exception to the methods
which were adopted in each of those cases, there was something to be
said, whether on account of racial affinity or of just claims too long
resisted, for the necessity of a change in the existing situation.
But the events which have taken place this week in complete dis-
regard of the principles laid down by the German government itself
seem to fall into a different category, and they must cause us all to be
asking ourselves 'Is this the end of an old adventure, or is it the begin-
ning of a new? Is this the last attack upon a small State, or is it to be
followed by others? Is this, in fact, a step in the direction of an attempt
to dominate the world by force?'
It is only six weeks ago [he went on, in tactful explanation of more
recent optimism] that...I alluded to rumours and suspicions which I said
296 III. THE EFFECT
ought to be swept away. I pointed out that any demand to dominate

the world by force was one which the democracies must resist, and I
added that I could not believe that such a challenge was intended,
because no government with the interests of its own people at heart
could expose them for such a claim to the horrors of world war.
And, indeed, with the lessons of history for all to read, it seems
incredible that we should see such a challenge. I feel bound to repeat
that, while I am not prepared to engage this country by new unspeci-
fied commitments, operating under conditions which cannot now be
foreseen, yet no greater mistake could be made than to suppose that,
because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing, this nation has
so lost its fibre that it will not take part to the utmost of its power
resisting such a challenge if it ever were made.7
This speech, important as it was in English politics, did not

say what would be done if Hitler went on. Nor was a decision
made as a result of the disintegration of Czechoslovakia. The
first Cabinet, on March 15, merely reduced contact with Ger-
many. 8 The second was called at short notice three days later
to deal with a similar situation in Rumania.9
The information on which the Cabinet was called was that
Hitler had threatened to invade unless the Rumanian govern-
ment gave Germany a stranglehold on the Rumanian eco-
nomy. This was false, as Halifax had discovered by the time
the Cabinet met. It seemed, however, so possible that it
might be true that the Cabinet acted on that assumption.10
It decided that Rumania was important strategically and that
the French, the Dominions and the public were so deter-
mined that it was possible to have a policy of resistance.
This policy was intended primarily to deter. It was also
designed to make sure that Hitler would have to fight on two
fronts if the deterrent failed. At the meeting on the 18th it
was decided to ask Russia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Turkey,
Greece and Rumania to announce their intention of resisting
German aggression in south-eastern Europe. n
Like the Birmingham speech, this decision was the symbol
of a change, but it had no consequences. It was recognised as
a slow and extended commitment which few of the states
concerned would be likely to accept. The day after it was
approved, it was abandoned in favour of an attempt to per-
suade Russia, Poland and France to give a formal promise to
'consult together' in the event of 'any action which con-
stitutes a threat to the political independence of any Euro-

pean state'. 1 2
This 'not very heroic' 13 proposal got no further than the
one before. It was criticised in Cabinet as a 'limitless' com-
mitment. When made known to governments throughout the
world, the prospect of association with the Soviet Union was
disliked, not only in Portugal, Spain, Japan, Italy, Canada
and South America but in Rumania and Poland as well.14
Despite this second failure, it was still intended to threaten
a war on two fronts. This was the object of the reciprocal
defence pact with France, Poland and Rumania which was
proposed after the occupation of Memel. 15 When a Generals'
plot in Germany and an invasion of Poland seemed imminent
three days later it was why Chamberlain and Halifax decided
on a British guarantee of Polish independence. 16
In Chamberlain's actions between March and September,
there was a conflation of responsibilities. Once his personal
credibility had been restored with the guarantee to Poland
and the 'check' which Hitler had been given,17 the object
was to prevent war by delaying it until Britain's defences
were complete and a European defence system had redoubled
the certainty that Hitler could not win quickly.
Chamberlain assumed that short-term war to free a Ger-
man-occupied state would be ineffective, even if a declaration
of war had repercussions in Germany. 18 To that extent the
attempt to construct an alliance-system was a bluff predicat-
ed on Hitler (or other Germans) believing that, in the long
run, Germany would be defeated or a German victory pre-
vented, provided the blockading power of the British and
French navies was supported by an unbeatable defence sys-
tem in the air.
Chamberlain assumed that Anglo-French defensive capabil-
ity was unbreakable or would become so if enough time
was bought. His conception of his function was, there-
fore, more clearly than in 1938, to avoid action likely to
enable Hitler to rally Germans behind him 19 and to hold off
war for as long as possible so that the situation would even-
tually be created in which Hitler died, something happened
to the Nazi regime or Germans who believed that war was
'not worthwhile yeV would suddenly come to see 'that it
never will be worthwhile'. 20
298 III. THE EFFECT
There was therefore, both a stick and a carrot. The stick,

bent from the beginning, consisted of Conscription, the isola-
tion of Germany and guarantees to Poland, Greece, Denmark,
Holland and Switzerland. 21 The carrot continued to be
frontier revision in Poland and elsewhere and economic agree-
ment once Hitler had come to see that nothing would be
gained by force which might not be gained more securely by
negotiation.
Chamberlain did not rely on good intentions. He imputed
few good intentions to Hitler, whom he thought 'fanatical'
and unreliable and unlikely to behave decently in a situation
he could control. He believed that he had snatched control at
Munich with the result that Hitler had 'missed the bus'. 22 At
various points, he began to think that firmness was beginning
to bite. 23 After the first Danzig scare in May, he thought
that Germans might drop it 'perhaps...because they realise
this time that they can't get what they want without fight-
ing'. 24
Chamberlain did not intend the Polish guarantee to ex-
clude frontier revision. On the contrary, he wanted the Poles
to be reasonable. 25 While hoping that they would be, 2 6 he
felt more confident than the Foreign Office that Hitler knew
that Britain would go to war if they were attacked. 27 He
thought even Ribbentrop understood this, and that Hitler,
who 'was not such a fool as some hysterical people make
out', would be willing to compromise 'if he could do so
without what he would feel to be humiliation'. 28
On this basis Chamberlain flew kites (which the Foreign
Office shot down) in favour of Scandinavian mediation and
tried, also without success, to get Mussolini to propose a
twelve-month truce in preparation for a general discussion.29
When the ending of a second Danzig scare made it seem that
Hitler had dropped the question in late July, he 'could not
imagine [him] living to be an old man'. 30 He told the Cabinet
of July 5 that there would be large-scale naval exercises in the
North Sea if that seemed to be desirable.31 His chief com-
ment on recurrent Intelligence predictions of a Russo-
German pact was that it 'shed a sinister light on Russia's
intentions'.
Despite half-hearted efforts to keep detente open, 33
Chamberlain was not really expecting to do anything about
it. He was hoping that nothing would happen to rule it out

and that Hitler would not choose to rule it out by unavoid-
able aggression. It was in order both to be flexible and to
make Hitler flexible that he permitted a renewal of the eco-
nomic discussions which Prague had halted.
From the point in 1933 at which economic discussions were

first taken seriously, the United States had been a major
economic problem and Germany a possible makeweight to it.
At times with, at times without, Foreign Office support, an
analysis had been developed which (after 1936) explained
Hitler's decision to take up the Colonial question as a func-
tion of the relationship between economic development, the
openness of world markets and the access-to-raw-materials
aspect of the Colonial question. When a Colonial deal became
politically difficult (in England), an eastern and central Euro-
pean one was seen as bait with which to buy a modification
of autarky in the unlikely event of it not being essential to
resist German economic expansion.
These were, at various times, the staples of departmental
thinking in the Treasury, Foreign Office and Board of Trade.
Through prolonged collaboration with Fisher and Leith-Ross,
they supplied an element in Chamberlain's thinking and
fitted into the policies which he and Eden adopted. They
adopted them, however, for political reasons, not because
economic appeasement was the pivot on which policy had to
turn. Indeed, they assumed the opposite and argued with
each other on this basis. They knew that any opportunities
that existed for economic agreement (before Schacht's dis-
missal) depended on political decisions which Baldwin had
avoided, and this was so even when Eden and Vansittart
aimed to help the 'moderates' against the 'Nazis' in the Ger-
man government.
A decision that it was desirable to reach political agreement
with Hitler involved a great many imponderables, including
the prospect of reducing British dependence on the Unit-
ed States. These may, in Chamberlain's case, have been verbal
hopes rather than real ones, however real the fear of Ameri-
can power after Munich. In any case, the discussions which
went on up to Prague 34 were abortive precisely because of
uncertainty about the extent to which the Munich declara-
300 III. THE EFFECT
tion could be made effective. 3S

The decision to stop discussions did not mean that Cham-
berlain no longer wanted an agreement. On the contrary, he
saw positive advantages, just as (negatively) he wanted to
avoid war because detente and co-operation would iron out
economic recession, create an outlet for heavy industry and
provide a secure basis for a general election. 36 By mid-1939,
his fear of war against Germany in alliance with Russia was so
much greater than before that he was actively hoping that the
Anglo-Russian negotiations would break down. He was ini-
tiating a great deal more than a contingency programme
when he allowed economic negotiations to start again secretly
in Berlin in May. 37"
After a general statement by Halifax at Chatham House in
June, the talks were transferred to London, where they were
conducted by Wilson, Hudson and Ball. All that was mention-
ed publicly, however, was the desirability of agreement; noth-
ing was said about talks until Hudson leaked them to the
newspapers. Hitler stopped them immediately before the sig-
nature of the Russo-German pact (ostensibly because of the
publicity they were attracting), but held out the hope of
resuming them if the Danzig question could be settled. 38
These talks, which were not discussed in Cabinet, were not

designed to supersede the guarantee to Poland. They were
designed to remind Hitler, or Goering, of the advantages to
be gained from allowing a detente situation to develop, but
Chamberlain understood that detente was dead unless Hitler
could be convinced that Britain meant business militarily.
However, since it would be dangerous to 'quarrel with all the
strongest military powers at once', it was necessary to show
extreme caution in the Far East, to make a serious attempt to
remove the causes of Arab violence in Palestine 39 and to
begin a further appeasement of Mussolini.40
The problem about Mussolini was whether he was in Hitler's
pocket and, if he was not, whether he could be persuaded to
keep out of it. Chamberlain was told, and Halifax believed,
that he had treated the occupation of Prague as a prelude to
further German penetration of the Balkans. This was en-
couraging, even when his actions were not; the turning points
in policy were explained to him. 41 After the Polish guaran-
tee, there were Intelligence predictions of an occupation of

Albania, which Chamberlain expected to be presented as 'an
agreed arrangement' and, which, since nothing could be done
to stop it, he treated as 'strengthening] Italy against Ger-
many' rather than as a coup against Greece. It was, however,
hunch rather than knowledge which persuaded him that Mus-
solini was no longer to be trusted. 42
The idea that 'any further chance of a rapproche-
ment...had been blocked' did not last. A guarantee was given
to Turkey which had been excluded from the Four-Power
proposals of March 20 because of the offence inclusion
would cause in Italy. 43 Guarantees were given to Greece and
Rumania and an attempt made to get the Turks to create a
Balkan bloc. 44 But, instead of denouncing the Italian agree-
ment, which would have been popular in parliament, Chamber-
lain accepted Conscription and a Ministry of Supply. By
April 23 Mussolini was 'friendly and cordial' about accepting
excuses for the fact — which embodied a Cabinet decision 45
— that the new British Ambassador's credentials did not men-
tion the Kingdom of Albania. 46
In the lull which followed, Chamberlain pressed the
French to 'smooth...out their difficulties with Italy'. 47 When
told what Mussolini wanted, he decided that 'it might be
possible to give the Axis another twist...and this might be the
best way of keeping Master Hitler quiet'. 48 His optimism was
not dimmed by Mussolini's decision to join in military alli-
ance with the Germans.
By 1939 Chamberlain's view of Italy had prevailed; neither
Halifax nor the Foreign Office doubted that it was essential
'not...to drive [her] into greater reliance on Germany'. 49
Loraine wished to be tough; until the Russo-German pact, he
was far from optimistic. It was because Chamberlain regard-
ed Daladier as the chief obstacle that Bonnet was persuaded
to press him to approach Mussolini; it was, Chamberlain
thought, Daladier's reluctance which made Mussolini un-
responsive. Loraine's ambiguous prognostications were inter-
preted as suggesting that in Rome the prospect of war was
'looked upon with terror'. 50
Except in distributing unenforceable guarantees, Chamber-
lain was less active in the summer of 1939 than at any time
since he had taken control of foreign policy. Believing that
302 III. THE EFFECT
Hitler had to be deterred meant various acts of rearmament

and, after Albania, Conscription, a Ministry of Supply and a
doubling of the Territorial Army. But his objection to a
Ministry of Supply the previous October had been tactical and
technical; 51 he had already accepted the doubling of the Terri-
torial Army as an alternative to Conscription and had to accept
it in addition when Halifax and Simon agreed that Hore-Belisha
was right to want it. 5 2 The international significance of the
Ministry of Supply was neutralised by appointing as its head
not Eden or Churchill but Burgin. It did not exclude the
belief that, given British rearmament, 'every month that
passes without war makes war more unlikely'. s3
In the summer of 1939, Chamberlain no longer controlled
foreign policy. But he did not capitulate to his critics. His
objectives had to be sought deviously but he refused to rule
detente out of consideration. In any case he wanted to delay
war as long as possible and had an almost physical sense of
the fact that 'the ultimate decision, the Yes or No which may
decide the fate not only of all this generation but of the
British Empire itself rests with me'. 5 4
Nor was he unsuccessful about Russia. While accepting the
political need for 'association', 55 he had no wish to enter
into an 'alliance', since she had no 'offensive' capability and
her main object was to meet the German and Japanese
threats by 'egging' the ' "capitalist" Powers' 'on' to 'tear each
other to pieces' in fighting her battles for her. 56 When Litvi-
noff resigned, he was greatly relieved. He described an al-
liance as a provocation which might 'unite Germany' and
play into the hands of the 'many influential persons who
have been trying to persuade [Hitler] that the time...to strike
was when the Three-Power Pact was concluded'. 57
Halifax's Russian policy was not based on liking or trust.
He had had nothing to do with Eden's Litvinoff spectaculars
and was well aware that 'the Bolshies' were deceitful. 58 He
believed that peace would be kept, if at all, only by establish-
ing that aggression could not succeed. 59 He gave due weight
to intelligence predictions of a Russo-German pact and
thought the Chiefs of Staff right in thinking that the damage
Hitler would suffer if he made an alliance with Russia would
be outweighed by the freedom he would gain in relation to
Poland. 60 Up to mid-May he was trying to interest the
Russians in East European guarantees which the guaranteed

states would be likely to accept. He was forced to go further
when the Russians made it clear that they wanted an alliance
or nothing. 61
Halifax was willing to agree, not just because it would
enable the Poles to resist Hitler but because the certainty of
Polish resistance would reduce the French fear of encirclement
between Germany and Spain. This would reduce Daladier's
dependence on the war-party and enable him to talk to Mus-
solini. Once Bonnet had developed French relations with
Franco, it might even lead, he thought, to French agreement
with Italy and a return to a Stresa attitude to Hitler. 62
Halifax did not assume that war was inevitable. But he
recognised that it was likely and that the only way to avoid it
was by leading towards firmness and strength. It was because
the domestic situation required them and because peace
would be unlikely without them that he looked on the Rus-
sians as indispensable.
If Chamberlain had had his way, there would have been no
Russian negotiations after the beginning of May. Hoare,
Simon and Inskip, however, supported Halifax and Chatfield,
or thought it impossible to follow Chamberlain; so, after a
long struggle in Committee, he allowed them to continue.
Even then, he objected to being forced to prefer Stalin to
Hitler and was compelled to only because the Cabinet in-
sisted. 63 A month's negotiation with Molotov showed that
'we had made concession after concession'. After two
months, it was doubtful whether the 'Soviet government real-
ly desired any agreement'. 64 Though surprised by the Russo-
German pact, he was much less worried than his col-
leagues. 65
Chamberlain was trying to prevent Europe boiling over and

finding it difficult to rely on those whose co-operation he
needed. About the public and the electorate, he was con-
fident. But about politicians, he was not. Hitler, Mussolini
and the Japanese were not as co-operative as they should
have been. The contrast they created between his (necessarily
tactical) words and reality lent weight to the criticisms of his
critics. His critics' desire to 'weaken' his 'authority' by
'mocking' him shortened the odds, 'stifl[ed]' his attempt 'to
304 III. THE EFFECT
prevent a war' and produced a feeling of gloom and isolation

that he had not felt before. 66
For the Labour party he felt total contempt. Its leaders
were as 'pathetic' when they demanded arms for Spain after
the Republic had been defeated as in demanding increased
sanctions after Haile Selassie had fled. Over Conscription
they were divided. Over Russia they had no sense of the
damage an alliance could do. Much more than the London-
derries and Astors in relation to Ribbentrop, they behaved,
he thought (like Churchill and Lloyd George), as agents of
Maisky and the Russian embassy. 67
With a few of the Labour leaders, Chamberlain's relations
were good. 68 But he found it difficult to do business with
Attlee who was a 'cowardly cur' and whose 'aggressiveness'
was a reaction to the 'dissatisfaction' his leadership was caus-
ing 'in his own party'. 69 In general he not only despised
Labour politicians (who could face facts as little as Sir Walter
Layton) but wished constantly to remind them how despic-
able they were. 70
About the body of opinion which focussed on the News
Chronicle, the Liberal party and the League of Nations
Union, his feelings were even less restrained. Layton had
made the Chronicle 'the most dangerous British newspa-
per'; 71 he was punished by being given 'what must have been
the most unpleasant quarter of an hour he ever had in his life'
when it reported, quite wrongly (after Albania), that Cham-
berlain was negotiating a security pact with Mussolini.72 Sin-
clair's 'fatuous and imbecile propositions' and his 'uplift' and
'hypocritical cant' induced feelings so strong that Samuel
(whom Chamberlain did not really like) was invited to rejoin
the Cabinet in order to spite him. 73 About Lloyd George and
his advocacy of a Russian alliance he felt 'as [he] looked
down at his red face and white hair' in the course of the first
meeting they had had alone for twenty years 'all my bitter-
ness...pass away for I despised him and felt myself the better
man'. 74
To Eden Chamberlain's attitude was subtler but not less
determined. There was an appearance of cordiality; there
were messages of mutual appreciation, and there was con-
siderable caution, before Munich, so long as it seemed possi-
ble that Eden might come out on top. But Chamberlain did
not want him in the Cabinet; he watched contemptuously as
he responded to the success and ambiguity of his policy.
Between Munich and Prague he was not only pleased by his
uncertainty but was confirmed in the belief that 'the mere
announcement that he had been taken back...might...
tempt...[the dictators] to break out now before the democra-
cies had...strengthened their position'. 75
Neither the occupation of Prague nor Halifax's wishes
made any difference. The advantage to be gained by splitting
Eden from Churchill would be lost, Chamberlain thought, if
the chief consequence was to link Eden and Halifax in a
Cabinet combination. After Albania Eden made an approach,
which was rejected and followed it up with one 'disloyal' step
after another until he not only made a 'foolish' offer to go to
Moscow to settle the Russian alliance but also got Lloyd
George to support him. 76
To Churchill Chamberlain was as discouraging, feeling, as
he had since at least 1936, the contempt of the office-holder
for the office-seeker. 77 On the one hand he resented the
certainty of the attack and the challenge it offered to his own
certainty vis-a-vis the Foreign Office and the Labour party.
On the other, he did not take it seriously and implied that
Churchill did not take it seriously either. 78 'The nearer we
get to war', he thought, 'the more [Churchill's] chances im-
prove', 79 but, since his object was to put off war, that
strengthened the need to keep him out.
Churchill's offences were continuous — a 'foolish' broad-
cast to the United States about 'their duty to come to the
assistance of the British Empire', an expression of the view,
that Britain should occupy Corfu (in retaliation for the in-
vasion of Albania) and a nasty speech in a subsequent debate
when 'smarting under the disappointment' of not being made
Minister of Supply. 80 His strategic insights included a playing
down of the Japanese threat (as a distraction from the threat
from Germany) and dismissal of the idea that Singapore
could be taken. 81 He maintained close relations and engaged
in obvious conspiracies with Masaryk and Maisky. 82 When
explained in telephone calls and letters designed, as Chamber-
lain thought, for posterity or in 'orations' which interested,
306 III. THE EFFECT
without persuading, the House of Commons, these activities

did not matter. 83 When Halifax and the Daily Telegraph re-
sponded, they did. 84
The threat Chamberlain feared in the summer of 1939 was
that Churchill and Eden in office would be party to a plot to
produce 'a more amenable Prime Minister' 85 who would do
Maisky's work by involving Britain, France and Germany in
war. In order to avoid this, it was necessary not just to refuse
Churchill when he offered himself86 or when newspapers
made offers on his behalf. It was also necessary to believe
that there could be no 'real alliance between Russia and Ger-
many', that Hitler would 'not in cold blood start...a world
war for Danzig' and that Chamberlain 'alone...could steer this
country through the next four years out of the war zone into
peace and reconstruction'. 87
When Chamberlain left London for a holiday in Scotland
in the second week of August, he was not sure that there would
be a crisis. The messages he got soon afterwards did not enable
him to know much better. 88 On the last day of his holiday
he received a Halifax letter containing Intelligence predic-
tions of a German attack on Poland and of Mussolini's un-
willingness to support it. 89 On arriving in London he ap-
proved Loraine's (and Halifax's) request to involve Mussolini
in negotiation and agreed to a proposal, transmitted secretly
from Goering, that Goering should come to England. 90
When Chamberlain returned to London, he expected to re-

play the role he had played in May and September 1938. He
did not know whether it would be as successful, but he was
afraid that it would be as painful. Whether he would keep
control or whether Hitler would run out of control was not
something that could be known in advance. All he knew was
that, even if Hitler was not rational, it was necessary to act as
though he was. 91
This was done by recalling Parliament, signing the Polish
treaty 9 2 and rejecting the request to send a high-ranking
mission to Berlin. 93 In case Hitler 'believe[d] that we do not
mean to fight', Henderson and Halifax proposed, and Cham-
berlain and the Cabinet agreed, that a warning should be
sent. 94
The warning, delivered by Henderson on the 22nd, 95 pro-

duced a rough interview 96 and belligerent reply 97 in which
Hitler stated that, if British mobilisation began, German
mobilisation would follow. To the Cabinet of the 24th, this
seemed uncompromising, even if it left open a shade of a loop-
hole. 98
On the 24th two other things had happened. Goering had
explained that he could not come to England unless real
negotiations were likely to follow;99 Mussolini had been in-
vited to involve himself in mediation. 10° It was not, how-
ever, decided that general mobilisation should begin, though
Chamberlain explained, when asked, that he would decide
after Henderson had paid the further call which Hitler had
suggested for the 25th. 101
Whether or not Hitler intended 'a war of nerves', 102 his
meeting with Henderson was its start. Henderson had been
told to come at 1.30 p.m. On enquiring what to say three-
quarters of an hour before, he was told to say nothing until
he had sent an account of the interview to London. In Lon-
don, Chamberlain, half-expecting an ultimatum, waited with
his wife in his Downing Street drawing-room 'unable to read,
unable to talk, just sitting with folded hands and a gnawing
pain in the stomach'. 103
Henderson, however, was given not an ultimatum but the
news that Hitler, having 'turned things over in his mind...
desired...to make a move towards England...and...after the
solution of the German-Polish question...would approach the
British government with an offer'104 — in other words that, if
he got his way in Poland, he would move towards detente.
When, therefore, the Cabinet met at 6.30 p.m. on the 26th
(with Henderson present after flying from Berlin), its mem-
bers were not clear that war was imminent or that they were
playing from weakness. Henderson did not know whether
Danzig, the Corridor or the minority question was foremost
in Hitler's mind. Halifax could not say whether he 'wanted a
settlement with Poland on his own terms more than he want-
ed to avoid war with the British Empire'. Chamberlain's con-
tributions were an emphasis on caution 105 and a draft reply
which was sent to a committee after being 'practically torn to
pieces' by the Cabinet. 106
In the course of this meeting on Saturday evening, at the
308 III. THE EFFECT
meeting on Sunday afternoon 107 and at the Cabinet on Mon-

day the 28th which approved the reply, the assumption was
that Britain was ready (as she had not been in 1939), that
Hitler was 'hesitating' in face of British readiness and that
Mussolini would not support him because of the danger of
'revolution' if he did. It was believed that the German High
Command feared that the Axis was breaking up. This general
analysis was confirmed by the fact that, in negotiating an
agreed text of Henderson's interview, the Germans had drawn
attention to something Henderson did not remember Hitler
saying about his willingness to be generous to the Poles. 108
These hopes were deepened by the announcement that
Dahlerus (about whom the body of the Cabinet knew noth-
ing until Sunday afternoon) had been conducting parallel dis-
cussions with Goering. His arrival with a message from Hitler
showed that Goering had 're-established his influence' and
was willing to come to England after all. 109 Telephone calls
when he returned to Germany next day confirmed the im-
pression that Hitler, having failed to 'divide Britain from
Poland',110 might, just possibly, have 'got cold feet'.111
When Hoare was deputed to conduct a press briefing on the
28th, he said that, since there were 'two views' about
whether Hitler wanted to 'break with England', it was best to
'go quietly' and not assume that he had 'said his last
word'. 112
This assessment assumed that the Russo-German pact had
not damaged Britain's position. Those who had made an
Anglo-Soviet alliance the centre of their complaint maintain-
ed that it had. To those who had not, it was no more than a
serious incident in Hitler's progress — even 'a measure of
desperation',113 which would not help him keep together
the supporters of the anti-Comintern pact. Spain and Portu-
gal had been alienated. The Japanese were 'puzzled and irri-
tated' and the Japanese government was falling.114 It seemed
certain that Italy would not go to war and that American
opinion had been shocked 'profoundly'.115
Hitler's 'cynical' alliance with the Bolsheviks116 did not,
therefore, dismiss the policy Chamberlain thought he was
pursuing — of combining firmness and clarity of menace with
a willingness to consider grievances where these existed. In-
deed, it seemed to have been strengthened as Hitler faced war
alone while Britain avoided a three-cornered war against his

allies. 117 'Surprising', 118 in other words, as the pact was, it
was not expected to enable Hitler to win a short war. In
relation to a long one, it continued to be assumed that he
knew himself to be highly vulnerable. 119
From this understanding of the situation, three conclu-
sions were drawn. The first was to establish that Britain
meant business by stiffening the draft reply and telling Dahle-
rus that there should be no 'Diktat to the Poles'. 120 The
second was to handle Mussolini carefully by rejecting Eden's
offer to go to Ankara to negotiate a treaty with the
Turks, 121 and by responding gracefully when Ciano tele-
phoned to say that Britain should talk to Hitler. 122 The
third was to carry the Poles along, which accounts for the
care taken to get Beck's authority before assuring Hitler that
they would have early talks with the German government.
The British reply, approved in principle by the Cabinet of
the 28th and touched up by Halifax afterwards, was taken by
Henderson to Berlin and delivered to Hitler at 10.30 that
night. 123 Hitler's reply was conveyed in conversation at once
and developed in a letter which Henderson was given when he
saw him again at 7.15 p.m. next day. 124
When a summary of the letter arrived in London late that
night, 125 it 'looked' so 'bad' that Chamberlain asked Halifax
to draft a stiff reply. 126 When Halifax looked at the full text
with Cadogan, however, he saw 'a man...trying to extricate
himself from a difficult situation'. 127 So far as it accepted
the international guarantee, an independent Poland and di-
rect discussion with the Poles, it represented an advance. So
far as it made negotiations depend on the Poles sending an
ambassador to Berlin during August 30, it proposed condi-
tions which could not be accepted. 128
By the time the Cabinet met at 11.30 a.m. on the 30th
with a revised version of the reply, it was felt that Hitler was
in an 'awful fix'.129 This feeling was strengthened by a fur-
ther visit from Dahlerus, who arrived three-quarters of an
hour before with the news that Goering was suggesting a
plebiscite in the Corridor and the return of Danzig as the
basis for a settlement. 13° That Hitler had been 'beaten' was
then confirmed by a fresh batch of Intelligence reports of
unrest in Germany and a broadcast announcement that Goe-
310 III. THE EFFECT
ring's powers were being strengthened.131

From a position of 'strength', therefore, it was decided
that Warsaw should be spared the indignities of Prague. The
Poles were to be told that mobilisation should begin. The
Germans were to be told that negotiation could not begin
under threat of invasion and must be conducted in a neutral
country later.132
When Henderson delivered the reply, Ribbentrop explain-
ed that Hitler's proposals had been withdrawn.133 On Au-
gust 31 it was decided to begin both mobilisation and the
evacuation of London. 134 Hitler's speech that evening and
Ribbentrop's eventual decision to reveal the German
terms135 indicated to those who wanted to believe it that
negotiation was not impossible.136 The announcement next
morning that Danzig had been annexed and Poland invaded
seemed to show that it was.
At first, however, it was by no means clear that the inva-
sion was full-scale. It was not until Hitler's Reichstag speech
later in the morning that the Chiefs of Staff asked for a
declaration of war. Technical reasons were then given for
delaying the evacuation of London, 137 and enabling the
French to make their declaration first so as to avoid the
appearance of being 'dragged into war by us'. 138
The Cabinet decided not to send an 'ultimatum'.139 In-
stead, it approved the text of a 'warning' which had no time-
limit attached and was not to be sent until it had been seen
by the French government.140 When the French approved it,
it was sent off in the late afternoon.
The warning Hitler received was that Britain intended to
'honour her obligations' unless 'satisfactory assurances' were
received that 'the German government had suspended...ag-
gressive action...and was prepared to withdraw...from Polish
territority'.141 At two o'clock that afternoon, one idea was
that war would begin at midnight,142 but it then came to
seem likely that the French would not be ready before five
o'clock on the afternoon of the 2nd. When he spoke to the
House of Commons at six o'clock that evening, Chamberlain
explained that a warning was being sent. 143 At 11.30 that
night he told Halifax he would do nothing about declaring
war until 9.30 next morning.144
One reason why the French government was unwilling to
declare war was that it was taking Ciano more seriously than
he had been taken in London, where there had been negative
responses to his telephone calls on August 31. His first pro-
posal — that Mussolini should approach Hitler on the basis that
the Poles would give up Danzig and negotiate on other ques-
tions 145 — was turned down, on Chamberlain's instructions,
because 'Danzig was the kernel of the matter' and there
should be negotiation about that. 146 The second, which ar-
rived while a decision was being made about the first, was
that a Five-Power conference should be held to discuss Treaty
147
revision.
Chamberlain's and Halifax's first reaction had been that
there could be no conference 'under an open threat of force'
but that 'it was undesirable to show any unwillingness to
agree to negotiations under more favourable conditions'. 148
In view of Loraine's optimism about Mussolini, Halifax offer-
ed the motions of civility (though he attached little impor-
tance to them). The Cabinet paid little attention at its meet-
ing on September 1. When Dahlerus telephoned Cadogan af-
ter the invasion of Poland had begun, he was told that 'the
only way in which a world war can be stopped is...that hostil-
ities be suspended and...German troops...immediately with-
drawn from Polish territory'. 149
On September 1, then, Chamberlain was firm and em-
phatic. Having asked ministers to resign so as to free him to
form a War Cabinet, 15° he had left the impression of waiting
only for a German answer in order to convert the warning
into an ultimatum.
Waiting for an answer, with German troops in Poland, was
an ambiguous position which became more ambiguous the
more unwilling the French government seemed to become.
Ciano had made approaches in Paris where Bonnet was press-
ing Daladier to get a conference through an open-ended ulti-
matum. At about 2.30 p.m. on September 2 Halifax was
rung up by Ciano and Loraine, with the result that a state-
ment Simon was scheduled to make in the House of Com-
mons ten minutes later was postponed and the Cabinet called
for a quarter past four. 1S1
At this meeting Halifax recorded Ciano's claim that Hitler
might welcome a Five-Power conference after an armistice,
provided the British and French notes were not an ultimatum
312 HI. THE EFFECT
and so long as he could have until noon next day to make up

his mind. After reporting himself as replying that the German
army would have to leave Poland before a conference was
possible, he laid out the conclusions at which he and Cham-
berlain had arrived. These were that the note to Germany had
been a 'final warning, rather than an ultimatum', that Hitler
should be given until noon, or even midnight, on Septem-
ber 3 to reply and that the 'primary conditions for any con-
ference' were the withdrawal of German troops from Poland
and the restoration of the status quo ante in Danzig.
The Cabinet at once agreed that there could be no con-
ference without a withdrawal, but there was heated dis-
cussion about the time-table. The Service ministers gave mili-
tary reasons in favour of an ultimatum for midnight that
night. It slowly became clear that most of the others agreed
and that Chamberlain would not be allowed to delay, even if
he wanted to. After the meeting had ended with a decision in
favour of a midnight 'ultimatum', its members were 'hor-
rified' to find him imposing no time-limit when he spoke in
the House of Commons an hour later. 152
11
THE DECLARATION OF WAR
'Next Thursday Baldwin resigns the Premiership and Neville will become
Prime Minister. The latter, two months ago, told me in confidence that
he wanted me to succeed him as Chancellor of the Exchequer...I war-
ned him that I had no special knowledge of finance and approached
such an office with humbleness*.
Simon diary May 20 1937
*D. Margesson says Simon...hopes he would be considered for the Trea-

sury as if not he would like to consider retiring from politics and
writing (all ambitious politicians like to say this at such moments)...He
considered his only rival to be Kingsley Wood as Sam [Hoare] had so
lost the confidence of the House and country*.
Chamberlain diary February 11 1937
'If only you could succeed Baldwin when the time comes*.
Sir Henry Norman to Simon December 16 1936
(i)
In the life of his government, the subject Chamberlain had
chosen as the demonstration of his will — relations with Hit-
ler and Mussolini — exploded into being the only subject of
importance. It so acutely involved every politician's under-
standing of the future that even the Cabinet felt the impact.
Between May 1937 and the outbreak of war, twenty-nine
ministers served in the Cabinet. Of these Lord Stanley was
unwell and rather deaf, mattered very little (except as
Derby's favourite son 1 ) and was a Cabinet minister for only a
short time before he died (young) just after Munich. Others
also were of little importance without being deaf, or were so
dependent or unwilling to chance their arms that they had
the status of backbench voyeurs. Stanhope, for example, af-
ter earlier disappointments, had climbed into the Cabinet in
1936 at Chamberlain's insistence, twenty years after first be-
coming an under-secretary. 2 He had then become President
of the Board of Education (in order to develop Chamberlain's
interest in physical education) and was First Lord of the
Admiralty and Conservative leader in the House of Lords
during the period of difficulty over the Coal bill. Almost
314 III. THE EFFECT
everything he said was a repetition of the Chamberlain line,

just as Burgin's was a repetition of Simon's.3 Until Septem-
ber 1939, Brown and Colville also said little and, when they
spoke, did so in order to ask for firmness which others had
asked for already.
In some cases, disagreement was rewarded by dismissal.
After thirty years as an MP, including seven as an undersecre-
tary, Winterton had been passed over in 1935 because 'an old
stager' without 'enough brains' 4 would be difficult to get rid
of. His appointment in Davidson's place outside the Cabinet
when Chamberlain became Prime Minister was a gesture of
goodwill to an old friend and a way of keeping an important
backbencher happy.
Winterton had been an ally of Hoare, a critic of Eden and a
collaborator of Churchill and Austen Chamberlain. He had
also been a leading opponent of a Colonial deal.5 His promo-
tion to the Cabinet in March 1938 was designed to keep him
quiet after Eden's resignation. When he arrived (at the age of
fifty-eight), he became the spokesman of Churchill's attitude
to air defence and was 'deeply concerned at our inability to
fulfil the [parity] pledges of the late Prime Minister'.6 In the
House of Commons his performance as Swinton's Air spokes-
man was so appalling that it helped Chamberlain to decide
that Swinton should be moved.
During Cabinet discussions in September Winterton was
unhelpful in a different way. He made repeated references to
the danger of letting down the French,7 compared the Berch-
tesgaden meeting with the challenge of 1914 and talked un-
suitably about the 'hard fibre of the British people'. 8 He
supported the Anglo-French proposals of September 18.9
But he became extremely critical after Godesberg, presenting
the problem as a 'moral' one, taking a favourable view of
French determination and claiming that, if Hitler's proposals
were accepted 'the government would fall...when parliament
reassembled'. 10 Though he approved of Wilson's visit to Ber-
lin 11 and supported the settlement once it was made, he
nearly resigned on September 24 and was the only Cabinet
minister who did not see Chamberlain off to Munich.
Between Berchtesgaden and Godesberg, Winterton had
consulted Duff Cooper and was consulted by de la Warr. 12
But he was of a different outlook or generation and carried
THE DECLARATION OF WAR 315
little weight with them. In late 1938 he was an object of

derision in the House of Commons. 13 Despite continuing
regard for Chamberlain, 14 he was turned out of the Cabinet
early in the New Year in order to make way when Chatfield
succeeded Inskip as Minister for the Co-ordination of De-
fence. 15
Ormsby-Gore — a Baldwinian hangover and long-term ad-
mirer of Eden 16 — was a Cecilian Christian who discerned an
identity of intention between Liberal Imperialism, enlight-
ened Conservatism, the League of Nations and the best sorts
of socialism. Before 1935 he had been outspoken — against
Vansittart's view of Germany, against Simon for being insuf-
ficiently anti-Nazi and against Chamberlain and Norman for
being unnecessarily deflationary. 17 He had been Dawson's
candidate for the Colonial Office;18 on succeeding Thomas
in 1936, he had compounded a long-standing Zionism by
taking up the proposal to build a naval base at Haifa and had
opposed a Colonial deal in East Africa in view of the threat
that a Black army in hostile hands might present to Imperial
communications. 19
Ormsby-Gore was a Milnerite who had been taught by
H.A.L. Fisher. He believed that, though Africans preferred
British to other foreign rulers they could no longer be 'hawk-
ed about' as 'pawns'. 20 Despite a distinct strategic practi-
cality, his difficulties arose from an Eden-like wish to square
the circle between Right and Left, Arabs and Jews, rearma-
ment and disarmament and the ineffectiveness and desira-
bility of the League.
Over Hoare-Laval, Ormsby-Gore had been against Hoare.
He had then been a nuisance about Mussolini. In February
1938 he had offered to move on from the Colonial Office if
that would enable Eden to stay in the Cabinet. 21 Chamber-
lain, however, mistrusted his judgment (in which he was not
alone). On succeeding to his father's peerage (as Lord Har-
lech) in May 1938, Ormsby-Gore had his public career cut
short without ceremony at the age of fifty-three for being in
effect a Cecil. 22
Hailsham was a thinking die-hard who shared Hankey's
views about Spain and classified A.D. Lindsay as a 'bolshy'.
In early 1938 he was tired and ill and for this reason moved
from the Lord Chancellorship to be Lord President of the
316 III. THE EFFECT
Council. He was armoured against Eden and had a long-stan-

ding mistrust of the Nazi regime, which had been greatly
accentuated by the Anschluss. 23 On September 24 he gave
the Cabinet a long list of Hitler's promises and contradicted
Chamberlain's account of his character.24 A long-standing
alliance did not remove doubts which were increased by his
son's experience at the Oxford by-election. 2S Having been
compelled to make way for Runciman after Munich, he
thought seriously about running a national campaign against
the return of Tanganyika to Germany. 26
Not all of Chamberlain's changes were responses to scepti-
cism about Hitler. Swinton, for example, had not been scepti-
cal. But he had been damaged by the Nuffield incident in
1936 27 and had been gravely ill twice in three years. He was
an awkward advocate of air force acceleration after the An-
schluss when he failed, despite his undoubted achievement at
the Air Ministry, to impose a mass-production system on the
aircraft industry. Though consoled as a victim of the Tress-
dogs' and the 'irrational working of the system', his resigna-
tion in fact followed his refusal to move elsewhere when the
Cadman report made it necessary for the head of a politi-
cally-sensitive department to be a member of the House of
Commons. 28
Anderson was brought into the Cabinet in late 1938 be-
cause of his knowledge of the administrative machinery; he
regarded Munich as a 'humiliation'.29 Maugham was not
made Lord Chancellor because he approved of Chamberlain's
foreign policy; once appointed (at seventy-two) he was an
articulate supporter.
Before being removed from the Cabinet in 1937, Runci-
man's Italian position had been much like Chamberlain's.
About Germany, however, he had been tougher. After being
an advocate of a commercial agreement in 1934, he had re-
flected a hardening of feeling in the Board of Trade as it
came to be assumed that autarky was not really negotiable.
Eden thought Runciman a more significant Liberal than
Simon or Hore-Belisha; in 1937 he asked Chamberlain not to
drop him. Runciman had also been thought of as a possible
prime minister if Chamberlain was not chosen. 30 There is no
reason to think that this made Chamberlain remove him from
office on Baldwin's retirement, though his standing as a

Liberal contributed to his return in October 1938, when
his silence made him a doubtful asset and a stroke (to-
gether with an unhelpful interest in the Russian alliance31)
was followed by retirement at the outbreak of war, thirty-
four years after he had joined Campbell-Bannerman's govern-
ment.
Among the fifteen ministers who were in the Cabinet con-
tinuously, Chamberlain had a special relationship with Wood;
except from him, he had regular support only from Zetland.
Zetland was a Yorkshire landowner and intellectual Cur-
zonian. He had worked with Derby, Amery and Austen
Chamberlain in support of the India bill. As both author and
politician, however, he was a specialist, having never held
office in England and having been an Indian governor in his
forties before writing both Curzon's biography and a 'philo-
sophical' book on 'Indian Unrest'. It was this last that en-
abled him to attribute to Hitler 'the pagan philosophy of
Nietzsche', the 'policy of Treitschke' and 'misapplied Darwin-
ism' challenging the mind of Christendom. 32
Zetland had no illusions about Stalin whom he viewed
through the die-hard spectacles of the twenties. Nor did he
share the German sympathies of 1936. 33 He not only
thought them misguided but regarded Chamberlain and Duff
Cooper as the only ministers who would actively resist
them. 34 Even when hoping that Hitler and Mussolini might
see the futility of an armaments race, it was against hope that
he was hoping. 35
Zetland took an Imperial rather than a League view of the
Abyssinian problem, urging strong sanctions if sanctions were
to be imposed. 36 But neither then nor later did he pursue
Eden's vendettas against Mussolini.
Zetland felt the same detachment as Chamberlain from the
ideologies that were dividing Europe. He saw a Bolshevist
conspiracy in France, 37 and looked forward with horror to
the 'holocaust* towards which the Spanish war was leading.
The thought of 'English liberty' being submerged by war
showed that 'in theory' there was 'much to be said for the
policy of the isolationists'. 38
In September 1938, Zetland was clear that Hitler would go
318 III. THE EFFECT
on until the Sudeten Germans had joined the Reich. 39 But

Plan Z was 'a stroke of genius' and the Munich invitation a
'miracle'.
The only people...who...want[ed] war were the communists...and the

pacifists, [by which he meant the Labour party and the League of Na-
tions Union; he did] not see why we should plunge into the destruction
of the present world order... merely to please these peculiarly unpleas-
ant people. *°
Zetland supported the Munich agreement, the 'anguish' of

which was worthwhile if it made possible 'a return to san-
ity'. 41 It was only his willingness to put up with Stalin in
order to prevent him co-operating with Hitler that produced
a period of deviation (which ended with the Russo-German
pact). 42
There is evidence that, about Italy, 43 Zetland felt more
strongly than he spoke. But he expected no help from the
United States. 44 Whether through lack of interest in the
League (and its political implications) or the unwillingness of a
new minister to express doubts, his acquiescence was unusual.
Elsewhere doubts were expressed frequently. Apart from
Hore-Belisha (who did not form part of their circle) and Duff
Cooper (who did not approve of Eden), the most important
were expressed by Morrison, Elliot, MacDonald, de la Warr
and Stanley who in early 1938 talked each other into the
belief that Eden's resignation would be 'so dreadful an event'
that they ought to be resigning with him.45 In the end no one
resigned, but the spasms were repeated during the events of
September and recurrently thereafter.
Morrison was a middle-class Scotsman with a good war re-

cord, proficiency as an undergraduate politician (at Edin-
burgh) and experience at the Bar. As a backbencher, he be-
longed to a parliamentary group which interested itself in
'moral' questions (like Temperance, gambling and the cin-
ema). 46 He played a part in Percy's 'rethinking' of Conserva-
tism, picked up the mantle when Percy faltered and was a
Baldwin man who would have had Lloyd George in the Cabi-
net if that could have been done without a split. 47 Perhaps
for this reason, Chamberlain had not wanted him as Financial
Secretary to the Treasury. 48 But he recognised that (as chair-

man of the 1922 Committee) Morrison was 'influential' in
the House of Commons 49 and came to accept him when
Baldwin insisted. It was Chamberlain's idea, rather than
Baldwin's, that Morrison should become Minister of Agri-
culture when Elliot went stale'. 50
As Minister of Agriculture Morrison's experience was shat-
tering. A barley crisis in East Anglia, difficulties with sheep
farmers and a Conservative revolt over the Milk bill produced
public ridicule and the threat of farmers' candidates at by-
elections. His removal, a bad period as a Commons spokes-
man on defence and demotion to the Post Office in April
1940 marked the grave of a future Prime Minister.51
About foreign policy Morrison's doubts developed slowly.
When Baldwin retired he expected Chamberlain to 'negate'
the 'policy of retreat'. 52 In early 1938 he shared Eden's
doubts, but ended by defending Chamberlain in the House of
Commons. 53 He said virtually nothing, except to agree with
Halifax, at the Cabinet of August 30. On September 14 he
wanted Hitler told of 'the growing feeling in this country that
war was inevitable'. But he approved of the decision to go to
Berchtesgaden;54 the preference he expressed for a delayed
plebiscite was not put strongly. It was not until Chamberlain
returned that the 'future' became 'dark' a? Hitler seemed
likely to get what he wanted 'without a plebiscite'. 5S
At this stage Morrison was merely wondering. He distin-
guished 'intruding...into a quarrel which was not our affair'
from the duty to be involved if 'France was drawn in'. But he
'did not feel to the same extent as some of his colleagues that
our honour was implicated'. 56 At the Cabinet of Septem-
ber 21, when the objectors were heard, he said nothing. He
said nothing at the long Cabinet meetings on the 24th. His
only interventions in the week before Munich were made
next day when he told the Cabinet that the public did not
want war and, while opposing any sort of pressure, wanted
the Czechs to be told about the uncertainties of the military
situation.
Morrison's few contributions to Cabinet discussion in-
cluded enquiries about the relationship between Hitler and
the rest of the Nazi regime. If his doubts were more exten-
320 III. THE EFFECT
sive, he expressed them discreetly. On September 28 his wife

was heard wishing that war had been faced, but there is no
direct evidence that he did.
Like Morrison, Elliot was a Scotsman — the son of a wealthy

Glasgow auctioneer. After qualifying as a doctor, he had dis-
tinguished himself in the war and became a Unionist MP in
1918. In the Lloyd George Coalition, he was a junior minis-
ter; he played no part in removing Lloyd George and did not
join the Conservative government until 1923. In 1934 he
married Asquith's sister-in-law who was a Liberal.
From 1931 onwards he established a reputation as a stimu-
lator of State aid for agriculture, attracting criticism from
MacDonald as a soft touch in face of powerful interests 57
but creating an impression — not only in Conservative quar-
ters — that, by honouring the policy of his predecessor, he
too had made himself a future Prime Minister.58 In 1934 he
was unusual in thinking that Cecil would be an asset in the
Cabinet. 59 He was part of the plot to bring Lloyd George
into the government and, like the rest of the plotters, com-
bined 'compassionate' doubts about Chamberlain with in-
tense irritation at the French. 60 Like Morrison, he was
thought of as Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence.61
Over the Rhineland, he was thinking of resigning and begin-
ning to talk about the need for Anglo-French solidarity. 62
Later in 1936 he was moved, unwillingly, at Chamberlain's
suggestion, to the Scottish Office. 63
Elliot was an admirer of Eden, and had been one of the
first ministers to demand Hoare's resignation. 64 He also liked
Halifax.65 He did not like the Italian negotiations in 1938
and gave Eden a degree of support. 66 This, however, stopped
well short of resignation since two would destroy the govern-
ment which he would not wish to do 'unless he [saw] his way
to another'. 67 When brought back to the Ministry of Health
(perhaps in order to keep him quiet), he started talking about
a 'Government of National Safety'. 68
When Swinton resigned, Elliot 'saluted' him as an 'Adven-
turer'. For him the Runciman mission was a turning-point
about which the Cabinet ought to have been consulted. So
was Plan Z. On August 30 he had been 'uneasy': on Septem-
ber 14 'expectations' were being raised which would be 'pro-
portionately disappointed'. After Berchtesgaden he refused

to be rushed into self-determination which 'might be' a way
of 'cloaking' a desire to 'surrender'. 69 He recognised that
Chamberlain had prevented an invasion, which nothing could
have been done to resist. But he regarded further negotiations
as a risk70 and would choose war rather than capitulation.71
He told his wife that it would be 'an unjust cause' to go to
war 'because of the Sudeten minorities'. He also told her
that 'a Hoare-Laval feeling' might blow up on the 'moderate
Left' at any suggestion of 'German troops entering Czecho-
slovakia before the international force had got into position'. 72
into position'. 72
While Chamberlain was at Godesberg, Elliot said that the
Anglo-French proposals were 'in the Czechs' own interest'
but that things '[could] not go on and it would be better to
get it over with now'. 73 On his return, he was 'intensely
disturbed at the prospect of delivering another chunk of the
goods...[with] no negotiation...at all, just signing on the dot-
ted line, and once you begin..., no-one can say that you will
ever stop'. 74
When Halifax turned round after Godesberg, Elliot agreed
with him about the terms and did his best to establish that
the French were willing to fight. He approved of the letter
which Wilson took to Berlin. 7S
During the demolition of the Wilson proposals on the
27th, he said nothing. He was still thinking of resigning but,
though the Munich terms were 'hateful', he had not com-
plained about the rearmament programme in the past and 'in
the present state of our forces — French and British, — could
not say that he would have stopped Chamberlain if he had
been able to. 76 His emphasis, thereafter, was on the need to
restore confidence on the 'Centre-Left' by associating with
the Soviet Union, avoiding enthusiasm whenever it was neces-
sary to associate with Mussolini77 and having a reconstruc-
tion 'on the widest possible basis'.
Despite a half-offer to resign with Duff Cooper, 78 one does

not get the impression that Elliot intended to do so. De la
Warr did. On August 30 he wanted a public commitment to
France and the beginning of mobilization. 79 On September 2
he wanted something done about the Russians. 80 On Sep-
322 III. THE EFFECT
tember 7 he was 'highly agitated'; next day he was 'very dis-

tressed'. 81 On September 9 he was hoping for Royal action
to resolve a 'National crisis' and would not stay in office if
the government backed down. 82 On September 10 'world
decency' required tripartite action to stop Hitler before he
was 'firmly established in the East'. 83 At the Cabinet of
September 12 he talked about the 'humiliating position' that
would arise 'if...we were to decide that, in view of our arma-
ment position, we could not support the French'. 84
In 1938 de la Warr was thirty-eight, a year younger than
Malcolm MacDonald. He had, however, been a minor member
of a government as long ago as 1924 and had served continu-
ously since the Labour party took office in 1929. Under
Ramsay MacDonald he had not been in the Cabinet and had
been greatly put out when Baldwin failed to promote him on
Thomas's retirement. 85 He entered the Cabinet the day after
MacDonald left it.
De la Warr had not had to fight; he owed his position to
having been a war-time conscientious objector, a hereditary
Labour peer (immediately after leaving Oxford) and one of
the handful of Labour ministers who joined the National
government in 1931. In a predominantly middle-class Cabi-
net, he was in some obvious sense, aristocratic, and advanced
socialist opinions in a 'pugnacious' 86 manner which was de-
signed to meet the threat presented by the fact that 'the
younger generation of working class men believe[d] in the
class war'. 87 'We must', he is said to have said in 1937,
'either have socialism ourselves...or have [it] applied in 1942
by the opposition'. 88
De la Warr was handsome and energetic, and had run the
National Labour party almost single-handed. When Chamber-
lain and Margesson threw their weight behind Malcolm Mac-
Donald, he became a serious politician. By the beginning of
1938 he was torn between leaving the party when MacDonald
was preferred as leader and rescuing it by leaving the govern-
ment in order to attack Chamberlain. 89
In rejecting resignation, de la Warr appears to have taken
Eden's advice. But in thinking of it, and even more in think-
ing about the party's future, he was on to a real problem.
Even before the 1935 election, it had been difficult to
show what National Labour stood for. 90 When both Mac-
Donalds lost their seats, the difficulty became acute. 91 Disin-

tegration was suggested when Thomas was moved to the Co-
lonial Office, 'screaming and kicking* at having to make way
for Malcolm MacDonald at the Dominions Office92 and
when his resignation in advance of the Budget leakage report
a few months later was timed to prevent him leaking that as
well. 93 The impression had been deepened by the death of
King George V (an energetic protector 9 4 ), by the Mac-
Donalds' dependence on Conservative goodwill and by the
campaign which the Churchills 95 waged against the attempt
to find them new seats. 96
After his demotion, Ramsay MacDonald's experience had
been miserable. He despised Hoare's diplomacy and was at
once appalled and gratified by its failure. 97 He had not want-
ed a 'rushed' election, 98 had resented Baldwin's failure to
mention him " and had been horrified by the 'ugly' revela-
tion the Seaham campaign gave him of modern ingratitude at
its worst. 10° When the election was over, he hung about,
cantankerous, dignified and unwanted until becoming MP for
the Scottish Universities101 at the same time as full-scale
rearmament heralded a return to the era of 'militarism'. 102
In his last period of office, MacDonald was 'homesick' for
the Labour movement and thought much about human frail-
ty. 103 Except at the Coronation 104 he had no function, his
advice was not welcomed and he did not matter — even in his
own party. Chamberlain did not want him and encouraged
Baldwin to take him when he retired. His resignation — re-
sentful and unwilling — the day before Chamberlain became
Prime Minister and his death six months later occurred at
least two years after his era had ended. 105
MacDonald's retirement did not, however, mean the end of
the National Labour party which had begun to develop an
organisation it had not had before and provided a platform
on which de la Warr, Malcolm MacDonald, Denman, Lindsay
and Nicolson (along with King-Hall, Elton and Mrs Dugdale)
performed in relation to the future.
What they invented was very different from the future that
had been invented in 1931. In place of the rhetoric of rescue,
they discovered a duty to transcend the selfish conflict of the
parties. In face of the reactionary revival of 1936, they were
'pioneers' in thinking about a 'Centre-party' to which liberal
324 III. THE EFFECT
Conservatives could flee. 106 Though overloaded with minis-

ters, they stood for 'social change without revolution' and
'economic equality without sacrifice of political freedom'. In
talking about 'Eden' and 'liberal centrality', they talked a
language which was as acceptable to Stanley and Elliot as to
Sinclair and Macmillan. All four would all have assented to
the pieties de la Warr offered at the National Labour Confer-
ence in 1938.
Th[is] generation [he said] was faced with the danger of becoming one
without belief or interest. There were those of the possessing classes
who felt they had a right to their possessions irrespective of the services
they gave while there were those of the working-classes who believed
they had a divine claim on the community, including their fellow work-
ers. We should think a great deal more of duties and services and a great
deal less of our rights...National Labour [should] help to create a new
spirit of belief so that our national life could be something really fine
and that Great Britain and her Empire could so regain her strength not
only of arms but of purpose that she could help both herself and the
world to a better and saner life. 1 0 7
This, though rhetorically elevating, implied nothing about
'appeasement'. Nor was the party united in disliking it. For
this reason de la Warr was conscious of the insignificance of
any action he might take, and was cautious about turning
criticism into resignation.
Nevertheless, after praising the Berchtesgaden visit, he said
what he had to. He objected to the terms as being 'unfair to
the Czechs, dishonourable to ourselves' and the consequence
of 'negotiating with a country which had \\ million men
under arms'. Neither Hitler nor the Sudeten Germans 'have
yet made any concessions', he told the Cabinet, 'they must
be prepared to make some' since, if they did not, 'it is doubt-
ful whether the government would carry the policy in the
House of Commons or in the country'. 108
After this statement, which irritated Chamberlain, de la
Warr said very little in Cabinet. But he was hoping that Elliot
would resign (so that he could resign too) and tried to per-
suade Duff Cooper not to resign so that the dissentients
could all resign together. 109 He was quite clear that, if war
came, Chamberlain would have to go. n o
De la Warr supported the settlement (which was 'not as
bad as people made out') and persuaded the National Labour
party to support it too. n l Afterwards he was made Minister
of Education. But his line in the winter of 1938 was that 'in
the modern world...right could not prevail without might'
and that a League policy should be strengthened by closer
relations with Russia. 112 He was upset by Chamberlain's
gullibility in Rome. After Prague he talked again about re-
signing and wanted Conscription and a Ministry of Sup-
ply. 113 In the summer of 1939 he was a coalitionist, was
privy (through Astor) to the Churchill press campaign and
was willing to think of Halifax as Prime Minister.114 After
the Russo-German pact, he felt no optimism. l l s On Septem-
ber 2 he was 'terribly distressed' at the failure to declare
war. 116
De la Warr and MacDonald were rivals for leadership of the

National Labour party and did not talk freely to one an-
other. 117 But they responded to the same signals and be-
longed to the same circle. Though de la Warr first thought of
resigning over Abyssinian recognition (in 1937), 118 however,
something had always stopped him. It took MacDonald a very
long time to decide that Chamberlain's position was untenable.
From Oxford, MacDonald had gone, very early, into Parlia-
ment. When he was thirty-four, his father had brought him
into the Cabinet where Baldwin kept him when he lost his
seat in 1935. He had great difficulty finding a new one and
depended on Conservative organisation and Liberal votes
when he won Ross and Cromarty in early 1936. After Abyssi-
nia and the Rhineland, he preferred the League to Locarno.
Like his father, he wanted the rearmament programme kept
under review so as to avoid encouraging anything resembling
a 'war mentality'. 119
This sort of position was in no way unusual. The conjunc-
tion of reluctant rearmament with an 'active peace diplo-
macy' 120 could have described Chamberlain's position, or
Eden's. Before Baldwin retired, MacDonald (like Eden) was
talking about retiring with him: before Eden's resignation he
was Eden's 'best friend in the Cabinet'. 121 He was thought
of as a successor122 and was used as proof of the govern-
ment's virtue when Eden had gone. 123 The Anschluss seems
to have shocked him. 124
Like de la Warr's, MacDonald's instinct was to believe that
dictators should be resisted. Like other ministers, he knew
326 III. THE EFFECT
that the air defences were such that 'no cabinet could take
a...risk'. As Colonial and, for a time, Dominions Secretary, he
knew how little the Dominions were interested in central
Europe. When pressed to protest, he replied that Eden had
'made a mistake' and that there was a 'national crisis' in
which Chamberlain should be supported. 12S
On August 30 he said firmly that 'we should not go to war'
if Germany invaded Czechoslovakia.I26 This did not stop
him wanting the Lanark warning repeated next day. 127 But
he approved of the Berchtesgaden visit and looked forward to
the 'pacifist element in the Labour party' providing 'tremen-
dous support' for a plebiscite. While preferring a plebiscite in
six months' time, he 'preferred] an immediate [one] to war
...humiliating though the position might be'. 1 2 8 When Cham-
berlain returned, the 'overwhelming condition of public feel-
ing' compelled acceptance of the principle of self-determina-
tion. 129
Thereafter, there was anguish. After Berchtesgaden, the
public would not want German troops in Czechoslovakia be-
fore the arrival of an international force and, if Hitler pressed
the claims of the Poles and Hungarians, would be showing
that 'his interest lay...in...dominating] Europe'. 13° After
Godesberg, though Hitler's 'method' was 'outrageous' and his
terms 'shocking' ('through no fault of the Prime Minister'),
war would be so 'disastrous' (not only for relations with the
Dominions) that the Czechs should be allowed to make up
their own minds 'in the light of all the relevant considera-
tions'. 131
Like everyone else MacDonald approved of the Wilson mis-
sion 132 and accepted the settlement. It was not until the
political disintegration of December that he began to say that
'Munich' had been 'wrong'. 133
Hankey (who had observed him at close quarters) thought
MacDonald had 'a wise head on young shoulders'. 134 Until
November 1938 MacDonald's position was unequivocal. Even
when doubts began, his dissent was muted. In any case
neither he nor de la Warr could foresee the future. A similar
uncertainty affected Duff Cooper and Hore-Belisha.
Though Duff Cooper had for long been seen as Eden's ri-
val, 135 he had other reasons for being sceptical about ap-
peasement in 1936, critical about Italian and Spanish policy

in 1937 and negative about resigning at the beginning of
1938.
He had taken a strong line over Abyssinia and associated
himself with the belief that the Italians would not win. 136
But he had been critical of Eden's handling of Mussolini and
supported the Italian negotiations provided they did not im-
pair relations with France. 137 So far from being an Eden
man who would attract the League of Nations Union, he was
a Foreign Office Conservative who believed in the French
alliance as the lynch-pin of British diplomacy and France and
Britain as 'the main supporters of the status quo\13S At
numerous turning-points, and with more hope than accuracy,
he had said that the French were willing to fight. He fought a
battle about the wording of the statement of March 24
1938 139 and found it monstrous that anyone could regard
Anglo-French staff talks as unnecessary. 140 The greatest
danger to the peace of Europe', he reported himself as telling
the Polish Prime Minister (whom he met on holiday in the
summer)
was that Hitler, encouraged by the success of previous adventures, may
take a step which, once taken, he could not withdraw...
Germany would not have gone to war in 1914 had she known whom
she would be fighting in 1918...The same thing would happen again —
but America would come in sooner and the victory would be great-
er... In fairness to [Hitler] and to Germany, it should be made plain now
what forces he would find himself up against. 141
Duff Cooper believed that Britain and France could afford
to take risks. During the Munich crisis, his chief interests
were the demands of public feeling, the need to prevent Ger-
man domination and a sense that an Anglo-French victory
was essential. 142 He supported Chamberlain so long as there
were 'warnings'. 143 It was the lack of warnings about which
he was preparing to complain on September 14 when Cham-
berlain announced his decision to fly to Germany.
About Plan Z he expressed two reservations. 144 But he
'much preferred' it to mobilising the Fleet and was prepared
to see what happened when Chamberlain got there. 145 It was
not until the Berchtesgaden interview was described that he
raised three major objections.
The first was that Chamberlain had failed to mention any
328 III. THE EFFECT
of the Cabinet's proposals and was asking for 'a complete

surrender'. The second was that, in these circumstances, 'the
Czechs would probably prefer to fight'. The third was that
Hitler was so obviously using the Sudeten problem as a step
on the road to European domination that 'there was no
chance of peace in Europe as long as there [was] a Nazi
regime in Germany'. 146
These were statements of position rather than of policy.
Since the 'prospect of war...was appalling' and the regime
might collapse without war, he supported self-determination
on September 19. 1 4 7 But the French were to be told that
'we would fight rather than agree to abject surrender' and
Hitler that application of the principle must be negotiated.
To any further demands Chamberlain was to reply that 'we
should go to war...to stop him dominating Europe,' that 'the
U.S.A. would come in on our side' and that 'Germany, not-
withstanding some initial successes, would be faced with ulti-
mate defeat'. 148
From September 13 onwards Duff Cooper pressed con-
tinually for the mobilisation of the Fleet 149 and objected to
Germany occupying the Sudetenland in advance of a pleb-
iscite. l s 0 He approved of the decision to withdraw the ban
on Czech mobilisation while Chamberlain was at Godesberg
and 'was glad to see the terms of the message' which Halifax
had sent him on the 23rd. l s l
After Godesberg he spoke often and strongly in Cabinet,
contesting the belief that Hitler could be trusted and doubt-
ing whether he could be influenced. On September 24 he was
'sure' that the Czechs would 'fight' and demanded general
mobilisation 'as a precautionary measure' while they were
considering Hitler's proposals. 152
When Chamberlain brought the Godesberg proposals to the
Cabinet, he predicted 'an explosion of public opinion' and
defeat in Parliament if they were accepted. 'Great moral
issues were at stake', and the Czechs should be told that, if
they refused, 'we should stand by them and...we hoped that
France would do the same'.
What Duff Cooper was demanding was a stiffer diplomacy
and a deterrent which could be made effective by co-opera-
tion. He did not trust Chamberlain to handle the French
properly or report their feelings truthfully. He told the Cabi-
net after the Anglo-French meetings on the 25th that he

'appeared to have contested the French point of view on
every point...and to have allowed it to appear that [he] disa-
greed with the French government's suggestions without
making any positive suggestions [him]sel[f]'. 153
When Chamberlain announced Wilson's visit to Berlin,
Duff Cooper wanted a promise of intervention if France sup-
ported the Czechs: 1S4 when Wilson returned, he was clear
that Chamberlain wanted them to 'surrender'. He could see
'no point' in this 'unless we also told [them] that we should
refuse to come to their help'. He found this so 'unjustified'
that he 'could not be associated with it'. 1 5 5
Duff Cooper's policy preferences were clear. They were
confirmed, he believed, by the public mood and the fate the
government would suffer if it ignored it. They were not those
of Chamberlain, whose life-style differed from his own and
who, after two deviant speeches in December 1937, had sent
him a rebuke such as 'in his place' would have brought him
'running' with his 'resignation'. 156 There had been contin-
uous conflict about Chamberlain's emphasis on Air Defence
— from a War Office point of view before 1937 and from an
Admiralty viewpoint thereafter. Having talked about re-
signing in early 1938, 157 having twice threatened to resign at
Cabinet meetings when the Chamberlain policy seemed likely
to collapse and having offered his resignation before Munich,
he was refused permission to withdraw it once Munich made
Chamberlain impregnable. 158
By the time Hore-Belisha became an MP in 1923 he had done

war service in the Royal Army Service Corps, been President
of the Oxford Union and worked as Cecil's assistant in the
People's Union for Economy. In the following fourteen years
he established a reputation as a flashy, thrusting, but respon-
sible Liberal, whose Radicalism entailed a broadening of the
social hierarchy, a regard for administrative efficiency and
the effective use of state power. After six years in the Na-
tional government (including three as a heavily-publicised
Minister of Transport), he was suddenly propelled into the
highest prominence as the radical reformer of the army.
The introduction of Hart's doctrines and the appointment
of Gort as C.I.G.S. both confirmed opinions which Chamber-
330 III. THE EFFECT
lain had long held about the army's role in war. 159 Hore-
Belisha was not sent to the War Office in order to democra-
tise its tone, but Chamberlain raised no objection when he
did this as part of a recruitment campaign. After the An-
schluss, however, Hore-Belisha began to offer another part of
the Hart doctrine — that since Hitler aimed at dominating
Europe, the French should intervene in Spain. 160 When he
then got involved in Churchill's campaign for a change of
government, Chamberlain began to see through the Radical
energy to the Jewish desire to 'court popularity'. With Hore-
Belisha's over-publicised visit to Mussolini on the way to a
routine engagement in Malta, the period of disenchantment
had begun. 161
Until Hitler supplied a more attractive issue, Hore-Belisha's
trade mark had been 'modern Radicalism' to replace the su-
perannuated Radicalism of Lloyd George. 162 During the ab-
dication, he had hoped for a new party led by Churchill. 163
In May 1937 he wanted Churchill in the Cabinet and was
preparing to complain about Runciman's demotion when his
own promotion stopped him. 164 In the summer of 1938 he
quarrelled with Churchill and became the object of personal
attacks about the Court of Enquiry he had proposed for
Churchill's son-in-law, Sandys.
At the end of August his opinion was that Czechoslovakia
should not be defended unless the public demand was 'over-
whelming'. 16S He expressed doubts about Plan Z of which
he heard first in Cabinet after the decision had been taken.
On Chamberlain's return he was on the look-out for a 'gust of
public feeling' 166 and wanted the Czechs to express an opin-
ion before Hitler was given a reply. He wrangled with Cham-
berlain about the extent to which the international guarantee
was likely to be honoured 167 and wrote a letter to establish
that the use of the British army on police duties during a
plebiscite would 'diminish [its] capacity to deal with any
emergency that might arise...in...Egypt and Palestine'. 168
Departmental difficulties would doubtless have predomi-
nated if Godesberg had not coincided with a marked shift in
public feeling. On September 24 his response (in his diary)
was that 'we are no longer the free agents' in relation to the
Czechs that 'we were before the matter started'. He came to
the conclusion that the Fleet should be mobilised and general
mobilisation considered, adding, in words which look like

notes for a resignation speech, that 'we are the trustees of...
civilisation which is being abruptly assaulted over ever-
widening areas, and it is our bounden duty,...to rearm with
vigour, put our industries on a war footing and set up a
Ministry of Supply, so that we may never allow this situation
to occur again'. 169
It is probable that Hore-Belisha, while thinking of removing
himself from Chamberlain's shadow, was not sure that this
was wise. He resented his exclusion from the Anglo-French
discussions;170 on the 25th he was talking about resigning if
the Cabinet refused to give the French a 'pledge'. 171 No
pledge was given, and he did not resign. But at the Cabinet
that day he ridiculed the idea that Chamberlain could 'in-
fluence' Hitler and said that the Czechs should be encouraged
to refuse his terms. 172 He claimed that the Cabinet, rather
than the Cabinet Committee, should meet the French minis-
ters and followed this with a request that he and Gort should
be present at any conversations they might have with Game-
lin. 173 After the Four-Power Agreement, he played down
the Cabinet's role and claimed — what was wholly untrue —
that it 'never had any idea till Neville returned from Berchtes-
gaden that there could be any question of asking the Czechs
to cede any territory'. 174
As a Service minister during Munich, Hore-Belisha had felt
vulnerable militarily. 175 After Bridgewater he felt vulnerable
electorally and tried (unsuccessfully) to get adopted as Con-
servative candidate for Kingston-upon-Thames.176 In the fol-
lowing months, he developed a public stance as the advocate
of the measures necessary to fight a war. At the same time,
he was under attack in Whitehall because of defects in the
anti-aircraft defences (which may have been why he wanted a
Ministry of Supply to relieve him of the burden 177 ). Having
been widely disliked before this, 178 he was increasingly mis-
trusted in the War Office 179 and was the object of a removal
operation (conducted by R.S. Hudson 1 8 0 ). Chamberlain,
however, supported him and he survived the Cabinet re-
shuffle in the New Year. 181
At this time Hore-Belisha wanted a large expansion of the
army and, probably, conscription, 182 following this, to some
extent as an alternative (after Prague) by proposals for doub-
332 III. THE EFFECT
ling the Territorial Army and taking compulsory powers to

direct industrial production. 183 After Albania, he renewed
relations with Churchill and came close to resigning when,
simultaneously, he was pressing Chamberlain to adopt con-
scription and Chamberlain was pressing him to provide in-
stant anti-aircraft reaction to air attack. He did not decide to
stay in office until Halifax and Simon insisted that Conscrip-
tion should be adopted. 184
In these arguments Hore-Belisha was acting, to a certain
extent, departmentally as in rasing the question of mobilisa-
tion on August 23. 1 8 5 He was also preparing for the future
in case Chamberlain fell down. 186 He described the draft
message to Hitler of August 26 as 'fulsome, obsequious and
deferential' 187 and wanted the revised version improved by
removing 'any suggestion that we have received with...relief
the proposal that Germany should guarantee a...diminished
British Empire'. 188 He was unmoved by the Russo-German
pact, which he had predicted, 189 and which he interpreted as
showing that the Russians had been 'cornered'. 190 He
thought the British guarantee to Poland important, whatever
was done about Ciano's Four-Power Conference, for 'if an
international guarantee [were] given...and [Poland] became
dependent upon that for her security...we should...lose our
hold on the East and an attack upon us in the West by
Germany would be facilitated'. 191
In saying this to Simon, Hore-Belisha was reflecting the
views of Gort, Pownall and Sir James Grigg. A few days later
he repeated them to Halifax, adding a blow at the boost
Mussolini would be given if Polish-German talks were held in
Italy. 192 At the Cabinet on the afternoon of September 2,
he opposed any further delay in declaring war which 'might
result in breaking the unity of the country'. 193
That no one resigned of his own volition between February

1938 and the outbreak of war was the result of Halifax's skill
in reassuring the dissentients 194 and the difficulty they
found in formulating a reason when defence deficiencies were
glaring and the real complaint among many of them was that
'this country' could not be 'run' without 'the confidence of
the moderate Left'. 19S Elliot's reactions were complicated
by his long-standing Zionism (and Hore-Belisha's by his being
a Jew). In the cases of Hore-Belisha and de la Warr (as of

Bernays outside the Cabinet), there was the added difficulty
that they were occupying posts beyond their normal expecta-
tion by belonging to the National Liberal or National Labour
parties.
For Hore-Belisha, who had few friends on the Eden net-
work, 196 this was restricting. For Bernays (another National
Liberal) it may well have been excruciating.
Bernays was the only member of the government who had
been a leader-writer on the News Chronicle. He had little
money 197 and had probably been damaged financially by
getting into parliament unexpectedly in 1931. In 1933 he
allowed his constituency association to decide whether he
should follow Samuel into opposition. 198
Though Sinclair regarded him as a 'useful link' for the
broadened Liberalism of the future, 199 Bernays did his best
to recommend himself to Baldwin. When deciding to stand as
a 'National' candidate at the 1935 election, however, he re-
fused to become a Simonite because of Simon's foreign pol-
icy. 200 When he eventually became one in September
1936, 201 he had already attracted attention for his part in
the de la Warr/Nicolson attempt to effect a realignment of
'National' thinking. 202
At this time he had a low opinion of Chamberlain. 203 This
may have risen when Chamberlain made him a junior minister
after reading one of his magazine articles. 204 If so, the
change did not last. Bernays was in constant touch with
Nicolson and agreed, basically, with him. He went with
Crookshank to complain about the anti-League tone of the
speech Chamberlain made after Eden's resignation. He
thought continuously about resigning during Munich (and
was cut by Lady Violet Bonham-Carter for failing to do so
afterwards). There can be no doubt that he felt that he ought
to be resigning and failed to because he lacked a base on
which to build a return in the future.
For the National Labour ministers, the problem was acute
and each tremor significant. In 1936 Allen left the party
because of its failure to defend the League. Before Godes-
berg, Mrs Dugdale did the same when MacDonald and de la
Warr failed to leave the Cabinet. 205 After Munich Nicolson
wanted 'a middle party' and 'all-party government designed
334 III. THE EFFECT
to organise wealth, industry and manpower' for war against

Germany. 206
They, however, whatever they had said before, 207 were
not so certain. Even if they agreed that 'all Left-wing people
should fuse' 208 into a foreign-policy based party of the Cen-
tre, they needed greater courage, and less intelligence, than
they possessed to give themselves up to a future based on a
non-existent Liberal party or the dubious friendship of the
Labour party. 209
Chamberlain's opinion of these 'weak-kneed critics' was as
low as that of their friends' 210 ; such effect as he allowed
them to have was marginal. After the Anschluss, he modified
the Italian agreement. After Munich he delayed completion
because others might join Duff Cooper if he did not. 2 n He
was worried by Crookshank, the Under-Secretary for Mines
and friend of Macmillan, who had nearly resigned in Feb-
ruary 1938, wanted Eden back and had discovered in Bald-
win, after he retired, qualities of leadership he had not no-
ticed beforehand.
Crookshank's view of Chamberlain was that he was 'crazy'
to go to Germany and had been 'hypnotized' by a 'loony'.
When Duff Cooper's resignation was announced, he sent in
his. He withdrew it only when Chamberlain promised not to
hold an election and, in the Munich debate, made points that
Crookshank had asked him to make the day before. 212 In
the New Year he was made a Privy Councillor a few weeks
after de la Warr had been promoted. Otherwise, the only
minister with whom Chamberlain troubled was Oliver Stanley.
Stanley was the second son of that 17th Earl of Derby

who, after a military youth, had embodied in the manifest
flesh a wealthy, amiable, horse-racing Conservatism which
seemed well-fitted to transcend all possible tensions in Liver-
pool and north-western England. This vast, sly figure had
operated in a period of manifest social difficulty when, as
associate of Rothermere, Beaverbrook and Birkenhead, and
as an ally of Lloyd George, he had created a sybaritic, secular
Conservatism which differed markedly from that of his ec-
centric grandfather.
With Oliver Stanley there was a reversion to that liberal
thoughtfulness which so much impressed the intelligentsia of
the previous century and a revival of that responsiveness to

the 'higher tendencies of contemporary thinking' which was
so marked a feature of his great-grandfather's performance.
Even when he seemed to be intelligent rather than vigorous,
he left an impression of regarding that set of preferences as
the best way of relating to mass democracy.
In 1930 he had hoped for co-operation with Mosley. When
MacDonald had outlived his usefulness as a Radical, he had
wanted Lloyd George. Like Elliot, he thought Chamberlain a
liability at the Treasury and that Cunliffe-Lister would be
better. Like Cunliffe-Lister and Lloyd George, he mistrusted
Chamberlain's interventions in Simon's foreign policy and be-
lieved in the paramount importance of taking Hitler at his
face value. 213 While lacking Rooseveltian charisma, he
shared the yearning of Elliot and Cunliffe-Lister for an ener-
getic, smiling Conservatism to replace Chamberlain's mone-
tary rigour. 214
By 1938 Stanley had for long left the impression of being
destined for the heights. 215 After his setback at the Ministry
of Labour, he had been physically and nervously depressed
and had thought of resigning. 216 In the end, he had 'climbed
down with admirable grace'. 217 Over the abdication he
avoided the Jacobite contamination of Eden, Hoare and Duff
Cooper. About the League of Nations Union he registered
normal disaffection. 218 His appointment to be President of
the Board of Trade at the age of forty-one in May 1937
enabled Chamberlain to put an unquestionably Conservative,
low-tariff Lancashire politician into a ministry about which
Simonites would be more than usually sensitive once Runci-
man had left it. 219
In office, he was a trial. He played an important part in the
argument about the Roosevelt initiative. 220 In the discus-
sions which preceded Eden's resignation, he supported Cham-
berlain's policy, but announced that resignation 'would have
such calamitous results that he must resign too'. 221 After
Eden had gone, he made conditions about the Italian agree-
ment and, in company with his brother, tried to delay Abys-
sinian recognition until Italian troops were out of Spain. 222
Like his brother, too, he needed a rest 223 after an 'evident
deterioration' in his health in the spring of 1938, when he
was considered for the embassy in Washington in case he
336 III. THE EFFECT
could not work hard enough to stay in the Cabinet. 224

At the end of August Stanley was pointing out that there
were deficiencies in Germany as well as Britain. 225 Before
Plan Z was announced, 'the need to maintain law and order'
was the central feature of the situation. While 'wincing' when
'Russian assistance' was mentioned, 226 he joined Duff Coop-
er in pressing Halifax to stop The Times correspondence
about the cession of Czech territory. 227 On September 12 he
asked for a Chiefs of Staff statement about the extent to
which an immediate war would be more effective than a war
in 1939. 228
In spite of this, he hoped for a way out 2 2 9 and 'admired'
Chamberlain's decision to fly to Berchtesgaden. Like others,
however, he saw a difference between an immediate pleb-
iscite and a plebiscite in five years' time; he was afraid that,
whatever happened, 'we' would be accused of 'having be-
trayed the Czechs or of having encouraged the French to do
so'. 2 3 0 On September 16 he was 'more dejected than usual'
and wanted to know 'what...minimum we could stand
upon'. 231
On Chamberlain's return Stanley refused to be rushed and
said flatly that conditions would have to be 'negotiated' if a
plebiscite was to be accepted. The Cabinet would have to
define these, Hitler to be told what they were and France to
be left in no doubt that Britain would support her if he
rejected them. 232
These stipulations were met by the 'Anglo-French pro-
posals' which he more or less welcomed at the Cabinet of
September 19. At the same time he added four conditions,
two of which 233 he treated as essential.234 On Septem-
ber 21 he swelled the chorus which said that the public
would not accept the proposals if a German occupation was
to begin before international supervision had been estab-
lished. 23S
Thereafter, he was deviant. After Godesberg none of his
conditions had been met; they had been refused 'in insolent
language' which left him 'under no delusions'. Germany was
'not...prepared for a long war', but if Hitler's terms were
accepted, his 'price' would 'rise' and we 'should'...have bar-
tered away many of the strong points in our position'. Bri-
tain, he said, ought not to 'act as a Post Office', but should
either approve the terms or reject them. 236

What Stanley wanted was a firm line which left no doubt
that Britain and France would act together. What he found
was a Chamberlain 'plot' to flood the Cabinet with evidence
in favour of 'frighten[ing] the French into ratting'. 237
Though he helped to establish Cabinet scrutiny of the Anglo-
French conversations, 238 he was far from satisfied with what
was done. Having threatened to resign with Duff Cooper 239
while Chamberlain was at Godesberg, he would probably
have done so again if Chamberlain had not been overridden at
the Cabinet of the 27th. His view of the final settlement was
that, though 'in many ways...superior to the Godesberg pro-
posals', it had been achieved by methods that were sinister
and objectionable. It was Chamberlain's optimism on his re-
turn that made him half-offer to resign in order to educate the
public about the future. 240
Stanley was not only Derby's son, but was also the son-in-
law of Londonderry who had resumed relations with Cham-
berlain in 1937 241 and whose primary belief was that the
extent of German air superiority had been exaggerated. 242
Stanley also mattered because he had managed to suggest
that there was something as special about his politics in rela-
tion to his generation as Halifax had done about his own
generation fifteen years before and, like most dissentients (in
and out of the government), believed in an uncontroversial
Conservatism which he thought that Chamberlain had aban-
doned. Though Chamberlain thought he never intended to
resign, 243 he spent a good deal of time persuading him to
stay.
In the period of firmness after Munich, he succeeded. In
the winter of 1938 Stanley was an advocate of a Ministry of
Supply. 244 In the New Year he was taking the line that the
Republic would be important if the Spanish war went on
until the German war began. 245 After Prague he wanted a
Russian alliance, and Eden and Churchill in the govern-
ment. 246 After Albania he was scathing about the agreement
with Italy. 247 In June he was asking for a new Cabinet in
order to make Hitler understand that Britain would 'fulfil
[her] obligations to Poland'. 248
In asking why he acted as he did, one should impute anxi-
ety rather than ambition. While attaching importance to
338 III. THE EFFECT
Baldwinian centrality, he discouraged the impression that he

wished to 'form a group' of those who shared his point of
view. 249 It is likely that he was thought of, just marginally,
as a successor 25° because his reactions were what they were.
With some of the more senior ministers, the connections may
be reversed.
When Chamberlain succeeded Baldwin, it was obvious that

his own successor would have to be found soon. Not as soon
as, in the end, it turned out, and not in the quarter from
which he came. But with a Prime Minister of sixty-eight any-
thing was possible. Simon was often excluded because he was
a Liberal. So, for different reasons, was Churchill. Those
whose business it was asked themselves whether it should be
Hoare, Inskip, Halifax or Eden.
Eden's succession was disputed; his period ended when
Halifax overtook him in the year which followed his resigna-
tion. In 1936 Inskip had had a following which was greatly
reduced by his years as Minister for the Co-ordination of
Defence.
Inskip's father was a prosperous Bristol solicitor; as a
young man Inskip was a muscular Christian with a vocation
to become a lay missionary. After Clifton and Cambridge in
the nineties, he had practised at the Bar before becoming a
Unionist candidate in 1906. By the time he became an MP in
1918, he had been in Naval Intelligence during the war. In
1922 he voted with Austen Chamberlain at the Carlton Club
meeting. Thereafter, at the age of forty-six, he became a
regular part of the Baldwin regime.
In the next fourteen years, as Solicitor- and Attorney-
General, he came to embody decent parliamentary reassur-
ance and the Evangelical section of the Church of England.
After the Prayer-Book debates, he could probably have been
Speaker if he had chosen to. During the electoral difficulties
of 1934, he raised flags for a 'National' party against 'Social-
ism'. In 1935 he was publicly explicit against Lloyd George
and unusually explicit in favour of the Peace Ballot. As
Chamberlain and Hoare gave offence in differing directions,
he emerged as a possible successor if Baldwin had to re-

tire. 251
What was attributed to Inskip was more physical than in-
tellectual — an ability to look right both in Parliament and
outside. His 'porky truculence' stood 'four square'. 252 He
'batt[ed] all around the wicket' and represented 'something'
which 'the public' would 'understand'. 253 In real-power
terms his period as Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence
was his first test.
In this he was unfortunate. Though he presided at the CID
and picked up the pieces when Swinton quarrelled with Nuf-
field, his function was mediatory rather them commanding, as
he was at pains to make clear, 2S4 and would have been ham-
pered in the attempt to be anything else by the conflicts in
which he was enveloped between the Service ministers and
the Treasury. If, as seems certain, the post was established in
order to keep Hankey under control, both Chamberlain's and
Simon's zeal for economy made this unnecessary. 25S
In 1938 Inskip supported Chamberlain's policy in general
and his Italian and German policies in particular. He was
much moved by Britain's weakness, 2S6 felt no obligation to
encourage Czech resistance 257 and would only do so if
forced to in order to 'save' France 258 or 'check' Hitler. 259
He had thought Eden wrong in February — because war with
Italy was an imminent possibility 260 — but wanted a quid
pro quo from Mussolini before Abyssinian recognition was
initiated at Geneva. 261
Inskip was unenthusiastic about Plan Z. 2 6 2 He sensed
'blackmail' when the Berchtesgaden meeting was de-
scribed 263 and refused to be rushed after Godesberg. 264 He
did not oppose Chamberlain, even at the meeting of Septem-
ber 27, when war had to be avoided because 'we were in no
condition to fight'. 265 But he did not trust Hitler, 266 had
been under pressure as a churchman to speak out 267 and
would not urge the Czechs to capitulate. There was no ques-
tion of resignation, but the end of September found him in a
state of Halifax-like doubt.
It is difficult to know whether it was doubt which made
Chamberlain remove him from the Defence post the follow-
ing January or whether doubt was a consequence of anger at
340 III. THE EFFECT
being made a scapegoat. Inskip certainly thought he was

being blamed for defence deficiencies. He resented being
moved (even if he had offered to be) and had little need to
be reminded that his prospects had been damaged. 268 He
still had supporters, 269 but it was tact not accuracy which
made Chamberlain say, when offering the Dominions Office,
that he would not offer the Lord Chancellorship because that
would prevent him being Prime Minister later. 270 Inskip still
had supporters when, somewhat resentfully, he became Lord
Chancellor in order to enable Eden to return to the Cabinet
in September 1939. 271
Inskip's period as a possible Prime Minister had begun while

Hoare was struggling with the India bill. Hoare's expectations
rose when he left the India Office and even more (as he
thought) when he went to the Home Office in 1937. 272 But
they did not really recover from his tenure of the Foreign
Office.
Hoare was an important member of the government, but
he and Chamberlain were not particularly close. By 1938
Hoare had no more contact than a number of other ministers
and felt no obligation to tailor his thinking to Chamberlain's.
Hoare disliked Ormsby-Gore, Stanley and Elliot. 273 He
was jealous of Eden who was 'vain' and 'unstable', played to
'left wingers, pressmen and private secretaries' and presided
over a Foreign Office which was 'biased against Germany...
Italy and Japan'. 2 7 4 About Spain and rearmament he was a
target for Labour attack and an object of admiration among
the Chiefs of Staff. 275
Otherwise, he responded to whatever feelings were held
around him, blowing on Inskip as a strategist, looking for a
'moral basis' in international relations and wondering wheth-
er 'the League' could be brought in so as to 'ease things for
the opposition'. 276 Once the India bill was passed, he main-
tained good relations with Churchill. After threatening to
join the defence critics if not given the Defence post in order
to resist them, 277 he used the Admiralty to acquire a flat-
tering reputation with them.
After the Anschluss, Hoare wanted to avoid action which
might make it seem that 'we were on [Germany's] side' in the
Sudetenland. 278 From before Munich he was aiming to sue-
ceed Chamberlain. 279 Afterwards he was worried about his

financial prospects in case the next election was lost. 28°
As a member of the Cabinet Committee Hoare gave general
support to Chamberlain's policy. But he emphasised the help
to be expected from the Left if a reasonable welcome was
given to Russia. 281 Between Berchtesgaden and Godesberg
he was firm. 282 During the Godesberg meetings he was firm-
er. Afterwards he was 'shocked' by the form of Hitler's pro-
posals and would not press the Czechs to accept them. He
welcomed the 'guarantee' as a way of easing acceptance, but
saw little hope of avoiding war and laid great store by mili-
tary co-operation with France and Russia. 283
Hoare played no part in the argument about the Wilson
proposals on the 27th. At this time he was 'profoundly
gloomy'. After the Munich invitation he was 'with' Chamber-
lain 'to the end', and defended the settlement once it had
been made. 284 But he was tired and depressed and believed
that a 'peace policy' could not survive without an elec-
tion. 285 He wanted Runciman, Chatfield and Geoffrey
Lloyd in the Cabinet and was willing to have Eden if he
would come. He did not want Churchill or the Labour lead-
ers, since their policies were not those of Chamberlain whose
position would become precarious enough without them. 286
In the winter of 1938 he was rattled by the state of the air
defences and managed to pass Anderson the poisoned chalice
containing Air Raid Precautions. Until Halifax supported
Hore-Belisha, he took the Simon line about air, as opposed to
land, rearmament. 287 After the Bridgewater by-election, on
the other hand, he had been 'on the prowl, anxious to meet
Eden', interested in the sort of policy Cabinet for which
Amery had been asking and leaving the impression that
Chamberlain was an 'autocrat in the Cabinet'. When a Franco
victory seemed imminent, he saw no reason to object if the
French insisted on opening the Spanish frontier by them-
selves. 288
When the climate changed in February 1939 he was the
first to announce the coming era of peace. 289 When Prague
showed that the dawn was a false one, he wanted consulta-
tion with the Labour and Liberal leaders so as to avoid a
government on the lines which Eden was suggesting. 29° In
the same spirit, and afraid that the 'patriotic reaction' might
342 III. THE EFFECT
'go too far', he pressed Chamberlain to 'repudiate...encircle-

ment' as likely to 'force the mad dog to bite...with the whole
German people...behind him'. 291
Hoare's power-base was the Conservative party in the
House of Commons. He was admired in the Admiralty. Else-
where he seemed a short-tempered trimmer. 292 His attempts
to trim in 1939 produced an 'open mind' about having
Churchill and Sinclair in the Cabinet, 293 a belief that Ger-
many would only be deterred by 'fear' 294 and an impression
(which he conveyed to the Labour leaders 29S ) that 'serious
consequences...would follow a breakdown of negotiations'
with Russia. When Chamberlain began listing his War Cabinet
at the end of August, Hoare's was a name he was hoping to
avoid. 296
Basically Hoare hoped that Hitler would allow the Polish
question to be settled. 297 But when even so multi-purpose a
politician gave Chamberlain flat contradictions 298 and ex-
plained that he had 'exhausted...all influence' with him, 299
Chamberlain had no reason to feel the confidence he had felt
in the past.
The Cabinet, then, had never been insulated from the opin-
ions by which it was surrounded. By the late summer of
1939, it was almost an external body. 30° Some of its mem-
bers had become unfriendly to Chamberlain; the interest of
others lay in 'party' or 'national' unity. At least half a dozen
felt guilty about their failure to resign. Others probably felt
that any decision would be a relief.301 After Chamberlain's
failure to announce an ultimatum on September 2, there was
not much sympathy.
Before the invasion of Poland, Chamberlain believed that
Hitler had isolated himself internationally, damaged his posi-
tion internally and miscalculated grievously. After invasion
had been put off once (on August 25), he expected him to
put it off again when the 'decisive' 302 declaration of Au-
gust 27 established that Britain would declare war if he went
ahead.
Since he believed that this would prevent war happening,
Chamberlain was hoping for negotiations about Poland and

eventual discussions about Anglo-German relations. He was
not sure of this; he did not feel that he was 'through the
jungle'. 303 But he was optimistic. Until the invasion showed
that he was wrong, he continued to believe that, in the end,
Hitler would have to talk.
With the invasion of Poland, he saw that the price had to
be paid for the firmness which had been effective in the past.
On the morning of September 1, it was only a question of
time before the treaty would be honoured. There seems to
have been no other thought in his mind until it came to be
known in the course of the afternoon that the French govern-
ment could not mobilise and evacuate for forty-eight hours.
At this point he 304 wanted to put off the decision about
an ultimatum in order to synchronise declarations when the
decision was made. On the morning of September 2 it was
expected that it would be made shortly. That afternoon,
after refusing to delay further, the Cabinet insisted on the
ultimatum being sent 'after consultation with the French gov-
ernment'. 30S It was the difficulty he had with the French
after the Cabinet which made him omit mention of the time-
table in speaking to the House of Commons at a quarter to
eight that evening. 306
Chamberlain (and Halifax) may have been hampered by
French unwillingness. They may have been trying to persuade
the world that they were willing to negotiate (when they
were not). 3 0 7 Or they may have been hoping for a confer-
ence. Whatever they were trying to do, and the last is the least
likely, they gave hostages to Churchill, the Edenites and the
Labour party.
To the Eden group the Russo-German pact seemed to con-

firm all that they had said that they expected. Events had
shown — as only events could — that Chamberlain was wrong.
Yet, for them, the six weeks before had been a period of
anxious uncertainty. Not all of them had liked the newspaper
campaign in favour of Churchill. When it died down at the
end of July, they could only wait. They waited with appre-
hension, fearing, on the one hand, that Hitler might do noth-
ing about Danzig and anticipating, on the other, a second
344 III. THE EFFECT
Munich from which 'the Great Appeaser' would 'stigmatize*

them as 'war monsters' and drive them out at a general elec-
tion. 308
These fears may, or may not, have been reasonable. 309
Whatever the objective situation, they had an effect. The
group as a whole behaved cautiously. It behaved with special
caution on the adjournment of Parliament. 31° With the sig-
nature of the Russo-German pact, expectations rose, even
when uncertainty was increased by the prospect of war mak-
ing Eden and Amery anxious to play a part in running it. 3 U
The group met a number of times between July 18 and
August 1; it did not meet again until Parliament was recalled
on the 24th. At its meeting then, it discussed the handling of
Italy. Thereafter its members were subdued. They seem not
to have been sure that a crisis was imminent.
When they met on the evening of September 1, they were
puzzled by the British warning but reassured by the prospect
of Churchill and Eden joining the government. 312 The gen-
eral attitude was probably that of Duff Cooper, who was so
much relieved when he heard that Poland had been invaded
that 'his heart felt lighter than it had for a year'. 313 When
the group met at five o'clock next day, its information was
conflicting. 314 It was not until Chamberlain failed to an-
nounce an ultimatum in his statement three hours later that
they understood how far he was from their assumptions. 315
The Edenites were astonished at the extent to which
Chamberlain lost the sympathy of the House of Commons
during this speech. Some of them urged Eden to speak. Duff
Cooper, realising that their own feelings were shared by some
of Chamberlain's supporters, persuaded the Chairman of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, who was sitting next to him, to
speak instead. 316 When Greenwood got up to speak for the
Labour party, Amery called out that he should 'speak for
England'. Edenites were not the only Conservatives who, for-
tified by drink, cheered Greenwood when he pressed Cham-
berlain to go to war. 317
As it came to seem likely that Hitler would invade Poland,

the Labour leaders had asked themselves three questions.
Would the government do its duty? Would a united Labour
party press it to do so? If war came, should the Labour party

enter the government?
About the last question, their position was unequivocal.
There was no objection to trade unionists doing administra-
tive work with a low political content. But they had no inten-
tion of repeating the mistake Henderson had made in 1915.
Since they had already decided not to join a Chamberlain
government, they decided that members of the Labour move-
ment — and especially trade union leaders — should be pre-
vented from joining individually. These views were affirmed,
sometimes strongly, on August 24 and 25. 318
So far as policy was concerned, there was little desire,
except from the ILP, to hold the government back if Hitler
attacked Poland. In Attlee's absence (having an operation),
Greenwood was in continuous touch with Chamberlain and
the Foreign Office. Such declarations as were made were de-
signed to suggest motion towards evacuation, mobilisation
and war. 319
These declarations registered the realisation that there was
a grave situation to which Labour could make a contribu-
tion. 32° They also established a position which 'would be on
the record for the future'. In general it is safe to say that,
behind the dangers and opportunities they anticipated for
themselves, the Labour leaders played a 'responsible* role in
developing the feeling that 'we and the French will certainly
be attacked by an even stronger Germany with even fewer
allies if we give way now'. 321
It was in this spirit that Greenwood was acting when he
made his appeal to Chamberlain in the House of Commons
on September 2. Afterwards he went to Chamberlain's room
to explain what he had seen on the benches opposite. This
had convinced him that 'unless you present an ultimatum to
Germany before 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, neither you
nor I nor anyone else will be able to hold the House of
Commons'. 322
It is possible that Greenwood could have destroyed Cham-
berlain if he had turned his speech in one direction rather
than another. 323 In Churchill's flat later that night, Churchill
was being told that Chamberlain had 'lost the Conservative
party for ever, and it is in your power to go to the House of
Commons tomorrow and break him and take his place'. 324
346 III. THE EFFECT
Like the other Conservative dissentients, Churchill had been

muted and 'quiescent' in the summer of 1939. He had 'done
his best' and 'given his warnings' and awaited the inevitable
'crunch'. The newspaper campaign had petered out. He had
wanted a demonstration on the adjournment of Parliament
but Eden had squashed it. 325 He was afraid that, with Parlia-
ment away, Chamberlain would do what he had done the
year before. He did not know whether Hitler would give way
if Chamberlain stood firm, but he thought it likely that Hitler
despised him so much that Chamberlain could not impress
him if he tried to. 326 At the end of July he was saying that
'Hitler was going to make war' and that 'he might even be
Prime Minister'. 327 At the end of August (through Lloyd) he
was in daily contact with the Labour party. 328 When war
became imminent, he prepared to mend his fences.
'I think you are quite right' he wrote to Chamberlain in a letter he did
not send on August 30 'to let things drag on if they will, more especially
because one feels a certain hesitation on the other side as the act ap-
proaches. But would it not be helpful to call up the Reserves and mobi-
lise the T.A.? ...The effect would surely add to the force of your exer-
tions to preserve peace...I do not myself see how Hitler can escape from
the pen in which he has put himself, but a victory without bloodshed
would be the best, and this would help not hinder it. 329
When asked to join the government on the afternoon of
September 1, Churchill expected an early ultimatum to lead
to war and the creation of a War Cabinet. 33° Then, he had
no doubts. On the morning of the 2nd he heard from Paris
the rumours which others had about Bonnet. It also became
clear that Labour had refused to co-operate with Chamber-
lain and that Sinclair had not been asked to. Having no wish
to join the government in isolation, he wrote Chamberlain a
letter in which he stated that Eden and a Liberal element
were 'important' and that there should be a 'joint Declaration
of War at latest when Parliament meets this afternoon'. 331
Though no declaration had been made by two-thirty, Chur-
chill did nothing. When Chamberlain announced that evening
that no declaration was in sight, he was inhibited from speak-
ing by the fact that he had agreed to take office.
In his Second World War Churchill says that he was visited
that evening by politicians from all parties. When Duff Coop-
er went to his flat at ten-thirty, he found Eden, Boothby,
Bracken and Sandys 'in a state of bewildered rage', trying to

decide whether to save or destroy Chamberlain next morn-
ing. 332 At some point in the discussion which went on 'far
into the night', Churchill drafted a letter to establish that the
basis on which he had accepted office had shifted, that he
must know by the time Parliament met at noon next day
what Chamberlain intended (especially about Sinclair) and
that no announcement should be made about the composi-
tion of the Cabinet until he and Chamberlain had had a
talk. 333 Having thus freed himself, he sent the letter off,
even after hearing by telephone that an ultimatum would be
sent. 334
The Cabinet may not have known that Churchill was
hoping to do what he had failed to do in May 1938. But they
had no doubt that the government was in danger. When
Elliot, Stanley, de la Warr and eight others 335 talked to-
gether after Chamberlain's speech, they refused to be cheated
as they had been by Munich. They decided that there would
have to be a further meeting of the Cabinet. This decision
was made in Simon's room in the House of Commons. It was
Simon who spoke when they went to see Chamberlain.
Simon was the son of a self-educated Congregationalist minis-

ter. He had been President of the Oxford Union, a Fellow of
All Souls and a successful barrister before becoming Solici-
tor-General in 1910. In Asquith's government he was a Little
Englander. He nearly resigned in August 1914 and did so over
Conscription eighteen months later. After the war, he was a
conventional supporter of the League of Nations. His period
as Foreign Secretary dented this aspect of his public prefer-
ences; in July 1935 he had no faith in the prospect of League
action to defend Abyssinia. 336 He had wanted to stay at
the Foreign Office, however, 337 was jealous of Hoare 338
and was a searing critic of the Hoare-Laval pact. He hinted at
resignation when the condition of Liberal opinion became
unmistakable 339 and had the same difficulty as the rest of
the Cabinet in knowing what to say when the Italian victory
showed that Collective Security was dead.
Simon wanted to make Germany part of the European
system. But he did not believe in Eden's plans for appease-
ment — perhaps because Eden was proposing them. 340 When
348 III. THE EFFECT
the Franco-Russian alliance and the Rhineland changed the

situation, he was afraid of the French being encouraged to
feel 'that they have got us so tied that they can safely wait
for the breakdown of discussions with Germany'. 341 He re-
ported, and shared, a public revulsion against Continental
entanglements which the 'air factor' had made unacceptable.
He believed that 'the British people [did] not really contem-
plate sending their sons to fight on the Continent' and 'if
London was being...bombed' '[would]...not...be despatching
regiments of soldiers to the Low Countries'. 342
During the search for detente in late 1936, he said that
some sort of colonial deal was inevitable. But he saw no point
in trying to make one so long as Hitler kept 'asking for con-
cessions' while giving 'nothing in return'. 343 On succeeding
Chamberlain at the Treasury, his foreign-policy assumptions
were strengthened by a departmental and backbench concern
with the level of public spending and a desire to get Hitler to
open up the German economy. But he had few illusions, and
knew that economic appeasement was impossible unless Ger-
many became a 'co-operating partner'. 344
In discussions about defence expenditure after the An-
schluss, he advocated restraint. Both then and in the follow-
ing eighteen months, he was at the centre of disputes with
almost all the Foreign Office and Service ministers and de-
partments. 34S
Simon had for long opposed converting Locarno into an
alliance. He believed that a forward policy in the Far East
could not be combined with a crisis in Europe and that it was
impossible to be an air, naval and industrial arsenal under
bombardment at the same time as 'fight[ing] with an unlimi-
ted army on the Continent'. 346 He was an articulate suppor-
ter of the view that 'unorthodox measures', like 'excessive
borrowing' and 'currency...inflation', though necessary if war
began, should not be adopted in advance 347 and that Brit-
ain's 'military efforts' should not 'so far impair [her] eco-
nomic resources as to render [her] powerless, through incapa-
city to command vital imports, to bring a long war, or in-
deed, any war to a successful conclusion'. 348
Simon assumed that the public was not interested in cen-
tral Europe. But he did not apply the assumption rigidly. He
supported the policy of March 24 1938, while being clear
that it was a bluff which depended on Hitler not realising

that Britain could not fight. 349 At the same time he wanted
Benes to do something for Henlein, while avoiding a British
commitment to whatever he might do. 35° Having seen, in
the Runciman mission, a slide towards commitment, he made
his Lanark speech at least partly in order to halt it. 351 He
told the Cabinet on August 30 that 'any idea of going to war'
would produce 'a strong body of opinion which would ask
whether the Czechs had done all they could to meet the
legitimate aims of the Sudeten Germans'. 352
Simon 'could not understand' how 'a good liberal...could
have...sympathy for Czechoslovakia', which in any case could
not be saved if war began. 353 He gave warm support to
Chamberlain's 'brilliant proposal' of flying to Germany. 354
After supporting the Berchtesgaden terms, 355 he told the
Cabinet that the Anglo-French meetings had removed 'any
lingering fear he might have had that the attitude of this
country might have...prevented the French government from
fulfilling their obligations'. 356
Simon, then, provided valuable help in presenting Cham-
berlain's policy. It was at his suggestion that the Cabinet
turned up to see him off to Munich. He took the lead in
congratulating him on his return. Those who disliked him
thought that his flattery increased Chamberlain's self-satisfac-
tion. 357
Nevertheless, his position was double-edged. Whatever its
purpose, the Lanark warning was his. After Berchtesgaden, he
was unwelcoming about further concessions. He pressed the
French ministers with particular brutality on September 18
about what they would do in the event of war. His proposal
— for a Sudeten plebiscite in five years' time — was the cause
round which the critics rallied when Chamberlain proposed a
plebiscite at once. During the Godesberg conference, he was
belligerently critical after warning Chamberlain (before he
went) of the danger of an 'accusation of unconditional sur-
render in Parliament or else where...if it is not possible to
point to terms having been agreed which distinguished the
working-out of the present arrangement from the methods or
features of a settlement imposed by a victorious army...'. 358
When Chamberlain returned, Simon's belligerence receded.
The Godesberg memorandum was a 'shocking document'.
350 III. THE EFFECT
But the Czechs could not be allowed the 'final word' about
whether Britain should go to war and he would 'not say that
[they] would be supported if the terms were rejected'. 359 He
agreed that Wilson should go to Berlin 360 and supported
Halifax only because of the 'surrender' involved in the pro-
posal Chamberlain made on his return. 361
Though he willed the decision to go to war, Simon knew
how dangerous war was, and was relieved by the Four-Power
Agreement. 362 The Agreement, however, did not make him
optimistic. He was pessimistic about Anglo-German relations
and saw a long haul ahead if public opinion was to face up to
rearmament. 363 Despite a compelling speech in the debate of
October 5, 3 6 4 his doubts persisted throughout the period
when he was the only minister on whom Chamberlain could
rely for an effective defence in the House of Commons. 365
In the winter of 1938 Simon felt public opinion drifting
away 366 and wanted it brought back. 367 After Albania, he
supported Conscription when Hore-Belisha seemed likely to
make it a ground for resignation. 368
In the last year of Baldwin's Prime Ministership, Simon
had been technically impressive about the abdication. 369 But
he had been anxious about the Liberal role in a Chamberlain
government and may well have thought of withdrawing.
Withdrawal had then been made unnecessary by the generous
nature of Chamberlain's reshuffle. 37°
It is difficult to know whether Simon expected war to
affect him personally. His claim to the Exchequer had depen-
ded on his position as National Liberal leader. His importance
would be diminished if a National Liberal resigned. He may
not have minded losing Runciman, with whom his relations
were bad; 371 the loss of Hore-Belisha would be serious. He
wanted to lead a party of 'energy, enterprise and progress' (as
well as of 'opposition to Socialism') and knew that Mabane,
Bernays and Hore-Belisha had been thinking of foreign-policy
disagreement as leading into something more credibly 'demo-
cratic'. 372 Though he had kept the party together, he was
vulnerable, and had been worried, from Eden's resignation
onwards, by the prospect of these feelings being made effec-
tive.
As Chancellor, Simon assumed that the sooner a war level
of expenditure began, the more difficult victory would be-
come. The restraints he persisted with after Munich 373 im-

plied neither faith in Hitler nor the belief that war would be
avoided. They embodied a departmental husbanding of eco-
nomic power and a departmental conviction that the pound
must face the deutschmark (and the dollar) in the face.
Simon probably did not expect to become Prime Minister
if Chamberlain was removed. 374 It is much more likely that
he was responding to Hore-Belisha. Whatever he was hoping,
he was acting consistently when he went to Chamberlain's
room in the House of Commons on the evening of Saturday,
September 2 as leader of those who wanted an immediate
declaration of war.
When the ministers arrived, Chamberlain was talking to

Wood; so Simon reminded both of them of the decision that
the ultimatum should expire at midnight. Chamberlain re-
plied at once that he wanted to 'retrieve the impression he
had made in the House' and would get the French to accept
an ultimatum expiring at noon next day. 37S He then re-
turned to Downing Street where, in a disturbed state, he
telephoned Halifax and asked him to come back from his
home to have dinner. Cadogan, Wilson and the French Am-
bassador were also sent for. After a great deal of telephoning
to Paris, including a direct call to Daladier, a Cabinet meeting
was called for eleven-thirty. 376
When Chamberlain left them at half-past eight, the minis-
ters had gone back to Simon's room and sent a letter, repeat-
ing the points that they were making. 377 After dinner they
met again, and sent Simon and Anderson to find out what
was happening. At about eleven, Anderson came back to tell
them that the French were being worked on. At eleven-
twenty they were called to a meeting of the Cabinet. 378
At the second Cabinet of the day, Chamberlain explained
that the French wanted their armies in position before war
began because their air force could not defend their lines of
communication. He reported a French proposal for a joint
nine-hour ultimatum to expire at noon next day. But, he
added, Daladier had been left in no doubt that this would not
satisfy the House of Commons and that Britain might have to
declare war by herself.
The subsequent discussion was designed to reconcile the
352 III. THE EFFECT
military requirement (for minimum delay between the ulti-

matum and the outbreak of war), the diplomatic requirement
(for minimum delay between the British and French declara-
tions) and the political need (expressed forcibly by Mac-
Donald and Stanley) to announce something straightaway so
that the Sunday newspapers might remove the impression
that had been created in the House of Commons. In the
course of discussion, the military requirement was allowed to
override the political desire to announce that Henderson
would be seeing Ribbentrop next morning. In view of the
need to satisfy Parliament at noon next day, the expiry-time
was brought forward to eleven o'clock. When the ultimatum
expired, Chamberlain spoke not to Parliament but through
the BBC. 379
It is easy to be solemn about this decision. It was the
culmination of the interlude of East European involvement
to which Chamberlain had become committed in 1938. It
marked the end of the policy of detente and was a prelude to
the end of the British Empire. Yet it is doubtful whether
Chamberlain, or his critics, knew what they were doing. The
critics who, doubtless, were 'democrats', were responding to
the sort of impulse which Imperialists used to say would kill
the Empire, though many of them thought that they were
honouring it. As for Chamberlain, he saw no need to fight a
war, however definitive the declaration.
PART IV
THE POLITICS OF EASY VICTORY

12
CHAMBERLAIN AND THE WAR
'The way to win the war is to convince the Germans that they cannot
win'.
Chamberlain to Ida, September 23 1939
'As you know I have always been more afraid of a peace offer than of an
air raid'.
Chamberlain to Ida, October 8 1939
'I stick to the view I have always held that Hitler missed the bus in
September 1938. He could have dealt France and ourselves a terrible,
perhaps a mortal, blow then. The opportunity will not recur'.
Chamberlain to Hilda, December 30 1939
When Chamberlain agreed that war should be declared, he

intended to meet any threat Hitler might offer in the air and
to take any opportunities that might arise to sink such parts
of the German navy as offered themselves to attack. There
was no expectation of military victory1 and no real belief
that the state of war need be turned into a war of steel and
blood. Fortified by the neutrality of Italy and Japan and
unimpressed by the Russo-German alliance, he believed that
Hitler's bluff had been called. The French defences presented
a deterrent in the West.2 Anglo-French effort could be direc-
ted at producing a collapse of the German home front as the
German people came to understand that Hitler could not
win.
Nor was this passive conception an aberration. The guaran-
tee to Poland, so far from implying a will to fight, had been
intended to make fighting unnecessary. Hitler had not been
deterred, but he had had to ally himself with the Soviet
Union. He had lost sympathy and support in Italy and Japan.
He showed every sign of losing it in Germany, where his
difficulties invited a 'war of nerves' to separate him from the
forces which had allowed him to come to power in the first
place.3
Chamberlain conceived himself as fighting a war of feelings
rather than force in which his chief assets were past blame-
lessness, the German fear of unsuccessful war and the hatred
356 IV. THE POLITICS OF EASY VICTORY
of Russia which he supposed to exist in Germany, Italy and

Japan. Reversing his rejection of ideological diplomacy, he
aimed to show that Britain and France stood for virtue and
that the Russo-German alliance was a form of vice.4
In this sense the war was an extension of the battle that
had been fought in the previous two years with the difference
now that he believed himself to be on top. Politically 'the
accursed madman' 5 was isolated; 'morally' he had been 'de-
feated'.6 He did not have the resources for a long war; the
risks would prevent him trying to win a short one. He had, in
fact, been cornered, and if the German people did not know
this, it would be Britain's business to tell them.
Chamberlain knew that full-scale war would be financially
damaging; to that extent his strategy rationalised a disagree-
able necessity. In addition, he had moments of doubt.
Through all of them he felt necessity coinciding with inclina-
tion as the advantage he had gained with the Russo-German
pact began to tell. Once it had been announced that the
Empire was being mobilised for a three-year war, Hitler
would need knock-out victories. Since none would be avail-
able in the West, he would look for them in Rumania where
the Russians would be as vigilant as they had been in the
Baltic.7 Even before they were settled on his flank, Chamber-
lain believed that victories would not be forthcoming. After
the occupation of eastern Poland,8 the Russians barred the
way.
The belief that Hitler was blocked in the East did not
convince Chamberlain that he would attack in the West. Po-
land had shown that a blitzkrieg was possible, but the Ger-
man army had fought badly. 9 A direct assault on the Maginot
line or a sea-borne invasion of Britain would fail. 10 A flank-
ing attack through the Low Countries (or Switzerland) would
be a gamble. Whether successful or not, it would be 'a flag-
rant...breach of neutrality' which would damage Hitler in the
eyes of the world. n
Within the framework of a naval blockade of Germany and
a German blockade of France and Britain, the war would,
therefore, be mainly a matter of giving the air force real
striking power, arming possible allies — including Turkey —
and preparing to retaliate against an invasion of the Low
Countries. 12
CHAMBERLAIN AND THE WAR 35 7
Chamberlain believed that Hitler, too, was fighting a poli-

tical war and wanted a political way out of his difficulty. 13
Time was not on his side, and it was important to avoid
action which would put it there. 14 It was especially impor-
tant to establish that he had let Germany down by getting
'involved in a world war' after claiming that there would be
'no war because no one dared to go to war' against him. 15 If
this was done, Chamberlain said, 'we shall have won...by the
spring'. 16 It was in order to let Germans know that the Nazi
leaders were piling up fortunes in foreign banks that he pre-
ferred leaflets to bombs. 1 7
Having formed an estimate, he stuck to it. He was as clear
when Intelligence reports predicted an attack after the rejec-
tion of Hitler's peace overtures in October as he had been
when most of the Cabinet expected one in September. 18
When nothing had happened by the time the November rains
made it unlikely that anything would happen before the
spring, he knew that he knew more about the politics of war
than Gamelin and Ironside.
Chamberlain's governing belief was that Hitler's freedom
of manoeuvre had been restricted. He could no longer divert
Germans with achievements abroad in order to make up for
economic difficulty at home. 1 9 In a war-time winter, diffi-
culty would be acute. The petrol difficulty would be acutest
of all, and occupation of the Rumanian oilfields — if the
Russians allowed it — would alienate Italy and Yugoslavia. 20
Since spectacular action in the West would entail a prolonged
campaign, 'such frightful losses as to endanger the whole Nazi
system' 21 and the 'Bolshevization of Germany', 22 the only
thing he could do, short of a 'last...gambler's throw', 23
would be to trick Britain and France into making peace.
Peace, on Hitler's terms, however, was unacceptable. The
war had begun because he had used 'force'. It was being
fought (as the first war had been) in order to show that states
must observe their 'obligations'. 24 It would not be ended
until Germany had 'got rid of the gangsters' and was ready to
'co-operate' with 'other civilised peoples'. 25
Chamberlain's aim, therefore, was 'the elimination of Hit-
ler' and the 'liberation of Europe'. 26 From an early stage, his
chief fear was that, after the defeat of the Poles, there would
be 'a skilfully timed, carefully planned attack on our home
front' in the form of a peace offensive,27 with support from

Roosevelt, the Pope 28 and the Dutch and Belgian mon-
archs, 29 whose offer to mediate (in order to escape invasion)
was picked up by the peace movement in England.
The peace movement was in three parts. From various po-
sitions on the Left, it was the work of the Independent La-
bour party, Lords Arnold, Ponsonby and Noel-Buxton, Lans-
bury, Stokes and the Peace Pledge Union. On the Right it was
the Work of three Conservative MPs (Wilson, Culverwell and
Southby), three Conservative peers (Buccleuch, Brocket and
Westminster) 30 and (quite separately) Mosley.
The ILP was pacifist about Capitalist wars; the PPU was
pacifist in general. Mosley combined anti-semitism with the
need for an Anglo-German settlement. The Brocket/West-
minster groups and Wilson and his friends were anti-Commu-
nist and pro-Nazi. They had not expected war; whether fairly
or not, they had been rebuked by Halifax for telling Hitler
that it would not happen. When it happened they blamed it
on the press, the Opposition and the dissentient Conserva-
tives; for them peace was the only way of destroying
'the seeds of revolution' which Russia was 'anxious to
scatter'. 31
Between the three there was little commerce, and none
was very effective. The PPU had some minor effect on the
public. Westminster was in touch with Ball, Hankey and
Churchill (by whom, as an old friend, he was reminded of
MacDonald's experience in 1914). Brocket (an ex-Conserva-
tive MP) and Buccleuch (a Household officer) were in touch
with Halifax and Chamberlain, though not highly regarded by
either. In general, they could all be ignored so long as serious
politicians believed that the war could be won.
In fact, in the winter of 1939, no important politician
wanted to make peace, apart from Butler, who was too ju-
nior, 32 Beaverbrook, who did not matter, 33 and lioyd,
George who was 'a bundle of selfishness and malice'. 34 Nor
did Chamberlain feel serious doubts about the public's will-
ingness to face up to war without the drama and death of
1914 to involve them intimately. 35
In refusing to make peace, 36 Chamberlain aimed to com-
pel Germans who did not want to be defeated to end the war
themselves. This was one reason for the cool reception the
CHAMBERLAIN AND THE WAR 359
Cabinet was persuaded to give to Hitler's peace speech of

October 6. It was the chief reason for refusing to define war
aims which would have included French statements so ex-
treme as to rally Germans behind him. 37 It was why an
interest was developed in alternative German leaders.
The belief that alternatives were available came from
sources of varying reliability. 38 Some were distinctly unreli-
able. But Dahlerus was in close touch with Goering and paid
two visits to England in the first three months of the war,
conveying offers to guarantee the Low Countries in return
for a free hand in central and eastern Europe. 39 Until early
November a British Intelligence unit in Holland was in touch
with agents of the German army (whether they were double-
agents or not). On two separate occasions (on Beck's behalf)
von Papen suggested a negotiated settlement, involving the
replacement of Hitler and the freeing of Poland and Czecho-
slovakia. 40 In the new year Thyssen made one approach and
Goerdeler another; the Pope, much against his will, conveyed
a request from an unnamed general (in fact, Beck) to know
on what terms Britain would negotiate if a coup or civil war
was precipitated by army action in Germany. 41
Chamberlain had doubts about the genuineness of some of
these approaches 42 but was impressed, whether they were
genuine or not. It was 'too early' yet to hope that Hitler
would be removed. Nor would a settlement be possible until
he had been. But these contacts, and the attempt to assassi-
nate him in Munich on November 8, lent weight to the belief
that the Germans would soon understand that 'they can't
win, and that it isn't worthwhile to go on getting thinner and
poorer when they might have instant relief. 43
How Hitler was to be pushed was not obvious. The Cabi-
net, when told about the Intelligence unit, was more cautious
than Chamberlain whose major phase of expectation ended
when it was dragged, or lured, over the Dutch frontier and
shot the day after the assassination attempt failed.44
Though the evidence was fragmentary, the idea of a high-
level German revolution carried much weight in the higher
reaches of the government. Not only Chamberlain, but Hali-
fax, Hankey, Chatfield and Churchill accepted the Foreign
Office and Intelligence view that Hitler's 'days' would be
'numbered' unless he repaired the damage which Ribben-
trop had done to German influence in northern, eastern and

south-eastern Europe. 45
For a time in November, contact was lost. 46 After a while
it was resumed, with results that were not entirely reassuring.
Despite 'intense depression' in Germany and the promise of a
coup d'etat, no coup was in sight. 47 Yet Chamberlain con-
tinued to talk about the Axis 'breaking', Hitler 'getting mad-
der' and the war being over by Christmas 1940. 48 Right up
to the invasion of the Low Countries, he repeated that an
attack in the West would be so difficult as to be impossible.
'The accumulation of evidence that an attack is imminent is
formidable', he wrote on April 13, 'and yet I cannot convince
myself that it is coming.' 49 'I am', he wrote a week later,
'firmly convinced' that Hitler's 'basic objectives' are 'iron ore
and oil', not an attack on the western front. 50 Even at the
beginning of May, when doubting whether 'things' could be
'h[e]ld quiet for the rest of the year', his reason was that
Hitler could not 'face a second winter' and might 'exhaust
himself in the attack' in order to win before the winter be-
gan. 51
Chamberlain's governing assumption was that victory was
certain. By the end of the year, he had begun to believe that
German morale had so much improved that Germans would
do nothing to help until 'a real hard punch in the stomach'
made them. 5 2
What this 'punch' could be and where Germany's 'stom-
ach' was to be located was not easy to decide. A Passchen-
daele was out of the question until Britain and France were
stronger. The bombing of Germany was desirable, but was
impossible because the British bomber forces were inade-
quate and the French air defences too weak to withstand
retaliation. 53 What, therefore, was wanted was a sideshow
which, while not alienating the German public, would remind
those who conducted the German war effort that Hitler was
destroying Germany. It was in this thought-world that Cham-
berlain was moving when the decision was made to carry the
war into Scandinavia.
The idea of British action in Scandinavia, as distinct from
the Balkans or the Black Sea, 54 arose from a coincidence of
two events — the Russian attack on Finland in November
1939 and the realisation that Swedish iron-ore was crucial.
Iron ore was Vital to Germany's prosecution of the War'

and would be 'decisive' as to its 'duration'. 55 In the summer
months, most of it was sent from northern Sweden across the
Gulf of Bothnia. For the rest of the year, it went overland to
the Norwegian ports (especially Narvik) and then, by sea, in
German ships which, when war started, used the protection
of Norwegian waters. 56
The first proposal to block the Narvik route was made in
the form of a mine-laying operation. 57 The War Cabinet ap-
proved it in late December in the belief that the Scandinavian
governments would not object. 58 It was abandoned after Do-
minions caution and Swedish objections 59 had so much de-
layed it that it was no longer worthwhile in view of the
reopening of the Bothnian route in May. 60 Attention was
concentrated instead on a treble-purpose Anglo-French expe-
dition to help the Finns (via Narvik), 61 occupy the ore mines
at Gallivare in northern Sweden en route and support the
Swedes if the Germans invaded southern Sweden. 62 It was at
this point that Russo-Finnish relations became central.
Nothing the Russians had done since the beginning of the
war had altered the opinion Chamberlain had held since 1937
— that they would have at some time to fight Hitler, and that
their chief object was to involve Britain and France in soften-
ing him up first.
From the signing of the Russo-German pact, British policy
had been played both ways. On the one hand, the pact had
undermined Poland, which constituted the second front
against Germany. On the other, it was assumed that Stalin
was as much opposed to German, as Hitler to Russian, expan-
sion and that there was an incompatibility which should be
allowed to develop. 63
About the Russian occupation of Poland, feelings had been
mixed. Britain did not have to declare war since the Polish
treaty excluded attack by a non-European power. 64 Cham-
berlain did not want to since Stalin and Hitler were likely, at
some stage, to quarrel. 65 Honour, therefore, was satisfied by
denunciation which, it was thought, might merge into a cam-
paign to complete Hitler's isolation by succeeding him as
leader of the anti-Comintern pact. 66
While the partition of Poland was thought to have in-
creased the likelihood of Russo-German conflict, it was not
assumed that Britain and France should get closer to Russia.

On the contrary, a tripartite alliance was expected to do
damage. It would increase vulnerability in the Far East,
where Japanese eyes were more likely to be kept off the
Indian Ocean by keeping the war going in China. It would
have a similar effect in Italy where Lomine's view was that
the King, Balbo and Ciano were so tired of the Germans that
even Mussolini might turn round, provided the Scandinavian
operations were successful and the French avoided operations
in the Balkans. 67
Despite trade negotiations with Russia (which continued
after the political talks had broken down), it was assumed,
therefore, that detachment was essential. This continued to
be so even when indirect relations seemed likely via Turco-
Soviet and Anglo-Turkish treaties (while the former was un-
der negotiation).
What Chamberlain felt about the Russian attack on Fin-
land was that it was lucky that it was Molotov who had been
negotiating in the summer. He was glad that he did not have
to laugh off the world-wide indignation from which the real
sufferer would be Hitler who 'must be in a state of profound
depression'. 68 Depression would be induced by the mistrust
which Japan and Italy would feel at the spread of Russian
power, by the offence caused in the United States, where the
Finns were held in special favour,69 and by the 'consterna-
tion' which would result 'among generals and admirals' in
Germany as their satellite was assaulted. 70 Though care was
taken to avoid war with Russia and consideration given to the
Russian threat to Persia and India, 71 it was expected that the
Turks, the Japanese, the Italians, the Americans and the Ger-
man generals — as well as the Scandinavian governments —
would all be affected by the right Anglo-French response. All
of them were in mind when it was decided to support Rus-
sia's expulsion at the special League session which had been
summoned in Geneva. 72
Finnish resistance was expected to subvert Hitler in Ger-
many 73 and to drain Russia of many of the things that he
wanted. 74 The Russian failure in the early weeks of the war
confirmed the impression, which the speed of action in east-
ern Poland alone seemed to call in question, that the Russian
army was inefficient. 75 It suggested that Britain and France
should support Finland by sending arms and encouraging In-

ternational Brigade-style volunteers, provided the Scandina-
vian governments would let them through.
From this point onwards, policy was conducted in the
belief that a major advantage would be gained if Stalin was
defeated and Hitler compelled to intervene, 76 or if Scandina-
vian entanglements prevented Russo-German advances in the
Balkans, where the Russian danger was an aid to keeping
Italy neutral 77 and Finnish resistance had made it seem that
Britain and France might not be defeated. 78 It was this dem-
onstrative objective, the desire to stop the iron ore traffic and
the danger that Germany was preparing to occupy the ore-
fields if Finnish resistance collapsed 79 which made Scandin-
avia central to British strategy in the first six months of
1940. 80
The Narvik plan, so far from involving Britain and France
in war with Russia, was chosen as an alternative to a French
(or Finnish) 81 proposal for an attack via Petsamo which
would have done. 82 It was hampered by inadequate prepara-
tion and by failures in Anglo-French co-operation. Even more
than the mining of Norwegian waters, it depended on the
Scandinavian governments who were so reluctant that a deci-
sion to land in Norway did not enable the expedition to leave
by the time the Finns had to make peace on March 13. 83
While the operation was being prepared, Chamberlain ex-
pected the capture of Gallivere to 'definitely tip the war in
our favour'. His attitude to the Finnish capitulation was that
the Scandinavian governments had behaved atrociously. He
did not deny that the effect would be serious. But he was 'a
good deal relieved at not having to send an expedition into
Sweden' 84 and the Germans, though 'cock-a-hoop' at Brit-
ain's failure, would find Russia freer and more tiresome than
she had been before. 8S He was responsible for the decision
that the Narvik/Gallivare expedition should be stood down in
order to remind the Swedes and Norwegians that the chief
lesson they should learn was that 'the only hope of preserving
their own independence lies in our victory'. 86
The Finnish collapse was 'shattering'. 87 Halifax thought of
going to Ankara and Rome in order to repair the damage. 88
The chief consequence was the replacement of Daladier by
Reynaud, who, like Daladier himself, was then responsible for
recrimination against Chamberlain and requests for joint ac-

tion to land on the Norwegian coast. He followed this with
proposals for a naval demonstration in the Black Sea, an
amphibious landing in the Caucasus or an air assault on
Batoum and Baku (in order to protect the Rumanian oil-
fields, deny Russian oil to Germany and prevent Russo-
German advances into the Balkans). 89
The British answer was a promise of action in early April —
though not in the Black Sea — and decisions to carry out
existing plans to mine the Rhine, Norwegian waters and the
Gulf of Bothnia. 90
These decisions were proposed as a package at the Su-
preme War Council of March 28. When the French vetoed the
Rhine project as inviting retaliation on French industry, 91
the Norwegian project was undertaken, rather reluctantly, by
itself. The mining of Norwegian waters, designed to provoke
sufficient German action to justify a British landing, 92 went
wrong. At the same time as it began, the Germans invaded
Denmark, outwitted the navy and occupied all the main Nor-
wegian ports.
What followed was a rescue operation. Decisions to con-
centrate first on Narvik, 93 and then on Trondheim, 94 to
evacuate Central Norway after the failure there on
April 26 9S and to make Narvik the seat of the Norwegian
government (and a base for bombing the Bothnian route) 96
— were taken in the belief that an Anglo-French presence was
essential if Scandinavian resistance was to be effective.
Chamberlain expected success to deter Mussolini from act-
ing in the Balkans. 97 When the decision was made to invest
Trondheim, he could not see how 'the Germans could avoid
ultimate disaster'. Though warned 98 that the operation
would be difficult, he expected it to be over in a week and
that the Germans would be turned out of Narvik 'by at any
rate the week following'."
When expectations collapsed, there were justifications. The
attack on Trondheim had had to be tried because the Nor-
wegians had asked for it, but it was an impossible task. 10°
Chamberlain's hopes had been reflected in the news-
papers; 101 when hopes faded, the newspapers were blamed
for the fact that they had had to be disappointed. 102 When
Hitler eventually attacked in the West, it was 'fortunate that
we ha[d] not got large forces of men...guns and planes locked

up in Trondheim when we want them so badly here'. 103
Whatever benefit Chamberlain thought he could discern,
the setbacks suffered in Norway were damaging. The Nor-
wegian expedition, however, was a campaign, not the war;
when he resigned, ore-ships could not have sailed from Narvik
if they had wanted to, and Iceland was about to be occu-
pied. l04 The Low Countries had been invaded. Mussolini
seemed about to invade Yugoslavia. But it was not clear why.
Nor was it certain that he had decided to attack France or
that Britain and France would declare war unless he did. 105
The British army had advanced into Belgium according to
plan. The Ruhr was about to be bombed. 106 But there was
no sign of the Anglo-French front collapsing and no reason to
think that Hitler would break out of the log-jam in which he
had been trapped since the previous August. Chamberlain
believed that he would fail and that in Germany the effect of
failure would be striking. In a month's time the situation had
been transformed. It had not been transformed yet. By the
time transformation occurred, Chamberlain had been re-
moved.
13
THE FALL OF CHAMBERLAIN
'The government can only be changed if there is a serious breakdown

among their supporters and if, as someone says to me privately,
"Winston is ready to strike" ' •
Dalton diary, September 19 1939
'I cannot help feeling that the principles of Liberalism really fulfil what
people want, if they only could realise it'.
Crewe to Lloyd George, April 1 1940
'It is now quite clear that Winston is putting in the jackals and ousting
even those who have done well of what I may call the respectable
Rump of the Tory party*.
Davidson to Baldwin, May 14 1940
Chamberlain's understanding of the war was accepted by

Chat field — the only professional strategist — and by Halifax
and Hankey, whom he regarded as the most important mem-
bers of the Cabinet. Chatfield expected the war to be a long
one (unless it was shortened by political collapse in Ger-
many) ; his ultimate weapons were air power, naval blockade
and economic strangulation. Neither he nor Halifax was an
optimist, and Hankey was positively pessimistic (until Hitler
failed to attack London). All three assumed that the essence
of prudence was Fabian.
Hankey's view before joining the War Cabinet in Septem-
ber was not much different from the views he had expressed
before retiring fourteen months before. Just as Eden's depar-
ture had given him a 'strange sense of relief, so Munich had
'laid the foundations of a lasting peace'. But the commitment
of September 18 had renewed the danger of a three-cornered
war. The Polish guarantee had made him 'shiver' as 'a military
commitment to a country that we cannot have safe access to
by sea'. When offered office he was not sure that he wanted
responsibility for a war of which he disapproved.1
Nevertheless, he accepted. In the implementation of the
War Book (which he had invented), his role was less impor-
tant than it would have been two years before. His presence
was pivotal in ensuring that Chamberlain had strategic in-
sights independently of both Churchill and the Chiefs of

Staff.2
If Chamberlain's superiority was to be contested, the most
natural critic (apart from Churchill) would have been Iron-
side,3 whose contempt for the politicians who had starved
the army was limitless. While over-estimating both the Poles
and the Finns and being over-confident about the Scandina-
vian expedition, 4 Ironside believed that victory was impos-
sible without a land victory in France. But he regarded Cham-
berlain as an impressive politician and did not dispute his
pre-eminence. 5 Though gifted in the manner of Sir Henry
Wilson, his instinctive discontent had so little effect that
nearly all disagreements concerned incidents in the task of
gaining time to repair gaps in case the war became a real one.
It was within these limits that Chamberlain's relations with
Churchill were conducted.
(i)
As soon as it seemed that war was coming, Churchill was
offered office. This was done, not because Chamberlain
thought much of him but because he would be a danger if he
was kept out. Once war began his presence was a symbol of
Chamberlain's determination to go on until Hitler was elimi-
nated.
Nor did Churchill's suitability diminish in the six months
that followed. Though suspicious of negotiations with the
German opposition, he made no attempt to stop them. 6
About Palestine he allowed himself to be overridden. 7 He
was less cautious about challenging the Eire government 8 and
wished to be unyielding in India. 9 He was quicker at respon-
ding to Belgium's invitation to send in troops 10 and sup-
ported the French demand for an active policy in the Balkans
and the Black Sea. n He treated rationing as a 'slur on the
navy' 12 and a 'bureaucratic' interference with both indivi-
dual liberty 13 and the 'laws of supply and demand'. 14 But
he supported the diversion of merchant shipping from the
East coast ports which dislocated lines of supply and made
rationing more difficult to avoid. 15 Without necessarily be-
lieving that the war would have to be won against the Ger-
man army, 16 he disputed Chamberlain's air priority and
THE FALL OF CHAMBERLAIN 369
questioned his financial scruples about land rearmament. 17

These differences were marginal. Churchill and Chamber-
lain both thought that Stalin and Hitler should be entangled
in Scandinavia. Both agreed that Mussolini should be handled
carefully, that there would be no attack in the West before
the spring and that civilian targets in Germany should not be
bombed unless Belgium was invaded. Churchill was moved to
tears and 'proud to follow' when shown the telegrams in
which Chamberlain told Roosevelt that peace talks with Hit-
ler were out of the question. 18
There was, however, no meeting of minds, and on Cham-
berlain's side, no desire that meetings should take place. He
regarded Churchill as an adult child who neither 'knew his
own motives' nor 'where his actions [were] carrying him' 1 9
and who enjoyed too robustly the wartime descent to the
gutter. He talked much, Chamberlain thought, and irrele-
vantly in Cabinet, gave gratuitous, and unnecessary, advice, 20
and bombarded him with letters which were written for his
memoirs. His speeches ignored world opinion and gave unde-
sirable provocations to the Germans when he was supposed
to share the collective view that 'time was on our side', not
theirs. 21
When the War Cabinet was first thought of, Chamberlain
intended to include Halifax, Hankey, Simon, Chatfield and
Churchill, but to exclude the Air and War ministers. They
then threatened to resign, so, when formed, it included them
(and Churchill) at the Service departments, along with Chat-
field who was politically negligible (in spite of being Minister
for the Co-ordination of Defence). The difficulty was then
compounded when Chatfield was given strategic oversight as
chairman of the Military Co-ordination Committee (on its
formation in late October). The result was that Churchill,
with no overriding responsibility for the conduct of the war,
claimed a primacy which Chamberlain rejected. 22
Although Churchill was a problem, Chamberlain felt confi-
dent that he could handle him. He handled him first by fail-
ing to answer his letters, replying, when Churchill com-
plained, that they met daily at the War Cabinet. After a press
campaign and a Churchill letter in early October, they had 'a
frank talk' in the course of which Chamberlain received a
promise that the letters (and the 'intriguing') would stop. 23
Thereafter his attitude was patronising. He was pleased by

the poor reception given to Churchill's second broadcast,
which he thought would 'do him much good'. He probably
thought him 'lucky' to have 'got away' with the sinking of
Royal Oak in Scapa Flow in October. 24 When he took him
to Paris for a meeting of the Supreme War Council, his lan-
guage was that he had put him 'in his seventh heaven'. 2S
When deciding to rule out the mining of Norwegian waters,
he felt no apprehension 'for the simple reason that, if I put
my foot down, he must either accept my decision or re-
sign...[which he] would just hate to [do] for...he is thor-
oughly enjoying life and...is much too intelligent to miss the
points in the situation that matter'. 26
It is difficult to measure Churchill's effect on the Cabinet.
He played a major part in the decision to make Chamberlain
accept a 55-division programme as an ultimate objective at
the beginning of the war. He probably initiated discussion of
the proposal to intervene in Scandinavia. His presence made
Chat field redundant. 27
By the time Chamberlain decided to remove Chatfield, 28
he was attracting criticism himself as a result of the failure in
Finland which increased the danger from Churchill, who
could disclaim special responsibility so long as Chatfield was
in the Cabinet. On the other hand, Chamberlain mistrusted
Churchill as a strategist and wanted to maintain Cabinet ac-
cess to the Chiefs of Staff. 29 Instead, therefore, of making
him Minister of Defence, he made him deputy chairman of
the Military Co-ordination Committee over which he made it
clear that he would not himself normally be presiding. 30
Though the effect once more was to put Churchill into 'his
seventh heaven', 31 his handling of the Committee gave
Chamberlain a great deal of trouble. 32 He neglected to bring
detailed questions to a decision, gave long disquisitions on
general questions and 'bullied everyone into sulky silence'.
The Service ministers were 'worn out' by argument, 33 the
Chiefs of Staff by the vigils they had to keep in making up
for the two-hour sleep he had every afternoon. When Stanley
conveyed their complaints, 34 Chamberlain was clear that
Churchill had 'smashed the machine' that provided profes-
sional advice about the conduct of the war. 35
Churchill not only failed to report what the Chiefs of Staff
had decided; he was, Chamberlain thought, at least primarily

responsible for two major mistakes — the judgment that the
German fleet was sailing to the English Channel, not Narvik
on April 8 (with the consequent failure to intercept it) and
the decision to divert the rear part of the Narvik force to
Trondheim. He changed his mind more than once — four
times, according to Chamberlain — in deciding whether Nar-
vik or Trondheim should be the primary object of attention.
At the same time as Dill was made Vice-Chief of the Imperial
General Staff in order to prepare for the removal of Ironside
(whom Churchill had helped Hore-Belisha to appoint), Cham-
berlain decided that the arrangement should be ended. When
Hankey, Simon and Wood asked him to end it, he did so
willingly. 36 From April 16 he presided at the Military Co-or-
dination Committee himself.
At this point Chamberlain believed that Churchill was
grateful for being rescued. 37 They then went to Paris to-
gether for a meeting of the Supreme War Council on
April 23. As soon as they got back, he discovered that Chur-
chill's mood had changed radically.
By the end of 1939 Churchill had regained much of the
support he had lost during the abdication. It was not, how-
ever, easy to see that he would get very much further 38
unless the war got out of hand. It was not certain that this
would happen or that it would even be a long one. Unless it
was going to be, he had every reason for avoiding false moves
likely to damage his position. Bracken and Lloyd were not so
inhibited. 39 He confined himself to urging Chamberlain to
promote Hudson and rescue Wood (by making him Minister
of Economics after his failure at the Air Ministry), and to
bring Croft, Beaverbrook, Amery and Lloyd into the govern-
ment. 40
Hardly any of this succeeded; by April 1940 his position
was worse than it had been six months before. He had had
some of the power that he wanted but Norway had been a
disaster which might be hooked onto him like the Darda-
nelles. After the German occupation of Narvik, the impres-
sion he had created in Parliament had been deplorable. 41
Even Keyes quarrelled with him for failing to make the navy
attack Trondheim. 42 On April 20 the assault on Trondheim
was put off for at least a month. 4 3 It is not certain whether
Chamberlain's entourage then began to smear him in case he

fought back or whether he fought back first. Whatever the se-
quence, he began to dissociate himself from the government.
Dissociation took the form of 'orations' in Cabinet about
returning to the attack or fighting a guerrilla war in the moun-
tains behind Trondheim, 44 and of dark hints about refusing
any longer 'to attend the Coordination Committee and give
his opinion to be weighed with other opinions'. 45 A disagree-
able performance at a Cabinet Committee immediately after
the visit to Paris made Chamberlain decide to speak to him.
When he did so, he was told what Churchill wanted, 'which
was in effect to become Minister of Defence'. 46 In a mena-
cing statement sent in writing later that evening, Churchill
added that, though willing to provide support if Chamberlain
retained direction of the Military Co-ordination Committee,
he would not return to the chair unless given the power to
make policy. 47
Before sending this letter, Churchill had talked to the La-
bour leaders and to Sinclair. He had also been told what
Salisbury and the Watching Committee thought. It was at this
point, that his acts of self-defence became a threat to Cham-
berlain's future. 48
(ii)
The situation in which Chamberlain's removal became a pos-

sibility was the work of five parliamentary groups — the La-
bour leaders, the Sinclair Liberals, the Eden group under
Amery's chairmanship, an inter-party group which Clement
Davies had formed at the beginning of the war and a commit-
tee of senior Conservatives — 'the Watching Committee' —
which Salisbury and Cranborne set up in early 1940. In crea-
ting a state of mind, in suggesting responses and in the
mechanics of motion, these were the prime agents. In facilita-
ting the positive, and perhaps desperate, action which Chur-
chill took after his failure at the Military Co-ordination Com-
mittee, their activities were crucial.
For the Labour leaders the first nine months of the war were
a non-event. The Labour organisation was active in the con-
stituencies and Labour local authorities were unhelpful to the
government. 49 Labour supporters from universities found

their way into government departments. There were out-
bursts in the House of Commons — over Hore-Belisha's resig-
nation, for example — a great deal of detailed criticism and a
stream of public activity by which the Cabinet was greatly
worried. 50 Labour spokesmen had regular meetings with rele-
vant ministers who were influenced at many points by a feel-
ing that a price had to be paid for Labour acquiescence.51
But 'National security' and the electoral truce imposed re-
straint. 52 Reluctance to repeat the mistake Henderson had
made in 1915 and MacDonald in 1931 meant that, unless
Chamberlain collapsed physically, there was nothing to do
but wait.
Waiting produced problems. There was the problem of
Communist defeatism in the Labour movement. There was
the shock induced by the Russian attack on Finland and a
fear that Conservatives might want to attack the Russians. 53
There was the incompatibility between the demand for a
more determined war strategy and the pacifist demand to end
the war, which was as strong inside the Labour movement as
it was outside.
Support for the war did not involve support for Chamber-
lain or an increase in cordiality between Chamberlain and
Attlee. 54 The Labour party had refused to join the govern-
ment; it became a policy position that it would not join a
government of which Chamberlain was a member. Despite
individual backsliding, 55 this prohibition was extended to
include Simon, Hoare and Sir Horace Wilson.
The trade union movement was in a position to withhold
co-operation from war production. The Labour party could
use the party truce to affect policy. What neither could do
was to effect a change of government. It was only when
action had been taken by Davies, Amery, Salisbury and the
Conservative party that this became possible.
Clement Davies played a central part in the events of May

1940 but his group was not established in order to make
kings. It began at the outbreak of war as a discussion group
of like-minded MPs who 'found action through...party ma-
chinery inadequate'. 56 Eleanor Rathbone, its secretary, was
an admirer of the Spanish Republic, a supporter of Haile
Selassie and a Liverpool Liberal authority on a variety of

social problems. Nicolson might well have belonged to any of
the parties. Grenfell — an admirer of Lloyd George 57 and the
Labour MP whom Baldwin liked best — was a self-taught
Welsh linguist who had brought from the mines the national
sympathies which Hodges had brought in the past. After a
period as Baldwin's and Churchill's private secretary,
Boothby had been an ally of Macmillan and, from time to
time, a Churchill supporter. White had resigned with the Sam-
uelite ministers in 1932 and signed their manifesto in 1935.
In general, the convenors embodied the informed politics
of the Liberal Left of which a major exponent was Lloyd
George (from whom they failed to get access to the research
machinery of the Council of Action). 58 With a few excep-
tions, this also applied to the regular members. These in-
cluded one National Labour MP (who happened to be an
ex-Liberal), 59 four Sinclairites, 60 an ex-Liberal MP who was
Rathbone's Independent colleague for the Combined English
Universities, 61 the Labour MP for Ipswich who had tried to
get Sinclair on his by-election platform in 1938, 62 and Bel-
lenger, the Labour MP who had had both Conservative and
Liberal connections before beating Malcolm MacDonald at
Bassetlawin 1935.
Davies was a Welsh lawyer who had succeeded Lloyd
George's benefactor, Lord Davies, as MP for Montgomery-
shire in 1929. Despite his predecessor's hostility when he
became a Simonite two years later, he had been unopposed
since. He had remained a Simonite after the Liberal resigna-
tions in 1932 and had declined to join Lloyd George's Welsh
opposition. He had not, however, been given office. 63 In
1935 he volunteered to support the New Deal. 64 The leader-
ship of the new group gave him his first opportunity, at the
age of fifty-five, to present himself as a significant figure. In
the following nine months most of its initiatives were his. 65
About a negotiated peace, the group had no fixed opin-
ions. Some of its members had long-standing commitments to
economic appeasement. 66 For others the alienation of Russia
was so serious that a negotiated peace was unavoidable. 67
Despite talk about the need to 'destroy Hitlerism', it was not
in these quarters that the most resolute noises were made
about fighting on until Hitler was defeated.
Nevertheless, Davies had relations with the Eden group,

and was aware of its doubts about the conduct of the war.
After the Secret Session had given them an airing, 68 he re-
signed the Simonite whip on the grounds that the war was
not being planned, trade unionists and manufacturers not
being involved and the War Cabinet not really operating. 69
In the next six months he was waiting for an opportunity
to move into action whenever Chamberlain was in difficulty.
For this reason he took a good deal of trouble with Amery.
When the war began, Amery expected to be given office. He

was disappointed. Eden and Churchill had to be accommo-
dated because of their public reputations, but Chamberlain
felt free to pay back the intervention of September 2. 70 Des-
pite applications to influential friends, Amery found himself
'spoiling for work' as he had been after the reconstructions of
1935, 1937 and 1938. 71 Consoled by the thought that
'Milner had to wait two years before they used him', 72 he
was not consoled when Salter (a League-based Cobdenite)
became Under-Secretary for Shipping. He looked on resent-
fully while Gilmour became Shipping Minister (as though to
show that ministers need know nothing about their depart-
ments) 73 and Stanley replaced Hore-Belisha (quite 'scandal-
ously') 74 at the War Office. Having declined the chairman-
ship of a Select Committee, 75 he urged a proper energy in
conducting the war (and no early peace) and prepared plans
for a 'European Commonwealth based on Western Christen-
dom' as an encouragement 'to superior people in Germany'
to face the situation when Hitlerism had been defeated. 76
In the first six months of the war Amery developed a
wider range of allies than he had had before. At meetings of
the Davies group, he was acclaimed as the only Conservative
fit to be Minister of Economics. 77 At the suggestion of the
Finnish embassy, he helped to run the Finnish Aid Commit-
tee. 78 In the process of despatching volunteers to fight the
Russians, he worked with Cecil's Lytton, with Macmillan and
with Lord Davies, who adopted the view (which Amery can
hardly have liked) that intervention in Finland was a 'police
action' from which a League-based International Police Force
would emerge.
In the course of the winter, Amery had a good deal to do
with Sinclair, Greenwood and Attlee. On a French visit with

the Anglo-French Parliamentary Committee, he had agree-
able, and extensive, conversation with Grenfell. Over family
allowances — one of his long-term hobby-horses — he had
discussions with Rathbone and Keynes and correspon-
dence with Chamberlain and Ball. After talking to Hicks at a
Davies economic sub-committee meeting, he was encouraged
to work out detailed proposals with an official at Transport
House. Even the young Balogh called to tell him how impor-
tant it was that Chamberlain should be removed. 79
Amery was given consideration because he was an obvious
defector who might be used to do Chamberlain down. He
also mattered because, when Eden joined the government, he
became Chairman of the Eden group.
With exceptions, 80 the Eden group agreed that, since there

could be no peace with Hitler, their function was to harass
the government until it conducted the war as though it meant
it. To some extent this was because 'millions of Germans...
w[ould] gladly sabotage Hitler for us if we give them the
chance'. 81 To some extent it was subsidiary to the real aim —
to bring about a change of government — which was impor-
tant to others besides those who felt under-employed.
Whether 'a change of government' was to mean primarily a
new Prime Minister, coalition with Labour or the removal of
Hoare, Simon and Wilson was not clear. Nor was it obvious
who would be Prime Minister if one had to be found. Eden
had neglected the group and dropped out of consideration
from some time before the war began. 82 In great uncertainty
about the mechanics, many of its members not only favoured
Churchill but were clear sooner than the Davies group that
the government would have to be changed if war was to be
waged seriously.83
With this object in mind, 84 they interested themselves in
aid to Finland, the appointment of a Minister of Economics
and the Trenchard policy of bombing Germany to defeat. 85
Though irritated by the Whips and by Chamberlain's minis-
terial reshuffles, they were encouraged by the Secret Session
which they had helped to engineer. 86 Law and Macmillan
both made large splashes with first-hand attacks on the gov-
ernment's failure to help the Finns.
THE FALL OF CHAMBERLAIN S77
Although they could smell blood, they did not begin to be

confident until Chamberlain failed to explain Narvik as clev-
erly as he had explained away Finland. 87 Expectations were
raised further when Salisbury set up another group to which
some of them belonged.
After the passage of the India bill, Salisbury had phased him-
self out of day-to-day politics. In 1936 he was a nuisance
about defence. 88 His requests for House of Lords reform
became a ritual. At the age of seventy-six, he played a part in
the abdication. About all these matters, he received the atten-
tion which was his due. Otherwise he made the Oxford
Group the focus of his attention.
Like many active members of his family, 89 Salisbury look-
ed forward to an inevitable battle between the ideals of Chris-
tianity and the 'forces of darkness' and 'infidelity' represen-
ted by Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. He believed that Russia
must be avoided, that avoidance would help defeat Germany
and that Britain should give 'spiritual leadership' 90 against
Hitler who was 'mad dog', 'pagan', 'gangster' and 'anti-Christ
incarnate'. 91
For him, if not for his relatives, the Oxford Group was an
instrument in the battle. Hitler and Stalin would not be resis-
ted without rearmament from within. Between military and
moral rearmament on the one hand and parliamentary con-
trol of foreign policy on the other, as between the League of
Nations and the 'Concert of Europe' in his father's version,
there was a connection. 92 Through Cecil, his brother, he was
in touch with attempts to revive the League. Through Cran-
borne, his son, he had first-hand knowledge of the House of
Commons.
Salisbury was a contemporary of Austen Chamberlain and
had admired the stuffed dignity of the converted Radical. He
had no sympathy for Neville Chamberlain who was cleverer
and stringier and, despite enjoying visits to large houses, did
not share his half-brother's consciousness of 'belonging to the
middle classes'. 93
Salisbury approved of Eden's and Cranborne's resignations
and took offence at the dismissal of Ormsby-Gore. He was
unhappy about Munich which had given Germany 'economic
control of Central Europe'. 94 The pogroms were 'outrages'
which made negotiation impossible. 95 The government's con-

duct suggested 'surrender', 96 'compromise' 97 or 'the very
dreadful idea' that they had 'no policy at all'. 98
Salisbury thought Chamberlain had been unreliable about
Poland and expected him to be unreliable about Mussolini. "
He did not believe he could conduct a war and wanted a
committee of politicians to investigate and report. Chamber-
lain's dismissal of the idea did nothing to remove his doubts.
The Watching Committee was his, and Cranborne's, ans-
wer. 10°
Unlike his father, Cranborne had no die-hard tendencies.
Before becoming Under-Secretary for League Affairs in 1935,
he had established himself as a modern-minded Cecilian ideal-
ist. Though he had quarrelled with the League of Nations
Union, he believed in the League, 101 did not believe in the
Russian menace 102 and was one of the few ministers whom
Cecil trusted. He shared the dislike, which all Cecils seem to
have felt, for Chamberlain.
As before their resignation, so in the year which followed,
Cranborne was sharper and bitterer than Eden. Then, in the
middle of 1939, he had an illness which made office impos-
sible when the war began. On resuming work in the winter,
he decided that the Eden group needed strengthening if
Chamberlain was to be removed. 103
The Watching Committee was designed 'to watch the ad-
ministration of the war and to harass ministers where they
ought to be harassed'. It included six members of the Eden
group and four members of the Cecil family,104 as well as
Astor, Lloyd, Swinton, Trenchard and Home. Londonderry
was a member, and also Hailsham. Spens was chairman of the
1922 Committee. Ball had recently retired from being Direc-
tor of the Conservative Research Department.
Once it got under way, the committee reached much the
same conclusions as the Davies and Amery groups. It too
decided that it wanted a proper War Cabinet and an investiga-
tion of Churchill's position. 105 It soon became obvious that
Salisbury was doing to Neville Chamberlain what he had done
eighteen years before to his brother Austen.
(iii)
At the beginning of the war Chamberlain offered office to

the Labour leaders but did not expect them to accept it. Nor
did he mind either way. Though he had had to abandon one
prong of his policy, the policy had had more than one prong
to it. Though it had failed, it could be presented in terms
which enhanced the Value of a man who had gone to the
limits in trying to secure a peaceful settlement' once the
country had, 'in spite of all this, been forced into war'. 106
Chamberlain began the war, damaged by the policy col-
lapse and unconvincing on September 2. He restored himself
because, believing that the Russo-German pact was a defeat
for Hitler, he was able to provide the optimism and resolu-
tion necessitated by the precariousness of his situation. 107
Chamberlain felt compulsions to go but, since he intended
to stay, needed a government he could control. In this re-
spect his difficulties were considerable. Though Eden was
kept out, the War Cabinet had to be bigger than he wanted,
because Hoare, Wood and Hore-Belisha would be dangerous if
they resigned. Hoare and Simon had developed loose-standing
positions. Churchill's position was necessarily loose-standing,
and Chatfield's anomalous. Though Halifax's support was po-
litically vital and personally most reassuring, the member of
the War Cabinet on whom Chamberlain could rely most con-
fidently was Hankey (who had returned from retirement for
a few weeks during Munich and was now brought into the
Cabinet in order to 'keep an eye' on Churchill). 108
Since he expected the war to be a short one, Chamberlain
had no wish to disturb the structure of promotion; nor did he
want the interlude used in order to get a new Prime Minister.
Stanhope paid for a blunder by being moved into a siding so
that Churchill could have the Admiralty. Inskip's political
career ended when he replaced Maugham as Lord Chancellor
in order to make room for Eden. One of the new under-secre-
taries (Grigg) had been a defence and Munich rebel before
being involved in the economic negotiations of 1939. An-
other (McEwen) was an Edenite who had turned round. But
O'Neill — an important back bencher — had never been. Nor
had Lloyd George's son. Apart from Hankey, Churchill and
Eden, Chamberlain's only important innovation was to give
the Ministry of Information to Macmillan, the Conservative

Lord of Appeal, who had been Lord Advocate in the first
Labour government. 109
In the subsequent seven months a few changes were made
because ministers were inadequate. 110 On the whole, how-
ever, Chamberlain's changes reflected the need to sacrifice
others in order to save himself. The appointments of Reith
and Duncan 111 were responses to the Secret Session of De-
cember 13 which was 'very ill-tempered'. 112 The reconstruc-
tion of April 3 was a response to the failure in Finland. After
the Norwegian vote on May 8, he planned another.
The Finland reconstruction was limited because Chamber-
lain wanted to keep in the War Cabinet 'one or two people on
whom he particularly relie[d]'. 113 He confined himself to
making Woolton and Hudson Ministers of Food and Ship-
ping, replacing Wood by Hoare at the Air Ministry (and
Hoare by Wood at the Privy Seal) and announcing that Chur-
chill's powers had been increased.
As reassurance, this failed.114 Though Woolton began
well, 115 he was a businessman, not a politician, and was
unknown as a public figure. Hoare was too well-known. 116
Churchill's period at the Military Co-ordination Committee
was a disaster. When the Norwegian campaign collapsed, it
became clear that drastic action would be needed if the re-
gime was to survive.
When disaster broke, Chamberlain's entourage fixed on
Churchill as the scapegoat. 117 After the miscalculation of
April 8, this seemed plausible. It seemed much less plau-
sible when the whole campaign failed. Even before the deci-
sion to evacuate Central Norway three weeks later, Chamber-
lain's position was being called in question. When the deci-
sion was made public at the end of the month, a major crisis
was on the way. 118
Though Chamberlain would probably have liked to remove
Churchill from the Admiralty, 119 he did not feel strong
enough to do so. When Churchill complained once more
about defence arrangements, he decided that he must 'satisfy'
him without 'weakening the authority of the Cabinet'. 120
After threatening to resign when the Service Ministers objec-
ted, m he laid it down that, in his absence, Churchill
would preside at the Military Co-ordination Committee,
would have authority to call the Chiefs of Staff and would be

the channel of communication for Military Co-ordination
Committee directives to them. 122
Under criticism Chamberlain wrote more than once about
resigning in face of the 'disappointment at not getting office'
of some of the 'smaller fry' who were 'really traitors just as
much as Quisling'. 123 He also wrote, with much bitterness,
about Sinclair, whose public attack at Edinburgh in early
May was treated as a breach of confidence in respect of secret
information. 124 There is no doubt that he regarded the
Norwegian debate as crucial.
On this occasion, he was less effective than after Finland
and annoyed many of his supporters by claiming that the war
was being fought according to plan which, in a sense, it was
but which it seemed that it was not. 12S In the vote of May 8,
at least eight of those who voted with Chamberlain were
members of the government who hoped that it would
fall. 126 Between fifty and sixty of his supporters ab-
stained. 127 Over forty voted with the Labour party, in-
cluding Amery, Wolmer, Law, Tree, Spears, Keyes, Hogg,
Duff Cooper, Macmillan, Hore-Belisha, Winterton, King-Hall,
Patrick, Boothby, Hopkinson, Nicolson, Mrs Tate and Lady
Astor.
Among the 280 who supported Chamberlain, some had
been preparing for a showdown since the dissentients began
to operate in 1938. They had expected a larger abstention
than there was and were encouraged to believe that Chamber-
lain could go on. 1 2 8 The difficulty was to see how.
In preparing for the vote, Chamberlain's secretaries had
hinted that Ho are and Simon might be sacrificed. 129 In the
thirty-six hours after the debate Chamberlain tried three
ways of rescuing himself.
First, he let it be known that Hoare and Simon would be
removed. 130 Then, he tried to persuade the Labour party to
enter a coalition. Finally, after discovering, the day before
the German invasion of the Low Countries, that Labour
would not enter a coalition under him, he decided that the
invasion had made it possible for him to stay. 131 In all these
respects he found that the ground had been undermined too
thoroughly.
When Chamberlain's removal was under consideration in late

1939, one difficulty was to know what an alternative govern-
ment would consist of. Little confidence was felt in the sec-
ond rank of Conservative ministers. Though there was much
confidence in Herbert Morrison, Bevin and Alexander, there
was none at all in Attlee and Greenwood who were regarded
as window-dressing. It was not until Sinclair made a good
speech in the Secret Session that he was anything resembling
an asset. 132
Despite uncertainties of this sort, the Davies, Eden and
Salisbury groups met continuously between April 25 and
May 8 and were in constant touch with one another. They
were responsible for there being a division and by their votes
contributed to the result. They managed the resistance to
Chamberlain's counter-attack and played an important part
in creating the climate which made Churchill Prime Minister.
At the end of April it had been by no means certain that
he could be. 1 3 3 There was little enthusiasm in the Labour
party where there was a widespread belief that a Labour
government would somehow be the answer. 134 Until late in
the day Lloyd George seemed at least as likely. 135
After the defeat of the Abyssinians Lloyd George had follow-

ed the Liberal line about stepping up sanctions against Musso-
lini. But he had been unimpressed by the German threat. His
fellow-feeling for Hitler had increased when he met him. He
had played down the air menace and had played up the men-
ace of German communism. 136
With Baldwin's retirement, he hitched himself on to Cham-
berlain's deficiencies. He congratulated Eden on resigning and
urged him to become the hero of the Left. As an eloquent
advocate of alliance with Russia, he was in Paris to stir up the
'war party' after the Anschluss.
In 1939 Lloyd George hovered between wanting to come
to terms with Hitler and using Chamberlain's attempts to do
so as proof of Chamberlain's inadequacy. When the Russo-
German pact convinced Chamberlain that a deal was unneces-
sary, he adopted the line that a deal was unavoidable. His
speech in early October was the only important peace state-
ment between the outbreak of war and the fall of France.
Lloyd George was the only active politician who had dealt
at a high level with an adult situation (in March 1918). His
claim to the Prime Ministership depended on confidence in
his ability to wage war (if he could) or to make peace (if he
could not). His advocates were Garvin and the Astor fam-
ily, 137 Esmond Harmsworth and the Daily Mail13* and
Cripps, who wrote for the Mail an anonymous letter sugges-
ting that he should be Chancellor of the Exchequer in a
Lloyd George government. 139
Although he was seventy-seven, Lloyd George had a cer-
tain amount of support in all three parties and, if asked to
form a government, might have been able to do so. He, how-
ever, let it be known that his object was not to fight the war
to the conclusion Chamberlain had indicated but to get out
of the 'trap' Chamberlain had fallen into with the Polish
guarantee. 140
How far this was a way of making himself indispensable
after further defeats, how far it was his way of adding war-
guilt to Chamberlain's other deficiencies is not clear. 141 But,
since both the government and its foremost critics had ex-
cluded a negotiated peace, this excluded him from considera-
tion. 142
When Lloyd George ruled himself out, suggesting that Att-
lee should become Prime Minister instead, the only alterna-
tive to Churchill (among the war party) was Halifax who had
extensive support among Conservative backbenchers, with
the King 143 and from some of the Labour leaders, 144 and
who, if he had been asked to form a government, could cer-
tainly have done so. It was only the realisation that Churchill
would make a great deal of trouble if he did that made him
insist on Churchill grasping the nettle at the meeting on
May 10. 1 4 5
Until a late stage, however, it was not obvious that there
was a nettle to grasp. The decision that there should be a
division and vote on May 8 had come slowly. The Labour
leaders had not all decided that they wanted to take of-
fice. 146 The Davies group, joined (to their irritation) by
Hore-Belisha,147 had decided by May 2 that a Secret Session
was the best way of proceeding 148 and that a vote after an
ordinary debate might rally waverers behind Chamberlain.
The Watching Committee agreed. Until the morning of
May 8, they did not expect much support. At a joint meeting

with the Davies group, they had the greatest difficulty in
deciding that the time was ripe. 149
Once the vote had been taken, they acted ruthlessly. Da-
vies tried to abbreviate the Whitsun adjournment and, in com-
pany with Beaverbrook, acted as postman between the La-
bour leaders and the Conservative dissentients. Salisbury was
sent to tell Halifax that he or Churchill must form a govern-
ment and that Chamberlain, Simon and Hoare must be re-
moved. In order to prevent Chamberlain detaching Amery —
who had had the (for him) unusual experience of being cheer-
ed in the debate on May 7 — Amery was told that he was a
possible Prime Minister and made chairman of an expanded
amalgamation of the Eden and Davies groups. 15°
At its first meeting on the evening of May 9, the new
group agreed to accept any Prime Minister who would 'form
a real War Cabinet' and 'truly National Government' chosen
on 'merit' and not on the judgment of the Whips. 151 When
Chamberlain tried to use the German offensive as a reason for
staying, Davies telephoned Greenwood at the Labour Confer-
ence at Bournemouth to make sure that he failed. When the
Watching Committee met later in the morning, Salisbury was
deputed to let it be known that Chamberlain must hand over
the Prime Ministership and must not be a member of the new
government. 152
This did not happen. When Amery saw Churchill after
Churchill had seen the King, he discovered that Chamberlain
was to be Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the
House of Commons. When Chamberlain announced, in his
resignation broadcast that evening, that he had agreed to take
office, Davies and Amery telephoned Cranborne and Salis-
bury to convey their annoyance. 153 Davies spent next morn-
ing conveying it to the Labour leaders who, when they had
lunch with Churchill, conveyed it to him. Amery then got
Cranborne to ask Salisbury to see Churchill, which he did. By
the early evening, the Chancellorship had gone elsewhere.
Even after the Labour leaders had agreed that Chamberlain
should remain in the Cabinet, Amery telephoned Bracken to
say that he should go to the House of Lords. 154 He tried
next day, with as little success, to make Gwilym Lloyd
George Chief Whip in place of Margesson. 15S
In the week before Chamberlain fell, Amery and Davies

had been important figures. Once Churchill had taken his
place, they ceased to be. The groups that they led looked to
him for advancement, not to them, and disintegrated as soon
as advancement was given. Davies received nothing because
there was nothing a marginal Liberal of limited experience
could be given that he would think good enough; he declined
the offer of a peerage. Amery hoped to be Economic Over-
lord or Churchill's deputy on the defence committees; he was
half-offered the Ministry of Supply. When this was with-
drawn — perhaps on Chamberlain's advice 156 — he was sent
to the India Office, which was not at all what he had expec-
ted. The first few days of the new government showed that
he would have no more influence over Churchill than he had
had over Chamberlain.
The new government included many of the dissentient
Conservatives and Sinclairite and Labour contingents. But it
was made large enough to retain a large element from the old
one. Hoare, Zetland, Colville, Wallace, Stanhope and Burgin
all suffered execution a few days before Morrison — the new
Home Secretary — had Mosley imprisoned, and Wilson was
removed from Downing Street. Stanley refused the Domin-
ions Office, which Churchill offered in insulting terms, 157
and joined Elliot, Winterton and de la Warr 158 in a 'wobb-
lers' ' exile. MacDonald, however, and W.S. Morrison remain-
ed. Simon remained, and Inskip returned to the Dominions
Office so that Simon could become Lord Chancellor. Wood,
the indispensable Judas, was rewarded for abandoning Cham-
berlain by being made Chancellor of the Exchequer (without
membership of the War Cabinet). Halifax remained Foreign
Secretary and a member of the War Cabinet (while Eden, at
the War Office, remained outside it). Margesson, after offer-
ing to resign and declining to become a Secretary of
State, 159 was retained as Chief Whip. There was no room for
Hore-Belisha who seems by now to have been universally
despised. Lloyd George and Astor, for different reasons, de-
clined to go at different levels to the Ministry of Agricul-
ture. 160 But Duff Cooper and Cranborne returned. The new
men were Attlee, Bevin, Greenwood, Morrison, Alexander
and Dalton (from the Labour party), Sinclair, Johnstone and
Dingle Foot (from the Liberals), Nicolson (from the National
Labour party) and Lloyd, Amery, Beaverbrook, Croft,

Boothby, Sandys, Law, Bracken and Macmillan from among
unbeneficed Conservatives.161
During the fortnight since the decision to evacuate central
Norway, Churchill had acted with delicacy and tact. He had
been as careful to defend the government as Chamberlain had
been to associate him in its disasters. 162 When resignation
became inevitable, Chamberlain offered to join a government
if he formed one. 1 6 3
In accepting the offer on returning from the King, Chur-
chill recognised that he depended on the goodwill of the
largest group in the House of Commons. Though nearly a
hundred Conservatives had abandoned Chamberlain two days
before, some of them had turned round 164 and were shock-
ed by the disloyalty of the previous week. Others looked on
Chamberlain as their leader and were not certain that they
would take the Whip. 16S Churchill, certainly, was not being
chosen as a man of destiny. 166 He would have approved, and
perhaps saw, the letter in which the Chairman of the 1922
Committee asked Chamberlain to join his government on the
ground that, if he did not 'hold a leading place' in it, 'it
would be dissipated in a few weeks'. 167
CONCLUSION
'If war comes...all forms of property will be taxed nigh to extinction

under the delusive name of "Conscription of Wealth" \
Garvin to Astor, September 21 1938
'Mr Greenwood, when moving the Amendment yesterday, told us that

the war would shake many strongly held views. I fear that this war will
do very much more than that. The war will bring about changes which
may be fundamental and revolutionary in the economic and social life
of this country. On that we are all agreed*.
Eden in House of Commons, December 6 1939, reprinted in Eden,
Freedom and Order, 1947, p. 48.
'It is the beginning of English National Socialism'.

William Mabane, Liberal National MP for Huddersfield talking about
Eden's parliamentary speech of November 10 1938, reported in Nicolson
diary, same date
The Coalition which arrived in May 1940 appeared at first to

be only an arrangement of convenience produced by the alli-
ance system of the previous two years. In fact, it was the
beginning of a regime. It had not only a Cabinet but camp
followers, among whom were the high-priests of social equal-
ity and national regeneration along with a young Mount-
batten, a young Maudling, a young Rowse, a young Harrod, a
young Gaitskell, a young Heath, a young Balogh and a young
Berry (with his bride) who were all doing the new thing,
looking to the future and waiting for a ride on Attlee's, Chur-
chill's, Priestley's and Noel Coward's shoulders.1
Churchill's shoulders turned out to be broad, but it was
not obvious how broad they would become. In May 1940 he
was not the saviour of the nation since the nation did not yet
need saving. What he had done was creatively opportunistic,
uniting hopes and fears which had nothing in common and
arriving, through Hitler's instrumentality, where he would
have wanted to arrive whether Hitler had shown the way or
not. He stood, however, for nothing in particular except the
prosecution of a war which was not to be prosecuted and the
preservation of an Empire which was not to be preserved.
The Labour arrivals, on the other hand, were the tip of an
iceberg or foot in the door for something very much more
388 CONCLUSION
formidable. They concealed a movement which had been re-

born since 1931 around an office-seeking intelligentsia for
whom Cole, Laski, Tawney and Strachey provided scriptures.
Though few of them were visible at the summits in 1940 (and
their mandarinate belongs to the decades following), they
had expectations and a ladder which were of major conse-
quence for the future.
The future was not to be 'socialist' (in the Crippsian
sense). In some respects in intention for a time, it was to
absorb 'property' into 'community'. In other respects it was
to turn 'socialism' into an elitist radicalism. In all respects its
moral merit was attested by the propaganda which the
Chronicle and Herald had established and which Owen, Foot
and Howard2 (as well as Morison's History of the Times3)
developed by using Beaverbrook's methods to denigrate the
foreign policy position Beaverbrook had supported.
The Labour leaders were of a generation older than the
movement of the thirties; their certainties were flexible and
reassuring. Like Priestley, Dalton embodied the jingo egali-
tarianism he had invented in the previous four years. Citrine
was the first really effective trade union statesman in dis-
guise. Bevin had proved that the roughest trade unionist
could be educated, imperial and international. Greenwood
and Alexander had proved — what Thomas had proved before
— that the good things of life were to be enjoyed.4 Morrison
combined a nasty edge,5 doctrinal integrity and the broad
practicality characteristic of a willing coalitionist.6 Attlee, as
surely as Baldwin, was the average embodiment of the ethos
he represented.
Attlee was a 'public school and university man' who,
having picked up a doctrine when young, had for long held it
as the basis for living. After a period as a social worker and as
an infantry officer in war, he had spent his forties anticipa-
ting in books and lectures the mechanics of its wider imple-
mentation.
The doctrine was the doctrine of Green, its basis the belief
that 'university men' should help the poor. It was socialist so
far as was necessary to bridge the gap and bring them within
the framework of the nation. But it was an insular version
through which, as councillor, mayor and front bench MP,
Attlee had shown forth by his life and works the conscien-
CONCLUSION 389
tious hope felt in the Oxford of the nineties for a 'fine collec-
tive life' based on a community of freedom between those
who had, and those who had not, had the benefits of educa-
tion.
Though a secular priest, Attlee was in no sense priestly. He
was a middle-class gentleman who had seen through his inher-
ited opinions and intended to give effect to decisions about
which he had made up his mind a very long time ago. He was
a socialist, but his chief objective was an edgeless, egalitarian
modesty which, in the Labour party, had found 'typically
British' methods of 'adapting' old institutions to 'new...pur-
poses'. 7
These methods were 'practical'. They depended on 'charac-
ter' and were nourished by the lives of ordinary party work-
ers who would convert people to socialism 'more by what
[they] are than by what they [are] heard to say'.8
Like Baldwin, whom he admired and who liked him, Att-
lee had been an undistinguished undergraduate. Where Bald-
win had thought of ordination, he had had some sort of
conversion. Both disliked 'intellectuals'. Both felt a shared
sense of relationship with 'ordinary' humanity. Both found
something safe, or reassuring, in the 'natural dignity' of the
genuine leaders of the working-class movement.9
Again like Baldwin, Attlee flattered himself on his 'modern
outlook'. By this, however, he did not mean that he knew
about industrial society (which was not to be found in Ox-
ford, Stanmore or the East End of London). He meant equal-
ity, community and a belief that power politics could be
moralised. He not only said but evidently believed that na-
tions were members one of another and that a 'world state'
was the 'only really effective' way 'of preventing war'. 10
Though sobered by Hitler, he was saying right up to the fall
of France that 'power politics' could be avoided. He admired
Eden for implying the same (even before he became a minis-
ter) u and disliked Chamberlain (whom, morally, he much
resembled) because, while talking like a pacifist, he thought
like an Imperialist, and made war inevitable by piling up
armaments. 12
Attlee was far from charismatic, and his leadership was
contested. 13 But he had few illusions about what could be
done. All he hoped (and all he did) was to invest the rag-bag
390 CONCLUSION
of doctrines that existed on the Left with a deeper analysis

and better purpose than Lloyd George had failed with in
1935, so that it might be said of him in reverse — what had
been said of Baldwin — that 'there [was] no-one half as good
at the business of getting the Middle Class and the Working
Class to vote the same way'. 14
Before he took office, his position was that 'Socialism'
should not be emasculated. 15 Given his opinions and mode
of expression, and given a certain mute lay spirituality, it is
doubtful whether he could have done more to elevate it if he
had tried to. 1 6 By the time the war started, he had estab-
lished for himself a genuine continuity between the 'social
conscience' and charitable energy of earlier generations and
the challenge presented by a chain-store/ribbon-building soci-
ety to allow 'social reconstruction' to restore the 'individual-
ity' it was destroying. 17
In these ways he was renewing invitations to the struggle
against Capitalism which, however, he did not expect to col-
lapse 18 and which would be strengthened and transformed
by British Capitalists who were 'the strongest...and...cleverest
in the world'. 19 In these ways, also, he was trying to per-
suade moderate, decent people to think it as normal to reject
the 'mean ideals' of 'conventional' and 'suburban' homes as
Baldwin had made it to accept them. 2 0
In the end Labour arrived rather suddenly, but one should
not exaggerate the difference from what had gone before. On
the other hand, there were differences — about nationalisa-
tion, the level of taxation and the importance of Indian and
colonial self-government.
Attlee was conscious of the extent to which his way had
been prepared by the India bill and the Statute of West-
minster, by state activity in the first war and the public cor-
porations since, and by the willingness of Conservatives (like
Halifax) to see government as an 'instrument to secure con-
ditions favourable to the fullest possible development of per-
sonality'. With rearmament and conscription, moreover,
wealth had had to be taxed; since the beginning of the war it
had been taxed heavily. Eden was not the only 'decent Tory'
(an Attlee conception) who spent the winter of 1939 running
ahead of the consensus and looking forward to 'revolution-
CONCLUSION 391
ary...changes...in the economic and social life of the coun-

try'. 21
What a Labour government would have done if it had won
a general election in 1940 is not certain. What is certain is
that post-war Socialism was created when Attlee, Bevin and
Morrison took on post-war reconstruction after Chamberlain's
collapse in 1940.
The reconstruction that was planned thereafter, and the
content of the 1945 platform, were the work of Keynes,
Beveridge and Reith. That they were able to be effective, and
to embody Layton's conception of a regime, was a result of
Attlee's flexibility and the fact that Churchill and Chamber-
lain between them had destroyed the Conservative party.
Chamberlain had not intended to destroy. He had intended
to hand it over in about 1942 and would probably have done
so if he had not been deposed.
The deposition, however, and the Coalition which follow-
ed, upset the Conservative structure. They created a vacuum
in which 'the sacrifices required by the war' suggested an
'advance towards economic equality' 22 and a new range of
leader to replace the leaders who had been rising in the past.
Chamberlain himself had destroyed Morrison and Elliot —
the most obvious guarantors of Conservative liberality. Eden,
to some extent, had destroyed himself. Churchill's contribu-
tion was the destruction of some of the others, and the pro-
motion of some of the odd-balls of the thirties. It was not
until Carr and Barrington-Ward had made The Times the
home of 'Vital Democracy' and 'liberating truths' 23 that But-
ler (paradoxically) made it his life's work to show that Chur-
chill's was a new consensus.
If no one knew that a consensus had arrived in May 1940,
it was not for want of looking. Since 1933 it had been looked
for by Malcolm MacDonald, Percy, King-Hall, Hore-Belisha,
Allen of Hurtwood, Boothby, Inskip, de la Warr, Mabane,
Layton, Swinton, Nicolson, Cecil, Cartland, Bernays, Sinclair,
Macmillan, Eden, Elliot, Halifax, the Aclands and Lloyd
George who had all been sowing where Churchill and Attlee
reaped. 24 Whether the remedy was a morally-credible Social-
ism, Liberal control of the Conservative party or the forma-
tion of a Centre party (under Liberal-Conservative or Nation-
392 CONCLUSION
al Labour auspices), the object was to lead Labour, Liberal

and Conservative opinion towards a 'democratic radicalism'
which would come from unsafe hands if safe hands did not
bring it first.
This was, of course, a trick. Nor was there a significant
difference of intention between the National government and
the Tory Socialism' which followed, since both were de-
signed to contain class warfare by enveloping it. But there
were innumerable differences of scale and generation as the
prospect of war and the strength of Labour produced a new
version of the situation in which the 'rich' would have to
'sacrifice...money' if 'standards' were to be maintained. 2S
After 1931 the problem had been dealt with through Mac-
Donald, Thomas and Snowden. By 1937 they had gone and
National Labour was a salon party. Humble pasts were the
monopoly of Womersley (an obscure Conservative minister)
and of Brown who, having once lived on 'twenty-five shillings
a week,...was in a position for meeting Labour attacks' on the
Unemployment Assistance bill. 26 Womersley's rags having
turned to riches, he had been mayor of Grimsby and a back-
bench facilitator of Chamberlain's domestic legislation in the
twenties. 27 Brown had been commissioned in the war and
was a Liberal convenience who would cease to matter once
new faces were needed to replace those which had been ser-
viceable in the past.
The feeling that faces should be changeable was as strong
inside the regime as outside it. It followed from the assump-
tion that the chief problem under conditions of universal
suffrage was to enable a minority group (the Conservative
party) to recommend itself to an electorate which was 'not
made up of Eustace Perries'. 28
Sometimes the problem was approached by propaganda,
sometimes by governmental decision, sometimes by alliance
with outside groups or interests. In the course of the thirties
it issued in the 'national party' of 1934, in the idea of Morri-
son, Bevin, Addison or Lloyd George as reinforcements and
in Chamberlain's alliance with the peace movement. In Hali-
fax's mind it induced acute sensitivity to the war section of
the Labour party. In synthetic reverse, it produced Hore-
Belisha's attempt to present himself as a class-warrior after
his removal from office in January 1940.
CONCLUSION 393
Whether the problem was synthetic or real, there was a

sense that 'Toryism' and the 'gentle benevolence of the gov-
erning class' were 'dead' 29 and that it was necessary to estab-
lish a 'Tory Socialism, Red Jingoism [and] Marxian Imperial-
ism' if Conservatives were to compete with the 'great radical-
democratic party' which 'democrats of goodwill' hoped for in
the future. 30
This was a renewal, under pressure, of the Conservative
'truth' — that the social structure could only be preserved by
talking about something else. 31 It slid slowly, through Eden's
agency, from the hope that 'Conservatism' should usually be
smiling into the assumption that war required 'real unity...
comradeship and...equal opportunity for all...regardless of
class or creed'. 32
Eden may not have meant what he was taken as implying;
nor had Chamberlain given offence by his earliest actions as
Prime Minister. 33 Indeed, the composition of his Cabinet and
the National Defence Contribution had left the impression
that he wanted the Baldwinian consensus extended. But the
provocations he offered about the League and the victory of
February 20 1938 gave his enemies the opportunity to be-
lieve that a 'bourgeois shit' could not 'save England'. 34
The class card was an instrument that came to hand in
replacing one generation's Unionism by the revitalised Young
Englandism of the next. It registered a fear that the mobilisa-
tion of manpower entailed the mobilisation of wealth, and
that war would only be supported if a brighter future was
promised for afterwards. 3S
These claims escalated when Prague made it uncertain
whether Chamberlain could continue to perform the function
of a Conservative leader. Whether he was to blame or whether
he was the victim of those who had undermined his position,
he was then the victim of a fateful collusion between a war
policy embarked on in order to restore 'honour' to the 'Con-
servative cause' and the damage war would do to the struc-
tures the 'cause' was intended to protect.
If Chamberlain's pre-Munich policy had not been modi-
fied, if it had not been contested, and, even more, if it had
succeeded, he would probably have won an election. That
he was defeated without one was the result of Halifax's in-
stinct that a difference of outlook had to be resolved.
394 CONCLUSION
The difference was about the interlocking options that had

dominated analysis since 1934. Where previously Halifax and
Chamberlain had agreed (as against the critics) that Imperial
security, detachment from Russia, the defence of the Low
Countries and a stable economy were of primary importance,
Halifax now decided that the Empire should be risked, Russia
attached and the economy endangered in order to 'destroy
Nazism'.
In the course of 1939 the difference was accentuated by a
growing belief that a 'contest was in progress between two
theories of life' and that between the 'totalitarian' and the
'democratic', 'compromise' was 'impossible' 36 This was not
Chamberlain's point of view (or Halifax's in 1937); nor was
the contest a real one, unless Stalin and Inonii are regarded as
democrats. But it united sentiment by implying that the con-
test was a moral one.
For many of Chamberlain's critics, this became the logic of
their position. So far as policy was concerned, the difference
was between priorities. Up to March 1939, and between the
following August and May 1940, Chamberlain's policy was
not only a high-speed culmination of the policy adopted in
1934. It was also, except at Munich, so much the same as
theirs that their criticisms were about the technique of nego-
tiation and the names of the game he should be playing.
The names that were disputed were Peace, Collective Secu-
rity and Making the World Safe for Democracy; the game was
to find words to prevent war. Whether war could have been
prevented was, however, a matter of judgment then and is
counter-factual now, since all criticism of Chamberlain assu-
med that events would have been caused by hard words
which were not caused by soft one. This is as impossible to
verify as it seems to have been to predict that France would
collapse. In fact, everyone assumed that France would not
collapse.
Given the assumption of French impregnability, it is
doubtful whether defence deficiencies had a direct effect on
Chamberlain's policy, except in relation to Italy in 1937, in
removing Cabinet dissent before Munich and marginally in
the summer of 1939. Whatever their effect on Hitler, their
effect on him was to confirm aims which would have been
pursued ^ven if rearmament had been massive. 37
CONCLUSION 395
Chamberlain's object was to prevent a short-term, knock-

out war and to produce conditions in which Hitler would be
dissuaded from a long-term one. But he did not really em-
brace the possibility that a war would be fought out at
length. Assured of naval superiority, therefore, he needed
only to assume that an air attack on London could not be
successful and that the French would not be defeated. In
September 1939 air attack was expected, but it was expected
also that it could be resisted. Whether the expectation was
reasonable cannot be decided, since the Battle of Britain was
fought (to a narrow margin) after a further year of prepara-
tion. But there can be little doubt that by mid-1939, but for
Halifax, Chamberlain would have felt free to pursue the poli-
cy he wanted to pursue without restraint from logistical im-
possibility.
Similarly, the doubts which soldiers and Conservatives
alike had felt about French resolution did not envisage the
French armistice. Though resistance to blitzkrieg implied a
repeat performance of 1914, most doubts about France con-
cerned her ability to attack, not her ability to resist an attack
from Germany. Even those who thought otherwise38 stop-
ped short of assuming that the worst would happen.
The problem of France had been the most awkward of the
problems of the thirties. In 1933 it was agreed that the defen-
sive interests of France, Britain and Belgium were the same.
The problem arose as France's East European and, eventu-
ally, Russian commitments gained a new significance in face
of German rearmament, and it slowly became clear that a
defensive Locarno for western Europe alone was impossible.
This provided scope for disagreement. For, whereas Lon-
don and Birmingham could be defended from France and
Flanders, it was not obvious that France or Flanders would
be attacked. So long as an attack seemed unlikely, Chamber-
lain refused to pay the price his critics wanted, while they
moved on from advocating involvement with Russia through
the League to direct involvement through an alliance.
After the Polish guarantee there was a military need for
alliance, which the Chiefs of Staff put. But the political ob-
ject had been to prise Chamberlain out of the position in
which he could square the circle between the needs of nation-
al defence, the preferences of the Conservative party and the
396 CONCLUSION
feelings of the vast body of peace-loving citizens everywhere.

The argument of 1939 treated Russia as crucial not in
defeating Hitler but in deterring him from going to war, and
not because the Russians were to be encouraged to resist him
in Poland or attack him elsewhere, but because the Poles
could not resist unless assured of Russian acquiescence. Even
so, and even when Poland collapsed, there was no expecta-
tion that France would collapse too.
The assumption that France could fight a defensive land
war was demolished within six weeks of Chamberlain's re-
moval. But it was assumed so widely that Churchill's oppor-
tunity to be the nation's saviour arose only because he hap-
pened to be in office when the common assumption was
demolished.
Nor, so far as Germany was concerned, were the contrasts
significant. Churchill's belief in the German opposition was
greater up to the beginning of the war. But his demands for
resistance were almost as cautious as Attlee's. His Russian
policy may well have been grounded in gullibilities as great as
those he discerned in Roosevelt five years later.
If Hitler's object was to colonise eastern Europe, it is argu-
able (though Chamberlain did not argue) that Britain had no
interest in stopping him. If he had to be stopped (because
predominance in the East might entail predominance in the
West), it was not obligatory to close options, since Stalin
would mistrust Hitler whether there was a Russo-German
pact or not. If the British interest was in keeping Hitler out
of the Mediterranean and the Middle East, then Mussolini,
Metaxas, Inonii, Carol (of Rumania) and Paul (of Yugoslavia)
were the crucial figures, not Stalin, who also needed to be
kept out, whose battles were not to be fought for him and
whose collaboration would divert the Japanese into South-
East Asia. If it was dangerous to guarantee Poland without
making sure of Russia first, it should nevertheless be said,
despite the paradox, that it was Hitler who 'stood alone' after
the pact with Russia.
Hitler's abandonment of the anti-Comintern policy — a
prime British objective since 1937 — was a direct conse-
quence of the choice he faced after the guarantee to Poland.
The choice would not have been made if Halifax had effected
the Russian alliance for which the Opposition and the Chiefs
CONCLUSION 397
of Staff were asking, though it may well have been the case
that Stalin interpreted both Opposition pressure and Hali-
fax's search as a concerted attempt to turn Hitler against
him. 39 Even if Stalin did not think this, it is far from clear
that Russian policy was so much what Maisky said it was that
alliance with Russia would have been more valuable to Brit-
ain than the political damage Hitler suffered from his.
Even about Roosevelt, where Chamberlain's critics criti-
cised him most emphatically, the contrasts were marginal. He
preferred direct rapprochement with Japan to the uncertain-
ties of Anglo-American co-operation and understood, much
better than they did, the extent to which American half-
commitments might produce an Anglo-Japanese war at the
same time as Britain went to war with Germany.
About Japan, the pass had been sold in 1922 when British
policy had become subservient to American. It was likely
that war would increase subservience, and that the Anglo-
American solidarity of Churchill, Eden and Duff Cooper
would merely extend the arrangment MacDonald thought he
had started by which special relations eased the pain of con-
verting a world Empire into an off-shore debtor. 40
A special relationship was desirable economically (as in
saving the franc in 1936 and in the trade agreement of 1938).
But there were three objections — that the United States was a
commercial rival, that neutrality legislation made it impos-
sible to rely on American support,41 and that support, once
given, would increase dependence, especially if the accession
of strength took Britain, over-confidently, into war with Ger-
many.
The war accelerated dependence. But it was implicit in the
linked failures to preserve peace or develop a financial struc-
ture for Imperial defence.
For the failure to create an Imperial alliance, there were
unavoidable reasons — the sparseness and reluctance of Aus-
tralia and New Zealand, the Canadian and South African re-
fusals and the difficulty in India. Despite Hankey's Common-
wealth tour in 1934 and the Imperial Conferences three and
five years later, there was no effective relationship between
General Staffs. In London there was no doubt that maritime
defence would be conducted by the Royal Navy, that the
Middle East would be defended by the Indian and British
398 CONCLUSION
armies and that the cost would be met by the British tax-
payer.
So long as foreign policy could be kept under control, this
presented no problem. Once it ran out of control, as a result
of political and parliamentary incontinence, insuperable
problems were presented.
These were not, as it turned out, the problems of late
1939, since Italy and Japan did not then go to war and it was
unnecessary to knock out the Italian fleet (as would have
been tried if the war had been fought on the lines that were
expected). But the over-stretching of resources in 1938 re-
duced the plausibility of the deterrent in relation to Germany
and made it necessary to pick up whatever reassurance could
be picked up elsewhere. The moments of truth of 1942 were
anticipated three years earlier when Chamberlain abandoned
the two-year-old commitment to send the navy to protect
Australasia in the event of war, a few months after Halifax
had persuaded Roosevelt to send an American fleet to the
Far East after Munich.42
There is no evidence that Chamberlain felt constrained by
pressure from Dominions politicians. It is much more likely
that he shared their assumptions and felt constrained by a
fear that war would damage Imperial independence.
Neither Chamberlain nor the Chiefs of Staff wished to
accelerate dependence. They wished primarily to keep the
peace and keep out of eastern Europe in order to avoid the
situation in which it would be America's frontiers that were
on the Rhine.43 After the guarantees of 1939 that situation
had come closer, with Italy and Japan lost (by comparison
with 1918) and only Turkish neutrality to take their place.
That it arrived was an effect less of strategic decisions than
of the propaganda developed by Chamberlain's critics. That
the Chiefs of Staff had then to turn against Chamberlain over
Russia is a testimony to the critics' effectiveness. That Cham-
berlain and Stalin thwarted them shows how precarious their
influence was.
This is in no way to belittle their achievement, but rather
to draw attention to its nature, which consisted less in the
establishment of a policy than in the creation of a regime and
the achievement for Churchill of the status of a hero.
About the heroism, there was an ambiguity which pre-
CONCLUSION 399
sented defeat as victory and cushioned 'Imperialism' into de-

cline. During the war the Imperial grip tightened in Delhi,
Cairo and Bagdad at the same time as the new regime took a
grip in Whitehall. That the declaration of war had narrowed
the options became obvious when Singapore fell, when Chur-
chill fell in 1945 and when the United States came into its
own as a World Power. More even than after the first war,
debt coincided with domestic demand to compel toothless
retreat in the decades following.
In the historical half-light, it is difficult to know whether
the death that has been described was the death of Empire or
the murder of pre-1914 mentalities. In the long run, the two
processes may be the same, since some part of the conflict of
the thirties registered transitions (with whatever distortion
war casualties had created) from politicians in their sixties to
politicians in their forties and thirties. In either case it pro-
vided opportunities, which politicians seized, to lock Hitler
and Mussolini in hostile embrace and use them to discredit the
generation before until compelled (by success) to face up to
the crisis which hostility had helped to create.
In relation to the Empire, transitions centred around Eu-
rope. Whether from Cobdenite or from Chamberlainite as-
sumptions, the pre-1914 generation had opposed anything
more than the most prudent of European connections. For
the generation born in the nineties, the salient experience was
European war and European commitment. Despite the isola-
tionist undercurrent of the twenties, the consequence was a
flight from Little England and Imperial assumptions to the
internationalist involvements of 1945.
The involvements of 1945 were not intended to exclude,
were, indeed, designed to protect, the Empire, at whose ze-
nith many loyal members of the Attlee government had been
born. But the facts of war established an exigency which it is
probable that no government could have avoided.
For the Attlee government it was possible, however pain-
ful, to reverse the euphoria of victory, since the 'liquidation
of Empire' had found a place in the Labour party in the
thirties. For Churchill, though possible, this would have been
difficult, since he had identified resistance to dictators with
its preservation.
It may be that the Empire would not have been preserved
400 CONCLUSION
if resistance had been avoided. Even if it would have been,

even if Portuguese obstinacy could have been effective, an un-
edifying story is relieved by the consideration that, of the
millions who died in the holocaust which destroyed the peace
it needed, comparatively few were its citizens, of whom few-
er perished than perished at a stroke in Bengal and the Punjab
three years after the holocaust was over.
APPENDIX: THE ACTORS
(Ages in 1936)
(These notes do not normally cover careers after 1936. Where an actor
is very well-known or has a bibliography in the text, he is omitted from
this Appendix.)
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke (62). ed. Rugby and Balliol College,
Oxford. 1908-16 Junior office. MP (Lib) Richmond 1906-10, Cam-
borne 1910-22, Tiverton 1923 and N. Cornwall 1932-.
Acland, Richard Dyke (30). ed. Rugby and Balliol. Son of Sir Francis
Acland. MP (Lib) Barnstaple 1935-.
Addis on, Christopher (67). ed. Trinity College, Harrogate and St Bar-
tholomew's Hospital. ex-Professor Anatomy. MP (Lib) 1910-22. MP
(Lab) Swindon 1929-31 and 1934-5. 1914-16 junior minister.
1916-21 Minister of Munitions, etc. 1929-31 Parliamentary Secre-
tary, then Minister of Agriculture.
Aga Khan, The (59). Head of Ism ail i Mahometans. President of League
of Nations Assembly 1937. Representative of Indian government at
international conferences.
Alexander, Albert Victor (51). Elementary School and Technical Class-
es. Baptist lay preacher. Ex-employee of Somerset Education Com-
mittee. Captain in army in World War. Secretary of Parliamentary
Committee of Co-operative Congress. MP (Co-op) Hillsborough,
Sheffield 1922-31 and 1935-. Told off by Keyes for using Christian
names.
Allen of Hurtwood, Reginald Clifford Allen, 1st Baron (47). ed. Berk-
hamstead, Bristol and Peterhouse, Cambridge. 1911-15 Daily Citi-
zen. 1922-6 Chairman of ILP. 1921-6 Chairman of New Leader.
War-time Conscientious Objector. A MacDonald peer.
Anderson, Sir John (54). ed. George Watson's College, Edinburgh. Edin-
burgh and Leipzig universities. 1905-32 Civil Servant (inc. Perma-
nent Under-Secretary Home Office). 1932-37 Governor of Bengal.
Offered High Commissionership in Palestine in 1937.
Angell, Sir Norman (62). ed. France and Geneva. 1898- Journalist and
publicist. Author of The Great Illusion (1908) and many other polit-
ical books. 1929-31 MP (Lab) North Bradford. 1933, Nobel Peace
Prize. Ex-Liberal. A MacDonald knighthood.
Arnold, Sydney, 1st Lord. ex-Lib, office holder in 1924 and 1929-31
Governments. Stockbroker, friend of MacDonald. Resigned from La-
bour party in 1936 over foreign policy.
Astor, Waldorf, 2nd Viscount (57). ed. Eton and New College, Oxford.
MP (C) Plymouth 1910-19. 1918-21 Parliamentary Secretary (inclu-
ding PS to Lloyd George 1918). Author of works about agriculture.
Astor, Nancy, Viscountess (57). Wife of 2nd Viscount Astor. American.
402 APPENDIX
MP (U) for Plymouth 1919- . The more she saw of Eden, 'the more
certain' she was that he would 'never be a Disraeli'.
Astor, W.W. (29). Son of 2nd Viscount, ed Eton and New College,
Oxford. 1932 Secretary to Lord Lytton. 1936-9 PPS to Hoare. MP
(U) East Fulham 1935-.
Atholl, Katharine Duchess of (62). Daughter of Scottish baronet, ed.
Wimbledon High School and Royal College of Music. MP (U) Kinross
1923-. 1924-29 junior minister. Resigned Conservative Whip over
India bill and 'socialist' tendency of government's domestic policy
(in 1935) and over Anglo-Italian agreement (in 1937). Supporter of
Spanish Republic as 'a government which used Moors could not be a
national government'.
Ball, Sir Joseph (51). ed. King's College School, Strand and King's
College, London. Called to Bar. Served in war. 1930-9 Director of
Conservative Research Department.
Balogh, Thomas (31). ed. Budapest, Berlin and Harvard. Ex-member of
League of Nations Staff. Economist in City. 1938- National Insti-
tute of Economic Research.
Barry, Gerald Reid (38). ed. Marlborough and Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge. Served in war. 1921-34 Assistant editor, then editor of
Saturday Review and Week-End Review. 1936- Managing Editor of
News Chronicle.
Bartlett, Vernon (42) 1916- Journalist and foreign correspondent; also
broadcaster. 1934- staff of News Chronicle. Author. First became
famous with broadcast in October 1933 and Nazi Germany Explain-
ed in which basically pro-Hitler and pro-treaty revision position was
put with Layton-like touch.
Beaverbrook, William 1st Baron (57). Canadian millionaire. MP (U)
1910-16. 1918 Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster. Proprietor of
Daily Express and Evening Standard. May possibly have wanted to be
Minister of Agriculture in early 1940.
Bernays, Robert H (34). ed. Rossall and Worcester College, Oxford.
1925-31 News Chronicle (leader writer, then Special Corr.) Nov.
1931 PPS to Colonial Under-Secretary. 1937-junior office. MP (Lib
(Nat) Bristol N. 1931-.
Berry, Michael (25). ed. Eton and Christ Church, Oxford. Younger son
of 1st Viscount Camrose. Friend of Randolph Churchill and believed
(by Chamberlain) to be responsible for some of the Telegraph criti-
cism. Brother of J. Seymour Berry who was in effective control of
Telegraph after Camrose. Married Birkenhead's daughter.
Betterton, Sir Henry (64). ed. Rugby and Christ Church, Oxford. Bar.
MP (U) Rushcliffe 1918-34. 1923-4 and 1924-9 junior minister.
1931-4 Minister of Labour. 1935 Lord Rushcliffe.
Bevan, Aneurin (39). ed. Elementary school. Central Labour College.
Coal-miner etc. MP (Lab) Ebbw Vale 1929-.
Bevin, Ernest (56). ed. Elementary school. 1922- Secretary, Transport
and General Workers Union. 1937 Chairman of TUC General Council.
Euan Wallace thought him 'glib and forthcoming'.
Bonham-Carter, Lady Violet (49). Asquith's daughter. Prominent in
THE ACTORS 403
Liberal politics.
Boothby, Robert (36). ed. Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford. 1926-9
PPS to Churchill. MP (C) East Aberdeenshire 1924. Married (brief-
ly) into Cavendish/Cecil families.
Bracken, Brendan (35). ed. Sydney and Sedbergh. Publisher and news-
paper director (Financial News and Economist). MP (U) North Pad-
dington 1929-.
Bridgeman, William Clive 1st Viscount (d 1935). ed. Eton and Trinity
College, Cambridge. 1889-99 Assistant to Knutsford and Hicks-
Beach. MP (C) Oswestry 1906-29. 1911-29 junior minister and min-
ister in Conservative and Coalition governments. Friend of Baldwin.
Bridges, Edward (44). ed. Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford. 1938-
Secretary to the Cabinet after Hankey's retirement.
Brocket, Arthur Ronald Nail-Cain, 2nd Baron (32). ed. Eton and Mag-
dalen College, Oxford. MP (U) Wavertree 1931-4.
Brown, Ernest (55). ed. Torquay. MP (Lib) Rugby 1923, (Lib) Leith
1927-31 and (Lib Nat) Leith 1931-. Baptist lay preacher. Commis-
sioned in War (MC). Ormsby-Gore thought him 'the salt of the earth'
and 'the best type of bible-loving nonconformist 1 who would have
'no use for the neo-paganism of Germany*.
Bryant, Arthur (37). ed. Harrow and Queen's College, Oxford. Bar.
Served in War. Further education teacher, journalist and historian
(works on Charles II, Macaulay, Pepys, The National Character,
George F e t e ) .
Buccleuch, Walter J. Montagu-Douglas-Scott, 8th Duke of (42). ed.
Eton and Christ Church, Oxford. MP (U) Roxburgh and Selkirk
1923-35. A prominent visitor to Hitler before 1939.
Burgin, Edward Leslie (49). ed. Christ's College, Finchley and abroad.
Solicitor. War (General Staff) in Italy. 1932-7 junior office. 1937-
Minister of Transport. MP (Lib) Luton 1929-31 and (Nat Lib)
1931-45.
Butler, Richard Austen (34). ed. Marlborough and Pembroke College,
Cambridge (Fellow of Corpus). 1932-7 Under-Secretary at India Of-
fice. 1937-8 Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
1938- Under Secretary at the Foreign Office and chief Foreign Of-
fice spokesman in House of Commons. Lloyd George intended a
compliment when describing him as 'playing the part of the imper-
turbable dunce who says nothing with an air of conviction'.
Cadman, Sir John Cadman (1st Baron 1937) (59). ed. Newcastle High
School and Armstrong College, Durham. Colliery Manager, then In-
spector of Mines. 1908-20 Professor of Mining, University of Bir-
mingham. Chairman of Anglo-Iranian and Iraq Petroleum Compa-
nies. Member of Government Commissions.
Cadogan, Sir Alexander (52). ed. Eton and Oxford. Ambassador in
Peking. 1936-7 Deputy Under-Secretary at Foreign Office. 1938.
Permanent Under-Secretary.
Camrose, William Ewart Berry, 1st Baron (57). Brother of Kemsley,
born in Merthyr Tydfil. Journalist and newspaper proprietor. 1928-
editor-in-chief of Daily Telegraph which both before and after ab-
404 APPENDIX
sorbing the Morning Post was an expanding, effective and important

newspaper.
Cartland, Ronald (29). ed. Charterhouse. 1927-35 Conservative Central
Office. MP (U) King's Norton 1935-.
Chamberlain, Ivy Muriel, Lady, wife and then widow of Sir Austen
Chamberlain. Had close contact with highest reaches of the Italian
government.
Channon, Henry (39). ed. America and Christ Church, Oxford. Ameri-
can who married into Guinness family. Author. MP (U), Southend
1935-.
Chatfield, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Ernie (63). Navy since 1886. 1933-8
1st Sea Lord. 1939-40 Minister for Co-ordination of Defence (Baron
1937).
Churchill, Randolph Frederick Spencer (25). Son of W.S. Churchill, ed.
Eton and Christ Church, Oxford. Journalist. Stood as Ind. C. at
Wavertree, Toxteth and Ross and Cromarty in 1935-6.
Citrine, Sir Walter (49). ed. Elementary school. 1926- General Secretary
of TUC.
Clynes, John Robert (68). 1917-19 Office in Lloyd George Coalition.
1921-2 Chairman parliamentary Labour party. 1924 and 1929-31
Member of Labour Cabinets. MP (Lab), Platting 1906-31 and
1935-.
Cockburn, Claud (32). ed. Berkhamstead School and Keble College,
Oxford. 1929-32 Correspondent of The Times. 1933-46 editor of The
Week (where Clivedenism was invented). 1935-46 Diplomatic Corre-
spondent of the Daily Worker.
Colville, David John (42). ed. Charterhouse and Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. War. Director of family steel companies. 1931-5 Secretary,
Department of Overseas Trade, 1935-6 Parliamentary Under-Secre-
tary for Scotland. 1936-8 Financial Secretary to the Treasury. 1938-
Secretary of State for Scotland. A 'good, plodding chap'.
Cooper, Alfred Duff (46). Son of doctor who married the daughter of a
duke. ed. Eton and New College, Oxford. War. Foreign Service.
1928-9 and 1931-5 junior minister. 1935-7 Secretary of State for
War. 1937-8 1st Lord of Admiralty. MP (U), Oldham 1924-9 and
St George's, Westminster 1931-. Author of Talleyrand and Haig.
Coward, Noel (37). Actor and playwright (Bitter Sweet, Cavalcade etc.
in the thirties).
Crewe, Robert O.A. Crewe-Milnes, 1st Marquis of (78). ed. Harrow and
Trinity College, Cambridge. 1892-5 and 1905-16 Minister in Liberal
and Asquith Coalition governments. August-October 1931 Secretary
of State for War.
Croft, Sir Henry Page (55). ed. Eton, Shrewsbury and Trinity Hall,
Cambridge. MP (C), Christ church 1910-18 and Bournemouth 1918-.
Brigadier in war.
Crookshank, Harry F.C. (43). ed. Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford.
War, then Diplomatic Service. 1934-5 junior minister. 1935- Secre-
tary for Mines. MP (U) Gainsborough 1924-. Much disliked by Ram-
THE ACTORS 405
say MacDonald (owing to attacks in 1929 Parliament).

Crossley, Anthony C. (33). ed. Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford.
1932-5 PPS to Under-Secretary at Ministry of Transport. MP (C) for
Oldham 1931-5 and Stretford 1935-.
Crozier, William Percival (57). ed. Manchester Grammar School and
Trinity College, Oxford. 1903- Manchester Guardian (editor 1932-).
Culverwell, Cyril Tom (41). ed. Clifton College and Queens' College,
Cambridge. War. Bristol councillor. MP (U) Bristol West 1928-45.
Cummings, Arthur John (54). War. 1920-32, Daily Chronicle, then
News Chronicle. 1932-. Editor and chief commentator in News
Chronicle.
Cunliffe-Lister (see Swinton).
Dallas, George (68). ed. Elementary school, Technical College, London
School of Economics. ILP. MP (Lab), Wellingborough 1929-31.
Dalton, Hugh (49). ed. Eton and King's College, Cambridge. War. Lec-
turer and Reader (in Economics) at London School of Economics.
1929-31 Parliamentary Under-Secretary at Foreign Office. Author.
MP (Lab) Peckham 1924-9 and Bishop Auckland 1929-31 and
1935- .
Davidson, John Colin Campbell (47). ed. Westminster and Pembroke
College, Cambridge. 1913-23 Private Secretary and PPS to Crewe,
Harcourt, Law, Austen Chamberlain and Baldwin. 1923-4 Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster. 1924-7 junior minister. 1927-30 Chair-
man of Unionist Party. 1931-7 Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster.
MP (U) Hemel Hempstead 1920-3 and 1924-37. Associated with
Salisbury in Moral Rearmament.
Davies, David Davies, 1st Baron (56). ed. Merchiston School and King's
College, Cambridge. Colliery owner. MP (Lib) Montgomeryshire
1906-29. Cecil thought him 'a bull in a china shop'.
Dawson, Geoffrey (ne Robinson) (62). ed. Eton and Magdalen College,
Oxford (Fellow of All Souls). 1898-1901 Colonial Office. 1901-5
PS to Milner. 1905-10 Editor, Johannesburg Star. 1922- Editor of
The Times.
de la Warr, Herbrand Edward Brassey Sackville, 6th Earl (36). ed. Eton
and Magdalen College, Oxford.
Denman, Richard Douglas (60). ed. Westminster and Balliol College,
Oxford. 1905-18 Private Secretary/PPS to Lord Buxton, Lord Ernie
and H.A.L. Fisher. 1931- Second Church Estates Commissioner. MP
(Lib) Carlisle 1910-18, (Lab) Central Leeds 1929-31, (Nat. Lab)
1931-.
Derby, Edward George Stanley, 17th Earl of (71). 1895-1903 junior
minister. 1903-5 Postmaster-General. 1915-16 Director-General of
Recruiting. 1916-18 and 1922-4 Secretary for War. 1918-20 Ambas-
sador to France.
Devonshire, Edward W. Spencer Cavendish, 10th Duke of (41). Wife a
Cecil, ed. Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge. War. 1936- Parlia-
mentary Under-Secretary for Dominions. MP (U) West Derbyshire
1922-38. Vice-President of India Defence League.
Dill, Lieut.-General Sir John (55). ed. Cheltenham College and Sand-
406 APPENDIX
hurst. 1901- army (1934-6 Director of Military Operations, War Of-

fice).
Dorman-Smith, Sir Reginald (Kt 1937) (37). ed. Harrow and Sandhurst.
Indian and British armies. 1931-5 Surrey County Alderman. 1936-7
President of National Union of Farmers. 1939-40 Minister of Agri-
culture. MP (C) Petersfield 1935-.
Drummond, James Eric, 16th Earl of Perth (succeeded 1937) (60). ed.
Eton. 1900-19 Foreign Office. 1919-33 Secretary-General to League
of Nations. 1933-9 Ambassador to Italy. 1939-40 Ministry of Infor-
mation. Ivy Chamberlain was not alone in thinking that he had little
contact with Mussolini.
Dugdale, Mrs Edgar (Blanche Campbell) (56). 1915-19 Naval Intelli-
gence. 1920-8 Permanent staff of League of Nations Union. 1932
member of British delegation to Geneva. Author of Life of Arthur
James Balfour.
Duncan, Sir Andrew Rae (52). ed. Canada and Glasgow University.
1919-20 Coal Controller. 1927-35 Chairman Central Electricity
Board. 1929-40 Director of Bank of England. 1935-40 Chairman of
Executive Committee, Iron and Steel Federation.
Dunglass, Alexander Frederick Douglas-Home, Lord (33). ed. Eton.
1937-9 PPS to Chamberlain. MP (U) South Lanark 1931-.
Elton, Godfrey Elton, 1st Baron (46). ed. Rugby and Balliol College,
Oxford. War. 1919-39 Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford. Labour
candidate 1924 and 1929; followed MacDonald in 1931. National
Labour publicist; author of life of Ramsay MacDonald.
Fisher, Sir Norman Warren (57). ed. Winchester and New College, Ox-
ford. 1903-39 Civil Service (Permanent Secretary to the Treasury
1919-39). 1939 Regional Commissioner for North-West Region.
Foot, Dingle Mackintosh (31). Son of Isaac Foot. ed. Bembridge School
and Balliol College, Oxford. Barrister. MP (Lib) Dundee 1931- .
Gaitskell, H.T.N. (30). ed. Winchester and New College, Oxford. Aca-
demic Economist (University of London). Contested Chatham (Lab)
1935. Friend and follower of Dalton.
Garnett, J.C.Maxwell (56). ed. St Paul's and Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. Mathematician (Fellow of Trinity, Lecturer in London,
School Examiner and Principal of Manchester College of Technol-
ogy). 1920-38 Secretary of League of Nations Union. League of
Nations publicist.
Garvin, James Louis (68). Birkenhead Irishman, ed. Catholic elemen-
tary school. Newcastle Chronicle. 1912-5 editor of Pall Mall Gazette.
1908- editor of the Observer.
Gilmour, Sir John Gilmour (60). ed. Glenalmond, Edinburgh University
and Trinity College, Cambridge. S. African and World War. 1913-15
and 1919-23 junior whip. 1924-9 Scottish Secretary. 1931-2 Minis-
ter of Agriculture. 1932-5 Home Secretary. MP (C) East Renfrew-
shire, 1910-18 and Pollock 1918-.
Gollancz, Victor (43). ed. St Paul's and New College, Oxford. School-
master and then publisher (Victor Gollancz Ltd). Publicist.
THE ACTORS 407
Gort, J.S.S.P.V., 6th Viscount (50). ed. Harrow and Sandhurst. Army
1905-.
Greenwood, Arthur (56). ed. Victoria University, Manchester. Lecturer
in Economics (at Leeds etc.). Wartime Civil Servant (Reconstruction
Committee 1917-19). 1924 junior minister. 1929-31 Minister of
Health. 1935 deputy leader of the Labour party. MP (Lab) Nelson
and Colne 1922-31 and Wakefield 1932-.
Grenfell, David Rhys (55). Coal miner until age of 35, then miners'
agent. MP (Lab) Gower, 1922-.
Grigg, Sir Edward (57). ed. Winchester and New College, Oxford.
1903-13 Times journalist. 1914-21 army etc. 1921-2 Private Secre-
tary to Lloyd George. 1925-31 Governor of Kenya. MP (Nat Lib)
Oldham 1922-5 and for Altrincham 1933-. Author and publicist.
Grigg, Sir Percy James (46). ed. Bournemouth School and St John's
College, Cambridge. 1913-34 civil servant, 1934-9 Finance Member
Govt. of India. 1939*- Permanent Under-Secretary at the War Office.
Hadley, William Waite (70). 1892-1923 editor of Merthyr Tydfil Times,
Rochdale Observer and Northampton Mercury, 1924-30 Daily
Chronicle. 1932- editor of Sunday Times.
Hailsham, Douglas McGarel Hogg, 1st Viscount (64). ed. Eton. Worked
for firm of West India merchants. South African war. 1902 Called to
Bar. 1920- (intermittently) director of Insurance company. 1922-4
and 1924-8 Attorney General. 1928-9 Lord Chancellor. 1931-5 Sec-
retary of State for War. 1935-8 Lord Chancellor. May to November
1938 Lord President of the Council. MP (C) St Marylebone 1922-8.
One of the leaders of the more conservative part of the Conservative
party.
Hankey, Sir Maurice (59). ed. Rugby. 1885-1902 Marine. 1902-6 Naval
Intelligence. 1912-38 Secretary to CID. 1919-38 Secretary to Cabi-
net. Preferred 'plain patriotism and self-protection' to 'high-falutin
principles'. Did not like * Conchies'.
Hannon, Sir Patrick (62). Company director, ed. Royal College of Sci-
ence and Royal University of Ireland. Agricultural co-operator (in
Ireland and South Africa), Tariff reformer, Navy Leaguer and arma-
ments manufacturer. MP (U) Moseley 1921-.
Hardinge, Alexander H.L. (42). ed. Harrow and Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. War. 1920-36 Assistant Private Secretary to King George V.
1936 Private Secretary to Edward VIII. 1936 Private Secretary to
King George VI. Neville Chamberlain wanted to send him to Madras
in 1939 because he kept the King aloof from his subjects.
Harmsworth, Esmond (38). ed. Eton. 1919 ADC to Lloyd George. MP
(U) Isle of Thanet 1919-29.
Harris, H.Wilson (54). ed. Plymouth College and St John's College,
Cambridge. For over twenty years a member of the editorial staff of
the Liberal Daily News. Author of political works including two on
the League of Nations. 1932- editor of the Spectator.
Harris, Sir Percy Alfred (60). ed. Harrow and Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
LCC 1907-34 (Progressive Whip 1912-15, Deputy Chairman
408 APPENDIX
1915-16). 1935 Chief Liberal Whip. MP (Lib) Harborough 1916-18

and S.W. Bethnal Green 1922-. Did not like Samuel's leadership.
Hart, Basil H. Liddell (41). ed. St Paul's School and Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge. War. 1925-35 Military Correspondent of Daily
Telegraph. 1935-9 do. for The Times. Author of many works of
military theory.
Harvey, Oliver Charles (43). ed. Malvern and Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. War. 1919-36 Foreign Service. 1936-9 Principal Private Secre-
tary to Foreign Secretary. 1940 Minister in Paris. Halifax seems to
have responded less than Eden to his political advice.
Harvey, Thomas Edmund (61). ed. Bootham School, Yorkshire College,
Leeds, Christ Church, Oxford and Berlin and Paris Universities.
1900-4 British Museum. 1906-11 Warden of Toynbee Hall. LCC. MP
(Lib) West Leeds 1910-18 and Dewsbury 1923-4, MP (Ind. Progres-
sive) Combined English Universities 1937-. Author of works on re-
ligion.
Headlam, Sir Cuthbert (59). ed. King's School, Canterbury and Mag-
dalen College, Oxford. 1897-1924, Permanent official in Parliament.
War. MP (Cons) Barnard Castle 1924-9 and 1931-5.1926-9 and 1931-3
junior office. 'How he disliked Baldwin' after being dismissed in
1933 'no tongue [could] tell'.
Heath, Edward R.G. (20). ed. Chatham House School, Ramsgate and
Balliol College, Oxford. 1937 President of Oxford University Conser-
vative Association. 1939 President of Oxford Union. Supported
Lindsay at 1938 Oxford by-election against the Conservative candi-
date.
Henderson, Arthur (died 1935 at age of 72). ed. Elementary school.
1911-34 Secretary of Labour party. 1930-5 Treasurer of Labour
party. 1908-10, 1914-7 and 1931-2 Leader of parliamentary Labour
party. 1915-17 Minister in Asquith and Lloyd George Coalitions.
1924 Home Secretary, 1929-31 Foreign Secretary. When MacDonald
met him at Geneva in 1933, he thought him more and more like 'a
stolid iron-moulder who goes to chapel and controls its morals and
finances'.
Henderson, Sir Nevile Meyrick (54). ed. Eton. 1905- Diplomatic Service
(1932-5 Ambassador in Belgrade, 1935-7 in Buenos Aires, 1937-9 in
Berlin).
Herbert, Sir Sidney (Baronet 1936) (46). ed. Eton and Balliol College,
Oxford. 1919-20 PPS to Churchill. 1922-3 PPS to Halifax (Wood).
August 1923 and 1924-7 PPS to Baldwin. MP (C) Scarborough
1922-31 and Abbey, Westminster 1932-.
Hicks, Ernest George (57) ed. Elementary school and Polytechnic.
Bricklayer, then trade union official. 1921-40 Secretary of Amalga-
mated Union of Building Trade Workers. 1926-7 President of TUC.
Member of many TUC and government committees.
Hinsley, Most. Rev. Arthur (71). ed. Ushaw College, Rome (Professor at
Ushaw 1893-7). 1898-1917 priest and schoolmaster in England.
1917-28 Rector of the English College in Rome. 1935 Archbishop of
Westminster.
THE ACTORS 409
Hirst, Francis W. (63). ed. Clifton and Wadham College, Oxford.

1907-16 editor The Economist. Ex-Liberal candidate. Author of
many Liberal books on politics and economics. Mentioned as a pos-
sible Chancellor of the Exchequer on formation of first Labour gov-
ernment.
Hodges, Frank (49). ed. Elementary school, Abertillery, Ruskin and
Labour College Oxford and Oxford Labour Colleges. Miner, then
miners' agent. The centre of the events which led up to Black Friday
in 1921. 1924 junior minister. MP (Lab) Lichfield 1923-4. From
1927 onwards a member of the Central Electricity Authority. Clubs:
Bath, Royal Automobile and New, Glasgow.
Hogg, Quintin McGarel (29). ed. Eton and Christ Church, Oxford. Fel-
low of All Souls College. Barrister. MP (Nat Cons) Oxford City,
1938-.
Hopkinson, Austin (58). South African war. Industrialist. Author of
The Hope of the Workers and Religio Militis. MP (Ind.). Mossley
1918-29 and 1931-45.
Home, Sir Robert (1st Viscount 1937) (65). ed. George Watson's Col-
lege, Edinburgh University of Glasgow. Scottish Bar. 1919-20 Minis-
ter of Labour. 1920-1 President of Board of Trade. 1921-2 Chancel-
lor of Exchequer. Part of the Austen Chamberlain/Birkenhead group
after 1922. Thereafter in City. 1918-37 MP (C) Hillhead.
Hudson, Robert Spear (50). ed. Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford.
1911-23 Foreign Service. 1931-5 Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
try of Labour. 1935-6 Minister of Pensions. 1936-7 Parliamentary
Secretary to Ministry of Health. 1937-40 Secretary, Department of
Overseas Trade. April-May 1940 Minister of Shipping. MP (U) White-
haven 1924-9 and Southport 1931- . Cadogan claimed to have stop-
ped him becoming Minister of Economic Warfare in 1939.
Ironside, General Sir Edmund (56). ed. Tonbridge and Royal Military
Academy. 1899- army. 1936-8 GOC Eastern Command. 1938-9 Gov-
ernor of Gibraltar. 1939-40 CIGS.
Ismay, Colonel H.L. (49). ed. Charterhouse and Sandhurst. 1905- army.
1926-30 A/Sec. CID. 1931-33 Military Secretary to Viceroy of India.
1933-6 War Office. 1936-8 Deputy Secretary, CID. 1938 Secretary
CID.
Johnson, Very Rev. Hewlett (62). ed. King Edward's School, Maccles-
field and Victoria University, Manchester. 1905 Ordination. 1931-
Dean of Canterbury. Communist author of The Socialist Sixth of the
World (many editions in many languages).
Johnstone, Harcourt (41). ed. Eton and Balliol College, Oxford. War.
MP (Lib) East Willesden 1923-4 and South Shields 1931-5.
Jones, Thomas (66). ed. Pengam County School, University College
Aberystwyth and Glasgow University. 1909-10 Professor Economics,
Queen's, Belfast. 1912-16 Secretary, National Health Insurance
Commissioners (Wales). Brought into Cabinet Secretariat by Lloyd
George. After Lloyd George's fall, a close friend of Baldwin. A
Fabian. 1930-45 Secretary of Pilgrim Trust. 1934-40 Member of
Unemployment Assistance Board. Thought J.H. Thomas had 'fallen
410 APPENDIX
a victim to the two weaknesses of his class*.

Kemsley, James Gomer Berry 1st Baron (53). Newspaper proprietor
(including many provincial papers and the Sunday Times).
Keynes, John Maynard (53). ed. Eton and King's College, Cambridge
(Fellow and Bursar). Government adviser and member of commis-
sions. Author of The Economic Consequences of the Peace, The End
of Lais sez-Faire, A Treatise on Money and The General Theory of
Employment, Interest and Money (1936).
King-Hall, Commander Stephen (43). ed. Lausanne, Osborne and Dart-
mouth. Retired from navy in 1929. Publicist and commentator on
public affairs (1936 King-Hall News Letter). Broadcaster. MP (Ind.
Nat) Ormskirk 1939. Member of National Labour party.
Laski, Harold J. (43). ed. Manchester Grammar School and New Col-
lege, Oxford. 1926- Professor of Political Science in University of
London. 1922-36 Executive of Fabian Society. 1936- Executive
Committee of Labour party. Prolific publicist and journalist.
Law, Richard Kidston (35). ed. Shrewsbury and St John's College, Ox-
ford. Journalist, then MP (U) S.W. Hull, 1931-. Attracted Mac-
Donald's attention as rebel in 1934.
Layton, Sir Walter Thomas (52). ed. King's College School, Westminster
City School, King's College, London and Trinity College, Cambridge.
1909- Economics Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
1922-38 Editor of The Economist. Parliamentary candidate (Lib) in
the twenties.
Lindemann, Frederick Alexander (50). ed. Blair Lodge, Darmstadt, Ber-
lin and Paris. 1919- Professor of Experimental Philosophy at Oxford.
Lindsay, Alexander Dunlop (57). ed. Glasgow University and University
College, Oxford. War. 1924- Master of Balliol College. 1935-8 Vice-
Chancellor of Oxford University. Author of works on politics and
philosophy. Member of Labour party.
Lindsay, Kenneth (39). ed. St Olave's and Worcester College, Oxford.
War. 1923-6 Toynbee Hall and Stepney Guardian and Councillor.
1931-5 General Secretary Political and Economic Planning. 1935-40
junior office. MP (Ind. National) 1933-. Thought * the brown naked
bodies of the Hitler Jugend...different from the bodies produced by
the Rt. Hon. Kingsley Wood'. Zionist.
Linlithgow, Victor A.J. Hope, 2nd Marquess of (49). ed. Eton. War.
1922-4 junior minister. 1924-6 Deputy Chairman of Conservative
party. 1936-43 Viceroy of India. Never an MP.
Lloyd, Geoffrey William (34). ed. Harrow and Trinity College, Cam-
bridge. 1926-31 Private Secretary to first Hoare and then Baldwin.
1931-5 PPS to Baldwin. 1935-9 junior minister. 1939-40 Secretary
for Mines. MP (U) Lady wood 1931-.
Lloyd, George Ambrose 1st Baron (57). ed. Eton and Trinity College,
Cambridge. War. 1918-23 Governor of Bombay. 1925-9 High Com-
missioner in Egypt. MP (C) Stafford 1910-18 and Eastbourne
1924-5.
Lloyd George, Gwilym (42). ed. Eastbourne College and Jesus College,
THE ACTORS 411
Cambridge. 1931 and 1939-junior minister. MP (Lib) Pembrokeshire

1922-4 and 1929-.
Londonderry, Charles H. Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of (58).
ed. Sandhurst. War. 1936-7 Mayor of Durham. 1920-21 junior minis-
ter. 1921-6 minister in N. Ireland government. 1928-9 and 1931 1st
Commisioner of Works. 1931-5 Air Minister. In the four years after
his removal in 1935, his resentments were poured out in innumer-
able and unanswered letters to Baldwin.
Londonderry, Edith, Marchioness of (58), wife of above. Daughter of
Henry Chaplin, 1st viscount Chaplin. Close friend of Ramsay Mac-
Donald whom she described (in her Retrospect) as admiring 'old
families', disliking 'the new with a bitter hatred' and * expressing opin-
ions that other people...would never dare to express aloud' about
'the system in which money has made all things possible'.
Loraine, Sir Percy (56). ed. Eton and New College, Oxford. 1904-41
Foreign Service. 1933-9 Ambassador in Ankara. 1939-40 Ambassa-
dor in Rome.
Lothian, Philip Henry Kerr, 11th Marquess of (54). ed. Oratory, Bir-
mingham and New College, Oxford. 1910-16 editor of Round Table.
1916-21 PS to Lloyd George. 1921-2 Director of United News-
papers. Aug. Nov. 1931 Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster. 1931-2
Under-Secretary for India. Kipling resigned when he became Secre-
tary of the Rhodes Trustees.
Low, David (45). ed. Christchurch, New Zealand. Cartoonist, mainly in
Evening Standard.
Lytton, Victor Alexander G.R. Lytton, 2nd Earl of (60). ed. Eton and
Trinity College, Cambridge. 1916-22 junior minister. 1922-7 Gover-
nor of Bengal. 1932 Chairman of League of Nations Mission to
Manchuria.
Mabane, William (41). ed. Woodhouse Grove School and Gonville and
Caius College, Cambridge. War. 1920-3 Warden of University settle-
ment, Liverpool. 1921-39 Company Director, 1931-2 and 1939-ju-
nior minister. MP (Lib Nat) 1931-.
McEwen, J.H.F. (42). ed. Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge. War.
1920-9 Diplomatic Service. 1938-9 Assistant Whip. 1939- junior
minister. Author (inc. Gallantry with Sir Arnold Wilson). MP (U)
Berwick and Haddington 1931-.
McKenna, Reginald (73). ed. St Malo, Ebersdorf and King's College,
Cambridge. Barrister. 1905-7 junior officer. 1907-16 Cabinet (inc.
1915-6 Chancellor of the Exchequer). 1919- Chairman of Midland
Bank. MP (Lib) N. Monmouthshire 1895-1918.
Maclean, Sir Donald (died 1932 aged 68). Solicitor. MP (Lib) 1906-18
and 1929-32.
Macmillan, Hugh Pattison, Baron (life peer) (63). ed. Edinburgh Univer-
sity. Scottish Bar. 1918 In Ministry of Information. 1924 Lord Ad-
vocate for Scotland. Chairman of Commissions. 1930-9 Lord of
Appeal.
Maisky, Ivan (52). ed. Omsk, St Petersburg and Munich universities.
1932- Soviet Ambassador in London.
412 APPENDIX
Mander, Geoffrey Le Mesurier (54). ed. Harrow and Trinity College,

Cambridge. Company Chairman. MP (Lib) Wolverhampton East
1929- .
Mann, Arthur (60). Editor of Yorkshire Post. Friendly to Lloyd George
over New Deal. Hostile to Nazism from an early stage. Formerly
editor of Evening Standard.
Marchbanks, John (53). Worked as shepherd, then railwayman. 1916-8
Executive Committee of NUR (with subsequent appointments on
permanent staff of Union). 1933- General Secretary of NUR (1933
TUC General Council).
Margesson, Henry David Reginald (46). ed. Harrow and Cambridge.
War. 1922-3 PPS to Sir C. Montague Barlow. 1924-9 and 1931 junior
Whip. 1931- Government Chief Whip. MP (U) West Ham 1922-3 and
Rugby 1924-.
Martin, Basil Kingsley (39). ed. Mill Hill School and Magdalene College,
Cambridge (bye-fellow). 1927-31 Manchester Guardian. 1931-Editor
of New Statesman and Nation.
Masaryk, Jan (50). Son of Thomas Masaryk. 1925-38 Czech minister to
Great Britain.
Maugham, Frederic Herbert, 1st Baron (life peer) (70). ed. Dover Col-
lege and Trinity Hall, Cambridge. Bar. 1928-34 High Court Judge.
1934-5 Justice of Appeal. 1935-8 and 1939-41 Lord of Appeal.
1938-9 Lord Chancellor (viscount 1939).
Maudling, Reginald (19). ed. Merchant Taylors' and Merton College,
Oxford. Visited Harold Nicolson on leaving Oxford. Interested
in * National Labour idea*.
Maurice, Maj-General Sir Frederick (65). 1892-1918 Army. 1922-33
Principal of Working Men's College, St Pancras. 1933- Principal of
Queen Mary College, London. 1932- President of British Legion (in
which role he went to Germany to find a peace-keeping role for the
Legion in Czechoslovakia in September 1938). Author.
Meston, James Scorgie, 1st Baron (71). ed. Aberdeen University and
Balliol College, Oxford. 1885-1919 Indian Civil Service (Governor of
United Provinces and Finance Member of Viceroy's Council).
Midleton, William St John Brodrick, 1st Earl of (80). ed. Eton and
Christ Church, Oxford. 1900-5 Cabinet. MP (C) W. Surrey 1880-5
and Guildford 1885-1905.
Monsell, Bolton M. Eyres-Monsell, 1st Viscount (55). ed. Brittania
1894-1906 and 1914-7 navy. 1911-4 and 1919-23 junior minister.
1923-31 Conservative Chief Whip. 1931-6 First Lord of Admiralty.
1937- Government director of British Airways Board.
Morrison, Herbert (48) ed. Elementary school. 1920-1. Mayor of Hack-
ney. 1915-40 Secretary of London Labour party. 1928-9 Chairman
of Labour party. 1931- LCC Alderman (leader of Council 1939). MP
(Lab) for Hackney South 1923-4, 1929-31 and 1935- .
Mosley, Sir Oswald (40). ed. Winchester and RMC Sandhurst. War.
1929-30 Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster. MP (C.U.) Harrow,
1918-22, (Ind) 1922-4 and (Lab) 1924. MP (Lab) Smethwick
1926-31.
THE ACTORS 413
Mountbatten, Lord Louis (36). ed. Lockers' Park, Osborne and Dart-
mouth; Christ's College, Cambridge. 1913- navy. Quoted as believing
that a Communist victory in Spain would be better than Franco and
a Fascist triangle.
Muir, Ramsay (64). ed. University College, Liverpool and Balliol Col-
lege, Oxford. 1913-21 Professor of Modern History at Manchester.
1931-3 Chairman and 1933-6 President of National Liberal Federa-
tion. 1923-4 MP (Lib) Rochdale. Author of many works of history,
political science and Liberal propaganda.
Murray, George Gilbert (70). Son of president of New South Wales
legislative council, ed. Merchant Taylor's and St John's College, Ox-
ford. 1889-99 Professor of Greek at Glasgow. 1908-36 Regius Pro-
fessor of Greek at Oxford. 1923-38 Chairman, 1938-40 President of
League of Nations Union. Prolific author and translator (inc. Liber-
alism and the Empire, The Foreign Policy of Sir Edward Grey, The
Ordeal of this Generation and Liberality and Civilization),
Nathan, Harry Louis (47). ed. St Paul's School. Solicitor. MP (Lib)
1929-35. MP (Lab) C. Wandsworth 1937-.
Nicolson, Harold (50). ed. Wellington and Balliol College, Oxford.
1909-29 Foreign Service. 1929- Journalist and author (inc. Peace-
making and Curzon). MP (Nat Lab) Leicester. 'Really' felt that 'the
intelligence of the ordinary Leicester businessman' was * sub-normal'.
Noel-Baker, Philip (47). ed. Bootham School, York, Haverford College
and King's College Cambridge. War (Ambulance unit). 1919-22
League of Nations Secretariat. 1929-31 junior minister at Foreign
Office. MP (Lab) Coventry 1929-31 and for Derby, 1936-. Thought
Eden's Leamington speech in April 1937 should be the 'basic policy
of every sane man'.
Noel-Buxton, Noel Edward, 1st Baron (67). ed. Harrow and Trinity
College, Cambridge. 1924 and 1929-30 Minister of Agriculture. Au-
thor of works about foreign policy (esp. Balkan). MP (Lib) Whitby
1905-6 and North Norfolk 1910-18. MP (Lab) for North Norfolk
1922-30.
Norman, Montagu Collet (65). ed. Eton and King's College, Cambridge.
South African War. 1920- Governor of the Bank of England.
Nuffield, William Richard Morris, 1st Baron (59). Chairman of Morris
Motors etc. (viscount 1938). Chamberlain believed the Nuffield inci-
dent arose out of his 'wounded vanity'.
O'Neill, Sir R.W. Hugh (53). ed. Eton and New College, Oxford. War.
1921-9 Speaker of N. Ireland House of Commons. 1935-9 Chairman
of 1922 Committee. 1939-40 junior minister. MP (Northern Ireland)
for Antrim 1921-9. MP (U) Mid-Antrim 1915-22 and County Antrim
1922-.
Ormsby-Gore, William Gore Arthur (51). ed. Eton and New College,
Oxford. War. 1917-8 Private Secretary to Milner, etc. 1922-4 and
1924-9 junior office. 1931-6 1st Commissioner of Works. 1936-8
Colonial Secretary. MP (U) Denbigh district 1910-18 and for Staf-
ford 1918-38. Like Elliot, he appears to have talked freely about the
Cabinet's Palestine discussions.
414 APPENDIX
Patrick, Colin Mark (43). ed. Eton and Christ Church, Oxford. 1919-30
Diplomatic Service. 1933-5 PPS to Hoare. MP (C) Tavistock 1931-.
Petrie, Sir Charles Alexander (41). ed. Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Historian (especially of the Tory party and of Tory politicians).
Phipps, Sir Eric C.E. (61). ed. King's College, Cambridge. 1899-1933
Various posts in Diplomatic Service (chiefly abroad). 1933- Ambas-
sador in Berlin.
Ponsonby, A.A.W.H. 1st Baron (65). ed. Eton and Balliol College, Ox-
ford. 1882-97 Diplomatic Service. 1905-8 Private Secretary to
Campbell-Bannerman. 1929-31 junior minister. 1931 Chancellor of
Duchy of Lancaster. MP (Lib) Stirling burghs 1908-18 andMP (Lab)
for Brightside 1922-30. 1930 Baron. Sankey described the Oxford
and Cambridge Club's refusal to elect him as Separating instead of
uniting classes'.
Pownall, Henry Royds (49). ed. Rugby and RMA Woolwich. Army
1906- (1938-9 Director of Military Operations, War Office. 1939-40
CGS, BEF).
Priestley, John Boynton (42). ed. Bradford and Trinity Hall, Cam-
bridge. War. Author of best-selling novels and plays including The
Good Companions, Laburnum Grove, Eden End in twenties and thir-
ties.
Pritt, Denis Nowell (49). ed. Winchester and London University. Barris-
ter and author. MP (Soc) North Hammersmith 1935-.
Rankeillour, James Fitzalan Hope. 1st Baron (66). ed. Oratory School
and Christ Church, Oxford. 1915-21 Household and junior offices.
1921-4 and 1924-9 Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker.
MP (C) Brightside 1900-6. MP (U) Central Sheffield 1908-29.
Rathbone, Eleanor Florence (64). ed. Kensington High School and
Liverpool and Glasgow universities. Author of works on political and
social questions. 1929- MP (Ind) Combined English Universities.
Reading, Rufus Daniel Isaacs, 1st Marquess of (died 1935 at age of 75).
ed. Brussels, Anglo-Jewish Academy, London and University Col-
lege, School. 1910-13 Attorney General. 1913-21 Lord Chief Jus-
tice. 1918-19 Ambassador to Washington. 1921-6 Viceroy of India.
1931 Foreign Secretary. 1930-5 Leader of Liberal party in the
House of Lords.
Reith, John Charles Walsham (1st Baron 1940) (47). ed. Glasgow Acad-
emy, Gresham's School, Holt, Royal Technical College, Glasgow.
Engineer. War. 1922-38 General Manager etc. BBC. 1938-40 Chair-
man of Imperial Airways (and then BOAC). MP (Nat) Southampton
1940. In 1933 thought of himself as a possible Ambassador in Wash-
ington.
Roberts, Wilfred (36). ed. Gresham's, Holt and Balliol College, Oxford.
MP (Lib) North Cumberland 1935-. 'Left-wing' position about
India. Johnstone wished he would do less about Spain (where he was
an interventionist Republican partisan) and more about agriculture.
Rockley, Evelyn Cecil, 1st Baron (71). ed. Eton and New College,
Oxford. Barrister. 1891-2 and 1895-1902 Assistant PS to Salisbury
(his uncle). Member of Commissions. MP (C) East Herts 1898-1900,
THE ACTORS 415
Aston Manor 1900-18 and Aston 1918-29.

Rothermere, Harold Sydney Harmsworth, 1st Viscount (68). Pro-
prietor of Daily Mail, Evening News etc. 1917-18 Air Secretary.
1937 Retired from effective control of newspapers.
Rowse, Alfred Leslie (33). ed. Elementary and County schools, St Aus-
tell and Christ Church, Oxford. 1925- Fellow of All Souls, Oxford.
Contested Penryn-Falmouth 1931 and 1935. Historian and Labour
publicist including Politics and the Younger Generation,
Runciman, Sir Walter (Baron 1937, Viscount 1938) (66). ed. Trinity
College, Cambridge. 1905-8 junior office. 1908-11 President of
Board of Education. 1911-14 President of Board of Agriculture.
1914-6 President of Board of Trade. MP (Lib) Oldham 1899-1900,
Dewsbury 1901-18, Swansea 1924-9, and St Ives 1929-31. MP (Lib
Nat) Stives 1931-7.
Rushcliffe, 1st Baron, see Betterton.
Salisbury, James E.H. Gascoyne-Cecil, 4th Marquess of (75). ed. Eton
and University College, Oxford. South African war. 1900-3 Under-
secretary, 1903-5 and 1922-9 Cabinet office (1925-9 Leader of
House of Lords).
Salter, Sir James Arthur (55). ed. Oxford High School and Brasenose.
After 30 years as civil servant (inc. period at League of Nations),
became Gladstone Professor of Political Theory at Oxford (1934)
and MP (Ind) for Oxford University (1937). Author of works on
public affairs, wanted the Republic armed in 1936 and thought
Chamberlain was 'doomed' on September 21 1938. Much praised by
the Sinclairites. Dawson thought him 'boring'.
Samuel, Sir Herbert Lewis (1st Viscount 1937) (66). ed. University
College School and Balliol College Oxford. 1905-9 junior minister.
1909-16 Cabinet. 1920-5 High Commissioner in Palestine. 1927-9
Chairman of Liberal party organisation. 1931-5 Leader of parliament-
ary Liberal party. MP (Lib) Cleveland 1902-18 and Darwen 1929-35.
Author of books on political and philosophical subjects.
Sanderson, H.S. Furniss, 1st Lord (69). Blind since birth. 1916-25 Prin-
cipal of Ruskin College. Resigned from Labour party in 1936 owing
to its foreign policy 'involving so much hatred of other powers'.
Sandys, Duncan (28). ed. Eton and Magdalene College, Cambridge.
1930-4 Foreign Service. MP (Cons) for Norwood 1935- . Churchill's
son-in-law (after being opposed by a candidate put up by Randolph
Churchill at Norwood by-election in 1935). In May 1935 he was in
effect saying that Germany should have a predominant place in cen-
tral Europe, so as to avoid clashing with British as an Imperial Power
(Hansard of May 2 1935 cols. 595-598).
Sargent, Sir Orme Garton (52). ed. Radley. 1906- Foreign Office (inch
Assistant Under-Secretary).
Selborne, William W. Palmer, 2nd Earl of Selborne (77). ed. Winchester
and University College, Oxford. 1900-5 1st Lord of Admiralty.
1905-10 High Commissioner in South Africa. 1915-16 President of
Board of Agriculture. MP (C) Petersfield 1885-92 and Edinburgh W.
1892-5.
416 APPENDIX
Sheppard, Very Rev. Hugh Richard (56). ed. Marlboro ugh and Trinity
Hall, Cambridge. 1914-27 Vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields. 1929-31
Dean of Canterbury. 1934- Canon of St Paul's. Founder of Peace
Pledge Union.
Shinwell, Emanuel (52). Of Polish origin. 1924 and 1929-31 junior
office. MP (Lab) Linlithgow 1922-4 and 1928-31 and for Seaham
(after defeating MacDonald) 1935- . MacDonald believed he had res-
cued Shinwell's ministerial career when no minister would take him
in 1929.
Sidebotham, Herbert (64). ed. Manchester Grammar School and Balliol
College, Oxford. 1895-1914 Manchester Guardian. 1922-3 Daily
Chronicle. Scrutator of the Sunday Times.
Smuts, Jan Christiaan (66). ed. Victoria College, Stellenbosch and
Christ's College, Cambridge. After commanding Republican forces in
Cape Colony in Boer War, became Colonial Secretary of the Trans-
vaal in 1907 and commander of troops in East Africa in 1916.
1910-9 Various offices in South African Cabinet. 1919-24 and 1939-
Prime Minister. 1933-9 Minister of Justice. A frequent visitor to
England, where he behaved as a sort of higher adviser to the Liberal
party via Asquith and Lloyd George. In the late thirties became a
supporter of Churchill.
Snell, Henry Snell, 1st Baron (71). ed. village school, University Col-
lege, Nottingham, London School of Economics and Heidelberg Uni-
versity. Son of agricultural worker. LCC 1919-25. MP (Lab) Wool-
wich East 1922-31. 1935- Labour leader in House of Lords. De-
scribed by one Conservative as Attaining a position of note' in the
House of Lords. In 1935 was expecting Baldwin to be succeeded by
Mosley.
Southby, Sir Archibald R.J. (50). ed. naval. 1908-20 naval service.
1935-7 Assistant Whip. MP (C) Epsom 1928-.
Spears, Edward Louis (50). 1903-27 army (incl. 1917-20 Head of Brit-
ish Military Mission to Paris). MP (Nat. Lib) Loughborough 1922-4
and MP (U) Carlisle 1931-
Spender, J. Alfred (74). ed. Bath College and Balliol College, Oxford.
1896-1922 editor of Westminster Gazette. Liberal publicist and bio-
grapher.
Spens, William Patrick (51). ed. Rugby and New College, Oxford. War
Barrister. MP (C) Ashford 1933-.
Spier, Eugen. German-Jewish refugee businessman who subsidised a din-
ing and discussion club of which Churchill was a prominent member.
Stanhope, James Richard, 7th Earl (56). ed. Eton and Magdalen Col-
lege, Oxford. 1901-8 army (inc. S. African war). 1910-13 LCC.
1914-18 War. 1918, 1924-9 and 1931-6 junior minister. 1936-7 1st
Commissioner of Works (Cabinet). 1937-8 President of Board of
Education. 1938-9 1st Lord of Admiralty. 1939-40 Lord President
of the Council. 1938-40 Leader of House of Lords.
Stanley, Edward, Lord (42). ed. Eton and Magdalen College, Oxford.
1924-7 junior Whip. 1927-9 Deputy Chairman of Conservative party.
THE ACTORS 417
1931-8 junior office. 1938 Dominions Secretary (until death). MP

(C) Fylde 1922-38.
Stanley, Oliver F.G. (40). ed. Eton and Oxford. War. 1931-3 junior
minister. 1933-4 Minister of Transport. 1934-5 Minister of Labour.
1935-7 President of Board of Education. 1937-40 President of Board
of Trade. 1940 Secretary of State for War. 1923 defeated in Edgehill
by-election. MP (C) Westmorland 1924-.
Steed, Henry Wickham (65). ed. Sudbury Grammar School and Jena,
Paris and Berlin universities. 1896-1922 The Times (editor 1919-22).
1925-8 Lecturer at King's College, London. 1923-30 Editor of Re-
view of Reviews. Prolific author on political and foreign policy sub-
jects (incl. The Habsburg Monarchy, The Real Stanley Baldwin, Hit-
ler Whence and Whither?, A Way to Social Peace, Vital Peace and
Our War Aims). Dawson did not much care for his 'Edgar Wallace-
like revelations of German villainy'.
Stevenson, Frances (later Countess Lloyd George). 1913- Private Secre-
tary to Lloyd George with whom she lived.
Stokes, Richard Rapier (39). Company chairman, ed. Downside and
Trinity College, Cambridge. 1915-18 army. MP (Lab) Ipswich
1938- .
Stonehaven, John Lawrence Baird, 1st Baron (62). ed. Eton and
Oxford. 1898-1908 Diplomatic Service. War 1914-5. 1911-6 PPS
to Law. 1916-22 junior minister. 1922-4 Minister of Transport.
1925-30 Governor-General of Australia. 1931-6 Chairman of Conser-
vative party. MP (C) Rugby 1910-22 and Ayr Burghs 1922-5. Unwil-
ling to remain party chairman while Greenwood remained Treasurer;
removed unwillingly in 1937.
Strauss, George Russell (35). ed. Rugby. Son of Conservative MP. LCC
(Lab) 1925-31 and 1932- (Chairman of Committees). MP (Lab)
North Lambeth 1929-31 and 1934 .
Swinton, Philip Cunliffe-Lister (formerly Lloyd-Greame), 1st Viscount
(52). ed. Winchester and University College, Oxford. 1908 Bar.
1914-7 War. 1917-18 and 1920-2 junior office. 1922-3, 1924-9 and
1931 President of the Board of Trade. 1931-5 Colonial Secretary.
1935-8 Air Minister. MP (U) Hendon 1918-35. 1935 Viscount Swin-
ton. Dill, when asked to find him a job in 1939 declared that he had
been treated * disgracefully*.
Tate, Mrs Mavis Constance, ed. St Paul's Girls School. JP. MP
(Nat) West Willesden 1931-5 and (Nat Con) Frome 1935-.
Thomas, James Henry (62). ed. Council schools. From age of nine,
errand boy, then railways (engine-driver). 1921 Vice-Chairman of
PLP. 1918-24 and 1925-31 General Secretary, National Union of
Railwaymen. 1924, 1931 and 1935-6 Colonial Secretary. 1929-30
Lord Privy Seal and Minister for Employment. 1930-5 Dominions
Secretary. MP (Lab) Derby 1910-31 and (Nat Lab) 1931-6.
Thomas, James Purdon Lewes (33). ed. Rugby and Oriel College, Ox-
ford. 1931 Assistant PS to Baldwin. 1932-5 PPS to Thomas. 1935-7
PPS to Eden. MP (Cons) Hereford 1931-.
Toynbee, Arnold Joseph (47). ed. Winchester and Balliol College, Ox-
418 APPENDIX
ford (Fellow and Tutor 1912-15). 1915-19 Government departments

(incl. Intelligence). 1919-24 Professor of Byzantine and Modern
Greek, London University. 1925- Director of Studies and Professor,
Royal Institute of International Affairs. Author and writer on poli-
tics inc. Nationality and the War, The New Europe, Turkey, A Study
of History and various Chatham House Surveys.
Tree, Ronald (39). ed. Winchester. War.1936-8 PPS to R.S. Hudson
(resigned when Eden resigned). MP (C) Harborough 1933-.
Trenchard, Hugh M. Trenchard, 1st Viscount (63) 1893-1927 army,
then air force (1927 Marshal of the RAF). 1931-5 Commissioner of
Metropolitan Police. Virtual founder of RAF. Macdonald would
not make him Chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board
because Labour identified him with 'Prussian methods'.
Trevelyan, Sir Charles Philips (66). ed. Harrow and Trinity College,
Cambridge. 1892-3 Private Secretary to Crewe. 1908-14 junior min-
ister. 1924 and 1929-31 President of Board of Education. MP (Lib)
Elland 1899-1918 and (Lab) Newcastle C. 1922-31.
Tyrrell, William George, 1st Baron (70). ed. Balliol College, Oxford.
1889-1928 Foreign Office (inc. Permanent Under-Secretary 1925-8).
1928-34 British Ambassador in Paris, 1935- President of Board of
Film Censors.
Vallance, Aylmer (44). ed. Fettes and Balliol College, Oxford. 1914-19
army. 1933-6 Editor of News Chronicle. 1933-6 Financial editor,
New Statesman.
Vansittart, Sir Robert Gilbert (55). ed. Eton. 1902- Diplomatic Service
(incl. 1928-30 PPS to Prime Minister). 1930-8 Permanent Under-
secretary. 1938- Chief Diplomatic Adviser to the Government.
Wedgwood, Josiah Clement (64). ed. Clifton and Royal Naval College,
Greenwich. Naval architect. South African War. War. 1922-4 Vice
Chairman of parliamentary Labour party. 1924 Chancellor of Duchy
of Lancaster. MP (first Lib and then Lab), Newcastle-under-Lyme
1906-.
Weir, William Douglas, 1st Viscount (1938). (69). Industrialist. First-war
administrator of government munitions directorates (incl. 1918 Sec-
retary of State for Air). Of wide post-war experience. 1936 Brought
in to advise about rearmament.
Westminster, Richard A. Grosvenor, 2nd Duke of (57). Served in S. Af-
rican war. War. Vice-President of India Defence League.
Williams, Francis (33). ed. Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Middleton.
1929-36 Financial editor, Daily Herald. 1936-40 editor Daily Herald.
Willink, Henry Urmston (42). ed. Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge.
Barrister. Contested Ipswich (C) in 1938.
Wilson, Sir Arnold Talbot (52). ed. Clifton and Sandhurst. 1903-20
Indian Army and Political Service (inc. Mesopotamia 1918-20).
1921-32 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Editor of Nineteenth Century
and After (until removed in 1938 by Voigt and Harold Nicolson
after being first anti-Baldwin and then 'fascist' about Spain). Author
of Mesopotamia and other political works. MP (C) Hitchin 1933-
(tried to avoid having a message from Baldwin at by-election).
THE ACTORS 419
Wilson, Sir Horace John (54). ed. Kurnella School, Bournemouth and
London School of Economics. 1900- Civil Service (incl. 1921-30
Permanent Secretary to Ministry of Labour and 1930-9 Chief
Industrial Adviser to the Government). 1935- Seconded to Treasury
for service with Prime Minister. 1939- Head of Civil Service and
Permanent Secretary to the Treasury.
Winterton, Edward Tumour, 6th Earl (Irish) (53). ed. Eton and New
College, Oxford. Landowner. War. 1922-4 and 1924-9 junior office.
1937-9 Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster (deputy to Air Minister
March to May 1938, Cabinet March 1938-January 1939). January to
November 1939 Postmaster General. MP (U) Horsham from 1904.
Attlee thought him * clever and far more broad-minded than is real-
ized'.
Wolmer, Round ell Cecil Palmer, Viscount (49). ed. Winchester and Uni-
versity College, Oxford. 1922-4 and 1924-9 junior office. 1934-40
Chairman, Cement Makers Federation. Prominent Anglican layman.
MP (C) Newton 1910-18 and Aldershot 1918-40.
Womersley, Sir Walter James (58). ed. Usher Street Board School, Brad-
ford. Started work at 12; senior partner in Womersley and Stamp of
Grimsby. 1922-3 Mayor of Grimsby. Chairman of Trade Associa-
tions (ind. National Chamber of Trade). 1931 PPS to Sir Kingsley
Wood. 1931-9 junior office. 1939- Minister of Pensions. MP (U)
Grimsby 1924- . A civic Conservative who upset Harold Nicolson at
a by-election in 1937 by making *a sort of 1912 patriotic speech
containing a long recitation from one of Galsworthy's more ghastly
poems'.
Woolton, Frederick James Marquis, 1st Baron (53). ed. Manchester
Grammar School and Manchester University (Research Fellow). Uni-
tarian. Managing Director of Lewis's etc. Member of Government
Committees (inc. Cadman Committee). Dawson described him as *a
cheerful Cove'.
Young, Edward Hilton (1st Lord Kennet 1935) (57). ed. Eton and
Trinity College, Cambridge. Bar. War. 1921-2 and 1931 junior office.
1931-5 Minister of Health. Chairman of Commissions. MP (Lib)
Norwich 1915-23 and 1924-9 and MP (C) Sevenoaks 1929-35.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Original Sources
(a) The private papers (published or unpublished) of:
Vyvyan Adams (London School of Economics)

1st Viscount Alexander of Hills borough (Churchill College, Cambridge)
L.S. Amery (in possession of Rt Hon. Julian Amery, MP)
1st Lord Amulree (Bodleian, Oxford)
1st Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough (Churchill College, Cambridge)
Nancy, Viscountess Astor (Reading University Library)
1st Earl Baldwin (Cambridge University Library)
1st Lord Beaverbrook (Beaverbrook Library)
5th Lord Brabourne (India Office Library)
1st Viscount Bridgeman, diary (Shropshire County Record Office)
Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart (published diary ed. Young vol. I)
Sir Alexander Cadogan (published diary ed. Dilks)
1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwode (British Museum)
Sir Austen Chamberlain (Birmingham University Library)
Neville Chamberlain (Birmingham University Library)
Sir Henry Channon (published extracts from diary ed. Rhodes James)
1st Baron Chatfield (Royal Maritime Museum, Greenwich)
Group-Captain M.G. Christie (Churchill College, Cambridge)
Sir Winston Churchill (Bodleian, Oxford)
1st Marquess of Crewe (Cambridge University Library)
Sir Stafford Cripps (Nuffield College, Oxford)
1st Lord Croft (Churchill College, Cambridge)
1st Viscount Crookshank (Bodleian, Oxford)
W.P. Crozier, interviews with politicians (Beaverbrook Library, since
published as ed. Taylor, Off the Record)
1st Lord Dalton (diary, London School of Economics)
Geoffrey Dawson, diary (in possession of Mr Michael Dawson)
1st Viscount Davidson (Beaverbrook Library)
Alfred Duff Cooper (1st Viscount Norwich) diary (extracts in A. Duff
Cooper, Old Men Forget)
Mrs Blanche Dugdale (published diary ed. Rose)
Walter Elliot (letters in Coote, Companion of Honour)
Sir E.M.W. Grigg (1st Lord Altrincham) (in possession of Mr John
Grigg)
Sir James Grigg (Churchill College, Cambridge)
1st Earl of Halifax (Churchill College, Cambridge)
1st Lord Hankey (Churchill College, Cambridge)
Sir P.J. Hannon (Beaverbrook Library)
Oliver Harvey (1st Lord Harvey) (published diary ed. Harvey)
422 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sir Cuthbert Headlam, diary (Durham County Record Office)

Sir Samuel Hoare (1st Viscount Templewood) (Cambridge University
Library)
L. Hore-Belisha (published letters and diary in Minney, The Private
Papers of Hore-Belisha)
Ironside, General Sir E. (diary extracts in ed. Macleod and Kelly, The
Ironside Diaries 1937-40)
Thomas Jones (diary extracts in ed. Middlemass, A Diary with Letters
1931-50)
1st Lord Killearn (published extracts from diary ed. Evans)
1st Lord Keyes (Churchill College, Cambridge)
George Lansbury (London School of Economics)
1st Earl Lloyd George (Beaverbrook Library)
2nd Marquess of Linlithgow (India Office Library)
7th Marquess of Londonderry (Durham County Record Office)
J.R. MacDonald (in possession of David Marquand MP)
Gilbert Murray (Bodleian, Oxford)
Harold Nicolson (published diary and letters to V. Sackville-West ed.
Nicolson and typescript original, Balliol College, Oxford)
Sir Lewis O'Malley (in the possession of Mrs Zara Steiner)
Sir Eric Phipps (Churchill College, Cambridge)
1st Lord Ponsonby (Bodleian, Oxford)
Sir Henry Pownall (published diary ed. Bond)
1st Viscount Runciman (Newcastle University Library)
1st Viscount Samuel (House of Lords Record Office)
1st Viscount Sankey (Bodleian, Oxford)
3rd Earl of Selborne (Bodleian, Oxford)
1st Viscount Simon (Institute of Historical Research)
Sir Archibald Sinclair (1st Viscount Thurso) (Churchill College, Cam-
bridge)
Sir George Stanley (India Office Library)
Frances Stevenson (published extracts from diary ed. Taylor)
1st Earl of Swinton (Churchill College, Cambridge)
The Times Archive (Printing House Square)
Sir Charles Trevelyan (Newcastle University Library)
Sir Robert Vansittart (1st Lord Vansittart) (Churchill College, Cam-
bridge)
Euan Wallace (diary, Bodleian, Oxford)
1st Lord Weir (Churchill College, Cambridge)
E. Hilton Young (1st Lord Kennet) (Cambridge University Library)
2nd Marquess of Zetland (India Office Library)
1922 Committee Minute-books (in possession of Philip Goodhart MP)
(b) Public Record Office files (referred to as FO, Cab and PREM)
2. Published works
The following published works have been quoted or mentioned in the
text. Endnote references to an author's name refer to the work listed
under his name in this bibliography.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 423
Adam [Colin Forbes, Life of Lord Lloyd, 1948]

Addison [ C , ed. Problems of a Socialist Governmenty 1933]
Anderson [Mosa, Noel Buxton, A Life, 1952]
Angell [Sir Norman, The Great Illusion, 1908 (reprinted with new sec-
tions in 1933)]
Aster [Sidney, 1939, The Making of the Second World War, 1973]
Atholl [Katharine, Duchess of, Working Partnership, 1958]
Attlee [C.R., The Labour Party in Perspective, 1937]
Avon [Earl of, The Eden Memoirs;] Facing the Dictators[1962]
Barker [Nicholas, Stanley Morison, 1972]
Beveridge, Sir William, Planning Under Socialism and other Addresses,
1936
Bond [B., ed., Chief of Staff, The] Diaries [of Lt-General Sir Henry]
Pownall [1973]
Bruce, Lockhart [The] Diaries [of Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart vol. I,
1973]
Bryant [Arthur] The Turn of the Tide [1957]
Triumph in the West [1959]
The Fire and the Rose [1972]
ed., Constructive Democracy [1938]
Butler, Ewan [Mason-Mac, The Life of Lt. General Sir Mason Macfar-
lane, 1972]
Cameron [Fraser M., Some Aspects of British Strategy and Diplomacy
1933-9, Cambridge PhD), 1973]
Cartland [Barbara, Ronald Cartland, 1942]
Chatfield [Lord, It Might Happen Again, 2 vols., 1947]
Churchill, Randolph [The Rise and Fall of Sir Anthony Eden, 1959]
Churchill [W.S.] Arms and the Covenant [compelled by Randolph Chur-
chill, 1938] [The] Second World War [vol. I, 1948]
Churchill [W.S.] Arms and the Covenant [compiled by Randolph Chur-
chill, 1938]
[The] Second World War [vol. I, 1948]
Marlborough, His Life and Times 4 vols. 1933-8
The History of the English Speaking Peoples [4 vols 1956-8]
Step by Step [1936-1939, 1939]
Citrine [Lord, Men and Work, 1964]
Collingwood [R.G., Autobiography, 1939, 1970 ed.]
Colville [J.R., Man of Valour, 1972]
Cook [C.] and Ramsden [J., By-Elections in British Politics, 1973]
Cooke [Colin A., The Life of Richard Stafford Cripps, 1957]
Coote [Colin, A Companion of Honour, 1965]
Cowling, M., 1867, Disraeli, Gladstone and Revolution [1967]
[The Impact of Labour, 1971]
Cripps [Sir Stafford, in L.A. Fenn et al. Problems of the Socialist Tran-
sition. 1934]
Dalton, Hugh, Practical Socialism for Britain, 1935
Deutsch {H.C. The Conspiracy Against Hitler in the Twilight War,
1968]
Dilks [David, ed. The Diaries of Sir Alexander] Cadogan [1938-45, 1971]
Documents on] B[ritish] foreign] P[olicy 1919-1939] second and
third series [1949-]
424 BIBLIOGRAPHY
D[ocuments on] G[erman] F[oreign] P[olicy] Series D [1949-]

Duff Cooper, Alfred, Talleyrand, 1932.
Haig 2 vols., 1935-6
[Old Men Forget, 1953]
Eatwell [R., Journal of Contemporary History, 1971]
Eden, Anthony, Freedom and Order, 1947.
Estorick [E., Strafford Cripps, a biography, 1949]
[Evans, Trefor, The] Killearn Diaries [1934-46, 1972]
Feiling [K., The Life of Neville] Chamberlain [1970]
Gannon [F.R., The British Press and Germany 1936-9, 1971]
Garvin [J.L., The Life of Joseph] Chamberlain [3 vols., 1932-4]
Gilbert [Martin], Plough My Own Furrow [1965]
The Roots of Appeasement [1966]
Grigg [Sir E.M.W., Britain Looks At Germany, 1938]
Hadley [W.W., Munich, Before and After, 1944]
Halifax [Earl of, Fulness of Days, 1957]
Harvey [J., ed. The diplomatic] diaries [of Oliver Harvey, 1970]
Heuston [R.F.V., Lives of the Lord Chancellors, 1964]
Hollis [Christopher, Foreigners Aren't Fools, 1936]
Howard [Michael, The Continental Commitment, 1972]
Irving [David, ed., Breach of Security, 1968]
Irwin [Lord, John Keble, 1932]
Ismay [The Memoirs of Lord Ismay, 1960]
Jerrold [Douglas, They That Take to the Sword, 1936]
Jerrold [Douglas] Georgian Adventure [1938]
Johnson, Hewlett, The Socialist Sixth of the World, 1939
Elwyn Jones [f.,The Battle for Peace, 1938]
Jones [Thomas, A Diary with Letters 1931-50, 1954]
Keynes [John Maynard, How to Pay for the War, 1939]
Kieft [David Owen, Belgium's Return to Neutrality, 1972]
Kirkpatrick [Sir Ivone, The Inner Circle, 1959]
Lammers [D., Explaining Munich, 1966]
Lammers [Donald] 'From Whitehall After Munich' [Historical Journal,
XVI, 4 (1973), 831-56] 'Fascism, Communism and the foreign
Office'
[Journal of Contemporary History (1971), pp. 66-87]
Langer [W.L.] and Gleason [S.E., The Challenge to Isolation, 1952]
Lay ton [Lord] Dorothy [1961]
Lee [Bradford A., Britain and the Sino-Japanese War 1937-9, 1973]
Liddell Hart [B.H., The Memoirs of Captain Liddell Hart vol. II, 1965]
Livingstone [Dame Adelaide, The Peace Ballot, 1935]
Lloyd [Lord[The British Case[1939]
Lloyd George, David, War Memoirs, 6 vols., 1933-6
Londonderry, Edith, Marchioness of, Retrospect 1938
[C.A.] MacDonald ['Economic Appeasement and the German Moderates
1937-9', Past and Present, 1972]
Maclachlah [Donald, In The Chair: Barrington-Ward of The Times
1927-48, 1971]
[Macleod, R. and Kelly, D.] The Ironside Diaries, [1937-40,] 1962
BIBLIOGRAPHY 425
Macmillan [Harold, The Middle Way, 1938]

McNair [J., James Maxton, The Beloved Rebel, 1955]
Macnamara [J.R.J., The Whistle Blows, 1938]
Marriott [Sir J.A.R., Commonwealth or Anarchy, 1937]
Medlicott, W.N. Britain and Germany; the search for agreement 1930-7,
1969
Michaelis [Meir in Historical Journal XV (1972), 331-60]
Middlemass [Keith, Diplomacy of Illusion, 1972]
Minney, [R.J., The Private Papers of Hore-Belisha, 1960]
Mosley [Sir O.,My Life, 1968]
Mitchison [Gilbert, The First Workers9 Government, 1934]
Muir [R, The Liberal Way, 1934]
Murray, Gilbert, Liberality and Civilization, 1934
Then and Now, 1935
An Unfinished Autobiography, 1960 (ed. Smith and Toynbee)
Namier [Sir L.^Diplomatic Prelude, 1948
Europe in Decay, 1950
In the Nazi Era, 1952
Newman [A., The Stanhopes of Chevening, 1969]
[Nicolson, N. ed., Harold] Nicolson, Diaries [and Letters 1930-9, 1966]
Diaries and Letters 1939-45 [1967]
Noel-Baker [PJ. etc. Challenge to Death, 1934]
Parkinson [Roger, Peace for Our Time: Munich to Dunkirk — the
inside story, 1971]
Percy [Lord Eustace] Government in Transition [1934]
[ed.] Conservatism and the Future [1935]
[contribution to Adams M., ed.] The Modern State [1934]
Petrie [Sir Charles] Lords of the Inland Sea [1937]
The Chamberlain Tradition [1938]
Portsmouth [Earl of, A Knot of Roots, 1965]
Reader [W. Architect of Air Power, 1968]
Reith[J.C.W.,/n*o The Wind, 1949]
[RhodesJames, Robert, ed., Chips, The] Diaries [of Sir Henry] Channon,
[1967]
Rhodes James [Robert] Churchill [A Study in Failure, 1970 (Pelican
1973)]
Robbins [Keith, Munich 1938, 1968]
Rose [N.A., ed., Baffy, The diaries of Mrs Blanche Dugdale 1936-47,
1973]
Rothermere, 1st Viscount, My Fight to Rearm 1939
My Campaign for Hungary, 1939
Rowland [J.H.S.] and Cadman [Lord, Ambassador for Oil, 1960]
Rowse, Arthur Leslie, The English Spirit, 1945
The Early Churchills, 1956
The Later Churchills, 1958
All Souls and Appeasement, 1961
The England of Elizabeth, 1950
Salter, Sir Arthur, Recovery, 1932
Samuel [Viscount, Memoirs, 1945]
426 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Selby [Sir Walford, Diplomatic Twilight, 1953]

Seton-Watson [R.W., Munich and the Dictators, 1939]
Spears [Sir E.L., Assignment to Catastrophe, vol. I]
Spier [Eugen, Focus, 1963]
Stannage [T., 'The British General Election of 1935', Cambridge PhD,
1973]
Strange [Lord, At Home and Abroad, 1956]
Tascano [Mario, Designs in Diplomacy, 1970]
Taylor, A.J.P., The Origins of the Second World War, 1961
Beaverbrook [1972]
[Taylor, A.J.P., ed., Lloyd George, A] Diary [by Frances] Stevenson
[1971]
Off the Record. [1972]
Tennant [E.W.D., True Account, 1957]
Thompson [Neville, The Anti-Appeasers, 1971]
Trevor-Roper [H.R., ed., Hitler's War Directives 1939-45, 1966 ed.]
Waterfield [Gordon, Professional Diplomat, 1973]
Watkins [K.W., Britain Divided, 1963]
Watt [Donald Cameron] Personalities and Policies [1965]
'Appeasement, The Rise of a Revisionist School', Political Quarterly
[April-June 1965] in Slavonic and East European Review [XLIV
(1966)]
in Slavonic and East European Review [XLIV (1966)]
Wendt [B.J.] Appeasement 1938 [Hamburg, 1968]
Economic Appeasment [Dusseldorf, 1971]
Wheeler-Bennett [John] Munich [Prologue to Tragedy, 1948]
[King George VI, 1958]
[John Anderson Viscount] Waverley [1962]
Williams of Barnsbury [Digging for Britain, 1965]
Williams [T.F.D. in Irish Historical Studies vol. X]
Wilson [Arnold, Walks and Talks Abroad, 1936]
Wingate [Sir Ronald, Lord Ismay, 1970]
Zetland [Marquess of, Essayez, 1956]
The Life of Lord Curzon, 1928
The Heart of Aryavarta, 1925
3. Works of reference that have been used
Dod's Parliamentary Companion

Dictionary of National Biography
Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage
British Political Facts 1900-1967 by David Butler and JeannieFreeman
NOTES
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
1. For Feiling's difficulty with the Cabinet Office, see Feiling to

Mrs Chamberlain, March 22 and July 28 1945 and April 14 and
May 5 1946. Chamberlain MSS.
2. I.e. Namier, especially Diplomatic Prelude (1948), Europe in De-
cay (1950) and/n the Nazi Era (1952).
3. For * shrill nonsense', see Collingwood, ch xii and especially
pp. 164—7. Rowse, The English Spirit, p. 21, The England of
Elizabeth, p. 1 (dated, ironically, Empire Day). The theme is ta-
ken up with barren insistence in The Early Churchills, The Later
Churchills, All Souls and Appeasement and elsewhere in Rowse's
writings.
4. See especially Rowse's Mr Keynes and the Labour Movement for
an explanation of the relevance of Keynes's General Theory (pub-
lished that year) to the future of the Labour party.
5. Bryant, The Face and the Rose, p. 241. For Bryant as defender of
the Chiefs of Staff (against Churchill), see The Turn of the Tide
and Triumph in the West. For Bryant as Chamberlain's editor (In
Search of Peace), see Chamberlain MSS, NC 10/4.
6. For titles see bibliography.
7. Especially in * Appeasement, The The Rise of a Revisionist-
school', Political Quarterly (1965).
8. Middlemass, p. 7.
9. Trevor-Roper, p. 14.
10 Michaelis
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
1. E.g. Baldwin, in Jones, June 12 1934.
2. There are a large number of Labour speeches on the subject in
1933/4, cf. Lord Mar ley and Ellen Wilkinson speaking of forming
an * anti-Mo sley society', in Crozier, interview with Mar ley
January 29 1934. Simon to MacDonald, July 27 1934 FO
800/291. Attlee to Tom Attlee, February 28 1933. Butler to
Brabourne, May 2 1934.
3. Cecil to Hankey, October 28 and November 3 1933.
4. Crozier, interview with Cecil, May 5 1934. Cecil to Noel-Baker,
April 8 1934, Add. MSS 51108.
5. Cecil to Hankey, October 28 1933.
6. Cecil to Baldwin, February 17 1933.
7. Cecil to Salisbury, January 25 1933, Cecil MSS.
8. Cecil to Halifax (Irwin), March 27, to Salisbury, January 25, to
428 NOTES TO CHAPTER 1, pp. 19-23
Baldwin, February 27, to Eden, March 24, to Noel-Baker, May 4,

all 1933, Add. MSS 51083 etc. Crozier, interview with Cecil,
May 5 1934.
9. Cecil to Baldwin, March 15 1933.
10. Cecil to Baldwin, October 21 1933 for the secrecy point. Cecil to
Halifax, July 18 1932, Add. MSS 51004.
11. Cecil to Halifax, March 27, Cecil MSS, and to Murray, January 5
1933.
12. Cecil to Baldwin, February 17, and to Eden, March 24 1933, Ce-
cil MSS.
13. Crozier, interview with Cecil, May 5 1934.
14. Murray to Austen Chamberlain, October 10 1933.
15. Broadcast by Cecil, October 20 1933. Cecil to Murray, Octo-
ber 31 1933.
16. Crozier, interview with Cecil, May 5 1934.
17. Murray to Austen Chamberlain, May 13 1934.
18. Memo of talk with the Duke of Brunswick including Cecil's sug-
gestions to Eden, Cecil, note of April 24 1934, Add. MSS 51083.
19. Crozier, interview with Cecil, May 5 1934. Cecil to Simon, July 8
1933, FO 800/288.
20. Cecil to Murray, August 29 1934.
21. Cecil to Murray, August 29 and 30 1934.
22. Murray, Liberality and Civilization, pp. 57—94 and Cecil, fore-
word to Noel-Baker et al., pp. viii—ix.
23. N. B[utler], note for P.M., July 20 1935, PREM 1/178. Cecil to
Baldwin, February 28 1934. Cecil to Murray, August 29 1934.
24. Austen Chamberlain to Tyrell, February 13 1933, Austen Cham-
berlain MSS.
25. E.g. Austen Chamberlain to Cecil, December 1 1933, and to Gar-
nett, January 2 1934. Cecil to Murray, March 23 1933 for Austen
Chamberlain having an effect.
26. Murray to Austen Chamberlain, November 14 1934.
27. For all this see the large correspondence between Cecil, Austen
Chamberlain, Cranborne, Fry, Eden, Baldwin and Murray be-
tween May and November 1934 in the Murray, Cecil and Baldwin
papers.
28. E.g. Murray Liberality and Civilization, Then and Now and An
Unfinished Biography, pp. 114—15. See also Cecil to Murray,
March 13 1934.
29. Cecil to Eden, November 12 1934, Cecil MSS.
30. E.g. G. Herbert to Conservative agents, July 23 1934, Baldwin
MSS.
31. Cecil, conversation with Baldwin, November 26 1934. Cecil to
Baldwin, November 26, Cecil to Fry, November 27, Fry to Cecil,
November 28, all 1934.
32. For report see PREM 1/178 of July 23 1935. For the movement,
see Livingstone.
33. E.g. Attlee to Tom Attlee, August 18 1933.
34. Greenwood at Hastings Labour Party Conference, October 3
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1, pp. 23-6 429
1933, Manchester Guardian, October 4. Lansbury at TUC, Sep-

tember 7 1933, Manchester Guardian, September 8.
35. Lansbury to Daily Herald, Daily Herald, May 1 1934.
36. Alexander at Manchester, January 14 1933, Manchester Guardian
January 16.
37. Lansbury at March, June 13 1933, Daily Herald, June 14. Lans-
bury at Brighton TUC, September 7 1933, Manchester Guardian,
September 8.
38. See e.g. National Executive Committee Report, Labour and Gov-
ernment, of September 14 1933, Manchester Guardian, Septem-
ber 15. Lansbury at March, June 13 1933, Daily Herald, June 14.
Cripps, pp. 8 and 35—67 and Attlee in Addison.
39. Alexander at Manchester, January 14 1933, Manchester Guard-
ian, January 16, and at Rusholme, November 10 1933, Manches-
ter Guardian, November 11. For the American comparison see,
e.g., Manchester Guardian, September 5 and 6 1933 for TUC
agenda and Walkden's presidential address of September 4 and
Morison at Walsall, January 13 1933, Daily Herald, January 14.
40. Attlee and Cripps at May Day rally, Daily Herald, May 8 1933.
See also Daily Herald, May 1 2 - 2 2 1933, including an attack by
Sir Wyndham Childs.
41. Lansbury (foreword to H.V. Morton pamphlet), in Daily Herald,
April 8 1933.
42. Alexander at Rusholme, November 10 1933, Manchester Guard-
ian, November 11.
43. Greenwood, addressing unemployment meetings in Salford and
Manchester on February 12 1933, Manchester Guardian, Febru-
ary 13.
44. Greenwood, statement of February 8 1933, Daily Herald, Febru-
ary 9.
45. In Hungary, Austria and Italy, see Attlee to Tom Attlee, April 3
1933. Daily Herald leader, April 18 1933.
46. Henderson, after Clay Cross by-election, The Times, September 4
1933.
47. Attlee to Tom Attlee, January 1 and August 18 1933. Manchester
Guardian (from a correspondent), August 22 1933. Henderson at
Labour Party Conference, October 4 1933, Manchester Guardian,
October 5. See also Dalton describing himself as 'a Socialist and a
pacificist', Dalton diary, March 8 1933.
48. Lansbury at West Ham, January 2 1933, Daily Herald, January 3.
49. *A gallant soldier', as Ellen Wilkinson described him, Daily He-
rald, March 27 1933. For Hitler as 'clown', see Daily Herald,
January 31 1933.
50. 'A Doctor looks at Hitler's Gang', Daily Herald, May 24 1933,
Citrine, in Daily Herald, February 23 1933.
51. National Joint Council declaration of July 18 1933 calling for
ban on German goods, Daily Herald, July 19.
52. Daily Herald, May 22 1933.
54. For some of the uncertainties and for the varieties of Labour
opinion about foreign policy, see Ponsonby, memo of October 22
1933, in Ponsonby to Lansbury, October 22. Cf. Attlee to Tom
Attlee, November 6 1933.
55. E.g. Lansbury at Selly Oak, March 19 1933, Birmingham Post,
March 20.
56. For Henderson's optimism, see e.g. Manchester Guardian, Au-
gust 2 1933.
57. For one of the main debates, see Hansard (293) cols. 1293 et seq.
of November 8 1934.
58. Manifesto issued by TUC, Labour Party and Cooperative Union in
preparation for the Peace Campaign of December 1933, The
Times, December 13. National Joint Council declarations, Man-
chester Guardian, April 26 1934 and in Daily Herald, May 16
1934.
59. Memo adopted by the Executives of the TUC, the Labour Party
and PLP in News Chronicle, June 29 1934.
60. Ibid.
61. Attlee to Tom Attlee, February 7 1933.
62. Lansbury to Attlee [? September 5 1934] reporting feelings he
did not share. Cf. Daily Herald, May 26 1933. Lansbury at Mer-
thyr, July 29 1933, Daily Herald, July 31.
63. Morrison to Parmoor, April 12 1929, in Cooke, p. 105.
64. See Cooke, pp. 9 6 - 111.
65. Cooke, pp. 1 2 6 - 7 .
66. Cripps to Brockway, April 7 1933.
67. Dalton diary, October 21 1937.
68. The Times, January 26 1934.
69. Dalton diary, January 19 1934.
70. I.e. For Socialism and Peace.
71. See e.g. Manchester Guardian, September 17 1934.
72. Cripps's introduction to Mitchison, pp. 12—13.
73. Citrine, pp. 293—301. For 'nationalist passions' see Dalton diary,
May 4 1933.
74. Dalton diary, May 11 and July 14 to 16 1933. Citrine at TUC,
September 7 1933, Manchester Guardian September 8.
75. Dalton diary, entry marked 1934-1935.
76. National Council of Labour declaration of November 12 1934,
News Chronicle November 13.
77. Dalton diary, March 26-April 25 1935.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
1. A junior minister, Graham White.
2. Taylor, p. 335 says from 1931 (i.e. £2,000 p.a.).
3. Snowden in House of Lords, Hansard (87) cols. 9 9 9 - 1 0 0 0 of
May 24 1933. Snowden to Grigg, March 18 and July 29 1935.
4. Sinclair to Samuel, July 18 1933.
5. Crozier, interview with Samuel, November 4 1933.

6. Eastern Fife by-election result, February 2 1933: Stewart (Lib.
Nat.) 15,770, Westwood (Lab.) 6,635, Anderson (Agricultural)
4,404, Keir (Ind.), 2,296, Linklater (Scot. Nat.) 1,083. At the
1931 election the Lib. Nat. candidate had been unopposed. At
the 1929 election the result was Liberal 14,329, Conservative
13,748, Labour 5,350.
7. Daily Herald, February 15 1933.
8. Daily Herlad, May 20 1933.
9. Sinclair to Samuel, July 18 1933.
10. Muir, p. 35. Sinclair to Brock, February 19 1934 and to John-
stone, March 22 1935. Sinclair to Samuel, July 18 and Octo-
ber 14 1933. For the discussions from which The Liberal Way
emerged, see Sinclair MSS Box 74. See also Sinclair to Rea, Octo-
ber 9 1933 for scepticism about the programme.
11. Brett Young to Baldwin, April 3 1933, quoting Frances Steven-
son.
12. For an example of this, see Snowdon to Samuel, November 20
1933 quoting Lloyd George.
13. Stevenson diary, March 25 1934. Lloyd George to Layton, Au-
gust 29 1934, Lloyd George MSS.
14. Stevenson diary, April 9 1935. Lloyd George to Cecil, April 25
1934 and Stevenson diary, May 31 1934 for the comments on
Simon. War Memoirs, vol. 3, p. 1074, published in September
1934, contained Kitchener's remarks about Runciman.
15. Stevenson diary, September 25 1934.
16. Hoare to Baldwin, September 8 1933, quoting Lothian quoting
Lloyd George, Snowden and Beaverbrook at Churt.
17. Lloyd George to Nathan, January 4 1933, Lloyd George MSS.
18. Stevenson diary, September 25 1934. Lloyd George talking to
Wood, in Chamberlain diary, April 14 1935.
19. Stevenson diary, November 22 1934 and April 9 1935. Addison
to Lloyd George, October 28 1934, and Lloyd George to Addi-
son, December 12 1934, Lloyd George MSS.
20. Layton, note on policy, December 10 1934 in Lloyd George MSS
G/141/26/6.
21. Stevenson diary, November 22 1934. Lansbury at Mitcham,
15 December 1934, Daily Herald, December 17.
22. Stevenson diary, February 21, May 14 and September 25 1934,
and March 11 1935. Boothby to Lloyd George, March 23 and
December 16 1934. Macmillan to Lloyd George, December 12
1934 and January 21 1935. Smuts to Baldwin, November 14
1934. For Astor, see Astor to Lloyd George, December 22 1934.
For Macmillan, Elliot, Boothby and Stanley in 1930, see Mosley
pp. 2 7 3 - 4 .
23. Stevenson diary, March 28 1934.
24. Stevenson diary, November 30 1934. Churchill to Lloyd George,
November 24 1934.
25. Stevenson diary, February 18 and November 6 1934. For it being
Goering not Hitler who was responsible for persecution of the

Jews see, Lloyd George to Guedalla, March 6 1934 and for the
Germans not by temperament being persecutors see Lloyd George
to Guedalla, November 6 1934, both Lloyd George MSS.
26. Lloyd George at Bangor, January 17 1935, Man Chester Guardian,
January 18. Lloyd George to Mrs H.A.L. Fisher, January 22 1935
and Lloyd George to Lay ton, August 29 1934, Lloyd George
MSS. Sir Daniel Stevenson to Lloyd George, January 28 1935,
refers to Lloyd George's decision 'to use tariffs ruthlessly and to
the full'.
27. Stevenson diary, September 28 and October 5 1934. Dawson
diary, February 25 1934.
28. Stevenson diary, November 30 1934 and January 29 1935. For
some flattering words, see Baldwin at Conservative Women's Ad-
visory Committee, May 11 1934, The Times, May 12.
29. Lloyd George to Grigg, January 1 1935, Lloyd George MSS.
Grigg to Lloyd George, January 8 1935. Baldwin to Grigg, Janu-
ary 10 1935. Stevenson diary, December 5 1934.
30. I.e. from Putney onwards Lloyd George to Jones, March 16 1935,
Lloyd George MSS.
31. Stevenson diary, April 9 and 17 1935.
32. Jones to Baldwin, May 16 1935 (copy) in Lloyd George MSS.
Stevenson diary, May 18 1935. Sinclair to Johnstone, May 8 and
vice versa, May 9 1935. Sinclair to Samuel, May 4 1935.
33. Stevenson diary, July 17 1935.
34. Gilbert, Plough My Own Furrow pp. 304—307.
35. This included luminaries like Lay ton, Lothian, Snowden, Rath-
bone, Brown, Crowther, Allen of Hurtwood, Arnold-Forster,
Francis Acland, a clutch of Free Church leaders, Sir Basil Black-
ett, who died in August and Macmillan (rather ambiguously). For
all this see Lay ton to Lloyd George, September 1, Acland to
Lloyd George, September 9 and Cummings to Lloyd George,
June 2 1935, Lloyd George MSS.
36. Stevenson diary, September 26 1935.
37. For disunity, especially between Lothian and the rest, see Doro-
thea Lay ton and W. Arnold-Forster to Lloyd George, August 15
1935 and Layton to Lloyd George, September 1 1935.
38. See Stonehaven memorandum of August 1 1934, Baldwin MSS.
39. Runciman to Shuttleworth, December 1 1933, Runciman MSS.
40. Petrie, The Chamberlain Tradition p. 241.
41. De la Warr to MacDonald, November 15 1934, Baldwin MSS, in-
cluding some of them thinking that the only way to secure their
futures was to become Conservatives.
42. Cab 8(34) of March 7 showing Young preparing to negotiate with
local authorities. See Stonehaven memorandum of November 21
1934, Baldwin MSS, and Young to Baldwin, October 6 1934 for
the non-compensation of slum landowners. For the extensive cor-
respondence about decentralization between Balfour of Burleigh
and Baldwin between February 1934 and February 1935, see

Baldwin MSS vol. 25.
43. Chamberlain diary, December 3 1934. The bill was introduced in
March 1934 after MacDonald had persuaded Gilmour to remove
the police from its purview (Cab 8(34) of March 7).
44. The Betting and Lotteries bill was introduced to the Cabinet on
March 8 1934 (CP 52(34)) pulling together regulations about
betting, lotteries etc. covered by the Royal Commission. It was,
however, introduced *in order to test parliamentary and public
opinion' (Cab 8(34) of March 7) and was modified by the drop-
ping of football pools (after public and 1922 Committee criticism
(Cab 17(34) of April 25).
45. See below p. 117.
46. See Stannage, p. 92 for TUC converting NEC to demanding aboli-
tion of the Means Test instituted by the National government.
(Stannage quotes NJC meeting of February 23 1932 and NEC
meeting of February 24.)
47. Chamberlain to Ida and Hilda, December 9 1934. For the Cabinet
approving them, see Cab 44(34) of November 30.
48. Hansard (297) cols. 9 6 1 - 7 of February 5 1935. Chamberlain at
Cab 8 (35) of February 6.
49. Chamberlain to Hilda, December 15 1934.
50. Chamberlain to Ida, February 2 1935.
51. Chamberlain diary, February 13 1935.
52. R.S. Hudson.
53. Chamberlain diary, April 29 and May 3 1935. Chamberlain to
Hilda, March 9 1935.
54. E.g. Salisbury to Baldwin, February 10 1935.
55. Stonehaven to Baldwin, May 14 1933.
56. Hoare to Willingdon, April 20 1934 (Eur.E.240) says only
30 Conservative MPs really wanted it. Cf. Hoare to Sir G. Stan-
ley, May 22 1934, Eur.E.240. For Simon and Hailsham, see
Hoare to Willingdon, January 17 1935, Eur.E.240. For Chamber-
lain, see Hoare to Willingdon, September 27 1934, Eur.E.240.
57. Cf. Churchill hoping to 'break the bloody "wat" [rat] Hoare's
neck if I risk my own* (during the Privilege Case), in Butler to
Brabourne, April 19 1934.
58. For the dissenting vote in December 1934 being unpleasantly
large, see Chamberlain to Hilda, December 15 1934 and Hoare to
Willingdon, December 13 1934, Eur.E.240. For February, see
Hoare to Willingdon, February 7 1935, Eur.E.240.
60. Stonehaven, memorandum of December 12 1933.
61. For House of Lords reform see Chamberlain diary, January 27
1934 and Linlithgow to Baldwin, December 21 1933. For the
Land Tax agitation, see Baldwin to MacDonald, April 7, Mac-
Donald to Baldwin, April 8 and Chamberlain diary, May 9 1934.
See also Courthorpe to MacDonald, May 31 1933 (and for Bald-
win holding the land tax agitation in check in 1933).

63. Rothermere to Beaverbrook, January 11 1934.
64. Rothermere to Croft, October 28 1934.
65. Rothermere to Lloyd George, January 25 1935. Grigg to Bald-
win, January 8 [1935].
66. Rothermere to Beaverbrook, August 2 and October 24 1935
(tel.). For all this, see also Stevenson diary, 1935 passim.
67. Hoare to Chamberlain, June 5 and 12 1934 (Templewood MSS)
quoting Beaverbrook. Cf. Bruce Lockhart diary, August 6 1934.
68. But for Beaverbrook interceding (successfully) to get Hailsham to
introduce Rothermere to the House of Lords on taking up his
ten-year-old viscountcy, see Hailsham to Beaverbrook, December 1
1934 and vice versa, December 5.
69. Beaverbrook to Chamberlain, February 15 1934, implies that
there were approaches before.
70. Beaverbrook to Chamberlain, February 15 1934.
71. Hoare to Beaverbrook, June 1 1934 etc. and Hoare to Chamber-
lain, June 12 1934.
72. Beaverbrook to Hoare, June 18 1934.
73. Beaverbrook to Hoare, July 26 and 28 1934.
74. Beaverbrook to Rothermere, January 11 1935.
75. I.e. Margesson sent this request via Sandys, who was the candi-
date at Norwood, where a Right-wing candidate was standing.
Chamberlain diary, March 8 1935 says that Chamberlain had
nothing to do with it.
76. At which Randolph Churchill was running a Right-wing Inde-
pendent Conservative against the official Conservative (in the
hope of repeating Wavertree). See e.g. The Times, March 14 1935.
77. Chamberlain to Beaverbrook, March 6 1935, Chamberlain MSS.
Stevenson diary, March 24 1935.
78. Chamberlain to Hilda, July 28 1935.
79. Chamberlain to Hilda, November 9 1935.
80. This was introduced into the Cabinet on March 21 1934
(CP 75(34)) with the object of simplifying procedures for collec-
tion and to some extent in order to mitigate the severity of its
incidence on small farmers. But it was opposed on the ground
that it made it into a personal debt (Cab 19(34) of May 2). For
the desire to refer it to a Select Committee, see Cab 21(34) of
May 16. For the eventual decision to abandon the Select Commit-
tee and have a Royal Commission, see Cab 23(34) of June 6.
81. Bridgeman to Baldwin, April 12 and 14 1934. Sankey diary,
passim April 1934.
82. Even when designed also to show that Labour and League of
Nations Union propaganda was exaggerated. See Cab 27/508 of
October 23 and 30, November 15 1934 and February 11 1935.
For Thomas forcing the Cabinet's hand, see Simon to Eden, No-
vember 20 1934, FO 800/291. See also Cab 37(34) of October 24
and 38(34) of October 31.
83. I.e. Bay ford, Fitzalan, Steel-Maitland and Gretton. Salisbury to
Baldwin, October 23 and November 10 1933. Selborne to Hails-

ham, May 12 1934, MS Selborne 86. Midleton to Selborne,
April 28 1933, MS Selborne 3.
84. Selborne to Stonehaven, June 8 1934, MS Selborne 86.
85. See e.g. Ball to Chamberlain, October 9 1933 for the subject
being too * thorny' for the Conservative party to 'touch* unless
'obliged to*. But see Stonehaven to Baldwin, November 1 1933
for the Chairman of the Conservative party thinking it urgent.
(He voted for both the first and second readings of Salisbury's
bill.)
86. See CP 33(2).
87. For the Cabinet Committee see Cab 27/562 (January 29 1934
etc.) and Chamberlain diary, January 29 1934. For Baldwin ori-
ginally leaving a positive impression, see Midleton to Baldwin,
December 9 1933.
88. See Hansard, Lords (90) of December 19 1933 and (92) of
May 10 1934 for the debates and division lists. Cab 19(34) of
May 2. For further evidence of dislike see MacDonald to Steel-
Maitland, August 12 1933.
89. Chamberlain diary, January 22 1934.
90. Midleton to Selborne, November 8 1935, MS Selborne 3, for Bald-
win's promise to Midleton in 1933 and Midleton's belief that
Salisbury had made it impossible to carry out. Selborne to Midle-
ton, October 10 1933, MS Selborne 87, for Baldwin promising
Selborne.
91. Baldwin to Salisbury, October 25 1935, PREM 1/223.
92. Chamberlain to Selborne, November 6 1935, MS Selborne 86.
93. See e.g. Amery, Austen Chamberlain, Peto and Herbert Williams
attacking Runciman's Anglo-German, and other, trade treaties for
being insufficiently protectionist, see Amery diary, May 1 and 25
1933 and Daily Herald, April 28 and May 2 1933.
94. E.g. Hoare to Willingdon, January 25 1934, Eur.E.240.
95. MacDonald to J. Bromley, November 14 1933, to Londonderry,
December 1 1933, and to Sir William Davison, December 25
1933.
96. MacDonald to Runciman, August 21 1933 and to Davison, De-
cember 25 1933.
97. MacDonald to Austen Chamberlain, February 1 & 3 1933. For
MacDonald's long correspondence with Sir Harold Bellman about
a drive to build rented property and clear slums, see MacDonald
MSS 1 9 3 3 - 5 .
98. MacDonald to J. Richardson, May 30 1933.
99 MacDonald to Steel-Maitland, August 12 1933 for the threat. It is
not clear at what point the threat became unreal.
100. MacDonald to Courthorpe, June 4 1933.
101. De la Warr to MacDonald, November 15 1934, Baldwin MSS. By
August 1934 the National Labour party had been given only
three seats, see Stonehaven, memoranda of December 12 1933
and August 1 1934, Baldwin MSS.
102. Stonehaven memorandum of December 12 1933, Baldwin MSS.

103. Baldwin at Liverpool, March 25 1935, Liverpool Post, March
26.
104. Davidson to R.D.F., March 28 1934, Davidson MSS.
105. Astor to Lloyd George, December 22 1934.
106 Baldwin at Culzean Castle, July 21 1935, Glasgow Herald
July 23. Grigg to Baldwin, January 3 1935. Cf. Namier in Bruce
Lockhart diary, December 4 1934.
107. See below Part one.
108. E.g. Grigg to Baldwin, January 11, and to Lloyd George, Janu-
ary 8 1935.
109. Nicolson diary, November 21, December 20 1935, and Janu-
ary 28 1936.
110. Pownall diary, February 10 1936.
111. Percy to Baldwin, November 22 1935.
112. Gilbert, Plough My Own Furrow, Ch. 18.
113. Ibid. ch. 20.
114. Ibid. pp. 309—11 for Allen supporting Mander and Macmillan.
115. For all this, see Chamberlain diary, February and March 1934,
passim. See also the correspondence between Beechman and Run-
ciman between November 1934 and May 1935 in Runciman"MSS
and Runciman to Chamberlain, June 4 1935. Cf. Chamberlain to
Ida, January 6 1935. See also PREM 1/207 for Coal-mining royal-
ties.
116. For Addison, see Banks to Baldwin, October 14 1933. For Bevin
see Jones diary, February 27 1934.
117. Chamberlain diary, March 1 1934 for Hore-Belisha saying that
Simon believed that MacDonald was behind it and for Hore-Belisha
criticising Simon. Chamberlain diary, February 17 1934 for
MacDonald having lunch with Beaverbrook and Rothermere next
Thursday. Simon diary, November 22 1934.
118. Chamberlain diary, February 28 and December 3 and 4 1934.
Garvin to Astor, March 24, 1934.
119. Chamberlain diary, December 1934, passim.
120. Despite the criticisms of a group led by Balfour of Burleigh, see
above p. 432 n. 42.
121. Derby to Baldwin, December 21 1934. Cab 43(34) of Novem-
ber 24. Young to his wife, February 5 1934 for Dawson asking
MacDonald to get rid of him. For sensitivity to criticism see
Young to his wife [February 1934], Chamberlain diary, Febru-
ary 17 1934.
122. Chamberlain diary, March 1 1934. Sankey diary, March 1 1934.
124. I.e. Geoffrey Lloyd, Chamberlain diary, February 19 1934.
127. Young to his wife, April 5 1934.
128. Stevenson diary, February 21 1934 for Lloyd George saying that
'we should keep a strong hand in India'. But cf. Hoare to Bald-
win, September 8 1933 for Lloyd George's view that India would
never be settled until terms were made with Gandhi and the
Congress. For another view see Smuts to Baldwin, November 14
1934.
129. See above p. 38, Stevenson diary, April 20 1934. Astor to Garvin,
February 23 1934 for Margesson also brooding.
130. Chamberlain to Ida, January 20 1935.
131. Chamberlain diary, March 18 1935.
132. Chamberlain diary, January 28 1935.
133. Chamberlain diary, December 1934, passim.
134. Chamberlain diary, December 3, 4, 5 and 11 1934 and Janu-
ary 30 1935. For Cunliffe-Lister as a critic of Chamberlain see
Young to his wife, August 22 1933 reporting Irwin (Halifax). For
Margesson as a supporter of Lloyd George see Astor to Garvin,
February 23 1934.
135. Chamberlain to Baldwin, January 4, and to Ida, January 6 and 28
1935. Chamberlain diary January 28 1935.
136. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 23 1935.
139. For Simon see speech at Bexhill, January 25 1935, Manchester
Guardian, January 26 Chamberlain diary, January 30 1935.
140. Ormsby-Gore to Baldwin, Sunday [February 10 or 17] 1935. But-
ler to Brabourne, March 29 1935.
142. For Wood reporting that Baldwin was willing to have Lloyd
George, see Chamberlain diary, January 28 1935. For Thomas
hoping, just possibly, to succeed MacDonald, backed by the sup-
port of younger ministers, see Butler to Brabourne, February 1
1935. For Simon congratulating Lloyd George on his speech in
the Defence debate, see Stevenson diary, November 30 1934.
144. Chamberlain to Ida, March 3 1935. Lloyd George in Daily Mail,
March 1 1935.
145. MacDonald to Lloyd George, March 1 1935.
146. Stevenson diary, March 3 1935. For Lloyd George's immediate
reply — an attack upon Chamberlain for rejecting national devel-
opment based on borrowing — see Lloyd George to MacDonald,
March 2 1935, Lloyd George MSS, G/141/29/2.
147. Chamberlain to Ida, March 3 and Chamberlain diary, March 8
1935.
148. Chamberlain to Weir, March 5 1935.
149. Chamberlain to Hilda, March 9 1935.
150. Chamberlain to Ida, March 16 1935. Lloyd George to MacDon-
ald, March 14 1935, for the plans, G/141/29/3.
151. Which had been set up in order to respond to the New Deal, see
Chamberlain diary, January 24 1935. Chamberlain to Hilda, Janu-
ary 26 1935, says that it was not: i.e. that it was designed for the
general election, but the diary entry leaves the impression that it
was. Cab 6(35) of January 30 and Cabs 17(35) of March 27 and

22(35) of April 10.
152. Apart from Runciman and Baldwin.
153. Chamberlain diary, April 5 1935, and to Hilda, April 6.
154. Stevenson diary, April 18 1935.
155. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 21 and Chamberlain diary, April 18
1935.
156. Stevenson diary, April 18 1935.
157. Chamberlain diary, April 18, and to Hilda, April 21 1935.
158. MacDonald to Hoare, April 30 1935.
159. Chamberlain diary, April 18, and to Hilda, May 18 and June 2
1935.
160. Dawson diary, June 12 1935.
161. Lloyd George to Baldwin, July 9 1935, Lloyd George MSS
G/141/4/1. See also the government press statement of July 18
(for publication on July 22) 1935, PREM 1/183.
162. E.g. Butler to Brabourne, February 22 1934, Garvin to Astor,
March 14 1934. Hoare to Willingdon, February 7 1935, Eur.E.
240. See also Dawson diary, November 3 and December 3 1934.
163. MacDonald to Thomas, January 2 1933 and to Chamberlain,
May 22 1933, both in MacDonald MSS. For inconvenient com-
mitments from the past see Daily Herald, May 19 1933 and Alex-
ander at Manchester, March 11 1933 in Manchester Guardian,
March 13. Chamberlain diary, March 16 1934, Sankey diary, De-
cember 31 1934, and MacDonald to Young, November 27 1934.
164. MasDonald to J. Richardson, May 30 1933, to Betterton, Au-
gust 4 1933 and to Wigram, June 2 1933.
165. MacDonald to Wigram, June 2 1933 and to Usher, June 1 1933.
For Kenneth Lindsay being MacDonald's choice and Kilmarnock
as a special triumph for MacDonald see Chamberlain to MacDo-
nald, November 3 1933 and Israel Sieff to MacDonald, Novem-
ber 14 1933.
166. Sankey diary, June 19 and 22 1934.
167. Chamberlain dairy, April 26 1934. Hankey diary, March 4 1934.
168. MacDonald to Sankey, July 15 1934.
169. MacDonald to Young, November 27 1934. Sankey diary, Novem-
ber 26 1934. Dawson diary, October 4 1934.
170. Chamberlain to Ida, October 13 1934. Sankey diary, February 11
1935.
172. Simon diary, February 14 1935. Baldwin at Chelsea, February 21
1935, The Times, February 22.
173. Chamberlain to Hilda, May 18 1935. For this change a number of
reasons may be suggested. There was Chamberlain's hostility to
Lloyd George which was unpopular in parts of the Cabinet and in
some Conservative quarters (e.g. Camrose, Astor, Beaverbrook,
Garvin) where there would normally be support for a Chamber-
lain Prime Minister ship. There was the reputation he had been
given by Labour, by the Liberal newspapers and by Lloyd
George, as the proponent of a narrow Treasury view and the

instrument of Norman who was treated as the brain behind the
reduction in unemployment benefit. Moreover, in February Bald-
win may either have been leading Chamberlain on to believe that
he wanted him to be Prime Minister (in the hope that he would
be accommodating about Lloyd George) or may just have been
obfuscating a situation he did not think he could control. He
may, for example, have hoped to take Lloyd George in, even if
Chamberlain resigned, provided Chamberlain did not take too
many ministers with him. He may have feared that, if relations
with Simon went sour when Simon was removed from the For-
eign Office, the Simonites would leave a Liberal hole which Lloyd
George would be able to fill. Or he may have expected MacDo-
nald to resign and other National Labour ministers to return to
the Labour party if he could not remain Prime Minister. Baldwin
may also have meant what he said when he (or Margesson) told
Chamberlain that Chamberlain was the only person who could
lead the party in the condition in which India had left it. For all
this there is little evidence. But two things are clear — that Bald-
win decided that Lloyd George, however welcome in some Con-
servative quarters, would be resented more even than MacDonald
in others, and that it was not until mid-May that he made up his
mind to become Prime Minister.
175. Hailsham to Baldwin, May 28 1935.
176. Young to Chamberlain, June 25 1935.
177. I.e. with Brown's appointment to the Ministry of Labour, Simon
diary, June 4, and Simon to Baldwin, May 20 1935.
178. Simon diary, May 15, and Simon to Baldwin, May 20 1935.
179. Chamberlain diary, May 3 1935, and to Ida, May 4.
180. Chamberlain to Hilda, May 22 1935.
181. Chamberlain diary, May 17 1935.
182. And to get office for Kenneth Lindsay, see Butler to Brabourne,
June 20 1935.
183. For Thomas being disliked by Dominions politicians, see Han-
worth to Baldwin, May 29 1935, and for being 'the worse for
drink' when the Chiefs of Staff came to see the Cabinet, see
Pownall diary, May 27 1935.
184. E.g. Butler to Brabourne, February 22 1934.
185. His father was a partner in the firm of Thomas Sankey, 'drapers
and, undertakers' in Moreton-in-the-Marsh. After his father's death,
Sankey's education was paid for by a vicar in Swansea (where his
mother had then moved), see Heuston, ch. on Sankey.
186. Simon diary, June 4 1935.
187. See especially Sankey to Baldwin, January 15 1932 and passim in
PREM 1/134. Hansard, House of Lords (90) cols. 60 et seq of
November 23 1933 and Hansard, House of Lords (95) cols. 366
et seq for Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill. San-
key diary, December 11—20 1934.
440 NOTES TO CHAPTER 2, p. 62
188. See above p. 54.

189. Sankey diary, April 19 and November 14 and 30, 1934. See also
Citrine, p. 291 for Middleton as an admirer of MacDonald even
after 1931.
190. Baldwin to Sankey, May 31 1935.
191. Sankey to Baldwin, June 1 1935, and Sankey diary, June 3 1935.
192. Sankey memorandum, 'Last Six Months of Lord Chancellorship*,
June 6/7 1935. Sankey diary, May 29 and 30 1935.
193. Dawson diary, July 1 1935.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
1. See, e.g., Eden to Baldwin, February 10 and 22 1933, for an arms
manufacture agreement.
2. I.e. and especially Hailsham, Monsell and Londonderry.
3. For the British Draft Proposals of January 30 1933, see DBF?,
Series Two, vol. IV, pp. 4 9 2 - 4 . For the British Draft Convention
of March 16 1933 see ibid. pp. 5 5 8 - 6 5 .
4. Hankey to his wife, July 4 1933.
5. See e.g. Cab 27/505 of January 20 1933.
6. MacDonald to Baldwin, March 12 1933.
7. MacDonald in Cab 27/505 of March 2 and May 12 1933. Simon
to Baldwin, May 12 1933.
8. See Cab 27/505 of March 5 1933 (especially Hailsham). Eden at
Cab 27/505 of March 3 1933 and MacDonald to Baldwin,
March 12 1933.
9. Eden to Baldwin, February 10 and 24, and at Cab 27/505 of
February 17 1933. MacDonald at Cab 27/505 of March 2 1933.
10. MacDonald in Cab 27/505 of March 2 1933.
11. For Henderson and the Cabinet, see Simon to Vansittart, Decem-
ber 23 1933. Cab 27/505 of January 20, March 2, May 12, No-
vember 7 1933. Ormsby-Gore to Baldwin, Sunday [October 8
1933], For discussion of the Geneva delegation's Convention see
Cab 27/505, March 2, 3 and 5 1933. See also Sargent to Phipps,
November 16 1933.
12. Mussolini to MacDonald, April 10 1933 (copy), in Baldwin MSS.
Austen Chamberlain to Simon, May 11 1933, FO 800/288.
13. MacDonald to Baldwin, March 12 1933. Baldwin to Cecil,
March 12 1933. Eden to Cecil, March 24, and to Baldwin, May 1
and October 13 1933.
14. Cab 27/505 of July 25 1933, fo.402.
15. Simon broadcast, October 17 1933, The Times, October 18.
Cab 27/505 of November 7 1933.
16. Cab 27/505 of November 7 1933, fo.406.
17. Cab 27/506 of March 6 1934.
18. Eden at Cab 27/506 of March 6 1934. Hoare to Willingdon, Janu-
ary 25 1934, Eur. E. 240.
19. Eden to Baldwin, February 23 1934. Simon at Cab 23(34) of

June 6, and to Spender, June 5 1934.
20. E.g. Simon to A - G , November 2 1933, FO 800/288 and Baldwin
at Cab 28(34) of July 11.
21. And also French 'corruption', see Chamberlain diary, February 3
1934.
22. See e.g. Davidson, note on E.M.W. Tennant's report of January 19
1934, Davidson MSS.
23. Simon at Cab 27/506 of April 9 1934. Cab 27/506 of March 6
and January 26 1934. Simon and MacDonald at Cab 27/506 of
February 26 1934.
24. Eden at Cab 27/506 of March 6 1934.
25. Simon at Cab 27(34) of July 4.
26. Cab 10(34) of March 19.
27. For the unofficial and official economic negotiations of 1934, see
Leith-Ross, Wendt and the Tennant correspondence in David-
son MSS. For Baldwin sending Geoffrey Lloyd and Christie to
Germany and for Tennant trying to arrange a visit, see Tennant
in Davidson MSS. See also Dawson diary, October 18 1933.
28. Eden to Baldwin, February 21 1934.
29. Hankey to Vansittart, January 9 1934, FO 800/291.
30. See e.g. Memorandum on Disarmament, CP 10(34) in Cab 27/510
of January 26 1934.
31. Cab 27/506 of April 19, 20, 24 and May 1 1934. MacDonald,
DC(M)(32) 98 of April 6 1934 in Cab 27/510. Simon, draft note
of May 2 1934, DC(M)(32) 105 of May 2 in Cab 27/510. See also
Chamberlain diary for these weeks.
32. DC(M) (32) 92 in Cab 27/510 of March 23 1934. Cab 27/506 of
March 6, 26 and 28, April 9 and May 1 1934.
33. Cab 23(34) of June 6 and Cab 26(34) of June 27. Simon to
Spender, June 5 1934.
34. See Cab 28(34) of July 11. Cf. A. L. Kennedy to Daniels, July 10
1934, quoting Simon, The Times Archive.
35. Simon at Cab 25(34) of June 19. Vansittart, note of July 3 1934,
for the danger of the blood bath being that the Junkers would
benefit. Simon at Cab 27(34) of July 4.
36. I.e. the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and the Permanent
Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. For the discussions of the
Committee see Cab 16/109. The report CP 64 (34) of March is
dated February 28 1934.
37. £80—110m. i.e. (p. 33) £82m. plus the items in para. 5 on p. 33.
38. Pownall diary, January 18 1934.
39. Proposing to raise 40H squadrons over 4 years at a cost of £ 20m.
40. Cab 31(34) of July 31. The interim report was dated July 19
1934, CP 193(34). The full report is CP 204(34) of July 31 1934.
41. Chamberlain diary, June 6 1934. Fisher to Chamberlain, Octo-
ber 14 1938, for Fisher saying that this was his idea.
42. E.g. the decision not to mention Belgium publicly, Cab 26(34) of
June 27.
43. Baldwin and MacDonald at Cab 28(34) of July 11.

44. Hansard (295) of November 28 1934, cols. 8 7 2 - 8 4 . See also
CP 193(34) in Cab 16/110 of July 19 1934.
45. E.g. Simon in Cab 35(34) of October 17.
46. I.e. because Italy and Yugoslavia might intervene if there was
another revolt, Cab 32(34) of September 25.
47. Simon to A - G , November 2 1933, FO 800/288.
48. E.g. MacDonald and Vansittart at Cab 27/506 of February 9 and
15 1934. Simon to Austen Chamberlain, September 7 1933,
AC 40/5/85. Simon diary, November 20 1934.
49. E.g. MacDonald at Cab 10(34) of March 19.
50. C.I.D. of November 22 1934 in Cab 2/6(i).
51. For preliminary discussions see Committee on German Rearma-
ment of November 22 1934 in Cab 27/572.
52. Hansard (295) cols. 8 7 2 - 8 5 of November 28 1934.
53. Ibid, col. 982. Simon diary, November 28 1934. Cab 27/572 of
November 22 1934 (two meetings). Cab 41(34) of November 21
and Cab 42(34) of November 26.
54. Simon in GR (34) 3 of November 29 1934 in Cab 27/572 and at
47(34) of December 19.
55. Simon, GR (34)3 of November 29 1934 and GR(34)4 of Decem-
ber 8, in Cab 27/572. Cab 27/572 of December 11 and 13 1934.
Cab 46(34) of December 12 and 2(35) of January 9. Simon diary,
December 21 and 23 1934, January 1, 8, 13 and 25 and Febru-
ary 5 1935.
56. For the proposals as they eventually arrived, see CP 33(35) and
Cab 7(3$) of February 2.
57. Though not in the independence or in the demilitarisation of the
Rhineland (on the ground that the latter was covered by Locar-
no) see Cab 3(35) of January 14.
58. Simon diary, February 9 1935.
59. Cab 27/508 of February 19 1935.
60. I.e. Cmd. 4827, published on March 4 1935. Hankey to Phipps,
March 8 1935.
61. Simon diary, March 27 1935. Cab 18(35) of March 27 for Si-
mon's report on the visit. Cf. Cab 16(35) of March 20 for the
danger of opposing camps.
62. See especially Cabs 20 and 21 (35) of April 8.
63. Ibid, and in Cab 24(35) of April 17.
64. Simon diary, April 11 and 14 1935.
65. See Cab 29(35) of May 21 for acceptance.
66. Even after the Anglo-German naval treaty and Hitler's reversal of
support for the Air Pact (Simon diary, May 22 1935. Cab 30(35)
of May 22).
67. Cab 30(35) of May 22.
68. E.g. Simon to MacDonald, July 27 1934, FO 800/291.
69. Simon at Cab 10(34) of March 19.
70. Simon diary, March 27 1935. Simon to King George V, March 27
1935, FO/800/290, for 'if Joan of Arc had been born in Austria
and worn a moustache...' Simon to Phipps, April 5 1935,

FO 800/290.
71. Butler to Brabourne, July 27 1934, for Ormsby-Gore running
down the lobby saying 'in a loud tone...that Simon was the worst
Foreign Secretary we had ever had' when he failed to express
himself 'more openly' after the assassination of Dollfuss.
72. Cab 27/505 of December 6 and 7 1933 for the Ministerial Com-
mittee on Disarmament compelling him to do a somersault in
replying to Hitler's peace proposals. Chamberlain diary, Octo-
ber 25/17 1934 and Chamberlain to Hilda, October 21 and No-
vember 17 1934.
73. Simon to Baldwin, April 10 1935, for Simon putting it on the
record.
75. E.g. Simon to Murray, January 18 1933, FO 800/288.
76. Butler to Brabourne, July 27 1934.
77. For an example of jealousy, see Chamberlain diary, March 8
1935. Tyrell to Baldwin, September 28 and November 19 1933.
Ormsby-Gore to Baldwin, October 1 and Sunday [October 8]
1933 and Monday [c. February 26 1934], Ormsby-Gore to Bald-
win, March 29 1935. Eden to Baldwin, February 10 and 22, 1933
and January 11 1935 [1934 written]. Headlam diary, March 6
1935, for Ormsby-Gore 'shrieking with laughter over the govern-
ment's messes'.
78. Simon at Stoke-on-Trent, December 18 1933, The Times, Decem-
ber 19.
79. Simon at Cleckheaton, November 24 1933, Manchester Guardian,
November 25.
80. Simon at Liverpool, April 27 1934, Liverpool Post, April 28.
81. For an example of Simon squaring the circle, see his presentation
of the proposed Locarno Air Pact (designed to edge France to-
wards a disarmament agreement) as involving no new obligations
and being a 'deterrent' providing 'immunity' from 'sudden air
attacks' (cf. Simon to King George V, February 4 1935, FO
800/290, at Cab 27/508 of February 19 1935, and broadcast of
February 3 1935, Manchester Guardian, February 4).
82. For an example of detachment from The Times's 'defeatism' see
Cabs 20 and 21(35) of April 8.
83. Simon to Chamberlain, March 6 1934 and at Cab 9(34) of
March 14. Simon to Vansittart, December 23 1933.
84. E.g. Hailsham to Simon, February 7 1933, FO 800/291.
85. E.g. Cab 27/506 of February 9 1934, fos. 9 6 - 7 .
86. Selborne to his wife, May 17 1933, MS Selborne 107. Hailsham in
Hansard, House of Lords (87) col. 897 of May 11 1933. For the
speech being singled out as anti-German see Daily Herald,
May 12 1933. Cf. Cab 27/505 of May 12 1933.
87. E.g. Cab 27/505 of February 17 1933.
88. E.g. Londonderry to MacDonald, February 24 1933 and Cab
27/506 of April 9 1934.
89. Simon to Drummond, February 13 1934, FO 800/291 and Cab

27/506 of February 15 1934. For MacDonald see Cab 27/506 of
February 15 1934, fos. 119 and 123.
90. Cab 27/505 of January 10 1934. Cab 27/506 of April 9 1934.
Cab 16(35) of March 20. Chamberlain diary, March 8 and 27 and
April 2 1935.
91. Vansittart talking in Chamberlain diary, April 2 1935.
92. Cab 27/505 of December 6 and 7 1933.
93. Cab 27/506 of January 23 1934, fo.46. Chamberlain diary, Janu-
ary 1934 (recording 'previous two months').
94. Simon diary, April 11—14 1935. Vansittart to Simon, July 31
1934, FO 800/291. Simon to Baldwin, August 2 1934. For Si-
mon being rather against making the Eastern Pact essential, see
Cab 27/508 of February 19 1935, f o . l l l . For Simon not being
very pro-Japanese because of his Liberal and Foreign Office China
policy see Cab 27/506 of April 20 1934.
95. E.g. A. L. Kennedy to Daniels, July 10 1934, quoting Simon, The
Times Archive.
96. Simon to MacDonald, October 3 1934, FO 800/291. Simon dia-
ry, November 20, December 11 and 21 1934 and February 28
1935. Simon in Cab 27/572 of December 11 1934, fo.42.
97. Sankey diary, March 28 1935.
98. Chamberlain diary, April 8 1935.
99. Austen Chamberlain to Hilda/Ida, April 6 1935. Headlam diary,
May 9 1935. Glyn to MacDonald, May 3 1935.
100. MacDonald to Cecil, October 11 1933.
101. Cab 27/506 of February 5 1934, fo.82 and of March 6 1934,
fo. 172. For MacDonald saying that he regretted the rejection of
the Geneva Protocol in 1924 see Cab 27/506 of March 6 1934.
DC(M)(32) 98 of April 6 1934, Cab 27/510. Cab 3(35) of Janu-
ary 14.
102. Cab 27/505 of November 30 1933, fo.442. Cab 26(34) of
June 27.
103. Cab 27/506 of April 9 1934.
104. MacDonald to J.G. Braithwaite MP, November 6 1933.
105. E.g. MacDonald to Lord Davies, January 23 1933.
106. MacDonald to Beazley, March 16 1934.
107. MacDonald to Beazley, October 26 and November 19 1934.
108. E.g. Cab 27/508 of May 27 1935. For Thomas objecting to the
Chiefs of Staff even being allowed to be present at the Cabinet,
see Pownall diary, May 9 1934 and May 27 1935.
109. Cab 16(35) of March 20.
110. Cab 27/508 of February 19 1935.
111. Chamberlain diary, April 2 1935.
112. Jones to Lady Grigg, May 12 1935, quoting Baldwin.
113. Selby, p. 46 for Baldwin saying that Hoare was being sent to clear
up differences between pro-French and pro-German positions in
the Foreign Office.
114. Cecil to Eden, December 7 1934, Add. MSS 51083, and to Mur-
ray, January 14 1935.
115. Cecil to Eden, February 5 1935, Add. MSS 51083.
116. Cecil to Baldwin, March 29 1935.
117. Cecil to Baldwin, May 2 1935.
118. Cecil to Baldwin, May 2 1935.
119. Note by Hoare on talk with Cecil, June 25 1935, FO 800/295.
120. Cecil to Eden, July 11 1935, Add. MSS 51083, and to Murray,
August 30 1935.
121. Cecil to Cranborne, October 3 and 17, to Murray, November 1
and August 21, to Walters, August 19 and to Eden, November 14,
all 1935.
122. Cecil to Noel-Baker, May 4 and 22 1935, Add. MSS 51108.
123. Cecil to Noel-Baker, May 4 1935.
124. Cecil to Murray, August 30 1935.
125. Cecil, note of luncheon with Lloyd George, June 4 1935, Add.
MSS 51076. Cecil to Lloyd George, June 24 1935. Cecil to Eden,
May 27, Add. MSS 51083, and to Noel-Baker, May 22 1935,
Add. MSS 51108.
126. Cecil to Walters, August 19 and to Murray, August 30 1935. Cecil
to Murray, September 5 1935, for Cecil blaming Hoare's restraint
on the Cabinet rather than on Hoare.
127. Cecil to Cranborne, September 10 1935.
128. Cecil to Murray, November 6 1935.
130. Cecil to Lord Stanford, letter for publication, October 28 1935.
131. Lansbury reported in the Manchester Guardian, August 23 1935.
132. Hoare's recording of conversation between himself, Eden and
Lansbury, August 21 1935, Templewood MSS.
133. Lansbury at Easton Lodge, Dunmow, July 13 1935, Manchester
Guardian, July 15.
134. Lansbury to Baldwin, May 22 1935.
135. Lansbury at City Temple, August 25 1935, The Times, Au-
gust 26.
136. Lansbury to The Times, August 19 1935.
137. Lansbury, statement to the Press Association, The Times, Au-
gust 29 1935.
138. Citrine at TUC, September 5 1935, Daily Herald, September 6.
139. Presidential Address to TUC by William Kean, September 2 1935,
Daily Herald, September 3.
140. Lansbury, note 'A Page of History', October 1935, Lansbury
MSS. The speech is reported in the Daily Herald of September 7
1935, but not very fully.
141. Lansbury, statement of September 8 1935, Manchester Guardian,
September 9. Citrine, p. 351.
142. E.g. Lansbury at Swansea, September 20 1935.
143. Morrison at Fulham, September 12 1935, The Times Septem
ber 13, and in Manchester Guardian, September 21 1935.
144. McNair, p. 251. Manchester Guardian, September 9 1935.

145. Ponsonby to? August 6 1935, Ponsonby MSS, and 'Why I Resigned1
of November 4 1935.
146. Lansbury at Labour Party Conference, October 1 1935.Manches-
ter Guardian October 2.
147. Daily Herald October 3 1935 gives the vote as 2,168,000 for to
102,000 against. Dalton diary, September 27—October 4 1935.
148. Hoare to Baldwin, September 8 1933.
149. Hoare in Cab 27/572 of November 25 1934, fo.21. Cab 10(34) of
March 19 for Hoare believing that the 1906/14 situation had not
yet arisen. Cf. Hoare to MacDonald in W.D. Croft to Seymour,
September 20 1933, FO 800/291.
150. Hoare to Baldwin, September 8 1933, and in Cab 27/572 of No-
vember 25 1934, fo.21 for Hoare statements about the impor-
tance of not appearing to be reacting to Churchill.
151. See e.g. Chamberlain diary, March 25 1934. Hoare in Cab 27/506
of April 9 1934, fo.246. Hoare to Willingdon, March 22 1935,
Eur.E.240.
152. E.g. Simon to A - G , November 2 1933 in FO 800/288.
153. Simon at Cab 27/505 of November 23 1933.
154. Simon in House of Commons, Hansard (292) col. 698 of July 13
1934.
155. See e.g. Ormsby-Gore to Baldwin, Tuesday n.d. [1935], in Bald-
win MSS.
156. Hoare to Baldwin, May 31 1935.
157. Hoare to Drummond, July 27 1935, FO 800/295.
158. Cab 27(35) of May 15 and 28(35) of May 18. Simon diary,
May 27 1935. CP 98(35) of May 11 in Cab 24/255.
159. Cab 33(35) of June 19. Chamberlain to Hilda, June 22 1935.
Chamberlain diary, July 5 1935.
160. Cab 36(35) of July 10. Chamberlain to Hilda, July 5 1935.
161. Chamberlain to Hilda, July 14 1935. Hoare in Hansard (304) of
July 11 1935, cols. 517-20.
162. Cab 40(35) of July 29 and Cab 41(35) of July 31. Chamberlain
to Ida, July 6 and Chamberlain diary, July 18 1935.
163. Vansittart to Hoare, August 9 1935, FO 800/295.
164. Avon, Facing the Dictators, pp. 245-54.
165. Conference of Ministers on August 21 1935 at 3 p.m. in Cab
23/82.
166. Vansittart to Hoare, August 19 1935, in FO 800/295.
167. Conference of Ministers of August 21 1935 at 5 p.m. in Cab
23/82. Hoare to Chamberlain, August 18 1935.
168. With reservations on Cecil's part.
169. Hoare's reports of conversations with Austen Chamberlain, Lloyd
George, Samuel, Churchill and Lansbury and Eden's report of
conversation with Cecil on August 20 and 21 in Baldwin and
Templewood MSS.
170. And at an informal meeting arranged by Chamberlain and MacDo-
nald after he had left, see Chamberlain to Ida August 25 1935.
171. For Runciman, Londonderry, Hailsham and Cunliffe-Lister ob-

jecting, see Hoare to Eden September 17 (Templewood MSS)
Runciman to Wigram August 28 (Runciman MSS), Hailsham to
Runciman, August 27 and Londonderry to Hoare, October 23, all
1935.
172. See Cab 16/136, meetings 5-16. Runciman to Wigram, July 28
1935, Runciman MSS. Cab 33(35) of June 19 and Cab 36(35) of
July 10.
173. Cab 40(35) of July 29.
174. Hoare in Cab 45(35) of September 24. Hoare to Chamberlain,
September 17, and Chamberlain to Hilda, September 22 1935.
175. Hoare to Wigram, September 14 1935, FO 800/295.
176. Cf. Cranborne to Cecil, September 16 1935, for Cranborne at Ge-
neva believing this.
177. Conference of Ministers, August 21 1935 at 5 p.m. in Cab 23/82.
CID of October 14 1935 in Cab 2/6.
178. For MacDonald having a high opinion of Mussolini's capability
and a low opinion of Hoare's, see Chamberlain diary, July 22.
179. Hoare to Clerk, August 24 1935. Chamberlain to Ida, August 25
1935.
180. Chamberlain to Ida, August 25 1935.
181. Hoare to Clerk, August 24 1935.
183. Patrick to Hoare, Tuesday evening [August 27 1935], FO
800/295.
184. Because Hoare himself had gout.
185. Hoare to Baldwin, September 5, and Chamberlain to Hilda, Sep-
tember 7 1935.
186. Drummond to Hoare, August 27 and 28 1935, FO 800/295.
187. Hoare at Geneva, September 11 1935, The Times and Manchester
Guardian, September 12.
188. Channon diary, September 9 1935. Chamberlain to Ida, Septem-
ber 16 1935.
189. Hoare to Eden, September 15 1935. Hoare to Murray, Septem-
ber 16 1935.
190. Chamberlain to Ida, September 16 1935.
192. Hoare to Wigram, September 14 1935, FO 800/295. Chamberlain
to Ida, September 16 1935. Eden to Hoare, October 7 1935, FO
800/295.
193. Hoare to Eden, September 24 1935.
194. Hoare to Eden, September 24 1935. Cab 45(35) of Septem-
ber 24.
195. Hoare to Eden, September 24 1935.
196. Eden to Hoare, October 14 1935. Simon diary, October 6 1935
for the view that the French attitude put military sanctions 'out
of the question'. Cf. Chamberlain to Ida, October 5 1935, for 'the
French are determined not to fight and we are not going to act
without them'.
197. Cab 44(35) of October 2.

198. Chamberlain to Ida, August 25, and to Hilda, September 7 1935,
for the extreme difficulty of getting an answer when Hoare and
Chamberlain saw him in early September about Hoare's antici-
pated Geneva speech. Also the absolute refusal to face decisions
about sanctions until invasion had actually taken place, i.e. ten
days before. Cab 45(35) of September 24.
199. Baldwin at National Union Annual Conference, October 4 1935,
The Times, October 5.
200. Stonehaven to Amery, September 26 1935. For 35 MPs
and others signing a letter on the 11th, see Amery and others to
the Prime Minister, October 11 1935, Amery MSS. Cf. de Courcy
to N.M. Butler, October 14 1935 enclosing Imperial Policy group
letter of October 8 1935. Butler to P.M., October 14, and to
Wilson, October 15 1935, both PREM 1/177B. Hoare to Eden,
October 16 1935. For the Conservative Conference cheering Bald-
win's references to friendship with Italy, see Grigg to Amery,
October 5 1935. See also R. Wigram to Phipps October 25
[1935], for general Conservative disaffection.
201. R. Wigram to Phipps, October 25 [1935],
202. See e.g. Hoare to Eden, October 9 1935, Templewood MSS.
203. See Hoare to Wigram, October 14 1935, FO 800/295.
204. Hoare to Eden, October 16 1935. Cab 47(35) of October 15.
205. Chamberlain to Ida, October 19 1935.
206. Chamberlain diary, August 2 1935.
210. Ball and Wood for example. Probably also Stonehaven and Mar-
gesson, Chamberlain diary, August 2 1935.
211. Pownall diary, May 27 and July 29 1935. Cab 16/136 of July 8
1935. Chamberlain diary, August 2 1935, for Chamberlain being
told that de la Warr and Malcolm MacDonald would be welcomed
in the Labour party. See Headlam diary, July 1935 for rumours
about Thomas and the two MacDonalds thinking of 'ratting' be-
fore the general election. Simon diary, of October 22 1935 for
MacDonald objecting to a rushed election. See also MacDonald to
Baldwin, Wednesday before November 14 1935.
214. Chamberlain to Hilda, September 7 1935.
215. Chamberlain to Hilda, September 22 1935. For the speech see
The Times, September 23 1935.
216. Chamberlain diary, October 6 1935.
217. Chamberlain diary, October 6 1935.
218. Chamberlain diary, October 19, and to Hilda, October 15 1935.
219. West Toxteth being regarded as an aberration, Chamberlain to
Ida, July 20 1935.
220. Gower to Baldwin, August 1 1935.
221. Gower to Baldwin, August 1 1935.

222. Runciman talking, in Butler to Brabourne, October 15 1935.
223. Wilson, talking to Chamberlain, Chamberlain diary, October 19
1935.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
1. E.g. Chamberlain diary, November 20 1935. Dawson diary, No-
vember 15 1935.
2. See e.g. Steed to Hoare, November 9 and 13 1935, and Steed to
The Times, November 8 1935, FO 800/295.
3. Crozier, interview with Hoare, November 21 1935.
4. Hankey diary, November 25 1935 for Hoare talking to Hankey.
Eden and probably Ormsby-Gore were on the side of belliger-
ency; Runciman, Baldwin, Hailsham and MacDonald were against
it (see Chamberlain diary, November 29 1935, MacDonald to
Hoare, November 25 1935, and to Baldwin, November 28 1935).
5. See DPR Committee of November 26 1935 in Cab 24/257.
6. For the discussion see Cab 50(35) of December 2. According to
Chamberlain's diary (December 8 1935) Runciman and Baldwin
dissented from this decision.
7. Cab 50(35) of December 2, fo.356.
8. Cab 52(35) of December 9, fo. 384 for the meeting. Simon diary,
December 11 1935. Chamberlain diary, December 15 1935.
9. See CP 235(35) of December 8 1935 and CP 233(35) of Decem-
ber 9 1935 in Cab 24/257.
10. Cab 52(35) of December 9.
11. Chamberlain diary, December 15 1935.
14. I.e. 'an exchange of territory conveying definite advantages to
both sides, League assistance to Ethiopia...and special facilities
for Italian settlers and companies...in that connection*.
15. Cab 54(35) of December 11. Chamberlain diary, December 15
1935.
16. Jones diary, January 14 1936 quoting W.W. Astor quoting Hoare.
17. Cab 53(35) of December 10, fols. 396-7.
18. For even Hoare's protege saying that it was no use 'slashing' at
'the collective system', see Butler to Brabourne, December 19
1935.
19. Jones diary, January 14 1936. Hoare to Baldwin, December 14,
and Chamberlain diary, December 16 1935.
22. Dawson diary, December 18 1935.
23. Which was strengthened at the Cabinet on the 17th by evidence
(in fact false) that Hoare had agreed that the Abyssinians should
not be entitled to build a railway to the outlet they would receive

on the Red Sea, Cab 55(35) of December 17, fo. 445. Chamber-
lain diary, December 18 1935.
24. I.e. Austen Chamberlain.
25. For information about the Foreign Policy Committee, I am in-
debted to Dr Daniel Waley.
26. Cab 56(35) of December 18, Cab 23/90B.
27. He added that Hoare 'embodied all that he stood for', but this
was a highly temporary view. (For Ormsby-Gore taking a differ-
ent view before Hoare became Foreign Secretary, see Ormsby-
Gore to Baldwin, Tuesday [n.d. 1935].)
28. For all this see Cab 54(35) in Cab 23/82 and Cab 23/90B, Cham-
berlain diary, December 18, and Halifax to Chamberlain, Decem-
ber 26 1935.
29. Chamberlain diary, December 18 1935. I have found no direct
confirmation of a story, which Bruce Lockhart had from both
Boothby and Beaverbrook, that Austen Chamberlain threatened
to vote against, but Dr Waley's information (see n. 25 above)
makes this not inherently incredible, see Bruce Lockhart diary,
December 18 and 22 1935.
31. Chamberlain to Baldwin, December 22 1935.
32. For Baldwin claiming in February that Oliver Locker-Lampson
had called that morning to say that Chamberlain's health would
not stand the strain, see Baldwin in Chamberlain diary, Febru-
ary 10 1936.
33. Austen to Neville Chamberlain, December 30 1935.
34. Cowling, pp. 270-1.
35. Memorandum, 'Invitation to join Baldwin's government', Decem-
ber 1935, AC 41/1/68, and Austen Chamberlain to Hilda, Decem-
ber 22 1935 (January 22 written).
36. E.g. Tyrrell to Baldwin, September 28 1933 quoting Henderson.
Attlee to Tom Attlee, April 20 1935. Lansbury at Fulham,
May 17 1935, Daily Herald, May 18.
37. Eden in London, May 28 1935, The Times, May 29.
38. Eden to Londonderry, May 16 1935, FO 800/290.
39. Eden at Fulham, May 16 1935, Manchester Guardian, May 17.
40. Eden at Bristol, November 12 1935, Western Daily Press, Novem-
ber 13.
41. See Eden to Baldwin, January 11 1935 [4 written] and Chamber-
lain diary, December 17 1934, for Eden saying he would not go
on serving under Simon. For criticism of Hoare see above p. 99.
42. Baldwin at Cab 11(36) of February 26.
43. Baldwin and Eden at Cab 11(36) of February 26 1936.
44. Cab 8(36) of February 19 1936 and CP 53(36) of February 22 in
Cab 24/260. Dawson diary, January 2 1936.
45. Cab 11(36) of February 26 1936. For Runciman on the effect of
the existing sanctions on British trade, see CP 70(36) of March 5
in Cab 24/260.
46. Cab 11(36) bf February 26 1936.

47. Cab 15(36) of March 5.
48. Eden at Geneva, March 2 1936, The Times, March 3.
49. For an example, see Barrington-Ward to Dawson, April 14 1936,
The Times Archive.
50. E.g. Dawson diary, April 21 and 22 and May 6 1936, for Eden
being * tired', 'jumpy' and under 'strain'.
51. Eden to Baldwin, February 24 1934.
52. Eden to Baldwin, June 3 1934.
53. Eden at Cabinet Committee on Germany of February 17 1936,
Cab 27/599.
54. CP 217(35) of November 25 in Cab 24/257 enclosing Phipps's
despatches.
55. Cab 3(36) of January 29 and CP 13(36) in Cab 24/259.
56. Eden at Cabinet Committee of February 17 1936 in Cab 27/599.
57. Eden, CP 13(36) and 42(36) of February 11 (Cab 24/259) and at
Cabinet Committee on Germany, February 17 1936, Cab 27/599.
58. Barrington-Ward to Dawson, January 14 1936, quoting Leeper
quoting Eden.
59. Cab 6(36) of February 12 and Cab 3(36) of January 29.
60. Nicolson diary, February 13 1936.
61. Eden at Cabinet Committee on Germany, February 17 1936,
Cab 27/599 and Cab 3(36) of January 29 1936.
62. Cab 15(36) March 5 1936.
63. Eden in CP 73(36) of March 7 in Cab 24/261. Dawson diary,
March 8 1936.
64. Cab 18(36) of March 11.
66. Including the proposal to make Britain's future Locarno obliga-
tions (to Belgium and France) 'automatic', see Cab 19(36) of
March 12.
67. For examples of Flandin's frankness, see Chamberlain diary,
March 14 1936.
68. Meeting of Ministers of March 13 1936, Cab 27/603.
69. Meeting of Ministers of March 13 1936, Cab 27/603 fols. 11 et
seq.
70. I.e., by sending a minister to ask him, provided the French and
Belgian governments did not object, Meeting of Ministers of
March 13 1936, Cab 27/603.
71. Meeting of Ministers of March 14 1936, Cab 27/603.
72. Chamberlain to Ida, March 14 1936.
73. Meeting of Ministers of March 16 1936, Cab 27/646 and
Cab 20(36) of March 16.
75. Chamberlain diary, March 15 and 17 1936. Cab 20(36) of
March 16.
77. Cab 24(36) of March 25 1936.
78. Cab 24(36) of March 25. Simon- to Baldwin, March 25 1936,
PREM 1/194. Meeting of Ministers, March 30 1936, in

Cab 27/646. Cab 25(36) of April 1 1936.
79. For the debate see Hansard (310) of March 26 1936,
cols. 1435-49 (for Eden) and 1538-49 (for Chamberlain).
Cab 30(36) of April 22 1936.
80. See The Times, March 9 1936, for Hitler's memorandum and
Reichstag speech of March 7 1936.
81. Cab 25(36) of April 1 1936.
82. Cab 30(36) of April 22.
83. Cf. Eden talking, in Nicolson diary, January 6 1940.
85. Cowling, p. 337.
86. Chamberlain to Ida, May 24 1936. Chamberlain to Baldwin, Au-
gust 21, and to Hilda, August 26 1936. Chamberlain to Ida, Sep-
tember 13 1936. For alternatives see Jones to Lady Grigg, Au-
gust 3 1936, Jones diary. Dawson diary, August 23 1936.
87. Jones diary, May 25 1936. Chamberlain to Ida, June 20, July 4
and 19, October 24 and November 14, all 1936. Chamberlain dia-
ry, February 8 1936. Chamberlain to Hilda, June 27, July 11,
September 23, October 17 and October 31 1936. Chamberlain to
Margesson, August 2 1936.
88. Chamberlain to Hilda and Ida and diary passim, November 1935
onwards, and especially diary of November 20 1935. Chamberlain
to Hilda, November 17, and to Ida, December 8 1935.
89. Sinclair to Johnstone, September 11, to Samuel, September 16,
and to Harris, September 14 1935, all Sinclair MSS.
90. Stevenson diary, October 23 1935. Samuel to Sinclair, Octo-
ber 11 1935(2).
91. Lothian to Lloyd George, November 25 1935.
92. Sinclair to Lloyd George, November 29 1935.
93. Muir to Samuel, November 17 and 19 1935.
94. Sinclair to Johnstone, November 18 1935.
95. Lothian to Lloyd George, November 25 1935.
96. Lothian to Lloyd George, November 25 1935. Muir to Samuel,
November 17 and 19 1935.
97. Snowden to Lloyd George, January 3 1936.
98. Crewe to Baldwin, April 7 1937, for the suggestion coming from
Crewe.
99. Sinclair to Johnstone, March 22 1935.
100. Sinclair to Samuel, January 11, 21 and 23 1935 and October 14
1935.
101. Sinclair to Johnstone, November 19 1935, and to F.D. Acland,
November 20 1935.
102. Sinclair to Hillman, March 22 1935.
103. Sinclair to Muir, July 24 1935.
104. K. Griffith in The Times, May 29 1936.
105. Sinclair at Liverpool, February 1 1936, Liverpool Post, Febru-
ary 3, and at Oxford, July 30 1936, Yorkshire Observer, July 31.
Cf. Sinclair to Bernays, November 21 1935 and Crewe in The

Times, June 15 1936.
106. Sinclair in London, June 18 1936, News Chronicle, June 19.
107. Sinclair to Johnstone, February 17 1936.
108. Brock to Sinclair, September 15 1936.
109. Sinclair to D. Hatton, April 2 1936. Cf. Roberts to Sinclair,
May 9 1936, for Sinclair making just a 'suggestion' of a United
Front in a recent speech, 'and no more*.
110. Sinclair at Knutsford, March 28 1936, Liverpool Post, March 30.
111. Sinclair to D. Hatton, April 2 1936.
112. Sinclair at Eighty Club, Manchester Guardian, February 22 1936.
113. Sinclair at Manchester, Manchester Guardian, March 30 1936.
114. Ibid.
115. Sinclair in budget broadcast, April 23 1936, News Chronicle,
April 24, and in London, April 23, Manchester Guardian,
April 24.
116. Sinclair at Eighty Club, Manchester Guardian, February 22 1936.
117. Sinclair at National Liberal Club, February 12 1936, Manchester
Guardian February 13.
118. Sinclair to Barnett, December 2 1935 and to I.R.M. Davies,
May 7 1937. Cf. Johnstone to Sinclair, October 9 1936 and Lady
Sinclair to Johnstone, October 12 [1936]. For divisions in the
Liberal party, see Sinclair to Johnstone, February 17 1936.
119. Sinclair to Lady Rolleston, April 28 1936, and in London,
April 30 1936, Manchester Guardian, May 1. Sinclair in London,
April 23 1936, Manchester Guardian, April 24. Sinclair to Ber-
nays, November 21 1935, to Davies, September 12 1936 and to
Samuel, October 7 1935.
120. Sinclair to Principal Martin, June 29 1936.
121. Cecil to Eden, December 10 1935.
122. Cecil talking to Baldwin, League of Nations Union deputation,
December 13 1935, PREM 1/195.
123. Cecil to Eden, December 10 1935.
124. Cecil to Baldwin, February 17 1936.
125. Cecil to Murray [January 19361 and Cecil, memo on Oil Sanc-
tions, January 14 1936, Add. MSS. 51087.
126. Cecil to Murray, January 15 1936. Cecil to Murray [January
1936], Murray to Austen Chamberlain, January 10 1936.
127. Cecil, memo on oil sanctions, January 14 1936, Add. MSS
51087. Murray to Austen Chamberlain, April 4 1936. Cecil in
Daily Herald, March 25 1936. Cecil to Murray, March 25 and
April 6 1936. Cecil to Churchill, Aprill 22 and to Murray,
April 15 1936. Cecil to Halifax, March 24 1936.
128. Cecil, memo on oil sanctions, January 14 1936, Add. MSS 51087.
129. Cecil to Eden, March 4 1936.
130. Cecil to Cranborne, April 8 1936. Garnett to Baldwin, April 23
1936 PREM 1/195.
131. Murray to Austen Chamberlain, May 5 1936. Cecil to Murray,
May 16 1936.
132. Cecil in Daily Herald, May 6 1936. Murray to Austen Chamber-

lain, May 6 1936.
133. Murray to Austen Chamberlain, June 24 and 26 1936.
134. Cecil to Noel-Baker, June 27 1936.
135. See above pp. 82-4 for an example. See also Daily Herald, Febru-
ary 24 1936.
136. Daily Herald, February 19 1936.
137. Attlee at Parkstone March 7 1936.
138. At the TUC annual conference, Daily Herald, September 11
1936.
139. Of September 18 and October 2, News Chronicle, September 19
1936, and Daily Herald, October 3 1936.
140. See above p. 147. Cf. Chamberlain to Hilda, November 14 1936,
and Morrison at Preston, November 16 1936, Manchester Guard-
ian, November 17.
141. Attlee, Broadcast talk of April 22 1936, Manchester Guardian,
April 23.
142. Passed by a majority of three to one, Manchester Guardian, Octo-
ber 7 1936.
143. Daily Herald, October 3-7 1936. Attlee to Tom Attlee, Octo-
ber 26 1936.
144. E.g. Daily Herald, May 7 1936.
145. Dalton in House of Commons Hansard (310) col. 1457 of
March 26 1936. Daily Herald, March 20 1936, leading article on
4
League and Alliances'.
146. Attlee in Daily Herald, March 9 1936.
147. Dalton in House of Commons, Hansard (310) col. 1453 of
March 26 1936. Attlee at Alexandria, Dumbartonshire, March 15
1936, Daily Herald March 16.
148. Attlee in London, March 13 1936, The Times, March 14, and in
Daily Herald, March 30 1936.
149. National Council of Labour statement of May 15 1936, Daily
Herald, May 15.
150. E.g. for Japan, Italy and Germany as capitalist dictatorships
which were unable to solve economic problems, see Attlee at
Barnsley, June 22 1936, Daily Herald, June 23.
151. Attlee in Daily Herald, June 15 1936.
152. Meeting of joint council of TUC, National Executive of Labour
Party and Executive Committee of parliamentary Labour party,
June 23 1937, Daily Herald, June 24. Attlee at Carmarthen,
July 10 1937, Western Mail, July 12, for demand for immediate
end of non-intervention.
153. Dalton in Daily Herald and News Chronicle, June 5 1937.
154. Attlee to Tom Attlee, November 30 1937, and at Rhyl, Manches-
ter Guardian, December 13 1937.
155. Attlee in message to R.H.S.C., Manchester Guardian, April 21
1937. Attlee at Northampton, September 26 1937, Manchester
Guardian, September 27. Morrison in Forward, September 5
1936, and in Manchester Guardian, October 28 1936.
156. Ball to Baldwin, December 8 1935.

157. For English Review dinner for Lloyd presided over by Carson, see
Amery diary, November 21 1933.
158. Amery diary, October 20, 24, 27 and 30 1933, for fifty or sixty
MPs being interested, and also for Douglas Jerrold, Forbes Adam
and Arnold Lunn. See also Jerrold, Georgian Adventure,
pp. 334-48 and Adam, pp. 258-60.
159. Lloyd talking to Amery, Amery diary, October 24 1933.
160. E.g. Winterton reported in Manchester Guardian, February 20
1933.
161. Headlam diary, September 15 1935.
162. See Rothermere, My Campaign for Hungary, 1939.
163. Rothermere, My Fight to Rearm, 1939, p. 134.
164. Rothermere to Croft, October 28 1934.
165. Rothermere to Croft, April 29 and 30 1935, and to Baldwin,
April 30 1935.
166. Rothermere to Monsell, November 5 1935 and May 10 1935, FO
800/290. Rothermere to Croft, May 8 1935.
167. See e.g. the importance he attached to the interview Ward Price
had with Goering in November 1936 which Rothermere circu-
lated to many leading public men. Cf. Hitler to Rothermere of
May 3 1935 which was also circulated by Rothermere among
politicians.
168. Beaverbrook to Rothermere, November 29 1934 and April 15
1935.
169. Beaverbrook to Lloyd George, October 6 1936. Bruce Lockhart
diary, March 6, July 7 and July 10 1933, July 3 1934 and May 28
1936.
170. Beaverbrook to Amery, April 1 1935.
171. Beaverbrook to Hoare, October 24 and December 27 1935.
172. Beaverbrook to Amery, July 8 and November 10 1936.
173. Amery diary, June 28 1933 and passim 1933/4.
174. Amery diary, February 15 1933.
175. Amery diary, March 21 1935.
176. Amery diary, August 15 1933.
177. Amery diary, September 27 1933.
178. Amery diary, April 25 1933.
179. Amery to Bledisloe, May 2 1934.
180. Amery diary, September 18, October 4 and 16 and November 1
1933. Amery to Smuts, January 3 1934.
181. Barrington-Ward to Dawson, September 3 1935, The Times Ar-
chive.
183. Amery to Beaverbrook, March 29 1935.
185. Hoare to Amery, June 8 1935.
186. Cf. Mason, note for N.M.Butler, October 11 1935, for Hoare
preferring not to be present when Amery brought his deputation
to the Prime Minister on October 15 1935, PREM 1/177B.
187. Amery to Hoare, October 7 1935.

188. Amery to Winterton, September 23, to Garvin, September 23
1935, and to Beaverbrook, November 7 1936.
189. Amery to Beaverbrook, October 7 1935.
190. Amery to Baldwin, October 11 1935, and N.M. Butler to Wilson,
October 15 1935, both PREM 1/177B.
191. Amery to Garvin, September 23, and to Bardoux, September 23
1935.
192. Amery to Stonehaven, October 22 1935.
193. Amery to Hoare, December 19 1935, and to Bardoux, March 11
1936.
194. For information about Astor's disappointments in the Garden
Suburb, I am indebted to Mr J.A. Turner.
195. The Times letter columns of October 1937 for colonies as an
economic way to reconciliation. Astor to Garvin, March 26 1936.
196. There is a good deal in the Astor papers about the determined
attempt made in 1938 by Lord and Lady Astor to nail the lie
about *the Cliveden set'. See also Astor to Gower, December 21
1938.
197. Garvin to Astor, March 14 1934.
198. Garvin to Astor, August 31 1933.
199. Garvin in the Observer, February 5 1933. Garvin to Astor, Au-
gust 31 1933.
200. Garvin in the Observer, March 19, May 19 and September 17
1933.
201. Garvin to Astor, December 18 1933, April 24 and 28 1934.
202. Garvin to Astor, April 24 and 28 1934.
203. Garvin to Hoare, July 18 1935, FO 800/295. Garwin in the Ob-
server, August 4 and 25, September 22, October 6 and Decem-
ber 8 1935.
204. Garvin in the Observer, October 6 and 20 and September 22
1935.
205. Garvin in the Observer, August 25, September 8 and 22 and Octo-
ber 20 1935.
206. Garvin in the Observer, December 15 1935.
209. Jerrold, p. 163.
210. Lord Phillimore talking to Baldwin, N.M. Butler to Wilson, Octo-
ber 15 1935, PREM 1/177B. Amery to Garvin, September 23
1935. Wilson, p. 273.
211. Garvin talking, in Nicolson diary, April 22 1936. Cf. Gwynne to
Amery, October 15 1935.
212. Garvin in the Observer, September 22 1935.
213. Lothian to Lloyd George, May 18 1936. Petrie, Lords of the
Inland Sea, p. 270-1.
214. Astor in Western Morning News, December 7 1938.
215. Londonderry to Croft, July 3 1936. Garvin to Amery, June 11
1936. Cf. Astor and Lady Astor in Astor MSS Box 39 File 733.
Marriott, p. 217.
216. Wilson to Amery, September 26 1935. Dawson to Lady Astor,
March 15 1936.
217. Londonderry to The Times, March 12 1936. Wilson, p. 278.
Hollis,p. 138.
218. Wilson, p. 277.
219. Arnold Wilson in 1922 Committee Minute-book for February 24
1936.
220. Astor in Western Daily News, December 7 1938. For the Aga Khan's
opinions see note for Halifax, November 1937 in Halifax MSS
(Churchill College), A4.410.3.3. For his importance see Dawson
diary, October 28 1937.
221. Wilson, p. 277, and Hollis, p. 139.
222. Londonderry to Lady Milner, March 11 1937, Londonderry MSS.
223. Londonderry in Cab 27/506 of March 6, April 19 and 20 1934.
Cab 7(34) of February 28. Londonderry to MacDonald, Octo-
ber 13, 24 and 25 and November 19 and 26 1934, all PREM
1/155. Londonderry to Simon, December 11 1934, FO 800/291.
224. Cab 27/508 of February 19 1935, fo. 115. Londonderry to Si-
mon, February 14 1933 (3 letters, 2 of them in FO 800/291).
Londonderry to MacDonald, September 17 1933 and June 11
1934 and to Simon, June 14 1934 (both FO 800/291). London-
derry to MacDonald, February 24, July 4 and 11 1933 (and vice
versa, July 13 1933), MacDonald MSS. Cf. Cab 27/506 of Febru-
ary 5 1934.
225. Cecil to Baldwin, July 30 1935.
226. Londonderry to Eden, May 16 1935, FO 800/290.
227. Londonderry to Baldwin, October 17 1935.
228. Londonderry to Baldwin, October 17 1935, and to Ponsonby,
September 26 1935.
229. This put an end to Londonderry's eve-of-session receptions,
which were not resumed again until 1937. Notes by and
Gower in Baldwin MSS of November 29 1935.
230. Cab 10(34) of March 19. Cab 27/508 of February 19 1935. Lon-
donderry to Simon, December 11 1934, FO 800/291. Cab 16(35)
of March 20, fo.242. A.L. Kennedy journal, December 16 1938,
The Times Archive.
231. Dawson diary, February 26 1934, March 28 and April 10 1935
and February 10 1936.
232. See e.g. Dawson diary, July 3 and 11 and October 22 1935, for
slight derogations of Hoare, and May 27 and October 23 1935,
for praise of Eden, of whom he had seen more in the previous
three years.
233. Dawson diary, February 13, October 15 and November 15 1933,
January 23 and 29, February 13 and October 4 1934 and Janu-
ary 29 and March 6 1935.
234. Dawson diary, February 7 and 22 1935 and August 23 1939.
235. The Times, May 24 1934.

236. Ibid.
237. See among other things The Times, November 13 and 29 1934,
December 31 1934 and February 11 1935.
238. See The Times, January—December 1934 and especially July 26
and 27 1934.
239. The Times, February 21 1934.
240. E.g. Dawson diary, November 14 and 15 1933.
241. The Times, July 2, 3 and 16 1934.
242. Dawson diary, May 17 1938. The Times, February-May 1934
and especially May 7 1934.
243. The Times, June 21 1934.
244. The Times, March 19 1934, April 9 1934, June 21 1934 and Oc-
tober 9 1934.
246. E.g. July 8 1936 etc.
248. The Times, July-October 1935.
249. E.g. The Times, March 6, April 11 1934, September 12 1935,
May 15 and June 4 and 26 1936.
250. The Times, May 5 1936.
251. The Times, January 21 1935, May 4 1935 and February 11 1936.
252. For the Rhineland see The Times, March 9, 12 and 16 1936. For
Dawson seeing Eden the day after the occupation, see Maclach-
lan, p. 114 and Dawson diary, March 8, 22 and 26 1936.
253. The Times, May 23 1934 and January 2, 10 and July 9 1936.
254. E.g. The Times, February 1, November 1 1936 and June 14 1937.
255. E.g. The Times, September 14 and 18 1936.
256. The Times, November 26 1936.
257. The Times, March 4 1936.
258. See below p. 141. For criticism of Chamberlain see The Times of
June 13, 19 and 30 1936. For Eden see The Times, February 25
and May 4 1936. For Dawson consulting Eden and Baldwin, see
Dawson diary, June 12 and 15 1936.
259. The Times, March 27 and June 8 1936.
260. Barrington-Ward to H. Brooke, July 28 1936: see also Barrington-
Ward memorandum for Dawson, March 19 1936, and to Kenne-
dy, March 24 1936, all The Times Archive. See also The Times,
May 30 1934 and June 30 1935.
261. The Times, January 15 1934, July 7 1934 and March 12 1936.
262. Maclachlan, p. 106 and The Times, January 31 1935.
263. Maclachlan, p. 103.
264. The Times, January 13 1936 etc.
265. E.g. The Times, April 14 1937.
266. The Times, October 9 1936 and January 28 1937.
268. In retaliation for the expulsion of four German journalists (who
were really spies) from England.
269. E.g. Dawson diary, June 17 and 21 1937.
270. Dawson diary, January 26 and 29 1937.

271. The Times, September 3, 6, 8, 19, 13 etc. 1937 and Dawson
diary, January 8 and 10 1937.
272. The Times, August 4 1937.
273. The Times, April 14 1937.
274. The Times, September 14, 21 and 22 and October 22 1937.
275. The Times, October 28 1937.
276. The Times, October 22 1937.
278. Dawson diary, October 28 1937.
279. Dawson diary, March 15 1938.
280. Ibid.
281. Dawson diary, September 6 - 8 1938.
282. Maclachlan, p. 141. Dawson diary, September 30 1938.
283. For Godesberg see Dawson diary, September 22 1938. Dawson
diary, December 29 1938 and January 23 1939. See also Dawson
diary, November 15 1938.
284. Dawson diary, April 2 and 3 1939.
285. For Dawson's determination not to give way to e.g. Churchill, see
Dawson diary, July 13—17 1939.
286. For Lansbury, Rev. Donald Soper and Rev. Charles Raven signing
a letter in company with Astor, Lothian, Grigg and Trenchard (to
say that any League-based military sanctions would divide the
world into 'two great military alliances' and that the League must
use 'peaceful means for peaceful ends*), see The Times, April 14
1937.
287. Lothian to Lloyd George, October 11 1935. Lothian, memoran-
dum *The Crisis in British Policy' in Lothian to Chamberlain
June 3 1936 and 'Visit to Berlin May 1937', both in Chamberlain
MSS.
288. Lothian to Lloyd George, May 18 1936.
289. Lothian to Lady Astor, February 1 1935 and March 20 1935.
290. Nicolson diary, December 5 1935. Lothian to Lloyd George,
May 18 1936.
291. Lothian to Lloyd George, May 23 1936.
292. Lothian memorandum, in Lothian to Chamberlain, June 3 1936.
293. A.L. Kennedy journal for May 18 1937, The Times Archive.
294. Lothian, memorandum on 'Visit to Berlin May 1937', Chamber-
lain MSS.
295. Garvin in the Observer, March 29 1936.
297. Garvin in the Observer, November 22 1936. Garvin to Astor,
July 9 1936.
300. For the 'questionnaire', see below p. 145.
301. Garvin to Amery, October 27 and November 16 1936, and to
Astor, January 8 1937.
302. Garvin in the Observer, March 14 1937. Garvin to Astor, May 18
1937, for Baldwin being blamed for failing to make Eden resign
with him.
304. Ibid.
305. Jones to Lady Grigg, May 3 1936. Amery to Beaverbrook, No-
vember 7 1936.
306. Churchill, Winterton, Croft, Home and Grigg.
307. Butler to Brabourne, October 20 1934.
308. Austen Chamberlain in Hansard (309) col. 77 of March 11 1935.
309. Hansard (284) cols. 1530-1 of December 21 1933.
310. Ibid. col. 1535.
311. Hansard (285) cols. 1041-2 of February 6 1934. Hansard (284)
cols. 1533-5 of December 21 1935.
312. Hansard (292) col. 742 of July 13 1934.
313. Hansard (299) cols. 73-4 of March 11 1935.
314. Hansard (291) cols.2071-2 of July 5 1934.
315. Hansard (301) col. 617 of May 2 1935.
316. Ibid cols. 620-3.
317. Austen Chamberlain to Hilda/Ida, April 6 1935. For the League
of Nations Union see Austen Chamberlain in Hansard (301) cols.
617-18 of May 2 1935.
318. See Austen Chamberlain to Hilda/Ida, April 6 1935.
319. Hansard (304) col. 566 of July 11 1935 and (307) col. 353 of
December 5 1935. Austen Chamberlain to Adams, September 3
1935. For dissuading Mussolini see Chamberlain to Grandi,
May 10 1935 (not sent).
320. Hansard (307) cols. 2039-42 of December 19 1935.
321. I.e. Winterton, Churchill and Grigg.
322. Note of March 12 1936 in PREM 1/194.
323. Dugdale diary, March 12 1936.
324. TLR (?) March 17 1936 in PREM 1/194. E.g. Hansard (311) cols.
1771-3 of May 6 1936 and (315) cols. 1171-8 of July 27 1936.
325. Hansard (309) cols. 71-8 of March 11 1936 and (310) col. 1487 of
March 26 1936.
326. Hansard (311) cols. 1771-3 of May 6 1936.
327. Hansard (308) cols. 1360-6 of February 14 1936.
328. Austen Chamberlain to Hilda/Ida, May 16, July 4 and Novem-
ber 14 1936. Neville Chamberlain to Ida, July 4 1936. Austen
Chamberlain to Hilda, December 22 1935 (January 22 written).
329. Hoare to Croft, December 22 1935.
330. Hoare to Chamberlain, January 18, and to Beaverbrook, Janu-
ary 13 1936. Beaverbrook to Hoare, January 15 1936. Hoare to
Baldwin, December 29 1935. Butler to Brabourne, March 12
1936.
331. Chamberlain diary, February 10 1936. Cf. Hoare talking in Bruce
Lockhart diary, February 10 1936.
333. Chamberlain diary, February 19, and Hoare to Chamberlain, Feb-

ruary 23 1936.
334. Including Chamberlain, Swinton, Weir, Elliot, Morrison, Wood,
Halifax, Churchill and Austen Chamberlain.
336. Baldwin to Chamberlain March 6, and Chamberlain diary,
March 8 1936. Dugdale diary, March 2 1936.
337. Chamberlain diary, March 11, and Chamberlain to Ida, March 14
1936.
338. Baldwin to Hoare, March 13 1936.
339. Hoare to Chamberlain, February 23 1936.
340. Baldwin to Hoare, March 13 1936.
341. Baldwin to Hoare, April 9, and Hoare to Baldwin, April 10 1936.
342. Hoare to Amery, June 4 1936. Hoare in Nicolson diary, June 28
1936.
343. E.g. Hoare to Willingdon, September 27 1934, Eur.E.240.
344. Chamberlain to MacDonald, October 13 1933.
345. Chamberlain to Hilda, December 15 1934 and March 9 1935.
Chamberlain to Ida, October 27 1934.
348. Chamberlain to Ida, December 8 1935.
349. Chamberlain at Cab 23(36) of March 19 and Chamberlain to Hil-
da, April 19 1936.
350. Eden at Cab 27(36) of April 6 1936.
351. Cab 27(36) of April 6.
352. Cranborne to Cecil, April 8 1936. Halifax to Linlithgow, April 24
1936.
353. Cab 30(36) of April 22.
354. Cab 32(36) of April 30. Chamberlain to Ida, April 25, and to
Hilda, May 2 1936.
355. Zetland to Linlithgow, June 22 1938, Eur.609.7.
356. Chamberlain at 1900 Club, June 10 1936, The Times, June 11.
358. Chamberlain diary, June 19, and to Hilda, June 20 1936.
359. E.g. at Manchester on June 27 1936, The Times, June 29.
360. Chamberlain diary June 19 1936. Chamberlain to Ida, April 25
1936. Garvin to Chamberlain, June 11 1936.
361. See Stonehaven to Baldwin, October 4 1936. Chamberlain, letter
to a constituent, Birmingham Post, June 27 1936.
362. Davidson to Baldwin, June 30 1936, for the fear of a Right wing
Chamberlain coup.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
1. Eden at Foreign Policy Committee of April 30 1936, Cab 27/622.
2. See his speeches at League Assembly in Geneva, July 1 1936 and
September 25 1936, The Times July 2 and September 26.
3. E.g. Cab 20(36) of March 16. Cab 23(36) of March 19. Cranborne
to Cecil, March 25, and Cecil to Murray, March 25 1936.
4. Cranborne to Cecil, March 23 1936.
5. From Hankey and the Service ministers.
6. E.g. Cab Committee of March 13 1936, Cab 27/603. CID 2/6(i)
of April 13 1936. Cab 25(36) of April 2.
7. Eden at Cab 31(36) of April 29 and at Cab 39(36) of May 27.
8. Which had been reaffirmed by France, Britain and Belgium on
March 19.
9. Cabs 36(36) of May 27, 40(36) of May 29, 41(36) of June 10 and
42(36) of June 17. For Chamberlain claiming to have played a
part in this, see Chamberlain to Ida, June 6 1936 and Chamberlain
diary, June 19 1936.
10. See Cab 42(36) of June 17 for the desirability of a Mediterranean
* understanding' with Greece and Turkey, leading, perhaps, even-
tually, to a Mediterranean Locarno with France and Italy.
11. CP 100(36) in Cab 24/261.
12. Eden at Cab 26(36) of April 1.
13. Eden in CP 121(36) of April 25 1936 in Cab 24/262.
t4. Cabs 32-4(36) of April 30, May 4 and 6. See also Cab 24/262 for
successive drafts.
15. See e.g. the exchange between Eden and Baldwin at the end of
Cab 32(36) of April 30.
16. Cab 38(36) of May 20.
17. Eden at Cab 32(36) of April 30.
18. Cab 38(36) of May 20.
19. Cab 48(36) of July 1.
20. Cab 52(36) of July 15.
21. Cabs 50(36) of July 6, 52(36) of July 15 and 54(36) of July 22.
22. Cabs 50(36) of July 6 and 53(36) of July 16 for Eden wishing to
get away from the questionnaire.
23. Cab 30(36) of April 22.
24. Cab 31(36) of April 29.
25. Cab 50(36) of July 6.
26. Dawson diary, April 22 and May 4 1936. Cab 50(36) of July 6.
27. E.g. Eden talking to Harvey in Harvey to Secretary of State,
March 7 1937, Harvey, p. 406.
28. Eden at Cab 50(36) of July 6 and Cab 56(36) of September 2. FP
36(5) of July 13 in Cab 27/626 (circulated by Halifax) and
Eden's FP 37(8) of August 20 1936 in Cab 27/626. See also Eden
at League Assembly in Geneva, September 25 1936, The Times
September 26.
30. Eden at meeting of ministers of January 8 1937 in Cab 23/87.
31. Jones talking to Hitler in Jones diary, May 17 1936.

33. Halifax to Linlithgow, April 24 1936. Chamberlain to Ida,
March 28 and June 20 1936. Jones diary, July 15 1936. Cham-
berlain to Hilda, July 11 1936.
34. For Baldwin and the midsummer madness speech, see Nicolson
diary, June 11 1936, Spectator, June 25 and Hansard (313) cols.
401-3 of June 11 1936. Baldwin at Cab 18(36) of March 11.
35. Baldwin at Cab 19(36) of March 12.
36. Cab 16(36) of March 9. Eden in Facing the Dictators, p. 347 says
that he asked for Halifax to go. Perhaps he asked Baldwin and
Baldwin suggested it to the Cabinet.
37. E.g. Baldwin at Cardiff, July 18 1936, The Times, July 20, at
Guildhall November 9 1936, The Times, November 10, and at
Scottish Unionist Conference of November 18 1936, The Scots-
man, November 19. Hansard (317) cols. 1144—5 of November 12
1936. See also Chamberlain to Hilda, November 14 1936.
38. Zetland to Linlithgow, March 22 1937.
39. Chamberlain to Ida, January 16 1937. Eden to Baldwin, Decem-
ber 27 1936. Hankey to Robin Hankey, December 22 1936 and
January 31 1937.
40. Chamberlain to Ida, June 20 1936.
41. Chamberlain to Simon, September 23 1936, and to Lothian, Jan-
uary 10 1936.
42. See Cab 58(36) of October 21, Cab 65(36) of November 13 and
Cab 67(36) of November 25.
43. Cab 1(37) of January 13. Zetland to Linlithgow, January 18
1937.
44. E.g. Eden at Aberdeen, March 8 1937, The Times, March 9.
45. Citrine, p. 323, for Baldwin regarding Stalin as the man who
would stop Russia being involved in world revolution.
46. E.g. Barrington-Ward to Dawson, August 26 1936, quoting Eden.
47. Nicolson diary, November 15 1936, for an example. Cf. Eden at
Foreign Press Association, January 12 1937, Manchester Guard-
ian, January 13.
48. Eden at International Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Novem-
ber 27 1936, Manchester Guardian, November 28, at Bradford,
December 14 1936, The Times, December 15; at Brussels,
April 26 1937, Manchester Guardian, April 27 and at Foreign
Press Association, January 12 1937, Manchester Guardian, Janu-
ary 13.
49. Amery diary recording Chamberlain, September 21 1937.
50. Inskip to Chamberlain, May 21 1937.
51. Chamberlain diary, May 3 1937.
53. Hore-Belisha to Chamberlain, December 3 1937, quoting Garvin.
For Chamberlain reported as having 'Liberal and radical' views of
policy, see Crozier, interview with Hore-Belisha, July 15 1936.
54. Chamberlain to Ida, July 4 1937.
55. Chamberlain to Hilda, August 1, and to Ida, August 8 1937.
56. Chamberlain to Hilda, June 26, August 29, October 24 and No-
vember 21, and to Ida, August 8 1937.
57. Chamberlain to Hilda, June 26, July 18 and November 21 1937.
58. Chamberlain to Hilda, June 26 1937.
59. Cab 27/506 of April 19, 20 and 24 and May 1 1934. See also
Cab 28(34) of July 11. Cab 27/505 of December 6 1933, fo. 455.
Cab 27/505 of November 20 1933, fols. 4 3 9 - 4 1 and Chamber-
lain diary, 'January 1934' (recording previous two months).
Chamberlain in Cab 27/506 of April 19 1934. Chamberlain to
Ida, February 2 1935.
61. E.g. Chamberlain diary, April 5 1935.
63. Chamberlain diary, April 14 1935. Cf. Daily Telegraph, April 9,
12 and 13.
67. E.g. Cab 27/508 of February 19 1935, fo. 95.
68. For all this see Chamberlain to Hilda, May 26 1935. Pownall
diary, October 21 1935. DRC 37 of November 21 1935 in Cab
16/123 and Cab 27/508, especially of May 20 and 27 1935.
69. Chamberlain diary, February 27 and to Ida, April 25 1936.
71. PREM 1/196 has a certain amount about this. Cf. Chamberlain
diary, February 11 1936. It was first suggested in May 1935 as a
way of resolving inter-service conflict for money, see Cab 27/508
especially May 27 1935. It was also the subject of intensive agita-
tion in the House of Commons.
72. Proposed by Baldwin on the understanding that Austen Chamber-
lain would then become Chancellor, Chamberlain diary, Febru-
ary 16 1936.
74. For the C.I.G.S. putting this point see Barrington-Ward to Liddell
Hart, February 12 1936, The Times Archive.
75. Chamberlain at Cab 75(36) of December 16.
76. For the 'Meetings of Principal Delegates' at the Imperial Confer-
ence, see Cab 32/130.
79. Chamberlain at National Review luncheon, March 4 1937, The
Times, March 5.
80. Chamberlain at Cab 1(37) of January 13.
81. Chamberlain to Ida, July 4 1937. Chamberlain at CID, July 1937
fo.517.
82. Chamberlain to Hilda, June 26 1937. Chamberlain at Cab 29(37)
of July 5.
83. Chamberlain to Weir, August 15 1937.
84. Cab 29(37) of July 5.
85. Cab 43(37) of June 23 (for the Chiefs of Staff objecting to

Eden's interest in a Turco-Greek commitment as an example of
overstretching). Cab 30(37) of July 14. CID of July 2 1937 (Cab
2/6 ii, fols. 5 1 1 - 1 3 . Hankey to Prime Minister, July 19 1937,
and memorandum in PREM 1/276. Eden to Chamberlain, July
16, and Inskip to Chamberlain, July 16 1937, both PREM 1/276.
86. Hankey to Robin Hankey, December 22 1936 and January 31
1937.
87. Hankey to Robin Hankey, March 1 1938. Cf. Bruce Lockhart
diary, August 16 1936, for the view that Fisher was trying to get
rid of Vansittart and give the Foreign Office to Leith-Ross in
order to reform it (and that Vansittart refused to go to Paris for
this reason).
88. Vansittart minute of May 6 1933 in Vansittart 2/3, of May 26
1933 in Vansittart 2/6 and of August 26 1933 in CP 212 (33) of
August 30 1933.
89. Vansittart, notes of September 30 1933 on O'Malley's draft in-
structions to Phipps, O'Malley MSS.
90. Vansittart memorandum of August 28 1933 in CP 212 (33) of
August 30 1933, Vansittart note of July 11 and 28 1934 in Van-
sittart 2/17 and 2/18.
91. Vansittart note of February 13 1935 in Vansittart 2/29.
92. Vansittart note of July 5 1935 in Vansittart 2/3.
93. Vansittart notes of September 30 1933 on O'Malley, draft in-
structions to Phipps, O'Malley MSS.
94. Vansittart notes on O'Malley, draft instructions to Phipps, O'Mal-
ley MSS.
95. Vansittart to Hoare, September 30 1935 in Vansittart 2/27.
96. Vansittart to Phipps, December 20 and 22 1935 and March 23
1936.
97. Avon, Facing the Dictators p. 447—8 and Bruce Lockhart diary,
May 26 1936.
98. Vansittart to Phipps, March 5 and December 20 1935, memoran-
dum of June 22 1936, 'Britain, France and Germany' in Vansit-
tart 1/12, and of May 26 1936 in Vansittart 2/26.
99. Vansittart, to Wigram, November 7 1935, and Vansittart memo-
randum 'A Busman's Holiday' of September 10 1936 in Vansit-
tart 1/17.
100. See e.g. Vansittart on O'Malley draft, 'Collective Security', of
December 1 1935, O'Malley MSS.
101. Vansittart, memorandum, 'The World Situation and British Rear-
mament', December 31 1936 in Vansittart 1/19.
102. Ibid.
103. Vansittart memorandum, 'The World Situation and British Rear-
mament', December 31 1936 in Vansittart 1/19 and Vansittart,
notes on O'Malley draft, 'Collective Security', of December 1
1935, O'Malley MSS.
104. For Vansittart's approval of this idea, see Vansittart on O'Malley
draft, 'Collective Security', December 1 1935, O'Malley MSS.
105. Vansittart to Chatfield, February 16 1937.

106. Vansittart memorandum of late 1937 in Vansittart 1/21.
107. Dalton diary of November 4 1937.
108. Vansittart memorandum, 'The World Situation and British Rear-
mament', December 31 1936 in Vansittart 1/19 and memoran-
dum of May 27 1937 in Vansittart 2/31.
109. E.g. Vansittart to Phipps, February 7 1935 and May 26 1937.
110. Dalton diary, November 4 1937 and April 12 1938.
111. Chatfield to Dreyer, June 1 1933 and February 2 1934.
112. E.g. Chatfield to Dreyer, November 3 1933.
113. Chatfield to W.W. Fisher, May 11 1934.
114. Hankey to Robin Hankey, June 6 1936 and October 3 1937.
115. Hankey, note of private visit to Germany in Hankey to Phipps,
November 16 1933. For Hankey comparing the English and Ger-
man versions of Mein Kampf, see Hankey to Phipps, October 30
1933. See also ibid, of November 24 and December 2 and 8 1933.
116. Hankey to Casey, December 12 1933.
117. Hankey diary, August 9 1934. Hankey to Casey, November 9
1937.
118. Hankey diary, March 4 and 6 1933, January 12 and February 24
1935.
119. E.g. Hankey diary, February 24 1935.
120. Hankey to Robin Hankey, October 20 1938.
121. Hankey to Casey, December 12 1933 and diary, November 25
1935.
122. Hankey to Casey, December 12 1933.
123. Chatfield to Dreyer, May 16 1935 in Cameron, p. 77. Hankey
diary, November 25 1935. Hankey to Phipps, January 2 1936.
124. Chatfield, memorandum of December 11 1936 in Cameron,
p. 106.
125. Cameron, pp. 1 2 3 - 5 .
126. Hankey to Robin Hankey, December 22 1936 and January 31
1937.
127. Chatfield to Backhouse, February 16 1937, and to Pound, No-
vember 23 1937.
128. Chatfield to Pound, November 23 1937.
129. Hankey to Robin Hankey, March 1 1938.
130. Chatfield to Dreyer, September 16 1935.
131. Chatfield, notes of January 5 1937 on Vansittart's memorandum
on 'The World Situation and Rearmament'.
132. Hankey to Casey, April 20 1936, and to R. Hankey, December 22
1936.
133. As Chamberlain was at pains to let historians know (see Chamber-
lain, notes of August 26 1937, PREM 1/276).
134. Chamberlain to Weir and to Hilda, both August 1 1937. Chamber-
lain to Mussolini, July 27 1937 (PREM 1/276).
135. Chamberlain to Halifax, August 7 1937, PREM 1/276.
136. Chamberlain to Ida, August 8, and Chamberlain notes of August
26 1937, in PREM 1/276.
137. Eden to Chamberlain, July 24 and July 26 1937, PREM 1/276.

138. Chamberlain notes of August 26 1937, PREM 1/276.
140. For Ivy Chamberlain, see NC 1/17.
142. Chamberlain to Hilda, June 22 1935.
144. See Chamberlain to Simon, September 23 1936.
145. Eden to Chamberlain, May 23 1937, for suspicion about Runci-
man being pushed out. Harvey diary, March 3 1937. See also
* Imperial Conference; Meetings of Imperial Delegates*, June 8 and
9 1937, Cab 32/130.
146. However acceptable this was to the Chiefs of Staff (for the Bel-
gian question, see Cabs 58(36) of October 21, 62 and 63(36) of
November 4, 69(36) of December 9, 13(37) of March 24 and
19(37) of April 28). See also Eden's FP 36(17) of March 8 1937
in Cab 27/626 and CID of December 10 1936 in Cab 2/6ii. See
alsoKieft, pp. 8 5 - 1 5 5 .
147. Cab 43(36) of June 23.
148. Nicolson diary, July 15 and 27 1937. Harvey diary, March 31 and
October 5 1937.
149. Cab 42(36) of June 17.
150. Austen Chamberlain to Ida/Hilda, November 14 1936.
151. Especially from Hoare, Inskip, MacDonald and Duff Cooper.
152. Cab 62 and 63(36) of November 4, Cab 64(36) of November 11
and Cab 66(36) of November 18. Austen Chamberlain to Ida/Hil-
da, November 14 1936.
153. E.g. Eden at Cab 57(36) of October 14 and at Cab 58(36) of
October 21.
154. Eden to Baldwin, December 27 1936, and at meeting of ministers
of January 8 1937 in Cab 23/87. The plan is in CP 6(37). See also
Avon, Facing the Dictators, p. 435.
155. I.e. by Wood.
156. Cab 5(37) of February 3 and Cab 7(37) of February 10. Cabs 8
and 9(37) of February 17 and 24 and Cab 14(37) of April 7.
157. Harvey diary, March 31 and October 5 1937.
158. Chamberlain to Ida, October 24 and November 22 1936.
159. Eden at Cab 35(37) of September 29.
160. Zetland to Linlithgow, April 19 1937, quoting Eden.
161. I.e. the withdrawal of Italian volunteers, Cab 14(37) of April 7,
Cab 15(37) of April 11, Cab 16(37) of April 14, Cab 17(37) of
April 19 and Cab 27(37) of June 30.
162. See Chamberlain diary, February 19 1938, for this claim. Cham-
berlain notes of August 2, memorandum (unsigned) of July 23,
Eden to Chamberlain July 24 and 26, and Wilson, note for Prime
Minister of July 26, all 1937 (PREM 1/276). Halifax to Chamber-
lain, August 4 1937. Chamberlain to Hilda, August 1, and to Ida,
August 8 1937.
163. * Record of a meeting held in the Secretary of State's room at

4 p.m. on August 10 to deal with questions arising in connection
with the anticipated conservations with the Italian government as
proposed in the Prime Minister's letter to Signor Mussolini of
July 27', PREM 1/276.
164. Eden to Halifax, August 11 1937 in Avon, Facing the Dictators,
p. 456.
165. Halifax, note of discussion with Eden, August 18 1937 j n Halifax
to Chamberlain, August 19 1937, PREM 1/276.
166. Eden, note of telephone conversation with Prime Minister, Sep-
tember 1 1937 in PREM 1/276. Cleverley, note for Prime Minis-
ter in PREM 1/276. Halifax to Chamberlain, August 18, and
Chamberlain to Hilda, August 29 1937.
167. E.g. Duff Cooper at Cab 24(37) of June 17, Hoare at Cab 19(37)
of April 28, Cab 14(37) of April 7, Cab 15(37) of April 11, Cab
16(37) of April 14 and Cab 17(37) of April 19.
168. The Deutschland and Leipzig,
169. Cab 23(37) of June 2 and Cab 25(37) of June 21.
170. Swinton and Stanley at Cab 25(37) of June 21 and Cab 26(37) of
June 23.
171. Hoare in Cab 19(37) of April 28 for the Bilbao case.
172. E.g. Cab 17(37) of April 19 and Cab 25(37) of June 21.
173. Harvey diary, April 19 1937.
174. Eden on May 28 1937 in Manchester Guardian May 29.
175. Cleverley note of August 31 1937, in PREM 1/276. See also 'From
time to time remarks have been made in the Cabinet, naturally
enough in the main by Service ministers, which emphasize that our
foreign policy must be dictated by the state of our defences and it
is sometimes added that our position in this respect, in particular
at sea, is worse than in 1914. While it may be true that our Navy
today is not as strong as it was in 1914, that is not, I think, the
proper basis of comparison. Our Navy in Europe is today relatively
much stronger than in 1914; the German navy of today bears no
comparison to that of pre-war days, the French navy is stronger
than that of 1914, and relative to the German navy, very much
stronger. It is quite true that Italy remains an uncertain factor, but
she was that in 1914, in fact she was officially tied by treaty to
Germany in those days. Therefore in Europe surely our position
is much better than it was in 1914'. (Eden to Chamberlain, Septem-
ber 9 1937, PREM 1/210) For Chamberlain's comment '...the
proposition that our foreign policy must be, if not dictated, at
least limited by the state of the Nat[ional] Defences remains true')
see PREM 1/210 of September 9 1937.
176. For the agreement see Eden to Chamberlain, September 14, and
Chamberlain note of September 15 1937, both in PREM
1/360.
177. Eden, broadcast from Nyon, September 14 1937, The Times,
September 15. Eden to Churchill, September 25 1937.
178. Harvey diary, September 22 1937.

179. Chamberlain to Hilda, September 12, and to Ida, September 19
1937. Cf. Amery diary, October 21 1937, for Eden in the House
of Commons 'overemphasising the extent to which Italy had
climbed down'.
180. Cab 36(37) of October 6, Cab 37(37) of October 13 and Cab
38(37) of October 20. For Chamberlain supporting Eden under
criticism see Cab 40(37) of November 3 and Cab 41(37) of No-
vember 10.
181. Wilson, quoted in Harvey diary, November 17 1937.
182. Steward quoting Chamberlain in GFD no. 29 November 18 1937,
DGFP Series D.
183. Harvey diary, November 11 1937.
185. Eden to Chamberlain, November 16 1937, PREM 1/330.
188. Chamberlain to Halifax, November 25 1937.
189. Chamberlain to Hilda, October 24 1937.
191. For Baldwin's failure to remove Vansittart see Eden to Baldwin,
December 27 1936, and Vansittart to Baldwin, December 30
192. Eden at Cab 1(37) of January 13 and to Chamberlain, January 9
1938, PREM 1/276. Cf. Amery diary, October 22, and Dalton
diary, October 28, both 1937, and Cab 43(37) of November 24
for further examples of Eden's desire for agreement with Hitler,
whatever his doubts about Henderson or The Times.
193. Eden to Chamberlain, January 31 1938, PREM 1/276.
194. Eden to Chamberlain, November 16 1937, PREM 1/330, and No-
vember 3, PREM 1/210. Harvey diary, November 8 1937.
195. Cab 5(38) of February 16.
196. Chamberlain to Hilda, November 6 1937. Eden to Chamberlain,
November 3 1937, PREM 1/210.
197. Cab 42(37) of November 17.
198. See e.g. Cab 8(34) of March 7.
199. E.g. Chamberlain at Cab 36(37) of October 6.
200. Cabs 36 and 37(37) of October 6 and 13.
201. For an account of British policy, see Lee.
202. Hankey to Casey, November 9 1937, and to Robin Hankey, No-
vember 21 1937.
203. Hankey to Vansittart, November 3 1937. Cab 21/558 in Came-
ron, p. 156. Hankey to Robin Hankey, November 21 1937.
206. Chamberlain to Hilda, November 21 1937, quoting Baldwin.
207. See e.g. Chamberlain to Ida, October 30 1937.
208. Steward quoting Chamberlain in GFD no. 29, November 18
1937, DGFP, Series D.

210. Ibid.
211. Dawson diary, January 25 1938.
212. Cab 45(37) of December 1. Foreign Policy Committee of Janu-
ary 24 and February 3 1938 in Cab 27/623.
213. Especially when Germany announced that she would not return
to the League (FP (36) 41 of January 1 1938 and FP (36) 43 of
January 25 in Cab 27/626). Cf. Eden at Geneva, January 27
1938, Manchester Guardian, January 28.
214. Chamberlain at Cab 43(37) of November 24.
215. Chamberlain to Hilda, January 9 and 30 1938.
216. Cab 4(38) of February 9. For the statement see Hansard (331) of
February 2 1938, cols. 213—16. For its significance see The
Times of February 3.
217. Eden to Chamberlain, January 9 1938, PREM 1/276, and Cham-
berlain to Hilda, January 9 1938.
218. Cadogan diary, February 4, 8 and 17 1938. Harvey diary, Febru-
ary 17 1938. Eden to Chamberlain, February 8 1938.
219. Cab 5(38) of February 16. Eden to Chamberlain, February 18
1938, PREM 1/276.
220. Cabs 5 and 6(38) of February 16. Cf. Amery diary, February 7
1938. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 6 1938. Chamberlain diary,
February 19 1938.
221. Chamberlain to Eden, February 8 1938.
223. Eden at Birmingham, February 12 1938, The Times, Febru-
ary 14.
224. Eden to Chamberlain, February 10 1938, PREM 1/276.
225. Perth to Eden (telegram), February 17 1938, PREM 1/276. Eden
to Chamberlain, February 18, and Wilson to Chamberlain, Febru-
ary 19 1938, both PREM 1/276. Chamberlain diary, February 19
1938. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 27 1938. Cadogan diary,
February 17 1938.
228. For this coming as a 'bolt from the blue* see Zetland, pp. 234—5.
229. Chamberlain diary, February 19, and Chamberlain to Hilda, Feb-
ruary 27 1938. Harvey diary, February 20, and also February 19
1938 reporting Eden saying that Chamberlain snubbed Simon
when Simon tried to say that the issue was not one of policy and
principle. Zetland to Linlithgow, February 21 1938.
231. Eden to Chamberlain, February 8 1938, PREM 1/276.
232. Harvey diary, October 20 1937. Eden to Chamberlain, Febru-
ary 8 1938.
233. I.e. by sending 50,000 troops to Spain from last week, Eden to
Chamberlain, January 9 1938, PREM 1/276.
234. 'Anglo-American Co-operation, the chances of effectively assert-
ing white race authority in the Far East and relations with Ger-
many', Eden to Chamberlain, January 9 1938, PREM 1/276.

235. Eden to Chamberlain, January 31 1938, PREM 1/276.
237. Eden to Chamberlain, January 1 and 9 and February 8 1938.
Cab 6(38) of February 19.
238. Cab 3(38) of February 2. Eden to Chamberlain, January 9 1938,
PREM 1/276.
239. Chamberlain diary, February 19 1938. Eden to Chamberlain,
February 8 1938, PREM 1/276. Harvey diary, February 17 1938.
Eden at Cab 6(38) of February 19. Avon, Facing the Dictators,
pp. 5 7 9 - 8 0 .
240. Harvey diary, December 1 9 - 2 3 1937.
242. See e.g. Jones to Lady Grigg, October 24 1937. Eden to Cham-
berlain, November 3 and December 31 1937.
243. For the initiative, see below pp. 174-6.
244. Eden memorandum, 'The Next Steps towards a General Settle-
ment with Germany', FP(36) 41.
245. Eden note for Foreign Policy Committee, February 10 1938,
Cab 27/626.
246. See e.g. Eden in Harvey diary, November 2 1937.
247. So important that, until he discovered that Roosevelt objected to
recognition of Italian rule in Abyssinia, Eden thought of letting
Chamberlain have his way about Abyssinia in return for support
about the Roosevelt initiative (Harvey diary, January 18 and 19
1938). See also Harvey diary, December 1 9 - 2 3 1937, and Eden
to Chamberlain, January 17 1938 (PREM 1/259).
248. Chamberlain to Hilda, January 9 1938.
249. See e.g. Langer and Gleason, pp. 17—20.
250. E.g. Cab 35(37) of September 29 and Cab 38(37) of Oc-
tober 20.
252. Eden at Cab 37(37) of October 13.
253. Cab 36(37) of October 6. Chamberlain to Hilda, October 9 1937.
Chamberlain diary, February 19 1938. Chamberlain at Cab
48(37) of December 22. For Chamberlain saying that since the
USA had 'no intention of taking any decisive action in the Far
East', the Nine-Power Conference should be presented in Parlia-
ment as 'appeasement', see Cab 38(37) of October 20.
254. Langer and Gleason, pp. 25—6.
255. Cab 1(38) of January 4 and Secret Addendum. Wilson to Prime
Minister, January 23 1938, and Eden to Chamberlain, January 17
1938, both PREM 1/259.
256. E.g. Harvey diary, January 21 1938. See also Cab 8(34) of
March 7.
258. For the Cadman report being known about in early February, see
Rowland and Cadman, pp. 167—8.
472 NOTES TO CHAPTER 5, pp. p. 176
259. 1935 general election result: Conservatives 28,528, Labour

21,278. Result of by-election February 16 1938: R.R. Stokes
(Lab) 27,604, H.U. Willink (NC) 24,443.
260. There are many suggestions that he was both over the previous
three years (e.g. Jones's conversation with Baldwin, October 26
1937, Harvey diary, December 5 1937, Stanhope to Baldwin,
July 6 1936, Simon diary of April 5 1935 and Chamberlain diary,
April 2 1935). See, however, the argument Eden had with Simon
after the resignation when Simon claimed that illness was a contrib-
utory factor, Simon to Eden, February 23 1938, Simon MSS.
261. See e.g. Eden, message to constituency, June 11 1937, Manches-
ter Guardian, June 11, and at League Assembly, September 20
1937, The Times, September 21.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
2. For Butler see GFD no. 750 of April 22 1938.
4. For the speech, see Hansard (332) cols. 2 2 0 - 9 of February 22
1938. Nicolson to V. Sackville-West, February 25 1938. Cf. Grif-
fith in Hansard (322) col. 234.
5. Chamberlain to Hilda, December 17 1937.
7. Chamberlain in Cab 49(37) of December 22. Inskip's defence re-
view of late 1937, 'Defence Expenditure in Future Years', is
dated December 15 and is in Cab 27/648 (CP 316/37).
8. Chamberlain diary, February 19 1938. Cab 6(38) of February
19.
9. Cab 5(38) of February 16 and Cab 9(38) of February 23.
10. Even though Hitler's reply when Nevile Henderson saw him, was
that he wanted to get what he wanted in central Europe and 'did
not want to tie [his] hands by talks and undertakings', see Hali-
fax at Cab 10(38) of March 2 and Cab 11 (38) of March 9.
11. Cab 12(38) of March 12. Chamberlain to Hilda, March 13
1938.
12. Chamberlain at 12(38) of March 12.
13. Chamberlain at Cab 12(38) of March 12 and at Cab 13(38) of
March 14. Chamberlain to Hilda, March 13 1938.
15. Cab 15(38) of March 22. Chamberlain to Ida, March 20 1938.
16. Chamberlain at Cab 16(38) of March 23. Cadogan diary,
March 1 6 - 1 8 1938. Chamberlain to Ida, March 20 1938.
17. Cabinet Committees of March 15, 18, 21, 29 and April 7 in Cab
27/623, Cab 16(38) of March 22 and Cab 17(38) of March 30
etc.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6, pp. 17 7-83 473
18. Chamberlain at Cab 12(38) of March 12. Chamberlain to Hilda,

March 13 1938.
19. E.g. Cab 19(38) of April 13.
20. Chamberlain at Cab 15(38) of March 22. Halifax to Chamberlain,
March 19 1938, PREM 1/265. Chamberlain in Hansard, March 24
1938.
21. Chamberlain in Hansard (333) cols. 1399-1413 of March 24
1938.
22. Chamberlain at Cab 15(38) of March 22.
23. Cab 18(38) of April 6. Chamberlain to Ida, April 16 1938.
24. Cab 22(38) of May 4. Chamberlain to Ida, May 1 1938.
25. For apprehension about explaining it to the French, see Cab
19(38) of April 13 and Cab 21(38) of April 27.
26. Halifax to Chamberlain, April 14 1938, PREM 1/308. Cab 22(38)
of May 4. For the decision about joint defence preparations see
Cab 18(38) of April 6.
27. Cab 22(38) of May 4. Halifax at Cab 18(38) of April 6, at Cabi-
net Committee of April 7 1938, Cab 27/623 and at Cab 21(38) of
April 27.
28. Cab 25(38) of May 22. DBFP third series, vol. I, pp. 3 4 0 - 3 4 2
and 3 4 6 - 7 .
29. Simon and Cadogan diaries, May 22 1938.
32. Chamberlain to Ida, May 28 and June 18 1938. For the Turkish
request for a loan, see Cab 23(38) of May 11.
33. Cabinet Committee of June 1 1938 in Cab 27/623, Cab 31(38) of
July 6 and Cab 32(38) of July 13. Cf. Harvey diary, July 1 1 - 1 6
1938.
34. E.g. Cab 31(38) of July 6.
35. Chamberlain to Daladier, July 8 1938, PREM 1/263. Chamberlain
to Hilda, July 9 1938.
37. Chamberlain to Hannon, June 3 1938.
38. DGFP series D, vol. II, no. 247 of June 9 1938.
39. Via W.W. Astor and Halifax, via Snowden's widow and via Eli-
bank, Princess Hohenlohe and Hoare's brother, the banker Oliver
Hoare, W.W. Astor to Halifax, June 22 1938, FO 800/309, Har-
vey diary, July 11 to 16 1938 and FO 800/313.
40. Chamberlain, note of talk to German Ambassador, July 22 1938,
PREM 1/330.
41. Wilson, notes for Prime Minister, July 12, 22 and 23 1938. Hali-
fax to Chamberlain, Wednesday afternoon (between July 12 and
15 1938, two letters, PREM 1/330). Harvey diary, July 11 to 16
and 18 1938. Cadogan diary, July 18 and 22 1938. GFD no. 309
of July 22 1938, DGFP series D.
42. Halifax at Cab 26(38) of May 25.
43. Which the Germans seemed not to want. Cab 27(38) of June 1,
Halifax reporting Strang.
44. Cab 26(38) of May 25.

45. I.e. Strang.
46. See Cabinet Committee of June 16 1938 in Cab 27/624.
47. Cab 29(38) of June 22. Cab 32(38) of July 13.
48. Halifax at Cab 30(38) of June 29, Cab 31(38) of July 6 and Cab
35(38) of July 27. Wilson to Halifax, June 22 1938 FO 800/309
proposing four names and putting Lord Mac mil Ian top. For Run-
ciman's hesitations see Runciman to Halifax, June 30, and to
Simon, August 1 1938.
49. Which they sent through Hitler's private office in order to by-pass
Ribbentrop.
50. Halifax to Henderson, August 11 1938, DBFP third series, vol. II,
pp. 76 and 7 8 - 8 0 .
51. Henderson, telegram no. 362 in DBFP third series, vol. II,
pp. 9 1 - 2 .
52. Kordt to Weizsacker, DGFP series D, vol. II, no. 382 of August 23
1938.
53. Cadogan diary, July 28 and September 3 1938.
55. Chamberlain to Halifax, August 19 1938, FO 800/314. Chamber-
lain at Cab 36(38) of August 30. Chamberlain to Hilda, Septem-
ber 6 1938.
56. Simon at Lanark, August 27 1938, The Times August 29. See
also Winnifrith to Hoyer-Miller, August 26 1938, for the consulta-
tion that went on before Simon spoke.
57. Cab 36(38) of August 30.
58. In the light of other reports from Germany.
59. Halifax at Cab 36(38) of August 30.
60. Halifax at Cab 36(38) of August 30, Halifax to Chamberlain, Au-
gust 21 [1938].
61. Halifax to Chamberlain, August 21 [1938].
62. Cab 36(38) of August 30.
63. Elliot to his wife, September 12 1938, Coote, p. 164.
64. E.g. Halifax to Phipps, September 12 1938, PREM 1/265.
65. For Halifax's desire to repeat the warning, see below p. 278. For
all this see also Chamberlain to the King, September 13 1938,
PREM 1/266A.
66. Meeting of Ministers of September 13 1938, Cab 27/646. Cham-
berlain to Ida, September 19 1938.
67. Chamberlain at Cab 38(38) of September 14. Inskip diary, Sep-
tember 12 and 14, Cadogan diary, September 8, 11, 13, and 14,
and Hore-Belisha diary, September 14, all 1938. Chamberlain to
Runciman, September 12 1938, PREM 1/266A.
68. On September 2 and, in a modified form, on September 7.
69. Harvey diary, September 11 1938, quoting Halifax.
70. See Seton-Watson, p. 39 for a press conference reported in the
Montreal Daily Star of May 14.
71. Eden, quoting Halifax, in Harvey diary, September 9 1938.
72. Wilson, note for Prime Minister, August 25 1938, PREM 1/265.
73. But Hitler presumably knew that Chamberlain had given the press
conference in May, see above n. 70. So they both knew that
cession of territory would be acceptable.
74. Cab 27/646 of September 13 1938.
75. Cab 38(38) of September 14 at 11 a.m.
76. Chamberlain to Runciman, September 12, and Runciman to
Chamberlain, September 13 1938, PREM 1/266A. Chamberlain
at Cab 38(38) of September 14.
77. I.e. MacDonald, Winterton, Hore-Belisha, Elliot, Hailsham, Stan-
ley and de la Warr.
78. Cab 26(38) of May 25 and Cab 38(38) of September 14.
79. Chamberlain to Ida, September 19 1938. Chamberlain, minute of
September 15, PREM 1/266A.
80. Chamberlain, minute of the conversation between the Prime Min-
ister and the Fiihrer, September 15 1938, PREM 1/266A.
81. Schmidt memorandum in DGFP series D, vol. II, no. 487 of Sep-
tember 15 1938.
82. Chamberlain, minute of the conversation between the Prime Min-
ister and the Fuhrer, September 15 1938, PREM 1/266A. Cham-
berlain to Ida, September 19 1938.
83. See above n. 81. Chamberlain to Hitler, September 16 1938,
PREM 1/266 A.
84. Chamberlain at Cab 39(38) of September 17.
85. Schmidt memorandum in DGFP series D, vol. II, no. 487 of Sep-
tember 15 1938.
86. Meeting of Ministers, September 16 1938, Cab 27/646.
87. Inskip, Duff Cooper and Hore-Belisha diaries, September 17
1938. Cab 39(38) of September 17.
88. Meeting of Ministers, September 16 1938, Cab 27/646. Cadogan
diary, September 16 1938.
89. Inskip and Duff Cooper diaries, September 17 1938.
90. Hoare at Cab 39(38) of September 17.
91. This was said in various ways by de la Warr, Winterton, Stanley
and Eliot.
92. Meeting of Ministers, September 18 1938 in Cab 27/646. The
text, dated September 18 is in PREM 1/266A. Cadogan diary,
September 18 1938, implies that Chamberlain suggested the guar-
antee.
93. For the proposals see DBFP third series, vol. II, pp. 404—5. Cab
40(38) of September 19. Hore-Belisha diary, September 19 1938.
Elliot to his wife, September 19 1938, Coote, p. 166, leaves a
slightly different impression.
94. E.g. MacDonald, Stanley, Hailsham, etc.
96. Halifax to Hitler via Henderson no. 386 of September 19 and
Halifax, telephone message for Wilson, September 19 1938, both
in PREM 1/266A.
97. Cab 40(38) of September 19. Cadogan diary, September 20 1938.
Harvey diary, September 21 1935.
98. Elliot to his wife, September 19 1938.

99. Meeting of Ministers of September 21 1938 in Cab 27/646.
100. See Cab 41(38) of September 21. Harvey diary, September 22
1938. Duff Cooper to Halifax, September 22 1938, FO 800/309.
Elliot to his wife, September 22 1938, Coote, pp. 1 6 9 - 7 0 .
102. According to Wood, see Duff Cooper diary, September 23 1938.
103. DGFP series D, vol. II, no. 562, Minute of the conversation be-
tween the Fiihrer and Reich Chancellor and Mr. Chamberlain, the
British Prime Minister, at Godesberg on the afternoon of Septem-
ber 22 1938. Wilson, telephone message of September 23 1938
10 a.m., PREM 1/266A.
104. Chamberlain to Hitler, September 23 1938, GFD no. 572, DGFP
series D.
105. Chamberlain to Hitler, September 23 1938, DGFP series D,
vol. II, no. 572 and Hitler to Chamberlain, September 23 1938,
no. 573. Wilson, telephone message, September 23 1938 8.14 p.m.
in PREM 1/266A. Hitler to Chamberlain, September 23 1938,
no. 573.
106. DGFP series D, vol. II, no. 583, memorandum of conversations
between the Fiihrer and Reich Chancellor and Mr Chamberlain,
the British Prime Minister, at Godesberg on the evening of Sep-
tember 23 1938.
107. Meetings of Ministers, September 22 1938 at 3 p.m. and at
9.30 p.m. (esp. appendix II) in Cab 27/646.
109. Meeting of Ministers, September 23 1938 at 3 p.m., Cab 27/646.
Note the peculiar way in which the chronology of decision in
relation to Chamberlain's letter is presented.
110. Elliot to his wife, September 23 1938, Coote p. 171. Meeting of
Ministers, September 23 1938 at 3 p.m., Cab 27/646.
111. Meeting of Ministers, September 23 1938 at 9.30 p.m., Cab
27/646.
112. DBFP third series, vol. II, p. 497.
27/646.
115. I.e. Stanley, Winterton, Hore-Belisha, de la Warr, Elliot and Duff
Cooper (in addition to R.S. Hudson, who was not in the Cabinet).
Amery diary, September 24 1938, reporting Winterton who came
to see him that night for a consultation. Elliot to his wife, Sep-
tember 25 1938, Coote, pp. 1 7 1 - 3 , Harvey diary, September 25
1938. Cadogan, Duff Cooper and Hore-Belisha diaries, Septem-
ber 24 1938.
117. For Maugham, Brown, Stanhope and Wood (the latter with evi-
dent distaste) supporting Chamberlain, see Cabs 43 and 44(38) of
September 25. Duff Cooper diary, September 25 1938. Elliot to
his wife, September 25 1938, Coote, pp. 1 7 1 - 3 .
118. Duff Cooper diary, September 25 1938.

119. Cab 44(38) of September 25 in PREM 1/266A. Harvey, Duff
Cooper and Hore-Belisha diaries, September 25 1938. See also
Colville,p. 118.
121. CID of September 26 1938 (Cab 16/189). Duff Cooper and Hore-
Belisha diaries, September 26 1938.
122. Kordt to GFM, DGFP series D, vol. II, no. 605 of September 26
1938.
123. Ribbentrop minute of September 25 1938 in loc. cit. no. 600.
124. Cab 44(38) of September 25, fols. 2 4 1 - 3 .
125. Statement by the British Prime Minister in DGFP series D, vol. II,
no. 618 of September 26 1938.
126. Minute by Weizsacker in DGFP series D, vol. II,no. 611 of Sep-
tember 26 1938, reporting Henderson.
127. Jebb, memorandum of September 26 1938 in PREM 1/266A.
128. Meeting of Ministers of September 26 1938 10 p.m. Cab 27/646.
Duff Cooper diary, September 27 1938.
129. For the letter see Chamberlain to Hitler, September 26 1938,
PREM 1/266A. DGFP series D, vol. II, no. 634 of September 27
1938, memorandum on the conversation between the Fiihrer and
Reich Chancellor and Sir Horace Wilson etc.
27/646.
132. DBFP third series, vol. II, pp. 6 2 7 - 9 and 4 0 4 - 6 . Cab 47(38) of
September 30, fols. 281 et seq for the ten conditions.
133. The Times, October 1 1938. Chamberlain to Hilda, October 2
1938. For Strang drafting the statement and Chamberlain being
very pleased with Hitler's agreement, see Strang, pp. 146—7.
135. Chamberlain to Hankey, October 2 1938.
136. Garvin to Simon, October 11 1938. Londonderry to Chamber-
lain, October [September written] 4 1938. Baldwin to Chamber-
lain, September 15, 26 and 30 1938, NC 13/11. For a survey of
the provincial press, see Hadley, pp. 93—110.
137. The phrase is that of Lord Ebbisham, the Chairman of the Prim-
rose League, in a letter to Mrs Chamberlain, October 6 1938. NC
13/8—13 has an immense correspondence and expressions of grat-
itude from correspondents, known and unknown, in England and
elsewhere.
138. In the course of which Baldwin was called a 'guttersnipe' and
Churchill, Eden, Greenwood and Duff Cooper attacked as 'war-
mongers'.
139. Chamberlain to Hilda, November 13 1938. Nicolson diary, De-
cember 13 1938.
140. Cabinet Committee of November 14 1938 and of January 23
1939 Cab 27/624. Cadogan diary, December 15 1938 and Janu-
ary 17, 19 and 23 1939. Inskip diary, December 4 1938 and Jan-
uary 23 1939. Harvey diary, January 24 1939. Kirkpatrick,

pp. 1 3 6 - 8 . Halifax at Cabinet Committee of January 23 1939.
141. Cabinet Committee of November 14 and 21 1938, Cab 27/624.
142. Cab 3(39) of February 1 and Cab 8(39) of February 22.
143. Chamberlain at Cabinet Committee, November 14 1938, in Cab
27/624, but see Chamberlain to Hilda, November 6 1938, for
Chamberlain hoping that Mussolini 'might be extraordinarily valu-
able in making plans for talks with Germany'.
145. Zetland to Linlithgow, January 24 1939, MSS Eur.D.609.9.
Chamberlain to Hilda, January 15 1939.
146. Chamberlain at Cab 1(39) of January 18.
147. Cadogan diary, February 6 1939.
151. Chamberlain at Cabinet Committee, November 14 1938, Cab
27/624.
152. I.e. the importance of avoiding an 'arms race' (Cab 51(38) of
October 31) and Chamberlain at Cabinet Committee of Novem-
ber 14 1938, Cab 27/624.
153. Chamberlain at Cab 60(38) of December 21.
154. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 5 1939. Crozier, interview with
Wood of February 9 1939. CID of February 9 1939 (Cab 2/7) for
Chatfield's announcement of RADAR.
155. Chamberlain at Cab 60(38) of December 21. Chamberlain to Ida,
January 8 1939. For Ivy Chamberlain visiting Mussolini 'recent-
ly', see Killearn diary, March 8 1939.
156. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 5, and to Ida, February 26 1939.
Cab 3(39) of February 1. The Crown Prince of Sweden quoting
Chamberlain in Cadogan diary, December 2 1938; Cadogan diary,
December 10 and 11 1938, has reports of a Goerdeler plan for an
army revolution next month. Harvey diary, December 11 1938.
Cf Dawson to Washburn, March 28 1939, The Times Archive for
'jealousy'.
157. Hansard (340) col. 88 of November 1 1938. Cab 50(38) of Octo-
ber 26.
158. Chamberlain at Cab 59(38) of December 14 and Cab 60(38) of
December 21.
159. E.g. Cab 50(38) of October 26.
160. Wilson to Phipps, February 2 1939.
161. DGFP series D, vol. IV, GFD no. 300 of January 25 1939. Cham-
berlain at Birmingham, January 28 1939, The Times, January 30.
162. On January 30 1939 (Hitler, speech to the Reichstag, January 30
1939, The Times, January 31, for Hitler repeating that he had no
demands on Britain). See also Cab 7(39) of February 15.
163. Hansard (343) col. 81 of January 31 1939.
164. Chamberlain to Ida, February 12, and to Hilda, February 5 1939.
165. Chamberlain to Halifax, February 19 1939, FO 800/315. Hender-
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6, p. 206 479
son to Wilson, March 1, Henderson to Chamberlain, February 23,

Chamberlain to Henderson, February 19, all 1939 in PREM
1/330 (the last two are in DBFP third series, vol. IV, pp. 591 and
594.)
166. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 19 1939. Cf. Zetland to Linlith-
gow, February 5 1939, Eur. D. 609.
167. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 19, and to Ida, February 26
1939.
168. Chamberlain at Blackburn, February 22 1939, Yorkshire Post
February 23.
169. Channon diary, March 7 1939. Chamberlain to Ida, March 12
1939.
170. Cadogan diary, March 10 1939. Chamberlain to Ida, March 12
1939.
171. Gwilym Lloyd George to Lloyd George, March 17 1939. Hansard
(345) cols. 4 3 5 - 4 0 of March 15 1939. Cab 11(39) of March 15.
Harvey diary, March 16 1939.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 7
1. Greenwood in Lancashire, September 27 1936, Manchester
2. Attlee at Oxford, February 25 1938, The Times, February 26.
3. Morrison in Forward, October 16 1937. Attlee at Labour Party
Conference, October 4 1937, Manchester Guardian, October 5.
4. Elwyn Jones, p. 306.
5. Morrison at London Political Council of Railway Clerks Associa-
tion, February 12 1938, The Times, February 14, and at Cam-
bridge University Labour and Socialist Club, February 4 1938,
Manchester Guardian, February 5.
6. E.g. Dalton diary, July 13 1938.
7. E.g. Morrison at Ipswich, February 14 1938, Manchester Guard-
ian, February 15.
8. Morrison in London, February 29 1938, Manchester Guardian,
March 1.
9. Attlee at Langholme, June 12 1938, Manchester Guardian, June
13.
10. Attlee in London, February 29 1938, Manchester Guardian,
March 1.
11. Greenwood at Putney, March 15 1938, Daily Herald, March 16.
Manifesto by the Three Bodies, February 23 1938, Daily Herald,
February 24. Attlee at Oxford, February 25 1938, The Times,
February 26, and at Gosport, February 27 1938, News Chronicle,
February 28.
12. For Dalton saying some measure of frontier revision in Czecho-
slovakia was preferable to federalisation, see Dalton diary, No-
vember 30 1937. See Dalton diary, May 28 1938, for Dalton re-
jecting the idea that there should be 'no concessions' from the
Czechs.
13. Attlee at Barnsley, June 15 1938, Manchester Guardian, June 16,

and in Staffordshire Chronicle, June 4 1938. Morrison at Bury,
Manchester and Barnsley, May 21, 22 and 31 1938, Manchester
Guardian, May 22 and 23, and June 2. Cf. Harvey diary, May 12
1938, for Ellen Wilkinson talking to Halifax.
14. Morrison in Forward, July 9 1938.
15. Citrine at Blackpool, September 6 1938, Daily Herald, Sep-
tember 7.
16. Joint declaration of September 7 1938, Daily Herald, Septem-
ber 8.
17. Attlee in Daily Herald, September 1 1938, at Limehouse, Septem-
ber 18 1938, The Times, September 19. Morrison at Hammer-
smith, September 18, The Times, September 19. Greenwood at
Swinton, September 17 1938, Manchester Guardian, Septem-
ber 19.
18. Attlee in Daily Herald, September 1 1938.
19. Halifax, memorandum of September 16 1938, FO 800/309.
20. Dalton, talking to Vansittart, Dalton diary, September 19 1938.
21. Dalton diary, September 19 1938, records the meeting.
22. See National Council of Labour statement in Manchester Guard-
ian, September 20 1938.
23. Attlee to Chamberlain, September 20 1938, The Times, Septem-
ber 21.
24. Dalton diary, September 21 1938.
25. Joint Labour movement statement of September 22 1938, Man-
chester Guardian, September 22.
26. E.g. Citrine at Bristol, September 25 1938, Western Daily Press,
September 26.
27. Ibid. Greenwood reported in The Times, September 26 1938.
Attlee in Daily Herald, September 23 1938. Morrison at St Aus-
tell, September 23 1938, The Times, September 24. Daily Herald,
September 24 1938.
28. The policy referred to being the policy outlined on September 8.
Attlee to Chamberlain, September 26 1938, The Times, Septem-
ber 27. Dalton diary, September 26 1938.
29. Greenwood at Birmingham, October 8 1938, Manchester Guard-
ian October 10. Attlee at Hanley, October 8 1938, The Times,
October 10, and in London, October 20, The Times, October 21.
Morrison at Wigan, October 10 1938, Daily Herald, October 11.
National Executive statement of Labour party policy, Daily He-
rald, October 29 1938. Attlee talking at lunch, in Amery diary,
October 21 1938.
30. Attlee at West Hartlepool, October 23 1938, Manchester Guard-
ian, October 24.
31. Morrison in News Chronicle, July 17 1936, for taking it seriously.
Attlee at Blackburn, September 23 1936, Liverpool Post, Septem-
ber 24.
32. TUC meeting of September 11 1936, Daily Herald, Septem-
ber 12. Labour Party Conference, October 7 1936, Daily Herald,

October 8.
33. Cripps to R. Dodds, October 10 1939.
34. Cooke, pp. 2 2 6 - 7 quoting Cripps diary, September 28 1938.
35. Cripps to H.R. Williamson, October 6, and to A. Blenkinsop, Oc-
tober 18 1939.
36. E.g. by Morrison, Attlee, Dalton and Alexander in public speech-
es in early 1939.
37. Middleton to Cripps, December 10 1936. The speech was deliver-
ed at Stockport on November 15 1936, Manchester Guardian,
November 16.
38. Daily Herald, October 7 1937.
39. E.g. Cripps to Dallas, April 28, to Miss Forsyth, May 16, and to
Lady Mary Murray, May 18 1938.
40. For Russia see Cripps to Trevelyan, March 28 1938.
41. E.g. Dalton diary, October 6 1938.
42. Dalton diary, October 6 1938.
43. Maclean in Cook and Ramsden, p. 150.
44. E.g. Cripps to Middleton, January 9 1939, on Morrison's pro-
posed appearance with Anderson and Brown on a National Regis-
ter platform at the Albert Hall.
45. Cripps and others to National Executive, n.d. Cripps MSS 572/3.
46. Cripps to Middleton, January 9 1939.
47. Cripps and others to National Executive, n.d. Cripps MSS 572/3.
48. Cripps to Lloyd George, May 9, to Baldwin, June 13, to Chur-
chill, July 5, and to Burton, April 25, all 1939. Cooke,
pp. 2 4 2 - 3 . Estorick, p. 180.
49. For talk, see Dalton diary, April 7 1938.
50. Maclean, 'Oxford and Bridgewater', in Cook and Ramsden,
p. 146.
53. Attlee in Daily Herald, February 22 1939.
54. Greenwood at Manchester, January 14 1939, Manchester Guard-
ian, January 16.
55. Greenwood at Belper, December 4 1938, Daily Herald, Decem-
ber 5. Attlee at National Trade Union Club, October 19 1938,
The Times October 20, and at Walsall, November 11 1938, The
Times, November 12. Labour Party Executive Committee state-
ment of November 24 1938, The Times, November 25.
56. Greenwood at Belper, December 4 1938, Daily Herald, Decem-
bers.
57. Ibid.
58. Daily Herald, December 9 1938.
59. Attlee at Oldham, November 13 1938, Manchester Guardian,
November 14.
60. Attlee in Daily Herald, January 311939.
61. Greenwood at St Helens, February 3 1939, Daily Herald, Febru-
ary 4.

63. Greenwood at South Beck, April 17 1939, Manchester Guardian,
April 18. National Council of Labour statement of March 21
1939 Manchester Guardian March 22. Dalton diary, March 23
1939. Attlee at Wednesbury, March 24 1939, Birmingham Post,
March 25, and at Weston-super-Mare, April 7 1939, The Times,
April 8. Greenwood at Bradford, April 2 1939, Yorkshire Post,
April 3, and at Wolverhampton, March 19 1939, The Times,
March 20.
64. Ibid.
65. Amery diary, October 11 1938.
66. Attlee at Weston-super-Mare, April 7 1939, The Times, April 8.
67. Morrison in Forward, April 15 1939.
68. Attlee at Wednesbury, March 24 1939, Birmingham Post, March
25.
69. Dalton diary, March 23 and 30, June 28 and 29 and July 5, 10
and 12 1939.
70. Greenwood in Daily Herald, April 27 1939. National Council of
Labour statement of April 27 in Manchester Guardian, April 28
1939. Attlee in Evening Star, April 24 1939.
71. Attlee in Evening Star, April 24 1939.
72. Labour party statement of policy on the organisation of defence
services, The Times, May 8 1939. Daily Herald, June 1 1939, for
party conference debate on statement and on defence.
73. Dallas in presidential address at Labour Party Conference, May 29
1939, Daily Herald, May 30.
74. Attlee at Aston, May 15 1939, Birmingham Post, May 16.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 8
1. For even loyal Conservatives saying that Baldwin would not have
let Eden go, see Geoffrey Lloyd to Davidson, March 8 1938.
2. Chamberlain to Ida, April 10 1937.
3. Chamberlain to Amery, May 30 1937.
4. Amery diary, June 2 1937.
5. Amery diary, May 28 1937.
6. Amery diary, July 13 1937
7. Amery diary, September 21 1937 and October 23 1938 etc.
8. Amery diary, February 10 1938 and October 13 1937 (and pas-
sim 1937-8).
9. Amery to Londonderry, October 9, and diary, November 15
1937.
11. Amery diary, February 20 and 21 1938.
15. For all this see Amery diary, between March 20 1938 and May 25
1938.
19. Amery diary, September 13 and 14 1938.
20. Amery diary, September 19 1938, and to Chamberlain, Septem-
ber 17 and 19 1938, PREM 1/249.
21. Amery diary, September 22 1938. Amery to Hannon, Septem-
ber 21 1938.
23. Amery to Halifax, September 24 1938, FO 800/309.
27. Amery diary, October 5 and 21 1938.
October 20 1938. Lloyd George to Amery, October 21 1938.
28. Amery to Sinclair, October 19 1938.
30. Cecil to Halifax, November 20 1936, Add. MSS 51084.
31. Dugdale diary, December 2 1937, for Murray's age telling.
33. Cecil, memorandum on League policy, May 26 1936, Add. MSS
51083.
34. See e.g. Cecil saying that 'Nazism and Fascism [could not] last',
Cecil to Churchill, December 1 1936. Murray to Austen Chamber-
lain, April 4 1936.
35. Chamberlain to Cecil, February 15, and Cecil to Chamberlain,
February 18 1938, for Chamberlain criticising when Cecil was
present while Morrison led the singing of the Internationale after
a League of Nations Union meeting. See also the decision of
Mrs Dugdale (who was virtually a Cecil) to join the National La-
bour party in 1937, Rose, p. xvi.
36. Murray to ? , November 4 1937.
37. A great deal of the correspondence that passed between Cecil and
Murray between 1936 and 1938 refers to this dispute.
39. Cecil to Halifax, February 26, and to Murray, May 25 1938.
40. Cecil to Murray, May 25 1938.
41. Murray to Eden, June 1 1938. Cecil to Murray, August 26 and 31
1938.
42. There is a large Halifax/Cecil correspondence about the Far East,
much of which is in the Cecil papers in the British Museum.
43. Dugdale diary, September 25 1938.
44. A.J. Freshwater to Chamberlain, September 22 1938, conveying a
League of Nations Union Executive Committee resolution, PREM
1/249.
46. Maclean in Cook and Ramsden, p. 146.
47. Cecil to Eden, March 17 1939 (some of it is crossed out), Add.

MSS 51083.
49. Cecil to Noel-Baker, February 16 1939, Add. MSS 51109.
50. Cecil to Murray, September 26 1939.
51. Allen of Hurtwood to Samuel, June 15 1938.
52. Cf. rejection of the Popular Front at the Buxton Conference in
1937, News Chronicle, May 31 1937. Cf. Sinclair to A.S. Page,
July 25 1936. Sinclair to Macmillan, August 19, and to Dingle
Foot, August 27 1936.
53. Muir in News Chronicle, September 23 1936.
54. Sinclair at National Liberal Club, November 11 1936, Manchester
Guardian, November 12.
55. Crewe to Sinclair, September 25 1937.
56. Muir in Manchester Guardian, September 18 1936.
57. Muir in Manchester Guardian, September 18 and 19 1936.
58. Sinclair to Johnstone, October 30 1936. Cf. Snowden to Grigg,
December 26 1935.
59. Sinclair to Johnstone, February 17 1936 and April 27 1937.
60. Mander to Sinclair, June 20 1936. R.W. Black to Lloyd George,
July 16 1936. Sinclair to Hirst, June 26 1936, for Sinclair private-
ly hoping Noel-Baker would win.
61. Sinclair to Foot, August 27, and vice versa, September 3 1936.
Brock to Miss Mackenzie, February 19 1937, Sinclair MSS. John-
stone to Sinclair, February 17 1937.
62. Sinclair to Johnstone, August 6 1936.
63. Johnstone to Murray, February 3 1937, and to Sinclair, Febru-
ary 5 1937. Sinclair to Johnstone, February 8 1937.
64. Sinclair to Findlay, February 27 1936.
65. Sinclair to Hirst, April 4 and July 24 1936. Cf. Sinclair to Hirst,
March 2, 11 and 18 1936, and to F. Acland, March 6 1936.
66. Sinclair at Bradford, April 8 1937, Yorkshire Observer, April 9.
Sinclair, budget broadcast, April 22 1937, Manchester Guardian,
April 23. Sinclair at the 80 Club, March 10 1937, Manchester
Guardian, March 11.
67. Muir in Manchester Guardian, September 18 1936.
68. Meston to Sinclair, June 27 1937.
69. Miss Mackenzie to Brock, February 18 1938, Sinclair MSS.
70. Sinclair to Mrs Argenti, February 28 1938, and at Edinburgh,
February 25 1937, Manchester Guardian, February 26.
71. Sinclair to Johnstone, April 30 1937. Johnstone to Heffer, Au-
gust 5 1937.
72. Sinclair to Harris, September 8 1937.
73. Sinclair at Leeds, November 15 1937, Yorkshire Observer, No-
vember 17, News Chronicle, December 4 1937 and Manchester
Guardian, January 27 1938. Sinclair at Edinburgh, February 22
1937, The Scotsman, February 23. Muir at Salisbury, Febru-
ary 26 1937, Manchester Guardian, February 27. Sinclair at Pon-
typridd, February 11 1937, Manchester Guardian, February 12,
and to Crosfield, April 7 1937. Sinclair to Mrs Argenti, Febru-

ary 28 1938.
74. Sinclair at Cambridge, July 19 1937, Manchester Guardian, July
30, and to Mrs Argenti, February 28 1938. Sinclair at Manches-
ter, November 19 1937, The Times, November 20.
75. E.g. Wilfred Roberts and Eleanor Rathbone.
76. E.g. Sinclair to Mander, August 31, to Roberts, September 10,
and to Rathbone, October 24 1936.
77. Sinclair at Wick, October 1, Manchester Guardian, October 2 and,
at Berwick-on-Tweed, October 13 1937, The Scotsman, Octo-
ber 14. Miss Mackenzie to Brock, October 19 1937.
78. Sinclair at Cambridge, February 14 1938, Manchester Guardian,
February 15.
79. Sinclair to Allen of Hurtwood, March 22 1938.
80. Liberal party assembly at Bath, May 20 1938, News Chronicle,
May 21.
81. Sinclair at Barnet, July 16 1938, Manchester Guardian, July 18.
82. Sinclair at Middlesborough, March 18 1938, Manchester Guard-
ian, March 19, and at Aylesbury, May 16 1938, News Chronicle,
May 18. Sinclair to Miss Sydney Brown, September 1 1938.
84. See e.g. Spender to Harris, April 5 and 9 1938. Meston in The
Times, May 20 1938. Esher to Samuel, July 4 1938. Cf. 'Notes of
discussion at National Liberal Club June 21 1938' for the bad
effect of Popular Front on anti-socialist uncommitted voters (espe-
cially at Aylesbury by-election).
85. Sinclair to H. Alexander MP, March 17 1938.
86. Samuel at Oxford, July 31 1938, Yorkshire Post, August 1.
87. Crewe to Spender, April 30 1938. Esher to Samuel, July 4 1938.
Crewe to Sinclair, July 21 1938. Sinclair to Crewe, July 22 1938.
Meston at Bath, May 19 1938, The Times, May 20. For Muir
criticising Samuel's view that the League pace should not be
forced, Yorkshire Post, August 1 1938.
88. Miss Mackenzie to Thornborough, November 1 1938, Sinclair
MSS.
89. Miss Mackenzie to Jones, February 9 1939, Sinclair MSS.
90. Spender to Samuel, July 9 1939. Crewe to Samuel, June 26 and
July 11 1939. Spender to Simon, July 24 and October 6 1938.
Spender to The Times, July 8 1939. Hankey was in fact a friend
of Spender.
91. E.g. Harris to Sinclair, August 2 1938.
92. See e.g. Layton, p. 93, for Layton getting printing help from
Lord Southwood and the Daily Herald.
93. For a judicious Beveridge statement, see Planning under Socialism
and other Addresses, 1936.
94. Layton to Samuel, January 12 1933, Sinclair MSS.
95. Layton to Lloyd George, January 13 1935.
96. News Chronicle, August 7 1934.
97. News Chronicle, November 11 and 13 1935.
98. The Economist, February 26 1938.

99. The Economist, February 26 1938.
100. For all this see The Economist, March 19, April 2, May 14, June
11 and September 24 1938.
101. Sinclair to Worsley, December 9 1935.
102. Sinclair to Harris, February 25 1936.
103. Lay ton to Sinclair, quoted in Sinclair to Davies, September 12
1936.
104. Harris to Sinclair, September 7 1936.
105. Despite Lay ton's personal involvement at constituency level in
Chertsey and his anxiety to get the Liberal party to stand down
in favour of Lindsay in Oxford, see Sinclair to Johnstone, Febru-
ary 27 1939, and vice versa, February 28 1939, and Harris to
Sinclair, October 17 1938.
106. Layton in News Chronicle, April 7, 8 and 10 1933 and May 18
1938, and at League of Nations Union, Ilford, November 11
1938, News Chronicle, November 12.
107. See Gannon, pp. 38—42 and passim. Cf. Layton in News Chroni-
cle, March 16 1936, at Chatham House, June 29 1939, The Times
June 30, and at Kingsway Hall, London, March 30 1939, News
Chronicle, March 31.
108. For the last two paragraphs, see News Chronicle February 21 and
23, March 11 and 14, September 2 0 - 2 2 and September 30 - Oc-
tober 1, all 1938, and March 16 and April 1 1939. See also The
Economist of October 1 1938 and May 20 and July 1 1939.
109. E.g. Sinclair in Dugdale diary, September 20 1938.
110. Eden to Chamberlain, February 20 1938, resignation letter,
PREM 1/276. Eden at Leamington, February 25 1938, The
Times, February 26.
111. Simon to Eden, February 23 1938, Simon MSS.
112. Chamberlain to Eden, February 26 1938. Hankey to Robin Han-
key, March 1 1938.
113. Harvey diary March 12 to 20 1938.
115. Eden to Halifax, March 5 1938.
116. Harvey diary, March 12 1938.
117. Jones diary of May 23 1936 seems to imply the opposite.
118. Harvey diary, March 15 1938, quoting Leeper quoting Baldwin.
Harvey diary, April 13 and May 31 1938. Cadogan diary, May 7
1938, quoting Leeper probably quoting Eden. Lloyd to Davidson,
March 30 1938, for a similar view from a Chamberlainite junior
minister who had been Baldwin's private secretary.
119. Baldwin to Swinton, May 18 1938. Dugdale diary, May 22 1938,
quoting Boothby quoting Eden.
120. Eden at Grosvenor House, April 26 1938, The Times, April 27.
Harvey diary, April 22 and 25/6 and September 8 1938.
121. Eden at Leamington, May 6 1938, The Times May 7. Eden letter
to constituents in The Times, June 6 1938. Harvey diary, April
13 and May 20 1938.
122. Nicolson diary, April 11 1938. Harvey diary, June 7 1938.

123. Eden at Grosvenor House, April 26 1938, The Times, April 27,
and at Haseley Manor, June 11 1938, Birmingham Post, June 13.
124. Eden in Sunday Chronicle, August 21 1938.
125. Eden at Haseley Manor, June 11 1938, Birmingham Post, June
13, and Harvey diary, June 7 1938.
126. Harvey diary, July 2 1938.
127. Eden at Bishop Auckland, July 17 1938, Yorkshire Post, July 18,
and at Kenilworth, July 23 1938, Manchester Guardian, July 25.
128. Eden to Baldwin, August 19 1938.
129. Harvey diary, February 27 1938, for Eden more or less saying
this. Cf. Harvey diary, passim February—June 1938 (especially
February 12 1938), for his entourage saying so. Dugdale diary,
February 21 1938, for Elliot thinking it would if he resigned too.
130. The votes in a straight fight with Labour on both sides being
almost exactly the same as in 1935.
131. Dugdale diary, July 26 1938.
132. Nicolson diary, May 11, and Harvey diary, May 20 1938. See also
Boothby in Dugdale diary, May 22 1938.
133. Dugdale diary, July 26 1938.
134. Eden to The Times, September 12 1938. Harvey diary, Septem-
ber 9 and 11 1938. Liddell Hart, pp. 1 6 2 - 3 .
136. Eden at Stratford-upon-Avon, September 21 1938, Manchester
137. Eden to Chamberlain, September 28 1938. Nicolson diary, Sep-
tember 29 1938. Coote, p. 173.
139. Eden in London, September 30 1938, The Times, October 1.
140. Eden to Baldwin, September 30 1938.
142. Amery to Chamberlain, October 6 1938.
143. Halifax to Chamberlain, October 11 1938. Amery diary, Octo-
ber 6, confirms this.
144. Cecil to Murray, April 6 1936. For the doubts about universal
suffrage, see Rhodes James, Churchill, pp. 384—6.
145. Not only by standing, e.g. Dawson diary, June 1 1933, for Grigg
'heading off support from him at the Altrincham by-election by
'wobbling over India'.
146. Butler to Brabourne, November 15 1934.
147. E.g., Crawford to Linlithgow, July 10 1936, Eur.F.125 151/2.
Butler to Brabourne, June 20 1935.
148. According to Rhodes James, Churchill, p. 317, he did this at
Cunliffe-Lister's request and in the teeth of opposition from
Chamberlain.
149. Churchill to Baldwin, July 6, July 9 and October 7 1935. Bruce
Lockhart diary, September 21 1935.
151. Hoare to Chamberlain, February 23 1936.

153. Including Home, Amery, Winterton, Croft, Grigg, Wolmer, Gil-
mour, O'Neill, Lloyd, Moore-Brabazon, Fitzalan, Trenchard, Mil-
ne and Keyes. For these see Hankey to Prime Minister, July 24,
Churchill to Baldwin, July 22, Inskip to Austen Chamberlain, No-
vember 11, all 1936. All of these, together with reports of the
meetings with the deputations of July and November 1936 are in
PREM 1/193. Cf. Jones diary, July 31 1936.
154. See The Spectator, November 28 1936, p. 886 and Nicolson to
Sackville-West, December 9 1936. See also Rhodes James,
Churchill, p. 294. Churchill to Weir, May 6 1936, for an
attempt to get Weir to withhold the use of his name and author-
ity in defence of the defence programme.
155. Chamberlain to Ida, May 22 1937.
156. Churchill to The Times, April 20 1936.
157. Nicolson to V. Sackville-West, March 17 1936. Hansard (317)
col. 313 of November 5 1936. Churchill to Cecil, April 9 1936.
Hankey diary, April 20 1936.
158. Hansard (317) cols. 3 1 8 - 1 9 of November 5 1936. Nicolson dia-
ry, March 15 1937.
159. Hansard (317) cols. 3 1 1 - 1 2 of November 5 1936. Hansard (330)
col. 1838 of December 21 1937. Churchill to Linlithgow, Novem-
ber 3 1937.
160. Dugdale diary, November 18 1936.
161. Churchill to Cecil, December 2 1936. But see also Churchill to
Cecil, August 22, October 21 and November 13 1936 and April
22 1937, for the caution with which the League position was put.
162. See PREM 1/253.
163. Jones to Lady Grigg, November 3 1936.
164. Lloyd to Murray, July 6 1938. Lloyd to Chamberlain, October 6
1938.
165. D. Davies to Sinclair, April 29 and May 12 1936.
166. Churchill to Crewe, July 19 1937.
167. Hansard (326) col. 1839 of July 19 1937 and (330) col. 1831 of
December 21 1937. Citrine, p. 328. For Lindsay see Nicolson dia-
ry, June 25 1936.
168. I.e. with support from Citrine, Lytton, Noel-Baker, Angell, Steed,
Layton, Salter, Sinclair, Clynes and, in a detached way, Lloyd
George and Austen Chamberlain. Also Sandys, Oliver Locker-
Lampson, A.M. Wall, Mallon, Sir Wyndham Deeds and Guedalla.
Cf. Churchill to Cecil, October 21 1936. Steed to Sinclair, Febru-
ary 22 1937.
169. Steed to Sinclair, October 6 and 20 1936 and passim 1936/7.
Richards to Sinclair, passim 1936/7. Angell in Daily Herald,
April 19 1933. Nicolson diary, April 6 1936, July 16 1936 and
June 2 1937. See also Spier.
170. Churchill to Eden, September 9, and Secretary to Secretary, Sep-
tember 29 1937, Lloyd George MSS 9/14/5/22. Eden to Chur-
chill, September 25 1937. Richards to Sinclair, October 16 1937,
for Eden addressing the Defence of Freedom and Peace. Amery

diary, February 17 1938. Hansard (317) col. 325 of November 6
1936 and (330) cols. 1829-39 of December 21 1937.
171. For Churchill on Vansittart, see Phipps to Hankey, January 9
1938.
172. Hansard (332) col. 243 of February 22 1938.
173. Hansard (332) col. 241 of February 22 1938.
174. Hansard (333) cols. 1 4 4 4 - 7 0 of March 24 1938.
175. Cab 17(38) of March 30 reporting Halifax reporting British Am-
bassador reporting Churchill's conversation (Cf. FO 800/311).
176. Churchill to Chamberlain, March 12 1938, PREM 1/237. Marges-
son, memorandum of March 17 1938, NC 7/11/31/188.
177. Cecil to Churchill, May 24 1938. Churchill at Manchester, May 9
1938, The Times, May 10, and at Bristol, May 16 1938, The
Times, May 17.
178. I.e. Arms and the Covenant.
179. Churchill to Cecil, May 27 1938. Wilson, note of March 10 1938,
PREM 1/238. Astor to Garvin, September 2 1938.
180. See Rhodes James, Churchill, pp. 3 0 2 - 0 3 , for MacDonald, Hoare
and Neville Chamberlain all allowing him to have special access to
defence information (in addition to membership of the Air De-
fence Sub-Committee).
181. Churchill to Wood, June 9 1938, PREM 1/253.
182. Churchill to Chamberlain, May 15 1938, PREM 1/249. See also
the remarks about the possibility of a Sudeten settlement in his
Bristol speech of May 16 1938, The Times, May 17. Cf. Nicolson
diary, March 16 1938.
183. Churchill to Halifax, August 20, and to von Kleist (the agent
referred to), August 19 1938, both FO 800/309. Cf. Bruce Lock-
hart diary, July 10 1938.
184. Churchill to Halifax, August 31 1938, PREM 1/265. Halifax to
Churchill, August 3 and 23 1938. Wilson to Prime Minister, Au-
gust 31 1938, PREM 1/265.
185. Churchill to Halifax, September 3 1938, FO 800/322.
186. Ironside diary, December 6 1937, reporting Churchill. Churchill
to Linlithgow, September 23 and November 3 1937. Churchill to
Boothby, August 27 1938. Churchill, Step by Step, p. 207.
189. Harvey diary, September 20 and 21 1938.
190. Churchill to Dawson, September 24 1938, The Times Archive.
191. Dawson diary, September 26 1938.
192. Nicolson diary, September 22 and 26 1938, Amery diary, Sep-
tember 26.
193. For all this see Cranborne to Cecil, October 16 1938. For Cross-
ley and J.P.L. Thomas see Amery diary, October 11 1938. For
Macmillan and Amery see Amery diary, October 6 1938. For
Boothby see Boothby to Churchill and vice versa, October 7 and
10 1938. For Cartland see Cartland, pp. 2 1 6 - 1 7 and 2 2 8 - 9 . For
Wolmer (the MP for Chamberlain's sisters) see Chamberlain to

Hilda, November 6 1938 (and also for Gunston). For Duff Cooper
see Thompson, pp. 193-4. For Spears, see Spears, p. 19.
194. Dalton and Amery diaries, October 3 1938.
195. Churchill to Muir, October 18, and to Law, October 18 1938.
196. Churchill to Muir, November 5 1938.
197. Atholl,p. 229.
198. Churchill to Lindsay, October 19 1938. Randolph Churchill,
however, did (see Rhodes James, Churchill, p. 434).
199. Churchill to Bartlett, November 5 1938.
200. E.g. T.L. Horabin to Churchill, May 27 1939.
201. Headlam diary inter alia for October 22 1935.
202. Butler to Brabourne, March 6 and December 20 1934.
203. Despite a quarrel with Lloyd George, see Stevenson diary, May 23
1935.
204. Gilbert, Plough My Own Furrow, pp. 3 1 5 - 2 3 .
206. Thompson, p. 12, n. 16.
207. Macmillan, p. 1 1 0 - 1 1 .
208. Channon diary, July 8 1936. Macmillan memorandum, n.d. after
election of 1935, Lloyd George MSS G141/30/4. For Macmillan's
earlier attempts see Macmillan to Lloyd George, August 12, 13,
18, and 25 1936 and January 16 1937. Cf. Nicolson diary,
March 2 1936, and Headlam diary inter alia for June 6 1935.
209. For a good example, see Amery to The Times, October 6 1938.
See also Dugdale diary, September 28 1938, for Churchill report-
ed as saying 'By God, you are lucky' after he had announced the
Munich Conference.
210. Hansard (339) cols. 3 6 0 - 7 3 of October 5 1938.
211. Hansard (339) cols. 553 et seq of October 6 1938.
212. For Sandys picking up the Percy line see e.g. Nicolson diary,
July 30 1936. The best accessible account of Bracken's life and
opinions is in Rhodes James, Churchill, pp. 369—74.
213. See e.g. Channon diary, March 21 1938, and Keyes to Chatfield,
January 6 1937.
214. Sir Terence Keyes to Keyes, July 31 1933, quoting Keyes.
215. Keyes, election address at Portsmouth, February 17 1934.
216. Sir Terence Keyes to Keyes, February 2 1935, quoting Keyes.
217. For the attack and argument (including an argument in the News
Chronicle) see inter alia Keyes MSS Box 12/2.
218. For Lloyd's manner, see Zetland to Linlithgow, November 23
1936 and Dawson diary, January 11 1935. For Keyes as a speaker
see Amery diary, April 26 1939.
219. For Simon, see Simon to Mrs Chamberlain, October 6 1938. For
a similar letter, see Boothby to Chamberlain, October 6 1938 (i.e.
Churchill's speech being 'unworthy of him').
220. Except with Sidney Herbert — one of Baldwin's secretaries in the
twenties, who offered support (six months before he died) against
the 'dishonour' involved in the Munich settlement (Herbert to
Churchill, October 8 1938). Cf. Churchill to Duff Cooper, No-

vember 22, to Herbert, October 9, to Croft, October 29, and to
Londonderry, November 12, all 1938. For Chamberlain as 'the
Coroner' see Bracken to Beaverbrook, December 16 1938 and
March 16 1939.
221. Amery diary, November 29, December 9 and 15 1938 and Janu-
ary 27 1939.
222. For McKenna as part of The Focus, see Nicolson diary, April 25
1939.
223. Cf. Spender to Simon, October 6 1938, for the suspicion that
they were.
224. Meston to Sinclair, March 9 1939, and Sinclair to Meston, March
11 1939, for Meston being approached by Wai Hannington of the
Unemployed Workers' Movement and for Sinclair encouraging
Meston to talk and have lunch etc.
225. Sinclair at National Liberal Club, January 25 1939, Manchester
Guardian, January 26, at International Peace Campaign meeting,
News Chronicle, January 25 1939, and at Morecambe, February 5
1939, Manchester Guardian, February 6.
226. Sinclair to the Marchioness of Aberdeen, December 12 1938. For
Cecil, Dingle Foot, Roberts, Bartlett, Eleanor Rathbone and
Josiah Wedgwood speaking for the Duchess while Keynes, Salter,
Murray and R.W. Seton-Watson sent letters of support, see
Atholl, p. 229.
227. Sinclair to Sir Daniel Stevenson, November 4 1938.
228. Dal ton diary, December 9 1938, recording interview with Lord
Rea, the Treasurer of the Liberal party. Sinclair to Miss Lakeman,
December 9 1938.
229. Angell to Miss Aline Mackinnon, February 2 1939, Sinclair MSS.
230. General election result 1935: Conservative 17,937. Liberal 7,370,
Labour 6,240. By-election result November 17 1938: Bartlett
(Ind) 19,540, D.G. Heathcote-Amery (C) 17,280.
231. Sinclair to Miss Cooke (Bartlett's secretary), November 16 1938.
232. Johnstone to Sinclair, February 28 1939. Miss Mackenzie to
Jones, March 30 1939, Sinclair MSS.
233. Sinclair to Johnstone, December 22 1938, for importance of
Johnstone being in touch with and encouraging Hudson's Under-
secretaries' revolt.
234. Sinclair at Broughty Ferry, October 18 1938, Manchester Guard-
ian, October 19; at Aberdeen, October 21 1938, The Scotsman,
October 22; at Leeds, December 7 1938, Yorkshire Post, Decem-
ber 8; in London, March 15 1939, The Times, March 16; at 80
Club, May 24 1939, Manchester Guardian, May 25; at Wade-
bridge, July 6 1939, The Times July 7; at Stonehaven March 27
1939, Manchester Guardian, March 28; at Northampton, Novem-
ber 11 1938, Manchester Guardian, November 12; and at Scar-
borough, May 12 1939, Liverpool Post, May 13. Muir in 'West-
minster Newsletter', Manchester Guardian, November 7 1938. Cf.
Sinclair to Amery, December 13 1938. Sinclair in House of Com-
mons, Hansard (346) cols. 2 8 - 9 of April 13 1939. For Chur-

chill's response, see Hansard (345) col. 2497 of April 3 1939. For
Churchill being satisfied with Halifax see Zetland to Linlithgow,
June 27 1939, Eur.D.609. Johnstone to Sinclair, October 17
1938.
235. Nicolson diary, November 24 1938. For Hopkinson as Baldwinian
see Hopkinson to Baldwin, October 27 1935. For Spears in Paris
see e.g. Phipps to Halifax, November 4 1938, FO 800/311.
236. E.g. Nicolson diary, March 18 1936, and Dugdale diary, May 21
1937.
237. For Tree, see Tree to The Times May 17 1934. Nicolson diary,
May 19 1935, December 20 1935 and June 17 1937. See also
Cartland, pp. 1 4 0 - 7 .
238. Dugdale diary, May 21 1937. Duff Cooper to Baldwin, October 4
1938 (September 4 written), and to Halifax, March 22 1939, FO
800/315.
239. Harvey diary, October 16 1938, quoting Eden.
240. Cf. Nicolson diary of April 10 1939 making the same point about
Simon and Hore-Belisha being 'middle-class individuals' who were
flattered by the anti-German attitude of 'what they suppose with
extreme incorrectitude' to be the aristocracy. Crossley, Spears
and Nicolson all played a prominent part in the League of Na-
tions Union in 1937/8.
241. Chamberlain to Hilda, November 6 1938. For Eden agreeing to
appear at a League of Nations Union meeting, but not on a plat-
form with Attlee and Sinclair, see Cecil talking in Dugdale diary,
November 8 1938.
242. E.g. Eden on National Unity, Sunday Times, October 9 1938.
Eden at International Peace Society, October 18 1938, The
Times, October 19.
243. For Eden threatening to join with Labour and Liberals in attack-
ing the bringing into force of the Anglo-Italian agreement a week
after he had told Halifax that Mussolini no longer mattered, see
Harvey diary, October 20 1938. Channon diary, November 2
1938.
244. Baldwin to Linlithgow, MSS Eur.F.125 154/5. Harvey diary, Oc-
tober 11, 12 and 13 1938 and March 9 1939. Harvey diary, Octo-
ber 13 1938, for Baldwin doubting whether Chamberlain could
get Labour in but thinking that he might. For Baldwin as the bait
to catch Labour see Eden and Tyrrell talking in Cadogan diary,
March 28 1939. Cf. Nicolson diary, June 27 1939, for the next
election. Bruce Lockhart diary, October 17 1938, quoting Leeper.
245. Harvey diary April 16 1939.
246. *Our Foreign Policy' by Rt. Hon. Anthony Eden in Sunday
Times, February 12 1939, and Eden at Warwick, February 24
1939, Yorkshire Post, February 25.
248. Eden in House of Commons, Hansard (345) cols. 4 5 8 - 6 2 of
March 15 1939. Eden in London, March 17, Yorkshire Post,

March 18 1939.
250. Nicolson diary, June 30 1939.
251. Harvey diary, August 26 and June 5 1939.
252. See e.g. Duff Cooper's buttering-up letter to Chamberlain, De-
cember 23 1938, and Amery diary of April 20 1939 for Duff
Cooper being very violent against Chamberlain after Burgin had
been made Minister of Supply. For Amery's two offers to join the
government or do useful work see Chamberlain to Amery, Au-
gust 22, and Chamberlain to Amery, April 27 1939.
253. Rhodes James, Churchill, p. 433. See Hansard (341) cols.
1 2 1 0 - 1 4 of November 17 1938.
254. Davidson to Ball, May 9 1939, and to Wilson (same date, not
sent).
255. Amery and Nicolson diaries, June 29 1939. For the staff officer
talking more widely seeDBFP, third series, vol. VI, pp. 295—8. For
the press campaign (and the staff officer as an Intelligence/Vansit-
tart plot) see Aster, pp. 235—7.
256. Amery and Nicolson diaries July 1 1939, and Amery to Halifax,
June 30 1939, FO 800/315.
257. Harvey diary, March 31 and May 5 1939.
258. Harvey diary, June 30 and July 1 1939. Boothby to Churchill,
July 6 1939, for Coote failing with The Times. Nicolson diary,
June 30 1939.
259. For 'Liberal spirit' see Sinclair at Leominster, July 8 1939, Man-
chester Guardian, July 10. See also Jones to Grigg, May 20 1939.
Sinclair at Folkstone, July 11 1939, Manchester Guardian, July
12, and at Ayr, July 23 1939, Manchester Guardian, July 25.
260. Garvin to Astor, March 15 and 16 1939, for Garvin's hysteria at
having been bamboozled by Hitler and Ribbentrop. Cf. Garvin to
Astor, June 29 1939.
261. Garvin to Astor, March 22, June 1 and 16 1939, and Astor to
Mamhead, April 18 1939. Dawson diary, April 12 1939.
262. Dawson diary, June 27 1939.
263. Harvey diary, July 1 and 4 1939. Dalton diary, June 29 1939.
Hoare to W.W. Astor, July 11 1939. Astor to Trenchard and vice
versa, June 22—8 1939, and Astor to Greenwood and vice versa,
June 29 1939. Harvey to Astor, June 27 1939 (and Astor MSS
Box 10 File 177 passim), Nicolson diary, June 30 1939. For The
Times insisting on deleting the references to Churchill, see Nicol-
son diary, July 11 1939, and Eldor to Lady Violet Bonham-Car-
ter, n.d. Sinclair MSS. See also Garvin to Astor, July 10 1939.
264. Channon diary, July 4 and 5 1939.
265. Channon diary, July 6 1939.
266. Dawson diary, July 6 1939, quoting Chamberlain.
267. North Cornwall results 1935: Acland FD (Lib) 16,872, White-
house (C) 16,036. July 13 1939: Horabin (Lib) 17,072, White-
house (C) 15,608.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 9
1. For the Coal bill, which Chamberlain had put in the 1935 elec-
tion manifesto and which had been put off during the dilapida-
tion of 1936, see Zetland to Linlithgow, May 23 1936, Janu-
ary 25 1937 and May 1 1938. Amery diary, February 3 1938.
For NDC damaging stockbrokers and small businesses see Butler
to Brabourne, May 1 and 5 1937, and Garvin to Astor, April 21
1937.
2. Chamberlain to Hilda, July 4 and 9 1938. Amery diary, July 6
1938.
3. Astor to Garvin, July 8 and December 16 1938. Chamberlain to
Ida, December 4 and 17 1938 and January 23 1939. Williams of
Barnsbury, p. 118. For Runciman describing the Milk bill as 'so-
cialism' see Zetland to Linlithgow, December 6 1938.
4. Barrington-Ward to Dawson, April 26 1938. Chamberlain to Hil-
da, June 25 1938. Cf. Nicolson diary, May 9 1938, for Margesson
and W.S. Morrison being worried by the Liberal vote.
5. Dawson diary, October 4 1938.
6. Chamberlain to Hilda, December 11, and to Ida, December 17
1938. Chamberlain to Simon, December 16 1938. Harvey diary,
December 11 1938. Bracken to Beaverbrook, December 16
1938.
7. E.g. Chamberlain to Ida, December 4 and 17 1938.
8. For an explanation see Butler on Mann to Halifax, August 25
1938, FO 800/314. Dawson diary, April 10 1935.
9. Astor to Garvin, July 8 1938, for agriculture.
10. See e.g. Gannon, pp. 5 3 - 5 and 2 1 8 - 1 9 .
11. E.g. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 5 1939.
12. Cf. Ball to Chamberlain, June 1 1938.
13. E.g. Austen Chamberlain to Hilda, December 22 1935 (January
written).
14. Baldwin in PREM 1/223 of July 14 1936.
16. E.g. Wilson Harris, editor of The Spectator, in The Spectator, May
22 1936, and Wedgwood to Baldwin, August 27 1936.
17. Attlee to Tom Attlee, April 3 1933. Laski to Baldwin, March 3
1933. J J . Lawson to Baldwin, July 17 1935, Williams to Bald-
win, April 14 1937. Bevin to Baldwin, January 29 1937, PREM
1/206. Lansbury to Baldwin, May 23 1935. Cf. Grigg to Jones,
May 22 1935, for Baldwin 'moving Lansbury to tears'.
18. Tyrrell to Baldwin, May 29 1935.
19. Runciman to Baldwin, November 1 1935.
20. Tyrrell to Baldwin, November 1 1935.
21. Chamberlain to Baldwin, November 2 1935.
22. Baldwin at 1922 Committee dinner, May 21 1936, The Times,
May 22.
23. Baldwin at the Leys School, June 26 1936, Methodist Recorder,
July 2.
24. Bryant to Baldwin, September 22 1933.

25. Smithers to Baldwin, March 7 1934. Baldwin to Halifax, Sep-
tember 8 1933.
26. Baldwin to Halifax, September 8 1933.
27. Baldwin to Margesson, October 30 1935.
28. Channon diary, February 24 1936. Nicolson diary, February 20
1936, quoting Winterton.
29. See Foreign Affairs Committee meetings of March 12 and 17
1936inPREM 1/194.
30. For the wrangling about party funds see the extensive corres-
pondence between Croft, Gretton, Wolmer and Hacking in the
Croft papers for May and June 1936. For National Liberal and
National Labour fears, see Bernays letter to The Times of May 20
1936 and The Times leader of the same date. Cf. letters from
Nicolson, Markham, Cartland etc. in The Times of May 21 and 22
1936, Baldwin at 1922 Committee dinner of May 21 1936, The
Times, May 22, and at National Labour Group dinner of June 10
1936, The Times, June 11. For Simon see Simon to Chamberlain,
September 15 1936. For the government's 'humiliation' see Dug-
dale diary, June 17 1936.
31. For examples, see Hore-Belisha being described as a 'stormy pet-
rel' (Chamberlain to Ida, January 7 1940) and Mussolini behaving
like a 'cad and a sneak...thanks possibly to his latest amour'
(Chamberlain to Hilda, April 15 1939).
32. Halifax in Harvey diary, June 14 1939. Cf. Citrine, p. 368.
34. Halifax talking in Reith, p. 357.
35. Chamberlain to Hilda, March 5 1938. For Chamberlain as a Liber-
al see Reith, p. 352. Citrine, p. 366, for Veiled sarcasm' towards
TUC leaders other than himself. Among the many examples from
both sides of the affectation of similarity between the aristocracy
and the Labour backbenchers, see Portsmouth, p. 113, for the
Marquess of Titchfield and Maxton.
36. Chamberlain diary, January 25 1936, for Chamberlain disliking
Kipling's references to 'lesser breeds without the law'.
37. Hankey to Phipps, February 21 1938.
38. Chamberlain to Rankeillour, September 21 1937, PREM 1/223,
and Chamberlain to Hilda, November 23 1935 and March 5 1939.
39. Chamberlain diary, March 1 1936. Chamberlain to Hilda, March 5
and April 2 1939. Hankey to Robin Hankey, March 1 1938.
40. Chamberlain to Ida, February 26 1939. Cf. Chamberlain to Hilda,
April 25 1937, for Chamberlain regarding the introduction of the
NDC as 'the bravest thing' he had 'ever done' as 'I have risked the
Premiership just when it was falling into my hands'.
41. For Pitt, see Chamberlain to Petrie, April 11 1939. Hore-Belisha
diary, April 13 1938. Cf. Chamberlain to Hilda, July 28 1935, for
pride in his own work behind the scenes, even when others take
the credit.
42. Hankey diary, March 4 1934.
43. Inskip diary, January 19 1939.

44. Eden in Harvey diary, March 23 1937.
45. Austen Chamberlain to Hilda/Ida, January 13 1935, and Orms-
by-Gore to MacDonald, September 23 1933.
47. Inskip to Chamberlain, May 21 1937.
48. See The Times, July 17 1936.
49. Channon diary, September 20 1939. Cf. Crawford to Linlithgow,
June 29 1938.
50. Channon diary, October 10 1939.
51. Hore-Belisha diary, January 5 1940.
52. Chamberlain to Ida, November 26 1937, and Amery diary,
May 17 1938.
53. See e.g. Dawson diary, October 24 1938.
54. Repeated in Cabinet in June 1936.
55. Simon to Phipps, April 5 1935, FO 800/290. Headlam diary,
March 6 and 22 and May 2 1935. Amery diary, March 29 and to
Beaverbrook March 29 1935.
56. Margesson to Chamberlain, August 1 [1936], for Margesson
hoping for *a victory for the rebels in Spain and a successful
meeting of the Locarno Powers' as something the Conservative
party would be pleased by.
57. E.g. Lennox-Boyd in Hansard of March 2 1937 (321), cols.
274-5.
58. E.g. Emmott in Hansard of March 25 1937 (321) col. 3146. Croft
in Hansard, March 17 1937 (321) col. 2201. W.W. Astor in Han-
sard, March 25 1937 (321) col. 3134 and Croft in Watkins,
p. 118. For further examples from Cazalet, Channon, George Bal-
four and Sandemann (Conservative MPs) and from Lord Mount
Temple (a Conservative ex-minister), see Watkins, pp. 84, 100,
105, 117 and 138-9.
59. Croft in Hansard March 17 1937 (321) col. 2201. Cf. Heuston,
p. 489.
60. For the rise in public expenditure under the National government
and the need to reduce it, see H.G. Williams in 1922 Committee
Minute-Book for March 18 1935, December 20 1937, July 25
1938 and November 21 1938.
61. For advice on these lines at the 1922 Committee from Sir
H. McGowan, Lord Milne, W. Nunn MP, Sir F. Lindley, Sir Frede-
ric Whyte and G.W. Swire, Chairman of the China Association,
see Minute-Book for March 26 1934, May 20 1935, June 3 1935,
May 25 1936, June 28 1937, November 8 1937, and April 4
1938. It is notable that the 1922 Committee had no anti-Japanese
speakers in these years apart from Sir Bernard Pares (April 27
1936), who was a professional Russophile and described Japan's
government as 'Nazi in origin'.
62. Nicolson diary, March 23 1937.
63. E.g. Macnamara, p. 153.
64. For the feeling that there were those who did (including indirect-
ly Eden), see Butler to Brabourne, February 3 and 10 1937.

65. See H. Morrison in Election broadcast of November 7 1935, News
Chronicle, November 8.
66. For the last two paragraphs see Simon to Spen Valley newspapers
of March 9 1938, The Times, March 11, using Lansbury's (and
also Allen's and Ponsonby's) support of Chamberlain in the wake
of Eden's resignation. For McGovern in Berlin see Henderson to
Halifax, September 20 1938, FO 800/309. For McGovern and
Maxton in the Munich debate on October 4 and 5 see Hansard
(339) cols. 1 9 3 - 7 and 5 2 8 - 3 4 and Chamberlain to Hilda, Octo-
ber 9 1938. For Lansbury, see Hansard (332) of March 7 1938,
cols. 1613—19. For Noel-Buxton see Noel-Buxton to Chamber-
lain, March 18 1938, PREM 1/249, and Noel-Buxton to Halifax,
September 27 1938, FO 800/309. Cf. DGFP series D, vol. II,
no. 351 of August 13 1938, and Allen of Hurtwood to Halifax,
August 20 1938, FO 800/309. See also Anderson, p. 132. For
Lords Sanderson and Arnold see Manchester Guardian, March 9
1938, and Arnold to Chamberlain, February 22 and November 12
1938. For Sanderson supporting Hogg at Oxford by-election, see
Eatwell, p. 129. For Citrine, see e.g. Citrine, pp. 3 6 6 - 7 , Hankey
to Wilson, March 12 1938, and passim in PREM/251. Cf. Dalton
diary, April 4 1938 and June 28 1939. For disagreement between
League of Nations Union and Peace Pledge Union being incapsul-
ated by Cecil and Ponsonby, see Hansard House of Lords (112)
cols. 3 2 9 - 3 9 .
67. Allen of Hurtwood to Chamberlain, November 2 1937, PREM
1/213.
68. Gilbert, Plough My Own Furrow, ch. 26.
69. Lothian to Lady Astor, October 4 1938.
70. Samuel to Halifax, September 15, to Crewe, September 15, and
to Chamberlain, September 30 1938. Cf. Samuel memorandum of
November 23 1937.
71. E.g. Amery diary, January 31 1939.
72. Selborne to Chamberlain, Lady Day 1938.
73. W.I. Benson MP to Rushcliffe, October 16 1937, in Rushcliffe to
Chamberlain, same date.
74. Wilson to Phipps, February 2 1939.
75. G. Lloyd George to Lloyd George, March 17 1939, quoting Con-
servative MPs. Dawson to Washburn, March 28 1939, The Times
Archive.
76. E.g. Lord Lymington who had resigned from Parliament in 1934
in protest against the 'lack of principle' in politics and the govern-
ment's failure to protect agriculture (see letter to electors of
N.W. Hants Parliamentary division, February 14 1934 in Baldwin
MSS, and Portsmouth, pp. 124—5) and whom the Cabinet asked
Simon to restrain from calling public meetings against going to
war for Czechoslovakia in 1938 (Meeting of Ministers of Sep-
tember 13 1938 in Cab 27/646).
77. Sir Terence O'Connor (the Solicitor-General) to Chamberlain, Oc-
tober 1 1938, quoting Pitt in NC 13/11.

78. Beaverbrook to Winterton, December 6 1938, asking Winterton
(as minister in charge of the refugee question) for *strict limita-
tions' on Jewish immigration.
79. For some of these sentiments (especially those which identified
Communism as a Jewish conspiracy) see Cowling, ch. IV.
80. See e.g. H.G. Williams to Beaverbrook, October 1 1938.
81. E.g. Sir Hugh O'Neill to Chamberlain, October 4 1938 in NC
13/11, and Somerset de Chair in Hansard (49Iff.) of March 15
1939.
82. Bracken to Beaverbrook, March 16 1939.
83. Cecil to Cranborne, October 9 1935, for a good example.
84. Londonderry to Halifax, July 20 1938, FO 800/309, and Dawson
to Nigel Law, October 4 1938, The Times Archive. For Benes
being unhelpful by strengthening French resistance to disarma-
ment plans in early 1934, see Cab 27/506 of March 6 1934. For
loyalty see Lennox-Boyd reported in News Chronicle, March 21
1938 (shortly after becoming a junior minister). For communism,
see J.S. Wedderburn (Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office) to
Chamberlain, October 3 1938 in NC 13/11.
85. Gilmour in Hansard (339) col. 511 of October 6 1938.
86. Wardlaw-Milne (col. 394) and Croft (col. 374) in Hansard (339)
of October 5 1938. H.G. Williams to Beaverbrook, October 1
1938.
87. Moore and Fyfe in Hansard (339) cols. 238 and 247 of October 4
1938.
88. Croft in Hansard (339) col. 374 of October 5 1938.
89. Wardlaw-Milne in Hansard (339) col. 394 of October 5 1938. Miss
Horsbrough to Mrs Chamberlain, September 28 1938, Beamish to
Mrs Chamberlain, September 29 1938, and Ball to Mrs Chamber-
lain, September 28 1938, all in NC 13/11 (together with other
similar letters).
90. Hansard (339) col. 49 of October 3 1938.
91. Halifax to Linlithgow, December 5 1937, for Halifax's animad-
versions on Hore-Belisha's failure as a gentleman.
92. For the last three paras see Irwin (Halifax) pp. 2 2 4 - 7 and ed.
Bryant, Constructive Democracy, pp. 42—50.
93. Chamberlain diary, October 21 1935, for Halifax disliking this
about Churchill.
94. Jones diary, May 23 1936.
95. Halifax to Chamberlain, March 15, and Chamberlain diary,
March 16 1934.
96. E.g. Harvey diary, December 5 1937.
97. For a good example of practical idealism see Harvey diary, April
12 1937, reporting Halifax expressing the view that 'on the long
view HMG do stand for decency and morality*.
98. Halifax to Linlithgow, April 24 1936. Halifax to Cecil, Decem-
ber 23 1937 and March 1 and 21 1938.
99. Halifax at Cab 1(37) of January 13.
100. Halifax to Chamberlain, November 6 1937 and November 8

1937, PREM 1/330. Halifax to Ormsby-Gore, November 12
1937, Halifax MSS.
101. Halifax in FP (36) 39 of November 26 1937 in Cab 27/626.
102. Samuel, memorandum of conversation with Halifax, Novem-
ber 23 1937. Channon diary, December 5 1937. Halifax to Bald-
win, November 15 1937, and to Linlithgow, December 5 1937.
103. Halifax in FP 39(36) of November 26 1937, Cab 27/626. Lady
Astor to Lothian, November 27 1937, quoting Halifax.
104. Halifax to Southwood, November 25 and December 1 1937, and
to Henderson, December 9 1937, all Halifax MSS.
105. Harvey diary, January 19 1938.
106. E.g. Halifax to Chamberlain, August 18 and 19 1937, PREM
1/276. Halifax to Chamberlain, November 6 and 8 1937, PREM
1/330. Halifax to Eden, October 27 1937, PREM 1/330. Cham-
berlain to Hilda, October 24 1937. For an example of animosity,
see Eden at Cab 5(38) of February 16.
107. Chamberlain diary, February 19 1938. Halifax to Chamberlain,
August 11 1937, PREM 1/276.
108. Dawson diary, February 20 1938.
109. Halifax, [A] Record [of Events Connected with Anthony Eden's
Resignation February 19th-20th 1938], Harvey diary, Febru-
ary 20 1938.
110. Halifax,'Record'.
111. Cadogan diary, February 21 1938, for Halifax seeing all the dif-
ficulties and not certain whether to accept if offered.
112. E.g. Cab 11(38) of March 9.
113. Cab 21(38) of April 27.
114. Halifax to Runciman, March 30, Hore-Belisha diary, April 5, and
Amery diary March 31, all 1938.
115. Halifax at Cab 31(38) of July 6 and Halifax to Linlithgow, July 1
1937. For Paul-Boncour see Halifax to Phipps, April 3 1938, FO
800/311.
116. Cab 14(38) of March 16 and Harvey diary, July 4 1938.
117. Halifax to Cecil, July 12 1938.
118. Crozier, interview with Halifax, July 12 1938.
119. Halifax to Henderson, March 19 1938, FO 800/313. Harvey dia-
ry, March 19 1938. Halifax to Chamberlain, April 14 1938,
PREM 1/308. Kordt to F.M. in DGFP series D, vol. II, no. 139 of
April 29 1938.
120. For a good example see FO 800/313, fols. 1 3 - 2 8 and 3 3 - 4 .
121. Cab 11(38) of March 9 1938.
122. Halifax at Cab 5(38) of February 16.
123. Ribbentrop, memorandum of March 11 1938, in GFD no. 150,
DGFP series D. Harvey diary, March 19 1938. Halifax to Astor,
June 22 1938, FO 800/309.
124. Cadogan diary, March 11 1938.
126. Halifax, in CP 67(38) of March 13 (Cab 24/275), at Cab 13(38)
of March 14, to Chamberlain, March 19 (PREM 1/266A) and in

'Possible Measures to Avert German Aggression' for Foreign Poli-
cy Committee of March 21 1938 in PREM 1/266A.
127. Harvey diary, April 27 and 28 1938.
128. Halifax at Cab 24(38) of May 18, at Cab 26(38) of May 25 and in
CP 127(38) of May 24.
129. Cabinet Committee of June 16 1938 in Cab 27/624. Halifax to
Chamberlain, June 9 1938, PREM 1/360. Cadogan diary, May 24,
June 8 and 17 1938. For Eden, see Harvey diary, May 31 1938.
130. Burckhardt, the Danzig High Commissioner, in GFD, May 25
1938, DGFP, series D.
131. Nicolson diary, May 26 1938.
132. Halifax to Henderson, August 5 1938, FO 800/314.
133. E.g. Halifax at Cab.21(38) of April 27.
134. E.g. Halifax at Cab 21 (38) of April 27 and Cab 22(38) of May 4.
Cabinet Committee of April 7 1938 in Cab 27/623.
135. Cab 31(38) of July 6 and Cab 32(38) of July 13 and CP 152(38)
of July 1 Cab 24/277.
136. Halifax to Chamberlain, June 2 1938, FO 800/318 and CP
163(38) of July 7.
138. Cabinet Committee of June 16 1938 in Cab 27/624.
139. Cab 26(38) of May 25. For Halifax insisting on an inter-depart-
mental committee to counter German economic expansion in the
Balkans, see Cabinet Committee of June 1 1938 in Cab 27/623
and Cab 28(38) of June 15.
141. Amery diary, April 16 1938. Halifax to Dawson, June 15 1938,
FO 800/309. Cab 26(38) of May 25.
142. Chamberlain to Hilda, March 13, May 22, July 9 and August 13
1938. But see Harvey diary, July 1 9 - 2 4 1938 for Halifax beginn-
ing to be annoyed at not being consulted.
143. E.g. Harvey diary, May 19 1938.
144. Cab 13(38) of March 14 and Cab 16(38) of March 23.
145. Harvey diary, May 18 1938.
147. Nicolson to V. Sackville-West, May 18 1938, quoting de la Warr
quoting Halifax.
148. Harvey diary, February 26 1938.
149. Hansard (109) col 215.
151. Inskip diary, September 12 1938. Halifax talking, in Bruce Lock-
hart diary, April 4 1938. Halifax to Churchill, August 31 1938.
Halifax, memorandum of talk with Attlee and Greenwood, Sep-
tember 16 1938, FO 800/309. Hankey to R. Hankey, April 3
1938.
152. For all this see Meeting of Ministers of August 30 1938 in Cab
23/94 and Cab 37(38) of September 12.
153. And Cadogan.
154. Wilson, notes for Prime Minister, September 1 and 5 1938, PREM
1/265. Harvey diary, September 6 and 8 1938. Inskip diary, Sep-
tember 8 1938.
155. Harvey diary, September 6 and 9, Cadogan diary, September 4, 6,
8 and 10 1938. Wilson to Henderson, September 9, PREM 1/265,
and Henderson to Wilson, September 9 and 10 1938, PREM
1/266A. Wilson, note of meeting of September 10 1938, PREM
1/266A.
156. Harvey diary, September 9 1938, quoting Eden quoting Halifax.
158. See e.g. Dawson diary, September 7 1938, for Halifax not object-
ing to Dawson's advocacy of territorial dismemberment (see
above p. 186). This entry should, however, be used cautiously
since Halifax knew but did not tell Dawson that Chamberlain was
thinking of flying to Germany.
159. See above pp. 1 9 2 - 5 .
160. Cab 42(38) of September 24, fols. 182 and 189.
161. Cab 43(38) of September 25, fo. 199. Harvey diary, Septem-
ber 26 1938. Cadogan diary, September 25 1938. Elliot to his
wife, September 25 1938.
162. Cab 46(38) of September 27. Cadogan diary, September 27.
163. E.g. Halifax to Phipps, September 27 1938 8.30 p.m., DBFP third
series, vol. II, pp. 575—6.
164. Elliot to his wife, September 25 1938, says Halifax had lost a
stone in weight.
165. Cecil says 'disgustingly good', Harvey diary, October 3 1938.
166. Jones to Fisher, October 5 1938.
167. Harvey diary, October 1 1938.
170. Channon diary, September 30 1938, quoting Lennox-Boyd.
171. E.g. Sargent and Cadogan memoranda of September 20 1938 in
PREM 1/266A.
172. E.g. Sinclair at National Liberal Club, September 21 1938 Man-
chester Guardian, September 22. National Council of Labour re-
solution of September 21 in Manchester Guardian, September 22.
173. I.e. Hardinge in Harvey diary, September 19, 20 and 25 1938.
174. Nicolson diary, September 19 and Harvey diary, September 20
1938.
175. Cecil to Halifax, September 20 1938.
176. Lloyd to Halifax, September 12 1938, FO 800/309.
178. See e.g. Cadogan diary, October 19 1938. Halifax, Fullness of
Days, pp. 199-200. Harvey diary, October 11 1938, quoting
Eden quoting Halifax. Halifax to Chamberlain, October 11 1938.
179. Halifax and Chamberlain to Runciman, October 20 1938. Samuel
memorandum of October 26, and to Crewe, October 27 1938.
Crewe to Samuel (telegram and letter), October 26 1938. Cham-
berlain to Hailsham, October 21 1938.
180. Burgin to Halifax, January 2, and vice versa, January 6 1939, FO

800/315, and Harvey diary, February 17 1939.
181. Halifax to Phipps, October 25 and November 1 1938, FO
800/311.
182. Harvey diary, January 14 1939, quoting Halifax talking in the
train on the way back.
183. Halifax at Cab 60(38) of December 21.
184. Cadogan diary, February 6 1939.
185. Halifax to Henderson, February 20 1939, FO 800/315.
186. Cab 53(38) of November 7.
187. Halifax at Cab 57(38) of November 30.
188. See Cab 55(38) of November 16 and Cab 27/624 of January 23
and 26 1939.
189. Halifax at Cabinet Committee of November 14 and 21 1938 in
Cab 27/624.
190. Halifax at Cabinet Committee of January 23 1939 in Cab 27/624.
191. Cab 5(39) of February 2. Pownall diary, dated January 30 1939.
192. Halifax to Henderson, February 20 1939, FO 800/315.
193. He is thus described by Admiral Sir Reginald Hall, the Die Hard
ex-chairman of the Conservative party in a letter to Keyes on
March 12 1940.
194. Cadogan diary, November 28 1938 quoted in Dilks, p. 127. For
example of Chamberlain by-passing Halifax over Norman's visit to
Germany in January 1939 see Cadogan diary, January 3 and 4
and Harvey diary, January 4 1939. Cf. Chamberlain to Hilda,
November 6 1938 (for Chamberlain saying he would 'take Halifax
with me to Rome but the important talks would be between
Musso and myself) and Chamberlain to Ida, February 26 1939
(for Chamberlain suspecting that Halifax agreed with Eden that
Chamberlain had changed his policy — which Chamberlain did
not believe).
195. Eden in Harvey diary, October 16 1938.
196. Hankey to Phipps, January 11 1938.
197. Bruce Lockhart diary, January 13 1938. Vansittart 4/4 for nego-
tiations with Lord Howard de Walden about Vansittart standing
as an independent Conservative in Marylebone in January 1939.
198. Lammers, 'From Whitehall after Munich* pp. 8 3 7 - 8 and 8 4 7 - 9
(for Cadogan) and passim for Strang, Collier and Ashton-Gwat-
kin. ColvUle, p. 115. Barrington-Ward to Dawson, October 13
1938, The Times Archive. Cadogan diary, October/November
1938. Strang, p. 146. Bruce Lockhart diary, October 21 1938.
199. Cadogan, memoranda for Halifax, February 26 1939, FO
800/294.
200. Ibid, for Cadogan mentioning that Vansittart was now saying 'as
an absolute fact' that Hitler was going to 'engulf Czechoslovakia
in May' a few weeks after he had been 'going about London
assuring people that Hitler was coming West'. See also Hankey to
Robin Hankey, April 3 1938, for Vansittart wanting French inter-
vention in Spain and a British commitment to Czechoslovakia.
For Cadogan's anxiety to show that he was in change of the

Foreign Office, see Cadogan to Phipps, January 11 1938.
201. For the claim that Halifax got his Intelligence information from
Vansittart, see Pownall diary, January 23, February 6 and 13
1939. For Vansittart as Dalton's secret adviser, see Dalton diary,
November 4 1937, April 12 1938, May 3 and 7 1939 zxid passim.
See Hankey diary, October 2 1938 and 'Notes on Conversation
with H. Wilson', October 4 1938, in Hankey MSS 8/32. See also
Waterfield, p. 225, and Vansittart to Halifax, September 17 1938,
FO 800/311.
202. Phipps to Halifax, April 11 1938.
203. Phipps to Halifax, March 18, 22 and 30 and April 11 and 13 1938
and November 7 1938 in FO 800/311.
204. Phipps to Halifax, April 19, June 23 and November 7 1938, all
FO 800/311.
205. Phipps to Halifax, April 19, September 14 and December 5 1938,
FO 800/311.
206. Phipps to Halifax, September 16 1938, FO 800/311.
207. Phipps to Halifax September 14 and 17 1938, FO 800/311.
208. Phipps to Halifax, June 16 1938, FO 800/311.
209. Phipps to Halifax, June 23 1938, FO 800/311.
210. PKipps to Halifax, April 28, May 8, June 22 and July 7 1939, FO
800/311.
211. Phipps to Halifax, March 17 1939, FO 800/315.
212. Phipps to Wilson, December 13 1938 and January 27 1939. Wil-
son to Phipps, November 8 1938 and February 2 1939.
213. Phipps to Halifax, March 18, 22, 27 and 28 FO 800/311, and to
Chamberlain, September 30 1938 in NC 13/11.
214. Phipps to Halifax, November 7 1938, FO 800/311.
215. Henderson to Halifax, October 29 1937, Halifax MSS.
216. Cameron, p. 138, quoting Henderson to Lothian, May 25 1937.
217. Henderson to Halifax, November 4 and 23 1937, Halifax MSS,
and February 27, March 2 and 16 1938, FO 800/313.
218. Henderson to Halifax, August 23 1938, FO 800/314.
219. Henderson to Halifax, November 23 1937, Halifax MSS.
220. Henderson to Halifax, February 27 1938, FO 800/313, and Irv-
ing, p. 49.
221. Henderson to Halifax, April 7 and 13 1938, FO 800/313, and
August 12 1938, FO 800/314.
222. Henderson to Halifax, May 19 1938, FO 800/313.
224. Henderson to Halifax, August 22 and 23 1938, FO 800/314.
225. Henderson to Halifax, July 18 and August 6 1938, FO 800/314.
226. Henderson to Halifax, March 29 and May 24 1938, FO 800/313,
and September 13 1938, FO 800/314.
227. Henderson to Halifax, August 6 and 8 and 22 and September 9,
1938, FO 800/314.
228. Henderson to Chamberlain, September 30 (Chamberlain MSS)
and to Halifax, October 6 1938, FO 800/314.
229. Henderson to Halifax, October 11 and 12 1938, FO 800/314,

also Henderson to Halifax, October 6 1938, FO 800/314, and
February 1 1939, FO 800/315.
230. Henderson to Halifax, February 15 1939, FO 800/315.
231. Henderson to Halifax, February 22 and 23 and March 15 1939,
FO 800/315, and to Cadogan, March 9 1939, FO 800/294.
232. Henderson to Cadogan, May 10 1939, loc. cit.
233. Henderson to Halifax, March 15 1939, FO 800/315. Vansittart
memoranda of February 17 1939 on Henderson to Halifax, Feb-
ruary 15 1939, FO 800/315.
234. Dawson diary, February 11 1939. Henderson to Halifax, April 5
1939, FO 800/313, and February 22 1939, FO 800/315. Hender-
son to Halifax, March 16 and April 5 1938, FO 800/313, and
February 22 1939, FO 800/315.
235. Halifax to Henderson, July 28 1939, FO 800/316. Cadogan note
on Henderson to Halifax, May 10 1939, FO 800/294, and Sargent
note of June 14 1939 in FO 800/315 and on Henderson to Hali-
fax, February 22 1939, FO 800/315.
236. Henderson to Halifax, July 17 1939, FO 800/316.
237. For all this see Henderson to Cadogan May 14 and 31 and July 4
1939, FO 800/294. Henderson to Halifax April 26, May 28, June
8, 14, 17 and 24 and July 14 and 17 1939, all FO 800/315-16.
238. Henderson to Halifax, July 17 1939, FO 800/316.
239. Henderson to Cadogan, August 7 and 9 1939, FO 800/294.
240. Henderson to Halifax, August 22 and 24 1939, FO 800/316.
242. See Vansittart memoranda of April 23 1938 (Van 2/35) and of
March 15 1939 (Van 2/43), to Halifax of August 31 and Septem-
ber 16 1938 (FO 800/314), note on Henderson to Halifax Au-
gust 6 1938 (FO 800/314) and on ibid, of February 15 1939 (FO
800/315). See also Vansittart in FP(36) 74 of January 20 1939
(for Cabinet Committee, Cab 27/627) and Sargent, note on Hen-
derson to Halifax February 22 1939 (FO 800/315). Cf. Aster,
p. 2 0 2 - 3 .
243. See Halifax memorandum in FP (36) 74 of January 20 1939
(Cab 27/627) for this view and for Vansittart's views being pre-
sented to the Foreign Policy Committee of the Cabinet.
244. Channon diary, February 16, Harvey diary, February 17, Amery
diary, February 17, all 1939.
245. Harvey diary, January 29, February 17 and March 2 1939. Dalton
diary, May 5 1939, for Lady Vansittart reporting Vansittart. Ni-
colson diary, February 22 and March 9 1939. Cf. Cranborne talk-
ing, in Nicolson diary, November 15 1938.
246. Hansard, House of Lords (111) cols. 936-42 of February 23
1939. Cadogan diary, passim 1939. Harvey diary, February 28
247. Cadogan diary, March 10 1939, and Halifax to Chamberlain,
March 10 1939, and vice versa, March 11.
248. For Halifax letting it be known that it was Chamberlain who
NOTES TO CHAPTER 9, p. 290 505
would not have Eden back, see Lady Astor to Lothian, Janu-
ary 12 1939.
249. Harvey diary, January 14 1939.
250. Harvey diary, February 22 1939, quoting Eden quoting Stanley.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 10
1. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 19 and to Ida, February 26
1939.
3. See e.g. Cab 55(38) of November 16, Cab 57(38) of November 30
and Cab 58(38) of December 7. Cabinet Committee of Decem-
ber 6 1938, Cab 27/624.
4. Halifax at Cab 57(38) of November 30.
5. For the announcement, see Inskip in Hansard (339) col. 303.
Harvey diary of March 14 1939. Halifax to Selborne, October 18
1938 (MS Selborne 87). See also Chamberlain in Aster, p. 27.
6. Duke of Devonshire, i.e. Macmillan's brother-in-law, who was
closely connected with the Cecil family, was an admirer of Inskip
(see below pp. 338—40) and had been a vice-president of the India
League, at Eastbourne, March 16 1939, quoted in Williams, p. 90.
7. Chamberlain at Birmingham, March 17 1939, The Times, March
18.
9. Cab 11(39) of March 15 and Cab 12(39) of March 18.
10. For the recollections of the Rumanian Minister in London and
Foreign Office reactions (but coupled with some possible over-
estimate of the significance of the episode) see Aster, pp. 61—74.
11. Cab 12(39) of March 18. COS of March 18 in Cab 53/10.
12. Cab 13(39) of March 20.
13. Halifax at Cab 13(39) of March 20.
14. Halifax at Cab 14(39) of March 22 and Cab 15(39) of March 29.
Harvey diary, March 20 1939. Mallet to Rootham of March 26
1939 enclosing Halifax memorandum in PREM 1/321.
15. Cab 15(39) of March 29. Chamberlain to Ida, March 26 1939.
Cadogan diary, March 2 8 - 3 1 1939.
16. Harvey diary, March 29 1939. Halifax at Cab 16(39) of March 30.
Cadogan diary, March 2 9 - 3 1 1939. Chamberlain to Hilda, April
2 1939, makes it clear that the account given of Hitler's inten-
tions by Ian Colvin, the News Chronicle correspondent, seemed
so highly coloured when Halifax brought him to see Chamberlain
that he did not really believe what he said until his account was
confirmed by other (presumably Intelligence) sources.
17. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 2 1939.
18. For a summary of the military situation, see Aster, pp. 115—151.
19. It was primarily with a view to putting the anti-aircraft defences

on a regular basis, that he adopted Conscription, which previously
he had rejected, see Cab 21(39) of April 19. Wilson to Chatfield,
April 9 1939, PREM 1/306. Pownall diary dated April 3 1939.
Cab 21(39) of April 19 and Cab 22(39) of April 24. Chamberlain
in Hansard (339) col. 474 of October 6 1938. Cab 26(39) of
May 3.
20. Chamberlain at Cab 12(39) of March 18 1939. Halifax at Cab
16(39) of March 30. Chamberlain to Ida, March 26 and July 23
21. The last three not reciprocating very strongly.
23. E.g. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 29, and Chamberlain diary, May
15 1939, for Chamberlain telling Kemsley to ignore the German
Ambassador's claim that Anglo-German friendship was growing,
justifying this advice with the claim that British firmness must be
starting to bite if Dirksen thought it plausible to persuade a major
newspaper owner it was so.
25. See Chamberlain to Hilda, April 2 1939. For Chamberlain being
'fussed' when the BBC claimed that Poland alone was to be judge
of aggression and for the denial he issued when Beaverbrook and
The Times accurately expressed his own opinion, see Harvey dia-
ry, April 3 1939.
26. Channon diary, May 1 1939, Harvey diary, May 3 and Rushcliffe
to The Times, May 2 1939. Cadogan diary, April 20 and May 22
1939. See also DBFP third series, vol. V, pp. 5 9 9 - 6 0 0 , 653, 682,
690 and 730 and vol. VI, pp. 1 9 8 - 2 0 1 , 211 and 4 3 2 - 3 .
27. Chamberlain to Hilda, May 14 and July 15 1939. For the Foreign
Office being hard put to find ways of making sure that Hitler did
know, see Aster, pp. 199—201.
28. Chamberlain to Hilda, July 2 1939. Ironside diary, July 10 1939,
reporting Chamberlain.
29. See Aster, pp. 203—05.
30. Chamberlain to Ida, July 23, and to Hilda, July 30 1939.
31. Cab 35(39) of July 5.
33. For (usually self-appointed) mediators (e.g. Tennant, Roden Bux-
ton, Mackenzie King and Kemsley), see Aster, pp. 251—6.
34. Conducted by Norman, Stanley, Hudson, Wilson and Ashton-
Gwatkin.
35. For the last three paragraphs see Wendt and MacDonald.
36. Hudson, memorandum of July 20 1939 in PREM 1/330.
37. DGFP series D, vol. VI, no. 380 of May 14 1939 (Notes on a
conversation with Mr Drummond-Wolff).
38. For the Wohltat negotiations see Hudson to Churchill, June 30
1939, and memorandum of July 20 1939 in PREM 1/330. Cham-
berlain to Ida, July 23, and to Hilda, July 30 1939. Harvey diary,
July 23 1939. Butler to Wilson, August 2 1939, PREM 1/330.
Wilson notes of August 4 and 8 1939 in PREM 1/330, and of

August 21 1939 in PREM 1/331A. Also GFD passim in July and
August 1939, DGFP, series D.
39. I.e. through the policy imposed by Chamberlain, Malcolm Mac-
Donald, Halifax and the Committee on Palestine. For the India
Office and Chiefs of Staff views of the importance of the 'Moslem
World', see CP 28(39) of January 30 and CP 7(39) of January 16
1939.
40. Chamberlain to Phipps, June 19 1939. Cab 33(39) of June 21.
For the Far East see Stanhope to Halifax, May [18] 1939, FO
800/322. CID of May 2 1939. Runciman to Chamberlain, June
19 1939, PREM 1/316. Halifax to Chamberlain, June 19 1939,
and PREM 1/316 passim. Chamberlain to Ida, June 25 1939. Ca-
dogan diary, June 15, 19 and 20 and August 10 1939.
41. Cab 14(39) of March 22. Wilson note of March 23 1939, PREM
1/329. Chamberlain to Mussolini March 20 and 31 1939 (drafts
with comments in PREM 1/327).
42. Chamberlain to Ida, April 9 1939. Harvey diary, April 9 1939.
For Foreign Office belligerence, see Cadogan diary, April 7 and 8
1939.
43. Cab 13(39) of March 20, 14(39) of March 22 and 21(39) of
April 19. Cadogan diary, April 8, 9, 10 and 11 1939.
44. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 15 1939. Cab 20(39) of April 13 and
24(39) of April 26.
45. Cab 21 (39) of April 19.
46. The new British Ambassador to Italy.
48. Harvey diary, April 29 1939. Chamberlain to Hilda April 29
1939.
49. Halifax at Cab 19(39) of April 10 and at Conference of Ministers,
April 8 1939 in Cab 23/98.
50. For this, see the three-cornered correspondence between Phipps,
Chamberlain and Daladier in PREM 1/329. Halifax to Chamber-
lain, August 14 1939, PREM 1/331A and Loraine to Halifax,
May 16, July 4, July 8, July 21 and August 1 1939.
52. Hore-Belisha diary, April 17 to 19 1939. Pownall diary dated
April 14 1939. Wilson, note of March 29 1939, PREM 1/296 has
Halifax. Wilson, note of April 9 and 11 1939, PREM 1/336.
55. I.e. because of the Left in France as well as England see Chamber-
lain at Foreign Policy Committee of March 27 1939 in Cab
24/284.
56. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 29, and to Ida, March 26 and May 21
1939.
57. Cabinet Committee on Foreign Policy, May 19 1939.
58. Dawson diary, April 27 1939.
59. See Cab 26(39) of May 3, 27(39) of May 10, 28(39) of May 17
and 30(39) of May 24.
60. See Aster, passim, for Intelligence predictions of a Russo-German
pact.
61. Cab 20(39) of April 13 to Cab 30(39) of May 24. Cabinet Com-
mittee of May 19 1939.
62. E.g. Halifax to Colville, May 26 1939, FO 800/311 and Loraine
to Halifax, August 1 1939, FO 800/319.
63. Cabinet Committee on Foreign Policy of May 16 1939 and Cab
30(39) of May 24. Chamberlain seems to have been supported
only by Zetland and Stanhope in the Cabinet. For the ambiguity
of the Dominions position, see CP 193(39) of May 22.
64. Cabinet Committee of June 26 and July 19 1939. Cadogan diary,
May 16 1939. Chamberlain to Hilda, May 28, July 2 and 15
1939.
65. For the negotiations in general, see PREM 1/409.
66. Chamberlain to Ida, April 23, and to Hilda, April 15, May 14 and
June 17 1939.
67. Chamberlain to Ida, February 26, and to Hilda, April 29 and
May 14 1939.
68. E.g. Chamberlain to Hilda, July 30 1939.
69. Chamberlain to Hilda, March 5 and April 15 1939. For Addison
(also being a 'miserable cur'), see Chamberlain to Hilda, Novem-
ber 17 1935.
70. Hore-Belisha and Channon diaries, March 28 1939. Wilson, note
of March 29 1939, PREM 1/296. Cab 21(39) of April 19, fo. 334.
Cab 22(39) of April 24. Chamberlain to Ida, February 26 1938.
71. Chamberlain, talking to German Ambassador, in DGFP series D,
vol. IV GFD, no. 300 of January 25 1939.
72. Chamberlain to Hilda April 15 1939. Cab 20(39) of April 13.
73. Chamberlain to Hilda, March 5 and August 5 1939, and to Ida,
October 22 1938. Cf. Chamberlain to Sinclair, February 6 and 7
1939. For Chamberlain refusing to let Samuel consult Sinclair,
see Samuel, p. 279. For Chamberlain's opinion of Samuel, see
Chamberlain to Hilda, November 17 1935.
75. Chamberlain to Ida, February 26 and 12 1939.
76. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 2 and 15, and to Ida, June 10 1939.
78. Chamberlain to Ida, December 11 1938 and August 5 1939. Cf.
Chamberlain to Churchill, October 5 1938.
80. Chamberlain to Hilda, November 6 1938 and April 15 1939.
Churchill to Chamberlain, April 9 1939.
81. Churchill to Chamberlain, March 27 1939, PREM 1/345.
82. E.g. Chamberlain to Ida, October 9 1938. Cab 26(39) of May 3.
83. Chamberlain to Ida, April 9, and to Hilda, April 15 1939.
84. Chamberlain to Ida, July 8 1939, for Randolph Churchill,
Michael Berry, Maisky and Camrose all being in it together.

85. Chamberlain to Ida, June 10 1939.
86. See e.g. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 15 1939, for Churchill offer-
ing himself after Albania.
87. Chamberlain at Cab 38(39) of July 19. Chamberlain to Ida or
Hilda, April 29 1939.
88. Halifax to Chamberlain, August 14, Syres to Chamberlain, Au-
gust 13 1939, both in PREM 1/331 A.
89. Halifax to Chamberlain, August 19 1939, PREM 1/331A (drafted
by Cadogan). Halifax, 'Record' in FO 800/317, August 19 1939.
90. Halifax, 'Record', August 21 1939.
91. Chamberlain to Amery, August 22 1939.
92. Cab 41 (39) of August 22.
93. See n. 94.
94. But not by Chamberlain or a special ambassador because that
would look like a panic-stricken reaction to the agreement or a
repetition of Munich, see Halifax to Chamberlain, August 19
1939, PREM 1/331A, and Zetland to Linlithgow, August 27
1939, Eur.D.609.
95. Chamberlain to Hitler, August 22 1939, in DBFP third series,
vol. VII, pp. 1 2 7 - 8 .
96. DBFP third series, vol. VII, pp. 1 6 1 - 3 .
97. Hitler to Chamberlain, August 23 1939, in DBFP third series,
vol. VII, pp. 1 7 2 - 3 .
98. Inskip diary, August 25 1939. Zetland to Linlithgow, August 27
1939,Eur.D.609.11.
99. DBFP third series, vol. VII, p. 195.
100. Cab 42(39) of August 24. Halifax 'Record', August 24.
DBFP third series, vol. VII, pp. 1 4 6 - 7 and 1 8 5 - 6 .
101. Chatfield, note for Prime Minister of August 24, and Hore-Belisha
to Chamberlain, August 23 and 24, all 1939, PREM 1/312.
102. Henderson at Cab 43(39) of August 26.
103. Chamberlain to Hilda, August 27 1939.
104. Henderson telegram nos. 458, 459 and 461 in DBFP third series,
vol. VII, pp. 2 2 7 - 3 1 and 235.
105. Cab 43(39) of August 26.
106. Wallace diary of August 26 1939. The drafting committee certain-
ly consisted of Chamberlain, Simon and Halifax. It appears also
to have included Cadogan and Butler, and perhaps Wilson. See
Pownall diary, August 29 1939, for Chamberlain draft being 'al-
most cringing in tone'.
107. Postponed from the morning in order to enable Chamberlain to
talk to Dahlerus. Inskip and Wallace diaries, August 27 1939.
108. Zetland to Linlithgow, August 27 and 29 Eur.D.609. Harvey,
Amery and Wallace diaries, August 27 1939. Cadogan diary, Au-
gust 27 and 28 1939. Inskip diary, August 25 1939, for the secret
nature of Loraine's information. Chamberlain at Cab 45(39) of
August 28. Ashton-Gwatkin, note of talk with a confidant of
Goerdeler, August 27 1939, PREM 1/331A. Cab 43(39) of Au-

gust 26 and 44(39) of August 27. Loraine to Halifax, August 22
1939, FO 800/319.
109. Cab 44(39) of August 27.
110. Halifax at Cab 43(39) of August 26 and Inskip diary of August
26 1939.
111. Cab 44(39) of August 27 1939 Annex F.398 and Cab 45(39) of
August 28 Annex F.417. Cadogan diary, August 28 1939. Inskip
diary, August 27 1939.
112. Hoare diary notes August 28 1939. Dalton diary, August 28
1939.
113. Harvey diary, August 27 1939.
114. Zetland to Linlithgow, August 23 1939, Eur.D.609. Cab 46(39)
of August 30 has the Japanese Ambassador telling Halifax that, if
invited to be Japanese Foreign Secretary, he would like to consult
Halifax before accepting.
115. Halifax and Hoare at Cab 41(39) of August 22. Zetland to Lin-
lithgow, August 29 1939, Eur.D.609. Chamberlain to Hilda,
August 27 1939. Harvey diary, August 27 1939. For the Turks
moving the other way, i.e. beginning to demand more money
because of German economic pressure, see Cab 42(39) of Au-
gust 24.
116. Zetland to Linlithgow, August 29 1939, Eur.D.609.
117. Cf. Elliot telling Mrs Dugdale that the delays of Saturday and
Sunday were intended as 'insults' to Hitler (Dugdale diary, Au-
gust 29 1939).
118. Wallace diary, August 22 1939.
119. Pownall diary, August 29 and September 1 1939, for one state-
ment of this view. Killearn diary, August 29 1939, for King
George VI taking the view that peace was fairly certain on the
basis of the 'tacit view of the advisers that "Hitler's bluff had
been called'". For Halifax saying at lunch on August 31 that we
'had the first view of the beaten fox', see Wallace diary, Au-
gust 31 1939. See also Hankey diary, August 29 1939.
120. Halifax, 'Record', August 30 1939. Inskip diary, August 26 1939.
Cab 45(39) of August 28.
121. Harvey diary, August 25 and 26, and Harvey to Halifax, Au-
gust 26 1939.
123. The reply is in Halifax to Ogilvie-Forbes of August 26 1938
(DBFP third series, vol. VII, pp. 3 3 0 - 2 . )
124. DBFP third series, vol. VII, p. 374. Cadogan diary, August 29
1939.
125. Henderson telegrams nos. 450, 453 and 498 in DBFP third series,
vol. VII, pp. 348, 3 5 1 - 4 and 374.
127. Ibid. Cf. Halifax, minute in DBFP third series, vol. VII, p. 354.
128. Telegram no. 285 to Berlin of August 30 in DBFP third series,
vol. VII, p. 391. Inskip diary, August 28 1939. Hoare diary, Au-
gust 29 1939. Cadogan diary, August 30 1939.

129. E.g. Chamberlain at Cab 46(39) of August 30, fo. 432. Halifax at
Cab 46(39) of August 30. Amery diary, August 30 1939, report-
ing Chatfield and Inskip in conversation. Cadogan diary, Au-
gust 30 1939. Zetland to Linlithgow, August 30 1939, Eur.D.
609, for a less categorical view.
130. Halifax at Cab 46(39) of August 30, Cadogan diary, August 30
1939.
131. Halifax at Cab 46(39) of August 30. Cadogan diary, August 29
and 30 1939. For Ismay saying on September 2 that dissension in
Germany might avert war see Wingate, p. 39. For Halifax that
evening see Dawson diary, August 30 1938.
132. Cab 46(39) of August 30 for discussion about the venue of talks
not being in Germany. Harvey diary, August 31 1939, quoting
Halifax. Inskip diary, August 30 1939.
133. DGFP series D, vol. VII, no. 461 of August 31 1939.
134. Wallace diary, August 30 1939, for the Cabinet putting it off the
day before after Chamberlain had told Anderson to start it.
135. DGFP series D, vol. VII, no. 461 of August 31 1939.
136. See e.g. Inskip diary, August 31 1939, saying Hitler's terms were
'much more reasonable than I ever thought possible'.
137. Chatfield at Cab 47(39) of September 1.
138. Halifax at Cab 47(39) of September 1.
139. Cadogan diary, September 1 1939, for it not being an 'ultima-
tum'.
141. Halifax, telegram no. 311 to Henderson 5.45 p.m. of September 1
1939, DBFP third series, vol. VII, p. 488.
143. Nicolson diary, September 1 1939. Hansard (351) col. 126 of
September 1 1939.
145. Halifax at Cab 47(39) of September 1. Cadogan diary, August 31
1939.
147. Cadogan diary, August 31 1939. Inskip, Channon and Hore-Be-
lisha diaries, September 2 1939, referring to August 31. Harvey
diary, August 31 1939.
148. Halifax at Cab 47(39) of September 1.
149. Cab 47(39) of September 1. DBFP third series, vol. VII,
pp. 4 7 9 - 8 0 .
151 DBFP third series, vol. VII, pp. 507—8. Cadogan and Channon
diaries September 2 1939. Halifax,'Record'.
152. Cab 48(39) of September 2 1939 4.15 p.m. Inskip, Cadogan,
Channon and Wallace diaries, September 2 1939.
NOTES TO CHAPTER 11
1. See Zetland to Chamberlain, May 23 1937.
2. Stanhope to Chamberlain, November 25 1935. See also Newman,
pp. 3 4 7 - 8 .
3. For a Simon-like letter, see Burgin to Mrs Chamberlain, Septem-
ber 15 1938, NC 13/11.
4. Chamberlain diary, November 21 1935, quoting Baldwin.
5. E.g. note in PREM 1/190 of backbenchers' meeting with Baldwin
on May 20 1936 and Winterton to Beaverbrook, December 17
1935 for Eden.
6. Cab 13(38) of March 14.
7. See Meeting of Ministers of August 30 1938, Cab 23/94. Cab
37(38) of September 12.
11. Ibid.
12. Duff Cooper diary, September 16 1938. Dugdale diary, Septem-
ber 18 1938. Inskip diary, September 14 1938. Winterton also
consulted Amery (on a Privy Councillor basis) who was much
closer to him.
13. R.S. Hudson memorandum of December 12 1938, Halifax MSS.
16. E.g. Ormsby-Gore to MacDonald, September 23 1933.
17. See e.g. Ormsby-Gore to MacDonald, September 23 1933, and
Butler to Brabourne and Ormsby-Gore to Sankey, March 7 1934.
18. Dawson diary, May 24 and 27 1936.
19. Ormsby-Gore to Halifax, November 11 1937, Halifax MSS.
20. Ibid.
21. E.g. CID Cab 2/7 of November 18 1937 and the early Cabinet
Committees of 1938 in Cab 27/623. Cab 7(38) of February 20.
22. Salisbury to Chamberlain, May 17 1938, for the lack of cere-
mony. Chamberlain to Ida, March 28 1936, for Ormsby-Gore's
lack of judgment.
23. Heuston, p. 489.
24. Cab 43(38) of September 25, fo. 200.
25. Duff Cooper, p. 235.
26. See Heuston, pp. 490—2, but see also Hailsham to Simon, Octo-
ber 31 1938, for Hailsham saying that there was no disagreement
about policy.
27. For the incident see Weir MSS 19/15 (and Chamberlain to Hilda,
October 24 1936).
28. Chamberlain to Ida, May 13 1938. Halifax to Chamberlain, May
16 [1938]. Wilson, notes of March 15 and of April 22 1938, and
Cadman to Chamberlain, April 22 1938 in PREM 1/236. See also
PREM 1/252 and Cadman and Rowland, pp. 1 6 6 - 7 1 . Reader,
p. 292, says that Weir resigned in sympathy with Swinton. See
also Runciman, Hankey, Inskip, O. Stanley, Lloyd, Ellis and Lon-

donderry etc. to Swinton, May 16—23 1938.
29. Wheeler-Bennett, Waverley, pp. 2 3 0 - 1 .
30. E.g. Eden to Chamberlain, May 23 1937, and Crookshank diary,
May 28 1937.
31. Runciman to Chamberlain, March 31, and to Chamberlain, June
19 1939 (for Runciman against a China alignment).
32. Zetland to Willingdon, February 17 1936.
33. Zetland to Willingdon, February 17, March 29, April 6, July 6
and August 14 in Eur.D.600 and 609, all 1936.
34. Zetland to Linlithgow, August 14 1936, Eur.D.609.
35. E.g. Zetland to Linlithgow, February 21 1937.
36. Zetland to Willingdon, September 27 and October 10 1935, Eur.
D.609.
37. Zetland to Linlithgow, June 8 and 15, August 14 and 24 and
September 25 1936 and February 8 1937, Eur.D.609.
38. Zetland to Linlithgow, June 8 and 15, August 14 and 24 and
September 25 1936 and February 8 and March 22 1937, loc. cit.
39. Zetland to Linlithgow, September 2 1938.
40. Zetland to Linlithgow, September 16/20 1938 and to Chamber-
lain, September 28 1938.
41. Zetland to Linlithgow, October 1 and 4 1938.
42. Zetland to Linlithgow, May 17 and June 13 1939, Eur.D.609.
44. Zetland to Linlithgow, September 9 1938.
45. Harvey and Duff Cooper diaries, February 19 1938, for reports of
100 government supporters being expected to vote against if
Eden resigned.
46. RJ. Russell to Runciman, March 28 1934.
47. See his contribution to Percy, Conservatism and the Future, For
Morrison as a 'friend' of Baldwin see Butler to Brabourne, Decem-
ber 19 1935. See also Brabourne to Butler, March 29 1935. For
the effect of a speech in 1936, see Nicolson diary, May 25 1936.
48. Chamberlain diary, November 21 1935.
51. Chamberlain to Hilda, March 5 1939. Channon diary, Septem-
ber 12 1937, for Margesson saying so. Dugdale diary, November 3
1936. Zetland to Linlithgow, December 3 and 6 1938. Nicolson
to Lothian, September 6 1936 (Balliol MSS) and diary, Novem-
ber 24 1935, May 25 and July 27 1938.
52. Morrison talking in Nicolson diary, June 30 1937.
53. Harvey, Cadogan and Chamberlain diaries, February 19 1938. For
the defence, see Hansard (332) cols. 3 1 4 - 2 2 of February 22
1938.
55. Morrison at Cab 39(38) of September 17.
56. Ibid.
57. MacDonald to Baldwin, April 8 1934.
58. Butler to Brabourne, February 22 1934. Jones diary, June 12

1934.
59. Astor to Garvin, February 23 1934.
60. See e.g. Astor to Garvin, February 23 1934, and Chamberlain
diary, March 25 1934.
62. Dugdale diary, March 8, 9 and 27 1936. Coote, p. 151.
63. Chamberlain to Hilda, October 31 1936. Dawson to Lady Astor,
November [2 or 7] 1936.
64. See above pp. 9 9 - 1 0 2 .
65. Coote, p. 158.
66. Harvey diary, February 8 1938.
67. Dugdale diary, February 19, 21 and 22 1938. Coote, pp. 1 5 1 - 3 .
68. Coote, p. 157.
69. Elliot to Swinton, May 17 1938, and Elliot at Meeting of Minis-
ters of August 30 1938, Cab 23/94. Inskip diary, September 14
1938. Cab 38(38) of September 14. Dugdale diary, July 26 and
September 15 1938. Cab 39(38) of September 17 morning ses-
sion. Cab 39(38) of September 17 afternoon session.
70. Elliot to his wife, September 18 1938, Coote p. 165. Cab 39(38)
of September 17.
72. Elliot to his wife, September 19 and 20 1938, Coote, pp. 1 6 6 - 9 .
Cab 41(38) of September 21.
73. Harvey and Dugdale diaries, September 22 1938.
74. Elliot to his wife, September 23 and 25 1938, Coote, pp. 1 7 0 - 3 .
75. Cabs 43 and 44(38) of September 25.
76. Duff Cooper diary, September 30 1938. Elliot to Mrs Dugdale,
October 7 1938, Coote, p. 163.
77. Cab 15(39) of March 29. Cab 19(39) of April 10. Elliot to
Mrs Dugdale, October 7 1938, Coote, p. 163.
78. Coote, p. 174.
79. Meeting of Ministers of August 30 1938, Cab 23/94.
80. De la Warr to Halifax, September 2 1938, FO 800/314.
81. Dugdale diary, September 7 1938. Duff Cooper diary, Septem-
ber 8 1938.
82. Boothby to Churchill September 10 1938 recording a conversa-
tion with de la Warr.
83. De la Warr to Halifax, September 10 1938, FO 800/314.
85. MacDonald to Baldwin, June 16 1936. Dugdale diary, May 25
1936.
86. Bridgeman to Baldwin, April 12 1934.
87. Nicolson diary, September 10 1937.
88. Loc. cit.
89. Nicolson diary, March 4 and May 16 1938.
90. Chamberlain diary, October 21 1935. Butler to Brabourne, June
20 1935.
91. Nicolson diary, February 5 and 24 1936.
92. Chamberlain diary, November 21 1935. Dawson diary, Novem-

ber 24 1935.
93. For timing of publication, see notes of June 2 1936 addressed to
Secretary of State in Baldwin MSS.
94. There are many examples (especially in relation to Thomas); for
an interesting attempt to persuade Lloyd George not to attack
MacDonald in his War Memoirs see Stevenson diary, April 24
1934.
95. Or perhaps just Randolph Churchill. See Stevenson diary, April
27 1936, for Churchill wishing to get back into the government
and being embarrassed by Randolph Churchill at Ross and Cro-
marty. But cf. Beaverbrook to Ho are, January 31 1936.
96. Nicolson diary, February 5 and January 28 1936. Malcolm Mac-
Donald to Baldwin, January 5 1936. Sunday Times, January 12
1936, for Ross and Cromarty by-election.
97. Chamberlain diary, July 22 1935. MacDonald to Baldwin, No-
vember 28, and to Hoare November 25 1935.
98. MacDonald to Baldwin, Wednesday [Novemberl935].
99. MacDonald to Baldwin, November 13 1935.
100. MacDonald to Chamberlain, November 18, and to Amulree, No-
vember 16 1935.
101. For the period after the election see Jones to A.F., December 6
1935, and Nicolson diary, November 20 1935.
102. Ramsay MacDonald to Malcolm MacDonald, January 16 1936.
103. E.g. MacDonald to Tillett, July 14 1936. Nicolson diary, July 9
1936.
104. For MacDonald as incompetent chairman of the Privy Councill-
ors' Coronation Committee, see Crawford to Linlithgow, June 10
1936, Eur.F.125 151/2.
105. Baldwin in Jones diary, May 23 1936. Chamberlain to Hilda, No-
vember 17, and diary, November 20 1935. Cf. Chamberlain to
Hilda, July 25 1936, for Chamberlain trying to stop Baldwin leav-
ing MacDonald in charge while Baldwin was on holiday. For Mac-
Donald's resentment see Nicolson diary, March 22 1937.
106. Marks to MacDonald, October 22 1936, reporting de la Warr.
Nicolson diary, July 14 1936, August 1 and November 10 1937.
107. Dugdale diary, November 2 and 9 1937. De la Warr at National
Labour Conference, March 18 1938, The Times March 19. Cf.
Nicolson diary, April 12 1937.
108. Cab 35(38) and 39(38) of September 14 and 17.
109. Dugdale diary, September 18 1938. Nicolson diary, October 2
1938.
111. Nicolson diary, October 3 1938, and Amery diary, September 30
1938.
112. De la Warr to Chamberlain, October 4 1938, PREM 1/266A, and
March 21 1939, PREM 1/330, and at Eastbourne, November 4
1938, The Times, November 5.
113. De la War to Chamberlain, April 14 1939, PREM 1/336.
114. Based on private information (as are parts of the rest of this
paragraph).
115. Based on private information.
116. Ibid.
117. Dugdale diary, December 15 1937. Nicolson diary, April 26, May
31, early June passim 1937 and August 26 1938.
119. Malcolm MacDonald to Baldwin, February 14 1936, in PREM
1/192 and MacDonald to Baldwin, February 12 1936. Cf. Cab
20(36) of March 16. For by-election see Malcolm to Ramsay Mac-
Donald, January 10 1936 et seq, in MacDonald MSS.
120. Ibid.
121. Harvey diary, January 19 1938. MacDonald quoted in Nicolson
diary, April 8 1937 and February 21 1938.
122. Duff Cooper diary, February 19 1938, quoting Margesson.
123. E.g. Simon to Spen Valley Newspapers, March 9 1938, and Cham-
berlain diary, February 19 1938.
125. Nicolson diary, February 21 and March 29 1938.
127. Wilson to Prime Minister, September 1 1938, PREM 1/265.
128. MacDonald at Cab 38(38) of September 14.
129. MacDonald at Cab 39(38) of September 17.
130. Ibid. MacDonald at Cab 41(38) of September 21.
131. Cab 42(38) of September 24, 43(38) of September 25, 45(38) of
September 26 and 46(38) of September 27.
133. King-Hall reporting him in Nicolson diary, December 13 1938.
Cf. MacDonald to Chamberlain, November 26 1938 in PREM
1/247.
134. Hankey to R. Hankey, March 7 1937.
135. For a by no means unique example, see Randolph Churchill,
pp. 74—5.
136. See e.g. CP 52(36) of February 24 in Cab 24/260.
137. Duff Cooper diary, January 23 1938. Cab 2(36) of January 22.
Duff Cooper to Phipps, April 20 1938.
138. Duff Cooper talking to Beck in Duff Cooper to Halifax, July 8
1938, FO 800/309. Cf. Fergusson talking in Dugdale diary, June
27 1936.
139. Duff Cooper diary, March 23 1938.
140. Duff Cooper to Halifax, April 11 1938, FO 800/309.
141. Duff Cooper to Halifax, August 8 1938, FO 800/309.
144. That it might seem to have been done behind the backs of the
French and that a British proposal for settling the Sudeten ques-
tion, if accepted by the Germans and not by the Czechs, might
undermine the desire to protect Czechoslovakia.

146. Duff Cooper at Cab 39(38) of September 17.
149. CID of September 13 1938 in Cab 16/189 and e.g. Cab 42(38) of
September 24.
153. For the last two paragraphs, see Cabs 43, 44 and 45(38) of Sep-
tember 25 and 26.
156. Chamberlain to Hilda, December 17 1937. Chamberlain to Duff
Cooper, December 17, and Duff Cooper to Chamberlain, Decem-
ber 19 1937.
157. Duff Cooper, p. 209.
158. Taylor, pp. 3 8 5 - 6 .
159. Liddell Hart, pp. 89 and 100. Colville, pp. 7 3 - 8 3 .
160. Cab 12(38) and 14(38) of March 12 and 14 and Cab 24(38) of
May 18. Pownall diary, March 14 1938. Hore-Belisha diary,
March 13 1938. Colville, p. 92.
161. Hore-Belisha diary, April 13 1938.
162. Crozier, interview with Hore-Belisha, June 19 1935, for Lloyd
George as an out-of-date Gladstonian.
163. Channon diary, March 22 1938.
164. Hore-Belisha to Runciman, May 5 1937. For Runciman as Hore-
Belisha's mentor see Hore-Belisha diary, February 25 1939. See
also Minney, p. 130.
165. Hore-Belisha diary, August 30 1938.
166. Hore-Belisha diary notes of September 17 1938.
167. Hore-Belisha diary, September 19 1938. Cab 40(38) of Septem-
ber 19.
168. Hore-Belisha to Chamberlain, September 21 1938, PREM
1/266A.
169. Colville, p. 112.
170. Hore-Belisha diary notes of September 24 1938. Cab 42(38) of
September 24.
171. Pownall diary, September 5 1938 (written on September 25).
172. Cabs 43 and 44(38) of September 25. Harvey diary, Septem-
ber 25 1938.
173. Cabs 43 and 44(38) of September 25. Hore-Belisha diary, Sep-
tember 25 and 26 1938. Hore-Belisha to Chamberlain, Septem-
ber 28 1938, PREM 1/266A. On the other hand a couple of days
later, he suggested sending 4 battalions to Czechoslovakia in
order to convince Hitler of 'our good faith about the transfer of
the Sudeten areas'.
175. E.g. Ewan Butler, p. 84.

176. Bracken to Beaverbrook, between December 2 and December 16
1938.
177. Pownall diary, October 10 1938 and January 23 1939.
178. E.g. Coote in Pownall diary, June 27 1938. Colville, pp. 9 3 - 7 .
179. Pownall diary, September 5 1938 (written on September 25) and
passim in the winter of 1938.
180. In conjunction with one of Hore-Belisha's junior ministers and a
couple of younger members of the government. For the Strathco-
na interview and plot, see Hore-Belisha diary of December 19
1938.
181. Hore-Belisha diary, December 20 1938.
182. Hore-Belisha diary, January 26 1939.
183. Hore-Belisha to Wilson (2 letters), March 28, Wilson, note of
March 29, and Hore-Belisha to Chamberlain, April 15, in PREM
1/296 and April 12, in PREM 1/336, all 1939.
184. Hore-Belisha diary, April 11 and 17 1939. Pownall diary, April 3
1939.
185. Hore-Belisha to Chamberlain, August 23 and 24 1939, both in
PREM 1/312. Pownall diary, August 23 1939.
186. For example, he had Churchill to lunch on August 28, Hore-Be-
lisha diary, August 28 1939.
189. E.g. at Cabinet Committee on Foreign Policy of May 19 1939,
Cab 27/625.
190. Channon diary, August 26 1939.
191. Hore-Belisha to Simon, August 27 1939, in diary September 27.
193. Hore-Belisha diary, September 2 1939.
194. E.g. very early in his prime ministership, Dugdale diary, March 10
1938.
195. Elliot in Dugdale diary, February 21 1938.
196. For Eden's dislike see Dugdale diary, May 22 1938.
197. Nicolson diary, October 7 1936.
198. Bernays to Samuel, Friday night [September 1933].
200. Bernays to Baldwin, October 24 1935, and to Sinclair, Novem-
ber 17 1935.
201. Bernays to Simon, September 10 1936.
202. Nicolson diary, May 18 1936. See also The Times, May 20 1936,
first leader following correspondence.
205. Dugdale diary, September 20 1938. Allen of Hurtwood to CE
Asquith, May 12 1936, MacDonald MSS.
206. Nicolson at Edinburgh, November 7 1938, The Scotsman, No-
vember 8, and at Caxton Hall, March 25 1939, Manchester Guard-
ian, March 27. King-Hall was saying much the same thing after
Prague (e.g. King-Hall to Barrington-Ward, October 15 1938, The

Times Archive).
207. For Malcolm MacDonald wanting a 'Centre-party' to 'preserve
democracy', see Butler to Brabourne, July 8 1937.
208. Mabane in Nicolson diary, April 19 1937.
210. E.g. Harvey diary, March 27 1939, for 'the wobblers wobbling
again' (of Stanley, Elliot and de la Warr). Dugdale diary, Febru-
ary 20, 21 and 24 1938. Coote in Dugdale diary, September 21
1938, calls them 'rubber-stamps'.
211. Chamberlain to Ida, October 9 1938. For Samuel making this a
ground for not joining the government at this time, see Samuel,
p. 279.
212. For Crookshank addressing Baldwin as his 'leader' see Crook-
shank to Baldwin, August 2 1938. Cf. Crookshank diary, May 29
1937 and February 21, September 17 and 25, 27 and 28 and
October 4 and 6, all 1938. For Crookshank's campaign to have a
wider circulation of Foreign Office telegrams to junior ministers,
see Halifax to Chamberlain, May 7 1938, PREM 1/302 and pas-
sim. For Crookshank's threats to resign see Chamberlain to Ida,
October 9 1938. Harvey diary, March 23 1937, February 21, 25,
March 12 and September 17 1938.
213. See e.g. Chamberlain diary, March 25 1934.
214. Butler to Brabourne, December 20 1934.
215. Sankey diary, January 23 1935.
216. Headlam diary, February 6 and 8 1935. Chamberlain diary, Feb-
ruary 13 1935.
217. Simon diary, February 13 1935.
218. See Cecil to Murray, May 8 1937, and surrounding correspon-
dence for Stanley echoing Chamberlain's criticisms of the League
of Nations Union.
219. See Shuttleworth to Runciman, May 3 1934, for the favourable
impression Stanley made on Liberals. See also Margesson memo-
randum in NC8/24/1 of March 1937.
220. Cadogan diary, January 19 and 21 1938. Harvey diary, Janu-
ary 20 1938.
221. Chamberlain diary, February 19 1938. Cab 7(38) of February 20.
222. Cabinet Committee of March 1 and 15 1938, Cab 27/623.
223. Chamberlain to Stanley, April 11 1938.
224. Harvey diary, June 27 1938, reporting Cadogan.
230. Cab 38(38) of September 14. Duff Cooper diary, September 14
1938.
233. Reasonable arrangements for 'transferred individuals', German

demobilisation on the setting up of a Border Commission and the
disbanding of Henlein's Freikorps.
236. Cab 43(38) of September 25. Duff Cooper diary, September 26
1938.
238. Cab 43(38) of September 25 f.232.
239. Stanley to Halifax, September 22 1938, FO 800/309.
240. Stanley to Chamberlain, October 3 1938, PREM 1/266A. Crook-
shank diary, October 4 1938.
241. Chamberlain to Lady Londonderry, July 28 1937. In 1938/9,
Londonderry was President of the National Union.
242. A.L. Kennedy journal, December 16 1938.
244. Pownall diary, January 23 1939.
245. See Cabinet Committee of January 23 1939, Cab 27/624.
246. Cadogan diary, April 19 and May 16 1939.
247. Cab 19(39) of April 10.
248. Stanley to Chamberlain, June 30 1939.
250. E.g. Amery diary, January 26 1939, quoting Godfrey Nicholson
MP.
251. For Inskip as advocate of a National party see Inskip at United
Club dinner, April 24 1934, The Times, April 25. For hostility to
Lloyd George see Manchester Guardian, February 11 1935. For
Inskip as possible leader etc. see Brabourne to Butler, March 29
1935. Channon diary, September 12 1937, quoting Margesson.
Chamberlain diary, February 11 1937, Harvey diary, March 23
1937. Garvin to Astor, July 9 1937, for Inskip as a desirable
Foreign Secretary. Crookshank diary, March 14 1936.
252. Nicolson diary, July 20 1936.
253. For the qualities see Butler to Brabourne, March 29 1935. See
also Heuston, p. 586.
254. See The Times, October 29 1936 (for Nuffield), and Inskip at
1936 Club in Nicolson diary, July 5 1937.
255. See e.g. the long discussions of Defence Requirements in the
Cabinets of March and April 1938 in Cab 23/92.
257. Ibid.
261. Inskip at Cabinet Committee of March 15 1938, Cab 27/623.
262. Inskip diary, September 8 1938.
263. Inskip diary, September 17 1938.
265. Hankey diary, September 27 and 28 1938.
266. Inskip to Hankey, September 12 1938.

267. For an example see Inskip, memorandum of March 11 1938 in
FO 800/313.
268. Nicolson diary, November 24 1938. R.S. Hudson, memorandum
of December 12 1938, Halifax MSS.
269. E.g. Devonshire to Baldwin, December 21 1938, and Nicolson
diary, July 27 1938.
270. Inskip diary, January 17 1939.
271. Inskip diary, September 2 1939, for Chamberlain described as
'faux ami' on this occasion.
272. Dawson diary, May 28 1937.
273. Butler to Brabourne, March 11 1936.
274. Amery diary, February 21 1938, Hoare to Chamberlain, March
17 1937, and Heuston, p. 489.
275. E.g. Greenwood at Edinburgh, October 1 1936, Manchester
Guardian, October 2; Morrison at Blackburn, September 27 1936,
Manchester Guardian September 28; and Morrison in Forward,
October 10 1936. See also Chatfield to Dreyer, May 28 1937.
276. Amery diary, March 20, and Dawson diary, July 14 1938.
277. See Lady Astor in Dawson diary, March 1 1936. Keyes to Chat-
field, January 6 1937.
278. Cabinet Committee of April 7 1938, Cab 27/623.
279. Channon diary, June 1 and 2 1938. Cf. Butler to Brabourne,
July 8 1937.
280. Lady Maud Hoare to Beaverbrook, November 4 1938.
281. Cab 41(38) of September 21 and Meeting of Ministers of Au-
gust 30 1938 in Cab 23/94.
282. Cab 39(38) of September 17 and Cab 41(38) of September 21.
284. Dawson diary, September 27 1938. Hoare to Mrs Neville Cham-
berlain, September 29 1938.
285. Amery diary, November 21 1938.
286. Hoare to Chamberlain, October 5, and to Linlithgow, Novem-
ber 7 1938.
287. Pownall diary, October 24 and 31 and December 12 1938 and
February 20 1939.
288. Amery diary, November 18 and 24 1938. Hoare at Cabinet Com-
mittee of January 23 1939 Cab 27/624.
289. I.e. in February 1939. Cf. Jones to A.F., February 19 1939.
290. Hoare to Chamberlain, March 17 [1939].
291. Hoare to Chamberlain, April 2 [1939].
292. Cadogan diary, May 9 1940. Pownall diary, January 23, April 17
and August 23 1939. Killearn diary, p. 77.
293. Hoare to W.W. Astor, May 13 1939 (i.e. a letter to his Private
Secretary whose parents were beginning to demand that Churchill
should return to office).
294. Cabinet Committee of May 19 1939, Cab 27/625.
295. Dalton diary, May 7 1939.
296. Cab 27(39) of May 10 and Hankey diary, August 23 1939.
522 NOTES TO CHAPTER H, pp. 342-5
297. E.g. Hoare saying at a meeting of editors and newspapers proprie-

tors that there was much to be said on both sides, Francis Wil-
liams talking in Dalton diary, August 28 1939.
298. E.g. at Cabinet Committee of May 19 1939, Cab 27/625.
299. Amery diary, June 29 1939.
300. Dawson to Spender, July 14 1939, for lack of Cabinet support.
301. Zetland to Linlithgow, April 4 1939, Eur.D.609.
304. And also Halifax.
305. Cab 48(39) of September 2 at 4.15 p.m. Conclusion (2).
306. Hansard (351) col. 280 of September 2 1939.
307. Halifax in his introduction to Lloyd, The British Case, p. 9, talks
about the 'stubborn wish of one man' preventing British efforts
to preserve peace.
308. Nicolson diary, July 18 1939. Cf. Harvey to Halifax of August 26
1939.
309. Pritchett to Cartland, August 4 and Chamberlain to Ida, August 5
1939, for evidence that Chamberlain tried to remove Cartland
from the King's Norton seat in Birmingham after Cartland made a
personal attack on him in the House of Commons at the begin-
ning of August.
310. Amery diary, August 1 and 2 1939. Nicolson diary and Nicolson
to V. Sackville-West, August 2 1939.
311. Harvey diary, August 26, and Amery to Chamberlain, August 21
1939.
313. Duff Cooper diary, September 1 1939. For a similar feeling at the
Privy Council, see Wallace diary, September 2 1939.
315. Ibid.
316. Hansard (351) col. 286 of September 2 1939 for speech by Ward-
law-Milne who had been appointed in order to keep the Edenites
quiet (see Channon diary, May 4 1939).
317. Nicolson, Channon, Wallace, Amery and Duff Cooper diaries of
September 2 1939. Hankey to his wife, September 3 1939.
318. I.e. Executive Committee of the PLP, NCL Executive and the
National Executive of the Labour party.
319. See Chamberlain at Cab 46(39) of August 30 for Morrison spear-
heading the demand for the evacuation of London. Cf. National
Labour Executive and Labour party declaration of September 2
1939, Daily Herald, September 2.
320. See Dalton diary, August 25 etc. 1939, for the Three Executives'
decision to send a last message of * friendship and warning to the
German people' and the difficulty they had when the Foreign
Office asked the BBC to stop this being done.
321. Dalton diary, August 29 1939.
322. For a junior minister believing that 'a puff would have brought
the government down', see Crookshank diary, September 2 1939.
323. Boothby to Churchill, September 3 1939, quoting Greenwood.

324. Boothby in Duff Cooper diary, September 2 1939, Boothby to
Churchill, September 3 1939.
325. Nicolson to V. Sackville-West, August 2 1939.
326. Churchill to Rothermere, July 19 1939.
327. Ironside diary, July 25 1939, reporting meeting with Churchill.
328. I.e. through Lloyd who saw Dalton daily, Dalton diary, Au-
gust 31 1939.
329. Churchill to Chamberlain, August 30 1939 (not sent).
330. Churchill to Chamberlain, September 2 1939, NC 7/9/45.
331. Churchill to Chamberlain, September 2 1939, NC 7/9/45.
333. Churchill to Chamberlain, September 2 1939 midnight, NC
7/9/46.
334. Ibid. Duff Cooper diary September 2 1939.
335. Hore-Belisha diary, September 2 1939, lists himself, Simon, El-
liot, de la Warr, Stanley, Wallace, Anderson, Colville, Burgin and
Dorman-Smith. Inskip diary, September 3 1939, adds Brown.
Wallace diary, September 2, does not list Burgin.
336. Simon diary, July 7 1935.
337. Hankey diary, February 24 1935.
338. Ibid.
340. Cab 27/599 of February 17 1936. For examples of Simon being
sensitive about his own policies by comparison with those of his
successors, see Harvey diary, November 171937, and Amery diary,
November 6 1937 and May 2 1938.
341. Simon to Baldwin, March 25 1936, PREM 1/194.
342. Ibid.
343. Simon to Chamberlain, September 23 1936.
344. Simon to Tweedsmuir, November 24 1937.
345. For all this see PREM 1/296, Simon diary and Cabs of
1938-9.
346. Cab 31(38) of July 6. Simon to Baldwin, March 25 1936, PREM
1/194, and to Chamberlain, April 17 1939, PREM 1/296.
347. Simon at Cab 13(38) of March 14.
348. Simon to Chatfield, April 17 1939, PREM 1/296. See also Simon,
CP 118(39) of May 18 'Control of Expenditure'.
349. Simon diary, May 22 1938.
350. Cab 21(38) of April 27 and 26(38) of May 25, Cabinet Commit-
tee of April 7 1938, Cab 27/623.
351. Nicolson diary, September 1 and 9 1938, reporting Mabane and
Bernays. Cf. Halifax to Chamberlain, August 26 [1938], for
Simon forcing himself on Halifax's attention.
352. Meeting of Ministers of August 30 1938, Cab 23/94. Simon diary,
August 31 1938.

357. Cf. Inskip diary, September 14 1938.
358. Meeting of Ministers, September 16 1938, Cab 27/646. For
Anglo-French meetings, see Cab 27/646. Simon memorandum,
n.d. before Godesberg, PREM 1/266A, fo. 137.
362. Hankey diary, September 27 1938.
363. Cf. Simon saying keep the emergency going after September 30
1938 in order to educate the public, CID of September 30 1938,
Cab 16/189.
364. Morris-Jones to Simon, October 5 1938.
365. Cf. Chamberlain to Simon, December 16 1938.
366. E.g. Cabinet Committee of November 14 1938, Cab 27/624.
367. Cab 19(39) of April 10 for unilateral guarantees to Turkey and
Greece being desirable because facilitating acceptance of the in-
vasion of Albania. For the importance of not seeming to 'con-
done aggression', see Conference of Ministers of April 8 1939 in
Cab 23/98.
368. Hore-Belisha diary, April 18 1939.
369. Hankey to R. Hankey, March 7 1937.
370. I.e. Simon became Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hore-Belisha
War Minister and Burgin was brought into the Cabinet as Minister
of Transport. Although Runciman was removed (to make way for
Burgin), Liberals were greatly reassured when Oliver Stanley, who
was in effect a Free Trader, replaced him as President of the
Board of Trade.
371. Simon to Runciman, May 7 and 10 1937. There is supposed to
have been a coolness between Runciman's and Simon's wives.
372. E.g. Mabane and Bernays, see above pp. 332—3. For Mabane be-
ing worried and Bernays agreeing with Crookshank about Eden,
see Crookshank diary, February 21 1938.
373. See e.g. CP 118(39) of May 18 in Cab 24/287.
374. Channon diary, September 2 1939, and Crawford to Linlithgow,
June 23 1939, for the view that he did. For evidence (second-
hand) of Wilson thinking that Simon was thinking of the succes-
sion in the summer of 1938 see Bruce Lockhart diary, October 8
1938.
375. Hore-Belisha and Wallace diaries, September 2 1939.
376. DBFP third series, vol. VII, pp. 5 2 4 - 6 .
377. Simon to Chamberlain [September 2 8.45 p.m. 1939]. Hoare-
Belisha diary, September 2 1939.
378. Hore-Belisha and Wallace diaries, September 2 1939. Wheeler-
Bennett, Waverley, pp. 229—32.
379. Cab 49(39) of September 2 at 11.30 p.m. Halifax MSS,
A.410.3.10. has a long discussion in 1942 in which Halifax and
Cadogan try to establish with E.L. Woodward and against Dahle-
rus (for the benefit of American opinion) that the British did try
to avoid war in September 1939 (where Dahlerus was claiming

that they did not).
NOTES TO CHAPTER 12
2. Hankey, war policy memorandum of September 14 1939. But see
also Cadogan diary, September 14, and Ironside diary, Septem-
ber 14 1939, for differing opinions.
3. Hankey, war policy memorandum of September 12 1939 for 'war
of nerves'.
6. Smuts to Amery, October 11 1939. Chamberlain to Hilda, Sep-
tember 10, to Hilda, September 17, and to Ida, September 23
1939.
8. War Cab 18(39) of September 17.
9. Cadogan diary, September 25 1939, and War Cab 26(39) of Sep-
tember 25.
10. War Cab 66(39) of October 31 for rumours of this.
12. A very great deal of this is to be found in Cab 65(1—6) and
especially in War Cab 85(39) of November 17 1939, Cab 65/4.
For Turkey see War Cab 2(39) of September 4, 3(39) of Septem-
ber 5, 5(39) of September 6 and 6(39) of September 6. For success
with the Turks, see War Cab 22(39) of September 21. For the sig^
nature of the Anglo-Turkish treaty see War Cab 52(39) of Octo-
ber 19. See also Zetland to Linlithgow, October 2 1939. Plans
were also made, after co-operation with the Rumanian govern-
ment, to destroy the Rumanian oilfields in the event of invasion
there (see especially War Cab 69(39) of November 3 65/4). The
object, in pushing ahead with munitions and military preparations
and increasing the air force to the point at which it was no longer
possible to lose command of the air, was that, when the air de-
fences were complete (with radar), Germans would see that an air
offensive could begin (Chamberlain to Churchill, September 16
and to Ida, October 8 1939. War Cab 39(39) of September 19,
Cab 65/3. Chamberlain to Hilda, September 17, and to Ida, Sep-
tember 23 and October 8 1939. See also Hankey, War Policy me-
morandum of September 12 1939).
13. Chamberlain to Ida, September 23, and to Hilda, October 1 1939.
14. War Cab 11(39) of September 11, Cab 65/3. War Cab 47(39) of
October 14 Cab 65/3.
17. Cab 25(39) of September 24. For the decision to drop leaflets
and criticism of it see War Cab 1(39) of September 3, 8(39) of
September 8 and 17(39) of September 16 1939. Also War Cab
28(39) of September 26, 34(39) of October 2 and 43(39) of Oc-

tober 9.
18. Chamberlain to Hilda, September 17, and to Ida, November 19
1939. Inskip diary, October 5 1939. War Cab 45(39) of Octo-
ber 12 but cf. War Cab 56(39) of October 22 for the Deputy
Chief of the Imperial General Staff saying waterlogged terrain
making advance unlikely. Cf. War Cab 100(39) of December 1
Cab 65/4.
19. Chamberlain to Ida, November 5 1939.
24. Hankey, war policy memorandum of September 12 1939 which,
Hankey records, received Chamberlain's approval.
25. Chamberlain to Brocket, February 2 1940, PREM 1/443.
26. Halifax at War Cab 40(39) of October 7. Chamberlain in Hansard
(351) col. 292 of September 3, and to Ida, November 5 1939.
27. Chamberlain to Hilda, September 10, and to Ida, September 23
1939. War Cab 12(39) of September 11 (also for Chamberlain
hoping to get the French to agree that the terms should be as in
Halifax's Chatham House speech, i.e. 'respect for international
obligations and...the renouncing of force as an instrument of poli-
cy'). War Cab 14(39) of September 13 for the French agreeing on
the object of 'putting an end to Hitlerism'.
28. For the Pope see War Cab 107(39) of December 7.
29. War Cab 75(39) of November 8, 78(39) of November 10 and
79(39) of November 11.
30. Supported by Mottistone, Sempill, Harmsworth, Rushcliffe,
Darnley, Tavistock, Mount Temple, Addington and Sir Philip
Gibbs (For Lords Aberconway and Holden and the Bishops of
Birmingham, Bristol and Chicester, see Anderson, p. 153). For
the peace movement see PREM 1/443, 1/379, 1/249 and 1/380
and FO 800/317, 325, 316, 318, 309 and War Cabs 40(39) of
October 7 and 49(39) of October 16. See also Nicolson diary,
December 6 1939.
31. For this paragraph, see Sempill to Halifax, October 3 1939, FO
800/317, Culverwell in 1922 Committee Minute-book for Octo-
ber 4 1939 and A.M. Ramsay in loc. cit. for October 11 1939.
See also FO 800/315, fols. 2 4 3 - 8 , and Halifax to Brocket, July
13 1939, FO 800/316, for Halifax's rebuke and their denials.
32. Channon diary, October 11 1939.
33. For Beaverbrook trying to persuade the Duke of Windsor about a
peace campaign see Chamberlain to Ida, January 27 1940. For
Beaverbrook giving up the peace campaign see Monckton to
Rucker, March 25 1940, PREM 1/443. For the remarkable public
reaction to Lloyd George's peace speech of October 4, see Lloyd
George MSS G/50-G/60.
35. Chamberlain to Ida, September 23 and October 8 1939.

36. See e.g. Hansard (352) of October 12 1939, cols. 5 6 3 - 8 .
37. For the decisions about the peace speech see War Cab 40(39) of
October 7 and for the statement of October 12 1939, see War
Cab 45(39) of October 12 Cab 65/3. Chamberlain to Ida, Novem-
ber 5 1939. War Cab 51(39) of October 26. Pownall diary, De-
cember 17 1939. For refusal to meet Dominions requests, see War
Cab 45(39) of October 12. For the War Cabinet decision to have
nothing to do with peace overtures, see War Cab 35(39) of Octo-
ber 3. But for Halifax and the others thinking that a peace aims
statement in general terms would reassure moderate Germans, see
War Cab 42 and 43(39) of October 9 and 10.
38. For the Swedish minister's reports being based on rumour, see
Hankey to Chamberlain, November 21 1939, FO 800/317. For
Rauschning's information being out of date, see Dalton diary,
November 21 1939. For J.B. Mooney of General Motors report-
ing that Goering wanted a negotiated peace, see War Cab 61(39)
of October 26, Cab 65/3. See also Halifax's anonymous source in
War Cab 3(40) of January 4, Cab 65/11. For Darnley, Tavistock,
J.L. Bryans and the Duke of Wurtemburg as busybodies or
cranks, see Halifax memorandum of January 23 1940, FO 800/318.
Cadogan diary December 13 1939, January 23 and February 28
1940.
39. Halifax at War Cab 39(39) of October 6, 43(39) of October 10,
45(39) of October 12, 48(39) of October 15 and 49(39) of Octo-
ber 16, all Cab 65/3.
40. For von Papen making these approaches through the Dutch minis-
ter in Ankara (where he was German Ambassador) see Chamber-
lain to Ida, October 8 1939. Halifax memorandum, December 12
1939, FO 800/317. War Cab 34(39) of October 2, Cab 65/3.
41. Sargent memorandum of February 17 1940, FO 800/318. For
doubt about Thyssen's bona fides, see War Cab 25(40) of Janu-
ary 27. War Cab 16(40) of January 17 and Cab 65/11. Osborne to
Halifax, January 12, February 7 and 19 1940, all FO 800/318.
Halifax to Chamberlain, February 13 1940. Cadogan diary, Octo-
ber 28 1939, has Hohenlohe and A.N. Other making approaches
via Vansittart which were taken seriously (Halifax to Chamber-
lain, November 20 [1939] has Hohenlohe being promising. See
also Christie MSS 180/1/28 and 30). For all this see also Deutsch,
pp. 1 0 2 - 6 6 .
42. For his view of von Papen, whom he had known at Lausanne, as hys-
terical and unreliable', see War Cab 34(39) of October 2, War Cab
35(39) of October 5 and War Cab 38(39) of October 5, Cab 65/3.
44. Cadogan diary, October 23 and November 1, 2, 3, 9 and 15 1939
Chamberlain to Ida, November 5 1939. Cadogan, memorandum
of November 16 1939, NC 8/29/2.
45. See e.g. Halifax in War Cab 57(39) of October 23, Cab 65/3 and
in War Cab 62(39) of October 27, Cab 65/3. War Cab 79(39) of
November 11, Cab 65/4. War Cab 93(39) of November 24, Cab
65/4. Cf. Cadogan diary, passim September/October 1939. Hali-
fax at War Cab 42(39) of October 9. For Churchill see War Cab
108(39) of December 8, etc. etc. etc. See also Dawson diary,
September 19 and 24, October 5 and 23 1939, and Chatfield to
Lothian, September 26 and November 27 1939.
47. For Halifax taking reports of depression with a pinch of salt see
War Cab 97(39) of November 28. But for Hitler as a 'man on the
defensive' see Halifax at War Cab 28(40) of January 31. Cf. War
Cab 100(39) of December 1, Cab 65/4, and War Cab 1(40) of
January 2 65/11 for Benes and Intelligence sources reporting Ger-
man generals submitting their views on the need for a negotiated
settlement. Chamberlain to Hilda, February 9 and 25, and to Ida,
March 16 1940.
48. See e.g. report of his interview with Sumner Welles in War Cab
67(40) of March 13. Chamberlain to Archbishop Lang, Decem-
ber 27 1939 and Lady Astor to Lothian, November 23 1939,
reporting Chamberlain addressing dinner at Carlton Club.
52. Chamberlain to Ida, December 3 1939. For Halifax saying there
would be no break unless Germany suffered military reverses, see
War Cab 78(39) of November 10.
53. Hankey, war policy memorandum of September 12 1939.
54. Cadogan diary, January 18 1940, for alternatives. See War Cab
66(40) of March 12 for the possibility of bombing the Caucasus
oilfields as a way of draining both Russia and Germany of oil and
for the danger of Russian approaches towards Afghanistan and
consideration being given to the idea of sending a force there to
protect India.
55. The quotation is Churchill's. For Thyssen's views about this ques-
tion being explained to the Cabinet, see War Cab 122(39) of De-
cember 22, Cab 65/4. For COS see War Cab 1(40) of January 2,
Cab 65/11.
56. For the first Cabinet mention of this by Churchill, See War Cab
31(39) of September 29.
57. War Cab 99(39) of November 30, 116(39) of December 15 and
117(39) of December 17.
58. War Cab 122(39) of December 22.
59. The Norwegians objected too but the dominant fear was of Swe-
den in view of the opposition the Swedes might raise if upset to
the larger object of taking Gallivare (see Chamberlain at War Cab
9(40) of January 11, Cab 65/11 and at War Cab 10(40) of Janu-
ary 12, Cab 65/11). For the Dominions see e.g. Eden to Chamber-
lain, February 28 1940, PREM 1/408.
60. War Cab 7(40) of January 9, Cab 65/11. War Cab 55(40) of Febru-
ary 29 1940.
61. And perhaps Trondheim, Stavanger and Bergen.

62. See Military Co-ordination Committee of December 20 1939
(Cab 83/1), and War Cab 122(39) of December 22, Cab 65/4.
Ironside diary, December 21, 22 and 25 1939 and January 6 and
12, and February 5 and 18 1940. Cadogan diary, December 22
1939, January 8, 11 and 12 1940. See also War Cab 18(40) of
January 19, Cab 65/11 and War Cab 50(40) of February 23.
63. Hankey, war policy memorandum of September 29 1939.
64. Halifax at War Cab 18(39) of September 17.
65. War Cab 43(39) of October 10.
66. Chamberlain at War Cab 19(39) of September 18. Chamberlain to
Hilda, October 28, to Tweedsmuir, September 25, and to Ida,
September 23, all 1939. Inskip diary, September 28 1939, for
Halifax saying the same. Cadogan diary, November 13 1939, for
Halifax, Cadogan and Sargent describing the anti-Comintern idea
as Sargent's.
67. War Cab 8(39) of September 8, 12(39) of September 11, 35(39)
of October 3, 23(39) of September 22, 39(39) of October 6,
52(39) of October 19, 95(39) of November 26, 99(39) of Novem-
ber 30, 107(39) of December 7, 115(39) of December 14. War
Cab 120(39) of December 20 for Chamberlain restraining the
French at the Supreme War Council. War Cab 62(39) of Octo-
ber 27, Cab 65/3. War Cab 71(39) of November 5 for Ciano's suc-
cess in his recent coup but not really making a difference to
foreign policy. Harvey diary, September 6 1939. Cadogan diary
of September 7 1939. Loraine's letters to Halifax in FO 800/319
and 320 are the chief source for British estimates of the Italian
situation. See also Chamberlain to Hilda, September 17 1939.
68. Chamberlain to Ida, December 3 1939. Pownall diary, Decem-
ber 17 1939 recording Chamberlain talking by the fire and
smoking pipes at GHQ, BEF.
69. By virtue of Finland being the only state to repay its war debts.
70. War Cab 101(39) of December 2 and 100(39) of December 1.
Chamberlain to Ida, December 3 and to Hilda, December 10
1939.
71. For the decision to ask the Chiefs of Staff to report on the
desirability, or otherwise, of the United Kingdom declaring war
on Russia in the event of an attack on Finland, see War Cab
57(39) of October 23. For Chiefs of Staff saying that Britain and
France could not undertake a war against Russia, see War Cab
67(39) of November 1. War Cab 91(39) of November 22 for the
impossibility of assisting any of the Scandinavian governments in
the event of German or Russian invasion. For Halifax saying that
we have been highly tolerant to Russia but cannot press the Finns
to make unacceptable concessions see War Cab 85(39) of Novem-
ber 16. For absolute refusal to go to war, even at Mannerheim's
request, see War Cab 47(40) of February 20, Cab 65/11. See also
Zetland to Linlithgow, October 2 and 4 1939, Eur.D.609 11.
72. For military aid see War Cab 103(39) of December 4 and 104(39)
of December 5. For the expulsion of Russia from the League, see

The Times, December 15 1939.
74. Including especially petrol, see Halifax to Amery, December 11
1939, Chamberlain to Ida, March 2 1940, and Hankey at War
Cab 48(40) of February 21.
75. E.g. War Cab 11 (40) of January 13.
76. See War Cab 2(40) of January 3, Cab 65/11.
77. See e.g. War Cab 8(40) and 9(40) of January 10 and 11 and War
Cab 13(40) and 16(40) of January 14 and 17 for the War Cabinet
wanting Ciano encouraged to send Italian volunteers to Finland.
78. Halifax at War Cab 21(40) of January 23. Ironside diary, Decem-
ber 25 1939. Chamberlain to Hilda, December 30 1939. War
Cab 3(40) of January 4, 5(40) of January 6 and 10(40) of Janu-
ary 12.
79. See War Cab 6(40) of January 8, Cab 65/11.
80. Perhaps the best example of this belief is Hoare * almost offer-
ting]' to go as British Minister in Sweden, where he knew the
King, in December 1939, on the ground that Finland should be
helped as soon as possible (Hoare to Chamberlain, December 26
[1939]).
81. War Cab 35(40) of February 7, Cab 65/11.
82. War Cab 31(40) of February 2, Cab 65/11. Cadogan diary, Febru-
ary 5 1940. War Cabinet 26(40) of January 29.
83. Ironside and Cadogan diaries and War Cab (including Confidential
Annexes), December 1939-March 1940.
85. Halifax, memorandum of conversation between Chamberlain and
Welles, March 13 1940, FO 800/326. Chamberlain to Ida, March
16 1940.
86. Chamberlain to Ida, March 16 1940. War Cab 68(40) of March
14, Cab 65/12.
87. Halifax at War Cab 72(40) of March 19. Hankey, war policy me-
morandum of March 18 1940.
88. War Cab 72(40) of March 19, but War Cab 78(40) of April 1 for
putting it off.
89. War Cab 70(40) of March 16 and 71(40) of March 18. Halifax at
War Cab 72(40) of March 19. Cadogan, March 12 1940, and
Campbell to Halifax, March 23 1940, FO 800/312. See also Rey-
naud to Chamberlain and Supreme War Council Agenda of
March 28 1940 in PREM 1/437.
90. War Cab 77(40) of March 29, Cab 65/12. War Cab 72(40) of
March 19, 76(40) of March 27 and 82(40) of April 5. Cadogan
diary, March 28 1940, including a decision to occupy part of
Norway if Hitler retaliated. For the Supreme War Cabinet meet-
ing of March 28 see War Cab 77(40) of March 29. For the original
decision to mine the Rhine, see War Cab 61(40) of March 6, Cab
65/12.
91. War Cab 84(40) of April 8, Cab 65/12. War Cab 78(40) of April
1. War Cab 82(40) of April 5 showing Churchill going especially

to see Daladier to overcome his opposition but being convinced
that Daladier was right about the Rhine project. Cf. Cadogan
diary, April 1 and 7, and Ironside diary, April 2 1940.
92. War Cab 82(40) of April 5, Cab 65/12, and War Cab 83(40) of
April 6.
93. War Cab 84(40) of April 8, Cab 65/12.
94. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 20 1940. Ironside diary, April 12 and
20 1940. Cadogan diary, April 13, 14 and 16 1940. War Cab
90(40) of April 12 and 98(40) of April 20, both Cab 65/12.
95. Cadogan diary, April 20 and 26, and Ironside diary, April 26
1940. Military Co-ordination Committee of April 28 1940,
Cab 83. War Cab 106(40) of April 28, Cab 65/12.
96. War Cab 113(40) of May 6, Cab 65/11. Ironside diary, May 6
1940.
97. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 20 1940. War Cab 94(40) of April 16
and 96(40) of April 18.
98. I.e. by Churchill, see War Cab 90(40) of April 12, Cab 65/12, and
by the Chiefs of Staff, see Chief of Air Staff at War Cab 95(40) of
April 17, Cab 65/12.
99. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 20 1940. See War Cab 102(40) of
April 24, Cab 65/12, for the hope that the Germans would find it
so difficult to send a land force to relieve Trondheim while it was
under siege, that Hitler would facilitate a British advance from
Narvik to Gallivare by violating Swedish territory in order to get
his forces to Trondheim.
100. War Cab 109(40) of May 1, Cab 65/11. Chamberlain to Ida,
April 27, and to Hilda, May 4 1940.
101. See e.g. War Secretary at War Cab 100(40) of April 22, Cab
65/11.
102. Chamberlain to Ida, May 11 1940.
103. Ibid.
104. War Cab 113(40) of May 6.
105. For the acute uncertainty about Mussolini's intentions, see War
Cab 105-18(40) between April 27 and May 10. See also Loraine
to Halifax, May 4 1940, FO 800/320.
106. The decision to bomb the Ruhr on that night was actually aban-
doned by Chamberlain at his last Cabinet meeting (his third on
that day) at 4.30 on May 10. There had however been extensive
discussion in the previous two days about the desirability of do-
ing so and the question had been raised and, in principle, virtually
decided on April 21 (i.e. the decision to bomb the Ruhr if the
Germans invaded Holland or Belgium). For all this see War Cab
99-119(40).
NOTES TO CHAPTER 13
1. For the last two paragraphs, see Hankey diary, August 25 and
September 27 1938, to Chamberlain, September 30 1938, and to
Phipps, February 21 1938 and April 4 1939. See also Chatfield to
Lothian, September 26 and November 27 1939 and March 14
1940.
2. See PREM 1/384 for Hankey's part in constructing the ministerial
machine and for the pre-war preparations (which began in late
1938) for a War Cabinet.
3. Ironside diary, passim September 1939 onwards, is a good source
for Ironside's belief that there was too little interest in the land
war and no real determination. Cf. Hore-Belisha diary, especially
September 22 1939, for the argument that the war could be lost
in France.
4. For Poles see War Cab 2(39) of September 2. For Finns see Lady
Astor to Lothian, January 11 or 12 1940. For Scandinavia, see
Dawson diary, April 11 1940.
5. E.g. Dawson diary, October 24 1939.
6. Cadogan diary, November 1 and 3 1939.
7. Dugdale diary, January to March 1940.
8. War Cab 58(39) of October 24 and War Cab 68(39) of Novem-
ber 2 in Cab 65/4.
9. War Cab 59 and 60(39) of October 25, 73(39) of November 6
and 30(40) of February 2. Cf. Halifax to Linlithgow, March 31
1940, for Simon being at least as unyielding.
10. Ironside diary, January 2 1940. War Cab 12(40) and 13(40) of
January 14 and War Cab 14(40) of January 15, Cab 65/11. For
the Keyes mission and Churchill's involvement, see PREM 1/401.
11. War Cab 15(39) of September 14. For British doubts about the
French forward strategy in the Balkans, see War Cab 21(39) of
September 20.
12. Wallace diary, October 25 1939.
13. War Cab 63(39) of October 25.
14. Wallace diary, October 24 1939.
15. For lines of supply etc. see Wallace diary, October 23 and 25
1939.
16. E.g. as Ironside did, Ironside diary, September 7 1939.
17. War Cab 24(39) of September 23. For the appointment of the
Land Forces Committee to investigate the possible size of the
Land Forces see War Cab 6(39) of September 6. For Chamberlain
urging competing air needs, see War Cab 9(39) of September 9
and passim War Cab 1939-40. Chamberlain to Churchill, Septem-
ber 16, and Churchill to Chamberlain, September 15 and 18
1939.
18. Cadogan diary, February 4 1940 and Loraine to Halifax, May 4
1940, FO 800/320, for Churchill (and Chamberlain) wanting to
put off any declaration of war against Italy.
20. For a good example see Churchill to Chamberlain, November 18

1939, and vice versa, November 19, PREM 1/330.
21. Chamberlain to Ida, November 19 1939 and January 27 1940.
Hore-Belisha diary, September 9 1939.
22. For Churchill suggesting a meeting of War Cabinet ministers with-
out advisers and secretaries, see Churchill to Chamberlain, Sep-
tember 21 1939. For it being held, and for others being held, see
Cab 65/1, fo. 154 of September 26 and Cab 65/4. fo. 314 of Oc-
tober 23 1939.
23. Memorandum of October 3 1939, NC 7/9/63, and to Ida, Octo-
ber 8 1939.
24. Inskip diary, October 16 1939. Hoare to Lothian, November 12
1939. There is a lot about this in War Cab (39) especially War
Cab 74(39) of November 7, Cab 65/4. Wallace diary, November 8
1939.
26. For Chamberlain definitely directing the Cabinet, see Cab 55(40)
of February 29. Chamberlain to Ida, March 2 1940.
27. Amery diary, October 10 1939, for Chatfield saying so. For rela-
tions between Churchill, Chamberlain, Chatfield and the Chiefs of
Staff see Chatfield, vol. II, pp. 179—88 and Ismay, pp. 108—15.
29. For an example see War Cabinet 18(40) of January 19.
30. E. Bridges, memorandum of April 25 1940, PREM 1/404.
32. E.g. his niggling about the disposition of the Expeditionary Force
for Norway, as though he was *a company commander running a
small operation to cross a bridge', Ironside diary, April 14 1940.
Chamberlain to Ida, April 13 1940.
34. Wilson memo of April 25 1940 (PREM 1/404), also reports Han-
key, Simon and Wood complaining.
35. For the setting up of the MCC, see War Cab 66(39) of Octo-
ber 31.
36. Chamberlain to Hilda, April 20 1940. E. Bridges, memo of April
25 1940, PREM 1/404.
38. E.g. Churchill to Salisbury, December 19 1939.
39. Dalton diary, October 12 1939, for an example of Lloyd butter
ing up the Labour party.
40. Churchill to Chamberlain, September 29 and November 14 1939
and January 31 and April 1 1940. Cf. Londonderry to Chamber-
lain, April 1 1940. Churchill seems not to have conveyed Booth-
by's and Macmillan's offers to serve (for which see Boothby to
Churchill, September 7 1939).
41. Nicolson, Channon and Amery diaries, all April 11 1940.
42. See Keyes to Churchill, April 26, 29 and 30, to Chamberlain,
May 1, and to his wife, April 16 and 17, all Keyes MSS, all 1940.
43. Cadogan diary, April 20 1940.
44. Cadogan diary, April 24 1940. Ironside diary, April 27 1940. War
Cab 105(40) of April 27, Cab 65/12.
45. Ironside diary, April 26 1940, recording Churchill talking to Iron-
side.
47. Churchill to Chamberlain, April 24 1940.
48. Nicolson diary, April 23 1940. Channon diary, April 25 1940.
Salisbury to Swinton, April 20 1940.
49. Hoare to Beaverbrook, October 1 1939. Wallace diary, Febru-
ary 1 1940.
50. Hacking, Conservative Party chairman, in 1922 Committee Minute
Book of November 15 1939. Wallace diary, November 15 1939.
51. E.g. the Simon budget, see Channon diary, September 27 1939.
Chamberlain to Hilda, October 1 1939.
52. For an example see Wallace diary, February 21 1940.
53. See e.g. Halifax to Chamberlain, February 10 1940, PREM 1/408.
55. Especially from Alexander.
56. Memorandum of All-Party Parliamentary Action Group of Sep-
tember 4 1939.
57. Stevenson diary, March 24 1935.
58. Rathbone to Lloyd George, September 15, and Lloyd George to
Rathbone, September 16 1939.
59. R.D. Denman.
60. I.e. Roberts, Mander, Foot and Horabin.
61. T.E.Harvey.
62. R.R. Stokes.
63. See e.g. Rose Rosenberg to MacDonald, February 24 1933, for
Clement Davies keeping MacDonald informed.
64. For all this see Clement Davies to Lloyd George, January 25
1935.
65. The Davies Group had three main sub-committees — a foreign
policy group under Mander, a home defence group under Mrs
Tate and an economics group under Boothby. Of these the eco-
nomics group seems to have been the most effective, linked as it
was through Salter to Keynes, Beveridge and Lay ton (Boothby to
Lloyd George, November 2 1939) and directed at points where
government machinery was reckoned to be weakest. Three of
them were prominent in the delegation Chamberlain received on
the subject in November 1937 (PREM 1/213 October 31 and
November 2 1937).
66. E.g. Boothby, Rathbone, Stokes and Salter.
67. For Boothby see Boothby to Lloyd George, September 29 1939.
For Salter see Salter to Finney (enclosure) of November 1 1939
(G/141/44/1). For Stokes see R.R. Stokes, Circulated Letter of
October 4 1939 (G/19/3/4), Stokes to Halifax, October 19 1939
(FO 800/325) and Stokes memorandum in Stokes to Lloyd
George, March 3 1940 (G/19/3/6). For Rathbone see Rathbone
letter in Manchester Guardian, October 5 1939, and *Notes on a
possible settlement and war peace aims', October 19 1939

(G/16/7/6& 7).
68. Nicolson diary, December 14 1939.
69. Davies, interview in Western Mail, December 16 1939, for the
Davies platform.
71. Amery diary, September 4 and 5 1939.
74. Amery diary, January 5 1940.
75. Chamberlain to Amery, November 30 1939.
76. Amery to Halifax October 9 1939 (Amery MSS) and October 21
1939 (FO 800/325). Amery to Churchill, October 10 1939, and
to Croft, December 2 1939.
78. See War Cab 24(40) of January 26.
79. E.g. George Woodcock. Amery diary, October 29 1939, Janu-
ary 9 and 11 and February 26 1940. See also PREM 1/438.
80. Cartland, for example, at one time, see Nicolson diary, Septem-
ber 20 1939.
81. Wolmer to Churchill, September 6 1939.
82. See e.g. Harvey diary, March 30 1940, for J.P.L. Thomas talking.
83. Cf. Nicolson diary, September 17 1939.
84. It also held meetings at which it entertained, among others,
Lloyd, Trenchard, Vansittart, Astor and Hore-Belisha whose dis-
missal, however, was welcomed. See Nicolson diary, January 7
1940, and J.P.L. Thomas to Baldwin, January 7 1940, for Hore-
Belisha having been dismissed because he 'told lies'.
85. See e.g. Trenchard memo of April 13 1940 in Astor MSS, box 43,
fol. 824.
86. Nicolson diary, December 14 1939.
87. For Finland see Wallace diary, March 19 1940.
89. I.e. Cranborne, Ormsby-Gore, Wolmer, Selborne and Cecil of Che-
wode.
90. Salisbury to Baldwin, August 4 1938.
91. Ormsby-Gore to Baldwin, May 24 1935 and December 19 1938,
Cranborne to Halifax, December 10 and 19 1939, FO 800/322.
Selborne in Amery diary, December 28 1938. Salisbury to Hali-
fax, October 28 1939, FO 800/325. Selborne to his wife, May 16
1933 (MS Selborne 107) and May 25, May 26 and July 25 1938
(MS Selborne 108). Cecil to Baring, February 8 1935, Add. MSS
51170. Butler to Brabourne, July 27 1934, for Ormsby-Gore af-
ter the assassination of Dollfuss.
92. Salisbury to Cecil, August 2 1938.
93. Nicolson diary, April 7 1937.
94. Salisbury to Selborne, December 9 1938, MS Selborne 7.
95. Salisbury to Selborne, November 17 1938, MS Selborne 7.

98. Salisbury to Selborne, December 9 1938, MS Selborne 7.
99. Salisbury to Selborne, September 5 1939, MS Selborne 7.
100. Salisbury to Halifax, September 22, 1939 FO 800/317 and note
by Chamberlain. Cf. 'certain sorts of weakness are a form of
moral selfishness', Salisbury to Davidson, October 9 1939.
101. For an affirmation of belief in an eventual world state, see Attlee
to Tom Attlee, January 11 1933.
102. E.g. Cranborne talking, in Headlam diary, April 30 1935, and
Cranborne to Noel-Buxton in Anderson, pp. 152—3.
103. Nicolson diary, January 17 1940.
104. Cranborne, Cecil, Wolmer and Salisbury.
106. Wallace diary, September 25 1939.
107. For a public example see Lady As tor to Lothian, November 23
1939. For another in the House of Commons, see Dawson diary,
October 12 1939.
108. Hankey diary, August 23 1939. Hankey to his wife, September 3
1939, and to Robin Hankey, October 15 1938.
109. For Grigg being involved in the East European deal in the summer
of 1939 (above pp. 299-300), see Ball to Wilson, September 16
1939, PREM 1/379. For Stanhope's blunder and the newspaper
campaign against him, see Hoare to W.W. Astor, June 12 1939. See
also Grigg, pp. 54—69, for a statement of the need for economic
rapprochement. Avon, Facing the Dictators, p. 580. Cf. Nicolson
diary, April 22 1939.
110. Macmillan, for example, made way for Reith because he had
bungled the Ministry of Information. Morrison made way for
Woolton when he bungled the Ministry of Food. Gilmour, who
returned to office in October 1939 in order to set up the Ministry
of Shipping (four and a half years after he had been removed
from the Home Office), would have been removed again if his
death in March 1940 had not made this unnecessary (Chamberlain
to Ida, March 30 1940. Wallace diary, March 29 and 30 1940).
It is true that Hore-Belisha was removed from the War Office
because he had been made a special target of Conservative criti-
cism (Wallace diary says the Secret Session of December 13 was
really aimed at the War Office) and had mishandled relations with
Gort. But Chamberlain had decided, despite his widespread un-
popularity, to send him to the Ministry of Information (which he
would have accepted). He would have left him at the War Office,
if he had known in advance that he would be compelled, at short
notice, to offer him the Board of Trade (which Hore-Belisha re-
fused) after Halifax had been persuaded that a Jew should not
have charge of the propaganda machine. Chamberlain says he
consulted Wood, Hadley (the editor of the Sunday Times), Cam-
rose, Attlee, Hoare, Simon, Churchill and the Ambassador in the
United States and that nobody really disapproved until Halifax,
who had more or less approved when asked some days before,
suddenly said, on Cadogan's advice, two hours before Chamber-
lain was to tell Hore-Belisha, that he disapproved strongly. Cham-
berlain then offered Hore-Belisha the Board of Trade, which Dun-
can had already accepted, and was told by Hore-Belisha, after he
had consulted newspaper editors and proprietors, that he would
not take it unless he had control of some aspects of financial
policy (Chamberlain to Ida, January 7 1940 and Chamberlain's
comments, NC 8/32/1. Cadogan diary, January 3, 4, 6 and 8
1940).
111. At the Ministry of Information and Board of Trade respectively.
112. Chamberlain to Ida, December 20 1939. Amery diary, Decem-
ber 13, and Nicolson diary, December 14 1939.
113. Margesson talking in Wallace diary, November 30 1940.
114. For Chamberlain offering reassurance in the Finland debate see
Nicolson and Channon diaries, March 19 1940.
116. Cf. Camrose in Pownall diary, April 4 1940. Eden in Nicolson
diary, April 3 1940, for this being Chamberlain's way of beginn-
ing to edge Hoare out.
117. Channon diary of April 25 1940. Wedgwood (an admirer) to
Churchill, April 30 1940. Nicolson diary, April 30 and May 1
1940.
118. Cf. Ironside diary of April 27 1940 for the War Cabinet and
public opinion. See also Zetland to Linlithgow, May 2 1940 in
Zetland, p. 294.
119. Channon diary, April 25 1940, quoting Dunglass.
121. Chamberlain to Hilda, May 4, and Ironside diary, April 28 1940.
122. Ironside diary, May 1 1940. Chamberlain note of April 30 1940,
PREM 1/404.
124. I.e. given him in virtue of his Privy Councillor's oath, Wallace
diary, May 1 1940.
125. Silvester quoting unnamed MP in Lloyd George MSS G/24/1/128.
Channon diary, May 8 1940. Dalton diary, May 8 1940 and May
9. Nicolson diary, quoting Hall, May 9 1940. Hailsham to Cham-
berlain, May 14 1940. For Sir Ralph Glyn 'of all people' see
Headlam diary, May 8 1940.
126. E.g. Bracken, Churchill, Crookshank, Eden, O'Neill (see Zetland
to Linlithgow, May 2 1940 in Zetland, p. 294), Stanley, Thomas,
Grigg (see Amery diary, April 28 1940).
127. For an analysis see The Times, May 10 1940.
128. See e.g. W.S. Liddall to Chamberlain, May 13 1940, and P.J. Han-
non to Chamberlain, May 7 1940, both in NC 13/17. See also
J.S. Crooke to Chamberlain, November 1938-May 1940, in NC
13/13/79-84.
129. Amery, Nicolson and Dalton diaries, May 8 1940.
130. Channon diary, May 9 1940 for Dunglass saying so. See also
Churchill, The Second World War, I, p. 596.

131. E.g. Reith, p. 382.
132. It was thought likely that Bevin and Morrison would be the most
effective members of a war-time government, and there were sug-
gestions, to which Morrison responded, that he might become
Prime Minister. For Morrison see Peake's talk with Morrison of
December 2 1939, FO 800/325. Crozier, interview with Morrison,
March 29 1940, and Harvey diary, April 26 1940. See also Silves-
ter note for Lloyd George, May 5 or 6 1940, Lloyd George MSS
G/24/1/128. For Sinclair and the Secret Session see Amery diary,
December 13 1939.
135. For Lloyd George being thought likely at the Salisbury group see
Nicolson diary April 30, May 1 and May 3 1940.
136. Rhodes James, p. 292. Lloyd George to The Times, April 2 1936.
137. Jones diary, May 7 1940. For Lady Astor being very hostile to
the government because Waldorf Astor had not been asked to join
see Wallace diary, February 21 1940. For Garvin see Wallace dia-
ry, May 6 1940. For David Astor saying Chamberlain must go see
Wallace diary, September 25 1939. For Astor see Lady Astor to
Lothian, April 11 and May 8 1940.
138. Harmsworth to Lloyd George, April 26 [1940].
139. See Cripps to Lloyd George, May 5 1940, and enclosure. The
letter that appeared in the Mail on May 6 suggested that Halifax
should be Prime Minister and Attlee Chancellor but did not men-
tion Cripps. It was followed on May 7 by a letter from Robert
Cary, Unionist MP for Eccles, which suggested Churchill and Hali-
fax as Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and, while in-
cluding Labour leaders, included neither Attlee nor Cripps. On
May 9 the Mail demanded Lloyd George as Prime Minister and
Churchill as Deputy Prime Minister but did not mention Attlee or
Cripps. For Lloyd George's 'high thinking and modest living1 see
Daily Mail of May 10.
140. Lloyd George to Harmsworth, April 30 1940.
141. For Lloyd George expecting more disasters, see Boothby in Dug-
dale diary, May 7 1940, and Sunday Pictorial, April 28 and May 5
1940.
142. Amery diary, May 1 1940, quoting Clement Davies quoting Lloyd
George. Boothby to Churchill, May 9 1940. Channon diary, May
9 1940.
143. Wheeler-Bennett, pp. 4 4 3 - 4 .
144. E.g. Dalton in Dalton diary, May 8 1940 and Dalton and Morri-
son in Butler to Halifax May 9 1940, Halifax MSS. But for Green-
wood saying that Conservatives must decide between Churchill
and Halifax see Amery diary, May 2 1940. Halifax was not sup-
ported very strongly by the Watching Committee who found him
'tired and distressed* when they saw him on the 29th. He and
Churchill divided the Eden group between them, Amery diary,
May 1 1940. Cf. Lady Astor to Lothian, January 11 or 12 1940.

145. Churchill, The Second World War, pp. 5 9 6 - 8 . Halifax, p. 220.
146. Attlee had decided by May 1, see Dalton diary, May 1 1940.
Amery diary, May 2 1940. Cf. Wallace diary March 19 1940.
147 Who had destroyed what was left of his reputation by attacking
the government from which he had been removed.
149. Amery diary, May 7, and Nicolson diary, May 8 1940.
150. Wallace, Amery and Nicolson diaries, May 9 1940. Hansard (360)
col. 1435 of May 9 1940. For Amery as a bore, see Dunglass
reported in Chamberlain to Hilda, April 10 1937.
151. Nicolson and Amery diaries, May 9, and Boothby to Churchill,
May 9 1940.
152. Amery and Nicolson diaries, May 10 1940.
155. Amery diary, May 11 and 12 1940.
156. Chamberlain to Churchill, May 11 1940.
157. Dugdale diary, May 14 1940.
158. Whom Chamberlain had already removed from the Cabinet in
April.
159. Churchill to Adams, November 16 1940.
160. Astor to Bracken, May 20 1940, and Bracken to Astor, May 24
1940. Lady Astor to Lothian, May 21 1940.
161. They sat with Chamberlain, Halifax, Anderson, Wood, Brown,
Inskip, Simon, W.S. Morrison, Duncan, Reith, MacDonald, Wool-
ton, Hudson, Hankey and Tryon from the old.
162. Chamberlain talking in Reith, p. 381.
163. Churchill to Chamberlain, May 10 1940.
164. Channon diary, May 10 1940. Winterton to Hoare, May 9 1940.
165. E.g. E.G. Cobb, Sir George Davies to Chamberlain and James
Stuart to Chamberlain, May 1 0 - 1 4 1940 in NC 13/17, together
w ith many other expressions of loyalty and irritation from Cham-
berlain's supporters.
166. For the cool reception he received at his first appearance in the
House of Commons, see Dugdale diary, May 14 1940.
167. Spens to Chamberlain, May 9 1940.
NOTES TO CONCLUSION
1. For J.B. Priestley, whose wartime broadcasts transmuted a con-
tentious Northern radicalism into a central position which the
BBC would accept, see Postscripts, 1940, and 'Out of the People',
1941. For Noel Coward as laureate of the People's war, see the
films This Happy Breed, In which we Serve etc.
2. I.e. Michael Foot, Peter Howard and Frank Owen, all Beaver-
brook journalists in the thirties and authors of Tory MP (1939),
540 NOTES TO CONCLUSION, pp. 388-91
Guilty Men (1940) and 100,000,000 allies - if we choose (1940),

the last two of which helped to create a new outlook after Dun-
kirk.
3. Stanley Morison being not only the Times typographer and its
official historian, but-also typographer to, and Catholic, Radical, ex-
pacifist, friend of Beaverbrook (see Barker, passim but especially
ch. 15).
4. The case of Greenwood is well-known. For Alexander see e.g.
Bruce Lockhart diary, April 26 1934.
5. For Morrison aiming at edgelessness, see Chamberlain to Hilda
November 23 1935, but for him being a 'bitter partisan', see
Chamberlain to Ida, September 30 1937.
6. For Morrison being thought of as a member of a national govern-
ment, see Jones to Lady Grigg, November 3 1936 (doubtless in
the knowledge that Morrison had wanted to follow MacDonald in
1931). It is one of the few defects of Jones and Donoughue's
admirable Life that it does not tell us with what degree of self-
consciousness Morrison was preparing himself in the late thirties
for high (perhaps the highest) office in war.
7. Attlee, pp. 12 and 277.
8. Attlee, pp. 13 and 285.
9. Baldwin to Linlithgow, December 29 1938. Butler to Braborne,
March 1 1935.
10. Attlee to Tom Attlee, January 1 1933.
11. Attlee to Tom Attlee, January 1 1933.
12. Attlee to Tom Attlee, April 29 1938.
13. I.e. not only after the 1935 election (when he was elected over
Morrison and Greenwood) but also in 1937 (when plans were
laid to remove him, chiefly by Dalton).
14. Linlithgow to Lady Salisbury, June 16 1936, Eur.F.125 152.
15. Attlee, p. 279, and Attlee's speeches, passim.
16. Attlee, p. 224.
17. Attlee, pp. 1 5 4 - 5 .
18 Attlee to Tom Attlee, April 3 1933.
19. Attlee, p. 284.
20. Attlee, pp. 279 and 2 8 1 - 3 .
21. Attlee in ed. Bryant, Constructive Democracy, p. 113. See also
PREM 1/373 for Simon and Chamberlain after Conscription. See
also Attlee to Tom Attlee, February 15 1933, and in the Morning
Po**,June6 1936.
22. Keyes,p. 1.
23. History of the Times 1921-48, p. 990.
24. For Francis Acland see Nicolson diary, September 29 1938. For
Richard Acland see Nicolson diary, March 14 and December 5
1938. For Mabane see Nicolson diary, April 19 1937. For Cart-
land see Nicolson diary, July 28 1936. For Wilfred Roberts offer-
ing to withdraw Liberal opposition in West Leicester if Nicolson
would stop being National Labour see Nicolson diary, April 12
1938.
NOTES TO CONCLUSION, pp. 539-541 541

26. Brown talking in Nicolson diary, July 9 1936.
27. Womersley to Chamberlain, October 1 1938.
28. Butler to Brabourne, June 20 1934.
29. De la Warr in Nicolson diary, September 10 1937, and Titchfield
in Nicolson diary, May 20 1936.
30. Sandys talking in Nicolson diary, July 28 1936. Lean in News
Chronicle, December 14 1938.
31. See Cowling, p. 423.
32. Eden in Hansard (341) of November 10 1938, col. 381. Nicolson
diary, November 10 1938, and Astor to Garvin, November 17
1938, for two similar views of Eden.
34. Nicolson diary, February 13 and March 8 1939.
35. Astor to Garvin, November 17 1938, and Lady Astor to Lothian,
March 23 1939.
36. King-Hall in 1922 Committee minute-book of July 3 1939.
37. In his diary for December 26 1938, Pownall reported himself and
Bridges agreeing that rearmament should have started 'a year ear-
lier' but that 'there [was] nothing very much wrong with the scale
of our preparations' and that another 'year or eighteen months'
would be sufficient to avoid 'defeat in a short war'. Immediately
before the war began he believed that, though a 'short war...might
have [been] lost...last September, now we shouldn't [lose]...a long
war either'. While there can be no doubt about the overriding
importance of the 'interlocking options' (see above pp. 159—62),
it is interesting that, for example, the Chiefs of Staff 'Appreciation
of the Situation in the event of war against Germany' (CP 199(38)
of September 14 1938) was written in a moderate tone about
German air superiority (paras. 22—7), but was emphatic about
the 'three-cornered bogey'.
38. E.g. Hankey, Phipps and Smuts.
39. For the Italian Ambassador in Moscow repeating this to the Ital-
ian government, see Toscano, pp. 52—8.
40. To say nothing of e.g. Nicolson (diary, April 15 1939) and Har-
vey (diary, passim in early 1938) for the view that Roosevelt's
statements had made America's intervention in war inevitable and
that the 'Anglo-Saxons' had therefore 'won'.
41. E.g. Cadogan note on Duff Cooper to Halifax, March 22 1939,
FO 800/315.
42. See e.g. Ismay, memorandum for the Prime Minister of June 29
1939 in PREM 1/309. Cf. Dilks, Cadogan diary, p. 172, and Lan-
ger and Gleason, p. 104.
43. See Langer and Gleason, p. 49, for a report (denied) that Roose-
velt had said this in 1939.
THE IMPACT OF HITLER INDEX
Abbreviation used: NC for Neville 252, 302; predicted in intelligence

Chamberlain reports, 300-1
Alexander, A.V., 25, 267, 382, 385,
Abyssinia 388,401
Italian invasion of (1935): Gov- Allen, Clifford, 1st Baron, 267, 401;
ernment policy on, 79-91, 226, Next Five Years group of, 40, 52-3,
240, 261; in 1935 election, 10, 230, 246; leaves National Labour
97-8; Hoare-Laval proposals on, Party, 333
99-101, 116, 156; opinions on Gov- Amery, Leopold, 16, 117, 120-2, 138,
ernment policy on, (Amery and 371; and India bill, 45, 317; in op-
section of Conservatives) 120, position to NC, 216, 224-8, 244,
121-2, (Beaverbrook) 119, (Cecil) 248; in Eden's group, 249, 252; NC
114, (A. Chamberlain) 137, (Duff on, 294; tells Greenwood to *speak
Cooper) 327, (Elliot) 320, (Garvin) for England' (1 Sept. 1939), 344;
124, 125-6, (Halifax) 273, (Han- chairman of Eden group at fall of
key) 161, 170, (Labour Party) 211, NC, 372, 375-6, 381, 385; as pos-
(Ormsby-Gore) 315, (Simon) 347, sible Prime Minister? 384; in 1940
(Times) 128, 130, (Vansittart) Government, 385, 386
156-7, (Zetland) 317; Anderson, Sir John, 263, 281, 316,
defeat of, by Italy (1936), 108, 341,401
116, 117; makes League of Nations Angell, Sir Norman, 25, 125, 242-3,
a problem, 140,143; 248, 401
question of recognition of Ital- Anglo-French naval force, patrols Med-
ian annexation of, 170, 174, 232, iterranean (1937), 168
243, 274-5, 339 recognition only Anglo-French Parliamentary Commit-
after withdrawal from Spain? 162, tee, 376
167,335 anti-aircraft defences, 331, 332
Acland, Sir Francis Dyke, 111, 401 Anti-Comintern Pact, 170, 173, 178,
Acland, Richard Dyke, 217, 401 308, 361; Hitler abandons, 396
Addison, C , 53, 392, 401 anti-Semitism (and pogroms) in Ger-
Africa, Ormsby-Gore and, 315 many, 203, 205, 282, 288, 377-8
Aga Khan, the, 126, 401 appeasement of Germany, views on:
agriculture: NC speaks on, 257; W.S. Amery, 225; Bevin, 221; Lay ton,
Morrison as Minister of, 319; Elliot 235; Times, 132
and, 320 Arab countries, 169, 203, 276, 300
Air Defence Campaign, 39, 240, 247 armaments, Royal Commission on pri-
Air Defence Research Sub-Committee vate manufacture of, 48
of Committee of Imperial Defence, army: NC and question of Continental
240, 242, 244 Field Force from, 150, 153, 204;
Air Ministry, 243, 316 programme of 55 divisions for
Air Pact (1935), 73,161 (1939), 370; see also conscription
air policy: NC and, 153; turns from Arnold, Sydney, 1st Baron, 358, 401
bomber parity to fighter defence Astor, W., 2nd Viscount, 122-3, 128,
(1937), 178, 297 252, 378, 401
Air Raid Precautions, 341 Astor, W.W., 385, 402
aircraft, proposed abolition of military, Astor, Lady, 122, 381, 401-2
64 Astor family, 210
Albania, Italian occupation of, 219, Atholl, Duchess of, 111, 245, 248, 402
544
Attlec, Clement, 388-91; Cecil and, 22, Balogh, Thomas, 376, 402
229; in Labour Party after 1935 elec- Bank of England, Lloyd George and
tion, 23, 82, 221; Cripps and, 29, nationalisation of, 39
216, 217; NC dislikes, 203, 304, Barrington-Ward, R.W., 128, 130, 131,
373; and Czechoslovakia, 212, 213; 132, 391
in opposition to NC, 245, 248, 267; Barry, G.R., 233, 402
at fall of NC, 376, 382; in 1940 Barthou, J.L., 69, 73, 124, 130
Government, 2, 385, 387; Prime Bartlett, Vernon, 123, 216, 218, 245,
Minister in 1945, 390 248,402; NC on, 294
Australia, 397, 398 Battle of Britain (1940), 395
Austria: Hitler and, 64, 68, 69, 71; Beaverbrook, W.M. Aitken, 1st Baron,
interest of Italy in, 72, 172, 'Ger- 35, 46, 47-8, 269, 334, 402; and
man solution' for (Lothian), 134, League of Nations Union, 21; and
independence of, as key to peace foreign policy, 119-20, 140; sup-
(A. Chamberlain), 137; prospect of ports NC, 258; in peace movement
German coup against, 144, 156, (winter 1939-40), 358; at fall of
171, 172, 174; German Anschluss NC, 384; in 1940 Government,
with (1938), 179-80; views on 371, 386
Anschluss, (Amery) 226, (Chur- Beck, General (German), 359
chill) 243, (Halifax) 275, (Hender- Belgium: question of guarantee to, 71,
son) 286, (Labour Party) 211 73; Eden and, in Rhineland crisis,
106; staff talks with, 107; with-
Baldwin, Stanley (later Earl) draws from Locarno Pact, 164; NC
attacks Beaverbrook and Roth- and prospect of support for 'peace
ermere (1930), 46; in National Gov- offensive' from King of, 358
ernment (1931), 15, 35,42, 45,49, Bellenger, F.J., 374
50; Cecil and, 19, 20, 21; and Peace Benes, E.: and Russia, 135, 270; Brit-
Ballot, 22, 58; relations between ish pressure on, 181, 183, 276, 277;
Lloyd George and, 38, 40, 55; Sudeten Germans reject offers of,
Prime Minister (1935-7), 59, 62, 186; Runciman criticises, 190; as
79; on air defence, 71, 72, 240; and France's ally, not Britain's, 191;
Abyssinia, 88, 89, 90-1, 99, 100, Halifax and, 276, 277; Simon and,
101, 124, 139, 140; decides on 349
election (1935), 91; election pro- Berchtesgaden, meeting of Hitler and
gramme of, 10, 93-4; and rearma- NC at (1938), 185-90, 226, 244;
ment, 92, 115, 147-8; appoints opinions of ministers about: (De la
Eden Foreign Secretary, 102; pros- Warr) 324, (Duff Cooper), 328,
pect of retirement of, 108-9; efforts (M. MacDonald) 326, (W.S.Morri-
to remove, 117; advised by Daw- son), 319, (Simon), 349, (O. Stan-
son, 128; A. Chamberlain hostile ley), 336
to, 137; makes Cabinet changes Berlin-Rome Axis, 172, 182
(Feb. 1936), 139; and Foreign Of- Berlin-Tokyo Axis, 130-1, 419, 158
fice, 155; and abdication, 232; as Bernays, R.H., 333, 350, 391, 402
Prime Minister, 259-62; compared Berry, Michael, 387, 402
with NC, 262-3, 265; Betterton, Sir Henry, 44, 402
NC succeeds, 149; supports NC Betting bill, 240
over Czechoslovakia, 203; advises Bevan, Aneurin, 216, 402
Eden, 236-7; Eden's group and, Beveridge, W., 234, 391
250, 251; Halifax's affinities with, Bevin, Ernest, 25, 30, 53, 115, 382,
272; and W.S. Morrison, 318, 319; 392, 402; and sanctions, 82, 83, 84;
and Attlee, 389 on the banks, 221; in 1940 Govern-
Balkans, 362, 363, 364, 368 ment, 385; in 1945 Government,
Ball, Sir Joseph, 163, 300, 376, 378, 391
402 'Big Six', in 1931 National Govern-
545
ment, 41-2; and Lloyd George, 56, Carson, Sir Edward, later Baron, 17,
57 117
Birkenhead, F.E. Smith, 1st Earl of, Cartland, Ronald, 218, 249, 404
334 Cecil of Chelwode, Viscount (Lord
Birmingham: NC's speech at (Mar. Robert Cecil): and League of Na-
1939), announcing intention of re- tions Union, 15, 17-22, 33, 36,
sisting Hitler, 295-6 278-9; opposed by Conservative
Blum, Leon, 117, 149, 161, 170, 212; Party, 55, by Dawson, 129, by Han-
Times praises, 130; Conservative key, 161, by Keyes, 247; approved
Party and, 266, 269 by Elliot, 320; attitudes of, to for-
Bonham-Carter, Lady Violet, 252, 333, eign policy, 79-81, (Abyssinia) 87,
402-3 113, (Czechoslovakia) 280; as lead-
Bonnet, G., 191, 285, 307, 311, 346 er of liberal opinion, 109; NC's
Boothby, Robert, 184, 346, 403; in speech against, 141; in opposition
opposition to NC, 244, 247, 248; in to NC, 224, 227, 229-30, 244;
Davies's group, 374; at fall of NC, Churchill and, 242
381; in 1940 Government, 386 Chamberlain, Sir Austen, 136-8, 164;
Bracken, Brendan, 270, 347, 403; in as Conservative dissentient, 16,
opposition to NC, 244, 247, 248, 138, 241; and League of Nations
251; at fall of NC, 371, 384; in Union, 18, 21, 115; and India bill,
1940 Government, 386 45, 240, 317; and Abyssinia, 81,
Bridgeman, 1st Viscount, 272 87, 101-2; question of Cabinet of-
Bridgewater by-election (1938), 218, fice for, at resignation of Hoare,
248, 331, 341 102; hostile to Baldwin, 137, 261;
British Empire: question of defence of, Salisbury and, 377, 378
(1933) 69-71, (1935) 91, 161; as Chamberlain, Lady Ivy, wife of Aus-
'an incubus' (Vansittart), 159; ten, 163, 164, 172
Labour Party and threat to, 209; Chamberlain, Joseph, 122, 130
Churchill on, 242; Hitler's deter- Chamberlain, Neville (NC)
mination to destroy, 282, 284; con- historians and, 2-3,4, 10; Cham-
version of, into offshore debtor, cellor of Exchequer (1931-7), 42,
397; 'liquidation' of, in Labour pol- 55-6; protectionism of, 24, 35, 50;
icy, 399 and unemployment, 44, 45; and
British Union of Fascists, 15, 17, 47 Beaverbrook, 47, 48; and state ac-
Brocket, A.R., 2nd Baron, 358, 403 tivity, 53; and housing, 54; and
Brown, Ernest, 34, 35, 314, 392, 403 Lloyd George, 56-7, 58, 137; and
Bryant, Arthur, 3, 403 foreign policy, 74, 76; and Abys-
Buccleuch, W. J. Montagu-Douglas- sinia, 10, 88, 89, 90, 100-1, 101-2;
Scott, 8th Duke of, 358, 403 prepares for election, with rearma-
Burgin, E.L., 263, 302, 314, 385, 403 ment as central issue, 91-4; pros-
Butler, R.A., 177, 263, 279, 358, 403 pect of becoming Prime Minister,
108, 109; relations of, with Amery,
Cadman, Sir John, 403 120, with Hoare, 139, with Vansit-
Cadman Report on Air Ministry, 243, tart, 157; Times and, 128, 131,
316 133; and League of Nations, 10-11,
Cadogan, Sir Alexander, 169, 172, 139-40;
186, 275, 289, 290, 403; and as Prime Minister (1937-40),
Czechoslovakia, 279, 2 8 3 4 ; at dec- 149-55, 158; opens negotiations
laration of war, 351 with Mussolini, 162-3, 166; policy
Camrose, W.E. Berry, 1st Baron, 252, of Eden and, over Spain, 163-9; and
258, 403-4 Halifax, 171, 272, 381; and Eden's
capitalism, Labour Party and, 23-4, resignation, 172-3; and 'initiative'
210,390 from USA, 175-6; after Eden's res-
Carr, E.H., 391 ignation, 177-9; and Austria,
546
179-80; and Czechoslovakia, 9-10, China: Japanese invasion of northern

180-5; acts as Foreign Minister, (1931), 18, 19, 21, 159; Brussels
277-8; meets Hitler at Berchtes- Conference on (1937), 168, 169;
gaden, 185-90, 226, 244; and An- Japanese invade central (1937),
glo-French proposals to Czechos- 170; Chamberlain rejects proposal
lovakia, 190-3; meets Hitler at of loan to, 182; Russian influence
Godesberg, 193-7, 226; at Cabinet in, 276
meetings, 197-9, 200-1; at Munich, Churchill, Randolph, 17, 45-6, 119,
179, 201-2; achievement of, 202-3; 239, 243, 404
at Paris and Rome, 204-5; residual Churchill, Winston: writings of, 3, 239;
confidence of, 205-6; after German and air defence, 39, 72, 314; and
occupation of Czechoslovakia, loses German aircraft production, 42;
confidence and changes tone, 206, against India bill, 45, 85, 239, 240;
293-9; and Abyssinia, 11, 81, 87; and Hit-
Labour Party and, 210, 211, ler, 138, 184; contacts of, with
212, 213, 219, 220, 221, 223, 393; Beaverbrook, 119-20, Cripps, 217,
and League of Nations Union, 228, Cecil, 229, Hoare, 330, Vansittart,
229; Sinclair on, 231; and Baldwin, 284, and Wood, 265; in opposition
236, 237, 261; and Churchill, to NC, 224, 227, 236, 238, 239-45,
240-1; his first 20 months as Prime 247, 251, 330; member of Air De-
Minister, 7, 11, 257-9; compared fence Research Committee, 240,
with Baldwin, 262-3; Conservative 244; at abdication, 241; newspaper
Party and policy of, 263-71; and campaigns in favour of, 252, 343;
economic discussions with Ger- and Czechoslovakia, 280, 286; Hali-
many, 299-300; critics of, 293, fax and, 289, 290; NC and, 294,
303-6, 334; 305-6; excluded as possible Prime
in approaches to war, 307, Minister? 338; at declaration of
308-12; Cabinet ministers under, war, 345-7; in Cabinet at beginning
313-42; and ultimatum to Ger- of war, 359, 368-72; in War Cabi-
many, 312, 342-3, 344; broadcasts, net, 379, 380; climate making
352; and the war, 355-65; conduct Prime Minister of, 382, 386; forms
of war by, 367-8; relations with Government (1940), 1, 2, 5, 384-6,
Churchill, 368-72; opposition to, 387; as hero, 3, 398; fall of (1945),
372-8; fall of, 1, 378-84; in 1940 399
Government, 384-5, 386; his object Ciano, Count, 169, 172, 275; proposals
and point of view while in power, of, on Czechoslovakia, 309, 311,
394-6 332
Chamberlain, Mrs Neville, 150 Citrine, W., 25, 388, 404; and Cripps,
Chatfield, Admiral (later Baron), 404; 29, 30, 215; and sanctions, 82, 83,
in Cabinet, 204, 263, 303, 315, 115; and Czechoslovakia, 212; and
341; and NC's conduct of the war, Churchill, 241, 242; and NC, 267
359, 367; in War Cabinet, 379; 'Clivedenism', 123, 159, 210
chairman of Military Co-ordination dydesiders, 27
Committee, 369; NC's decision to dynes, J.R., 84,404
remove, 370 Coburg, Duke of, 206
Chatham House, 123 Cockburn, Claude, 210, 404
Chiefs of Staff, 70, 90, 118; and Italy, Cole, G.D.H., 388
155, 169, 170; and rearmament, collective security: as a bluff, 7; NC
159-60, 340; and foreign policy, and, 11, 139, 151, 152, 177, 294;
162; and Russo-German Pact, 302; Labour Party and, 27, 117, 209;
ask for alliance with Russia after British Empire dependent on? 70,
guarantee to Poland, 395, 396, 398, 129; Hoare declares belief in
and for declaration of war on Ger- (1935), 89; German view of, as
man invasion of Poland, 310; and 'encirclement', 126, 157; failure of,
Churchill, 370-1 over Abyssinia, 143, 347; attitudes
547
towards, of Amery, 277, of Cripps, 344; at fall of NC, 381; in 1940

214, of Eden, 230, of Peace Pledge Government, 385
Union, 267, of Vansittart, 159 Co-operative Party, 218
Colonial Defence League, 225 co-operative societies, plan for taxing,
colonies for Germany, question of: 59
politicians willing to consider, Corfu, Churchill suggests occupation of
(Angell, Astor, Bartlett, Noel-Bux- (1939), 305
ton, Toynbee) 123, (NC) 133, 171, Council of Action and Reconstruction,
179, (Halifax) 276, (Labour Party) 234,374
210, (Simon) 348, (Sinclair) 232, Coward, Noel, 250, 387,404
(Vansittart) 157; opponents of, Cranborne, R-A.J., Viscount: and
(Amery) 225, (Conservative Party) League of Nations Union, 18, 21,
158, 232, (Hailsham) 316, (Orms- 228; Under-Secretary at Foreign
by-Gore) 315; Nazi leaders and, Office (1935), 174; resigns over
131; Times and, 131, 132; not men- NC's policy on Italy (1938), 177,
tioned in questionnaire to Hitler 224, 243, 377; in opposition to NC,
(1938), 145; Hankey's and Chiefs 227, 250; member of Watching
of Staffs varying views on, 162; Committee, 372, 378; at fall of NC,
becomes politically difficult, 299 384; in 1940 Government, 385
Colville, DJ., 314, 385, 404 Crewe, R. Crewe-Milnes, 1st Marquess
Comintern, 130, 148 of, 34, 233, 242, 404
Committee of Imperial Defence, 199 Cripps, Stafford, 214-17, 229, 235,
Communist Party (Britain), 215, 216, 248, 383; after 1931 election, 15,
373 23, 27-30; social programme of, 29,
conscription, 263; Labour Party and, 92; resigns from National Executive
220, 251, 304; Sinclair criticises, of Labour Party, 82, 84, 215; ex-
232; pressure for, from Amery, pelled from Labour Party (1939),
227, from Garvin and Astor, 252, 214, 216, 219, 293; joins National
from Halifax, 282, from Hore-Be- Government (1942), 215
lisha, 331, 332, 350, and from Croft, Sir Henry Page, 111, 117, 371,
Simon, 350; NC refuses to accept, 386, 404
251; Halifax and Simon insist on, Crookshank, H.F.C., 18, 333, 334,
332; NC agrees to (1939), 301, 302 404-5
Conservative Party: and League of Na- Crossley, A.C., 249, 405
tions, 35, 266, 269, 287; Lloyd Crowe, Sir Eyre, 113
George and, 37, 38; in 1931 Gov- Crowther, Geoffrey, 235
ernment, 42, 46; and foreign poli- CulverweU, C.T., 358, 405
cy, 117-18, 167, 265-71; move- Cummings, AJ., 233, 405
ments of criticism in, 1, 138, 216, Cunliffe-Lister, see Swinton
218, 250; would resist concessions Czechoslovakia: Hitler and Germans in,
to Germany on colonies, 158, 232; 64, 68; Russian pact with, 130,
and League of Nations Union, 229; 131, 135, 188; prospect of German
Baldwin/NC management of, 259; action over, 157, 171, 184-5;
Committee of senior members of French treaty with, 180, 181, 182,
(Watching Committee) and fall of 183, 200; question of guarantee to,
NC, 372, 378, 383, 384; destroyed 180, 187, 192, 194; expected Ger-
by NC and Churchill, 391 man invasion of (May 1938), 181;
Cooper, A. Duff, 326-9, 397,404; and Plan Z for transfer of territory to
Abyssinia, 101, 327; removed from Germany from, 1 8 6 , 1 8 7 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 0 ,
War Office (1937), 149; at Admiral- 193, 201, 218, 320, 327, 330, 336,
ty (1937-8), 225; resigns after 339; Anglo-French proposals to,
Munich, 281, 286, 287, 324, 334; 192; proposals accepted under pres-
in opposition to NC, 227, 250; NC sure, 193, 199; NC's proposal for
on, 294; and invasion of Poland, German occupation of Sudetenland
548
in advance of plebiscite rejected by Czechoslovakia, 314, 321-2, 324;

Cabinet, 193; same proposal put Minister of Education, 325; at dec-
forward by Hitler, 194-5; mobilisa- laration of war, 347; loses office
tion in, 195, 196; Hitler's terms (1940), 385
transmitted to, by NC, 197; Britain Defence Policy Requirements Commit-
undertakes to support France over, tee, 61, 70, 90; programme of
199, 201, 202, 279; terms for, set- (1934), 152
tled by 4-Power conference at Defence White Papers: (1935), 73, 77,
Munich, 202; 4-Power guarantee to, 78, 261; (1936), 103, 115, 116,
9, 270, 294, 350; opinions on 231; NC and, 151,153
events in, (Amery) 226-7, (Chur- Denman, R.D., 323, 405
chill) 244, (Conservative Party) Derby, E.G. Stanley, 17th Earl of, 45,
270, (Duff Cooper) 327, (Eden) 240,317,405
238, (Halifax) 276, 277, 278-9, Derby by-election (1936), 231
(Henderson) 286-7, (Hore-Belisha) Devonshire, E.W. Spencer-Cavendish,
330, (Labour Party) 212, 213, 219, 10th Duke of, 295,405
(League of Nations Union) 228, Dill, General Sir John, 371, 405-6
(M. MacDonald) 326, (Sinclair) disarmament: assumed by Versailles
232, (O. Stanley) 336; (Times) 277, Treaty, 19, 80; Labour Party and,
336 24, 25, 210-11; of Britain (1920s),
63; of Germany (1920s), 63, 64;
Dahlerus, B., 308, 309, 311, 359 Hankey and Chiefs of Staff regard
Daily Chronicle, 233 as means for keeping German re-
Daily Express, 103 armament under control, 68; Minis-
Daily Herald, 25, 38, 258, 282, 388 terial Committee on, 70, 76, 77;
Daily Mail, 57, 383 Garvin on, 124; Times on failure of,
Daily News, 233 132; Hankey's resistance to, 160,
Daily Telegraph, 249, 252, 258, 282, 161
306 Disarmament Conference, 19, 129,
Daladier, E., 191, 285, 301, 311, 351; 211; A. Henderson as chairman of,
replaced by Reynaud, 363 26, 30, 65-6, 270; Eden at, 64;
Dallas, George, 84, 280, 405 breaks up on Hitler's withdrawal
Dalton, Hugh, 25, 115, 267, 388, 405; (1933), 18,66
and Cripps, 29, 30; and sanctions, Disarmament Convention, substitutes
82, 84; and Czechoslovakia, 212, for, 48
213; and dissentient Conservatives, Dollfuss, E., 76, 240, 265
218, 238, 242, 245, 284; in 1940 Dominions: and League of Nations,
Government, 385 154, 163; and Czechoslovakia, 200,
Danzig: prospect of German occupa- 326; and extension of war to Scan-
tion of, 252, 288, 289, 300, 306, dinavia, 361; failure to create alli-
309; scares about (1939), 298; Ger- ance with, 397
many annexes, 310, 311, 312 Dorman-Smith, Sir Reginald, 263-4,
Davidson, J.C.C, 260, 367 406
Davies, Clement: inter-party group Drummond, J.E., 16th Earl of Perth,
formed by, in fall of NC, 372, 150, 406
373-5, 376, 382, 383-4, 385 Dugdale, Mrs, 18, 323, 333, 406
Davies, David, 1st Baron, 242, 374, Duncan, Sir A., 537
375, 405 Dyson, Will, cartoonist, 274
Dawson, Geoffrey, 123, 128-9, 132,
210, 315, 405; and Hoare-Laval East European Pact, 69, 76
proposals, 100; and NC, 108, 258 East Fife by-election (1933), 35, 47
De la Warr, H.E.B. Sackville, 6th Earl, Economist, The, 234, 235
323, 333, 405; Lord Privy Seal Eden, Anthony
(1937), 224-5, 279, 318; and Cecil and League of Nations
549
Union and, 19, 85, 228, 229; Un- family allowances, 376
der-Secretary, Foreign Office Federal Union, 249
(1931-4), 85, 128; at Disarmament FeUing, K., 2-3
Conference, 64, 66; visits Berlin, Finland: Russian attack on (Nov.
67-8, 73, 78, 85, Paris and Rome, 1939), 360, 362, 373; makes peace
68, Moscow, Warsaw, and Prague, (Mar. 1940), 363, 370; aid to, 375,
74; Simon and, 75, 77, 127; Minis- 376
ter for League of Nations Affairs, Fisher, H.A.L., 122,315
with seat in Cabinet (1935), 60, Fisher, Sir N.W., 157, 243, 283, 299,
103; and Abyssinia, 48, 87, 88, 89, 406; Member of Defence Require-
91,99,124,135; ments Committee, 70, 152
Foreign Secretary (1935-8), Flandin, P., 73, 285; and Abyssinia,
102-8, 130, 131, 135, 164, 316; 103, 104, 105, 143; and Rhineland,
and Mussolini, 102, 103, 132, 162; 106,107, 108
supporters of, (A. Chamberlain) Focus group (Churchill's), 230, 242,
137, (Elliot) 320, (M. MacDonald), 290
325; foreign policy of, 143-7, Foot, Dingle, 231, 385, 406
148-9, 158, 159; friendly with Lit- Foreign Office: Londonderry on, 127;
vinoff, 149, 266; visits Moscow, NC and, 152,176, 203, 283-4, 298;
151; NC and, over Spain, 163-9; Hankey as check on, 155; Vansit-
and Italy, 170-3; and 'initiative' tart criticised by, 157; and dicta-
from USA, 175-6; resigns over NC's tors, 170, 205, 359; Henderson as
policy towards Italy (Feb. 1939), mediator between Hitler and, 288
173-4, 224, 225, 232, 243, 251, France, 8, 11; predominance of
267,287,318,377; (1920s), 63-4; difficulties between
Labour Party and, 211; Liberal Britain and (1933-4), 67-9; radical
Party and, 232; in opposition to victory in (1934), 20; efforts to
NC, 224, 225, 235-9; Churchill and, develop special relation with, under
243; group round, 249-53; and Locarno Treaty, (Simon) 71-2, 73,
Czechoslovakia, 280; Halifax and, 79, (Hoare) 84-5; and Abyssinia,
274, 277, 289, 290; NC's attitude 86-7, 124; and German occupation
to, 304-5; Hailsham and, 316; as of Rhineland, 103, 104, 105-6;
possible Prime Minister, 338; at military staff talks with, 107, 116,
declaration of war, 343-4, 346; 181, 204, 327; Popular Front Gov-
group round, in fall of NC, 372, ernment in, 117, 149, 285, 317;
375, 376-7, 378, 382; at War Office and Spain, 130, 149, 166, 168; pol-
(1940 Government), 2, 5, 379; icy of reassurance to, in preparation
looks forward to future changes, for negotiations with Germany,
390-1 144; NC and, 151, 178; Hankey's
Edward VIII, abdication of, 232, 241, mistrust of, 160, 161; consultation
262, 335, 350, 377 with, 171; treaty between Czecho-
Egypt, 135,169, 203 slovakia and, 180, 181, 182, 183,
elections, general: (1931), 15, 22; 200; and Berchtesgaden talks, 191;
(1935), 3 6 , 3 8 , 9 7 , 2 1 1 proposals of Britain and, to Czecho-
elections, local government (1934), 28, slovakia, 192, 193, 199; Britain
31,36 undertakes to support, over
Elliot, Walter, 101, 318, 320-1, 332; Czechoslovakia, 199, 201, 202,
Minister of Agriculture, 52; at dec- 279; opinions about, at time of
laration of war, 347; loses office Czechoslovak crisis, (Duff Cooper)
(1940), 385 327, 328-9, (Elliot) 321, (Hoare)
Elton, G.E., 1st Baron, 323,406 341, (Hore-Belisha) 331, (W.S. Mor-
Empire Economic Union, 270 rison) 319, (Simon) 349, (O. Stan-
English Review, 117 ley) 336, 337; friction between
550
Italy and (1938-9), 204-5; Labour tart's visit to (1936), 157; Hankey's
Party and alliance with, 212, 213, fear of, 160-1; and Spain, 164, 167;
219; Halifax and alliance with, 273, Berlin-Rome axis, 172, 182; danger
275, 277, 278, 281; reaffirmation of negotiating with, before comple-
of alliance with (Feb. 1939), 282; tion of rearmament, 174; British air
pressed to straighten out differ- programme to prevent 'knock-out
ences with Italy, 301; and declara- blow' by, 178-9; Anschluss of Aus-
tion of war, 310, 311, 343, 357; tria and, 179-80; and Czechoslo-
probable war aims of, 359; air de- vakia, see under Czechoslovakia;
fences of, 360; collapse of, not en- Labour Party and, 210; Churchill a
visaged, 394,395, 396 monarchist with respect to, 244;
Franc.ois-Poncet, A., 285 Halifax and, 273, 275; economic
Franco-Soviet Pact, 107, 117, 119, talks with, 299-300; British warning
136, 157, 164; occupation of to, 306-7; annexes Dantzig; invades
Rhineland justified on ground of, Poland, 310; ultimatum to, 311-12;
108, 134, 145, 265, 348; newspa- NC aims at producing collapse of
pers and, 126, 130, 131; possibility home front in, 355, 357, 358, 359;
of British adhesion to, 148; increas- see also colonies, Hitler
es Hankey's mistrust of France, Gilmour, Sir John, 60, 376, 406
160; produces Anti-Comintern Godesberg, meeting of NC and Hitler
Pact, 170 at, 193-7, 226, 244; Ministers' opin-
ions on, (Duff Cooper) 328,
GaitskeU, H.T.N., 387, 406 (O.Stanley) 336, (Simon) 349-50
Gamelin, General, 199, 331 Goebbels,J., 19,158, 274
Garnett, J.C. Maxwell, 229, 406 Goerdeler, 184, 359
Garvin, J.L., 122, 123-6; and air pol- Goering, H., 126, 203, 274, 287, 309;
icy, 72; attitudes of, to National suggestions for visits of, to England,
Government, 16, to League of Na- 182, 226, 306, 307, 308; strength-
tions Union, 21, to NC, 93, 252, ening of powers of, 309-10; war-
258, to Hitler, 134, 138, to Eden, time contacts with, 359
135, to Germany in Central Eu- gold standard, departure from, 34,
rope, 287; advocates Lloyd George 49-50
as Prime Minister (1940), 383 Gollancz, Victor, 216, 217,406
Geneva Protocol, 7, 116, 125, 146 Gort, General J.S., 6th Viscount, 329,
George V, 323 331, 332, 407
George VI, 150, 263, 285, 383, 384 Grandi, Count, 150, 172
Germany, 11; withdraws from League Greece, guarantee to (1939), 301
of Nations, 19, 26; Social Democ- Greenwood, A., 129, 219, 267, 376,
racy demolished in, 24; re-estab- 407; and Czechoslovakia, 212, 213;
lished as major power, 63; naval appeals to NC in House of Commons
agreement with (1935), 74, 160, (1 Sept. 1939), 344, 345; at fall of
188; as central problem, (Eden) NC, 382, 384; in 1940 Govern-
102, 104, (Garvin) 135; rearms, 68, ment, 385
70, 148, 152; occupies Rhineland, GrenfeU, D.R., 374, 376, 407
103, 104, 105-8, 134, 145, 265, Grey, Edward, Viscount, 41, 226, 261,
348; Conservative Party views of, 271; and League of Nations Union,
126-7, 265, 268-70; 'encirclement' 18
of, 126, 134, 157, 183; Berlin- Grigg, Sir Edward, later Baron Altrin-
Tokyo axis, 130-1, 149, 158; expels cham, 117,123,244,407
Times correspondent (Aug. 1937), Grigg, Sir James, 332, 379, 407
132; policy of reassurance to Guernica, bombing of, 168
France in preparation for negotia-
tions with, 144; Eden expects eco- Hadley, W.W., 258, 407
nomic breakdown in, 148; Vansit- Haifa, suggested naval base at, 315
551
Haile Selassie of Abyssinia, 86, 104, Harrod, R., 387

274 Hart, B.H. Liddell, 329, 330, 408
Hailsham, D. McG. Hogg, 1st Viscount, Harvey, T.E., 314, 534
315-16, 407; at War Office Heath, Edward, 387, 408
(1931-5), 19, 45, 47, 49, 54, 60; Henderson, Arthur, 17, 82, 210, 211,
Lord Chancellor (1935-8), 76, 101; 408; in 1931, obvious leader of
Lord President of Council (1938), Labour Party, but not an M.P., 22;
281; member of Watching Commit- chairman of Disarmament Confer-
tee, 378 ence, 26, 30, 66, 270; removed
Haldane, R.B., 1st Viscount, 61, 130 from Labour Party secretaryship,
Halifax, E.F.L. Wood, 3rd Viscount, 9; 30; MacDonald and, 77; death of
Minister for Education (1932-5), (Oct. 1935), 115
101, 120; Cecil and League of Na- Henderson, Sir Nevile, 408; has inter-
tions Union and, 19, 228, 229; view with Hitler (Mar. 1938), 180;
Dawson and, 128, 133; in charge at in Czechoslovak crisis, 184, 185,
Foreign Office (1937), 166-7;visits 186, 196; recalled for consultation
Germany (Nov. 1937), 132, 158, (Mar. 1939), 295; proposes warning
168,171,232; to Germany, 306; sees Hitler, 307;
Foreign Secretary (1938 on- delivers British note, 310, and ulti-
wards), 176, 177, 184; persuades matum, 352
Roosevelt to send fleet to Far East, Henlein, K., 183, 244, 349
398; and Czechoslovakia, 185, 193, Herriot, E., 285
195, 196, 197, 200, 202, 203, 206, Hicks, E.G., 376, 408
273-4; Labour Party and, 210, 211, Hinsley, Archbishop, 229, 408
212; Cripps and, 217; Eden and, Hirst, F.W., 233
236, 238, 250; Churchill and, 244, Hitler, A.
306; Amery and, 252; and NC's and Russia, 8-9; and disarma-
policy, 271-83; comes to believe ment, 19, 65, 66, 80; Labour Party
policy must be changed, 289-91, reactions to, 25-6; Lloyd George
393; and Henderson, 288, 289; and and, 39, 382; re-establishes Ger-
German occupation of Czechoslo- many as major power, 64; British
vakia, 294; and negotiations with opinions of (1934), 67-8, 77; and
Russia, 303; at declaration of war, League of Nations, 75, 171; Eden
306, 309, 311-12, 343, 351; as pos- and, 104-6; and occupation of
sible Prime Minister, 338, 383, 384; Rhineland, 107, 108, 145, 146;
rebukes pro-Nazi groups, 358; and opinions on, 138, (Aga Khan) 126,
NC's conduct of the war, 359, 367; (Amery) 121, (A. Chamberlain)
and Finnish collapse, 363; in War 136, (Garvin) 123-4, 129, (Rother-
Cabinet, 369, 379, 385 mere) 118, (Times) 129-30, 133;
Hankey, Sir Maurice, 155, 286, 339, works with Mussolini, 144, 174;
407; Cecil and, 18,81; and defence British questionnaire to, 145; Bald-
policy, 64, 65, 68, 152, 153, 157, win and, 147; doubt about inten-
160-1; member of Defence Require- tions of, 147-8; openly announces
ments Committee, 70; and foreign rearmament, 148, 152; NC and,
policy, 76, 118, 161-2, 283; and 152, 155; Vansittart and, 156,157,
relations with Italy, 155, 170; on 158; question of negotiating with,
M. MacDonald, 326; NC and, 263, 171, 173, 174; and Schuschnigg,
267; and NC's conduct of the war, 172,225;
359, 367-8; in War Cabinet, 369, and Czechoslovakia: sees NC at
371,379 Berchtesgaden, 187-90, and at
Hannington, Wai, 248 Godesberg, 194-8; sees Wilson, 199,
Harmsworth, Esmond, 258, 383, 407 200; at Munich, 201-2; conciliatory
Harris, H. Wilson, 249,407 move by, 206; Labour Party and
Harris, Sir P.A., 111,407-8 failure to check, 210, 212, 213;
552
Churchill hopes for removal of, fall of NC, 381, 383; out of office,
244; plan for public warning to, 385, 392
252; opinions on, (NC) 298, 306, Home, Sir Robert, Viscount, 119, 244,
(Conservative Party) 268, 269, 378, 409
(Duff Cooper) 327, 328, (Halifax) House of Lords, proposals to reform,
274, 281, 282, (Henderson) 287, 29,48-9,59,377
288, (W.S.Morrison) 319, (Salis- housing, 24, 54, 59
bury) 377, (Samuel) 268, (Zetland) Houston, Lady, 117, 239
317; Hudson, R.S., 60, 409; in talks with
NC announces intention of re- Germany, 295, 300; and Hore-
sisting (Mar. 1939), 295-6; stops Belisha, 331, 371; Minister of Ship-
economic talks, 300; British warn- ping after fall of Finland, 380
ing to, on Poland, and exchange of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia, 188,
letters with, 307-10; NC regards as 193,196
'cornered', 355-60, 362, 365; peace Hungary, 118,226
overtures from (Oct. 1939), 357,
359; attempt to assassinate Iceland, 365
(Munich, Nov. 1939), 359; seen as
Imperial Conferences: (1932), 112,
standing alone, after Russo-German
113, 151, 154, 231; (1937), 163,
Pact, 396
397; (1939), 397
Hoare, Sir Samuel, 4, 76, 92, 123; at Imperialism: pre-1914, 6; as a stage of
India Office (1931-5), 45, 46; capitalism, 210
Beaverbrook and, 47, 48; Foreign Independent Labour Party (ILP), 28,
Secretary (1935), 79; and Abys- 84, 267; and Popular Front, 215,
sinia, 84-91; proposals of Laval and, 216; at declaration of war, 345; in
on Abyssinia, 99-101, 116, 156; peace movement, 358
opinions on, see under Abyssinia; India, 39, 40, 42, 261; Halifax in, 272,
resignation of, 101-2, 152; his men- 277
tion of colonies and raw materials India bill, 45-6, 47, 48, 55, 120, 136;
for Germany taken up by Nazi lead- Churchill and, 45, 85, 239, 240;
ers, 131; at Admiralty (1936-7), Macmillan and, 246; supporters of,
138-9; and Spain, 165, 340; con- 317; prepares way for Labour Par-
sulted by other members of Cabi- ty, 390
net, 185, 252; and negotiations
India Defence League, 247
with Russia, 303; conducts press
Inskip, Sir Thomas (later Viscount Cal-
briefing (28 Aug. 1939), 308; as
decote), 123, 128, 150; and Spain,
possible Prime Minister, 338, 340-2;
165; Minister for Co-ordination of
pressure for removal of, 373, 376;
Defence (1936), 241; Lord Chan-
in War Cabinet as Air Minister, 379,
cellor (1939), 258, 264, 303, 340,
380; loses office after Norway de-
379; as possible Prime Minister,
bate, 381, 385
338-40; in 1940 Government, 385
Hodges, Frank, 27, 409 intelligence reports: on Germany, 184;
Hogg, Q. McG., 381, 409 predict invasion of Czechoslovakia
Holland: Britain and, 73, 204; NC and (1938), 185; after Munich, 203-4;
prospect of support to 'peace offen- on Hitler's intentions, 284, 289;
sive' from Queen of, 358; British predict Russo-German Pact, 298,
Intelligence unit in, 359 Italian occupation of Albania,
Hopkinson, Austin, 249, 381, 409 300-1, and German attack on
Hore-Belisha, L., 329-32, 332-3; at War Poland, 306; on unrest in Germany,
Office (1937-40), 149, 225, 263, 309; predict German attack in
264, 371; presses for a Ministry of West, 357
Supply, 302; Simon and, 350, 351; International Peace Campaign, League
in War Cabinet, 379; resigns, 373, of Nations Union and, 228-9
and is replaced by Stanley, 375; at
553
International Police Force, proposals Kellogg Pact, 68

for, 139, 161, 375 Kemsley, J.G. Berry, 1st Baron, 253,
internationalism, 6, 399; socialist, 209 258, 285, 410
Ipswich by-election (1938), 176, 232 Keyes, Admiral, 247, 371, 389
Ireland, treaty with, 243, 257 Keynes, J. Maynard, 234, 376, 391,
Ironside, General Sir E., 368, 371, 409 410
Irwin, Lord, see Halifax King-Hall, Commander Stephen, 323,
Italy: efforts to develop special rela- 381,410
tion with, under Locarno Treaty,
71-2, (Simon) 73, 79, (Hoare) 84-5; Labour-Party, 2, 5, 7; and League of
and Abyssinia, see Abyssinia; sanc- Nations, 11, 26-7, 211; after 1931,
tions against, see sanctions; and 22-7; demand trade boycott of
Germany, 134, 144, 172, 182, 226, Japan, 25, 116, 161, 210; Pro-
276; anti-British proganda by, 155; gramme of Action of (July 1934),
NC's approaches to, 162-3; and 27; major opposition party by
Spain, 162, 164, 165, 167, 275; 1935, 33; Lloyd George and, 38;
Eden and relations with, 91, 164, and Unemployment Act, 44, 45;
171-2; Eden resigns over, 173; Brit- Cecil talks of joining, 81; and sanc-
ish agreement with (1938), 174, tions, 82-4; Chamberlain's election
180; attempts at appeasement of, programme on 'warmonger' accusa-
300-1; occupies Albania, 219, 252, tions by, 92; and Abyssinia,
302; ministers* opinions about, 115-16; and Spain, 165, 167, 211,
318, 320, 335, 337, 339; neutral at 265; and Japan, 175; and Czecho-
declaration of war, 355, 357, 369, slovakia, 209-14; and Cripps,
398; see also Mussolini 214-17; Immediate Programme of
(1938), 218, 221; after Munich,
Japan: British alliance with, abandoned 219-21; Sinclair's criticisms of, 232;
under pressure from USA (1922), among groups in opposition to NC,
153-4, 397; invades Manchuria 236, 238, 250; in 1939 by-elec-
(1931), 18, 19, 21, 159; Labour tions, 248; pressure on NC from,
Party demands trade boycott of, 271; Halifax and, 277, 289; at dec-
25, 116, 161, 210; to be dealt with laration of war, 344-5, 346, 379; in
by diplomacy, 70, 169; sanctions fall of NC, 372, 373; refuse to enter
on Italy would exhibit Britain's coalition under NC, 381; as possible
weakness to, 87; alliance with Rus- Government, 382; consent to NC
sia would be provocation to, 121, remaining in Cabinet (1940), 384;
362; Berlin-Tokyo Axis, 130-1, see also National Labour Party,
134, 149, 158, 308; Hankey and land tax, 59
Chiefs of Staff and, 162; invades Lansbury, George: and League of Na-
central China (1937), 170; with- tions Union, 18, 21; leader of Par-
draws from League of Nations liamentary Labour Party (1931-5),
(1938), 26; USA and, 175; Sinclair 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 50; Lloyd
and, 231, 232; Conservative Party George and, 38, 40; resigns from
and, 266; Halifax on need to ap- leadership, 82, 84; and Abyssinia,
pease, 276; Churchill plays down 82, 83, 87; News Chronicle and,
threat from, 305; neutral at declara- 233; supports NC over Italy and
tion of war, 355, 398 Czechoslovakia, 267; in peace
Jews, in Britain, 17, 269; see also anti- movement (winter 1939-40), 358
semitism Laski, Harold, 29, 62, 216, 388, 410;
Johnson, Very Rev. Hewlett, 217,409 elected to National Executive of
Johns tone, Harcourt, 235, 248, 385, Labour Party, 215
409 Lausanne Conference (1932), 64, 151
Jones, Thomas, 123, 128, 409-10; sees Laval, Pierre, 73, 87, 88, 90; proposals
Hitler (May 1936), 147; writes
Baldwin's speeches, 260, 262
554
of Hoare and, on Abyssinia, see Oxford by-election (1938), 218;

under Abyssinia supporters, Cecil, 229, Macmillan
Law, R.K., 249, 376, 381, 386, 410 246, Sinclair, 248; non-supporters,
Lay ton, Sir Walter, 109, 233-5, 252, Churchill, 245, Hailsham, 315
304,410 Lindsay, Kenneth, 242, 410
League of Nations, 6, 9, 10-11; Ger- Linlithgow, V.AJ. Hope, 2nd Mar-
many withdraws from (1933), 19, quess of, 49, 410
26; Labour Party and, 26-7, 211; Litvinoff, Maxim, 148, 156, 302; news-
Conservative Party and, 35, 266, papers and, 130, 135; Eden and,
269, 287; Covenant of, 68; Russia 149, 266; Halifax and, 279
joins (1934), 80, 84, 135, 265; rhe- Lloyd, Geoffrey, 263, 341,410
torical force of, 85; and sanctions, Lloyd, George A, 1st Baron, 45, 93,
88; Hoare speaks at Council of, 89; 117, 118, 410; in Churchill's group,
in Baldwin's election programme 227, 242, 244, 247, 280; member
(1935), 94, 260; Eden as Minister of Watching Committee, 378; in
for Affairs of, 103; effect of Rhine- 1940 Government, 371, 386
land and Abyssinia on, 108, 140, Lloyd George, D., 15, 34, 35, 55, 334,
143; opinions about, (Amery) 122, 392; sees opportunity for return
225, 227, (NC) 139-40, 141, 333, (1935), 36-41; and unemployment,
(Chiefs of Staff) 287, (Garvin) 125, 39, 41, 45, 47; NC and, 53; Nation-
126, (Times) 129, 130, 131, 132; al Government Ministers and, 56-8,
Cabinet discuss future of, 140; 79; and Abyssinia, 81, 87; after
Eden and possibility of reviving, 1935 election, 110, 118; Dawson
146-7, 148; Eden's and NC's views on, 129; in opposition to NC, 136,
of (1937), 171, 174; Cripps on, 230, 242, 246, 286, 305, 318, 374;
215; Eden on (1938), 237; Chur- Cripps and, 217; Amery and, 227;
chill and, 241, 242; Japan leaves Wood and, 264; in peace movement
(1938), 26; Russia expelled from (winter 1939-40), 358; as possible
(after attack on Finland), 362 Prime Minister? 382-3
League of Nations Union, 7 , 1 1 ; Cecil Iloyd George, Gwilym, 379, 384, 385,
and, 15, 17-22, 33, 36, 228-9; and 410-11
Abyssinia, 80-1, 85, 97, 113-14; Locarno Pact (1925), 6, 7, 18, 21;
critics of, (A. Chamberlain) 136, Britain and, 64, 67; efforts to devel-
(NC) 139, 140, 304, (Cranborne) op special relations with France and
378, (Hankey) 233, (Keyes) 247, Italy under, 71-2, 73, 79, 84-5; ef-
(O. Stanley) 335; decline of influ- forts to avoid repudiation of, 106;
ence of (from 1936), 228, 229; reaffirmed, 107, 143; and Rhine-
Sinclair in, 230; Churchill and, 239, land, 108; 'a menace' (Beaver-
241, 243, 245; and Benes, 270 brook), 119; Eden sees need for
Left Book Club, 216, 282 reconstruction of, 144, 145, 146,
Leger, A., head of French Foreign Of- 164; meeting of powers of (without
fice, 285 Germany), 146; Germany, Italy,
Leith-Ross, F., 283, 299 and Belgium withdraw from, 164
Liberal Party: in 1929 election and Locarno Air Convention, proposal for,
after, 34-6, 37, 46; in 1935 elec- 152
tion, 97, 110; Sinclair and, 111, London, evacuation of (1940), 310
230, 233; Cripps seeks alliance Londonderry, C.H. Vane-Tempest, 7th
with, 217, 218; in opposition to Marquess of, 127-8, 337, 411; Air
NC, 245, 271; in 1939 by-elections, Minister (1931-5), 19, 76, 159,
248; NC's view of, 304; see also 240; Lord Privy Seal and Leader of
National Liberal Party House of Lords (from 1935), 60;
Lichfield by-election (1938), 237 member of Watching Committee,
Iindemann, F.A., 227, 242, 244, 410 378
Lindsay, A.D., 323, 410; defeated at Londonderry, Viscountess, 97, 411
555
Loraine, Sir Percy, 301, 306, 311, 362, Mandel, G., 285
411 Mander, Geoffrey, 230, 412
Lothian, P.H. Kerr, 11th Marquess of, Marchbanks,J.,84,412
34, 39, 133-4, 267, 411; and The Margesson, H.D.R., 56, 108, 138, 252,
Times, 136, 159 322, 412; retained (1940), 384,
Low, David, cartoonist, 274, 411 385
Low Countries: British interest in, 153, Masaryk, Jan, 305,412
154, 161; possibility of German at- Maudling, R., 387,412
tack through, 356, 360; German Maugham, F.H., 1st Baron, 316, 379,
offer to guarantee, 359; Germans 412
invade, 364; see also Belgium, Hol- Maurice, Sir Frederick, 199,412
land Maxton,J., 267
Lytton, V.A., 2nd Earl, 375, 411; and means test, 43, 55
League of Nations Union, 18, 115, Memel, 71; German occupation of,
228; in opposition to NC, 227, 244 179,297
Meston, J.S., 1st Baron, 252, 412
Mabane,W., 350,411 Midleton, W. StJ. B., 1st Earl of, 49,
MacDonald, Malcolm, 61, 62, 318, 412
325-6; loses seat (1935), 97, 119, Military Co-ordination Committee,
374; NC and, 185, 263; leader of 369, 370-1, 380
National Labour Party (1938), 322; Milk Marketing Board, 257
at Dominions Office, 323; retains Milner, Alfred, 1st Viscount, 128, 315
office (1940), 385 Ministry of Supply: pressure for, 226,
MacDonald, Ramsay; at 1931 election, 331, 337; NC refuses, 251; NC
15, 22; and League of Nations agrees to, 301,302
Union, 18, 19, 81; Lloyd George Mitchison, G.R., 29
and, 37, 57-8; Prime Minister in mobilisation: in Czechoslovakia
National Government, 41, 42, 47, (1938), 195, 196, 199; question of
50-1, 52, 66; and Royal Commis- British (1938), 196, 198, 199,
sion on armament manufacture, 48; (navy) 200, 328, 330; British
and rearmament, 72, 77-8; and for- (1939), 310, 328, 330-1, 332; Ger-
eign policy, 76, 77, 78, 88, 139; as man, will follow British (Hitler),
candidate for replacement, 53, 58, 309
59, 117, 265; becomes Lord Presi- Molotov, V., 303, 362
dent of Council (1935), 59, 60; Monsell, B.M. Eyres-Monsell, 1st Vis-
chairman of Defence Requirements count, 76, 103,412
Committee, 61; loses seat (1935), Morning Post, The, 117, 126
97; opinions about, (A. Chamber- Morrison, Herbert, 25, 30, 382, 392,
lain) 137, (Dawson) 128, (Garvin) 412; and foreign policy, 81, 82, 84,
123, (Londonderry) 127; after res- 117, 211, 212; to replace Attlee?
ignation, 323 216; in 1940 Government, 385; in
McEwen,J.H.F., 379,411 1945 Government, 391
McGovern, John, 267 Morison, Stanley, 388
McKenna, Reginald, 248, 411 Morrison, W.S., 263, 318-20, 385
Maclean, Sir Donald, 34, 411 Mosley, Sir Oswald, 16-17, 22, 46,
Macmillan, H.P., Baron; and Cripps, 412; attacks National Government
78; Minister of Information (1939), (1934), 15; O. Stanley and, 335; in
350; resignation, 536 peace movement (winter 1939-40),
Macmillan, Harold, 176, 245-6; in op- 358; imprisoned (1940), 385
position to NC, 218, 231, 244, 251, Muir, Ramsay, 245, 413
252; and Finland, 375, 376; at fall Munich, Four-Power conference at
of NC, 381; in 1940 Government, (1938), 3, 201, 246; Ministers'
386 opinions on, (Anderson) 316,
Maisky, Ivan, 304, 305, 397, 411 (Elliot) 321, (Hankey) 367, (Salis-
556
bury) 377, (Simon) 349, (Zetland) to provide defence against Germany

318 while preparing sanctions against
Murray, Gilbert, 109, 113, 413; and Italy, 144, 155; expansion of, 152;
League of Nations Union, 18, 19, as chief line of defence, 154; pro-
21, 33, 228-9; NC on, 294 posal for cordon of, round Spanish
Mussolini, B., 51, 72, 78; and Abys- coast, 165; question of mobilisation
sinia, 80-1, 86, 87, 88; Eden and, of (1938), 200, 328, 330; on
102, 103, 132, 162, 164, 169; manoeuvres in North Sea (Aug.
Times and, 129-30, 132; as threat 1939), 293, 298
to Egypt and Kenya, 134; Hitler Nazi regime: opinions about, (Beaver-
works with, 144, 174; NC and, 155, brook) 119, (Hailsham) 316,
180; opinions about, (Baldwin) (Lothian) 133-4; complains of
147, (Hankey and Chiefs of Staff) News Chronicle, 235; leaders of,
162, (Vansittart) 156, 158; NC advertised in British airborne leaf-
opens negotiations with, 162-3, lets as piling up fortunes in foreign
166; and Spain, 168, 173; NC and banks (1939), 357
201, 204, 210; 'a good European' New Commonwealth group (Lord
(Amery), 225; Churchill and, 239, Davies's), 230, 242
242; offensive speech by (May New Deal: Lloyd George's, 39, 40, 47,
1938), 277; Halifax and NC visit 57, 81, 234, 374; Roosevelt's, 39,
(Jan. 1939) 281; attempts at ap- 59
peasement of, 300-1, 306; invited New Five Year group, 230
to mediate, 307; Hore-Belisha visits, New Outlook, The, 246
330 New Statesman, 258
News Chronicle, 36, 38, 233-5, 282,
Narvik: passage of Swedisch iron ore to 333, 388; and NC, 56, 258, 304;
Germany through, 361; failure of and foreign policy, 109
Anglo-French landing at, 363, 364, newspapers: advice to backbenchers
371, 377; Germans take, 371 from, 5; and NC, 258; Henderson
Nathan, H.L., 230,413 on, 288; and Churchill, 252, 343;
National Council of Labour, and see also individual papers
Czechoslovakia, 212 Next Five Years group, 40, 52-3, 246
National Defence Contribution, 257, Nicolson, Harold, 323, 333, 413; in
265, 393 opposition to NC, 227, 244, 249,
National Economy Act, and judges' 252, 413; NC on, 294; at fall of
salaries, 61 NC, 374, 381; in 1940 Govern-
National Government of 1931, 15-16, ment, 385
46; problem of converting from a Nineteenth Century and After, 117
coalition into a party, 51 Noel-Baker, P., 82, 229, 413; and
National Government of 1935, 109, League of Nations Union, 18, 21,
123,128 33, 115; wins Derby from National
National Government of May 1940, 2, Labour, 231
384-6 Noel-Buxton, N.E., 1st Baron, 123,
National Labour Party: (1931-5), 41, 267,358,413
42, 51, 53, 58-9, 60, 92; (from Non-intervention Committee (Spain),
1935), 249, 322-4, 392; resigna- 164, 165
tions from, 333 Norman, Montagu, 24, 47, 413
National Liberal Party, 112, 251, 333; North Cornwall by-election (1939),
Simon as leader of, 350 253
National Register, 226, 351 Norway: passage of Swedish iron ore
National Review, 117 to Germany through, 361; pro-
National Service, Labour Party and, posed mining of waters of, 361,
214, 220; see also conscription 370; failure of landing in, 363, 364,
navy: and British Empire, 70; not able 365, 371, 380; Germany occupies,
557
364; debate on, in House of Com- Poland: Hitler on Germans in, 64;
mons, 381 Hitler states he has made agreement
Nuffield, Viscount, 316,415 with, 188; Halifax expects drift
Nyon Conference on Spain (1937), into German camp by, 281; would
132, 167, 168 support Hitler over Czechoslovakia,
200; Henderson and, 288, 289;
Observer, The, 117, 122-3, 124, 244; British guarantee to (Mar. 1939),
supports NC, 258 133, 297, 306, 332, 337; guarantee
oil: British interests in, 7-8; Rumanian, not to exclude frontier changes,
357, 364 298; guarantee intended to make
oil sanctions: proposed against Italy, fighting unneccessary, 355; Hankey
81, 98, 99, 103; Garvin opposes, and Chiefs of Staff and guarantee,
125 367, 395; Russo-German Pact and,
Oliver, F.S., 20 302, 361; German attack on, pre-
O'Neill, Sir Hugh, 379, 413 dicted, 306; Hitler and, 307, 308,
Ormsby-Gore, W.G.A., 49, 128, 315, 309; told by Britain to mobilise,
413; and Simon, 74, 75; and Hoare- 310; Germans invade, 310, 311-12,
Laval proposals, 101; Minister for 343, 344, 356; Russians occupy
Colonies (1936-8), 377 part of, 356, 361, 362; collapse of,
Ottawa Imperial Economic Conference 396
(1932), 112, 113,151, 154,231 Poles in Czechoslovakia, 188, 193, 196
Oxford by-election (1938), 218, 229, Ponsonby, A.H., 1st Baron, 22, 267,
245, 246, 316 414; resigns from leadership of
Oxford Group, 377 Labour peers, 82, 84; in peace
Oxford University by-election, 231, movement (winter 1939-40), 358
242 Pope, the, 358, 359
Popular Front: in France, 149, 285;
pacifism: in Labour Party, 25, 26; lan- discussion of, in England, 214, 215,
guage of, said by Morrison to be 231, 235, 249
used by Conservatives, 211; Liberal, Portsmouth by-election (1934), 247
rejected by Sinclair, 231;'Imperial' Pownall, H.R., 332, 414
of Spender, 233 Priestley, J.B., 387, 414
Panay incident (1937), 175 Prime Minister, possible successors to
Patrick, CM., 249, 381, 414 NC as, 338-42
Paul-Boncour, J., 284, 285 Pritt,D.N., 2 9 , 2 1 5 , 2 1 6 , 4 1 4
peace, indivisibility of, 210 propaganda: against Britain, in Italy,
Peace Ballot, 20-1, 86, 234; Baldwin 282; of Left Book Club and Pen-
and, 10,22, 79; NC and, 140; Inskip guin books, 282; against Nazi lead-
and, 338 ers, by Britain, 205, 357
Peace with Freedom movement, 242 protection, 24, 35, 50, 113, 259
peace movement (winter 1939-40), public opinion: and Hoare-Laval pro-
358, 382 posals, 90; and Spain, 165
Peace Pledge Union, 228, 267, 268,
358 Rankeillour, J.F. Hope, 1st Baron, 49,
Peace Society, 260 414
Penguin books, 282 Rathbone, Eleanor, 373-4, 376, 414
People's Union for Economy, 329 rationing, 368
Percy, Lord Eustace, 101, 318; and raw materials, question of Germany's
League of Nations Union, 18, 21; in access to, 89, 111, 131,154
Cabinet as Minister without port- Reading, R.D. Isaacs, 1st Marquess of,
folio (1935-6), 52, 60 34, 414
Perth, Earl of, see Drummond rearmament: restriction on German,
Petsamo, suggested attack on, 363 64; in Germany under Hitler, 68,
Phipps, Sir Eric, 145, 284-6, 414 70, 129, 134, 148, 152, 265, 269;
558
in Britain, (1935) concentrated on Ruhr, French occupation of (1921), 64

air force, 70, 72; in election policy Rumania: proposals for defence of,
(1935), 91-4; politicians and, (Bald- 296, 297; guarantee to (1939), 301;
win) 50, 55, (A. Chamberlain) 137, prospect of German attack on, 356;
(Churchill) 243, (Eden) 105, oil of, 357, 364
(Elliot) 321, (Hankey) 160-1, Runciman, Sir Walter (later Baron and
(Londonderry) 127, (MacDonald) Viscount), 316-17, 415; before
78, (Simon) 348; Labour Party and, 1931, 34, 37; at Board of Trade
116, 210, 215, 216; support for, (1931-7), 41, 42, 76, 92, 103; and
from Dawson, 131, from Garvin, Lloyd George, 57; Amery and, 121;
123, and from Rothermere, 118; NC gets rid of, 265, 350; returns to
acceleration of, 205, 277, 302 Cabinet (1938), 281, 341; as arbi-
refugees from Hitler, 282 trator over Sudeten Germans
Reichstag fire trial, 129 (1938), 183, 185, 187, 190, 238,
Reith, J.C.W., 1st Baron, 391, 414 270, 320, 349
Reynaud, P., 285; replaces Daladier, Russia: Hitler and, 8-9; joins League of
363-4 Nations (1934), 80, 84, 135, 265;
Rhineland, German occupation of League of Nations Union and co-
(1936), 103, 104, 105-8, 116,143, operation with, 114, 228; pact with
261; as counter to Franco-Soviet Czechoslovakia, 130, 131, 135,
Pact, 108, 134, 145, 265, 348; 188; and Spain, 135, 164, 169,
Times on, 130 178, 265, 266; Berlin-Tokyo Axis
Ribbentrop, J. von, 183, 203, 204, and, 149; attitude of Hankey and
275; brings Peace Pact from Hitler Chiefs of Staff to, 161, 162; NC
(1936), 108, 145; his policy of ap- rejects alliance with, 180; and
peasing Britain, 158; and Austria, Czechoslovak crisis, 192, 193;
173; NC and, 180, 298; Henderson Labour Party and co-operation
on, 287; at declaration of, war, with, 213, 216, 219, 220; attitudes
310, 352; damages German influ- towards alliance with, (Amery)
ence in other countries, 359-60 227, (Cecil) 245, (Churchill), 242,
Roberts, Wilfred, 217, 414 244, 247, (Conservative Party) 265,
Rockley, E.C., 1st Baron, 49, 414-15 266, (Cripps) 215, (Eden's group)
Rochm putsch, 156 252, (Halifax) 272, 281, 282, 294,
Roman Catholics, and League of Na- (Hoare) 341, 342, (Lloyd George)
tions Union, 228-9 382, (Salisbury) 377, (O.Stanley)
Roosevelt, F.D.: New Deal of, 39, 59; 337; execution of generals in, 285;
'initiative' of (Jan. 1938), 174, and South-East Europe, 296, 297;
175-6, 180, 274, 335; persuaded to NC and, 302, 303, 304, 317; nego-
send fleet to Far East, 398; Labour tiations with: wants alliance or
Party and, 219; prospect of support nothing, 303; occupies part of
to 'peace offensive' from, 358, 369; Poland, 356, 361; trade negotia-
Churchill and, 397 tions with, continue after break-
Ross and Cromarty by-election (1936), down of political talks, 362; attacks
119,325 and defeats Finland, 360, 362, 363;
Rothermere, H.S. Harmsworth, 1st Vis- expelled from League of Nations,
count, 16, 46-7, 334,415; supports 362; see also Franco-Soviet Pact
Mosley, 17; has fellow-feeling for Russo-German Pact (1939), 300, 303,
Hitler, 39; and foreign policy, 318; intelligence reports predict,
118-19, 140; as a joke (Dawson), 298, 302; NC's view of, 308-9, 355,
128-9 356, 379; Hore-Belisha and, 332;
Round Table, 122 Eden's group and, 343, 344;
Rowse, A.L., 3, 387, 415 thought to damage Hitler political-
Royal Oak, HMS, sunk in Scapa Flow, ly, 397
370
559
Saar, plebiscite in (1935), 73 Secretary and Leader of House of

Salisbury, J.E.H. Gascoyne-Cecil, 4th Commons (1935-7), 60, 74; and
Marquess of, 16, 45, 49, 252, 415; Hoare-Laval proposals, 99; Chancel-
founder of Watching Committee, lor of the Exchequer (1937-40),
372, 377-8, 382, 384 265; in Czechoslovak crisis, 184,
Salter, Sir J.A., 121, 231, 375, 415 185, 201; his zeal for economy,
Samuel, Sir H.L. (later Viscount), 87, 339, 351; supports negotiations
136, 233, 234, 268, 415; Home with Russia (1939), 303; excluded
Secretary (1931-2), 34; with fol- as possible Prime Minister, 338; at
lowers, resigns from National Gov- declaration of war, 347, 351; in
ernment (1932), 15, 34, 231, 259; War Cabinet, 369, 371; pressure for
loses seat (1935), 110; accepts peer- removal of, 373, 376; removed
age (1937), 111; refuses to join after Norway debate, 381; retained
Cabinet (1938), 281,304 as Lord Chancellor in 1940 Govern-
sanctions, economic, 68; against Italy, ment, 385
80-1, 86, 87, 90, 116, 382; NC on, Simpson, Mrs, 263
101; Locarno Pact and, 108; oppo- Sinclair, Sir Archibald, 111-13; and
sition to policy of, 122; raising of, League of Nations, 11; in National
144; question of, against Japan, Government, 34; resigns (1932),
175 111; proposed as parliamentary
Sanderson, Baron, 267, 497 leader of Liberal Party (1935), 110;
Sandys, Duncan, 225, 415; in opposi- in opposition to NC, 136, 154, 224,
tion to NC, 218, 247, 248; NC on, 230-3, 244, 245, 246, 248, 249,
294; at declaration of war, 347; in 252; NC's view of, 304; at declara-
1940 Government, 386 tion of war, 346, 377; at fall of NC,
Sankey, Sir John, Viscount, 54, 61-2 372, 376, 381, 382; in 1940 gov-
Sargent, Sir O.G., 289, 415 ernment, 2, 5, 385
Saturday Review, 117 Singapore: base at, 70, 305; fall of,
Scandinavia: decision to carry war 399
into, 360-1, 363; Churchill and, Slovaks, in Czechoslovakia, 188, 295
369, 370; see also individual coun- Smillie, R., 27
tries Smuts, J.C., 129,252,416
Schacht, R , 158, 204, 299 Snell, Baron, 84, 212
Schmidt, Hitler's interpreter, 190 Snowden, Philip, Viscount, 62; in Na-
Schuschnigg, K. von, 172, 179, 225 tional Government (1931), 22; re-
Scottish Liberal Federation, 40 signs over imperial preference
Secret Sessions of Parliament (1932), 34-5, 50, 259, 392
(1939-40), 375, 376, 380, 382, 383 Socialist League: Cripps and, 15, 29,
Selborne, W.W. Palmer, 2nd Earl of, 214; programme of, 29-30; disaffil-
49,252,415 iated from Labour Party (1937),
Sheppard, Very Rev. H.R.L., 25, 416 217
Sidebotham, Herbert, 258, 416 Somaliland: proposed cession of part
Simon, Sir J.A., 347-51; Foreign Secre- of, to Italy, 80; proposed compen-
tary (1931-5), 19, 24, 41, 42, 45, sation of Abyssinia in, 86
120; in National Liberal Party, 34; Southby, Sir A., 358, 416
as candidate for replacement, 53-4, Spain, civil war in, 115, 116, 117;
58; and Lloyd George, 37, 57; and Times and, 130, 131, 132; France
German rearmament, 66, 72; visits and, 130, 149, 166, 168; Russia
Paris, 73, and Berlin, 73, 78, 85, and, 135, 164, 169, 178,265,266;
127, 151, 152; and 1935 election NC's and Eden's policy on, 158,
programme, 92; opinions about, 163-9, 182, 259; Italy and, 162,
(A. Chamberlain) 137, (London- 164, 165, 167, 275; Labour Party
derry) 127; foreign policy of, 74-7 and, 165, 167, 211, 265; opinions
78, 139; removal of, 35, 60; Home about, (Conservative Party) 266,
560
(Halifax) 275, (Hankey and Chiefs Suez Canal, proposed closing of (as
of Staff) 162, (League of Nations sanction against Italy), 81, 83, 140
Union) 228, (Sinclair) 232, 233, Sunday Times, 258
(O.Stanley) 337, (Zetland) 317; Supreme War Council, Paris, 370, 371
prospect of Franco victory in, 205, Sweden: iron ore of, crucially impor-
281, 341 tant to Germany, 360-1; objects to
Spears, E.L., 227, 286, 381, 416; in Anglo-French mining of Norwegian
Eden's group, 249 waters, 361
Spectator, The, 249 Swinton, P. Cunliffe-Lister, 1st Vis-
Spender, J.A., 233, 416 count, 56, 335, 417; at Colonial
Spens,W.P.,378,416 Office (1931-5), 76; at Air Ministry
Spier, Eugen, 242, 416 (1935-8), 60, 101; resigns with
Stafford by-election (1938), 237 Eden, 236, 237, 240, 243, 257,
Stalin, 148, 158, 279; Zetland and, 314, 320; member of Watching
317, 318; sees attempt to turn Committee, 378
Hitler against Russia? 397
Stanhope, J.R., 7th Earl, 165, 313-14, Tate, Mrs, 381,417
379,385,416 Tawney, R.H., 388
Stanley, Edward, Lord, 281, 313, Territorial Army, doubling of (1939),
416-17 302 332
Stanley, Oliver, 334-8, 417; Minister of Thomas, J.H., 22, 388, 392, 417; in
Labour (1934-5), 44-5, 60; at National Government (1931), 41,
Board of Education (1935-7), 60, 42, 48; Beaverbrook and Rother-
101; at Board of Trade (1937), mere and, 47, 48; and Lloyd
225, 250, 318; Cripps and, 217; his George, 57; suggests resignation,
visit to Berlin (1939) is cancelled, 59; kept in Cabinet on MacDonald's
295; and Churchill, 370; at War retirement, 62, 74, 76, 323; opin-
Office (1939), 375; at declaration ions about, (Dawson) 128, (Lon-
of war, 347, 352; refuses Domin- donderry) 127; resigns (1936), 323
ions Office (1940), 385 Thomas, J.P.L., 249, 294, 417
Steed, H.W., 242,417 Times, The, 128-31, 391; on Hoare-
Steel-Maitland, Sir A.H., 1st Bart., 49 Laval proposals, 98-9; NC and, 108;
Stevenson, Frances, 36, 39, 417 as a world power, 132; A. Chamber-
Stokes, R.R., 358,417 lain on, 136; Vansittart and, 159;
Stonehaven, Baron (later Viscount) 46, Eden writes to, 238; refuses to
48 and 435 print Churchill letter, 252; supports
Strachey, John, 388 NC, 258; and Czechoslovakia, 277,
Stresa Conference (Apr. 1935), 74, 78, 336
80, 105, 152; Hoare and, 85, 86, Tirpitz, Admiral A. von, 158
139; 'better than the League' Tithe bill, withdrawn, 48
(Garvin), 125 Toynbee, Arnold, 123,417-18
Strauss, G.R., 216, 217,417 Trade Union Congress: (1935), sup-
submarines, in Spanish Civil War, 167, ports sanctions, 82, 83; (1936),
168,275 supports rearmament, 215; (1938)
Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, supports accelerated rearmament,
180, 181, 182, 183, 185; reject pro- 212
posals of Benes, 186; question of trade unions: silent jingoism of, 209;
plebiscite for, 183, 186, 187, 190, Churchill praises, 242; and defence
193; proposal of 5 years' autonomy programme, 267, 277, 373
for, within Czechoslovakia, before Tree, Ronald, 249, 252, 381, 418
plebiscite, 183, 187, 349; British Trenchard, H.M., 1st Viscount, 252,
attitudes towards (Elliot) 321, 376,378,418
(Henderson) 287 Tribune, 215, 216
561
Trondheim, question of assault on, Wavertree by-election (1935), 46

364-5, 371 Weir, W.D., 1st Viscount, 153, 418
Turkey, 169, 180, 309; British finan- West Fulham by-election (1938), 237
cial agreement with, 182; guarantee West Perth by-election, 248
to (1939), 301; as possible ally, Westminster, R. A. Grosvenor, 2nd Duke
356; Russian and British treaties of, 358, 418
with, 362; neutrality of, 398 Westminster, Statute of, 6, 390
Tyrrell, W.G., 1st Baron, 75, 418 Wheeler-Bennett, Sir John; 3
White, Graham, 230,374
unemployment: Liberal Party and, 34, Williams, Francis, 219, 418
35; Lloyd George and, 39, 41, 45, Willink, H.U., 176,472
47, 57-8; National Government Wilson, Sir A.T., 358,418
and, 42, 43; Baldwin and, 62, 92; Wilson, Sir H.J., 419; NC and, 185,
NC and, 92 263, 267, 283, in Czechoslovak
Unemployment Act (1934), 44 crisis, 195, 197, 199-200, 201, 203,
Unemployment Assistance Board, 44, 277-8, 279; member of Committee
261,272 on Air Ministry, 243; and Phipps,
United Front: Cripps calls for, 215; 286; in talks with Germany (1939),
rejected by Labour Party Confer- 300; at declaration of war, 351;
ence, 216 pressure for removal of, 373, 376;
United States of America: and eco- removed (1940), 385
nomic sanctions, 68, 98; NC on Winterton, E.T., 6th Earl, 240, 258,
economic power of, 154; NC and 314-15,381,385,419
policy of, 175, 178; opinion in, Wolmer, Roundell Palmer, Viscount,
(Eden and) 174, (on German anti- 45, 419; in opposition to NC, 244,
semitism) 205, (on Hitler) 308, (on 249; NC on, 294; at fall of NC, 381
Russian attack on Finland), 362; Womersley, Sir W.J., 392, 419
naval mission to Britain from Wood, Sir Kingsley, 47, 128, 217,
(1938), 175; Conservative Party 264-5; Minister of Health (1935),
and, 270; Halifax on co-operation 60, 128, 185, 217; and foreign poli-
with, 281; British dependence on, cy, 101, 165, 185; Air Minister
299; objections to special relation- (from 1938), 244, 371; in War Ca-
ship with, 397; as world power, binet, 369, 371, 379; Lord Privy
399; see also Roosevelt Seal (after Finland), 380; Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer in 1940 Gov-
Vallance, Aylmer, 233, 418 ernment, 385
Vansittart, Sir R.G., 286, 418; member Woolton, FJ.Marquis, 1st Baron, 380,
of Defence Requirements Commit- 419
tee, 70; and Germany, 74, 75; at World Economic Conference (1933),
Foreign Office, 76, 77, 81, 152, 35,65,151
283, 284; 'power polities' of,
155-9; demotion of (1937), 159, Yangtse incident (Dec. 1937), 170
168-9, 185, 243, 283 Yorkshire Post, 258
Versailles settlement: assumes disarma- Young, E. Hilton, 1st Baron Kennet,
ment, 19, 80; Labour Party and, 419; Minister of Health (1931), 24;
25; Hitler and, 64, 72, 127, 265; as candidate for replacement, 53,
Garvin and, 124; Halifax and, 174 54,60
Yugoslavia, 180, 326, 357, 365
Wallace, E., 385
War Book, Hankey and, 367 Zeeland, Paul van, 107, 132, 146
War Cabinet (1939), 369, 375, 379 Zetland, LJ.L. Dundas, 2nd Marquess
Washington Treaty (1921), 78 of, 101,263,317-18,385
Watching Committee of senior Conser- Zionism: of Elliot, 332; of Ormsby-
vatives, 372, 378; and fall of NC, Gore, 315
383, 384

Maurice - Cowling The Impact of Hitler PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maurice - Cowling The Impact of Hitler PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maurice - Cowling The Impact of Hitler PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the book about?

What is the book about?

What time period does the book cover?

What time period does the book cover?

THE IMPACT OF HITLER

Cambridge Studies in the History and Theory of Politics

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge University Press

© Cambridge University Press 1975

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

First published 1975

A catalogue recordfor this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 74—12968

ISBN-13 978-0-521-20582-5 hardback

ISBN-13 978-0-521-01929-3 paperback

For access to material which they own or control, the author

April 1974 Maurice Cowling

remnant and not on Liberal sufferance, but as a major ele-

(which was completed in 1944)1 and by the sale and scale of

living interest which will survive the most zealous attempts at

selves, were artificial persons made up of the assessments

to give a real account of the development of events.

Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf to India, Malaya,

believe that success, or failure to succeed against Russia,

French intervening. After Berchtesgaden this failed; he lost

On the one hand, the Labour party, Sinclair, Churchill and

In the thirties the system contained heavy deposits of Con-

THE UNFOLDING OF THE PROBLEM

'The National government in 1934 is certainly not as strong as it was in

Garvin, Amery, Churchill, Salisbury, Rothermere and Austen

Of the oppositions about which ministers had to think, the

only when that failed in 1930, after coming near to success,

Where Mosley and the British Union of Fascists fought

Cecil was an uncomfortable colleague and natural resigner:

the government intended to be firm. Its ambiguity towards

ing [German] disarmament' should be 'the same in principle

crises. By getting them to distribute a nationwide question-

'anti-League' that he should 'sever' his Conservative 'connec-

National government was the loss of the leaders who invented

removal of Henderson, Cripps and Lansbury completed the

was a 'clown' who would be defeated by inflation and re-

Stalin and Roosevelt instead became a focus through which

From 1933 onwards the Labour leadership faced a Cripps

1931 that virtue became an option.

worked through a variety of organisations which provided

identified with the Peace Ballot. 76 The 1934 local govern-

'This afternoon the PM called Baldwin, Chamberlain, Thomas, Runciman

signing when Chamberlain and Baldwin gave effect to the

extended attention to the need for treaty-revision and pre-

In these years the pattern of the past was repeated. There

himself that either of two courses was open to him. He could

'issue' about which to establish a 'position'. Which issue to

In respect of its main target — unemployment — his

Between 1933 and 1935, then, five armies were advancing.

1934, that the major domestic decisions were made by Bald-

mination to avoid governmentally-created inflation. These

tion of unemployment assistance was instituted, it did.

them temporarily, he persuaded Baldwin to put off further

Labour victory by standing as an 'Independent Conservative*