Whitehall, Industrial Mobilisation and the Private Manufacture of Armaments: British State-Industry Relations, 1918-1936
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The London School of Economics and Political Science Whitehall, Industrial Mobilisation and the Private Manufacture of Armaments: British State-Industry Relations, 1918-1936 Edward Frederick Packard A thesis submitted to the Department of International History of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, July 2009 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other persons is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of the author. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. 2 Abstract This thesis presents a comprehensive account of the complex relationship between the British government and the domestic military-naval arms industry from the armistice in 1918 until the period of rearmament in the 1930s. Challenging traditional „declinist‟ assumptions, it offers a multifaceted interpretation of the industry‟s strengths and weaknesses and its place in national security. In this regard, British governments always prioritised national interests over the private armament manufacturers‟ particular concerns and never formulated a specific policy to help them adjust to peacetime conditions. Indeed, the wartime experience of industrial mobilisation – the mass production of war material by ordinary firms – made specialist arms producers appear less important in supply planning: a view that proved more important than disarmament and retrenchment in damaging state-industry relations and, together with Britain‟s liberal economic traditions, helped to foster an enduring but exaggerated sense of relative weakness. Faced with the government‟s apparent indifference, the overextended arms industry underwent comprehensive internal reorganisation, led by Vickers and supported hesitantly by the Bank of England. This reduced the overall number of manufacturers but it also brought modernisation and a comparatively efficient nucleus for emergency expansion. Internationally, British firms retained a large share of the global arms market despite rising competition. Policymakers rarely accepted widespread public criticism that private armaments manufacture and trading were immoral but believed that the League of Nations‟ ambition to enforce all-encompassing international controls posed a far greater risk to British security. Although the government imposed unilateral arms trade regulations to facilitate political objectives, and was forced to address outraged popular opinion, neither seriously damaged the manufacturers‟ fortunes as the country moved towards rearmament. Indeed, the arms industry was never simply a victim of government policy but instead pursued an independent and ultimately successful peacetime strategy, before rearmament led to a cautious renewal of state-industry relations. 3 Acknowledgements I would like to record my thanks to the librarians and archivists who permitted me to consult their collections. I would have been lost without their invaluable guidance. Professor Michael S. Moss also offered a great deal of advice on Lord Weir and Glasgow University‟s holdings during a stimulating conversation in December 2007. The Scouloudi Foundation in association with the Institute of Historical Research awarded me a generous junior research fellowship for 2006-07. The LSE Department of International History and the Chamberlain Foundation also provided valuable financial assistance. I am grateful to all of my family and friends for their extraordinary support, but I would especially like to thank Anne and John Cleverley; Dr Laura Cobden; Peter Dingler; Captain Matthew Dobson RAMC; Ed Hutchings; Jessica Knott; Emma Lilley; Nicola Merritt and Jacob; Christine and the late Peter Mullen OBE; Lidia Panico and Dr John Armitage (and the Panico parents); Emma Peplow; Silke Popp; Kathryn Rogers; my sister Emily; Dr Gil-li Vardi; and Iain Wilson. Stephanie Sweitzer deserves special mention for her superhuman ability to lift my spirits during the writing-up stages. In more than one way, this thesis would never have been completed without the doctors and nurses at Ipswich Hospital who looked after me in the summer of 2005: they also showed (or convincingly feigned) interest in my early thesis ideas. My gratitude to them is undiminished and I remain in awe of their ability. The Willesden Cycling Club gave me plenty of encouragement and the opportunity to achieve some of my non-academic goals. In particular, I would like to thank Christopher James; Richard Jerome; Ray Kelly; Gladys and Ron Purdy; and Derek and Gill Reynolds. Outside the Willesden, Tim Melville provided inspiration, ideas and logistical support for my cycling endeavours. 4 I would like to extend special thanks to two great teachers and historians: Dale Banham sparked my high school interest in history, while Dr Andrew Webster introduced me to the disarmament puzzle and encouraged me to broaden the scope of this thesis. I hope he will not mind that the focus shifted from arms reduction to arms production. The History Lab postgraduate community at the Institute of Historical Research provided a stimulating environment for developing and sharing ideas. I would particularly like to thank Liza Filby and Dr Helen McCarthy for inspiration, friendship and kindness. At the LSE, Dr Antony Best has been unfailingly supportive to all of the Department of International History‟s research students. I remain honoured and humbled that Dr Robert Boyce and Professor David Stevenson agreed to supervise my work. I cannot thank them enough for their guidance and their patience, but I can wish Dr Boyce a happy and productive retirement, and express my immense appreciation to Professor Stevenson for sacrificing part of his valuable sabbatical leave to see me through the final stages. Dr Tanya Harmer and Dr Erica Wald offered friendship and encouragement beyond the call of duty. On more than one occasion, I do not know what I would have done without them. I do know that they will achieve great things. My parents, Andrew and Gillian Packard, provided infinitely patient love and support throughout. I thank them profusely for their continued belief in me. The debt of gratitude I owe to them can never be repaid or adequately expressed, but I hope they are pleased with the final result. In particular, I am painfully aware of the innumerable sacrifices made by my mother in order to provide me with an outstanding childhood and education. As some recompense, I want her to share in the sense of achievement and joy I feel in completing this stage of my life. I dedicate this thesis to my grandmother, Norah May Burgess (1917-2004). Although she passed away before I began this work, my memories of her unconditional love and unwavering faith enabled me to finish it. 5 Table of Contents Declaration .............................................................................................................. 2 Abstract ................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 4 List of Tables ........................................................................................................... 7 Abbreviations........................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 9 1. Struggles and Stagnation in British State-Industry Relations after 1918 .......... 38 2. An Inadequate Insurance: Industrial Mobilisation Planning between the Armistice and Rearmament ................................................................................... 72 3. From Diversification to Rationalisation: The Arms Industry‟s Identity Crisis, 1918-27 ................................................................................................................ 111 4. Reorganisation and Renaissance: Vickers and the Bank of England, 1927-36 ............................................................................................................................. 149 5. International Rivalry and Unilateral Regulation: Britain and the Global Arms Trade .................................................................................................................... 177 6. Statesmen, Smugglers and Sideshows: International Efforts to Control Armaments Manufacture and the Arms Trade .................................................... 221 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 270 Appendices........................................................................................................... 281 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 291 6 List of Tables Table 1: Expenditure on Warship Construction 1923/4-1932/3 (£millions) ......... 48 Table 2: Expenditure on Naval Armaments 1920-1936 (£) .................................