To J
Setting relationship opposition whether II.
dramatic
Paul September British as
‘ 2 Martel
(Oxford:
Hugh Peter Christopher
Paul
Kenneth
consistent
this,
noted The n historical
Kennedy
the
Kennedy,
Hitchens,
(London:
Dalton,
The Hitler every throne. than My
people’s enough. “Appeasement”—the nearly forget leadership make
The
left
the
viewing
aside
Oxford
0.
November
Labour
speech
writer
emerged poor
old
republican in Morgan,
1939 Hitchens,
there
of apparent
opportunity..
inaccuracy: this The
is
in
The that
got
general
“Appeasement,”
sibling
Routledge,
University “Letters,”
stated
It half-truth
the
trundled
its
countries—was
brother
“Rearmament,” of
and
by fateful
has didn’t
clear is
it.
opposed have
the
criticism that
“The
Labour
for
Labour
“Letters,”
serve
Alternatives
British 1997
columnist
[A
been
that
Chamberlain
“was
rivalry,
shift
Christopher
to
become
Vanity abolishing
role,
Years
really. Twentieth Press,
long
forthcoming
1986),
out
that
the
to
throughout
issue
pinpointed .
Party
pacifist-inclined,
appeasement, Deputy
in
in
again .
as
however, clarify (London:
Vanity
policy
ago Fair, meanest
There’s
1988),
the
146.
The these
it Labour
Labour
Edward
Christopher
an
indeed
of
proposed
Century,” Labour
British later lost
to
November
Origins
the
by
Fair, instrument
replied:
616. faction Vanity
the
Leader
of
Britain’s
Frederick statements
bookJ
my
the
a
the
monarchy.1 intelligence,
liked by has
letting
consistently
role November much
opposed
polity C.
Labour
of to
brother,
ability
in
decade,
some
by
not
how Wilkinson,
wanted
Fair
the
1997,
Arthur
The
with
of
to
Hitchens,
Appeasement:
with
some Miller,
Hitler better
Party
of
Second been foreign
the
think.”4
from
Oxford
magazine,
as
to
united Party illustrate by
84.
appeasement.
an
1997,
Christopher,
the
party
few
a
tell even Greenwood occurring
Tories,
the easily
and
introduction case
1957), have
military
World
post-World
History
party
84.
policy fought
Jr.
his
exceptions.”5 accused
Kenneth
Labour
in
fiercely
in
if was
for
his
265.
ascertained.
hawk
not
intriguing
the
War
Peter
would
the “was
abolishing of
way
alliance
in
the
in
any
years to
Britain Reconsidered,
in
Party,
urging
his Some
opposed the
from
the
0.
by
Peter.2 Hitchens,
appeasement
his
in
neither
under
War
1930s
opposition,
Morgan relation
my
late
preceding
other
1930s.
Yet,
latest
ed.
with
questions
though
his
people
war
the
good
I
Kenneth Chamberlain’s
1930s.3
reannament
handsaw.
as
these pacifism
Hitler
attack
on
Labour
ed.
the
of
added
forthright
Questions
not
choose self,
Gordon Germany
World
of
promoting
brother
and
exceptions
0.
about
Historian
and
strongly
on
will
Morgan
that
Party
to
the when
to
at War
$7 the nor
the
the
of
of
in 88
mentioned by Morgan were far from marginal figures but instead were significant leaders such as Clement Attlee, Hugh Dalton, and Ernest Bevin. The leaders of Labour developed a critique of appeasement earlier in the 1930s than often recognized and this critique gained support within the party throughout the decade. Political conditions, however, and internal divisions stifled the leaders and they did not possess the designation to enact government policy. Though they were out of power, analyses of the policy choices made by the government must acknowledge the alternatives offered by the Labour leaders’ critique. A primary foundation of Labour’s concept of foreign policy was described by Attlee as “a common rejection of the doctrines and ideals of militarism and imperialism.”6 One aspect of this vision materialized in the strength of the pacifist wing of the party during the 1920s. Advancing from objections to British involvement in World War I, Labour pacifists denounced the use of force to further national policy while promoting the reduction of armaments and the exchange of arbitration for war. Central to the rise of the pacifists was the formation during the war of the Union of Democratic Control which included future Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald.7 Sensibilities of the U.D.C. steadily influenced the Labour Party during the 1920s as MacDonald served briefly as Prime Minister in 1924. Pacifist sentiment remained strong enough to influence the party platform for the 1929 election. Building upon its support for the League of Nations, the Labour Party issued a statement of principles entitled the “Six Pillars of Peace.”8 The first principle urged for the renunciation of war. Next, the party pressed for disarmament while reiterating opposition to conscription. The platform did acknowledge the financial hardship inherent in decreasing the creation of munitions and offered to include armament workers in plans for national development. Arbitration was the third pillar and it called for the acceptance of the Permanent Court of International Justice as the settler of disputes between states. The fourth pillar advocated for economic cooperation by eliminating the barriers to commerce. The next pillar promised full public disclosure of foreign affairs and the submission to the House of Commons of any international engagements for its consent. The final pillar of peace was political cooperation. The platform described this aspect as perhaps the most significant. Political cooperation “involves the repudiation of all partial military alliances and groups which now again threaten the peace of Europe, and the substitution for them of general agreements for ‘pooled security’ against aggressive war.”9 Coupled with its domestic policy proposals, this platform aided the party to win the election, albeit without a clear majority of seats. Even while pacifist thought held sway in the party during the decade, the 1920s were by no means a period of monolithic agreement concerning foreign policy. A smaller, but growing, faction advocated for a class-war premise. This group countered the pacifists by stating that the use of force could become useful if deployed in defeating capitalism.’0 Economic concerns such as the 1926 general strike and the 1929 financial
6 C.R. Attlee, The Labour Party in Perspective (London: Victor Gollancz, 1937), 199. Henry Pelling, America and the British Left (New York: New York University Press, 1957), 108. 8 Labour and the Nation (London: The Labour Party, 1938), 46. Ibid., 47-48. ‘° Elaine Windñch, British Labour’s foreign Policy (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1952), 13. panic theoretical As necessary to enforcement are liberty stage acquiescence possibility Proponents the not those of that efficacy a international national Labour Prime with months colleagues, particularly Disarmament festered Foreign
possessed his
Labour lack
12 “Attlee, t3 14 15
few
Ibid.,
Morgan,
the The Dalton, The Labour.
a
profoundly
workers
serve
position
difficulties
member
perceived of
of of
Record
Record
pacifists. fed
short
Minister
by A
Although
218.
Ramsay
The
The
one
later,
support
The Party. others, Secretary
action declined
and society.”
The
as
third
do
616.
not
an of approaches
the
of
Labour
of
however, and
impact an months conference decisive.
of of
in
Fateful of
not
depression.
stymied
to
national
inauspicious of
the
utilizing
the its the class Conference
opposed
justice.
the adequate alone vibrancy
strain
would
evil. MacDonald inaction
of
other Parliament
After
were
regard from
He
Second lowest
Second
critical
National
steadily
Arthur
Party
British
a
Years,
on
Instead,
war
before
could
National
exercise
the of
action.”12
sections
MacDonald
of
the “due
have
some
Labour
Labour
it
in Attlee the to proved
Labour
Labour
Labour
foundation
seat
by 37.
“deny
the
of
party’s
Already Henderson
as
Perspective,
of
in war,”
conference’s government
beginning.’6
not,
in government
the
in
sanction
to
to the
had
desirable,
the pacifists.
he
earlier
totals
the pacifism,
effective
Geneva, respectively the
wait of government
Government
Government, had
world
of to
however, American that
Class
argued cabinet,
the he
thought
class-war
policy presence
the
dependent portray
the l920s,
announced
ever
been
for later
for
there
dubious
optimism,
214.
was community,” of
causes war
events
but
the
due control.”3
domestic Attlee scheduled
that
handily
in law. primary
objectives,
wrote,
especially led
was
Attlee
elected
(London: completely
the is
3.
stock
paralyzed
only
Parliament.
of conditions
rejected
primarily
to
wing
any
government
honor
on
to
over of growing
final
evident
the
Pacifism,
the
did
as
the
“and
MacDonald’s
the
was
defeated
market
possibility supporter, 1931
president
or
The
MacDonald
an and
Still,
Attlee
to next
prominence
which
of
the
conference, not
support proud
foreign
For the
a
those
unavoidable
support
consisting Labour
of
begin forming in
war
was
financial
offered pacifist
a
support
crash country,
day
the
unfortunately,
foreign
the
mid-year stated. Labour force
the
of
who
veteran
of
disastrous.
of the
policy.
Publications
of
1930s
in that thinking
its
the
their
unleashed
shake-up. resignation. Government
the
a
common
argument
ultimately
of a regard
Disarmament February
floundered.
crises.
Labour of
policy,
the efforts
he
“In
conference
in
he
necessity
distinct
Liberal
the
with to
monetary
view.
Conservatives.’4
contended,
Attlee’s
an
effect,
was
view
influence
of
pacifist
the
Department,
election could
Internal some
to
the
government
Labour
interest
Clement
as the
Featuring
returning Party,
1932.’
“All use
allows
option
help
of
at
the they
could
Shocking effect
outlook,
but
run,
forces
After
sympathies our lead
wing
Conference
of
class
the
risking and
Socialists
that
Labour’s enact
divisions appealed
deny soon
between
force
coupled
1935),
present
for
Attlee.
Labour
to
proved not
to policy
could
a
of of
Adolf
to
war.
Two gave
only
new
and
the
the
the
lost
the
89 his the
the
by
of an as
be
2. in
at
the of
the
any
the and by-
the
for
not
this
first
still-
small
even 1934
Union seat
for of
a
is
abruptly
and “Nazis, lost
Nations,
the
anti-Nazi Nation.2° its
the
his
Calif.:
advocacy,
statement
conditions
Jewish
Fulham by
of
In
of Wilmot,
irresponsible
(London:
Heading characterized
of lost
Trades his
superiority
galvanized
“What
41.
issue
The Government fourth,
objective,
exposure
October,
during East an
to
quickly
People,”
We
the to
John
(Coventry:
(Stanford, who
in
housing
probabilities
Pimlott
League
challenge
the
1969),
to
League
the
actions
first,
Baldwin
in
to the
Nazis
conference
British
Ben “Are how
Also
of
primary
Abroad,” local
began Rhineland.23
leader
effective
disruptions the his
opponent;
ed.
strong
third,
the the
the
its
1920-1960 1914-1965
advocating
the
goods.19
a
ability.22
bad Nicolson, depression.
conference
and
as factors;
victory
of among
soon Stanley
party
Nazi most
enough
of Labour-affiliated
a
by
Enemy
and a
the
about
described Policy
Fascism,” 1-23.
quitting of
his the four Archive
now
945-1960,
however, 2
the
1
Home
building;
The
German
seat
through
at political
to to
He
irrelevance.2’
analysis:
T.U.C.
hardly
at of lingering
concerns
denouncing Minister with
Conservative
on
form
1933,
940,
Dalton,
of
Foreign
year, later, 1967),
exposure new
remilitarized
and
of
Weidenfeld
concern
but
Congress
The
his
counted
the
in
incompetence
bans
defense
and
outrage
1918-1 Bevin of
Prime in Fascism,
Hugh his
be majority
Party,
Down
same
levels
week
Fascism
Union
Baldwin’s on.18
pacifism. Lcthour’s
and
his
outstanding
Treaty,
period
his early
effective (London:
that
the
in
Labour
Conservative
Germany
on
new
must a Party
Dalton
international
one publications
Fire,”
of
Labour
Party.
and Ernest
early
Trades
for
clearance
over of
collective
war Policy
obstructive
The
Labour
solid
Hugh
disputed
size
refugees
The and, equally
before
During
recorded “Hitlerism,
of
a
of
during
placed Labour
Under
Conservative Consensus
Germany demonstrated
as for
Labour
news
and slum
Hitler
the
exploring 63.
his
flurry
but
and
the “Statement
Disarmament
and
26.
majority.
in
a to
Storey, the
(London:
Diary
for
personality
rule. party
47.
later,
European
for
concluded.’7 good
of however,
1969),
Hitler owed
International
appeared
along, reforms
organisation
reversed
the
acquired.
subjects
1992),
“A own
delegation
Berlin
175.
he
Conflict
Years,
highpoint
slackness
Richard
power
years
Democracy
was
General
Political
second,
to
denounced
Press,
his a
demand
had released
Hitler’s
a
‘pacifism’,
such
his
others
Ir.ibor’s
to
and Dalton,
factions
to it Wilmot
The
Nazisdom,”
1986), Bibliography
appeared
as
policy,
October,
of of
plodded
his
of
on
Conservative Fateful
electoral also
Gordon, circles.
Warwick,
Three
years,”
disarmament.
and
of
economic
616.
candidate,
of
R.
and rose
By
The
Hugh
Naylor, and not John Parry shameful
Geneva; and
his
least, traveled
Cape,
Labour
University
“Austrian
of
Duffield
Dalton,
ten
years
F.
by-election
victory
Hugh
Sarah 1931, Morgan, 90
Dalton, John
Hitler
Labour momentum non-pacifist academic
Congress next
pamphlets withdrawing
Henderson consolation
election.
the
Labour unilateral
formidable The
three
statement
War,” Nazism ahead
Fascism,” “
19 18
Jonathan University
20 Stanford
21 22 23 criticized and Government,” press Conservative George Sir Conservatives, about efficient wickedness “It 1935. participated, organized against for forces annaments results seven taken willingness Party information, collective League we on the retirement shall
policy not
7. 26 25 27 2$ 29
for Dalton, C.R. Winston Dalton,
Dalton,
always
Stafford
profit;
stand
Labour Abyssinia?”29
Germany
be
energetically
how
we under
Socialism
While
held
by
million
Yet Attlee,
Also
toward Britain Lansbury,
Against
Attlee’s
as and
treated one.”26
The
The the The
firm agreement;
turn
Churchill,
a
parity security over
appeared
of
by MacDonald
Party.
its a
of
the
“to national signal
Cnpps
around
As Fateful fateful
the Fateful
he
National
Baldwin
although
the
it
in vindication
and
Abyssinia. international remaining tail even warfare,”
and annual have
It
the ten
auspices
Attlee read.
was
go
as first
poii might
this
Happened
pacifist
the
Peace:
The
The
‘All for in
and
developing Years,
Years,
Years, million to
if Attlee
led
this
widely
favored to
more vote
crisis major
last
provided
been
defense
“The
government
Gathering you war and in
conference. air
affect
clear’ Winston
me run
motion the
remained
The
of he 63. same
65.
67.
Lansbury in
major June.
called
(New
parity
than “With Dalton
still
for
in of
were the
danger supported
that
reviled class-war the destroyed Labour speech
away, agreement; wrote,
military
an
to
of a
the
backdrop its time,
League
York:
a
Storm,
ten League possessed
pacifist
to righteous Mussolini aggressive
some
At
the the
useful with
Churchill
purely
the
were
policy
as Parry’s
policies of repudiate
for
and million “considered by stand
in
around
Viking Dalton
African Peace the
declaration
war
170;
a
sanctions economic
wing
Parliament Labour Germany.25
of foreign
of
without
of the beginning
over member figurehead
portrait
of League
neutral,”
to
Programme
Nations.”28
quoted
my firm looms
Nations;
cause, doubts
Press,
in
favored
eventual collective
the Ballot.
which
later the
which while
led
country. nine our
his
pacifist
as
policy
Italian
passed
in
an
same
1954), of against over a
a sanctions
of
barbarous of of a
provided
obligations
wrote
Naylor, to
as about
million
we
traitor, he faction This
over
the argued word public inefficient
Parliament, Conservatives
of Prime
an As Nations
election
move
leader
the
security,
Action failures.
conflict have
friends,
time,
138. charged.
Dalton prohibition aggressor
overwhelmingly
more
ten position
aggression.27 the 67. that
world.”24
of he
desired opinion.
closer against Minister
in
for
that so
and
(London:
million
challenged
Dalton
Union,
of policy.
was
than
under protest the
favor
with
often
army Attlee asked
in
non-cooperation
Attlee remained
long-premeditated
all
nation, together.
did
“We
their quietly
ballot
to
aggressors;
of eleven
chose
Abyssinia,
necessary
favored
The pledged
and
until of
less the a
Only
the
remained
the abolish
not
Although
to from
nonpartisan
Labour
insistence support
promoting the
Labour
precipitating Covenant
Bevin that
the conference,
sale wicked
replaced demonstrated
as
yet
the million
360,000 to
majority’s
a
party
leadership
ourselves,
the
nation
national
of
decrease succeed
ignore
Party, action in middle
the and
hailed
intrigued.
began
economic with
doubtful
weapons
Austria
than
British
leader,
Labour people on
by
assault
nearly
group strong
of
voted
1934),
could
“Do was
the
the the
91
the the
the air the an of as to lax
of
or
of
a a
in of at
the the as
the
the
the
The
been
with
anti-
Party
at to of
more
group while
against
widely
Cripps
that opened
of
altered Service vocally
shift
intense
an
faction,
Socialist
a
so
not
country,” by
awareness victorious
termination “so
for
This
the prior
years if
elements always
possessed
were increasingly policy
Lansbury
the
Labour
with
led
and voice
third
most “destroyed this
the
that
custom once-dominant
elections
position
declined.
dissipated,
the
the
“had men
party
the many
security
weeks
had
the
and
wing 1937,
front the rupture
against
this
this
events faction
of
policies Faction.
a
for
open-eyed replaced
the
that arming
in
of
consistent
image
Both few
distinctive
quickly
within
Left
against and
dominant
that
an
of
Labour’s a
This
institution
was voted united
or
the
the
to
views
a
more
Attlee
the The
collective
within
1936
custom just
Rhineland Wing
decline
Majority expressed
first
unfolding
admit
Bevin. majority
government as
of the a
for
factions
after Parliament
a
by
the
question
needed
the the the
Conservative Left driven
When
did
reiterated
from
in
and
74.
unionist. 1930s.
was
promote became
of
is
as often habitually
rectify peace,” the
three
armaments
long
held
how
He was
shared
The
British to
mantle
seat
the support
to
this
while
of emerged
a
for
the trade
Attlee
he and
of
face
agitate
party
Gordon,
the the policy
Dalton depicted
a
Which
what
Party
1932 . 1939. in
Labour
to
to
themselves .
by
level
the
Party.33 .
that but
in
years
finally
describes
movement.”35
inability
without of
Minister
led
the it.
explained
quoted
able
identifies
asked
before
remilitarization
claiming
system.”3°
instrument Labour
the Conservatives readiness
had
Gordon,
armaments.”32
was
Parliament,
Labour 1930s,
be
face
wing
203;
union
however,
am
to middle
League the
dramatically
Prime
asserted
to Conservative overenthusiastic
the the all I
Gordon in
Attlee itself
to
demeanor. against
the
spokesmen,
initially
the
to
to
the
Gordon
1936,
He of
“If
Indeed,
League
trade of
Dalton
faction
1935
in
would
in
effective
military
R.
linked
second
was
period, Party
due
as
either
the in the
Ballot,
against
calmer
Socialist
an
remained
in
up,
Labour
Report the
is
a
prepared
third
Italy. was
image
142.
According
condemned
this
dissolving
as
It attack.
vote
the
majority
status
capitalism. vote opposition
fascism.
am
a faction he
Peace
the
government. Michael
Labour
politician
a
support
declined
“I
of labels
supremacy
the
a
be
out?
War.3’ Lansbury
with
The
Baldwin
against decline shaping the perhaps the as
the
increase
League pacifist
third
Conference
to
Labour.
We for
when
of
influential
Nations Happened,
not 1936,
political outlook.
in
of
against
of
outsider
It
not
by Civil
an
with
of
the Bevin,
67.
itself
to wipes
among quickly
Throughout
Historian
Their Party
1935. Gordon
crisis
As This Party.
few
By
was
139. 143.
6$.
war
to
but
a
battled of
Socialist
sanctions
leader
the
Gordon,
Ibid., Labour Ibid.,
92
sanctions.
aggression of
Spanish League
Estimates understood day, supported
Labour
end opposed
aligned that
class attitude
League strain. the
held resignation militarism least
of
policies.”34 somewhat
Bevin denouncements favored declared although the
Fascism
Labour
30AttIee, 31
32Ibid., Labour. vocal. attracting the
Labour
“The and culmination Party. aggressor Labour attributed hundred-page posed day treatment strong acquire humiliation,” other
the threatened Spain, Governments of
law accusations
(Oxford: ‘ Party, °
National
Interim House
Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.,
Labour
the
appease
third upon
by
policy
Government
1938),
There
to importance opportunity “isolationist,” sentiment. by On
Just clearly
The
Following 2.
the Party’s savage
of German
Clarendon Czechoslovakia’s
following
Report
the
faction.
the promote
of
Council the
to
Commons
Party Germany.
October
nation.
Labour
1. how
of the arrival
of various by
United his
brink
as is report greater
was
aggression.”4’ to
of this
1938 years
proclaiming:
aggressor
and
conquest
on reason
own
the Press, typical
Government
these
“British
foreseeing
to easy.36 Placing peace
Debates
Labour, of “The Government
21,
of of
the
report
National
nationalities. was
the
States,
Interim
President
use
of his
war.”38
views
Neville 1971), The
promoting
tradition 1937,
T.U.C.)
assertive
any third
to
dedicated
this
British
appetite.”37 diplomatic
in by
by
21 International
territory.
argued Labour
Czechoslovakia
the
Executive report believe
27. any Report
Germany,
October
the but
attack
“Labour
war perspective
The
Attlee
faction
Roosevelt Chamberlain
and
National
issued
Government,” throughout,
sacrifice
of way
representative
statements,
and
Next,
report
that to emphatically
praised
Anglo-American
of attempting
1937;
that upon that,
Committee
or
explicitly
Policy the
Following This
viewpoints. attempting
that
cannot
the
the an
other
Britain
the
Council
opening immediately
quoted
they
of would
was appeal
though
National
Czechoslovakia.”40 report
analysis promises
and
Czechoslovakia
in
report
weaker
right
in
pressure
the
October, acquiesce
Defence the
for
condemned
will
in it
to
should
of 1937
repudiates
that welcome in
any stated.39 report
Neville read, of
statement:
on
strengthen American
line reproached
the
the
Attlee’ the
Executive was
States, Labour
unite
success.
course
rebuke, from
1937
only
1931, delineated
to relations
Labour
fall “must
of dominant
lead
continued Thompson,
in not
compel
Abyssinia, s to
an
to with
6; the
the but the intensified 1931,
statement to (combining
July, “The for
an
a
quoted
public an the opportunity
leave
the
Germany
Committee.
avoid right Party The We
collective
policies the destruction
isolated
apparent
and
its
the
1938 an the
has League
attitude
The whole
report
in
more
in
should
no
report acceptance
government of
threat
such
was opinion
Anti-A a French
Pelling,
(London: the
always
making
cannot
the doubt
direct the
of
for
the
sentiment world
you
offered
Rhineland, ally:
of
defense of
evident a
of
ppeasers
British Chamberlain.
criticisms to insist
concluded of The
attempting
calamity.
authority
147.
Nations
intervening
yield
the been
in
tradition
and
The democracy
be is
the
stands
such
of
full
the
largely
Labour another and Labour on
merely
rule
such in or
to of Soviet to
but
mind
one-
the
any the 93 and the by
try
to an of the of
its
its to of
of
a
a to
of
on
the
the the
the
and
The
that
these
Prime
to Party,
nation.
British declare
Hitler’s
during
States
the
conditions why of
the
emphasis
and
reference University
possess
realize 1930s.
Conservative
both
Labour
an
the
pacifism lead
not
of
United
to
urged
late contemplate
made
the
long”
to
of must
with
the
political
did Association
from
1930s.
the
too
investigate
culpability
and
rose,
Still,
and must
critique
in
the
1999. strongly
history
image
out
history and
the
of
of bour
decision
Students
opposition
leaders
in
an
and Lii
party
historians
fall
occur
policy. social
twentieth-century
the
Party
years
the the
II,
History
dragged
from Greenwood
184.
not degree
and
in
Historians
Pimlott,
honor,
growing
assessing
sophisticated
studies
arts
did
a
War
to
institutional
been
Labour Ben
within
1977),
SFSU
of
studies
elections,
in
turbulent Leader
an
of
government
this
changed
has
Sf$U,
When
of
national
intellectual,
the
Press,
at Ph.D.
World
British
into
quoted
party,
bachelor
and
what
loss
divisions Deputy developed
Party
of
the a
component
president
to during
the
pursue 1939;
cultural, out predetermined.
the
as
of
views
However,
to
University
of
Party candidate
response.
due
Labour
and
Labour
not
interests
causes
received
critical
served
plans
include
a
Yet
leaders
explored
the
September
He
1939, the
Labour
masters
“dragging
2
were
Cambridge
of
alternative
a
evolution
the
was
2,
in
the
national
Greenwood.
Wilkinson
never
interests
Wilkinson
an
1993.
by
1930s.
Jr.,
depression
of
to
their
of
Conservative
in
Debates
His
was
the
were
power,
year.
policies
the
leaders
(Cambridge:
Britain.
in
discontinue
enact
perception
threat
offered of
September
leaders
Wilkinson,
to to
Berkeley,
school
and
history. economic Commons
and
On
out
1930s
The
C.
early
leadership
of
as
strategies
998
the
current
in
94 House
the war.42 Minister
direct
transformation Prominent
such policy authority
though actions government
alternatives Conservative
other
Calfomia Calfornia,
Edward 1997-1 European
42
Left