JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 268 Matti Roitto Dissenting Visions The Executive, Parliament and the Problematic Anglo-American Atomic Collaboration in the Changes of British Atomic Foreign Policy 1945-6 JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 268 Matti Roitto Dissenting Visions The Executive, Parliament and the Problematic Anglo-American Atomic Collaboration in the Changes of British Atomic Foreign Policy 1945-6 Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston humanistisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston Agora-rakennuksen auditoriossa 2 marraskuun 28. päivänä 2015 kello 12. Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by permission of the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Jyväskylä, in building Agora, auditorium 2, on November 28, 2015 at 12 o’clock noon. UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2015 Dissenting Visions The Executive, Parliament and the Problematic Anglo-American Atomic Collaboration in the Changes of British Atomic Foreign Policy 1945-6 JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 268 Matti Roitto Dissenting Visions The Executive, Parliament and the Problematic Anglo-American Atomic Collaboration in the Changes of British Atomic Foreign Policy 1945-6 UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ JYVÄSKYLÄ 2015 Editors Satu Matikainen Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Pekka Olsbo, Ville Korkiakangas Publishing Unit, University Library of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities Editorial Board Editor in Chief Heikki Hanka, Department of Art and Culture Studies, University of Jyväskylä Petri Karonen, Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Paula Kalaja, Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä Petri Toiviainen, Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä Tarja Nikula, Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä Epp Lauk, Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä Cover picture by Simo Viitanen. URN:ISBN:978-951-39-6384-2 ISBN 978-951-39-6384-2 (PDF) ISSN 1459-4331 ISBN 978-951-39-6383-5 (nid.) ISSN 1459-4323 Copyright © 2015, by University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä 2015 ABSTRACT Roitto, Matti Dissenting Visions - the Executive, Parliament and the Problematic Anglo-American Atomic Collaboration in the Changes of British Atomic Foreign Policy 1945-6 Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, 2015, 423 p. (Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities ISSN 1459-4323; 268 (nid.) ISSN 1459-4331; 268 (PDF)) ISBN 978-951-39-6383-5 (nid.) ISBN 978-951-39-6384-2 (PDF) The atomic bomb shaped the post-war world and the relations between Britain and the United States. Previous research has presented limited views on British early atomic proliferation in the contexts of domestic policy and Anglo-American relations. The problems of Anglo-American relationship have often been downplayed. Margaret Gowing has claimed that Parliament did not have a say or interest in atomic matters and that everything was ran by the government or the Cabinet or the inner circle of the Cabinet. This view has been repeated without any critical evaluation by other historians ever since. The notion of Parliament’s narrow role in foreign and defence policy has also been suggested in most research relating to parliamentary history. The goal of this study is to illustrate the factors which, within one year, led to a change from public, proactive and internationalist policy to a secret, reactive and realist approach. Moreover, these changes and their causes contributed to the partial failure of the Anglo-American atomic collaboration in 1946. This empirical study uses formerly secret archival sources of the government, diplomatic correspondence, and Hansard Parliamentary debates, supplemented with press material. During 1945-46 Parliament referred to atomic energy in 150 instances, in contrast to claims of mute and uninterested Parliament. These findings show the interdependence of the government, Parliament and officials in the atomic matters. Both the Anglo-American “special relationship” and atomic collaboration were more complex issues than has been presented in previous research. I claim that 1) in 1945-1946 there were five turning points when the British policy changed quite drastically back and forth. This was because 2) the role of British officials and, thus, path dependency on previous decisions was greater than has been considered. They informed Clement Attlee’s government so that the regime changed its views and pursued secret atomic co-operation for gaining the atomic bomb. 3) This did not entirely succeed due to the British parliament’s supervision. Due to the urgent and important nature of atomic matters, Parliament managed to gain access to them. Procedures like parliamentary questions and adjournment debates enhanced Parliament’s capability to supervise the government, which limited government’s options. 4) This led to problems in implementing policy 5) The Americans were reluctant to continue the atomic co-operation and seem to have applied “atomic diplomacy” against the British in order to enhance their own position in the post-war world. All of these contradicting paradigms affected the British government’s possibilities of conducting atomic foreign policy. The “atomic question” also contributed to a gradual change in the British political culture, affecting in part to parliamentarisation of atomic and foreign affairs. Keywords: atomic bomb, atom, Great Britain, parliament, foreign policy, 1945, 1946, United States, Anglo-American relations Author’s address Matti Roitto Department of History and Ethnology University of Jyväskylä P.O. Box 35 40014 (FI) Jyväskylä, Finland [email protected] Supervisors Dr. Satu Matikainen Department of History and Ethnology University of Jyväskylä PhD Antero Holmila Department of History and Ethnology University of Jyväskylä Reviewers Professor Jussi Hanhimäki Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneve Dr. Rhiannon Vickers Department of Politics University of Sheffield Opponents Professor Jussi Hanhimäki ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation has been in the making for quite a while. It has been, as most of the dissertations tend to be, a learning experience, but it has also been more than challenging to complete. Therefore all the help and support at work and outside the office has been more than welcome and a number of persons de- serve the highest of thanks. I would like to warmly thank professor Jussi Hanhimäki for his insightful comments and dedicated work, both as my oppo- nent and as one of the two reviewers of this dissertation; while Dr. Rhiannon Vickers’ meticulous and expert work on reviewing my manuscript was both heartening and encouraging. When I started this process years ago, it looked very daunting and it was hard to imagine ever getting to the end, let alone that my research would be reviewed by such specialists. During these years at the Department of History and Ethnology I have had the privilege of working with the best possible colleagues, who have spared no effort to lend me their knowledge and expertise. There is not enough of space in here to thank each and every one of you individually, and therefore I would like to express my gratitude to the whole department, and to Professor Jari Ojala, the head of our department. Thank you for giving me the privilege of learning more each and every day from each and every one of you. I would also like the thank the Chair of General History, Professor Pasi Ihalainen, and the discipline of General History for their support. Pasi’s high standards have not always been easy to meet, but the effort has been more than worthwhile, ever since the first course I took at the University of Jyväskylä. Work associated with Pasi’s various research projects, such as the “Parliamen- tary Means of Conflict Resolution”, and his extended networks have taken me to conferences around Europe to discuss and present my research with some very prominent scholars. I am also thankful to the Faculty of Humanities, and the University of Jyväskylä, for the chance to research, learn, and also teach in the best possible surroundings. The Faculty of Social Sciences, and Political Sci- ence in particular, have also been very accommodating with my various inter- disciplinary research interests ever since I started my bachelor’s and master’s studies (thanks especially Pekka Korhonen and Kari Palonen). And the third element that has helped me grasp my topic within a wider framework, has been to study International Relations at the University of Tampere. I am also grateful to the research project, “Driving Forces of Democracy”, which I am currently involved in, and the head of its Jyväskylä branch, profes- sor Petri Karonen, for giving me the chance to embark on a new course of re- search while still finishing this dissertation, and for his patience and support during this time. My supervisor has also been my greatest mentor. Dr. Satu Matikainen had already supervised my bachelor’s & master’s theses, and has basically been the best possible supervisor ever. Satu has the rare skill of being able to balance su- pervision and support with very stern demands, and she has taught me more than anyone else about becoming an independent researcher, and about finding out how to constantly improve my work. It has been a pleasure working under her supervision and then alongside her. The guidance provided by PhD Antero Holmila, my second supervisor, has also been helpful. Above all, Antero’s knowledge about using press material as a source, and the research related with this, helped me greatly in that context. Besides all these thanks there are some other colleagues whose support has been beyond all expectations. The four of us, who started our doctoral dis- sertations at the same time, have enjoyed mutual support within and outside the office, and it has been good to know that I was not alone in trying to navi- gate the occasionally rough waters of academia. Thank you for all your help, and especially for all the bad jokes Tiina Hemminki, Laura-Mari Manninen, and Henna-Riikka Pennanen. With regard to other colleagues: Dr. Pasi Saarimäki’s great efforts and noble achievement of finally finishing his dissertation taught me a lot at the point I was starting my own.