BRITISH INTELLECTUALS IN THE AGE OF TOTAL AND NUCLEAR WARFARE A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities. 2014 VICTORIA GLASS SCHOOL OF ARTS, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES 2 Table of Contents Page Number Abbreviations 4 Abstract 5 Declaration and Copyright Statement 6 Acknowledgements 7 Introduction 8 The Ideological Backdrop of the Thesis 9 The Framework 13 The Outline 18 Contribution to Knowledge 21 The Method and Scope of the Thesis 23 The Historiography 26 Chapter One – Warfare and British Liberty 32 Introduction 32 Part 1 – The Changes in Socialism 36 Part 2 – Freedom and the State 46 Part 3 – Dangers of Nuclear War 61 Conclusion 69 Chapter Two – Backwards to Utopia 71 Introduction 71 Part 1 – The History of Utopian Thought 76 Part 2 – Intellectuals and World Government 81 Part 3 – The Utopian Solution to World Peace 99 Part 4 – The Challenge to Utopianism 101 Part 5 – The Political View 104 Conclusion 106 Chapter Three – John Strachey: A Case Study in Intellectual and 108 Political Discourse Introduction 108 Part 1 – The 1930s 113 Part 2 – The Conventional Politician vs. the Imaginative Socialist Thinker 119 Part 3 – Defence in the 1950s 123 Part 4 – His Final Work 131 Conclusion 140 3 Chapter Four – Ethics and Liberal Science in the Nuclear Era 142 Introduction 142 Part 1 – Science and the State 144 Part 2 – The Impact of the Arms Race 153 Part 3 – Liberal Science and Freedom from Coercion 159 Part 4 – Liberal Science and Ethics 165 Conclusion 178 Chapter Five – The Nature of Warfare: A Military Perspective 180 Introduction 180 Part 1 – Fuller and Liddell Hart in Context 186 Part 2 – Liddell Hart 189 Part 3 – Fuller 198 Conclusion 206 Conclusion 208 BIBLIOGRAPHY 214 Word Count: 83,270 4 Abbreviations AWP Association for World Peace BUF British Union of Fascists CIA Central Intelligence Agency CID Committee of Imperial Defence Cmd Command CND Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament CPGB Communist Party of Great Britain DRPC Defence Research Policy Committee FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation HC House of Commons HL House of Lords LHL Liddell Hart Library LSE London School of Economics MAUD Military Application of Uranium Detonation MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NDRC National Defense Research Committee NSC National Security Council OR Operational Research TNA The National Archives TUC Trade Union Congress WAPWG World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government 5 Abstract This research examines British intellectual debates on warfare throughout the mid-20th century. The thesis identifies different discourses that emerged as a result of the changes in international relations and military technology at this time. It posits that intellectual contribution on the whole had a more significant impact than many historians have previously accredited. The thesis examines the work of specific intellectuals that made significant and detailed input into these debates and identifies their role in framing these discourses, as individuals and as part of a larger intellectual community. It also highlights the involvement of these intellectuals within the state apparatus and links their intellectual contribution to their role in government. The subject of war and its perception by intellectuals is conspicuously absent in the historiography on British intellectuals. Some of the most important studies of British intellectuals, including Stefan Collini’s Absent Minds, have engaged only slightly or not at all with the intellectual discourse surrounding international relations and warfare. This thesis attempts to fill this gap for the middle of the 20th century and demonstrates that warfare became a prolific and highly visible part of the contribution of intellectuals to British life. Recent literature has attempted to discuss the British state as a warfare state, rejecting arguments on British declinism. The thesis engages with this debate, and while it focuses on Britain’s approach to warfare, it also challenges the interpretation of Britain as either a welfare or a warfare state. The study of intellectuals does not feature heavily within this historiography on British warfare. While historians, such as David Edgerton, engage with specific intellectuals and their writings, a discussion of intellectual discourse does not appear within these analyses. This thesis argues that intellectuals as a group developed ideas and arguments on warfare and the British state in conjunction with one another, creating an intellectual discourse which influenced political decision making and public opinion. The thesis also examines a more modern understanding of the intellectual: the expert. Using both scientific and military thinkers, the thesis explores how experts became intellectuals in response to the growing threat of warfare and the rise of a military- industrial complex. Using intellectuals that conform to the classic definition alongside expert intellectuals, the thesis highlights the importance of analysing both groups as part of the larger whole, and discusses the similarities and differences between the works generated by these intellectuals. The thesis spans the years from 1932 to 1963 and discusses the continuities between intellectual debates across this period. The post-war years and the nuclear conflict feature heavily within this analysis, but the thesis highlights the importance of the 1930s in influencing later intellectual perceptions of the nuclear age and the fight against communism. The majority of this research resulted from sources published within the public domain including monographs, newspaper and periodical articles, public speeches and radio broadcasts. The research also uses the personal archives of the individual intellectuals and political documents from the time, including papers from the Ministry of Defence located in the National Archives, Defence White Papers and the Hansard House of Commons official reports. 6 Declaration No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. Copyright Statement i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and she has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses 7 Acknowledgements I owe many thanks to my supervisors Dr. Till Geiger, Professor Stuart Jones and Dr. Pedro Pinto for all their help. Their support and guidance has helped me throughout these years and I could not have finished the PhD without all their hard work on my behalf. I am indebted to the AHRC for their funding grant which allowed me to finish the thesis and helped facilitate the research undertaken for the PhD. I would like to thank my examiners, Professor Holger Nehring and Dr. Max Jones, for agreeing to assess the thesis. Their positive attitude during the viva made what could have been a nerve-wracking and difficult experience into a stimulating and interesting discussion. Their thoughts and insights into the thesis were extremely thought- provoking. My thanks also go to all the archivists who helped me during my many research trips. In particular those at the Royal Society and the Liddell Hart Library for all their hard work. I would also like to thank Elizabeth al Qadhi for allowing me into her home and letting me examine her father’s papers, without which Chapter Three of the thesis would not have been possible. Lastly my thanks go to my family and friends who have supported me over the last four years and who were always keen to listen to my ideas and help me work through any problems. I would like to dedicate the thesis to my parents, Anne and Ian, for their continued and unwavering love and support. 8 Introduction War can do many things, but it cannot end war. No peace can be a conclusive peace: it is beyond the wit of man to draw a treaty of peace which will make it impossible for war to recur between Britain and either her present enemies or her present allies. The destruction of militarism cannot be attained by a military triumph: war is the creator, the sustainer, and the reason-for- existence of militarism. The rights of Nationalities, far from being placed on an unassailable basis by war, are at present wiped out by it.1 The passage above derives from the start of the book, International Government, written by the political theorist and intellectual Leonard Woolf, published in 1916.