No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The British Labour Left and U. S. Foreign Policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Perhaps it is the absence of a substantial communist opposition in Great Britain that has caused Americans to be less concerned about the reactions of our British allies than of the continental nations to the recent foreign policy of the United States. However, if Americans assumed an almost universal British acceptance of the foreign policy adopted by the United States and formally adhered to by the British Government, the Bevanite revolt of early 1951 administered a sharp jolt. First, in April there were the resignations from the Government of Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Labour, former Minister of Health, and one of Labour's strongest and most popular leaders, Harold Wilson, President of the Board of Trade and one of the Government's young intellectuals, and John Freeman, a lesser figure but in the significant position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. Their resignation speeches made it clear that, while the immediate cause of their departure was a new budgetary provision requiring a health service charge for dentures and spectacles, the root of their dissatisfaction lay in the burden of rearmament expenditures accepted by the Government in accordance with the main lines of U. S. policy.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1951
References
1 See The (London) Times, April 23–25, 1951.
2 One Way Only, Tribune pamphlet (July, 1951), with foreword by Bevan, Aneurin, Wilson, Harold and Freeman, JohnGoogle Scholar.
3 See, for example, the remarks of the two Communists who were M.P.'s, Gallacher, and Piratin, , in House of Commons Debates, 5th Ser., 1945–1950Google Scholar, passim, or the files of Labour Monthly, edited by R. Palme Dutt.
4 The five Labour Independents were Zilliacus, Solley, Hutchinson, Pritt, and Platts-Mills (the author of the famous telegram of support sent to Nenni, the fellow-traveling Italian socialist leader, during the 1948 election campaign in Italy). All five were persistent critics of the Anglo-American alignment in the 1945–50 Parliament; see, e.g., H. C. Deb., Vol. 427, cols. 1542–52, 1690–97, 1711–26 (Oct. 22, 23, 1946)Google Scholar; Vol. 450, cols. 1182–94, 1327–40 (May 4, 5, 1948); Vol. 468, cols. 1450–54, 1474–83 (Oct. 26, 1949). Their fight was also carried to labour party conferences, especially in 1948, and may be noted in the Report of the 47th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1948), pp. 184–200Google Scholar.
5 Zilliacus expounded his special position in “Cominform and Tito,” New Statesman and Nation, Vol. 38, pp. 446–47 (Oct. 22, 1949)Google Scholar, and in “The Cold War and the Balkans,” Political Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 85–94 (Jan.-March, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 For instance, see the statement of Sir Stafford Cripps as reported in The (London) Times, June 26, 1945, and that of Hugh Dalton as quoted in the Report of the 44th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1945), p. 104Google Scholar.
7 See the Report of the 45th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1946), pp. 169–74Google Scholar.
8 See the remarks of Churchill, Winston, H. C. Deb., Vol. 415, col. 1291 (Nov. 7, 1945)Google Scholar; of Anthony Eden, ibid., Vol. 416, col. 617 (Nov. 22,1945); and of Harold MacMillan, ibid., Vol. 419, cols. 1165–66 (Feb. 20, 1946).
9 Williams, Francis, Fifty Years' March (London, n.d.), p. 264Google Scholar.
10 Shils, Edward A., “Britain and the World,” Review of Politics, Vol. 7, p. 514 (Oct., 1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Crossman, R. H. S., “The ‘Russia’ Complex,” New Statesman, Vol. 35, pp. 64–65 (Jan. 24, 1948)Google Scholar.
12 “Marxism Re-viewed,” Political Quarterly, Vol. 18, p. 249 (July-Sept., 1947)Google Scholar.
13 Examples of this position were “Peace and Propaganda,” Vol. 37, p. 316 (April 2, 1949)Google Scholar and “Atlantic Impact,” Vol. 37, p. 344 (April 9, 1949)Google Scholar.
14 “British Labour in Search of a Socialist Foreign Policy,” Review of Politics, Vol. 12, p. 203 (April, 1950)Google Scholar.
15 H. C. Deb., Vol. 463, cols. 508–12 (March 23, 1949)Google Scholar, and Vol. 477, cols. 552–58 (July 5, 1950).
16 H. C. Deb., Vol. 456, col. 944 (Sept. 12, 1948)Google Scholar.
17 Text of the Fulton address in the New York Times, March 6, 1946, p. 4Google Scholar.
18 “Nothing Doing, Mr. Churchill!” Tribune, March 8, 1946, p. 1Google Scholar.
19 Foot, Michael, H. C. Deb., Vol. 423, col. 1931 (June 4, 1946)Google Scholar.
20 H. C. Deb., Vol. 457, cols. 189–95, 550–59 (Oct. 27, Nov. 1, 1948)Google Scholar.
21 Silverman, Sydney, H. C. Deb., Vol. 476, col. 2139 (June 27, 1950)Google Scholar.
22 For examples see “Mr. Churchill's Defeatism,” New Statesman, Vol. 31, p. 167 (March 9, 1946)Google Scholar; H. C. Deb., Vol. 456, col. 1184 (Sept. 23, 1948)Google Scholar, and Vol. 457, cols. 287–303, 318–25 (Oct. 28, 1948).
23 In 1984 (New York, 1949).
24 “Britain and Europe,” Vol. 30, p. 119 (Aug. 25, 1945)Google Scholar.
25 See H. C. Deb., Vol. 423, cols. 2046–71 (June 5, 1946)Google Scholar, Vol. 435, cols. 15–20 (March 17, 1947); and New Statesman, Vol. 32, p. 109 (Aug. 17, 1946)Google Scholar.
26 Foreign Policy, Fabian Research Series, No. 121 (London, 1947), p. 10Google Scholar. See the attached critical comment by W. N. Ewer.
27 “Whither Western Union?,” Vol. 12, p. 195 (June, 1948)Google Scholar.
28 For example, “The Lesson of History,” New Statesman, Vol. 37, p. 289 (March 26, 1949)Google Scholar; H. C. Deb., Vol. 462, cols. 2538–39 (March 18, 1949)Google Scholar and Vol. 464, col. 2040 (May 12, 1949).
29 H. C. Deb., Vol. 478, cols. 1207–15 (Sept. 13, 1950)Google Scholar.
30 The United States and Britain (Cambridge, 1945), p. 235Google Scholar.
31 Labour's Foreign Policy, New Statesman pamphlet (London, 1946), p. 44Google Scholar.
32 See Civilization in the United States (Boston, 1900), esp. pp. 172–77Google Scholar.
33 New Statesman, Vol. 29, p. 252 (April 21, 1945)Google Scholar, and Vol. 32, p. 217 (Sept. 28, 1946).
34 The pattern of British reactions to moves of the United States on Palestine questions is a subject worthy of separate consideration. Animosity to them was widespread and not confined to the Labour Left. Occasionally there was a coupling of anti-Semitism with anti-Americanism, especially when U. S. policies seemed to reflect Jewish pressures. For a sampling of various critical reactions, see Ernest Bevin's, speech, H. C. Deb., Vol. 433, cols. 1901–20 (Feb. 25, 1947)Google Scholar; and parliamentary addresses by other M.P.'s, ibid., Vol. 445, cols. 1278–86, 1299–1307, 1345–53, 1408–14 (Dec. 11, 1947), Vol. 448, cols. 1288–90 (March 10, 1948), and Vol. 460, cols. 1000–08 (Jan. 26, 1949).
35 Williams, Francis, Socialist Britain (New York, 1949), p. 143Google Scholar.
36 H. C. Deb., Vol. 413, col. 956 (Aug. 24, 1945)Google Scholar. Also note Churchill's comment, ibid., cols. 957–58.
37 Aug. 31, 1945, p. 2.
38 Vol. 9, p. 165 (Sept., 1945).
39 H. C. Deb., Vol. 443, cols. 199–206, 938–46 (Oct. 22, 29, 1947)Google Scholar.
40 Keynes, Lord, H. L. Deb., Vol. 138, cols. 779–80 (Dec. 18, 1945)Google Scholar; and Chancellor of the Exchequer Dalton, H. C. Deb., Vol. 417, cols. 427–28 (Dec. 12, 1945)Google Scholar.
41 H. C. Deb., Vol. 417, col. 666 (Dec. 13, 1945)Google Scholar.
42 New Statesman, Vol. 30, pp. 383–84, 397 (Dec. 8, 15, 1945)Google Scholar. Also “A Savage Bargain,” Tribune, Dec. 14, 1945, pp. 1–2Google Scholar.
43 “The Washington Trap,” Tribune, Aug. 22, 1947, pp. 1–2Google Scholar.
44 Note especially Chapter 11, “America as a World Power,” in The American Democracy (New York, 1948)Google Scholar.
45 Socialist Commentary, Vol. 9, pp. 290–93 (March, 1946)Google Scholar.
46 Jacobs, Alaric, “The Big Two and Ourselves,” Political Quarterly, Vol. 17, p. 114 (April-June, 1946)Google Scholar.
47 H. C. Deb., Vol. 430, col. 222 (Nov. 13, 1946)Google Scholar.
48 Ibid., cols. 526–39 (Nov. 18, 1946).
49 78th Annual Report of the Trades Union Congress (London, 1946) pp. 469–70Google Scholar. The critical resolution received 2,444,000 card votes to 3,557,000 standing by the government policies.
50 Assurances of the coming U. S. slump were repeated again and again by the parliamentary critics of Anglo-American relations from the fall of 1945 well into 1947.
51 For example, see the editorial notes in Socialist Commentary, Vol. 10, pp. 502–505 (Dec., 1946)Google Scholar; in Tribune, July 27, 1945, p. 3Google Scholar, June 14, 1946, p. 2, and Nov. 15, 1946, p. 3; and in New Statesman, Vol. 31, p. 385 (June 1, 1946)Google Scholar.
52 Crossman, R. H. S., Foot, Michael, and Mikardo, Ian, Keep Left, New Statesman pamphlet (London, 1947)Google Scholar, Ch. 4. In addition to those of the authors, the pamphlet represented the views of twelve other Labour M.P.'s. Furthermore, judging from the labour left press of the period, Keep Left was representative of a very frequently voiced conviction of the efficacy of the third force solution. The rise (and fall) of this conviction is a tale of its own, which could be told largely by an analysis of the editorial pages of the New Statesman from 1945 to 1950.
53 “The Soul of the Labour Party,” New Statesman, Vol. 32, p. 412 (Dec. 7, 1946)Google Scholar.
54 “The Case for Mr. Bevin,” New Statesman, Vol. 32, pp. 412–13 (Dec. 7, 1946)Google Scholar. Mr. Crawley also adopted this position in a speech reported in H. C. Deb., Vol. 427, cols. 1560–66 (Oct. 22, 1946)Google Scholar.
55 Gordon-Walker, P. C., “Who Are Britain's Friends and Enemies in the U.S.A.?” Tribune, April 4, 1947, pp. 1–2Google Scholar.
56 Vol. 33, p. 425 (June 14, 1947). There is the same note in Socialist Commentary, Vol. 11, pp. 670–74 (July, 1947)Google Scholar.
57 SirCripps, Stafford, H. C. Deb., Vol. 453, cols. 41–65 (July 5, 1948)Google Scholar; other labour comments, ibid., cols. 220–342 (July 6, 1948), and Vol. 446, cols. 383–622 (Jan. 22, 23, 1948).
58 The Labour Left, with some exceptions, appeared to accept the Atlantic Pact, although without enthusiasm. At best it was defended as a means of preventing war. See Foot, Michael, “Socialists and the Atlantic Pact,” Tribune, May 20, 1949, pp. 7–8Google Scholar.
59 Ibid., Nov. 5, 1948, pp. 1–2; and Socialist Commentary, Vol. 12, pp. 340–46 (Dec., 1948)Google Scholar. One of the contributors to the latter's discussion of the 1948 election was David Williams, representative of the Americans for Democratic Action in Britain. From about this date until 1951, Williams was a frequent contributor, especially to Tribune, of informative articles on American politics. He was also a conveyor of rather optimistic accounts of the potency of the A. D. A. in the United States.
60 In Starr, Mark, Labour Politics in U.S.A., Fabian Research Series, No. 133 (London, 1949), pp. 3–4Google Scholar.
61 H. C. Deb., Vol. 460, cols. 1193–97 (Jan. 27, 1949)Google Scholar.
62 New Statesman, Vol. 37, p. 96 (Jan. 29, 1949)Google Scholar, and Vol. 38, p. 747 (Dec. 24, 1949).
63 Ibid., Vol. 37, p. 196 (Feb. 26, 1949).
64 Ibid., Vol. 38, pp. 1–2, 373 (July 2, Oct. 8, 1949).
65 Compare Labour's 1950 electoral program of Let Us Win Through Together with that of 1945's Let Us Face the Future.
66 New Statesman pamphlet (London, 1950), p. 19Google Scholar.
67 (London, 1950), p. 9. There was further exposition of this point of view in Socialist Commentary, Vol. 14, pp. 156–58, 213–14, 265 (July, Nov., Dec., 1950)Google Scholar.
68 Autobiographical sketch in Lerner, Daniel, Sykewar (New York, 1949), pp. 78–80Google Scholar. Also, for E.R.P. support, H. C. Deb., Vol. 446, cols. 561–69 (Jan. 23, 1948)Google Scholar.
69 H. C. Deb., Vol. 478, col. 1269 (Sept. 14, 1950)Google Scholar.
70 “Reflections on the Cold War,” Political Quarterly, Vol. 22, p. 15 (Jan.—March, 1951)Google Scholar.
71 There is a wealth of parliamentary discussion indicating concern with Japan. See, e.g., H. C. Deb., Vol. 433, cols. 2367–72 (Feb. 27, 1947)Google Scholar, Vol. 437, cols. 1881–1912 (May 16, 1947); Vol. 457, cols. 119–27, 476–83, 1109–13 (Oct. 27, 29, Nov. 4, 1948); Vol. 470, cols. 2615–21, 2871–77 (Dec. 13, 1949); and Vol. 473, cols. 304–306, 1415–38 (March 28, April 6, 1950).
72 H. C. Deb., Vol. 464, cols. 1260–65, 1287–88 (May 5, 1949)Google Scholar.
73 New Statesman, Vol. 40, pp. 1–2 (July 1, 1950)Google Scholar; also H. C. Deb., Vol. 477, cols. 569–78 (July 5, 1950)Google Scholar, and Vol. 481, cols. 1382–91 (Nov. 30, 1950).
74 Report of the 49th Annual Conference of the Labour Party (London, 1950), pp. 81–82, 101, 117, 141–50Google Scholar.
75 Vol. 40, p. 576 (Dec. 9, 1950).
76 Jan. 26, 1951, p. 3.
77 “As a Socialist Sees It,” New Statesman, Vol. 41, p. 121 (Feb. 3, 1951)Google Scholar.
78 Ibid.
79 Healey, Denis, “The Political Aspect,” Fabian Quarterly, Summer, 1948, pp. 7–8Google Scholar.
80 H. C. Deb., Vol. 456, col. 1155 (Sept. 23, 1948)Google Scholar.
81 H. C. Deb., Vol. 467, cols. 1602–09 (July 21, 1949)Google Scholar.
82 Op. cit., pp. 19–27.
83 See New Statesman, Vol. 39, p. 593 (May 27, 1950)Google Scholar; H. C. Deb., Vol. 462, cols. 609–14 (March 3, 1949)Google Scholar, Vol. 478, cols. 1011–16 (Sept. 12, 1950) and Vol. 484, col. 736 (Feb. 15, 1951). The last reference is to a statement of the Left's limitations on accepting large-scale rearmament that was made by Aneurin Bevan in a speech in behalf of the Government's defense proposals. It is one of his last speeches as a government spokesman.
84 Tribune, Nov. 21, 1947, p. 2Google Scholar, New Statesman, Vol. 40, p. 616 (Dec. 16, 1950)Google Scholar, and H. C. Deb., Vol. 453, cols. 301–304 (July 6, 1948)Google Scholar, furnish examples of this attitude.
85 See New Statesman, Vol. 40, pp. 413–14, 576–77 (Nov. 11, Dec. 9, 1950)Google Scholar.
86 For instance, worry over the “rightist” trend in U. S. foreign policy, especially after the 1950 election, was regularly displayed in Tribune even in the period before the Bevanite revolt when its general editorial policy was clearly committed, though with increasing misgivings, to the American alliance.
87 Op. cit., pp. 8–10. For the fear of U. S. war-making, see also Martin, Kingsley, “Answer to an American Liberal,” New Statesman, Vol. 41, pp. 264–65 (March 10, 1951)Google Scholar, who quotes Toynbee's popular “No Annihilation without Representation.”
88 One Way Only, op. cit., pp. 4, 10. The Labour Left, while having applauded Truman for the ouster of MacArthur, only a little later thought the Truman-Acheson position to have been surrendered. See, especially, New Statesman, Vol. 41, pp. 549–50, 609, 637–38 (May 19 and June 2 and 9, 1951)Google Scholar.
89 Although there were few T.U.C. votes for a resolution offering outright criticism of the Government's foreign policy, the Bevanites did better on resolutions relating to the effects of rearmament on domestic matters, especially on a proposal (only narrowly defeated) to condemn the budgetary charges on teeth and spectacles. Reported in the New York Times, Sept. 9, 1951, Sec. 4, p. 2Google Scholar.
90 The (London) Times, Sept. 21, 1951, p. 3.
91 Ibid., Oct. 3, 1951, p. 4.
92 New York Times, Oct. 14, 1951, Sec. 4, p. 3Google Scholar, and Oct. 24, 1951, p. 30.
93 Ibid., Oct. 26, 1951, p. 5.