Keeping the British Liberal Party flag flying high

[Julius Vogel]

Originally Posted by pipisme

On 5 February 1939 Isaac Foot, the Prime Minister, announced the creation of a Ministry of Supply to co-ordinate the supply of equipment to the army, navy and airforce. Harcourt Johnstone, the Minister of Transport, was appointed Minister of Supply. (1) Henry Graham White, joined the cabinet as Minister of Transport.

On 11 February 1939 the House of Commons debated the second reading of the National Service Bill. This provided for compulsory military training for men age 17 to 40 with generous provision for alternative service for conscientious objectors. Francis Hirst, the President of the Board of Trade, resigned the same day because of his libertarian opposition to conscription. (2) John Emlyn Emlyn-Jones, the Minister of Labour, became President of the Board of Trade. Gwilym Lloyd George joined the cabinet as Minister of Labour.

(1) Here is the wikipedia biography of Harcourt Johnstone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harcourt_Johnstone .

(2) Here is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Francis Hirst: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/33891 .

So you have created the Ministry of Supply a little head of OTL? Even three-four months time gained could be enough to make a big difference later on, even if it just means that the bureaucracy is set up and ready to go by mid year

[Will Lucky]

Read through the whole thing today, must say this is a detailed timeline I am very much enjoying. Can't wait to see how the rest of the year goes.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Julius Vogel

So you have created the Ministry of Supply a little head of OTL? Even three-four months time gained could be enough to make a big difference later on, even if it just means that the bureaucracy is set up and ready to go by mid year

Julius Vogel

Good point. That and similar factors might be very important. While the politicians made many mistakes in the preparation and organisation of the forces in the run-up to WWII they got a hell of a lot right in various related matters. Laying down the foundations for rationing, air raid and gas protection, food supply, convoys, shadow factories etc. It seems that a lot of lessons were learnt from WWI. Unfortunately their early military failures meant this enabled Britain to endure rather than being able to win quickly. I wonder how their going to compare in those categories TTL. With the policies of the government during the recession the industrial base and general economy along with the educational infrastructure should be a bit stronger but hopefully their been willing to get the other things at least as right as OTL.

Steve

[pipisme]

The National Service Bill applied only to single men aged 20 to 24, not aged 17 to 40 as stated in my previous post. In OTL in the second reading debate on the Military Training Bill on 4 May 1939, Neville Chamberlain said that it affected men aged 20 and 21. He said that the number of men available for military training in the current year would be in the neighbourhood of 200,000. (1)

At 3.54 pm on 9 February 1939 Isaac Foot, the Prime Minister, moved "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

He said that it was necessary to introduce a compulsory measure of military training because of the high probability of German aggression against Czechoslovakia, which would mean Britain declaring war on Germany because of our guarantee to Czechoslovakia.

(1) Here is the Hansard account of the debate on 4 May 1939: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...-training-bill .

[idumea]

I am somewhat surprised that only one minister has resigned over the introduction of national service outside of wartime.

I know that in TTL, most pacifists have more of a home in either Labour party, but you will know that in OTL the introduction of conscription by Liberals was a sticking point for discord among the general populace long beyond Lloyd George's personality.

And for a people "who do not want war and do not seek it" ITL, I would expect a lot of domestic grumbling with their local Liberals should this conscription bill be voted for.

[pipisme]

Originally posted by idumea
I am somewhat surprised that only one minister has resigned over the introduction of national service outside of war time.

Here is the cabinet formed on 28 and 29 October 1938: http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...&postcount=390 . Francis Hirst was the only minister to resign from the cabinet, but Rhys Hopkin Morris, Ernest Simon and Arthur Hobhouse were opposed to the policy. However in the end they very reluctantly decided to accept the limited measure of national service proposed. I didn't want to make the introduction of compulsory national service a major cabinet crisis. Sir John Simon was the only minister to resign from the coalition government headed by Asquith because of the introduction of conscription in 1915.

In his speech on the Second Reading of the National Service Bill, Isaac Foot said that it would not apply to Northern Ireland, to men in reserved occupations, or to men in full time education.

Sir Samuel Hoare, the leader of the opposition, then moved the Conservative amendment. This was worded as follows: "To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: whilst resolutely determined to take all necessary steps to defend the country from aggression and to honour its international obligations, is confident that the necessary man-power can be provided by voluntary recruitment, and regrets that His Majesty's government have now, in violation of repeated pledges, introduced a measure of conscription." (1)

Hoare said that the Bill was unnecessary. Germany had not invaded Czechoslovakia or any other country. He and his colleagues were confident that Germany would keep to the terms of the Milan Treaty [this TL's analogue of the Munich agreement] and would enter into peaceful negotiations to settle its territorial disputes with its neighbours.
He said that in the general election the previous October leading members of the Liberal Party said they would not introduce conscription. In the King's Lynn and Streatham by-elections on 26 January 1939, the Liberal candidates said that the government would not introduce conscription. (2)

The introduction of conscription by a Liberal government in peace time was contrary to the basic principles of Liberalism. He asked if the Lord President of the Council (Rhys Hopkin Morris), a fervent defender of civil liberties, opposed the bill. He appealed to all members of the Commons who believed in preserving the volutary principle of military recruitment to vote for the amendment. However he said that he was not opposed to conscription if it became militarily necessary.

Philip Noel-Baker, the leader of the Labour Party, said that Labour members would vote for the Conservative amendment. The Labour Party greatly valued the voluntary principle of military recruitment and wanted to keep it for as long as possible, unless conscription became absolutely necessary.

(1) The wording is taken from the Labour Party amendment to the Military Service Bill in OTL: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...-training-bill .

(2) The King's Lynn by-election was caused by the death on 26 December 1938 of George Woodwark, Liberal MP for the constituency since December 1923. The by-election was won by John Day for the Liberal Party.

The Streatham by-election was caused by the resignation of Sir William Lane Mitchell, Conservative MP for this south-west London constituency since December 1918. It was won by Thelma Cazalet for the Conservatives. She had been Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education in Sir Samuel Hoare's administration, and had lost her Islington, East seat to the Liberals in the October 1938 general election.

[stevep]

pipisme

That sounds a problem, with both Tories and the main Labour group, probably the ILP as well, opposing the introduction of even such a limited degree of conscription. We have the advantage of knowing more about Hitler but it may have seemed logical at the time.

Given the traditional Liberal opposition to conscription and other forms of government interference why are they doing it yet?

Steve

[pipisme]

Originally posted by stevep
Given the traditional Liberal opposition to conscription and other government interference why are they doing it yet?

Because of the defence pact with Czechoslovakia. Also the Liberals are in government in this TL as opposed to being a third party in opposition in OTL. In OTL Liberal MPs abstained in the vote on the second reading of the Military Training Bill, except that David Lloyd George, Gwilym Lloyd George and Megan Lloyd George voted for second reading. Clement Davies also voted for, but he was a Liberal National in 1939. In his speech in the debate David Lloyd George argued that conscription was in accordance with Liberal principles. See http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...-training-bill . In this TL most Liberal MPs were not MPs of any party in 1939.

Anyway I wanted this TL to be plausibly different from OTL as regards the Liberal Party and limited conscription.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by pipisme

Because of the defence pact with Czechoslovakia. Also the Liberals are in government in this TL as opposed to being a third party in opposition in OTL. In OTL Liberal MPs abstained in the vote on the second reading of the Military Training Bill, except that David Lloyd George, Gwilym Lloyd George and Megan Lloyd George voted for second reading. Clement Davies also voted for, but he was a Liberal National in 1939. In his speech in the debate David Lloyd George argued that conscription was in accordance with Liberal principles. See http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/c...-training-bill . In this TL most Liberal MPs were not MPs of any party in 1939.

Anyway I wanted this TL to be plausibly different from OTL as regards the Liberal Party and limited conscription.

pipisme

Thanks. Liberalism with some teeth.

Steve

[pipisme]

Continuation of House of Commons debate on second reading of National Service Bill

Here is a selection of some of the speeches.

James Maxton, the leader of the ILP (Glasgow Bridgeton), made a passionate and eloquent speech against the bill. He said that it was about training young men to kill each other in a capitalist war. The ILP would vote for the Conaervative amendment.

Alfred Duff Cooper (Conservative, Paddington South) said that the bill was a long overdue necessity. Although the majority of his party might follow the appeasers and pacifists in voting to reject it, there were Conservatives who would vote for the national interest.

Francis Hirst (Liberal, Shipley) explained why he had resigned from the government because of his opposition to this limited measure of conscription, which was completely contrary to the fundamental principles of liberalism. In its very essence conscription was collectivist and socialist, imposed by the Soviet Union, and by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy - those distorted and bastard children of socialism. As much as it pained him to vote against his party, he would vote for the Conservative amendment.

Agnes Hardie (ILP, Glasgow Springburn) made an impassioned speech against the bill. As a pacifist she rejected with her whole being war and the training of young men to kill each other.

She was followed by Thelma Cazalet (Conservative, Streatham) who opened her speech by paying tribute to the passion and sincerity of Agnes Hardie. "Though it is not the convention of this House I gladly call her my honourable friend. It might be that if women ruled the war there would be no wars, but men like to play at soldiers and wound and kill each other. The Great War revealed the horrors of modern warfare, and the civil war in Spain has shown us the horrors of aerial bombing. I am not a pacifist, though I would go a long way down the pacifist road and I have pacifist friends. I strongly believe that my beliefs in this issue are compatible with being a liberal and progressive Conservative."

Winding up for the Conservative Party, Sir Kingsley Wood, the Conservative shadow Minister for Co-Ordination of Defence, said that the bill was unecessary in the current circumstances. Herr Hitler and the German government had kept to the pledges they had made at Milan (this TL's analogue of Munich). However if conscription became necessaary the Conaervative Party would fully support it.

The vote at the end of the debate on 10 February 1939 was as follows:
For the Conservative amendment: 284
Against the Conservative amendment: 257.
So the bill was defeated.

29 Conservatives voted for the bill, while 9 Liberals voted for the amendment.

[pipisme]

The front page of the Labour supporting Daily Herald on Monday 20 February had the following exclusive news story. In the evening of 18 February during a party in Fort Belvedere, his country house in Windsor Great Park, King Edward VIII and his aristocratic friends proclaimed their admiration for Nazi Germany. Edward had said that Hitler was a great leader of the German people, who had made Germany great again and had restored the honour of the German nation. He and his friends said that while of course the Nazis had gone too far in their persecution of the Jews, it must be recognised that the Jews had too much power in Germany in 1933. Now Britain was being swamped by too many Jewish immigrants. It would be in Britain's national interest for Nazi Germany and Soviet Union to destroy each other in a war for European domination. Edward proposed a toast to the Third Reich, to which they all drank, while giving the Nazi salute. Although they were a liitle merry, Edward and his friends were not drunk.

The Daily Herald gave its source for the story as Rosa Bancroft, a 20-year-old maid at Fort Belvedere. who lived in Slough. (1). She was so shocked by what she had heard that the next day she told her parents William and Margaret. They had urged her to tell her story to the Daily Herald. William Bancroft (named for William Morris) was born in London in 1886. He was a foreman in an engineering factory in Slough. A member of the Engineering Union, he was also a member of the Labour Party, secretary of his local ward Labour Party and a member of the General Management Committee of Slough Labour Party.

Margaret Bancroft's maiden name was Lowenstein. Her father was a second cousin of Lise Lowenstein, the mother of Rosa Luxemburg, the Socialist/Communist revolutionary who was murdered in Berlin in 1919.

Margarita Lowenstein was born in Lublin, in Russian Poland in 1889. Her parents were Jewish. In 1903 the Lowenstein family emigrated to Britain because of anti-semitic persecution. They settled in Bethnal Green in the east end of London. In 1913 she married William Bancroft. Their mutual involvement in Labour and other left-wing activism had drawn them together. William was not Jewish and by 1913 Margarita (her name now anglicized to Margaret) was no longer a practising Jew though she kept Passover and high days and holy days. She had been an active member of Sylvia Pankhurst's East London Federation.

The Bancrofts had three children: George, named for George Lansbury, born 1914; Sylvia, named for Sylvia Pankhurst, born 1916; and Rosa, named for Rosa Luxemburg, born 26 January 1919. In February 1939 Margaret Bancroft was a secretary at a left-wing inclined firm of solicitors in Slough.

George had fought with the International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. He had been badly wounded during the Battle of Brunete in July 1937, and was a wheel-chair user. Sylvia was a nurse at Slough hospital. Rosa intended to train to become a teacher. She took the job as a maid at Fort Belvedere to earn money. All the Bancroft family were actively involved in Labour Party politics in Slough. The three Bancroft children identified as culturally, though not religiously Jewish.

The Daily Herald news story said that Rosa Bancroft, together with her parents, would answer questions at a press conference in London the following day at 2pm. They would be supported by Edward Francis Williams, the newspaper's editor. (2)

[I didn't intend most of this message to be in italics.]

(1) She is a fictional character in this TL, as are her parents, grandparents and siblings.

(2) He was the editor of the Daily Herald in OTL from 1936-1940.

[Julius Vogel]

Now this is an interesting update. I see you are running with the perhaps just accusations that he had Nazi, or at least decidedly illiberal sentiments.

I really like the device you have used to introduce this new plot development too. An articulate, English born, Jewish ancestry, domestic servant of a politicised family is about as polarising while still being intensely sympathetic as one could get!

[stevep]

pipisme

This could be interesting but possibly also too divisive if large parts of the establishment feel they must support the king. Probably going to see a lot of smearing of Rosa and her family.

Steve

[pipisme]

Thank you Julius Vogel for your appreciative comment.

The following friends of King Edward were at his party at Fort Belvedere in the evening of 18 February:
Douglas Douglas-Hamilton, 14th Duke of Hamilton
Walter Montagu Douglas Scott, 8th Duke of Buccleach
Arthur Wellesley, 5th Duke of Wellington
Harold Sidney Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere - the owner of the Daily Mail
Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay - Conservative MP for Midlothian, North
David Freeman-Mitford, 2nd Baron Redesdale.

King Edward and his friends had to decide on what line to take in response to the Daily Herald news story. By the morning of 21 February it would be top ranking national and international news. Their options were as follows:
1) Deny they have said or did the things alleged.
2) Admit it and offer a sincere and grovelling apology.
3) Admit and say they were drunk. Offer a sincere and grovelling apology.
4) Admit it and say they were only expressing what millions of Britons really believed. Say that they had the right of free speech to say and do those things.

They rejected options #2 and 4, as expressing those opinions would be unpopular with most people. The drunkenness option (#3) had its attractions. It could be spun as the King and his friends being ordinary men who get drunk on a Saturday night, and who say and do things they reject. But on the other hand, it would not play well with Daily Mail readers, and other people who would be shocked at the King being a drunkard. So they opted for option #1, combined with an attack on the allegations as being politically motivated. Rothermere said that he would get reporters on the Daily Mail to dig up whatever dirt they can find in the life of Rosa Bancroft and her family, especially on Rosa.

At 3pm on 20 February a press statement was issued on behalf of King Edward denying that he, or any of his friends at the party in Fort Belvedere, had said or done any of the things alleged in the Daily Herald. They were a tissue of politically motivated lies.

On the same day Rosa Bancroft resigned from her job as a maid at Fort Belvedere and Windsor Castle. She would have been dismissed anyway.

[Blackadder mk 2]

Oh Edward, wonder how Bertie took the news about his brother's little accident.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Blackadder mk 2

Oh Edward, wonder how Bertie took the news about his brother's little accident.

Blackadder mk 2

Hopefully not well but the problem is since the little scumbag got crowned it will be difficult getting rid of him I fear. Not unless you get a way out swing to the extreme left, which I bloody hope not.

Steve

[pipisme]

The political crisis of February 1939 and King Edward VIII has been recounted in the critically acclaimed film The King, The Maid, and Politics, which was released in February 2009. Directed by Armando Iannucci, and with the screenplay by Sebastian Faulks, it starred Colin Firth as King Edward and Amy Winehouse, in her first major starring role, as Rosa Bancroft. Dame Judy Dench was magnificently imperious as Queen Mary the Queen Mother, who was the widow of George V and the mother of Edward. Nominated for ten Academy Awards, it won four - for best film, for best director, for best actor (Colin Firth), and for best actress (Amy Winehouse).

It was widely commented on how much Amy Winehouse looked like Rosa Bancroft though she was 25 years old and Bancroft was 20 years old. In other words Rosa Bancroft in this TL looked much like Amy Winehouse in this TL. though she wore her black hair long and not in a beehive.

By the morning of Tuesday 21 February the story of the king and what he was alleged to have said and done at that party was a major international news story. It was the front page lead in the newspapers and lead the news broadcasts by radio stations.

In Britain the editorial line of the newspapers generally reflected their political allegiance. On the Right, The Times, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express vigorously defended the king and denounced the allegations as a politically motivated collection of lies by the woman they dubbed as Red Rosa. However the Daily Telegraph was more balanced and adopted a wait and see approach to the allegations. On the Left, The Daily Herald naturally gave Rosa Bancroft's allegations their full backing, while the News Chronicle and The Manchester Guardian while somewhat cautious were inclined to believe that they were true.

[pipisme]

The eagerly awaited press conference in London by Rosa Bancroft and her parents commenced at 2pm on Tuesday 21 February 1939. It was chaired by Edward Francis Williams, the editor of the Daily Herald. Sylvia Pankhurst was also on the platform. Her friendship with Margaret Bancroft dated back to 1913 and their mutual involvement in the suffragette campaign in the east end of London. Rosa's sister Sylvia was named for Sylvia Pankhurst. The Bancrofts regularly visited Sylvia Pankhurst at her house in Woodford Green, Essex, where she lived with her partner, Silvio Corio and their son, Richard, born December 1927.

The conference was packed with journalists and reporters from newspapers, radio stations and film newsreels from around the world.

Rosa began by giving an account of what she saw and heard at the party held by King Edward and his friends at Fort Belvedere on the previous Saturday night. This was basically a recapitualation of the news story published in the Daily Herald, on 20 February. She was confident and articulate.

After she had made her statement she was asked questions by the reporters and journalists at the conference. I will give five and Rosa's answers to them.

1) "Why would the king and his friends continue saying and doing what you alleged while you were in the same room clearing away the used glasses and plates?" She replied that they didn't notice her because she was the maid, and people like that don't notice the servants. But, the rejoinder came, you are a very attractive young women, surely the men in that room must have noticed you. She replied that "they ogled my bosom and my legs, but they only regarded me as a sexual object and not as a person."

2) "Were the King and any of his friends drunk?" "No, they were not sober like you gentlemen of the press here today, but they were not drunk."

3) "Did you recognise any of the King's friends there?" "Yes I recognised Lord Rothermere, and Archibald Ramsay, the Tory MP." "How did you recognise them?" I have seen their photographs in newspapers and magazines.

4) Is it your purpose in making these allegations, which the King has denied, to descredit the monarchy out of your socialist ideology?" "No. I have told the truth about the expression by the King and his aristocratic friends of their pro Nazi opinions. At one time I thought that King Edward tried, in his ineffective way, to have a degree of sympathy for working people. I am not against the monarchy. Prince Henry will make a good king. As he is handicapped, I believe that he will have empathy and understanding for all people who are suffering from disadvantage and oppression. I am proud to be a socialist [cheers from Margaret and William Bancroft, Sylvia Pankhurst, and some members of the press], and a member of the Labour Party, but I did not reveal what happened to further any socialist agenda."

5) "Are you a Jew?" "Yes I am proud to call myself a Jew, though I am not an observant one."

After Rosa had answered the last question, she stood up and began singing The Internationale in her beautiful and powerful voice. She was joined by her parents, Sylvia Pankhurst, and a few members of the press.

[Thunderbolt]

This timeline is amazing. Keep up the good work.

[stevep]

pipisme

This is going to be a very interesting development. In the short term negative as it will split the country and cause a lot of distraction from the coming war.

I think that Rosa needs some back-up from another source otherwise, while there will be deeper mistrust and hostility in socialist areas especially, I can't see most of the establishment, moderate as well as deeply conservative, openly rejecting the word of the king and some other powerful people. Possibly if one of the guests present, revolted by both what was actually said and the smearing of Rosa's reputation that is bound to occur, comes forward.

Since the king and conservatives are clearly on one side and Rosa has made no secret of her socialist views it puts the Liberals in a difficult position. They can hardly go against the monarchy without further evidence. Furthermore there is the traditional danger of a deep division on a acrimonious issue driving people to extreme stances which means moderate views virtually always lose out.

Steve