"A Greater Britain"
- Thread starter EdT
- Start date
Sorry for the delay... not a hugely exciting post but neccesary to move us along to the interesting stuff.
Part 6- “It is not an arrogant government that chooses priorities, it is an irresponsible government that fails to choose.”
(Taken from “Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939” by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)
“…When compared to the variety of tumultuous events that would hijack much of Mosley’s time in office, the second half of 1933 and the beginning of 1934 were quiet periods for the Labour government. The Conservative Party under Eden had found itself unable to make any impression in the administration’s popularity, and falling unemployment rates confirmed Mosleyite economics as the new orthodoxy despite the protestations of the right....
...the secure position the government found itself in naturally encouraged the bolder critics of Mosleyism however, and after the resignation of Henderson in the spring of 1933 the Left of the party gradually began to return to its something similar to its traditional behaviour. In May the ever-fractious ILP held a meeting at which the perennial threat of disaffiliation from Labour was raised yet again, only to be quashed by Maxton, still a supporter of government policy[1].
With the government finally engaged in major reform at home, the main plank with which the Labour left tried to ensnare Mosley was the disarmament issue. Attlee and the Prime Minister found themselves constantly pressed on their hawkish stance towards Germany, and the leaking of an Employment Office memo in the September of 1933 which put forward the idea that a re-armament programme would help boost jobs led to a huge outcry in some sections of the Party. Luckily for the government however, the general public’s attitudes to the issue were increasingly swayed by both the aggressive nature of the new German regime and reports of Japanese truculence in the east. Mosley’s stance on re-armament was only strengthened in the summer of 1934…”
(Taken from “The road to war” by John Coombs, Picador 1979)
“…It was to Italy that the Austrian issue was most significant, and it was Italy that pressed Britain and France into action. On February 17th 1934 the three nations issued a joint declaration that they had a common view of the necessity of maintaining Austria’s independence and integrity in accordance with the peace treaties… Italy followed up the three power declaration with practical steps. On March 17th it entered into the Rome protocols with Austria and Hungary, providing for a consultative pact… This was more then commerce; it was in effect a warning to Germany. On the following day Mussolini was more explicit. He proclaimed to Rome and the world that Austria could rely on Italy for the defence of its independence…
…On July 25th a Nazi gang seized the Austrian Broadcasting Company and announced the overthrow of Dollfuss and his cabinet. Learning of the plot, the Chancellor suspended a cabinet meeting and remained in the Chancery. There the Nazis found him and shot him down… All this horrified Europe, but none more then Mussolini. Mussolini had looked upon Dollfuss as a friend and protégé. The Italians acted immediately. He ordered four divisions, 100,000 men to the Austrian border to guard against any ‘complications’. He telegraphed the Austrian government the assurance that Italy would strenuously defend Austrian independence and broadcast to the world his declaration that all those who had been responsible for the murder of the Chancellor had ‘incurred the wrath of the civilised world’. For a while war seemed imminent and there was a flurry of diplomatic activity at the beginning of August, Prime Minister Mosley even flying[2] to Rome on the 7th in an attempt to avert a conflict…
By the end of the month the crisis was over, but Mussolini had drawn his conclusions and they were stark. It was all to be expected, this ‘revolution of the old German tribes against the Latin civilisation of Rome’. No civilised country could tolerate Hitler’s behaviour. He spoke with prophetic clarity in the autumn; ‘Hitler will create an army, Hitler will arm the Germans and make war- possibly even in two or three years. I cannot stand up to him alone. We must do something and we must do something quickly.’[3]…
(Taken from “My Life” by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)
“…Mussolini, as is well known, received his guests in an enormous room at the Palazzo Venezia, and I never saw him anywhere else. On my entry he would rise behind his large writing-table at the other end of the room and give the fascist salute, which I returned; he would then come round the desk and advance some way to meet me—halting before the last few paces and throwing back his head in his characteristic gesture as he extended his hand—thus sparing his guest some of the long and solitary march to the chair in front of the table… We used to talk in French, which he spoke well, and conversation was always easy until one fatal day when he announced with pride on my arrival that he had learnt English; after that I understood little he said. Apparently he had lessons from some old English governess, and I shall have the sympathy of my compatriots who have experienced conversation with an Italian who speaks English really badly…
…He expressed the warmest regard for the English people, his desire to work in peace and harmony with them, and, perhaps surprisingly, his deep sympathy for our movement[4]. I liked him, and found him easy to get on with. This was not always the experience of his colleagues, as I learnt on arriving in Rome for the first time, at the height of Austrian crisis of 1934. When I arrived, Mussolini was in such a rage that none of his associates dared approach him on the subject, and some of them suggested that in my interview I should try to cool him off. I made the attempt, and he took it very well; at first a hard stare of the glittering eyes, and then a most reasonable and realistic discussion. They were right in thinking that he would accept more from the outsider…”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“Mosley’s visit to Rome in the summer of 1934 did little to solve the Austrian crisis, but it had several, more far-reaching effects. Against all the odds, the Labour Prime Minister and the Fascist Dictator found themselves extremely amenable to each other, and Mosley’s “summer jaunt” (as the press somewhat dismissively termed it) began one of the most unlikely friendships of 20th century diplomacy. At the time, few realised the significance this relationship would have for European politics, but the events of 1935 would demonstrate the importance of Anglo-Italian relations in inter-war Europe….
…In November foreign affairs briefly receded into the background however, for on the 13th the nation woke to the news that the King had died after a short illness[5]…”
(Taken from a speech made by Oswald Mosley to the House of Commons, November 13th 1934)
“King George throughout the long years of the war took his full part in the national effort. His example inspired his people in the struggle. But he was no glorifier of war. He stood always for peace. He sought as soon as the war ended to do his utmost to heal its wounds and recreate good relations between nations. No less in the difficult post-war years he shared in the work of reconstruction. He was a real social reformer and took the keenest personal interest in the problems of the day. He recognised the claims of social justice and felt equally the tragedy of unemployment. He shared to the full the life of his people….
…What were the qualities which enabled the late King to succeed where others failed? It seems to me they were his selflessness and devotion to duty, his kindliness and humanity, his practical wisdom and his courage at all times. The ceremonies which we have witnessed during the last few days show us that the duties and qualities of Kingship are eternal. King George showed an incomparable understanding of what is required of a King in the modern world. It has been a great piece of good fortune for our generation that, just when scientific invention has enabled, for the first time, so many citizens of the British Commonwealth to hear for themselves the voice of their King, we should have had on the throne a man who so well understood how to speak to his people, a man who set before the nation ideals of peace, justice and service. We have seen the end of a noble life, a life devoted to the welfare of humanity. And in his son, we have a worthy successor and inheritor of his legacy. In the long roll of British Sovereigns none will, I think, take a higher place than King Edward[6]…”
[1] OTL in 1931 Maxton managed to keep the ILP within the Labour fold- here the grumbling is more for effect then anything else, and there's no real chance of a split. Some on the left hope to call Mosley's bluff by making threats, in the hope that more radical legislation will follow. The more sensible sections of the ILP realise that the reforms of 1932-3 need to be cemented before more can come.
[2] Being all thrusting and modern, Mosley is the first British PM to make frequent use of planes in international diplomacy. ITTL the joke; "have you seen the Prime Minister's plane?" "It's got no left wing!" will make a welcome addition to the lexicon several generations early.
[3] With the exception of the fact that Mosley wasn't PM when he visited Rome, this all happened OTL. Mussolini's quote is a real one BTW. Italy's intransigence over Austria in the early 30's is somewhat overshadowed by later events OTL. ITTL, things will be slightly different.
[4] Why is Mussolini expressing sympathy for the Labour Party? Well for a start he and Mosley get on like a house on fire, as they did OTL. Mussolini also rationalises that Mosley has successfully purged Labour of socialism and is worthy of respect. OTL Austen Chamberlain said that "Mussolini would not be Fascist if he was an Englishman in England"- ITTL Mussolini agrees with this sentiment.
[5] This is 18 months earlier then OTL. Why? Well, George died of flu and diseases are rather susceptible to butterflies. Perhaps more importantly, the King has an intense dislike of Mosley and his new government, and finds dealing with all those awful little men a real strain, not at all like that nice Mr Baldwin or even MacDonald.
[6] Mosley is not at his most impassioned and honest during this speech sadly- however, he is very excited by the prospect of David getting on the throne. Indeed, the fact that the establishment hates him is an advantage as far as he's concerned...
Part 6- “It is not an arrogant government that chooses priorities, it is an irresponsible government that fails to choose.”
(Taken from “Labour; Drift and rediscovered purpose, 1924-1939” by Simon Greene, CUP 1982)
“…When compared to the variety of tumultuous events that would hijack much of Mosley’s time in office, the second half of 1933 and the beginning of 1934 were quiet periods for the Labour government. The Conservative Party under Eden had found itself unable to make any impression in the administration’s popularity, and falling unemployment rates confirmed Mosleyite economics as the new orthodoxy despite the protestations of the right....
...the secure position the government found itself in naturally encouraged the bolder critics of Mosleyism however, and after the resignation of Henderson in the spring of 1933 the Left of the party gradually began to return to its something similar to its traditional behaviour. In May the ever-fractious ILP held a meeting at which the perennial threat of disaffiliation from Labour was raised yet again, only to be quashed by Maxton, still a supporter of government policy[1].
With the government finally engaged in major reform at home, the main plank with which the Labour left tried to ensnare Mosley was the disarmament issue. Attlee and the Prime Minister found themselves constantly pressed on their hawkish stance towards Germany, and the leaking of an Employment Office memo in the September of 1933 which put forward the idea that a re-armament programme would help boost jobs led to a huge outcry in some sections of the Party. Luckily for the government however, the general public’s attitudes to the issue were increasingly swayed by both the aggressive nature of the new German regime and reports of Japanese truculence in the east. Mosley’s stance on re-armament was only strengthened in the summer of 1934…”
(Taken from “The road to war” by John Coombs, Picador 1979)
“…It was to Italy that the Austrian issue was most significant, and it was Italy that pressed Britain and France into action. On February 17th 1934 the three nations issued a joint declaration that they had a common view of the necessity of maintaining Austria’s independence and integrity in accordance with the peace treaties… Italy followed up the three power declaration with practical steps. On March 17th it entered into the Rome protocols with Austria and Hungary, providing for a consultative pact… This was more then commerce; it was in effect a warning to Germany. On the following day Mussolini was more explicit. He proclaimed to Rome and the world that Austria could rely on Italy for the defence of its independence…
…On July 25th a Nazi gang seized the Austrian Broadcasting Company and announced the overthrow of Dollfuss and his cabinet. Learning of the plot, the Chancellor suspended a cabinet meeting and remained in the Chancery. There the Nazis found him and shot him down… All this horrified Europe, but none more then Mussolini. Mussolini had looked upon Dollfuss as a friend and protégé. The Italians acted immediately. He ordered four divisions, 100,000 men to the Austrian border to guard against any ‘complications’. He telegraphed the Austrian government the assurance that Italy would strenuously defend Austrian independence and broadcast to the world his declaration that all those who had been responsible for the murder of the Chancellor had ‘incurred the wrath of the civilised world’. For a while war seemed imminent and there was a flurry of diplomatic activity at the beginning of August, Prime Minister Mosley even flying[2] to Rome on the 7th in an attempt to avert a conflict…
By the end of the month the crisis was over, but Mussolini had drawn his conclusions and they were stark. It was all to be expected, this ‘revolution of the old German tribes against the Latin civilisation of Rome’. No civilised country could tolerate Hitler’s behaviour. He spoke with prophetic clarity in the autumn; ‘Hitler will create an army, Hitler will arm the Germans and make war- possibly even in two or three years. I cannot stand up to him alone. We must do something and we must do something quickly.’[3]…
(Taken from “My Life” by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)
“…Mussolini, as is well known, received his guests in an enormous room at the Palazzo Venezia, and I never saw him anywhere else. On my entry he would rise behind his large writing-table at the other end of the room and give the fascist salute, which I returned; he would then come round the desk and advance some way to meet me—halting before the last few paces and throwing back his head in his characteristic gesture as he extended his hand—thus sparing his guest some of the long and solitary march to the chair in front of the table… We used to talk in French, which he spoke well, and conversation was always easy until one fatal day when he announced with pride on my arrival that he had learnt English; after that I understood little he said. Apparently he had lessons from some old English governess, and I shall have the sympathy of my compatriots who have experienced conversation with an Italian who speaks English really badly…
…He expressed the warmest regard for the English people, his desire to work in peace and harmony with them, and, perhaps surprisingly, his deep sympathy for our movement[4]. I liked him, and found him easy to get on with. This was not always the experience of his colleagues, as I learnt on arriving in Rome for the first time, at the height of Austrian crisis of 1934. When I arrived, Mussolini was in such a rage that none of his associates dared approach him on the subject, and some of them suggested that in my interview I should try to cool him off. I made the attempt, and he took it very well; at first a hard stare of the glittering eyes, and then a most reasonable and realistic discussion. They were right in thinking that he would accept more from the outsider…”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“Mosley’s visit to Rome in the summer of 1934 did little to solve the Austrian crisis, but it had several, more far-reaching effects. Against all the odds, the Labour Prime Minister and the Fascist Dictator found themselves extremely amenable to each other, and Mosley’s “summer jaunt” (as the press somewhat dismissively termed it) began one of the most unlikely friendships of 20th century diplomacy. At the time, few realised the significance this relationship would have for European politics, but the events of 1935 would demonstrate the importance of Anglo-Italian relations in inter-war Europe….
…In November foreign affairs briefly receded into the background however, for on the 13th the nation woke to the news that the King had died after a short illness[5]…”
(Taken from a speech made by Oswald Mosley to the House of Commons, November 13th 1934)
“King George throughout the long years of the war took his full part in the national effort. His example inspired his people in the struggle. But he was no glorifier of war. He stood always for peace. He sought as soon as the war ended to do his utmost to heal its wounds and recreate good relations between nations. No less in the difficult post-war years he shared in the work of reconstruction. He was a real social reformer and took the keenest personal interest in the problems of the day. He recognised the claims of social justice and felt equally the tragedy of unemployment. He shared to the full the life of his people….
…What were the qualities which enabled the late King to succeed where others failed? It seems to me they were his selflessness and devotion to duty, his kindliness and humanity, his practical wisdom and his courage at all times. The ceremonies which we have witnessed during the last few days show us that the duties and qualities of Kingship are eternal. King George showed an incomparable understanding of what is required of a King in the modern world. It has been a great piece of good fortune for our generation that, just when scientific invention has enabled, for the first time, so many citizens of the British Commonwealth to hear for themselves the voice of their King, we should have had on the throne a man who so well understood how to speak to his people, a man who set before the nation ideals of peace, justice and service. We have seen the end of a noble life, a life devoted to the welfare of humanity. And in his son, we have a worthy successor and inheritor of his legacy. In the long roll of British Sovereigns none will, I think, take a higher place than King Edward[6]…”
[1] OTL in 1931 Maxton managed to keep the ILP within the Labour fold- here the grumbling is more for effect then anything else, and there's no real chance of a split. Some on the left hope to call Mosley's bluff by making threats, in the hope that more radical legislation will follow. The more sensible sections of the ILP realise that the reforms of 1932-3 need to be cemented before more can come.
[2] Being all thrusting and modern, Mosley is the first British PM to make frequent use of planes in international diplomacy. ITTL the joke; "have you seen the Prime Minister's plane?" "It's got no left wing!" will make a welcome addition to the lexicon several generations early.
[3] With the exception of the fact that Mosley wasn't PM when he visited Rome, this all happened OTL. Mussolini's quote is a real one BTW. Italy's intransigence over Austria in the early 30's is somewhat overshadowed by later events OTL. ITTL, things will be slightly different.
[4] Why is Mussolini expressing sympathy for the Labour Party? Well for a start he and Mosley get on like a house on fire, as they did OTL. Mussolini also rationalises that Mosley has successfully purged Labour of socialism and is worthy of respect. OTL Austen Chamberlain said that "Mussolini would not be Fascist if he was an Englishman in England"- ITTL Mussolini agrees with this sentiment.
[5] This is 18 months earlier then OTL. Why? Well, George died of flu and diseases are rather susceptible to butterflies. Perhaps more importantly, the King has an intense dislike of Mosley and his new government, and finds dealing with all those awful little men a real strain, not at all like that nice Mr Baldwin or even MacDonald.
[6] Mosley is not at his most impassioned and honest during this speech sadly- however, he is very excited by the prospect of David getting on the throne. Indeed, the fact that the establishment hates him is an advantage as far as he's concerned...
Italy wont last long against Nazi Germany, then again who on the continent did? 
Save Russia of course.
Save Russia of course.Pax Britannia said:
Well actually, the French are rather less happy then OTL. Their relationship with the Mosley government took a battering in 1933 after the collapse of the disarmement conference (covered in Part 5) and has been cool ever since. Mussolini has been no more anti-German then he was OTL, the only difference really so far is that the personal relationship between Il Duce and Mosley means that Anglo-Italian relations are more cordial.
Because the French government feels that a Labour government isn't to be trusted, they feel somewhat insecure as of 1933/4. This will doubtless shift over time however.
I expect that by 1938 there will be enough butterflies to stop Munich from happening anyway- who says Hitler's going to go for Czechoslovakia in this TL? In any case, as of yet Mosley has no clear view on what should be done about Germany. beyond recognising the neccesity of re-armament. Indeed, while he sees Hitler's foreign policy as a potential threat to Britain he's pretty sure that any conflict can be averted.
As of 1935 the real anti-German bloc in Europe is France and Italy. This may change however.
As of 1935 the real anti-German bloc in Europe is France and Italy. This may change however.
In OTL Hitler did make some attempts at a 'understanding' with the UK (IIRC). It should be quite interesting to see how you have Mosely deal with those. If Mussolini becomes even more anit-German (Anschluss gets hot or semi-warm) this could further push Hitler to make concessions to Britain to get something out them (this may be unlikely but I believe somewhat possible).
Part 7- “The present House of Lords is an anachronism.”
(Taken from “An encyclopaedia of 20th Century History” ed. Dunn, Longman 1999)
“WALWAL INCIDENT: Border clash between Italian and Abyssinian troops in December 1934, and a major factor in the Italian invasion of the country the following year. In 1930, the Italian government ordered the construction of a fort at the Walwal oasis in the Ogaden desert, claiming that the Italo-Abyssinian treaty of two years before put the region under Italian jurisdiction. In the November of 1934, Abyssinia protested this move, and in early December, the tensions mounted to a clash at the oasis that left 150 Abyssinian and 50 Italian casualties. Both sides demanded apologies of the other, and while the dispute was taken to the League of Nations before the New Year both sides had begun preparations for the war that would begin the following autumn…”
(Taken from “Edward VIII- A Life” by Isabelle Green, Longman 1978)
“…For a brief period however the future King’s attention was drawn to another woman, much to Thelma’s chagrin. On January 10, 1931, the Prince attended a party hosted by Thelma- also invited were Ernest and Wallis Simpson, a wealthy American banker based in London and his socialite wife. Initially Simpson didn’t make a very big impression on the Prince, but four months later they met again and from there a mutual attraction began to develop. In the winter of 1931 the Prince had dinner with the Simpsons, staying until the early hours of the morning….
…When Thelma went on a trip to the United States in January 1934 she asked Wallis Simpson to look after the Prince for her. When she returned, however, she found that she had been replaced in the Prince’s affections and now Wallis Simpson seemed to be the only woman for Edward… According to Wallis, it was in August 1934 that their relationship became more serious. During that month, the Prince took a cruise on Lord Moyne's yacht, the Rosaura. Though both Simpsons were invited, Ernest Simpson could not accompany his wife on the cruise because of a business trip to the United States. It was on this cruise, Wallis later stated, that she and the Prince "crossed the line that marks the indefinable boundary between friendship and love."
For around six months, Simpson was the only woman in Edward’s life. Previous mistresses- Thelma among them- were ignored entirely. For his part, the Prince was passionately devoted to her- to the extent that many worried that he neglected his own duties for her. For Simpson’s part, her feelings towards Edward remain ambiguous. It was popularly believed at the time that she was seduced less by the Prince himself then by the glamour and power of his position and that she was a ruthlessly ambitious social climber- a judgement reinforced by her alleged actions in the autumn and winter of 1934…
…Around the time of the death of the Prince’s father however, Edward’s relationship with Simpson began to fall apart. By September 1934 it is known that Simpson (who was still married) was conducting multiple affairs, one with a married car salesman named Guy Trundle. There are even rumours that she had secret assignations with the Prime Minister Oswald Mosley, although this has never been proven[1]… She also found Edward's dependence upon her burdensome and claustrophobic, writing to her uncle: "How can a woman be a whole empire to a man?" As the autumn wore on she treated the Prince increasingly rudely in the hope that he would break off their affair of its own accord, but he seemed oblivious to the contempt and bullying she poured on him.
In the end, Simpson used the death of the King in November 1934 as a pretext to end the relationship, claiming that she preferred to ‘fade into the shadows’ then to be exposed to the eye of the public. Heartbroken, the newly-proclaimed King Edward nonetheless found time to have a brief affair with Diana Mitford, the future wife of Oswald Mosley, who introduced the two to each other at a party in December[2]. When this relationship also failed, the King found himself crawling back to his old paramour Thelma Furness, who eventually accepted him again- although it is said that she never truly forgave him for his dalliance with Simpson…”
(Taken from the Notes and Queries section of the Guardian, 17th July 1999)
“Q: Is it true that Oswald Mosley stole Edward VIII’s mistress Wallis Simpson?
(Guy Richardson, Stroud, Gloucestershire)
A: The question of whether Mosley had a relationship with Wallis Simpson is a controversial one, and will only be properly answered in 2015 when the relevant files are made public[3] . However, it is generally regarded that the two had a brief affair in the autumn of 1934, just before the death of George V. Mosley and Simpson had first met at a party organised by Lady Cunard that September, and their meeting certainly coincided with the decline of Simpson’s relationship with the Prince of Wales. Mosley was certainly a compulsive womaniser, and the death of his wife ‘Cimmie’ the year before gave him even less reason to exercise restraint then he might have done otherwise, although it is known that around the time he had also been seeing his future wife and long-term mistress, Diana Mitford…”
(Taken from the Labour General Election manifesto, June 1932)
“…The House of Lords will be replaced by a Second Chamber representing the industry, culture and ability of the Nation. This Second Chamber will also contain representatives whose technical knowledge of science and industry shall be specific and detailed beyond the needs of the House of Commons and will also contain representatives of Education, Religion, the Services, Science, Art, and every aspect of the people's life…
…The present House of Lords is an anachronism. By abolishing the present House of Lords in favour of an Assembly genuinely representing the industry and culture of the Nation, Labour will restore the original conception of the British Constitution.”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“The accession of Edward VIII to the throne was a fantastic boon to the Labour government. The new King was a self-conscious moderniser and liked to see himself as a man of the people, a world apart from his conservative and cautious father. He fully supported the government’s economic reforms, and took a great interest in the affairs of state- much to the irritation of many of his close advisors. From the very beginning of his reign he angered many within the traditional ‘establishment’ by his relentless enthusiasm for change- his first act as King was to end the tradition of having the clocks at Sandringham put forward half an hour, instead ordering that they show the correct time. King Edward’s drive, energy and his unfailing ability to infuriate the establishment made him the perfect counterpart to Mosley as Premier- a fact lost on neither man[5]…
…The issue of constitutional reform had long been on the government’s agenda, and now that a sympathetic figure was on the throne Labour felt able to broach the idea of re-organising the House of Lords. Intriguingly though, the King himself was the first to raise the idea in a meaningful way, expressing a concrete if vague desire for reform to Mosley on his return from Como[6] in April 1935. With Royal support guaranteed and Eden’s Conservatives able to do little to prevent the passage of the bill through the Commons, only the Lords remained as an obstacle to reform- and they were soon bought off by the promise that many individual members of the upper house would remain, in their capacity as experts and representatives of the various sections of British society…”
(Taken from “Parliament; A History” by Sebastian Spencer, CUP 1989)
“Despite the radical revisions that the Parliament Act of 1935 made to the Upper Chamber, it was passed with remarkably little controversy. Enthusiastic Royal approval and the support for the reforms by many on the right undermined the Conservative party’s ability to resist the changes, especially when in May Lord Beaverbrook threw his weight behind reform, characterising the opponents of the move as hopeless reactionary anachronisms in the process…
When Parliament returned after the summer recess then, it was to a new Upper House. Gone were the hereditary peers that had endured for centuries- in their place were a complex mixture of indirectly elected representatives, appointees made by an independent commission, and a selection of figures who could sit in the chamber by virtue of their public position[7]. The government intended that the new House of Lords (whose unchanged name was one of the few things that the Conservatives managed to preserve from the old system) would represent every section of British society and allow expert scrutiny to be given to legislation arriving from the House of Commons…”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“…The King’s support for the Parliament Act proved to be a shrewd move on his part, for it put the government in his debt… When in the August of 1935 he privately told Mosley that he intended to marry his long-time mistress the Viscountess Furness, the Prime Minister felt obliged to make King Edward’s desire a reality. Mosley himself had no objection to the union- indeed later he wrote;
‘There is something symbolic of all their failure in the stiff absurdity of the English ruling class at this time, that they sneer at any form of marriage with an American of beauty, intelligence, charm and character…”
However, the union was a controversial one in many circles, where the Viscountess’ two divorces were seen as scandalous and likely to bring the Monarchy into disrepute. The idea that a divorcee would marry the King was especially disconcerting to many because his father had refused even to allow divorced persons to attend court. The Conservative party in particular was horrified, although Anthony Eden’s comments on the issue were undermined by other figures on the right, most notably the veteran parliamentarian and serial rebel Winston Churchill, who warmly praised the idea of marriage…
As long as the government remained supportive of the King however there was little the opponents of the match could do, and public opinion seemed generally supportive of the King, although only if the Viscountess renounced the title of queen. After several months of acrimonious debate that constantly threatened to erupt into a full-blown constitutional crisis, a compromise was reached; the King’s paramour would be allowed to marry, but only in a morganatic marriage[8]… ”
(Taken from “The Monarchy in Constitutional Context” by Ivor Gibbons, Picador 1998)
“…Morganatic marriages have been known in foreign royal houses, primarily because, in those houses, sovereigns are required to marry someone from a specific range of houses. In Britain however there are no such restrictions on the sovereign, and therefore until 1935 the concept of a morganatic marriage was unknown to the law. In Britain for example, Countess Sophie Chotek, the morganatic wife of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, would have been perfectly eligible to be queen, provided she renounced her Catholicism. Thus, a morganatic marriage could not be made legitimate without legislation. It was for this reason that the King needed ministerial consent for the idea…
…A further hurdle for the King was obtaining the consent of the governments of the other Dominions, at the time meaning Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State. Most could be expected to support the King, although in Australia there were worries that the Act might be voted down in parliament… Surprisingly even the Irish were in favour of the move, despite the fears of many on the mainland[9]. In the event the Dominions acquiesced to the King’s marriage, and the potential crisis was averted… The King finally married his consort on Christmas Eve, 1935”
[1] This particular sentence will cause a media frenzy when the book is published in 1978, only a few years after Edward's death. It's one of those things that had been hinted at in some circles for years, but had never been printed.
[2] Diana and Oswald have had the affair they had OTL. Their relationship is pretty similar to OTL's all considered, although she will divorce Bryan Guinness somewhat later.
[3] On one level, having the Prince of Wales's mistress dump him for an affair with the Prime Minister sounds like something from a bad film, probably one by Richard Curtis[4]. But I reckon this is somewhat plausible. OTL Mosley was a notorious womaniser, and he and Wallis would have been a perfect match in many ways- they were both pretty amoral when it came to 'affairs of the heart'. Somehow I feel this just works.
[4] Hugh Laurie as the Prince? If only we could rejuvenate Leslie Phillips to let him play Mosley....
[5] OTL Mosley and the (by then) Duke of Windsor got on very well, although they only met after the war- I imagine they'd be even better suited when they're both in power, although sadly neither is going to exactly act as a break on the other.
[6] This of course is an analogue of the Stresa conference of 1935. It goes pretty much as OTL which is why I'm not covering it in more detail- it's a little chummier then Stresa was as Mosley and Mussolini get on so well, but apart from that little changes.
[7] What I'm imagining here is something of a mess- it's a mixture of the Bryce proposals of 1918 and what the BUF was calling for in the 1930's. Basically there are some peers who are chosen by regional groups of MPs, who comprise the elected element. Then there are the appointed peers, who are similar to OTL's. The innovation in the reform really comes from the third group, who are meant to be leaders of the nation by virtue of the public prominence. It's an extension of the 'National Council' the Mosley government has already put into place really- so basically Generals, Union Leaders, captains of Industry and press Barons amongst others will all be able to sit in the Lords and give their views on legislation.
[8] Why is the *abdication crisis so less severe in this TL? Well, for a start the government's support for the King means that there's no need for a constitutional crisis. Matters are also made easier by the fact that Thelma Morgan is altogether far less objectionable then Wallis Simpson- there are moral grounds for people to dislike her, but as the King's consort herself isn't widely hated it's felt that a deal can be done.
[9] OTL De Valera was the only Dominion premier to favour the concept of a Morganatic marriage. Why does this work in this TL? Well, the British government supports the idea which counts for a lot, and as mentioned in the previous footnote Thelma Morgan doesn't inspire the same extraordinary hate that Wallis Simpson did.
(Taken from “An encyclopaedia of 20th Century History” ed. Dunn, Longman 1999)
“WALWAL INCIDENT: Border clash between Italian and Abyssinian troops in December 1934, and a major factor in the Italian invasion of the country the following year. In 1930, the Italian government ordered the construction of a fort at the Walwal oasis in the Ogaden desert, claiming that the Italo-Abyssinian treaty of two years before put the region under Italian jurisdiction. In the November of 1934, Abyssinia protested this move, and in early December, the tensions mounted to a clash at the oasis that left 150 Abyssinian and 50 Italian casualties. Both sides demanded apologies of the other, and while the dispute was taken to the League of Nations before the New Year both sides had begun preparations for the war that would begin the following autumn…”
(Taken from “Edward VIII- A Life” by Isabelle Green, Longman 1978)
“…For a brief period however the future King’s attention was drawn to another woman, much to Thelma’s chagrin. On January 10, 1931, the Prince attended a party hosted by Thelma- also invited were Ernest and Wallis Simpson, a wealthy American banker based in London and his socialite wife. Initially Simpson didn’t make a very big impression on the Prince, but four months later they met again and from there a mutual attraction began to develop. In the winter of 1931 the Prince had dinner with the Simpsons, staying until the early hours of the morning….
…When Thelma went on a trip to the United States in January 1934 she asked Wallis Simpson to look after the Prince for her. When she returned, however, she found that she had been replaced in the Prince’s affections and now Wallis Simpson seemed to be the only woman for Edward… According to Wallis, it was in August 1934 that their relationship became more serious. During that month, the Prince took a cruise on Lord Moyne's yacht, the Rosaura. Though both Simpsons were invited, Ernest Simpson could not accompany his wife on the cruise because of a business trip to the United States. It was on this cruise, Wallis later stated, that she and the Prince "crossed the line that marks the indefinable boundary between friendship and love."
For around six months, Simpson was the only woman in Edward’s life. Previous mistresses- Thelma among them- were ignored entirely. For his part, the Prince was passionately devoted to her- to the extent that many worried that he neglected his own duties for her. For Simpson’s part, her feelings towards Edward remain ambiguous. It was popularly believed at the time that she was seduced less by the Prince himself then by the glamour and power of his position and that she was a ruthlessly ambitious social climber- a judgement reinforced by her alleged actions in the autumn and winter of 1934…
…Around the time of the death of the Prince’s father however, Edward’s relationship with Simpson began to fall apart. By September 1934 it is known that Simpson (who was still married) was conducting multiple affairs, one with a married car salesman named Guy Trundle. There are even rumours that she had secret assignations with the Prime Minister Oswald Mosley, although this has never been proven[1]… She also found Edward's dependence upon her burdensome and claustrophobic, writing to her uncle: "How can a woman be a whole empire to a man?" As the autumn wore on she treated the Prince increasingly rudely in the hope that he would break off their affair of its own accord, but he seemed oblivious to the contempt and bullying she poured on him.
In the end, Simpson used the death of the King in November 1934 as a pretext to end the relationship, claiming that she preferred to ‘fade into the shadows’ then to be exposed to the eye of the public. Heartbroken, the newly-proclaimed King Edward nonetheless found time to have a brief affair with Diana Mitford, the future wife of Oswald Mosley, who introduced the two to each other at a party in December[2]. When this relationship also failed, the King found himself crawling back to his old paramour Thelma Furness, who eventually accepted him again- although it is said that she never truly forgave him for his dalliance with Simpson…”
(Taken from the Notes and Queries section of the Guardian, 17th July 1999)
“Q: Is it true that Oswald Mosley stole Edward VIII’s mistress Wallis Simpson?
(Guy Richardson, Stroud, Gloucestershire)
A: The question of whether Mosley had a relationship with Wallis Simpson is a controversial one, and will only be properly answered in 2015 when the relevant files are made public[3] . However, it is generally regarded that the two had a brief affair in the autumn of 1934, just before the death of George V. Mosley and Simpson had first met at a party organised by Lady Cunard that September, and their meeting certainly coincided with the decline of Simpson’s relationship with the Prince of Wales. Mosley was certainly a compulsive womaniser, and the death of his wife ‘Cimmie’ the year before gave him even less reason to exercise restraint then he might have done otherwise, although it is known that around the time he had also been seeing his future wife and long-term mistress, Diana Mitford…”
(Taken from the Labour General Election manifesto, June 1932)
“…The House of Lords will be replaced by a Second Chamber representing the industry, culture and ability of the Nation. This Second Chamber will also contain representatives whose technical knowledge of science and industry shall be specific and detailed beyond the needs of the House of Commons and will also contain representatives of Education, Religion, the Services, Science, Art, and every aspect of the people's life…
…The present House of Lords is an anachronism. By abolishing the present House of Lords in favour of an Assembly genuinely representing the industry and culture of the Nation, Labour will restore the original conception of the British Constitution.”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“The accession of Edward VIII to the throne was a fantastic boon to the Labour government. The new King was a self-conscious moderniser and liked to see himself as a man of the people, a world apart from his conservative and cautious father. He fully supported the government’s economic reforms, and took a great interest in the affairs of state- much to the irritation of many of his close advisors. From the very beginning of his reign he angered many within the traditional ‘establishment’ by his relentless enthusiasm for change- his first act as King was to end the tradition of having the clocks at Sandringham put forward half an hour, instead ordering that they show the correct time. King Edward’s drive, energy and his unfailing ability to infuriate the establishment made him the perfect counterpart to Mosley as Premier- a fact lost on neither man[5]…
…The issue of constitutional reform had long been on the government’s agenda, and now that a sympathetic figure was on the throne Labour felt able to broach the idea of re-organising the House of Lords. Intriguingly though, the King himself was the first to raise the idea in a meaningful way, expressing a concrete if vague desire for reform to Mosley on his return from Como[6] in April 1935. With Royal support guaranteed and Eden’s Conservatives able to do little to prevent the passage of the bill through the Commons, only the Lords remained as an obstacle to reform- and they were soon bought off by the promise that many individual members of the upper house would remain, in their capacity as experts and representatives of the various sections of British society…”
(Taken from “Parliament; A History” by Sebastian Spencer, CUP 1989)
“Despite the radical revisions that the Parliament Act of 1935 made to the Upper Chamber, it was passed with remarkably little controversy. Enthusiastic Royal approval and the support for the reforms by many on the right undermined the Conservative party’s ability to resist the changes, especially when in May Lord Beaverbrook threw his weight behind reform, characterising the opponents of the move as hopeless reactionary anachronisms in the process…
When Parliament returned after the summer recess then, it was to a new Upper House. Gone were the hereditary peers that had endured for centuries- in their place were a complex mixture of indirectly elected representatives, appointees made by an independent commission, and a selection of figures who could sit in the chamber by virtue of their public position[7]. The government intended that the new House of Lords (whose unchanged name was one of the few things that the Conservatives managed to preserve from the old system) would represent every section of British society and allow expert scrutiny to be given to legislation arriving from the House of Commons…”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“…The King’s support for the Parliament Act proved to be a shrewd move on his part, for it put the government in his debt… When in the August of 1935 he privately told Mosley that he intended to marry his long-time mistress the Viscountess Furness, the Prime Minister felt obliged to make King Edward’s desire a reality. Mosley himself had no objection to the union- indeed later he wrote;
‘There is something symbolic of all their failure in the stiff absurdity of the English ruling class at this time, that they sneer at any form of marriage with an American of beauty, intelligence, charm and character…”
However, the union was a controversial one in many circles, where the Viscountess’ two divorces were seen as scandalous and likely to bring the Monarchy into disrepute. The idea that a divorcee would marry the King was especially disconcerting to many because his father had refused even to allow divorced persons to attend court. The Conservative party in particular was horrified, although Anthony Eden’s comments on the issue were undermined by other figures on the right, most notably the veteran parliamentarian and serial rebel Winston Churchill, who warmly praised the idea of marriage…
As long as the government remained supportive of the King however there was little the opponents of the match could do, and public opinion seemed generally supportive of the King, although only if the Viscountess renounced the title of queen. After several months of acrimonious debate that constantly threatened to erupt into a full-blown constitutional crisis, a compromise was reached; the King’s paramour would be allowed to marry, but only in a morganatic marriage[8]… ”
(Taken from “The Monarchy in Constitutional Context” by Ivor Gibbons, Picador 1998)
“…Morganatic marriages have been known in foreign royal houses, primarily because, in those houses, sovereigns are required to marry someone from a specific range of houses. In Britain however there are no such restrictions on the sovereign, and therefore until 1935 the concept of a morganatic marriage was unknown to the law. In Britain for example, Countess Sophie Chotek, the morganatic wife of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, would have been perfectly eligible to be queen, provided she renounced her Catholicism. Thus, a morganatic marriage could not be made legitimate without legislation. It was for this reason that the King needed ministerial consent for the idea…
…A further hurdle for the King was obtaining the consent of the governments of the other Dominions, at the time meaning Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State. Most could be expected to support the King, although in Australia there were worries that the Act might be voted down in parliament… Surprisingly even the Irish were in favour of the move, despite the fears of many on the mainland[9]. In the event the Dominions acquiesced to the King’s marriage, and the potential crisis was averted… The King finally married his consort on Christmas Eve, 1935”
[1] This particular sentence will cause a media frenzy when the book is published in 1978, only a few years after Edward's death. It's one of those things that had been hinted at in some circles for years, but had never been printed.
[2] Diana and Oswald have had the affair they had OTL. Their relationship is pretty similar to OTL's all considered, although she will divorce Bryan Guinness somewhat later.
[3] On one level, having the Prince of Wales's mistress dump him for an affair with the Prime Minister sounds like something from a bad film, probably one by Richard Curtis[4]. But I reckon this is somewhat plausible. OTL Mosley was a notorious womaniser, and he and Wallis would have been a perfect match in many ways- they were both pretty amoral when it came to 'affairs of the heart'. Somehow I feel this just works.
[4] Hugh Laurie as the Prince? If only we could rejuvenate Leslie Phillips to let him play Mosley....
[5] OTL Mosley and the (by then) Duke of Windsor got on very well, although they only met after the war- I imagine they'd be even better suited when they're both in power, although sadly neither is going to exactly act as a break on the other.
[6] This of course is an analogue of the Stresa conference of 1935. It goes pretty much as OTL which is why I'm not covering it in more detail- it's a little chummier then Stresa was as Mosley and Mussolini get on so well, but apart from that little changes.
[7] What I'm imagining here is something of a mess- it's a mixture of the Bryce proposals of 1918 and what the BUF was calling for in the 1930's. Basically there are some peers who are chosen by regional groups of MPs, who comprise the elected element. Then there are the appointed peers, who are similar to OTL's. The innovation in the reform really comes from the third group, who are meant to be leaders of the nation by virtue of the public prominence. It's an extension of the 'National Council' the Mosley government has already put into place really- so basically Generals, Union Leaders, captains of Industry and press Barons amongst others will all be able to sit in the Lords and give their views on legislation.
[8] Why is the *abdication crisis so less severe in this TL? Well, for a start the government's support for the King means that there's no need for a constitutional crisis. Matters are also made easier by the fact that Thelma Morgan is altogether far less objectionable then Wallis Simpson- there are moral grounds for people to dislike her, but as the King's consort herself isn't widely hated it's felt that a deal can be done.
[9] OTL De Valera was the only Dominion premier to favour the concept of a Morganatic marriage. Why does this work in this TL? Well, the British government supports the idea which counts for a lot, and as mentioned in the previous footnote Thelma Morgan doesn't inspire the same extraordinary hate that Wallis Simpson did.
I find it a bit of a stretch that Mosley can get rid of the house of commons. Not even Blair with his 1997 mandate could make much of a dent.
Pax Britannia said:
You mean the House of Lords, right? Well, there's nothing stopping Mosley really. For a start, it's not getting rid of the entire institution, just reforming it. As I say, what I have happening is based to a fair degree on the Bryce Report of 1918's reccomendations, and throughout the 1920's governments had been looking at reforming the Lords in some way.
In 1935 Mosley has a mandate (Lords reform was an important part of the Labour manifesto), a cooperative King (which means that the Lords can't resist too much...) and a divided Tory Party, some of whom, accept his proposals. In the country Beaverbrook and other press barons support his plans, and he has the parliamentary majority to pass it through the Commons. The Lords can be bypassed by the use of the parliament act if neccesary. The reforms aren't gigantically drastic and don't seem too implausible to me...
EdT said:
Oh yes I do mean the house of lords, i'm so used to typing the house of commons during discussions I seem to do it by de-fault now!
I would love to see the look on the faces of the aristocracy! Mosely must be their new bogeyman. At least for the politically minded ones.
Pax Britannia said:
Oh, Mosley is really a hate figure for many in the establishment- "the powers that be" hate him with a passion, all the more as he's regarded by many as a traitor to his class. As Stanley Baldwin put it OTL "The man's a Cad and a Wrong-un". Unfortunately, there's not a lot that they can do about him for the time being... Mosley is extremely popular amongst the public at large, especially the working classes, who adore him for his unemployment policy. He's managed to align both the Left and the interventionist right (a la Beaverbrook) and leave traditional Tories very much in the cold.
I've left the exact shape of the deal that comes of Lords reform intentionally vague, as I feel that (somewhat similarly to OTL) a lot of the details will be rather boring. Having said that, I think it could be done, and in a relatively uncontroversial way.
Part 8- “The circumstances of our national security have now self-evidently changed”
(Taken from “The road to war” by John Coombs, Picador 1979)
“…After the decision to invade Abyssinia the following autumn had been taken, Mussolini was quick to secure support for the project from Britain and France, the other two major Powers interested in the region. In the January of 1935 Mussolini met the French Prime Minister Pierre Laval in Rome, and Africa was one of the primary areas of debate. The discussions were marked by the extremely cordial relations between the two leaders, and on January 5th Laval addressed Mussolini at a ceremony where the Italian dictator was presented the Legion of Honour; “You have written the fairest page in modern Italian history; you will bring assistance indispensable to maintaining peace”. After several days of negotiation a wide-ranging series of Franco-Italian agreements were signed on the 8th, and while it is still unknown whether Laval explicitly indicated acquiescence to an invasion of Abyssinia, the French threat to Italy’s ambitions in the Horn of Africa had nonetheless been effectively removed[1]…
…Mussolini’s next challenge was Britain, which proved to be just as willing to come to an accord with Il Duce as the French had been. The Mosley government had always been sympathetic to the Italian point of view, and the Prime Minister himself had long seen Abyssinia as a centre of barbarism ever since he had read Kathleen Simon’s landmark work ‘Slavery’ half a decade before[2]… The conference at Como in April did much to resolve the residual differences between the two nations, and with the collapse of Anglo-German negotiations two months later[3] any risk to Anglo-Italian relations had been quashed for the time being…”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“The increasingly acrimonious exchanges in Parliament about the King’s marriage had one positive effect for the government- the furore distracted the media and the public from the potentially embarrassing events that were taking place in the Horn of Africa. On October 3rd Mussolini finally ordered the invasion of Abyssinia, and 100,000 Italian troops supported by colonial militias poured into the African Kingdom from north and south. The outbreak of war attracted little attention in Britain, and it was only in early November with the final passage of the Marriage Act through the Dominion Parliaments that the conflict properly reached the public gaze[4]…
…This month-long window of public indifference to the issue gave Mosley and Attlee[5] a perfect chance to continue their pro-Italian policy without needing to pay any attention to national opinion, an advantage that the government’s French counterparts would envy greatly… In the first days after the invasion, British representatives in Geneva were ordered to do everything they could to frustrate anti-Italian moves in the League of Nations, vetoing the League’s condemnation of Italy as the aggressor on October 7th and even putting forward proposals to legalise the invasion entirely under the anti-slavery protocols of Abyssinia’s accession agreement[6]. While this move was narrowly rejected it left the League’s policy towards the conflict in utter disarray…
…By the time the war in Abyssinia reached the public consciousness then, British policy on the issue had effectively created a fait accompli. The government presented the invasion as a humanitarian intervention by Italy to prevent the slave trade and other barbarous practices and was to a certain extent successful, but nonetheless there was plenty of opposition to the conflict from a disparate range of groups…. In parliament the Liberals were the first to come out against the government’s position, quickly followed by some dissident members of the ILP. In mid November Eden’s Conservatives followed, sensing that they had finally found a popular stance to take against a government that increasingly looked like a shoe-in in the next parliament[7] … in the event however Labour’s early assumption of the moral high ground prevented a coherent opposition to government policy, and the Abyssinia issue remained, as Churchill put it; ‘an issue in search of a crisis’…”
(Taken from “My Life” by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)
“…The League of Nations, which in my youth I had so ardently supported as a new instrument of world peace, had begun to fail for reasons of personal weakness in statesmanship already noted, and by this time had been turned into an instrument of the balance of power which from historic experience I regarded as an inevitable prelude to war. The balance of power had always brought war, and now it threatened to return with the League on one side and a motley collection of rejectionist nations on the other; a perversion of every high aspiration of the war generation…
…I analysed the circumstances in which Europe had arrived at this situation and how the original idea of the League was in danger of being destroyed. America had defected, six other nations —Japan, Turkey, Poland, Lithuania, Bolivia and Paraguay— had been allowed to defy the League with impunity and the departure of Germany had been made inevitable by the chronic lack of will of the League’s leaders. The process was in danger of being completed by driving Italy out of the League and into the other camp by the application of sanctions. I quoted Sir Edward Grigg, Governor of Kenya Colony, to the effect that Abyssinia had for years past raided not only Italian but British territory for slaves, and had committed definite acts of war without one finger being lifted by Geneva or the British Government. Yet when Italy took 'precisely the same measures to suppress these evils as had been taken at every stage of the honourable building of the British Empire', action had been taken against her, although six nations had already with complete impunity violated the covenant of the League[8]...
…The indictment of the old party policy did not stop there. Some of Eden’s Conservatives, swallowing a generation of principle in their determination to destroy the peace, had even called for the government to seek the assistance of the Soviets against Italy. From this needless gambit would have arisen the subservience of British to Soviet policy in the East, for Britain could not use the Soviets in Europe without in turn being used by the Soviets in the Orient... If Russia was to join with Britain in the iron ring round Germany and Italy, then Britain must have joined with Russia in their iron ring round Japan, not only in contravention of her own interests but in jeopardy of world peace.”
(Taken from a speech by Oswald Mosley in Parliament, November 14th 1935)
“The world, in fact, is divided into two camps of the possessors and the dispossessed ... in one camp are Britain and France; in the other camp by inevitable gravitation of common circumstances is Germany; and to that camp by analogous folly is being added Japan and potentially even Italy. With the return of the balance of power we witness the return of the arms race and the concomitant Press agitation which inflames the mind and spirit of Europe to fresh fatality…
…Regardless of the moral reasons for her intervention, by the occupation of Abyssinia Italy now has not only an outlet for her population but profitable access to raw materials, and she should be left in undisturbed possession of this new acquisition... A glance at a child's map of the world shows that a hostile Italy could be a much greater menace to British trade routes from the base of Sicily than from any base in Abyssinia. As to the threat to the Sudan, why should Italy abandon the development of the territories she already possesses in order to indulge in a savage fight with the greatest naval power in the world for extra territories which provide not greater but lesser sustenance? Even his worst enemy does not describe Il Duce as a fool…
Furthermore, Italy is not used to administering large colonial territories and will have enough to do in the development of Abyssinia for some generations. Rather, Italy's every interest is to join with the British Empire to maintain the stability and peace of the Eastern Mediterranean and of North Africa...”
(Taken from “The road to war” by John Coombs, Picador 1979)
“…To Mussolini’s intense embarrassment, by the beginning of December the Italian advance in Abyssinia had begun to grind to a halt, slowed by the cautiousness of Marshal De Bono, logistical hitches, and ominously the use of smuggled German weapons by the defending Abyssinians[9]. The easy campaign that looked all but assured a few months before now had the potential to be a draining struggle, even if there was little prospect of Italy suffering a repeat of the humiliation she suffered at Adowa forty years before. With this in mind Mussolini sent quiet feelers to both Paris and London indicating his willingness to come to a compromise peace…
…Mussolini’s action came as a huge relief to the Laval government in France, which had been suffering a barrage of criticism on its reluctance to take a stand on the issue. In early December the French entered into consultations with the Mosley government in Britain, and on the 8th Laval and the British foreign secretary Clement Attlee both flew to Rome to put a compromise peace to Mussolini… Under the terms of the proposal, Abyssinia would be dismembered. Italy would gain the best parts of Ogaden and Tigrè, and economic influence over all the southern part of Abyssinia. In compensation, Abyssinia itself would have had a guaranteed corridor to the sea, acquiring the port of Assab. The rump of Abyssinia would become a semi-autonomous region under the trusteeship of the League, although in reality this was intended to formalise British and French influence over the remains of the region[10]…
…Thanks to British and French intervention then, on the 21st December 1935 the brief conflict in Abyssinia came to an end through a cease-fire. The following day the League retroactively legitimised the invasion by accepting the responsibilities offered to it in the region, and realising that the deal was their only chance of independence the Emperor signed the treaty on Christmas day…”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“…The government’s secret diplomacy on the Abyssinia issue took the war’s critics by surprise, and when Mussolini announced that he was submitting to Anglo-French mediation on December 9th Mosley pulled off a public-relations coup. Mosley’s insistence on the League’s involvement satisfied the internationalist wings of both the Labour and Conservative parties, and while the reduction of Abyssinia to a rump appalled some on the anti-colonialist left, the Government was able to claim that it was the best possible deal that could be made to save the nation from completer destruction. As 1935 drew to a close with the wedding of Edward VIII and his consort Thelma, the Mosley government looked forward to the forthcoming election year with increasing confidence…”
[1] This all actually happened- The French government was pretty pro-Italian in 1935 OTL even without the influence of a pro-Italian government in Britain.
[2] Kathleen Simon was an anti-slavery campaigner and wife of Liberal politician John Simon, who became Foreign Secretary in the National Government OTL. OTL I'm pretty sure Mosley read the work- I see no reason for things to be different ITTL.
[3] OTL these negotiations would have resulted in the Anglo-German Naval agreement of 1935. ITTL they failed because thanks to Mussolini's influence on Mosley the British government is less inclined to trust Hitler. There is also a much greater awareness on the part of Britain that Italy can be kept onside.
[4] This is quite a change from OTL, where Abyssinia was headline news from the very beginning. The lack of initial outrage for Italy's actions will make it difficult for the conflict to become a major political issue in Britain, especially as the government is frantically spinning the conflict in a positive way.
[5] In fact, the pro-Italian stance of the government is far more Mosley then Attlee, but the latter is very much a Foreign Secretary who does exactly as he's told and has little input into policy making.
[6] In 1923 Abyssinia was allowed to join the League, provided that it followed a host of directives related to the abolition of the Kingdom's flourishing slave trade. One of these was a recognition of the League's right to intervene to suppress the trade, which is what the British government is raising ITTL.
[7] ITTL the Tories of the period have something of a thing for bandwagons. luckily for Eden the baseball cap- and for that matter the log flume- have yet to achieve widespread popularity in 1930's Britain
[8] Mosley's attitude to the League is not what you might expect- he's actually very much in favour of the idea, but feels that the League must be reformed hugely if it's to succeed.
[9] This is an exaggeration on the part of the author of course. OTL Hitler sent supplies and guns to the Abyssinians, and this happens here as well. Later events make this aid more prominent in retrospect then OTL, and the image of German military aid going to the Abyssinians is a convenient factor to claim as a reason for the slowing of the Italian advance (which happened OTL as well) in December 1935.
[10] This is pretty much OTL's Hoare-Laval pact, with a few differences, mostly the submission of rump Abyssinia to the League. This is a proposal championed by Mosley, who wanted the region under complete European control in some form or another in order to wipe out the slave trade. Butterflies and the slightly less controversial circumstances of the deal mean that it isn't leaked as it was OTL, and the constant spin by the British government has influenced public opinion quite successfully.
(Taken from “The road to war” by John Coombs, Picador 1979)
“…After the decision to invade Abyssinia the following autumn had been taken, Mussolini was quick to secure support for the project from Britain and France, the other two major Powers interested in the region. In the January of 1935 Mussolini met the French Prime Minister Pierre Laval in Rome, and Africa was one of the primary areas of debate. The discussions were marked by the extremely cordial relations between the two leaders, and on January 5th Laval addressed Mussolini at a ceremony where the Italian dictator was presented the Legion of Honour; “You have written the fairest page in modern Italian history; you will bring assistance indispensable to maintaining peace”. After several days of negotiation a wide-ranging series of Franco-Italian agreements were signed on the 8th, and while it is still unknown whether Laval explicitly indicated acquiescence to an invasion of Abyssinia, the French threat to Italy’s ambitions in the Horn of Africa had nonetheless been effectively removed[1]…
…Mussolini’s next challenge was Britain, which proved to be just as willing to come to an accord with Il Duce as the French had been. The Mosley government had always been sympathetic to the Italian point of view, and the Prime Minister himself had long seen Abyssinia as a centre of barbarism ever since he had read Kathleen Simon’s landmark work ‘Slavery’ half a decade before[2]… The conference at Como in April did much to resolve the residual differences between the two nations, and with the collapse of Anglo-German negotiations two months later[3] any risk to Anglo-Italian relations had been quashed for the time being…”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“The increasingly acrimonious exchanges in Parliament about the King’s marriage had one positive effect for the government- the furore distracted the media and the public from the potentially embarrassing events that were taking place in the Horn of Africa. On October 3rd Mussolini finally ordered the invasion of Abyssinia, and 100,000 Italian troops supported by colonial militias poured into the African Kingdom from north and south. The outbreak of war attracted little attention in Britain, and it was only in early November with the final passage of the Marriage Act through the Dominion Parliaments that the conflict properly reached the public gaze[4]…
…This month-long window of public indifference to the issue gave Mosley and Attlee[5] a perfect chance to continue their pro-Italian policy without needing to pay any attention to national opinion, an advantage that the government’s French counterparts would envy greatly… In the first days after the invasion, British representatives in Geneva were ordered to do everything they could to frustrate anti-Italian moves in the League of Nations, vetoing the League’s condemnation of Italy as the aggressor on October 7th and even putting forward proposals to legalise the invasion entirely under the anti-slavery protocols of Abyssinia’s accession agreement[6]. While this move was narrowly rejected it left the League’s policy towards the conflict in utter disarray…
…By the time the war in Abyssinia reached the public consciousness then, British policy on the issue had effectively created a fait accompli. The government presented the invasion as a humanitarian intervention by Italy to prevent the slave trade and other barbarous practices and was to a certain extent successful, but nonetheless there was plenty of opposition to the conflict from a disparate range of groups…. In parliament the Liberals were the first to come out against the government’s position, quickly followed by some dissident members of the ILP. In mid November Eden’s Conservatives followed, sensing that they had finally found a popular stance to take against a government that increasingly looked like a shoe-in in the next parliament[7] … in the event however Labour’s early assumption of the moral high ground prevented a coherent opposition to government policy, and the Abyssinia issue remained, as Churchill put it; ‘an issue in search of a crisis’…”
(Taken from “My Life” by Oswald Mosley, Longman 1961)
“…The League of Nations, which in my youth I had so ardently supported as a new instrument of world peace, had begun to fail for reasons of personal weakness in statesmanship already noted, and by this time had been turned into an instrument of the balance of power which from historic experience I regarded as an inevitable prelude to war. The balance of power had always brought war, and now it threatened to return with the League on one side and a motley collection of rejectionist nations on the other; a perversion of every high aspiration of the war generation…
…I analysed the circumstances in which Europe had arrived at this situation and how the original idea of the League was in danger of being destroyed. America had defected, six other nations —Japan, Turkey, Poland, Lithuania, Bolivia and Paraguay— had been allowed to defy the League with impunity and the departure of Germany had been made inevitable by the chronic lack of will of the League’s leaders. The process was in danger of being completed by driving Italy out of the League and into the other camp by the application of sanctions. I quoted Sir Edward Grigg, Governor of Kenya Colony, to the effect that Abyssinia had for years past raided not only Italian but British territory for slaves, and had committed definite acts of war without one finger being lifted by Geneva or the British Government. Yet when Italy took 'precisely the same measures to suppress these evils as had been taken at every stage of the honourable building of the British Empire', action had been taken against her, although six nations had already with complete impunity violated the covenant of the League[8]...
…The indictment of the old party policy did not stop there. Some of Eden’s Conservatives, swallowing a generation of principle in their determination to destroy the peace, had even called for the government to seek the assistance of the Soviets against Italy. From this needless gambit would have arisen the subservience of British to Soviet policy in the East, for Britain could not use the Soviets in Europe without in turn being used by the Soviets in the Orient... If Russia was to join with Britain in the iron ring round Germany and Italy, then Britain must have joined with Russia in their iron ring round Japan, not only in contravention of her own interests but in jeopardy of world peace.”
(Taken from a speech by Oswald Mosley in Parliament, November 14th 1935)
“The world, in fact, is divided into two camps of the possessors and the dispossessed ... in one camp are Britain and France; in the other camp by inevitable gravitation of common circumstances is Germany; and to that camp by analogous folly is being added Japan and potentially even Italy. With the return of the balance of power we witness the return of the arms race and the concomitant Press agitation which inflames the mind and spirit of Europe to fresh fatality…
…Regardless of the moral reasons for her intervention, by the occupation of Abyssinia Italy now has not only an outlet for her population but profitable access to raw materials, and she should be left in undisturbed possession of this new acquisition... A glance at a child's map of the world shows that a hostile Italy could be a much greater menace to British trade routes from the base of Sicily than from any base in Abyssinia. As to the threat to the Sudan, why should Italy abandon the development of the territories she already possesses in order to indulge in a savage fight with the greatest naval power in the world for extra territories which provide not greater but lesser sustenance? Even his worst enemy does not describe Il Duce as a fool…
Furthermore, Italy is not used to administering large colonial territories and will have enough to do in the development of Abyssinia for some generations. Rather, Italy's every interest is to join with the British Empire to maintain the stability and peace of the Eastern Mediterranean and of North Africa...”
(Taken from “The road to war” by John Coombs, Picador 1979)
“…To Mussolini’s intense embarrassment, by the beginning of December the Italian advance in Abyssinia had begun to grind to a halt, slowed by the cautiousness of Marshal De Bono, logistical hitches, and ominously the use of smuggled German weapons by the defending Abyssinians[9]. The easy campaign that looked all but assured a few months before now had the potential to be a draining struggle, even if there was little prospect of Italy suffering a repeat of the humiliation she suffered at Adowa forty years before. With this in mind Mussolini sent quiet feelers to both Paris and London indicating his willingness to come to a compromise peace…
…Mussolini’s action came as a huge relief to the Laval government in France, which had been suffering a barrage of criticism on its reluctance to take a stand on the issue. In early December the French entered into consultations with the Mosley government in Britain, and on the 8th Laval and the British foreign secretary Clement Attlee both flew to Rome to put a compromise peace to Mussolini… Under the terms of the proposal, Abyssinia would be dismembered. Italy would gain the best parts of Ogaden and Tigrè, and economic influence over all the southern part of Abyssinia. In compensation, Abyssinia itself would have had a guaranteed corridor to the sea, acquiring the port of Assab. The rump of Abyssinia would become a semi-autonomous region under the trusteeship of the League, although in reality this was intended to formalise British and French influence over the remains of the region[10]…
…Thanks to British and French intervention then, on the 21st December 1935 the brief conflict in Abyssinia came to an end through a cease-fire. The following day the League retroactively legitimised the invasion by accepting the responsibilities offered to it in the region, and realising that the deal was their only chance of independence the Emperor signed the treaty on Christmas day…”
(Taken from “The Mosley Era” by Tobias Griffin, Picador 1987)
“…The government’s secret diplomacy on the Abyssinia issue took the war’s critics by surprise, and when Mussolini announced that he was submitting to Anglo-French mediation on December 9th Mosley pulled off a public-relations coup. Mosley’s insistence on the League’s involvement satisfied the internationalist wings of both the Labour and Conservative parties, and while the reduction of Abyssinia to a rump appalled some on the anti-colonialist left, the Government was able to claim that it was the best possible deal that could be made to save the nation from completer destruction. As 1935 drew to a close with the wedding of Edward VIII and his consort Thelma, the Mosley government looked forward to the forthcoming election year with increasing confidence…”
[1] This all actually happened- The French government was pretty pro-Italian in 1935 OTL even without the influence of a pro-Italian government in Britain.
[2] Kathleen Simon was an anti-slavery campaigner and wife of Liberal politician John Simon, who became Foreign Secretary in the National Government OTL. OTL I'm pretty sure Mosley read the work- I see no reason for things to be different ITTL.
[3] OTL these negotiations would have resulted in the Anglo-German Naval agreement of 1935. ITTL they failed because thanks to Mussolini's influence on Mosley the British government is less inclined to trust Hitler. There is also a much greater awareness on the part of Britain that Italy can be kept onside.
[4] This is quite a change from OTL, where Abyssinia was headline news from the very beginning. The lack of initial outrage for Italy's actions will make it difficult for the conflict to become a major political issue in Britain, especially as the government is frantically spinning the conflict in a positive way.
[5] In fact, the pro-Italian stance of the government is far more Mosley then Attlee, but the latter is very much a Foreign Secretary who does exactly as he's told and has little input into policy making.
[6] In 1923 Abyssinia was allowed to join the League, provided that it followed a host of directives related to the abolition of the Kingdom's flourishing slave trade. One of these was a recognition of the League's right to intervene to suppress the trade, which is what the British government is raising ITTL.
[7] ITTL the Tories of the period have something of a thing for bandwagons. luckily for Eden the baseball cap- and for that matter the log flume- have yet to achieve widespread popularity in 1930's Britain
[8] Mosley's attitude to the League is not what you might expect- he's actually very much in favour of the idea, but feels that the League must be reformed hugely if it's to succeed.
[9] This is an exaggeration on the part of the author of course. OTL Hitler sent supplies and guns to the Abyssinians, and this happens here as well. Later events make this aid more prominent in retrospect then OTL, and the image of German military aid going to the Abyssinians is a convenient factor to claim as a reason for the slowing of the Italian advance (which happened OTL as well) in December 1935.
[10] This is pretty much OTL's Hoare-Laval pact, with a few differences, mostly the submission of rump Abyssinia to the League. This is a proposal championed by Mosley, who wanted the region under complete European control in some form or another in order to wipe out the slave trade. Butterflies and the slightly less controversial circumstances of the deal mean that it isn't leaked as it was OTL, and the constant spin by the British government has influenced public opinion quite successfully.