Foreign Policy under Prime Minister Hugh Gaitskell

kernals12

Banned
I understand that Gaitskell was on Labour's right wing and was quite hawkish. So if he didn't die and became PM in 1964 instead of Wilson, how would Britain's foreign policy be different? The most obvious issue would be, would Britain go to Vietnam? What about the military projects that were cancelled under Wilson? What about Britain's nuclear arsenal?
 
Firstly, Gaitskell was anti EU....as in federalism. He recognised the danger of the "closer union" clause in the Treaty of Rome. So no further attempt to join the EEC...possibly some sort of greater EFTA.

Secondly, he was not a unilateral disarmer. If he became PM in 1964, the Polaris deal would already have been done by Macmillan. ..so that stays.

During Suez he wanted the dispute referred to the UN....possibly his view would be the same on Vietnam. Hopefully he would not have sent British troops.

Also he was the Chancellor who introduced prescription charges....so well aware of the costs involved in Government spending. Military spending would have been subject to a cost/benefit analysis so it is likely that many projects would still have been cancelled.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, Gaitskell was anti EU....as in federalism. He recognised the danger of the "closer union" clause in the Treaty of Rome. So no further attempt to join the EEC...possibly some sort of greater EFTA.

Secondly, he was not a unilateral disarmer. If he became PM in 1964, the Polaris deal would already have been done by Macmillan. ..so that stays.

During Suez he wanted the dispute referred to the UN....possibly his view would be the same on Vietnam. Hopefully he would not have sent British troops.

Also he was the Chancellor who introduced prescription charges....so well aware of the costs involved in Government spending. Military spending would have been subject to a cost/benefit analysis so it is likely that many projects would still have been cancelled.

Gaitskells 1000 years of history speech wasn't just ideology as he had been sitting on fence on the issue much like Wilson, he had seen a lack of action and felt anti-EEC would be the best route it also gave the Tories a good kicking. In government I assume he will be pragmatic and try and get in. He will also be more forced by Wilson as most of his big supporters especially young MPs he was bringing forward were mostly pro-EEC only few like Jay were anti.
 
Gaitskells 1000 years of history speech wasn't just ideology as he had been sitting on fence on the issue much like Wilson, he had seen a lack of action and felt anti-EEC would be the best route it also gave the Tories a good kicking. In government I assume he will be pragmatic and try and get in. He will also be more forced by Wilson as most of his big supporters especially young MPs he was bringing forward were mostly pro-EEC only few like Jay were anti.
But would he have accepted the ever closer union clause?
Obviously we cannot know but I think the British people wanted the Common Market...not a European Union....which is now effectively the latest German Empire. In 1964, the last war was still a massive influence on people's opinions....the slightest idea that Germany would again become the most powerful European nation would have scuppered joining ever closer union
 
Top