A League of Nations, For Nations? Part II


© Joseph Sramek
Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic

A League of Nations, For Nations?: The Labour Party Brighton Conference [1935], Part II: The Conference

As the Party Conference took place, Benito Mussolini invaded Ethiopia, which increased the urgency of the situation, and the "need" to adopt the National Executive Committee's [the chief policy and executive body of the Labour Party] resolution which called upon the National Government to use "all necessary measures provided by the Covenant," and called for sanctions against Italy. [1]

The debate was controversial throughout. It had to be, as it was as much a confict over the Party's conscience as over its policy toward Italian aggression. Hugh Dalton opened the debate on October 1 with a strong speech, asking at one point: "Do we stand firm, or shall we run away?... Who is for running away? We shall count them at the end of this Debate." [2] He concluded his speech with a question:

    Are we going to play the part of a great comrade among nations, or are we going to slink impotently into the shadows; impotent by our own choice; unfaithful to our solemn pledges; not a comrade but a Judas among the nations; deservedly left, as we should be, without a friend in the world; preparing, through our own dishonour, our own sure downfall at no distant date?" [3]

This question was answered by Sir Stafford Cripps, who spoke after Dalton. In his speech, he attempted to shift the emphasis of the debate, saying: "To me, the central factor in our decision must turn not so much upon what we as a country should or should not do, but upon who is in control of our actions." [4] In other words, the Labour Party should not consider for a moment giving arms to the National Government, for they might well use the weapons against the Soviet Union rather than Germany or Italy. [5] The following year, he wrote that:

    it is impossible for us to serve two masters - our own selfish interests as British imperialists and our own desire for peace as wrold citizens. The interests of the British Empire and the world are not identical. [6]

But the real controversy came two days later, on October 3, when Lansbury made the most memorable speech of his life attacking the resolution. He began by saying:

    I want everyone to understand that it is difficult for me to stand here today and publicly repudiate a big fundamental piece of policy. If I were in any doubt about that policy, I am sure that I should not take the line I am taking, but I ask Conference to believe me when I say that I have never been more convinced that I am right, and that the Movement is making a terrible mistake, than I am today. [7]

Go To Page: 1 2 3 4


Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo