Attlee's War
20/07/2011 15:20:00
Robert Crowcroft is the author of Attlee’s War, a new study of Clement Attlee that challenges the popular image of Attlee as a reticent collegiate, and unravels his elusive path to power. Published by I.B. Tauris on 30th July, we took the opportunity to talk to Robert further about his new book.
Do you think it was opportunism or patriotism that led Attlee to be a pivotal figure in the formation of the coalition government during World War II?
I think both were important. Attlee was certainly a patriotic chap and had a great reverence for the country and its institutions. He’d served in the military during the Great War and nobody could ever impugn his patriotism. But bear in mind that Attlee and other politicians had no choice but to get energetically involved in the political crisis of 1939-1940. As we nowadays see in the media on a daily basis, every time there is a problem of any sort politicians have to get involved, set out their position, and show that they’re engaged. That’s part of democratic politics. In a situation like the war, just sitting back wasn’t an option. Attlee had to get involved.
But, that being said, opportunism is quite clear in the specific decisions that Attlee took. He was a calculating individual (like most politicians) and his engagement with the situation was carried out in such a way as to get the best out of it, both for himself and the Labour Party. That wasn’t about patriotism, it was about advantage. Attlee could have rushed in and denounced Chamberlain much earlier. He didn’t. Instead he watched and waited. It was clever politics – and incredibly opportunistic. It was a trait Attlee displayed often during the war.
Why have historians previously been unwillingly to accept that the Labour Party utilised foreign policy as a way to gain traction in the party political battle?
Historians are often romantic sorts. Many of them just can’t bring themselves to believe that politicians could – in their view – sink so low. Importantly, there is also the fact that most historians are interested in studying policy x, or policy y. Once you suggest that we might be able to (partially) reduce policy to personal gamesmanship, that rather torpedoes an approach that privileges ‘policy’ over ‘politics’.
Some scholars have real problems in accepting that politics is about personalities and power. I often wonder if they read newspapers. Pick up a paper and it’s quite clear what’s going on. Trying to put a gloss on it later doesn’t work for me.
John Charmley got absolutely hammered in some quarters twenty years ago for portraying Churchill as an adventurer. That’s what politicians are. Labour (and Churchill) didn’t really have an alternative policy to Chamberlain. But they maintained that they did in order to bolster their position and weaken the Prime Minister.
Most historians are – in my view – far too optimistic about humanity. They like to see the best in people and imagine that humans can be perfected. That’s a common liberal trait. It’s an assumption that they probably don’t realise they have, but it influences historical writing in profound ways. When you adopt a more sceptical view of human nature, it opens up all kinds of new issues.
You mention in the book how Attlee has often been labelled as an enigma. What is meant by this? Is this a fair reflection of Attlee's personality, or do you think this image has been constructed by historians?
Attlee is a difficult subject to take a hold of. His personality was such that he is sometimes hard to ‘find’. Historians have struggled to get to grips with him because that’s how Attlee wanted it! Remember that his own contemporaries didn’t really understand him. They were left mystified by the man. That too was deliberate. He was very clever. In criminology terms, Attlee left few fingerprints at the scene of the crime.
What I’ve tried to do in this book is to keep the focus on Attlee but properly integrate him with his environment in order to resolve the enigma somewhat, at least in terms of understanding how he operated.
What do you believe Attlee's lasting legacy is in British politics?
That’s a difficult question. In terms of Attlee as an individual, his legacy is quite minimal. He didn’t spawn new doctrines or have much of a public persona. And Cabinet government isn’t really conducted how Attlee liked to do it.
The Attlee legend stems, I think, from the iconic post-1945 government that he presided over. Other figures were the legislative dynamos in the government. It is ironic that, on the political left, Attlee’s government is the most popular of the century and Attlee himself is a revered figure, but few of those that revere him have the foggiest idea why. Attlee’s War steers well clear of the mythologies and tries to understand Attlee as a real politician, not a presence in the left-wing imagination.
What are you working on now?
I’ve got a few irons in the fire. I’ve been researching various essays on contemporary British government and security policy, and I’m collaborating on an article on conservatism and multiculturalism. I’m also planning my next book – so watch this space – and I’m starting a new job as Lecturer in Contemporary History at the University of Edinburgh. As I write this I’m snowed under with devising reading lists. That’s definitely enough to be going on with! ■
~
Also on I.B. Tauris online:
‘The Last Storytellers’
Richard Hamilton, author of The Last Storytellers, discusses the ancient stories of Marrakech and meeting the last of Morocco's dwindling storytellers.
‘Does Ireland Have a Future?’
Listen to Maurice Walsh, the author of The News from Ireland discusses whether the return of mass emigration and economic stagnation are sending Ireland back to its past, in this podcast from the RSA.
‘Virtual Water’
Professor Tony Allan discusses his new book, Virtual Water and the virtual water concept in this short video.