The Politics of Strategic Policy, 1919–26

  • John Robert Ferris
Part of the Studies in Military and Strategic History book series (SMSH)

Abstract

Strategic policy sprang from politics. It was made on the margins of power and responsibility of several elements of the government. The Cabinet defined the priorities between the government’s aims and approved policies for each department. The latter executed these policies, which regulated their claims on government resources. The relationship between ministers and departments was dynamic and all of their decisions were inter-related. Two independent factors determined the evolution of strategic policy. One was the random evolution of politics and the other was the constant process of bureaucracy.

Keywords

Europe Turkey Expense Military Position Tempo 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

1 The Politics of Strategic Policy, 1919–26

  1. 1.
    Gordon Craig, ‘The British Foreign Office from Grey to Austen Chamberlain’ in Gordon Craig and Felix Gilbert (eds), The Diplomats 1919–1939 (1953) pp. 15–33;Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    A.J. Sharp, ‘The Foreign Office in Eclipse, 1919–22’, History, vol. 61 (1976);Google Scholar
  3. 1.
    Anne Orde, Great Britain and International Security, 1920–1926 (1978) pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  4. 1.
    For more accurate reappraisals of this issue, see Christopher Thorne, The Limits of Foreign Policy, The West, The League and the Far Eastern Crisis of 1931–33 (1972) p. 97;Google Scholar
  5. 1.
    R.M. Warman, ‘The Erosion of Foreign Office Influence in the Making of Foreign Policy, 1916–1918’, Historical Journal, vol. 15 (1973)Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    and M.L. Dockrill and Zara Steiner, ‘The Foreign Office at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919’, International History Review, Vol. 2 (1980).Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    Lord Ronaldshay, The Life of Lord Curzon, Volume III (1928) pp. 259–61; Crowe to Hardinge, 8 November 1919, FO 800/243; Hardinge to Queen Mary, 20 March 1920, Hardinge of Penshurst papers, vol. 40; Vansittart to Curzon, 20 March 1921, Curzon of Kedleston papers, F.112, vol. 221 B.Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    This view is held even by G.C. Peden’s revisionist British Rearmament and the Treasury (1979) pp. 7–8. Fisher, 29 December 1923. T 161/217 S. 21914.Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    Viscount Templewood, Empire of the Air (1957) pp. 41–2;Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    H. Montgomery Hyde, British Air Policy Between the Wars, 1918–1939 (1976) pp. 57, 113–14.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Andrew Boyle, Trenchard, Man of Vision (1962) pp. 336, 348–50, passim.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    Roskill, Naval Policy p. 243; Robert Rhodes James (ed.), Memoirs of a Conservative, J.C.C. Davidson’s Memoirs and Papers, 1910–1937 (1969) pp. 220–23.Google Scholar
  13. 24.
    Lord Riddell, Intimate Diary of the Peace Conference and After (1933) pp. 139–40.Google Scholar
  14. 25.
    W.S. Chalmers, The Life and Letters of David Beatty, Admiral of the Fleet (1951) p. 411; 133rd CID meeting, 29 June 1920, CAB 2/3; 214th CID meeting, 10 June 1926, CAB 2/4; Trenchard to Geddes, 11 November 1921, AIR 8/42; report of Geddes Committee, December 1921, AIR 8/41.Google Scholar
  15. 26.
    Stephen Roskill, Hankey, Man of Secrets, Volume 11, 1919–1931 (1972) passim.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© John Robert Ferris 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Robert Ferris
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations