Abstract
At the time of his appointment, the new Foreign Secretary wrote: “Ramsay did well with the Dawes Report and Egypt, but he has left an awful mess about Russia, and an equally bad and even more delicate situation in regard to the Geneva Protocol.” 1 Chamberlain shared the distaste of other Conservatives for the type of commitment embodied in the Protocol, but he felt that repudiation, without provision of a substitute, would be a setback for the cause of peace in Europe. Accordingly, while he searched for an alternative, the League was notified that the new Government would be unable to make a judgment immediately.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Sir Charles Petrie, The Life and Letters of the Right Hon. Sir Austen Chamberlain (London, 1940), vol. II, p. 243.
Ibid., p. 253; Sommer, op. cit., pp. 411-412; J. Ramsay MacDonald, “Continuity in Foreign Policy,” The Spectator, vol. 133 (December 6, 1924), p. 873.
Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, vol. 210, col. 2103, November 24, 1927. Lord Cecil informed the House of Lords: “When we reached Geneva, it was apparent that there had been no previous discussion before we met, so that each set of experts came armed with their own plans, to which they naturally were deeply attached. Indeed, I believe that the first we knew of the American proposals or they of ours was when they were announced at a public meeting of the Conference soon after our arrival. That was very unfortunate, and undoubtedly gave the Conference a bad send-off.” Parliamentary Debates, House of Lords, vol. 69, col. 89, November 16, 1927. See also Sir Arthur Salter, “The Technique of Open Diplomacy,” The Political Quarterly, vol. III, no. I s(1932), pp. 64–66, and Toynbee, Survey, 1927, PP. 39-43.
Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, vol. 179, col. 694, December 15, 1924. On the general course of Anglo-Soviet relations during this period, see Toynbee, Survey, 1927, pp. 256-278; W. P. and Zelda K. Coates, A History of Anglo-Soviet Relations (London, 1944), pp. 197-396; and Louis Fischer, The Soviets in World Affairs (London, 1930), vol. II, pp. 623–631, 680-693.
T.U.C., 1925, p. 70; T.U.C., 1927, pp. 69-70; Wilfred Wellock, “On the Need for a Balanced View of Russia,” Socialist Review, new series no. 34, November 1928, pp. 32–33.
Ibid., vol. 197, cols. 714, 768, June 25, 1926; J. Ramsay MacDonald, “The Outlook,” Socialist Review, new series no. 12, January 1927, p. 3.
George Young, “The Cat and the Tiger,” Socialist Review, new series no. 35, December 1928, p. 11.
F. Seymour Cocks, “The American Dove and the British Lamb,” Socialist Review, new series no. 29, June 1928, p. 19; Party Conference, 1928, p. 43.
H. M. Swanwick, “Up the Pacifists!,” Foreign Affairs, vol. VII, no. 4 (October 1925), P. 93.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1967 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Miller, K.E. (1967). Lost Opportunities. In: Socialism and Foreign Policy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0856-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0856-8_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-0317-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-0856-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive