Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

How legitimate is the judgement that Lloyd George was a successful wartime and an unsuccessful peacetime minister?

In order to assess whether the judgement that Lloyd George was a successful wartime and an unsuccessful peacetime minister holds water, one must first define what a successful wartime leader and a successful peacetime leader is. The former is quite simple, as a successful wartime leader is a leader who plays a pivotal role in emerging victorious from war with his country. A successful peacetime leader is one who maintains peace, abroad and at home. The civil unrest during Lloyd Georges term, combined with the Second World War that broke out so soon after his time in office, indicates that Lloyd George could not have maintained peace, at home or abroad. Lloyd Georges time as a wartime minister paints a completely different picture, as he was actively involved in many of the most important decisions of the war. Lloyd Georges first triumph was over the navy. Worried by the efficacy of the German U-boats, he pushed strongly for the use of the convoy system, which was put into effect by the end of the year. This proved to be an extremely successful move as the WW1 era submarines were only a little faster than the ships they were attacking, and were only capable of sinking a small number of vessels in a convoy because of their limited supply of torpedoes and shells. The counterargument used by the admiralty was the issue of the loss of productivity, as the convoy had to travel at the speed of the slowest ship in it and individual ships spent a significant amount of time waiting for the next convoy to embark. However, analysis of shipping losses in WW1 disproved both of these arguments, as the loss of productivity due to convoy delays was small compared with the loss of productivity of ships that were sunk. Also, ports found it far easier to deal with convoys because a large number of ships arrived at a specific time, thus loading and unloading could be planned. Lloyd George also championed the idea of the co-ordination of the action of the Allied Armies on the Western Front since the disaster at Passchendaele, which convinced him of the incompetence of the British high command. In order to achieve this ideal, and thus dilute the power of the British high command, he convinced the allied generals at a meeting at Beauvais to entrust command of the allied armies on the western front to the brilliant French commander Ferdinand Foch. This proved vital, as despite being surprised by the German offensive on the Chemin des Dames, the allied armies under Fochs command ultimately held the advance of the German forces during the spring offensive of 1918. Foch also played a pivotal roll in the development of the Grand Offensive, which led to the defeat of Germany. When taking all of this into consideration, the unified command that Lloyd George had striven for was another overwhelming success. The entry of the USA into the war was an event of equal if not greater importance than the Grand Offensive, and of course, David Lloyd George played a part. By responding to Woodrow Wilsons inquiry on the war aims of both of the warring powers in a fuller way than the Germans, Lloyd George presented the allies as the more reasonable and less extreme side, and the most likely candidate for the permanent peace that the Americans craved. Also, by maintaining the naval

blockade of Germany, David Lloyd George forced the Germans to continue their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, a policy that the USA took great issue with; illustrated by the fact that it was the subject of their ultimatum to Germany before they declared war. American involvement would eventually tip the balance of the war, ergo Lloyd Georges contribution can also be regarded as a success in terms of ultimately winning the war. Lloyd George didnt have much time to revel in his success, as he was immediately embroiled in the formation of the treaty of Versailles. In terms of upholding Britains interests, Lloyd George was exceedingly successful, as he fought to maintain Britains right of search of naval vessels and pressed for the extension of the empire, notably in the middle east where large oil reserves had been found. However, due to his stance on Germany, calling for the trial of he Kaiser, war guilt and impossible long term reparations: Lloyd George had his full share of responsibility for the harsher features of the treaties, which would eventually lead to nationalist backlash in Germany and contribute significantly to the second world war. This became evident as Georges premiership continued, as he sought to redress major features of the peace settlement and its injustices. Taking all of this into account, overall one could argue that Lloyd Georges first major move as a peacetime premier was a failure, as the extent to which the treaty caused a dangerously hostile environment within Germany far outweighed the extent to which Lloyd George upheld British interests. At home, Lloyd George was faced with the sudden lasting depression and growing unemployment caused by the end of post war inflation. Forward thinking reforms such as Fishers education act and Addisons Housing and Town Planning act of 1919 heralded back to the energy symptomatic of pre-war Liberalism, but they cost far too much to be fully implemented. Lloyd George also passed the passage of welsh disestablishment in June 1919, though it was of too little significance to really impact how successful he was during peacetime. In summary, George didnt design much legislatively after the war to deal with the economic decline and what he did create cost the country even more, and thus couldnt be called a success. Lloyd Georges major problem came from labour, and the period from 19191921 really put him to the test as a politician as almost everyone went on strike. The social unrest even got to a point where some sort of British revolution seemed to be on the cards. However, Lloyd George managed through his skills in handling the unions and negotiating his way through industrial crises to stay afloat. This was exemplified by the Sankey crisis in the mines, where Lloyd George managed to persuade the general secretary of the Miners Federation to accept the principle of a wages pool during the aftermath of the national miners strike of 1920. His satiation resulted in the breaking up the triple alliance of miners, Dockers and railway men that had only a few weeks earlier had been threatening to organise a general strike. This success needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, as despite winning the battle, he definitely had not won the war or come out unscathed, as his reputation as champion of labour had been

destroyed. From this point, he was perceived as a man who had gone back on his promise of a land fit for the heroes back from the war. Foreign policy wise Lloyd George had marginally more success, as he managed to finish up British military involvement in Russia by early 1920, despite pressure from Churchill and the political right. Lloyd George then sought to reintroduce Russia to the international community, fully aware of the value of its huge markets to a still struggling British industry. An Anglo-Russian agreement was concluded in March 1921, and Georges tactical skills evoked such feelings of admiration within Lenin that he grace David Lloyd George with the title of the most gifted political leader in the capitalist world. At face value this discredits the theory that Lloyd George was an unsuccessful peacetime leader, however it is important to recognise that the recognition of the soviet union was very much undermined by Churchill and right wing critics in the UK, and was further undermined by a secret treaty between the German Weimar government and the soviet union where both parties wanted to overthrow the system that was set up by the victors of WW1. In conclusion, the judgement that Lloyd George was a successful wartime and an unsuccessful peacetime minister is fairly legitimate. As Lloyd George was highly involved with some of the key turning points of the war such as the intervention of the USA and the unified command that spawned the General Offensive. He also promoted the use of convoys, to weaken the Germans strongest weapons (Uboats). However, his peacetime policies were much less relevant such as the disestablishment of wales and he didnt have a real plan to deal with the economic slump that followed the war. Also, more importantly, the unnecessary degree to which he helped cripple Germany in order to prevent them becoming a threat again was very unsuccessful, as they would rise to start another war only 21 years later, on the back of bitterness from Versailles.

Potrebbero piacerti anche