Alan Clark's History of the Tory Party. Part 1: Gentleman Players (1997). The inter-war years.

First of a four-part series in which Cabinet minister, best-selling diarist and historian Alan Clark provided a personal perspective of the Conservative Party's fortunes from 1922 to the 1990s. This first programme focuses on Stanley Baldwin, Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain, and the General Strike, the abdication crisis, appeasement and the failure of appeasement.
Series director Clara Glynn ; Series producer Nicolas Kent.
Other episodes: 2 The Rank Outsider (Churchill, Eden).
3 From Estate Owners to Estate Agents (Macmillan to Heath)
4 Shock Therapy (Thatcher)

[@alphabetaxenonzzzcat]

Wow. Thanks for uploading this. I remember watching it when it was first broadcast. A very good historical political series from Alan Clark.

[@drg111yt]

Thank you, this gave me additional insight into interwar British politics. Alan Clark is a great loss. Despite his flaws, a man of intelligence and style, like his father Kenneth. RIP.

[@ShowRyuKen]

Thanks for posting this, I've been curious about this series for some time - great to finally get to watch some of it.

[@louiseowusu246]

Thank you for sharing this. I stumbled on it by accident. My favourite bit of history is the interwar years, so this was great.

[@oleedee9274]

Fantastic upload, thankyou

[@johnclayden1670]

Most interesting. Thanks for the upload, but shame about the incidental music drowning out the excellent narrative.

[@carlsmith8815]

This program is amazing Why ? The sheer galaxy of talking heads giving their often insider , acerbic sometimes eccentric views from cigar smoking countesses, top civil servants , heavy weight former Tory players through to Michael Foot with an arm in a sling .It's without parallel. . It is true ? Clarke's maverick views are interesting to hear and to weigh. He lets his "heads " talk but he is shaping the narrative. The view point that the governing classes failed in 1914-1916 resulting in mass working slaughter is extremely contentious. It was impossible for almost anyone to foresee, but the casualties of Great War weighted completely on the minds of everyone from King George V downwards. Clarke's view is rehash of his book on the Somme. The National Government from 1931 to beginnings of serious rearmament in 1937 was concerned with modernising and restructuring the economy . It was Baldwin who oversaw it. The Victorian economy based on textiles, steam and coal was dramatically replaced by electricity, consumer goods , chemicals and cars. It was done in ad hoc way with a comforting slogan from Stanley Baldwin. It would have been better if they had proclaimed a " New Deal ". Clarke grasp of economic history is not wide. Britain's economy was a global one, but Britain was still paying for the Great War when the Second one started. We could compete with the Germans economically and industrially in the 1930's and even with the US. But Germany wasn't the only enemy there was Italy and Japan, plus the Soviet Union . These combined along with a semi hostile US made the British global system vulnerable. at many different points. This was the situation that the Chamberlain government was facing in 1937-39. If one is interested in British political history and in particular the Tory party .This program is worth a good squint and a little pinch of salt.

[@robertewing3114]

Chamberlain lamented French policy that he believed was paving Hitlers road to power. And disliked him when they met. I dont think the PM favoured Halifax until Eden was at odds with the PM over talks with Italy. Also, the Rhineland question was water under the bridge before he became PM, and this is not suggested here. The declaration was delayed for various reasons, and not because of any reluctance to declare war. Appeasement in real terms evolved into what the PM called a new epoch, it was a success, it rearmed the country, it united the empire, it led to Dunkirk, but as historian Medlicott wrote, the defeat of the BEF may well have been necessary to winning the war, resources now freed from the continental disaster area. Chamberlain was right to say he regretted nothing, but the Tories cant say anything more than he was not as naive as many suppose - John Major had the decency to say that.

[@Twentythousandlps]

Alan Clark was the son of Sir Kenneth Clark.

[@alphabetaxenonzzzcat]

Do you have any of the other episodes?

[@majoresterhazy7012]

I’m afraid I don’t. There is another one out there, though: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYnHnWN5qKeLe80

[@user-gd1yg6le1h]

The greedy corrupt was alway but now is beyond belief.

[@alexanderspear9464]

The background muzak is annoying

[@str.77]

But what if the conservative party adopts some of those silly, destructive theories itself, as it did under Cameron.

[@th8257]

And fifty thousand times more under Johnson and Truss

[@tonylove4800]

The Germany-Soviet pact was only concluded after the ridiculous guarantee of Poland. That worked well. Britain and France did nothing and Poland was enslaved for the next 50 years.

[@robertewing3114]

Had the guarantee not been given Poland was finished, Europe was finished, and world leadership would indeed have failed.

[@tonylove4800]

That's my whole point. Poland was in slavery for the next 50 years as was most of Eastern Europe. The system well and truly failed. What's the point of a guarantee if it's completely and utterly meaningless? And why just declare war on Germany? Did the guarantee only refer to western Poland?

[@robertewing3114]

@@tonylove4800 Thank you Tony for your response. I don't think anyone ever asked your latter question. Yes the system well and truly failed, and yes that should be your whole point, but identify when and where - the whole point is that the academic and political institutions failed in 1919, and they present the consequences as the consequences of so-called Appeasement, and Chamberlain the chief scapegoat. And yes an immense number of people suffered tragically, including Russians. In 1917 the Russian people revolted and knew that it meant appeasing Germany, they signed a separate peace. This meant US troops were required and a somewhat academic president prevailed to give the world a dud international peace system. The treaty of 1919 itself failed to anticipate the consequences of 1917. And nothing was done to correct the Paris mistake. The result was Hitler in power, the Russian people now further received the consequences of 1917 and of 1919, and 20 million died. More died from USSR rule. The Czechs suffered terribly too, and Poland enslaved for half a century as you said. The Russian appeasement of warrior Germany proved disastrous, but what do the academics teach? They quote the British use of the word appeasement, and they say British appeasement policy failed, but they never relate the facts. I say the policy succeeded, it rearmed the UK, it united the empire, it enabled the guarantee of Polish independence that Chamberlain described in Cabinet as the crossing of the stream. The stream turned out to be the Rhine. Russia was fourth on the list of dangerous countries, Germany was first, and the problem with Germany was that Italy and Japan would likely be encouraged by Germany going to war. Japan and Russia were hostile neighbours, but Japan decided to go for oil and empire at the expense of the UK and US. I don't think the Polish government ever had any illusions about Anglo-French military assistance, if Poland was overrun the future of Poland depended on the ultimate result of the war. Chamberlain was not reluctant to declare war. The guarantee was not however based on simply support for Poland, it was hoped to help force Hitler to accept concessions concerning Danzig etc. 50 years is nothing in terms of political history. 50 years of cold war and today the Russians still in conflict with the West. 50 years of academia and the public are still quoting meaningless speeches and not least the word appeasement, meaningless. The guarantee was meaningful as a guarantee that Poland had a future, which is more that can be said for law generally. In other words, we all have legal process rights, but it is really a question of whether a number of legal professionals will allow the process in any given case, the law is substantially meaningless, the so-called guarantees guarantee nothing. So yes the powers that be of the West failed, but not in the 1930s, and not all their failures at any time, particularly the guarantees that guarantee nothing, are stated, academia requires 50 years just to sharpen a pencil.

[@robertewing3114]

@@tonylove4800 PS I noticed the surname Love in ABCs autobiography A Sailors Odyssey. Love looked up from reading his wild west thriller and remarked Another red-skin bit the dust. His remark was comment on a nearby Turkish shell splash, the sailors had learnt to disregard the potential danger from the Turkish guns,

[@robertewing3114]

Mr Clement Attlee, 2 May 1938, House of Commons, used the same word as you did, he said It is ridiculous. The Commons was discussing the recent Anglo-Italian Agreement. Mr Churchill - Is there general appeasement? Mr Chamberlain - The Mediterranean Agreement is a step towards general appeasement. Mr Bellenger - What is the exact legal position? Is it de facto or de jure? Mr Chamberlain - It is not de jure anyway, if the hon. Member means at the present moment. On the coming into force it will certainly be de jure. What I was saying was... Mr Attlee - What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a settlement? Mr Chamberlain - I prefer not to give a definition of it. At this stage it would be wrong to try to define the circumstances in which one could say that a settlement had been arrived at. It may be that later on we shall get nearer the time when we can give a definition. Mr Attlee - The right hon. Gentleman is asking the House to approve a Treaty that is to come into force on the specific terms that there should be a settlement in Spain, and now he says that he cannot tell the House what a settlement is. It is ridiculous. The House is entitled to know. Mr Chamberlain - There I leave myself to the judgment of the House. I cannot tell the House even when this Protocol and Annexes will come into force. No doubt the situation will clear itself up as time goes by. The right hon. Gentleman does not agree with that policy I know, but I do not think the House in general will feel that this is not a policy or that I am being unduly obscure at the moment in declining to say what is to be the final definition of the words settlement of the Spanish situation. I think that is all I need say... Also of note, according to Churchill in 1948, the USSR was involved with Germany before Hitler was appointed Chancellor, assisting rearmament, and this was reported by the British ambassador in Berlin. I think it would be worthwhile to ask why the UK did not generate a fuss about this, the collaboration concluded with the German-Soviet pact dividing Poland between them. Chamberlain at that time was lamenting French policy that he believed was advantageous to Hitler achieving control of Germany. When I said no failing in the 1930s I really meant the response to Hitler. I think the report from Berlin should have been discussed with the US, the treaty of 1919 was in decay.