To what extent is it fair to describe the foreign policy of MacDonald and Baldwin as one of 'drift'?

Authors Avatar

To what extent is it fair to describe the foreign policy of MacDonald and Baldwin as one of ‘drift’?

The international context of MacDonald and Baldwin’s Britain is important in assessing their competence. At a time when dictatorships and fascist rulings were becoming more popular, and consequently more threatening to global peace, MacDonald was seen as a ‘spent force; whose lack of power left him incapable of opposing Hitler by the time he became aggressive,.  Likewise, Baldwin was not a suitable politician to address the international threats.  He did not show much interest in foreign affairs and preferred to ‘preside over’ rather than direct his cabinet.

Foreign policy was seen as one of ‘drift’ because of the limited nature of Britain’s involvement overseas.  The forming of alliances is a central facet of foreign policy, and Britain’s inability to form many strong connections was partly due to Baldwin’s and MacDonald’s poor judgement and decision-making skills. No resolute or coherent strategy was followed throughout the inter-war period. Fascist takeovers such as the invasions of Abyssinia and Manchuria, weakened the League considerably, and Britain’s insubstantial reinforcement of the League’s power made future conflict more likely as the threat of the League was severely reduced.

The Anglo-German naval Agreement, justified as a response to German conscription, gravely damaged Anglo-French relations and exposed the inconsistencies of British policy.  Just after Britain had condemned German rearmament at the League, she had given German the right to build up to 35% of British capital ships and have submarine parity.

Join now!

The Manchurian crisis was even more delicate. Domestic economic weaknesses had resulted in large cutbacks in rearmament, a successful offer of resistance to Japan would have to have been reinforced by American support, however Anglo-US relations were strained as both were rivals in that area.  Britain’s decision to act as a referee rather that an ally resulted mainly from self-interest, they could not afford to tie down troops away from home, especially at a time when global commitments were so prevalent.  Scattered colonies were given priority to maintain links, and tied down many troops and materials overseas.  Britain was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay