To what extent can the fall of Lloyd George be attributed to the Chanak Incedent?

Alex Simmonds

In 1922, the liberal Lloyd George headed a coalition government with a Conservative majority. The coalition had been formed in reaction the outbreak of the first world war, and in May 1915 Lloyd George was appointed minister of munitions within it. The last general election in 1918 he was needed by the conservatives to win the coalition another term in office as "the man who won the war ". In November 1918, Lloyd George was faced with the decision of whether to dissolve the coalition and return to peace-time party politics or carry on with the coalition. He chose the latter and won an overwhelming majority. The overriding factor was, however, that to remain in power, he would have to be fully dependant on Conservative support, meaning that he would need to strike a balance between his own Liberal preferences and the ideals of the conservative majority. (4p

The Chanak affair took place in September 1922. The Turks were feeling resentment at the peace treaty of Serves (1920), whereby turkey had been broken up and pieces of it placed under Greek rule. The affair came close to war, but the Turks backed down. The notion of Britain entering a full scale war within four years of being involved in the bloodiest conflict to date was on the whole seen as ridiculous.(1) The population was only just beginning to recover from world war 1 as was the economy. About 750,000 men perished in the conflict (6p78)(including nine percent of all people under 45 years of age), and twice as many seriously wounded. In addition to this the national debt had increased twelve-fold. Besides this, the conflict was on the other side of Europe, and the deployment of troops this far afield to fight a war that was not really in Britain's interests would be frowned upon as absurd. especially by the voting population, who had felt the most impact from the previous war.

The actions of Lloyd George were slammed by the conservatives, who, as Michael Lynch states in his book Lloyd George and the Liberal Dilema, considered his actions "Unnecessary and Irresponsible". I am in agreement with this, as the interests of Turkey did not have any serious implications on Britain's safety or that of her allies. A.J.P. Taylor believes the rationale behind Chanak was to "use the exitement to sweep the country" and win another term in office. I am in complete agreement with this due to the simple fact that there could be no other explanation for it. Lloyd George was not a trigger happy politician known for sending the troops in at the first sign of conflict, and Britain did not have the reputation of a latter-day United States claiming the global day job of "Policeman of the World" thus no reputation to uphold. However it has been said that Lloyd George harboured pro-Greek opinions, even so, I don't think he would feel strongly enough to send British troops in to solve a problem that could have been dealt with at a peace conference.

It has been argued that Chanak was the main grounds for his dismissal due to the relatively short space of time between it and the Carlton club meeting. However, there are many other reasons that the Conservatives could use as premises on which to sack Lloyd George.

There was, for instance his less than plentiful visits to the commons. MPs from all areas of parliament found this irritating to say the least, especially the coalition.(5p148) There were also rumours that he leaked info to the press, and his flirtatious personal life. This annoyed the Conservatives in particular, as they disliked him betraying their trust, after all he was a Liberal, and some of them may have seen this as Lloyd George attempting to orchestrate their downfall by giving the press damaging anti-conservative ammunition, and at the same time trying to form a permanent coalition with Liberal and Labour MPs. After all, Ian Packer argues that "many conservatives came to the conclusion that (Lloyd George) had no real political beliefs at all" and all that concerned him was staying in power himself. In addition he also argues that they believed "he was ready to betray any principle and perform any political somersault" .As Lloyd George owed his job to the conservatives, it is important to realise the fact that they were not about to be taken for a ride by him, and his lack of personal appearances added weight to any case they may have had for dropping him. He was also accused of attempting to introduce a presidential style of government, instead of upholding the traditional cabinet style of the Prime minister being 'first among equals'. In spite of this, he went so far as bending his cabinet meetings around his private holidays, such as holding one in Inverness to suit his vacation to Scotland. This was slammed by Chamberlain as "Outrageous". In support of this, Stephen Constantine author of the book simply titled 'Lloyd George', calls him "a politician without a party". This is true insofar as the conservatives had only kept hold of him as a trophy figurehead for the party; Lloyd George, the man who won the war. After being elected in 1918, he was surplus to the Conservative party's requirements.

The Honours scandal also did much to damage Lloyd George. He was accused of exchanging Knight-hoods for generous cash donations made to party funds.(5p150) These reasons hold more weight than Chanak in the way that it affected the conservative's reputation as a party. Lloyd George's scandals were not good for the Party image, and were beginning to make a mockery of the coalition. However, Chanak was an incident that displeased the British people, as well as politicians from all over the political spectrum, and therefore may have warranted dismissal more urgently.In addition to this, the Marconi scandal prior to World ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

One of the areas where Lloyd George's position as head of the coalition came under scrutiny, was his handling of the treaty of Versailles. A.J.P. Taylor believes this to be one of the most important reasons for his downfall, stating "Lloyd George claimed to be a world statesman, sole survivor of the great men who had conducted the war. When he failed, the claim was turned against him". It is my contention that the amount of time he spent on foreign affairs and the relatively little he achieved are one of the main reasons he fell from power. He hoped to be a moderating influence between France and Germany, as he believed that Europe would function better as an economic unit in peacetime rather than at war or engaged in bitter disputes. He insisted that a commission be set up to assess Germany's liability to pay damages, and that the reparations total should not be decided immediatly. This stirred up much opposition from the Conservative party. 233 Conservative MPs said that it was too lenient on Germany, as did the Daily mail and The Times. This aspect of Lloyd George's career serves to illustrate his isolation within the coalition amongst the conservatives. It draws parallels with Chanak in the respect that Lloyd George was now distanced from his peers within the colalition, but differs in the fact that his Liberal policys had merely infuriated the Conservatives. Chanak was a display of " Belligerence that might have led to a major conflict". This was more important than Chanak because it exposed the fundamental differences between Lloyd George's Liberal core, and the Conservative party. This lost faith with the Conservative party, who he needed to remain in power, and therefore is significant to a lesser degree.

Another controversial area of Lloyd George's foreign Policy was the situation with Russia. The Conservatives were furious about Lloyd George's longing for Russia to be part of Britain's trade links. One Tory leader said "Britain should not trade with such a blood stained villain as lenin", to which Lloyd George replied; "why not? we trade with cannibals in the solomon Islands". It was this maverick attitude amongst other things that lead the Tories to believe they were better off without him. Many Conservatives did not like the idea of Britain trading with Russia, as they believed it would lead to the spread of communism through Britain. This, needless to say, did not do Lloyd George's position within the party much good. The fact that a man who would actually consider trading with a communist state was about see them through another General election was far more of a reason to abandon him than a slight breach of foreign policy in Turkey. But Lloyd George had been deeply humiliated by the affair, and Chanak highlighted his "weakening hold on the cabinet", especially when the local British commander stationed in Turkey quietly agreed to avoid conflict (Ian Packer). If he had proven that he was more in control of the cabinet by not making a stand for Greek nationalism, then he may have got more support at the Carlton club meeting.

It was his peaceful ideals that also made him look a fool over Chanak, as he kept stressing that peace in Europe was needed to keep the economy in balance. With the Chanak incident he threw all this away and suggested a full-scale war.

The Russian civil war also proved disruptive to Lloyd George's popularity, although not as much with the Conservatives as the Working class of Britain.(Michael Lynch). When British troops were sent in to fight against the Bolsheviks, support was lost for Lloyd George. This is more important than the Chanak incident, as it affected him in a different way than just losing popularity with the Conservatives as some of the working classes harboured affections for the Bolsheviks. This meant that he was losing respect from all areas of the voting population, which ultimately affected his value as a figurehead to the Coalition, especially within the Conservative majority.

Many people had become disheartened with his apparent leniency towards Germany, especially the conservatives. The intervention against the Bolsheviks was catastrophic because if he had kept some working class support, there would be at least a glimmer of hope for the conservatives keeping him for one more election. On the other hand, Chanak did not result in a military conflict, and no bloodshed occurred. Actions speak louder than words, and although Lloyd Georges words were foolish, he did not bring about any action to consolidate them. Another massive area where Lloyd George's popularity was sapped was Ireland. Although Lloyd George had not much sympathy for Irish nationalism, he nevertheless wished to solve the problem which he had nearly managed in 1916.(Robert Pearce 6) Despite the success he achieved in seperating Ulster from the rest of Ireland and later the establishment of an Irish free-state, neither the Right or Left of the coalition held much sympathy for him. The Right were contemptuous of his negotiations with the IRA, and the Left could not forgive him for the notorious 'Black and tans' incident during the First World War. This is more important than Chanak because it further distanced him from both wings of the coalition. However, it was more likely to be his foreign policy in general that was making him unpopular rather than just the incident of Ireland, and so it cannot be stated that Ireland alone lost more of his support than Chanak. Michael Lynch argues that "one of the major repercussions of Lloyd Georges Irish policy was that it killed off the idea of a permanent coalition or centre party". I agree with this, as this limited Lloyd George's options, chiefly the idea of forming a coalition including Labour and Liberal MPs, as he had tried to do in 1920 by urging the party's chief whips to consider the prospect. Ireland had killed off the chance of a coalition forming, and with it Lloyd George's chances of being elected leader of it.

Another such example of Faux Pas in foreign policy was Genoa. At this conference Lloyd George expected to 'restore his star to the zenith' and pave the way to a successful election. It was a complete disaster, although not entirely on Lloyd George's part. It has been argued by Ian Packer in his book 'Lloyd George', "that the man who won the war and made the peace was losing his touch". I personally couldn't disagree more insofar as this being more a case of Lloyd George's Liberal beliefs showing through and is more an example of his presidential style. However, I do agree with the idea of him being insensitive in a political climate recovering from major war losses, and to France especially in light of them recovering from occupation.

On the domestic front, reform was brought in with mixed success. Stephen Constantine attributes this to the "far greater attention he gave to external affairs". I believe this to be a true statement, as during the course of his reign as prime-minister, he attended well over twenty full scale foreign conferences, appointing himself as minister for foreign affairs as well as Prime Minister. This furthermore supports the notion of Lloyd George wanting a presidential form of government, therefore distancing himself further from his cabinet. However, in the first two years of the coalitions life following the 1918 election, much reform was brought in. The Coaliton had launched itself as a vehicle for social reform following the war, and they fulfilled this promise accordingly until around 1920 (Martin Pugh - Lloyd George-1988). Education especially got much attention, with the initiation of H.A.L. Fisher's programme of school building and evening classes. Social welfare also got a big boost. Most impressivley however, under the Addison act of 1919 over 200,000 council houses were built.(Michael Lynch) However, Lloyd George's cabinet's major downfall on the home front was the breakdown in industrial relations, incidently the area of domestic affairs he was directly in control of (IP). Following a brief post war economic boom, their followed three years of strikes that of the highest rate there had ever been, amidst much trade union hostility. Martin Pugh states that the "Conservatives could not fault Lloyd George's handling of industrial affairs". However, it is my contention that they had every right to fault him, for it was as a result of his absence in 1919 at Paris, that many strikes occurred among miners, railway workers, shipbuilders and even the police. This ties in neatly with the idea of him striving for a presidential style of government, which the conservatives met with disregard. If he wanted to increase his popularity and give the conservatives a reason to keep him for the next election, then surely could have appointed a foreign minister to attend most of these conferences, and focused more himself on domestic troubles. I believe this to be a strong factor in his fall from grace in 1922, as the working classes and unions had reason not to vote for him, which resulted in his depreciation in the eyes of the conservatives. This is important since Lloyd George was dependant on their support. This is more important than Chanak, as the whole population were affected by the strikes, and by taking a firm stance against them meant threatening people's jobs in the eyes of the unions. However, it may be that factors such as the Honours scandal that reflected worse on him in the eyes of the conservatives who had the ultimate say in his existence as the coalition leader, as it affected their perceived moral standpoint and may have turned away middle class voters.

The Conservatives liked to imagine they were more morally enlightened than the other parties, and this appealed to the upper classes who prided themselves on their own traditional moral values. Lloyd George however, had a wife and a mistress, and apparently was unfaithful to the two of them! Neville Chamberlain once said that if Lloyd George were to speak freely for five minutes, he would have to retire from public life. This is likely to have been one of the overriding factors that cropped up at the Carlton club meeting and resulted in his dismissal. This reason is not as important as Chanak, because Lloyd George was well known for his loose grip on personal moral standards before the First World War, and no attempt to force his resignation was made during the conflict.

A.J.P. Taylor argues that "the rise of the Labour party made it increasingly difficult for (Lloyd George) to pose as a man of the people". I believe this to be a valid argument, and a more important reason than than Chanak. I believe this due to the fact that if Labour had not had so much success, then no alternative to Lloyd George would be on offer to the working classes. This is especially important since they had just been awarded new voting rights following the war for all men over 18 and women over thirty.(4p62) However in spite of this, trying to rally a population of war weary citizens to participate in conflict on the other side of Europe would have still evoked a strong reaction since the voting population had suffered much personal loss and bereavement in the last war regardless of this perceived quality as "a man of the people". I believe that this is much more important than the reasons such as the Honours Scandal, because if the Conservatives had a figurehead who could use the veil of being "a man of the people" to appeal to liberal and working class voters and remain in office, then I'm sure they would not have discarded him before the election regardless of their desire to keep up appearances. They would have had the option of using his influence to win the general election and dispense with him when they felt the time was right.

In conclusion it can be said that no one reason can be attributed to Lloyd George's downfall with regards to his performance as a politician. He achieved a satisfactory amount of reform, and did the best with the resources he had at hand following the conflict of 1914-18. Despite his mixed success in all areas of policy, the reason is quite simply, as Stephen Constantine argues, "His fall, before not after a general election, makes plain what he was reluctant to accept, the importance of party in British politics.". Lloyd George was indeed, as many have said before, a politician without a party. It is my contention that he was doomed from the end of the First World War, purely because the minds of the coalition could now sit back and examine the party more as a unit rather than focusing on the war effort. It would have been absurd for them to "sack" Lloyd George immediatley after the war, as they were aware that he would win them the election as "The Man Who Won The War". What we have is an example of someone who had become surplus to requirements to the Conservatives.

Many people, understandably, did not like the way he wanted Germany's redemption payments to be decreased, and of all the reasons, I would say that this is one of the strongest. The war had affected everyone in Britain's life on both sides of the political spectrum, and therefore his actions towards Germany deeply affected their opinions of him, especially the Conservatives who he needed the support of. Chanak in the grand scheme of reasons for offloading Lloyd George was merely a drop in the ocean. An ocean that is, of Tory disgust at a Liberal attempting to dominate a Conservative majority. It is my contention that public opinion of him, nor, nor Chanak, affected him as much as his presidential style of government.. Chanak was not the sole reason for his dismissal by any accounts. It is my contention that it was more of an official excuse to induce his abdication, as it was an area that the Conservatives knew the public was not pleased about, thus the golden opportunity had arisen. I can then close this essay with a quotation from A.J.P. Taylor's book, English History 1914-1945. I believe it depicts why Lloyd George stirred up so much anger at his own expense and pinpoints exactly why Chanak occured, in relation to his personal craving for ultimate power and refusal to recognise his position as a liability rather than a valuable asset to the Conservatives; "He tied himself to no men, no party, no single cause". This mentality lead to his own views being thrown about like the proverbial stones in a house with glass walls, after much fracturing and near misses, they eventually bought the Tory party's tolerance crashing down around him

Procedural report

I found this project very stimulating and enlightening in addition to providing me with a deeper insight into the career of one of the most dynamic politicians of Britain's history. I also found it challenging, due to it being outside of the topics focused on in this years course. However I felt that this enabled me to develop my research skills more and analyse the opinions of different historians by venturing further outside my written notes on the subject. Before I started work on this project, I was under the impression that Lloyd George's fall was mainly to do with the Chanak incident, but as I looked deep into the evidence, I found that it was the result of the explosive cocktail of Lloyd George's dynamism and controversy and his failure to appreciate the limitations of being a Liberal at the mercy of the Conservatives. The texts I found most helpful were 'Lloyd George' by Stephen Constantine and 'The Decline and fall of Lloyd George' by Lord Beaverbrook. Although I did not quote or refer to the latter in the course of the essay, I read it well and realised the attitudes of the Conservatives to Lloyd George and the distance he was forming between him and the rest of the Coalition. I also found A.J.P. Taylor's book 'English History 1914-1945' very useful, and found that we think along similar lines regarding this subject area. For research into this area I used the school's Library as well as the Main Library in Doncaster and Sheffield University's. If I had to re-do this investigation I would have chosen a more recognised issue to write about such as " Was Lloyd George a "Prisoner of the Tories"?" as I believe this has a lot more room for elaboration than the one I chose. I would liked to have spent more time on this essay, but my time was limited by commitments to my other studies which included two other pieces of coursework.