How far do the sources support the view that the General Strike was "an attempted revolution"?

How far do the sources support the view that the General Strike was “an attempted revolution”?

During the General strike there was true governmental concern about what seemed to be a revolutionary threat in the form of workers and TUC members who went on strike as part of their efforts to improve working conditions, reduce working hours and increase wages. Much evidence is available from around this time giving us a clear insight into the reasons for this concern and how it came about.

Source 1, an article from the British Gazette (controlled by the Government) produced very early on in the strike highlights the key concern felt by the Government at the time supporting both the statement and introduction:

‘The General strike is a challenge to Parliament and the road to anarchy and ruin’

This quote is a direct example of how the Government viewed the strikers and how they were desperate for public support to help reduce the possibility of a national revolution, the bit that shows that they do fear it is a revolution is when they talk about the General strike being a ‘challenge to Parliament’ something most normal strikes are of course not, this is backed up by the Daily Mail, Source 2, even more explicitly than before by clearly stating, ‘it is a revolutionary movement intended to inflict suffering upon the great mass of innocent persons in the community’, this although more explicit than the first quotation from the actual official governmental newspaper, is non the less trying to influence the public opinion into seeing the stroke as revolutionary, due to the fact that the source was printed in France, evidence of the TUC’s work on banning all printing in London, this therefore, influenced the Daily Mail’s opinion of the strike in favour of the Government.

This is a preview of the whole essay

However in reply to source 1 (and possibly source two), the TUC published their own account, in the British worker, defending their position saying it was on the basis of an ‘industrial dispute’ and that they were simply ‘defending the mine workers against the mine owners.’ Yet, this attempt of removing revolutionary blame from them only worsened the situation with careless phrased sentences and perhaps slightly too much use of ‘emotive language’ for example, instead of saying ‘our country’ they carelessly put ‘their country’ already removing themselves from the nation as if they don’t’ feel as if they belong to the ‘government Britain’. So once again this supports the statement, yet not intentionally, for if we were to look at the intention we would see that it disagrees for it tries to highlight that it is not, for example they highlight behaviour not associated with a revolution such as, ‘Anxious that an honourable peace is secured’ and ‘They are not attacking the constitution’ evidence against the statement. Source 4 too, emphasises the fact that they are not attacking the constitution, highlighting once again that it is an industrial dispute and the behaviour they are undertaking to secure the peace. However, like before inexperience of the media has resulted in another possible undertone of revolution by hinting at an attempt to ‘pull a wool’ over the Governments eyes by expecting every member ‘to behave well and not give any opportunity for police interference’ as if they would like to carry on their plans undisturbed. This lack of means and knowledge when concerning the media links to the cartoon, Source 6.

This lack of means is emphasised in source six when it shows the TUC trying to move the large rock of the constitutional government using one man and an old stick – they had the mind to do the strike, but not the means, for example, experience, knowledge and organisation9or the numbers) The fact that this boulder itself is labelled the ‘constitutional Government’ suggests a strong hint of revolutionary ideals– by moving this boulder the TUC (the man) is symbolising the removal of government, thus once again linking back to the supporting side of the statement, there was ‘an attempted revolution’.

However, giving a more balanced view on the strike source 6, by Morris, with the opening sentence: ‘The General strike was certainly not a revolutionary act’, being a revised view of history could have the advantage of having a lack of one-sided opinion increasing the ‘weight’ of the source, he does also mention that it is not an ‘industrial dispute’ more a political strike not pushed by either the TUC or government thus creating a problem of misunderstandings and false accusations, so this source gives a revised summary of the event saying it was fault on both sides that led to the over exaggerated panic of the strike mistaking it for a revolutionary threat.

In conclusion, I believe that if we were to ‘weigh’ the value of the sources, the majority of those supporting the statement would be relatively light due to the strong content of one sided opinions and propaganda, however, although there is the same evidence of propaganda and one sided opinion in the opposition to the statement, the balanced and revised view of Morris certainly seems to strongly show there was not an attempted revolution more a misunderstanding. This last source strongly supports my own personal view, which I believe is that there was not really an attempted revolution and it was intentionally an industrial dispute as the TUC claimed however due to overseas influence such as the spread of communism over Russia, this uprising caused panic within the government and therefore resulted in a rushed propaganda war trying to prevent the build up of support for the workers and thus keep the governments position safe and secure. Also, the considerable lack of revolutionary behaviour such as violence, acceptance of help from external influences (e.g. The Bolshevik) the need of the army for support and attempted take over of government goes against the alleged ‘attempted revolution’ which, if it were a true revolution, would surely include the majority of these factors.

Mr Baker said i needed to mention more about the sources 'weight' throughout the essay and also briefly explain what we mean by the term 'weight', you know, like its heavy if it is not one sided and light if it is...
I also needed to include some of the points of my conclusion more throughout the essay too. ? Don't quite get that one but it may help u i dunno?
Hope this helps!!!!!

How far do the sources support the view that the General Strike was "an attempted revolution"?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

How far do these sources support the view that the General Strike was not a...

Lord Grey, writing the British Gazzette in May 1926, said of the General St...

Government mishandlings was the most important reason why the general strik...

Do the events of the British General Strike show that Britain was a genuine...