Yes, generally speaking many on the left (including Labour) were fairly confused about such matters in the 1930s, e.g. strongly supporting collective security through the League of Nations while insisting that Britain unilaterally disarm as an example to the world, which would have made it hard to enforce collective security (though there were other methods short of force, i.e. economic sanctions). Spain started to change that, and rearmament brought welcome employment for union workers too, but the anti-war rhetoric was hard to let go of.

JDK:

The terms are a bit slippery, as their precise meanings changed over time, and it also depends on what you mean by ‘originally’, but I wouldn’t call the Manchester Guardian a Labour paper originally, that is, in 1821. Maybe small-l labour (there was no Labour Party as yet), but more properly it was radical and non-conformist (in the religious sense). It moved about a bit in the next half century, but under its great editor and later owner-editor C. P. Scott (i.e. for the half-century up to 1930) it was staunchly liberal and (from 1907) radical. I don’t know when it became Labour-leaning but throughout the period I’m looking at, it favoured the Liberals, though there was never any formal connection to the party as far as I know. I’d say that in the 1930s, it was sympathetic to the labour movement, but it also had many northern businessmen among its readers (cotton and the like): liberalism — i.e free trade — appealed to them but strong unions, not so much. It opposed the General Strike in 1926.

There’s a pretty good history of the paper here.

From 1912, there was an actual Labour paper, the Daily Herald, which was part-owned by the Labour Party, though in the 1930s it was run on commercial lines.

More on topic, ‘Shadow of Nuremberg’ has a very different meaning, today, after the post trials, and it did after the rallies. It’s interesting how these become shifting signifiers, sometimes becoming tainted beyond recovery in decades (toothbrush moustaches, swastikas) others drifting out of common understanding except for odd dictionaries – “Handley Page – a large aircraft”. Well, that may have been the case in the 20s, but even by the mid ’30s I think that was no longer the case except for dinosaurs like C.G.Grey. Now I’m off at a tangent!

Er, absolutely nothing JDK, and big ups for the info.

‘Uncertainty in Prague’ – what a great band name.

The British very quickly adapted the just as critical armoured glass and armoured sheet for their fighters in 1939/40, and self-sealing tanks fuel were developed, benefits (simplistically speaking) that went the other way across the Atlantic.

Also, it was the USAAC (Corps) not Force in the 1930s, and they were stunningly weak. The USN, however, had the most powerful naval air arm in the world in the late ’30s, but even that was a world away from what was needed in the war.

What’s that got to do with the crisis, by the way?

Brett – The Guardian was originally a (UK) Labour-leaning paper – essentially still is, I believe, rather than a Liberal paper in either the general political sense or that of the then (UK) Liberal party. An important point in terms of their organised labour concept (like the TUC) and 1930s international workers outlook, I think.

Regards,