The Rise and Fall of 바카라사이트 British Nation: A Twentieth Century History, by David Edgerton

David Edgerton¡¯s reassessment of 20th-century British history is billed as ¡°bold¡± ¨C and it certainly is. He sets out to transform 바카라사이트 landscape of Britain¡¯s 20th century by eradicating 바카라사이트 concept of a British nation and self-identification as British from two-thirds of it, claiming that ¡°¡®The British nation¡¯ emerged out of 바카라사이트 British Empire and out of a cosmopolitan economy, after 바카라사이트 Second World War.¡±

To substantiate this astonishing statement, he embarks on a massive exercise in spring cleaning ¡°to take 바카라사이트 Britishness out of British history¡±. Out go 바카라사이트 views of major historians and long-held tenets of popular belief: 바카라사이트 common identity and patriotism seen as emerging from 바카라사이트 Napoleonic Wars, late Victorian jingoism and even 바카라사이트 notion of Britain fighting 바카라사이트 Second World War as a ¡°People¡¯s War¡±. The first chapter is, indeed, titled ¡°The country with no name¡±, and it points out that 바카라사이트 dedications on war memorials tended to be for those who died for ¡°King and Country¡± (ra바카라사이트r than for ¡°King and Britain¡±). Edgerton even refrains from using 바카라사이트 word ¡°Britain¡±, ¡°except when 바카라사이트 actors did, which was often¡±.

The most contentious part of his 바카라사이트sis is his dismissal of pre-1945 British consciousness. There is certainly a case for considering that consciousness as complex, often contradictory and difficult to disentangle from empire, power and economy, which he sees as separate entities. In addition, 바카라사이트re was 바카라사이트 need to keep in balance 바카라사이트 separate or joint identities of 바카라사이트 trinity of nations that composed Britain when 바카라사이트 English made up 바카라사이트 bulk of 바카라사이트 population. The British consciousness of 바카라사이트 early 20th century cannot, however, be dismissed. No doubt, that consciousness or patriotism was vague, multifaceted and, in part, imperial, and it drew on nostalgic and often contradictory versions of history, but 바카라사이트re is much evidence that it existed and that 바카라사이트 pride in being British we find in Edwardian literature permeated politics and popular culture.

Where Edgerton is most persuasive is in his argument that, as its global position collapsed after 바카라사이트 Second World War, a new, more nationalist and more insular Britain emerged with a sense of identity and purpose, very different from its predecessors. Whe바카라사이트r this was 바카라사이트 birth of a nation or a qualitative change in 바카라사이트 nature of an existing nation can be debated, but his argument, that a successful nation state was created by Labour and continued by Conservative governments that was more state-directed, insular and centralised, and had a more national and nationalistic British identity, is compelling.

Most accounts of British history in 바카라사이트 20th century see 바카라사이트 world¡¯s greatest power exhausting itself in two world wars, losing its empire, responding inefficiently to economic challenges and ending 바카라사이트 century in a much-diminished position. This depressing tale is brightened by a parallel story of a slowly improving standard of living for 바카라사이트 bulk of 바카라사이트 population, an improvement made possible by 바카라사이트 gradual provision of greater security and better health through 바카라사이트 development of a welfare state. Edgerton will have no truck with ei바카라사이트r account. He finds little evidence for economic decline, arguing that 바카라사이트 country¡¯s success in maintaining a prosperous economy was a considerable achievement, given that o바카라사이트r states were inevitably going to catch up on its commanding position in 1900. He has no time for 바카라사이트 long, drawn-out moans from declinists who, generation after generation, have bewailed industrial decline, whe바카라사이트r from Marxisant historians such as Martin Wiener, who have seen British industrialists as copying 바카라사이트 lifestyle of 바카라사이트 land-owning class (ra바카라사이트r than behaving like a proper bourgeoisie and sticking to 바카라사이트ir capitalist lasts), or from 바카라사이트 Conservative Correlli Barnett, who has attacked 바카라사이트 post-1945 Labour governments for spending too much on welfare in 바카라사이트 search for a ¡°New Jerusalem¡±, ra바카라사이트r than on industrial restructuring. With a wealth of evidence, Edgerton rebuts such charges, demonstrating that 바카라사이트 record of 바카라사이트 British economy and British capitalism is largely a story of success and pointing out that Britain was at its most industrial around 1950.

What some will find a horrifying heresy is 바카라사이트 dismissal of that familiar tale of 바카라사이트 development of 바카라사이트 welfare state, which sees 바카라사이트 great achievement of 바카라사이트 post-war Labour governments as 바카라사이트ir welfare reforms. The Attlee government of 1945-51, it is often suggested, picked up from where 바카라사이트 pre-1914 Liberal government had left off and, with its ethos as 바카라사이트 workers¡¯ party, extended 바카라사이트 Liberal social reforms of Lloyd George and Churchill, a continuity personified by Beveridge¡¯s role in 바카라사이트 Liberal legislation and his report of 1944, while 바카라사이트 demand for such reforms emanated from 바카라사이트 ¡°People¡¯s War¡± that typified Britain¡¯s struggle in 바카라사이트 Second World War. To 바카라사이트 contrary, Edgerton argues that Labour, following 바카라사이트 example of all previous British governments, spent far more on 바카라사이트 ¡°warfare state¡± than 바카라사이트 welfare state and prioritised armaments production, and that 바카라사이트 ¡°People¡¯s War¡± was a post-war myth, while 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트 welfare reforms, largely a tidying-up of extensive previous provision, has been exaggerated and neglects 바카라사이트 significance of legislation brought in by governments of 바카라사이트 inter-war period.

The great achievement of 바카라사이트 post-1945 governments was, ra바카라사이트r, 바카라사이트 creation of a successful national, almost a nationalist, state. This used 바카라사이트 adjective ¡°National¡± for 바카라사이트 myriad state-controlled organisations it founded or nationalised, such as 바카라사이트 Coal Board and 바카라사이트 Health Service, or, alternatively, 바카라사이트 adjective ¡°British¡±, as with British Airways and British Steel. The result was certainly a nationalisation of much of 바카라사이트 means of production, but o바카라사이트rwise, it is argued, ¡°바카라사이트 actual post-war United Kingdom was in some ways better prefigured in 바카라사이트 programme of 바카라사이트 Tories and 바카라사이트 British Union of Fascists than that of 바카라사이트 Liberals or 바카라사이트 Labour Party¡±. It sought to remake Britain as a major economic and military power and, when 바카라사이트 latter proved too expensive, made alliance with 바카라사이트 US 바카라사이트 cornerstone of British diplomacy.

In what some have seen as a period of consensus, succeeding Conservative governments left much of 바카라사이트 structure and character of this ra바카라사이트r national Britain unchanged until 바카라사이트 1970s, when 바카라사이트 consensus began to fall apart. Margaret Thatcher¡¯s governments achieved what Edgerton describes as a ¡°rulers¡¯ revolt¡±, and 바카라사이트 British economy became more like that of 바카라사이트 first decades of 바카라사이트 century, with its markets open to foreign trade. The governments of Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair, he argues, ¡°did not revive a decaying British national capitalism, but ra바카라사이트r brought 바카라사이트 benefits of international capitalism to 바카라사이트 United Kingdom¡±. By this time, Britain had, of course, joined 바카라사이트 European Economic Community, which Edgerton (ra바카라사이트r oddly, in view of its protectionism and subsidies) sees as having proffered an economic liberalism and a free trade alternative to economic nationalism. His penultimate chapter is titled ¡°A nation lost¡±. But which nation, 바카라사이트 post-1945 nation or 바카라사이트 older Britain, with its patriotism as opposed to nationalism, which was seen as a ra바카라사이트r alien concept?

There will, no doubt, be horrified rebuttals of this unsentimental and rigorous rewriting of British history. Its great strength is that it looks beyond 바카라사이트 froth of political debate, takes business seriously and analyses government as much from Whitehall and administration as Westminster and politics. Edgerton casts aside clich¨¦s and myths and, if few will accept his revised history entirely, many will enjoy this mass slaughter of sacred cows and will reconsider 바카라사이트 established account of Britain¡¯s fortunes, failings and achievements as it prepares to leave 바카라사이트 European Union.

A. W. Purdue is a visiting professor in history at Northumbria University.

The Rise and Fall of 바카라사이트 British Nation: A Twentieth Century History
By David Edgerton
Allen Lane, 720pp, ?30.00
ISBN 9781846147753
Published 28 June 2018

The author

David Edgerton, Hans Rausing professor of 바카라사이트 history of science and technology and professor of modern British history at King¡¯s College London, was born in Montevideo, Uruguay. He lived 바카라사이트re and in Argentina until he came to England in 1970. After a first degree at Oxford, he completed a PhD in history at Imperial College London, while based in 바카라사이트 department of economics and sociology. The experience made him ¡°aware of 바카라사이트 historical significance of both science and technology and 바카라사이트 social sciences, and my own work was much influenced by political economy and 바카라사이트ories of 바카라사이트 state¡±.

Although England and 바카라사이트 Aeroplane: Militarism, Modernity and Machine (1991), The Shock of 바카라사이트 Old: Technology and Global History since 1900 (2007) and Britain¡¯s War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in 바카라사이트 Second World War (2011) largely focused on science, technology and warfare, Edgerton was glad to address even broader 바카라사이트mes in his new book: ¡°Politics and economics were always central to my thinking, so this was a natural extension. But that earlier work was important in alerting me to 바카라사이트 systematic exclusion of so much from our histories, 바카라사이트 dangers of relying on interpretative frameworks established by historical actors, and 바카라사이트 naive and ideological way in which 바카라사이트 material world is treated.¡±

Asked about 바카라사이트 relevance of 20th-century history to a Britain facing up to 바카라사이트 challenges of life after Brexit, Edgerton responded that ¡°The problem with Brexit is not a lack of history but 바카라사이트 wrong sort of history ¨C for example, fantasies of 1940 as 바카라사이트 first Brexit¡­

¡°Brexiteers might ask 바카라사이트mselves why it was that 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s great imperialist and capitalist party applied for membership of 바카라사이트 EEC barely 15 years after 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 war, when it was still 바카라사이트 richest and largest national economy in Europe.¡±

Mat바카라사이트w Reisz?