Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: April 22, 2021 at 9:19:25 AM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-War]: Bernick on Lomas, 'Intelligence, Security and > the Attlee Governments, 1945-51: An Uneasy Relationship?' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Daniel W. B. Lomas. Intelligence, Security and the Attlee > Governments, 1945-51: An Uneasy Relationship? Manchester Manchester > University Press, 2017. Illustrations. x + 286 pp. $120.00 (cloth), > ISBN 978-0-7190-9914-4. > > Reviewed by Brandon Bernick (Florida State University) > Published on H-War (April, 2021) > Commissioned by Margaret Sankey > > In _Intelligence, Security, and the Attlee Governments, 1945-51_, > Daniel W. B. Lomas explores Great Britain's Clement Attlee-led Labour > government's relationship with its state intelligence and security > services during the early Cold War period. In it, Lomas challenges > purveying presumptions that Commonwealth national security policy > divisions existed between the reform-minded Prime Minister Attlee, > his cabinet, and the leading intelligence service chiefs whose > loyalties allegedly remained to the Winston Churchill-led > Conservative Party due to their close wartime ties. This relationship > is often retold as a domestic clash between the political left and > right in an increasingly bipolar Cold War world, but Lomas instead > suggests that scholars have erred in this overly simplistic > interpretation of British political history. Rather, Lomas argues > that despite their differences Attlee maintained a surprisingly close > relationship with the British intelligence services and that both > sides crossed their respective political aisles for the good of the > realm. In short, this new interpretation overturns years of > scholarship suggesting Attlee's government remained at loggerheads > with the conservative intelligence services. Alternatively, Lomas > argues that the two sides worked together to navigate threats posed > by Soviet spy networks, the atomic age, decolonization, the question > of Palestine, and the Berlin Blockade while still promoting domestic > social reforms and overcoming shortfalls in national capital. > > A lecturer in international history at the University of Salford, > Lomas relies on an impressive array of ministerial and foreign office > records, recently declassified Joint Intelligence Committee defense > and security records, and the private papers of Attlee, Ernest Bevin, > Churchill, and others to provide a behind the curtain look at the > "balancing act between opposing communism and maintaining freedom of > expression and maximum possible civil liberties" (p. 260). By > challenging previous interpretations of this progressive era in > British politics, Lomas concludes that Attlee himself was an > experienced intelligence consumer and a tremendous supporter of the > British intelligence services who stood up to the tests the Cold War > presented. > > Lomas's book is an intriguing one for scholars of the period. It > succeeds in accentuating Britain's postwar security and intelligence > dilemmas into conversation with the private views and political aims > of its leaders. To great effect, Lomas highlights the very causal > relationship between publicized British intelligence failings and > Attlee's subsequent policy reforms meant to rectify security lapses. > By relying on the examples of Klaus Fuchs's atomic treason, the > defection of the British-sponsored atomic physicist Bruno Pontecorvo > to the Soviet Union, and the unmasking of the Cambridge Five, Lomas > links these notable cases with American fears over Soviet penetration > of the British intelligence services. As these fears had already been > substantiated by American signals intelligence intercepts of Soviet > diplomatic chatter in the Venona project, Lomas reasonably contends > that American fear of the Soviet spy next door threatened the special > relationship between the two allied nations. As a result, the British > adopted more stringent forms of positive and negative vetting to > reassure its American ally and making the necessary corrective steps > that have secured intelligence sharing and cooperation to this day. > > Despite its many insightful connections, critiques remain. > Stylistically, each chapter reads as an individual academic paper > with many chapters traversing ground the author previously covered. > This is evident by the repeated introduction of characters and > situations at the outset of each new chapter. Furthermore, Lomas > glosses over many of the intricacies of the intelligence operations > themselves. By doing so, he purposefully excludes the uninformed > reader from the conversation, thereby choosing to focus solely on a > scholarly audience. Moreover, at many points the book leaves the > reader desiring more informational depth. This lack of informational > depth is specifically noticeable in Lomas's discussion on British > decolonization and its strategic retreat from Africa, the Middle > East, and Palestine. For example, only two pages of text are devoted > to the fallout from the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil > Company in 1951. The timing of nationalization, under Attlee's watch, > caught British intelligence by surprise and began a chain of events > that led to a clandestine partnership between the British Secret > Intelligence Service and the American Central Intelligence Agency to > overthrow Iranian prime minister Muhammed Mossadeq in 1953. This > important episode deserved much more of the author's attention due to > its lasting impacts on the empire. Other missed opportunities exist > in the cursory sections on Indian independence, the question of > Palestine, and Kwame Nkrumah's nationalist movement in Ghana. In each > of these cases, the British intelligence services proved somewhat > ineffectual. > > Although some stylistic and informational critiques of _Intelligence, > Security, and the Attlee Governments, 1945-51 _remain, the book does > provide keen insights into how Attlee's government functioned. While > those seeking tales of cloak and dagger should look elsewhere, > scholars of the period and those with interest in public policy will > appreciate the value of this work as it calls attention to the > intersectionality of government, policy, intelligence, and security. > This intersectionality is the strength of Lomas's work, a theme that > is often missed in other works on intelligence. > > Citation: Brandon Bernick. Review of Lomas, Daniel W. B., > _Intelligence, Security and the Attlee Governments, 1945-51: An > Uneasy Relationship?_. H-War, H-Net Reviews. April, 2021. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=56051 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#8162): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/8162 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82286068/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
