Search results

Open Access (free)
Simon Mabon

: John Wiley & Sons, 2003). 71 Searle, Struggle for Syria, p. 293. 72 Michael Ionides, Divide and Lose: The Arab Revolt: 1955–​58 (London: Cox & Wyman, 1960), pp. 109–​97. 73 Keith Kyle, Suez (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1991). 74 Eden, House of Commons (23 December 1929), quoted in Kyle, Suez, p. 1. 75 See www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/​releases/​2008/​october/​suez-​14-​08-​1956.htm (accessed 10.11.15). See also Mark Garnett, Simon Mabon and Robert Smith, British Foreign Policy Since 1945 (London: Routledge, 2017). 76 Michel Aflaq, Fi Sabil al-​Ba’ath [In the

in Houses built on sand
India and America
Peter D.G. Thomas

settlement there without further orders. A Falkland Islands crisis was postponed only by Spanish failure to find the British base before this dispute was in 1768 temporarily overshadowed on the international scene by the Corsica question and the outbreak of a Russo-Turkish war.29 The failure of British foreign policy during the Chatham ministry can be ascribed to internal factors as well as the unfavourable international scene, the distractions of party politics at home and the need to devise measures for India and America. Yet when the new Parliamentary session began in

in George III
Wilkes and America
Peter D.G. Thomas

Austria would adhere to her French alliance was not seen as a final rebuff, merely as a postponement of hopes cherished by many in Britain. Unrealistic as the main thrust of British foreign policy may have been, under Grenville it was nevertheless a success. Quite apart from the 1765 coup in Sweden, which was to prove short-lived in the face of French countermeasures, the Premier himself, continuing his hardline attitude already evident during the Bute ministry, resorted to what in the next century came to be known as ‘gunboat diplomacy’. Still resentful about the

in George III
Alexis Heraclides and Ada Dialla

non-intervention, and the only sanctions he could accept were ‘the power of opinion and moral force’. 78 His condemnation of intervention had as its primary target British foreign policy under the sway of Palmerston, whose interventionism, according to Cobden, was against the interests of the British people. 79 The fact that the ‘international man’ was also a pacifist activist 80 made his absolute principle of non-intervention more convincing. 81 Moreover, Cobden

in Humanitarian intervention in the long nineteenth century
Open Access (free)
Kevin Harrison and Tony Boyd

attitudes in this field, however, do not necessarily translate easily into specific political choices. For example, in the 1930s liberals were divided on ‘appeasement’ as the mainspring of British foreign policy, and in recent years they have been divided on Western intervention in the Gulf, the Balkans, Africa and, recently, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Liberalism in the twentieth century The twentieth century began

in Understanding political ideas and movements
Open Access (free)
Svante Norrhem and Erik Thomson

, The Rise of the Great Powers, 1648–1815 (London and New York: Longman, 1983), p. 26; Peter H. Wilson, German Armies: War and German Politics 1648–1806 (London: UCL Press, 1998), pp. 63, 87, 107, 179, 206–207, 228, 267–269; Dwyryd Wyn Jones, War and Economy in the Age of William III and Marlborough (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), pp. 8–11; Jeremy Black, ‘Parliament and Foreign Policy in the Age of Walpole: The Case of the Hessians’, in Knights Errant and True Englishmen: British Foreign Policy, 1660–1800, ed. by Jeremy Black (Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd

in Subsidies, diplomacy, and state formation in Europe, 1494–1789
The Middlesex Election and the Townshend Duties Crisis
Peter D.G. Thomas

. MSS. 35608, fo. 290. 10 Walpole, Letters, VII, 239. 11 Scott, British Foreign Policy, pp. 131–5. Tracy, Navies, pp. 73–5. 12 Thomas, Townshend Duties Crisis, pp. 95–6. 13 Thomas, John Wilkes, pp. 90–1. 14 Trumbull Papers, p. 303. For the debate see Simmons and Thomas, Proceedings and Debates, III, 3–13. It is described in Thomas, Townshend Duties Crisis, pp. 104–7. 15 Thomas, Townshend Duties Crisis, pp. 107–11. 16 Simmons and Thomas, Proceedings and Debates, III, 47–50. 17 Simmons and Thomas, Proceedings and Debates, III, 64–83. 18 Simmons and Thomas, Proceedings

in George III
Political re-alignments
Peter D.G. Thomas

, 114–16. BL Add. MSS. 32978, fos 235–41. BL Add. MSS. 32988, fo. 49. Lawson, George Grenville, pp. 258–69. O’Gorman, Rise of Party, pp. 220–8. BL Add. MSS. 32990, fo. 57. BL Add. MSS. 32990, fo. 107. Thomas, John Wilkes, pp. 68–76. Thomas, John Wilkes, pp. 76–86. Walpole, Memoirs, III, 146. Legg, British Diplomatic Instructions, pp. 101–5. Corr. of George III, II, 44. For a detailed examination of the Corsica question see Escott, Thesis, pp. 134–218. Scott, British Foreign Policy, pp. 112–24. Thomas, Townshend Duties Crisis, pp. 76–8. Thomas, Townshend Duties Crisis

in George III
Thomas Robb

eventually won.3 Callaghan took office on 5 April 1976, and Anthony Crosland took over from the new prime minister as foreign and commonwealth secretary. In his previous position, Callaghan had been influential in the formulation of British foreign policy and he was determined to retain a dominant role in foreign policy-making. Callaghan’s promotion to number 10 Downing Street thus ensured a degree of continuity in the conduct of British foreign policy.4 On the other side of the Atlantic, events were tumultuous for the Ford administration, both domestically and in the

in A strained partnership?
Open Access (free)
Thomas Robb

in British foreign policy that would place a renewed emphasis upon the US–UK relationship. Heath’s seemingly Euro-centric foreign policy was to be reversed and Wilson let it known that he would not be trying to create common political policies within the EEC. In fact, Wilson’s renegotiation of the terms of Britain’s EEC entry even questioned Britain’s membership.14 Wilson’s appointment of James Callaghan as foreign and commonwealth secretary, coupled with the prime minister’s willingness to allow Callaghan a degree of freedom in conducting foreign policy that was

in A strained partnership?