LETTER : Britain's post-war economic record

Correlli Barnett
Monday 08 May 1995 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

From Mr Correlli Barnett

Sir: I am sorry to have wounded Jim Tomlinson of Brunel University (Letters, 2 May) in his assumptions about the economic record of the post-war Labour government, but I fear that the criticisms he makes of my article do not accord with the documentary evidence.

To take one topic, that of the Marshall Aid and British capital investment; the British tender for Marshall Aid itself put capital investment third in priority ("clearly of great importance") behind keeping up imports, mostly of food and raw materials rather than capital goods ("a primary purpose"), and maintaining the gold and dollar reserves ("an overriding need"). The European Recovery Administration representatives in London themselves urged that Britain should be devoting more resources to modernising her industry and infrastructure. Instead, British capital investment was savagely cut in 1949 after the sterling devaluation crisis.

As for "counter-part funds" under Marshall Aid, the French devoted all of theirs to investment in industry and infrastructure, the Germans devoted $629.4m, and the British not a penny. I recommend that Mr Tomlinson reads my book, The Lost Victory, when it comes out in July.

Your correspondent Reg Parker (Letters, 2 May) will find in my previous book, The Audit of War (1986), a whole chapter on the shipbuilding industry in wartime which accords completely with his own impressions of the postwar industry.

Lastly, Jan Morris's letter of the same day: Jan is a romantic, which I am not, and prefers to contemplate the past, and especially Britain's imperial past, in a sunset glow of nostalgic emotion, which I do not, preferring the bleak grey light of reality.

Yours faithfully

CORRELLI BARNETT

Churchill College

Cambridge

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in