Sing As We Go: Britain Between the Wars

by Simon Heffer

Sing As We Go is an astonishingly ambitious overview of the political, social and cultural history of the country from 1919 to 1939.

It explores and explains the politics of the period, and puts such moments of national turmoil as the General Strike of 1926 and the Abdication Crisis of 1936 under the microscope. It offers pen portraits of the era's most significant figures. It traces the changing face of Britain as cars made their first mass appearance, the suburbs sprawled, and radio and cinema became the means of mass entertainment. And it probes the deep divisions that split the between the haves and have-nots, between warring ideological factions, and between those who promoted accommodation with fascism in Europe and those who bitterly opposed it.
__________________________________________
Praise for the

'Scholarly, objective and extremely well written. A masterclass . . . Heffer's eye for the telling detail is evident on almost every page.' Andrew Roberts, 5*, Telegraph

'Gloriously rich and spirited . . . colourful, character driven history.' Dominic Sandbrook, Sunday Times

'Enlightening . . . Robust opinion, an eye for telling detail and a gift for bringing historical figures alive.'
History Books of the Year, Daily Mail

Genres: History, Politics, British Literature, World War II

941 pages, Kindle Edition

Published September 21, 2023

About the author

Simon James Heffer is an English historian, journalist, author and political commentator.

Reviews

[Amos Lamb · Rating 1 out of 5]

There is no such thing as an objective history book, and that's fine; I'm not expecting there to be nor do I wish there to be. With history there are some objective truths as corroborated by sources, but it's our interpretations of what these represent that influence our understanding of history. But the best historians will do their best to limit their own biases and affliations from unduly clouding their work....not Simon Heffer (who I could tell you was a Tory before even looking it up).

In Sing as We Go Heffer is meticulously researched, but baffingly influenced by his modern day politics. The clearest example of this being Heffer's almost dogmatic hatred of the Bolshevik influence on 1920's left wing politics. These politicians are treated with contempt, without even an air of charitability to understand their position. But frequently throughout the book, Heffer comes up with these (clearly Tory) viewpoints that are so uncritical it's almost laughable. For example he writes: "The Courts were not adminsitering class justice, but the law as it stood" (pg. 41). You would expect a more competant historian to be able to go on to discuss about the intersection between the two, and how at this point Parliament was comprised almost entirely of privately educated men from wealthy or at least middle class backgrounds. Heffer does non of this and instead treats this as an asinine suggestion without a hint of critical analysis.

Another fantastic Heffer quote, which again shows his complete unwillingness to ever criticise the Tory party even if the people involved are all long dead: "Until the recession the economy appeared to be heading in the right direction" (pg.64). This one speaks for itself, and any insinuation that it's meant to be a joke would be hardpressed to find any other passage in this book that attempts intentional humour (however Heffer does end up becoming a fantastic comedy writer when not intending to be so).

In talking about a Beatrice Webb (the left wing economist and socialist), Heffer is disgustingly rude and cruel by equating her left wing politics with her mental illness. He writes "though in the emotion of the moment Mrs Webb may be forgiven her hysteria, a further manifestation of which was her conviction that the Soviet system showed the way forward" (pg.411). You don't have to be politically algined to recognise the unprofessional nature of saying "oh they had that political belief? they must be crazy". It's thinly veiled misogny in an attempt to discredit a woman who has made more impact on the world that Heffer ever will.

As a Historian, one expects a certain level of understanding of things like Fascism, especially when covering this period of time. Heffer doesn't seem to though. He writes "His Fourth Symphony was widely considered a comment on the rise of fascism, but since the first piano play-through of the work took place in January 1932, a year before Hitler's election, that may be unlikely" (pg. 539). What is worrying about this is the idea thta Hitler invented fascism, or that it posed no threat prior to Hitler which is a bizarre understanding of the ideology. Not least because another key facist who was important at this time, Mussolini, had been in charge of Italy since 1922 giving 10 years of facism to influence Vaughn William's music. Why Heffer is unable to unwilling to see this and only equates Facism with Hitler demonstrates his lack of credibility as a serious historian.

As I mentioned earlier, Heffer seems kean to scrub up Chamberlain's image given in the modern day he's only really known for appeasement. And in this Heffer does do a good job at providing the context of the decisions in time and how it's easy to see retroactively a bad decision when at the time it was a good decision. And I commend Heffer's approach to Chamberlain's time as Prime Minister... but he does sometimes take his protection of Chamberlain too far. He writes the following hypercritical statement: "Chamberlain initially dismssed negative stories about Hitler, including those about persecutions of Kews as 'Jewish-Communist propaganda' that it surprised him experience journalists took seriously. There is no evidence Chamberlain was anti-semitic" (pg. 704). The quote speaks for itself but it's totally laughable that a historian can quote the Prime Minister saying something anti-semitic and then immediaitely following it by saying there is no evidence he was anti-semitic. I can only imagine Heffer is trying to underscore that Chamberlain was not like Oswold Mosley or Adolf Hitler in their hatred of the Jews, but to not even examine or challenging Chamberlain for saying something categorically anti-semitic but rather seeking to justify and clean up his image is again bizarre.

The final quote I want to discuss is all about AP Herbert's reflections post-war: "His post-war reflections, however, shjould remind historians that little about past events was black and white, and one must therefore proceed with caution in depicting them as such" (pg. 857). This is again framed as a veneration of Chamberlain and that the consensus of his failings are unfair, which is a valid point. But it's laughable because in reading all 860 pages of Heffer's book he CONTINUOUSLY frames everything anyone on the left wing does in black and white, and he's so politically obtuous that he is unable to see the irony in trying to lecture other historians about their view of Chamberlain when he is completely clouded in his view of the contemporary left.

While Heffer can clearly do the research, gather the sources, and write competantly. I would never recommend this book to anyone because his politics and the garrishness of them gets in the way in a manner which is off-putting, dangerous, and mal-intentioned.

[Robert Webber · Rating 5 out of 5]

A most interesting analysis of the inter war years highlighting both the major political events of the time such as the ‘General Strike and return to the Gold Standard and the changes faced by the British public in their everyday lives. The account of the period leading up to the Second World War is fascinating as a deeply pacifist British public gradually came to understand that brutal, criminal dictators like Hitler and Mussolini could not be negotiated with and that conflict was thus inevitable. The process of appeasement led by Neville Chamberlain is discussed in an even handed manner whilst not excusing his naivety in trying to negotiate with the maniacally unreasonable Adolf Hitler. Simon Heffer also reminds us that the sainted Clement Attlee and the Labour Party opposed every single measure of rearmament right up to the outbreak of war. He even called for the complete disbandment of the RAF in Parliament in March 1939.

This lengthy tome is eminently readable and essential reading for anybody interested in Britain during the interwar years. Recommended.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a substantial narrative account of Britain from 1918 to 1939. It completes Simon Heffer's tetralogy which covers a century of British history. As with the previous volumes, it is largely about high politics, although there is some attention to social and cultural issues.

The events covered in this volume are well known and have been covered extensively in similar narrative accounts - most notably A. J. P. Taylor's work, which Heffer quotes frequently. He quotes a lot of official records in the UK National Archives, and this gives weight and authority to the account.

Politically, the figure of Neville Chamberlain dominates this book. Much attention is given to his achievements in public service provision in the 1920s and 1930s and his focus as Chancellor of the Exchequer in pumping money into rearmament. By contrast, Churchill's disastrous tenure as Chancellor is highlighted, not just because of the fiasco of the return to the Gold Standard but also his cuts in the defence budgets - something which has tended to be overlooked when looking at his record in the 1930s and his opposition to Baldwin's and Chamberlain's "appeasement" policies. On this last, Heffer is brutally frank about Chamberlain's mistakes.

The book covers a lot of detail and is sometimes quite densely written. This is, however, leavened by a dry wit (this on Sir Thomas Inskip's first appearance - a man 'who became a cabinet minister of great mediocrity in the 1930s'), and for me is a pleasure to read. Thus it is highly recommended.

[Malcolm Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book to find out more about politics in the twenties and thirties,in particular how my party,the Liberal Party,split up in that period.
That I certainly did.
However I became rather irritated by the author turning people into heroes or villains.Chief villain was Lloyd George.Next came Churchill.The author constantly referred to his cutting of the Army budget in 1925,=as Chancellor.
Yet who do we see as the hero,well none other than Neville Chamberlain.Coming to the rescue with his desire to rearm,albeit late in the day.Yet the author fails to mention for example that Halifax finally turned on him in cabinet or that he did not want to send the ultimatum to Hitler but was forced to do so by rebellious Tory MPs.
Just as well the author didn't take the book to 1940 when Chamberlain made a complete hash of the war,sending a poorly equipped BEF to France with inevitable consequences.
I would add that there are too many statistics to make sense of.

[Stephen King · Rating 4 out of 5]

An 850 page leviathan. This is the final book in a series from the coronation of Victoria to the outbreak of the Second World War. Simon Heffer writes fluently and accessibly with a wry humour at times. There are very detailed (and quite boring) descriptions of the industrial disputes and economics of the period which drag, but he’s also good on the abdication, the general strike and the emerging social mores of the British in this time of change.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little bogged down with statistics at times but insighful nonetheless