This is evident in the large public backing in Britain for the LNU, which claimed one million supporters in 1933, although the number of paid subscribers peaked at a little over 400,000 in 1931. 28 The number of LNU followers far exceeded those of the PPU. The LNU was responsible for one of the largest and most successful mobilizations of peace sentiment in history, the Peace Ballot campaign. This nationwide private referendum began in November 1934 and concluded in June 1935. More than 38 percent of the adult British population took part, a total of 11,640,000 people. Martin Ceadel described it as “undoubtedly the most impressive single enterprise launched by any modern British ‘cause’ or promotional group.”
As official sponsor of the vote the LNU mobilized half a million volunteers to take ballots door to door in homes and communities throughout the country. This in itself was a monumental feat, which further confirmed the overwhelming public desire for peace that existed at the time. Officially known as the National Declaration on the League of Nations and Armaments, the Peace Ballot demonstrated strong public support for participation in the League and for the reduction and control of armaments. The ballot also revealed broad endorsement for the principles of collective security, expressed through support for the use of sanctions, including even military measures, in response to aggression by one nation against another. The results showed that absolute pacifism – the rejection of any forceful response to aggression – was a minority position.
The impetus for the campaign was the widespread public disappointment that followed the collapse of the 1932–3 World Disarmament Conference in Geneva. In the wake of the failure of government leaders to agree on steps for disarmament, peace advocates searched for a way to demonstrate public support for the reduction of armaments and for regulation of the munitions industry. As public concern about the threat of aerial warfare increased many also sought to build support for abolishing bombers. Within the LNU a parallel concern emerged to demonstrate public support for collective security as an alternative to isolationism and absolute pacifism. Lord Cecil and other LNU leaders hoped that the proposed Peace Ballot would demonstrate public support for the League and encourage a strong government response to the threat of aggression. Criticisms of the campaign from the Conservative Party and major newspapers only served to increase public interest and support. As Cecil noted, Tory attacks had “the effect of bringing over to our side many doubters who previously were uncertain as to their participation.”
LNU leaders were extremely gratified by the ballot results. The vote helped to orient many peace activists more favorably toward collective security. As Ceadel noted, the result “reveal[ed] that the connotations of the League of Nations were almost wholly favourable, that multilateral disarmament was accepted to be the ideal way of preventing war, and that the private arms trade was an object of widespread suspicion.” The public response to the fifth question, which had two parts, was more ambiguous but nonetheless showed support for collective security, including the use of military sanctions. As Ceadel observed, the 58.7 percent endorsement for military sanctions “falls short of a ringing call for defiance of all aggressors,” but it nonetheless indicated a widespread public willingness, even among peace supporters, to stand up to international aggressors, by military force if necessary. As the London Daily Herald noted: “one fact stands out with inescapable clearness. The solid mass of British public opinion demands a policy based not on isolation, not on particular alliances or particular antagonisms, but on the collective system which is embodied in the League.”
The results of the ballot were released at a triumphant rally in the Albert Hall, just as the Ethiopia crisis broke in July 1935. The ballot’s strong expression of public support for collective security put pressure on the Baldwin cabinet to take a forceful stand against Italy’s aggression – or at least to appear to be taking such a stand. As Lynch and Ceadel observed, the ballot results clearly influenced the government’s handling of the crisis. Whitehall’s decision to impose partial economic sanctions on Italy and press for similar action at the League of Nations was taken “with public opinion in mind.” The ballot results also made the question of collective security an issue in the general election that year. The government promised voters that it would back a strong collective security policy. They made this pledge, in Ceadel’s words, because of a “feeling, rarely experienced so clearly . . . that the government had a morally-binding mandate for collective security.”
Appeasement and Betraying the Peace
