Lily Logan Candidate no. 5254 Centre no. 52211
Historians have disagreed about the extent of the economic hardship
in Britain in the interwar years and whether it was truly the ‘Devil’s
Decade’. What is your view about whether this period is justifiably
called the ‘Devil’s Decade’?
The interwar years are typically associated with economic and social hardship,
hence why it is commonly referred to as the ‘Devil’s Decade’. Throughout the
period, Britons experienced mass unemployment, means testing, and industrial
decline. It can be argued that the extent of suffering caused by these issues was
heightened due to the weakness of the government’s response throughout the
1930s. Furthermore, it is important to contextualise the time period as Britain
was faced with the aftermath of the First World War, as well as the
consequences of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, which led to the Great
Depression of the 1930s. This view is argued by Bernard Harris, as he supports
the idea that the interwar period was the ‘Devil’s Decade’. However, other
historians, such as John Stevenson and Chris Cook offer the opposing view as
they argue that the period can be interpreted as a time of consumer booms,
economic recovery, and high levels of investment in new industries. Arguably,
the most convincing interpretation is offered by Charles Webster, who argues
that despite progress in the development of the Welfare State, the interwar
years were justifiably the ‘Devil’s Decade’, though the intensity of suffering was
dependent upon an individual’s region and class. Therefore, when analysing
historians’ interpretations, it is important to consider whether they explore the
extent of economic hardship in Britain at a national level throughout a sufficient
time frame to determine whether the interwar years were truly the ‘Devils
Decade’.
A key factor in determining whether the interwar years were the ‘Devil’s
Decade’ were the high levels of unemployment that were present during the
period. For example, from ‘1921-38 official unemployment never fell below 1
million’1. Harris explores the idea that ‘unemployment rates were at their
highest in the old staple industries’2 as ‘in 1932, the average rate of
unemployment in the ‘old’ industrial regions was twice the level of ‘new’
industrial regions’3. This limits Harris’ interpretation as it is centred around the
unemployment levels of those working in heavy industry, so it is not truly
representative of the entire nation as old staple industries were predominately
located in the North of the country. This suggests the extent to which people
suffered from economic hardship was dependent on your job and where you
lived. Stevenson and Cook oppose Harris by offering the view that the interwar
years were a period of economic advancement in Britain. This is supported
through evidence that there was ‘growth in industrial production of 61% and a
rise in income per head by a third during the thirties’ 4 . Moreover, towards the
end of the period in 1937, unemployment had declined significantly ‘from its
peak of almost 3 million in 1932-3 to 1.5 million’ 5. Additionally, Stevenson and
Cook argue that the impact of new industries that emerged during the interwar
years improved economic conditions. For example, the chemical industry saw
significant advancement in the economy. Consequently, this helped ease the
1
(Harris, 1994, p. 203)
2
(Harris, 1994, p. 206)
3
(Harris, 1994, p. 206)
4
(Stevenson & Cook, 2009, p. 17)
5
(Stevenson & Cook, 2009, p. 17)
1
, Lily Logan Candidate no. 5254 Centre no. 52211
impact of unemployment as ‘by 1939 the industry employed 100,000 people in
factories all over Britain’6. However, it should be acknowledged that this
reduction in unemployment rates was not until the end of the interwar years,
heightening the validity of Harris’ argument that the period can be seen as the
‘Devil’s Decade’. Furthermore, it is important to consider the impact of
unemployment, as other historians support Harris’ view because the standard of
living for those not in work was significantly reduced7. Nevertheless, Stevenson
and Cook’s view that the expansion of new industries encouraged growth in the
period remains valid, and is supported by the fact that the growth of the British
economy was more significant in the 1930s than pre-war. This is evident
through the growth of GDP being 2.3% in 1929-38 compared to 1.6% in 1913-
298. Alternatively, Webster offers a more universal view to the issue of
unemployment as he recognises the extent of suffering was largely dependent
upon an individual’s region and class. The Ministry of Health Report for 1932
conducted a survey investigating claims of an increase of poor health amongst
the unemployed families through the comparison of ‘mortality rates in eight
counties and sixteen county boroughs in areas of depression’ 9 and ‘two groups
of county boroughs with a high or low incidence of unemployment’ 10. The survey
concluded that ‘health was poorer in depressed areas according to the selected
criteria, but not greatly worse than the average’ 11. This suggests that citizens
suffering from unemployment weren’t necessarily doomed to also experience
poor health. This is further supported by evidence that ‘depressed areas were
enjoying the general rise in health standards’12. Despite this overall
improvement in health standards, it can still be inferred that prosperous areas
in Britain during the interwar years enjoyed greater advancement in health in
comparison to economically disadvantaged areas. Furthermore, investigations
into the high levels of infant mortality in northern industrial areas during the
interwar period revealed that lower classes suffered adversely. For example,
rates for stillbirth and infant mortality stood at 82.9 in mining districts, whilst
rates amongst the middle classes in the same area stood at 29.5 13. Official
reports confirmed that this problem laid in the hands of the ‘defective physique,
health and nutritional status of mothers’, which was in turn rooted in
‘unemployment, poverty, bad housing, malnutrition, ignorance, high fertility
together with insufficient help in the home, and lack of preparation for
marriage’14. This finding is supportive of the interwar period being the ‘Devil’s
Decade’. However, the extent of hardship was intensified by being a member of
a lower class as Webster argues they were vulnerable to a life of a ‘high degree
of discomfort, minor deformity and persistent non-fatal illness’ 15. Additionally,
Webster acknowledges that there was a lack of universal advancement in health
as large sectors of the country were ‘deprived of the full benefits of increased
6
(Stevenson & Cook, 2009, p. 19)
7
(Gardiner, 2010, p. 38)
8
(Aldcroft, 1969, p. 19)
9
(Webster, 1982, p. 6)
10
(Webster, 1982, p. 6)
11
(Webster, 1982, p. 6)
12
(Webster, 1982, p. 6)
13
(Webster, 1982, p. 20)
14
(Webster, 1982, p. 20)
15
(Webster, 1982, p. 21)
2
