We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2019
The admiration of the Soviet Union amongst Britain's interwar scientific left is well known. This article reveals a parallel story. Focusing on the biologists Julian Huxley and Lancelot Hogben and the scientific journalist J.G. Crowther, I show that a number of scientific thinkers began to look west, to the US. In the mid- to late 1930s and into the 1940s, Huxley, Crowther and Hogben all visited the US and commented favourably on Roosevelt's New Deal, in particular its experimental approach to politics (in the form of planning). Huxley was first to appreciate the significance of the experiment; he looked to the Tennessee Valley Authority as a model of democratic planning by persuasion that could also be applied in Britain. Crowther, meanwhile, examined the US through the lens of history of science. In Famous American Men of Science (1937) and in lectures at Harvard University, he aimed to shed light on the flaws in the Constitution which were frustrating the New Deal. Finally, Hogben's interest in the US was related to his long-standing opposition to dialectical materialism, and when he finally saw the US at first hand, he regarded it as a model for how to bring about a planned socialist society through peaceful persuasion.
Many thanks to Jim Endersby, who commented on an earlier version of this article and supervised the PhD research on which it is based (funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, award reference AH/J500458/1), and to the two anonymous referees, whose comments helped to improve the essay. University of Sussex Special Collections kindly gave me permission to quote from their archives. Finally, I'd like to thank Charlotte Sleigh for her help from first submission to final edit, and for her and Trish Hatton's remarkable patience while I revised the initial draft.
1 Hogben, Adrian and Hogben, Anne (eds.) Lancelot Hogben, Scientific Humanist: An Unauthorised Autobiography, Woodbridge: Merlin, 1998, pp. 162, 176–177Google Scholar; Hogben, Lancelot, Author in Transit, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1940, pp. 11, 17Google Scholar, original emphasis, 90, 256.
2 I refer to Crowther as an ‘interpreter’ instead of a ‘popularizer’ because his writings on science were valuable to practising scientists and because he put his own spin on science. See Oliver Hill-Andrews, ‘Interpreting science: J.G. Crowther and the making of interwar British culture’, University of Sussex PhD, 2016. Parts of this article are derived from Chapter 4.
3 Pelling, Henry, America and the British Left: From Bright to Bevan, London: Adam & Charles Black, 1956Google Scholar.
4 See Waters, Chris, ‘Introduction: beyond “Americanization”: rethinking Anglo-American cultural exchange between the wars’, Cultural and Social History (2007) 4, pp. 451–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a summary. As Waters notes, Anglo-American cultural exchange in the interwar period was more complex than is commonly portrayed; this essay reinforces the belief that people made engaged attempts to understand the country.
5 Pelling, op. cit. (3), pp. 133–136, 141–143; Malament, Barbara C., ‘British Labour and Roosevelt's New Deal: the response of the left and the unions’, Journal of British Studies (1978) 17, pp. 136–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reynolds, David, ‘Roosevelt, the British left, and the appointment of John G. Winant as United States ambassador to Britain in 1941’, International History Review (1982) 4, pp. 393–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ellwood, David, The Shock of America: Europe and the Challenge of the Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 176–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ritschel, Daniel, The Politics of Planning: The Debate on Economic Planning in Britain in the 1930s, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997 pp. 133–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Harold J. Laski, ‘The Roosevelt experiment’, The Atlantic, February 1934, at www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1934/02/the-roosevelt-experiment/307116, accessed 25 September 2018.
7 Laski, op. cit. (6); Malament, op. cit. (5), pp. 141, 146, 148–151.
8 Eric Hobsbawm, ‘Red science’, London Review of Books, 9 March 2006, pp. 21–23. This paragraph is derived from Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), pp. 143, 170.
9 Edgerton, David, The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History, London: Allen Lane, 2018, p. 163Google Scholar.
10 Werskey, Gary, The Visible College: A Collective Biography of British Scientists and Socialists of the 1930s, London: Free Association, 1988, especially pp. 135–149Google Scholar. By contrast, neither ‘America’ nor ‘United States’ appear in the index. As Overy, Richard, The Morbid Age, London: Penguin Books, 2009, p. 77Google Scholar, says, ‘in the 1930s socialist ideas on planning drew heavily on the Soviet model’.
11 See especially Chilvers, C.A.J., ‘The dilemmas of seditious men: the Crowther–Hessen correspondence in the 1930s’, BJHS (2003) 36, pp. 417–435, 422, 426–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Werskey, op. cit. (10), pp. 135–149; Werskey, P.G., ‘Introduction: on the reception of science at the crossroads in England’, in Science at the Crossroads: Papers Presented to the International Congress of the History of Science and Technology, Held in London from June 29th to July 3rd, 1931, London: Cass, 1971, pp. xi–xxixGoogle Scholar; Schaffer, Simon, ‘Newton at the crossroads’, Radical Philosophy (1984) 37, pp. 23–28Google Scholar.
12 The Spectator, 11 July 1931, p. 43. Quoted in Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 142.
13 J.G. Crowther, The Social Relations of Science, New York: Macmillan & Co., 1941, p. 616.
14 Anna-K. Mayer, ‘Setting up a discipline II: British history of science and “the end of ideology”, 1931–1948’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A (2004) 35, pp. 48–50; Chilvers, op. cit. (11); Edwin A. Roberts, The Anglo-Marxists: A Study in Ideology and Culture, Lanham, 1997, p. 151; Werskey, Gary, ‘The Marxist critique of capitalist science: a history in three movements?’, Science as Culture (2007) 16, pp. 397–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 For Bernal and Haldane see Roberts, op. cit. (14). For Levy see Boris Jardine, ‘Scientific moderns’, University of Cambridge PhD thesis, 2012, pp. 128–130. On the development of British Marxism see Macintyre, Stuart, A Proletarian Science: Marxism in Britain, 1917–1933, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980Google Scholar; Rée, Jonathan, Proletarian Philosophers: Problems in Socialist Culture in Britain, 1900–1940, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984Google Scholar.
16 Notably, thanks to Boris Jardine we now know more about the links between the left scientists and modernist artists – particularly the Bauhaus-connected émigrés who came to Britain in the mid-1930s.
17 For this perspective on the New Deal see especially Katznelson, Ira, Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time, New York: Liveright Publishing Corp., 2013, p. 31Google Scholar.
18 Ritschel, op. cit. (5).
19 McGucken, William, Scientists, Society, and State: The Social Relations of Science Movement in Great Britain 1931–1947, Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1984Google Scholar.
20 Werskey, op. cit. (10), p. 243.
21 Building on the work of Anna-K. Mayer in particular, who has argued that 1930s historians of science developed ‘a sophisticated contextual approach’ to the subject. Mayer, Anna-K., ‘Setting up a discipline: conflicting agendas of the Cambridge History of Science Committee, 1936–1950’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A (2000) 31, pp. 665–689CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Mayer, op. cit. (14).
22 All quotations in this paragraph are from Julian Huxley, Memories I, London, 1970, pp. 84–90, 91, 107, 92. For Huxley's biography see Robert Olby, ‘Huxley, Sir Julian Sorell (1887–1975)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2012, at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/31271, accessed 18 September 2018.
23 For Hogben see Werskey, op. cit. (10), pp. 60–67; Hogben and Hogben, op. cit. (1); Erlingsson, Steindór J., ‘“Enfant terrible”: Lancelot Hogben's life and work in the 1920s’, Journal of the History of Biology (2016) 49, pp. 495–526CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. For Crowther see Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), Chapters 1–2.
24 Erlingsson, op. cit. (23), for Huxley's and Hogben's friendship.
25 Hogben and Hogben, op. cit. (1), pp. 68, 72. Werskey, op. cit. (10), pp. 63, 66, 105; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), Chapter 1.
26 Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), pp. 30–31, 42; Chilvers, op. cit. (11), pp. 419–420.
27 Quoted in Werskey, op. cit. (10), p. 114.
28 ‘If we were the size of atoms’, Sunday Worker clipping, undated, J.G. Crowther papers, University of Sussex Special Collections (subsequently JGCP), SxMs29/9/5/4.
29 Smith, Roger, ‘Biology and values in interwar Britain: C.S. Sherrington, Julian Huxley and the vision of progress’, Past & Present (2003) 178, pp. 210–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Huxley's understanding of social progress owed much to the French philosopher Henri Bergson. Herring, Emily, ‘“Great is Darwin and Bergson his poet”: Julian Huxley's other evolutionary synthesis’, Annals of Science (2018) 75, pp. 40–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 88.
30 For Huxley see Weindling, Paul, ‘Julian Huxley and the continuity of eugenics in twentieth-century Britain’, Journal of Modern European History (2012) 10, pp. 480–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar, available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366572. Hogben acknowledged that ‘certain physical qualities … if shown to be hereditary in a stock, should by general agreement be eliminated’, but objected to ‘positive’ eugenics because ‘no single individual or group of individuals is qualified to decide upon what constitutes a desirable type of human being’. Lancelot Hogben, ‘Modern heredity and social science’, Socialist Review, April–June 1919, pp. 154–155. He became known for his outspoken opposition to eugenics. Crowther similarly asked ‘who is to determine insanity? Any systematised suppression of other persons is extremely dangerous … Eugenic reform is only thinkable after social reformation has been achieved’. ‘Heredity in six talks: a dangerous doctrine of eugenic reform-mongers’, Sunday Worker clipping, 16 June 1929, JGCP, SxMs29/9/5/4.
31 The Spectator, 15 November 1924, p. 732.
32 The Spectator, 22 November 1924, pp. 772–773, 29 November 1924, pp. 821–822, 13 December 1924, pp. 924–926, 20 December 1924, pp. 980–982, 27 December 1924, pp. 1017–1018, 3 January 1925, pp. 8–10, 24 January 1925, pp. 111–112, 31 January 1925, pp. 147–148.
33 The Spectator, 29 November 1924, pp. 821–822. See also Barkan, Elazar, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 181–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a discussion of this article.
34 Weindling, op. cit. (30); Barkan, op. cit. (33), pp. 235–248.
35 Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), Chapter 2; Hughes, Jeff, ‘Insects or neutrons? Science news values in interwar Britain’, in Bucchi, Massimiano and Bauer, Martin W., eds., Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations, Abingdon, 2007, pp. 11–20Google Scholar.
36 Crowther to Huxley, 1 April 1925, Julian Huxley papers, Woodson Research Center, Rice University, Texas, Box 8; see also Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 88.
37 Manchester Guardian, 14 May 1927, p. 12.
38 Bowler, Peter, Science for All: The Popularization of Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2009, pp. 93, 105–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 Manchester Guardian, 14 May 1927, p. 12.
40 Hogben to Crowther, 12 December 1927, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/1; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 144.
41 On Hogben and social biology see Renwick, Chris, ‘Completing the circle of the social sciences? William Beveridge and social biology at London School of Economics during the 1930s’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences (2014) 44, pp. 478–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
42 Tenancy agreement dated 19 November 1933, JGCP, SxMs29/1/4/3.
43 Huxley to Crowther, 29 September 1931, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/2/3; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 149.
44 Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 132; Chilvers, op. cit. (11), pp. 421–422.
45 Crowther, J.G., Industry and Education in Soviet Russia, London: William Heinemann, 1932, pp. 85, 88Google Scholar. ‘Western countries could be shocked without revolution into reforming their social organization’. Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 170.
46 Crowther, op. cit. (13), p. 617.
47 Crowther, J.G., Soviet Science, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1936, pp. 10–11Google Scholar.
48 Russia To-day, May 1936, p. 12, in JGCP, SxMs29/9/5/10.
49 Beatrice Webb diary typescript, 4 January 1932–29 December 1934, entry dated 18 June 1933, Papers of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, London School of Economics, PASSFIELD/1, at https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:nut827hel.
50 Roberts, op. cit. (14), p. 148.
51 Lancelot Hogben, ‘Contemporary philosophy in Soviet Russia’, Psyche (1931) 12, pp. 2–18, 4, 11.
52 Hogben, op. cit. (51), p. 17.
53 Hogben, op. cit. (51), pp. 17, 4.
54 Brown, Andrew, J.D. Bernal: The Sage of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 108–109Google Scholar; Roberts, op. cit. (14), p. 152; Chilvers, op. cit. (11), p. 427.
55 All quotations in this paragraph are from Huxley, Julian, A Scientist among the Soviets, London: Chatto & Windus, 1932, pp. 85, 49, 45, 29, 108Google Scholar.
56 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), pp. 11–12, 31–32, 50–51, 104–106. Katznelson cites Mazower, Mark, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century, London: Allen Lane, 1998Google Scholar. For Britain see also Overy, op. cit. (10), pp. 9–92.
57 Roosevelt quoted in Brendon, Piers, The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s, London: Jonathan Cape, 2000, p. 232Google Scholar; Rauchway, Eric, The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 95, describes this pragmatism as ‘instrumental realism’.
58 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 161.
59 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 124.
60 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), pp. 229–231, 251.
61 Werskey, op. cit. (10), p. 242.
62 Huxley to Crowther, 14 May 1934, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/2/6.
63 Werskey, op. cit. (10), p. 240. For PEP and the Next Five Years Group see Ritschel, op. cit. (5), pp. 144–182, 232–279.
64 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 252.
65 Julian Huxley, If I Were Dictator, London: Methuen & Co., 1934, p. 76.
66 The Listener, 20 November 1935, pp. 897, 899; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 171.
67 The Times, 22 May 1935, p. 18.
68 The Times, 21 May 1935, pp. 17–18.
69 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 254.
70 The Times, 22 May 1935, p. 17.
71 The Times, 22 May 1935, p. 17.
72 There were ‘no blacks at all inside Norris, Tennessee, its planned model community’.
Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 255.
73 The Times, 22 May 1935, p. 17.
74 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 168, argues similarly that ‘the Roosevelt administration pursued a strategy of pragmatic forgetfulness with regard to racial matters as long as it could’.
75 Ritschel, op. cit. (5), p. 18.
76 The Times, 22 May 1935, p. 18.
77 The Times, 22 May 1935, p. 18; The Listener, 20 November 1935, p. 898.
78 The Listener, 20 November 1935, p. 898.
79 The Times, 22 May 1935, p. 18.
80 The Listener, 20 November 1935, p. 900; The Times, 22 May 1935, p. 18; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 171.
81 Crowther, J.G., Fifty Years with Science, London: Berrie & Jenkins, 1970, p. 79Google Scholar. This section in particular draws heavily on Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), Chapter 4, pp. 141–184.
82 Crowther, op. cit. (81), p. 162.
83 Crowther, J.G., Famous American Men of Science, London: Secker & Warburg, 1937, pp. 22–23Google Scholar; Crowther to Warburg, 21 May 1936, JGCP, SxMs29/9/1/4.
84 Notes on Veblen, JGCP, SxMs29/1/2/2.
85 Crowther, op. cit. (83), pp. 22–23.
86 Crowther to Norton, 3 December 1936, JGCP, SxMs29/12/9/7. This material is covered in Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), pp. 172–173.
87 Quoted in Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 229.
88 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), pp. 242, 229, 230; Denning, Michael, The Cultural Front: The Laboring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century, London: Verso, 2010, pp. 6–7Google Scholar.
89 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), pp. 256–258, quote on 258.
90 Brendon, op. cit. (57), p. 235; Nolan, Mary, The Transatlantic Century: Europe and America, 1890–2010, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 129CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
91 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 258.
92 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 234.
93 For the link between the People's Front Committee and For Intellectual Liberty see Ritschel, op. cit. (5), p. 308; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), pp. 165–166.
94 For Intellectual Liberty bulletin no. 1, November 1936, p. 10.
95 Manchester Guardian, 7 January 1936.
96 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 135.
97 British Library ticket, 6 January 1936, JGCP, SxMs29/12/10/11.
98 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 138.
99 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 150. This paragraph draws on Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 176.
100 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 144.
101 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 145.
102 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 145.
103 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 153.
104 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 135; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 176.
105 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 152.
106 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 153; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 176.
107 Conant to Crowther, 16 October 1936, JGCP, SxMs29/2/5/1.
108 Quoted in the New York Times, 13 January 1935, p. 17. In this talk Conant was referring to events in Germany, as well as a proposed law that would have required Massachusetts teachers to swear an oath of loyalty to the US. See Conant, Jennet, Man of the Hour: James B. Conant, Warrior Scientist, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017, pp. 152–153Google Scholar.
109 ‘Thoughtful rebels’ quoted in Conant, op. cit. (108), p. 153; ‘satisfactory teachers’ quoted in Hamlin, Christopher, ‘The pedagogical roots of the history of science: revisiting the vision of James Bryant Conant’, Isis (2016) 107, pp. 282–308, 282CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
110 February–March 1937 notebook I, JGCP, SxMs29/2/5/1, p. 7.
111 February–March 1937 notebook I, JGCP, SxMs29/2/5/1, p. 15.
112 February–March 1937 notebook I, JGCP, SxMs29/2/5/1, pp. 30, 31. Crowther was captured by the ‘technological sublime’. Nolan, op. cit. (90), p. 124.
113 February–March 1937 notebook II, JGCP, SxMs29/2/5/1, p. 31.
114 Science & Society was a recently established Marxist journal, published in the US but with strong links to the red scientists in Britain.
115 February–March 1937 notebook II, JGCP, SxMs29/2/5/1, p. 5.
116 Untitled notebook, JGCP, SxMs29/2/5/1, unpaginated. This paragraph draws on Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), pp. 174–175.
117 Childe to Crowther, 6 May 1937, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/4/2.
118 Novick, Peter, That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 250–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
119 McIlwain, C.H., ‘The historian's part in a changing world’, American Historical Review (1937) 42, pp. 207–224, 210CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I cover the same material in Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), pp. 175–176.
120 Robert Kargon and Elizabeth Hodes, ‘Karl Compton, Isaiah Bowman, and the politics of science in the Great Depression’, Isis (1985) 76, pp. 300–318, 302.
121 Harvard Crimson, 5 March 1937, at thecrimson.com/article/1937/3/5/paths-for-progress-charted-in-lecture.
122 Harvard Crimson, op. cit. (121).
123 Notes on Smyth, JGCP, SxMs29/12/10/1, p. 9.
124 Harvard Crimson, 3 March 1937, at the crimson.com/article/1937/3/3/riding-a-monorail-pj-g-Crowther.
125 Harvard Crimson, op. cit. (124); Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 44; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), pp. 176–177.
126 Harvard Crimson, op. cit. (124).
127 Manchester Guardian, 21 April 1937, pp. 11–12.
128 Crowther, op. cit. (81), pp. 192, 200.
129 Crowther, op. cit. (81), p. 200.
130 Crowther, op. cit. (13), p. 617.
131 Warburg to Hogben, 8 July 1935, and undated note on ‘Mathematics for the masses', records of Routledge and Kegan Paul, University of Reading Library, RKP 11/3.
132 Hogben to Crowther, 28 August 1936, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/4/1.
133 C.A. Furle to Crowther, 23 September 1937, JGCP, SxMs29/1/6/3. The material in this paragraph is covered in Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), pp. 179–180.
134 Hogben, op. cit. (51), p. 17.
135 Lancelot Hogben, ‘Our social heritage’, Science & Society (1937) 1, pp. 137–151, 148, 149.
136 Hogben, op. cit. (135), p. 149, original emphasis.
137 Hogben, op. cit. (135), p. 149.
138 Hogben, op. cit. (135), pp. 150, 145. See also Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 180.
139 Hogben, op. cit. (135), pp. 142–143; see also Hogben, Lancelot, Science for the Citizen, London: Allen & Unwin, 1938, p. 617Google Scholar. The communists Jack Lindsay and Edgell Rickword traced Marx's theory of surplus value to ‘the insights of an anonymous English weaver’ in their attempts to harmonize Englishness and Marxism. Harker, Ben, ‘“Communism is English”: Edgell Rickword, Jack Lindsay and the cultural politics of the popular front’, Literature & History (2011) 20, pp. 16–34, 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
140 Hogben to Crowther, 24 September 1936, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/4/1.
141 Hogben, op. cit. (135), p. 151. I cover the same material in Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 180.
142 Manchester Guardian, 5 January 1940, p. 3.
143 Goldsmith, Maurice, Joseph Needham: 20th-Century Renaissance Man, Paris: Unesco Publishing, 1995, pp. 126–127Google Scholar.
144 Joseph Needham, ‘Report on four months’ tour in the United States’, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/5/1, pp. 3, 4, 5. I am grateful to Allan Jones for making me aware of this document.
145 Jones, Allan, ‘J.G. Crowther's war: institutional strife at the BBC and British Council’, BJHS (2016) 49, pp. 259–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), Chapter 5; Byrne, Alice, ‘The British Council and cultural propaganda in the United States, 1938–1945’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies (2013) 11, pp. 249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
146 Crowther to Darrow, 18 July 1940, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/5/1.
147 Crowther to Zuckerman, 14 March 1941, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/5/2.
148 Crowther to Conant [undated] and Blackett to Crowther [undated], JGCP, SxMs29/1/5/2; Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 182.
149 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 254.
150 Hogben and Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 178. Hogben's dislike of the USSR was partly aesthetic.
151 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 265, original emphasis.
152 Hogben, op. cit. (1), pp. 265–266, my emphasis.
153 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 274.
154 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 266. The Dies Committee was established in 1938 and investigated communism. Katznelson, op. cit. (17), p. 329.
155 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 241.
156 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 274.
157 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 275.
158 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 275.
159 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 257.
160 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 257.
161 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 258.
162 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 259.
163 Hogben, op. cit. (1), pp. 260, 264.
164 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 278.
165 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 272. He also put forward these arguments at greater length in Dangerous Thoughts, London, 1939.
166 Huxley, Julian, TVA: Adventure in Planning, Cheam: The Architectural Press, 1943Google Scholar.
167 Huxley, Julian, On Living in a Revolution, London: Chatto & Windus, 1944, p. 113Google Scholar.
168 Huxley, op. cit. (167), p. 113.
169 Huxley, op. cit. (167), p. 113.
170 Huxley, op. cit. (167), p. 113.
171 Huxley, op. cit. (166), pp. 119–120.
172 Huxley, op. cit. (167), pp. 116–118; Huxley, op. cit. (166), p. 131.
173 Huxley, op. cit. (167), p. 118, original emphasis.
174 Huxley, op. cit. (167), p. 118.
175 Katznelson, op. cit. (17), pp. 367–402.
176 Crowther to Needham, 15 August 1945, JGCP, SxMs29/1/3/6. See also Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), p. 216.
177 Hogben and Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 179.
178 Crowther, op. cit. (81), p. 299.
179 Hogben, op. cit. (1), p. 269.
180 Hill-Andrews, op. cit. (2), pp. 142–143.
181 Crowther, op. cit. (83), p. 135.
