We've been here before: what the 1930s teach us about rearmament
We are living in a new era of threat. So writes the Defence Secretary John Healey in the just published UK Strategic Defence Review. This is a credible document, reflecting the serious team assembled to work on it. But it's come under fire for promising much without explaining where the funding will come from.
Sir Keir Starmer has committed to lift defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP from April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3 per cent in the next Parliament. This is a good first step. But laying out a plan, fully funding commitments and prioritising investments all matter. So, too, does discounting for the optimism bias around procurement. In defence, we commit in haste and are billed at leisure.
The strategic environment has pivoted fast. We live in a world where great power competition is a reality.
It took time for governments across Europe to wake up to the level of threat. Radek Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister, was an early proponent of higher defence spending. In a brilliant speech last summer at the Ditchley Foundation, he reminded his audience that: 'We are in a pre-war moment. The question is not whether we will be attacked, but whether we will be ready.' The Poles have been preparing. They have been there before.
History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Our volatile world now looks and tastes more like the 1930s: competing nationalisms and a real threat of war. But there are differences, too. In 1935, even amid mass unemployment and economic hardship, Britain spent more of its GDP on defence then than the 2.3 per cent we spend today. That in a year when 2.5 million were out of work and industrial output had not yet returned to pre-1929 levels.
The difference now is that other demands on the public purse have grown: the NHS, pensions, and a large welfare state. A more expansive government is more expensive. This is partly true – but Britain's levels of debt in the 1930s were much higher than they are today. We now need to invest in fresh capabilities as we did then. Just as air power represented the cutting-edge military technology then, cyber and space capabilities define today's defence frontier.
All this takes us to the task ahead. There needs to be a vigorous national debate about defence and the current and likely threats we face. Despite social-media doomscrolling and breaking news, public understanding of the threat and what it means has yet to filter through. It's incumbent on all our politicians in government and opposition to be fostering that debate. There's a job for universities, too, where – with a few noble exceptions – teaching and talking about war and defence has withered.
We need to be spending much more on defence. The UK risks falling down the league table of European defence spending as others commit to lifting their budgets. There is a logic for Britain to pursue a Nato-first approach and focus on the near-term challenge: Russian aggression. But there is also a logic in maintaining 'actor-agnostic' capability – you never know where the next threat comes from. Cyber attacks mean that hackers in North Korea or China can threaten UK national security. There is still a logic in keeping close to the United States: our firmest ally, a generous friend and the most powerful country in the world. Yet there is logic, too, in co-operating with European countries – while protecting our own strategic autonomy – because we need manufacturing and innovation as well as money.
The Allies won in the Second World War because of money, technology and manufacturing prowess, as well as grit, leadership and sacrifice. Without committing enough money, Britain's rhetoric on defence will run hollow. The 2025 defence review is a major contribution, but what matters most is money. This Wednesday we will see that unfold when the Chancellor sets out the spending review.
Prof Alexander Evans teaches at the London School of Economics
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government considers social media time limits for children
The government is considering introducing tougher online safety measures to limit the amount of time children can spend on social media, the BBC understands. Proposals include a two-hour cap on the use of individual social media apps and a 22:00 curfew, as first reported by the Sunday People and the Mirror. Appearing on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said he was looking at the "addictive nature of some of the apps and smartphones", when asked whether time limits would be considered. But an online safety campaigner has accused the government of delaying bringing in new laws to protect children. Ian Russell, whose daughter, Molly, took her own life at 14 after seeing harmful content online, said: "Every day the government has delayed bringing in tougher online safety laws we've seen more young lives lost and damaged because of weak regulation and inaction by big tech." Mr Russell, who backed the previous government's Online Safety Act, said only "stronger and more effective" legislation would "finally change the dial on fundamentally unsafe products and business models that prioritise engagement over safety." "Parents up and down the country would be delighted to see the prime minister act decisively to quell the tsunami of harm children face online, but sticking plasters will not do the job." Kyle told the BBC he had not been able to speak publicly about the government's plans to toughen online safety laws because legislation passed by the previous Conservative government in 2023 had yet to be enacted. "This year we've had illegal content that needs to be taken down, but in July, age-appropriate material must be supplied by platforms, otherwise there'll be criminal sanctions against them," he told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme. He said that he had been looking carefully at what government needed to do next to "nail down harder" on safety, "understand what a healthy online life for children" looked like and "stop the barriers" towards achieving that. In January, Kyle told the BBC that laws on internet safety were "very uneven" and "unsatisfactory", following calls from campaigners to tighten the rules. The minister expressed his "frustration" with the Online Safety Act but did not commit to making changes to the legislation. A Whitehall source later told the BBC there were no plans to repeal the act. Online safety laws unsatisfactory, minister says Social media faces big changes under new Ofcom rules
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Digital ID cards could be Starmer's poll tax
In March 1990, shops and cars in Covent Garden were set ablaze in the worst rioting the capital had seen for a century. Few things had angered the public like the new community charge. But something else happened too, which has been largely forgotten. Councils saw their revenue crash, as millions of names disappeared from the voter rolls. Now Sir Keir Starmer's favourite think tank has proposed what could turn out to be his very own poll tax. 'BritCard' is the name for a new digital ID app advanced by Labour Together, the think tank once run by Morgan McSweeney, who is now Starmer's chief of staff. The demand 'papers, please!' is not popular with voters, so to make it more palatable BritCard comes wrapped in the language of civic nationalism, serving as a cure for illegal immigration. The app and proposed wallet will be rebranded BritCard, to give us a nice warm, fuzzy feeling. We will love it so much that they believe it will morph into a full-blown digital ID system, acting as 'a familiar feature of daily life for everyone in the country'. But there are two serious problems here, and they are set on a collision course. First, BritCard will be mandatory, so we will be forced to use it or go off-grid entirely. Second – and this should alarm us all – Labour Together proposes that BritCard will use the Government's One Login digital identity service, which is mentioned 13 times in the proposal. This has become an expensive and sprawling Government IT project that has engaged hundreds of contractors, and cost taxpayers over £300m. What we know about it is very troubling – concerns have been raised about the security of the project at the deepest levels of the state. When we create a One Login account, it hoovers up our personal identification documents. This ID becomes the key that unlocks other government services, so an insecure system has serious consequences. It not only puts individuals at risk of identity theft and impersonation, but also makes defrauding the Government much easier. A fake ID can get you a long way. Phishing gangs accessed the records of 100,000 taxpayers, HMRC officials admitted last week, and used the IDs to steal an estimated £47m. An ID system like One Login is where criminal gangs would go first, and BritCard will forcibly enrol you into it. The Telegraph has reported the concerns of senior risk and cybersecurity staff working on One Login in some detail. The system was being accessed and modified by staff and contractors without the required level of security. Parts of the system were being developed in Romania, a fact that had eluded top management at the Government Digital Service (GDS). 'It's Horizon all over again,' one global security expert told this newspaper in April, referring to the notorious Post Office computer system. Of the 39 requirements in the National Cybersecurity Centre's cybersecurity checklist list CAF, One Login still only meets 21. But instead of taking the warnings seriously, One Login's senior management at GDS turned on the messengers who had brought them the bad news, dispersing the independent risk and cybersecurity team that first raised the issues. One Login's management subsequently began to mark their own homework. And earlier this year, a 'red team' exercise revealed how easily the system could be captured by hostile parties. The penetration test confirmed that intruders could breeze right in and take control of One Login without anyone noticing. Now recall GDS's own words – made in a business case that it refuses to release to the public – that an insecure One Login would empower 'hostile actors seeking to disrupt national infrastructure', with 'severe consequences for a large number of people'. As for Labour Together's proposition that a digital ID will help magically fix mass immigration, technology is not really the problem. Asylum seekers are already issued with a compulsory ID, but that doesn't stop them from melting into the underground economy, where the ID is never checked. And undocumented arrivals can gain a valid identity from the Home Office because it is promiscuously issuing credentials to undocumented migrants, taking at face value that they are who they say they are. Going digital won't fix either. Labour Together also thinks the public will rally around a digital ID app. 'Our polling revealed extremely strong public support for using a digital identity system for a range of use cases,' argues Labour Together. But only some. Polling by YouGov finds that around a fifth of UK consumers would not be comfortable with having an internationally recognised digital ID card or wallet like BritCard. Fewer than half, or 44pc, want a government ID that stores their biometric data, according to a survey for British payments processor History doesn't repeat itself exactly, but it can rhyme. In 1990, millions went off-grid to avoid a hated new tax. Of course, it is very difficult to disappear today. But millions of us will face a profound moral choice similar to one that voters faced in 1990, as both the poll tax and digital ID were made compulsory. Must I expose myself to criminals and identity theft, or do I refuse to go along with this government scheme? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oleksandr Usyk sends Donald Trump ‘live in my house for one week' message
Oleksandr Usyk has invited United States president Donald Trump to live in his house for one week to better understand what is unfolding in the war in Ukraine. Trump vowed to resolve the conflict 'in 24 hours' upon taking office but more than three years on from Russia president Vladimir Putin launching a full scale invasion of Ukraine, no end appears in sight. Advertisement Usyk, the former undisputed world champion at cruiserweight and heavyweight, painted a bleak picture of what life is like in Ukraine and believes Trump needs to have a clearer comprehension of the situation. 'I advise American president Donald Trump to go to Ukraine and live in my house for one week, only one week,' Usyk, the WBC, WBA and WBO heavyweight champion, told the BBC. Oleksandr Usyk is the WBC, WBA and WBO heavyweight champion (Nick Potts/PA) 'Watch what is going on. Every night there are bombs, rockets flying above my house. 'People who don't live in Ukraine, who don't support Ukraine, who haven't watched what's going on, don't understand what's going on.' Usyk, who has won all 23 of his professional contests, is currently in a training camp to prepare for a rematch with IBF champion Daniel Dubois on July 19 at Wembley Stadium. 'I worry about what happens in my country,' 38-year-old Usyk added. 'It's very bad because Ukrainian people have died. It's not just military people – children, women, grandmothers and grandfathers, too.'