Download Click here

1919-1939
Acquisition and
loss/loosening of
control of
territories
Economic benefit
or not?
Nationalism
within the
colonies
International
climate of opinion
Commitment i.e.
political and
popular support
in Britain
Empire ‘reached its
greatest extent
immediately after the
FWW.’
Acquired a series of
mandates from the
defeated powers after
1914 – undeveloped
German colonies they
would hold on to and
economically advance,
Arab states that were
to be prepared for
independence
1910-14 25% Britain’s
imports and 36%
exports were with the
Empire, 1925-29 this
rose to 28% and 42%,
1935-39 39.5% and
49%
Britain had to address
the issue of future
relations with various
parts of Empire:
1920s ‘tremendous
confidence about the
future of the British
Empire’ – rival German
empire had been
dismantled by TofV,
French Empire
weakened, Russian
Empire had collapsed
FWW had
‘demonstrated the
importance of the
imperial contribution in
the defeat of both
Germany and Turkey.’
‘Britain and the
Dominions had moved
somewhat apart
between the wars as
self-government
became actual
independence…the
whole structure of the
Commonwealth was
loosening.’
Yet there ‘remained a
great deal of mutual
affection and loyalty’
due to family
connections and
shared historical
Resources ‘stretched
almost to breaking
point’.
‘Demobilisation was an
economic necessity’ –
Britain had to rely on
total armed forces of
200,000 plus 100,000
Indian troops for
defence/protection of
Empire (vulnerable)
‘changing economic
relationship with the
Empire’ – by end of
FWW obliged to sell
many of her
investments to pay for
war effort, and balance
of trade had altered;
‘India had become a
significant competitor’
in textile production,
Dominions –
constitutional
refinements to clear up
uncertainty about
British control over
domestic or foreign
policy – often led to a
more open pursuit of
individual interests e.g.
commercial
agreements/foreign
policy (Chanak 1922)
1926 Balfour
Declaration – equal in
status, united by
common allegiance to
the Crown
1931 Statute of
Westminster –
repealed earlier
constraints about laws
in the Dominions,
enabled them to enter
into their own
Empire ‘still seen as a
positive and beneficent
force.’
traditions
Ultimate test – all
Dominion’s (except
Irish Free State and
South Africa) supported
Britain’s declaration of
war on Germany.
Relationship had
changed – ‘weakened
in terms of centralised
sovereignty’ yet
‘strengthened in terms
of voluntary association
and support over
crucial issues.’
and imported as much
from Japan as Britain
diplomatic relations
with other countries
Least developed parts
– plan to prepare them
for eventual self-rule
and dominion status
but no rush as other
European colonial
territories were not
being prepared for selfrule so why should
Britain?
Seen as less
developed, lower
educational standards,
low GDP and less
contact with
Westminster system of
govt - unless govt was
in white hands it would
‘lack the necessary
experience of effective
democracy.’
Better to leave existing
systems in place for 2
reasons – relatively
inexpensive and could
be justified as an
alternative to dominion
status (didn’t allow for
any expression of
nationalism)
India – ‘beginning to
exert pressure for a
redefined status’.
‘Britain’s most
consistent imperial
problem between the
wars was India.’
Development of
internal opposition to
British rule – ‘main
challenge came from
middle-class
movements’ –
Congress and the
Muslim League.
‘growing confrontation
between the authorities
and the elements
demanding home rule
for India’ – Amritsar
massacre 1919,
Gandhi’s civil
disobedience campaign
– British forced to
consider some form of
compromise for the
future
1919 Government of
India Act – proposed
responsible self-rule in
distant future – seen as
too gradualistic and
only for low level issues
Replaced with 1935
Government of India
Act – proposed a sort
of apprenticeship to
dominion status (made
little progress towards
this by time war broke
out in 1939) - major
differences in opinion
about it (Churchill
thought it went too far,
Indian activists like
Gandhi saw it as totally
inadequate).
Arab states – ‘Britain
hoped to cut her losses
and grant
independence, on the
understanding that
British interests were in
no way endangered.’
This worked in Egypt,
Iraq and Transjordan
More tricky in Palestine
– 1917 Balfour
Declaration established
a national homeland for
the Jewish people in
Palestine – fiercely
resisted by majority of
Arab population.
British tried to find a
solution by handing
Palestine a workable
form of independence
Post WW2
‘After 1945…the
process of
decolonisation was
extraordinarily rapid.’
By 1980s only
Gibraltar, Falkland
Islands and Hong Kong
remained under British
rule.
J. Darwin believes the
end of the Empire was
a voluntary surrender
of power – ‘British rule
came to an end as the
result of decisions
taken, or ratified, in
London’. Gradual
decolonisation led to
the ‘redefining’ of
relationships via the
Commonwealth
G. Wasserman –
‘search for new outlets
for investment no
longer focused on
underdeveloped parts
of the world’
B. Lapping – ‘Britain
could not have
sustained imperial
commitments while, at
the same time,
undergoing a
contraction in her
economic base.’
Evidence - reduction of
overseas assets,
unfavourable balance
of trade
R. Holland – ‘Britain’s
economic condition
meant that she had to
adjust to new economic
networks – based more
on Europe.’
Evidence – decline in
trade with Empire and
Commonwealth,
exports fell from 47.7%
in 1950 to 24.4% in
1970, imports fell from
41.9% in 1950 to
25.9% in 1970
‘Suez confirmed in the
clearest possible way
that the commitments
Decolonisation ‘owed
much to the growth of
indigenous
nationalism.’
Resistance movements
initially against
Japanese occupation
of French and Dutch
colonies were then
directed against the
attempted return of the
Europeans. This ‘gave
further strength to the
drive for Indian
independence – and a
greater sense of
urgency for Britain to
concede it in 1947.’
‘development of
nationalism in Africa
had pre-war roots’ but
was ‘given a huge
impetus by the success
of anti-colonial
movements’ elsewhere
– this led to a ‘domino
effect’. African
nationalism also spread
due to spread of
English language and
nationalist leaders
unifying different
groups through shared
complaints. Increase in
educational and
medical standards led
France and the
Netherlands saw
‘preserving colonial
empires’ as ‘less
important than seeking
closer [economic]
integration in Europe’.
‘declining status of the
imperial powers in a
new bipolar world’ –
Imperialism based on
Europe as centre of
politics, after 1945 USA
and Soviet Union
emerged as the two
superpowers
New superpowers –
‘strongly antiimperialistic’
In this new order things
began to change – ‘the
urgency of defence in
Europe outweighed the
needs of imperial
defence.’ As proof,
navy bore brunt of cuts
1956 Suez Crisis Britain’s role
‘contracted increasingly
into a European one’
after Suez. Perhaps
‘less a turning point
than an accelerator’ –
making Britain move
‘public opinion had
become far less
attached to the concept
of Empire’ – explained
in 3 ways:
1). ‘a moral revulsion
against imperialism’
2). ‘a choice of
priorities’ – people
supported welfare
state/social change
which couldn’t be
afforded alongside
maintenance of Empire
3). ‘declining role and
influence of the
aristocracy’ – led to
reduced public interest
in empire
There emerged a
‘consensus between
the political parties that
the colonial rule should
be reduced.’
Macmillan ‘signalled
the acceleration of
decolonisation in his
‘wind of change’
speech’.
1956 Suez Crisis –
‘turning point in British
attitudes to empire’?
OR J. Darwin – ‘Suez
did not trigger an
imperial implosion nor
of empire were a costly
irrelevance.’
to increase in levels of
taxation – angered
Africans further
Britain could no longer
rely on ‘co-operation of
indigenous agents or
collaborators.’ New
policy was ‘colonial
withdrawal.’
Generally positive
reaction in Britain to
nationalism – seen as
‘an inevitable
consequence of
exposure to western
democratic ideas on
representation.’
Governments argued
‘self-government had
always been the longterm intention and that
the Empire was
evolving naturally into
the Commonwealth.’
Britain ‘used the model
of the Commonwealth
as a means of ending
the Empire.’
more swiftly on
independence
arrangements that
were already in place.
Suez showed ‘the
danger of antagonising
the United States, as
well as members of the
Commonwealth, and it
demonstrated the
military difficulty of
undertaking the sort of
imperial action that
Britain had once taken
for granted.’
instigate a sudden
revulsion against
colonial rule among the
policy makers.’?