1870-1918
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
Acquisition: almost
half share of Suez
Canal, Persian
Gulf, Middle East,
Africa
‘Desire to capture
new markets and
sources of raw
materials’ e.g. palm
oil in Nigeria
Preserve/expand
trade links
South Africa – Boer
War
Intense rivalries
with other powers
e.g. France and
Germany – British
policy makers didn’t
want to lose out in
international
‘balance of power’
‘Growth of imperial
nationalism,
militarism
and…jingoism’ in
British society
Part of ‘New
Imperialism’ –
‘accelerated phase
of colonisation’
Prevent loss of
existing markets to
other countries
Process
encouraged by
Berlin Conference
of 1884 – agreed to
carve up Africa
Boer War due to
discovery of gold
and diamonds in
the Transvaal
Expansion before
1914 ended with
2nd Boer War –
Africa and
elsewhere offered
fewer opportunities
for expansion
During WWI
‘intensified
exploitation of the
Empire’s material
resources’ (and
2.5million colonials
fought for Britain)
Pre 1914 – Britain
embroiled in power
politics of European
continent
Ottoman Empire
falling apart –
opportunity to
expand but
threatened by
Russia
Boer War strained
‘British military
capabilities and
imperial resolve’
*
1919-1939
1919-20 – gained
an extra 1 million
square miles of
territory and 13
million new
subjects (mainly in
Middle East)
LofN mandates –
Palestine,
Transjordan, Iraq,
Gulf States and
Tanganyika
Ireland becomes a
dominion in 1922
Egypt and Iraq
gained
independence in
1920s – Britain still
maintained informal
influence
Recently
discovered oil
reserves in Middle
East and its
proximity to India
Mandates system –
Britain had ‘to pay
lip service’ to idea
of preparing
colonies for selfgovernment
‘India was growing
less important to
British economic
interests’- during
WWI gave them
freedom to set own
tariffs – thus India
less open to
imports of British
goods
Nationalist unrest in
parts of the Middle
East – British
policymakers had
failed to fulfil
wartime promises
of independence to
Arab peoples
In general, 1920s
and 30s Empire
became more tight
knit economically
1926 – Empire
Marketing Board,
1932 – Imperial
Preference – tariff
walls around
Violent
demonstrations
against British rule
Egypt 1919-20 and
Iraq 1920-21
Riots in Cyprus
1931, Arab
violence in
Palestine 1936-39
US policy at peace
conferences of
1919 – ‘national
self determination’
Empire a source of
national pride and
identity - yearly
celebration of
Empire Day/Empire
Stadium Wembley
1923
Empire and
Commonwealth rise in exports and
imports (25% to
40% rise in
imports/exports)
1931 – Statute of
Westminster
recognised equality
of dominions within
a British
Commonwealth of
Nations
British appeased
Indian national
feeling by
Government of
India Acts 1919
and 1935
*
1920s and 30s - general economic decline due to WWI – Empire outwardly secure but contained forces of
strain and unrest
WW2
Loss of Malaya,
Singapore, Burma
and Hong Kong to
Japan in 1942 –
changed perception
of British ability to
maintain Empire
Japan surrendered
in August 1945 –
Britain reclaimed
Asian territories
that had been lost,
Empire ‘strategic
burden’ during
WW2 – stretched
British resources,
tied up troops
‘Lend-Lease’ from
USA provided
Britain with $26
billion worth of aid
(twice that from
dominions and
colonies)
Strikes and
uprisings in India,
Egypt, Kenya and
Northern Rhodesia
Despite challenges,
the Empire staged
impressive show of
unity – provided
nearly 5million
troops
USA opposed
imperialism for
ideological and
economic reasons
– Britain relied on
their support for
survival
American anti
imperialism had
been more
rhetorical than real,
especially after
Throughout the war
empire was a
source of pride but
also frustration
(drained resources)
Politicians exploit
feelings of unity to
provide troops
quite undamaged
Acquisition – Britain
gains Korea after
the war
1940 – London set
aside £20million for
colonial
development and
welfare –
suggesting in event
of victory Empire
may have secure
and economically
viable future
*
‘Empire’s fortunes were revived.’
Post WW2
End of Empire
came in two waves:
Asia 1945-48,
Africa and the
Caribbean late
1950s to mid 1960s
Southern Rhodesia
(a larger colony) –
remained in
imperial circle until
1980 due to
disagreements over
black right to vote
British policy
death of Roosevelt
in April 1945
1945 – Britain
owed foreign
creditors (including
colonies) nearly
$40 billion but Cold
War needed high
levels of defence
spending
Instead of
decolonising, they
wanted to make the
Empire pay –
designed to
produce cheap
food and export
Main reason for
decolonisation was
increasing within
Empire – often
violent agitation for
self-rule
During war London
had pledged Indian
independence –
came about in 1947
due to
Hindu/Muslim
violence
Violence against
American pressure
in favour of
establishment of
Jewish state led to
abandonment of
Palestine and
creation of Israel
and Jordan in 1948
International
revulsion at
‘gunboat
diplomacy’ after
Suez Crisis
Two bids in 1963
Electorate more
interested in
‘preserving the
welfare state and in
enjoying domestic
prosperity than
having the British
flag flying over
exotic lands.’
Most colonies
joined
Commonwealth
once granted
independence –
politicians could
makers reluctant to
withdraw under
pressure – would
undermine British
prestige and allow
Soviet Union to
expand influence at
expense of USA
and Britain
1957-66 – Britain
gave independence
to 22 colonies
(mainly in Africa
and Caribbean)
1963 – African
decolonisation
proceeding apace
1967 – plans
announced to
withdraw from most
military bases East
of Suez (lost much
of their strategic
value since Indian
independence)
earnings but scant
resources for
colonial economic
development
By late 1950s –
British exports
increasingly
focused on
prosperous
Western Europe
and America
Macmillan’s 1957
‘cost-benefit’
analysis indicated
decolonisation
wouldn’t lead to
major economic
losses
Military bases East
of Suez expensive
to maintain
British forces
Humiliation of Suez
Crisis bolstered
nationalist
sentiment
Nationalist
awakening e.g.
African intellectuals
Harold Macmillan’s
‘wind of change’
speech 1960
and 1967 to join
European
Community
suggests proEuropean turn
connected to end of
Empire
America had
practical concerns
about newly
independent states
succumbing to
influence of Soviet
Union and some
British military
bases valuable for
American defence
policy
Dominance of USA
and Soviet Union
made it clear that
owning a traditional
colonial empire was
no longer essential
to remaining a
major player in
world affairs – in
fact maintaining
one against the will
of its people might
present
decolonisation as
worthy end point of
preparing imperial
territories for selfrule as opposed to
undesirable
development
imposed by
uncontrollable
circumstances
even be an
obstacle to that
goal
Anticipated that
Empire’s
replacement with
the Commonwealth
would provide
continuity in
projecting British
influence in world
affairs
*