What Limited British Foreign Policy After WW1?
Britain had always run her Empire on limited means. It relied on its large navy
and had much influence thanks to its Empire. It had maintained some
independence in its action.
After World War One Britain still felt that like before the war, they had a
right to have a significant say in world affairs. However, there were many limits
on Britain’s foreign policy which meant that she could not pursue such an
independent policy as before.
Economic Restrictions:
Britain had been in economic decline before the war but this was accelerated by
the conflict. Crucially Britain had run up huge debts in fighting the war,
particularly with the USA. She had borrowed £959 million. As a result the
national debt increased 11 fold and interest payment on loans represented 40%
of annual government spending, as opposed to 12% in 1913. Britain could not
expect to receive payments back for loans she had given to Russia (due to
Communist takeover) and France (due to war damage). This would put severe
limitations on Britain’s role in world affairs. E.g. PM Andrew Bonar Law in 1922
said;
“…we cannot alone act as policeman of the world. The financial and social
position of this country makes it impossible.”
In addition Britain had had to liquidate many of its assets to pay for the war.
Hard questions would have to be asked of Britain’s foreign, imperial and defence
policies.
A domestic economic slump from 1921 onwards also limited Britain’s ability to
play an active role in world affairs. Unemployment increased in Britain’s staple
industries such as coal, cotton, ship-building and engineering. This in turn
reduced the demand for materials from the Empire to feed these industries.
Pressure At Home:
Lloyd-George’s coalition government (1916-22) had promised demobilising forces
“homes fit for heroes.” Thus there was a pressure for social reform at home
which would take up more of the government’s resources. How could Britain hope
to follow an expansive foreign policy when she was committed at home?
At home there was a growing unwillingness to shoulder the burden of greatness
overseas. The cost of being the world’s policeman was too high in blood (900,000
dead + 2 million wounded) and money, as seen in WW1. Could Britain remain great
on the cheap? Could someone else like the League of Nations help preserve the
peace?
Maintaining the Empire:
Britain’s need to police and maintain the Empire remained after WW1 but on a
much stricter budget. In fact the Empire was essentially enlarged with the
addition of Iraq and Palestine as mandated territories that had formerly been
part of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire.
The Empire was also not as united as before. Increasingly, the White Dominions
(Canada, Australia and South Africa) where all keen to assert their
independence. India too, after a massive contribution to the British war effort
was becoming tired of white rule as shown in Amritsar Massacre in 1919. These
demands would put more strains on Britain’s resources.
Defence Cuts:
Britain coped with all the above problems by cutting defence expenditure to
balance the books. These cuts were justified by the Ten Year Rule established
in 1919 in which Britain did not expect a war for at least ten years. In 1918
there were 3.5 million men in the armed forces but by 1920 this was reduced to
370,000. As a weakened military power she could not hope to follow an ambitious
foreign policy. But these cutbacks and the unwillingness to give any European
military commitments deeply increased French fears of Germany.
Conclusion:
These factors combined to force Britain into a rethink on its foreign policy aims
and ambitions. Crucially it would be the impact economically of the war which
would place limitations on British policy. These restrictions would obviously
impact on the aims that Britain had for her policies overseas. So what were her
aims? Perhaps some clues can be found from the following memorandum from
the Foreign Office;
“We have no territorial ambitions, nor desire for aggrandisement. We have
got all that we want – perhaps more. Our sole object is to keep what we
want and live in peace… so manifold and ubiquitous are British trade and
finance that, whatever else may be the outcome of a disturbance of the
peace, we shall be the losers.”
As Pierce and Stewart comment;
“Like some lady of advanced middle age who had over-exerted herself,
Britain now wanted a cup of tea and a snooze.”